Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 60 (29th Legislature, 5th Session)

29-5-60

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XX No. 60 2:30 p.m., Thursday, April 12th, 1973. Fifth Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Postal Affiliation Code ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. R eston, Man. ROM 1XO ASSINIBOIA Steve Patrick Lib. 10 Red Robin Pl., Winnipeg R3J 3La BI RTLE·RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Man. ROJ OGO BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3c ova BRANDON WEST Edward McGILL P.C. 222a Princess Ave., Brandon R7B OH9 BURROWS Hon. Ben Hanuschak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB CHARLESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1 L5 CHURCHILL VACANT CRESCENTWOOD Cy Gonick NOP 1 140 Grosvenor Ave., Winnipeg R3M ONB DAUPHIN Hon.

Peter Burtniak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB EMERSON Gabriel Girard P.C. 25 Lamond Blvd., Winnipeg R2J 1Y1 FLIN FLON Thomas Barrow NOP. Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO FORT GARRY L.R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. a6 Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 FORT ROUGE Mrs. Inez Trueman P.C. 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg R3M 3H8 GIMLI John C. Gottfried NOP 44 - 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man. ROC 1BO GLADSTONE James R. Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Man. ROJ OTO INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, 0.C. NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB KILDONAN Hon.

Peter Fox NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3c ova LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO LA VERENDRYE Leonard A. Barkman Lib. Box 130, Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO LOGAN William Jenkins NOP 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg R3E 2S6 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. Minnedosa, Man. ROJ 1EO MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Morris, Man. ROG 1KO OSBORNE Ian Turnbull NOP 284 Wildwood Pk., Winnipeg R3T OE5 PEMBINA George Henderson P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG 1GO POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski NOP 361 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg R2W 1Z9 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E.

Johnston Lib. 506 St. George Ave., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N OT5 RADISSON Harry Shafransky NOP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1W8 RH INELAND Jacob M. Froese s.c. Box 40, Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO RIEL Donald W. Craik P.C. 2 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3Y8 RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, 0.C. P.C. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ROBLIN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. Inglis, Man. ROJ OXO ROCK LAKE Henry J. Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB RUPERTSLAND Jean Allard Ind. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ST. BONIFACE Hon. Laurent L.

Desjardins NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ST. GEORGE Bill Uruski NOP Box 580, Arborg, Man. ROC OAO ST. JAMES Hon. A.H. Mackling, 0.C. NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ST. JOHNS Saul Cherniack, O.C. NOP 333 St. John's Ave., Winnipeg R2W 1H2 ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannson NOP 418 Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 ST. VITAL D.J. Walding NOP 31 Lochinvar Ave., Winnipeg R2J 1R3 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam NOP Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. ROL 1SO SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A. Miller NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB SOUR IS Kl LLARNEY Earl McKellar P.C.

Nesbitt, Man. ROK 1PO SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB STURGEON CREEK J. Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 SWAN RIVER James H. Bilton P.C. Swan River, Man. ROL 1ZO THE PAS Hon. Ron McBryde NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova THOMPSON Joseph P. Borowski Ind. NOP La Salle, Man. ROG 180 TRANSCONA Hon. Russell Paulley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova VIRDEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO WELLINGTON Philip M.

Petursson NOP 6a1 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 WINNIPEG CENTRE J.R. (Bud) Boyce NOP 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg R3E OR5 WOLSELEY 1.H. Asper Lib. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'cl ock, Thursday, Ap ril 12, 1973 Opening Prayer by Mr . Speaker. IN TRODUCTION OF GUESTS 1641 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 58 students of Grades 4, 5 and 6 standing of the John Dafoe School . These students are under the direction of Mrs. Sundberg and Mrs. Roch. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for River Heights, the Leader of the Opposition. We also have 23 students of Grade 11 standing of the Morden Colleg iate.

These students are under the direction of Mrs. Sparkes and Mr. Poetker. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Pembina. And we have 28 students of Grade 11 standing of the Swan River Collegiate. These stu dents are under the direction of Mr. Lukewich. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Swan River. On behalf of all the honourable members I welcome you here today.

Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Spe cial Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports ; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. The Honourable Attorney-General. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. A. H. MACKLI NG, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (St. James) introduced Bill No. 8,

an Act to amend The Assignment of Books Debt Act; and Bill No. 9,

an Act to amend and repeal The Lien Notes Act. MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions. The Honourable Member for Lake side. ORAL QUES TION PERIOD MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Agricultur e. I wonder if the Honourable Minister can tell me whether or not the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation did in fact borrow a certain sum of money - $125, OOO - to the son of the Chairman of that Board, Michael Hofford for the purchase of certain lands in the Swan River Valley? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON.

SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I think I should in response to that question first indicate to the members of the House that they are indeed treading on very very dangerous ground in pursuing . . . -- (Interjections) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . MR. USKIW: Well again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the members opposite that if they wish that kind of information, and it can be made available, that we will get into a situation . -- (Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member state his point of order? MR.

ENNS: The Honourable Minister as I'm well aware need not answer my question but this is hardly the time for him to make a statement, Sir. I ask the question once more and he can choose not to answer the question if he chooses to. Now my question is . .. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . Order, please. That is not a point of order. A ques tion may be answered in any manner, way, shape or form, or may not be answered, that's the only rules we have. The Honourable Member for Lakeside wish to rephrase his question. MR. ENNS: On a point of order, Mr . Speaker, with the greatest respect. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please .

The point of order is not debatable in regards to my ruling. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Agricultu re. Did the Manitoba. Agricultural Credit Corporation lend some hundred thousands of dollars to the son of the Chairman of the Manitoba Agricultural Corporation for the purchase of certain farmlands in the Swan River Valley? MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in answering that question. I believe it to be true, al though I haven't specifically written and asked for the information, but I gather that it is true.

1642 April 12, 1973 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. ENNS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable Minister will undertake to ascer tain whether or not that statement is true before he accuses me of dealing in falsehoods. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I did not accuse the honourable mem ber of dealing in falsehoods with respect to the question of that loan having been made or not. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. I. H. (Izzy) ASPER (Leader of the Liberal Party) (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Utilities, I'll direct my question to the - Public Works - I'll direct my question to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is it a true statement of govern ment policy by the Minister of Public Works as quoted in today's Winnipeg Tribune: "It would be unfortunate if provincial governments decided to focus their construction activities outside Winnipeg because Winnipeg Councils were being unduly obstructionist." MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have not heard that particular statement nor seen it until the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party has just quoted it now.

The answer is of course that the policy of the Province of Manitoba is to construct government service buildings wherever they are required, and we do say quite freely and openly of course that all things being equal we would prefer to have more decentralization of the delivery of public services which means that in degree there will be more public buildings built in places that are rural town centres, regional town centres, such as Brandon, Dauphin, Swan River, The Pas, etc. MR . ASPER: To the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is then the conclusion drawn in the

article to which I refer to the effect the re µJrt . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind the honourable member of Beauchesne Citation 171: It is not in the interests to ask whether a question oral, written - it must not contain inquiries whether statements made in newspapers are true. MR. ASPER: The question.

Is the Government of Manitoba saying to the City of Winnipeg that unless the government's building permit for the washroom and others are approved, including some low rental housing, that unless those are approved the Government of Manitoba will shift its building policy to move buildings away from Winnipeg? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I thought I made it clear to the contrary that the location of any future construction of public service buildings will be determined on the basis of a policy of decentralization wherever possible on the basis of convenience of access to the citizens of the province, and the last thing we would want to do, Sir, is to pursu.:; a policy that is based on vindictiveness which seems to be at the basis of my honourable friend's question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR.

ASPER: Will the First Minister then undertake to so instruct the Minister of Public Works so that he no longer makes these threats to the City of Winnipeg. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. The question is out of order because it states an opinion. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my ques tion to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him if there have been any further elections to the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board, and in what districts and who were elected? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, specifically I'm not sure of the number of the district or who was elected. I think there have been some activities in one region of the province in the last week. I would presume that they had concluded although I'm not sure. That is pursuant to a by-law that was passed some time ago and it's an ongoing process and will be complete in No vember of this year. MR.

JORGENSON: I should like to ask the Minister a further question and inquire as to whether or not they have reached an agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan for the setting up of a super-board, super imposed over the Manitoba and the Saskatchewan Hog Marketing Boards. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister state his point of order? MR. SCHREYER: I think that there is more than a trace of argumentation in the ques tion the way it was phrased. I believe, Sir, that Beauchesne does indicate that argumentation in the form of a question is not permissible.

April 12, 1973 1643 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. JORGENS ON: My question was not argumentative in any way at al l. My question was simply if the Minister had reached an agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan in the setting up of a super-board, and I don't know what else I could call it, to be imposed over the marketing boards of Manitoba and the marketing boards of Saskatchewan with which they would endeavour to co-ordinate the policies of these two boards. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: It sounds like a very good idea, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to my honourable friend that in this House on a number of occasions, and outside of this House on a number of occasions, I had given indication that the three prairie provinces were indeed involved in negot iations that might in effect bring about a prairie marketing agency for pork. When an announce ment is ready to be made it shall be made, Mr . Speaker. MR. JORGE NSON: My question was a very direct question. Has an agreement been reached now? MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I would wish that the Honourable Member from Morris would stop and think about his question for a moment because really if there had been an agreement, an announcement would be made. Obviously he has more intelligence than what he's implying to the House . MR. JORGENS ON: That is not necessarily the case. An announcement was made .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, pleas e. This is not the debating hour. Oral questions. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Is it his intention to carry out the threat that he put over the news media last night that all farmers in this province will be exposed to public scrutiny if we on this side of the House dare to stand up for justice, for any particular farmer, or any particular individual, in the Province of Manitoba. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, if my honourable friend would have been awake yesterday he would have realized that the press report emanated from statements made in this Chamber wherein I was replying to members opposite who were alleg ing certain things, and wherein I indicated that if it is their wish that we open up the whole MA CC program . -- (Interjection) - The Member for Lake side has suggested there was need for some perusal or investigation on the part of all members of the Legislature. I had indicated that that would be a compromising act on the people that are now in contract with the MA CC and not desirable.

But if my honour able friends want to pursue individual applications that is the course that we may have to take . MR. WATT: I was quite awake in the House yesterday within the confines of this .. MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR. WA TT: On a point of privilege. I say to my honourable friend that I was quite awake in the House yesterday afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One cannot use a point of privilege to debate. Order, please. If the honourable member has a question I'll entertain it. MR. WATT: I raise now a point of privilege.

