Manitoba Hansard — 23 April 1981 (Sitting 64A, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-64a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 23 April, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKE R, Hon. Harry E. Graham (B irtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Read ing and Recei ving Petitions ... Pres enting Repor ts by Standing and Special Committees. MINIS TERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Mines. HON. DONALD W. CRA IK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I want to table with the House the Fina ncial Statements for Flyer Industries Limited for the year ending December 31s t, 19 80. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . .

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Winnipeg Centre. MR. J.R. (Bud) BOYCE on behalf of Mr. Sidney Green, introduced Bill No. 53,

An Act to amend The Elections Finances Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this particular time, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery, where we have some very distinguished visitors. We have the team that represented Canada, m the Men's Curling, the Skip, Kerry Burtnyk, his mother is here in his place; Third, Mark Olson; Second, Jim Spencer; and Lead, Ron Kammerlock. We also have the Juni or Men's Pepsi Cola Champions from the Assiniboia Memorial Club as well. Skip, Mert Thompsett; Third, Bill McTavish; Second, Joel Gagne; and Lead, Mike Friesen.

We also have the Juni or Ladies Cana dian Champions: Skip, Karen Fallis, from the Winnipeg Winter Club; Third, Karen Tresoor; Second, Caroline Hunter; and Lead, Lynn Fallis. We also have 18 students of Grade 8 and 9 stan ding from General Wolfe School under the dir ection of Mr. Wi nsky. This school is in the constituen cy of the Honourable Mem ber for Wellington. We have 80 students from the Fosston High School Choir from Minnesota, United States, under the direction of Miss Linda Coggan. On behalf of all the honourable mem bers, we welcome you all here this afternoon.

We also have the John Taylor High School Band, who played earlier on the steps, who are in the gallery today, and we also welcome you. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 2945 MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. Can the Minister advise whether he has yet taken the opportunity to read the letter which was referred to him some week ago by the Member for St. Vital for his perusal and advice to this Chamber? MR. CRA IK: Mr. Speaker, I have read it, or them, or whatever they are. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, then further by way of supplementary to the Minister. If the Minister has now read the letter, does the letter in some small way bring back to his memory some recollection of the discussion which the former Vice-Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro Board had with him pertai ning to the receipt of the Vice-Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro Board of legal opinion from the Chief Legal Counsel in which the Vice-Chairman has now advised that he indeed did discuss those matters with the Minister responsible for Hydro.

Does he now have some recollection of the original facts outlined to him some two years ago by the former Vice-Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro? MR. CRA IK: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question a number of times. I can answer it again for the Leader of the Opposition although I gather by some of the things he was saying in the Legislature yesterday, which I didn't have the opportunity to hear, that he certainly hasn't paid any attention to any of the answers that were given to him in the past, either in the Committee or in this House.

If the member wants me to, I can read the answers back to him that are contained on the record and perhaps he'll feel inclined to withdraw some of his comments such as "m islead ing remar ks" and the othe� references that he made in his statements in this House yesterday which I find, Mr. Speaker, exceedingly objectionable. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Mi nister has not seen fit to answer the question. Let me inform the Minister that from our side of the Chamber, we find MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point out to the honourable member that he can ask a question; he can expect an answer.

He cannot dictate what type of answer he receives. it is the prerogative of anyone answering a question to answer it, to refuse to answer it, or to provide whatever information he deems necessary. MR. PAWLEY: Further, by way of supplementary to the Minister, and certainly I am not disappointed in the non-response, because I didn't really expect an answer from the Minister in view of his past record, Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister advise whether or not he has received advice from Mani toba Hydr o pertaining to the referral by the Min ister of his comments from Hansard of some week ago in which he indicated endorsation for any move on the part of Manitoba Hydro to release Chief Legal Counsel from solicitor-client relationship?

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 MR. CRA IK: Mr. Speaker, I have had a reply today from Manitoba Hydro with regard to their enquiry to the law firm of Aikins, MacAulay, and once I have had a chance to finish reading it, which I have just received, I will attempt to make it available to the House as rapidly as possible. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question, and I require leave at this point dealing with the matters just raised, is now to the First Minister.

Can the First Minister, who was not present yesterday when a Matter of Privilege was raised in this House and had to be raised yesterday because of certain information coming to our attention, and under the rules, Mr. Speaker, having to be raised at the first available opportunity, has the First Minister undertaken, or if not. will the First Mi nister undertake to investigate the matters that were raised in this Cham ber yesterday, minutes of Hydro which earlier it had been den ied that those min utes even exis ted - (I nterjection) Yes. Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minis ter now undertake to investigate the answers and responses that members on this side of the Chamber have been receiving repeatedly, answers which have been demonstrated again and again to be misleading by the Minister responsible for Hydro as well as the officials of Manitoba Hydro? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERL ING R. l VON (Char leswood): Mr.

Speaker, the short answer to my honourable friend's declamation as he gets himself all flustered like a wet chicken, is to ... you know, my honourable friend by putting on a visage of seriousness thinks that somehow or other that adds credibility to his case. I wish he would get over his posturing and start reading some of the evidence in the alleged case that he has; the alleged case that he has, Mr. Speaker. I have looked at Hansard. I have seen that the Member for St. Vital asked if there was a legal opinion. I have seen the answer from Hydro which was that there was no legal opinion.

I looked at the minute that my honourable friend made so much of yesterday. lt said nothing about a legal opinion. So there is no question of anybody misleading anyone except the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a further question. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, by way of further supplementary, and talk about acting like a wet hen, that was pretty evident on the part of the First Mi nister; is the First.

Minister then joining forces with the Minister of Hydro in denying that Chief Legal Counsel for Manitoba Hydro presented to the Board of Manitoba Hydro a letter containing a legal opinion and recommendations? By way of the First Minister's response, is the First Mi nister now joining forces with the Minister responsible for Hydro to make such a denial? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. L VON: Mr. Speaker, the evidence on the record is quite clear.

I think the media and the members of this House who use reason as a test are beginning to find that it's quite clear; it seems to be only my honourable friend who has some preoccupation with trying to trump up an issue who isn't clear on the topic at all, and before he raises another, if I may say so, trumped-up issue of personal privilege, may I say to my honourable friend that he's not going to get anywhere with this continual playing with the rules of the House in order to enable him to go on some kind of a wild socialist fishing expedition. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, then further to the First Minister.

Since the First Mi nister again has repeated the charges that he had earlier withdrawn this past Monday, that members on this side including myself have engaged in trumped-up charges, trumping up of charges, is the First Mi nister now prepared, under those circumstances, to permit our alleged conduct to be referred to a Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we can indeed ascertain whether or not the charges that we have levelled in this House are indeed trumped up or are they truthful? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I can gu arante e my honourable friend that his alleged conduct, not only with respect to this issue but with respect to his leadership of his party and his own ideology, is going to face the biggest jury of all, the electorate of Manitoba, within a year or so and he will have an opportunity then. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the First Minister's reference to an election call.

If the First Mi nistar is indicating, and I would like his response to this, if the First Minister is indicating that rather than referral of this matter to a Committee of the Legislature in order to obtain the truth, that he is prepared to refer this matter to Manitobans in an election call, then indeed we would like the First Min ister to provide his res ponse to that, Mr. Speaker. If so, we will gladly forego any further effort to refer this matter to Committee. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I find the honourable member did not ask a question and I would have to rule him out of order on that.

The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURV: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture and refers to the Hog Producers Income Assurance Plan. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker.

Referring to the Hog Producers Income Assurance Plan, I have been asked to enquire from the Mi nister, considering the fact that $5 million is going into the program, regardless of the fact that the statement that was provided to the Legislature states that the Management Committee of the Fund will take care of details, it is assumed that there will, however, be some ini tial guideli nes for the Ma nagement Committee to work from. Will the Mi nister be kind enough to table these guidelines for the information of the Legislature? 2946

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEV (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I don't anticipate any major guidelines will have to be drawn up. If the member reads the report or the message to the Legislature, it was up to $5 million. I think we have to state to the public of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, that the true place that producers should be paid for their product is through the marketplace and it would be hoped that very little of the actual moneys made available would have to be used. On the detail, Mr.

Speaker, the majority of it will be worked out by the committee and I'm sure that the hog producers themselves know the amounts that have been made available to them and it would be hoped that th ey would work out to the best advantage within those guidelines. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question by the Mem ber for Ste. Rose a short while ago, to do with the crop insurance pay outs.

There is approximately some $55 million to be paid out to the people who are participating in crop insurance this last year and I've been informed that all the adjustments and pay-outs I believe have been made to this particular time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question on my first question to the Honourable Minister. The Mi nister has stated in his information sheet that the government will take care of any deficit up to $5 million. Assuming that for once the government might administer a program correctly, Mr.

Speaker, what will happen to any possible surplus? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agricultu re. MR. DOWNE Y: Mr. Sp eaker, I would have to recheck the statement that was made as far as picking up any deficit to $5 million. I said the commitment was up to a maximum of $5 million to put into a producers' income insurance program.

I should repeat that the objective of the government is not to direct the farm community but to have the farm community proceed and do the job of producing foods and products for the consumers of this country without an over amount of government interference such as we saw under the last administration in this province, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge with a final supplementary. MS. WESTBURY: Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to say that I'd be glad to supply the Mi nister with a copy of his statement if he hasn't read it, and in view of the fact that he doesn't know what is in the statement with reference to a possible deficit situation in the fund, would the Min ister now consider establishing guidelines so that the Management Committee will know from where they should be starting? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, our first responsibility and our first job will be to establish the committee so that we can meet to get on with the work of working out more specified details, that the member is referring to. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr . Speaker, a few days ago the Member for Brandon East asked a question in my absence as it related to the number of civil servants at the end of 19 79 versus 19 80.

The member didn't give his specific source of information but I'd like to refer him if I could, seeing as he's asking for general information, to the Civil Service Commission booklet, that report that I tabled, which in itself outlines the increases or if he wishes to refer to pages in Hansard, 1479 and 14 80, this particular item was discussed quite thoroughly through my Estimates and the precise answers are detailed on those pages.

In general terms, if it was generally a request as to why there was an in crease, there were 80-some-odd, and I don't have the numb ers, but 80-some-odd involved with the Agriculture Department as it related to their Hay Program last year and there was a surge of increased emplo yment at two of the mental institutes in Manitoba during that particular period of time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Brandon East. MR. LE ONARD S. EVANS: I thank the Honourable Minister for that information and indicate by way of question, I guess, the source of my information, because he asked me for that.

I would ask him if his staff would care to check those figures that he has from the Civil Service Commission with data being reported by this same government to Statistics Canada, namely the Public Finance Division, and in which they report in Catalogue No. 72-007 that indeed there was an increase of over 15 0 civil servants as of Dece mb er, 19 80, compa red with December, 19 79. So could the Mi nister ask his staff to reconcile perhaps, the data he has from the Civil Service Comm ission with that particular source of information from Statistics Canada? MR. MacMASTER: Yes, I can, Mr . Speaker.

