ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of Ille Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding S,,.alcer VOL. XXXI No. 64A - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 10 MAY, 1983. Pnnled by the Office of the 0.-S Pnnlel'. Province of Ahnit obll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY Thirty-Second Legisla ture Me mbers, Constitue ncies and Political Affilia tion Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARR OLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, LR. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minn edosa Rhi neland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Bonif ace Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Nia kwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Ru ssell St. Norbert Assi niboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NDP NDP NDP ND P NDP NDP PC PC PC NOP ND P PC ND P PC PC PC NDP NDP ND P PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP ND P PC PC PC PC PC PC ND P NOP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP ND P NDP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGIS L ATIV E ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 10 May, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMM ITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Commit tee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, dir ects me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for St. Johns, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. P. EYLER: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Standing Committ ee on Law Amendments. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Your Commit tee met on April 7, April 21 and May 10, 19 83, and heard representations with respect to the Bills before the Commit tee as follows: Bill (No. 5) - The Surface Rights Act;

Loi sur les droits de surface. Messrs. M. L Henkelman & R.K. Howard, Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen Mr. Larry Vanbeselaere, Priva te Citizen Messrs. Bob Andrew, R. Koh aly, J. Truin, W. Gabriel, P. Francis, D. Le slie, F. Eilers and A. Turbak, Manitoba Surface Rights Association Messrs. Cal Folden & H. Pockrant, Chevron Canada Resources Ltd. Mr. D.R. Temple, Agricultural Producer Mr. Walter Kucharczyk, Priv ate Citizen Mr. Bob Puchniak, Tundra Oil & Gas Mr. John Phillip s, New Scope Resource Ltd. Mr.

Cliff Calverley, Priva te Citizen Your Committee has considered: Bill (No. 8) -An Act to amend The Corporations Act. Bill (No. 9) -An Act to amend The Partnership Act. Bill (No. 10) -An Act to amend The Real Property Act. Bill (No. 11) -An Act to amend The Registry Act. Bill (No. 13) -An Act to amend The Business Names Registration Act. Bill (No. 27) -An Act to amend The Social Services Admin istration Act. Bill (No. 33) -An Act to amend The Pharmaceutical Act. Bill (No. 44) -An Act to amend The Fisheries Act. Bill (No. 45) -An Act to amend The Forest Act. Bill (No. 61) -An Act to amend The Insurance Act.

And has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your Committee has also considered: Bill (No. 5) -The Surface Rights Act;

Loi sur les droits de surface. Bill (No. 19) -The Sur vivor ship Act;

Loi sur les presomptions de survie . Bill (No. 22) -The Wills Act;

Loi sur les testaments. And has agreed to repor t the same with certain amendments. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Johns, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Minis terial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills .. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions may I dir ect the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 90 visitors, members of the Thunder Bay Band and Orchestra. They are here under the dir ection of Miss Raxter. There are 31 students of Grade 11 standing from the Princess Elizabeth High School under the dir ection of Mr. Balkwill. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Min nedosa. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. SPEAK ER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Also before we reach Oral Questions, I took under advisement a matter of privilege a few days ago.

On Wednesday, May 4th, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain rose in his place on a matter of privilege regarding possible intimi dation of wit nesses appearing before a Standing Commit tee of the Legislature at a meet ing in . Brandon on April 21st. I took the matter under advisement in order to review Hansard and the issues that were raised. In order for a matter of privilege to take precedence over the ordi nary business of the House, it is necessary that two conditions be satisfied, (

a) that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity, and (

b) that a prima facie case has been demonstrated. Although the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain di d not raise the matter of privi lege for almost two weeks after the Brandon meeting, I will accept that Hansard for the committee meeting was delayed and 2569

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 the matter should not be ruled out of order solely on those grounds. The second requirement, that a prima facie case be shown, raises ancilla ry ques tions involving the di fferences between this matter and former matters of privilege. First ly, on the question of whether House privilege extends to commit tees meeting outside the precincts of the Legislatu re. Maingot, writing in his Parli amentary Privi lege in Canada, states on Page 33, that proceedings of a committee authorized to travel are "proceedings in parliament," and freedom of speech therefore applies to them.

