Manitoba Hansard — 29 June 1978 (Sitting 74B, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-74b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

I( ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 26 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL XXVI No. 748 8:00 p.m.Thursday, June 29, 1978 Printed by P.N. Crosbie- Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

• • .. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 29, 1978 Time: 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. CHAIRMAN , Mr. Warren Steen: Gentlemen, we have a quorum. We are on the Salary item under Executi ve Council. To the Government House Leader, it is my understanding that the Member for Transcona has o ne or two questions he wanted to ask you on the planning . He is not present at the moment . Maybe we can go on to the Member for St. Johns , on to the Premier 's Salary, or pass it. The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , the Premier undertook to supply us with some information, does he have it now . MR. LYON: I haven't at the moment , Mr. Chairman . We will undertake to produce those, Mr. Chairman , if not tonight , back in the committee or in the House at a suitable time tomorrow. They will have them tomorrow . It was a head count he was looking for , and then reconciliation in the case of the Member for St. Johns, reconciliation of . . . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify it. I was involved in asking about the count in Management Committee .

I think the Leader of the Opposition was asking for the same kind of count for the executive staff, that is for the Premier's personal staff or office staff, and I assume that will come before the salary is voted on. MR. LYON: I undertake to provide it whether the salary is voted on or not , so it's immaterial. MR. CHE when lACK: Mr. Chairman, there is no question that he undertakes to provide it it will be provided, but it can 't very well be debated if the committee is no longer seized of that item. So is there an expectation that we will have it before the . . . ? MR. LYON: I should know that shortly now. MR.

CHERNIACK: Let's wait . . . MR. LYON: We have the SMYs . MR. CHERNIACK: I understand that , Mr. Chairman, but it is interesting to me to know what people were involved and how many. In any event, it will probably come and there is no use dealing with that . I have a few other questions to ask . One is in relation to the Task Force and the Minister responsible for the Task Force .

As I gathered from this afternoon 's discussion there are still two people on contract work ing for the Task Force, although I gathrr also that there is no Task Force, that there are no personnel left who are members of any Task Force so I'd like to get that clear before I go on. MR. LYON: Well , the other thing I'd like to get clear is this .

It was my understanding - I was absent at the time - that the Task Force had been fully debated and I don't wish to be participating in repetitious debate and thereby being offensive to the rule, but there are two people, as was indicated this afternoon by the Minister, still doing follow-up work on Task Force items, that is staff people. But insofar as the Task Force members themselves , that is the volunteers from the private sector and from the other disciplines who were engaged in the study.

That work has been completed although some of the people are still available for consultation on a voluntary basis , of course. As an example I think I used this afternoon, Mr. Riley does not have an office in the building any more . 4605

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , the Premier made two points just now. One is that he doesn't want to be offensive to the Rules and I don 't blame him , but on the other hand we are dealing now with his Salary and his position and I want to tell him that in my opinion the Estimates Review with the Minister responsible for the Task Force were not satisfactorily completed and were not developed to the extent of the questions that I am posing . But, regardless of that , one thing that Mr.

Spivak made clear was that his future role in Cabinet is in the hands of the Premier , and that he could not forecast just what he would be doing. He is here fortunately, so he can confirm that . But I mean that is well known . But the fact is that the role assigned to him as Minister without Portfolio , is, as far as I know , responsible for the Task Force , and I believe he is now a member of Management Comm ittee.

I don 't know how much longer we continue to call him the Minister responsible for the Task Force , because I have the impression that as a Task Force, there is none , that the Minister said today , out of courtesy , there are responses that have to be made , or should be made, or are being made , to commen ts received from private individuals by the Premier , by him , and possibly by others . But I want to know whether there is an ongoing role today , tomorrow , yesterday , in connection with the Task Force. MR. LYON: Mr .

Chairman, the ongoing role and this is highly repetitious, I think it has been said three times and I am sure my honourable friend understands that there are two staff people still engaged in follow-up and research work with respect to Task Force work and further detailed work that is being done as follow-up to that. The future role of the Minister without Portfoilio , the Honourable Member for River Heights, as my honourable friend is well aware , is something that would not be a matter that would ordinarily be debated in the Committee of Supply . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , I understand from what the Minister said that one of these people on staff, on contract I think was the term he used , is leaving shortly to continue studies somewhere, and that I gather means there will be one remaining person on contract. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Member for St. Johns , I believe the Minister for the Task Force said that that was his Executive Assistant who would be returning to school in the fall. MR. CHERNIACK: So then I gather there are two additional peop le who are on contract working in connection with the Task Force . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Maybe the Minister responsible for the Task Force , who is here , can clarify the situation . MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman , I think the situat ion is clear . There is one individual on contract . There is another , my Executive Assistant who is on contract , and he will be leaving to complete his studies overseas . MR. CHERNIACK: So I am right, now there is only one left, who will be working on the Task Force . I believe that is correct , I don 't want to draw the wrong conclusion . There were two and there will be one leaving and I gather there will be one left on the Task Force on contract.

I assume that is correct because I haven't been corrected otherwise . Then I would like to know , the Task Force has made a report , I believe it was a final report - is there a supplementary report expected that will be made public or is the work being done in connection with explaining features of the Task Force or making further investigations on behalf of Management Comm ittee? Just what role do they have to play in the future? MR.

LYON: It is essentially clean-up work , finalization of Task Force activities , some requests that have been made for further amplification of detail that members of the Executive Council may requ ire with respect to Task Force recommendations . ~ MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, is the Task Force, such as it is now , dealing direct with Ministers or is it dealing with Management Committee? MR. LYON: The Task Force is deal ing with the Executive Council through its co-chairman , the Honourable Min ister without Portfolio . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , could we now stop calling him co-chairman since there is no other chairman. It might be a help for us to clarify just what role he has. He is no longer a co-chairman , 1 assume , and 1 didn't know he was continuing as a chairman .. . 4606

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. LYON: He was the co-chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh, yes, that's clear . MR. LYON: I think we could take judicial not ice of that, if not even political. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm not sure that I'm prepared to take judicial notice of anything. I think that it is clear that we are in a legislative process where in the Estimates review we are trying to visualize the future of members of the Executive Council and the roles they play. MR. LYON: I think it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that we are filling in some time until some other support comes in, but that's my view . The Member for St.

Johns may have another view . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, not only do I have another view, but I'm really not much interested in the Premier's view. I can tell you ... MR. LYON: Well, the feeling is mutual, so it's ... MR. CHERNIACK: I can tell you, I have about 10 items that I would like to discuss with the Minister and I would like to do it quickly. It would be very helpful if the Premier and/or his Minister gave forthright, brief answers and then we could proceed onward. But if they will not, then of course I will have to be stuck with this kind of discussion. MR. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, with respect, the Honourable the Member for St. Johns knows this well so I'm not even attempting to read him a lecture, but the Constitution and the future makeup of the Executive Council is hardly a matter for discussion as to who is going to be appointed to what portfolio and so on, with respect to the Minister in question or any other Minister, for that matter. I'm sure he is well aware of that, having been a member of the Executive Council. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had already said that. Really, I'm not that much concerned with the future of Mr. Spivak.

I am concerned about the future of the Task Force, and if it has a future. I think now is has wound down to the extent where the Premier has said there is clean-up work . I think those were his words . MR. LYON: That's right . MR. CHERNIACK: Therefore, I'm . . . MR. LYON: A finalization of their actions . MR. CHERNIACK: A finalization. I did ask whether there would be a supplementary of further report. We have not had a report from the Task Force for several months now, it seems to me . ..) MR. LYON: I'm not aware that there will be any supplementary report. • MR.

CHEIACK: Well, then I gather that the role of the Minister without Portfolio will be to continue to the extent that he is asked or the extent that it is necessary to advise the Members of the Executive Council as to any other ideas or proposals that they have to make, and that it is a job that is winding up. MR. LYON: That is quite correct . MR. CHERNIACK: Now we've got that and that's clear . .. MR. LYON: We had that this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, with respect. MR. CHERNIACK: The Premier may have had that but there was enough uncertainty to make it necessary, in my opinion, to clarify it.

There is one person who .is still on contract. May 1 inquire when that contract will be over, who it is and how much it is? MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Minister responsible for the Task Force will answer that question . 4607

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman , I don 't have the details of the contract. That was given to the committee at the request of the Honourable Member for Selkirk , and those particulars are, in fact, in the records . MR. LYON: They are in Hansard . MR. SPIVAK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: If that is the gentleman who was, I believe, the secretary to the Task Force, that is quite clear. The Minister gave full information as to the terms of the contract, I don 't think that we knew or know when his contract will terminate . MR.

SPIVAK: Well, I can't give you the exact details . I think that can be easily obtained and given to the Minister. MR. LYON: There was one extension on it, I know that , but I can 't give the details. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am through with the questions I wanted to ask on the Task Force . Mr. Parasiuk is here. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Member for Transcona . MR. PARASIUK: Yes, I don't know if this has been raised before and I don 't want to be facetious in raising it, but I think there is some difficulty with the title given the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Task Force.

That automatically implies that the Task Force is still existing, and I don 't know whether this has been raised, but I wonder if the First Minister would consider maybe changing his designation? MR. LYON: I'm sure that something of that nature will happen in due course . MR. CHAIRMAN : Item 1.(a)-pass - the Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: I wanted to bring to the Premier 's attention that there was confusion in the minds of some of us while we were talking to the Minister of Labour relating to two people who were dismissed or set aside.

Firstly , there was the Civil Service Commissioner , who she said was - well , I would like clarification from the Premier - what was the change in status , and how was it arrived at, and what is the present status of the person, Mr. Duncan , who was formerly the Civil Service Commissioner, if I am using the title correctly, he was full-time , I think , Commissioner? MR. LYON: Well, Mr.

Chairman, my understanding of the legislation , I don 't have it in front of me but it's clear from the reading of it, that up to seven commissioners can be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council , one of whom may be designated as the full-time commissioner . The present status of Mr. Duncan is that he has reverted from full-time commissioner , by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council , to part -time commissioner . The further complication , of course , in discussing Mr.

Duncan 's situation is that he is represented by Counsel, and for what purpose - whether he is started in action or not , I CCAN 'T HONESTLY SAY. I don 't believe that that is the case, but some advice has been received through the Commission to the effect that Mr. Duncan wished the Commission to deal with his solicitor , that 's the advice I have. MR.

CHERNIACK: I'm not clear myself whether he is now , today, a part-time Commissioner , because I had the impression from the Minister of Labour that he was no longer , because of some terminat ion that took place last December , I believe, and that's where some of the confusion is.

And then 1 want to tell the Premier one more thing, that when she was pressed she said , " Well , 1 know nothing about it; the Premier was responsible in that connection ," and that made it even more confusing, especially since it appears that she signed the Order-in-Counc il which demoted him, or reclassified him , so there is that confusion . MR. LYON: In what respect ; as to his status? 4608

.. Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, because I think she said that he was no longer the ... MR. LYON: Insofar as I am advised he is still, as far as I am aware, by operation of law he is still a part-time commissioner, whether he chooses to act in that capacity is really up to him . MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Chairman, is the Premier aware that there has been the statement made that he is not receiving notices of meetings? MR. LYON: Well, in that connection arises the comment that I made before .

