Manitoba Hansard — 21 July 1970 (Sitting 157, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-157

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Tuesday, July 21, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 4059 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting~ ports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q.C.(Department of Mines and Natural Resources)(Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of LabourJthat Mr. ·Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the follow ing bills: No. 43, No. 121, No. 134, No. 17, No. 39. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the •••• A MEMBER: Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Mr. Speaker. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, the Orders have been called, but if the honourable member.'s question can't possibly wait till this evening when this will happen again then I would certainly not want to be technical and let the question be asked. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, the Orders have been called, but I was on my feet, so I believe the question is~ order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Has the Minister or the government received a request from the homeowners in Heritage Park in respect to the low rental housing - for a review of the low rental housing de velopment? HON. !iOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Selkirk): Yes, there was a request in the form of a letter from the solicitor from ~ Homeowners Association, Mr. Haig, requesting that there be a review in respect to the decision to proceed with the development in Heritage Park. MR. PATRICK: A subsequent question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government carried out the review or is it under consideration at the present time ? MR.

PAWLEY: Yes, we are proceeding with the development and my reply has gone to Mr. Haigwho had written the earlier letter indicating this. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, one more supplementary. Did you say the review has been completed or you're conducting a review right now? MR. PAWLEY: No, the decision is to proceed with the development. The reasons ex pounded in the earlier letter from Mr. Haig in our opinion were not sufficient reasons for any change in respect to plans of locating the development in Heritage Park. MR. PATRICK: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker.

There's no review, you're pro ceeding with the low rental development at the present time -that it's proceeding? Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Yes Mr. Speaker, I have a question to you, Sir, if you accept its propriety. We've noted latterly that you have reclaimed or used the seat reserved for the Member for Burrows from time to time and I was wondering whether there was any special significance to that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Tourism. Has the Minister anything further to tell us about the proposed second national park in Manitoba? HON. PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Tourism & Recreation)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, we're still studying the whole project and as soon as we have some more concrete answers to give the House we will do that as soon as we possibly can. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. GEORGE HENDERSON (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

Could he inform us as to how long the extension has been made for in cutting for age crops under the LIFT program? HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture)(LacDu Bonnet): I'm not sure that there

4060 July 21, 1970 (MR. USKIW cont'd.) ••••• has been an extension ptade, Mr. Speaker. I can check for the honourable member if he wishes, Mr. Speaker. . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supple mentary question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. When the Minister is talking about a second national park for the Province of Manitoba, would he at the same time consider the repeated requests made by the people in western Manitoba for a road through the "first" national park that is presently in the Dauphin area? MR.

BURTNIAK: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member well knows that if that is the situation -and I'm well aware of the road's condition through the first national park- I would suggest that he get in touch with the federal government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNB: Mr. Chairman, a supplementary question to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. When he's pursuing the question of the extension on the cutting of forage crops, could he undertake to consult with the federal government and not the NDP caucus on this occasion? MR.

USKIW: I think it's probably advisable to undertake to consult with many people but I think that there is some misunderstanding here as to the question put by the Honourable Mem ber for Pembina. There is no such thing as an extension for the cutting of forage crops. I think the honourable member is referring to cover crops which must be destroyed by a certain date. My understanding is that that period was extended because of wet weather conditions but subject to a decision at any time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. AL. MACKLING, Q.C. (Attorney-General)(st. James): The other day1Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member from Riel asked me a question in connection with a notice that was sent out to licensees by the Liquor Control Commission which indicated that beverage rooms, those who held beverage rooms licenses might be able to receive a dining room liquor license -pardon me, those who hold a dining room liquor license might receive a beverage room license.

My understanding is, the information given to me by the Liquor Control Com mission is that the Act as it formerly stood prior to any amendments made this session gave the Liquor Control Commission that authority, and it was used only on one occasion so far as the records indicate and that wasn •t successful, and it's the intent of the commission not to issue beverage room licenses to those who merely hold dining room liquor licenses •. The beverage room lice)lse has been used primarily in association with the development of hotel or motels and it's intended that the former practice will be continued.

There was one other question that was asked by the Honourable Member from Birtle Russell in respect to regulations or provisions in respect to beverage rooms who apply for licenses to sell liquor as provided under the new amendment, and as I indicated I believed there would be upgrading conditions stipulated and that information has been confirmed to me. In addition, there will be regulations specifying the manner of the dispensation and delivery of the liquor in a shot glass at the table and so on;. the particulars will be spelled out to the various applicants. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry.

MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question in the same general area to the Attorney-General and ask him whether it has been possible to come to any conclusions yet as to the success of the move under which purchase slips for liquor pur chases have been abolished in the self-serve stores in the Metropolitan area. Has it been pos sible to come to any conclusion as to the success of that move and as to a possible extension of that move? MR.

MACKLING: I haven't had a report on that yet, but I think that it was fairly obvious that the abolition of the sales slip in the self-serve store would expedite the handling of pur chases by the customer. I expect that in due course there will be an analysis of this, or there'll be further comment on this, and perhaps some recommendations in respect to the other stores to either simplify the process or otherwise. At the present time in those stores which are not self-serve there has to be au orcler given and the Clerk takes the order and fills it, so it seems that the slip is still of considerable usefulness.

MR. SHERMAN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Attorney-General advise the House whether it is the hope of his department to phase out the regular stores and replace them with self-serve stores on a total basis?

July 21, 1970 4061 ... MR. MACKLING: As I announced during the course of my estimates, Mr. Speaker, there has been a substantial change. The self-serve stores have been expanded and it's possible and probable that that development will continue. To what extent it's possible to completely phase out the old type of store I can't say at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. GEORGE HENDERSON (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. He was right in that it's in relation to the cover crop? MR. SPEAKER: Question? MR. HENDERSON: Yes.

The question is, how much time has this been extended and what do. the farmers do to find out and to make application for it? MR. USKIW: Well, I'm not aware of the specific details but I do recall some news item in the newspapers which indicated it was an extension of time to overcome the period of wet weather conditions. Now I would assume common sen&e would apply from there. MR. HENDERSON: A supplementary question. Who do they apply to in connection.with getting this extension? MR.

USKIW: Well this is an extension which is broadly implemented across the three prairie provinces wherein there is weather conditions which prevent the completion of that program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, who do they refer to when they want to say that they can't cut it and they'll have to have an extension? Who do they refer to? MR.

USKIW: Well I think it was announced as a general policy that the time period has been extended; it's not on an individual basis. --(Interjection) --Was the question to whom or to which office is the - I don't believe an application is necessary. I think the time period has simply been extended. I don't think one has to make a formal application for an extension of time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Finance, but in his absence I'll direct it to the First Minister.

Can the First Minister indicate whether any portion of the sbt million dollars that was to be made available to the Versatile Manufacturing Company has been in fact forwarded to them at this time? HON. ED. SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): The honourable member perhaps would like to take advantage of the opportunity to rephrase the question slightly. Was he asking about the availability of the six million? MR. ENNS: No Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to clarify the question.

My question is simply whether any portion of the funding arrangements that were tabled in the House some time ago with reference to six mlllion dollars for Versatile has in fact -no, has any installment of that money from the Manitoba Development Fund been given over to the Versatile Manufacturing Company Limited? MR. LEONARD EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Brandon East): :Mr. Speaker, if I may answer that question.

As of the last information I had received they had not drawn anything from the Fund, although the monies are available as per the original agreement, but this is the last information I have • MR. ENNS: A supplementary question 1Mr. Speaker, and I'm at a loss to which Minister but I '11 try the Minister of Finance , the Minister of Industry and Commerce. Has the govern ment any knowledge of why the company would seem not to be requiring this money? There was, as you will recall, some sense of urgency at the time with respect to expansion plans. for the company which we assumed the money was being asked for. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the honourable member's question is that after the agreement was entered into by the firm in question they discovered to their pleasant surprise that they didn't really need the money. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the HonOurable Minister of Transportation. I wonder if he has anything further to report with regard to the overpass proposed on 200 at Emerson? HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation)(Thompson): No. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W.

CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I have a question for the Finance Minister. Can he advise whether he or his department are makfl!g

L 4062 July 21. ino (MR. CRAIK ccmt'd.) • • formal repreaentaticm to the federal committee em the Whtte Paper that's presently In Winnipeg? l!ON. SAUL CHERNIACK (Minister of Flnance)(st. Johns): No, Mr. Speaker, unless you want me to make a speech right now. I think they're probably all here. MR. CRAIK: A subsequent question, Mr. Speaker. Has the committee In any way, or the federal department been advised of the 100 percent increase In mining taxation that's taken place in Manitoba in the last week? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer that it deserves. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Arthur.

MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question tothe Honourable Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture has contacted any authority in ottawa in regard to the millions of pounds of meat products that are presently enroute for Canada from Australia that might conceivably be dumped in Manitoba because of the American restricticms on imports to that country? MR. USKIW: I might ask my honourable friend if he has contacted members in Ottawa as well, Mr. Speaker. MR. WATT: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question?

Who is the authority in the Province of Manitoba in regard to agriculture at the present moment, or have we got one? MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I think that the honourable member is completely out of or- der. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of .Agriculture. As we're only ten days away from the 1969-70 crop year, would you contact The Canadian Wheat Board to make sure whether the farmers will be able to deliver their four-bushel quota? MR.

USKIW: I think that my honourable friends ought to know that the Government of Canada has given some assurance that they expect that they will reach a four-bushel quota this year. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WATT: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the NDP caucus have given that assurance to the Minister in Ottawa? MR. USKIW: If my honourable friend would like, I would entertain the idea of having a telex sent to the ND:P caucus in ottawa with my honourable friend's signature on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR.

SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. I wonder whether he can inform the House whether Mr. Chris Hansen was sent over as a consultant for the department to Denmark to look for Danish industry to come here in Manitoba? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, yes, Mr. Hansen was retained on a short-term basis. MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the HOnourable Minister can inform the House whether this trip was successful or not. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, as the honourable member should know full well-- he keeps on reminding us of his many years of experience and knowledge as former Minister of Industry and Commerce - he should know full well that any dealings with industrial prospects take many many months if not years to bring to fruition. As a matter of fact there are many industries which have come to Manitoba which have considered the prospects here over the years. These decisions are not made quickly, they're not made in a matter of days or weeks, they take months and years. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker I wonder whether the Minister can inform the House whether there's a dispute between Mr. Hansen and himself as to the fee that was to be paid him in connection with the • • • • MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, surely that question is hardly in order. A question asking whether of not there is any dispute to be ironed out relative to vouchers of expense, etc. is an internal matter, which you can ask about it after Public Accounts. MR. SPIVAK: Point of order. I'll rephrase the question so that it will abide by the rules, if in fact the Minister's

interpretation of the rules are correct. I have here several documents I gather Mr. Hansen is handing out today, and I wonder whether the First Minister

July 21, 19'10 (MR. SPIVAK ccmt'd.) ••••• or the Minister of Industry and Commerce is prepared to in form the House of the nature of the dispute between Mr. Hansen and the Department with respect to the fee that was to be paid him for his work? MR. SPEAKER put tbe question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself-into a Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN: B111121. The Human Rights Act. Order please. It's a bit too noisy in here. We're dealing with the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for River Heights,

Section 11. MR. GREEN: The Member for River Heights is asking me. We're dealing with his amendment to the Human Rights Act. MR. SPIVAK: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was informed that we were going to 43 first, but this is fine • MR. cHAmMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I took the floor at 12:30 because I noticed that two mem bers on the opposition side were ready to speak on this issue and I thought that I would. give them some more substance to talk about. On reflection 1Mr.

