Manitoba Hansard — 0 over 1970 (Sitting 64, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-64

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 a•cl uck, vYednesday, May 3, 1972 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 1625 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 70 students of Grade 9 standing of the Glenwood School. These students are under the directions of Mrs . Joyce Miller . This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Vital. We also have 35 students of Grade 5 standing of the William Russell School . These stu dents are under the direction of Miss Agnes Proteau.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Radisson. On behalf of all the Honourable Members of the Legislative Ass embly I welcome you here today. MR. SPEAKER: Present ing Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petition s; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Minis terial Statements and Tabling of Reports. MINISTERIAL STATEMEN T MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation . HON. LAURENT J. DESJ ARDINS (Minis ter of Tourism and Recreation)(St. Boniface): Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba's parks, recreation areas and camping grounds will be open for the 1972 season on Friday, May 12th. Park entrance fees will be in effec t from May 12. Daily permits are $1. 00 and seasonal park entrance permits are $5. 00. Daily camping fees are on service sites, $1. 50; with electricity $2. 00; with sewer, water and electricity $2. 50. On a weekly basis the fees are $9. 00, $12. 00 and $15. 00 depending on the type of service required.

Throughout Manitoba the park sys tem consists of approximately three million acres in cluding 10 major parks, 44 recreational areas, and 80 miscellaneous sites such as roadside camp grounds .

Major additions to the park system this year will be the facilities in Asess ippi Provincial Park adjacent to the Shellmouth Reservoir on the Ass iniboine River west of the Riding Mountains; Turtle Mountain Provincial Park in southwestern Manitoba near the Inter national Boundary; the new recreation area under construction at Stephenfield near Carman, and a new camp ground on the Trans Canada Highway seven miles west of Hadashville . These facilities are scheduled for official opening this summer. There are 27 other developments such as beach sites which have facilities in use this summer .

Some are in exis ting areas and some are in completely new sites . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would suggest that there can be no pictures taken in this Gallery. Would the guides look after that. The Honourable Minister . MR. DESJARDINS: Manitoba Vacation Handbook for 1972 is a guide for all outdoor rec reation es tablishments in the Province, both provincially operated and privat ely operated, listing the facilities , highway accesses and the type of accommodation availa ble. Manitoba 1972 Highway Map is also a handy guid•e to outdoor recreational facilities and how to get there.

Although the official opening day for the parks, recreational areas, and camping sites is Friday, May 12th, certain facilities will be available to campers ahead of season - this coming weekend of May 5th in Birds Hill Park. 90 camping sites in the chipping, vesper and song bays at the Birds Hill camping area will be available to campers, free of charge during the full week in advance of official park opening. Also available free of charge for the week will be the wash room and shower facilities in the area.

It is interesting to note that Manitoba parks attracted some 3 , 060, 000 visit ors in 1971, an increase of 40, 000 over 1970 Centennial Year. There were 361, 000 campers who used the government camp sites in 1971, an increase of about 9, 000 over 1970. In 1971 a total of 97,600 camping permits were issu ed, up 14,100 from the Centennial Year.

These figures serve to indicate the growing demand for park and outdoor recreational facilities and emphasize the continuing effort being made by the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs to meet the demand for these facilities lin all areas of the Province; not merely to serve the tourist trade, but to provide a growing demand for outdoor recreational facilities for Manitobans themselves . Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

1626 May 3, 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We welcome the Minister 's statement with respect to the recreation areas and parks and camping grounds of the provinc e, and commend the emphasis that the department, under the Minister, is placing on the increased expansion, and increased availa bility of recreational areas . Certainly recreation areas of a camp ground and camping nature are among the most prominent features for enjoy ment that we in Manitoba have to offer.

We probably have a richer supply and source of that kind of facility than many many other parts of Canada and the United States , and it's gratifying to see the government emphasizing dev elopment of that area of the tourist field. We would hope that the statement that the Minister has made today is an indication of a continuing emphasjs of this kind with continuing growth in development of our parks, camp grounds and recreation areas . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Gen eral. Ministerial Statement or Tabling of Report? HON. A, H. MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-Genera l)(St. James): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to Table the Annual Report of the Land Value Appraisal Commission. MR. SPEAKER: Any other ministerial statements or reports? Notices of Motion. Introduction of Bills. Oral Questions . The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MATTERS OF URGENCY AND GRIEVANCES MR, EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr .

Speaker, I move that the business of the House be set aside for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely that the announcement of the Federal Government regarding foreign inves tment in Canada (Foreign Takeovers Rev iew Act) will have far-reaching implications with regard to matters coming und er provincial jurisdiction. It is therefore urgent that the Provincial Govern ment make its position known to Ottawa on the need for consultation with the Government of Manitoba before any final decision is made which would affect the economic development of our province. MR.

SPEAKER: Under our rule we are now entitled to have five minutes discuss ion in regards to admissability of this question. The floor is open to the Honourable Member for Brandon West first. MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the matter which I brought to the attention of the House in my motion to suspend the ordinary business, is one that meets all the criteria laid down in the rules of this House in respect to acceptability as of urgent public importance.

Sir, it is in my view an urgent matter because it involves a proposal by the Federal Government to present a bill to the House of Commons tomorrow, according to press reports, which, if passed, would give the Federal Cabinet authority to act in matters relating to foreign investments or takeovers of Canadian busines ses. It is of general concern and public im portance to all Manitobans be cause it proposes a policy of federal control over economic matters which will undoubtedly . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order , please.

I should like to indicate the honourable member is debating the substance of the motion and not the reasons why we should entertain it. The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, I'm attempting to describe the urgency of the matter in respect to the control which the Federal Government now proposes to place upon economic matters which will affect the future of our Province of Manitoba. --( Interjection)-- It is an urgent matter because of its far-reaching implications and it demands in my view, Mr.

Speaker, an immediate response from the Government of Manitoba, in order that an effective method of bringing the provincial point of vie w, and the regional interests of our Province, directly to bear on the decis ion-making process which Ottawa now proposes to vest in the Federal Cabinet. . . . We are advi sed in the Press today that while provincial premiers will be consulted, no formal mechanism for this purpose is contemplated .

And it is therefore submitted, Sir, that a debate at this time is not only urgent but necess ary in order that the Government of l\'[anitoba may be apprised of the views of other parties in this Legislature: and on the matter or'pro vincial participation in the decis ion-making process at Ottawa. This decis ion-,making process affects us urgently and immediately because of its effect on foreign inves tments in our province

May 3, 1972 1627 MR. SPEA KER : The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere ) : Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 27 as I understand it in our Rules, the important matter for the Chair to determine is not whether the subject matter is important but whether it is urgent and whether also it is urgent that there be debate.

And since it can be said that legislation will be introduced in the Federal House by the Government of Canada, it is ass umed that there will be ample opportunity for express ion of views on the subject matter by all persons in the House of Commons, all groups represented in the House of Commons , representing Canadian people.

Given that fact and given the fact that the Prime Minister indicated in a letter to all Premiers yesterday that there would be consultation with the provinc es, that the Federal Minister that has been responsible for the drafting of the report will be consulting with provincial representatives, it would seem, Sir, that the point which seems to concern the Honourable Member for Brandon West is being taken care of in the sense that there will be opportunity for discuss ion and consultation in the normal course of the proceedings of the House of Commons, and also in the normal course of the proceedings of this Ass embly, in that there is nothing to preclude honourable members from dealing with the same subject matter during consideration of the Estimates, Department of Industry and Commerce, during consideration of the Es timates of the Department of Mines and Resources, during that period of the day known as Private Members Hour, it is open to my honourable friends to move quickly to get a Resolution on the Order Paper if they so wish; and in fact, Mr.

Speaker, on any Motion to go into Supply, it's open to my honourable friends here -- I'm not so sure of Friday for such procedure, but I should think it might be poss ible to even deal with the same subject matter on a Motion to go into Supply . Certainly all of the other examples I have given I submit are valid, so there is opportunity for debate; the debates can take place realistically before any definitive legislation action is concluded by the Parliament of Canada. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Member for Brandon West for giving me notice as indicated under our Rule 27.

I should also like to thank the honourable member and the First Minister for their contribution :ln respect to procedure on this question. The primary question the Chair has to consider in respect to discussion on a matter of urgent public im portance is whether the question involves the administrative responsibility of the government which is one of the basic parameters as indicated in Beauchesne' s 4th Edition, Citation 100.

From the information provided by the Honourable Member for Brandon West's resolu tion, the Chair is of the opinion the question is anticipatory in that it asks this House to discuss a matter relative to policy, a policy which when decided by this House will then be transmitted to the House of Commons so it will be aware and act accordingly in passing legislation, which then may or may not be binding on the province, and as a consequence may or may not affect administrative responsibilities .

In vie w of the foregoing I must rule the resolution is in: admissible at this time, but this does not preclude the subject being proceeded with by the various alternative procedures offered under our rule. OHAL QUESTION PE RIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C, (Leader of the Opposition)(River Heights) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister. Just a few moments ago he made reference to a letter that he received from the Prime Minister which I gather has been sent to all Premiers in connection with the proposed legislation .

I wonder whether he can indicate -- I wonder first, if he would be prepared to table that letter, and further whether he could indicate whether the letter contains any indication from the Government that they would be prepared to act on any recommendations that the Premiers may bring forth by way of consultation? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, insofar as I am concerned I would see no difficulty in tabling the letter although as the Honourable Le ader of the Opposition knows well. it will be necessary to obtain the concurrence of the other party to the correspondence, that is the Prime Minister himself. This can be undertaken. Insofar as the other part of his question is concerned, I would advis e the honourable gentleman that the letter makes reference to the desirability of consult::ction and. its much more specific than that. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

1628 May 3, 1972 MR. SPIVAK: A further question to the First Minister. I wonder whether he could in dicate to the House whether it would be the government's intention to ask that the Prairie Economic Council meet prior to the consultation by all Premiers with the Prime Minister and his officials ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker , that suggestion can be taken under advisement and I rather suspect that at the next meeting of the Prairie Premiers that this subject matter would be discussed.