Witne sses called before them would enjoy the same privilege as members. Secondly, on the question of whether a matter of privilege can be brought to the House before that committee has reported, Beauchesne's citation 76 says in part, "Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee." On the other hand, Maingot says on Page 18 9, "events occurring in a comm ittee, such as disruptions by those not otherwise taking

part in the proceedings, may be raised in the House dir ectly or on report by the Commi ttee." In doing so, he cites a U.K. precedent. Third ly, on the question of whether our Rule 73. 1 applies, when it says, "The Chairman of a Standing Committee or a Special Committee of the House, shall maintain order and shall decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the Committee." The rule speaks only of questions of order, and not matters of privile ge; I can find no reference to any power to dispo se of matters of privilege separate from those of the House itself.

Indeed, the opposite is the case, several references ind icate that a committee's authority is only that which is delegated by the House, and the House itself reserves the power to deal with matters of privilege. Even if the foregoing points are not conclusive, the matter of the possible intimid ation of witn esses appearing before a Committee of the House is one of grave concern, touching a basic privilege of the House and the parli amentary system itself. I ther efore consider the matter to be of sufficient impor tance that the House should consider it forthwith, and I find the motion in order.

The question before the House, do you need it read again? It is moved by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, seconded by the Honourable Member for Arthur, that the Standing Commi ttee on Rules of the House be dir ected to review the proceedings of the April 21 mee tin g of the Stand ing Commit tee on Agricultur e and arising therefrom to recommend rules governing public conduct at meetings of Legislative Committees. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. R.

PENNER: Yes, speaking to the motion and rising to support it, I would like to make it clear that, in my view the reference is a non-partisan reference and an appropriate one for the Rules Committee to consider the appropriate rules that might be in voked by someone chairing a committee in such circu mstances in order to maintain decorum at such hearings or at such sessions. It is not at all clear from the record whether the witnesses were being intimida ted or the committee.

There was a question relating to the bearing of some signs in a demonstrative fashion into the committee, a Chairman's Ruling which was supported by members from both sides of the House and ulti mately a divided committee on exactly how to deal with the situation - not any di fference of opinion at all that the situation should be dealt with - but merely how it should be dealt with.

Accordingly , I think the motion is worthy of support in that it refers it to the appropriate body to consider what shall be the guidin g rules for such events, in particular and in general and therefore, this side of the House supports the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion of privilege in referring this particular matter to the Rules Committee, I would like to just briefly recount what took place at that commit tee hearing so that all members are familiar with the precise situation.

I will do my best to recount that so each and everyone here are familiar with what happened. The committee on the Crow rate hearings of the Agriculture Standing Committee proceeded to hear witnesses in Brandon at the Agricultural Extension Centre where during the first presentation - and I stand to be corrected I belie ve it was during the presentation by the President of the Manitoba Farm Bureau - there was an indi vidual who was proceeding to move signs from either the back or the side of the room to the front of the room precisely between the commit tee Chairs and the witness who is presenting his brie f.

Such signs as naming the president as a quisling or that he was a trait or, and that type of sign. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't, I am sure, only uncomfortable for the wit ness, but as a legislator and a group of parliamentarians, particularly speaking from our side, were somewhat bothered by that kind of a procedure that was taking place. After the witne ss had been heard it was brought to the attention of the Chairman, by the Honourable Minis ter of Transportation, that that was not proper, and it is in the record, Sir, what had been said.

To further clarify for the Government House Leader, and I am not doing it in any debating way, that it was a motion put by the Government Min ister , but only supported by the Opposition. Now that's, as I said, I don't mean to get into a debate on that but it is for the record, accurate. I think, Mr.

Speaker, in supporting this, that rather than get into that kind of a situation where it is degrading for the legislative process, or the fact-finding approach that was taken that a Rules Committee de cision should be taken on this so th at we, as leg isla tors, do not afford or not allow the whole legisla tiv e process to breakdown, and that each and every Manitoban and Canadian has the clear right to 2570

Tues day, 10 May, 1983 express themselves without intim idation; therefore, I appr eciate the su pp ort that all Mem bers of this Assembly are going to give to referring this to the Rules Committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise in support of the motion. Anytime when there is an allegation that wit nesses are being intimi dated before a legislative committee there must be an examination into those allegations. I do wish, however, Mr. Speaker, to read into the record some of Hansard.

