Manitoba Hansard — 21 May 1970 (Sitting 84, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-84

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Ben Hanuschak Vol. XVII No. 84 8:00p.m., Thursday, May 21st, 1970. Second Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

ELECTORAL DIVISION ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA Bl RTLE-RUSSELL BRANDON EAST BRANDON WEST BURROWS CHARLESWOOD CHURCHILL CRESCENTWOOD DAUPHIN ELMWOOD EMERSON FLIN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI GLADSTONE INKSTER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKESIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA MORRIS OSBORNE PEMBINA POINT DOUGLAS PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE RADISSON RHINELAND RIEL RIVER HEIGHTS ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROSSMERE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFA<;:E ST. GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. JOHNS ST. MATTHEWS ST. VITAL STE.

ROSE SELKIRK SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-KILLARNEY SPRINGFIELD STURGEON CREEK SWAN RIVER THE PAS THOMPSON TRANSCONA VIRDEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY NAME J. Douglas Watt Steve Patrick Harry E. Graham Hon. Leonard S. Evans Edward McGill Hon. Ben Hanuschak Arthur Moug Gordon Wilbert Beard Cy Gonick Hon. Peter Burtniak Russell J. Doern Gabriel Girard Thomas Barrow L. R. (Bud) Sherman Mrs. Inez Trueman John C. Gottfried James Robert Ferguson Hon. Sidney Green, O.C. Peter Fox Hon. Sam Uskiw Harry J. Enns Leonard A. Barkman William Jenkins Walter Weir Warner H.

Jorgenson ian Turnbull George Henderson Donald Malinowski Gordon E. Johnston Harry Shafransky Jacob M. Froese Donald W. Craik Sidney Spivak, Q.C. J. Wally McKenzie Henry J. Einarson Hon. Ed. Schreyer Jean Allard Laurent L. Desjardins William Uruski Hon. A. H. Mackling, Q.C. Hon. Saul Cherniack, Q.C. Wally Johannson J. A. Hardy Gildas Molgat Hon. Howard Pawley Hon. Saul A. Miller Earl McKellar Hon. Rene E. Toupin Frank Johnston James H. Bilton Ron McBryde Hon. Joseph P. Borowski Hon. Russell Paulley Morris McGregor Hon. Philip Petursson J. R. (Bud) Boyce Leonard H.

Claydon ADDRESS Reston, Manitoba 10 Red Robin Place, Winnipeg 12 Binscarth, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon, Man. 11 Aster Ave., Winnipeg 17 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg 20 148 Riverside Drive, Thompson, Man. 115 Kingsway, Winnipeg 9 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 705 - 33 Kennedy St., Winnipeg 1 25 Lomond Blvd., St. Boniface 6 Cranberry Portage, Manitoba 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg 9 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg 9 44 - 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man.

Gladstone, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 627 Prince Rupert Ave., Winnipeg 15 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Woodlands, Manitoba Box 130, Steinbach, Man. 1287 Alexander Ave., Winnipeg 3 Room 250, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Box 185, Morris, Man. 284 Wildwood Park, Winnipeg 19 Manitou, Manitoba 361 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg 4 Room 248, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 4 Maplehurst Rd., St. Boniface 6 Box 40, Winkler, Manitoba 2 River Lane, Winnipeg 8 1516 Mathers Bay, West, Winnipeg 9 Inglis, Manitoba Glenboro, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 602 - 245 Provencher Ave., St.

Boniface 6 357 Des Meurons St., St. Boniface 6 Box 629, Arborg, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 15- 500 Burnell St., Winnipeg 10 11 Glenlawn Ave., Winnipeg 8 463 Kingston Crescent, Winnipeg 8 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Nesbitt, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg 12 Swan River, Manitoba 531 Greenacres Blvd., Winnipeg 12 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Kenton, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg 3 116% Sherbrook St., Winnipeg 1

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Thursday, May 21, 1970 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 2139 MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we begin, I would like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where there is a group of 22 Ste. Bernadette Girl Guides. The group is under the guidance of Mrs. MacKenzie, Miss Gillis and Miss Murphy. These guides are all from the constituency of the Honourable Member for Radisson. On behalf of the Members of the Assembly, we welcome you here this evening. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Industry and Commerce.

The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Chairman, --(Interjection)-- it's a good Tory blue color in case there's any question. Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of starting ail over again. I did not complete my remarks and I did not intend to be here this evening but I felt I should conclude my remarks, particularly as a result of some comments that were made by the Minister of Finance, and although they may not be recorded in Hansard, during the dinner hour I felt that they required some elaboration and some answer and I would like to, in the few moments left to me, to deal with them.

I attempted to try and present the Minister of Industry and Commerce with some construc tive observations and suggestions. I suggested that he try to influence his party, his Cabinet and his caucus not to go into a government monopoly position on the auto insurance industry because his job is to create jobs in Manitoba, not to take them away, and I suggest that there wlll be a loss for many people in Manitoba of their jobs.

I suggest, as well, that there is a shortage of job opportunities in this province and he is in the same position that I was, that we have to fight like hell to create jobs in this province and you really don't do that much, or you don't put an effort out to in fact change job opportunities and take people's jobs away from them. We have 17, 000 people who are looking for jobs in Manitoba, and I would suggest that he use his influence to try and convince the members on the opposite side of the correctness of my position and of his responsibility to develop job opportunities in this province.

The second suggestion I made to him was that he indicate to the government that if in fact South Indian Lake is going to be flooded as the Minister of Transportation has suggested, that at least it be done immediately so that in fact the Nelson River project would be speeded up, so that there would be additional job opportunities developed and created in the construction field with respect to the Nelson River project.

I pointed out that as between this year and last year, in the same time, there are 900 less jobs- those were the figures presented to the Public Utilities Committee -- 900 less jobs in construction as a result of the delay, procrastination on the part of the government in connection with this project, and it is necessary for the economic development of this province and to be able to retain our people and to give tpem an opportunity- we're going to do it in any case- let's get on with the job and get it done now.

I also suggest, and the Minister of Agriculture is not here, that the government get off the back of the Agra processing field, the people who are involved in the processing field in agriculture. Stop blaming them for the problems in agriculture; stop blaming suggested activities as being responsible for lack of action on your part. We need the processing indus tries in this province; we need them if agriculture is going to be able to diversify correctly and to develop; and we need them on a basis of their making a contribution to our economic life.

If the rules are not correct in terms of the protection of the small farm, then I suggest the logical thing is to introduce the kind of legislation that will prevent vertical integration, that would prevent a situation developing whereby the small farmer is taken advantage of by any large processing firm, and those rules in fact can be changed and it's up to the government to take and develop their course of action. Now I'd like to come to the one recommendation that I did not elaborate on and which I would like to deal with in some length, and that's the question of the Department of Economic Development.

It's my suggestion that the Department of Industry and Commerce be changed, not the way in which it was suggested by the Member for Crescentwood which was to emasculate it and to in fact do away with it, I would suggest that the Department of Industry become the Department of Economic Development, that in turn it incorporate the Department of Tourism

2140 May 21, 1970 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) . . • . . and that RE~creatlon be separated from it, that incorporate the Department of Youth and Manpower; and further, that the Department of Transport go back to the Department of Highways, which is really what it is now, and at least let transportation matters which really essentially are economic matters now today be handled by a department and by a Minister who at least will have some global view - and the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface would like to be that Minister, but as we know, he's going to be the Chairman of the Auto Insurance that the government is going to be operating, so I don't see how-- I know Mr. Cass-Beggs is talented enough to hold two jobs, I'm not sure that the Honourable Member for St. Boniface is talented to hold three jobs. MR. DESJARDINS: Put in a word for me. MR. SPIVAK: Now with respect to the Department of Economic Development and the proposal that I bring forth ... MR. CHERNIACK: How about agriculture? MR. SPIVAK: I'm now going to talk agriculture and this is the reason why I'm here.

I want the Minister of Finance to know that the reason I'm here is because I didn't have an opportunity to try and develop what is necessary with respect to this overall concept of the Department of Economic Development.

It would seem to me that within the Department of Economic Development there must be a committee made up of the Ministers, the Deputy Minis ters and the Directors who are involved in the economic industrial activity, and I would suggest that there has to be in the department proposed, the Department of Economic Development, a committee made up and headed by the Minister of Industry and Commerce but consisting as well of the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources and the Minister of Agriculture, and I think that the economic planning that has to take place has got to come as a result of the three Ministers and their deputies meeting together and in fact dealing with economic matters and in fact planning.

My point in being here tonight is to suggest to the Minister of Finance that in this way the Minister of Agriculture would not be aloof from the overall economic objectives of the province and would have some understanding of the real problems involved in making things happen and could in that way make a contribution.

Now the reason for suggesting a Department of Economic Development is because this is a natural outgrowth of economic planning and a Department of Industry and Commerce, and rather than again waiting until we know which Minister, at what time, will be standing or sitting in the place of the present Minister of Industry and Commerce and telling us what plans are going to be forthcoming, because! don't think Manitoba can wait until the government really has made up its mind as to how they're going to go and who's going to be where and who's going to be sitting in what position and in fact carrying out the responsibilities.

I would suggest to you that the change has to be made because it's in the interests of the people of Manitoba that there be some direction given. There is no direction in transportation matters being given in this province by the Minister of Transportation, by the Railway Commissioner or the Minister of Industry and Commerce. All you have in transportation matters is a fragmented effort - fragmented effort.

The Minister of Transportation is a good Minister of Highways - he gets his picture taken in the paper, he's putting up signs, he's talking about licence plates, that's fine, but that's not the concept of a Minister of Transportation that's needed in 1970.

What is needed is someone who is going to have a global view of the total economic development of this province and a global view of what's happening in Canada, and as it happens, the only person that really has this knowledge on the other side and the person who I would have faith in, happens to be the First Minister because he did have the opportunity of sitting on a Committee on Transportation in the House of Commons and he has made a contribution to those debates- and I've had an opportunity of reading his comments while I was the Minister - and he has this capability.