It was discussed to some limited extent at the last meeting of Prairie Premiers; however , as I say, the matter can be taken under advisemen t. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK : A supplementary question to the First Minister. I wonder whether he can indicate the timing of the next meeting of the Prairie Economic Council? MR, SPEA KER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of weeks now rather than months , I would think sometime around mid-July at the latest. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition has had two supplementaries on that. MR. SPIVAK: I think this is the first supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: He's had three questions on this subject. Does the Honourable Leader of the Opposit ion wish to place another question? MR. SPEA KER : The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK : I wonder if the First Minister can indicate to the House whether he does not feel it urgent enough to ask and request the Prairie Economic Council? MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker , there are three Premiers involved in the Prairie Premier 's group, and I should think that it will be a test of sense of relative urgency as to who asks whom first for a meeting. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR; GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie) : Mr. Speaker , my question is also for the First'Minister. Wi ll the First Minister give an undertaking to place the government 's proposed position with respect to this matter of foreign investment in Canada before the House for debate before attending the Conference? MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker , the suggestion implicit in that question will be taken under consideration. I don't think it would be desirable or prudent to give an answer to that question just offhand. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Recreation and Tourism. Oh, sorry, A supplementary by the Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: My supplementary is: Will the Minister take the question as notice then and give us a reply? MR. SPEA KER : The Honourable First Minister. MR, SCHREYER: Well ye s, Mr.

Speaker , I said that I would consider the proposal that is implicit in the question and my honourable friend is free to ask a follow-up question on this at some reasonable early date, In the meantim�;J it's also open to him to initiate discussion by way of a private members' resolution. MR. SPEA KER : The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , I'd like to table a Return to an Order of the House No, 26, as requested by the Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK : Mr. Speaker , my question is for the First Minister.

I wonder whether the First Minister could indicate whether there will be a meeting of the Minister of Industry and Commerce, or the officials of his department , prior to the meeting proposed by the Prime Minister dealing with specifically the request for consultation on the new proposed federal legislation. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYE R: Well , Mr. Speaker , the departments of government that might be involved in any prel iminary· discuss ions prior to a meeting with a Federal Minister is a matter of judgment and decision to be taken by the Ex ecutive Council, by the Cabinet.

May 3, 1972 1629 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition, MR, SPIVAK: I have another question for the First Minister , for the Minister of Industry and Commerce. Has there been any discussion by the Federal Government with the Governmen t of Manitoba concerning proposed changes in the Autopac arrangement with the United States? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, HON.

LEONARD S, EVAN S (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Brandon East): Mr, Speaker , although I had the pleasure of meeting the Federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce along with the other nine provincial Ministers of Industry and Commerce recently, there was never any discussi on of that particular topic, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR, SPIVAK : ••• question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, I wonder whether he can indicate, were there any discuss ions about the DISC program in the United States at the time, MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR. EVANS: Yes , Mr. Speaker, there were some discuss ions on the DISC program and its possible effects, I might add, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House yesterday in answer to a question posed by one of the honourable members, the Department of Industry and Commerce will be monitoring as closely as we can any possible effects of the DISC program on Manitoba industry. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SPIVAK: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, I wonder whether he can indicate whether the Federal Government has forwarded memorandums with respect to the DISC and its likely effect on the economy in Canada, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , there is no precise up-to-date information of that nature received from the Federal Government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland, MR. JEAN ALLARD (Bupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I believe.

It's on the question of housing in South Indian Lake. Could he advise the House whether after the failure to get any housing into South Indian Lake last winter , there will be any housing built by the province this summer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, the issue of whether or not there will be housing in South Indian Lake specifically under the remote housing program depends upon the decis ions that will be arrived at by the Remote Housing Committee which consists of representatives of the Metis Federation , the Northern Ass ociation of Community Councils and provincial representatives. Insofar as the Minister 's reaction to housing at South Indian Lake, there is no objection to the devel opment of a program at South Indian Lake, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR.

ALLARD: Could the Minister advise the House - a supplementary on the same sub ject - whether the Provincial Government has entered into an agreement that would permit the building of housing in South Indian Lake? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of what agreement could possibly be involved with respect to the building of housing at South Indian Lake.

There is no prohibition to my knowledge whatsoever to the province developing a program with the community of South Indian Lake and upon the recommendation of the Remote Housing Committee, then the Manitoba Hous ing Renewal Corporation would be quite prepared to proceed with housing at Sou th Indian Lake. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland, MR. ALLA RD : Well, I don't know how to place this , Mr. Speaker , but I don't know whether the Minister is aware that that recommendation has been made • • • MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Order , pleas e.

I'm sure the honourable member is aware this is a question period. The Honourable Member for Roblin. The Honourable Member for Rupertsland on his last supplementary. MR. ALLARD: Is the Minister aware that the Northern Housing Committee has been made as ..• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Order , pleas e. Awareness is not the necessa ry pro cedure. The Honourable Member for Roblin.

1630 May 3 , 1972 MR, J, WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker , on a point of order , the Order for Return which I just received from the Honourable Minister of Tourism arrl Recreation, I thank him very much, but the one point , No. 5, was the figures regarding Turtle Mountain Provincial Park were approved by the House that day and they are not included in the Return. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. MR. DESJARDINS: I'll have to check this , Mr. Speaker. I thought the Order was complete, MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney.-General. MR . MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, when I was absent from the House some days ago, the Premier took as notice a question from the Honourable Member for Thompson (

a) Are bus drivers to be penalized for obeying the Highway Traffic Act with regard to overloading? and (

b) What action is the government prepared to take with regard to those firms dismiss ing bus drivers for obeying the Highway Traffic Act re overloading? In answer to question (a), I'm not aware of any bus drivers that have been subjected to any penalty arising out of an offence charged , arising from the Highway Traffic Act. I believe that there has been some difficulty but that does not directly involve a prosecution, or a penalty, imposed under the Highway Traffic Act, and I think that matter has been dealt with by my colleague , the Minister of Labour in answer to questions earlier.

The second question: What action is contemplated with regard to those firms dismiss ing bus drivers?

I'm not aware of any complaints , If there are any they would be with my colleague the Minister of Labour and I think we have both indicated in the House that to our knowledge no action has been taken along these lines, and we have indicated that any suggestion that a va riation, or at least some change in attitude other than what is the law in Manitoba res pecting the operation of motor vehicl es , would not be in accordance with sound bargaining and I think both, my colleague the Minister of Labour have indicated that already. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR, JOSEPH P.

BOROWSKI (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General as a result of tha.t answer. The penalty I had referred to in a question was a suspension by the department • • • MR. SPEAKER: I should like to indicate to the honourable member that he's supplying information and not asking a question but under the circumstances since the Attorney-General raised a question, which is also improper , I must allow it since it's on the floor. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker , I wasn't aware of anything improper having been done , However in answer to the question, if there has been an action taken .and I think I know what the honourable member refers to, that is the subject matter for the Department of Labour and my colleague the Minister of Labour , if a complaint is tendered to his department in connection with an unfair labour practice, it would be handled in the normal way. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel, MR , DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

On Monday he took as notice a questi on regarding the name of the consulting firm from Montreal for whom Mr. Cockerton works. Is he unable to provide the name? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , I do not have that information as of today. While I'm on my feet , Mr.

Speaker , the Honourable Member for Roblin the other day asked me a question as to who owns the Shellmouth Dam and I can advise him that at the present time the Dam is owned by the Federal Government although arrangements will be made for the transference of the ownership from the Federal to the Provincial Government in the not too dis tant future, At the present time - his se cond question I believe referred to the operation of the Shellmouth Dam - the operation is under federal jurisdiction but the federal jurisdiction in this case takes guidance from the Provincial Water Control Branch, With regard to the problem of flooding potential and awareness of flooding in this par ticular area that the honourable member is concerned about , I can advise members of the House that the Shellmouth Dam was never designed to protect those farmers in the lowlands along the river.

As a matter of fact a meet ing was held with three rural municipal councils last De cember and the staff of Water Resources went into great detail to show that although a considerable amount of flooding could be alleviated , no guarantee could ever be given that flooding would not occur in the natural flood plain, It's impossible to give a guarantee that

May 3, 1972 1631 (MR. EVANS cont'd) • flooding would not occur in the lowlands or the natural flood plain area, MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Riel, MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary, or related, to the previous question I asked, Could the Minister confirm whether the consulting fee of Mr. Cockerton for the one day psycho-intensive course for the MDF girls was $1, 000,00? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR , EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I reject the particular description that the honourable mem ber chooses to utilize in this connection.

I have no detailed information before me but if there is any fee, it would be at least one-tenth of that figure, MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill, MR. GORDON W. BEARD (Churchill): I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Education, I asked him some time ago about somebody taking adult training in the City of Winnipeg having to pay from 600 to $75 0 for a Grade 12 class. He took it under consideration, Would he have an answer at this time? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Educat ion)(Burrows): Yes , Mr.

Speaker The Adult Education Centre that is in operation in Winnipeg is under the auspices and control and the jurisdiction of the Winnipeg School Division and they charge a non-resid ent tuition fee for all students there in much the same manner as any school divis ion may charge a non-resident tuition fee of any student attending a school within its system with the exceptions that presently are written into the Public Schools Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR.

BEARD : Is there any way in which somebody can take a Grade 12 adult education program without havin g to pay $75 0 a year that does n't live within the city limits - the City of Winnipeg limits? MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: I am not aware at the moment, Mr.

Speaker - well I do know this that there are adults enrolled in high school courses in the regular high schools and in that case they are of course not be ing charged a tuition fee and of course many school divis ions in Metropolitan Winnipeg and outside it offer an Evening School Program where high school courses are offered , and under the auspices of Manpower there is an upgrading program offered which is not -- it's not a high school program as such because it does not give you standing at any grade level but it gives you a certificate which is in a sense an equivalent of a certain grade level iri a public school syste lllt depending upon the level of achievement of the student.

MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill, MR. BEARD: A last supplementary question , then. Would it be possible or is the department considering allowing Grade 12 courses at the Red River College for those who have to take that course before they can enter into Red River Community College? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: Is the department considering offering Grade 12 at Red River Community College? I am advised, although it is not in my department , I am advised that the answer is no, MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ass iniboia, MR, STEVE PATRICK (Ass iniboia): My quest ion is to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. Can the Minister confirm that a large farm equipment manufacturing contract will be announced shortly by Versatile and will be manufactured in North Dakota? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR. EVANS : Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm or deny that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ass iniboia, MR, PATRICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Can the Minister -- (Interjection)- HON, RUSSELL PAULLE Y (Minister of Labour)(Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of Order, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour on a point of order. MR. PAULL EY : Is the question a proper one when it is dealing with a state of the United States of America and not this province? -- (Interjection)-- . It is not, MR. SPEAKER :. The Honourable Member for Assin iboia, MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Versatile has a head offi.ce in

1632 May 3, 197.2 (MR. PATRICK cont•d) ••••• Manitoba , not in the States . A supplementary. Has the Minister had any negotiations with Versatile in respect to a contract signed with Russia - Versatile and Russia - exporting machinery to Russi a? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , I suggest the honourable member ask the company. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assi niboia. MR. PATRICK: A supplementary. Can the Minister give any indication to the House what will be the economic loss to Manitoba by the firm moving from Manitoba to North Dakota ? MR.

