LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 6 April, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle­ Russell): Presen ting Petitions .. Read ing and Rece iving Petitions . . Pres enting Reports By Standing and Special Committees .. MIN ISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I have a Min isterial Statement and I expect copies of it, apart from my own, to be available in a few minutes. I wonder if I could have leave of the House to come back to it. MR.

SPEAKER: Is there agreement to wait? (Agreed) The Honourable First Mini ster. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Char leswood ): Mr . Speaker, I would lik e to lay on the table of the House, copies in English and French, of a telex that went forward to the Prime Mini ster of Canada on Frida y !ast relative to the Constitution and the position of eight provinces of Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minis ter of Health. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (F ort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to advise all members of the House through you, Sir, that the daffodil on each member's desk is conv eyed by the Manitoba Division of the Canadian Cancer Society in recognition of April as cancer campaign month. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. ABE KOVNATS (Radisson) introduced Bill No. 18, The Pharmaceutical Act. MR. LLOYD G. HYDE (Portage Ia Prairie) introduced Bill No. 20, The Registered Dietitians Act. MR. WARREN STEEN (C rescentwood) introduced Bill No. 21, The Physiotherapists Act; and Bill No. 47, The Interior Designers Association of Man itoba Act.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to draw honourable members' attention to the loge on my right where we have the former member for Swan River and the former Speaker of the Hous e, Mr. James Bilton. On behalf of all members, we welcome you here this afternoon. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TAB LING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Energy. 2407 MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for its consideration in the few moments delay in the statement. I would like to di stribute the statement to the members of the House.

It gives me please at this time to announce that an important mining development for Mani toba has been approved by the government. The development is the reopening for production of the San Antonio Gold Mi nes near Bis sett, about 10 0 air miles northeast of Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, it's a joint unde rtaking of Brinco Limited of Toronto and New 44 Min es Limited of Calgary. The operator of the 50-50 joint venture will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Brinco Limited, Brinc o Mini ng Limi ted.

The princip als of the companies involved have assured the government that they fully intend to and are fully capable of meeting all the safety and environmental standards which would apply to a major mining project of this nature. The return to production of the San Antonio Gold Mines will have a significant impact on the economy of Eastern Manitoba. The partners have annou nced that they will spend about $15 million to return the mine to a safe and ef ficient production level . Preliminary work is to commence later this month and the mine will be in prodution by late 19 81.

The partners have announc ed a total of 197 employees will be needed at the property after the mine is brought into produc tion. The company intends to giv e preference to Manitobans already living in the area when it commences hiring. The annual payroll is expected to be some $6 million per year. Members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the San Antonio Gold Min e operated successfully from 19 32 until 19 68. During that period it produced some 4.5 million tons of ore with an average grade of 0.28 ounc es of gold per ton. The actual production was more than 1.1 million ounces of gold and 18 0,000 ounces of silver.

In 19 68 a fire destroyed the mine's hoist room and production ceased , then in July of 19 80 a fire destroyed the mill complex, however, many of the other facilities are still there and require certain ren ovat ions. The current owner of the facilities is New 44 Min es. Last year the company in con junction with Brinco Limi ted , un dertook an exploration program to examine the feasibili ty of returning the mine to production. About $2.5 million was spent on this joint exploration program which at its peak employed some 45 workers.

At the end of February this year, the partners agreed that reopening of the mine was economically feasible. The investigations determined that there are mineable reserves of 81 6,000 tons of ore, with an average of 0. 19 per ounce of gold. To extract this and process it, Br inco Mining intends to unde rtake a complete refurbishing of existing above ground and underground facilities and build a new concentrator at the site. The company has in formed me that it is ex pected mining operations initially will be a rate of two shifts per day, for five days a week. Production is expected to

Nlonday, 6 April, 1981 reach a level by the end of 1981 of 12 2,E ·OO tons ann ually of ore. When the mine comes in to full production. its output of gold is anticipated at 22,000 ounces per year. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certai nly members on this side wel come this announcement. It is interesting to see and welcome to see the San Antonio Min e reopening in that area, as the Mi nister has mentioned.

A successful mine operated in that area for many years and really only closed down as a result of production costs being higher than the returns to the investors invol11ed. As the price of gold has risen to the record levels that we now experience, we see that mines like this are coming back in production. As the member for that area, I noticed the increased interest in gold exploration in general in that area. There are many companies who are exploring in that area, in fact Esso Minerals Limited is expending some of their oil profits.

I expect, looking for gold claims in that area and there are a number of individual entrepreneurs in that general area that are looking at putting their money up, looking for gold because of the increased value of gold . In addition. Mr. Speaker, we welcome the intention as the government has ind icated of this cornpany to provide preference to Manitobans living in the area when it commences its hiring. Unemploymo�nt is at record levels in that area, thanks in some p<trt to the regressive policies of this go vernment and an investment like this will certainly assist.

The members seem to be taking the credit for the annoL ncement that has been made by this mining cornpany. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that they will also credit for the general decline in production in minini g that we've experienced over the term of their gover nr1ent and also. Mr. Speaker, that there has been a 2<. percent decline in employment in the mining ind ust1-y during their term of gover nment. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point C•ut to the Honour able Member that his remarks should be germane to the su bject matter at hand. The Honour able Member for Rup ertsland. MR.

BOSTROM: Well they are, Mr. !)p eaker, because while we are seeing an increase in minin g emplo yment in this particular announcement. This is simply returning, hopefully returning to level ; that we enjoyed while the New Democratic Part11 was in government. The mining employment, generally, in this province has declined under this go\ ernment; mining production has declined under this government and it's as a result of increased prices of gold that we now see some increased intewst in this area. The other area of concern. Mr.

Speaker, which I would hope that the Mini ster would an swer, he certainly didn't answer it in his statement here, is what will be the return to the people of Manitoba from the production and profits to be made from this mining venture? We would want to know that answer as well. Mr. Speaker.

There is more than one benefit that should be available for many mining ventures. 2408 One is employment, naturally, which is an important benefit, but the other benefit which the government should be taking into consideration is the revenue to the people of Manitoba from a mining venture like this, and it doesn 't ap pear as though this government is taking much interest in that. ORAL QUES TIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWAND PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minis ter of Urban Affairs.

Si nce the municipa lities of the province can't operate at a deficit like this present government is, since, the municip alities cannot is sue special warrants. can the Mini ster advise whether or not the Provincial Government has offered to pick up any of the additional costs thrust upon the municipaliti es of this province as a result of the stalemated negotiations involving the RCMP contracts? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (O sborne): Mr.

Speaker, I met with, I think probably the majority of representatives of municipalities who contract with the RCMP for their services, some two weeks ago in Brandon. I indi cated to them, Mr. Speaker, that we were in negotiations with the RCMP. My advice to them, for the purpose of budgeting, Mr. Speaker, was to budget on the basis of the current contract plus an allowance for inflation on an annual basis, that I could not advise him how long the negotiations would be and that was the best information I could give them at this time for the purpose of budgeting. Mr.

Speaker, I ind icated to them ina smuch as we are in negotiations that it would not be appropriate for me to indi cate the level of additional support that the provincial government would provide to them in the event the federal proposals were somehow to be agreed to, that in view of the negotiations, that is something that I cannot ind icate to them at this time and that was accepted, it would appear to me, Mr. Speaker. by every one at that meeting. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, since Mr.

Howard of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities indi cated over the weekend the province is not picking up its fair share of RCMP costs and in view of the Mi nister's response that he had suggested to the municipalities that they allot and budget an additional amount within their budgets in order to pay for additional RCMP costs, and without his disclosing any specific level, my question to the Mini ster is whether or not the Province of Manitoba is prepared to assume additional costs if, as a result of the negotiations, the municip alities are required to pick up more than that recommended by the Mi nister to the municipalities for inclusion within their budgets?

MR. MER CIER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition agrees or has in dicated, and I take it he agrees with the statement of Mr. Ho ward with respect to some inequity in the financing of police costs under the current agreement. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the municipa lities in the Province of Manitoba have been

Monday, 6 April, 1981 operating for the past five years under an agreement signed by the Leader of the Opposition in May of 19 77. So if there is any in equity under this agreement it's un der his dir ection as Attorne y­ General in Ma y of 19 77, when he signed this agreement that put the municipalities in the position they're in now. Mr. Speaker, we have attempted over the past few years to attempt to reduce the burden on municip alities by adjustments in the uncondit ional grant program and in some other steps that were taken.

I have attempted through these negotiations with the Federal Government to get a fairer deal for municipal ities on contracts for RCMP services. We have been following that course of action. We intend to follow that course of action until a fair contract is entered into. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, let me remind the Mi nister that the plight that the municipalities are confronted with is not as a result of the agreement ju st lapsed . That agreement had served the municip alities and the province well.

The plight is the result of the present negotiations that are under way in respect to additional costs to be thrust upon the municip alities in Manitoba. Mr. Sp eaker, I ask the Mi n ister when this Conservative Government is going to cease its shell game of thrusting more and more costs upon the mun icipa lities of this province and ens ure they undertake their proper respons ibility as inde ed the government back in 19 77 did when they negotiated this agreement, which at the time was met with general favour on the part of the municipalities of Manitoba? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, it would be helpful to us and to the municipalities of this province if the Leader of the Opposition would stop defending the Federal Liberal Government. Mr. Sp eaker, Mr. Ho ward has referred to inequities, in his view, under the current contract which just expi red last week over the last five years, under the agreement signed by the Leader of the Opposition in May of 19 77. Mr. Speaker, I point out that agreement was signed some 13 months after the previous contract had expir ed on March 31s t of 19 76. Mr.

Speaker, we have been attempting, as I have said, through our analysis of the existing cost-share arrangements, to come to a fair agreement for all parties concerned. We have come to the conclusion, at the provincial basis, and this is eight provinces, Mr. Sp eaker, that the current cost-s haring arrangements for municipa l contr acts, which the Leader of the Opposition signed in this agreement, provide for a subsidy from the municipalities to the Federal Government, rather than vice versa.

Yet the members of his party stand up in this Legislature and debate on a private resolution by the Member for Dauphin and say the Federal Government are subsidizing the province and the municipalities, Mr. Speaker. I wish, Mr . Speaker, that we could get some support for the provincial argument that is being made by eight provinces that the current cost­ sharing agreement should be extended and there should be greater benefit to the municipalit ies. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of what the Mi nister has just reported to us, and in view of the 2409 fact that the Mi nister is spending considerable time ridiculing and attacking the 19 77 agreement, is the Min ister advising this Chamber that in the event the Federal Government proposes to renew the 19 77 agreement with the terms inc luded within that agreement, that the Provincial Government of the Province of Manitoba would not accept a renewal of the 19 77 agreement which indeed was negotiated by the then New Democratic Party Government in this province and served the muni cipalities of this province well in comparison with what is being dealt with now by the Attorney-General of this province?