The information that came to me through the Civil Service Commission was to the effect when he was asked to come to a meeting the retort apparently was made, and this is hearsay, that the Commission should deal through his solicitor, so really you would have to ask Mr. Duncan rather than me. MR. CHERNIACK: No, no, Mr. Chairman . MR. LYON: I can't be responsible for reporting what his ... MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I'm not too concerned about Mr.

Duncan's position as I am with the fact that I know that the Act provides that a commissioner may not be dismissed without the approval of a substantial majority of the Legislature. I think that it is important to clarify that since he is, in the opinion of the Premier , still a part-time commissioner , that he is receiving notice, and if he wanted notices directed to his solicitor , it would be surprising that the notices are going to the solicitor . And I don 't expect the Premier to answer now, he can 't, obviously he doesn't know - well , he doesn't know whether or not he's getting notices to meetings. MR.

LYON: I am again under the impression, Mr. Chairman , that all of this was dealt with under Civil Service Commission , under the Department of Labour. If my honourable friend has some quest ions he wishes to ask above and beyond that , fine. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , as I recall it, and I may be wrong , I haven't checked Hansard. MR. LYON: I wasn 't here, so I'm . .. MR.

CHERNIACK: Well , I haven 't checked the record ; I didn 't bring Hansard, but my recollection is that the Minister of Labour said , " I will not discuss this anymore, it is the Premier's decision and his responsibility, and you will have to ask him ." Now , I believe that' s what she said , Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister responsible for the Task Force. MR. SPIVAK: I think it's fair to say that that was after a discussion , it just did not happen immediately , it was after a discussion , in which point she established the position that she was not prepared to proceed.

And she did I think , give the Committee a fair amount of information. The Premier wasn 't in attendance at that meeting , he's not aware of the information that she gave, and I think to that extent most of what had been asked in fact was discussed in Committee. MR. CHERNIACK: All I wanted to find out is what are the facts of the present situation .

I would be prepared to leave it if the Premier will undertake to have the record read of Hansard, whatever was said by the Ministe r of Labour , and then make a statement , in due course, as to what is the present situation and whether the information she gave is full and complete, all and that's really I'm pressing for at this time , is clarification . MR. CHAIAN: The First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , I'll be happy to take a look at the Hansard record, but I have already told my honourable friend , in the Committee, so far as I am of the information as to the current status of . Mr. Duncan . MR.

CHEIACK: Well, Mr. Chairman , I would leave it on the understanding that the Premier knows that I am under the impression , and others may be, that the Minister of Labour indicated that he was no longer a member of the Commission , and it's on that basis, that apparent contradiction, which should be clarified, and it's not in my concern to go back and prove that she said one thing 4609

Thursday, June 29, 1978 or the other. I would like the Premier to make a sort of definitive up-to-date statement as to the status of Mr . Duncan, and it's not the kind of thing that I would ask that should be debatable, I just would like him to undertake to clarify that. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I've given the picture , so far as I am aware of it, if there is any change in that I will certainly amend what I have said tonight.

I will double check Hansard, make further inquiry about the status, but the latest information I had was to the effect - that is in the absence of a resignation that I am not aware of - that by operation by the Order-in-Council he was made a part-time commissioner rathe r than a full time commissioner , and that status obtained so far as I am aware . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Chairman , I think the confusion arises because of the fact that there was an Order-in-Council , I think on October 24th or 27th , or sometime shortly after the government took office , reclassifying or changing the classification of the functions of Mr. Duncan. However , there was a letter that was sent by the department to Mr.

Duncan on December 16th, 1977, conceivably on request , possibly as a result of the Legislative Council advising the department that that should be done , because we have not received the exact information in that sense and that the Minister I think undertook to provide us information to that effect but has yet not provided th s - the letter of Deceer 16th, nor the letter of the Legislative Council to the department - which she quoted from in the Estimates Review. But that letter of December 16th states that Mr.

Duncan hereby receives $1,500 , or something like that , two weeks pay in lieu of notice, which is a termination letter. If you get a letter like that that says here's two weeks pay in lieu of notice one assumes then that you are being terminated . And the other complication is that if in fact Mr. Duncan was made a part-time commissioner on October 24th , or 28th , it seems rather strange that he would be getting a two-week pay cheque of $1 ,500 in lieu of notice , on December 16th, and that 's where I think the confusion does exist , as to whether in fact Mr.

Duncan was a full-time commissioner up until December 16th. If he was a full-time commissioner what was Mr. Merlin Newton in the interim? And if he wasn 't, if he was just a part-time commissioner , does that letter of December 16th constitute a term ination notice? And if it is a termination notice, is this in violation of

Section 4, subsection 4, of the Civil Service Act which states that a commissioner can only be terminated with the approval of two-thirds of the members of the Legislat ive Assembly? And I think that still is a confusion, I don 't think it's been cleared up, and I think it should be cleared up in that the Act may in fact have been violated, possibly inadvertently. MR. LYON: I'll be happy to take a look at the record as the Member for St . Johns has indicated .

I haven 't seen the letter to which the Member for Transcona refers , but I have given the Committee my understanding of the status aris ing from the Order-in-Counc il, which is a matter of public record , of the week of October 24th . MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(a)-pass - the Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: I move on now to another bit of confusion regarding the dismissal of the Deputy Minister of Labour.

My impression was that the Minister of Labour said that he was dismissed because he sent files , certain government files , I guess, to a radio station , but then it appeared that this had happened at a later occasion , after his dismissal , and again the Minister said that she would not answer any questions but would leave it to the Prem ier to explain because he is the one who was responsible for the dismissal. MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman , the Deputy Minister of Labour was dismissed because of an incompatibility which was patent as between him and the Minister of Labour .

I don 't think that it serves any useful purpose to go beyond that. =- MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I'm sat sfied with the Premier making that statement. It is much more clear than the ones we have had up to now. I am wonder ing if the Min ister would like to make a statement about his dismissal of the three Deputies the day or two before he was sworn in. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some discussion, perhaps in the fall session , ::: about that matter.

That was the exercise of the prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council , which was exerc ised on the 24th of October with respect to the three people in question , one having submitted a letter of resignation , the other two were dismissed from their positions. 4610

• Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I don 't recall that it was really discussed or that the Prem ier gave so calm a response . I have said before that I recognize the right of the Premier to dismiss a Deputy Minister . I criticize the manner in which it was done, but that is his handling of it. But I asked him for that because I don't think there was ever a statement made as to why they were dismissed and I don 't believe that the Premier has to give a reason . All he has to say is, I had the right to do so, and I think he said that.

I gather, then, he doesn't want to give a reason and I accept that. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend can draw whatever conclusions he wishes. The statement I made stands , that the prerogative power which is contained in the statutes of Manitoba to make those changes was exercised in the case of two of them to dismiss them, and in the case of the third one, to accept his resignat ion after, of course, it had been asked for . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm sort of hoping that we're going to get the information about the staffing , so I would like then to move to the question of the finances , the deficit as at March 31 , 1978. I would like to ask the Premier what is his latest estimate of the deficit for the previous fiscal year? MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, that information will be available to all Members of the House, I would imagine , within a fairly short period . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I recall that there was a public statement made with a forecast of a deficit of $229 mill ion - I think that is correct - with great dismay and shock back in the fall of last year, and that when the budget was brought down in this year, it was learned that there was some substantial reduction in that estimate, down to, I think it was $181 million, something like that , and I'm just hoping that the Premier can give us some indication of where it stands now. MR.

LYON: I think it was indicated at the time, when there was some debate in the House about it and I'm sure there was debate when the Estimates of the Minister of Finance were before the committee , giving a day-by-day blow-by-blow account on what the expected deficit for a quarter, a half , a third quarter report , or a full year will be serves very little useful purpose. The point of having quarterly reports is to ensure that the best figures that are available are given in those reports.

When the final report, which I expect will be unaudited, is made available , then we will all be apprised of what the figures are that are presented by the officers of the Department of Finance . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I don 't have them with me but I think that the first estimate was as of the end of September. MR. LYON: That quarter . MR. CHERNIACK: Yes. I think the next estimate was when the Budget came down, when we were told of about a $44 million or $50 million reduction, which was some time in March, I believe. I stand to be corrected . MR.

PARASIUK: The second estimate was January 20 for the year ending December 31, 1977. MR. LYON: For the quarter . MR. CHERNIACK: So I would like to know, what is the policy, what will be done by this government in terms of not only filing quarterly reports , which I gather are reports of moneys expended , but forecasts of the year-end amount , which was done last October or November, something like that. MR. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, I had thought that the policy was clear, as enunciated by myself and by the Minister of Finance, that quarterly reports are now being prepared by the Department of Finance and are being issued some time after the close of each quarter, and that practice will continue. That is the policy. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , these are not estimates or predictions of what will happen, but are only moneys spent to that date . Is that correct? 4611

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. LYON: The correct terminology escapes me but perhaps the Deputy Minister of Finance , who is here , can provide me with the right words for it. -(Interjection)- Interim unaudited cash statements with a projection according to the best information that the department then has as to what the year-end excess or shortfall of revenues will be over expenditures . MR.

CHERNIACK: I want to make sure that the Premier is clear on what he is saying is going to happen , because I did not know that there were expectations that there would be quarterly projections of the department's best information , or may I say, guess , of what would happen at the end of the fiscal year . I thought they were only going to be unchecked , unaudited statements of actual moneys expended , and received of course . MR. LYON: I think, Mr. Chairman, rather than speak as to my recollection of the reports, the reports are matters of public record and they speak for themselves .

The information they contain speaks for itself . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I was asking for policy because ... MR. LYON: Well, there is no policy when you are doing an unaudited statement. It's not a question of policy so much as it is a question of what the figures say. The policy is to provide quarterly reports . The reports then speak for themselves . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, that is so clear. The only thing is we don 't the nature of the reports and the Premier isn't sure of the nature. The reason I say he is not sure is that he has given two kinds of statements that will be issued quarterly .

One will be the actual receipts and disbursements , unaudited , quarterly . The other , he said , would be a projection , and I doubt very much if there will be a projection but if there will be, I think we should know that that is the policy . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance . MR. CIK: Mr. Chairman, the statement that was produced in November contained a projection based on the end of September results . The projection that was contained in the January issue of the December 31 date report contained the same projection as November .

And you'll find that it contains also a paragraph in it that says that there will be changes to that projection or suggests that there are changes in it, but it doesn 't put amounts on it. The year end repoit , March 31 year-end report , for which the books close on April 20th , will be a report that will be fairly close to the actual report and in fact is double checked .

It's not an auditor report , but it's checked with the auditor to ensure that the same things are being taken into account as will appear in the Estimates, not the Estimates , but the Public Accounts that come out probably in October , that are the complete Public Accounts. But there hasn 't been contained in it, other than the first report , there is not a projection , there is not an updated projection .

The January report that came out did not contain an updated projection, it simply con tained a November projection to the end of the year and had a paragraph in it which said that there were changes taking place , but it didn 't put a dollar figure on it. ~ MR. CHERNIACK: That's right, Mr. Chairman , so I was right as to what has happened . Now , I'm asking , will there be any . . . MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , with respect , I think I was right too because what I was saying was that the report speaks for itself, and the report is a matter of public record .