That I referred in my question to the broadcast that went out over the news media last night which did occur in this House yesterday within the confines of this Chamber, but the threat went out to the farmers of the Province of Manitoba last night over the news media. I a:sk him again now, is it his intention to carry out that threat? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. The Honourable First Minister state his point of order? MR, SCHREYER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, My point of order is that if my Honourable friend the Member for Arthur is referring to a separate or special broadcast or _interview that is one thing; if he is referring however to a news report which emanated from coverage of a debate or exchange that took place in this Chamber, then the broadcasting of it cannot constitute a point of privilege if it is something that took place in this Chamber. MR. JORGENS ON: . . . that is referred to by the Member for Arthur was a taped interview outside of this House by the Minister of Agriculture over the CBC. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR.

ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. And I ask him then if he wouldn't consider it advisable, or would he not -- I ask him the direct question, will he not consider the calling of an inquiry into the loan, the single loan under

April 12, 1973 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... question? It's not a question of the loans of all farmers of Manitoba, it is the situation where the chairman of t.he body with the jurisdiction loans certain moneys to his son after that same money and the same land was approved to another farmer. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is debating the point. The Honourable First Minister . MR. SCHREYER: Perhaps I might be allowed at least an equal amount of latitude as was allowed my honourable friend.

The transaction he referred to is one which took place upon the recommendation of a credit agent; it was determined by a board, which did not include at the time of the deliberation the person in question, and therefore I think is analogous to loans that have been made in the past. I think for example of the Great Northern capital loan in the case of the Columbia Forest Products, and many others.

In any case, Sir, if there is a genuine desire to have some systematic analysis made of that kind of loan, then it ought to be on a basis of universal principle which would mean then that we should do as we do with the MDC now, have the entire activity brought before the Standing Committee, as we do with the MDC vis-a-vis the Economic Standing Committee, and to deal with all of these on the basis of a justifiable universal principle and not on the basis of a muck-raking vendetta. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WATT: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister may not reply if he does not wish to but he has not replied to the question . . . MR. SPEAKER: Question, please. Question. MR. WATT: All right, I repeat my question. Is it the intention of the Minister to carry out the threats, the threats such as the Nazi Socialists used in the case of the Czechoslovakians in another day? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I again suggest to honourable members that questions must -- Order, please.

I would like to suggest that a member in putting a question must confine himself to the narrowest limits; in expressing opinions and adding other material to it the question becomes out of order, and I'm sure honourable members are totally aware of this. -- (Interjection) -- Well there's provocation on both sides. I'm willing to suggest that if this matter is going to be raised as a question, it would be better answered in the Estimates when the Agriculture Departments are being debated and it would be so much easier to deal with it there instead of in the question period at the present time. Oral questions.

The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. GEORGE HENDERSON (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Has there been a date set for the completion of the new survey in connection with the Pembina Dam? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment) (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice. I'm not aware of what survey the honourable member is referring to. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. WALLY JOHANNSON (St. Matthews): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that Jorgenson Farms of Morris have a loan from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: It's becoming very obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that these kind of questions do not do justice to the people of Manitoba with whom the MACC is in contract. If the honour able friends opposite insist on that kind of procedure, I would hope that my colleagues here do not. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.

C. (Leader of the Opposition) (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege of the House. Mr. Speaker, we have an issue, everyone under stands the issue very clearly. MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member state his point of privilege? MR. SPIVAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. There have been allegations made in the House in connection with a Crown corporation, in connection with the chairman of the Crown corp oration. Those allegations remain unsatisfactory the answers to those allegations remain

April 12, 1973 1645 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .... . unsatisfactory insofar as the House is concerned. -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Speaker, the deliberate charade on the part of the government ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a matter of privilege. Order, please. Let's all cool it off. Oral questions. The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That was not a point of privilege. MR. ASPER: Then on a new point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member state it. MR.

ASPER: The point of privilege of the House, a member of this Chamber has deliberately injected the personal affairs of a member of this House that he could only have had access to by the breach of confidentiality, and, Mr. Speaker, this calls for action by you, Sir, to determine how the member who raised the question acquired that information ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. That too is not a matter of privilege. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of privilege. Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party has suggested that a member has raised something which he could only have known had he had access to confidential information. Mr. Speaker, that is not correct, it merely indicates the fact that the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party has no contemplation as to how things are known, and I rise on a point of privilege on the member's statement that there has been a breach of confidence because somebody has asked a question with regard to a particular loan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I do now rise on a point of personal privilege. Inasmuch as a member of the Chamber has indicated, or cast a question of the dealings of other members of this Legislature with the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, I should want to indicate very openly and very clearly my implications of Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. Mr. Chairman . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. ORDER! ORDER PLEASE! That is not a matter of privilege of this House. Order, please. Oral questions. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, allow me to attempt to make the point of privilege. I have had past dealings with this Credit Corporation under question. The suggestion has been made by a member of this House that disclosure of that information should be made, the implication being that there would be some reason why disclosure should not be made as far as any mem bers of this House are concerned. -- (Interjection) -- Well, surely that was the implication made by the honourable . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. That is not a matter of privilege of this House. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. JOSEPH P.

BOROWSKI (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder if he could indicate if he has had any correspondence, negotiations, or whether he has made a request to Ottawa to get abortions deleted from Medicare payments? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. RENE R. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Development) (Springfield): Mr.

Speaker, in the past three and a half years we have had the opportunity to discuss abor tions and related procedures at different conferences of Health Ministers and this has never resulted on my part, or reached a consensus on the part of Health Ministers, to ask the Federal Government to withdraw totally abortions from the criminal code. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson have a supplementary? MR. BOROWSKI: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary. Could he indicate if the province has jurisdiction regarding the coverage of various medical procedures oper ations in Manitoba under Medicare?

MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, pertaining to insured coverages under a plan there is an agreement reached between the province in question and the Federal Government in as far as the cost-share arrangements are arrived at, whether it be to insure and cost-share for new services, or to withdraw such from Medicare. MR. BOROWSKI: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered the question. Has he specifically as the Minister on behalf of this government at any time asked Ottawa to allow

1646 April 12, 1973 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. BOROWSKI cont'd) .... . them, if it's necessary to have that permission, to allow them to delete abortion from Medicare coverage under provincial Medicare. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, as a Minister of the Crown being part of the Cabinet and receiving directions from Cabinet, I have never made that request. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Education. With respect to Dr.

Orlikow's recent public statements attack ing certain customs and practices of the Department of Education, is this person speaking in this manner on either instructions, or by agreement or consent, of the Minister? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi�ster of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education) (B urrows): Mr. Speaker, it's rather difficult, in fact impossible, to reply to a question asking for comment on recent statements at certain times, none of which are known to me, with any degree of precision. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E.

GRAHAM (B irtle-Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker .. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Is the Minister not aware of the actions of the senior members of his department? MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR . GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works and it arises out of a statement he made last night on the television when he said that $40, OOO of Federal money was involved in the building of a public washroom.

Can the Minister indicate which minister of the Federal Government approved the building of the washroom on Memorial Boulevard? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Was Mr. Bowles refused the privilege of legal accompaniment when he appeal ed the ruling of the Farm Credit Corporation under the chairmanship of Mr. Max Hofford? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR . USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I would think that that sort of answers itself, I don't know how anyone can refuse legal advice from anyone or for anyone. MR. BILTON: I wonder if the Minister would enquire into that &ilbject. I said legal accompaniment before the board. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that it's in the interests of the people of Mani toba that we engage in this kind of thing with respect to every loan that• s either approved or declined, and there were hundreds of declines, and if we do that with each one we may as well set up a formal committee which allows the members here to peruse all of the transactions . MR.

BILTON: I am interested in a constituent of mine who has been wronged ... MR. SPEAKER: Question, please. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable the House Leader. I wonder if the House Leader could indicate if he could call the Agricultural Committee at the earliest possible date to deal with this matter? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, if the matter is referred to Agricultural CommittEe, then certainly I don't think that there would be any particular delay in calling it. I would indicate, Mr.

Speaker, something that I forgot to mention yesterday, I believe that we have the general agreement of the House that next Thursday we would sit morning and afternoon, that would affect one of the meetings that was intended to be called for Public Utilities, but that we would sit morning and afternoon on Thursday and we would not sit of course on Friday, we would sit on Monday. So we would have Thursday evening off so that members could commute to their constituencies for the vacation period. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, to the House L_eader.

Could the House Leader tell us when he intends to have called the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I think that that will be very shortly. We intend to try to deal with one committee at a time, we've had fairly regular meetings of the Committee on

April 12, 1973 1647 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. GREEN cont'd) .. ... Public utilities . There's only so much time in the week; we've met in Public utilities I think almost twice a week in the last two weeks, and that are intended it to meet that way next week as well. The honourable member of course has no other pressing obli gations in the mornings but there are members of the government benches who have to have some time in which to administer their departments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Mr.

Speaker, could the House Leader then indicate, regardless of when the committee intends to meet, whenever he intends to call it, when will he make available to the members of that committee, and the members of this House, the financial statements that they will be required to consider, including those companies in which the government has major investments. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that those would be made available when the committee meets. The committee will meet before the end of the session. MR. 'ASPER: To the same Minister, Mr . Speaker .

Can he advance any reason that the members of that committee should be denied the opportunity in advance to study the material that they'll be required to meet on. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the annual report of the fund has been given to honourable members. The explanation with regard to statements, and their figures on those statements, will be made when the reports are presented. I have the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the bare reports without explanation could cause more confusion than would assist members. MR. ASPER: To the same Minister, I wasn't referring to the reporL . MR. SPEAKER: Question please . MR.

ASPER: The Minister may not have understood my question, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't referring -- I am referring, Mr. Minister, to the reports of those corporations, Flyer Industries, Phoenix Data, Saunders Airc raft, and a host of others ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable House Leader on a point of order. MR. GREEN: ... I understood very well the honourable member's question, and I gave an answer to it, and if the honourable member will read it in Hansard perhaps he will understand the answer. MR. ASPER: It is a fair assumption, Mr. Minister, and through you, Mr.