But I don't scent anyone on the other side, and it would seem to me that if we do not have anyone on the other side as capable, at least structure it so you will have the civil servants who will be capable of doing it and you'll have the civil servants who have the depth of knowledge, the understanding that can make a contribution in this field. Aod-t.his is true of tourism -as well. Touxism. is one of our great potentials in'f.hfs ~ --iDee.

Tourism affects our economic development, our economic life, and it's oneof.OUl',g~ ·qlpOl"tnnities and It's not going to be developed to its potential -- (Interjemion) -- I wtU in a tew minutes. It will not develop our potential the way It's structured now, with the way in fact --it's operating. We have a fine person in the person of the Minister of Tourism and Recreatiml,

May 21, 1970 • 2141 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ....• but-- (Interjection)-- I beg your pardon? --(Interjection)- Well, Cy is an adviser. We have a nice person, but in terms of what is required, tll.eth:ruS that's necessary with respect to tourism, I can't see this happening, and therefore I would sug, gest that the Department of Economic Development be created.

Now the other suggestion which I'd like to deal with in a little bit greater depth than I did before was the concept of a Manitoba Development Corporation. -- (Interjection) -- Well, I'd like if I could-- I wonder if the First Minister would allow me, I'll answer all questions. - (Interjection) -- I'm not intending to distort, I'm just explaining my position. You may distort; I will not.

I suggest the time has come for a Manitoba Development Corporation to be created that will be funded by people who are prepared, Manitobans who are prepared to contribute money in the corporation, that many of the dollar of the year men that the Minister of Industry and Commerce feels he can attract, and I think he can, would be quite prepared in the interest of developing Manitoba to take a responsibility and to give of their time to carry through the development corporation. The development corporation would be a voluntary thing. That is to say, people can con tribute or they do not have to contribute.

The concept of a Crown corporation means that we are going to obligate all of Manitoba to in fact invest in a specific project. The concept of the development corporation is that a development corporation made up of individuals in this prov ince who will prepare to contribute part of their money by way of capital, are in a position to share in the profits that can be achieved as a result of the action of many private individuals who in fact will give of their time and energy and their experience to help make things happen in Manitoba.

Now we know that the Department of Industry and Commerce over the years has been successful in identifying specific proposals for development opportunities in industrial activity in Manitoba. Some of these have been able to be sold to investors in Manitoba, to people out side of Manitoba and Canada, outside of Canada into the United States and Europe. They do not have to be sold to them because we're quite capable of having some of our entrepreneurs do this provided they have the support and the encouragement and the creative climate which will en courage them to do this.

And I would say to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, had I been in his place today, the concept of a Manitoba Development Corporation in the terms that I am talking about would have been introduced because there were very meaningful discus sions held with people of prominence in this community, who have been extremely successful in their field, who would have been quite prepared to have both "invested significant sums of money and to have given the leadership, and we then would have had the opportunity of developing in Manitoba ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the honourable member that apparently he has spoken for half an hour before the break and should. in keeping with the general rule, attempt to wind up his comments. He is able to rise and make further comments later. MR. WATT: On a point of order, the Chalrman, before the supper hour, did not indicate that the member had spoken for 30 minutes and that he only would have 10 left. He took his seat and he is now maklng another speech I suggest. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I had no intention of speaking-- I'll tie my comments up as best I can and let the questions lead into further comments. I think the thrust of what I've said in connection with the development corporation has been indicated and I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on that. I will if there are any questions. I indicated before, and I indicate now, that in my opinion the government should finance a convention centre in downtown Winnipeg immediately.

It's $4 million, it's $5 million, I wouldn't wait until a private entrepreneur-- I think it should be done immediately and I think it's con sistent with the development of the -- (Interjection) -- Well, you say 8, I say 5, if you have meaningful information that would indicate 8, then I think I'd be interested in hearing your comments on it. I suggest as well that there be a program for a Manitoba Regional Development Program and a Northern Development Plan.

I suggest, and I'm sorry the Member from Crescentwood oh, he is here but he's not in his place- that if we're going to have developments occur in the rural areas of this province, if we're going to have some of the small centres become growth centres, if we're going to be able to in fact develop industrial activity in all our regions in Manitoba and in the smaller areas, we are going to have to have an incentive program. And anyone that suggests that we cannot do this without an incentive program is mistaken, and that

2142 May 21, 1970 (MR. SPIVAK cont' d) . . . • • incentive program will have to be over and above what the Federal Government is offering. I'm suggesting that this plan has to be developed in order to be able to draw industry, small and large, to the growtlt centres that have in fact been identified in the regional areas.

I suggest as well that in order to devel~ the north and to be able to get secondary industry into the north, there has to be a Northern Devel~ment Plan and not a plan that says Federal Government money is available and that's what we'll be given, but money that will be forthcoming from a government program to be announced. The last conclusion I made, and I repeat it again, I believe the Manitoba Development Fund should now be in a position and instructed to loan money on major commercial developments in the core area of Winnipeg.

These developments will not take place because mortgage money has not been made available to them. It's tight in Canada, it's particularly tight in Manitoba ... MR. SCHREYER: Exclusively loan capital or what? MR. SPIVAK: I said loan capital, yes, I said loan capital. I suggest as well that in doing this, in doing this it will give the entrepreneurs in Manitoba who have tried to develop the various core projects im opportunity to carrying through ... MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . the honourable member to conclude his comments. MR.

SPIVAK: Yes, I will--to·be able to complete them because the only alternative for them is to look outside the province and to try and use their entrepreneurship elsewhere and I don't think that's in the best interests of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the honourable member if he would- well, he indicated he would answer questions. He was speaking about loan capital to the centre core development. Would he indicate what percentage investment he would recommend as a ceiling for loan capital? MR.

SPIVAK: In terms of what the Manitoba Development Fund should loan to a commer cial project in the downtown area? MR. CHERNIACK: . . . percent. MR. SPIVAK: Oh, I would say that the percentage would be the same percentage that a mortgage company would loan under British Canadian Insurance Act which would be approxi mately 75 percent. MR. CHERNIACK: You wouldn't recommend going above that to say 90 or 95 or 100? MR. SPIVAK: No. I think that in terms of the core area, what the entrepreneurs need today is mortgage money. They don't particularly want mortgage money from the government, they want mortgage money.

It's not available and I think that they would be quite prepared to take it on the same terms and conditions as is offered by the mortgage companies had money been available in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minlster. MR. SCHREYER: The Honourable Member for River Heights indicated that he would answer a question or two and the two questions that I'd like to direct to him are the following.

First, with respect to his suggestion that we adopt the global approach with respect to govern mental organization for industrial and economic development and establish a Department of Economic Development transforming the Department of Industry and Commerce, I'd like to ask the honourable member whether there are some disadvantages to this which he would care to articulate. I assume that there are some because if there weren't, I just take it that he would have made this proposal a year or two or three ago and had it into effect by now. MR.

SPIVAK: Well, I think I can answer the Honourable First Minister by suggesting that this proposal, not in the form that I addressed myself today but certainly as a suggestion, was in the process of being developed, was considered, and I would suggest to the Honourable First Minlster that had I had the opportunity of sitting on the other side, I think probably it would have been introduced this session. MR. SCHREYER: The other question, Mr. Speaker, is in much the same vein.

The Honourable Member for River Heights suggested that it would be better to have all transporta tion matters come under the aegis of the Department of Transportation rather than having rail matters dealt with by the Commissioner c!' Ra~lways for the province and air policy, to the extent that the province has any impact on air policy, come under the aegis of the Department of Industry and highway matters come under the Department of Highways. Again, could the honourable member indicate how long, for how long under the previous administration all transportation matters were integrated under one department?

2143 May 21, 1970 MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting item and requires a bit of explanation.

I think there has been an evolution in Manitoba with respect to transportation matters the same kind of evolution that occurred in other provinces, particularly the Province of Ontar 1 io, and it's only recently that- lt is only in recent times at least that governments have recognized, provincial goverJllllents have recognized, that highways are more than just high ways, they are in fact roads that lead to market and roads that in fact lead from the markets back to the area where people live, and where in fact they manufacture and they produce their own raw products, and in turn there was a recognition as well, there was a limit of money that was available and with the significant change that was taking place with respect to transportation matters on the part of the Federal Government with the creation and development of Bill 3231 and ultimately a national Transportation Act, with which the First Minister is fairly well informed, is fairly well informed on this subject, that there was a recognition that there had to be in fact a change.

The proposal that the previous government had followed was the development of the Department of Transportation with a Minister who in fact would be responsible for overseeing this total aspect. In fact it was suggested that the matters would be transferred from the then Department of Industry and Commerce and the few officials that they had ultimately so that all matters would in fact be handled by the new Department of Transportation.

And with respect to air matters, because the Department of Industry and Commerce was involved in the Air Canada Overhaul Base, it was felt it would be necessary to leave it until this matter was suc cessfully resolved. And it was resolved, it was resolved in the past year, finally in the term of the present government, but to a large extent in the latter stages of the previous government.

Now we have a very interesting and a very colourful Minister of Transportation who a few days ago gave us a lesson in the Scopes trial again-- (Interjection) -- but nevertheless he has indicated, he has indicated in a very definitive way that he has an interest in highway mat ters and he is attempting to use his talents, and he is using his talents, to be able to carry through those matters, but his concept of transportation is not the concept of transportation that I'm talking about, and of necessity-- (Interjection) -- that's right . . . MR. BOROWSKI: It's not going to be. MR.