I don 't know if my honourable friend receives one, we can certainly make them available to him , and they speak for themselves. I don 't have a copy in front of me. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I know what the report said , and the report said exactly what the Minister of Finance said . It had the actual unaudited receipts and disbursements , and in November there was a projection of what would happen as of the end of the fiscal year, March 31 .

In January , there was an updated , unaudited statement of income and expenditures , and the same projection , and it was not a projection based on a new calculation, but just a reprint of the old . Now, we're going to get , not a project ion, but an actual unaudited statement of income and expenditures as at March 31 . All right. Tomorrow is June 30th, the end of the first quarter . What can we expect? What is the policy of the government in relation to the quarterly statement that will be forthcoming? And I'm sugggest ing - well , I don 't know , I'm asking that question - and the Premier said it speaks 4612

Thursday, June 29, 1978 for itsel f. Well, we haven 't got it yet, so what will be the extent of it, will it be only unaudited actual receipts and expenditures, or will it be a projection related to the forecast of the deficit which this government is predicting it will have at the end of this fiscal year. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , my honourable friend makes his point a little bit clearer now. I was speaking of the fourth-quarter report , which will be out reasonably soon, I would expect, for the fiscal year which concluded March 31 , 1978.

My honourable friend is now asking the question, what will be in the first quarterly report for the current fiscal year, which will appear sometime some several weeks from now. So far as I'm aware, the comment of the Minister of Finance obtains, that is what will appear in it. The format is pretty well set, so far as I'm aware . So, if my honourable friend seeks that information, I say look to the previous reports, and he will find what will be contained. As to what the figures are, he, like myself , will have to wait until the figures are published . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I've tried to explain to the Premier that there are only two reports issued , two quarterly reports , one being a quarterly, and one being a January report, which I guess is a three qua terly report, and that there was only one projection made as of the September 30th information . Does he wish there to be, and will there be, a projection in this report that is due as at tomorrow, a projection to indicate the deficit and how it will relate to the budgeted deficit in the Estimates we are now dealing with? MR. CRAIK: No, Mr.

Chairman , we haven't included a projection, or will not include a projection for the year end . MR. CHERNIACK: For next year end? MR. CRAIK: No. MR. CHERNIACK: For th is current fiscal year end. MR. LYON: If I can just interject this . I think the one factor that may be missing in this, is the fact that the provincial auditor is within hearing of my voice, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, the six-month report , as I recall it, was an audited report. MR.

CHERNIACK: The six-month report as to income and expenditures was audited, but it was clear to me, but it was not clear to the casual reader that the projection had no imprinture by the provincial auditor . He did not give any sort of approval. MR. LYON: That's right. MR. CHERNIACK: That was internal in the department.

Now, I gather from our little discussion on what was said by the Minister of Finance, that there is no policy and no intention to make pro ject ions for the end of the fiscal year, only the actual income and expenditures , and that therefore only once, as far as I know, in the history of this province, was there a projection made of an expected deficit at the end of the fiscal year, which was not complete . MR. LYON: Well there was one other factor of course , Mr.

Chairman, which I'm sure my honourable friend is not unaware of, that the new administration, when it came into office, asked for a report on the current state of the finances of the prvvince, and in the course of that report, the projection was received as well. And that event, I'm sure, didn 't go unnoticed in my honourable friend 's life . There was a change in government , and it was the new administration asking for an up-to -date report on the state of the finances of the administration which it took over. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , that makes a good deal of sense , made a good deal of sense, and would make a good deal of sense, if the Premier will indicate that he is prepared to make pub lic a projection as of next September 30th , and where we're going, because new government or old government , the people of Manitoba are still concerned with expenditures and deficits.

And since this government is pred icting a substantial deficit, a fantastically large deficit in this current fiscal year , I would like to know whether , let us say half-way through the year, I don't believe we can get it now, we will have a projection such as was made last year. Is that a fair request? MR. LYON: I think the request is fair. The format of the quarterly reports , as developed by the Department of Finance and so on, is still being worked on to some extent, and I can't, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, answer my honourable friend categorically . I defer to the Minister of 4613

Thursday , June 29, 1 978 Finance. MR. CRAIK: As to whether or not there will be a projection in the June , the end of June repor t? MR. LYON: Half yearly , or quarterly, or whatever. MR. CRAIK : We haven't planned at this point in time for the June report to contain a projection to the end of the year. We expect the June report will be out by the end of July . A normal quarterly report will be roughly within the month, about a month after the month end.

The year-end report takes longer, partly because you allow the extra 20 days , and secondly , it's a year-end , and you want it to be a little more complete and as close as possible to account for the items that the auditor intends to include in his report. So the year-end report comes out later, but the normal quart erly reports, will roughly be a month after the month end . MR. CHERNIA CK: Well , that 's helpful, Mr. Chairman .

May I ask , whether or not the government is prepared to do this year what it did last year , and that is, as at September 30th, half-way through the year, to have an audited statement plus a projection , just as was done last , I guess , November. MR.

LYON: Well, I'm like my friend from Transcona , I don 't wish to be facetious either, and if my honourable friend can say that there is going to be another election and a change of administration, why that would be one item which would certainly have a bearing as to whether or not the administration receives an up-to-date report , and I'm not again , honestly being facetious, when I say that heretofore , up until the late fall of 1977, there were never any projections made by any previous administration - either that to which my honourable friend belonged , or earlier ones - as to what the current cash situation was , or the projected deficit , or anything of that nature .

So we are ploughing new ground , as few other administrations are in Canada at the present time , and we are learning as we are going along . I think that the concept of a quarterly report is certainly not one that I have ever heard attacked by any person who is interested in having as good a disclosure as possible , of what the state of finance is of the operations of government. MR. CHERNIA CK: I think we'll find, and I favour a quarterly report , that it is not too meaningful to have these reports .

Alberta 's had them for some time , Canada has them , it's not a new thing, but it's not too helpful because of the seasonal changes that take place in the Incomes and Expenditures, and I suppose if the quarterly reports are made for a per iod of years , then one can reflect back on the trends that took place , and get some intelligent conclusions out of them. But I am pressing the Premier to undertake to try - to make an effort - to duplicate what happened last year .

What happened last year was that the half-year , the September 30th half-yearly statement, that quarterly report , carried with it - firstly it was audited , secondly carried with it a projection , and as I say, I don 't think that this administration , having set a policy which was understandable , should shrink from or hesitate to do the same thing in each year of its administration , and maybe as a good example for future administrations , to make these projections .

Now, frankly , again, I have some doubts about it, because we found a $50 mill ion change that takes place out of $220 million , which is about a 20 percent change , in the projection . Nevertheless , it would become more meaningful , over the years , if we have these every year , and then are able to judge what their value is. We can 't really judge it unless we have several , and I'm sort of setting a challenge to the Premier to see to it that it be done . There is no doubt that it can be done , because it was done. Now if it was worth doing , then it is worth doing again , that's my challenge to him. MR.

LYON: Mr. Chairman, we will always consider the thoughtful advice of the Member for St. Johns, having regard to his acumen as a Minister of Finance in the previous administration . We'll certainly consi der his advice, and I know that the senior members of the Department of Finance , who are within hearing of his voice , have heard what he has to say tonight , and I'm sure that they will consider that. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Finance . MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman , I want to just indicate that not only last fall was there a new government took office, but there was a very substantial upheaval in September of the payments by Revenue Canada to the Province of Manitoba , with the vast reduction in the income taxes that the government was advised of September 16th of last year , of $50 million , which did not improve to the end of 4614

Thursday, June 29, 1978 the year . And when the new government came in, as has been said before, we had not been advised , although we had questioned it prior to October 11th, and it had been indicated to us and to the public of Manitoba, that the financial situation of the province was the same as had been indicated in the Estimates indicated earlier in the year - for the current year. We weren't told and the people of Man itoba were not told , prior to October 11th, that there was a $50 million shortfall on Revenues, that had been indicated to the province prior to October 11th.

So, not only was it a new government faced with the situation of grasping ahoid of all of this, but also being apprised immediately that there was a $50 million shortfall on the advisement of the Federal Government, confirmed at a Finance Ministers' meeting on October 7th - reconfirmed October 7th - before the election . And a statement by both the former First Minister and the former Minister of Finance, upon questioning, gave no indication of this happening. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, firstly, dealing with the First Minister.

You notice he said that the senior members of the Finance Department are within hearing, and that they will take into consideration what I have said . It's really not their job at all to decide whether or not to have a projection - it's up to the Premier and it's up to his Minister of Finance to make that decision, and if they make the decision , then staff will do it. There's no question about it but staff won't do it unless so instructed . My challenge was not to staff, but rather to the political leadership to undertake to do that.

Having said that, I now understand from the Minister of Finance that there was a September upheaval in income - a substantial reduction in income - and he is now accusing the previous government of not making the announcement or not mak ng the statement. It seems to me, formerly he accused them of losing the money . Am I wrong about that? That there were accusations made by the First Minister and by his Minister of Finance that the NDP Government was responsible for this substantial reduction in income - does he want to challenge my suggestion that that's what they said? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, my comment was that the First Minister was asked prior to the election on October 4th , publicly , what the state of affairs of the finances were of the province, and he said the same as were indicated in April or whenever the Budget came down .

He referred to the date of the Budget , and said the deficit was approximately whatever the amount was projected last year, and either he did not know , or did not say, what the real fact was, and that was that a month earlier - not quite a month earlier than that - the province had been advised clearly, by Ottawa, by Revenue Canada, that there was a shortfall income tax of $48.6 million . MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Min ister . MR. LYON: To deal with the second branch, Mr. Chairman, of what the Member for St.

Johns said, as to ascribing responsibility for the situation - the deficit situation - as we found it when we came into office .$ I, for one, remember at the press conference, when the half-yearly report came out, making it clear that the short rfall in evenue , because the question I believe was asked and I'm going from memory , the shortfall in revenue contributed, that was a Federal short-fall in revenue which contributed to it, and that that properly could not be attributed to the provincial administration, which we had succeeded.

But there was an additional amount in the current revenue which was well above and beyond the expenditures that had been forecast by the then Minister of Finance back in his Budget , and for that the former administration had to accept responsibility, yes. But not for the fact that federal revenues had diminished . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK: Well , that's clear now, and the First Minister says it was clear before, so that's fine; that that $50 million, or 48 point something was not attributed to the fault of the previous administration , and when the Minister says , they have to be responsible for the shortfall in provincial revenues , surely he means they have to accept the same responsibility that the Federal would have to accept for wrong predictions of what would be the revenue? MR. LYON: Well , I was referring more

part icularly , Mr. Chairman , to overexpenditures which were running extremely heavily at that time , as we found out on the six-month report. MR. CHERNIACK: All right . So now we come, Mr. Chairman, to a deficit which was predicted last 4615

Thursday, June 29, 1978 November of being substantially higher than it turned out to be, .. . MR. LYON: Well, we don't know that yet. MR. CHERNIACK: I know, - whatever the statement was that the Minister of Finance said, where he talked about an approximate $50 million reduction in the deficit - we don't know what it will be and we expect we will find out fairly soon . I think the Minister of Finance said maybe next week. That will be helpful of course . Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier if he's aware of the fact that he is budgeting, that they're budgeting for a very substantial deficit and that I believe that it will be substantially in excess of even the budgeted deficit . Can the Premier give us an idea of what the deficit for this current fiscal year is being budgeted on? MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman , as my honourable friend knows when Supplementary Supply is brought down, and he and the world will know , as we know , as we will know at that time what that figure may be and what effect Supplementary Supplz will have upon that figure.