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I take it I have to repeat what I've just said. I have said that the provincial analysis of the contract which just expir ed shows that munic ipalit ies were subsidizing the Federal agre ement, unde r the cost -sharing arrangements which he entered into and supported. We want to improve that situation for municip alities, so it is fair to them, to the provinces and to the Federal Governments. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, further to the Min ister, is the Minis ter then advising the Chamber that the present plight which he finds himself in, indi cates, Mr. Speaker, that he is prepared to ignore the weight that is being plunged upon the ratepayers of this province, that he's abdi cated any responsibility on behalf of the municipalities in this province in order to negotiate a fair agreement with the munic ipalities and with the Federal Government, that this Min ister, Mr.

Sp eaker, rather than deal in an up front, forthright basis, in order to try to attempt to obtain an equitable kind of agreement as was developed in 19 77, is instead going to spend his time Ottawa­ bashing, rather than getting down to business and representing the municipalities in the Province of Manitoba in their negotiations? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, like the Attorney­ Generals of seven other provinces, including the Province of Saskatchewan, we have rejected the proposal of the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. We have analyzed the information made available to us by the Federal Government.

We have sent that analysis to the Federal Government. We submit that our analysi s shows that on a Federal -Provincial contract, the existing 56-44 percentage cost ratio should be maintained and further in our analysis we have said that the existing Municipal-F ederal cost­ sharing arrangements is inequ itable to the municipalities concerned.

So qui te the contrary, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, we are advocating on behalf of the municipalities of this province and all other seven contracting provinces, that they should get a better deal from the Federal Go ver nment for RCM P services, and that's what we are attempting to do. MR. SPEAKER : The Hon ourable Member for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Monsieur L'orateur, je veux pose une question au Premier General. Est-ce-que le Precure General a deja recue le decision de Ia Coure

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___::Mond ay, 6 April, 1981 Supreme pour voire si Ia decision a d'explic:ation ici aux Manitoba a propos de notre status. une des provinces qui a l'a ngue officiate de Francais et Anglais? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Notice, Mr. Speaker, MR. GREEN: Monsieur L'orateur, J'a i pas entendu Ia response. Est-ce-que le Procureur-General peux repete Ia reponse qui a donner? MR. DESJARDINS: Say, oui. You can't go wrong. You'll be on every side of the . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inks ter with a final supplementary. MR. GREEN: Mr . Speaker.

I belie ve that your counting is unfair to those who pose a qu estion in French since you've regarded this as a fina l supplemen tary but I will put it to . . Monsieur le president, j'ai penser que en prenend le risque qu'on pose une question en fran1:ais, doit etre penalise par poser une question en francais.

I asked the Mini ster whether he has receiv ed a decision of the Supreme Court relative to tte official languages in the Province of Quebec to determine whether or not that decision has any implications on our situation in the Province of Manitoba being one of those provinces which is declared at the official level to have langua ges of french and english as official languages. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, my office has been in contact with our counsel who ap� 1eared in that case.

I'm awaiting some information lrom him which he's attempting to obtain from our agent in Ottawa and perhaps I may have that before: the end of Question Period; certainly by tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you Mr. Spe•aker, my question is addressed to the Honourable Mini ster responsible for the Environment, and refers to recent changes to Schedules A of the Manitoba Regulation 272 of 19 76. First of all Mr. Speaker, could the Minis tm explain the reason for removing from

Section 2 tile words "notwithstanding

Section 3" and I under�.tand the Mini ster is aware of the sections i'm referring to; "no twithstanding

Section 3". This in particular I'm referring to . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggBsl to the honourable member that detailed information about things of that nature may better be han dle d by an Order for Return. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, could the Mini ster please explain to the House whether the dumping of sewage over 14,000 litres is now legal under recent changes to regulations? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mi nister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. GARY FILMON (River Heights): I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware specifically what the member is referring to; if it's the new regulation for the private sewage disposal systems, I don't have a copy with me at the moment but she just referred to it by number, and I'm sorry, I didn't follow the reference. MS. WESTBURY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I presume that the Min ister will come back with an answer and I wonder if he would also tell us why the door has now been opened to allow approval of dumping sewage 1nto waterways that was not previously allowed; what the phi losphy is behind that, please? MR. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and bring back a response. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. My question is also to the Min ister of Environment and 1 would ask the Mini ster if he could ind icate what progress if any he can report on his department's investigation of the proposed Ontario mine which may affect Winn ipeg's water supply and specifically, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask him if he could indic ate, if he will merely depend on the information supplied by the mine owner and his consultants or will he request that there be a full in dependent environmental impact study pre pared before any minin g development is approved? MR. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I can report that as a result of the meeting that was held between senior officials in my department and senior officials of the Ontario Mini stry of the Environment on Wednesday, April 1s t. seven points were agreed to between the two departments with respect to the High Lake propos ed mining develo pment and I think that there's sig ni ficant points of agreement and they include the following, the fact that both parties have ag reed upon the ob ject ives of maintaining the present water quality standards on Hi gh Lake and therefore sinc e High Lake drains into ultimately Shoal Lake, that the objective would provide for complete protection for all the interests on Shoal Lake including the City of Winnip eg's water supply.

Secondly, it was agreed upon that appropriate effluent standards which would achieve that objective would be maintained, as well the Ontario Mi nistry agreed to respond in writing to Manitoba's initial environmental evaluation proposal by April 10 th. Fourthly, the Ontario officials agreed that all legal terms and conditions which would be attached to the Ontario Mini stry approval of the project would be di scussed with Manitoba prior to issuance of an approval.

Fifthly, it was agreed that the staff of the Ontario Mini stry of the Environment and Manitoba's Environmental Management Division would meet to formula te a comp lete water quality moni toring program for High Lake to be undertaken this spring and summer. Sixthly, the two departments agreed to increase staff contact between the Ontario and Manitoba Government departments to provide for future earlier warning of other projects which may be anticipated in the area. 2410

Monday, 6 April, 1981 Sev enth, the qu estion of an overall review mechanis m for the entir e area development that might have some effect on the Sho al Lake Watershed area would be looked into with a view to achieving a tri-level mechanism for reviewing such potential future projects.

We're very pleased with this response from the Ontario Min istry in vie w of the fact that juris dictiona lly there might certa inl y be some question as to whether or not we could have forced this kind of agreement legally on them and we're pleased that this seven-point agreement has been achieved by virtue of our inter-departmental talks. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Well, Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the Min ister seems to be content to have his department accept the advice of the mine company and the Ontario Government in this matter.

The Ontario Government as we know has had a dismal record of protecting the environment. So I'd ask the Mini ster if he could assure this House and assure the people of Win ni peg that his department will be assured before the mine goes in to operat ion that there will be no detrimental impact on the water quality? Now, it's not enough to have this after the fact and to have monitoring done, it may be too late to clean up the mess.

I ask him specifically if he is not aware that the propos ed mining operation proposes to take 90,000 gallons a day out of High Lake, use it through the milling process, pass it back through their tailings pond with the effect that 90,000 gallons of water goes back into the lake every day? Now, Mr. Speaker, surely that must have some impact on the water quality, and our concern is that the Min ister know what that impact will be before the fact and not after the fact. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi ni ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm confident that the officials of my department are in deed aware of all the aspects of the proposal and will do everything possible to ensure that the objectives of maintaining the present water qualities standards is achieved. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Mem ber for Rupertsland with a final supplementary. MR. BOSTROM: Well, giv en the nature of the concern raised about this matter, Mr.

Speaker, and the fact that it's going to potentially impact on the water supply of all the people of Winnipeg, I would ask the Mini ster if he would be prepared to provide an opportunity to the citizens of Winnip eg to know all of the facts about this pa rticular case by his department coordinating and calling public hearings or meetings on this issue, so that people who have concerns about the potential impact on their water quality can receive the information they desire and ask the questions that they want to ask about this very important question? MR. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that that's a matter that the City of Win nipeg officials might 2411 consider and I don't at the moment envisage my department undertaking such an exercise. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Northern Affairs and I'd ask the Mi ni ster if he can indi cate what action his department or his gov ernme nt will be taking in respect to the anticipa ted closure of the Savage Island Fish Processing Plant for this fishing season? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Mr.

Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. MR. COWAN: I would ask the Mini ster then, Mr. Speaker, if he has been in touch with either the Federal Go vernment or the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in respect to the anticipated closure so as he can provide some input as to what the province's actions will be in respect to this closure which will effect over 200 fishermen in the area? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I'm currently waiting on further information from the Freshwater people. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR.

COWAN: Perhaps the Mini ster then can ind icate what the intent of the conversations he has had with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to this point have been, and further to that, can he ind icate why it is that provincial dollar support to that fisher y area ha s decr eased , 19 80 was approxima tely 18 percent of what it was in 19 77, and what influence that would have on the operations of fishery in the area? MR. GOUR LAY: Mr. Speaker, I have staff that have been discussing this situation and I'm just waiting to get further details on that situation there. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Memb er for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the question to the Minis ter of Agriculture and ask the Minister whether he can inform the Hous e whether an office locat ion has now been determined for the agricultural employees, who are expecting to be transferred to the City of Brandon, I believe it is by July of this year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, the allocation of space for government falls within the ju risdiction of the Min ister of Go vernment Services.

Perhaps that question would be better asked of him, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Minister of Government Services.

Monday, 6 April, 1981 ---------------------------- HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): No determination has been made as yet. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: I'd like to ask a supplementary then, of the Honourable Min ister of Government Se rvices. Can he advise. in view of the fact that the employees are to be located there, I believe· by July, can he advise when a decision will be made and also can he advise whether it is correct that the former Co-op Building, the Co-op Retail Store Bu ilding, is still being considered as a possible location for those offices? MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, there am several locations that are being considered at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't bE!Iieve the Minis ter answered the first part of my que!;tion and that is, when will a decision be made in this matter and if the answer is simply soon, can he advise very specifically at what date or by what month INill those employees be located in the City of Brandon? MR. JORGENSON: Soon, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is add ressed to the Honour a :>le Fi rst Mi nister. In view of the statement by the Premier of Quebec to the effect that the seven other provincns, seven other than Queb ec provinces, whic h oppose the Federal Constitutional Package, are supporting him for re-election. would the First Mini ster plea.:;e advise the Hous e whether in fact he is supportin� Premier Levesque and his PQ Government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that news report.