Speaker, that the reports to which I referred are so confusing that they can't be understood without a . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Again, the honourable member is -- (Interjection) - The Honourable Member for St. Vital . MR. JAME S WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General, and it arises from a statement this morning that the Member for Wolseley can't remember where his car is. Would the Attorney-General consider instructing the RCMP to institute a search for this vehicle? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Again, may I remind all honourable members that questions oral or written must not be ironical, offensive. contain innuendos, satire or ridicule. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . MR. USKIW: Mr. Speake r, the other day during the Estimates of my department I tabled in the House the annual report of the Water Supply B oard and inadvertently, Mr.

Speaker, that report should have been tabled within the first 15 days of the opening of the House, but it was an oversight due to the fact that it's somewhat of a redundant situation because of the new act passed which sort of dissolved the old board, and for that reason the department overlooked that one in the first instance and I apologize to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A, R. (Pete) ADAM (Ste. Rose): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources.

I wish he could advise me in view of the light runoff this spring of water, could he advise whether the Fairford Dam is closed or is it open at the present time? MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. HON, LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs) (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Honourable Member for Minnedosa asked .me if I'd received any requests from the people of Clear Lake re their post office. I told him at the

1648 April 12, 1973 ORAL QUE STION PERIOD (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd) .... . time that I hadn't seen the letter, which was true. There was a letter in the office and my staff was getting some information.

Now it would appear by the inquiries that this is not only related to the rental of the post office or staff, there is more than that, and I answered these people, sent a letter today, and I suggested that they ask the Park administration to look into that because this was being done, Ottawa's been notified, and I think that it's possible that this is a new policy of Ottawa in their parks, and we don't intend to interfere because we have certain policies that we are advocating for our parks also. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. JEAN ALLARD (Rupertsland): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. Will the government be returning to Sandy Bay Reserve the PEP grant that they had called back? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have some information on that but I believe the Minister of Industry and Commerce has also information and he is more intimately aware, and the Minister of Industry perhaps could now indicate what the nature of the difficulty or problem is, if any, relative to the Sandy Bay PEP grant. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. HON. LEONARD s.

EV ANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Brandon East): The question was asked awhile ago about the Sandy Bay PEP grant. There has been no reduction or withdrawal of the grant as such. However, the guidelines pertaining to PEP grants state that any unexpended amount from the previous year must be utilized in the subsequent year and this is all that has occurred in this case, and we're simply following the policy guidelines laid out for the PEP program and as such there has been no withdrawal of funds from the Sandy Bay Band PEP application. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. BOROWSKl: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate whether he's been asked by anyone to approve charges against certain teachers and school administrators at Camperville as a result of the walkout of the children several weeks ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: I certainly haven't had reference made to me, although, you know, I have considerable staff, but it has not been brought to my attention of any request for any pro ceedings against anyone in the Camperville area, including teachers. MR. BOROWSKl: I have a question for the First Minister.

I wonder if he could table the document, if he has the document, regarding an agreement made with Mr. Courchene, or the MIB, the other day about giving him certain land and certain water royalties that are really the responsibility and the rights of the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, well first of all there is no agreement as such.

What was indicated was that in the event that the Government of Canada does make representations or requests to the Province of Manitoba with respect to a course of action that would provide a better resource base to the native communities of the province, bringing them closer to parity with the native communities of Saskatchewan and Alberta, that the province would want to consider, and consider favourably, any such requests for an expanded resource base.

I make it clear however, that that is not tantamount to saying that there would be an inclination to actually convey lands as reserves in the traditional sense that reserves are known; but an exp:mded resource base we feel is worthy of negotiation and consideration with the Government of Canada and the reserve or native communities.

With respect to the water rentals, what is involved there, as I indicated to the House several days ago, is the dedication of the water rentals pertaining to the Churchill River Diversion in such a form that would be, that would provide funds for the meeting of claims for adjustment of livelihood and for general economic development in the region. It is in that sense an elaboration, if you like, of a concept that was mentioned quite some years ago in this Chamber I believe, in 1966 was the first time it had been brought forward. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson, a supplemental. MR.

BOROWSKl: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier could indi cate whether he has had meetings personally with the Chiefs and elected councillors at the various 53 or 55 bands, or he is simply dealing with Courchene who pretends to speak on behalf of these people?

April 12, 1973 1649 ORAL QU ESTION PERIOD MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly met with quite a number of band com munity councils, with band councils, and also there have been dealings, as there have been for years, with the Manitoban Indian Brotherhood. I cannot accept the implicit, what is implicit in the question that Mr. Courchene pretends to speak. He is the elected President of the Indian Brotherhood and it is up to the Indian communities to decide who their elected represent atives will be. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR.

ALLARD: I have a question for the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the government to apply the revenues from water rentals to the field of compensation for damages, or is it going to be the policy of the government to apply the revenues from water rentals to helping to equalize living conditions of all northern residents? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, that question was asked in almost identical form either yesterday or the day before and I replied -- I don't mind replying again.

The nature of the water rentals, the formula, etc. , the amounts involved, are such as to provide, perhaps not sufficiently, but much more than at present for all of those contingencies. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works, who is very close to his chair. Was the Minister of Public Works correctly quoted in today's newspapers as decidedly . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again I must repeat a question oral vr written must not inquire whether statements made in newspapers are true. Beauchesne Citation 171, sub

section (e). MR. ASPER: I'll rephrase the question. Did the Minister indicate outside of this House that the City of Winnipeg was being unduly obstructionist in its handling of the application for the permit and the zoning, and should such obstruction continue it would be the policy of this government to move building projects out of the city? MR.. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister state his matter of privilege. MR, SCHREYER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated about 20 minutes ago what the policy of the government was. There's no point in asking again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. ASPER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the point of privilege the question was not directed to the First Minister at all. My question is did this Minister say that? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again .. . Beauchesne Citation 171 indicates also that a policy question must not be asked to a minister. It may be asked of the First Minister. The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: My question has nothing whatever to do with policy. My question is. Did the Minister indicate, did he say that the City of Winnipeg was being unduly obstructionist, did he say that, let's start with that? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works. Order, please. Order, please. HON. RUSSELL DOERN (Minister of Public Works) (E lmwood): Mr. Speaker, I made that statement because in this particular instance it's a fact. MR. ASPER: Did the Minister also say that that the reason for the city's obstruction was that the members of the committee involved were politically adverse to the Minister's party? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. ASPER: Well, Mr. Speaker, supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR, BOROWSKl: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the same Minister of Public Works whether he's going to follow a policy of asking a council, whether it's a Winnipeg council or any other council, to give him blanket permission in advance to break their by-laws before he'll put any buildings in their community? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Arthur. The Honour able Member for Arthur. Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Public Works. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, we have complied with all zoning and building requirements, we are only asking the City of Winnipeg to abide by the same law.

1650 April 12, 1973 ORAL QUEST ION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. Order, please. The honourable members that wish to have a special conference would they kindly get together outside. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct a question to the First Minister. think that I gave the Minister notice of this question yesterday. Mr. Speaker. my question to the First Minister is, as a result of the meeting this morning would the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Question please? MR. WATT: As a result -- I'm coming to my question, Mr. Speaker.

My question is as the result of the meeting this morning with the joint organizations, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the. Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, the Manitoba Farm Bureau, the Manitoba Region National Farming Union and the Union of the Manitoba Municipalities -- (Interjection) -- My honourable friend suggests a search party . . . MR. SPEAKER: Question please, Question please. MR.

WATT: My question is: As the result of this meeting is . . -- (Interjection) -- Is it the intention of the Minister to immediately put into effect any or all of the recommendations made by the joint submission that he received this morning? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can inform my honourable friend, and I take - he'll forgive me for taking some pleasure in informing him that that brief which was prepared approximately a month or two ago was prepared in advance of the Manitoba Budget for 1973.

We received their submission now and I'm very pleased to report that, that literally, literally, Sir, eight out of the ten proposals are now a part of reality and fiscal policy. MR. WATT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I really haven't had time to read fully the submission but I do see seven . . . MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR, WATT: ..• seven recommendations. My question then, Mr. Speaker, we'll call it question, and then I may have a supplementary. The question is, the recommendation No. 5, the tax on property for education costs should consider the exclusion of farm land. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, yes, that was that was discussed and it was also acknowl edged that the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Department of Municipal Affairs will be working concurrently and in co-operation with each other in order to plumb the depths of that rather difficult assignment. And it was agreed mutually that it is in fact a monumental type of restructuring that is envisaged there.

At the same time I can advise my honourable friend that it was acknowledged that as a result of the 1973 Budget, and in fact partly the 1972 Budget, that the submissions objective of seeing only 20 percent of the cost of education borne by local property taxpayers, that we have reached 22 percent so we're very close. It is definitely true, 22 percent, netted, Mr. Speaker. That was acknowledged by representatives at this meeting.

My honourable friend was not at the meeting but he should speak to the Association of School Trustees, representatives of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Farm Bureau, all of whom acknowledged the fact. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emer son): Yes, I would like to ask the Honourable the First Minister, if the total expenditure in education is paid in proportion of 22 percent locally and the rest by government if the total . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR, SCHREYER: ... is speaking in grand aggregate terms.

I was not speaking only in terms of the foundation program which is on an 80/20 ratio now, but of the grand totality or aggregate, which when taking into account the enhanced foundation program, and also taking into account the property tax credit rebate plan, taking it in its grand aggregate of the total of some 217 million, 22 percent of that is based on real property netted out after the school property tax credit plan is involved. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. CY GONICK (Crescentwood): I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Would the Minister care to make a statement on his, the actions of his department with regard to the school in Cam perville? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce.

April 12, 1973 1651 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member from Roblin asked a question a few weeks ago. Have any PEP grants been withdrawn due to misrepresentation on the application forms, and we've now done a review of the virtually hundreds, and in fact thousands, that have been received, there has been one that has been withdrawn because after investigation it was determined that the project was initiated for purposes other than for benefit to that particular community, and the community has been so advised.

I also took as notice - rather the First Minister took as notice, on my behalf, Mr. Speaker, the matter of insurance rates with regard to shipping in and out of Churchill, the question being have we had any negotiations with Lloyds of London regarding to adding to the insurance now offered for ships travelling in Churchill during the season? I can advise the honourable members that we have had discussions over the past couple of years with a number of insurance companies, including Lloyds.