I was not there, but the previous Speaker ind icated that the issue had been brought to the attention of the committee by the Min ister of Hi ghways, indeed, Mr. Speaker, on Page 160 of the record of the Standing Commit tee, it is ind icated very clearly that the matter was first raised to the attention of the committee by the Chairman, who sug gested that those signs which had wandered up to the front be taken to the back of the room. Indeed, the member who just previously spoke, then stated, and I quote, "I would like to see the signs placed at the back of the room.

I think that would be appropria te because it is a legislative hearing and a formal process and would show cou rtesy to do that." That was what the member who previously spoke said, in reply to the suggestion by the Chairman that the signs be taken to the back of the room, and then afterwards it was a vote. But it was clear that the matter was first on the record, brought to the attention of the commit tee by the chairman, there was action and in deed the signs were taken to the back of the room.

Certai nly it's a matter that can be looked at now by the commit tee to dete rmine what happens the next time there is something lik e that in front of a Legislative Commit tee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the matter at issue is one that we all have to consider very carefully because when we, as Mem bers of the Legisla tive Assembly , proceed to hear th e public opinion of Manitobans at a series of hearings decided on by both sides of the House, I believe that we have to ensure the integrity of that hearing process.

There were signs in the hall when the hearing commenced and I would suppose in retrospect now had we used a normal course of procedure we probably should have insis ted as a committee, or the chairman should have ins isted as the chairman of the committee, that those signs be removed from the hall because the chamber that we used out there is no di fferent, for in stance, than room 254 th at we use for routine committee hearings. Having that as an oversight by all members of the committee, Mr.

Speaker, the situation was worsened somewhat when the clearly offensive ones of those signs that were at the back of the hall were moved up in full view of one of the major witn esses at that hear ing process. They contained personal innuendo and personally insulting terms.

There is no question that they were placed in a position of full vision of that witness when he was at the witness table and clearly, I think, anyone coming to present a position - even though it may be at odds 2571 with other people at those hearings who would want to present their position - a committee hearing is no place to allow that kind of innuendo and intim idation to occur to witne sses.

Now, the matter was brought up by the Chairman and although Hansard doesn't show it, I believe, the Mi nister of Transportation drew it priv ately to the Chairman's attention, there was the dis cussion on what signs were offensive and the two that my colleague, the MLA for Arthur, had mentioned, were truly offensive in naming one of the witnesses both a quisling and a trai tor. Those signs, I belie ve, were rightfully requested to be removed from the hall by the Mini ster of Transportation by motion put to the committee.

That motion did not receive the unanimous support of the commission, there was a tie vote in which the Chairman broke the tie and decided that simple movement of the signs to the back of the room would be sufficient. Now, the Chairman then ind icated that those signs should be moved to the back of the room; they weren't moved there. Apparently the owners of those signs, who were proud enough to place them in intimi dation of the witness, were not proud enough, after the fact, to claim their signs and move them as dir ected by the Chair . Mr.

Speaker, I believe, that this rightfully is a question tha t we should de cide in the commit tee, as recommended by the motion on the matter of privilege, and certai nly we, on this side of the House, will support the motion and support a proper dir ection coming from Rules and Privi leges to determine how a Chairman who may, at some future time, be placed in a similar situation, deal with it immedia tely and forthrightly . So, we support this motion, wholehe artedly, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Hi ghways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, the members that have contribut ed to this discussion were accurate in the words that they used. I would like to put on the record the reason why I had moved the motion, because I believe it's worthwhile to understand the process that we were in volved in at the time. The reason was very obvious to me, and that is, that I didn' t recollect ever, at a government committee hearing, that we had permitted that kind of activ ity. I was fearful that if we went on record condoning that at that meeting, that would be a precedent th at we wouldn't want to establish.