I find it rather amusing that any premier in any election would say that he's being supported by seven other premiers. There are very few who would have that kind of support. If I were my honourable friend, I would treat that as one of thosE• passing comments that appears in newspapers Iron time to time that is calculated to give humour ra1:her than information. MS. WESTBURY: Well actually we can't blame the newspapers this time, because it was on the radio, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier, however, assure the House that he is not supporting this Separatist Party in the election? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying to the honourable lady that I have not been asked to campaign in Quebec; I'm not going to campaign in Quebec; I am not supporting clirectly or indir ectly; if asked to I wouldn't, and if drafted I wouldn't. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Mini ster of Northern Affairs, and I'd ask the Mini ster if he can indi cate or update the House as to the status of the Northlands Agreement negotiations, negotiations which should have been finished by March 31s t as the present contract ran out at that particular time? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going on quite nicely. We have not reached the point where the signing is yet ready. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, it seems passing odd that the Minis ter would say that the negotiations are going on quite nicely and yet they have missed the dead line.

Perhaps he can indi cate when it is he expects that those negotiations will have reached the point where an agreement can be signed? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I can't say exactly when this will take place. We're hoping that we'll be able to reach agreement with the Federal Government very soon. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the Mi nister could be more explicit as to why they have been unable to reach an agreement before the present agreement ran out.

So can the Min ister ind icate what it is exactly that is upholding, or is in fact stopping the agreement from being reached at the present time? What are the roadblocks in the current negotiations? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, there are a few areas that we have not reached agreement and we're trying to come to a satisfactory arrangement with all parties concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.

Does the Minister of Agriculture expect to have his Water Services staff in the City of Brandon by the month of July; yes or no? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Yes or no, Mr. Speaker. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I regret the rather evasive answer of the Mini ster. I hope it will be some time in this decade. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask another question of the Minis ter with regard to the facilities at the Keystone Centre. Is the Honou rable Mini ster of Agriculture and his go vernment prepared to gi ve posit ive consideration to proposals of the Board of Directors 2412

Monday, 6 April, 1981 of the Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba regard ing a necessary expansion of that facility? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question on the movement of Water Services staff, as soon as the Department of Government Services have proper space and can accommodate the move, then we will proceed to move the staff to Brandon as quickly as possible.

The second question to do with the Keystone Centre, we have met with the people of the Keystone Board and my colleague from Brandon West, as well as the different discussions that took place as well when we were at the Brandon Fair, there are several things that have been looked at and there are certainly a lot of things that have to be considered in looking at the whole Keystone Complex. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Mi nister could advise when a decision might be made one way or the other in regard to this matter inasmuch as the Board of Directors of the provincial exhibition bel ieve that additional facil ities are required for the year 19 82 when the City of Brandon will be celebrating its birthday and when especially extra heavy demands are expected to be made on this facility as well as others in the City of Brandon. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I indic ated earlier, there's consideration being given to the whole area and at this particular time I wouldn't want to sugge st that there is anything or any final decision that is able to be made on any proposal until there is an opportunity to further assess, first of all, the dollars and cents that have to be spent in all projects to do with development of agriculture facilities within the province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBU RY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is add ressed to the Honour able Min ister of Health and I wonder if he is now in a position to reply to my questions of the 25th of March relative to the Muni cipal Hospitals Building Program? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member had asked me about the Capital Program for the Municip al Hospitals in Winn ipeg and I can confirm what I believe I suggested to her at that time, that the 19 81- 82 Capital Prog ram of the Manitoba Health Servi ces Commission does not include further projects at this time for the municipal hospitals.

We are proceeding with the program that was annou nced last year and approved in last year's capital budget which is a $2 million program. MS. WESTBURY : Mr. Speaker, because of the confusion that seems to exist somewhere between the hospitals and the Man itoba Health Services Commission, can the Minis ter advise whether that is intended still to be for renovations to the former nurses' residence? 2413 MR. SHER MAN: No, Mr.

Sp eaker, some considerable assessment and evaluation of the old nurses' residence was carried out and although it appears to be structurally sound, the program that's under way right now does not embrace that kind of renovat ion or activity. What it calls for is the construction of a new 25,000 square foot building between the Princess Elizabeth and the King George, which will essentially be a day hospital; and it also includes some minor renovations to the King George. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the opportunity exists, I would like to add ress another question to the Mi nister of Northern Affairs and ask him, that in light of the. fact that one of the major factors creating the antici pated closur e of the Savage Island Fish Processing Plant is the cost of air transportation in the area, and in light of the fact that the go vernment has cut back on their transportation subsidy from a total of $96,000 in 19 77 to a total of $1 7,000 in 19 80, is the Mi nister prepared to unde rtake a review of his department's policy in respect to transportation subsidies in the area for the purpose of determining if the provincial cutback had any effect on the closure of the Savage Island Fish Processing Plant?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mini ster of Muni cipal Affairs. MR. GOU RLAY: Mr. Speaker, as I answered earlier, I would be pleased to take this question as notice and bring back further details for the member. MR.

COWAN: As the Mi nister seems prepared to leave this extremely important and immedia tely urgent problem in the hands of his staff, I would ask him if he would be prepared to meet with the Director General of Indian Affairs, which is a primary funding agency or with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation purposely for the purposes of firsthand negotiating this situation and trying to come to an agreeable conclusion which will in fact keep that fish processing plant operating for another year? MR. GOUR LAY: Mr.

Speaker, as I've indicated, I'm interested in getting more details on this problem and I'll report same to the House. MR. CO WAN: I'd ask the Mini ster finally, Mr. Speaker, if he can ind icate when it was this matter was fi rst brought to his attention, as it is my understanding that it has been a problem which the department and the government at all levels have been aware of for some time. And when he first has taken action on it, as it looks as if he hasn't given this the type of consideration and the type of immediacy which it deserves? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Mini ster of Finance. Is the Min ister of Finance in a position today to advise us as to the date of the budget?

Nlonday, 6 April, 1981 ----------------------------- MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ster of Finance. MR. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killar ney): No, Mr. Speaker. but when that date is known with certainty, the House will be the first to know. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Inks ter. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Min ister of Min es and Energy. I would like to know, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not the people of the Province of Manitoba had an opportunity or were offered an oppor 1 un ity to partici pate in the exploration and de velopment program which is now annou nced for Bi ssett, Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Sp eaker, to the bes t of my knowledge the mineral rights in that mine have been owned by the New Fourty-Four or their predecessors for the last several decades and certainly �;ince the 19 60's anyway. There are no Crown lands in�ol ved in this operation at the present time. It's entirely on privately owned leaseholds. MR.

GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Mini ster of Mines and Energy to consider that the people of the province were asked to bail out this mine in the middle Sixties and advanced money toward� it, and I am merely asking the Min ister whether or not the existing ex ploration progra m or the explo ration program that was engaged in, whether the people of this province were given an opportunity to participate along with the private companies that are in volved in the exploration and development of this mine. They certainly came to us when they needed thH money.

Did they come to us to participate in the exploration program? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, as I recall there was some support in the Sixties for this mine by way of a loan which was pretty well paid off, but not entirely and then the compan y went into bank ·uptcy. I presume that if the Crown ha d an in 1.erest in gambling with the mine they had their oppo ·tunity all right. They could have bought the company out of bankr uptcy, but under the current reg ula tions in Manitoba no one with private property is forced under this government to go into a partnership or give up part of its ownership to the government.

They can voluntarily do so and there hav•� been a large number do that and the door is open for that opportunity. It has not been the case in th·� case of this mine we just announc ed today though. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I had hardly thcught that I was provoking a debate. I asked a simple question.

Were the public of the Province of Manitoba given an opportunity to participate in this dev Hiopment, and when the Honourable Min ister says, I didn' t say forced in, I asked whether they were given an opportunity, whether they were asked in and they declined it 1 further ask the Min ister whether he would apply the same rules, that he sa) S private owners apply to us, that we can't force our way in, would the Mini ster of Min es who has authority and owns on behalf of the people, many many acres of mineral resources in the Province of Manitoba, would he permit that acreage for the public in conjunction with other people, and voluntarily let others in?

MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, lest there be any doubt about the first part of the member's question, I did partially answer it. I said if there was an opportunity it was when the company was in bankruptcy some many years, but the ans wer spec ifically to the member, if that's not clear to him, is no. The Crown was not made an offer to go into partnership or joint venture with the producers here.

The original owners - the member I believe was here when I read the statement - was New Fourty­ Four Mines which had succeeded the former San Antonio Gold Min es Company of the tate 19 60s, who in turn brought in a 50 percent partner which is Brinco which is a name which is familiar I am sure to most in the House and certainty from their former activities in the Churchill Falls Development and so on in Eastern Canada. They are a 50 percent partner and it's 50-50. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Sp eaker, perhaps I can personally in dicate just two items of House business: One, following the Department of Natural Resources, the Departments of Muni cipal and Northern Affairs will follow in committee outside the House. Secondy, Mr. Sp eaker, Public Uti lities wilt meet tomorrow morning at 10: 00 a.m. to complete consideration of the Manitoba Hydro report. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Finance that, Mr. Speaker, do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committe to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Education, and the Honourable Member tor Virden in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources. CONCUR RENT COMM IT TEES OF SUPPLY ESTIMATES - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order. We're on Natural Resources. We were on 1. {aX 1) and I believe the Member for Rupertsland had five minutes approxima tely left. The Member for Rupertslan d. MR. BOSTROM: Well, I didn't intend to continue on a speech, Mr.

Chairman , but I did have some questions. Perhaps I could open with one which seems to be top end . . MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just correct. As you know we're always breaking our law to have the 2414

Monday, 6 April, 1981 critic answer the Min ister. If you have questions, I think it would be more in order to have 1. (aX2) and then it opens up for entirely new, so 1. (aX2) - the Member tor Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask a couple of general questions about the issue which was raised on Friday in the Legislature, and in comments by the Mi nister with respect to the proposed development at Shoal Lake, and I would note for the Mi nister's attention, that there was a letter sent out by the Deputy Min ister of Min es, Resources and Environmental Management, on November 27th, 19 78, by the then Deputy Paul E.

Jarvis, in which he sent a letter to Chief Alfred Red Sky of Shoal Lake Band No. 40, and I read the letter: "As attached is a copy of a dr aft agreement between your Ba nd, the City of Winnip eg , the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, regard ing required access to the development of your lands and any land transfers to that end ." So, Mr.

Chairman, there was a dr aft agreement forwarded to the Shoal Lake Band of Indians, and it was over the signature of the Deputy Mi nister of Mines and Resources, and in that dr aft agreement, the province specifically stated in and I read the section: "that the band and the department on the acceptance of the development plan and prior to commencement of road construction, shall unde rtake to transfer areas within the devel opment, area of not less than - the acres are not written in in total - excluding the area of rights of way granted under

Section 6 above; such lands shall be contiguous to not less than 5,280 lineal feet of shoreline on Shoal Lake, within the development area and within the Province of Manitoba, measured on the high water mark and granted in the form of in defeasible title to the Province of Manitoba. So I bring this to the Min ister's attention, because I believe both he and his Deputy Mi nister had stated to the press that a dr aft agreement or a proposed agreement was not made to the Band, and in fact, perhaps neither he nor his present Deputy made a draft agreement to the Band, and that

part is correct, but a Deputy Mi nister of the Government of Manitoba, did in fact do such. They made certain commitments within this draft agreement regard ing the assistance of ... In fact in one

section here it says, "tha t on approval and acceptance of the development plan by all parties, the province shall undertake to expeditiously construct an all-weather roadway from a point on Trans-Canada Hig hway to be determined by the province and terminating at the eastern boundary of the development area and at the boundary separating the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. There were two pr oposals made by the government of Manitoba.