I think we will find th at the num ber s are maybe not identical, but they are close. When I said that there were 80 within the Department of Agriculture and there were two me ntal institutions th at had a substantial influx in help, I think Brandon and Selkirk were the two institutions, so I think we'll end up with generally the same figures. MR. EVANS: I wonder if I could ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Speaker. it relates to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There was another member that had risen to ask a question. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR.

SAUL CHE RNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address a question to the Deputy Premier reporting for Hydro. Now that he has been able to tear himself away from his addiction to the 2947

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 Gong Show and read the letter which had been sent over to him, is he prepared to confirm that the document which he has now read is substantially in conformance with the letter which was discussed with him by Mr . Wedepoh l, which he felt was inappropriate to be sent on? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. MR. CRA IK: I can't confirm that, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHE RNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable Minister would clarify whether he can't confirm it because he can't remember what was originally discussed with him or whether the contents have no resemblance and therefore do not appear to him to have been the same letter. MR. CRA IK: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question on day one or day two of the committee hearings and I have answered it in the House. The record is complete. I said that what had been presented to me at that time by the Acting Chairman of Manitoba Hydro were the grievances that had been given to him by the Legal Counsel and that my

interpretation, the recollection of it, was that the Legal Counsel, by the information that was given to me by th e Chairman of that time, that he was in a disturbed state of mind about the matters and affairs that he was dealing with, on behalf of Hydro, with the Commission. That is what, Mr. Speaker, I said on day one, day two, day three, day four, and I still say it. If the members opposite find that misleading then they are searching pretty deep. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns with a final supplementary. MR. CHE RNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, may I ask the Honourable Minister that since long after Day One, apparently quite recently, he read this seven-page draft copy of a letter, not earlier than that, whether or not he can confirm that the contents of the letter are very very simi lar to the letter which was discussed with him by Mr. Wedepohl, which he agreed would be inappropriate to send, and I am quoting the words of the minutes of Hydro in relation to a specific letter which was discussed with the Honourable Minister; I want to know whether he will confirm that the contents appear to be of the same nature? In saying so, Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Minister. does he really want to leave the impression that Mr. Steward Martin had a "disturbed state of mind?" Those are the words he used. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRA IK: Mr. Speaker, I said before, when I first answered this question, my recollection of it was, as I was told at th at time, th at I used the word "disturbed ," disturbed about his relationship with the Commission. (Int erjection)- Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Johns has defined a disturbed state of mind as being "a little bit nuts." Mr.

Speaker, those were his words; those were his words. I did not mean that by using the word "d istur bed" the Counsel was disturbed -(I nterjection)- Well, you know, he can put his own

interpretation on it; I'll put my own

interpretation on it. I don't need him to put words in my mouth, Mr. Speaker. I have to suggest that he's about as good a Gong Show as we have got around this place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. lt relates to whether or not compen sation will be received from the Federal Government in payment to farm ers of Western Canada because of the announced embargo on grains by the United States going to Rus sia. Mr . Speaker, in view of the comments made by a Mr.

Weber at a Canada Grains Council meeting a week or so ago in Winnipeg where the question was asked what they were going to do in the United States, the response was, Mr. Weber said that they were going to be compensated in the United States.

I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could inform the members of this House whether he has received information from the Federal Government as to what they are going to do in regard to compensating the farmers of Western Canada for the millions of dollars that they have lost because of the embargo placed on farmers because of food being used as a weapon to protect the western world against Russia. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: First, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it's very difficult to hear my honourable colleague over all the noise from across the way.

The members opposite are carrying on their usual concern for the farm community of Western Canada. Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware of the fact that last July when we met at our an nual meeting of Mi nisters of Agriculture, there was a commitment from the Federal Government to, after researching and reviewing the amount of money that was consi dered lost by the farmers, that they would report and make the farm community aware of what they were planning to pay to the farmers because of the losses incurred because of the embargo placed on the grain shipments to Russia.

To this point, we have not heard what that commitment is or when they may pay it out, Mr. Speaker. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, pose a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture and I narrow this matter down to the farmers of Manitoba and I would ask the Minister if he would use his good offices in way of giving us information whether or not he could use his good office to request the Minister in Ottawa responsible for this matter to see whether something can't be done to alleviate this serious problem? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the member has an excellent suggestion and I will communicate to the Federal Government the concerns of the membe rs of our party to do with the shortfall that they may have incurred because of the embargo. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Rupertsland. 2948

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Mini ster who would be res ponsi ble for signing the Federa l-Provincial Northlands Agreement, and I would ask him if the Federal-Provincial Northlands Agreement has been signed for the fiscal year 1981-82, and are projects under this program now receiving funding? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Northern Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): At the present time they're not, Mr. Speaker. MR. BOSTROM: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that that was negative to both questions that I asked. I would ask therefore then, Mr.

Speaker, why the Provincial Govern ment through the Labour Mini ster has announced provision of a Federal-Provincial grant of $65,000 to help finance local support services in Thompson? it's referred in the News Service release that this is for the current fiscal year and that the grant is provided through the Federal-Provincial Northlands Agreement which is cost-shared on a 60- 40 basis. MR. GOURLAY: Mr . Speaker, some of the items in the previous Northlands Agreement were extended.

There were a numb er of specific projects, the Norway House bridge and other items as well and perhaps, I can't say specifically if it covers the items that you mentioned but there were a numb er of items that were extended under the previous Northlands Agreement. MR. BOSTROM: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the communities are reporting that they're being informed by the Provincial Government that their projects are being held back because of the Northlands Agreement not being signed, can the Minister give the communities any assurance as to when that agreement will be signed and when the projects that are budgeted under that agreement will be able to be funded? MR. GOURLAY: Wel l, Mr.

Sp eaker, as I had answered que stions previously on this same question, that it takes two people to complete this Agreement and the Pr ovince of Manitoba has indicated their willingness to sign this Agreement, and at the present time it's in the hands of the federal people to compl ete the Agreement with respect to second signature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr .

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General and ask him whether he is considering raising the drinking age in Mani toba to 19 ; a measure which was rejected by all parties in this Legislature a couple of years ago as proposed by the Honourable Member for Emerson, and along with that, is the government also giving consideration to raising the voting age to 19 to be consistent? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr . Speaker, the report of the Mi nisterial Advisory Committee on the Liquor Control Commission Act and Regulations is at the pri nters.

When it is completed printing, Mr. Speaker, it will be made available. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Mi nister, since someone on the government side has already leaked the report to the media, will the Minister now release the Mitchener Commission Report to the Manitoba Legislature where it could have been or should have been weeks or months ago? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the radio station that the Memb er for Elm wood is referring to got their information.

I regret that if that information is accurate that it was released without being firs t made avail able to members of this Legislature. Mr . Speaker, as I've indicated, it is at the printers. My intention is to make it available to members of the Legislature as soon as printing is completed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr. Sp eaker, I would ask the Attorney-General whether it's within the report or not, whether the Attorney-General is interested in the establishment of private wine stores in Manitoba and/or the sale of beer through corner grocery stores?

Would he be inclined to support such a proposal? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that was one of many issues that were under consideration by the Review Committee. The report will be making rec omme ndations. I point out, Mr . Speaker, no matter what recommendations they make, they are not binding on the government, certainly not on this Legislature, they will be considered and in due course the government will proceed with the changes that we decide as a government and consideration of the public interest should be made. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, my question is directed to the Mi nister of Municipal Affairs who will be signing the Western Northlands Agreement. Can the Mi nister assure the members of this House and especially the people of Northern Manitoba that neither the province nor the Federal Government intend to divert funds away from the north which were supposed to go into the Northlands Agreement in order to free up some types of funds so that both the province and the Federal Government can provide the necessary moneys to get the Core Initiatives Program under way? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Northern Affairs. MR.

GOURLAY: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. MR. PARASIUK: My supp lementar y is to the Minister of Urban Affairs. Can he then explain why it is that the Core Initiatives Agreement and projects which were supposed to be announced recently have 2949

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 in fact been delayed? Is this because the Federal Government has a cash shortfall in this present fiscal year with respect to funding Core Initiatives Program, and is at present trying to get the Treasury Board in Ottawa to divert funds away from the Northlands Agreement to meet their commitment in the core area? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I can only indicate in response to that question that the Federal Mi nister of Immig ration from Manitoba, Mr.

Axworthy, has indicated that there are certain steps he has to take within the Federal Gover nment th at will take approximately a month to complete. But I want to assure, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Transcona and other membe rs that at my meeting last week with the Ma yor and with Mr. Axwort hy, in response to concerns exp ressed by the Mini ster of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Finance, I brought again to the attention of the representatives of DREE and the Federal Minister the concern that we have as a government that the No rthlands Agr eement be approved, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Minister of the Finance and the Minister of Northern Affairs have expressed that same concern, and I brought that same concern to them last week. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Transcona with a final supplementary. MR. PARASIUK: My supplementary then is to the Minister of Finance who is responsible for interacting with the Federal Government with respect to overall Manitoba DREE negotiations.

Can he gi ve the members of the House and the people of Northern Manitoba the assurance that they will not allow the Federal Government to divert funds from the proposed Northlands Agreement in order for the Federal Government to free up sufficient funds to meet their supposed obligations under the proposed Core Initiatives Program, that instead if the Federal Government is going to make announcements with respect to the Core Initiatives Program that will be the product of new money injected into Manitoba by the Federal Government? MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, to the extent that the provinc e has any control over the Federal Government, yes. We have voted money in our estima tes to deal with the Northern Development Agreement in an expanded fashion and to deal with the Core Area Initiatives, and we want to see both those agreements signed as soon as possible and to be made retroactive to the 1s t of April in order that we may bene fit from cost-sharing in th ose agreements now under discussion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: My question is to the Minister reporting for Manitoba Hydro.

I would like to ask the Min ister whether the Board of Manitoba Hydro has struck its operating budget for the 1981- 82 year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Mines and Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, no, I don't know whether they have or not. I can take the question as notice if he likes. MR. WALDING: As a supplmentary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would also take as notice as to whether that budget shows a surplus or deficit for the year, and if so, for how much? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address a question to the Minister of Economic Development about a matter which he took as notice two or th ree weeks ago, and ask the Min ister whether he can now repor t on whether Edson Manufacturers of Rivers will go out of business in May, namely next month, putting 70 employees out of work. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I cannot report that definitely today. I hope to have the answer for the member fairly soon. MR. EVANS: By way of sup plemen tary, Mr.