SPEAKER: Order , please. The question was asked yesterday. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR . J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. My question arises out of the statement that he made , or which I understood him to make on TV the other night, that he was prepared to sue Versatile if they moved out of the Province of Manitoba with $6 million of Manitoba • • • MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order , please.

I would like to indicate- Order , please - I would like to indicate to the honourable member that I cannot fathom where the question relates to the procedures of this House. Would the honourable member like to rephrase his question 1 . MR . WATT: I'm asking a question that's-related to a statement that was made by the Minister of Industry and Commerce over the news media the night before last. MR. SPEAKER: Order , please. Ac cording to our rules in regards to questions of statement within or without -- outisde the House is not relevant.

It can be asked in - (Interjection)- - Does someone else wish to take the Chair? The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WATT: Is the intention then - I direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce if he is going to sue Versatile when they move out of Manitoba with allegedly $6 million of the taxpayers' money? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I still have no guidance from anyone including the honourable member who asked the question what relevance the question has to the procedures of this House.

Whether the honourable member wishes to do something outside of this House has no relevance to the procedure that we are following. It doesn't refer to a motion or a resolution, or to anything else. I•d like to indicate that to all honourable members . The Honourable Member for Ruperts land. MR. ALLARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could he advise the House whether Remote Housing has signed a contract with CMHC for the provision of hous ing in South Indian Lake? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

I will take the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CRAIK: Mr. Speaker , I•d like to direct a questi on to the Minister of Ed ucation. In view of the decision by the Winnipeg School Board regarding Sacred Heart School, is the gov ernment reconsidering the grant structure for purposes of financial support for the Francophone schools in Division 1? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Ed ucation. MR. HANUSCHAK: No , Mr. Speaker . MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker , I wonder if the Minister - a supplementary question. wonder if the Minister could advise whether there will be any Francophone schools operating in Division No. 1? MR. HANUSCHAK: There may be classes operating, I'm not aware of schools as such, however , I'm not in day to day contact with the planning that might be going on in the Win nipeg School Division, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Minister of Education. Has the government invited tender by competitive bid for possibly 113 school buses this year? MR.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I thank him for the statement that he made to the House today. I wonder when he could give the official dates that 's suggested for the opening of these

May 3, 1972 (MR, McKENZIE Cont'd) , , , par ks , when those dates will be announced? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. MR, DE SJARDINS: Mr, Speaker , as soon as we can be relatively sure, MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Porgage la Prairie, 1633 MR. G, JOHNSTON : I have a question for the Minister of Ed ucation, Mr, Speaker, Wi ll the Minister give this House the reasons as to why competitive bids were not taken for 113 school buses this year? MR, SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Thompson, MR. BOROWSKI: Mr.

Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Highways, Would he table the report this week that was 'commissioned by the Premier dealing with the depart mental review of the Highways Department that was commissioned by the Premier and con ducted by the Deputy Minister of James Richardson, MR, SPEAK ER : The Honourable Minister of Transportation, HON.

PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Transportation) (Dauphin): Mr, Speaker , I must admit I did announce in the House some time ago that that report will be tabled, I was hoping that perhaps after the Bill 21 would be completed and we would be able to - then we'd go into Es timates and we'd probably would be able to table it then, It could be this week or perhaps next week, I don't always agree with my Honourable colleague from Thompson but this time I will agree with him, MR. SPEAK ER : The Honourable Member from Rhineland, Order , please, MR. JACOB M, FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. Could he inform the House whether the governmen t has made any effort, or is making an effort to provide the Manitoba farmer who is on a 4 bushel quota, to that of Saskatchewan and Alberta havin g a 14 bushel quota for wheat, MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture, HON, SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): I have been in consul tation with the Canadian Wheat Board on that question, Mr, Speaker , and they have advised me that it will not be long until we have caught up with other points in the prairies, MR. FROESE : A supplementary, Could he confirm that this is as a result of the new protein grading or the request for higher protein wheat in certain areas. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture, MR.

USKIW: Not to my knowledge, Mr, Speaker, that that is the problem I don't think that is the problem, MR. FRO ESE : A further supplementary, Wi ll the farmer of Manitoba be penalized in the new crop year for having lower protein wheat in Manitoba? MR, USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don •t know what the honourable member means be cause there is demand for all grades of wheat throughout the world, High protein, low protein, otherwise, Mr, Speaker, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ass iniboia, MR . PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, my quest ion is to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Is Mr.

Ault of Western Flyer Coach receivin g a salary of $125,000 a year? MR, SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR . EVANS: No, MR. PATRICK: Will the Minister tell us what is his salary at the present time? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Minister, MR.

SCHREYER: Mr, Speaker, I have indicated on many occasions in the past , while we provide information relative to the loans made by the MDC that matters that pertain to internal management, matters that are determin ed by Boards of Directors of subs idiary oper ations , do not come within the purview of that which is provided for during the question period, MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition, MR.

SPIVAK: A supplementary. question, then to the First Minister, I wonder if he can indicate whether Mr, Ault •s salary has in fact been determined by the Board of Directors of Manitoba Development Corporation? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, MR, G, JOHNSTON: Mr. Speak er , my question is for the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Just after the House opened some weeks ago, I asked a question whether the Leaf Rapids Agreement had been signed and whether the Minister would table it , and he took at that time the questions as notice . .

Could he give the answers now please ?

1634 MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , I•ll look into the matter. May 3, 1972 MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Will the Minister give an undertaking to this House to answer the questions this session? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . MR. SCHREYER: I don't know if the Member for Portage is more concerned about the date or as to whether or not the agreement will be tabled. I can assure him the agreement will be tabled, MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker , my question is to the First Minister, I wonder whether the gove rnment would be prepared to table the construction agreements made between the Leaf Rapids Corporation and private contractors with resp ect to the building and commitments made under the agreement between the mining company and the government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition may file an Order for Return if he wishes. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G, JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker , I have a question for the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce. Has the Minister or any of his officials had discussi ons with the Pres ident of Canadian Tool and Die Works leading to this company leaving the provin ce, MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , I have had no discussi ons myself but I can say that my staff is in constant communication with all sectors of the business community in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson, MR. BOROWSKI: Mr.

Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Co1nmerce. Could he indicate when a grocery store will be established at Ruttan Lake so the people don't have to travel 70 miles to Lynn Lake to do their shopping? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR, EVANS: I'll look into this matter , Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. MR. DESJ ARDINS: Mr.

Speaker , I'd like to remain on the good side of the Honourable Member from Roblin the critic of my department , so I'd like to tell him that the Ases sippi Provincial Park will be open sometime in July. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Em erson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister . I wonder if he could advise the House as to whether or not the government intends to take legal action against GNC with regards to Columbia Forest agreement, and if so, when? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker , in order to be sure that I have understood the question, may I repeat it Sir? The question: whether the government intends to take legal action against Great Northern Capital? Is that basically the question? The answer is that the matter has been considered and we have been given legal advice that it would be in the public interest to proceed with litigation, Yes , affirmative. MR. GIRARD: A supplementary question, then, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier could advise us as to when the action will first be filed . MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that will be determi ned by events, MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister . I wonder whether he can inform the House whether the government still believes that the shares of Columbia Forest Products Limited , as the solicitor for the Corporation, are held in suspended animation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear

interpretation as to who has re sponsibility for the continued operation of that particular manufacturing facility and in accord ance with the rather peculiar agreement entered into by the government in 1967, the time when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Industry and Commerce, we find that it is difficult

May 3, 1972 1635 (MR. SCHREYER Cont'

d) to protect the public interest but we are adamant to do so. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. I wonder whether he'd be prepared to table the documentation where the solicitor for the Manitoba Development Corporation stated that in his opinion the shares are being held in suspended animation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. Order, please. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, governments have difficulty from time to time both federally and provincially with respect to certain documents coming into possession of those really have no right to them.

However, the sense of ethics, or lack of it, involved here in the case of the Leader of the Opposition doesn't surprise me. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The government has an obligation to account. The suggestion of imputing a lack of • • . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable member state his question of privilege. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Yes, Mr • Speaker, I believe that the First Minister must withdraw the remarks of the question of ethics.

He is imputing a motive, and imputing an action on my part and --(Interjection)- -, Mr. Speaker, on that basis, I may say that on the question of ethics the First Minister has held back and continues to hold information in ,connection with . • •• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order please. The Honourable First Minister. Order. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared of course, as I must be in any case, to leave myself in your hands as to whether or not my comment in reply to the honourable member's question constitutes a breach of privilege of the honourable member.

However, I am satisfied that my comment was with respect to the ethics on the part of those who would use privileged documents, and I believe the matter rests there. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege raised by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition) I would think that the Leader of the Opposition would be aware that a letter as between a solicitor and a client is privileged both on the basis of the solicitor and on the basis of the client.

Apparently when formulating these doctrines of legal privilege, the law profession wasn't aware that somebody in the profession would break that privilege as between the solicitor and client and vice versa. -- (Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: On the question of privilege. Privilege does not exist in this Legislature. Privilege does exist in this Legislature and documents are tabled by the government that are in fact are privileged and they are tabled here on the actions of government.

I suggest to the Honourable First Minister that the ethical thing was for the government to •• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order please. The Honourable member is debtating it. I believe all honourable members are starting to debate the matter. The question of privilege as I view it didn't arise. The Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): ••• say that the question of privilege does not arise, then are we to conclude that the imputation of motives in the ••• permitted in this ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

I should like to indicate to the Honourable Member for Morris who has a lengthy experience in procedural matters that he should not question the decision of the Chair. He has the proper procedure to follow. He's welcome to it. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GffiARD: 'I•d like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Education. I wonder if he could advise the House, and especially the Administrators of Schools in Manitoba as to when the administrative handbook will be published to schools. It's terribly important that this material comes out early in view of administrative changes in the schools.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. , MR. HANUSCHAK: The administrative handbook will be in the hands of the adminis strators soon, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. CY: GONICK (Crescentwood): I have a question for the First Minister. Does the First Minister have a statement to make with regard to the petition from the workers in Gillam with respect to establishing a judicial enquiry into the Manitoba 'Hydro Council. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister.