I make this brief comment upon the state of the expected deficit in Manitoba this year , now being computed on a combined basis, that notwithstanding the fact that the expenditures of the province of Manitoba have increased by the smallest percentage of any province in Canada this year, we are still facing what my honourable friend described earlier as, and these are approximations of his words, "an extremely heavy deficit in Manitoba." And I was glad to have him underline the one side of that ledger, and I'm underlyining the other side of the ledger , which is that, with the extreme restraint that has been applied on government expenditures , we still have what I regard , and what he regards, as a substantial combined deficit in the province of Manitoba , which all of us must work against .

So I'm not making any predictions as to the state of that deficit at the present time, but I'm merely telling him that even with the restraint the province is still well in the hole , and it's going to take some considerable action, and the considerable acumen on the part of all of us involved in government and I include the opposition in th is as well because we are all involved in government - to make sure that we get our books back into a better state of balance as soon as possible, because all of this in turn , is contributing to national inflation , which is the scourge of the most helpless in our society, the worst scourge of the most helpless in our society .

MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I have to comment that a worse scourge to me is the unemployment situation where people are walking without jobs , without incomes, and are there, to a large extent, because of the policy of this government. Mr. Chairman, unemployment is not something unique to Manitoba ' but certainly the government of Manitoba, today 's government of Manitoba , has created more unemployment by the very stringent methods that he is talking about and that is a basic difference in philosophy between us.

I'm not saying this in any pejorative sense, I'm saying tha their pol icies have been such as to remove opportunities for job creation as compared to the previous government , and they think that that 's right, and I think that's wrong. And, what do we say, they say that the fact that you say your right and I say I'm right doesn 't say that either of us is wrong . It's a matter of opinion .

Now, the Minister talks about the stringent measures that are taken , and they certainly are astringent, but the same time the Premier and his party have actually cut down on revenues to a substantial extent, and that is their philosophic approach , and although I quarrel .ith why they are doing it I recognize that they are doing it and have a right so to do. What I was talking about on the deficit is that there is now before us a projected deficit of $114 million.

There will be Supplementary Supply in the millions , I don 't know how many million , and there is something that we learned of more recently, an additional $30 million of expenditure , which is not shown anywhere except in a statement which we got out of the Minister of Finance , - when I say got out of him, it took us awhile to have him agree to file a statement which showed an expected expenditure of $30 million in Capital which are not recorded in the Current Estimates at all, Current and Capital Estimates at all.

So that adding $30 million to the 114, is $144 million , plus whatever Supplementary Supply will be, and I point that out because it was not revealed when the Minister made his statement when he filed the Estimates, when he said that the total spending , total combined spending for the province in this fiscal year will be $1 billion , and the number of hundreds of million dollars that are shown in the Estimates that are right in front of the Premier at this time .

So that there is another $30 million, which I assume he is awaie of, and was aware of all along , I would have to assume that as Chairman of Management , if for no other capacity . MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman , my honourable friend and I would be trenching upon the same quicksand of legislative debate if I were to try to rethrash the old straw that my honourable friend is rethrashing tonight which he thrashed on at least one or two other occasions in the House , and he obviously eithei didn 't listen to , or didn 't want to accept the explanation that was given by the 4616

Thursday, June 29, 1978 Miniseter of Finance with respect to extra Capital funds. But all of that will be made clear in the course of the transitional period that we're going through in the combining of Current and Capital accounts , and the carry-forward which still seems to stick in his mind, and which he is talking about tonight again. It's an item which I had thought had been settled , or explained, to everyone's satisfaction.

That will all be made clear in the course of time, and then we'll determine as to whether he was right or whether the statements made by the Minister of Finance, which I happen to believe, are right . We really are , Mr. Chairman, I'm suggesting, thrashing old straw that has been thrashed at least three times in the course of the debate. -(Interjection)- I'm not through. You know, we're talking about the salary of the Premier of Manitoba, not the Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'd be surprised to think that the Piemier is hiding behind his salary as compared with that of any of the Members of his Executive Council. I have to remind him, Mr. Chairman, in case he forgot, that he's Chairman of Management Committee which has more overall responsibility for the Budget, in my opinion, than does the Minister of Finance. MR. LYON: Indeed. MR. CHERNIACK: Indeed he has. MR. LYON: I said "indeed" with a question marK. MR. CHERNIACK So that I am in the right ball I park, I'm in the same ball park, and I think that even in the same threshing field when it comes to looking at the straw.

Now, I want the Premier to know one other thing, that the $30 million which was revealed to be expected expenditure in this current fiscal year, and thus belies the statement made by the Minister of Finance when he said that the total combined spending in this fiscal year will be, whatever figure is in the Estimates Book, that he was in error.

I'm not even saying that it was deliberate, I'm not saying that he deliberately avoided telling us about the extra $30 million, but I believe that he must have known about it as I should assume the Chairman of Management Committee would have known about it, that when challenged with that, his answer was, and now I'm informing the First Minister who may not know the answer so I'll give it to him, his answer was that there will be so much unexpended moneys that are now being asked for that will eat up or balance out the $30 million of extra expenditure.

And I wanted him to know that that was stated, and I want to know whether he accepts that as being a proper budgeting report, to budget for an expenditure in excess of what is expected to be spent? MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, in this very room, I believe when the Minister of Finance was away on the last issue that the province negotiated in Switzerland, I explained some of that same information, I thought to the satisfacf everyone else.

The Minister of Finance subsequently debated it in the course of his Estimates, and in the House, so I'm really not going to engage in what is thrashing old straw and something that my honourable friend will not be convinced of until he sees the audited figures, which will be available to him if he has patience, in due course, and he can fly whatever kites he wishes at the present time, but I'm really not interested in his estimation of what he thinks the Estimates say or should say. We're aware of what the situation is. The audited reports, in due course, will make that determination. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, may I ask the Premier, and the Chairman of Management Committee, either one can reply, whether or not it is correct to say that the government is expecting to expend, or budgeting to expend, $30 million more than is shown in the Estimates Book in front of him? MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, that question has been answered a number of times and I don't intend to engage in repetitious debate. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it could have been answered with a "yes" or a "no", and that's not a debate . MR. LYON: Well, neithe answer would satisfy my honourable friend and that's it. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry the Premier doesn't have the floor at the moment. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an avoidance of accepting the fact that there is going to be $30 million more spent, budgeted to be spent. I think the explanation which is being given, that it will not add to the deficit because there is expected to be an underexpenditure of what's budgeted, 4617

Thursday, June 29, 1978 is an explanation which can be given. I think also one should say that through the history there have been occasions when special warrants have been issued with additional moneys being required, so that we know that never can the final figure be what is now budgeted . But it would be helpful if we had an acknowledgement of the statement that there is expected to be $30 million in Capital Expenditures previously authorized to be spent this year, in addition to the moneys spent there. If the Premier can't answer that I'll accept the fact that he can 't answer that. MR. LYON: Well, Mr.

Chairman , the Premier, and the Minister of Finance answered it weeks ago , and I don't int end to engage in this debate any further . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona . MR. PARASIUK : Thank you . MR. CHERNIACK: I have one more . Mr. Chairman , is the Premi er aware that there has been money spent for this year's program, out of last year 's supply? And that's an unfair question . He may or may not be aware, l'llt$ spell it out for him .

Apparently Urb an Affairs spent something like $200 ,000 or in that neighbourhoo d, out of last year's money for this year 's expenditures , I believe in connection with Assiniboine Park . MR. LYON: I'm aware of the extra amount that was set aside , the extra $200 ,000 I think it was, for Assiniboine Park. MR. CHERNIACK: Something like that. Mr . Chairman , I point out to the Piemier that that money is being charged as a deficit for last year and yet it is this year 's program , and here they're talking about a combined expenditure for this year . MR.

LYON: When we get in the Public Accounts next year we'll see whether my honourable friend is right , or whether the Minister of Finance has been right , as I know he has been . MR. CHERNIACK: The Minister of Finance has not denied this statement , that there was money spent out of last year 's fun ds for this year 's program . I wanted to ask the Premier, is there any more money of that nature that was charged to last year 's expenditures and deficit that will be for this year 's program? MR. LYON: The questions have all been answered , Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona . MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Chairman , I'm going to raise questions again regarding what type of report to expect , in that I thought I had it ctear in my mind what repo rts we would be receiving on a quarterly basis as a result of my attendance at Public Accounts committee meetings Review and attending the Estimates of the Minister of Finance , and I thought that we would be receiving quarterly statements which were exactly the same as we had received for the quarter ending September 30th, 1977, and that for the quarter ending December 31st , 1977.

I had not realized and I really hadn't perceived that the projections hadn 't been updated for December 31 , 1977 because the press release which you put out accoanying that December 31 quarterly statement said that the projections remained unchanged , which is not the same as saying that the projections are the same ones as existed on September 30. I got the impression that they had been updated and that the projections remained the same as projecting that type of deficit and I remembe r looking at that press release with some care .

Again , since I do expect that we will probably have a Publ ic Accounts committee meeting some time in the future and since I also expect that there will be these quarterly reports com ing out , one in the near future and one possibly on, say, October 20 or October 30, when I don 't expect the House to be sitting , I would just like to be sure of what I will be receiving . I will be receiving the statement of expenditures and revenues to that date , plus a projection of what the year-end statement will be.

If that is correct , then I think that we will probably be able to establish a pattern over a number of years, and you have indicated that looking at expend itures and revenues is not just a function tor the government , it's a function for all Members of the House . In order to do that, because you do have these seasonal variations i expenditure and revenue , it is important for the Members of the House , I think , to get a very good idea of what the seasonal var iations are . They will only be able to determine that if they do get those projections in June and Septembe r 4618

Thursday, June 29, 1978 and December. Once we start getting that for a period of two years or so, we will start determining a pattern and if there is something unusual that arises, then it will show up in those projections. Undoubtedly that will give us an opportunity to ask questions or, since you will be i suing them, it will give you an opportunity to explain why there is that variation .

But unless you do give the projections out on a systematic basis, at systematic intervals, it will be virtually impossible for anyone receiving those projections, or those quarterly statements, to really make much sense of them. That's why I understood the Minister of Finance, from his previous statements, to indicate that the quarterly statements would be exactly the same as the ones we had received to date. If that is the situation, fine , 1 am happy with that and we had an opportunity to discuss that in Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Department Estimates .

But today we seem to be getting another story and I just wanted a confirmation as to what we will be receiving in, say, August , with respect to the June 30th statement and in October with respect to the September 30th statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Member for Transcona, I believe that the Member for St. Johns asked almost the identical question and just has had it answered by the First Minister and the Minister of Finance . I was under the impression that the Member for St. Johns was satisfied with the information he received . MR.