SPIVAK: It's not going to be- agreed. He has the concept of transportation being the Minister of Highways, and on that basis I don't think that we can afford this moratorium while the Minister of Transportation carries out his highway matters. I think the government recognized that because they pulled rail matters from him and they gave it to the Minister of Government Services and the Railway Commissioner whose experience in railway matters really relate to the fact that he happened to work for a railway at one time. Now the truth of the matter is . . . MR. CHERNIACK: What's your experience? MR.

SPIVAK: My experience? I want to indicate to the Minister of Finance I did not have any experience, but we had available to us as Counsel for the province probably one of the most experienced, one of the most articulate and knowledgeable people in Canada, there's no question about this, and he had together with him a group of expertise outside of the civil service who were probably the finest group of expertise in transportation in Canada, and as a result I had the opportunity of dealing with a group of capable people who were in a position to guide the department and guide me . . . MR.

CHERNIACK: ... is he no longer available? MR. SPIVAK: I don't know whether he's no longer available, but as far as I know the contact with the counsel, the contact with those who were the experts have in fact been broken, and the railway matters are now being handled by the Railway Commissioner and I believe a member of the legal staff of the Attorney-General who at the time he assumed his responsibil ities was as knowledgeable as the Minister of Finance was in connection with railway matters and freight rate structure. So I suggest . . . MR. CHERNIACK: That's proof he can learn. MR.

SPIVAK: Well, that's proof that he can learn, but my suggestion to the Minister of Finance and the First Minister is, really has Manitoba got, you know, do we really have the time, do we really have the time to have your Ministers and you people learn the problems of transportation, railway freight matters, air matters, or was leadership necessary to resolve the particular problem, recognizing the abilities and capabilities-- and I'm not trying in any way at this point to diminish from any capabllities, but recognizing the limitations that were . in fact in front of you-- and would it not have been better to have taken transportation matters

2144 May 21, 1970 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... and to have developed them along the way I suggested. I'm saying to you that I don't think that Manitoba can afford to have transportation matters in limbo as it is now -- (Interjection) -- Let me just say this. I really do not think, I do not think that we can afford to have economic development in the hands of the people we now have it in be cause I suggest to you that we do not have the time for the Member for Crescentwood ••. MR. EVANS: I was in charge of the transportation unit and Chief of the Public Utilities

section for eight years at DBS in Ottawa and I know plenty of people in the Canadian Transpor tation Commission. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the Minister protests too much. I suggest again that Manitoba really can't afford, you know, the luxury of having the Member from Crescent wood stand up in this session, as he did in the last session, and tell us we still have to work out our economic development plan . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the honourable member that he has concluded his 40 minutes. He's now been speaking for seven or eight minutes on an answer.

I think he's getting back off the topic here. He was asked a specific question. I think he's now going back into a general comment. I wouls ask him not to begin another speech. MR. WALTER WEIR (Leader of the Opposition)(Minnedosa): Mr. Spe!lker, might we just enter into the point of order because once another member enters into debate in any way, shape or form in committee, the honourable member is entitled to another 40 minutes if he so desires. MR. GREEN: On the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the Honourable the First Minister asked a question and he hardly anticipated that this would require a 40 minute response. It was a question asked of a person who had given an address. I don't think it opens up for another 40 minute speech. MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, in debate I would think that if another member enters in the debate in between, that it opens it up for another 40 minutes if the member desires. MR. GREEN: The First Minister, with respect, Mr. Chairman, did not enter into debate, he got up and asked a question which is done not only in committee but during debates in the House.

MR. WEIR: Mr. Chairman, even if that was a fact, the Minister of Industry and Com merce certainly did enter the debate. It wasn't a question. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we found out what was wrong with the transportation industry in Canada because he had so much to do with it for eight whole years. Mr. Chairman, if he hasn't entered the debate, I have, and my colleague, if he's recognized has another 40 minutes now. . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, by following the rule that has just been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and having been recognized by the Chair, I'm going to use my opportunity if to do nothing else, to stop another 40 minute speech on behalf of the Member for., .. MR. WATT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Is the honourable member speaking on the point of order or is he speaking on the estimate debate? MR. GREEN: I've been recognized by the Chair and I intend to speak. MR. WATT: On a point of order? MR. GREEN: No, not on a point of order. I never asked for the Chair on a point of order.

I asked for the Chair on the basis that the Leader of the Opposition said that he had now entered into the debate; he sat down; I got up and now I can enter into the debate. MR. CHAIRMAN: I then recognize the House Leader as a participant in the debate. MR. WATT: Has the point of order been settled? Has there been a ruling by the Speaker? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I believe that I just said, for the benefit of the Member for Arthur, that the House Leader indicated he wished to speak and I am in fact now recognizing him as a participant. MR. WATT: The point of order then has been settled, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to put you on a spot, Mr. Chairman, but I have been there at times and the same point of order has been raised. MR. CHAIRMAN: And what is your point of order? MR. WATT: I want to know what your ruling is on the point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

May 21, 1970 2145 MR. WATT: The point of order was raised by yourself, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the Member from River Heights has spoken 40 minutes and that he had exhausted his time. I say in committee, and I'm talking now on the point of order, that there is no such thing as exhausting your time in 40 minutes. You may sit down and if you get up and the Chairman, you, Mr. Chairman recognize the speaker, he may speak another 40 minutes. The point has been raised from time to time and . . . MR.

CHAIRMAN: On that point I would regard the continuation - first of all I might point out that the Honourable Member for River Heights in fact went some 50 minutes in his state ment and then was asked several questions, and I would regard the questions and the responses as not in fact being new material, or new speeches, but rather as questions following upon his earlier address and then when that was conluded I would regard that as his contribution. Then there was a little point of order debate and finally the House Leader indicated he wished to speak and I think that's the stage we are now at.

Now the Member for Roblin may have another point of order. MR. McKENZIE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman,' for your remarks which added much to the debate. This is a point of order that I have wondered about for a long time. Am I entitled, when I speak, every time one of the members on the opposite benches ask me a ques tion, to go another 40 minutes? I think it is a point of order that has to be clarified sooner or later, because in most times, Mr. ~eaker, when I stand on my feet, I'm asked many questions and I could likely speak here all day. I hope you will clarify this point, Mr. Chairman, before we continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I thought that I did. I would believe, that in my judgment when a member concludes 40 minutes and is asked several questions and he responds to them, I would not regard that as another opportunity to go another 40 minutes. I would regard that as strictly a continuation. -- (Interjection) -- The Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: On the point of order. You mi:gbJJ take the matter under consideration and adjourn the House in the meantime. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ignore that comment. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the most compelling reason for me having gotten Up on the floor to enter into the debate has now dissipated itself so I don't intend to take much longer than did my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, when he entered the debate. I believe that the Honourable the Member for River Heights, in making his remarks today, demonstrated not only his total ignorance in the area of economics and economic develop ment but he also demonstrated his ignorance both of the workings not only of this government, but worse still, the government of which he happened to have been a Minister.

Because if he had not been ignorant of those matters, Mr. Speaker, he would not be talking about an economic development approach involving a series of ministers which would be responsible for creating a program for the Province of Manitoba as something which has to be brought into existence. It's something, Mr.

Speaker, that if it was not in existence prior to the creation of this govern ment -- and he is the best to know that and if he says it wasn't in existence, then !Jake his , word for it-- but the terms and conditions upon which the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet is set up, has exactly those frames of reference, and if they didn't use it that way, and his remarks lead me to believe that they didn't, then I want him to know that what he is suggesting is happening within the frame of reference of this government, that there is an economic and social planning committee, that that particular function is designated to the Committee of Planning and Priorities, which is a holdover from the previous government.

I'm glad that the honourable ~ember indicated that there is somebody in this government who has an ovel":" all approach. He indicated that the First Minister does have that over-all approach.

I would like him to know, if he doesn't know, that the First Minister for that very reason and merely to demonstrate the importance which is placed on this particular function, is the Chairman of that Committee and that Committee is doing exactly what the honourable mem ber suggests that we should do eight months after we had taken office-- in other words, it's come to him a little late-- and suggests we should do what his committee had the terms of reference to do since it was created, \\hich was in the fall of 1968. It merely demonstrates, Mr.

Speaker, either ignorance of \\hat they were supposed to do or a revealing indication that they weren't doing. I'm sorry that the honourable member, who apparently has forgotten that the great Lord gave us two ears and one mouth so that we should listen twice as much as we talk, is not here to listen to what anybody else has to say. He makes his submission, and he flies away, because he doesn't think that there is anything to be learned from the processes

2146 May 21, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd) •.• of democracy. And that's exactly the way he acted, Mr. Speaker, when he was the Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce. Let's remember what his main theme was when he was the Minister. Here he was talking about the strong foundation which he was creating for the Province of Manitoba. He was talking about the solid framework which he was setting, but if the least word came from the Opposition benches about some problem that existed within the economy, what was the Minister's response?

His response was, Don't you people in the Opposition know that when you make that kind of remark, that you do great damage to the future economy of the Province of Manitoba? Mr. Speaker, that was his frame of reference and he says that his economic program was so weak that the least word from the Opposition would have it collapse like a house of cards. That's the kind of program that he was talking about and that's the kind of program which he is intending to initiate from that side of the House to be carried on from this government. Mr. Speaker, we just won't buy it.

The fact is that by his very remarks throughout the session and by his very remarks earlier today, he is doing everything which he says would create chaos if it was done by the Opposition which preceded him. Now that can only have one of two meanings, Mr. Speaker.

Either he is deliberately intending to create economic chaos -- and we can't attribute that to him; we don't want to attribute that kind of motive to the honourable member because we wouldn't say that the Honourable Member for River Heights is deliberately attempt ing to create economic chaos -- or what is more likely, is that he knows that he has so much confidence in the future economy of this province as handled by this government tbat he knows that it doesn't matter what he said or what any of them said, it will continue to be a strong economy and therefore he can sav what he wants to say with extreme optimism.