One, that the Band turn over a mile of shoreline on Shoal Lake to the Province of Manitoba and that the province would un dertake to construct at Manitoba go vernment expense, I suppose, an all-weather roadway from a point on the Trans-Canada to the eastern bound ary of the reserve.

Now there is a map inclu ded in the dr aft agreement showing roughly the development area prop osed and I beli eve that part of this development area - it's not marked on the map here exactly, oh, yes it is - marked where the Ontario-Manitoba border is and the mile of shoreline 2415 was on land owned by the Indian Band, but within the boundaries of the Province of Manitoba.

I believe from dis cussions with the people from the Indian Band, they came back to the province and ind ica ted that they were in agreement with transferring a half mile of shoreline as they had discussed, I believe, in meetings with department officials, but the provision that they made with respect to that half mile is that it be made available only for public use.

Apparently it is reported that there was dis agreement over that particular issue at which point the province did not proceed with this dra ft agreement and in fact for one reason or another it became embroiled in controversy to the point where the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba were demanding full environmental impact study, and at the present time the Province of Manitoba appears to be taking the position that not only will they not build the road in return for a shoreline, but they will not even allow the band to have access across Crown land for purposes of constructing a road for themselves for their own purposes.

I would lik e to ask the Min ister if he has any comments on this inf ormation which I brought forward to the committee in light of the comments that he and his Deputy Mi nister made to the press on Friday. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member will recall that I believe it was last Thursday or Friday morning when he raised the question on this subject matter in the House, they were raised in the House, it may have been by somebody else, I indi cated at that time that I was not fully apprized of what may have transpired with the previous Deputy Mini ster, the previous Mini ster. Ho weve r, I can ind icate to members of the committee that I have had that opportu ni ty to ascertain what took place. I had a dis cussion with the Mayor of the City of Winnip eg this morning on the same subject matter.

He is appreciative of the concern that the province is showing in this instance with respect to any possible di fficulti es that unrestricted development may engender to the city's water supply. I've also had conversations with the previous Deputy Mini ster who indic ated to me and I would have if I had, in the next day or two, have made that information available either to the committee here or to the House, the matter that the member now raises.

Let me in dicate to the honourable member that as is a quite normal procedure, a situation had arisen; a request was made for access over Crown land that we knew had some problems associated with it, other than the simple granting of right of way. Senior departmental personnel as one would expect is entirely within his right and prerogative to feel out or propose different solutions, that may be applied to resolve the problem. That's in essence the situation before us. I certainly acknowledge the existence of that document that the member refers to.

I can ind icate to you that it was never put forward through government, or inde ed to the Mini ster for approval, as a recommended course of action. It was a draft proposal at staff level to ascertain whether or not it had within it some resolution to the problem. The

______________ Monday, 6 April, 1981 honourable member and I don't have the document before me, refers to one of the conditions which obviously wasn't satisfactory to the Indian Band in question, but at the same time expr esses the kind of underlaying concern here that we would be well advised to proceed with any activity in that general area without coming to some agreement as to the future land use in and about the shorelin•� of the Shoal Lake Reservoir, where the city gets its water supply from.

I would be in terested to kn ow the member's position on the matter, or indeed that of the Official Opposition's position on this ma tter. /l.re they suggesting to me and to this government that we proceed without any assuranc es of the kind of development that can take place, that could in the future jeopardize the City of Winnipeg's water supply, or just what the position is?

The suggestion that the road is can be treated entirely separate from the proposed development of which we are apprised of and I think we're all aware of, and looking at it as simply a matter of providing access to a cornmunity, really has to be taken with some concern as to whether or not that really is the case.

Indeed if it is the case, I must ind icate to the honourable member and the honourable member is perhaps bett•�r aware than many members in this House, that there are many commu nit ies, too many communit ies, particularly in Northern Manitoba who are not yet serviced by all-weather roads who live and have to put up with an isolation factor. Under tho se circumstances if we were looking at it stricti:/ from a point of view of road construction or providing of access to isolated communities, it would ha•te to be considered in the priority listing of road con:;truction generally in the Province of Manitoba. MR.

BOSTROM: It just strikes me as strange, Mr. Chairman, that there was a draft agreement such as I menti oned which was passed by the Deputy Min ister to the Chief of the Shoal Lake band and there was a further one on October 26, 19 79 signed also by Paul E. Jarvis, Deputy Mini ster of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment which was a new draft slightly amended from the first and again it is being sent to the chairman in this case of the negotiating committee for the Shoal Lake Ba nd No. 40 and indicating that this is something which the government is prepared to discuss in terms of an agreement with the band.

He re again in this agreement the pro vince is agreei ng to construct an all- weather cont inuous roadway from the Trans-Canada Hig hwa) to the reserve. in return in this case for 3,500 linea l feet of shoreline on Shoal Lake within the development area and within the Province of Manitoba and granted in the form of in def ensible title to the Pro•ti nce of Manitoba. It strike s me as strange in the operation of government that there would be a Deputy Minister who is proposing such major agreements without bringing to the attention of other member:; of the gover nment. particu larly the execut ive b ·anch.

I would have thought that the Deputy Minis ter in this case would have made his Min ister aware of the fact that he was making rather major negotiations in terms of government expenditure, offering to expend I would think, several hundr ed thousands of Manitoba tax payers' money in constructing a 2416 roadway in return for the granting of shoreline and 1 would ask the Mi nis ter, at which point did the go vernment become conc erned about the environmen tal aspects of this?

Throughout these pro posed dr aft agreements which the Deputy Mi nister was proposing I would assume in good faith to the band for their consideration, in terms of a possible contract between the Province of Manitoba and the band, is the Min ister now saying that these draft agreements are no longer in the works and there is no connection between the government's present position and the fact that the Shoal Lake band was demanding that the government agree and guarantee to them that there would be only public use of tho se shorelines and not some priv ate development which would be in competition with their own proposed cottage lot development plan?

MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be underlin ed that we're not talking about a final offer agreement that was made on behalf of the government to the band in question. I would expect, and I know it to be the case that senior personnel in my department today and tomorrow, hopefully, and the honourable member, as a former Mini ster, is aware of it, have to work out proposed resolutions to problems if at senior staff level they believe they are approaching a resolution to a problem, it's then very appropriately forwarded up to the Minis ter's office for consideration, for approval or for disapproval.

That's precisely what took place here. The then Deputy Min ister of Resources faced with a problem that he was seeking some resolution of, was feeling through these prop osed draft agreements whether or not an agreement of this kind, a land exchange of this kind, was feasible. The fact that they never moved beyond that indic ates to me that the conditions that were attached to it at that time by the department were not capable of being met by the band and furthermore I am advised by the then Mi nister, Mr. Craik, that these pro posed dr aft negotiations never did proceed beyond the staff stage. Mr.

Chairman, let me just underline that again. I look upon that as being entirely appropr iate senior staff work to try to bring to the gover nment's attention, and in the first instance to the Mi nister's attention, proposed ways of resolving a problem, and part of that is certainly in dealing with the people involved. In this case, it is apparent that the previous Deputy Mini ster, Mr. Paul Jarvis, sought to resolve the issue of land use at the Sho al Lake water resevoir in a manner tha t would have made it possible for some planning to be in place prior to any access road being granted.

I ask the honou rable member again, is he suggesting to me and to this government that the department should provide access to the Shoal Lake reservoir without any concern, without any sensitivity towards the city's concern in this matter, without any safeguards about unlimi ted development that may occur with in that particular area of the lake in question, which as the member is well aware, is of some considerable concern to the City Fathers? MR. BOSTROM: Well certainly, Mr.

Chairman, I would think that environmental consideration should have been a primary concern of the government, but it appears as though it was not a primary concern of

Monday, 6 April, 1981 this government, at least not the senior officials of the Department of Mines and Natural Resources at the time. Their primary consideration seemed to be getting the best possible chunk of land which the band would turn over to them for some undetermined type of development. When the band attempted to determine what kind of development the Province of Manitoba was planning for that piece of land, which they were demanding in return for the access and for construction of a road access, the whole question was somehow turned around to put the emphasis on environmental concerns.

That is the way in which it has been related to me; that there was not a great concern raised by departmental officials about the environment until the negotiations over the amount of land that would be made available and the terms on which that land would be made available, broke down.

I would note, for the Minis ter's own information, that there was a letter written by the Shoal Lake Band No. 40 to Paul Jarvis, October 29th, 19 79, in which they point out and I qu ote, "The Province of Ma nitoba, and especially the citizens of Winnip eg have a great deal to benefit from the access road to Shoal Lake", and I further quote, "The citizens of Manitoba would receive a public road and one-half mile of public access area, prime valued land, to Shoal Lake and Lake of the Woods area. This is not available to the people of Manitoba at the present time." This is what they were prepared to agree to.

Thir dly, "The public road could access the waterworks intake at Waugh, and thus they make their costly railroad obsolete. This would possibly save the City of Winn ipeg taxpayers hundr eds of thousands of dollars each year, and if the railroad was surplus, there would be no need for the city to hold a large landholding in St. Bon iface area of Winnip eg. This could possibly be sold to private enterprise, again financially benefiting the people of Winn ipeg, in relieving the taxpa yer of a major burden.

"The public road would open up new areas of tourism and expand and promote an ind ustry, which is in need of support, as ind icated by your new five year, $20 million agreement, Destination Manitoba." And they point out that, "The development's only adverse affect", and I'm still quoting from the letter, "i s the possible environme ntal conc ern for the potable water supply.

I would like to assure you, as we have on numerous occasions, that the Band members of Shoal Lake Band No. 40, will not develop or promote any activity which will adversely affect the water supply for themselves and the citizens of Winnipe g." This is the end of the quote here, Mr. Chairman. The Mi nister should note that the Shoal Lake Band drink from the same water supply, so they are as concerned I'm sure as other people are of the water quality in that area.

I further quote from the letter, "The Shoal Lake Band will also be presenting a formal concept in the very near future on how the development will take place and its activities. You can be assured that the environmental aspects will be well considered. It is with these final positive remarks, that I would like to state that the Band, as we agreed with your senior officials, are prepared to honour the 2,640 feet of shore 1i ne on Indian Bay for a public use area. The Band is also prepared to discuss the possibility of a 2417 corridor to Hor seshoe Bay." That's in a letter of October 29th, 19 79.