1636 May 3, 1972 MR . 'SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I have no statement to make as such, It is still my in.cention to return a communication to the person who addressed the petition to my office in the first place. I was hopeful it could be done very soon. I am still hopeful it can be done t"J.is week. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR , BOROWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Could he indicate to the House how many jobs would have been lost at Western Flyer · Coach had the school bus contract gone to Ontario ? MR .

SPEAKER: Order , please, The question is hypothetical; The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speake r, my question is really for the Minister of Public Works, and I don't think we 've been advised who. the Acti ng Minister is1 so I'l l dire �t a question to the First Minister . Were public tenders called for the construction of the Autopac buildings ? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. · MR . PAULLE.Y: I believe that I am the Acting Minister in the absence of the Honourable the Minister for Public Works·. It is my understa nding , Mr.

Speaker , if they haven't been, they will be� I' m not quite sure but i would be glad , Mr. Speaker , to find out the precise information for my honourable friend, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, MR . G, JOHNSTON: A second question to the Minister, In view of the fact that the buildings are under construction, the Autopac buildings are under construction will the Min ister let this House know whether the competitive bids have been let or not ?

In view of the fact that Autopac buildings are under construction will the Minister let this House know when the competi tive bids will be let ? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR . PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I am a little surprised that the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie didn't direct the question at myself due to the fact that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation is a Crown Corporation.

Insofar as the buildings referred to , the reference is to the drive-in claims cen tres , and I will be quite happy to deal with that in detail in my Estimates� The buildings in question were awarded under a contract in the most expe ditious way that was poss ible in order to commence the construction of the buildin gs in question and they were awarded by Autopac, and they were not awarded by tender due to the fact that in order to have done so would have delayed the finalization of the first building until sometime the first part of this year. ' MR , SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR .

G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does Autopac not lease their buildings from the Department of Public Works ? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR . PAWLEY: I wonder if the Honourable Member would repeat his question, please ? MR . G. JOHNSTON: Does Autopac not lease all or some of the buildings they require f from the Department of Public Works ? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs . MR . PAWLEY: No. The only - certainly not insofar as the drive-in claims centres are concerned.

They fall purely �nd solely under the auspices of Autopac, The Honourable Member is I think relat ing his question to the future use by Autopac of buildings in the office building in the City of Brandon which would be rented through the Department of Public Works , MR . SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CRAIK: Mr . Speaker, I wonder if I could address a question to the Minister of Municip al Affairs. Is the head of Autopac, Mr. Dutton, still working part time for the .

Saskatchewan -:- (Interjection) -- Is the head of Autopac still working part time in the Province of Saskatchewan for the counterpart there and is he still drawing Some income from Saskatchewan. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister _ of Municipal - Order please. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. · · MR; PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , as I have indicated on two occasions previously in the House , the General Manager of Autopac is on leave from the Saskatchewan Government In..: surance office, He "still retai�s a position with that co�poration. He is not paid by that corporation.

He is working full time for Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. He still has

May 3, 1972 1637 (MR . PAWLEY Cont'd) .•• a tie with SGIO until one year has lapsed then there will be con sideration as to whether or not he continues his work in Manitoba or with the SGIO, MR , SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . GffiARD: I would like to address a question to the Honourable Minister of Educa tion. Will school divisions be given some choice as to the chassis concerned in the buses that will be provided for those divisions by Western Flyer Coach ? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Educat ion. MR .

HANUSCHAK : It is the school division that advises the Department of Education on it's needs insofar as vehicles for transportation of their students in terms of size, rather passenger capacity, and with that information the Department of Education finances the purchase of the most economical and best bus that is available on the market to meet that particular need. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . GffiARD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Will the school divisions have any authority, or will it be within their power to suggest that they woul d like a Chevrolet, or a Chrysler, or an International truck, and that is quite important in some areas ? MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Educa tion. MR . HANUSCH AK: I believe the Department is well aware of the maintenance problems and maintenance costs which may arise from having a variety of vehicles on the road, but keeping those factors in mind an attempt is made to provide those chassis which can be not only be purchased most economic ally, but operated most economic ally.

MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Education. , Will he make the same grants that are available to Hutterite schools in this province available to school districts and multi-district divisions ? A MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that this is a matter of policy. MR . SPEAKER: The point is well taken. MR . FROESE: On a point of order , Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: The question is quite in order. MR . PAULL EY: ••• point of order.

I think it is cle arly delineated in Beauchesne that matters of policy which is, in effect, the question raised by my honourable friend from Rhineland is out of order in the question period. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. SAUL CHER NIACK, Q. C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns): Well, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-G eneral, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the following Bills: No. 21.

An Act to amend the Revenue Tax Act, the Tobacco Tax Act, and the Amusements Act. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR . CHAffiMAN: Clause 12 -- The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR . EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney): I just got a few more - Mr. Chairman, would like to say a few more words . I was talking last night at nine o'clock on this Bill 21 , on this

Section 12 which appeals this

section 4, sub-section 3, I thought it would be a good idea maybe to revise my memory of what happened in 196 7. That I would just look up some of the speeches that were made at that particular time. Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the statements that were made at that particular time on this debate really bring home to bear I think, and I would like to read some of the statements here, one particular statement here which refers to production machinery that's financed for a particular individual whose financed, has to pay tax not only on the,

article but on the interest rate and the finance. And I woul d like to read the statement made by the Honourable Minister of Finance, March 9, 1967, Page 1504. I read this paragraph, "The man who buys on time generally speaking is the man who does not have money in the bank, ;, -- (Int� rjection) -- The Honourable Minister of Finance, "I think

1638 May 3, 1972 (MR. McKELLAR (Cont'

d) that's a statement we can pretty well accept and he is the man who is being asked to pay a sales tax, not only on the sales price of the product but also on the interest which he has to pay, on the financing charges which he has to pay because he is buying on time . Where is the element of recognition of hardship when this government is prepared to tax the financing costs for time purchases.

Can it be that this government in drafting this legislation - and it has all sorts of time to do it - was not aware of this deliberate decision which it mus t have made to tax people on interest charges which they had to pay on goods which they purchased on time . Is this the recognition of the need to provide for the necessities of living and to relief of hardships to the people involved? This to me is possibly the most outstanding example of an approach by a government by paying lip service to certain principles and overlooking, or deliberately involving people when it hurts them hardest. " Well, Mr.

Chairman, that's a fantastic statement, fantastic statement. . .. was made on March 9, 19 67 by the Honourable Minister of Finance when he was in the seat right here debating the Revenue Tax Bill which was brought in by the Conservative Government of that day. Mr. Chairman, this comes home to haunt you usually as a speech he made in this House, and I've had many that haunted me. This always comes home to haunt you .

So what is the Honourable Minister of Finance doing on production machinery that is financed by individuals in the Province of Manitoba, he is doing the very same thing as he told our present government of our day not to do. It is hard to believe, Mr. Chairman, that a person's memory would become so short. It is hard to believe that the Honourable Minister would not go back and read the speeches he made five years ago because this is the facts of life, they are here in the records o� the Province of Manitoba. I would like to read a little more here. I've got a few dandy statements here I would like to read.

Oh yes here it is . "So it may be just an empty gesture to talk about reciprocal arrange ments but the fact is that in Manitoba after this Act is brought into being, there will be double taxation of sales tax from the federal-provincial level. There will be sales tax on top of the federal sales tax. There will be sales tax on top of the Customs and Excise Tax of the Federal Government. There will be triple taxation in the case of extra provincial purchases . • • when a purchase is made in another province where tax is paid and brought here" and so on. Mr.

Speaker, this is likely right, but what did the Minister of Finance do to correct it? Not only is he not correcting it, he is adding another tax. There is some more statements in this particular speech he made. Page 1505. "I wonder about the concept of seeds and farm implements in recognition of a basic industry and exemption of that. And I am wondering if a farm implement is exempt whether tools of trade should not be exempt.

I wonder if the baker who is using his tools in baking other food pro cessors will be given the same consideration in the great desire to keep down the cost of food to the consumer ." Chairman, that is one statement. And here in the same paragraph I would like to continue this. "And of course the question of dry cleaning and laundry comes up as well. That's a matter of cleanliness, and I doubt if it is proper to tax cleanliness in that fashion, and that recognition ought to be given to this need�' Mr. Speaker, Chairman, I under stand the dry cleaning plants will have to pay tax on their equipment.

I imagine the bakers who operate bakeries in the City of Winnipeg and all over Manitoba will have to do the same. There is one other statement here. Page 1510 and the same Minister of Finance at that time, sitting in opposition. "I say that we must know the regulations in advance, Mr. Speaker, we cannot leave it to the Cabinet . We must hear much more about the impact on the individual. We must learn much more about the Provincial Treasurer's philosophy and his approach to these tax measures before we can entrust him to legislate by way of regulations .

We support the amendment" -.t hat meaning the Liberal amendment of the day - and he went on to give this particular Bill a six months hoist which woul d kill this Revenue Tax Bill of the day. -- (Interjection) -- The Honourable Member for Assiniboia says he knows that. This is right this is quite right, Mr. Chairman. The philosophy of the Minister of Finance of that particu lar day was to renew the Revenue Tax Bill completely. So what have we now, Mr.

Chairman, we not only have the taxes that were imposed of that day but we have the Honourable Minister of Finance going ahead with his tax on production machinery, not only on the purchase of new production machinery but of leased. This is one of the things that really bothers me in a time when the Province of Manitoba, when our economy is not operating at it's highest and its best, that we should impose extra taxes rather than to decrease taxes, or decrease spending, and this is an approach I say is the right approach and

May 3, 1972 1639 (MR. McKELLAR Cont'd) ..• not impose more taxes . In rural Manitoba today we need industry but we are not going to get it if taxes are im posed on machinery that's involved in any industry, new industry, and I would suggest to the Minister, as I just said, that the right approach is to either remove taxes , not increase tax es , and also to look at the expenditures of the government of the day. MR. CHAIRMAN: • , . Minister of Finance, The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR.

J, R, (Bud) BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre) : I wonder just - you know I am hearing so much on this particular clause, I wonder if the Minister could clarify things for . . . You know it seems to me that what we are talking about, or what we are supposed to be talking about, is a clause in a bill which would charge a five percent sales tax on production equipment. Now I am losing my way a little bit because of the - you know some of the confusion and it seems to me that what we are talking about is $5 .0 0 on a hundred.

Now five percent is $5. 00 on a hundred, So that if I have a machine that I amortize over 20 years or 25 years or so , that we are talking about maybe 20 cents a year relative to all the things that that production machine produces, so if I produce 1, 000 pieces of toast, or whatever the heck with the toaster , or whatever we are talking about, we are not talking about a five percent increase in all machines , we are talking about the five percent increase! in a capital investment which can be written off or amortized or recovered over a number of years .