Chairman, it would appear that the subject that we are now discussing is a subject of great dispute as between the members of this side and as a matter of fact as between all members in the House, that we have had considerable debate on it during this session, that there will be numerous opportunity both after this debate and during this session and during subsequent sessions to say what has al ready been said and which would only be repeated if we say it now, and I'm therefore not going to add to what was already said before.

I notice that the question was almost put three speeches ago, which to me indicated that we were ready to go. I'm merely hoping, but pos sibly with not too much result, that members will use my example and do likewise. We're going to have lots of time to talk about this. MR. CHAmMAN: The Honourable Member for Birtle--Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to heed the words of the House Leader and I believe that tbe debate should be short on this. The question of human rights is something that is very dear and important and I think the debate should be on a very high plane. So Mr.

Speaker • • • • • MR. CHAIRMAN: • • • • ask honourable membel's in the Chamber to keep their con versationallevel down. It's interrupting the speaker. MR. GRAHAM: So Mr. Chairman, in the interests of forwarding intelligent discussion on the subject of human rights, I would move that the debate, or the contribution to the debate by the Minister of Municipal Affairs be stricken from the record. MR.

GREEN: I think the motion is clearly out of order and if we've gotten by that hurdle with just that little bit of a ripple, I appeal to the Honourable Member for River Heights, who knows that he'll have many opportunities of discussing this subject, to have no more of a ripple than the last two speakers. However, it's up to ••••• MR. CHAmMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, my intention would be to speak just to the remarks of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I do not expect that the Honourable Mtirlster of Mines and Natural Resources or any other member on that side would expect any honourable member who has had his constituency chastized in the way it has been chastized by the Honour able Minister of Municipal Affairs, to sit in his seat and remain seated and not make a com ment. I'll make it very brief. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs -- (Interjection) -- the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs -- (Interjection) -- Well let me say if he wants to attack the personality of a member then the member can fend for himself. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface): No, I'm talking about you, about me. MR. SPIVAK: But he's made a remark -- (Interjection) -- well the Honourable Member for St. Boniface shouldn't be concerned. He's had his opportunity and presented his position. MR. DESJARDINS: I'll have others, too. MR. SPIVAK: Now let me say this, Mr. Chairman. The Honourable Minister of Munic ipal Affairs in his presentation presented what I consider to be one of the most diTisive

L .July 21, 19'10 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ••••• speeches ever presented in this House • .And I'm going to sug geat,M:r. Chairman, that if the Hon011rable Minister is prepared to continue this way he may accomplish a political result which he thinks is worthy of the goal of achievement; but I must suggest,M:r. Speaker, what he's going to do in terms of this community is going to hurt the very people that he claims he'd like to represent. He may suggest that this isn't so, but :Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to suggest to the honourable member that if he continues on this vein and he thinks he's very clever because he thinks he can fit one element of society Into another and therefore he successful politically, if he thinks that this is the correct way then may I say, Mr. Chairman, both is he incorrect and he indicates in terms of his own attitude to political life a smallness in character that is unworthy of the position of a Minister and unworthy really of the position that has been taken by many of the honourable members opposite In carrying out tbeir responsibility.

There are differences of opinion and those differences of opinion are very real and our community is becoming divided and our society In Manitoba is becoming really divided. If anyone doesn't believe this then they are living in a fool's paradise because this is the case In Manitoba, and all the Honourable Minister of :Municipal .Affairs did In his presenta tion is add to it. If he wants to continue on that vein, that's up to him, but as I've indicated be fore, history wlll record and Indicate what actually has been accomplished by that and the dam age and danger that's been occurred as a result of it. MR.

CHAIRMAN put the question on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIR.ARD (Emerson): I wish to be very brief but I would like to try to be to the point, M:r. Chairman. I want to speak on be~f of the amendment and I would like to suggest why. I listened with Interest to the speech of the Honourable the First Minister this morning and I was going to ask a few questions and I will ask them now and I hope that I might get an answer before the vote.

He announced a new policy with regard to giving some security to senior civil servants In terms of if they have a termination of employment, that there is a number of months that wlll be paid and so on. I understood in the discussion that it specifically related to Mr. Cass-Beggs but I'm wondering if it Involves all senior civil servants or is it only be ? I am concerned as well because we related this issue to Bill 56 and I don't think we can really get away from re lating it to Blll 56. In my area, I wish to Indicate, as opposed to this kind of security given to the gentleman referred to, Mr.

Beggs, I have one constituent who suffered very· seri~s losses in the downfall oft~Hl mink :ranching market or mink sales last winter. Now this individual had been quite well established in his occupation and had suffered a very severe loss. Coupled with this as a secondary income and livelihood he is also an insurance salesman and now he finds himself threateued to a point where there's really not much return, and the situation is very unreasonable when you consider the compensation granted to this individual.

Now because of the tension strain and worry, this particular individual is now in hospital I understand, with a nervous breakdown,and I consider this a very serious kind of case. Now it might be argued 1Mr. Chairman, that I am generalizing and maybe justifiably so. I think I am geueralizing. But I'm suggesting to you that there is room for concern In this area, that if this amendment does not remedy the situation as it was pointed out by the Member for St. Boniface, it's certainly going in the right direction.

We;re not asking that the govern ment be put in a position that it must be dictated, they wlll give this kind of compensation, but simply to have somebody from the outside give it a second look and give it an unbiased opinion. MR. CH.Am.M.AN: The Honourable Member for st. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the last speaker a question?

The Member from Emerson expressed a concern, I think it's a very real one, that somebody from the outside, somebody that can make a proper assessment should be in a position to indi cate if compensation should be paid and maybe recommmd some compensation. I think this might not be the exact words but this is what the honourable member said. Now hasn't this been answered already? Isn't it a fact that the Premter said that he would be ready and that he Intends to set up an independent commission or Board that will do just that, and that w111 have more power than this amendment will give anybody! MR. Gm..ARD: Mr.

Chairman, I might have been mislead but my understanding is that the compensation we're speaking about is in the area of approximately 85 dollars per year of operation. I'm quite happy1 Mr. Chairman, that the Honourable Member from st. Boniface. asked this question because I know that he knows of the specific case I am talking about and

July n. 19'10 (MR. GmARD cont'd.) ••••• I know that he is equally concerned; and 1 am sugge~ to you,Mr. Chairman, that unless, unless we arrive at a concrete and reasonable ~d of proposal from the government that says we will compensate this to this amount, and a reasonable amount, or we will agree to set up an independent body that will make this kind of suggestion to the government as a minimum. I don it see haw either the Honourable Member for St. Boniface or myself can support Bill 56. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman. this is exactly the point, that my honourable friend agrees that we can't at this time. we don't know what the cost would be; and my honourable · friend would like to see an independent body that would review this case. All right. I think this has been promised so far. Surely my friend understands, realizes, that even. even if Bill 56 passes, from one day to the next the government will not be engaged in the field of auto insur ance. Before they do this they have to do another thing.

They have to bring in em Act to com pensate these people and this Act will be brought in --well my friend from across says No. Well maybe they don't have to but I'm led to believe that they will and they intend to. and I be lieve that they will; and if they do we in this House here can reject or accept this and ••• ·• MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I really think that the remarks of the honourable member are not in line with the amendment which is being proposed. It is dealing with what will happen with regards to Bill 56, and therefore -you've urged honourable members not to ••• MR.

CHAmMAN: I have pointed out before to honourable members that they should not deal in detail with Bill 56. If they want to make a general reference it's In order but I don't wish to reopen the debate at this time. MR. DESJARDINS: Well I'm perfectly ready to accept this,Mr. Speaker. but accept this for all the members of the House not only when I speak. MR. CHAm MAN: ·• • • • proposed motion. The Honourable Member for FOrt Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker. it was actually not my intention to speak on this proposed amendment until the Minister of Municipal Affairs made the intemperate address that he did just before the nnon recess and directed the criticisms that he did not only againSt my colleque the Member for River Heights but I submit against the residents and the voters of River Heights.

Now I know that the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources has appealed for calm and reason and consideration and has attempted to pour oU on waters that were troubled and cer tainly threatening to boil just prior to the noon hour recess and I think that there is a great .~at of merit and justification in the appeal that the Minister of Mines and Resources has made and I intend to abide by it insofar as my reactions to the remarks as the Minister of Municipal Af fairs will permit me. But I cannot allow the moment to go by,Mr.

Chairman, without register ing shock and dismay for the record at the remarks that the Minister of Municipal Affairs made. He said In effect that the Member for River Heights has no coocern for people and I . think that two Ingredients are required for an allegation of that kind. One is total ignorance of the record of the Member for River Heights and the other ingredient is unmitigated gall. Mr. Chairman. I think that the First Minister would have been equally shocked had he heard there marks of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I don't think that the kind of remarks of which the Minister delivered himself generate any light on the debate in question. They do nothing but generate heat and Inflame passions and tempers and make it extremely difflcult for members of tle Committee to bring this conscientious examination of the member~ proposed amendment to bear that it deserves. I for one must say that I was shooked and dismayed by the language and the attitude of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I feel 1Mr.

Chairman, despite the blandishments of the Minister of Mines and Resources that those statements cannot remain on the record unchallenged. In fact I'd hoped to be able to reply to them prior to the lunch hour recess but was prevented by the clock. In the two or three hours Intervening, my chagrin and my dismay has mellowed somewhat and I don't intend to deliver myself of the ~d of speech. the kind of comments that I was intending to make at 12:25 noon.

Suffice it to say. suHlce it to say that the worst thing that this government can do, the worst thing it can do, given Bill 56, given increases in corporate Income tax, given Increases in persooallncome tax, given any intrusions into the private sector that they want to make. given any arbitrary power that they take Into their hands. I'll accept all of those things. not without question. not without criticism and argument. but I'll accept all of those things if they will only assiduausly devote themselves to trying to unite the people of Manitoba Instead of trying to divide the people of Manitoba.

The worst thing this government can do is saw seeds of divitiion and divisiveness. The worst thing this gove~ent can do- and they've done it since they assumed office fn tbe statements

(MR. SHERMAN cont'd.) • public and private inside and outside the Cbulber of a number of members of the administration, and the MiniSter of Municipal Aff8.irs is only one, . l don't single him out as any more culpable in this respect than a number of other .a'- is io res Urrect old specters of class and class divisions that were removed from our society and the hearts of men long ago and have no place in this society, particularly in our Centennial year and as we launch ourselves into our second century.