In a further letter dated March 16 th, 19 81, and this is sent to the Honourable Harry Enns, and, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quote from the letter in which the Chief Herb Red Sky is saying, and I quote, "We approached your predecessors and officials within your government, Mr. MacMa ster, Mr. Ransom, Mr. Craik, Mr. Mercier, Deputy Minis ter Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Mc Nairna y and others. We were gi ven verbal commitments from some of these people, but on written agreements, we were mislead on the land issue. "Our Band has explained on nu merous occasions, the necessity for road access to our community.

The road will give our Band members access to off­ reserve jobs," etc., etc. in here. I go on to quote, "As we've explained the road is access to a reserve, not our development. The road development will not affect the cottage lot environmental assessment. The impact of the road on a cottage lot development will be assessed. Whether the cottage lot program is appr oved or not, we require road access to our lands." So, Mr.

Chairman, the Chi ef and his Council appear to be indic ating here, that at least by 19 81, they had approached quite a nu mber of people within the Government of Manitoba, and they had received the draft agreements, which are referred to, and at the present time they're simply requesting access across Crown land to build a road at their own expense for access for the people of their reserve. Now the Min ister can say that he wants to wait for the Environm ental Impact Study, that's an argument which he could use.

I would agree with him that there should be an environmental impact study to insure that the water qua lity is no t affected by any proposed development, whether it's this cottage lot development or a mining development or whatever it may be. That's a reasonable and prudent concern. Ho wever, is the Minis ter prepared to say that he will provide the opportunity for these people to have road access, given that the Environmental Impact Study is completed and they have assured him that there's no unfortunate effects, or bad effects on the water qua lity as a result of their propos ed development?

Is he prepared to proceed with an agreement with the Band along the lines of the proposed agreements which Mr. Jarvis apparently proposed to the Bands? MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again that the su bject matter has received a considerable amount of attention. A committee was struck in 19 79 consisting of Federal Ind ian Affairs people, Band people, the Department of Natural Resources.

They addressed themselves to the proposed development in that general area and its possible effect on the water supply in Winnipeg; the result of which was a fai lur e to come to an acceptable agre ement, acceptable that is to the Indian Band in question. The committee did not resolve the issue, it was disbanded in February of 19 80, my information has it, and the matter is still in that state. I am prepa red to ind icate to the honour able member and to the committee that I would be, in my judgment, acting something less than the appropriate way if I didn't fully take the City of Winnip eg's

_ _ __ _ _____ ___ _ _..:_:Nion d ay, 6 April, 1981 concerns into consideration before any decision is made with respect to the road. If those concerns can be alleviated - and I certainly don't rule out the possi bility of a land exchange or a zoning or land use regulations being developed that in the future would set aside the concerns of the city wit� respect to potential pollution of water supply, that access to the community under those circumstances could not and would not be granted.

I'm simply suggesting to the committee that during the relatively short course of time that I have had the responsibility of the department that I intend to act with the closest of consultation with the City of Winnip eg. As I ind icated earlier I had a dis cussion with the Mayor of the City of Winn ipeg this morning; a meeting has been set up and I intend tc include some of the officials that the honourable member has mentioned that have had past discus si ons with the Band, and attempt to resolve the issue.

But what seems to me what's happened to some extent in this instance is that individual actors in the game have attempted to search out and !>eek out different solutions, not necessarily always in tandem. The last legal representative that I had in ny office representing the Shoal Lake Indian Band attempted to suggest that the proposed road had absolutely no connection with the proposed subdivision, cottage lot development, to be entered into in that area.

Well, quite frankly I could n't buy that argument and I suspect, and I belie ve, at le ast the Ma yor so indi cated to me this morning that he is pleased that I didn't buy that argument. I think that there is a resolution that can be worked out, it will have to be, and I restate 1 his once again; one that the City of Winn ipeg is cc mpletely and totally happy with. There is just too much at stake. After all, the reservo ir do es supply the drinking water supplies, I agree, of the Indian Band in que stion but as well of 600 ,0 00 Ma nito bans residing in the City of Winnipeg. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Arnold Brown (Rhineland): The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'd like to continue on a topic which was first brouoht up in the question period, as I believe it is at least partially the Mini ster's responsibility, and that is, ol course, the Northern Fish Transportation Subsidy for the Savage Island Fish Processing Plant.

I woulcl ask the Mi nister if he can indi cate if he has entered into any dis cussions with Federal officials in respec t to that fish processing plant and the imminent closure of it, and if so, can he report to us the circumstances and the results of those conversations? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister. MR. ENNS : Mr. Chairman, I do have some kno wledge of the situation referred to by the Member for Churchill. I would like to point out, Mr.

Chairman, through you to honourable members, we are at the start of my Estimates now dealing with the admin istration and function in the Minister's office, hopefully suggesting to honourable member:; that we can, in some orderly way, proceed thrcugh our Estimates. The subject matter that the honourable member wishes to dis cuss, even in general term;, would perhaps more appropriately come under the item, Resolution 8, entitl ed Fisheries, and as the honourable members can appreciate, I would expect to have Fisheries staff available for more specific answers to some of their questions.

I raise that question only in asmuch as that we do have an approp riation, specifically headed un der Fish eries which includes our in volvement in the overall fisheries management, our involvement with respect to support, whether it's the Freight Assistance Program, etc., and I would be, I think, not unfair in suggesting to honourable members that I answer those questions dealing with fisheries under that appropriation. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rupertslan d. MR. BOSTROM: Just on that point, Mr.

Chairman, it appears to have worked rather well in the past in committee that general questions be asked under the general admin istration of the department. Therefore when we get down to specific sections most of the questions have been cleared up and there may only be one or two questions of a rather technical nature as we come to each section. My own style, as far as critic is concerned is to ask most of the questions in the general administration

section and then as we come to each

section just pass through them. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, against the better advice that I'm getting from my Deputy Mini ster, I will agree to the suggestion made by the Honourable Member for Rupertslan d. However, I will tax my memory and suggest to you that when these same questions come up for the second and third time as we get on to the specific items, then I would ask some cooperation from committee members that I can then ind icate to honourable members that the su bject matter has been dealt with, even if it happens to be some other members who aren't present at this sitting of the committee.

But on that basis I will entertain these questions. I suggest however to the committee members that is not particularly to the advantage of honourable members of the committee in asmuch as staff is alerted to the order of the estimates and I will not necessarily have at all times the particular dir ector of the division available to me for some of the detailed advice and information that honourable members may wish to have.

With respect to the question of the plant that is in the danger of clo sure, I remind particularly my honourable friend from Churchill who shows a great deal of concern on this subject matter from time to time about the workpla ce health and safety rules and regulations as they apply, and it's my understanding of the situation that is a large part of the probl em that we are facing up at Island Lake; that there are serious concerns being exp ressed by the Department of Labour and their ins pectors as to the safe condition of the building.

There have also been some very substantial estimates, I believe, totalling in the order of some $800,000 to make the necessary renova tions. The Federal Department of Indian Affairs is aware of this matter and is currently, it is my understanding, subsidizing the operation of that processing plant by some $250,000 per annum, and 2418

Monday, 6 April, 1981 really it's a question of really whether the Federal Department of Indian Affairs and ourselves to some extent can justify the kind of capital expenditure that would be necessary to bring that plant into operation. I am hopeful, and I am not aware of these details, as to whether or not temporary or partial renovations or changes can be made that could forest all that from happe ning. That's about the extent of my information with respect to that particular fish processing plant. MR. CO WAN: I thank the Mini ster for that informati on.

I can assure him that I will no t be bringing this subject matter up under the head ing of Northern Fish Transporation Su bsidy, however, I can't speak on behalf of members who aren't here and can only relay the message to the Mini ster and would hope that they would take into consideration the remarks of the Min ister in preface to his last discourse.

I would ask the Mini ster however if currently they are undergoing negotiations between the province and the federal government and Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in respect to coming up with some of that capital funding, which the Mini ster ind icates is necessary, and he !n his comments ind icated that the province to some extent have a responsibility to participate in that.

So I would ask him if the negotiations are undergoing and if so what has been the result of them and what one would expect from them; and in specific what commitment is the province willing to give in order to ensure or at leas: in order to assist those fishermen in the area by keeping that plant open for the upcoming season? It's a very complex matter, if I may, before the Minis ter answers.

Not only is the plant that is currently there being looked at by the Department of Oceans and Fisheries and the Department of Labour and the Department of Ind ian Affairs as to its suitability in both a workpla ce environmental sense and a general environmental sense. They are also looking at a new plant in the area and that's been under discussion and negotiation for some time and that further complicates the situation. So, I realize that it is in deed a very complex situation with many facets, which have to be considered.

Ho wever, if the plant does not operate this year, there will be a significant loss to the fishery in the area; there will be a significant loss of income to fishermen in the area; there will be a significant loss of income to fish plant processing employees in the area, and that will in fact increase the welfare costs in that area. Most of that by the way will be Federal money under the Department of Indian Affairs, but there are a number of Metis and non-status or non-treaty Indian people fishing in the area and that will impact upon the provincial treasury as well.

So I would hope that the Min ister has had those high level negotiations and I would hope he would be able to come forward with some statements in respect to what exactly the province is prepared to do in respect to forestal lin g that imminent plant closure. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: Before the Mi nis ter answers I would just like to draw to the Member for Churchill's attention that Resolution No. 10 6, 8.(g), (

h) and (

j) specifically add ress themselv es to the 2419 particular questions that he is asking and the Min ister at that time can have his staff present. I hope that the member realizes that the Min ister can only deal in very general terms at this particular point on these items, and I would prefer if the Member for Churchill would ask his questions at that particular time when he can pursue this in detail. MR. COWAN: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairperson, I believe we had this conversation and the Minis ter agreed and as a matter of fact we had negotiated an agreement, I think, one migh t say in respect to answering and posing the questions at this time. I appreciate the fact that the information which the Mini ster will be able to provide at this moment will be general in formation. I don't expect detailed information, however we are asking very general questions.

As well, notwithstanding the Mini ster's agreement to pursue this matter in this way, which I remind you of, as well there is some sense of urgency, I believe, to this matter and I don't know when we will reach that specific area but I do know that there is a great deal of anticipation and there is a great deal of conc ern espec ially in that area, in the six communities which are affected by that fishery, over this problem, and I hope if we could get some answers back to them in the immediate future we could alleviate some of that anticipation and some of that concern.

So I appreciate the Mi nister's willingn ess to pursue the matter in this way, which he ind icated he was just a few moments ago. As well, I appreciate your point of order and will try not to bring up specific details. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I should at this point in dicate that the decisions that affect the continued presence and viability of the plant are not essentially that of the responsibility of this Department. We are essentially resource managers. We are concerned about the management of the fishery resource in this instance.