It was, on that basis, that I moved my motion that the signs be, not moved to the back of the hall but outside of the room, because they had no place at a government meeting. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. ORAL QUESTIONS Apology for Fl ag Bu rning MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Lea der of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting First Minis ter. The Parli amentary Secretary to the Min ister of External Affairs is reported as having

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 said th at Ma nitoba, that is, the Go ve rnment of Manitoba, has apologi zed to Washington for the participation of members of the government and members of the government caucus in an anti-American demonstration on March 23rd in front of the American Consulate in Winnipeg, can the Acting First Mini ster confirm that such an apology has gone forward from this government to the Government of the United States? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I too saw the clipping, but it does not represent the facts as I understand them. Mr.

Speaker, we did express our regret to the Consul that a flag-burning had occurred and disassociated ourselves from it. The Americans have not asked for an apology, nor did we offer one on the general base that we were stating an opinion on an issue that we felt we had a right to state an opinion on. I think our area of regret was in the location of the demonstration. There are several inaccu racies in the newspaper report and I will certainly look at the federal Hansard to see what was actually said and I will undertake, along wit h the Pr emi er, to see if th ere's any misunderstanding and that it is clarified.

HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, we thank the Acting First Mi nister for her candour, if not the wisdom of the government, in responding in the way in which it has been asked to respond, by way of an apology. In view of the fact that the original American note to the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) Are we having some yipping from one of the demonstrators again, Mr. Speaker? Whose flag would he like to see burned today? The Member for lnkster? Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of the United States asked the Government of Canada for assurances that such official support of hostile demonstrations would not be repeated, can the Acting First Min ister give the House some indi cation as to how this request has been met by the government other than the note - which I have already categorized as being insipid - which the First Mi nister sent to the Minister of External Affairs within a matter of days after this unfortunate event occurred? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, it's our contention that disagreement on a matter of foreign affairs does not constitute a hostile act among fri ends. It represents, again, an extension of that freedom of speech and honest interchange of opinion that ch aracterizes our preferred democratic process on the issue we have just been discussing in this House. Mr. Speaker, the assurance that Min isters of this government would not appear in front of a Consulate in order to express such an opinion, that assurance has been given.

The assurance that we would not ever speak out publicly on a matter of such concern is not, we think, within the area where we should back down, so that is the distinction that we have made. As I say, we exp ressed our very sincere regret over the flag-burning incident but did disassociate ourselves 2572 from such an expression at that time or on any other occasion, because we don't think that's an appropriate way to express an opinion. I think that the issue has been dealt with on several occasions and our position is very clear. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, while the House will listen with interest to the expression by the Acting First Minister of her impr ession, of what her participation and the participation of the Minister of Resources and the six other members of the NOP Government caucus were in this unfortunate and unprecedented event, surely she is aware of the fact of what the imp ression is of the Government of the United States is, and the Government of the United States, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. R.

PENNER: I'm rising on a point of order; intend to put that point of order. Mr. Speaker, again we are witness to the abuse of question period, contrary to rulings that you have made time and time again, where one mem ber of the oppo sition or anoth er, usually the Leader of the Opp osition, abuses the privileges of the House by giving a speech instead of any normal, ordinary

preamble to a question, particularly when it's a supplementary. You have drawn attention to the House before. Apparently it becomes necessary every time, and every time that happens I've arised on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank the Honourable Government House Leader for his remarks. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're well aware of the totalitarian views of the House Leader and I'm well aware, Sir, that you are becoming aware of them as well as the rest of the House, and the people of Manitoba, through the camera. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, on a point of order, I ask that the unpar liamentary rem ark of the Leader of the Opposition be withdrawn. To state in this House that's he's well aware of the totalitarian views of myself is abominable; it's a shame; it's a type of thing that ought not to be tolerated. I, for one, will not remain silent in the face of that kind of infamous mistreatment of a member of this House. It is not true.