Speaker, can the Mini ster indicate whether it is possible for his department to do anything to help this particular firm? Is it now actively working with the firm to assist it in any which way in merchandising or whatever way? MR. JO HNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the firm the member refers to has probably one of the best merchandising and sales organizations in North America as far as the produc t th at they are manuf acturing is concerned. We have been working with them to see if we can be of any help to them whatsoever, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to buy the business. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: A supp lemen tary question, Mr. Speaker, regarding the condition of the recreational vehicle manufacturing industry in Manitoba. Can the Minister comment on what is the general state, what is the general health of that recreational vehicle industry? The last thing I would suggest to the Honourable Minister is that the government buy any of those industries. MR. JO HNSTON: Well, it's refreshing to hear that state ment , Mr . Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the recreational vehicle business is not in good shape generally in Canada and it's not in that good a shape in the Province of Manitoba, but there are other manufacturing industries that are doing much better, Mr . Sp eaker. We had the hig hest increase in manufacturing, February over January, than any province in the country. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs and 2950

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 follows on ques tionin g by the Me mber for Rupertsland and the Member for Transcona earlier on in the question period. The Mi nister on several occasions has indicated that the province has sent the No rthlands Agreement to the Federal Government. I would ask the Min ister if he can indicate now how long that agreement has been in the possession of the Federal Government, and to what does he attribute the delay in signing that particular agreement on the part of the Federal Government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Speaker, the package has been in the hands of the Federal people for several days, perhaps weeks. I have no way of knowing how long they may take to complete this. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, as it's been some time since the Minister has indicated previously in this House that the package was in the hands of the Federal Government, I would ask him if during that period of time, the period of time between when he first indicated, which was several weeks ago and now, has he had any consultations or contact with the Federal Government in respect to their acceptance or their non-acceptance of that particular package that was put forward on the part of the province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I can provide some information for the honourable member. it came to our attention approximately the beginning of March that there might be some delay in getting the agreement signed. In terms of the content of the agreements we knew what aspects we wanted within those agreements. There were one or two items that were still open to discussion, but there was, I think, general agreement as to what would be included.

Because of the concern that had been expressed that they might be delayed, I then contacted the Federal Mi nister with a telex and asked for his assurance that the agreements would be concluded as soon as possible and that they would be made retroactive to the 1st of April. Some three weeks later, I sent a further telex to the Federal Minister because I had not received an answer to the first, pointing out the urgenc y of conclu ding these agreements and again suggesting that they be made or asking that they be made retroactive to April 1s t. I have not as yet received a response from the Federal Minister.

I intend to be trying to contact him by phone either today or tomorrow to try and find out what the delay is. We want to get on with these agreements, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: We certainly want the government to get on with these agreements and encourage them to get on with those agreements but the answer from the Mi nister has raised a number of other questions. He indicated that they have sent two telexes and did 2951 not provide information as to when the second telex was sent.

I wonder if he could provide that information as to how long ago that was sent and as well, if he could provide some insight as to why there was a delay as he indicated that he was informed quite some time ago, around the first of March, that there would be a delay. At that time did he ask the Federal Government why they expected that delay to take place, and if so, can he indicate what the response was to him at that time or in any further conversations which have taken place since that time? MR. RANSOM: Mr. Sp eaker, perhaps the honourable member didn't hear the answer that I gave.

I told the House that the first telex was sent close to the beginning of March, perhaps the end of the first week, and that the second telex was sent approximately three weeks later. We were at that time urging the Federal Government to sign the agreements as soon as possible and in any case to make them retroactive to the first of April because were we to be given that assurance then we would be able to proceed with some of the new programs that would be included within the agreements.

In the absence of assurance from the Federal Government that they will sign the agreements at a specified funding level and that they will be made retroactive to April 1s t, then we are unable to proceed with the new programs that might be included in the agreement and are only able to proceed with tho se that would be conside red continuing programs.

I'm afraid I cannot answer to the honourable member why the Federal Government has not proceeded, because we had been lead to believe that money was available and that the agreements could be signed at an early date, and in fact that the Federal Government wanted to conclude two or three agreements at the same time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired, we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DA V ADJOURNED DEBATE - BUDGET MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mi nister of Finance, the amendment and sub-amendment thereto - the Honourable Member for Point Douglas. MR. DONALD MALINOWS KI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I may assure you that I won't debate the Hydro matter today, maybe some other time, so I would like to come right to the debate on Budget speech. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Honourable Finance Mi nister present his first Budget and I have also read his Budget Speech in its published form, which actually looks very nice, but the only thing is there's nothing in it. Mr.

Speaker, in its published form the Mi nister's Budget Speech makes a big book, but it reads more like an election pamphlet than a Budget Speech. On almost every page the Finance Minister had occasion to contribute and to criticize the policies of the NDP . Nothing else, he's just criticizing, but, Mr. Speaker, he didn't find any solution.

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. MR. MALINO WSKI: Mr. Speaker, throughout his Speech ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We can only allow one speaker in this Chamber at a time and at the present time, that spe aker is the Honourable Mem ber for Point Douglas. MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you very much. Thank you. As I said, Mr. Speaker, throughout his speech he kept insinuating that the policies of the former NDP Government and accuses the Conservative - no, rather that causes, he's accusing us, but causes the Conservative Government difficulties. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, after almost three-and-one half years in office, the Conservatives should dare to stand on their own record and on their own performance, but they don't know how. That's why they are criticizing former governments. Of course, the Finance Minister in his speech did not make clear that he is proud of the government's performance. Two words appeared often in the Minister's speech: "Prudent" and "proud". He kept on repeating that the government's policies have been very "prudent" and that as a result the people of Manitoba have reason to be proud of their province. Mr.

Speaker, the people who have lived in this province have had many reasons to be proud of this province, even before there existed Conservative or NDP Parties in this country. This has always been a beautiful province, Mr. Speaker, and rich in natural resources. it has always had a great potential for a good life for all its people, but opinion is far from unanimous that the people can be proud of the record of the Conservative Government. Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Honour able Minister of Finance, being taller than his Leader, that he can see more farther than his Leader, but, Mr.

Speaker, I was making a mistake and I do apologize for it. In his opening statement, Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister said, and I'm going to quote his own words: "The pruden t policies and management of this government have combined to ensur e that our standard of living is not threatened and that our quality of life remains among the highest available anywhere in the world." Mr. Speaker, he must be dreaming and I would like to suggest to him, let him wake up and come back on the earth. Come down my friend. That statement sounds good, Mr.

Speaker, but we all know th at great diffe rences exis t in the living standards of people in this province. The people in the core area of Winnipeg do not come anywhere near having the same standard of living as those living in Tuxedo or in River Heights. We know that many are shut out from this high standard of living through unemployment or lack of proper training opportunities and other factors. Unemployment is surely one of the most serious problems in this country and in this province. it is a fact th at unem ployment has incr eased in this province under the present admin istra tion.

The unemployment figure would, in fact, be even greater if a larger number of unemployed hadn't left the province in search of jobs in other areas and in other provinces. lt is in my view one of the most serious omissions in the Budget that there is hardly any mention of this problem, nor anything to impr ove unem ployment opportunities. In case the First Minister has forgotten his main election promise, I want to remind him again.

He had a vision that under a Conservative Government, all the young people would be fully employed, but we know, of course, that after four years, or not exactly four but three and one-half years of Tory rule there are more unemployed than before, both young and old. Of course, in his Budget Speech, the Mem ber for Killarney said that there are opportunities here for those who will reach out for them. Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of young people looking and reaching out and not finding these opportunities the Mi nister speaks of. Mr.

Speaker, Canada has the hig hest unemployment rate among the western countries. For the past 20 years, the jobless figure has remained around the million mark. Because the problem has been with us for so long, many Conservatives would just like to forget about it. But many of those affected by it will not let us forget about it. Recently in the news was the case of a northern community with 90 percent unemployment. Imagine, 90 percent. In many areas, 50 percent of the young people are unemployed.

Judges, law enforcement officers, social workers and others concerned are agreed that prolonged periods of unemployment cause frustration and bitterness. You have young people hangin g around in communities without a proper outlet for their youthful energies. No chance for them to get jobs to earn money. In many cases, the parents can't afford to give them the kind of money young people need in th ese times. So what alternativ e is there, Mr . Speaker? In their frustration and bitterness against society, many of these young people resort to crime.

Vandalism in all forms has sharply increased, so have crimes of violence. For instance, in Miami and other cities in the United States, the crime rate is so high that many people are afraid to go out after dark and the situation is getting pretty bad right here in Winnipeg. We are coming closer to that way. Mr. Speaker, in his Budget Speech, the Finance Minister repeats the very silly statement so often made about those who hold the view of my party. I don't know why, but his inclination is just to come and criticize our party, not for the administration, but he is looking for something else.

Naturally if you want to look, you will find. Mr. Speaker, he said the Socialists on this side seemed to think that the Government in Manitoba knew better what is best for the people than people themselves. That is his belief. He said, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP "increasingly interfered with the efforts of Manitobans to live their own lives, make their own ways, raise their own families." -(I nterjection)- All right, I will give you some more. Just wait; be patient. I had too much respect for the Honourable Finance Mi nister to believe he would ever utter such complete nonsense.

I don't know how it happened, but he is repeating . 2952

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 lt is surely the responsibility of governments at all levels to create the kind of conditions in which people can lead their own lives. Leading their own lives without the opportunity to get jobs is not easy, Mr. Speaker; nor is it easy to raise families under those circumstances. Would the government be interfering in the lives of the people if it cr eated conditions of full emplo yment? Did the estab lish ment of old age pensions interfere with the lives of our senior citizens?

Would it have been better to leave the elderly struggle in this dog-eat-dog society without any help or protection? Is Medicare such a serious interference in the li ves of th e sick? Should governments have remained unconcerned whether or not all the sick are able to get medical care? This is the question, this is the interference? I would be interested to know just what the Mi nister had in mind when he made this very silly stat ement about interference. What about Autopac, Mr. Speaker? it is one of the few things the Finance Mini ster com mented on favorably, only one point.

He considered that as one among the things introduc ed by the NDP Government that is working out wel l. But, Mr . Speaker, in establishing government car insurance, we did interfere with the business of the private insurance companies. But as a result, Manitoba motorists are getting cheaper insurance. I am glad that the Finance Minister agrees with this, at least, but it contradicts his silly statement about the NDP wanting to interfere with the lives of the people. Mr.

Spe aker, I am sure if this, or any other government succeeded in bringing the cost of food down, the majority of the people would be happy about it, like anything else. They wouldn't mind this kind of interference in their lives at all; they would be glad. But if this interfered with the profits of the food chains, they would certainly resent such interference. To serve the best int erests of the majorit y, governments, even Conservative governments, must often interfere with the affairs of a mi nority.

Policemen on their beats are always interfering in the lives of the minority of the criminal element; they have to. Is the Finance Minister opposed to that kind of interference in the lives of those people? I now come to what I consider the main point in the Budget Speech. Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, and many times since, the First Mi nister and others on that side have promised all sorts of economic miracles by leaving all economic development to private enterprise. That was the main thing for them, the main goal, the main aim. We'll do a miracle, just vote for us.

Over and over the First Mini ster repeated in the election campaign that he would get the government out of business and give private enterprise a free hand. They did, of course they did. This he said would give us full employment and prosperity in short order. We know of course, it didn't happen and, Mr. Speaker, it won't happen, as a fact. We know from history and history repeats itself. But despite this failure the Finance Mi nister in his Bu dge t Addr ess repeats the state ment about encouraging the private sector.