Mr. Speaker, that's what we said to him when we were in Opposition, that that's the kind of economy. that must be created by a government party. And any government that bases its economic approach on the basis of the fact that the opposition must cheer or the economy will fall down doesn't have a very sound foundation; and I would repeat, Mr. Chairman, we are not about to· adopt the kind of foundation that has been suggested by my honourable friend. My honourable friend said only one more thing that I'm going to comment on this evening.

I hope that there will be an opportunity when he is in the House because I doJ;J't attribute the same degree of ignorance to other members in the House as I do to him and therefore they don't need the kind of dialogue that he needs obviously to learn something, and I'm not going to belabour them with it. But one thing that he did say and which has been picked up by honour able members opposite from time to time is that 2000 jobs, roughly, in the insurance industry are being eliminated, and it costs, I think he said $30, 000 to create a new job.

Therefore he indicates that we not go into this public automobile insurance program because It will have the effect of eliminating 2000 jobs which are very hard to come by. By that I take it, Mr.

Speaker, that without saying it he implies that the insurance industry in this province can be more efficiently operated and can be operated with 2000 less people, and that in fact those 2000 jobs although they are jobs are not really productive ones in that they do not contribute anything to the province of Manitoba; and what he is saying is that even if they are not productive, they are jobs and therefore they should continue. Mr. Speaker, let's examine that. Are 2000 jobs really that hard to create under his terms of reference?

That is that you create 2000 jobs, it doesn't matter whether they are productive or they are not productive, the fact is, that they are 2000 jobs and these are valued at $30,000 per job. Well if we were to adopt that approach, Mr. Speaker, then there is no problem at ail in creating the jobs.

My honourable friend says that if we would have difficulty creating 2000 jobs, the Leader of the Opposition knows better, the former Minister of Mines and Resources knows better, even the Leader of the Liberal Party although he hasn't been in the government benches, he knows better, because we could create those jobs merely by complying with the demands that are presented to us every year by the administration of this province who say that they need more staff to do the job that they feel has to be done within this province.

How many jobs did the Minister of Health and Social Services deny to his staff oo the basis that the fiscal capacity to provide those jobs is just not there? Mr. Speaker, not only could we create 2000 jobs, but we could go one better. MR. ENNS: You could raise the taxes ... MR. GREEN: Well, the 2000 jobs, -- (Interjection) -- do you think that the 2000 jobs that the Member for River Heights is talking about creating don't cost anything? MR. ENNS: No they also pay taxes, my friend.

May 21, 1970 2147 MR. GREEN: But are you telling me . . . MR. ENNS: They pay taxes. MR. GREEN: Well the 2000 jobs that we would create pay taxes too. MR. ENNS: No, they're paid for by taxes. That,my friend is theliifference. MR. GREEN: The jobsthat the Member for River Heights is talking about creating would be paid for by the people of the Province of Manitoba.

And if it costs those people 2000 times 4000 dollars or $8 million dollars, what the member for River Heights is saying is take $8 million from the people of the Province of Manitoba and give it to the people who are now employed in the insurance industry whether they are doing anything or not so that there will be 2000 jobs. We are not prepared to say to the people of Manitoba that you have to give these people $8 million whether they are doing something or not, because there are better ways to spend $8 million. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, we could take the same 2000 jobs that my honourable friend is talking about and finance it in exactly the same way, the people of the Province of Manitoba will have to pay for it.

Oh they wouldn't pay for it by an increased insurance premium which my honourable friend seems to think is less of a tax than an increased sales tax and I say that it's money both ways, it's still the same number of dollars, it still comes from the people of the province of Manitoba, and look what we could do instead, and you will never let us do it because the public has been for so many years talked into the notions that are now being pr& sented by the Member for River Heights-- and by the way we and everybody has learnt a lot in the past year -- that they think somehow that it is wrong to pay for that kind of thing through paying a public price rather than paying for it on the price of their insurance premium.

But it's the same $8 million, and I want the honourable members to examine the difference. The Minister of Agriculture could treble or quadruple the number of veterinaries. He could quadruple the number of agricultural representatives that exist throughout the province. They wouldn't be doing nothing like these people that you say we could ellminate but we have to keep their jobs. We could take the same money and given him three times as many agreps we could give him four times as many veterinaries, we could put all that money into those < " areas.

The Minister of Education, is it not a fact that everybody knows that the classroom of 30 students would be a better classroom if it was 15 students? We could double the number of teachers. Would that be better, I ask the'honourable members would that be better than saying that we're going to preserve 2000 none productive jobs, that we add 2000 teachers. Would it be better to add to the staff of the . . . MR. ENNS: Would the Minister permit a question? MR.

GREEN: Would it be better to add to the staff of the Minister of Health and Social Services the same 2000 jobs-- my honourable friend says, the important thing, it doesn't matter what they're doing, it doesn't matter whether they add one benefit to the people of the Province of Manitoba, the fact is 2000 people are working, they're making $4000 a year and you people can't create jobs. Ridiculous! We can create jobs on that basis . . . MR. ENNS: We're well aware of how you create jobs. MR.

GREEN: The Minister of Health and Social Services, everybody, every single agency comes in and says they need more staff and we say you have to cut it down. Every hospital could use more nurses.

We could have nurses treating the ill, but no the Member for River Heights says we have to have people writing these insurance policies whether it does anybody any good or not, and we concede that you can do it, you can get rid of these people, they are not really needed, but you have to retain the job, whether anybody eats better, whether anybody sleeps better, whether anybody is more healthy; whether anybody has a better educa tion, whether anybody has a better house over their head, we've got to keep these jobs produc tive, non-productive, it doesn't make any difference. Mr.

Speaker, I'm suggesting to you that that is absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense! The Minister of Cultural Affairs. You give him the same $8 million he'll create the jobs and they'll do useful things. They'll go into the historical problems that exist in our society; they'll buy historical sites that they never had before; they'll put custodians in those historical sites so that people can come around and look at them. They will create jobs in the Ballet, they will create jobs in the theatre; things that we say we can't do now because we can't afford it. And the reason we can't afford it is that Mr.

Spivak, the Member for River Heights wants to take $8 million and give it to people who he says will do nothing and are not productive at all.

2148 May 21, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd) . . . • • That's exactly what he said. That is exactly what he said. He said you've got to take this position that jobs are scarce, we've got to create jobs, these people are in the public automobile insurance, you people are going to take them out of this industry, which implies, which implies-- and I don't agree that this can be done by the way- but it implies that everything could be run as smoothly without these people working in that industry, and he says that the only reason that they should continue is it's hard to create jobs.

The Minister of Industry and Commerce says it's hard to create jobs. He's been three years in the Civil Service and he says it's hard to create jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that my depart ment wanted a lot of new staff; we could have had more conservation officers; we could have had more people IDalllining minlng -- (Interjection)-- oh, you think that the other jobs they don't pay for; you think that the only jobs that are paid for -- (Interjection) -- well but you said that the taxes would have to pay for them . • . MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): More civil servants, more taxes. MR.

GREEN: But don't the people-- (Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker, I thought that only the former Minister of Industry, the Member for River Heights, was obtuse enough to make that kind of remark. But we found another one. I'm glad that I'm talking if that's the case. I'm glad that I'm here because then there are other people who need a lecture. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, the notion that it is hard to create the jobs is just nonsense. The question depends on two things. One, you don't appear to care about it.

One is whether the jobs are productive, and even the Federal Government that is talking about$ 30,000 a job, they will not give you $30, 000 a year for a non-productive job, and I suggest to you that if you had an insurance indus try in Saskatchewan- let's take a good example, •.. MR. BILTON: . . . take care of that Monday. MR.

GREEN: And let us assume, which is not the case, but let us make the assumption ju~ for the sake of argument, that there were not insurance agents in Saskatchewan and the Province of Saskatchewan went to the Federal Government and said "look, we have a pretty good insurance program, we're selling policies but they pick them up as they get their licence, but we want a piece of that $30,000 a job and therefore we're going to create 5, 500 jobs for insurance agents who will do nothing but it's up 500 jobs." Now I have lots of arguments about the Federal Government but they're not that stupid.

I would never criticize them to that extent. I suggest to you that the Minister of Industry and Commerce could hire more people, and the Member for Swan River is right, that if we decided that we were going to create jobs in this way it would mean coming in With higher estimates of expenditures. Yes. But to create jobs-- (Interjection)-- 1 said it all the time. Did I for one moment try to hide it? I said that the reason that we didn't create those jobs is that we went back to our departments and we said that the estimates of expenditures have to be kept down.

You know one of the things that I think we're getting so much criticism over from the other side is that for years they hollered that if these New Demo crats ever get into power your taxes will go up. -- (Interjection)-- And what they are finding that we have not increased the rate of taxes, taxation in any area . . . -- (Interjection) - MR. ENNS: He was at my neighbour too. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, what they are so annoyed with, and I've said this before but I have to repeat it, is that what they have .seen demonstrated and what they will continue to see demonstrated is that there are substantial equities that can be created in our society, that there are a substantial number of programs for the public good that can be enacted; that there are IIUlJr]' things that can be done to save the people of Manitoba money and that they do not involve increased taxation to the people of the province. They just are amazed by this.

The Winnipeg Tribune came out with an editorial indicating, well it looks like the New Democrats are not following the wild-eyed radicals and that they are able to maintain a level of taxes. Well it's your suggestion that says that there are wild-eyed radicals looking for increases in taxes. When we -- (Interjection) -- MR. BILTON: Who said that? MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can remember being in this House on numerous occasions any suggestions that were asked for- where will you get the money, where will you get the money, the taxes will go up.