My views are well-known and I will rise to defend myself every time necessary and if it takes up the time of the House, so be it, and I would ask that you rule that the statement used by the leader of the Oppo sition is unparli amentary and that he ought to withdraw it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I can find nothing in our list of unparliamentary words such as that which has

Tue sday, 10 May, 1983 been used and objected to in this House. I would merely ask the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition to consider whether his choice of the word "totalitarian" and the opposit ion th at it pro voked is pr operly conduciv e to the decorum in this Chamber. The Honourable Member for Concordia. MR. P. FOX: Mr.

Speaker, in relation to the question that was raised by the Attorney-General, I belie ve all those who are parliamentarians are aware that the first premis e of being an elected member is that all members are honourable members and therefore any slight or slander that is uttered or spoken towards them is out of order, and I would hope that you would rule that way. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Member for Concordia for his remarks. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: In view of the fact that the Government of the Uni ted States, Mr.

Speaker, does not share the view of the Acting First Min ister, that the government has excul pated itself from its original overindu lgence in front of the American Consulate, has the Government of Manitoba given assurances to the Government of Canada to be relayed to the Government of the Uni ted States that anti-American demonstrations of this kind partici pated in by Members of the Executive Council will not occur again? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the members on this side do not consider our stance as anti-American; we consider it as an open free commentary on a foreign policy matter which concerns not only us very deep ly, but a very sizable proportion of the American citiz enry. It was a question of intervention in the affairs of a smaller nation while they are struggling to develop their own political evolution, and that was the point at issue, Mr. Speaker.

I, personally, have a mother who was born in the Uni ted States; I have lived in the Uni ted States; I have spent several years pledging allegiance to that flag as a young school student, and I feel very positively towards 99 percent of the polic ies and people of the Uni ted States, as do my colleagues. We do believe, thoug h, that as responsible members not only of Manitoba, but of Canada, in deed of the world, that the Uni ted Nations Charter was brought in to protect and develop, that we have not only a right, but a responsibili ty to speak out on issues of human rights and justice. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Spea ker, it's all very heartwarming to hear now these expressions of filial attachment by the Acting First Min ister to the House, to the people of Manitoba, and to the Government of the Uni ted States. But in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of the Uni ted States has sent a note of strong protest asking for assurances that such activity, as she has described, will not be repeated again, is she saying that assurance will not be given by Mr. Pawley and the NOP Government of Manitoba, even though it prejudices the public in terest of all of the citizens of Manitoba? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, we do not belie ve, on this side, that having a dif ference of opinion constitutes dislo yalty or non-filial relationship. I do not often, Mr. Speaker, agree with the opinion or sentiment of the Leader of the Opposition, but I assure you that I would fight long and hard for his right to be heard and to voice his opinion. Cruise missiles HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, another question to the Acting Fir st Minis ter.

In view of her new-fo und attachment to the views of the Uni ted States of America, can the First Mi nister tell us, arising from the open letter that has been sent to the people of Canada by the Prime Min ister of Canada supporting the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada, if the government of this province supports that initia tive by the Government of Canada, which is also in conjunction with a request that is about to be made to the Government of Canada by a NATO ally; and, if the government does support it, will they have their backbencher, who has an anti­ Cruise missile resolution, withdr aw that resolution from the Order Paper?

HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, members on this side, as members of a political party, do have a position on that issue. As members of this government, that issue is not in our jurisdiction, so it's not up to us to speak formally as a government on the issue, but I'd be more than happy to take up the debate in Priv ate Members' Hour or on an individual basis with any and all members of the opposition. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, is the Acting First Mi nister sayi ng that the Cruise missile matter is not within the jurisdiction of Manitoba, but that the internal conditions of the State of Nicaragua are within the jurisdiction of the people of Manitoba? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I was not speaking on a government position on the Nicaraguan issue. There are party positions that support the non-intervention in the rights of smaller countries and, as I say, I would be more than happy in an environment where we can listen to one another and listen to evidence, to opinion, to belief, to attitude, to discuss the Cruise testing issue.