There has been no formal contact over the past several months but I can advise honourable members that unfortunately the major insurer, namely Lloyds of London, tend to consider the experience of the previous ten year period in assessing their premium level and has, if anything, been thinking of increasing the level of insurance . However, in any event, Mr.

Speaker, the premiums for the standard season which is July 23rd to October 20th do not make the Port of Churchill uncompetitive, and indeed the level of insurance rates do not seem really to be the fundamental problem in increasing activity in and out of the Port of Churchill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. BOROWSKI: I have one final question for the Attorney-General. In view of the charges made by several ministers today in the House that the City of Winnipeg was breaking a law, I wonder if the Attorney-General is going to take the City of Winnipeg to court. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. GONICK: Yes. I'll rephrase that question to the Minister of Education. Would the Minister care to clari fy the situation with respect to the relationship between his depart ment and the school at Camperville? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we've had discussions with the people in Camper ville and with those of the Duck Mountain School, with the Board of Duck Mountain School Division, and insofar as any allegations regarding the relationship between the Winnipegosis and the Camperville people is concerned, I have indicated to those who feel in anyway aggrieved that the proper course of action to take is either to complain to the Attorney-General's Department or the Human Rights Commission.

But the concern of my department is primarily one of insuring that all children in the Province of Manitoba receive the education program that the school division is prepared to offer, and does offer, and that it is accessible to them. Camperville, Mr.

Speaker, is no different from -- the Community of Camperville is no different from many others, a number of others in the province in a similar geographical location where they are somewhat isolated, removed from the rest of the area, and hence at the present time provision is being made, in the course of being prepared, for the instruction of the Camperville students; but also various other alternatives are being considered, as they presently are in a nuniber of other areas of Manitoba with respect to any transfer of land from one division to another to provide the best educational facilities possible. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GIRARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education, based on his own suggestion -- he says that Camperville is no different from any other area ... MR. SPEAKER: Question, please. MR. GIRARD: ... well then, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know if that is the case, why is it that they have qualified for additional grants? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member care to repeat this question, I'm . .. MR. GIRARD: I hope I'll be permitted.

I would like to know, based on your statement, and your statement is, that Camperville is no different from . .. MR. SPEAKER: Question, please. We've heard the statement. A MEMBER: Don't bother Gabe leave it out. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader.

1652 April 12, 1973 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would please call the bills in order of their appearance on the Order Paper. GOVERNMENT BILLS - SECOND READING BILL 18 MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour, Bill No. 18. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR, ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill that the Honourable Member for Emerson has already dealt with at some length, I think it bears some further examination and scrutiny on our behalf, because, Mr.

Speaker, the difficulty that is presented in this bill although maybe on the surface, and not all that great, but surely it' s again an example of the government being prepared to set itself in a category apart from what the general rule is in the province and certainly apart from what it demands of the private sector.

The bill demands certain things from the private sector; it offers certain things to the workmen employed in the construction industry in the private sector, I would hope a greater degree of safety in the sense that making the private sector on a weekly basis report to the Workmen's Compensation Board at any time that a construction permit is taken out so that the Compensation Board is immediately apprised of the possi ble commencement of a construction job, so that the officers of the Workmen' s Compensation Board can therefore so

schedule their time that the kind of inspection called for from time to time by the officers of the Compensation Board, that they in fact make that inspection on site. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is no quarrel with the principle of the matter to this extent.

I think that there is a general concern that we share on this side, as much as they have on that side, that our construction industry, which unfort unately because of the nature of the industry, is one of the higher accident prone industries, the highest accident prone industry that we have in the province and so any measure, any endeavour that we take to les sen the chances for unsafe working conditions, to improve the safety conditions for the workmen engaged on these sites, has to be approved of by I think all members of this House. But, Mr.

Speaker, -- (Interjection) -- and the Honourable Minister of Labour says th at's a change. Well then just let me underline the change in this ... They say that they have this concern for the workmen if they'r e working in the private sector, or that this extra measure of protection should be given to the workmen working in the private sector. But in the public sector, and when the government takes out construction permits - they seem to have difficulty in getting those permits lately, Mr. Speaker.

But be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that when the legislation as it is pres ently drafted, and this is really what caused the Honourable Member for Emerson, the Honourable Member from Emerson to suggest that maybe the bill should go back for redrafting because the bill certainly implies, or leaves the question wide open as to whether or not the government has to put itself under the same strictures that it expects private industry to impose upon itself. -- (Interjection) - Well I think it should .. I think it should. Well the Honoura ble Minister says it does.

It' s not plainly explained in the bill how it does. It's a question of, if the government is not called upon to acquire the permits and it is only upon the acq uisit ion of the permit that the Workmen' s Compensation Board is to be informed, then I'm suggesting that the government is legislating one thing for the private sector, another thing for themselves. I remind the Honourable Minister, Mr.

Speaker, that it is the person or the agency that undertakes the work that has to apply for the permit, not the contractor, not the hired con tractor or sub-contractor, etc., but it is the owner, and in the case of government buildings and government projects, then sur ely it is the government that has to apply for these permits . Now if this government doesn' t have to apply for these permits, how is that notification that they are automatically writing into this bill that should go forward to the Workmen's Compen sation Board on a weekly basis, on a weekly basis, be sustained. Mr.

Speaker, I su ggest that this is another kind of an example -- I don't wish to make a mountain out of this matter, but it is an indication of the rather cavalier attitude that this government has with respect to recognizing its own responsibilities . And in an area, Mr. Speaker, where they should be the first ones to recognize their responsibilities, mainly the safety of their workmen.

They get on a pretty pious chair when they tell the private sector as to what to do and what not to do about insuring safe working conditions, about insuring that such agencies as the Workmen's C ompensation Board should be immediately, weekly, notified

April 12 , 1973 1653 BILL 18 (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... the moment that a work permit, a building permit is taken out, the Workmen's Compensation Board should be notified. But they reserve for themselves the right not to bother to notify the Workmen's Compensation Board. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that is not equitable treatment; that is not being fair to both portions of the economy that deal heavily in the construction industry and, Mr.

Speaker, I say it 's of particular signi ficance with this government insofar as the amount of activity in the construction industry by the public sector is of course increasing by leaps and bounds under this government, Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that this Minister should check this legislation and perhaps redraft it and resubmit it but surely -- and I await his explanation -- surely it is not his intention to remove the onus from government any possible measures such as the measures that he is asking the private sector to undertake, to notify the Compensation Board immediately upon the taking out of a work permit, for reasons that I have already mentioned, that he would not want to ask his co lleagues, his colleague the Minister of Public Works, to exclude him self from that provision of the act. Now, Mr.

Speaker, there is a difference after all of whether or not it is written into the act in a fair way for all members of our peoples or whether they ju st give us an indication of what they intend to do. Mr. Speaker, we've had an indication of how the Minister of Public Works is prepared to abide by regulations, well-established, well set down. If he is prepared to ignore the regulations requiring the issuance of building permits to begin with, why then, Mr.

Speaker, do we have any co nfidence in this administration that they v. �� ". ld indeed fulfill the obligations that they might otherwise undertake to make but not called for, not ca lled for in this act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister state his point of order? MR, DOERN: Mr. Spe aker, I'm ju st wondering whether or not the member is in fact addressing himself to the bill before us. If he wants to debate these other matters which are only slightly related, then I think that's another point, but in my ju dgment he is straying widely from the bill before us. MR, ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether that was a point of order. I touch on the one principle in the bill, and we are dealing with the bill in second reading which does not permit you to deal in detail with a bill but rather to deal with it in principle, and to me, I have already indicated, as has the Member for Emerson indicated, that Her Majesty's Official Opposition as such is not in opposition to this bill, nor to what we believe to be the essence of the bill.

We are critical, and we have said we can' t support the bill because of its sloppy drafting, and because of its omission with respect to the government being equally co mmitted to making the kind of reports to the Workmen's Compensation Board that it expects the private sector to make. And that, Sir, is the only aspect of the bill that I chose to speak about the bill. I have no quarrel with my honourable friend the Minister of Labour's intention with the bill as such. But I'm suggesting, Mr.

Speaker, it's another example of how this government assumes, makes a natural assumption that government, particu larly their government, is immune to the kind of restrictures and regulations that they gleefully impose upon any other members of our society. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. LEONARD A. BARKMAN (L a Verendrye): Mr.

Speaker, I could say that we intend to support the bill but my colleague was going to speak on it, but perhaps for the sake of not stopping the bill or stalling the bill -- he will probably have an opportunity -- we have some reservations I'm sure that we would like to bring out, but perhaps not to stall the bill we can leave that for a later date. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. The Honourable Member for Charles wood. MR. ARTHUR MOUG (C harleswood): I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and passed. MR.

SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney . Bill No. 24. MR. EARL McKELLAR (S ouris-Killarney) : ... the matter stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Agr eed) Bill No. 30. The Honourable Attorney-General.

1G54 April 12, 1973 BIL L 13 MR, SPEAKER: Bill No. 13. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Selkirk) presented Bill No. 13 ,

an Act to amend The Local Authorities Election Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR, SPEA KER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a few minor changes all of which are designated to make the election machinery of local government run more smoothly. There is a provision in the bill that will make it clear that an elector is a person who is qualified to vote in an election of members of council whether or not that person appears on the list of electors for the municipality.

This will make it clear that a person having those qualifi cations may for instance sign a nomination paper even though his name may have been inadvert ently omitted from the list of electors . There is a provision whereby a Returning Officer may appoint an assistant. Until now this privilege has been restricted to the Returning Officer of a city. We find there are occasions when the Returning Officer of a smaller municipality may be absent from his or her office at a time when he may be required to perform such duties as acc eptance of delivery of documents.

It therefore seems reasonable that in anticipating such events a Returning Officer should have the authority to appoint an Assistant who should be able to perform such duties during his temporary absence. There has recently been raised some questions as to whether ballot papers were printed upon sufficiently good stock to assure against transparency. It has therefore been considered advisable to introduce into the Local Authorities Election Act the same standard of quality for paper as is now contained in the Election Act of the province.

There is a provision allow ing to the Returning Officer a greater discretion in appointing election officers in event that one becomes ill. Another provision will make it pos sible for the Returning Officer to cause a ballot paper to be delivered to an incapacitated voter as an alternati ve to mailing it to him. At the present time the act provides only that the ballot paper shall be sent to the elector to arrive by ordinary mail not later than four days before the day on which polling takes pla ce.