I remember being at the farewell problem - farewell affair. -- (Interjection)-- It was a very delightful affair in Portage la Prairie for the former Member for Lakeside; the former First Minister of this province, Mr. Campbell, of course, and members must be aware that over the years that I have the most greatest respect for Mr. Campbell. I'm sure that if I didn't think the way I do, that if the assumptions which lead me to thinking the way I do were incorrect, I would think like Mr. Campbell, not like the Member

May 21, 1970 2149. (MR. GREEN cont'd) . • . . . for Lakeside, or not like the Member for Ste. Rose or the Member for Portage la Prairie whose wishy washy thinking doesn't mean anything. But the Member for Lakeside, yes, he was a clear thinker. The Member for Sturgeon Creek is a clear thinker, and if I didn't think the way I thought, I would think the way he thinks. Because they make sense. They're operating on an assumption with which I differ. But on the basis of their assumption they are consistent and they make sense and I agree with t.IIBm.

But the fact is that the Member for Lakeside said - the former Member for Lakeside said- Mr. Schreyer is going to increase my taxes at the next session of the Legislature that's the one that we are here now for. I'm sure that it came as a great surprise to m!IDY many people, not to me, because I always said, and I suppose I'm one of the wil(}-eyed radicals who was disappointed, but I've always said, standing over there, that the program that we intend to implement would save the people money, it wouldn't cost them money. And that's what you people are so angry about, that that's what we're doing.

We're going ahead with the program and it's going to result in benefits, and not only is it not going to be increased taxes, but they're going to save money. That's really the problem in your minds. That's what makes you so angry; that we get words from the other side such as the hobble boots, and the tramp of troops, and things of that nature; and you know, it always comes from that side. What did I hear yesterday, "Socialist seduction", Socialist seduction. Mr. Speaker, those are the kind. of remarks which lead to-- (Interjection)-- The Member for St.

Boniface won't like this,· but if it wasn't me, I know people who have been enemies or who are antagonized by the system under which we live which I can't identify as being either Socialist or Capitalist, but they're the same kind of people who wouldn't say Socialist seduction, they'd say Capitalist rape. Mr. Speaker, which is better? But that's what they would say. That's the kind, that's the kind of debate- you know, the Member for Wolseley, says that he went to war to fight for freedom and he's not going to stop fighting now.

Does the member really believe that when he went to fight the Nazis that he was fighting for private automobile insurance? MR. CLAYOON: You're ridiculous. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that there were many people who were fighting the Nazis who believed in public automobile insurance, but that's the way the program came across. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the way the argument • • . Then there is the Member for Wolseley. He indulges in that type of thing.

He thought that the question of whether contractors would work with the City of Winnipeg or not,. whether they would bid for the roads and build the roads, was whether he would be the Chairman of the Public Works Department or Alan Wade would be the Chairman of the PubU.C Works Department, and he said, "If you elect Alan Wade the Chairman of Public Works Department, the contractors won't deal with the city." Has anybody heard anything so ridiculous?

The contractors will deal with the city if the city pays them, and if the city didn't pay them and the Member for Wolseley was the Chairman, they wouldn't deal with the city because they don't like the Member for Wolseley, they like money, the same way as anybody else does. I have no objection to that. If the citypay:•me, I work; if they don't pay me, I don't work. If the Member for Wolseley happened to be the Mayor of the city and they wanted to hire a lawyer, I'd work for him. But that's the kind of situation, Mr.

Speaker, that's the kind of situation that is prompted by the kind of remarks that were made by the Honourable Member for River Heights - I'm sorry that he's left - with the suggestion that if you ask the community to support 2, 000 worth less jobs with their money but it's paid directly to the industry, that somehow that's better than making 2, 000 worthwhile jobs if the money is collected by themselves and paid to their elected representatives to be distributed to these people for doing worthwhile jobs.

2150 May 21, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd. ) Now that's what he said. He didn't use those words, but every word that he said led to that inescapable conclusion. Mr. Speaker, it just won't wash. It's just not credible. It's not sensible, and if they keep on with that kind of an approach it just means- you know, this I kind of take with mixed feelings- it'll mean the strengthening of the government, yes, but I am one of those who bel~eve that a government can only be strong if there are sharp people on the other side hitting it in its sensitive areas.

But this is not a sensitive area; this is a very very weak situation and I suggest that it will become more and more weak as time goes on, because, Mr. Speaker, I left out people, but there are all kinds of worthwhile jobs and if you only want2, 000 of them, I suggest to you that all of the public agencies that seek money from the Department of Health and Social Services, the Mlnister of Tourism - boy, he could use a lot of jobs, good jobs- the Minister of Transportation, he could build, Mr. Speaker, he could build-- how many miles of road does $8 million build? MR. BOROWSKI: The Beltway. MR. GREEN: The Beltway?

But he says, the Member for River Heights says that we would have difficulty creating 2, 000 jobs. We wouldn't have difficulty doing that; we'd have dif ficulty getting you to agree to create 2, 000 productive jobs because you say that it's better to have 2, 000 people doing nothing as long as the money isn't paid to the people through their elected representatives but paid to somebody else so that he can get the inside and make a little bit out of it. Now that's the way the system has run up until now and it's changing, and you know, I think it changes little by little from year to year.

I don't think that great changes are made all of a sudden, but from year to year changes are made and I'm not one who thinks that the world will change overnight. There are others who are much more insistent that things move faster than they do. All I am concerned is that we make a start to change things. The honourable member, the Member for River Heights says that these people are seeking to create a new society and, as I understood it, he looked at that as some sort of idealistic, unrealistic notion and that it is going to undo everything that exists. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think it was in the early 1960's that we, at one of our conventions, we passed a resolution that the New Democratic Party seek to create a just society and at that time it was looked at as being some kind of a corny phrase that was concocted by the hoary New Democrats or the hoary Socialists, but, Mr. Speaker, in 1968 it became elegant to talk about a just society. It became a watchword.

I see nothing wrong with saying that there are prob lems that exist within the world as we know them, and I think that every group who seeks to deal with those problems, whether they succeed or fail, is doing a worthwhile thing. I have no sensitivity about trying to do things differently. After all, we have good reason for trying to do things differently. We can see what the Honourable Member for River Heights, everything that he says, suggests that we should follow the pattern of the United States. There isn't one imaginative idea in his portfolio.

He is saying that the way of obtaining success is to do what the United states has done. Well, Mr. Speaker, we probably are 20 years or so behind the United States I've had occasion to say this before and I've said it in this House - and from where we are, we are rather fortunate, we can look ahead and say that's where we want to go or we can say, no, there are problems in that direction and we have to make sure we don't fall into the same problems. They didn't have the same opportunity that we did; they couldn't look ahead and say what should happen. And what do we see in the United states today?

We've talked about the failure of a shoe factory and a tannery, but we know that over the last year over $200 billion has been lost on the stock market in the United States and the failures have just begun. We know that in 1933, not a box factory failed but a whole society failed, and that the world lived through the worst depression that mankind has ever known. In addition to the financial failures - and when you talk about a box factory, I don't know how you can ignore failures like Prudential Acceptance.

Compared to the failure of-- no, Atlantic Finance, not the Prudential- I don't want to use the wrong firm now- it was Prudential Atlantic Acceptance. But compared to that failure, the failure of the box factory was like the failure of a children's lemonade stand. That was a fail ure that cost the people of Canada money, and all you are saying is that somehow it's kosher to lose money if it's lost to private industry but it's not kosher to lose money if it's an attempt by the people of Manitoba to better themselves.

May 21, 1970 2151 (MR. GREEN cont'd.) You know, on that basis you would invest no money in exploration, which we are doing this year; and on that basis you would not do what this government has done, said that we feel that if : , J the Versatile Manufacturing industry is an important industry to the Province of Manitoba, and we believe it is, and if we believe that that industry wUl pay dividends to the people of Manitoba, and we believe it will, that we should be involved in that industry if they come to us for money. Now, that is the difference.

I agree that that's a difference and we are trying to do some thing a little differently and, you know, we may faU; we may succeed. You have a choice, but we know that the other system did faU. We have looked at Mr. Spivak's future and it doesn't work, and therefore we have an opportunity to try, and you know, that's all that men can do. At the best of times we will be imperfect individuals and at the best of times we will be an im perfect society, and all we can do is try to move towards a little bit more of perfection.

We'll . never reach that and we'll never reach any condition under which there will not be faults. That's why the democratic system is so wonderful, because we have people who are there to · point out the faults. But we are not getting that, Mr. Speaker, at the present time. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've gone on much further than I intended to go on. I got to my feet and, as sometimes happens when I get up, I just don't sit down.

The fact is that my honourable friend. again with his intention to scare us, with his intention, or if that is not the intention. then with the knowledge that the government is so strong and the economy is so strong that any thing he says could not upset us, which I agree with and which I've told him go ahead and say what you like because we are stronger than any criticism that you tend to give, but he took my honourable friend the Member for Crescentwood's words and he said "Rationalization of in dustry - now we know what that means; we know what their policy is." You've all seen I suppose a little ad that appears weekends in the Free Press, "The NDP is devoted to the nationalization of the economy." Then he said "Rationalization of industry- we know what that means, it means nationalization of industry." Well, I would commend my honourable friend to a book that was written by Ida .•••. about 1900 and the name of the book, cwriously enough. is ''The Nationalization of Buiness".

When I saw that title, and honourable friends who know me a little bit would appreciate that I was interested in that title, so I bought the book, "Nationalization of Business".

It revealed something that was very interesting to me, that the laws of business, the laws of economy and economics continue, no matter who is in power, that business has a way of rationalJJdng itself and every business that means anything starts to rationalize itself, because this title, "Nation alization of Business", I'm sure that to the Opposition it means, I'm sure to the Member for Sturgeon Creek it means that some government comes in and takes over a business, but it's exactly the opposite of what the book tells the story of.

The book tells the story of certain businesses in the United States that decided that the way of operating is to try to bring under one umbrella all of the concerns to do with that business.