I can ind icate by way of additiona l information, when I ind icated the province has an interest it is essentially the fact that the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation holds a mortgage, 1 believe, up to - it could be as high $200,000 on the plant, so there is certainly a concern by the provincial agency and provincial government to that extent in terms of their concern for the mortgage that they hold on that plant.

I think the honourable member himself sugge sted that the primary responsibility probably rests with the Federal Department of Indian Affairs, and I hope the honourable member do esn 't take this to be a situation of a provincial government attempting to avoid responsi bili ty or direct answers to this difficult question.

It simply jurisdictionally happens to be that and as well the other Federal Agency, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, has a role to play in the manner and way in which fish are received, processed, hand led and sol d, and have specific responsibi lity in that regard in the Province of Manitoba. So I can only indi cate to the honourable member that I have had some prel imi nar y discussions; they were discussions you know more of a matter of interest and concern, as exp ressed to me by my colleague, the Mi nister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Manitoba Agri cul tural Cred it

M'tmday, 6 April, 1981 Corporation, but the initiative of resolving ne issue of that plant. rests princi pally with the =ederal Department of Indian Affairs, and they hav·� some very hard questions to face, whether or 110t the $800,000 as repeate d, is necessary for the revi tali zation of that plant, to bring it up to standards; is money appropriately spent or 'Nhether or not those resources. or some of those resources ought to be directed in a different way that can hopefully accomplish keeping the fishermen fishing, and prov iding for the jobs that are already too scarce in that part of the country. MR.

CO WAN: The question to the Mi nister, however, was: Can he in dicate what commitment the province was willing to make? I would specify a commitment in regard to either a special :;ubsidy, which the province, I understand, provided to that operation in 19 78, a sizable sum, or a increase in the fish transportation subsidy in the area, which in fact has been falling off over the past number of years rather dramatically, because the Mi nister's staff is not available to him right at the moment.

I will just read to him the province's participation in support extended to the Savage Island Fishery, since 19 76, and in 19 76 it was $85,000; in 19 77 it increased to $96,000; in 19 78 it decreased to $63,000; and in 19 79 $34,000 and last year it was at $1 7,000.00.

Not only has that support extended de creased in absolute terms, but it's also decr ease d as a percentage of the entire support extended to that particular facility, and in 19 77 provincial support as a percentage of the entire support was 41 percent; in 19 80 that same figure was 7 percent, so in ''act, the province has been withdrawing from supporting that particular plant and that withd rawal has not been a withd rawal other than a reduction in the fish transportation subsidy, I believe, but whatover the reason it has resulted in a significant withd rawal of money and support of the Savage Isla 1d Fish Processing Plant.

Now the fact that the subsidy has been de:creased over a period of time, dur ing which the costs of flying fish in and out of the area has in creased dramatically, also has to be addressed.

So what I'm asking of the Minis ter in effect, is a policy statement as to number one, are they going to do som�thing in respect to the fish subsidy and the decrea:;es over the past number of years; and number two, are they prepared to go further than that and make some sort of extraordinar y or ad hoc commitment to keeping that plant open during this particular year, as they have done in the past, or at least as it appears they have done in the past? MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I should be taki 1g some of these questions under advisement, but I would assume that the levels of dollars spent through the Fish Freight Sub sidy Program bear a dir ect relationship as to the actual poundage of fis h caught in any gi ven year. (I nterje ction)- I'm always prepared to accept help. MR. COWAN: It's my understand that one of the reasons the subsidy decreased so dramatically was in 1978 the province decided that they would withd raw the subsidy on cutter whitefish in ·the area, and that amounted to a significant decrease•.

So not only has it been in respect to the pounda�1e in the 2420 area, but it has also been in respect to a policy decision to withd raw the su bsidy on a specific species of fish. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'm more than happy to undertake to provide and get some more specific information that I will make available to the committee, with respect to the whole question of the plant at Island Lake, as well as the additi onal detailed information that the honourable member is requesting, about the level of funding, at some later time during the course of my Estimates. MR.

COW AN: I would hope that that then if we ag ree to awaiting for that information, frees me from my earlier commitment not to bring this matter up under this specific section. MR. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, I think it's been an established procedure that the Mi nister frequently und ertakes with the aid and assistance of staff, to come back either the next day or the next session with the de tail ed information that Com mittee members request.

We have made a note of the concerns being exp ressed with respect to this plant, and it will break my own rules of not appearing to raise them at such time when I have that information. MR. COWAN: Then I would just like to make a general statement if I can, and perhaps it will assist the Min ister and other members, and Min isters of this Government, when dealing with this particular problem. As was in dicated earlier, the fishery in that area does support some 18 0 to over 200 fishermen.

They have great pride in their fishing abilities; they have great pride in the fact that they are product ively employed for a number of weeks during the year fishing. It is hard work; it is difficult work; it's not easy work by any stretch of the imagination.

They feel hard done by in this particular instance; they feel hard done by because they want very dearly to fish and yet becaus e of new regulations from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and because of a lack of involvement, I might ad d, by the Federal and Provincial Governments and because of what appeared to be unfulfilled negotiations, it looks as if they will be unable to fish. I had the opportunity and the pleasure to attend a meeting in the community of Garden Hill, about two weeks ago, where members of the four bands that were most di rectly affected, the Chief of St.

Theresa Point; the Chief of Waasagomach; the Chief of Red Sucker Lake and the Chie f of Garden Hill; and members of Governments at both levels, and the Freshw ater Fishmarketing Corpora tion, were in attendance. At that meeting, the Chief of St. Theresa Point said it I think very eloquently, when he stated that if they were unable to fish this year, they did not want people to think it was because they did not want to fish. If they were unable to fish this year, they did not want people to think that it was because they were in fact lazy.

If they were unable to fish this year, they wanted people to know that it was not their choice, but that it was the choice of others imposed upon them, either by di rect acts or acts of omission. They are very concerned about that because in the past they have found that because of biases, and I

Monday, 6 April, 1981 think that's the ki ndest word I can use, because of biases people tend to view the situation in Northern Manitoba from a dif ferent prospective. They did not want those biases to be reinforced by their inability, an inabil ity which was imposed upon them from outside, to pursue their traditional lifestyle and their traditional way of employment over the next couple of months. I think it's important that that is on the record. I think it's important because this whole matter is one that probably that should not have happened.

I don't know if this is the place to dis cuss federal responsi bility, because it is, as the Mini ster says, primarily a matter of federal respon sibili ty. However, there is also a responsibility on the part of the province because that fish processing plant does, in fact, accommodate fishermen who are not Treaty Indians. In 19 69 when that plant was taken over, at that time there was a consultant's report that was done on the plant and that consultant's report said that that plant should not be used for more than two years.

Perhaps it was even one year at the time, I have it in my notes from the meeting, I could find it, but the fact is, the study put the plant life at one to two years. At that time it said the plant was not in good condition. Since that time that plant has been used and it has been far more than one or two years. I believe that it is because of the new regulations by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that this matter has been brought to a head this year.

But it seems unfair, it seems ironic, or it seems arbitrary, it almost seems existential that a plant that had a lifespan of one to two years in 19 69 and has operated to 19 80 would suddenly not be able to operate this year. I respect, as much as anyone, the righ t of the employees in that plant to work in safe conditions, and I respect, as much as anyone, the right of the residents of that area to have an environment that is unp olluted by that plant if in fact that plant was a pos sible pollution source.

That was one of the problems, the sewage system at the plant needed to be renovated, I believe it was estimated to be a cost of $1 50,000; also, even if those renovations were accomplished on the plant, which would upgrade it enough for a temporary permit for use this year, that there was no assurance that the plant wouldn't fall down around the ears of the workers when they were employed over the next summer. So there is a significant risk in using the plant this year, and I'm not certain that it is a risk that should be taken lightl y.

I think it is a risk that should be thoroughly investigated, but I also beli eve that if there is any way in which that plant can be upgraded to the extent where it can be used for this year, and if the province has an opportunity to participate in that, that the province should, in fact, participate. Now the province is going to have to decide at what level it wishes to participate. Obviously the province doesn't want to take on the burden of the $706,000 estimated loss over the next year.

The Depar tment of In dian Affairs and Northern Dev elopment has offere d $250,000 of that, so obviously the province doesn't want to have to take on the remaining amount which would be greater than the provincial involvement. So the fact is that it's going to take some hard negotiations, some determined discussions, on the 2421 part of the government and on the part of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and on the part of the Freshwater Fish Ma rketing Corporation, in order to resolve this very difficult problem.

I think it is significant, and should be a matter of the public record, that the fishermen in the area have gone ahead in their ice harvest this year, even though they have no promise of being able to use that ice during the fishing season. That was not out of optimism; it was a decision that they reached because if in fact the fishery is not able to continue to operate, that money will be lost to them.

Now they are paid for that fish harvesting by the Federal Go vernment, ho wever that's part of the total $250,000 commitment that the Federal Government has made to the plant for this year and will be taken out of that commitment that in fact will be upheld, accord ing to my un derst anding, reg ardl ess of whether or not that plant continues to operate. As the situation stands now, it's my understanding that the Chi efs are going to be approaching the Mini ster at the Ottawa level in the near future to dis cuss this matter with them, to try to get more money.

I am certain that the Mini ster will be approaching this Minis ter or other Mi nisters at the provincial level in order to attempt to develop some means of co-operation that will result in keeping that plant open. I would encourage the Min ister to approach those negotiations in a generous way.

I would encourage the Mini ster to approach those negotiations from a historical perspective, and take into consideration the fact that we have put a lot more money in that area through the transportation subsidy in the past and the province has put a lot more money in that area through dir ect subsidie s in the past, and perhaps now is a time when in fact they should make that sort of extraordin ary commitment. Plant clo sures, of course, and one do esn 't immediately think of Swift's or the Tribune or Maple Leaf Mi lls when thinking about plant closure in Garden Hi ll, but the effects are the same.

As a matter of fact, if anything, the effects are aggravated. At least in the city when the plant closes down there is some opportunity, although not enough opportunity, for in d ividuals, some indi viduals, although not enough indi viduals, of that plant to gain employment elsewhere. In Garden Hill it is going to be a matter of migration or welfare. There will be no other choice. That puts them at a far more difficult - excuse me, puts them in a far more dif ficult position. So it is going to impact upon them even more so than it impacted upon the Swift's workers or impacted upon the Maple Leaf Mills workers.