The act presently requires the Deputy Returning Officer to make and subscribe an affidavit as to the authenticity of the poll book before he returns it to the Returning Officer. Occasionally there is no one present at the poll before whom this affidavit may be taken. The suggested amendment will provide that the Deputy Returning Officer complete and sign a certificate instead. MR. SPEAKER: Is the House prepared to adopt the motion? The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR, MOUG: I like to move, seconded by the Member for Birtle-Russell, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and passed. BILL 32 MR.

SPEAKER: Bill No. 32. The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON, RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Lab our) (Transcona) presented Bill No. 32,

an Act to amend The Fires Prevention Act, for second reading. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labo ur. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill dealing with the Fires Prevention Act I hope I don't :run into such red herrings in this one as I have with another bill that I introduced the other day. This bill deals with the certain matters under the Fire .Prevention Act and it does not deal with such matters as forest fires or water dugouts for the purpose of fighting fires. I indicate this by way of explanation, Mr.

Speaker, so that my friends opposite will �ot want to cover the waterfront and run around in various misdirectives that they're doing, do do from time to time. This bill is introduced because of the change of certain descriptions of insurance. In the present legislation,

Section G6(1) with reference to a special fund assessment on fire insur ance companies the words "the business of fire insurance within the meaning of the insurance act" are used. And, Mr. Speaker, since the term "fire insurance business" has been replaced by the broader term, "property insurance" in a regulation that was passed last year, it is

April 12, 1973 1655 BILL 32 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) . .... necessary to amend this

section so that the appropriate wording will be used in order to avoid possible difficulty in the collection of assessments on premiums. My understanding that the change in terminology will result in a broadening of the assessment base for collection purposes to include insurance covering such items as wind damage, hail damage, damage to inland marine equipment, sprinkler le akage, theft and personal floaters, etc. This type of insurance is sold by the present fire insurance companies so there will be no new companies affected.

The change will however increase the base upon which our assessment is made by about five million of dollars on the basis of the figures that prevailed in 1971. The total insurance premiums on the new base of property insurance premiums in 197 1 was $24, 322 , 104. 00. On the old base of fire insurance, total premiums in 1971 were $17, 176, OOO. 00. When the amend ment is passed the Order-in-Council authorizing collection of one percent of the new property insurance base would produce $240, OOO as opposed to 176 under the present base on fire insur ance.

Estimates of expenditures for the Fire Commissioner's office for the fiscal year ending March 31, 197 4 is one hundred and sixty-nine, one hundred thousand dollars which is con siderably less than the amount which would have been collected on the basis of the one percent le vy of the new property insurance premiums base. The Fire Preventions Act now authorizes us to collect up to two percent on premiums. We presently collect one percent.

On the new base it would appear we could reduce the levy to three-quarters of one percent, which would provide $182, OOO for the fiscal year ending 74, and this would approximate the amount of the expenditures for the Fire Commissioner's office. And in addition, Mr. Speaker, to this change concerning the base of assessment the legal counsel, Mr. Tallin, has suggested that since the word "coroner" is used in the Fire Preven tions Act and since coroners are no longer appointed in Manitoba, this word should be deleted and the word "provincial judges" substituted for it. Now this isn't legislation, Mr.

Speaker, that is peculiar to Manitoba alone. It has been brought about through the conference of the Superintendents of Insurance across Canada. It has been adopted, that is the change from fire insurance to property insurance, it has been adopted by the federal authorities, the Province of Ontario, and I understand that in bringing about uniformity of legislation, other jurisdictions will be going along the same route as we will go insofar as this legislation is concerned. So as I said at the offset, le t's. have no red herrings; le t's not try to put out fires by some little hose. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake . MR. HENRY J . EINARSON (Rock Lak e): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Lak eside, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 6 MR. SPEAKER: Tbe proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General. Bill No. 6. MR. MACKLING presented Bill No. 6,

an Act to amend The Sale of Goods Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr . Speaker, the explanation for this bill and the bill that immediately follows , arises by virtue of the fact that, as indicated in the Throne Speech, there will be a comprehensive Personal Property Security Act introduced .

I have now the draft of that act; it is being readied in the printers; it will be Bill No. 5 when it's introduced, and the provisions of Bill No. 6, and the bill which I hope to introduce immediately following, really are necessary corollaries of the passage of Bill No. 5. They will come into force on a time fixed and will make provisions necessary in accordance with the changes in personal property securities of which bills of sale and lien notes are. They're just mechanical housekeeping bills, and I trust that they will find ready acceptance. I might say, Mr.

Speaker, that in respect to the bill which I'll later be introducing as soon as it's available from the printers, I hope to be able to give not only the members full explanatory notes of the changes or the provisions of the bill, but I hope to be able to set a

1666 April 12, 1973 BILL 6 (MR. MACKLING cont'd) ..... date and a pla ce when all members will be invited to review with counsel the provisions of that bill. These bills therefore relate directly to the bill which is coming. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): I'd like to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Roblin, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 7 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General . MR. MACKLING presented Bill No. 7,

an Act to amend The Bills of Sale Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General . MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I would just indicate that my remarks made earlier apply to this bill and I trust that the members will note that they are technical in nature following on, to take into effect on the introduction of the provisions of the other bill. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr . Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labou r. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Universities and Colleges, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the SUpply to be , granted to Her Majesty. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lak eside. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. ENNS: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House on a matter of grievance. Mr.

Chairman, the grievanc e that I choose to deal with at this particular time arises out of the concern that I have in the rather casual way this government is acting, or being concerned about by the way some of our most respected and reputable Crown corporations are being allowed to fall into disrepute. Mr. Speaker, the one that comes to mind of course first and foremost is the one that has engaged us in the question period for some time in the last few days. Mr. Chairman, I'm just at loss to understand my friends opposite in how they have con ducted themselves in this manner.

I am at lo ss to understand how the Minister of Agriculture will sit in this Chamber and essentially assent to the basic facts, as they have been presented to him in this Chamber, and then rush outside the Chamber and through the news media and through news conferences suggest that we are dealing in innuendos and falsehoods. Well, Mr .

Chairman, for the record, and once again le t's have it cl early understood that the Manitoba Farm Agricultural Credit Corporation made approval of a loan, a change in the chairmanship of that Credit Corporation was made, thereafter within a month or so -- and the dates aren't reall y that important -- the loan was rejected, thereafter the son of the new chairman received the land. Mr. Speaker, whether it's five months or the loan for the land, the loan for the land, Mr. Speaker, whether it's two months or four months or five months, Mr.

Speaker, surely the Minister of Agriculture who has some understanding about farmers in this country, knows that a farmer or anybody contemplating a 10 0, OOO dollar purchase of land doesn't do that overnight. Obviously he also knows that these two families are neighbours and live in the Swan River Valley, jowl to jowl, you might say, and perhaps there was a certain coveting of the neighbour's land by the Bowles family and by the Hofford family, I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

But I have asked -- when the rather astonishing information came to our attention, I asked for, and I still ask, that an enquiry be established immediately to allow for the cle arance of the good name of the chairman, but certainly a full airing of the facts. But what amazes me and what prompts me to rise and to use the one occasion that I have to speak on a matter of

April 12, 19 73 1667 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. ENNS cont'd) . ... . grievance, what amazes me, what amazes me is that the offhand and cavalier attitude of this government. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, to use an example that I am sure members opposite will understand, that if a tender was given to a construction company here in Manitoba, was given to them and then later on re pealed and given to Schreyer Construction Company Limited, that the First Minister would be the first one to say to his brother, "Stay away from it", even if it were justified, even if there are grounds, even if it was all above board.

What I'm trying to say is that kind of action would never be considered by Schreyer Construction. I'm suggesting, Mr .

Speaker, the same -- you know, it's not, you know, this is what worries me, if they want to see, if they want to hide behind the fact that it's, you know, that there has to be a law, a regulation, it's a question of what is right; it's a question of what appears to be right, when you accept high position in public office, and certainly accepting the chairmanship of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation is precisely that, and no matter how valid the claim, how valid the application was for his son's approach to the Credit Corporation for financial assistance to buy land, the fact that he was involved, or that he is party to the board that is in the final analysis making the loan, had initially made a loan -- in this case even worse to his neighbour -- and then that decision was reversed and for that man, for him then to proceed to loan the same moneys to his son, you know, indicates a lack of sensitivity, a lack of morality in my judgment, that that is reason for concern.

I'm con vinced and I believe that the same, you know, the analogy that I drew, for instance Schreyer Construction Company, could never be made, because I believe when the Premier says that the relationship that this government has with Schreyer Construction is as clean as a hound's tooth, is as clean as a hound's . . . --(Interjection)-- Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says, do you know what I'm saying about all the board members . That pricise!y is one of the concerns because after all it is his board, Mr. Speaker; it is his board that originally approved the loan to the Bowles family in Swan River.

It is his board that approved the loan to the Bowles Family in Swan River, that is before Mr. Hofford was appointed to the board. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the government and if the First Minister chooses to say, 0.

K. boys, if you want to play the ball game that way we'll list the loans on everybody, and we'll have full public disclosure and all the farmers -- I want to tell the Honourable Minister something, that is precisely what this government tends to do ; that is part of your policy, that is part -- full and open disclosure is part of your policy and perhaps you should do that, but don't try and blackmail us into believing that we're part of it and that we're party to it. Mr.

Chairman, another member chose to use during the question period, to raise the question of possible other members involvement in the same Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. Well of course, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have mostly good farmers on this side; it's very likely that some of us have had an involvement in the past with Manitoba Agricul tural Credit Corporation. I can relate to you, Mr.

Speaker, that that is how I after two or three years of farming enabled to considerably enhance my position as a rancher in the Interlake area, when I took out a loan in 1962 or '63 of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, it's a Crown corporation, it's a Crown corporation that the Progressive Conservative government, the Progressive Conservative government set up, for which we are very proud. Mr. Speaker, let me also say, let me also say that we were aware of that under no cir cumstances would I or any other members attempt to make a loan while sitting in this House.

The reference made to my colleague, the Member for Morris, was made when he was a Federal member and had no connections with this House. And indeed, Mr.