He still bel ieves private initiative should have the key role in keeping the economy going up; he still believes. He sees the results are opposite, but still he believes. Mr. Speaker, the phrase "Enc ouraging Private Enterprise" has long been a Conservative panacea for all economic ills. But what have been the results? How effective has such encouragement been during the last three-and-one-half years of this government? We'll find out. You have encouraged quite a few big enterprises to go out of business. This is the first step. You have encouraged some to move out of the province. This is the second step.

You have encouraged many private businesses to go bankrupt. The bankruptcy rate has sharply increased, Mr. Speaker, recently; not only in Winnipeg but in the other small cities outside of Winnipeg. Private enterprise has also been encouraged to overbuild. Mr . Speaker, I believe I heard the First Mi nister say on several occasions, although he didn't say it too loud, th at th ere is a role for the government to play in the economy. Very quietly he said that, he mentioned it, but not so loud, when he was speaking about free enterprise.

The difference between our parties is the kind of role and the extent of such a role. Mr. Speaker, we on this side get pretty tired of hearing the same old anti-socialist charges thrown at us at every occasion. Probably they don't have anyhing else to say; nothing else to offer to the people of Manitoba, but they are just starting to criticize. You know why this is such a bad economy? Because we have a bunch of socialists here. This is the only excuse for them. They are not saying about their own favour; no way. Mr. Speaker, I want you to accept once and for all that we are not opposed to private enterprise.

We never were, we aren't now, and we will never be. As a Social Democratic Party we are committed to a mi xed economy. Th ere is a place for priv ate enterprise; no doubt in my mind - it is. There is a place for cooperative enterprises and there is also an importance place for public enterprise, Mr . Speaker. Some public enterpr ises have in fact been established by Conservative governments, so what's all the shouting about? For instance if I will take, Mr.

Speaker, Hydro, if I will take the telephone company, the Mani toba Telep hone System; they were established by the Conservatives. (lnterjection) That's right, many of them, but right now they are shouting. I believe the main differences between our two sides is the extent to which governments mu st interfere in the economy if the many problems we face are to be solved.

I think we must face the fact that private enterprise, left to its own devices, will never end unem ployment or create a healthier economic and social climate; never. 1t didn't before for hundreds of years and I doubt it very much - not doubt it, I am more than sure it won't. The Finance Mi nister in his Budget Address said, it takes a long time before the beneficial effects of Conversative policies are felt, if ever it happens. What's the dreamer?

But the Conservatives have been in power in this province, not only for the past three-and-one-half years, or four years, they have been in power off and on ever since this province existed, and private enterprise has been with us for the same length of time, and Mr . Speaker, what's the result? Waiting - just wait for miracles again. lt won't happen, it will - (I nterjection)- just be patient, be patient. 2953

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 There has been plenty of time to test the policies of the Cons ervative Party and the record of private enterprise. Repeated depressions of the past and the present conditions should convince us that leaving it to the private enterprise is not the answer. We have to mix. We have to put the public into it also. Public enterprise, we should put it, then we can build a good healthy and wealthy society. A MEMBER: That's what Alberta is doing. MR. MALINO WSKI: Well, Al berta is different for them; they have their own policy. Mr.

Speaker, in a review of the western world, we find those countries where the government plays the most dominant role in the economy, there exists the greatest economic stability. In those countries there is the lowest unemployment and the highest living standards. The Scandinavian countries and West Germany could be mentioned as examples. Social Democrats, Socialists, but look at that; they are doing a good job.

We don't find perfection there but they have certainly succeeded in establishing more favourable economic and social conditions than those prevailing on this continent. 1 sincerely hope that members opposite will take note of this. Maybe they will learn something - (I nterjection)- it's too dangerous for them probably. My colleague from Ste. Rose said it's too dangerous for them to take anything from us. I also hope, Mr. Speaker. the First Minister will desist from pointing his finger at our side and telling us to go to hell. Mr. Speaker, we don't have to go to hell, he's creating hell right here.

Since he just took the office here in 19 77, Mr. Speaker, he started to create the hell that - they are laughing, let them laugh again, let them laugh - but, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier with his Minis ters, with his Cabinet, he creates such a hell, as a result that over, I believe, 40,000 young well-educated people left the province, because they are scared of their paradise, which they think is a paradise, but this is hell, and now, Mr. Speaker, he wants to send us to hell. We don't have to. Oh, wait a minute. We would like to prevent people going to hell. We don't need your assistance, and esp ecially, Mr.

Speaker, in my profession I like to do whatever I can to prevent people from going to hell. Mr. Speaker, I beli eve that this Budge t was presented at least 13 days too late. If the Honourable Mini ster of Fina nce would have . presented this Budget on the first day of April, then the people of Manitoba would call instead of April Fool, Budget Fool, and it is. Mr.

Speaker, my party's position was clearly demonstrated by my Leader in his reply speech to the Budget, in that the government has ignored the serious problems faced by the small businesses, farmers, northerners, working men and women, and all other Mani tobans strug gling in an stag nant economy with the high prices and high interest rates, offering instead a dismal apology for inaction, and, Mr. Speaker, the government has broken faith with Manitobans by projecting the largest ever Manitoba deficit and by rejecting the government's own pledge to reduce public debts. Mr.

Speaker, therefore I find it very difficult to support that kind of a Budget which doesn't bring anything to my people of Point Douglas or people from Manitoba. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): The Honourable Minister responsible for Hydro. MR. CRAIK: Not quite, Mr. Chairman, but close. Mr.

Speaker, let me first of all offer my well wishes to the Minis ter of Finance and congratulate him on the presentation of a Budget that has been well di rected towards the current requirements of the province, a Bu dget th at is a very comp lete and thorough document that has addressed the many areas that require attention in the province, particularly during a period of time where there has been concern coming out of 19 80 with the affects of drought and other problems and a requirement in Canada generally to address the question of economic matters and the problems that really follow the whole western world and particu larly perhaps the No rth Amer ican continent at the present time with regards to an economy that is not providing the sort of real return that we have historically expected from it.

Mr. Speaker, the size of the deficit is one that has to cause concern if it were carried on on a continual basis. The position of the government has always been th at a balanc ed budg et was cer tainly a desirable goal and one that should be pursued as cons istently as possi ble, but we have always recognized the fact that deficits of varying sizes are going to be required from time to time.

I believe this is perhaps the first time that the size of the deficit in the last four Budgets has exceeded the size of the capital commitment of the province, and has in fact brough t about some deficit with regards to the trad itional so-called curr ent acco unt side or operating side of financing. Mr. Speaker, with those comments, again, I know that the financial affairs of the province are in good hands and I congratulate the Minister of Finance on a very fine Budget. Mr.

Speaker, I know that time is a little limited, and I almost apologize for taking any more time of this House in dealing with what I consider to be a relatively unimportant matter in the affairs of the province, but one nevertheless that has brought about a high degree of personal attack by the members of the Opposition against my own personal activities or association with what they deem to be an affair that they feel that they can bring to, I suppose, public attention and try and make some cheap political marks in so doing . I want to go back over this, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't here yesterday but I did read some of the

whereas comments contained in a motion. When I say I was exceedingly concerned about the tack that was being taken by the Opposition, I think perhaps I can indicate why. One of them said that "WHERE AS there is evidence now in the hands of Mem bers of the Legislative Ass embly which shows that the Deputy Premier knew about and expressed his views about the letter prepared by Special Counsel for Manitoba Hydro expressing concerns about the Tritschler Commission, and

WHEREAS the Chairman of Hydro, General Manager, and Deputy Premier stated before a Committee of the House that the minut es of the Ma nitoba Hydro Board did not indicate any evidence that the Special Counsel had communicated his opinion regarding the Tritschler Commission, and WHERE AS the Deputy Premier has 2954

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 stated that the had no knowledge of a letter prepared by the Special Counsel and that he did not interfere in Manitoba Hydro's legal affairs, and WHERE AS there is need for evidence from the former Special Counsel to Ma nitoba Hydro, Mr . Steward Martin, and from the former members of the Manitoba Hydro Board to explain the misleading statements made by the Deputy Premi er." Misleading statements made by the Deputy Premier, Mr. Speaker . You know, if there is a Matter of Privilege in this House, I think I ought to be entitled to one. Mr.

Speaker, let's go back over the history of this thing beginning in the Committee, and we start out early on in the Committee, page 102, we see the questions that are coming forth from the Member for St.

Vital where he says, "I would like to ask whether Hydro received a legal opinion from any of those gentlemen giving a legal opinion that the Tritschler Commission was exceeding its Terms of Reference?" and it goes on and again the same person repeats, "Can I then further ask that if in the event that there was a legal opinion to that effect, would that be made available to the committee?" it goes on again and says, "But what I am asking of Mr . Kristjanson is, would he produce that paper, that legal opinion, if it does in fact exist?" Mr .

K ristjanson then goes on and says, "As Chairman, I would be happy to take this question under advisement and see whether this internal document does in fact exist and consider it with the Board." it carries on, Mr. Speaker, to the same committee meeting. Again the Member for St. Vital said, "My question has to do specifically with a legal opinion from legal counsel to Hydro's Board stating that the Tritschler Commission was exceeding its Terms of Reference. I would also like to know, Mr.

Kristjanson might also want to make note of, as to whether that legal opinion recommended that the Hydro Board apply to the cour t to prevent the Tritschler Comm ission from proceed ing beyond the stated Terms of Reference and if that is the case why didn't Hydro do so, or perhaps it did so, and it didn't come to my notice, but I would be interested to know how that legal opinion was dealt with by the Board?" Then I think that we went on to the following episode in this great adventure and we find again on the first of the next day the question is repeated, "I asked whether the Board," this is again, the Member for St.

Vital, "had received a legal opinion from its legal advisors at the time of the Tritschler Commission? I am waiting for an answer to the question." Then there was a question by the Leader of the Opposition, "Did Hydro receive a legal opinion that the Tritschler Commission was exceeding its Terms of Reference?" That's number six, Mr. Speaker. The member is asking whether a legal opinion had been received. And then there was some question about the

interpretation of the question from the former day and I said, "M r. Chairman, again I think that the

interpretation that the Leader of the Opposition has put on it is the one I went away with as well at the end of the last week. Mr. Walding was not asking for minutes specifically, he was asking as to whether or not the Board had been advised formally by a lawyer or their legal couns el with regard to certain procedures that should be followed in regard to the 2955 Tritschler Commissi on." The Chairman said, "Mr. Walding is that your understanding then?" And the Mem ber for St. Vital said on page 10 8, "Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman, substantially as Mr.

Craik has said." Still wants a legal opinion, legal opinions all the way down the line. Then Mr. Bl achford said - concern ing Mr . Walding's question, "Did Manitoba Hydro lawyers give an opinion that Judge Tritschler was exceeding his Terms of Reference?" - "We looked into this and no requ est for an opinio n was asked of Manitoba" - presumably Hydro - "lawyers nor did the give an opinion in this respect." Now he went and he indicated, "Where did that come from?" The answer was, "it came from the Gener al Counsel of Mani toba Hy dro and the former Secretary, I presume, Mr. Funnel!." Mr.