PARASIUK: No, I sat in and listened on those and I didn't get a chance to enter into debate, and if you can recall, as soon as that answer was given by the First Minister, I stuck up my hand to ask a question . I stuck up my hand to ask a question because I had previously received other answers. I'm not debating this as any great policy issue; I'm just debating it as a matter of fact - what type of information will we received so I know what to expect when we get it, so I don't get up three months from now and say I've been done wrong. I don 't want to say that.

I just want to know what we will be getting and I don 't think that that is unfair in the light of the fact that we were under the impression from our Public Accounts Committee meetings that we would be receiving exactly the same quarterly statements as we had received in the past. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well , perhaps the Minister of Finance will repeat his answer from earlier. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman , I said that the June report, we hadn 't planned on including any projection .

The September 30th report that wa done last year was a very extensive study, including the Auditor and probably a lot more information was accumulated and generated and analyzed than would normally be done in an ordinary quarterly report . It is still possible that the later reports, the end of September report, could contain a projection . We had not planned on the June report containing a projection to the end of March 31, 1979. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , if I may just interrupt, I wanted to correct you. You said I asked the question and I appeared satisfied .

I did not rece ve the assurance I was asking for and could not receive it because it was not given , so I then ended by challenging the Premier and the Minister of Finance to do that. For the record , I don't believe they undertook to do it; I think the Premier said, well, the S'3nior member of the Finance Department is hearing it and will consider it, and I ,.. said it's a political decision . So I'm just correcting you and saying that I was not really satisfied . All I was satisfied was that I gave a challenge and it remained unanswered. It may or may not be dealt with. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona .

MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairman , my comment is that I assumed that for internal management purposes , the Department of Finance will be doing these projections . I know that the September ones are always done. Now, it is a matter of whether in fact the government will continue with its precedent of making these public. That is all I am asking.

I know the department does them , so I would expect that without too much difficulty , those same figures that the Minister of Finance no doubt will receive on October 20 or 30 or whenever he receives them , could easily just be put down on another piece of paper and attached, as they were last year , to the document that he will be receiving with respect to the quarterly statement as of September 30, 1978. That is my only comment . MR. CHAIRN: 1.(a)-pass - the Member for St. Johns . 4619

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. CHERNIACK: I am guessing that the Premier doesn 't have the information which he ... MR. LYON: Yes, somebody from Management Committee is on his way over and the information should be available later on tonight. I undertake, for the third time , to provide the information to the Committee . MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that satisfactory to the Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I never questioned whehher or not the Premier would produce the information.

I haven't the slightest doubt he will , but there are questions that I would like to ask in connection with that and it makes it awkward that the Premie r doesn 't have the information . There seems to be an effort to pass his salary and therefore complete his Estimates . We have yet to deal with Legislation . Could we not leave his salary and deal wit h Legislation, then come back to it? MR. LYON: let 's make some progress, that 's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona . MR. PARASIUK : Can I just raise one more question before we proceed?

I would like to ask the First Minister , as the Chairman of Management Comm ittee, whether in fact every department expenditure of over $25 ,000 still requires approval of Management Committee? Is that still the practice? MR. LYON: Yes. MR. PARASIUK : I'm sorry that the Minister responsible for the Task Force isn't here because I would like to inform him that in this respect I agree with his Task Force 's recommendation that that not be continued and that the accountability be more squarely fixed on the Ministers . So I just pass that on, Mr. Chairman . SUPPLY - LEGISLATION MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

If Members of the Committee will tunn back a couple of pages to Page 3, Item 1. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Chairman , there is one point I want to raise . MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't read them off . MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sorry . No, I'll tell you , it's an item that does n't appear here and I just want to refer to it to the Premier . MR. CHAIRMAN: This is under Legislation? MR. CHERNIACK: Yes.

I could have asked it under his Salary , it's not too much of a problem in my mind , and that is that these Estimates of Legislation include the Provincial Auditor and the Ombudsman , both of whom I believe are servants of the Legislature . I thought that the Legislative Counsel is a servant of the Legislature and it never occurred to me before to inquire as to why he comes under the Attorney-General 's Department rather than under the Legislation

section . I am wondering if the Premier , who has rather extensive experience in the Legislature , could give an impression as to the role of the Legislative Counsel vis-a-vis the government as compared with the Legislature. I don 't know if he wants to deal with it now or under some other aspect of his Estimates. MR. LYON: Well , it comes under Legislation , Mr. Chairman . I'm going strictly from recollection from my years as Attorney-General , and my recollection is that the salary did reside in that department at that time , but that is only a recollection.

There may be some within the hearing of my voice who can correc t me. I think it has always been there , which doesn 't sanctify it particularly, but his position of course , by virtue of, I believe it's the Rules of the House , his position is outlined in a

section or two of the Rules of the House which state his responsibilities in that he is an officer of the House. 1 haven 't got the rules in front of me but , again , they can be read by anybody . I can't really answer the question as to why they don 't appear -(Interjection )- Well , there is the 4620

Thursday, June 29, 1978 suggestion made that he does - which is true of course - tha t he does occupy the dual role. While he is the Chief Legislative Counsel for the Legislature, he is also the Chief Legislative Draftsman in that sense for the government as well. But it's an interesting observation, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: I have someth ing that made me think of it.

As the Chief Legislative Counsel, I believe that he is responsible for the preparation and presentation of bills of all kinds , that is the government bills , Private Members ' Bills -(Interjection)- Yes, private public bills, and that therefore that role is not a double role, but is actually the role of being involved in planning legislation.

Now, I also know that he is available to give advice, interpretive advice, to Members of the Legislature on legislative matters and I want to know whether he is responsible to the Attorney-General or to the government in any respect other than he is on call to the government to draft legislation and I believe it is a longstanding understanding that the government would have priority on the use of his time for legislation , over private members . I can 't conceive that a private member could come to him and say, " Draft me a bill " on something which will take many many days od his work.

I know that he has to be selective and favour the government's needs . But I want to know whether he is under the instruction of the Attorney-General in any way?DDoes he serve him or respond to him? MR. LYON: Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm ~oin~ from memory but his first responsibility, of course, in the dual capacity, is to the Legislature . In my recollection I don't recall the Legislative Counsellor ever having complaints from any Member of the House, government or opposition, that they were not served by the Legislative Counsel with respect to private bills or public bills brought in by a private member .

So that extent, I think his priority, of course, is to serve the Legislature and all 57 members of it. The hard fact of life is, of course , that the government, in our tradition and practice, generates most of the legislation. So to that extent , the bulk of his time would be spent - the vast majority of his time - drafting government legislation or overseeing the drafting of it with his staff. I don 't know that that adds anything to the picture. That 's the situation as I have seen it evolve over the last 20 years. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, my view of it is exactly that described by the First Minister, but it occurs to me to wonder whether , as the Attorney-General now has to take responsibility for all work done of a legal nature by people in his department, I do not think that he is responsible for the Legislative Counsel and I do not think that he is either accountable for the Legislative Counsel 's work , except for staffing , nor is he entitled to instruct the Legislative Counsel in any way as compared with his right to instruct any member of the Attorney-General's legal staff . MR. LYON: Well, Mr.

Chairman , I suppose this would bear to some extent upon the person who is designated in the Legislative Council as being - or in the Executive Council , I should say - as being responsible for the carriage of government legislation . More often than not , that person is the Attorney -General and to that extent, the Attorney-General very often acts as a conduit from the Execut ive Council to the Legislative Counsel with respect to the drafting of legislation.

That's just a reflection on what past practice has been, to my knowledge, but insofar as his strict accountability , again I'm going on recollection, I can recall when the Legislative Counsel was a person other than the present very capable Legislative Counsel , but adjustments in his salary were initiated by the Attorney-General - I'm going back years ago - and the Order-in-Council was presented to Cabinet by the Attorney-General of the day and was approved by Cabinet with respect to adjustments from time to time in the salary.

He has to be responsible to some member of the executive branch of government for that kind of important housekeeping purpose, among others . MR. CHERNIACK: Okay , Mr. Chairman, I still agree , I still agree with everything that the First Minister said . I point out that I assume that it still prevails that the Minister of Finance is involved to the same extent , as described by the Premier , with the Provincial Auditor.

I think that the Minister of Finance is one to whom or th rough whom the Provincial Auditor reports to the Legislature, and I th ink the Ombudsman reports through the Attorney-General , and I guess that's what made me wonder to see and I don't remember previous Estimates - I haven 't looked them up to see whether the Ombudsman or the Provincia l Auditor have ever been under any other department - but let me now make the poin t. The reason this occu rred to me, Mr.

Chairman, was that there was an Order for Return requested for an opin ion, for the filing of an opinion given by the Legislative Counsel to a government department or a Minis ter, and the Premier objected to that on the basis that legal advice is conf iden tial, and it wou ld be contra ry to public policy to issue that. I I wondered whether he was 4621

Thursday, June 29, 1978 not treating the Legislative Couneel in the same way as he would treat an officer, a law officer of the Attorney-General, who, I believe , whose opinion would be clearly interred within the department and not a matter for public review.

And mh concern was not that issue at all - I don't even remember what that issue was - but my concern was that the Legislative Counsel should continue to be what the Premier and I describe him to be, and that's a servant to the Legislature and to members of the Legislature, and therefore that it seems to me that he ought not to be treated in the same way as any law officer or private lawyer who is consulted by government and gives an opinion . And that's why it seems to me that he belongs in the Legislation

section of the Budget, so that he may report through the Attorney-General or through the Premier , but that clearly he ought to be defined just like the Prov incial Auditor and the Ombudsman to be a servant of the Legislature . MR. LYON: Well , Mr. Chairman , I think there are two distinctions that could be made in the statement that the Member for St. Johns has just made with respect to his deeming the position of the Legislative Counsel to be totally analogous , as I understood him to say, to that of the Ombudsman and of the Provinc ial Auditor .

I would think that , upon reflection, he would want to perhaps change that analogy, because the Provincial Auditor and the Ombudsman, unless my recollection is hazy at this hour of the night, receive from the Legislature their unique positions by virtue of

an Act of the Legislature . My recollection is that the position of the Legislative Counsel as a servant of the House, derives from the Rules of the House, but there is a duality in his role , as was indicated earlier .

With one hat , he serves the House with respect to the drafting of legislation ; with the other hat , he gives drafting advice totthe Executive Council , which my honourable friend is well aware , from time to time , and he gives opinions on matters from time to time to the Executive Council , or to individual members of it, and in that capacity he is acting in the second part of his dual role as legal advisor , if you will, to the Crown . Now I cite this as only a hypothetical example .

If we were to follow through on my honourable friend 's analogy whereby he suggests that any opinion given by the Legislative Counsel should be callable in the House, then he would have to say that he could then file an Address for Papers , or an Order for Return , or whatever the case may be, asking the Legislative Counsel to show - and of course this is hypothetical - the first draft of Bill No. such and such , that he gave to the government , or the second draft , or did he, in fact, draft a bill dealing with such and such , and if so, would that be produced .