So what we are talking about is perhaps a millionth of a cent on a bushel of wheat, or something like that - you know I am getting con fused a little bit, Something you know that is coming across here, MR, CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR, CHERNIACK : Mr.

Chairman, I don't wonder that the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre is confused we have had so many so much said on the opposite side that is confusing, that he may have been sidetracked, as I think some of the other rural members particularly were sidetracked on the question of the impact of the cost of the production ma chinery tax, and I have to tell them that although he said he is confused, I think he is abso lutely right in his

interpretation and that he should not permit himself to be diverted from the

interpretation he gave which I believe is absolutely correct, Now, Mr. Chairman, of course the member for Souris-K illarney said again what others have said about getting industry into Manitoba, and I have to just again point out that all our neighbours are charging production machinery tax, and they are doing very well thank you, and there is absolutely no reason to think that this will make an impact.

But of course the Honourable Member - when one makes a speech one sometimes wonders when it will come back to haunt you as he says , and certainly when I made a speech back in 1967 - I have grown older , five years older since then, and one starts to worry a little bit about what one says. What did he quote, he said that we must know the regulations. Mr, Speaker, the Honourable Member for Souris-L ansdown knows the regulations, they have been in force for five years.

We know what they are; he should know what they are, and indeed at the time that I spoke we had no idea what the regulations were, And what point did I make then as - and I quote him as quoting me - I assume he quoted me correctly . I made the point that I did not know the philosophy of the then Minister of Finance and indeed, Mr.

Speaker, I did not - nor do I know the philosophy now of the Cons ervative Party across the way when it comes to taxation policy except give, give, give to industry, entice industry, give them re duction taxes , make it better for them to come , growth for growth's sake, I know that kind of a philosophy. But when I said I didn •t trust the Minister of Finance in relation to the regu- 121.tions , indeed I didn't know his philosophy, but today we have regulations .

They've been worked on, they've been changed and we know them, So that the point made then must have been valid then as it would appear to be valid now and that is , we do have regulations now, He quoted me in regard to dry clea ning, etc. , and I believe he quoted me as suggesting that that should be looked into because it seems to me it was a tax on cleanlin ess, I must say that during the debate and after I had become persuaded to realize that it is again on the ability to-pay principle that people in the lower income brackets are the ones that don't have the opportunity to make use of dry cleaning, laundry facilities , at a commercial but do their own hard hard work in keeping their own clothes clean.

So I would say that the questwn of ability to pay is involved in this tax, and I don't apologize for not having brought in an amendment on that. The question of tools of trade: I listened during the entire debate in 67, I heard the

1640 May 3, 1972 (MR. CHERNIACK Cont•d) • • • argument. I've since reviewed it and I have now given the answer I was given then. I accept it as being a question of enforceability and proper description, so it means that I can be persuaded, and there is proof that I could be. The question of double taxation: what I referred to then is still true in relation to the federal taxation. There is federal taxation and there is tax on top of that. I have learnt in my study of taxation measures that there are very frequent occasions of double taxation.

At least in this case this taxation is direct taxation which is within the purview of the Provincial Govern ment. We have no authority to deal in indirect taxation, nor can we change federal law. Now, Mr. Chairman, just to indicate that I can be persuaded let me indicate to the honourable member that apparently the previous Minister of Finance can be persuaded too, because on the point first raised about financing costs , costs of operation, let me read to him the definition in

Section 2 (1) of the Revenue Tax Act which says "purchase price means" and goes on and says " And includes" - sub 1 (Sh Sub 1 - "any charge whatsoever in connection with a transaction other than (

a) finance charges , carrying charges , or interest charges on conditional sales contracts or other contracts providing for deferred payments of the consider ation if the amount of such finance charges , carrying charges , and interest charges , is in addition to the usual or established cash sell ing price of the tangible personal property or to service , and the amount is segregated on the invoice or bill of sale or is billed separately to the purchaser" . Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member has just indicated how persuasive I must have been back in 1967 to have managed in opposition to have this law brought forward in this manner. Now I'm assuming, hopefully, that it was not in the original Act, and that I may have been the very one to have brought in this definition so as to exclude that which I felt was wrong.

So that if I was right then in saying it was out of the Act, I can only point out that it is in the Act indeed," and therefore , rather than apologize, or to feel embarrassed, about the fact that it has been directed back to me I can only say that having raised the point, and being given credit for rais ing the point, I now have a right to take some credit for the fact that it's in the bill which was passed by the previous government. Mr.

Chairman, there may be other things that I have said, and it may be interesting to review history, but the fact is that we are today dealing with a tax - removing an exemption which was created in the original bill. We'v e already had a number of speec hes on this point, I therefore don't want to take more time of the Committee at this stage. . . . . . continued on next page

May 3, 1972 1641 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assi niboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not going to be repetitive because I have not raise d, and I don't believe anyone else has raised this point before that I will now, I would like to know if the Minis ter did have, or the Minister of Industry and Commerce had any contact or negoti at ion with Versa tile Manufacturing Company because it has been brought to my attention that they will be announcing one of the largest implement manufacturing contracts that 's been ever awarded to a Canadian firm, and if this is the case, this certainly will have a very detrimental effect if they should move out of Manitoba.

It may mean unemployment, and so on, and I'm not sa ying that the government has the right to pursue the cou rse of action at the pre sent time, but I think that we should know, and has there been any communication and negotia tions, and perhaps if the Minister would have taken the time to meet with the people, maybe the sma ll problem that there was could have been resolved and the firm could have stayed here, and the contract would have been agreed to manufacture the machinery in this Province.

The other point I wish to raise: the Minister has on many occas ions stated that the other provinces have the same legisla tion on production ma chinery, the same tax, but he did not tell us that fastwear items, such things as used in the mini ng companies, explosive, steel drills, cement, rock bolts, timber, and sa fety nets, and so on, are exempt in the other provinces, are exempt by the other provinces.

And my point is that we should be concerned about employment in this Province, and if this will amount in - if it amounts in a sma ll amount of revenue, then I don't think it'll affect any mining company and I don't think they will change their op eration or curtail their output and reduce employment to move somewhere else. But if it does amount to say a tremendous amount of revenue, then this may happen, and what will happen, that employ ment will be reduced in the opera tions in Manitob a, and it will be increase d somewhere else.

We all know that there were 700 people already lai d off Inco, and the items that I specified here are exempt in Ontar io, so it's only natural that the company may cut down production in Manitoba and increase it so mewhere else.

I know that even the size of a company that the government has shown tremendous interest in Tan talum would be affected somewhere in the neighborhood up to, on their prese nt operations, np to $ 1/4 millionon the production equip ment or machinery which I specified or stated, such things, as explosives, steel drills, cement, rock bolts, and all the other items that are apparently exempt, or are exempt in the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec.

So if it means anywhere between two or three or four million dollars extra additional tax for some of the others - and I have no arguments for the mini ng companies, they can afford probably to pay tax, but the point is that I don't believe we should put them in a pos ition, in a disa dvantaged pos ition that they can curtail their opera tions in Manitoba, reduce employme nt in the Province here, and pick it np somewhere else, because there is an advant age in some of the other provinces.

So I sa y to the Minister, I understand that there are fast wearing items that are exempt in the other provinces which are not exempt under this bill, and I feel that the Minister has the responsi bility to tell us what effect it will have and will there be any effect as far as employment is concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Fi nance. MR. CHE RNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I didn't bring it with me but I read, I think it was this morning a report, or last night, of Inco where their earnings have gone up again all based on the international price of steel and --(Interjection) -- before or after ?

Well, I won't talk about the Honourable Member for Thompson's business acumen at this stage, but I will sa y that it is my impress ion that the items referred to by the Honourable Member are negligible ,in rela tion to their total operation. He sa id something about two or three million dollars in · taxes for goods such as explosives. I've no idea where he got that figure. I would apprecia te / his letting me know in due cou rse. But, Mr.

Chairman, I had of kind of hoped that we had set aside the Versa tile matter because it's been discussed at great length, but it's raised again, so I suppose I should refer to it. I happen to have some material which may be of interest to the House that I should report on. The question was: did we discuss with Versa til e? The Premier has reported on a discus si on that he had with the Pres ident of Versa tile, Mr. Roy Robinson, where he indicated to him that the factor that involved, or motivated, their looking at plan ts outside of Manitob a was the DISC proposals of the U. S. government.

Of eourse that is contradicted by some state ment I've se en more recently, and the statement by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry as quoted in the Free Press of May 3rd, - yeah, that is this morning's Free Press - where I

1642 May 3, 1972 MR. CHERNIACK, (cont'd. ) •.••• quote, andJt may be a misquote "The fact that Versatile is looking ou tside Manitoba and Canada is evidence of the effect that the proposed tax on pro duction machinery will have on the Manitoba economy, Mr. Sherlnan said. " Then it goes on to quote him, "Mr, Sherman said the proposed tax on production machinery is the operative factor in Versatile's decision. " There is absolutely nothing that I know of to support that argument and, indeed, I think if he made it he later backed away from it, but he has been so quoted there.

Versatile, according to this morning's Tri bune, there's a story about their plans for a small start in the U. S. plant and they say there, no definite decision's been made on where the plant will be built, but it'll probably be built in North or South Dakota. "We have to do some more checking on facilities of the different areas. By facilities I mean prospects for employees, favoura ble tax climates, and any incentives a town is willing to give us. " Note that last, "any incentives a town is willing to give us. " And Manitoba, Mr.

Chairman, has suffered from the fact that in the past both municipalities and the Provincial Government was willing to sell out by incentives, sell out tax benefits in the futur e, sell out actual resources in order to entice construction to take place. And it's clearly known we don't agree with that policy. I don't know now whether members on the other side will say they agree with it, although there are many statements they make that would indicate that probably they do. The

article in the Tribune goes on to say "Construction will begin in July after a location has been decided. " So they're still looking. And another quotation from the same article, "We will continue to make use of the facilities we have here. The size of the plant or the number of employees will not be decreased. " So I have here the statement as quoted in the newspaper which seems to answer the questions raised by the honourable member.

Now, as to consumables: I woUld answer by saying that except in Ontario, the consumables referred to by the honourable member are taxable in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, North Dakota, Minnesota- but I have to say there partially, we're not quite clear the extent to which they are, but they are taxed, but not all of them - South Dakota, and that is of course an item we•ve already dealt with. May I point out in connection with Inco, that they recently laid off 700 men in Sudbury, not in Manitoba.