Speaker, then following on in the same area on page 11 3, there's some question from the Leader of the Opposition about my awareness of all these matters of the legal counsel, and I said, "M r. Chairman, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition directly that the former Legal Counsel certainly did not in any direct way advise me of his feelings in this regard. I am quite aware of the fact from the former Chairman of Manitoba Hydro," - I'm referring to Dean Wedepohl - "that Mr . Martin left under a high degree of disturbance over the affairs with regard to representing Hydro on the work of the Commission and so on.

So if that's any help to him, that's about as much help as I can give him." And I go on in the same statement and say, and this is based on the answers that are given by Manitoba Hydro, which I said I thought were complete, "But there was no formal, as you can see, ju st so the record is complete, there is no evidence in Hydro of at least a formal concern being expressed about the Terms of Reference of the Commission although it's quite possible he may have on a personal basis expressed those concerns." Now is this is referring to their legal counsel.

This was my comment, my statement in the committee, this is on Day Two of the committee, Mr. Speaker. Mr . Speaker, let me register a complaint here as well against the reporting of one John Sullivan in the Free Press, who said on the 11 th of April 19 81, "Craik insisted repeatedly that Hydro never received a legal opinion from Martin written or verbal." Mr . Speaker, that kind of licence, that kind of liberty being taken is not honest. How would I be in any position to know whether Hydro got a verbal advice on legal matters.

In fact, I presume that they were getting advice through the full period of the Tritschler Inquiry Commission. I would be utterly - it would be utterly ridiculous to make a comment like that. How could I be in a position to know? As I said in this House before, Hydro engaged their lawyers without reference to me, all of them that were involved, and I believe they were all from the Aikins, MacAulay firm, and there were three. I had no direct communication at the start, through the piece, at the end, still haven't, Mr. Speaker. Hydro engaged them. Mr. Speaker, let me say, I spoke to Mr.

Sullivan about this and he carefully doesn't put quotation marks around it when he says, "Cr aik insisted repeatedly that Hydro never received a legal opinion from Martin, written or verbal." Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing about any host of things that

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 could have gone on between the Legal Counsel and the Utility. I asked him to retract that and he did not. lt has not been withdrawn. (Interjection) Then the Leader of the Opposition says, "By the Mi nister indicating it was not brought to his attention that Legal Counsel then for Mani toba Hydr o recommended that proceedings be initiated within the court in order to quash the proceedings of the Tritschler Commission?" I answered, "M r. Chairman, certainly not in any formal way, not either directly by that Legal Counsel nor directly by the Hydro Board.

But as I say, there is no doubt about the question that he was disturbed about his work, Hydro's position, some of the things that were occurring as a result of the inquiry. Whether or not the Terms of Reference of the Tritschler Inquiry Commissision were his concern, I can't tell you. lt may well have been wrapped up in his entire concerns about it. it may well have been one of his reasons for leaving." Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says, "Why didn't he check into it?" I wonder if the member has read the former Vice-Chairman's letter to the editor. He felt compelled to write a letter to the Free Press.

He reports that he got a call from the Free Press and the Free Press asked him, "Did the Minister bring pressure to bear to cause certain actions be taken by the Board?" The Vice-Chairman says in his reply to the letter to him that the recommendation was his, that he brought the recommendation in and asked that I be advised of it and that he could go on to the Board, which is what ... MR. SPEAKER, Harry E. Graham: Order please. I find it rather difficult to hear the remarks of the honourable member if members keep interrupting in the debate.

I would ask that honourable members, if they have private conversations to carry on, that they remove thems elves from the Cham ber and carry them on some other place. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. CRA IK: Mr. Speaker, that gives you pretty much the intent as it has gone on at that point in time. I am still having this great difficulty finding out where this misleading comes from. lt seems to me that what is happening is that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to mislead his own audience in these matters and I certainly don't intend to listen any further, Mr.

Speaker, to that kind of nonsense go forward at my expense because it has been going on ·long enough and there is just no subs tance to what the members opposite are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, there was also about this stage in time - let me ask this question again, and I asked it before - With all of th at lead-up and this preoccupation and this concentration on this matter, the Hydro Chairman said, well, can you help me look for this document? The Mem ber for St. Vital said he only had hearsay, or something to that effect. "We hear a lot of rumours," he said. The Chairman said, "Well, can you be more specific?

Do you have any direct knowledge of this document?" The Member for St. Vital said, "No, I have no personal knowledge of it, Mr. Chairman." Those were his comments, after all of these days of lead-up and here are the Hydro people, both Mr. Kristjanson and Mr . Blachford, who were not in Hydro when all of this occurred, who were not even present and are being quizzed on these matters and they have to go back and ask their general counsel, who was there at the time, for this information, to dig it up. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I guess yesterday the point of privilege that was raised was raised with regard to a minute that was contained in the Hydro minutes and the minutes said that a letter had been examined by the Board. The Vice-Chairman had said that he had discussed the matter with me. Mr. Speaker, there is very little doubt about the fact that the matters contained at the time, the grievances and so on that were contained, very likely were the same ones that were contained in the seven pages of paper that were used - I'll put it that way - used by the Mem ber for St. Vital. Mr.

Speaker, I think the actual minute, which I have says that the Vice-Chairman stated that he had had a meeti ng with the Corpora tion's Special Counsel, Mr. Martin, Q.C. Mr. Martin had indicated that there was a numb er of aspects of the Comm ission's work which caused him concern." We ll, it's hardly anything new the re. "In this connection, he had drafted a letter which, if the Board concu rred , he would forward to the Commissioner. The Vice-Chairman stated that he had discussed the letter with the Honourable D. W.

Craik, the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, and they had agreed that it would be inappropriate for such a letter to be sent, particularly as it could result in a delay in the proceedings. After discussion, the Board concurred. Now my understand was that whether it was at that Board meeting or some other, I think the Counsel himself was at that Board meeting. I think he made personal representation. I think that was indicated by a member of the Board who was there at the time. But is there anything new there that I didn't say in day one or day two, Mr. Speaker? Is there anything today?

I would like to really know. We have now talked about all of the matter. I want to read into the record too, if I can find it, the reply which Dean Wedepohl made to an

article in the Winnipeg Free Press. He said, "I wish to refer to the recent controversy relating to the Tritschler Inqu iry into the affairs of Manitoba Hydro. Early in January of 19 79, I became aware of Mr. Steward Martin's proposal to challenge the Commission of Inquiry because of his grievances associated with the Commis sion in his role as Legal Cou nsel for Manitoba Hydro. I myself was shocked at his proposed course of action, namely to challenge the Terms of Reference of the Comm ission in the Manitoba courts.

The morale of Manitoba Hydro was at that time very low and declining. lt was my considered opinion that the best thing for us to do was to cooperate with the Commission of Inqu iry, which was a properly constituted body, in order to bring this phase of the Corporation's history to a steady conclusion without compromising the integrity of the Corporation or its staff. "In my opinion, the intervention proposed by Mr. Martin would have had no effect other than to protract the inquiry and would not serve the best interests of the Utility.

With hindsight, I believe that I was right and if called on to consider the situation today, I would not find any reason to change my then reaction. 2956

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 "I informed the Minister about my viewpoint and my intent to so recommend to the Board. I also informed him of the general nature of Mr. Martin's gr ievances contai ned in his subm ission to the Board," which I have to presume is what now seems to be referred to as a letter but perhaps it's a legal opinion. "Subsequently, at a special meeting of the Board, my recommendation was ratified. The proposal was taken no further and that; as far as I was concerned, was the end of the matter.

"I am therefore very puzzled by the suggestion that there were threats by the Minister since the course of action taken was in accordance with my recommendation in the first place. Furthermore, I told this to Mr. Sullivan of the Free Press when he telephoned me about this early in ApriL" I am told, Mr. Speaker, that telephone conversation occurred in advance of the

article coming out in the Free Press which quoted another member of the Board as saying that I pressured the Board. Just to complete it: "On a minor point, the Winnip eg Sun rep orted me as saying that the Minister was 'very enthusiastic' about the proposal by Mr. Martin. Your paper correctly quoted me as saying 'not very enthusiastic'." I said, Mr . Speaker, from day one that that was a pretty apt description of my reaction to the verbal briefing, as I recall it, more than two years ago, by Dean Wedepohl when all of this occurred. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. The Honourable Member for St.

Vital on a point of order. MR. WALDING: Mr . Speaker, I have a point of order and that is that the Minister was giving a background of this whole affair and I presume giving it in the order in which it happened. The Minister quoted me just a few minutes ago and I have now found the quote that I wish to correct for his interest and the interest of other members. The Minister said that when Hydro came back to report on their search of the Mi nutes and the statements that they made and the statements that the Minister made and he quoted them back.

He said that after that, I had been asked about my knowledge of the particular document and where I said I had no personal knowledge of it. Mr. Speaker, that was not made at the end of that meeting. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest to the honourable member that there is an opportunity for him to enter the debate. A difference of opinion on sequence is not a point of order at this particular time. The honourable member has a point of order? MR. WALDING: I believe so, Mr. Speaker. I do intend to take

part in the deba te if I get the opportunity. lt is not a matter of a difference of opinion, Mr. Speaker, it's a difference of fact and it will be found factually on Page 10 5 of Hansard, where it is clear that I made that remark at the meeting before the meeting commented upon by the Minister. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mines of Mines and Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Sp eaker, I am not going to question the page number on which it is on but it was after the questioning had gone on for some great distance that this was introduced. Mr. Speaker, it had gone on for some great distance. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member on a point of order. MR. WALDING: Mr. Sp eaker, I rose ju st two minutes on a point of order to correct the statement that was made by the Minister. When I sat down, the Mi nister then stands up and disputes the fact. The fact is clear . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A dispute as to fact is not a point of order. lt is a difference of opinion and is not a point of order. The Honourable Minister. MR. CRAIK: Mr . Speaker, I have numbered the occasions on which it was raised by the Member for St.

VitaL They number one, two, three, four times before that question was asked of him; four times, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kristjanson says, "My simple question was, are you aware of that opinion?" and the answer by the Member for St. Vital, "I have no personal knowledge of it, Mr.

Chairman." I'm not saying he did but I just find it passing strange that all of this, when Hydro Board was trying to be helpful, to go back and find out information for him, that we had what would appear to be this cat-and-mouse game going on where they simply are not terribly interested in being very helpful but simply trying to carry on, as I say, with that kind of an approach. Mr. Speaker, I would still like to know where the misleading statements came from because they have not been substantiated, they have not been made.

They have used innuendo and they have used every possible devious tactic they could think of to try to make a case that will not bear up. Mr. Sp eaker, furthermor e, su bsequent to discussion in the House, I said that I would contact Hydro and ask them, after this seven-page paper became available, I would ask Hydro if they would search internally to see if they could find it and, secondly, give consideration to contacting their Legal Counsel, Aikins, MacAulay, to see if they could provide them with any more information. Mr.