This kind of insidious reference to and resurrection of differences and dividing lines and class differentations, references to different leCtors of society, which manifested itself again today in the remarks of the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs when he singled out the constituency of River Heights for criticism, this kind of attitude and conduct, Mr. Chairman, I say can be nothing but totally destructive of all that this government or any other government may be attempting to do in Manitoba for the betterment of Manitoba now and in the future.

I think thi.s is the question that the First Minister should sddress himself to, not the question so much of whether the amendment proposed by the Member for River Heights really falls within the ambit or the paramaters of the specific question we're discussing at this time 011 the Human Rights Bfll, not the mechanical and technical aspects of legislation that have re quired and have indeed received so much attention by all sides of the House in the last four months, but this question of the attitude that his colleagues, and particularly his cabinet col leagues take, towards the society of Manitobans as a whole.

I think there are a number of ex amples on the record now, in the newspapers and in Hansard and in the public memory, to which I don it intend to make specific or individual reference for the sincere reason that I really think they are damaging and it would be further damaging to repeat them, but I think there are a number of examples which most Manitobans, if not all Manitobans are aware of statements by. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would prefer that the honourable member deal with the proposed amendment; I think he's getting a bit off the topic. MR. SHERMAN: Well I am dealing with it1Mr.

Chairman, I am dealing with it, but I'm trying to buttress my support for the position that the honourable member has taken in light of ·the criticism levied at him just before the noon hour recess. · MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I think the member is free to make an analysis in that direction but I think he has been doing that for a number of minutes. I would prefer that he dealt with the substance of the amendment rather than an analysis of the personalities or the behaviour of the honourable members opposite on thiJi! and other discussions. MR. SHERMAN: Well, we're dealing with a Human Rights Bill, Mr.

Chairman, and it seems to me that ft.'s ironic that in dealing with human rights legislation, we should be falling into a pitfall of debate that permits people to make statements such as that made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs before the noon hour recess, which I say is divisive, divisive of society, -- (Interjection) -- no, no nothing that the Member for River Heights has said in this debate is divisive of society. MR. DESJARDINS: You're darned rights it is. MR.

SHERMAN: It may be divisive of the political partisan feelings in this House but It's not divisive of society, but I think when you single out individual segments and constituen cies and "classes" that can be divisive and destructive. MR. DESJARDINS: In other words it depends where you sit. MR. SHERMAN: No, it depends on what you say. No it doesn't depend on where you sit. it depends on what you say.

This is the most important question that the First Minister can address himself to,I suggest, to watching the statements inside and outside this Chamber of his colleagues in his administration, because I suggest to him that many of them are destructive and divisive. I know that the First Minister is opposed, totally, in his own person, in his own conscience, to that kind of social divisiveness. Ths would be one of the evils, one of the dan gers that he would fight with every ounce of energy at his command; I'm convinced of that.

But there are members of his administration and members of his party who I suggest are not that interested in the total unity and the total homogeneity and the total fraternity of Manitoba· society and to achieve their ends with respect to specific ambitions for pieces of legislation for their awn party, they often make irresponsible and intemperate statements that set one Manitoban against another. There have been frequent instances where one Manitoban has been set against another Manitoban in the past 12 months as a consequence of remarks made by members of the present administration.

This is the -yes there have been. I challenge the Member for St. Boniface to cite ex amples of statements made by members on this side of the House that he could construe as

July 21, 1970 (MR. SHERMAN cont 1d.) ••••• being divisive of society. 11m talklng about references to classes, the middle class, upper elass, the lower class; I'm talking abOilt references to spee ific constituencies; I'm talking about references to attitudes such as that made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he said the member for River Heights really typified an attitude· of the people of River Heights. . MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to accept that challenge. MR. SHERMAN: Well when I'm finished I'll be interested to hear from you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: •••• again to the honourable member that he's making a speech that could be made either related to other issues or not related to anything. I don't see the particu lar relevance of his comments to the proposed amendment. MR. SHERMAN: We are talking about human rights, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I know, but I still feel that you are making an analysis which is unrelated to the amendment. MR. SHERMAN: Well I think surely the basic challenge that we all face in the area of human rights is to try to develop, if we don 1t already have it, an attitude of fraternity to the entire Manitoba society.

I'm sa;ying that the biggest danger the First Minister faces is that for all his good intentions in that regard, he has intemperate and irresponsible statements coming from intemperate and irresponsible colleagues who destroy the purpose before he 1s half lauched on it, and I cite the speech just before the lunch hour recess as a prime example. I say to the Member for St.

Boniface that the charge that the Minister of Municipal Affairs made with respect to the attitude of the Member for River Heights where people are concerned and the allegation that t1at was typical of the attitude of the people of River Heights, is divisive and destructive. I don 1t think the First Minister himself would subscribe to that kind of a charge .and I don't think that the Minister of Mines and Resources who has run for federal of fice in Winnipeg South and campaigned through the streets and the doorways of River Heights · would subscribe to that kind of an intemperate remark either.

I say if we want human rights, we want to address ourselves to a proper human rights environment in this province. this is the place to start. The place to start is here, where it's going to be necessary obviously for the First Minister to muzzle some of the colleagues in his administration who insist on setting Manitoban against Manitoban. Many of them have done this for the past 12 months and I think the First Minister is probably very concerned about this. MR. SCHREYER: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, I would. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. speaker, inasmuch as the honourable member is talking about human rights, I would ask him if he doesn't regard freedom of speech as a basic human right, therefore why should I think about muzzling anyone? MR. SHERMAN: Well of course, I regard freedom of speech as a basic human right but that freedom doesn't embrace license as I think the First Minister would be the first to agree. I suggest that when it sets one member of society against another --(Interjection) -- that's political.

I'm glad the Minister of Transportation brought that question up, because he has continuously, since the date that I made that remark mild.nterpreted it, taken it out of context and misapplied it. MR. BOROWSKI: Let's hear the explanation. MR. SHERMAN: Furthermore, even if it were taken in the ctmtext in which the Minillter of Transportation insists on taking it, that refers to political differences of opinion, not differ ences of caste an.d class which is the type of difference that the Minister of Transportation is forever referring to, forever referring to.

This is a forum for political debate and I presome that the Minister of Transportation can take care of himself, if he 1s lWCUsed of wearing Jack boots or if he isn't, but if I criticize him or he criticizes me because of the particular area of society we belong to or the particular constituency we come from, or the particular language which is our mother~. or the particular accent we speak with, I say that demeB:Ds him more than it demeans me, if he criticizes me on those grounds; and if I do that to him ·iikewise it demeans me much more than it demeans him, but a political difference of opinion, political allegations in terms of the philosophy of the party in power and the party in opposition, is an entirely different thing.

This is the forum where those differences are to be ironed out and hammered out. MR. BOROWSKI: Does this apply to the Union class struggle you keep dragging into this Chamber? MR. SHERMAN: We have never to my knowledge in the brief time that I have been in

L 4068 July 21, 19'1'0 (MR. SHEJ\:MAN, cont'd.) • • • • this Chamber, referred to class or class strugpes. MR. BOROWSKI: You referred to it on many occasions. MR. SHERMAN: I'm referring to it in the context of remarks that you and colleagues of yours have made; I can hardly refer to it without citing the terms but on this side of the House you have never heard, certainly from me, I can say Mr. Chairman, through you to the Min ister of Transportation, he's never heard any reference to class or class struggle. That isn't my type of thinking, that isn't my frame of reference.

I suggest that it is a divisive and a destructive and an insidious kind of attitude and approach, and if the First Minister would address himself to this question and solve that and stop the kind of inflaming of differences and - the kind of inciting the difference in divisiveness that many of his colleagues generate, he would be doing this province a far greater service than he can ever hqpe to achieve through some of the specific legislation that he has-introduced in this Chamber. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, we've been favoured all morning by the whining rhetoric of the Member from River Heights; we've heard his speeches not once but a dozen times on the same subject matter. We have heard it on second reading, we have heard it In Law Amendments Committee and we were forced to hear it again today and when some member on this side during the stillness of our listening dared to indicate that the thinking of that mem ber, the announced thinking of that member seemed to reflect that of his constituents it struck horror into the hearts of his colleagues. Now this is an astonishing reaction.

Surely this is a compliment that the Member for River Heights in his speeches seemed to reflect the thinking of his constituents and what terrible fright took place in the minds and in the hearts of his colleagues. Are they so disturbed by the words of their colleague that they shudder to think that his words reflect the image of the Conservative Party? Surely we have heard enough about the subject matter that the Honourable Member for River Heights continues to harangue us with. Surely Mr.

Chairman, he has used every opportunity to inject into every conceivable debate a harangue about the rights of citizens, the rights of citizens that he has so recently found had been left wanting by his government, the previous administration, for the many years; and even while he was the Minister not a word, not a whisper about the jeopardy of the rights of the many citizens in Manitoba. Now he's fighting for the leadership.

He's losing the leadership in his whining rhetoric, continually driving people to impatience in this Chamber because his speeches inject nothing new, we heard the substance of the speech on his amendment many times before.

All he is doing, and I wish the Honourable Member from Fort Garry would harken, is inflaming, not only his colleagues but also the members opposite to reply, reply to what is a continual harangue, a harangue based uj,on some sort of neurotic suspicion that anything this government suggests is wrong, and this government has introduced more basic rights legislation in this session than was ever dreamed of in his previous administration. Look at the categoric list of legis lation and then let him whine again about the jeopardy of the rights of the people of Manitoba. I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that in context his remarks are shallow and empty and his continued harangue reflects only on his desire to inflate which has to be the largest ego in this Chamber. MR. ENNS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: I'm not speaking>Mr. Chairman, but I was awaiting a ruling from you as to whether or not the remarks of the Attorney-General were in keeping with the same advice you offered the Member for Fort Garry , just so that I could guide myself in the future as to how I should or should not speak? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Well I would think that we have heard comments from both sides; we've beard personality analyses, party analyses and irrelevant comment and I think that we would do well at this stage to either call the question or to deal with the amendment and not to go into general analyses that are not especially related to this

section of the bill. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, further on the point of order, I'm not arguing with your analysis of how the debate took place, I'm merely pointing out that you chose to admonish n;.y colleague twice on speaking on this amendment and it rather appeared to me the Attorney General was ·speaking in the same general vein and you chose not to admonish him. Now I still think it's not too late for those of us who are sincerely interested in the parliamentary process to learn the thinking of our chairman so that we can expedite the matters. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader.

July 21, 1970 MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, rather than reflect on the partiality of the chair which the honourable member is doing, let us recall that any one of us ~ if it were correct that the chairman bas either overstepped this authority or under-stepped it, then any one of us could get up and object. The honourable member may recall that a member on this side was speak~ ing and I got up and thought be was out of order and I brought that to the Chairman's attention.