And I would think that automatically then my honourable friend would see that that kind of informatio n is of a confidential , internal nature, and that reflects on the second part of his dual role , where he acts as a legal advisor in a legislative sense to the Executive Branch of government , as well as his other function , which is to service members of the House with respect to bills that they may need, and to give them advice from time to time .

I don 't think that my honourable friend - using the other side of the equation - would agree that a government member should be able to file an Order for Return asking for the first draft of a bill that the Legislat ive Counsel gave , for instance, to a member of the opposition . I don 't think that my honourable friend would agree that should be done , and hence he can see, I think, in clear perspective , the duality of the role of the Legislative Counsel. MR. CHERNIACK : Mr . Chairman , I did not want to give the example I gave, lest we get side-tracked .. into discussing an Order for Return . MR.

LYON: Which has already been voted upon , not voted upon , but settled or disposed of. MR. CHERNIACK: Well , that's not the point. Mr. Chairman , what I'm getting at is that it seems to me that the Legislative Counsel , who is available to give advice to any member of the Legislature - give a legal opinion - and who is available to draft legislation for any member of the !legislature , should be treated in such a way that none of his opinions are available to the public or to other members , other than those to whom he gives it , just like ... Well , let 's see that through .

I think that it should be clear , and it so happens that the present incumbent commands so much respect that 1 don 't think anyone would dare to dictate to him, but maybe this is a good time to raise it, when his prestige is so high, to say that no Legislative Counsel , I think , should ever be put in a position where it is conceivable that a Minister of the Crown is his super ior in any way.

And when the Premier describes a dual role, I'd rather think it is not a dual role , I think it's a single role , and 1 would say that , if he gives an opinion , and he should give opinions , that those opinions should be protected maybe in The Legislative Assembly Act. So it's not that I want his opinions to be available , but rather 1 want his opinions to be protected because he is an officer of the Legislature .

And if he has the dual role , 1 think it should not be one - I think it should be clearly a respons ibility he bears to the Legislature itself, because I don 't think he should ever be thought to be giving an 4622

Thursday, June 29, 1978 opinion which may be dictated to by a political superior, because I don't think he has one. So the point is not whether his opinion should be made available under Orders for Return, but rather that none of his opinions should be available to anybody other than the person who requests it - just like any practising lawyer is honour bound not to give information about his client's affairs - and I think that the Legislative Counsel 's client is the Legislature and the members of the Legislature , and not the government.

So I'm challenging the concept of a dual role , I'm saying he has a single role, but that because , as the Premier said, most of the legislation is generated by government , I think that he has to pay attention to that as being a priority. Now , I'd like to suggest that that should be the case, and I don't know whether the Premier disagrees with me. So far, he and I haven 't disagreed on the role, but now I'm postulating the independence , the greater independence of the Legislative Counsel. MR. LYON: Well , Mr. Chairman, I certainly subscribe to what the Member for St.

Johns says with respect to the present Legislative Counsel , and may I say to his predecessors, as well, because the custom and tradition that has built up with respect to their handling of their assigned roles in a single or dual capacity, or whatever, has been without blemish for so long as I can recall. I would correct one piece of terminology that I used earlier, I think I used the terminology of " purport ing to quote from the Rules that the Legislative Counsel is a servant of the House."

Section 92 of the Rules says, " The Officers of the Assembly are, the Clerk, the Clerk's Assistant, the Law Officer of the Legislative Assembly ." So there is a different title actually. He is the Law Officer of the Legislative Assembly, he is also the Legislative Counsel, but by virtue of being Legislative Counsel , he becomes, in the custom and tradition that has built up in Manitoba, the Law Officer of the Legislative Assembly at the same time . He is appointed by Order-in-Council, and there is no two-thirds requirement on his . . . MR. CHERNIACK: He can be dismissed without . . . MR.

LYON: That's my understanding , although I haven't looked at th statute . I'm not aware that there is any statutory . . . MR. CHERNIACK: I'm under the impression The Legislative Assembly Act may refer to him, does it? Just the Rules. Mr.

Chairman , therefore I am prepared to leave it with a strong recommendation to the Premier and to the Attorney-General, that they should consider that the independence of the Legislative Counsel should be greater informed than it is, and that it would be reasonable to suggest , I mean advantageous to the system that we operate under , to clearly put him in the - to bring in legislation if necessary - but to put him in the Legislation

section of the Estimates, and the reports could be free to the Premier or to the Attorney-General, but to clearly define that he is not a servant of the Attorney-General, which is what it appears to be when looking at the Estimates . MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we go on, to the Member for St. Johns , with the Legislation

Section now? Can we go on with it? MR. CHERNIACK: If you need my permission, you've got it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well , 1':1 tell you, I've never been caught between the Member for St . Johns and the Premier for twelve minutes before when you've been agreeing. I've been lost for the last twelve minutes . MR. CHERNIACK: There were times when we had no problems . MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. 1.(

a) Members Indemnities-pass ; 1.(b)-pass; 2. Retirement Allowances (

a) Allowances and Refunds-pass ; 3. Members ' Allowances (

a) Constituency Allowance-pass; (

b) Living Allowance-pass ; (

c) Committee Allowance-pass ; (

d) Mileage Allowance -pass; (

e) Secretarial and Research Assistance Allowance-pass ; (

f) Speaker's Expenses-pass; (

g) Speaker 's Per Diem Allowance-pass; (

h) Deputy Speaker's Expenses-pass. 4. Other Assembly Expend itures , 4.(

a) Leader of the Opposition 's Salary-pass; (

b) no appropriation on that one; (

c) Salaries-pass; (

d) Other Expenditures-pass; (

e) Legislative Printing and Binding-pass. Resolution No. 1: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $601 ,200 for Othe r Assembly Expend itures-pass . 5. Provincial Auditor 's Office , 5.(

a) Salaries-pass; (

b) Other Expenditures-pass . Resolution No. 2: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,228,900 for Legislation Provincial Auditor 's Office-pass. 4623

Thursday, June 29, 1978 Item 6. Ombudsman (

a) Salaries-pass - the Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Is it a continuing practice - I may have overlooked it - for the Ombudsman to appear before a committee of the Legislature? It seems to me that he has done that in the past. -(Interjection)- I believe he came , I think he appeared before a committee of the Legislature and gave a report. MR. LYON: I'm informed, Mr. Chairman, that he does not appear every year.

He files his report each year, and according to the information I received on the occasion of his reappointment, when a special committee was struck for that purpose , from all members of the House , he appeared before that committee . MR. CHERNIACK: No, Mr. Chairman , I think he also appeared to deal with his report, on one occasion. I say one, because I seem to recall one. Well, Mr. Chairman , may I invite the Premier to look into precedent , and to look into his own mind, and see whether or not there should be an opportun ity to have a direct discussion with the Ombudsman by a committee of the Legislature .

MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , as to previous practice , I would certainly defer to the Member for St. Johns, who was here during a period when I wasn 't here , when the Ombudsman was first appointed and so on. I don 't, from my own recollection , recall what the practice is, I've heard a suggestion and we can take that under consideration . MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)-pass; 6.(

b) Other Expenditures-pass. Resolution 3: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $146 ,700 for Legislation , Ombudsman- pass. That concludes Legislation . SUPPLY - FLOOD CONTROL AND EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES MR. CHAIRMAN: To all Members of the Committee . We start on Page 79 now , which is almost the end of the book . We're at Resolution 116, Flood Control and Emergency Expenditures . There is an item of $300,000 .00. The Member for St. Johns on Resolution 116, do you have any questions? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , I'm just wondering , in light of the disaster we've already experienced , whether there 's an indication that we now know that there will have to be Supplementary Supply or a special warrant under this item. MR. LYON: No, Mr. Chairman , we don 't know that.

As I've tried to make it clear in the House , there's been no determination made about aid to the victims of the recent tornado , and that determination will not be made until such time as the assessment is in of the total damage , the amount of that damage that is uninsured and determination then will have to be made as to whether or not any provincial aid and any formula will be considered . MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 116-pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $300,000 for Flood Control and Emergency Expenditures-pass . SUPPLY - CANADA-MANITOBA GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MR.

CHAIRMAN: Resolution 117, Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets -pass . MR. CHERNIACK: That's under the Development Agreement , Mr . Chairman , is that right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Canada-Manitoba General Development Agreement . DREE. MR. CHERNIACK: Is this something new or is this ongoing , Mr. Chairman? MR. LYON: Just for purposes of explanation , Mr. Chairman . Item 2, that is part of the $2 '/• million industrial agreement that has just been signed with Ottawa.

The amount shown here results from deducting $426,800 from the $2.5 million, and that $426,800 is contained in the Estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , then the answer I assume , to my question , would be that this 4624

Thursday, June 29, 1978 is not an ongoing program, but it's a new program? MR. LYON: A new five-year program. MR. CHERNIACK: And therefore I would also ask whether there's any money being expended under this item for previously authorized carry over of previous capital authority? MR. LYON: My information is no. This is a new agreement with new terms of reference applying to it. MR. CHERNIACK : Mr.

Chairman, I was not talking about the new agreement, I'm talking about an old agreement, whether there 's any expenditure in this year that is not revealed here that is being done under any previous agreement which is expended out of moneys that were previously voted for capital authority and have not lapsed? MR. LYON: We can take that as notice , Mr. Chairman, and undertake to advise the members of the committee as to whether or not there was any carry over of any sort. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, this brings us back to the questions of the previously authorized capital moneys which are being spent in this current year, but are not being revealed in the Estimate. I want to ask the Premier, what is the intention of the government in relation to all moneys previously authorized as capital authority and which are unexpended and are not now committed under this $30 million , what is the intention in regard to that? MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry for the delay.

I think that's referring back to my honourable friend's earlier question which I suggested to him with respect, has been answered a number of times . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I am not aware, I am not aware that it has ever been answered as to what is happening to the moneys previously authorized , voted by the Legislature, which are not yet committed or expended. I understand that there is a stated intention not to use those funds , and I therefore want to know what's going to happen to that authority.

The obvious answer would be that they will lapse, but I haven't heard that answer yet, and I want to know, how do they lapse, and when will they lapse? MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , I recall it being answered a number of times. Under the new combined system it can be and the expectation is that it will be written off. The methodology for that is very probably by way of Order-in-Council. That is the information I have. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I wasn 't sure that it could be done by Order-in-Council, but now that I'm told that it could be done by Order-in -Council, and in the words of the Premier, "it can be" , but I want to know, will it be? MR. LYON& That's my information. MR. CHERNIACK: Is it the intention of the government to lapse all moneys authorized that are not included in the $30 million of which we are aware? Can we say that we know that the government intends - and why it hasn 't done it yet I don't know - to lapse all authority that is not committed in that $30 million? MR. CRAIK: I've forgotten the exact figure .

It's $37 million or $38 million . The committed carry forward capital is $30 million, the remaining uncommitted carry forward that was available is about $37 million, and there 's Order-in-Council powers to lapse it. Since we said that after this year, after the former programs from last year were carried forward and paid for out of the carry forward capital, all capital lapses at the end of this year . So the intent would be to lapse that capital. We've stated that . Now , if the Member for St .