Speaker, I want to read to you the reaction that - well, the formality of it. lt says, and this is from Manitoba Hydr o to Aikins, MacAule y and Thorvaldson, barristers and solicitors: "Ge ntlemen: During Manitoba Hydro's recent annual appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources of the Legislature, a number of questions were asked enquiring whether Hydro had ever received a legal opinion from its solicitors to the effect th at the Tritschler Comm ission exceeded its jurisdiction and that court proceedings should be taken. A search by Hydro staff revealed no such opinion.

"Therefore" - keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that there are legal lawyers on their staff too - "this question was unanswered in the negative." MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We can only have one speaker at a time in the Chamber, and this time it's the Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: "Th erefo re, this question was unanswered in the negative, whereupon a lengthy, 2957

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 unsigneq, undated letter was disclosed by a member of the Legislature and read into the record. "lt was further suggested that this unsigned letter was a legal opinion prepared by you and 'presented for consideration to the Board of Manitoba Hydro. A copy of the paper was provided to me by the Honourable D. W. Craik, and I enclose a copy for your information.

"We wish to know all the facts involving this matter and would appreciate receiving a full and complete report respect ing any opinion given or discussions held with the then Board of Manitoba Hydro, any of its members or members of staff respecting either the jurisdiction of the Tritschler Comm ission or the commenc ement of cour t proceedings.

In particular, we would like to know if the paper referred to was in fact prepared by you, and, if so, the circumstances surrounding it, with whom within Hydro, if anyone, it was di.scussed or presented to, and whether the view expressed, or cour se of action proposed, rep rese nted the considered legal opinion of Aikins, MacAulay, and Thorvaldson? Your earlier attention to this request will be greatly appreciated." And, it's signed by K. Kristjanson, Chairman. The seven pages of paper were attached to it and transmitted to the legal firm. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order ple ase.

We can only have one speaker in the Cham ber at a time. The Honourable Min ister of Mines and Energy. MR. CR AIK: Mr. Speaker, the firm of Aikins, MacAulay replied in a letter dated April 21 st, to the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro saying: "D ear Mr. Kristjanson: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated April 16 th, 19 81, addressed to our firm concerning Manitoba Hydro's recent appearance before a Commi ttee of th!'l Manitoba Legislature. "With your letter you enclosed a seven-page document provided to you by the Honourable D.W. Craik. Our file copy of that document consists of eight pages.

Enclosed is a copy of the eight-page document. "This document was prepared by Mr. W.S. Martin, Q.C., of this firm whose recollections is that it was prepared shortly before the Tritschler Commission resumed its hearings in January 19 79. it was Mr. Mar tin's submi ssion to be presented to the . Commission if the Board of Hydro approved it. "M r. Martin was appointed by the Board of Hydro as counsel for the purpose of representing it before the Commission. He was assisted by Mr. Archie Smellie, Q.C. of this firm. The document itself is not a legal opinion." MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

CRAIK: The document itself is not a legal opinion. "However, the legal conclusions exp ressed there and reflected of you of Mr. Martin, who advised board membe rs of his opinion. Other than Mr. Martin no member of this firm considered such legal aspect. "The course of action indicated in the submission was disqgreed with by Mr. Smellie who so advised board members. lt was his view that regardless of legal technicalities it was in Hydro's overall ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please.

If honourable members want to carry on private conversat ions, I suggest the y leave this Cham ber and carry them on outside. The Honourable Mi nister of Mi nes af1Q Na tur al Resources. Order please. The Honow able Mi nister of M!nes and Natural Resou rces. .. MR. CRAIK: "lt was his view that regardless of legal technicalities, it was in Hydro's overall interest · to cooperate with the Comm ission and bring its proceedings to an early conclusion. Our firm continued to act for Hydro after Mr. Martin ceased to be involved as counsel and the course of action was followed that was contrary to that suggested by Mr.

Martin in his submission. Mr. Martin has personal knowledge of the matters raised in your letter such as discussions held. He is presently out of the country and is expected back on April 28th. We suggest that if you require further information, you contact him directly." Mr. Speaker, attached to that is an eight-page document, and one more page than the seven-page document, or whatever the proper terminology is for it. lt appears to be the same with the exception that it has an eighth page added. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honourable Member for St. Vital on a point of order. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Speaker, I would request that the Minister table the document he has just read from. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister. MR. CRAIK: I believe it to be a official document, Mr. Speaker, and so it should be tabled. In the one case, it's signed by the Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro, and in the second case, it's signed, Yours truly, Aikins, MacAulay and Thorvaldsop. So, Mr. Speaker, the documents will be tabled. I want to say in conclusion, in this matter, that I think that the Hydro Utility is trying to be helpful.

I think that they've taken steps as expeditiously as possible to try and clarify the matters, and I think they've gone about it in a very methodical and responsible manner. I think that they're doing their best to try and bring what light they can to this matter. There is no evidence of this document being available within the Utility itself. lt has come from the law firm and has been identified with Mr. Martin's writing. Although, I must advise you, Mr. Speaker, that the attached document is not signed either. Th ere is no signatur e on it either.

Wel l, I'm pre suming that the covering letter th at makes reference to it as an appendage is adequate for the purposes of the House. So, I'm quite pleased to be able to file it. I do want to come back and I still take personal exception to the charges that there has been any misleading. You've had very consistent answers from Day One on this matter. I've told you consistently that I was briefed by the then Chairman on the matters with respect to the relationship, if you like, between Mr. Martin and himself and Manitoba hydro at the time. He advised me of the course of action that he intended to take, Mr.

Speaker. I would think, 2958

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 as a matter of fact, if I had taken any other course of action; if I had interferred with his recommendations to go and proceed on his intended course of action, then, I may have been open to criticism. Le t's, supposing that I had stepped in and said that I want to impose my will on you in the opposite direction, then I could very well have been open for criticism for having moved in and advised the Chairman what course of action that he ought to take. So, Mr. Speaker, before I finish I do want to take just one moment to say that this thing has gone so far that I think that there are some perhaps in the media who are putting an

interpretation on it that ought not to be. I notice that one of the columnists has written an

article saying to the effect that "Craik should regret that this entire furor began because he denied ever hearing about Martin's displeasure." Well, Mr. Speaker, I repeated over and over again in the record that there was displeasure on the part of Mr. Martin. But, what they're attempting to do in all of this is try and say that they had a legal opinion here that was somehow thwarted by Min isterial action that was contrary to the Board's direction and the Board's interest and nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter was that the conditions that led up to the problem reflected themselves in this set of circu mstan ces where the Legal Cou nsel did represent his grievances. They were passed on to me verbally by the then Acting Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, who indi cated to me his reco mmended course of action and he went ahead and followed that through. I believe that furthermore that perhaps Mr. Martin briefed the Board directly.

Now, at this point in time what we've got is a document here that obviously, if you look at it, you know it's still in draft form because of the grammatical errors and the type of errors that are in it; an uncorrected, unsigned document that is being alternatively referred to either as a legal opinion or as a letter, depending on what kind of story you want to make, depending on what kind of attack the Opposition wants to take. The plain fact of the matter is that it's certainly not regarded by the law firm as being a legal opinion.

This does not -(I nterjection)- does not discount the fact, again, and I repeat, and say, again, and again as I said from Square One that there were difficulties; the legal counsel had grievances; he made those grievances known; there was a parting of the ways with the Board; and that was what happened, Mr. Speaker. All of this that has taken place is coming to light some two years later and a lot of it being based on rea lly, still pretty unsubstantiated docum€lntation, Mr. Speaker.

We still don't have, at this point in time, any signed document that you could call it either a legal opinion or any sort of a formal letter, although, I do believe from what has been said that there was a verbal report given to the Board at that time and the Board made its decision. So. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to have enough intestinal fortitude and courage and stand up and say where I mislead the Committee, where I mislead the Comm ittee? This has gone on for days and days on end. I've read the Hansards. I've read all the Hansards records. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

We can only have one speaker at a time. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. CRAIK: I don't think I take any more heavily or lightly what I consider to be reasonably slanderous comments being made in the media about myself as an individual and I think that any Member of the Legislature has a right to object when that happens. When this first occurred, the first thing I did was I got hold of the Hansard records, I read them through in their entirety and I couldn't believe what I was reading as it was being reported, because it's not in the records. The Committee was not mislead.

No Mem bers of this House were mislead. They were stated the facts all the way down the line. I don't blame them for being particularly sensitive with what the Tritschler Inqu iry Report came up with. it's a tale of misery of that former government and their waste and mismanagement in their operations of Manitoba Hydro. I don't blame them, but I don't think that they can take a spurious kind of a case like they're trying to develop here and in any way cover up the mistakes that they made during that period of time when they had the responsibility. I'm willing to say, Mr.

Speaker, if they had shown one-quarter, one fract ion, small fraction of the interest in Manitoba Hydro affairs when they were in gover nment for th ose eight years th at they'r e appearing to be trying to show now, they wouldn't have gotten the Hyqro Utility into the trouble that it is in. There wasn't a soul over there that knew, when they were in government what was going on, with the exception, I must admit, the former Premier was reporting for it and did have an abiding interest in the affairs of Manitoba Hydro.

I can still recall the former ML A member on the Board being asked a question one time, as to why they built Jenpeg, and he said it's because it's cheaper to build two plants than one. Mr. Speaker, that was the depth of their understanding of what was going on in Manitoba Hydro. That was what was going on, Mr. Speaker. Theirs is a tale of despair that they're trying to cover up by going after the spurious comments that they can now dig up out of verbal conversations that may or may not have occurred some two years ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr .

Speaker, prior to commencing my remarks, I would appreciate if the Mi nislElr responsible for Hydro, the Deputy Premier . . . · MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Before I recognize the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Minister promised to table certain documents. I would ask the Honourable Mi nister to do so now. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY : Mr. Speak€lr, I have found the commentary by the Deputy Premier to be most intriguing and interesting because, Mr.

Speaker, the Deputy Premier has finally come clean, finally come clean after close to three weeks, close to three weeks because, Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with Hansard and intend to deal with the comments that were made in committee and in the House, Mr. Speaker. Then honourable members can determine whether or not the truth was spoken in the committee, whether the truth was spoken in the House and, Mr. Speaker, honourable members can 2959

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 ask themselves, why has the government been afraid to permit the matter to proceed to committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal as well with the letter that the Honourable Mi nister has tabled in this House which, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can determine in general, confirms all that the Opposition has been saying for the past three weeks, despite protests, despite denials across the way. Mr. Speaker, what the Min ister has done this afternoon has confirmed. confirmed in near entirety what the Opposition has been saying for the past three weeks. Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to refer members to the Hansard of April 7th, April 9th, subsequent statements that were made by the Minister, the Minister who sat in on those hearings, who participated in the answers that were provided and on April 7th when Mr. Kristjanson responded to questions that were posed by the Member for St. Vital, commencing the discussions that occurred, when Mr. Kristjanson says that mem bers had researched the minutes, consulted with people that were involved at the time and the answer has been given by Mr.

Blachford and I thought the answer had been complete and the answer had been, that there had been no legal opinion given or received. And throughout, the Minister indicated that the answer had been provided totally and adequately by officials of Hydro, Mr.