I think that the honourable member may have had a point, but I think that rather than reflect on the chair, which everybody's trying here, that you could make your point that you think it's out of order and ask the chairman to rule. I think that that would be the proper procedure. MR. ENNS: Well as a further point of order then, of course, I was merely seeking guidance. I do not think either speaker were out of order but I was attempting to, in my diplo~ matic way to point that out to the chairman. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if that's the case the honourable member does not really have a point of order. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, with respect to BU1121 I rise to speak only on this issue that bas arisen with regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In this Act itself it says ''no person shall publish by means of any medium he owns or controls, likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the enjoyment of any class of persons to which it is entitled under the law." I'm suggesting that he owns and controls his own mouthpiece and he bas come very close to violating the bill that'EI under discussion in the remarks be made this morning.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that if he bad made those remarks about the citizells of the constituency of Riel I would have been very upset; if he had made them about the constit~ uency of st. Boniface, the Member for st. Boniface would have been very upset. I think a valid point is being made here. The Minister seems to think that it's fair game to make the• remarks about the constituents of the constituency of River Heights, and I suggest that in doing so he bas singled out and tried to classify this group of constituents, and he is well nigh in violation of the Act which is under discussion in doing so. MR.

PAWLEY: Would the honourable member submit to a question? Is the honourable member denying that the Honourable Member for River Heights reflects the thfn)dng of the constituents in the constituency of River Heights? MR. CRAIK: I would think that any member is doing his job if he reflects the thoughts of his constituents. It's another thing to berate the member, but to berate the conatihlelltaofa CGRStJt~ uency in general is to deprive them of their )luman rights.

I suggest that the Minister of Municipal M fairs, if he wished to make statements untoward the Member for RiverHeights, he is entirely en titled to do in the confines of this Legislature, but to single out the constituents by name, not in any general terms, but by name, to single out the constituents is a viblation of the rights which the individual or class or individuals is entitled in Manitoba. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member would permit the question to be put and we pass the bUl, the honourable member could then report the Minister to the Human Rights Commission.

Let's get the legislation first. MR. CRAIK: Well, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources is being very facetious too. I don't think he's very funny at all. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I am not being facetious. --(Interjection)- If the hon ourable member would just permit me a moment. He suggested I'm being facetious; if he will not permit me I'll sit down. MR. CRAIK: I suggest again, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs Jn his role as a member of the cabinet should be more careful.

He seriously deaerws to be chastized for the remarks which he made this morning. particularly when we're discussing a bill on human rights. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, at approximately a quarter to three I indicated that there was a speech in me which I gave up. I can tell my honourable friends that there are many many things that could be said on this subject. This is a strong issue.

I can't certainly agree with what the honourable members on the other side have said; I don •t think that anything has been said that is wrong; but aren't we all aware here that this is in fact the ongoing debate between the members of the opposition and ourself. There's going to be many opportunities to engage in it, and can't we deal with the question in order to realize ourselves that we've had as good a go at it today as we probably need to.

4070 July ll, 19'10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe Honourable Member for River Heights MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the Honourable Minister and do not want to enter In It, but there is something that he is Ignoring In connection with this. I'm sorry that the Honourable Attorney-General Is absent.

There are specific sections of this Act and there was specific presentations before Law Amendments which provide us, not just for another form, but provide us a different examination and a different perspective In connec tiOD with the total debate, and It's unfortunate that what bas happened- and we've argued this since, the last time I spoke for about two hours - and unfortunately for reasons best known to himself- and I think the Hansard will show this when It's published, and thereis no reference, we'll have to walt until that comes- I think that If one reads the Hansard they'll findthatthedl visiveness tbat I claimed and my colleague the Honourable Member from Fort Garry has claimed, is correct- this was Intended by the Honourable Minister of Municipal Services.

Tbere were remarks outside this Chamber that would indicate that this was intended and these were made yesterday. So I say this, lf be recalls when the Civil Liberty Assoclation,Manltoba B:ra.ilch,. presented their recommendations, they Indicated that insofar as they were concerned they wanted additional amendments which would Indicate property status, social status, private status to be Inserted after national origin with respect to discrimination and all the other mat ters. Their references at that time were for particular concern for the disadvantaged. Mr.

Chairman, we saw fit not to accept It and the government has not Introduced lt. MR. GREEN: Would the Member for River Heights not agree that If we got Into this debate and kept It going, that I certainly could allude to examples which would Involve speeches for further hours on the part of members about people who have referred to class In this House, people who have referred to people In a particular social strata and what should be done to them, and doesn't the honourable member- I realize that this would continue almost endlessly- and, by the way, I think will continue endlessly.

I think that the conflict that my honourable friend the Member for Fort Garry . . . exist, cannot be alimlnated by saying It doesn't exist, and that kind of conflict will be discussed In this House on mmerous occasions, and we've had a pretty good go at It today. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, my Intention Is not to speak at any length. I just Indicate that there was an opportunity for the presentation of this position In another context but never theless relative to what's happened, and I think it's unfortunate that the discussion has taken the turn that It bas.

If we deal with the amendment- and I assume we're going to put the amendment -the amendment proposes simply that the Human Rights Commission be given a power of examlnatl~n and recommendation In particular situations. We have Bill 56 before us. That's one example. There are many others. May I say, Mr. Chairman, because the Honour able Minister of Transportation asked me about a particular situation and I Intended to answer at the time I stood up and I forgot about it, not when he first asked me but when I spoke the second time- may I say this.

I don't kno7i whether his Information Is correct with respect to the logger, but let's asBUme that he's right. Then, lf he's right, they would have a right under this, and he can't quarrel with the fact that they would have a right under this, and that's exactly what I am trying to provide. Whether I am right or wrong about a particular situation what's happened In the past, If In fact this amendment was passed and the situation existed as he BUggested it exists- and It could very well- well, let me flnlsh, Mr.

Chairman, and it could very well exist, then they would have a right to proceed and go to this commission - and what's wrong with that? MR. BOROWSKI: Well Mr. Chairman, I would just llke to ask the member a question. He raises a very Interesting point. He suggests this legislation be made retroactive, and if so, how far back? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing In this legislation to suggest that it can't be retroactive if it has to do with a person who feels he's aggrieved by reason of

an act . . . (etc.) and I would asBUme- (Interjections)-- I did this very quickly. If you want, I can read It slowly. I don't think the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources wants me to. But, Mr. Chairman, obviously the commission Is going to have to determine as to Its relative merits as to what it would examine, but I would think that anything that would come In recent times woutd be subject to examination just as &.nything that has happened In recent times is subject to the scrutiny of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman is not limited to the things that happen after he took office but can refer to items that came before, and in that sense the retroactivity applies there as it would apply here.

Ju~y 21, 1970 4071 MR. BOROWSKI: Well Mr. Chairman, may I just as81lre the member that what I said Is correct. I have the agreement and It goes back to 1966. Are you suggesting that we make It retroactive? Do we stop at 166 or do we go back to '56 'Where the Thompson deal was made? You know, how far back do we go? MR. SPIVAK: Well Mr. Chairman, I say this to you. I don't know how far the Ombude man Act goes. I don't think there Is any specific provision with respect to lt. I think the Ombudsman, If necessary, could examine something for two decades ago. It's possible.

But I'm simply saying that with respect to the examination that the Ombudsman could undertake, I believe the :puman Rights Commission could have the same kind of powers and could examine, and the particular situation, If the Honourable Mlnlster of Transportation Is correct, should be examined by them, and they should make recommendation If this fact does exist.

I don't see anything wrong with It and I would hope that there would be really serious conaideration given this, because I think this would at least give somo independent overview of what's ha~ pened with the right of recommendation In the event the government is responsible for the prohibition of anyone carrying on their business, trade or occupation. · MR. CH~MAN put the question on the motion of the Member for River Heights, and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPIVAK: Ayes and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members.

On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for River Heights to amend

Section 11 of the blll. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 23; Nays 26. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost. (The remainder of Bill121 was read and passe<

l) MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, would you call Blll No. 17, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Blll17. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder If I can have a copy of the- has the amendment been accepted? The one that we had stopped reading the blll· on? Has it been moved? Has the amendment been moved? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't have the name of the mover. MR. GREEN: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe Member for Portage. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Chairman, I had moved an extensive amendment last evening and, by leave, I would like to withdraw the complete amend ment and the Member for Ste.

Rose will move a series of amendments that we hope wlll find favour with the government. He wlll speak to the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, so that the member may be heard. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, last evening I moved an extensive amendment to Blll17. Since that time there has been an Informal discussion with a member of the gover~ ment and,by leave, I am wllling to withdraw the complete amendment and the Member for Ste. Rose will make a series of amendments 'Which we hope wlll meet with some approval by the government side. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Does tbe member have leave to withdraw his proposed motion? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, my amendments deal with

Section 7. Do you want me to move them now or to proceed once we reach that section? Are we at that point? MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now on

Section 5. Perhaps I could move up to 7 and then the honourable member can make his motion. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move the following amendment. Now, for those who heard the amendment last night, It Is Identical, Mr. Chairman, up to the portion. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with

Section 5 or 4? MR. MOLGAT:

Section 7, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'd like to move up to that.

Section 5-pas~~&d?