It is going to impact far more on the community than it did on the community of Winn ipeg in respect to other plant closures. If that is the case then one would suggest that there must be far more commitment on the part of governments in order to ensure that that plant is kept opera ting as long as is possible, and I think one has to look at the completion of the new plant as a possible solution to this problem in the future, but that does not in any way alleviate the situation that we're faced with at this year. So I would hope that the Mi nister would take all that into account when in fact he does have those

_ ___ __ _____ __ _ M_ onday , 6 April, 1981 negotiations and discussions with other Mintsters at both levels of government and with residents from the area. I would hope that in fact we are able to reach some sort of successful conclusion to this problem, that we are able to keep thctt plant operating, that we are able to do so in such a way as to not have a negative effect on either the wCirkers at the plant or the environment. But the fact is we are going to have to pay in one way or another for that plant closure.

We are either going to have to pay through welfare or we're going to have to pay by providing subsidies to � eep the plant open. I would suggest that if the cos t will be less through subsidies in keeping the plant open, that we follow that course of action and that the province participate as much as is possible in providing money and support to those fishermen, both Treaty Indian and non- Treaty Indian in 1 he area, who are only trying to maintain a traditional ltfestyle.

I know the Mini ster will do his utmost and I look forward to him being able to use his pe rsuasive powers on his colleagues and on his counte ·p arts at the Ottawa level in bringing about a successful agreement that will enable this plant to keep opening. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tenor of the honourable member's comments.

I believe them to be constructive, I put on the public record only this, that at the time of the rationalization that took place, particularly with commercial fishin 9 in the Province of Manitoba with the introduction of the Fresh water Fish Marketing Board, I remind honourable members that it was my pri11ilege to introduce that Bill to the Manitoba Legislatur e that made it possible.

I wasn't able to proceed with it to Thir d Rea ding, an election in tervened and my government was defeated, and the New Democratic Party admin istration proceeded with essentially the same Bill, authorizing or transferring the jurisdiction, that up to then was in provincial hands , to the Federal authorities to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. Unlike some of the other businesses that face the problems of closure from time to time or lack of busine ss, in the busin ess of fish it is a highly controlled regulated operation.

I took issue at the time that the decision was made to so centralize the processing of fish in this province, namel y by the concentration of virtually all fish processing in one multi-million doll ar plant her e in the City in Transcona. I happened to share or held a view at lhat time and I expr essed that in Opposition at that time in the Legislatur e that even if at cost some of those processing jobs could have and should have been maintained in the north.

However, the dec sian was made, as I say, to centralize in a very substantial way in the one large facility in Transcona operat<�d by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, and I believe that decision still is one that we have to live with in the sense that it obviously makes it difficult to r1ount the kind of economic arguments for further processing, further job creation in the fish business which is so natural and appropriate to the nor th, v. here the resources are harvested, very difficult. Mr.

Chairman, I can't really add any more to this dis cussion at this time other than to acknowledge the concerns of honourable members, and certainly even though we are no t the first department responsible, my colleague the Min ister of Northern Affairs has a very substantial deg ree of responsibility here, the other Departments, including even that of Economic Development in terms of looking and approaching this as a job creation, job maintenance problem have concerns. Again, we are of course primarily interested in the responsibility that we have as resource managers.

However, having said that there's no question that it is probably within the Department of Natural Resources, staff people that we have in the field, that have a very close day-to­ day relationship with the fishermen involved, and of course as such are very concerned about their future livelihood. MR. CO WAN: I thank the Mini ster for that statement. I do wish to make one brief comment in respect to it and that is because a decision was made at one time does not mean that we are locked in and wedded to that decision forever.

One can always look at that decision from new advantage points that are again either by the passage of time or the accumulation of experience. I do not wish to comment on whether or not one at this point should make the type of changes which the Mini ster seemed to ind icate are necessary, but I do think that they should be looked at very carefully, and I think that it is a matter that the Min ister can quite effectively dir ect his department's attention to.

However, it would have very little effect, by the way, on the incident which we are talking about right now and that's the cost of the operation at Savage Island Fish Processing Plant. It is not a major factor in respect to that and should not be considered as such and I hope the record is clear in that regard.

I am asking the Mini ster to take a look at this, not only from the vantage point of how they can provide extraordinary subsidy or assistance to the fishermen in the area, but also to look at the fish transporation subsidy and wha1 has happened over the past number of years in respect to the amount of money that's going into that community under that program as well.

So I do bel ieve that although he sh ares resp onsibil ity for this plant with many other departments, both at the provincial and the federal level, he does have a vital role to play and a role that would be some wher e in the area of $60,000 decrease in fish subsidies in the area as compared to 19 77 that he can look at and attempt to determine if in fact there is a way in which the province can start to pump that type of money back into the area and that will further assist that fishery in staying open on a short term basis and then look at the long term solutions, which are obviously necessary and which there will be other opportunity to discuss.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can pose a question to the Min ister with respect to some of the comments he made and specifically with a request to fish processing. Is he saying that because of the difficulties in this particular case, that my colleague has been referring in the Island Lake area, where there is a specific problem related to the 2422

Monday, 6 April, 1981 cutter whitefish. Is he saying that somehow a line which exists at the Freshwater Fish Marketing Plant in Winnip eg should be shut down and such a line be replaced by havi ng a fish processing facilit y at Garden Hill or in that vicinity to process the fish in that area? MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not competent to make that kind of suggestion or decision. Certainly it's not mine to make.

What I was merely trying to suggest - the existence of the capacity of the plant in Transcona in many instances foregoes the serious consideration of transferring proces sing work to other parts of the province. That's the implication or suggestion that I am trying to make. Whether or not that can be said with good economic foundation, I would have to rely on what I believe to be capable people who are running the commercial fish pro cess ing in du stry here in the Pr ovince of Manitoba, principally of course, the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Board people themselves.

I just have that perception, which I believe is shared by other lay people, and it kind of makes acceptable sense to me that the capacity being what it is with the facility that it's difficult to argue that it's in the interests of the fishermen, who after all are the recipients of any efficiencies, any savings in the processing of fish, that it be done in the most effective way possible because it bears directly on their payout, on their final payments.

So I would have to be pretty cautious about suggesting that while it may resolve an issue, if for ins tance a lin e were clos ed down at the Transcona Plant and that work done somewhere else, I may have di fficulty in persu ad ing other fishermen, other than those affected or who are being provided with some additional employment, that it's in their interests to do so and I acknowledge that very quickly. I am just simply - just to put it on the record in a general way, that it appears to me that has been a block to serious recognition of expansion of processi ng faci lities in No rthern Manitoba. MR.

CHAIRMAN, Morris McG regor: The Honourable Member for Rupertslan d. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, just so that we're clear about the Mi nister's and the gov ernment's position on this issue, just who does he think should be responsible for assisting and the establishment of a processing facility at Garden Hill and I would point out to the Mini ster that the main reason for having such a processing facility was recognized by the private operator who operated in that area prior to the FFMC even coming into existence.

Even with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporat ion, it makes sense from an economic point of view to have a proces sing faci li ty at that loca tion because the processing of the fish there reduces the volume which has to be shi pped by approxi mately 50 percent, and because of the high freight rates that fishermen are facing in that area which are related to air transportation.

The existence of a processing facility is absolutely essential, particularly if they are to harvest the lower quality of product which does not bring a high enough price to even pay the full cost of the freight transportation if it's shipped out in its round form, un processed. So, Mr. Chairman, there is a need for a processing fa cilit y there, 2423 number one, at first glance, to make the fishing Industry at all a viable proposition in that area.

The fish must be at least processed in a primary way in order for the fishermen to be able to take a harvest from that lake and to be able to economically sell that harvest. Now on the other hand a very close analysis of it as I imagine has already been done to a certain extent could ind icate that even with all of those things taken into consideration there would be need for a subsidy for a plant to operate in that area, so one would have to look at the economic benefits to the people in that area to determine whether or not a subsidy would be required.

If such is the case, who does the Min ister think should be respon sible for that? He's ind icated he's not prepared to say the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation should do it because naturally as he pointed out, any subsidy they provide comes out of the pockets of other fishermen. Now should the Provincial and Federal Governments, therefore, get inv olved and if so, to what extent should each get involved?

First of all establishing such a plant and if there's a shortfall on the opera tion, who should be picking up that shortfall, if it can be demonstrated on a benefit cost analysis that it would be more beneficial to have the fishermen in that area fishing and producing a product which is a useful produc tive product in our society than to have them simply collecting welfare which is at public expense with no production? MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I really think that we are going around this question now for the second or third time.

I think the honour able members are perhaps even more aware than I am aware of the primary responsibility with respect to this particular plant, the primary role that the Federal Department of Indian Affairs has to play and has played over the years in the provision of assistance to this plant. I also point ed out some of the di lemmas that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has in dealing with this matter but by statute si nce 19 69 we have transferred to this federal agency the responsibility, the total responsibility in how fish are marketed, processed and sold in the Province of Manitoba.

It's not possible for instance nor necessarily desirable to invite somebody else who may feel they can do the job and provide the necessar y provision for processing fish in this or other areas. By statute it's not permitted. I think the Manitoba Government has carried on the Freight Assistance Program which was developed to acknowledge some of the special needs and difficulties faced by northern fishermen. At this point, I don't think I can offer any other advice. MR. BOSTROM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I believe the Provincial Government does have responsibility here to see that people have the opportunity to have an in come from resou rce devel opment and it's something which we have maintained when we were in government and maintained at this time that the Province of Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba, should have a responsibility to access whether or not a fishery like this can continue to be economically viable and produce a useful product for the use of society.

If you look at the production figur es you see that in 19 79 they produced approxima tely 399,000 pounds round weight of pickerel from that lake. Now, the pickerel alone at the wholesale level at dock side

Monday, 6 April, 1981 in Island Lake would be worth around $400,000.00. Market value of that product in the final forrn would be probably in the neighbourhood of $1 milli Jn plus, so there is a useful product in pickerel alone ·:hat can be brought out of that lake. I think t's the responsibility of the Minis ter to utilize the instrument of government to ensure that that happens .

Rather than people wasting away on welfare, his gov ·�rnment should be taking ini tiative here in ensuring that there is an opportunity for the people up there to fish and to pack their product, to process their product and get it to market.

Whether or not he has tc• bother himself somewhat to drag in the Federal Government to assist on something like this, I think that he has that responsibility as the Mini ster respons.ible for every body in Man itoba with respect to na tural resources, to do something about this, ancl not to simply sit back and say, well, it's the FFMC and they should be doing it and if they are not doing it, to hell with it. I think that's an irresponsible attitude and one which certainly is not hel ping the pE!Ople of Island Lake in any way. MR. CHAIRMAN: I (a)(2) - pass - the Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, on a related topic and seeing that we' re on this Freshwa ter Fish Marketing Corporation, t wanted to ask the Mini ster some general questions about it, and t know that in an

article in the Winnip eg Free Press, the Minister was quoted as saying that he hoped to C<impaign, and he's referring to the campaign here of a Jim Penner, President of Penner Foods, Ltd., to have the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation drastically changed.