Speaker, and again and the Mi nister indicated on page 11 3 of Hansard, "His question has been fully and formerly answered by hydro and there's really little more to be said, that we're going to open the Committee up." The Mi nister further said, "There was no request for that kind of opinion, no request was rendered, there's no recollection by a Board member, who was the only person who was on the Board at the time of such having taken place, but what more can be done." The Minister further said, "I'm quite aware of the fact from the former Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, tha t Mr.

Ma rtin left under a high deg ree of disturb ance over the affairs with respect to representing Hydro on the work of Commission." The Minister did acknowledge that Mr. Martin had left over a high degree of disturbance. Yes, he did acknowledge that and then further on, "There is no evidence in Hydro," said the Minister, "in Hydro of at least a formal concern being expressed about the Terms of Reference of the Commission, although it is quite possible he may have on a personal basis · expressed those concerns. Personal basis, personal basis, Mr. Speaker, may have on a personal basis. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister I suggest was playing hide-and-go-seek with the truth; hide-and-go-seek with the truth. The Minister further states that, "A question was posed by myself, by the Mi nister, indicating that it was not brought to his attention that Chief Legal Counsel then for Manitoba Hydro, recommended that proceedings be initiated within the court, in order to quash the proceedings of the Tritschler Commission. Specific, in reference to action in the courts to qu ash the proce edings. The Mi nister responds, "Mr .

Chairman, certainly not in any formal way, not either directly by Legal Counsel nor directly by the Hydro Board." Mr. Speaker, I ask what is the Chairman of Mani toba Hydr o, but a rep rese ntative of the Manitoba Hydro Board, yet the Minister states, "not formally, not formally by the Hydro Board." That's what the Minister said. Let the Minister cease playing hide-and-go-seek with the truth, Mr. Speaker. And then he proceeds to state, "There is no doubt about the question that he was disturbed about his work." Hydro's position, some of the things - disturbed. Mr.

Speaker, throughout we were left with the im pression th at th ere was no legal opinion or procedure that was outlined, outlined, Mr. Speaker, by the Chief Legal Counsel for Manitoba Hydro, to the Manitoba Hydro Board, that the Chief Legal Counsel had left as a result of a high degree of disturbance. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that on the 24-hour program, the Minister made reference to the document that the Mem ber for St. Vital had attempted to table in this House, Mr. Speaker, as being half a hoax. The First Mi nister referred to it as a fab rication in this House.

The Fi rst Mini ster suggested that we were dealing with trumped-up charges. Mr . Speaker, I have not had opportuni ty to compare word for word the document that the Minister responsible for Hydro, the Deputy Premier of the Province of Manitoba has brought into this Chamber this afternoon. But, Mr. Speaker, I strongly suspect that it's the very same document that the Memb er for St. Vital brought into this Chamber some one week ago, that the Minister responsible for Hydro declared to be - well, he expected it would turn out to be half a hoax. Mr. Speaker, has that document turned out to be half a hoax?

Has that document turned out to be a fabrication as the First Minister suggested it would? Mr. Speaker, the document has turned out to be as the Member for St. Vital read into the records of this Chamber and, Mr. Speaker, the Minister attempts to split some hair about legal opinion and, Mr. Speaker, I read these words to mem bers of the Chamber and then I want members of the Chamber to tell me if indeed Chief Legal Counsel for Manitoba Hydro did not deliver legal opinio n and did not make recommendations for legal action in the courts and if a member can still tell me, still tell me and I don't care whether Mr.

Smellie of Aikins, Ma cAu lay suggest it's not an opinion, but some other sort of presentation. Mr. Speaker, I suggest these words are legal op1mon, legal proced ure, legal recommendations, "In light of the clear fact that the youthful ness and cred ibi lity remaining to your Commission is effectively undermined as evidence by the intervention of government on issues that you are charged with the responsibility to report on, this Commission can no longer serve any useful purpose and the refo re, I respectfu lly request that you terminate these proceedings.

"In the alternative, if you do not agree with my subm ission in this regard, I hereby pursuant to

Section 97( 1) of The Manitoba Evidence Act, request reference to the Court of Appeal;

Section 97( 1) 1 provides as follows: 'Where the validity of the Commission issued under this part or the jurisdiction of a Commissioner appointed thereby, or the validity of any decision, order, direction, or other act of the Commission appointed under this part, is called into question by any person affected, the Commissioner upon the request of that person shall state a case in writing to the Court of Appeal, setting forth the 2960

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 material, facts and the decision of a court thereon, is final the binding'.". End of quote, end of quote. and the Deputy Premier says that's as a result of some letter that he reads from Mr. Smellie from Aikins, MacAulay, that the Manitoba Hydro Board never received a legal opm10n, never received recommendations as to legal steps that could be undertaken and should be undertaken - by whom? By Chief Legal Counsel for Manitoba Hydro at the time, Steward Martin.

The Deputy Premier has the audacity to stand in his place and to suggest that the Board of Manitoba Hydro did not receive legal advice, that they did not receive a recommended course of action, that the Mani toba Hydro Board could receive within the courts, that the Manitoba Hydro Board did not receive a legal opinion? Mr . Speaker, this is a whopper - this is a whopper of the past two-and-one-half months in this House. The Minister says, Mr. Speaker, that he has not misrepresented. Mr. Speaker, the Mem ber for St.

Vital, only a few moments ago, demonstrated that as the Deputy Premier was outlining his comments, that he indeed had misrepresented. Mr. Speaker, the words that I have just issued in respect to the document that was prepared by Mr. Steward Ma rtin indic ates clearly that indeed the Deputy Premier, although he's coming clean today on some facts, he's ack nowled ging what the Opposition has been saying for the past three weeks, is still trying to twist and wiggle and turn and, Mr . Speaker, what we would like to hear, what we would like to hear, is from the author of this document, not from Mr.

Smellie, not from Mr. Smellie, and I'm not going to be as the Deputy Premier, and I could refer to Mr. Smellie, having been once a desk-mate of the Deputy Premier, sat in Cabi net with the Deputy Premier in 19 66 and 19 69, or earlier. Well, Mr. Speaker, I ... MR. CRAIK: . . . another untruth on the record. The untruth, Mr . Speaker, is that I sat in Cabinet with Mr. Smellie. I was never even an ML A with Mr. Smellie. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, then I concede that back. Mr. Smellie was Mi nister of Municipal Affairs, was Minis ter of Mu nici pal Affairs in the Roblin Government but, Mr .

Speaker, unlik e the Deputy Premier that suggested that a Mr. Dennis Scott was the campaign manager for Len Evans, when in fact that wasn't so. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that comment is very close to the mark and, Mr. Speaker, who was it that said that Dennis Scott was the campaign manager for Len Evans in the last campaign? Mr. Sp eaker, what has been demons trated yesterday and today is that the Deputy Premier did mislead the comm ittee, did mislead the committee; the words are recorded in Hansard. I'm sure now, to the concern of the Deputy Premier, Mr.

Speaker, we submit that the Deputy Premier by his admission this afternoon has indeed acknowledged th at th e document which was suggested to be half a hoax a week ago, indeed is the legitimate document that was presented to the Board of Directors of Manitoba Hydro. Mr . Speaker, and if it is suggested by any member across the way that it was not - call a comm ittee, call Mr. Steward Martin to th at committee. We'll find out then if that document was presented to the Board of Directors of Manitaba Hydro. Mr . Speaker, the minute as well, it was read into the Chamber yesterday, indicated that Mr.

Wedepohl indeed formally, formally, unlike what the Deputy Premier had suggested, did discuss this matter with the Deputy Premier, the Mi nister responsible for Hydro and they had agreed, they had agreed that any action would be inappropriate. it's not us on this side of the Chamber that are making that statement, Mr . Speaker , it is the recorded mi nut es of Mani toba Hydro that Mr . Bl achford and Mr. Kr istjanson and the Deputy Premier confirmed didn't exist; didn't exist. So, Mr.

Speaker, what has happened this afternoon is, the Deputy Premier has confirmed that there was a legal opinion, that that legal opinion did recommend a course of action, did outline a course of action, always had been denied up till this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. So finally we have the Deputy Premier coming straight in this Cham ber, straight in this Chamber, after three weeks, after three weeks of pressure, after three weeks of tussling with the government across the way, the Deputy Premier has come straight with the facts. But, Mr.

Speaker, we are still not satisfied, we are still not satisifed because by inference, there has been an attempt to play some hide-and-go-seek still, with the truth. Mr . Speaker, we again call upon the Deputy Premier to ensure that he retains some credibili ty, to concur with the calling of a Committee of the Legislature that can receive the legal opinion that indeed - and I suggest it was a legal opinion - to receive Mr. Steward Martin, who is a material witness, to receive all the former directors . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

May I suggest to the Honourable Member for Minnedosa that there is an opportunity for debate and I welcome his chance to make his comments. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: ... to receive all of the evidence of the former directors of Manitoba Hydro so that we can find, Mr. Speaker, the extent of the Deputy Premier's involvement with this entire matter. Did the Deputy Premier have no involvement at all? Was he requested for his concu rrence and he gave his concur renc e th at le gal act ion would be inappropriate?

Did the Deputy Premier threaten, by way of the Vice-Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro, that Hydro Board members would be fired? That has been claimed by one Board member. Mr. Speaker, if there is any doubt, then let's remove that doubt. Let's remove that doubt. That's all that we have been asking for. Is that a great request? Is that an unreasonable sugges tion? Is th ere something outrageous about th at, Mr . Speaker?

Now we have evidence subm itted by the Deputy Premier himself that that which he described would likely turn out to be half a hoax, and that the First Minister had said was a fabrication, and that the First Mini ster said was part of trumpe d-up charges and triple hearsay, is in fact, Mr. Speaker, a legitimate, credible document. The First Min ister had asked for us to bring evidence. We brought evidence yesterday by way of a Minute of Manitoba Hydro. The Deputy Premier has acknowledged this afternoon, as they made 2961

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 important acknowledgments and concessions this afternoon, that the Opposition has been right, Mr. Speaker. In view of that, is there any longer any excuse for not calling into existence a committee to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Speaker? Is there any longer any excuse? Mr. Speaker, what we have heard was another area that I found despicable and sad, despicable and sad.

I remember in the days of Richard Nixon that Nixon and th ose around him attacked the Washington Post, attacked two young reporters, Bernstein and Woodward, and they attempted to put the Washington Post on trial, tried to place the reporters on trial. Mr. Speaker, what we had to day was an attempt to put the Winnipeg Free Press on trial, an attempt to put on trial one, John Sullivan, and Arlene Billinko ff. Mr. Speaker, what a despicable, weak performance on the part of the Deputy Premier.

The Deputy Premier ought to come straight in this Chamber and acknowledge, on the basis of what is in Hansard , what are in the committee records, what is now so by way of his own acknowledged . . . MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. The Honourable Minister of Mines on a point of order. MR. CRAIK: On a point of order. Let the record show that the Leader of the Opposition named a reporter that I did not. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: All that I know is that the Deputy Premier referred to an article, which was written by Arlene Billin koff, Mr.