Because it and its associated questions of armament and international relations, what we are currently doing, is leading towards a better chance for peace, or a less good chance, is probably one of the most im portant debates that each and every Manitoban should be participating in. I hope to take

part in that debate, Mr. Speaker, along with many of my colleagues. I intend to keep studying and learning about the issue as I go because I think it's folly for any of us to assume that we know everything there is to be known on that issue, but we can't avoid approaching it, examining it, and when the time comes taking positions according to our belie fs as to what is the correct position to take. Prime Mi nister re sta tement HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, could the Acting First Min ister then tell us the position of the government 2573

Tue sday, 10 May, 1983 with respect to this statement of the Prime Min ister? I quote: "Anti-Americanism of some Canadians verges on hypocri sy. They are eager to take refuge under the American umbrella, but don't want to help hold it." Would the Acting First Min ister tell us if that expresses the view of the NDP Government or not? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Mini ster of Canada is also entitled to his view on this issue. He's entit led to speak it and to give his in terpretation.

I, personally, don't agree with his position and I would like to take part with him in some kind of debate as to why he holds that view, or why he uses the image of an umbrella, which we normally think of as protecting us from some thing we don 't like, as the most appropriate symbol to describe the current armament situation. I can understand, coming from an era, myself, when guns and weapons were of a much smaller and less lethal power, how someone 30, 40, 50 years ago - pre­ atomic bomb - could view the security system in that way. But, Mr .

Spea ker, it's my belief th at the technological change and the enormously greater power of destruction not only in an immed iate sense, but in a damage to the very environment we depend on and our very genetic capacity to create and preserve life, we're into a di fferent era. There requires to be a new logic when we are looking at questions of defence. NATO - support of Canada HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, will the Acting First Minis ter then tell us, is it the position of the NDP Government of Manitoba, in the light of her recent comment, that every Prime Mi nister of Canada sinc e the end of the war and every President of the United States since the end of the war has been wrong in trying to enlist the support of Canada in NATO for our mutual defence against the USSR? Were all of those noble people wrong? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, on a point of order.

The question asking a Min ister of the Crown to give an opinion as to whether or not a President of another country was right or wrong, going back to 1945 assuming for the moment their nobilit y, is clearly out of order. It's not within the Mini sterial competence to reflect on whether or not in any given instance, a head of state of another country was right or wrong. Cruise missiles MR. SPEAKER: I have di fficulty in seeing where the question is on a subject of adminis trative responsiblity of this government. Perhaps the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would like to reph rase his question. HON. S.

LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've had a series of questions on this matter and we can all understand the Attorney-General not sharing the feeling that our Prime Min isters and the Presidents of the United States have been noble; he's been known to have feelings of affiliation for leaders other than the two of them. But, Mr. Speaker, the question I was asking was with respect to the Government of Manitoba.

Does the Government of Manitoba have a position with respect to the testing of Cruise mis siles in Canada, in support of the statement made over the weekend by the Prime Mini ster of Canada, and if it has a position will the Acting First Min ister tell us what it is? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi ni ster of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question.

I think the jurisd ictional authority of the Government of Manitoba - we may be able to pass a judgment on testing in Manitoba - and we certainly can have our own opinions and a party opinion on the testing anywhere else in Canada, but it's certainly not the position of the government to comment on that jurisd ictional question. Port of Churchill re upgrad ing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, to the Mi nister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that the producers representative of the Canadian Wheat Board on the Advi sory Council was recently elected by the farmers on his stand in support for the Port of Churchill, and in view of the fact that he comes from a background not unlike this Provincial Government and the member of the National Farmers Union - like the Min ister of Agriculture and close affiliation with both the Farmers Union and the New Democratic Party - and in view of the fact that the Canadian Government through the Min ister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board have offered some $50 million to upgrade the plant and the rail line to Churchill, will this Min ister of Agriculture contact the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee and the Wheat Board to request them to reconsider their decision to upgr ade the Port of Churchill and the lines so that the farmers of Western Canada can be served by that im portant port?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentlemen he is referring to is also walking on two legs, has a head of hair, is a Mani toban and was elected by citizens of the province who are producers. Mr. Speaker, I have raised my concern that the Wheat Board should re-examine their position in terms of the historic shi pments of grain through the Port of Churchill and that they should re-examine their position. Certainly we see merit in the suggestion made by the Federal Government of the offer to upgrade the Port and the rail way.