Speaker, in my particular instance, because of the sensitivity that I have in this regard, I changed my loan from the Manitoba Agricult ural Corporation to the federal corporation because I felt I was happier with a further arm's le ngth distance so that there could not be at any time any sugges tion of any influence that I may have with respect to how my loan would be treated, or how my loan should be handled by a provincial authority over which I possibly could have had some influenc e on. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that the issue that's before us should not be befuddled and bam boozled as the Minister of Agriculture is attempting to do, to use this occasion to perhaps do what they want to do in the first instance in any event, that is full disclosure of all loans to

1668 April 12, 1973 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... that Credit Corporation. If they want to do that, as I suspect they want to, then go ahead and do it, then go ahead and do it. It's the kind of disclosure that of course the Social Democratic Government in Sweden has long ago had, and I think essentially - I see the Minister of Mines and Resources nodding his head, agrees with, and one that we can exp ect to have, we can expect to have. You know, we could expect to have that utter and com plete lack of privacy in future socialist dominated country or province if this government per sists .

We can expect that the citizens of this provinc e will have very few confidential matters to themselves in the future; that is part and parcel of socialist philosophy, that is part and parcel of socialist belief, that every individual private concern is a matter of the state's con cern; that the state's concern, the state's concern is paramount to the individual concern . Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Speaker, we'll look for an Order for Return when -- Now for us to accept the kind of propo sition that these gentlemen are saying that we should be cowed into any full and complete examination of any official, of any pers on employed by the government, or anything else, would be of course utter nonsense.

It's part of the reason that we're here to try and keep these fellows honest, as is the role of any government, and is the role of any oppo sition, to make the government of the day accountable through this Legislature to the people of Manitoba for the actions of not only the individual members of government but all for whom they have responsibility of. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I sugges t to you, I suggest to you, that the manner and the way in which this government is prepared to allow through this kind of a debate, to callously allow the reputation of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to be so tarnished, you know, is appalling in itself. Mr. Speaker, it leads one, it leads one to have some even further reserva tions about the direction that we're heading in all the Crown corporations that this government intends to build up if in fact, if in fact this is the kind of callousness, the kind of accountability that the government intends to give to Crown corporations .

Mr. Speaker, let me speak to you briefly while I'm on the sal".le subject, about another Crown corporation that I have even greater concern for; indeed, Mr. Speaker, I now turn my attention to perhaps what in my judgment, and certainly under the stewardship of successive Liberal and Conservative administrations turned out to be one of the finest Crown corporations on the North American continent , and I speak of the Manitoba Hydro Commission . What have they done, Mr. Speaker ; what have they allowed to happen to this Crown corporation? Mr.

Speaker, they have allowed through political orie ntations of its chairman to bring the reputation of this Crown corporation into a great deal of disrepute . They have taken the sound judgments that once was exercised in that Crown corporation and have deviated and averted it on to a path where one can hardly any longer have a great deal of confidence in the soundness and in the economic planning that goes on in that Crown corporation . Mr. Speaker, let me sugges t what has happened to you in four short years since this gove rnment has had responsibility with res pect to that Crown corporation .

Let me simply and easy -- you know we've had a great deal of discussion about the Hydro development project on the Ne lson and we tend to get into long-w inded speeches and emotional outbursts about who is right and who is wrong . I'm speaking now about the operation from a business point of view of that Crown corporation. In 1970 that Crown corporation had on its plans and told us that they would build the genera ting stations, you know, at a cost of $300 million .

The pres ent plan under the NDP government, of course, the figure remains essentially the same although I understand that, as everything else, has escalated some - $300 million . And I encourage members to take out their pencils and do the arithmetic with me. The DC transmi ssion line was the same four years ago in total costs - $180 million, as it is now - ... this completed line, of course, $180 million .

The then advice of its best planners and its best engineers was ignored, and we have under the pr esent governme nt plan the expenditure of $65 million on Lake Winnipeg regulation, which was not called for by the corporation and by the governme nt of the day in 1969-70. We then have the Jenpeg station itself, of dubious quality, coming in at the cost of $120 million, an expendi ture also not called for in the 1970 program. Mr. Speaker, in 1970 Manitoba Hydro could have built, or would have built the Churchill River diversion for some $40 million .

This government four years later, as a result of paying high price for political expediency, that project is going to cost $109 million. Mr. Speaker, the difference between these two programs in those four short years is $25 4 million - $25 4 million down the drain for no additional value, for no additional power . Mr. Speaker, that

April 12, 1973 1669 MATTE R OF GRIEVANCE (l\IR. ENNS cont'd) ... .. represents more than what this gover nment has given away in the last budget. They could give that away for the next ten years and they will have not replaced that to the taxpayers of Manitoba. This wi ll represent a charge of 15 to 20 percent on every body in Manitoba on their Hydro bills that will eat away ten times whatever was given away in the last budget. Now, Mr. Speaker, what do they encourage the Crown corporation -- who do they encourag e to lay the blame to?

Labour and construction industry for high and ri sing costs, when it is haphazard, political interference in the planning that was allowed to take place from the com mencement of this government's admini stration and from the commencement of this govern ment's responsibility towards that Crown corporation. Mr. Speaker, I don't say this alone. I say that in connect ion with a man that probably has as much knowledge about Hydro matters as anybody else in this province, Mr. D. L. Campbell, the former Premier of this province.

I say this, a man that has sat in this House a consider able length of time, Sterling Lyon, my former Cabinet colleague. I say that in connection with the former Assistant General Manager of Manitoba Hydro who had enough intesti nal fortitude to remove himself from this kind of utter public waste of money and this degradation of the public corporation. Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean when I say that I have grave concern about how thi s gover nment regards and is prepared to use public Crown corporations.

Even a little matter such as the former chairman's salary, which the First Minister likes to get up and present as it being at $42, OOO when he knows it is not the fact - it is $63 , OOO, as I indicated at the time that he was hired. Mr. Chairman, and if somebody wishes t0 dispute that point, then I ask that the former chairman or former board member of Manitoba Hydro, who ascer tains that fact as a director of Manitoba Hydro, as a board chairman or as a board member of the board, insists that that is the fact today as he did a few years ago.

But this government is not prepared to allow that man to testify or that man to be heard in front of the Public Utilities Committee meeting here at this particular time.

This man, this gover nment wi ll not allow competent tec hnical interrogation of the fact and figures that I have just laid before the House; this man will allow only one person - that is the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro - to speak to us in committee and I suggest to you that in that case, in these circum stances, the programs that Manitoba Hydro is embarked upon, they have been forced on the administration of the corpora ti on by its previous Chairman with the encouragement of this gov ernment. Mr.

Speaker, a waste of $254 million in my judgment, that is being built in forever into the cost structure of that most important energy force in our province, namely Hydro, a cost that will be built in forever into the power that our farmers will have to use, into the power that our electric bills that our people in the cit ies wi ll have to pay, and this gover nment con cerns itself only with the politics of releasing back, partic ularly to the areas where they think they are politic ally strong, certain tax funds to curry political favour when this kind of mis management, this kind of degradation of our public Crown corporations is allowed to proceed with, Mr.

Speaker. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I suggest again that we have the blueprint for nothing but more Cr own corporations, not only in these matters but in laundries and detergents and baby food manufacturing and what have you, and we'r e forced to look with enthusiasm and greet enthusiasti cally an event of more and more Crown corporations, when we have every reason, Mr. Speaker, to be more than a little exorcized, more than a little concerned about how this gover nment has abused those that we now have, those that we have had such high regard and should have such high regard for. Mr ..

Speaker, I believe what this gover nment should begin to recognize at this particular time, and partic ularly the Min ister of Mines and Natural Resources should begin to recognize at this particular time, is that when he chooses to embark in his course about building up more and more Crown corporations, whether it's in the mining industry or elsewhere, that there wi ll be a constant demand for acco untability to this House and not on the terms that he chooses to give it. Bec ause, Mr.

Speaker, you see, that's one of the inherent problems of going into - of relinqui shing ever more and more of your economic activity and our life style into the public sector; that there will be a demand, there has to be the kind of disclo sure which they themselves are the first ones to deny, which the Minister of Agric ulture was the first one to deny when we wanted to know some questions as to how and at what pric e 300, OOO porkers were going to Japan. Oh, no l Then all of a sudden we become to act like Swifts or Burns; I can't

1670 April 12, 1973 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... give away any trade secrets; I can't let my competitors know what price I'm selling this product for. What competitors, Mr. Speaker ? He runs the whole show. Every hog in Manitoba has to come through his gates at the commission house, but he can't tell this House, Mr. Speaker. But he is not at all adverse to sending out letters to the packing industry saying, "Fellows, I want to know every week what's the price of your product going _out your back doors, and I insist on knowing that because I'm the Minister, I'm the Minister. " Now, Mr.

Speaker, if this is the direction that we want our society and our province to head into, fine, Mr. Speaker, but the people of Manitoba should be made aware of that and they will be made aware of that during the coming election. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the way this government and the way this Minister has so callously thrown off any responsibility and indeed, Mr.

Speaker, has the audacity to, I suppose, recall ing the remark that the best defence is an offence, he throws it back at us· and says that we are going to be responsible for some action, you know, that perhap s some farmers would not .li ke the government to take. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's utter blackm ail, that 's what it is. That's what it is. We're speaking about the manner and way in which a specific individual appointed by this board has conducted himself in a business arrangement with a specific Crown corporation.

Now if they want to choose that okay, to do .what I suspect, as I alrea dy said, what they have intended to do in any event, and that is to make full and complete disclo sure of all farm loans, then I suppose they will proceed and do that in any event because I suspect that that is their program as it well may be. But, Mr. Speaker, I just suggest to you that the kind of confidence that Manitobans have had every right to have in their Crown corporation s today, is rapidly diminish ing and for very good reason. . . . . . continued on next page

April 12, 1973 1671 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I intend to comment at length, or as long as time permits, on the speech that has been made by the Honourable Member the Member for Lakeside, which contains some matters of a specific nature, some matters of a general nature. But before I do so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make what I believe is a correct announcement. It was given to me by another member of the House and of course if I'm wrong I will be embarrassed by it.

But I'm advised that the Progressive Conservative administration in the Province of Ontario has just brought in a sales tax hike of 2 percent making them now 7 percent of sales tax, Mr. Speaker, in a time, Mr. Speaker, when we have had a buoyant economy, when we have been told that what is needed is tax cuts, and when we have been told that a Progressive Conservative administration would bring in tax cuts if it were the government of the Province of Manitoba. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have this businesslike administration, in a period of buoyancy, in a period when we have been able to make tax cuts to the extent of $78 million which is one-tenth of the amount of our budget, has come in with a 2 percent increase in the sales tax, the equiva lent to us, Mr. Speaker, of raising $40 million rather than giving tax cuts of $78 million. I thought that, Mr.