Speaker, and if the Deputy Premier again wants to be cute, let him continue to be cute. That's what he has been doing for the past three weeks. If the Deputy Premier wants to say that he was not reading from and commenting on an

article written by Arlene Billinkoff, let him say so. Let him say so and I'll withdraw my comments, but let him say if indeed he was not reading from an

article that was written by Arlene Billinkoff. If that is the case, then I withdraw my remarks. Mr. Speaker, let the record demonstrate that the Deputy Premier has not stood in his place and denied that he was reading and making reference to the

article that was written by Arlene Billinkoff. Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier may not be · happy, but I am pleased that there are those in the media that are prepared to do a little extra effort in order to get to the bottom of matters, whether it involves the Opposition or the Government of the Day. That's what a free press, Mr. Speaker, is all about, and as far as the Opposition is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate a press that is prepared to search out facts and divulge information that should be divulged to the public at large and we regret any personal attacks in respect thereto. Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to read a quote which I didn't have in front of me last night, but in conclusion, the words of Shakespeare, the words of Scott - "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive." What a tangled web we weave. What a tangled web the Deputy Premier of this province has weaved for himself in the past three weeks when first he practised to deceive. Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with the amendment that is before us by the Mem ber for lnkster. Mr.

Speaker, I want to indicate that we in the Opposition intend to support the amendment that has been introduced by the Member for lnkster and in so doing, it is necessary for me to indicate some areas that we have concerns in respect to the amendment that was introduced by the Member for lnkster but, in general, we can add our support to the sub-amendment. Mr.

Speaker, in respect to the first clause of the su b-amendment, the Mem ber for ln kster made reference to the government failing to facilitate the betterment of the human condition by making post secondary vocational, academic and professional education available at social rather than individual expense. Mr. Spe aker, our party has always supported the principle that every individual ought to be gi ven the opportuni ty to maximize their educational advancement regardless of funds. That has been a longst anding principl e of the New Democratic Party, Mr.

Speaker, and we have also favored the gradual elim ination of tuition fees as being an obstacle insofar as many students without abil ity to pay in order to ach ieve educational opportunity. Mr. Speaker, it will take some time to achieve that objective and if we have any reservation about the sub-amendment it was sugges ting tha t the government be faulted for not doing it at once. Mr. Speaker, we recognize that it will take some time in arriving at that objective. Mr.

Spe aker, the New Democr atic Par ty is prepared to arrive at that objective in government. lt recognizes that it cannot be done in one year but over a period of time it can. The present government is rightly being faulted by the Member for lnkster for having failed completely to move towards achieving this objective, Mr . Speaker. In fact, it has been sliding back the other way. Ever since they were first elected in 19 77, they have been pushing up tuition fees; they have been increasing the burden upon the students of this province, 44 percent in the past four years.

So I understand and I appreciate and I supp ort the sentiment in the sub-amendment. lt will take time to achieve. We support the first paragraph on the basis of the sentiment expressed therein. On the second clause of the sub-amendment, "The Government has failed to maintain an option for the public of Manitoba to participate to the extent of at least 50 percent in the exploration and development of the mineral resources belonging to the people of Manitoba." Mr.

Speaker, we sup port incr eased public participation in the mine ral devel opment of the Pr ovinc e of Manitoba, unli ke the present Conservative Government. This Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, has given away public assets, public option in Tantalum, Trout Lake, the proposed potash development in St. Lazare. This Conservative Government has given away millions of dollars of the public heritage in the Province of Manitoba. So that we concur th at indeed this Conservative Government ought to be faulted for withdrawing public interest in mineral development and exploration in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, we will increase the amount of public participation and development in the Province of 2962

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 Manitoba and a good example of what can be done is described in the Northern Miner, April 9, 19 81, Volume 67, No. 5, where it is mentioned that over a 12-year lifespan, the Saskatchewan Government will be realizing $500 million to $600 mill ion dollars because of its participation, because of its receipt of royalties in a mine which is a uranium mining and milling operation at Cluff Lake in Saskatchewan. Mr.

Speaker, that is the kind of leaders hip that is required in the Province of Manitoba, a government in the Province of Manitoba like that government in the Province of Saskatchewan that is prepared to ensure that there is maximum return to the public of the mineral wealth of the province rather than that mine ral wealth be drained from the Province of Manitoba to interests outside this province. So, Mr. Speaker, we support paragraph number two of the sub-amendment. Mr.

Speaker, in respect to paragraph numb er three, "The Government has failed to exercise fiscal responsibility by seeing to it that its revenues keep pace with its expenditures." Mr. Speaker, we have had four deficits in a row; four deficits in a row. Mr. Speaker, this Government ought to be condemned for the fact that indeed they did give away valuable tax revenues in 19 77 when indeed they weren't increasing social programs, when indeed we did increase the deficit in the public debt in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, they said they were fiscal conservatives.

They suggested they were competent, efficient managers of the treasury of the Province of Manitoba. They suggested the previous Government were arsonists, Mr. Speaker, and I said only a few days ago, there appears to be some fire bugs loose in the present Conservative Government in the Province of Manitoba with its whopping, not $2 19 million deficit, as they have suggested, but as the Member for Brandon East indicated, because of the Municipal Loan Reserve Fund, closer to $240 million or $250 million. So, Mr.

Speaker, we do want to say this, that we do have exception to one part of paragraph three in that we do accept the fact that in any particular year a deficit may be necessary; that it may be necessary indeed to stimulate the economy of a province such as Manitoba by encountering a deficit. The long-term objective should be towards balanced and fiscal responsibility but, Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that we have a whopping deficit - (I nterjection)- A deficit by default, as mentioned here, and we have given up revenues and what do we have to show for it?

What do Manitobans have to show for it, Mr. Speaker? Zilch) Zilch) And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, they are properly being faulted in the sub-amendment before us. Mr., Speaker, paragraphs four and five, we have no difficulty in respect to. So, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the subamendment, and I want to also indicate that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I will be on my way to Chur chill by way of a long -standing commitment which was made some two to three months ago and, Mr.

Speaker, I am requesting that the Deputy Premier arrange for the First Mi nister to pair with me tomorrow, and I would appreciate if the Deputy Premier would unde rtake to take that message to the Premier for tomorrow's ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I point out to the honourable member that pairing is 2963 not a matter for discussion openly on the floor of this Legislature at all. it's a practise that as far as the House is concerned does not even exist. MR. PAWLEV: Mr . Speaker, I am not attempting to negotiate, it was only a reference. So, Mr.

Speaker, what we have had this afternoon is admission by the Deputy Premier that indeed that which has been alleged over the past three weeks, that statements that had been made were in fact of a misleading nature and, Mr. Speaker, we will intend to press for a forming of committee to further get to the tr uth of the Hydr o matter. Tomo rrow the mem bers of the Opposition will be supporting the subamendment and at the same time of course, Mr. Speaker, will be voting in support of their own amendment to the Budg et introduc ed by the government. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport . . . The Honourable Mem ber for Burrows on a point of order. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you have frequently reminded us on previous occasions tha t documents that are tabl ed ought to be signed and dated , and this afternoon the Deputy Premier tabled a document, a letter from a firm known as Aikins, MacAulay and Thorvaldson, consisting of 40 lawyers, and I would suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this document is not signed. (Int erjection)- No, it's not signed. it's unlikely that it was written by 40 lawyers. lt does not give the name of the author of the letter, Mr. Speaker, so therefore I suggest that it is not signed properly and hence it ought not be tabled for the same reasons as the government has presented on many an occasi on opposing to the tablin g of documents. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would have thought that the member who raised this point, as I understand a gr aduate of the law school , Mr . Speaker, would have been aware that letters such as this are very commonly signed in this manner. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

I would suggest to you that you take the matter under advisement and the Honourable Attorney-General, who is also a graduate at law, and I am sure that if he would check his notes from law school he would come to the same conclusion as I, that simply writing the name of the firm and not indicating the name of the author of the letter does not constitute a signature, and I am sure that the Honourable Attorney-General, never in all his years of practise of law has seen a letter from a law firm simply signed by the name of the firm without showing the name of the author of the letter.

So therefore again I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the letter is not properly signed in accordance with your requirement as you've laid down to the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Mi nnedosa on a point of order.

Thursday, 23 April, 1981 MR. DAVID BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it may be of any assistance, I haven't seen the document, I don't know what's on it by way of signature, but some time a few years back I attempted to table a letter that wasn't signed but the name had been typed on there and the legal opinion at that time was that if it could be established that the name that was typed on there had been typed by the other of the letter then it constituted a signature, but I haven't seen that document so it may in this case be of similar incidence and it may it prevail. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

May I point out to honourable members, and I would like to refer them to Ci tation 362 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, "R eading telegrams, letters, or extracts from newspapers, as an opening to an oral question is an abuse of the rules of the House. lt is not good parlia ment ary practis e to commun icate written allegations to the House and then to ask Ministers either to confirm or deny them. lt is the member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of the Parliament." If the Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Mines has made that ascertation and brings it before he brought to this Chamber, I would accept that; if the honourable member can ascertain that the truth of the statement that was before us.

I have not seen the letter itself. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAI K: Mr. Speaker, I can I supp ose. received it with the instruction that goes along with the other signed letter that says it is the legal opinion submitted to Manitoba Hydro by Aikins, MacAulay and Thorvaldson, and therefore they are endorsing the signature as being valid as far as they are concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. HON. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (l a Verendr ye): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I rise at this point in the Budget Debate to make several comments with regards to a number of matters not only affecting my constituency but I believe the people of Manitoba in general and I welcome the opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, sitting through this House the last couple of weeks and listening to the final sort of summation to the end of the death rattle of what the . Leader of the Opposition thought was the biggest issue that he had going, I really had to sit back and say, oh, how soon we forget. We heard the Leader of the Opposition here coming to the defense of the Free Press. Well, Mr.

Speaker, it didn't take too many years ago when there was a certain reporter at the Free Press that was writing stories about Hydro, and I remember vividly, Mr. Speaker, sitting in the seat where the Mem ber for Ste. Rose is sitting today, listening to the First Mi nister of this province at that time, ranting and raving. The Mem ber for lnkster who started all kinds of name calling and name assassinations on people who were writing editorials saying that it was totally out of whack. Mr.

Speaker, today we sit here listening to the Leader of the Op position accu sing the Deput y Premier of the province of running down the press, and he of course is licking at the bootstraps of the media hoping to conjure some favour in that respect. Wel l, Mr. Sp eaker, I tell you th at won't work, because of all us who are politicians have at one time or anothe r, said some thing, have been misquoted on something, and have learned over the years to live with that.

I have never gotten up in the Legislature and tried to hide something that I have said by claiming it has been misquo te, or even getting up and chastising the media at great length for something that I knew was wrong and knew that they should not have printed. But, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition to get up and go ahead and chastise us for saying something about an inaccurate statement that some reporter might have made is the heighth of lunacy, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber I hop

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-64a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 64a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	03975a714a94205b502d5c0aae9064420d3ebe83

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