We know that there are hi storical shi pments of grain whether they be through the west coast or through the lakehead, the pattern is there, as they are for Churchill in terms of what his tory has shown in terms of shi pments. Certainly that kind of a guarantee can be given. What one can't guarantee, of course, is the weather pattern, the availability of ships through the Port and 2574

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 the selling pattern of the Canadian Wheat Board, but they should certainly re-examine their position in view of making use of the funds that are being put forward by the Federal Government. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the question again, will the Min ister appr oach tha t indi vidual, Mr. Br ad McDonald, who is quoted in today's press saying that they would not support the upgrading of the Port of Churchill when in fact he campaigned only a few months ago and got the support of the farmers saying that he wanted the upgrading and the use of Churchill? Will he now tell Mr.

McDonald, or request that he change his position, or consider resigning from that position as advisor for the Wheat Board so the farmers can put someone in place that does represent the farmers' feelings? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would assume in reading the

article that I don't think there were any statements made tha t they were opposed to the upgrading of Churchill. The statement, as I read the

article and I will have to have that clarified, as to whether or not they can give a guarantee of the amount of shipments going through a particular port, that is quite a di fference in opinion. Mr. Speaker, when one member is asking for the resignation of another I wonder whether he will ask one of his colleagues in Ottawa, Mu rta, to resign on the basis dealing with the whole issue of Crow rate supporting the abolition of the Crow and also supporting the abolition of the Port of Churc hill. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of correction. I did not suggest that the individual resign unless, Mr.

Speaker, he changes position on the upgrading and the using of $50 mil lion worth of Federal Government funds.

Will this government, will this Min ister of Agriculture and the Premier of the Province live up to the comm itment that has been in place by the Progressive Conservative Party for many many years in Canada, for the development of the Port of Churchill, will he now dir ect ly contact th e Federal Mini ster responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and ask him to reconsider his expenditure of $50 mill ion that could be poured into the Port of Churchill and the CN line, so that the Port can be used by the farmers of Western Manitoba and Western Canada?

Will he - it's a very straight yes or no - will he contact the Federal Min ister and tell him that Brad McDonald does not represent the feelings of Manitoba farmers? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, what we intend to do is to make sure that the Wheat Board re-examines their position vis-a-vis the announcement made by the Federal Minis ter. Whether or not one member of the advisory board has certain statements to make about the issue is up to the advisory board member. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, I don't intend to defend it because we want to see the Port of Churchill expanded to its fullest capacity, unlike some of the members of his federal caucus who have said that the Port of Churchill should be abolished, should be written off the face of this earth, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the loud musings of the former Min ister of Agriculture that they supported Churchill when his own members in southern Manitoba, in the Federal House of Parliament that has the port in Churchill under whose authority the Port of Churchill operates, voted and wanted to abolish that Port, Mr. Speaker.

Bu rning of Fl ag s MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister of Agriculture. In view of recent statements by his First Mi nister about participation of Min isters at demonstrations at which flags are burned, does he agree with the expression of individual opinion by elected members? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the only one that I recall in this Chamber as agreeing to flag burning was his leader, the Leader of the Opposition. MPIC re whee l disc s and je wellry MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honour able Minis ter of Consume r and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Honourable Member for Minn edosa raised two questions about MPIC polic y, one with respect to replacement of wheel dis cs and the other one with replacement of lost or stolen jewellery. I have now received the report. I am informed that up until last fall, MP IC used a hotline amongst the recyclers in Winnipeg to obtain information on whether or not they could supply wheel discs.

This, unfortunately, was not satisfactory, and last fall and early this spring, a supplier from Eastern Canada had been in contact with MPI C. They ind icated that they had dealt for a number of years with the insurance indu stry in Ontario. They were looking towards an expansion of their market in the Manitoba area. In the last two or three months they, in fact, have located in Winnip eg. An in formation bul letin was circula ted by MPIC outlining the opening of this firm, ind icating the price for dis cs as well as instruction to the claims adjusters, to mark the estimates with the supplier's name.