Section 6 as amended ... MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe Honourable Member for Birtle-Bussell. MR. GRAHAM: Dealing with

Section 6, and In an effort to be consistent with the ManltobaDevelopment Corporation Act, I have an amendment here 'Which reads: 1. That the present contents of

Section 6 be numbered 6(a); and 2. A new 11ection be

4072 July 21, 19'10 (MR. GRABAK cont'd. ) . . . . . added to

Section 6 DRJDbered 6(

b) as follows: The govern ment shall not sell or otherwise dispose of its shares to any member of the Legislative Assembly directly or lndlreetiy, or to any person acting on his behalf, or to any firm, corpora tion or organization in \\bich a member of the Legislative Assembly has a substantial beneficial interest. Mr. Chairman, this is just being consistent with

Section 45 of the Manitoba Development Corporation Act, where that Act says that the corporation shall not make a loan to any member of the Legislative Assembly; and here, in an effort to be consistent, we are suggesting that in the disposition of shares by government that the same consistency apply. Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that this amend ment be accepted. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Well I just wanted to dispense with this. I have no point of order. You've accepted the amendment? Well, we have no objection with the amendment, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 6--passed;

Section 7. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that Bill 17 be amended by adding thereto immediately after

Section 7 thereof, the following section: ''R esponsiblllty of Mlnlster. 7, 1( 1). Before the Mlnlster of Finance proceeds under

Section 3 or

Section 7, the Mlnlster shall (

a) conduct studies to examine the benefits and costs to the people of Manitoba that can be estimated the result from any action by the Mlnlster of Finance proceeding under

Section 3 or

Section 7. (

b) establish .. terms of reference for studies conducted under (

a) above, which shall require the examination of the benefits and costs that can be expected lf the Minister of Finance wants to proceed under each of the alternatives stated in

Section 3. ''Report of benefit cost studies and of proceedl•s under

Section 3, 7 1(2). The Mlnlster shall, after any proceedings under

Section 3 or

Section 7, report to the Legislature at the earliest possible time. The Mlnlster when reporting to the Legislature shall (

a) describe the action taken by the Minister of Finance under

Section 3 or

Section 7; (

b) table all studies conducted under

Section 1 above. " MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. The Honourable Member. MR. MOLGA)': Mr. Chairman, this particular

section in the amendment is unchanged from that moved by the House Leader of the Liberal Party last night. I have omitted the second or third part, which is Annual Report, which I will move as a separate amendment. The government had indicated that insofar as the annual report

section they were prepared to accept it provided the wording was one which was approved or recommended by the legal counsel, and so that will be separate. This section, then, is completely as proposed last night. Now the purpose of the section, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the House aid to ensure that the government does in fact conduct proper studies before entering into any such plan under

Section 3 or

Section 7, and that having made the studies, that the House be advised of those studies and that the information be given to the House. That is the \\bole intent of the section, that there be complete review, study, before an action is taken, and that there be complete disclosure of the House after the action has been taken by government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I indicated to the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, the Leader of the Liberal Party, when I saw his amendment, I indicated to him that the part dealing with the annual report was quite in accordance with what·! indicated in the House the government would be prepared to accept, that we had no intention of not msklng full disclosure, and that there is no doubt that we would do it in any event, but the Act is a better Act if it contains the provisions for disclosure and therefore we are prepared to improve on the Act at the instigation of the Member for Portage.

At the same time, I did also indicate to him yesterday that I felt that the matters now raised by the Member for Ste. Rose are quite properly matters of the admlnlstratlon of the government and not matters of the legislative process, and in saying this, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave any doubt that I feel that the consideration that I mentioned by the Member

July 21, 19'10 40'7.8 (MR. GREEN cont'd.) . . . . . for Ste. Rose and v.ilich are contained in this amendment, are some of the considerations- I don't think they are all and I think that other members could add things if we wanted to - but they are certainly some of the considerations which any respcm sible or reasonable government would enter into in dealing with this kind of operation.

I might say that although cost benefit studies are mentioned, it was not the intention, with the original setting up of corporations, that they necessarily should show a black line at the bottom of the ledger sheet, or black figure; that it may be that red figures on the bottom of the ledger sheet would still in certain cases require the government, as a matter of policy, to enter into the type of arrangement that is permitted by the bill, but I would think, Mr.

Chairman, that to try to legislate prudence, to legislate discretion, to legislate appropriate policy decision on mem bers of the administration, can really have not that good results. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that the question as to whether or not a government is operating in a proper manner, and to question as to v.ilether it is properly criticised or properly censured or properly condemned, to use a harsh word, depends on how it acts on those thh!ls which it is its duty to administer. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that last year when we were talking about the tabling of studies - for instance, which is contained in this report - that I at all times said that the government had a discretion not to table them, and I ati11 aay and I have repeated on this side of the House, that I believe that a government could have a study which in its discretion it need not table. Now, I'm suggesting that v.Uen it does or does not use that discretion is the measure of the competence and otherwise effectl veness of a proper go~ ernment, and I say it suggests, Mr.

Chairman, that those are the things upon which the gov ernment is ultimately measured; and for the honourable member to put them into the --.ttempt to put them into legislation similarly to what was done with the Manitoba Development FuDd Act, is to, I suggest, try to catch something which in the last analysis cannot be caught, and that ls to try to legislate the entire administration of the executive branch, which is an impo15siblllty. So, Mr.

Chairman, not because I disagree with the general policy of what is being . suggested here, and not that I don't suggest that government would have to ta.ke these things into consider ation, plus take things into consideration which I might not be able to think of at this moment and which other members could add to the amendment, but because I think that an executive branch of government has to be free to act in accordance with its policy and with its program, rather than within legislative confines,! suggest that this amendment not be accepted. Now, Mr.

Chairman, in saying that, I can assure the honourable member and I can assure other members of the House that when the government decides to set up a Crown corporatiGD within any of the provisions that are contained in this Act, if I as Minister, or if any other person here as Minister cOu.ld not get up and say that they have done the right thing, whether it be a feasibillty study and whether they table it or not, I suggest that in a proper case if the government does not table it that they should be censured, that all of the things that are 8Uif"" gested by my honourable friend should certainly be the subject matter of legislative discussion, we have to be in a position of answering for them, and Mr.

Chairman, I say further that if we can't answer properly and we can't indicate that we have done the things that we are elltltled to do by the legislation in a reasonable, prudent, and in every other way responsible manner, then we should be kicked out on our ear. And those are the kinds of 1hings, Mr. Chairman, upon which the people wlll measure the government and I would ask the people to measure our Act in the same regard. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON. W. BEARD (Churchlll): Mr. Chairman, in looking at the resolution or 1he amendment, it brings two thoughts to mind.

One, of course, is that we wouldn't want to diB courage private corporations from· approaching government under this type of .a plan. In other words, there may be times when a private corporation would want to approach government for assistance, or in fact approach government to go into business with them, but they wouldn't want disclosure, public disclosure of their corporation to Opposition, because of the. fact that ... MR. GREEN: . . . is reading the part that is headed Annual Report.

I just want to be sure that he has the correct amendment, because I have not been dealing with the disclosure provisions, I have been dealing with the provisions headed "Responsibility of the Minister and Report of Benefit. MR. BEARD: Well, the responsibillty of the Minister is to report to the Legislature everything that they have dealt with.

L 4074 July 21, 1970 MR. GREEN: That's fiDe. Then you're dealing with the correct . . • I just wondered whether the honourable member was dealing with the last half of the amendment, but apparently he is dealing with the first half. MR. BEARD: I can realize where the two of them are closely knlt together but I would hope that, In the last analysis, that private companies can be In fact encouraged to come to the province and to develop, and I of course look to the development of the north In conjunction with government In some cases and would hope that this would not discourage this type of an amendment.

I think that there should be an allowance for some type of a review, particularly where the public feels there are mistakes, but lf the Minister would rather deal with this under the Ammal Report, then I will leave that part of it to the second part of the amendment. But per haps the Member for Ste. Rose can elaborate on that because it would bother me If we were discouraging people from approachl.llg government In a buslness . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. The honourable member. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, In reply first to the comments of the Member for Churchill, this portion of the amendment, the first part, I don't think provides for disclosure of any company Information. It provides for the disclosure of any studies conducted by the government relative to cost benefit and the whole project involved, and I don't think would Involve the disclosure of any private company Information, which is certainly not what I am •eking. In reply to the Minister's comments, Mr.

Chairman, I recognize that In all probablllty this WOIIld be the prudent course for any Minister to follow, and that to that extent, when he says it's not necessary to put It In the Act, he may have a point. On the other hand, there Is no guarantee if it's not In the Act that the Minister would follow it.

It could well be that the Minister would decide, for reasons of his own, that this Is a particular project that he wants to see done and that he's convinced is going to be good per se, with no better Information than his own decision, and I suggest.that insofar as the funds which are going to be advanced by the people of Manitoba after all, that there ought to be a guarantee In the Act that the proper and prudent course be followed and not simply be at the discretion of the Minister. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, I have found In the past a good deal of difficulty In getting from government at times, Information that I thought should be the Information of the House; In fact, at times, the lmpossibllity of really knowing what studies have been conducted. I can think back to ~r debate on South Indian Lake.

Not only was the problem at one stage that the reports were not being published, but beyond that, the point that the Opposition members didn't even know what studies had been conducted so couldn't really ask any questions on the matter because they had no means of knowing really what had been undertaken In studies or what hadn't been undertaken.

And so to get around - and I recognize South Indian Is not on a par with this one because It wasn't the question of setting up a Crown corporation or anything of the sort- but I think again, In the Interests of open government, In the Interests of making this House more responsible, in the Interests of protecting the taxpayers' money, that there should be no objection to having the Information produced and that the studies are undertaken. Why should only the government side know about the studies and why should not the Opposition be advised In the same way?

How can the Opposition be expected to do Its work of responsible opposition if it Isn't a party to the Information that's available to the government side? How could we on this side determlne whether or not it was a wise venture for the government to enter Into a certain agreement under this Act lf we are denied the studies that back up the government decision In the first place?

It is putting us In a position where we virtually have to rubber stamp the government decision because we do not have the information that Is In the government hands and we do not have the research facllity and the money required to do the research ourselves, so it simply means that we can't do our job In opposition- and this applies to whatever party Is In opposition. The same thing every time. So the government here Is asking for very substantial rights, or at least the authority to do some very substantial things. I have some hesitations about it.

I repeat, as I have said 1.n many debates In the past, I would rathe:;:" see things undertaken by private enterprise; I would rather see things undertaken by cooperative groups; I would rather not have the govern ment enter Into It If there is another means of doing it. I am prepared to accept that there Is no other means of getting a venture going, and then I am prepared to support the government

;----_.-- July 21, 1970 4011 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd) . getting into lt, bat before that's done I 1hlnk that the public have a right to know the full facts, and I thlnk this House must know the full facts, otherw188 we would end up by handing under Blll17 some extremely wide powers to the government and having no possiblllty in the future of the members on this side of the House being in a posltlon to do a reasonable assessment and a responsible job of opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Well Mr. Chairman, ln llstenlug to the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose's further explanation on the amendment before us, it would appear, or rather it indicates to me that he is beglnnlug to understand our party's position in total opposition to the bill, bat I would like, because it is precisely the unrestrained powers that Bll117 gives to the government that my leader made his position clear on when first speaking on this bill, bat I would like to speak ln support for a moment for this particular amendment even though having indlcated that I do not support the bill as a whole. Mr.

Chairman, this House needs hardly be reminded, although perhaps for some of the new members that weren't here in the immediate past, the last few aessionslla, pbartlll cularf ly the ·j last session of the previous admlnlstration, where the whole question of ava i ty o reports, feasiblllty reports, studies, was one that took a considerable amount of time ln the debate, the Honourable Mlnlster responsible for this bill- I believe it stands in his name, Blll17- was most adamant in enunciating the very argument that the Member for Ste.

Rose has now put forward, and perhaps, with due respect, perhaps even more dramatically and with greater vigor, because at that time we were asking and demanding the reports, the studies, the feasi- blllty studies with respect to northern power development at Southern Indian Lake.

We wanted the transition reports of the north, the consultant firms, with respect to the communities; we wanted all the underwriting, consulting engineering reports at that time; and I would hope that the government would not choose to use the phrase that has been used so often, that we didn't get them 1so that that justifies their present action now. Quite frankly, the reports were alwaya .. available.