Speaker, that the Progressive Conservatives, who have been talking so much about how little we have done in this area and how badly we have managed things, should be aware of this recent development that has occurred in a sister province, one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada, run by a Progressive Conservative administration. -- (Interject ion)- What has that got to -- ? It really has nothing to do with the Hofford matter. I just thought that you fellows would be interested. You think that I shouldn 't have said this. Okay. Le t's forget, yes, let's forget that I said this; let's get on with the business.

Now, Mr. Speaker, now we'll talk about two Crown corporations that the Honourable Member for Lakeside has referred to, you know, and he said that here are two Crown corpora tions that the people of Manitoba have learned to revere and to love and have great respect for, and that this government has done something to somehow destroy these two Crown corporations or reduce the respect that we have had for these two Crown corporations, and, Mr. Speaker, I really didn't know what the honourable member was doing.

Was he saying that Crown corpora tions are a good thing if they're run by a Progre ssive Conservative administration but if they're run by a New Democratic Party administration they're a bad thing ? At one time he seemed to feel that Crown corporations were a good thing, now he's saying they're a bad thing. But let' s get to the specific charge that he is making and where he said, "Let us not befuddle the facts. " Mr.

Speaker, what apparently has happened, and it's not occurred because of something that the government has done, it's occurred because the Opposition have made what they con sider to be, and in the parl iamentary process I concede to be, a legitimate criticism or what they feel is a legitimate criticism of something that has occurred within an area over which the government has jurisdiction, that that is what they have done. I know that when we were in the Oppo sition they used to say that "when you do this you are br inging disrespect to great Crown corporations. " And I know, Mr.

Speaker, that there were some members on our side who were a little sensitive about attacking Crown corporations, because they felt that that wasn't a really proper way of dealing with the government; that the Manitoba Hydro, that was to be treated wi th a hands-off fashion; that any other Crown corporation, that was to be treated with hands-off fashion.

I don't believe that; obviously the honourable members don't believe that; and if they are attacking Crown corporations, let us remember that it's not' the government that has done anything to bring disrespect to these Crown corporations, it's the parl iamentary process which, in its nature, has a means of criticizing these things and I believe that that is a good thing. Now let' s look at the cri ticism because I think that that is the important thing when we talk about "not befuddling the facts." We have, Mr.

Speaker, the Oppo sition telling us that at a certain time the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation in December, I believe, of 1971, had approved a loan of some $3 96, OOO to a man who was going to buy a farm; that at its next meeting the same board of the Agricultural Credit Corporation looked at the loan and said, Mr. Speaker, as a board that they don't want to approve it. That is the first criticism. Now, Mr. Speaker, is that a real criticism?

Do the honourable members say that be cause the board at one meeting approved a loan of $396, OOO and at the next meeting looked at it and the same members said that this is not a good loan, that they should nevertheless have advanced the money ? Because, Mr. &'peaker, the same board of directors -- (Interjection)- Certainly.

1672 April 12, 1973 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-R ussell. MR. GRAHAM: Was it at the next meeting that the change was ? MR. GREEN : I don 't know whether it was at the next meeting but I really don't care. It was before the money was advanced and the Minister of Agriculture says it was at the next meeting . I don't care. I know that the money was not advanced. I know that $3 96, OOO had been committed in a certain loan. I know that the board looked at it again and the same man who moved that the loan be passed, moved that the loan be stopped. Mr.

Speaker, do you regard people as puppets having no minds of their own ? I understand that one of these people was a former bank manager, on that ... He was a former bank man ager. Do you think that a former bank manager, because he is urged by somebody to say that what he did two weeks ago wasn't a good idea, would necessarily say that he -- do you believe that people over 21 are not able to make up their own minds and are not able to deal with these questions ?

But let's stop there, that the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation agreed to advance $3 96, OOO; that at the next meeting the board of directors - and there was a new chairman there - looked at the same loan, looked at -- (Interjection) -- Oh, well, we're going to get to that, we're going to get to that - the Member for Charleswood. Looked at that loan and said, "This is a bad loan and we should not proceed with it. " Has anybody here come to us and said that that $396, OOO on the security that was advanced was a loan that we should have made ? They don't dare to, Mr. Speaker.

Not one person in this Chamber has said that that $3 96, OOO, advanced under the terms and conditions under which they were proposing to advance it, was a good loan and that the people of Manitoba were secured and the board should have advanced the money . Nobody says that. Mr. Speaker, nobody says that. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says, "Let us find out. " We know that the board of directors of that fund said that that was a loan which they did not prepare to make. Now, Mr. Speaker, after Hofford ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . MR. GR EEN: Mr. Speaker, after Hofford got on the board. But, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder that the honourable members who have made such a big point of this can now see the error of their ways and they want to stop. The fact is that when the loan, when the board stopped the loan, there hasn 't been one person in this Chamber who has said that that loan should have been proceeded with. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Charleswood, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, the Leader of the Opposition, they have all said, or implied that that loan should not have been proceeded with. -- (Interj ection)-- Let me get to it.

The Member for Charleswood said that when the Conservative administration committed itself to advance $92 million to Churchill Forest Industries and even though 14 million had been advanced, and another 40 million had been committed, that we had no equity in the situation at all, that the works were under con struction, the Member for Charleswood, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, the Leader of the Opposition said, if you saw at that time that it was a bad loan you should not have proceeded with that loan. Mr.

Speaker, that is what they are saying with respect to one thing, now they are saying ... -- (lnterjections ) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . Order, please. MR. GREEN: ... now they are saying that it doesn't matter, it doesn 't matter what the Board of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation thought, that when they saw that $396, OOO was advanced, regardless of whether we were going to get 150 back or 100 back or 50 back or 25 back, that loan should have gone out because it was recommended by the board. Mr.

Chairman, I am sugge sting that if the board in January looked at a loan, and it was $3 96, OOO would have been advanced, and questioned whether they had made a good decision, given the security, given the nature of the loan, and decided that they didn't that they would be under the severest criticism from the Member for Charleswood and for Sturgeon Creek, the Leader of the Opposition, everybody else on that side, if they said knowing that this was a bad loan -- (Interj ection)-- ...

Oh, particularly the Member for Minnedosa, who I'm sure would sup port his bank manager and colleague, is saying , well look if we've made a mistake, if we are giv ing away $396, OOO of the people of Manitoba's money on bad security, then the loan should not be advanced. And if it would have stopped there, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there would still be some ...... because there were some who would come in and say, well why didn 't you give the man the money, you promised it to him, he probably made arrangements with other people

April 12, 1973 1673 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... as to what he was going to do - - (Interjection) - - Oh, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says that is not relative. What is rel evant to the honourable members, Mr. Speaker, what is relevant to the honourable members is one thing, that the name of the chairman and the name of a subsequent buyer happened to be the same name and they happen to be father and son. That is the only rel evant thing to the ... Well I -- (Interjection)- .. . the Honourable Member for Charleswood says that that is relevant.

Well I want to tell the Honourab le Member for Charleswood that that' s the way he will govern. This is the way I choose to govern. If the first loan was a bad loan, if the second loan was a good loan, then I would not proceed with the first loan, I would proceed with the second loan. And I would not say that a son of a member of a Crown corporation that is set up by the Province of Manitoba is thereby disqualified from obtaining money from that Crown corporation. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Charleswood would say, that if the first loan was a bad loan but the man was not the chairman of the corporation, then that loan should be proceeded with. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Board of Directors stopped that loan. -- (lnterj ection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, apparently, apparently, the Honourable Member for Swan River is now saying that all of the members of that board of directors . MR. BILTON: No, I'm not saying that at all .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I have told the honourable member that the very person who moved the loan '::le proceeded with in the first place, moved the Jo an not be proceeded with in the second place. And the Honourable Member for Swan River does not beli eve that it is po ssible for a grown up man over 21 years to have a change of mind with respect to a particu lar loan. Well, you are saying that. MR. BILTON: Well, don't ... MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is saying that the chairman approved the second loan.

Now how stupid can you be ? -- (Interjection)-- The honourable member should know that the loan was approved by the board of -- was stopped by the board of directors. -- (Interjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: If I talk to Mr. Bowles he will say that they told me that they were going to give me a loan of $3 96, OOO and then they stopped the loan. The honourable member's saying something wrong with that. Is there anything wrong with that ? -- (lnterjection)-- The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge says something' s wrong with that. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell the honourable member that the previous administration, the Manitoba Development Corporation, sent a man a letter. Here' s what they said in the letter: "I feel you should therefore proceed with compl eting your arrangements for establ ishing the screw manufacturing operat ion in Manitoba. I feel satisfied that the Manitoba Development Fund could look favourably upon a 25, OOO loan against security. " Lis ten to these words they are completely unequivocal.

"I feel you should therefore proceed with completing your arrangements for establi shing a screw manufacturing operation in Manitoba." Now if you received such a letter -- I suppose maybe Mr. Bowles received such a letter and he thought that on the basis of that le tter he should proceed with establi shing a screw manufacturing business in the Province of Manitoba. Well the fellow who did that, who received that letter did exactly that, he establi shed a screw manufacturing factory in the Province of Manitoba.

Now li sten to what the Minister of Industry and Commerce said when that man never got the loan of $2 5, OOO. He barely got $15, OOO and had to work very hard about getting it. What did the then Minister of Industry and Commerce -- I believe it was the former Mini ster Mr. Evans -- what did he say about that letter. It's interesting what he said. It is difficult to - at the meetings of December llth and December 30th attended by representatives of the Fund and the Company, it was stated by the company repre sentative that Mr.