It deals with the trusts; it deals with the on trusts; it deals with, as I recall, the screw, the implements, building materials- not wood, etc. but the naUs and screws and things of that nature; it deals with oU; it deals with paraffin; it deals with a whole series of businesses and it shows how each of them made its mind up that it was going to do two things: one, liquidate its competition; and secondly, pre vent imports, and how this nationalized the business right across the United States and even beyond the borders of the United States.

What my honourable friends don't realize, or at least won't admit to themselves, is that business does rationalize itself; it does work to achieve a greater efficiency, and the way it achieves that greater efficiency is that it tries to wipe out its competition so that it can achieve administrative savings. That's what it thinks .•... MR. CHAIRMAN: May I point out that the honourable member has about five minutes remaining. MR.

GREEN: Okay, I wUl finish now- but the fact is there is a difference, and that goes on with regard to every important business in North America and has gone on with regard to every business, so that the nationalization of business, which my honourable friend is talking about, is going to go on whether we are the government or whether you are the government or whether any other party is the government because there are economic laws - and if my honour able friend would read something he would find out about it - there are economic laws which require this to happen, and the only real question is whether it wUl happen for the benefit of the people or will happen for the benefit of a private interest because nationalization takes place.

Now I'm not suggesting that that means- and the Member for Crescentwooddidn'tsugaat

2152 May 21, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd.). it - that this means that the government then goes in and takes over every business. All that this government has done, which apparently has evoked that response, is that we go into an area where everybody who is impartial who has looked at it has said that it is non-competitive, that it is better handled publicly, that it should not be com petitive, that the information that we received from the industry as a whole just can't be be lieved and that it's better to have it under a public system.

Does that mean that the policy becomes the nationalization through government of business? It's what honourable friends op posite would like to have people believe because they think that scares them, but, Mr. Speaker, it's just not relevant to what is happening right now. And that's what I want to tell my honour able friend, that the phrase "nationalization of business", if it's a scary phrase, which he intends it to be, then it should be scary no matter who's doing it, and the book that was written by Miss . • . . . merely demonstrates that industry rationalizes itself.

If my honourable friends would read the story of any industry they will see that this hap pens. If they will read the history of standard on, which was written also by Miss • . . . . , or in Wealth versus Commonwealth by Mr. Lloyd, then they will see that this business said, it said in order to be successful it has to eliminate competition, it has to control production and it has to control markets. And it did so, and the person who did it is looked upon as a god in the United States, and you should see what he did to the independents. There was no compensa tion. Hardly. But the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that that's not what happens when a government goes into the area, and I think that the First Minister has made it clear that it's only the gov ernment that would consider these things differently than what would occur if that nationaliza tion which is taking place every day under the eyes and noses of members opposite is carried on without the people being involved in it. Now, Mr. Chairman, as indicated, I only spoke because the Member for River Heights had spoken. I wish he were here.

I hope that the remarks that I have made will to some ex tent indicate at least that the creation of 2, 000 jobs under the terms and conditions as advocated by the Member for River Heights is not a difficult job. We could create 4, 000, 8, 000. Are the people of Manitoba prepared to pay for them? Well, you say they should pay for the in surance jobs but no other jobs which are productive. We say no.

We want to look at those jobs which are productive, and if at that stage it's feasible to ask the people of Manitoba to pay then we'll do it, but we don't think that we have to, as a matter of right, maintain non productive jobs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Honourable Member for Roblin have a question? MR. McKENZIE: I was going to speak. MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON W. BEARD (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the offset though I would like to state that if I ever get in serious trouble with the Attorney-General, I would hope that I would be able to call on either the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources or the Minister of Finance to defend me, because I can assure you that in front of a jury and a toler ant judge such as yourself, that by the time they got finished, I would not only be a free man but I would be paid to leave the courtroom. I'm sure of it. -- (Interjection) --Yes, I would probably even have the judge assured. I certainly would not be in jail. Mr.

Chairman, I do feel that I'm not capable of turning 2, 000 jobs into the maniPulation that the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources has done so we'll try to look for other areas of finding jobs, and I state at the offset that I don't agree. I think there are jobs that are going to be made redundant that I feel we must look at very carefully before this comes about, and I state this in respect to the insurance policy, the road that we are taking at the time. But this is not the particular part of Industry and Commerce that I would like to address myself to.

In fact one is transportation and mostly in the air industry, which I too find it rather peculiar that we have to continue to discuss this through the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Jt just doesn't seem natural but that is the way it's going to be I suppose for awhile and we'll accept it under those terms, but if you recall, last year we passed a resolu tion requesting that the government look into the possibility of asking that members be put on a Department of Transport, a Federal Department of Transport Board to look into charters that were being requested within the province and now I realize that the government are back ing away and saying well, here we don't want to get into a discussion in charters that are outside of the province. I think this is a different matter altogether.

Nowhere was it asked in that last year's resolution that we discuss those charters outside the province and yet nothing

May 21, 1970 2153 (MR. BEARD cont'd. ) ••••• has been done, as far as we know, publicly in respect tO supp<}rt ing and assisting people that want to start new jobs in Northern Manitoba. They want to be in the area in which they can service people and this is what Industry and Commerce is here for, to develop, help develop new jobs, so perhaps it does fall in some respects in their portfolio and nothing has been done, as far as I know, to help people develop industry in the charter business in Northern Manitoba and this is very necessary.

If we went from that we would leap into the next point of what do you do about it. Is it go ing to be a helter-skelter type of system or are we going to get it on to our side so that we can see to it that it is done in an orderly manner. The only way I can see to do it is to get involved, and if the department refuse to get involved in the discussion of charters, I think it's because they don't want to get into the problems of having to turn down one person in favour of another, and I think if this is the case then they're backing away from a responsibility which they should have.

No one can realize the importance of this until they get right down to travelling in the north and the responsibilities of travelling through the north, and this involves all of the facets of developing the air industry. The Minister of Transportation doesn't accept any responsibility for having emergency air fields along the development of new road systems. Now if he feels this is right then it's up to him, but, Mr. Chairman, I know what it's like and he knows what it's like to go in small planes, and when they're in trouble, they're looking for emergency fields.

It seems to me that it should be that we take some second look at being able to put emergency fields alongside, or part of road systems throughout the north, because certainly we're not going to Qe able to service them with the proper type of roads for many years to come and we're going to be depending on air service more and more, and of course the more airplanes you have the more chances there are of requiring emergency air fields.

Now in respect to even going a little further, and we're getting back to the point of issue of last year, the rates of transportation in the north and particularly the rates of passenger service. We were complaining last year because they were high. This year they're still higher and nothing has been done, so far as I know, in respect to this government putting in any briefs in respect of this.

I realize that maybe the Minister in his own position as a resident of Brandon is in a rather peculiar position in that he is fighting for air transportation to the com munity itself, but this is the problem that we have always felt that has been ours, in that we have borne the cost of the extension of air service in the prairies through the high cost that has been determined for air transportation in the north, and only yesterday, today or yesterday, I got another brief from Gillam complaining about the cost of air transportation.

We have had one from Thompson, we have had one from Lynn Lake and I suspect that others will belollowing.

Now, I would admit that the price of everything is going up so it would be natural on a normal basis that air transport companies be looking at higher rates, but when they are already higher, by up to 23 percent I believe it is in movement of passengers north and south when you compare them to the east and west service, then we are in difficulty, because this recent raise, recent cut-back on policies respecting family travel, which was very important, is one which we must consider very carefully because the cost of movement around Northern Manitoba is rising; it's already there; it has been there since the air industry started in a big way in the north and it has been accepted year after year.

The complaJnttB come in but they have nobody really to complain to except Ottawa, and they say, well, come down once in a while and debate against lawyers. How can the town organization go down to Ottawa and debate these things? It's impossible. We asked that they have a hearing at least once a year, a courtesy hearing once a year in a central place in Northern Manitoba so that they can discuss these things.

Now perhaps, they say that they could have it in Winnipeg certainly or they could have it in Ottawa, but if they are really concerned about it, get it up into the area where it affects the people, and if it's government controlled, then get government closer to the people.

The way to do it is have these hearings and let the people on the board know what the real problem is, and if govern ment here, the Province of Manitoba, refuse to accept the principles behind a resolution asking them to have representation on a national board, then we won't get anywhere because the whole principle was the fact that people in isolated communities, or large communities such as Lynn Lake and Thompson, do not have the ability to cope with boards, sophisticated boards such as the Air Transportation Board, etc.

If we're going to get any assistance at all, it is going to be through the ability to use our representatives of government that can have the research that's

2154 May 21, 1970 (MR. BEARD cont'd.) ••••• necessary to go into these things. I support the fact that this is private industry; I support the fact that they have got to make a profit just like Air Canada wants to make a profit, but I think that the rest of Canada have to look at it and say is this one place that we can help, because if there is a subsidy required -- (Interjection) -- yes. MR.

SCHREYER: I'd like to ask the honourable member whether he is suggesting that if a citizen in Northern Manitoba or any other community, or group of citizens want to make a submission to the Air Transport Committee and lack certain data or other information, certain data or information of a statistical kind or argumentation, that they should be able to contact the appropriate government department and get assistance in gathering and marshalling this data and information. If that is what he is suggesting, does he mean to say that that would not be made available now?

I understand that the departments of government are there to assist the citizens in providing information, certainly in providing information. MR. BEARD: Well, I would agree with the First Minister that possibly somebody would be sent up to assist them. I don't think, quite frankly, that you have the experts that are neces sary to fight one of these types of hearings.

Certainly we are not able-- I wouldn't want to be responsible for having to go down and stand in front of a transportation hearing in Ottawa and try to present a common sense brief in respect to transportation in communities that those people are not aware of whatsoever. They may say that they send people to the area once in a while- you know, inspectors, to know about these things, but they don't know really.