Though the particular kind of reports were available to members of the opposition perhaps not in the manner and the form that they wished or wanted them - but it was made yery clear to them that the reports were available to them at Hydro or other sources - the speclftc reports dealing with inter-departmental study groups were not available, and the position on that particular matter really hasn't changed much from the transition from the put admlnl~ tration to this administration.

But it would seem, particularly, that the amendment here calls for the supplying to the House the klnd of information that was deemed so vital and so necessary when the government, under its Crown corporation the Manitoba Hydro, was contemplating certain developments with respect to the power supply of Manitoba, that - and I think I am correct - that there was this general call and it was suppor1ed from all members of the opposition including the members of the New Democratic Party, the members of the Liberal Party, the Member from Rh!Deland, who made this, and I must admit, having been the Mlnlster at that time, one of the most difficult periods of my time ln office, that it was- and why was it difficult?

Becmae I recog nized the validity to some extent of the members' opposite argument of that day, that it was difficult for them to pass judgment, to either agree with the government's propoaed action or . with Manitoba Hydro's proposed action, or disagree with it, without having the fullest oppor tunity of having the material before them. And I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman; that while I quite recognize that we are not deallng necessarily in the same scope of project., bat we haY8 no way of knowing what the government's intention is under Blll17, and the Mlnls18r of MiD88 and Natural Resources made specific reference to that fact that he did not want to be in any way hemmed ln by any restrictive clauses to BU117. At the committee stage, we mowed a restrictive clause asklng that the word "renewable" be inserted, which would limit the actions of Blll17 to speclflc areas.

The Mlnlster, in hls wisdom, rejecmd that because he wanted Blll 17 to give him the fullest range of power that only he and future government decisions or future cabinet decisions of that governmEII.t can envisage as to how they proposed to apply Blll17. Now, that being the case, Mr. Chairman, we can't really say that we may just only be dealing with a relatively minor development of a cooperative nature, or a corporate or com pany nature ln the north, if you have anything to do with setting up a timber company of some klnd or a cord-cutting operation of some kind or a store of one nature.

We quite conceivably are talking of some major developments ln the north. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would, having

L 4076 Julj 21, 19'10 (liR. ENNS cont'd.) . . . . . on several occasions cautioned the governmlllt about the approach that they are taking geuerally ln the area of mlnl.Dg, I would rather JIUspect that if the government survives that long that, wlthln a relatively short period of tlme, we wlll be demand Ing on thls side that the government do exercise Blll 17 to make up for the slack that will develop because of the lack of confidence or the concern or the uncertainty that the government ls Injecting Into that particular primary Industry. So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to draw to your attention, Mr.

Chairman- I am sure you yourself, Sir, were ln the House - when a great effort was made which was well reported by the media of that day, that the question of having full access to all feasibillty studies, all reports with respect to any development that the government may choose to undertake with the use of public funds, that these reports, these feaslblllty studies be made available to all mem bers of the House so that they could participate ln a more gsulne manuer and a position of knowledge, and either commend or criticize constructively the proposed government action or lnterwntion in the private sector in thls Insurance.

To this extent, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment before us by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose and would indicate my party's support for the amendment before us at this tlme. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether the honourable member was here when I replied to the Member for Ste. Rose, because If he were here, then I thought I answered that question; If you were not here, I am wllllng to repeat my answer, but If you spoke ln spite of my answer then I have nothing more to say. Was the honourable member here when I spoke? MR.

CHAIRMAN: As a general principle, the honourable member should not repeat answers for people who are absent from a debate since other members were ln fact present. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, then I just ask the honourable member whether he was here when I spoke. MR. ENNS: I must confess to having been ln my seat at the time the Honourable Mlnlster of MlDes and Natural Resources spoke.

I also had the pleasure of being engaged in conversa tion with the Honourable Minister of Finance at the same time and there was a great conflict of interest presented to me as to who I should be listening to at that particular moment, both being eloquent ln their own particular way. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. The Honourable Member for Rhlnsland. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Chairman, I think it ls Incumbent on me to make some comments as we are passing Blll 17, The Manitoba Natural Resources Development Act, and the amend ment before us request that studies, when they are being made, of cost beueflts and so on, that these be tabled and that we be informed of the matter previous to going Into the wnture. If we take a look at the sections , refer to

Section 3 . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honwrable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Just on a point of information, I don't want the honourable member to misinterpret the amendment. I don't read anything into it which would Indicate that the Mlnlster of Finance could not advance the monies before the honourable member kuew abCRlt it. That's not my reading of the amendment. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Well, the amendment says that before the Mlnlster of Finance proceeds the Minister shall conduct studies to examine the beuefits and costs to the people of Manitoba that can be estimated to result from any action by the Minister of Finance proceeding under

Section 3 _or

Section 7; and If we took a look at

Section 3 of the blll, lt says "with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Cwncll, the MlnlBter of Finance may . . • such conditions as the Lieutenant Governor ln Council may prescribe." And then lt says under (b), ''Make loans to a company with or without security" and (c) "guarantee the payment of principle and Interest on monies borrowed by a company.

This means that this is pure speculation; that we are giving the power to the Lieutenant Governor in CCRlncll, to Cabinet, to speculate on behalf of the people of Manitoba as In going Into a mlnl.Dg venture, and certainly, If that is the case, I feel certainly that they should then be prepared to accept the amendment before us because, If a venture shwld not be & success, then they would not only accept the blame, then the Hwse would be blamed. We, as members on this side of the Hwse, on the Opposition, wwld also receive the blame. I just wonder what the situation would be, though, If It turued out to be good.

Then, no dwbt, the NDP or the New Democratic Party wwld take

July 21, 1970 (MR. FROESE cont'd.) . the credit. They would then take the credit and, on the Other hand If there were losses we would have to share the blame. -- (Interjection) - Pardon? l know' fully well what would,happen in a case like this. If you came out, good and well. Well, you could go to the people and tell them, well this is what we dld; this is what the New . . Democratic Party did, and this is what the government has done for you. But, If it turned out the other way, we would be left holding the bag because we allowed you to do this and we gave concern to v.hat you are trying to do now. MR.

GREEN: Would the honourable member say that the reverse would be true? That lf the project came out well and he had his way, then he would say well, it's not their project; it was the \\bole Legislature's project, but lf the project suffered, he would say it was their project. So, regardless of what is said, the government that is in power, that is in power when a measure proceeds, is the group that will be blamed. Is that not correct? MR.

FROESE: This is all the more reason \\by we should know and why the amendment should be passed, that we are aware, ahead of time, of \\bat venture the government is specu lating on going into. We should have some knowledge of \\bether this is good, or will be or could be a good project, or whether it's a poor risk. Certainly, I wouldn't want to have the people of this province speculate and gamble on this, knowing ahead of time that it mJght be a shaky thing and that the chances are rather for losing their money thim wlnnlng.

I don't mind the odd time to probably spend a few dollars on my own risking it, but I certainly wonldn't Want to risk the people of :Manitoba's money on poor risks. Therefore, I think this amendment should be accepted by the government 80 that we on this side of the Bouse have some say in the matter before the gowrnment enters into these ventures. Then, too, part (

b) says that establlshed terms of reference for studies conducted under (

a) above, which shall require the examination of the benefits and costs that can be expected lf the Minister of Finance was to proceed under each of the alternatives stated in

Section 3. Mr. Chairman, I think the Member for Ste.Rose has brought forward a very valuable amend-· ment, and I certainly will endorse it and feel that the government should really give considera- tion to this and pass lt. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the proposed motion of the Honourable :Member for ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: I don't want to extend the debate at all but there was one point that the minister mentioned \\bich I neglected to reply to in his comments.

Be said that it may not be that these are necessarily money-making ventures that the government would enter into, and therefore that the cost benefit study might, in fact, show a red figure. Well, :Mr.

Speaker, to me this is all the more reason that the studies should be produced, so that the Honse and the people of Manitoba are completely aware of the reasons for proceeding with the venture, and I agree that there may be times when we would agree to a venture, even though it wasn't a money-making one, because of the other benefits attached insofar as employment of people or rescuing certain communities faced with potential disasters and 80 on. So the fact that it is going to make money or not make money, I don't think is the object.

The point is that, prior to- or at least that the Bouse shonld be aware of the full facts, and unless the studies are produced, the Bouse cannot be aware of the full facts, and I would ask the Minister not to take a rigid posttlon in this. I know it is dlfflcult for :Ministera to accept amendments from the opposite side of the Bouse, but I would ask the :Minister to reflect on the days when he sat in Opposition and to think that he may return there much sooner than he expects, and to think of the responsibllltles that come upon all sides of the BOIUI8.

Ours o:n this side is one, assessing carefully \\bat government does, making sure that we bri.Jig forward the other side of the coin, but we cannot do this lf we are not given the facts.

I would appeal to the backbenchers on the government side to consider the amendment I am proposi.Jig and check lf lt ls not a reasonable request that the Bouse be made aware of any studies undertaken, good or bad, and that the Bouse then be in a position to make a II&De, reasonable decision on what the government proposes, rather than be forced to discuss it from this side of the Bouse in a vacuum of information \\ben the goftrnment side of the Honse has full access to studies. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, Pd just make a short remark with regard to both what the Member for Lakeside 8.lld the :Member for Ste.

Rose have sald. I made no change ln poaition when I was on that side of the Honse to the time that I am on this side of the Honse, IUid when I was on that side of the Bouse I always agreed- audinever shook from the position- that it was within the government's discretion not to table certain information. I said it was unwise for them not to dolt but that they had a right not to do it. I still say that, Mr. Chairman, and

L 4078 July 21, 19'10 ()lB. GREEN coDt'd.) . I say that a govermnent Ia judged, not by the legislation " makes, but by the way it acts, and despite ?that the Member for Lakeside says and I'm not golDg to open another big, long argument, the fact is that the reports that the gowriiDl.eDt had a dis cretion not to table were tabled by this gowrnmeDt.

I say that a government that acts in an arbitrary fashion and decides that it's golDg to withhold from the House matters which the general public feel that the House should properly haw gotten, wlll be made to pay for it; and the honourable member says that' I may be back on that side of the House. You know, that's not an unthinkable thought. That's something that could happen to any politician. I could make many unkind remarks about, you know, what mlgbt happen to other members of the House, but even though they are unthinkable, there Is no particular benefit ln saylDg them. We could open up a lot of sores.