Johns questions it, he has it on the record now, several times, that the uncommitted carry forward is roughly $38 million, and all he has to do is, you know, ask a year from now, and double check to meke sure that that $38 million is there and make sure that it's been lapsed . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I marvel at the fact that we're not told that it has not already been lapsed. Why has it not been lapsed , Mr. Chairman? What is the reason for failure to lapse 4625

Thursday, June 29, 1978 it, since it is the stated intention, confirmed by the presentation of these Estimates, that henceforth they will be voted on annually, and we were told that out of all the unexpended authority, uncommitted authority, available for many years preceding this year, there 's $30 million that will be spent this year. I have to ask the Premier , or the Minister of Finance , why hasn 't it been lapsed? Is there a reason that it is being held back .

The obvious reason would be that there is still the thought in the minds of government to use some of that authority for purposes not yet revealed , and I think it is fair to ask . Now that we've learned about the $30 million, what about the rest of it? If it's going to be lapsed next year , why isn't it already lapsed now or tomorrow? MR. CRAIK: Mr . Chairman, the important thing is that the amount that we've indicated is in fact lapsed .

There is a logic to the carry forward this year , of the programs that were committed by the government last year , and most of them will be exhausted by - well the $30 million at least, will be exhausted in 1978-79. So there was some logic in saying , we'd lapse capital as of the end of the 1978-79 year . The uditor's report , in any case , ./ AI always, I believe , shows the amount of capital and if you 're concerned about this carry forward even the $30 million you refer to A always shows up in the the uditor 's report in given year .

The amount of carry forward traditionally, of capital that has been applied , committed carry forward , even pre-dating the former government, was never shown, although the amount that was actually used , does show up in the Public Accounts. I've said this to the Member for St . Johns in particular before , that that is the reason for doing it. And last year , the committed carry forward was approxima tely $43 million , which doesn't show up, and didn't show up in either of the projected deficits for last year.

Had we used the technique of including carry forward capital in projections , the defic it originally projected from last year, would have been some $43 million or so higher . I don't know how often we have to say it. It's on the record, over and over again , and that's all there is to it. As far as the remainder , uncommitted portion of the capital carry forward , there is again, Order-in-Council powers to be able to lapse that. We've said that that is the amount that is uncommitted , and if that is not the case , you 've got good grounds to come back and say, well, you used it. We don 't intend to use it.

We voted the amount of capital under

Schedule B that we expect to use, and there will be Supplementary Supply in the House shortly for what we see at this point as being any other requirements to the end of the year . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Chairman, the Minister of Finance is right. He has made this statement time and time again , and I understand it. It took a while , but I do unders tand it. Mr. Chairman , the one statement I haven't got is the reason for not lapsing the uncommitted, unexpended capital authority from previous years . The governmen t has said , this is the transition year . This is the year when we are changing the system .

This is the year when we're carrying forward $30 million without reporting it from previous authority. MR. LYON: Without reporting it? MR. CHERNIACK: Well, without it being recorded in the Estimates . L et's get it clear. The Premier should know , Mr. Chairman , that the . MR. LYON: The Premier does know. MR. CHERNIACK: The Premier will also wait till I'm through I hope . Mr .

Chairman , the Premier should know that the only way that we got the figure $30 million , was because when we got into the Agiicultural Estimates , the very first Estimates, we found that there was money about to be spent by the Department of Agriculture , which was not shown in these Estimate figures in spite of the fact that the Minister of Finance had stated that the total anticipated combined spending would be, and I have the figure right here at least I should have it right here , $1,648,657 ,800 .00.

It's only when we found out that the Department of Agriculture was going to spend some $2 million-plus dollars in excess of what was shown in these Estimates , that we started to press for , and after a period of time , we finally got a statement showing $30 million from previous authority that would be spent in this year . We were also told, and I didn 't remember the figure , but the Minister of Finance said just now , that there is some $37 million , $38 million roughly , of additional authority , uncommitted authority available, and he said it is not intended to use it.

And I have to ask the Premier , why it is that you have announced clearly that you don 't intend to use it at all and you say you have the authority to lapse it in Order-in-Council , why don't you lapse it so it becomes clear that the new system is a new system and that you 're not relying on the old system to make available funds that you claim you don 't want to spend other than through the current Estimates? 4626

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I started off to say earlier that the Premier is aware that we're thrashing old straw again, and I don't intend to participate in it. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is an easy way out to decide that there is old straw being thrashed. The Premier being the person who knows apparently about how one thrashes straw, is refusing to deal with this matter, claiming it was dealt with. MR. LYON: A thousand times. MR. CHERNIACK: The fact is, Mr.

Chairman, it wasn't a thousand times, it was never stated, no reason has ever been given, to my knowledge, as to why this money isn't being lapsed. And the fact that it isn't being lapsed, raises the question as to why is it being kept. Is it being kept available for purposes that the government may want to use it in the future in spite of their statement they don 't? And if it is so clearly possible and the intention is clear to lapse it, the question I have asked - now, that may be old straw, I have asked it more than once - why wasn'tiit lapsed?

I never had an answer, never ever, not a thousand times, not once. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: The only way, and I don't really think it's going to work, either the Member for St. Johns has a mental block about it, or he deliberately does not want to try understand what is being said, but would he not realize that the practice. We said from square one that this year was a transition year, we were going to start lapsing capital at the end of 1978-79, and that includes any amount of unused capital authority, uncommitted capital authority in 1978-79.

Would he not accept the fact or recognize the fact that he himself, in the former government, carried forward sometimes uncommitted capital authority in excess of $100 million , in excess of $100 million, from year to year, and never had it committed but simply flowed it through? And in the final year of his government, not he, but the former government carried forward last year a committed amount of $43 million plus an additional amount that still carried forward into this year. Now, there is nothing inconsistent about what we're doing .

We said from square one, we are going to flow last year's committed capital into 1978-79 , but for new moneys committed in 1978-79, we'll show it in the budget, but those that were committed in 1977-78, will flow through until most of that has run out and at the end of 1978-79 it's cut off . And it's a perfectly logical move as far as we're concerned anyway; it seems to make logic to some people, but every time I ... and I think that the Member for St.

Johns understands it, but I think he's just decided that he's going to try and create another one of his diversions and try and persuade somebody there's hocus-pocus going on, and it's just as straightforward as all get-out. And I tell you, that if there is $38 million at the end of 1978-79, which we fully intend that there will be, that it will be less by far than the amount of uncommitted capital authority that has traditionally been carried forward by the former government. MR. CHEIACK: Mr.

Chairman, one of the easies ways out of getting to deal with a matter, is to refer to things like one of his diversions, to say, well, that's one way I can get out of giving an answer . Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance suggested I have a block about this. I would suggest to him that maybe he has the block, because he is confusing two systems, one which was formerly in place for many many years, continued by the NDP government from the previous Conservative government, which may have continued it from the previous Liberal, I don't know.

That was a system which this government has stopped and changed , and I am not quarreling with their change, I am not quarreling with the decision to go into combined Estimates, but when the Minister of Finance says, it is our intention to lapse all authority at the end of this fiscal year, let me tell him that I believe that it is not his intention, it is the law, that presenting these Estimates the way he is doing it, will automatically lapse all items in these expenditures unless they are going to have some kind of change from previous matters where they will continue the authority in any portion of these current Estimates.

As I understand it, these Main Estimates of Expenditures now combine the current and the capital, and that if they are treated as they have in the past, they will lapse automatically, automatically, no decision of Cabinet. The only decision of Cabinet , as I understand it, that has to be carried out is to carry out the claim by the Minister of Finance and his Premier that they intend to lapse the uncommitted moneys . Now, they have told us that they are going to spend $30 million previously planned and that there will be an excess of money which I think he said was $37 million or $38 million uncommitted.

I have to ask him again and again , why don 't you lapse it now, why are you waiting , is there a reason? Are you unsure, are you uncertain about your expectati ons? Why are 4627

Thursday, June 29, 1978 waiting for something to happen in the future when your stated intention now is that you will not use that authority, therefore you have to lapse it; it won 't lapse unless you do it? And I have to say that I am not creating a diversion, and I am not raising - I forget what other term he used - hocus-pocus , or something . The fact is if you don 't intend to use it, why are you keeping the autho rity; why aren 't you lapsing it? And the answer I'm gett ing is, well, we intend to lapse all authority at the end of the year.

If I am incorrect , because I see no reason not to have lapsed it early in this work his way around somehow, so that his point of view, whatever it may be, and it escapes me, would still be expressed. So, at the risk of not aping his tactics, I merely say pass. , MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , the Premier is finally . . . You know, he's kept his cool for a long time today and now he is reverting to his own form , and doing that by calling my statement an impolite answer . Mr.

Chairman , all I want is an answe r, and all I want to put on the record is that I have not had an answer as to why it is not being lapsed now. I have heard an answer from the Minister of Finance, we intend to lapse it at the end of the fiscal year, and I have said again and again , if you don't intend to spend this additional uncommitted money, why don't you lapse it now or why didn't you lapse it up to now? That's a simple question , and it has never been answered . MR. LYON: Mr.

Chairman , with respect, my honourable friend argues against himself because he repeats that the Minister has said that it will be lapsed at the end of the fiscal year, and then he says he has had no answer . Now, really, why are we playing these kindergarteni sh games? Does he want to put on a demonstration of his forensic skill , fine, let him hire a hall, but let's not waste the time of the Legislature . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it so happens I don 't have to hire a hall. I have the right to ask quest ions here until and unless the Premier decides to respond . MR.

LYON: You haven't got the right to offend the rules . .. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the rule is that I can ask a question . If I could be shown , Mr. Chairman , -(Interjection)- you see, the Premier$ just can't control himself anymore , it's only five minutes after ten, or seven after ten, and he's lost his cool completely . You know, his problem is, Mr. Chairman , his problem is that he would like to run -(I nterjection)- Let me point out, Mr.

Chairman, I have asked the question as to why, and I have received an answer as to when, and I am beginning to think that maybe the Minister of Finance and his Premier are just reluctant to admit that they should have done it already, because if they can't give an answer as to why they are delaying it, t hen the next question is, what purpose do you need to have the money there for a continuing nine months from here on in. If you don 't need it, if you've ut your capital requirements into these Estimates before us, why can't you lapse it now?

The Premier thinks I was answered when I was told, we will do it attthe end of the fiscal year. If he thinks that that's an answer as to why, then ... Weii ,Mr. Chairman, I know he knows better than that. . MR. LYON: Pass. MR. CHERNIACK: I know that , and I know now that the Premier has decided that not having a ... Well, he's not answer ing, and, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that it could be a simple answer if there was a rationale behind it. I have to say there 's no rationale behind it. MR. CRAIK: You've got it, and you just can't hear it. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , will the Minister of Finance say that he's given me why, if it hasn't been lapsed? Will he say that he has given me that answer? MR. CRAIK: Yes, I gave it to you. MR. CHEIACK: Why it hasn't been lapsed? MR. CRAIK: I gave it to you. I gave you when it was going to be lapsed. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, did you say it hasn't been lapsed now? -(Interjecti ons)- Mr. Chairman , I think that that is .. . You know , I have to thank the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation who has come in here and honestly given an answer.