They mustn't know because the letters that I see come back from charter companies requesting charters are actually ridiculous when you see the replies that these people are getting from the committees in Ottawa. I suppose this is the way the ball bounces, but you put your application in for charter and then everybody else is notified that you have put your application in and then all the rest of the companies get together and they send their lawyers down to say, no, they shouldn't be allowed for this reason and that reason.

On the other band, you find that the person who is putting in the charter has a petition, signed by the people of the communities they want to serve, saying that the service that is being provided is not adequate. Now there are only two answers --one answer is either that the people that are going to service the community with their charter are going to do it properly or else let somebody get in there and do it that can.

I think this is - you may call it the law of the jungle but it is the law of freedom of choice, that you get in there and you can make a good job of it, then you'll get passenger service and freight service to service these areas. Why I choose to spend so much time at this time on it is that it is in all probability one of the most important problems of communication in the north outside of the communication system by phone, etc.

But your communication, your passenger service and your transportation is something that is just as far behind as it was when the first planes were suggested for the north, and it was good, but there was no service planned or allowed to expand that would look after the communities themselves, because if you took any community of 1, 800 or 2, 000 people or a group of communities of four or five hundred people that couldn 1t get out any way other than by flying, then you must take into consideration the services that we have ourselves in government, that the Federal Govern ment have, dictate that this would be a profitable business for a small charter business that would go in there and service directly those small outlets into a larger area such as Thompson or The Pas or Flin Flon, where the person can continue on with his business.

But the real im portant thing is that to date there is nobody to help these people get something started, and if again we could get the committees meeting in the North, even just once a year, there would be some semblance of order. I know of one case which-- (Interjection) --Yes. MR. EVANS: I wonder if you would elaborate or explain what you mean when you con tinually refer to "charters". I have a definition of a charter, but I want to make sure that I'm understanding your point here when you keep on referring to charters, if you wouldn't mind. MR.

BEARD: Well, I was speaking generally of charters, because to get into the defini tion of charter, I believe the Minister realizes, as I do, that there are many different licences that one can have, probably half a dozen or more, but it is a service from one point to another. If you had a service where you could service say four areas, Norway House, Split Lake, Ilford and to Thompson, say, so that people can move about in groups of areas, shopping aress really is what it is, and the doctors move in, the educators move in, then they have to come out again.

The people in the retail outlets have to move in and out with their retail goods. The fur, when it's caught in the winter time has to move out; again rations move in. The fish have to be moved out. So it's a full transportation system that is required.

May 21, 1970 2155 (MR. BEARD cont 1d.) The Federal Government have a northern transportation system which they've instituted in Uranium City and now has gone through into the Northwest Territories which I spoke of b~ fore. It seems to be answering many of the problems that they have in that area, but this is just one type of thing that you .could use where it's a combination as we use it in the rest of Canada, where you have a federal transportation system under the CNR, you have Air Canada, but you have the other complementary feeder lines into them. This is where I think that the real hang-up is.

It's proven to be a hang-up. It just seems that when we had the Northern Task Force, it came up time and time again, ridiculous things where somebody would require having the dogs and the man taken out to go trapping for two or three months. The plane would come and get the trapper and the fur and he wouldn't have room for the dogs, so this one trap per complained that two months had gone by and the plane never came back for his dogs. So they're out there and you kiss them Good-Bye, of course. But it happens just because there isn't enough service in the area.

Now the other air service carriers there will say well, there isn't enough business, but when you talk to the people they will explain to you that they require more service and more business, because more and more they're depending on their cheques coming in and doing business with the outside areas. It's not like it was 50 years ago. So if we're going to move out of that 50 year old era then you're going to have to move transportation in, and it's only our hopes that we could do something. But when you ask what is a charter or how long does it take to get, it takes two to three years to get them.

And of course this is ridiculous. There's a man down in Island Lake that has already started a business, a tourist resort business. He has put a lot of money into it, he has the business, the customers, but no as surance of travel back and forth for his customers from Winnipeg out there. He has already created jobs; he hasn't come to the government for assistance of money.

All he requires is assistance to get a charter to do his own work and make sure he's got the tourist business customers in, because when they're coming as far away from the States somewhere they don't want to wait for a fish plan to come two or three trips before they decide to pick up the customer. They are there for two weeks, or a week and a half, and they have to make their connections to get hack, so he has to give as good a service as possible and they're depending on that exact date.

But these are the problems and these are only touching on the problems of transportation, and I would hope that you could take another look at it and not only offer the expertise in helpJ.Dg develop the application for the charter but also the follow-up and see to it that we have a mem ber that can speak for Manitoba business at least. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a great sympathy with some of the remarks expressed by the Honourable Member from Churchill with respect to the prob lems of northern air transport.

I would submit however, Sir, that there is a problem involved when you are dealing with many small companies or entrepreneurs who do wish to establish air service between points A, B, C, D, E, F and so on, that very often you have more than one company or more than one man - more than one air company that wishes to provide service b~ tween the same points.

It is very difficult for the Government of Manitoba, as much as we would like to assist in the development of air in the north, as we are, it is nevertheless very difficult for us to assist one man or one company as opposed to another person or another com pany. In other words, we have to be very careful that we're not attempting to play favourites, and to that extent we try to, you know, we feel that there's a limit in where we can help develop northern air transport. But I would remind the honourable member that we have taken a num ber of steps I think to help air transport in the north.

We have been pressing a regional air policy in ottawa. Some reference was made to a rise in air transport rates. I would like to- I don't have the information with me, but I think I can show that although certain rates are higher, there are other rates that are considerably lower. Some of these rate changes are over and above and beyond the influence I understand of our regional air carrier and that they are tied in with d~ cisions made by the Federal Government with respect to national air rates, including rates applied to Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines.

So, you know, it becomes a very com plicated question because certain national air policies are being followed and this has a bearing on the rates that are being charged, as I understand it at least, by our regional carrier, namely Transair, into the north.

2156 May 21, 1970 (MR. EVANS cont'd.) But we do have, I think, a fair amount of talent in the department and we're always ready to jrovide -- and I'd like to know from the honourable member if there are cases where we can't be of service in the provision of data, of statistics and provision of information, as much as we reasonably are expected to do so, and if this is not forthcoming, 1 would appreciate the member letting me know on this.

We are attempting to establish a Manitoba Aviation Council and it's just possible that some of his suggestions can be tackled by that council group of representatives from the industry, group of representatives from various regions of the province, so that some· of these problems may be hacked out.

In talking about air, I might remind the members of the House that three weeks ago, or four weeks ago when 1 was in Minneapolis at the opening of the Canadian Consu late, I took the opportunity to visit the offices of the North West Airlines, and I know some members are interested in improvement of service by that company, including loading ramps into their jet aircraft. This has been confirmed now.

Another source of complaint, I've been told, that has been given to me, that there hasn't been breakfast served on the morning flight between Winnipeg and the Twin Cities, and I'm pleased to announce that I just received a letter from that company announcing that breakfast will now be served on these morning flights. So I mention that because I know some people are interested. But I do appreciate the Member from Churchill's remarks. Air transport in many cases is the only form of transportation between northern points and obviously it's of vital concern to the people in those areas.

We are a long way however from having provincial representation on federal transportation committees or on any Canadian transportation commission organiza tion. Jt may be desirable, it may not be, but I think we're a long way from ever achieving that. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I wonder, even though the Member from River Heights is not here, if I could take the opportunity to make a few comments on some of the remarks he's made.

Some people shake their head at this, it's sort of like a broken record, the same questions are asked, the same statements, the same accusations are made, and how many times does it take to get certain answers across, certain points across. I will agree with this member however that the position of being Minister of Industry and Commerce is a challenge. It is a challenge to create jobs in the Province of Manitoba; it is a challenge to promote the appropriate rate of economic expansion; but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, given time, you will see this rate of economic expansion increasing.

And again I would remind members of the House that in the matter of the last few days Labatt's Brewery has announced an expansion; there's been a transference of 40 jobs from Ontario to Teulon, Manitoba by Sheer Mist Hosiery; and in the next few days there will be other announcements of other jobs being created in the province. And I can assure honourable members of the House that there are many many other companies that are now being processed, if you like, there are many other companies who are examining Manitoba very closely and I hope that over the next few months more good news will be forthcoming.

This statement or claim, and this repetitive statement that there's inaction on the part of this government, that there's procrastination, that there's a moratorium- I don't know what moratorium he's talking about but he kept on refer ring to a moratorium- is absolute nonsense and rubbish. The government is quite concerned about this whole question of economic development and action is taking place. Some reference was made to transpC?rtation and lamenting that coordination, that trans portation problems are not handled by one agency.

I can assure you, Sir, that coordination however on transportation problems does take place, that we have a very capable Minister of Transport doing an excellent job, and when the problems come he handles them, and when general problems come, including air problems, they may be handled by this department but generally they are handled, whether they be the Minister of Government Services who happens to be the Railway Commissioner, whether they be the Minister of Transportation or whether they be myself, these problems are handled and coordination does take place.

And I also -and I needn't I think beleaguer this point- the member referred to the fact that we had certain consultants who were no longer available to us. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these consultants are available to us, have been used by us, can be used by us and will be used by us, as, when, and if necessary. Now I don't want to dwell on that because I don't think this point is very important, but I do take exception to the statement made by the Member from River Heights, who has long since departed, about the danger signals that are facing our provincial economy.

He made some reference to decrease in the size of the labour force.

May 21, 1910 2151 (MR. EVANS cont'd. ). Well as one who has had something to do with statistical tabul•;.. tlon over the years, I know that this labour force survey is based on a sample and any change, any small change may mean no change whatsoever, because in any sample you have a margin of error and if you refer to a tenth of a percent change or even a one or two percent change, you may be talking about no change at all because there has to be room for error.