The fact Is that I am now here, that I am not here saylDg anything differently than I said when I was oyer there, and maybe, Mr. Speaker, that's one of the small reasons that I'm here. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's pretty even. I bellew the ayes have it. MR. GREEN: Ayes and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: Callln the members. On the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 23, Nays 26. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost. The Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I have a further amendment to the same section, or rather following the same section, as follows- Mr. Chairman, I must apologize. I only have one copy of the amendment. It is ln -- or unless the Legislative Counsel has it. It is really the same -- the results will be the same as the second portion of the amendment proposed last night, only it has been re-worded by Legislative Counsel, I think, to conform to the Act. So I mow that Sections 8, 9 and 10 of Bill17 be reDUDI.bered as Sections 9, 10 and 11 respec tl-.ely, and the following

section be added thereto after

Section 7. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the honourable member to walt until we complete

Section 7. I haw not yet passed that

section of the blll. MR. MOLGAT: That's rlght. I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN? (Section 7 was read and passed.)

Section 8. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGA'r: Mr. Chairman, I move that Sections 8, 9 and 10 of Bill17 be reDUDI. bered as Sections 9, 10 and 11 respectively, and the following

section be added thereto after

Section 7.

Section 8 (1). Where, under clause (

a) of

Section 3, shares have been purchased ln the company, as long as the shares or any of them are owned by the government the Board of Directors of the company shall, within four months a.{ter the end; of each fiscal year of the company, make a written report to the Mlnlster upon the operations of the company during that fiscal year, including an audited statement of its operating revemes and expenditures and such other information as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may require. 8(2).

Where the Minister receives a report under subsection (1), he shall lay the report before the Assembly forthwith, lf it then is ln session, and, lf the Assembly is not ln session, within 15 days after the beginning of the next session. 8(3). Where a report is laid before the Assembly under subsection (2), lt stands per- manently referred to the Standing Committee of the Assembly on Economic Development. MR. CHAIRMAN presented the motion. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, this Is ~~greeable to the government now. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.

The balance of Blll17 was read and passed. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the blll being reported, and after a voice vote• declared the motion carried. MR. WALTER WEm (Leader of the Opposltlon)(Mlnnedosa): A recorded count, Mr. Chairman, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ayes and Nays. Call in the members. On the question of the bill being reported. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 27; Nays 22.

JUly 21, '19~(1 :am. CBAIIJ~: I declare the motion carried, to report the bill. The Honourable House Lea.l:)er. MB. GREEN: Bill 39, Mr~ Chairman . .MR. CHAIRMAN: BIU 39. 407~ MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder lf we could deal with Blll39 part by part ra1her than page by page . .MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 39. The Municipal Act. Are we deallllg with the Bill part by part? (Part I and Part n were read and passed.) Part m- The Honourable Member for Rhineland . .MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, on Part m, we have Subdivision VI 'Milch deals with the remuneration of members of council. :am. CHAIRMAN: Whatpage, Mr •.• ? MR. FROESE: It's on pages 58, 59, 60 and 61. There was an amendment brought in to

Section 111 (4) but I want to deal briefly with the matter of remuneration of council and council members. Under the old Act, there was provision in there as to 'Mlat remuneration would be paid or in the way of indemnity and so on. Under the new bill this is left to their discretion, and I'm just wonderlllg \\hether we will not have a great varlaDce in the remUDBra tion or indemnities that the various council members and reeves will receive under thls particular new bill in this division. And I'm not just sure \\hether this is fair in all respects.

I think guidelines should have been set down, a r&Dge, in \\hich the salaries or Indemnities , could vary. I don't say that they should be the same because some of the municipalities are indeed much larger than others; the admlnlstration is greater; and no doubt some councils are smaller and there is less administration.

Surely I'm not saylllg that the indemnitY should be the same, but I think we should have laid down some guidelines and a rauge in 'Milch the indem":" nities would fall under, and I think the committee should not have completely dlscarded this matter and left it at complete discretion of council as is now being proposed • .MR. CHAIRMAN: (Parts m, IV, V, VI and vn (to Page 245) were read and passed.)

Part vm ... .MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would llke to move a-

Part vm, we ha-ye reference to

Section 291(1)(

d) on Page 151. Mr. Chairman, I have a coDfesslon to make. I wanted to make an amendment earlier on and I note that I have got past the page. If I had leave of the HOUBe to go back ... MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave? (Agreed) MR. PAWLEY: What I would like to do ls amend

Section 291 (l)(

d) in refereuce to- lf you turn to the clause \\hlch reads "for prohibiting the sale within the municipality of flreballa, squibs, firecrackers and other fireworks to any person." I would like the words "regulat!Dg or" added after "for"- that Clause (

d) of subsection (1) of

Section 291 be amended by sddiDg, after the word "for" in the first line thereof, the words "regulatlllg or". If we leave it u it is, then the municipality will only have the power to prohibit and not to regulate lf they llhould so wish to regulate rather than, in fact, to prohibit. I would move thus, seccmded by the Hon ourable Minlster of Transportation. MR. CHAIRMAN presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the amendment accepted. " .MR. CHAIRMAN: (Parts vm to XV of Bill39, pages 245 to 404, were read and.pauecl.) The Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROESE: It's not belllg pointed out 'Mlere amendments were being broqb.t in by committee, the Municipal Mfalrs Committee. Should it not be pointed out to members that amendments were made in committee in the various sections? MR. CHAIRMAN: (The balauce of Bill 39 was read and passed.) MR. LEONARD H. CLAYDON (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, what title have you on that bill? MR. CHAIRMAN: The title on the bUlls The Municipal Act. Bill be reported. Bill 43,

an Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act. There are only two pages.

Section 1 .•. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for

Section 1, 17. Bill·U; as members will recall, this is \\here the government ls passi.Dg a bill askiDg for the authority to hire up to five executive assistants, and also for the Cabinet to have the power to pay indemnity allowance, s~ry and reimbursement for any purposes that they deem fit. My

L 4080 JUly 21, 19'10 (MR. G. JOHNBrON cont'd.) . ameDdment places this power-- takes the power away from the Cabinet and makes the Act responsible to the Leglslature. So I move

Section 1'1 be amended,(

a) by deleting the words "or The Executive Govermnent Organization Act" where it appears in line 3; and (

b) by deleting all the words after the word "assembly" where it appears in line 6, up to the word "and" where it appears in line 8. MR. CHAIRMAN presented the motion. :MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, there Is a procedural problem before us because it was my intention to move an amendment to

Section 1 '1 that would replace it in its entirety. After it's been moved and copies have been circulated, the Honourable Member for Portage may still want to amend the

section even in its amended form, so if you would be agreeable to withdrawing . . . MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing, by leave, to withdraw my amendment and let the government proceed and then take an action then. (Agreed) MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Mlnlster. MR. SCHREYER: I would llke to propose an amendment to

Section 1'1. I would like to move as follows, then, that the proposed new

Section 17 of the Legislative Assembly Act, as set out in

Section 1 of Bill 43, be struck out and the following

section substituted therefor - and I am wondering if a copy of this might be circulated.

"A member of the assembly may accept from the government any indemnity, allowance, salary and reimbursement for expenses authorized under this Act or The Executive Govern ment Organization Act, and reimbursement approved by the Provincial Auditor for reasonable expenses incurred by the member in transacting pnbllc business pursuant to a resolution of the assembly or the direction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or have any or all of those expenses paid for him on hls behalf by the government, and nothing in this Act disqualifies the member from sitting and voting in the assembly or subjects him to penalty for accepting the indemnity, allowance, salary or reimbursement, or because those expenses have been paid for him on hls behalf, but nothlDg in this

section authorizes the member to accept appointment to a statutory board, commission or body, the remuneration in respect of which is paid from the Consolidated Fund, or to accept remuneration or reimbursement from the government in respect of any duties performed as a member of or under the direction of any statutory board, commission or body." MR. CHAIRMAN presented the motion. MR. SCHREYER: Well perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I should explain the pnrj,ose of the amendment.

Actual~y I have done so ln the sense that at the time of debate on second reading I indicated that there would be a number of changes made, more or less to accommodate some of the points raised by honourable members opposite. With respect to the amendment that I have just moved, the intention is to make it more clear than it is ln the bill that a member may have monies paid to hlm; if be Is a legislative assistant, a member may have - I'm sorry, forgetting any reference to legislative assistant for the moment.

A member of the assembly may have paid to him, out of the Consolidated Fund, monies necessary to cover reasonable expenses as approved by the Provincial Auditor's office, and in addition to that, or alternatively rather, if monies are paid, not to the member for expenses, but paid for expenses on his behalf- that Is the monies do not actually come to the member- this would be authorized under this amendment. And, of course, it has been a matter of some dispute and argumentation over the years as to v.hether a member who has expenses paid on his behalf is not in violation of the Legis lative Assembly Act.

I can recallsome instances v.here members of the assembly have gone on government business and have had certain expenses, certain kinds of expenses paid on their behalf, and have not had their right to sit or vote here questioned, but yet, perhaps more ln an academic or theoretical way - this point has been raised from time to time - the passage of this

section would make it clear beyond question or beyond doubt. Now I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this still would not satisfy the intent of the Honour able Member for Portage because I notice that his amendment, which I presume he may still wish to move, is to delete certain specific words. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. MR. BEARD: Mr. Chairman, on this I can see where, if the member was going with a Cabinet Minister, then the Mlnlster could pay the expenses of the member during the time that he was away. If the member did take a trip somewhere, had to go to Ottawa, for instance, he

July 21, 1970 . 4081 (MR. BEARD eont'd..) . • wonld then aubmlt an expense acconnt similar to 1hat which is done c:ktriDg the committee now? So lt would be on publlc record, wonld lt? MR. SCHREYER: Yes Mr. Chairman, and of conrse, as the wording would lndlcate, It's all subject to approval by the Provincial .Auditor's office.

It would have to be regarded as reasonable and ln accordance with prevailing practice within the public service with respect to allowable expenaes, and o{course It is acconntable, I should advise the Hononrable :Mem ber for Churchill, It is accountable in the same sense as any other allowable expeiU18 approved by the Provincial Auditor's office. It certainly can be requested as an Order for Return in thls Chamber. In that aense there Is acconntablllty. While I'm on my feet, :Mr. Chairman, I should make reference to one other Intention.

It's more than an in18ntion- one other provision of the amelldment which I have just moved, and that is to take care of that argument or fear that was put forward by hononrable members that the passage of tb.ls bill wonld open the door wide for the appointment of ML.As to statutory boards, commlsslou and the llke. That Is not the

interpretation or the Intent that we gaw to the legislation in the first place, but on reflection, I suppoae I should admit that one conld interpret It that way, and so lf one reads closely the last fonr or five lines of the amendment I have just moved, you will notice that there is speclflc reference here that this bill does not in any way authorize the appointment of members to statutory boards and commissions. That remains, as It was before, a matter to be done, lf it is to be done at all, by speciflc acts of the varlons Crown corporations, boartt. and commissions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to amend the amendment? I move that new

Section 17 be amended by deleting all the words "or the direction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council" where they appear in lines 6 and 7. MR. CHAIRMAN presented the motion. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, in speaking briefly to the amendment, the intention is to have the appointments responsible to the Legislature and not to the Cabinet.