He 's quoted as saying, "I h·J pe the campaign will prompt the Federal Government to move." t would ask the Min ister if he could indi cate in a policy way just what moves he would hope the Freshwater Fish Ma rketi ng Corpor ation or the Federal Government should make with respect to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in terms of changing its mandate or changing the way in which it operates and serves the fishermen of the Province of Manitoba? MR. CHAIRMAN: t just wonder, committee, if I could familiar myself, I wasn't aware we're on fish when I sat in here.

We do have fish about 4 page�; on that really would be better to discuss the fish problems rather than here. t realize you get three cra:ks at it; you get it here, at that sub, and the minister's salary. So really to make some prog ress and it is C>n

Article 8, on Page 98, clearly Fisheries, so the Member for Rupertsland. MR.

BOSTROM: I'm talking here about go·ternment policy and how it relates to the fisheries and t would not propose to raise this issue again when we come to that section, so that I think it would be reasonable for the ·M i n i ster to make a statement about government policy with respect to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation under this item, since we're dealing with the general admi nistration of the department, and the questions I'm asking are related to general policies of the Government, so I would propose to discuss this at this time and make my comments on it, and not repeat those at any future points in the Estimates. 2424 MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mini ster. MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I having made my nest, I will have to lie in it. I, against the better advice that I was receiving, went along with what ap peared to be reaso nable ness of com mittee members to allow some deviation from the order of things as we discuss them, and I will continue to try to do that. But let me say before the honour able members puts too many other things on the record, or reads too many things into the record, as to his perception about my views on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.

Let me be very precise about the fact that you know, from time to time, and it doesn't happen all that often, members of this Legislature do have the privilege in having fathered some particular legislation which I believe has stood the test of time and was worthwhile. The necessary legislation for the creation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board was one such piece of legislation that I take some pride in.

As I indi cated I only got it into the Second Reading of the Bill, in fact my last official business as a Government Mini ster in 1969 was to visit to iron out the last details with the then Federal Min ister, the Honour able Monsieur Pepin, that brought about the necessary transfers of jurisdiction and powers from the Provincial level to the Federal level, that enabled the equation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corpora tion. I bel ieve that it has served the fishermen of Manitoba well, and will continue to serve the Manitoba fishermen well.

That does not preclude in my judgment, being a Conservative, that you retain what is working well and you try to improve in those areas where you feel that it may not be working as best it can. My comments directly attributed to me as a result of the newspaper

article referred to by the Honour able Member for Rupertsland, simply ind icate some of that feeling, that having had 10, 11 years experience now of a total mono poly in the fish marketing, purchasing, selling, processing here in Ma nitoba, there's absolutely nothing wrong with examining very seriously as to whether or not that system can't be improved upon.

I have some views that some flexibility, particularly with those species that are currently underutilized, currently by and large going to waste, and in fact adding to, you could say, an environment and pollution problem on our lakes and rivers and streams, that greater effort should be made in this dir ection.

It's been a goal for fishermen and those involved in the fishing indu stry for many decades, and certainly the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has add ressed itself to this problem, but it hasn't resolved the problem, and if that continues to be a problem and if solutions to the problem can be found that perhaps call for some greater flexibility on the part of tile Fish Marketing Board in enabling others to be inv olved in seeking that solution, then I am open to those kind of suggestions, but it should not be in any way interpreted as lack of support for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.

I have, you know, the privilege of representing not a large fish eries in my consti tuency, the Lake Man itoba Fisheri es is only a winter fisheries operation, but I need not be reminded of the general acceptance and appreciation on the part of the vast majority of Manitoba fishermen for the continued operation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.

Monday, 6 April, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rupertslc:nd. MR. BOSTROM: Yes wel l, Mr . Chairman, I'm somewhat relie ved by the Mi nister's comments, however, his actions would be more important than his comments and it's somet hing which the fishermen are definitely concerned about, as they've exp ressed previously in petitions to this Government and resolutions through the Advisory Committee to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and so on. They certainly feel threatened whenever someone like Mr.

Penner makes statements, which are really not factual, in attacking the Corporation and then it appears as though the Government is supporting these ir respo nsible statements, and proposing changes to the Corporation which may not be in the best interests of the fishermen.

The fishermen I think are con servative when it comes to their Fr eshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, if I may use that term, and they don't want to see changes made that will affect their incomes; therefore they want to try to maintain it as much the same as it is now in every possible respect, and they are very leery of proposals, which are supposed to be ope ning up the corporation and making it possible for sales of other species and allowing other people to get into the export and sale of freshwater fish products.

They are afraid that as soon as that kind of thing takes place, it will mean a wide open market again, and it will be throwing them back to the. situation which they had, which the Minister is fully aware of; the situation they faced before the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation came into effect. Just by way of commenting on the irresponsible statements that this man has made, he said the Corporation's Annual Report last year ind icated it still has to be subsidized. Well it certainly doesn't have to be subsidized.

I'm sure the Min ister is aware, if he looks at the Annual Report of the Freshwater Fish Ma rketing Corpora tion, it's making a fairly substantial profit and paying interest on the loans which it has from the Government. It did suffer an ini tial operating loss, which was covered by the participating provinces at the time, but it is no longer in a position where it has to be subsidized; it's making in the year 19 80 - $42 1 ,000 plus in profits, which they are returnin g to the fishermen. They're returning at the present time almost 65 percent of the final product price to the fishermen.

They' re enjoying at the present time deliv eries in pounds which are unprecedent over the hi story of the Fr eshwater Fish Ma rk eti ng Corpora tion, the best they 've experienced, and they're making some strides in being able to market the low quality fish. Some 10 million pounds of mullet were moved last year, which is at least encouraging that they are attempting to move that particular product. I think that it's unfortunate that people like this make irresponsible comments. Another thing he said was that the Corporation takes 10 0 percent markup on the fish it buys.

Well clearly the report ind icates that the Corporation takes much less, because they return almost 65 percent of every fish dollar to the fishermen. That is something that we were striving for when we were in government, as to return a greater proportion of the final selling price to the fishermen. I kn ow that when I was Mi nis ter of 2425 Resources, I think the fishermen were recei ving some thing around 50 percent and we were impressing on the Corporation at that time, that they better sharp en their pencils and get a la rger proportion of that final price back to the fishermen.

I think by the third year of that kind of pressure, they were getting into the 60s, 60 percent mark for their return to the fishermen, and I'm encouraged to see that they're now achieving the 65 percent level. However, I agree with the Mi nister in the respect that we should not sit back and say everything is fine, there certainly could be room for improvement, but it's something which should be done in close consultation with the fishermen and not with ind ividuals like Mr. Penner, who shoots from the hip without knowing the full facts of the matter.

The fishermen are fully aware of the problems that they're facing as far as the production end of the ind ustry is concerned, and they would like tp be involved in decisions related to marketing of their catch, and they would want to be inv olved in any decisions that are taken with respect to the way in which their fish is admin istered and marketed.

So I would hope that the Mini ster would support the fisherm en, and make it very clear in his statements that he is supporting the fishermen, and no t leave the impression that someho w the Government is going to be moving in a dir ection which is cont rary to the best in terests of the fishermen. That's really all that I had to say on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, unless the Mini ster had some comments on that. MR. CHAIR MAN: 1. (a)(2) - pass; 1. (a) - The Member for Rupertslan d. MR. BOSTROM: Well, Mr .

Chairman, I would propose to go through on a point-by-point basis, all the major issues that concern us with respect to the department, and in that way when we come to the individual items, we can just proceed through them expeditiously. I don't expect that there will be many other people from the Opposition asking questions on the department, but certainly I will advise them of the questions that I have asked so that we will not be repeating issues. MR. CHAIRMAN: I very much agree. MR. BOSTROM: I would like to get into next a discussion on the forest ind ustry, but I note it's almost 4:30.

I can begin that if you like, but I would prefer to go into it in more detail when we come back at 8:00 o'clock. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess it's close enough. The time being 4:30 p.m., Comm ittee rise for Private Members' Hour. Committee rise. SUPPLY - EDUC ATION MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats {Radisson): This Committee will come to order. I would dir ect the honourable members' attention to page 47 of the Main Estimates, Department of Education, Resolution No. 52, Cl ause 3, Fina nc.ial Support - Public

Monday, 6 April, 1981 Schools. Item (

a) School Gr ants and Other Assistance - pass - the Honourable Mini st,�r. HON. KEI TH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, were were a number of requests for inform 3tion on Friday and I have some of that inf ormation, some of it will be forthcoming as we move along and in the ensuing week s. The Mem ber for St. V 1tal had requested some budget information and so me of it was similar to the information we have prov1ded last year. I only have to remind the honourable member that last year he made the request in June, and at that time the final budgets were available.

At this point in time we do not have the final budgets of each school division and they will be coming in for the next few weeks and perhaps over the ne:<t month or month-and-a-half, so it may take some time before I'm able to provide him with the inf xmation he requested, however I will do so as soon as we have received those final budgets. The Member for Fort Rouge requestec certain information, first of all, in the area of Special Needs.

I believe she asked for the estimated number of childr en in the Special Needs area in 1981 and I can inform her at this time that the estimate is tt at in low incidence one, category one we estimate some 2,07 1 students; in the low incidenc e two cate go ·y, some 271 students; and in the high incidence area, we do not provide funding on the basi s of number of students, but on the basis of the number of teachers, resource teachers and so on, that are provided to give us the required services in that area. So as far as numbers are concerned in that area, I can't give them to her at this time.

We base it of cour:;e on the number of eligible units, and the eligible ur its being calculated by dividing the eligible enrolment by 325 adding one for any remainder. It's dil ficult to compare ihe previous program and the new one but under the old program the funding provide for some 502 persons. The Education and Support Program based on eligible units will provide for some 563, and of course it's quite possible that the number of teachers employed in this high incidence area may exceed the number found under the prograrn.

I believe the Member for Fort Rouge askl!d for the estimated number of students in the program by 19 84 and I have to tell her that any estimate here would be high specu lativ e. Of cou rs<� school enrolment is generally expected to decline in the next two years, and this is the first year for the expanded program, so I hesitate to give her any prediction at this time, that far in the futurE . It's safe to predict however, I suggest that due to enhanc ed services in this particular area, that there will be more childr en that do require it and will receive attention.

The Member for Fort Rouge had also asked for a breakdown on the amount of moneys that will be accruing to the Winnip eg School Division from the Education Support Program. I have that particular information no w and I belie ve she wanted a comparison between 19 80 and 19 81. In 10 80 in the area of Transportation, under that heading, some $280.000 and in 1981 un der the heading of Transportation. some $34 1 ,000, rounding ol 1 here.

In the area of Vocational, the business education gr ant in 19 80 amounted to $1 28, 000, HOCational indu strial $622,000 and in 19 81 the vocat ional industrial will amount to some $1 million. Tile Sp