The fact is that the Minister of Finance has just agreed that he has given me a when. He has not 4628

Thursday, June 29, 1978 given me an answer as to why and he doesn 't claim any more that he has answered the question why. The Premier claims that I have been answered , but the fact is that I have not been answered, but we had to get the Minister without Portfolio to come in and say, because he doesn 't want to, and if that is the answer, if the answer -(Interjection)- I'm sorry, maybe I'm even giving him credit for something he didn't do. I heard down the end of the table, somebody who stated , that he doesn 't want to. Mr.

Chairman, regardless of what may have been said at the end of the table, I think if the Minister of Finance said, "I don't want to do it," without giving an answer as to why he's not doing it, at least I would know that he has, in a stubborn way, made a decision and is going to keep it regardless of reason, but he has not yet said that. All he said is, I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it nine months from now. And my question is, why not now, why does he need that time? MR. LYON: Because there is no point, there's no point. MR. CHERNIACK: And you see, Mr. Chairman, there's no point.

Here the government is sitting with a power to expend some $37 million, $38 million, which it said it's not planning to do, and it says there is no point in lapsing it when they make the statement that they intend to lapse it. MR. LYON: It's a year-end adjustment, as my honourable friend knows quite well, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: The Premier knows very well that there is no such thing in the past of a year-end adjustment to a capital authority lapsing. The fact is that by law current authority lapses at the end of the year.

Because of the change that this government made this year, they say they are not going to use previous authority any more than the $30 million that they admit they are now going to use. I have to say that the only conclusion I could come to is their refusal to do it may be either they don't understand why they should do it, which is not too credible, or the tact that they still want that authority to sit on the books in case they want it. Now, Mr. Chairman, they don't need it.

They can always pass a Special Warrant for unexpected money. -(Interjection)- The Minister of Finance just said that's right , they don 't need it. The question is, why don't they lapse it to reassure us that they will not again authorize the expenditure of money as they did for $30 million worth of money that we had to find out about through pressure , pressing Ministers to get that amount out. Now, I say again, and there's no use pushing th is -(Interjection)- Yes, I am right, because I find that the government is stubbornly refus ing to give a simple response to what I believe is a reasonable question.

Why are they not lapsing it now? They are only answering it by saying there is no point . Well , there is no point in not lapsing it now if they don 't intend to use it. Mr. Chairman, their refusal to answer is an indication of either arrogance or lack of understanding or - I don 't want to postulate - the possibility that they really want to keep that authority there in case they want to use it in the future, without lapsing it until nine months from now. Because there has been no reason given to me or anyone else as to why they are not . doing it now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman , the Member for St. Johns has repeated the same thing over again . Let me tell him again, just so that when somebody reads this Hansard , when he is passing it out , the decision was made to lapse the Capital at the end of 1978-79. I gave him the logic for doing it. The uncommitted carry-forward Capital will be lapsed there and there will quite possibly be some committed carry-forward Capital to be lapsed then as well. It's never going to work out right on the cent ; it could be something less. Now, why would we want to use two different dates to lapse the Capital?

Why should we pick two different dates ; why not make it all the same date? So that, Mr. Chairman, is the logic , the reason for doing it all at the same time , which is the end of 1978-79. I indicated to the member the reason , in part , for carrying it forward was that carry forward is primarily tor programs that were initiated in the previous year and carried forward into the next year . It has always been the same. Most of those programs we wound up by the end of 1978-79; the remainder that aren't will be rebudgeted at that point, but it will be a small amount to show up in next year's Estimates . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Resolution - the Member tor St. Johns. 4629

Thursday, June 29, 1978 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, seriously, this is the first time I think I have gotten an answer that has some rationale to it. Mr. Chairman, I understand now that any moneys - now there is a figure of some $30 million that we find is going to be spent this year from previous authority. I gather that the Minister of Finance says any moneys that are needed beyond that figure to complete that program will be budgeted afresh next year. Yes, he is nodding his head . So that's clear.

Now, he is also saying that if there is money not expended, less money spent than that $30 million-plus , or the exact amount , then that would have to be lapsed . Therefore he is saying since there may be some small amount that would have to be lapsed if there is not the full amount expended , we'll do it all at once , and lapse some $37 million or $38 million additional to whatever small moneys are left over at the end of that time . But there is no reason that he can think of for using any of that unc omm itted $37 million or $38 million in this coming year? That's correct? MR.

CRAIK: It's on the record ; I've said that. How many times do you want it on? MR. CHERNIACK: All right , Mr. Chairman. Now what the Minister is saying is because there may be some driblets of money underexpended from the $30-odd million which is committed, he refuses to lapse the $37 million or $38 million now, but wants to wait for another nine months . That is what I understand is the reason he has given and I believe it's the first time he has given it. I don't agree with it but I can understand that that is . . . MR. C: ... matter IK of opinion, it was implicit in everything I have said . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Resolution 117 -pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,073 ,200 for Canada -Manitoba General Development Agreement-pass . SUPPLY - GENERAL SALARY INCREASES MR. CHAIRMAN: The next page , Page 80, Resolution 118 at the bottom of Page 80, General Salary Increases-pass - the First Minister. MR. LYON: That , Mr. Chairman, is just a guesstimate , of course . Negotiations are under way and hopefully nearing completion and if any additional amounts have to be added , of course they will be usually by way of Special Warrant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolut ion 118-pass.

Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,000,000 for General Salary Increases- pass. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , if you would revert to Item 1.{

a) under Executive Council, I have some figures which I think meet the request of the Leader of the Opposition . I wouldn't know whether they will meet the request of the Member for St. Johns, but he is here and he can take a look at them and if he wants any addit ional information, I will be happy to provide it to him. There are wo of these that I can pass over. I would ask the Member for St. Johns if he could endeavour to insure that the Leader of the Oppos ition gets one of them. We can have more copies made if they are needed . MR. CHAIRMAN: Tab le one with the Clerk and give the Member for St.

Johns two copies . MR. LYON: These show the SMYs which were dealt with this afte rnoon , as well as the occupied positions as at March , 1977, October 1977, March 1978, and June 1978, to give comparative figures on the number of SMYs and the number of occupied positions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairm an, just for clarification , in looking at thi s now, it says MCC Staffing at the top , and then it says Executive Division. Is that Executive Division the Premier's office separate from Managemen t, or is that within Management. MR. LYON: No, that's all MCC . MR.

CHEIACK: As 1 recall it, I was asking a question about the MCC and I thi nk the Leader of 4630 -

Thursday, June 29, 1978 the Oppositio n was asking about the Office of the Prem ier. MR. LYON: You may be right in that recollection . MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Minister gave that information after the Leader of the Opposition left, remember , about the reduction of two. MR. LYON: I think he was interested to know, Mr. Chairman, if there had been any substantial change and I was under the impression that he was satisfied, but I'll just get the figure. I gave these figures this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, that they are still SMYs, they are not actual people.

Twenty-four SMYs, the Premier being one, the Executive and Special Assistant to the Premier being two , managerial support , one, administrative support , 20, for a total of 24. Now, we can get the actual number of people that that involves. MR. CHERNIACK: That's for this current fiscal year? MR. LYON: Right. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I would like to know how many of these are Civil Service, how many are appointed by Order-in-Council, which I presume are political appointments, how many are on contract or term? MR.

LYON: Well I know, off the top of my head without having the detailed information that hopefully will soon be available to us, but one Executive Assistant appointed by Order-in-Council - I believe the title is Senior Officer 1. MR. CHERNIACK: That's the Order- in-Council? MR. LYON: That's an Order-in-Council. MR. CHERNIACK: And that 's the only one? MR. LYON: Plus the Executive Assistant. MR. CHERNIACK: I presume Mr. Bedson MR. LYON: Mr. Bed son is still there . MR. CHEIACK: Yes, but I mean that would be by Order-in-Council, I assume . MR. LYON: Yes, but he's in an established position.

His position has not changed. MR. CHERNIACK: I think they are all in established positions, I assume. So there are 24. I think the Premier said it was a reduction of two from last year . MR. LYON: Yes, that's my recollection, a reduction of two SMYs. MR. CHERNIACK: How much of a reduction in personnel? MR. LYON: Two vacancies. MR. CHERNIACK : 6So there is no reduction whatsoever in the staffing of the Premier's office? MR. LYON: In SMYs , no . . MR. CHERNIACK: I gather in SMYS , yes, but in actual personnel, no. MR.L YON: In SMYS, yes, but in actual people, no. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , I was just looking at this Management very quickly and trying to relate it. It seems to me that there is a reduction in Management Audit Services of four people but that ovrrall, there is a reduct ion of only one person from the occupied positions of October, 4631

Thursday, June 29, 1978 1977 to the present. No, I'm sorry, three people . MR. LYON: Three people, 78 to 75. MR. CHERNIACK: That would be four in Management Audit Services , but there are some other adjustments in other portions . So the reduction is in three people but the 75 apparently includes two people who have been seconded and I think one of them was transferred to Finance. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman , I am advised that the reduction in three is corised as follows: one on maternity leave, one retirement, and one change of position .

I am informed the secondments are still funded - the secondments we spoke about this afternoon are still funded out of the MCC. MR. CHERNIACK: And included in the 75. So we have one on maternity leave, one retirement MR. L VON: And one change of job . MR. CHERNIACK: That's probably the Finance, although that's not important to me. Well , then, there is really no appreciable change in the staffing of the MCC and I believe that the Premier said earlier that there is no change - I think he said no real change in function or requirements, work being done by the Management Committee of Cabinet. MR.

LYON: I believe what I said, to repeat myself , Mr. Chairman, was that I can only speak for the functioning of the Management Committee since the 24th of October , but I am not aware of any fundamental change in functioning except that it seems to always be overloaded and I don't know that that is a unique situation, either pre or post October 24. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , of course the Premie r . .. MR. L VON: I mean overloaded with work . MR. CHERNIACK: It's good he said that, Mr. Chairman . I wasn't sure what he meant but I wasn 't going to raise that.

He would know what he found when he came into office and he would know that he has not made any changes . I realize he didn't know just what went on before he assumed the Chairmanship, but he did not make any change from what he found . I gather that is the correct assumption, from what he said. MR. LYON: That's a generalization . I think to be accurate it would have to said there were probably some changes in procedures made, sure, but fundamentally it operates under the terms of reference that were established some time ago. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, the Management Committee Secretariat then is involved in budget assessment as well as in the - in the Estimates assessment , rather - before they are completed . MR. LYON: The Management Committee was involved in the preparation of these Estimates . MR. CHERNIACK: And the review of the programs of the various departments? MR. L VON: Yes. MR. CHEIACK: And then has the ongoing responsibility of superv1s1ng and reviewing current expendiuures and various types of contracts , I think in excess of $25 ,000, and I assume also employment of civil servants . MR.

LYON: That part, yes, some of the personnel functions that were in Management Committee on the 24th of October stil remain there, although my honourable friend will be aware of the suggestion in Task Force , and elsewhere , that there should be some movement of some of that func

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-74b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf 74b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	09f7e6727e529fd7672518a0c52392c5625e71a4

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