I wonder, and other members may consider, whether or not an MLA who, whether he's in opposition or in government, is really a member of the poll~maklng process of government, aDd for an MLA to work for a salary for that government makes me wonder lf there is not a coDfllct of interest.

On one hand, he's earning a salary as a civil servant, on the other haDd he has to wear another hat as a policy-maker in the Chamber, and for this reason I think that lf the government is going to vote this through with their majority, that the least that could be done would be that the members who are going to be appointed shonld be respoulble to the Legislature. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. WEm: Mr.

Chairman, I rlae only to say that I made the comments that I lnteuded to make on Bill 43 at second reading and to say that the amendment moved by the Kember for Portage was in front of me, and that I support his amendment wholeheartedly; and that winds up the comments that I want to make on this section. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? The First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. ehalrman, upon couideratlon of the amelldment moved by the Honourable Member for Portage, my first reaction was to think that it would really make lt very difficult for any MLA that is being referred to here as ellglble, to receive relm~ ment for out-of-pocket expenaes to have expenses paid on hls behalf because he ls eDgllled ID. doing some work for the public good. Now thus far there seems to be no disagreement about that. So far.

But the Member for Portage would move to delete the reference that there shall be direction by the Lieutenant Governor in Council given to the M:LA or :MLAs, aa the case may be. Now in what way, then, would the member or members be tmgaglng in thls work? Where wonld they receive their direction, their Instruction, the request to engage in certain activity of oDe klnd or another ln the public interest, unless lt be only by means of a resoJntion of this Auembly? It ls certainly a restriction on the Intent of the legislation, but I would not at thls tlme presume to say that it ls quite unacceptable.

I think the inclination is that we should accept the honourable member's amendment aDd aee in what way, lf any way, it ls seriously impinging on v.hat the intent of thls legislation is all about. Perhaps we'll try it for a year or two. Certainly it would still enable members to conduct certain work in the public interest by means of authorization by a resolution of the Assembly, and then other places in the Act it wlll stlll enable those who are legislative assistants to work on the direction of the

4082 July 21, 19'1.0 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd.) . . . . • LieuteD&Dt Goftl"nor in Council in assisting- wh1ch is what its prime functlon is in any case - asslstlng a member of the Executive Council in the carrying out of his dutles. So that being the case, I wish to indicate now that we wlll accept the honourable member's amendment to the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the BUb-amendment and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Be put the question on the amendment as amended and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. IIR. CHAIRMAN: (Section 1 of Blll43 was read and passed.)

Section 2-- The Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, on

Section 2,I would move that it be deleted, but since in recent dayiJ this motion seems not to be in order, I would take the opportunity of speaking agalnst the clause. I feel that by putting it in the Legislative Assembly Act this wlll now become the rule rather than the exception, and I don't like to see that become a rule since I don't subscribe to the principle. This will allow any member of the Assembly to borrow from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or the Development Fund, or the DeW Development Corporation Act, and I don't like to see members become involved with the government in this way.

Certainly it is much better if members are independent of Crown corporations and not being subject to them or indebted to them, in that they might consider themselves not free to speak out and criticize. Once you become involved, this no doubt has an effect; and then too, by incorporating it into the Legislative Assembly Act, I think we are snbscrlblng to the principle, we're setting it out as the rule, and I don't snbscribe to that. I feel that if this has to be, that it should be in the particular Acts concerDed and that it rather be an exception than the rule. MR.

SCHREYER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland raises a point which was made by the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly, if not the Leader of the Opposition, by other members opposite, with respect to

Section 2 of this Bill, and at the time I indicated that we would give consideration to an amendment here so as to make it clear that the Intent was not to enable a member to enter into a loan agreement with a Crown lending agency after he became a member of this Bouse, but rather to amend it so that it would make it clear that if he, prior to becoming a member, had entered into such a loan agreement, well, the legislation would permit that loan arrangement to simply carry on. So, Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that

Section 2 of Blll43 be amended by striking out the word "entering" in the third line thereof and substituting therefor the words "having, before he was electad as a member, entered" and it goes on. The effect of this is to remove any doubt as to the elfglbllity of a person who became a member subsequent to his entering into a contract but would not enable a member of the Assembly to enter into such a loan contract after the election. IIR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, this was a point in which I was concerned when I spoke on the Bill orlglnally.

I gather, then, that the intent would now be changed; that a sitting mem ber of the Legislature now could not enter into any klnd of an agreement to borrow money from either the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation or the Development Fund; that if he had been previously in a contract, then it would not disqualify him from becoming a member and from sitting and voting as a member, but he could not, as long as he is a member, enter into a contract. Correct? IIR. SCHREYER: Right. MR. PAULLEY: ... into a new agreement after he had become a member. MR. MOLGAT: Well, that would certainly satisfy my own request.

In fact I did not go that far. I had suggested to the First Minister that Cabinet Ministers of course be excluded because of their particular capacity. I had no major objection to other members entering into a contract, on condition that the Bouse was advised of any such contract, and we had prepared an amendment to that effect, but this is even more restrictive than the one I was suggesting and I'm prepared to accept it. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. you? MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 3, 61. 1 (1) passed-- The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think you called

Section 2 as amended passed, did

July 21, 19'10 4083 ' MR.o CHAIRMAN: (Section 2 as amended was read and passed.)

Section 3, 61.1 (1) MR. FROESE: Kr. Chairman, now that

Section 2 is passed, I have an amendment here - you '11 probably rule it out of order but I think I should bring lt forward anyway; this is in connection with per diem allowances- that

Section 59 (4) be amended by deleting the words "during the period of 60 contlnnous days" in the fifth and sixth lines of the section. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest my honourable friend was perfectly correct when he suggested, before he presented the motion, it would be out of order, because it involves the expenditures of public funds and it's not within his competence to move such a motion. MR. FROESE: Kr. Chairman, since the Act is before us, I think I have the right to speak on it even though the motion is ruled out of order.

This is probably not the most popular thing to do as a member, to speak on the matter of indemnity of members, but I feel that the motion that I ~oposed was to delete the 6~day clause, or part of the clause, so that the 60 days would no longer apply but the expenses wOilld be paid for the time that the session was on. This year we have a 'very leqrthy session and this is causing a further burden. on members from outside the City of Wlnnlpeg who are away from home.

Not only that, certain members will be on Utilities Committee which will b8 sitting during the session while all the members of the House may not be present, so that this will be a further burden on members of that committee. That is not necessarily the case when members meet after the session because then they are being paid their expenses for attending committee meetings. However, now, because the House is in session, they will not be remunerated for those days that they will be sitting in Committee of Utlllties.

Therefore, I think that some form of remuneration should have been considered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by Cabinet and brought in at this session. This will probably be considered by the Rules Committee later on, I don't know, but anyway lt will not apply to this particular ses sion, and I feel it's an unnecessary burden on some of the rural members who have to be away from home and who are incurring an additional expense as a result. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. McKELLAR: Kr.

Chairman, I'd just like to say a few words in support of what 1he Honourable Member for Rhineland just brought up, as one of those who've been in for some time and one of those who was in here when we first got $3,000 a year with no expenses allowed; now we're up to $7, 200 with $20. 00 a day for the first 60 days. On an ordinary ses sion this is sufficient, but I'd like to inform the members that this $1,200, the maximum of $1,200 is taxable, so you end up with about $800. 00 .. So this is the problem of many rural members.

I don't like to speak for anybody else, because it is a personal pt'oblem, but it is a problem with the hotel rates gone up as they have. We used to get hotel rates of $5. 00 a day; we paid 50 percent. Now we pay $10. 00 to $12. 00 a day and three-quarters- we pay three-quarters. Meals have gone up and all your other expenses incurred have gone up, and I think for the rural members who are not-- I think there should be some consideration.

It's true that no member of the Opposition can move this motion or amendment to the motion, but I would hope that the government would give serious consideration to a chuge, to take out the number "60" and leave it wide open, and only pay on sitting days. This is what I think; it should be on sitting days only. If it's 80 days, you pay for 80; if it's 90, you pay for 90; if it's 60, you pay for 60; or if it's 50 you pay for 50. But I think this is the way it should be workad out.

When we brought this in at the time, I remember, about four years ago, it looked very good at the time, and at that time we were sitting about 60 days or 65 days, but this year I think we are up to about 90, I think, right now and maybe another four or five more days yet, so I would hope the government would give serious consideration to this change. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr.

Chairman, I'm sure we're all appreciative of the situation prevailing to members, our rural members, at this session, and that was one of the reasons, quite frankly, that it was suggested that I should bring in the amendment to the motion of the House Leader instructing the Rules Committee to take this under advisement, or set up an independent commission, which had been the original recommendation or a recommendation from the Committee on the Rules.

Of course, that process will not make it appllcable to honourable members at this particular session, and that is the point, of COilr&e, being raised by the members opposite. We know that increases have gone up in hotels and eatiJW. Of

4084 July .21, 1970 (liB. PAULLEY coDl'd.) . • • . . CQillr•, those of us wllo resld8 In Winnfpeg atill haw to eat, although I guess It's a little cheaper to eat at home than It Is to haw to eat,say, at a hotel. A MEMBER: Who eats at home? MR. PAULLEY: Well, we don't go home these days; we're here all the time. But any way, It Is unfortunate that It may not apply to this particular session, and I agree with my honourable friend from Souris- Lansdowne that this has been an exceptionally long seaslon and I joJn hlm In the hope that theae added costs will only last for another four or flw days and we can go back to our respectiw families. MR. CH.AIR:MAN:

Section 3, 61. 1(1) - passed? The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman. 61.1(1). I gathered the First Minister was going to maka an amendment but If he is not going to mow his, I have one I Intend to move In any case . .MR. CIIAJlUlAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, there Is an amendment to 61.1(1) as follows: That the proposed new aubaection (1) of

Section 61. 1 of the Legislative Aaaembly Act as set out in

Section 3 of Bill 43, be amended by strl.klDg out the word "five" In the third llne thereof and aubetitlltlng therefor the word "four". KR. CHAIRMAN: On the proposed motion of the Honourable First Mlnlster, are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to the amendment. I guesa my wording will have to be somewhat changed from the written form but the wording will be:. That the amendment be amended by substituting the word ''two" for the word "four" where It appears In the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, that

Section 61. 1(1) be further amended by substituting the word "two" for the word "four" where it appears In line 3. The Honourable Member. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the copies that I have sent around are not quite accurate because I hawn't had time to change all of them. They were Intended as an amendment origi nally to the

section as it appears, not knowing whether or not the government was golpg to make the changes. I don't suppose that my proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, will endear me to a nmnber of the backbencher& on the far side to whom I've been appealing on a number of occalllons, to stand up to their front bench and not necessarily be led around by the nose and show some Independence of spirit In this House and I understand that there are some hopefuls who - (Interjection)-- Yes, certainly. MR. CHAIRM.AN: The

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-157
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 157.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e782910f1c8cceb14c015138b2afc79da40a790a

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