But on the location of the plant of Versatile I have had inquiries made, and I now have some answers which may be interesting to honourable members in relation to Versatile and its proposed move. Production machinery is taxed in North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota. Consumables in general, general consumables are taxed in North Dakota, taxed in South Dakota, and in Minnesota I say that there is a partial exemption which isn't quite clear, the information isn't that clear for us. The question resolves there around what is machinery equipment, or a contrivance, which is taxable, and what is not, which is exempt.

Now consumables, production machinery used in manufacturing farm machinery, that's exactly what Versatile is doing - taxable in North Dakota, taxable in Minnesota, taxable in South Dakota, and I woUld say, I've already said, taxable in Saskatchewan, taxable in Ontario. Consumables used in manufacturing farm machinery taxable in North Dakota, taxable in South Dakota, partially, as I've already referred, to in Minnesota.

Production machinery used in mining, taxable in North Dakota, taxable in South Dakota, taxable in Minnesota, except that there is some sort of special exemption for production machinery which is provided for the production of taconite. I'm not quite -- taconite I think is the mineral which I'm not familia r with. Consumables used in mining, taxable in North Dakota, taxable in South Dakota, taxable in Minnesota with the exception I've already said that isn't quite clear .. Production machinery· used in printing: taxable in North Dakota, taxable in Minnesota, taxable in South Dakota.

Consumables used in printing: taxable in North Dakota, taxable in South Dakota, taxable in Minnesota, with the exception of that unclear featur e that I've just pointed out. Purchase of \ farm implements and farm machinery, and let the rural members pay particular heed to that, purchase of farm implements and farm machinery taxable in North Dakota, taxable in Minnesota, and taxable, but. to a lesser degree, in South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, there have been approaches made by Versatile to this government, to Government in Manitoba. 1 want to quote from a letter addressed to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

It's a long letter, I'll just quote portions/'We believe that given more sensible taxation policy more in line with what our competitors have to pay, that we can perform what you might call miracles in the manufacturing ·industry here in Winnipeg, and this is a benefit from. the employment standpoint of view. " A nd I jump, "The point that I'm bringing up is some

May 3, 1972 1643 MR. CHERNIACK, (cont'd. ) .••• • unfair taxation policies." Then the next page. "We want you to give this serious consideration for this unfair taxation policy. ''I'd also like to draw some other things to your attention that are very unf air taxation policies. That is the tax income tax rate in this province is exhorbitant. 11 And then a lengthier paragraph.

"How the politicians of this country feel that a company can be faced with high wage rates, that we are in Canada, plus the excessive taxation in the form of pension plans and other forms of taxation, plus the income tax of approximately 57 percent, and then we are forced to compete against a communist organization in Canada that import combilles from Germany at I believe at a 15 percent income tax rate, and then they ship these products in Canada, they land them here in Winnipeg and are sold by a co-op organization which in my opinion, is a communist organization.

They do not pay any income tax on the distribution of this country. We are also faced against competition from other countries such as Japan, where they have a maximum income rate of 15 percent on corporations. We fail to understand how the politicians in this country feel that Canada has such smart manufactur ers that we can compete with this type of unfair competition. Another tax that should be removed immediately is tax on heating fue ls. " Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether any members in this House that are members of the co-op organization - I suppose it's the CCIL.

The Member for Rock Lake perked up - possibly he is a member of the CCIL. -- (Interjection)-- No he's not, but possibly others are, maybe they're not, but they don't happen to know that they were called, that they were members of a Co-op organization which in the opinion of the writer is a Communist organization. The letter goes on to say: "It has been said, " -- (Interjection)- You'll soon hear. "It has been said that the Government of Manitoba intends to go into industry if private industry does not do a proper job. Just reduce taxation in this province and you will have no problem in getting industry.

Reduce provincial spending, reduce taxes, you will have more industry. " The Member for Rock Lake says, "who wrote that letter ?11 It's signed by Versatile Manufacturing Limited, R. E. Robinson, Executive Vice-Pres ident. Does the Honourable Member for Rock Lake want to know the date of this letter? -- (lnt®'jeclum, Yes, Sir. ) -- Yes, the letter is dated, June 6, 1966 -- (Interjection)-- MR. G. JOHNSTON: Would the Minister table the letter when he's through with it? MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, I'll be glad to do that when I'm through with it.

June 6, 1966 addressed to the Honourable Gurney Evans, Minister of Industry and Commerce, Legislative Building, Winnipeg. But I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that Versatile again wrote to govern ment and said, and I quote sections of the letter: "May we draw to your attention that what we feel is a serious injustice and a law that is harmful to the development of industry in this province. 11 Then I go on. "As you know this province has an extremely high rate of income tax on corporations but that's not the purpose of this letter.

In addition to unfair corporation taxation as compared to the rest of Canada, we are faced with another unfair taxation in the fo rm of a tax on gasoline used in testing and pre-running our machines bef ore shipment. " The letter goes on. -- (Interjection)-- Whom is it signed by ? Versatile Manufacturing Limited. R. E. Robinson, President, addressed to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The date, does the Member for Rock Lake want the date ? Yes, he does. November 10, 1966 drawn to the attention of the Honourable Mr. Spivak, copy to the Honourable Duff Roblin. Mr.

Chairman, the tax referred to, tax on gasoline used in testing and pre-running our machines before shipment is still a tax being imposed on Versatile. In spite of the letter addressed to the Department of Industry and Commerce, attention the Honourable Mr. Spivak, that tax was kept, maintained and is still in existence today. So Versatile has not been shy about expressing its point of view. Members may re member a whole series of, would you call it, institutional advertising that appeared where Versatile was talking about taxation in Cana da and in Manitoba and before this government came into power.

For example, here is a copy of a page out of the Canadian Farm Equipment Dealer magazine of July 1968, where there is an interview with the same Mr. Roy Robinson, one question was asked. This is July 1968. "Then you are not completely happy with Manitoba as a location?" Answer: "Not altogether. We have a large investment here and the government knows it but if we were to build again we would give a lot of consideration to the U. s. or to Ontario. 11 Mr. Chairman, I'm info rmed that this

article was sent into the Minister of Industry and Commerce of that time by a member of a financia l institution in this city with a complaint that this type of publicity is harmful to our province. That was sent to the Honourable Sidney Spivak, then Minister of Industry and Commerce.

1644 May 3, 1972 MR . CHERNIACK, (cont'd. ) So, Mr. Chairman, I thought that this committee would find it of some interest to hear what is the relationship and the approaches made in the past by the company that we've been discussing, As I say, I really didn't think that I would have to refer to this at all because I thought we had dealt yesterday with Vers atile but the honourable member raised it so I thought I owed it to the committee to bring this information to their attention. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, would the previous speaker table the documents that he is quoting fr om? MR. CHAIRMAN: • • • Just asking that it be tabled? Clause 12. The Honourable Member for Riel, MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I think the important point here to be made from the docu ments which were just read by the Minister of Finance are not that the Versatile Company wrote letters to the former government but are important that, increasingly important as time goes by as to whether or not they were read by this government bef ore br inging their taxes in, But in relation to this point- and I trust the Member for Inkster won't leave yet.

I'd like to also read you documents from the same year that was put on the record by the Member for lnkster, because in the Hansards of 1967, the Member for lnk ster who was then the Member for lnkster on this side of the House talked both about agricultural equipment and other equip ment of production, and at that time made a very strong case, and in fact was allowed to make an amendment to the then Act that was bef ore the House - the Revenue Tax Act - as was the fashion of that day when amendments could be made by members of the Opposition.

But as we look at Bill 21 now we're not in a position by virtue of the rules imposed on the House to even make amendments, but at that time, the Member for lnkster brought in a reso lution into this House as an amendment to an amendment that was then put on the record by the then Leader of the Off icial Opposition; and the amendment that was brought into the House by the Member for lnkster read "with reference to the tools required to be provided by an employ ee- as a condition of his employment or his continued employment. n But in preface to that let me read to you what he has to say about other areas , Mr.

Chairman, and it's relevant, I would think that it's very relevant to the statement that has just been read by the Minister of Finance, because this - I'm sure if the member had been aware of this that he would have given consider ation to eliminating the production tax on agricultural equipment bef ore this bill got into the House, And now of course there is. no opportunity to provide the appropriate amendment unless some government member, treasury bencher, wants to review it.

Certainly no other member and I guess not even the Member for lnkster since he's no longer a Cabinet Minister can bring in the required amendment to get at his desires. Bu.t let me read this, Mr. Chairman, "Mr. Chairman, I know this amendment is design ed to first of all keep down the price of primary products and also to make sure that the sales tax does not bear too heavily on people engaged in agriculture. " Well, he goes on to support that amendment.

That amendment was presented by the Liberals at that time and the Member for lnkster supports this, and then he goes on to explain that production equipment in the way of tools for workmen should be exempted and that workmen sometimes has to provide up to $200 in value of tools as ordinary production equipment. And then he went on to say that he would amend the amendment further and make this apply to tools that were required as pro duction equipment and did so. And in his concluding remarks he says: "But we, Mr.

Chairman, think that there is merit to making an allowance for people engaged in agriculture, There is also merit for making an allowance to employees where they have to provide the tools. This is not where the employer provides the tools. " Well, Mr. Speaker, there is two important points made here. One if that agricultural costs should not be escalated and it's important to everybody to keep down the primary costs.

Well this is in diametric opposition to the argument that has been presented by the government now, and in fact presented by the Member for lnkster who 1 s comple);ely gone the other way around who says that this tax that is being imposed on production equipment will not have its impact on the consumer.

But in the argument presented in 1967 he says that theprice of primary products is going to be affected by the tax imposed therefore agricultural consider- ation should be taken into account here. , Well let me say that with this background and.argument, if he represented opinion of the NDP when they were in Opposition and the Minister of Finance was also a member of that and

May 3, 1972 1645 MR. CRAIK, (cont'd. ) • , ... voted for that particular amendment, that particular reso lution , they've had perfect opportunity to put it into effect and they now flatly refuse to give any consideration to keeping down the cost of primary agricultura l produce by bringing in the tax, a further tax on production machinery.

I make these remarks at this time to point out that the arguments being presented are just diametrically opposed to what they said in Oppo sition and the statements read by the Minister of Finance don't prove anything except the fact that they in spite of the position stated by Versatile Equipment to the last government or to this government we're not prepared to combine that with their own arguments on this side and do something about it. So they reluctantly and stubbornly refuse to make any changes to the Act that cuts down the taxation which will in fact increase the cost of primary products in Manitoba. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, it's rather interesting to listen to the Minister under pinning his entire case on tax laws and what happens in other jurisdi ctions.