Henderson had le ft a good job in the United States on the strength of the foregoing letter to commence an operation in Manitoba. It is difficult to accept this contention in the light of Mr. Henderson' s business experience and business training at the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Sound business judgment, whether based on experience or education, would dictate that a more definite commitment for financing, with full details as to the terms and conditions, would be required for the establis hment of a new business venture. So with the honourable previous

167 4 April 12, 1973 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... minister, the Progre ssive Conservative Minister, who, who, \IDO -- (Interjections)-- Mr. Speaker, well, Mr. Speaker, what he is saying -- (Interjection)- Mr. Speaker, I don't have to do better. What he is saying is that that commitment wasn't a commitment at all and that the fellow that then established a screw manufacturing business in Manitoba had no business doing it. --(Interjections) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. ORDER MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman, ... Mr. Speaker, ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I once and for all want to ask the co-operation of all honourab le members. This is a grievance motion. Only one person can speak at one time, and only one, and the interruptions make it awful difficult for me to carry on and listen to the debate. The Honourable Leader of the House. MR . GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I assure you they don't bother me at all . The Honourable Member for Lake side says -- (Interjection)-- No, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has a point of order. Would he state his point of order ? MR. BILTON: With due respect, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if you would prevail upon the honourab le gentleman to refrain from provoking this side of the House with arguments that he's using. -- (Interjections)-- MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate call s for opinions of all honourable members. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says did Gurney then lend it to his son? You see if the new loan was made to somebody by the name of Evans then that is all that my honourable friend is interested. Well, I'll tell you what they did do.

They foreclosed that business for something like 30, OOO because they were owed $30, OOO. 00. After they foreclosed that business which was worth $30, OOO, they advanced $50, OOO to the new owners or 50 or 60 thousand dollars to the new people who - the new people, who, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to .. did not have the name of Evans. That they did not have the name of Evans. So the whole issue, Mr. Speaker, surrounds the name of Hofford. We could agree, everybody will agree, that it was a bad loan. The board has a right to change its mind.

That if it was a bad loan not only should the board, did the board have a right to change its mind, but that the board would be under severe criticism if it did not change its mind. And after they changed its mind had it ended there, not only, Mr. Speaker, would the honourable members be constrained from criti cizing the board, they would say that you did us a good thing, you saved what would have been a bad loan. But it didn't stop there, Mr. Speaker.

There was a new loan, some few months later -- the Honourab le Member for Lake side refers to it as a period of mourning, or a satis factory period of mourning, Mr. Hofford, Jr. , made an offer apparently, and this -- I'm just deriving the fact from what has been said by members in this House, Mr. Hofford, Jr. made an offer to buy the same land as Mr.

Bowl es was going to buy, that the new loan was in the neighborhood of $100, OOO, not $125 , OOO, but 100, $100, OOO; that the security was the purchase of the sections that we referred to, plus additional security; that the chairman of the board said that he would offer to resign from the board so that this would not affect the board's decision with respect to that loan, that the -- (Interjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: .. . No. Mr.

Chairman, I am ad vised that the chairman offered to resign from the board, and I suppose that would satisfy the honourable members that if the chairman resigned and the board then made the loan to a Hofford, that for the Member for Lakeside all of the niceties would have been ob served and they would not have had any points to raise with respect to that particular loan. But the chairman offered to resign. The other members of the board said, why resign, we want you on the board. You don't want to sit with respect to this particular application.

We will deal with the application on its merits, on its merits, this is an application for $1 00, OOO, the security for the application is good, it comes within all the constraints of the loan, and the money will be advanced. -- (Interjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the fact that the same land is involved is the same thing as the same business being involved.

What the members of the House should be concerned with, and which would constitute a problem of propriety, is not that the two names were Hofford but that if the first loan was under better terms and conditions, was refused by the board, and

April 12, 1973 1675 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... they gave a second loan under worse terms and conditions, and that they then accepted that loan. And then, Mr. Speaker, the names of the people involved would be completely irrelevant. So, Mr. Speaker, we have ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member says he has a constituent who wanted $396, OOO, and to the Honourable Member for Swan River the most important thing is that one of his constituents wanted $3 96, OOO and he didn't get it, and he says that that consti tuent should get the money because it's the Member from Swan River's constituent, whether it is a good loan or a bad loan or an indifferent loan. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is what -- Mr. Speaker, that is what the honourable member is implying. Well, Mr. Speaker, ... MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, you know the Honourable Member for Swan River says if it was good for one, it was good for both. Therefore the Honourable Member for Swan River says that a loan of $3 96, OOO with unsatisfactory security is the same thing as a loan of $100, OOO with satisfactory security. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the only question which the board has to determine upon. And I suggest to you that if we toss aside the innuendos, that we toss aside the nasty comments, that that is the only thing that members of this House should be concerned with. That has been explained.

The honourable members hope to make a big deal out of the fact that in one case the man's name was Bowl es, and the other case the man's name was Hofford. And they say that all other considerations should be dismissed, and we should imply that the second loan was bad because the man's name was Hofford. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I said before, and I repeat again, that as far as I'm concerned, and I believe that as far as Members of this House should be concerned, there's only one question : if the first loan was an unsecure loan, then the board was correct in rejecting it; if the second loan was a secure loan, then the board was correct in giving it; that Mr. Hofford, Jr. is not disqualified from making an application to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation because his father is performing a service on that corporation as a pu blic servant of the Province of Manitoba. And, Mr.

Speaker, in this particular case, Hofford, Sr. , was apparently will ing to resign, absented himself from the board be cause the others urged him not to resign, and the transaction was completed. And if there was anything sinister about it, Mr. Speaker, if there was something sinister about this deal, and the Honourable Member for Swan River says that it is common knowl edge in his area, if there was something to be ashamed of then, Mr.

Speaker, what would have happened, I would suggest to you, is that Hofford, Jr . would not have been the purchaser on the second deal, and it would be the simplest thing in the world if one was trying to be dishonest, if one had a sensitivity of what occurred, if one thought there was some wrong doing, for that farm to be purchased in th.e name of Evans instead of Hofford, and that would have satisfied the appearances of the honourable member.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside said that when he became attached to the govern ment, even though his loan had been obtained in advance from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, that he changed it to the Federal agency so that he would be cleaner than Caesar' s wife. I suggest to my honourable friend that if his name was still on a loan from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, to me he would still be as clean as Caesar's wife. And he did not have to go to the ... -- (Interjection)-- Well, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest I suggest to him that Caesar' s wife is very clean, and that the fact is that it does not bother me that another, that there are members in this House who will have loaned money in a normal way from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. What's the matter with that ? And if there 's nothing wrong with that are you tellin g me that now it becomes a sinister thing because a son of somebody who is appointed to the board -- (Interjection)-- Well the honourable member says that that is the problem that 's in his mind.

And I tell the honourable member, I tell the honourable member that as far as I am concerned, I would look at the first loan and if it was a bad loan, I wouldn't advance it; I'd look at the second loan, if it was a good loan I would advance it, and the fact that one man's name was Hofford and the other man 's name was Bowl es is completely irrele vant. -- (lnterj ection)-- Mr. Chairman, I never took any different position on the other side of the House.

I would like the honourable member to show me on what occasion when I sat in the House for three years that I alluded to some type of wrongdoing based on a personal involvement of any body in the House. I never did it, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I never did it.

1676 April 12, 19 73 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. GREEN cont'

d) And I am rather astonished at the lack of sound issues that the opposition has to the extent that they are going to make an issue out of the fact that a good loan was advanced to Hofford in stead of a bad loan being advanced to Bowles. Because that is the issue. Mr. Speaker, that is the issue. The opposition says, the oppo sition says that it is wrong to have made a good loan to Hofford instead of making a bad loan to Bowles. They say it would have been better to have made a bad loan to Bowl es and refused a good loan to Hofford. That is the way they would do it.

That is the way that their -- (Interjection) -- Well, the Member for Lakes ide really says that that is the issue. But that 's the only thing that has been raised, that is the only thing that has been raised. We've been told that the first application was for $396, OOO; we've been told that the second application was for $100, OOO; we were told that the board looked at the first appli cation and stopped it, which is what the Member for sturgeon Creek, the Member for Charleswood says that we should do. He got up in this House and said that when a loan looks bad we should not advance it.

They've all said that, no matter what the contractual arrangements, and in this case there was none. But they say that even if you've got one, that the law says that you don't have to advance it. Now they say that the bad loan to Bowles should have been proceeded with; the good loan to Hofford should not have been proceeded with; that is the extent of their point. Now, Mr. --(Interjection)-- well, I know that the Honourable Member for Swan River is dis turbed that it comes down to that, because it makes it look so ridiculous as to what is being raised, but that is what it comes down to.

Under a Progre ssive Conservative administration there will be bad loans to Bowles and there will not be good loans to Hofford - that is what they are saying. MR. BILTON: No we're not . MR. GREEN: Well that is what you are saying. MR. BILTO N : You're saying it. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, there hasn't been one word of criticism, not one word of criticism, not one word of criticism as to the strength of the first loan as against the strength of the second loan. The whole point ha s been made by the Member -for Lakeside, the whole point has been made by the -- (Interjection)-- Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not talking about the good ones that my honourable friend is talking -- if he's saying that there were other good loans to be made, then I assume Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Arthur is saying that the good loans should be made even if the man's name is Miller, if the man's name is Uskiw, if the man's name is Green, if the man's name is Paulley, the good loans should be made. -- (Interjection)- In the first appli cant -- (Interjection) -- But what if the first appli cant made a bad loan, should we then never make a good loan ?

If the first applicant was not a good applicant, should we after that date, after the fir st appli cant has been turned down, or his loan has been reversed, that precludes anybody from getting a loan ---because that's what you're saying. A MEMBER: Sure you are. MR. GREEN: Now how ridiculous can it be ? The members have an issue, the mem bers have an issue; the Honourable Member for Lakeside raises arr issue with Hydro, that somehow, Mr. Speaker, somehow the Hydro development program has cost $25 4 million more and there is nothing for that $25 4 million. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member then says that Lake Winnipeg regulations not only should not be a part of the existing scheme but should never be a part of the scheme, because there 's no value. Well, you said we get nothing for it. If you agree that it has some value, then don't say that $25 4 million is spent on nothing, because eventually it will be in there. -- (Interjection) -- He says that there is -- he says, Mr. Speaker, that in his considered opinion there isn't a cent of electrical energy value in the Je npeg genera tor. -- (Interjection) -- Well, he does, he said $25 4 mill ion, Mr.

Speaker, spent on nothing. And the fact is that the $25 4 million includes the Je npeg generating station, so he says that it's worth nothing. I say th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-5-60
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 5th hansardpdf 60.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e0b03ca146d538d0946d43370dd0ed0fa3973bb0

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