Now far from looking at danger signals, I want to remind the members, and I say this because obviously it didn't rub off in the first place, that unemployment in the first quarter of 1970 in Canada averaged 6. 4 percent - this is in the entire nation - 6. 4 percent as against the figure of 5. 9 percent in the first quarter of 1969. In other words, there was a significant in crease. There was an 0. 5 percent increase in the rate of unemployment in Canada as a whole. Now there is some indication of growing unemployment. However, this rise in unemployment has affected Manitoba less than the country as a whole.

In the first quarter of 1970 our un employment rate was only 4 1/2 percent compared with 4. 4 percent in the first quarter of 1969. In effect, according to the D. B.s. figures for the first quarter of 1970, there is sub stantially no change whatsoever in the rate of unemployment. Again this is based on a sample, and if you're talking about one-tenth of a percentage point change, you're not talking about any change.

And I would also ask the Member from River Heights, if he'll read these in Debates, what danger signal is it that shows that the rate of manufacturing shipments in Manitoba in creased by 7 percent in the first two months of this year over the first two months of last year,

whereas the rate of manufacturing shipments in Canada as a whole showed a gain of only 2 1/2 percent. In other words, the rate of gain in this province is three times, almost three times or at least- yes, almost three times the rate of increase for the Canadian average.

I'd also like to point out that the Manitoba companies are taking good use of the Regional Development Incentives Program offered by the Federal Government, and as of March 31st, 1970 there were 117 applications made by Manitoba companies which, if approved, would amount to an investment of over $21 million in Winnipeg and over $30 million in the region and involving close to - well, well over 4, 000 jobs, almost 5, 000 jobs. These are applications; these are not approvals. Again I would remind the members that to talk about population is not to talk about targets of economic growth.

Pm glad that the Honourable Member from River Heights did mention the fact of our- the fact of the matter is that our federal economy is undergoing a r~atively weak period, that the stock market is weak, that the national and continental economic situation is relaUwly poor, and on that account I think the fact that we have a substantial increase in manufacturing shipments in Manitoba is to our credit. Well, inasmuch as nobody seems to be interested in some of these statistics and inas much as it seems to be getting late and inasmuch as maybe we can pass these estimates, Itn sit down. MR.

CHAIRMAN: •••.• the Honourable Member for Roblin, just before I ask the hon ourable member to continue, it may be of interest to members that we have now at this moment completed 70 hours of our estimates and are now entering our last 10. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping that you'd raise that point because I have suspected for a long time that there is a fUibuster from the bench over there. We well recall the speeches that came from the Minister of Agriculture and others on those benches, where we stand up and ask a simple question and we get about a two hour answer.

So Pm glad you raised the point, Mr. Chairman, and that was basically the point that I wanted to speak on tonight because I think this is unfair of a government ••... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The honourable member is being interrupted and I ask him to please continue. MR. McKENZIE: I think, Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely unfair of a government who's supposed to have all the answers and a free government who is supposed to be open and we can't even get a chance to get into the debate because the Ministers on their estimates, they stand up and they espouse for hours and hours.

I wanted to speak on all the departments of this government. You can't get in, Mr. Chairman; they're all talking day and night. Nevertheless, I think I have a friend in that government and it's the Chairman of this Commit tee, who finally recognized that I have a problem and I would like to speak on the Minister's salary. I suspected today that we were supposed to be on automobile insurance, Mr. Chairman,

2158 May 21, 1970 (MR. McKENZIE cont'd.) ••••• so my speech may not be the best speech, but nevertheless I'll do my best. I would not have rose on my feet tonight, Mr. Chairman, had it not been for the Minister of Mines and Resources who made that great speech, and he made one little brief statement which really irritated me, and he said, ''liquidate his competition; liquidate his com petition". That's the answer for the problems of Manitoba today. On those words I speak to you, Mr. Chairman, as an MLA from a rural constituency who I think is getting an unfair treatment from this Minister ..... MR.

GREEN: On a point of privilege, I did not say that I would liquidate my competition, if that's what you're referring to. MR. McKENZIE: No. As I understood the Minister, he said "liquidate his competition". MR. GREEN: I indicated, just so that my honourable friend has clarification, I indicated that the person who set up the on trust set about to liquidate his competition, which is true. MR. McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Chairman ..... MR. GREEN: It was in the late 1800's and early 1900's. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize because I was late arriving on my chair.

When I walked in the door I heard those words, ''liquidate his competition". Is this the answer that the Minister of Industry and Commerce is trying to get across the province today? MR. GREEN: I explained that is not what I said. Is the honourable member stUl going to make the same speech even though he was wrong? MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I think I'm most confused, because I sat here this afternoon and I heard the great Member from Crescentwood make his great eulogy on his philosophy of how that department should be run.

No, the Mlnlster of Mines and Resources be fore him, so we got two Mlnlsters of Mines -- or of Industry and Commerce, two speeches, and I become most confused. Then I walk in the House tonight and heard the Minister of Mines and Resources say ''liquidate his competition", and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, I become most confused because this is a subject that has been a debate - I could even move over into automobile insurance right now on that theme, liquidate his competition; simple as that - and the debate will go on. Of course the policy of this government, Mr.

Chairman - and I humbly submit I'm not an academic, I'm not a gold medalist like the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, I never won an award for the McGowan Cup in debating, I was never a great diversionlst like he is- you know, he's so skUlfulin diverting the House from the basic issue and he's one of the finest debaters I think in Canada todsy and I congratulate him for that. He's my personal friend and I like the guy but I don't buy him politically. MR. GREEN: I apologize for raising a point of privilege before. My honourable friend can talk all night. MR.

McKENZIE: Well that debate wUl go on for some time, Mr. Chairman, because we're coming to the Minister's estimates no doubt, if the Premier doesn't call an election, and I wish he would call an election because my constituency was never in better shape than it is tonight. It never was. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can accept part of that statement that the hon ourable member was probably never in better shape than he is tonight. Whether his constitu ency is I don't really know. MR. McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course that's always debatable and the mem bers can form their own oplnlons.

I was debating with the Honourable Member from st. Boniface in his chair there about his abUity a while ago. It was another field, it wasn't political, but nevertheless that is what makes life and what makes it good. Nevertheless, I'm standing here on a theme of Industry and Commerce, who say the only way they can run Manitoba is liquidate your competition. That's what I have in my mind, Mr. Chairman, and I'm most concerned. I think this is uncalled for at this time. And now I wonder, you know, where we go from there in agriculture. Basically I can only stand before you tonight, Mr.

Chairman, as one who is from a constituency that's an agricultural base of this province who have many many problems. I listened the best I could to hear this Min- ister tell me something that's going to happen in my constituency about rural economic develop ment. I never heard one word. I never heard one word from that Member from Crescentwood over there who is supposed to.be the great left-winger- you know, the Watkins Manifesto guy that has all the answers for the economic problems of this province. He never said one word about Roblin constituency.

I challenge him, I challenge him to give me one answer to the economic problems we face in this province today. He doesn't even know what it's all about,

May 21, 1970 2159 (MR. McKENZIE cont'd.). because there's nobody over there can talk about agriculture, Mr. Chairman, not a one, not a soul over there. The Minister of Finance, what does he know about farming? Absolutely nothing I The Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, what does he know about farming? Nothing! The Minister of Cultural Affairs, what does he know about farming? Nothing 1 And just look at the Minister of Agriculture. We have a resolution on the Order Paper today, Mr. Chairman, asking us to stand up and defend this Minister of Agricul ture. For what? Because he's a good guy.

He hasn't done a damn thing and I'm not going to support that resolution. I think it's a farce, Mr. Chairman, and ••.. MR. BILL URUSKI (St. George): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. McKENZIE: •..•• I think it's time that this government and this Minister stand up. and recognize that we have a problem in this province. I've got people going broke in my con stituency. Absolutely. MR. URUSKI: Are yo11 accusing the Honourable Minister of Agriculture of doing nothing? MR. McKENZIE: Absolutely. MR. URUSKI: Have you read -- (Interjections) - MR. CHAIRMAN: .••.. please carry on. MR.

McKENZIE: I well remember, he's the guy that put the amendment in. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman? He put the amendment in. He's the guy that's espousing around this province what this Minister of Agriculture - and I challenge him to stand up in this House and tell the people of this province what that Minister has done. Stand up. MR. URUSKI: The honourable member has challenged me to stand up. What would you like to know? MR. McKENZIE: Tell me what he's done. MR. URUSKI: Pardon me? MR. McKENZIE: You put the resolution on there didn't you? MR. URUSKI: That's right. MR. McKENZIE: Well, tell us what it's all about.

MR. URUSKI: I told you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that the member has about one minute. Order please. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Chairman, no one seems to have the floor, and in the 30 seconds before the hour of 10, may I answer the question just asked by the Honourable Member for Roblin.

It is the present Minister of Agriculture that has succeeded in persuading the government to increase the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to supply money for the agricultural industry in this province, increasing it by something in the order of 20 to 25 percent, an in crease that is more than my honourable friends ever accomplished by the way. That's one answer. The second answer, Mr.

Chairman, the second answer to my honourable friend is that we also, the Minister of Agriculture being instrumental, increased the amount of credit avail able for the agricultural industry in tbl.s province by an amount far greater than my honourable friends did when they were in office, because when they were in office agricultural credit a van able through the Agricultural Credit Corporation virtually dried up. We have revived the pro gram and pumped in something in the order of 12 to 15 million dollars for farming. So those are the two answers that I give my honourable friend the Member for Roblin.

And I call it 10 o'clock. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader. MR. WATT: .••. ask the First Minister a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Member for Roblin has stopped saying nice things about me, I move that the committee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has directed me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. IN SESSION MR. RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for KUdonan, that the report of the committee be received. MR.

SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: It is now 10:00 o'clock. The House is adjourned untU 10:00 tomorrow morning.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-84
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 84.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bd683378a2ba98826caf06e07cf449f4d2cd9a26

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