He read a long list of taxes that were imposed in the States of North Dakota, Minnesota and South Dakota and other provinces and use d that as a basis of an argument to say that well they're doing it there, therefore it's right to do it in this province, It se ems to me, Sir, that in every area of tax ation this government is determined to be the highest taxed province in this country, or in any part of the North American Continent for that matter. It see ms to me that they are not satis fied unl ess they remove the last advantage that industry, or indeed people have in this pro vince.

It's interesting to read over the records of past years and to listen to the statements that were made by members who were,a re now on that side of the Hous e when they are arguing against the imposition of the revenue tax, and although I don't by any stretch of the imagination consider the Minister of Tourism and Recr eation an authority - and at that time he wasn 't even with the party that is now in power - nonetheless his comments are rather interesting reading, becaus e he went on to say that - and this is recorded on page 2267 of Hansard of April 4, 1967, - when the then Minister of Finance, Mr.

Evans, was sugge sting that in dealing with a certain regul ation it was perhaps the best way to deal with it because it was done in other jurisdi ctions. He goes on to say this: "Mr. Chairman, this is quite ridiculous , it's kind of disturbing to hear the Minister speak like this. We're dealing with the people of Manitoba. The people that we're looking to try and give a decent deal is people of Manitoba. " And then he goes on to say: "I think the Minister has a responsibility and we have a responsibility. Why do we have to run out and see what is going on in other provinces ?

Do they pay as much taxes on cigarettes as we do in this province. We're talking about no sales tax. I'd much rather have this and I'd much sooner have that .•• " Sometimes the Ministe r of Tourism and Recreation's spe eches don't make much sense in the House. They're much more interest ing to listen to than they are to read, but the gist of his remarks was that rather than take the example of the imposition of taxes from other jurisdictions, we should take the initiative to try and provide advantages and incentives for prople to locate and continue to stay in this province.

Sir, it has always been a feature of the Province of Manitoba that we've had to run just a little bit harder to stay in the same place because of a geographic disadvantage and because of other disadvantages and the attraction of industry in this province has always been a problem that succ essive jurisdi ctions have had to deal with.

And although I'm not one that has advocated the kind of incentives such as we are finding today under the DREE Program being given to industries to locate - I think that's $500 million a year thrown away - I do think that there are certain advantages that we can provide for industry in this province. And one of them is a tax advantage. Not a tax rebate, not a grant, but just a slight advantage that would encourage them to look at this province and to locate in this province, and that means a redu ction in com parison to other jurisdi ctions. Surely that is not an unreasonable proposition.

This is one of the last advantages that we did have and I would much rather that industry in this province be provided with that advantage rather than the kind of advantages that are getting through the MDC and rather than the kind of advantages that are getting through the DREE Program. These are out and out grants and there is no way of measuring whether or not they have any industrial or competitive advantage in other provinces.

But I do think that if we are to main tain a climate of economic activity in this province, it is necessary for us to provide at least something in the way of an advantage for people to locate here, because as I said earlier, it is ne cessary for us to run just a little bit faster to stay in the same place. That has been a recognized feature of the economic life of this province and for the government to disregard it,

1646 May 3, 1972 MR . JORGENSON, (cont'd. ) ••••. is to disregard it at their own peril, Mr. Robinson of the Versatile Manufacturing Company, I know, has a propensity for writing letters. I was in receipt of a good many of them when I was a member of the House of Commons in ottawa and I know of his attitude towards taxes. He doesn't like to pay taxes at all. I wouldn't go all the way that Mr.

Robinson would like to see a government go, but I do think that in relation to other provinces that the provision of some small advantage in the way of a reduction in taxes would go a great deal of the distance towards maintaining industry in this province in such a way that we can depend upon a climate that will attract industrial development into Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: 12 • • • Bef ore we proceed on Clause 12 any furt her, I would like to draw again to the attention of the members Rule 64 of our House rules, subsection 2. I have allowed too much latitude.

Subsection 2 reads: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must strictly be relevant to the items or clause under discussion. " We've had discussions on the DREE Program, DISC, Versatile, Columbia Forest Products and I think everything under the sun. We're dealing with subsection 3 of

Section 4 of the Act which is repeal of taxation or exemption on production machinery. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, to the clause in question, please. MR . FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Chairman, I assure you I will stick to Clause 12. I would have had some comments regarding advantage to the Province of Manitoba of having a tax or some tax that other people did not have.

I believe the list that the Minister read off of other areas that have the production tax was probably one of the better reasons why Manitoba should not go into it at the present time, because we do have other taxes such as the highest corporation, personal income etc. We now have what I would say is the worst situ ation of success ion duty taxes, and here when you have your one last advantage you throw it away. And we need that advantage in Manitoba.

But my colleague from Morris mentioned advantages and I don't intend to dwell on it, I intend to dwell this aft ernoon briefly as possible on a situation that is related directly to this bill that I went out personally myself and found out this morning. And on page 2 of this it says: "Exemption from machinery, equipment and apparatus used directly in the process of manufacture or production," Down in (

c) it says: "Charges for maintenance, repairs, instal lation or other taxable services rendered to the purchaser on or after May lst. " I went to a small laundry this morning. He has been sitting with a quotation in his hand since August 27th, from Stanley Brock Limited, trying to decide whether he will purchase a piece of machinery worth $15, 400. 00. It now will become worth $7 70 more and then he will have the interest charges - the Minister has explained about interest charges.

The man is not going to purchase the machine now, he is also very concerned that the cleaner fluid which is used in the production of his dry cleaning will be taxed. I showed him this piece of literature. He wants to know if the bags, the plastic bags which he puts over the clothes will be taxed. The coat hangers that he uses in his building, will they be taxed? And he presently has a licence when he buys, he quotes his licence number, and it might be interesting to find out how many people in this province have licence numbers which exempt them from paying tax when it's for production.

As a matter of fact I have a licence number in this province and I must collect tax if I sell to somebody who does not have a licence. Now this gentleman that I am re ferring to, when we discussed it he said, "If all of these have to be placed on my business, on my production operation, I have to transfer the tax to the people.'' Now the Minister has got up and he has said many times and all we're talking about is industry, and we're not. We're talk ing about the people who come into that laundry, and if you want to call me one of the richer people that can aff ord a laundry, that's fine.

But I remind you that nursing homes send out laundry and senior citizens' homes send out laundry, and I remind you that hospitals send out laundry and this is all added cost that comes back. Now Mr. Chairman, I have tried to stay directly to the bill. I have taken the trouble this morning to go and see a situation. And I have asked this man what it will cost him directly and what he will have to pass on to his customers, he feels will be more than 1 percent.

In other words, you're talking a 5 percent sales tax on dry cleaning right now, and he knows that if he has all of these taxes put on the materials that he buys for production and processing of his laundry, he will be adding on to his costs and charging to the people more than one percent. It's going to cost more than one percent. So in effect you are putting another percent of sales tax on to the people of Manitoba. Now it's all very well to talk tax shifts , and the Minister

May 3, 1972 1647 MR. FRANK JOHNSTON, (cont'd. ) •..•. said I don't like tax shif ts, No I don't like tax shif ts. I don't like being led through a door where there's a guy standing on the other side with a baseball bat to hit me, and that's basically what you're doing with your tax shift s. And then you add taxes on this particular case. Now Mr. Chairman, it just doesn't seem feasible.

I don't intend to dwell on Versatile, but sure they had some assistance from this government or a guarantee that their loans would be back, and it's admirable that the government is helping industry in this way. -- (Interjection) -- Yes, but, fine, fine. Why turn around after you have helped them out of a problem and then hit them with this? Why hit the rest of the industries in this province with this kind of a tax to lose the advantage that we have at the present time.

Now if the Member from Winnipeg Centre uses the example of 20 cents a year he better stay out of business because he's going to have a hell of a time operating with that way of thinking, because it just won't work. When he starts talking about a $100 item over and $5. 00 tax, and advertising $100 item over 15 years and 20 cents, really, it just doesn't really make sense from that point of view.

It is going to hit maybe a piece of toast if you want to be techni cal about it, if you're buying a commercial toaster which you previously used your licence number to buy and you've got to add the tax, sure you may have to increase your price of toast, I don't know. MR. CHERNIACK: . • • interrupt him to give him an answer on one question he raised. MR. F. JOHNSTON: All right, that's fine. MR.

CHERNIACK: It's confirmed to me what I believed, that the plastic bags and hangers that are provided by laundry and dry cleaning firms with the item cleaned are consider ed to be sold as part of the taxable service and they will purchase them tax exempt. That's one question he . . • MR. F. JOHNSTON : ·T hank you. Mr. Chairman, that's one or two or three answers that we've had in this .whole debate when we bring up a subject. There's a specific question and I got an answer. Now, now - I can go ba ck and I can say to this man, "No you don't have to. 11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The hour being 4:30, the last hour of every day is Private Members' Hour. Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole is considering Bill No. 21 and has instructed me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. . • . . . continued on next page

164 8 May 3, 1972 IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: Order, pleas e. The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, se conded by the Honourable Member for Point Douglas that the report of the Committee be received. MR. SPEAKER pres ented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. PRIVATE MEMBERS ' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: Wednesday, the order on Private Members' hour is Orders for Return transfers for debate.

The first Order for Return transfers for debate is the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie's Order, and the members that have spoken on this item are: the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie; the Honourable First Minister, the Honourable Member for Riel and the Honourable Member for Rhineland. The floor is open. Are you ready for the -- the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie shall be closing debate. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, when the First Minister was sp eaking he made what I thought was a reaso nable suggestion, that paragraph 1 was not acceptable in its form nor was paragraph 3.

So I have prepared an amendment which only deletes, it does not add to the motion. MR, SPEAKER: Order, pleas e. In respect to the suggestion the honourable member is making our rules indicate Orders for Return cannot be amended . MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if there's a method of deleting part of the order and the government said this would be acceptable, perhaps you could . . . MR. SPEAKER: A deletion is . . . MR. G, JOHNSTON: The House Leader or some one could advise me how this could be done. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable the House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the rules would permit that if the mover of the resolution, the Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie, after hearing the remarks of my leader, the Premier, that in respect of this Order for Return, Items No. 1 and 3 would be deleted, I think that it is historic in this House that we don't need any particu lar amendment and thatifthis is acceptable well then that' s all there need be.

It does not re quire, it does not require any formal amendment, it is just an understanding that we will accept the Order for Re turn subject to the res ervations as outlined by the Premier of the Province of Manitoba. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that is acceptable to the Member for Portage la Prairie, there need not be any further debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, on the same point. MR. G, JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , I agree to the suggestion made by the House Leader in that regard and I accept the two deletions , one and three. MR. SPEAKER: Very well. MR.

SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Next item is Address for Papers, transfers for debate. On the pro- pos ed motion of the Honourable Member for Brandon West -- on page 6 at the top. MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, I pres ented this Address to His Honour on behalf of my colleague the Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, this order, this Address for Papers was placed to request the corresp ondence that may have gone between the government and the Manitoba Hydro with respect to the application for the interim licence to regulate Lake Winnipeg.

The request has been turned down, and in view of other information that has been approved by the government, there is I think, a leg itimate question why this particular information should not be tabled as a normal practice because it is not different from other information that has been tabled.

We' ve se en here a willingness on the part of the government in some cases to prese nt informa tion that goes between consultants and government providing the consultants are companies but not if the consultants are individuals , but we've not yet been able to have made available corresp ondence that's gone between the government and the Crown corporations. And Mr. Speaker, if this is going to be the case from here on in, you can se e that the -- (Interjec tion) -- MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour on a point of order. MR.

PAULLEY: On a point of order, the Honourable Member for Riel is debating, not the substance of the Address for Papers but what we have done br what we have not done. I think that is a se parate proposition, Mr. Speaker, because as I read the Order or the Address

May 3, 1972 1649 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ..... for Papers, it reads : "T hat an humble address be voted to His Honour for copies of all correspondence between the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, the Premier or the Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management or any official of that department concerning the application of a licence to regulate Lake Winnipeg.

" We' re not dealing with the propositi()n as to what has been done or what should be done ; we're deal ing with the proposition as to whether or not, as to whether or not copies of all corre spond ence between those mentioned in the Order for Return should be presented. I believe my leader has indicated previously that this will not be forthcoming. I don't think, in all due respect to my friend-from Riel, that it is within his opinion to be repetitious of debates that have already taken place in respect of other corr espondenc e. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel wish to speak on the point of order ?

Well if he doesn' t, I'd like to indicate to the House that we have a problem in regards to these Address for Papers . We have a recurrence, and to some degree overla pping, and I do be lieve I indicated earlier in this sessi on to the House Leader that there was some desi rability to make up our minds whether we're going to address ourselves directly to the -- each address and speak only to that address -- or if we're going to include all of the-m and discuss them in general and then vote on the whole group as a group. Now I would like some further guidance from the Honourable House Leaders on both sides .

The Honourable Member for Morris . MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the problem that you foresee in dealing with the Address for Papers that are standing in the names of the Member for Brandon West and the Member for Riel. I'd like to draw your attention, Sir, to Citation 119 on Page 110 of Beauchesne's rules, and without taking up the time in the House to read the entire citation, Sir, I'd like to deal with subsection (1), just (1) -- Citation 119, on Page 110. Beauchesne says that the rules of absolute rigidity have no place in the House of Co mmons .

And further on, subsec tion 2: "T he mere object of shortening se ssi ons may lead to an undue curtailment of freedom of speech. The duties of a repres entative of parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry.

No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed although some effort ought to be made to economize time, every shade of opinion has the right to find expression and members who desire to give their views should not be prevented from doing so ." And therein lies -- I know the difficulty that you foresee because some of the Orders for Return have a degree of simil arity and there is a possi bility of overlapping.

But I assure you, Sir, that it is not the intention of members of this side of the House to overlap debate in dealing with the various Orders for Return, but there are specific subjects that must be dealt with in each of the Orders for Return and the Member for Riel is attempting to deal with this specific one.

I'd like to go on further down, Subsection 2 of Ci tation 119 where it says: "F reedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there' s a place where it should be fully respected that place is in the parliament of the nation and it is the Speaker' s res ponsibility to see that that principle is not infringed upon. 11 And on subsection 3 of that same Citation, it says : "Rele- ' vancy is not easy to define, 11 -- and here is where you, Sir, run into som e difficulty. "A wrong comprehension of it may have a serious effect on the freedom of speech.

Members are often deprived of their right to speak on the pretext that their remarks are irrelev ant when it is a matter of fact they refer to matters perhaps remote but yet related, even indirectly, to the question under debate. In borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt." In this Citation, Sir, Beauchesne attempts to point out, he's not suggesting -- I don't believe that he's suggesting any degree of latitude. Relevancy is always an important part of the conduct of debates in this Chamber and members as much as possi ble should adhere to the rules of relevancy.

Sir, subject to the limitations of the rule of relev ancy and taking into considera tion Beauchesne•s strictures on the subject, may I suggest, Sir, that the Member for Riel was within the rule as defined by Beauchesne in Ci tation 119. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I appr eciate very much the remarks made by my honourable friend, the Member for Morris, the House Leader of the Conserv ative Party. But my point, Mr. Speaker, that I raised was not de aling with rel evancy at all.

My point de alt with repetition and when the Honourable Member for Riel was speaking he made refer ence to decis ions that have already been made in this House in rejection of certain Addresses for Papers. And he re.ferred and if I recall correctly, Mr. Speaker, what he said -- I may not be quoting him accurately but I think this was the general viewpoint of my honourable

1650 May 3, 1972 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) . . . . . friend. He said -- subject to correction of course -- I cannot see why it was that some of my Address for Papers were rejected and this , that and the other. That was what made me, Mr. Speaker, ris e on the point of order . I appreciate, I appreciate very much the viewpoints raised by the Honourable Member for Morris . And to go further , Mr. Speaker, as a guideline, on Page 111 of Beauchesne, it says : "Re levancy is not easy to define. " And I appreciate that, I appreciate it very much. And it is, Mr.

Speaker, a very hard thing to define and I don• t think any member in this House will dispute that. But my point of order, may I say in all due respect to the House Leader of the Co nservative Party, did not deal precis ely with rule 119 but rather dealt with the rules of debate on

Chapter 3 on Page 107, which dealt with referring to matters that had already been decided upon. And that is where my honourable friend the Member for Riel really started his debate because he said -- I cannot understand why it was that the questions raised - and incidentally defeated, Mr. Speaker, on former Address for Papers could not be considered. lt' s on that point that I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a point of order . MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable gentlemen for their contributions to the pro ce dural point.

I would concur that there is some validity to the Honourable Minister of Labour's remarks in regards to repetition. I should also like to indicate that it also almost as valid that I must allow a lot of latitude in this debate, but I should also like to indicate to the honourable members that are going to participate that I shall leave it to their integrity to stay within our rules and to try not to be repetitive or to repeat on a different Address for Papers the same argument. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

There is plenty of meat in the request for the papers and there is no need to talk about other conditions so I will restrict my comments to the Order for Return. The point that I was trying to get to in my remarks before was that there should be disclosure generally, including disclosure in this particular case of corres pondence between a government and its Crown corporations, particularly, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be faced with more and more Crown corporations.

If we are not allowed to ask for corres pondence betWeen the government, to and from them, we are going to be in the position of not being able to get information. Therefore it's defeating as far as the democra tic proces s is concerned. But to speak in particular to this res olution here, in the fall of 1970 the government and the Hydro decided that they should advertise for the poss ibility of regulating Lake Winnipeg and as a result ofthe advertising an interim licence was granted. At that time when the ad vertisement came out it was in fact, Mr.

Speaker, advertised by Manitoba Hydro and not by the Manitoba Water Commis sion. The advertisement that came out in the newspaper at that time said that if any citizens that were concerned -- were so inclined -- that they should address remarks to the Manitoba Water Cpmmiss ion, but the advertisement was placed by Manitoba Hydro which was an unusual procedure to begin with.

Well, as a result of that we were advised at the next ses sion of the Legislature by the then Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that only ten or twelve letters had been rece ived and therefore the government felt fully justified in holding or advancing an interim lice nce. "I nterim" , Mr.

Speaker, because it contained all the es.sential powers that a full and permanent licence would contain, for all intents and purposes , because the government then decided that it would not hold its hearings according to the requirements as defined in the Manitoba Water Commission Act, but would hold a series of meetings in Manitoba. Well, as a result of the meetings, Mr. Speaker, we saw that there were more than ten or twelve people that were concerned about the regulation of Lake Winnipeg. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Minister of Labour. MR.

PAULLEY: I don' t like to interfere with my honourable friend, the Member for Riel. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Honourable Minister indicate what he is speaking to? MR. PAULLEY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Very well. MR. PAULLEY : The resolution that we have before us deals with whether or not copies of corresp ondence between the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, the Premier or the Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management or any official of that

( May 3, 1972 1651 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ... .. department CoQcerning the-application .. I don't think that it is really proper, Mr. Speaker, for my honourable friend to go into a documentary as to what happened at any meeting of the Water Control Board or the Hydro Electric Board or the Labour Relations Board or anything else. The proposition, Mr. Speaker, I say in all due respect, before us at the present time as to whether or not copies of this correspondence will be laid before this House and that is all.

We don't have to have, I say in all due respect, the type of diss ertation that my honourable friend is giving us and I raise that as a point of order for the conduct, and the orderly conduct of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The.Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the House Leader, l don't know bow far the House Leader wants to go to restrict debate in this Chamber.

The I Member for Riel, I think, was dealing precisely with the point that is contained in this Address for Papers and if making reference to meetings held by Hydro rela,ting to the application for an interim licence to regulate Winnipeg -- and we recall that there were such meetings that were held.

It is perfectly proper. to make reference to those meetings because it is part and. parcel of the whole reason for wanting the correspondence tabled and if we are to restrict de- bate simply to whether or not the correspondence should be tabled, I think that is a .complete violation of the Citation that I read into the record-just a few moments ago dealing with rele vancy and dealing with undue restriction of debate.

Sir, the Member for Riel is not violating l that regulation or that Ci tation, and in my opinion is sticking strictly to the matter that is before the House at the present time with regards to the correspondence that has been asked I to be tabled. I see no violation of that rule at the present time. \ MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. , MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in all deference to my honourable friend, and I do credit him with· a lot of knowledge as to parliamentary procedure, but we're riot dealing with what · l happened or what transpired, Mr.

Speaker, in.any of these areas -- the Water Control Board, the Hydro Board. The Honourable Member for Riel by this Address -- really it's not thfi! Member for Riel, it's the Member for Brandon West, is seeking copies of correspo,ndence in . order to establish in their opinion whether or not there is justific"ation for criticism. A�d·I, · · in all d

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-64
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 64.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a754d038a05f34d20c07677d7c44388be60bd123

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