Writing the supplier's name on estimate sheets is not something new. MPIC practice has been for a long time to write the name of the supplier, wherever a

part is available. However, there has never been, and there never will be an insis tence that the part be purchased at that location. It is simply a means of assisting the claimant. With respect to the handling of jewellery losses, I would like to quote from the policy manual. It states, "Frequently claims for loss to certain property, that is, watches, jewel lery and so on may be adjus ted advantageously by replacement of the

article with lik e kind and quality by a reliable dealer. This possibility 2575

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 should be explored and pursued but only with the consent and co-operation of the insure d." I am advised that when a claim is being adjusted, the insu red is questioned as to his or her preference with respect to the firm they wish to patronize. If no preference is ind icated, the attending adjuster may mention several firms which provide di scounts to the in surance indu stry. However, the final choice rests solely with the insured. The specific instance that the Member for Minn edosa referred to may have been an inde pendent adjuster handling a claim.

I don't know because the details weren't provided to me. Sometimes it may happen that an in dependent adjuster may have made a dir ect referral without the knowledge of MPI C. But unless I have the specifics, I can't respond to that. MR. SPEAKER: the Honour able Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Min ister for that answer. I would ind icate to him though that there is a suggestive message to the claimant when a name is mentioned on the claim form where he may replace that particular lost arti cle. A second question, Mr.

Speaker, would be, how would a supplier enable hi mself to get his name on that list where he may be mentioned as a preferred supplier? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, I had mentioned there had been a problem with the recyclers and the firm from Eastern Canad a which was Whe el Covers Unlim ited , had contacted MP IC in view of their experience in Ontario. There have been a number of other suppliers that have contacted MPIC and once MP IC is satisfied that they can, in fact, provide the items that are required at a price that is acceptable to MPI C, their names are also ci rculated through a bulletin.

With respect to the discount ers for jewellery, there is a fairly extensive list of those firms, both small and large, that have agreed to provi ding replacement jewellery to MPIC at a dis count. MR. D. BLAKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter could inform the House, how many branches throughout Canada that Wheel Covers Unlim ited in Eastern Canada have. How many branches do they have throughout Canada or in Sicily? HON. J. BUCKLA SCHUK: I can't provide that information. I do know that they have been in operation in Ontario for a good number of years and they now have a branch in Winnip eg.

Hodgso n-F isher Bran ch area re hopper cars MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I dir ect a question to the Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. I received an urgent request earlier on today from grain shi ppers in the Hod gson-Fisher Branch area. My question to the Honourable Min ister is, would he undertake to contact the CNR to see what can be done to bring some cars up into that area? My understanding from the Wheat Board is that some 20 cars have been allocated for movement of grain in that area, but for some reason or other, just haven't made it up there.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, that line is on the verge of being abandoned, and we have appealed the decision of the Transport Commit tee with respect to that proposed abandonment, Sir , and certainly we'll want to make sure of that kind of assistance to any farm community because we have made arrangements, as was the case in Swan Ri ver, to co-operate with the Canadian Wheat Board to have ship ments in the area in the event of flooding.

We certainly would want to do that for any other community, but I certainly will check that out. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the residents are all too well aware of the decision recently taken by the Transport Commission about abandonment of that line, but I would hope that the Min ister would use his good offices, in de ed, perhaps th at of th e Mi nister of Transportation as well, to make sure that some cars get up there. I want to assure the Honourable Mini sters that it does help when the Min isters' offices call.

We found that to be the case in other in stances, and I appeal to the Mi nister to undertake those calls. Supplementary question, would the Mi nister perhaps report back to the House in a day or two as to the results? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker , we've always undertaken to be as co-operative as we can to assist Manitobans in problems they may be having, whether they be of a provincial nature or of a federal nature. If we can assist, we will do so. Ea rl Grey Sc hool - refinancing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Acting First Min ister, the Mini ster of Health, took a question as notice on my behalf. The question from the Member for Tuxedo in which he had asked, whether or not the alleged assistance from Mr. Axworthy to the Earl Grey School was coming out of Core Area Init iativ es or North of Portage Redevelopment Fund. I can report that there has been no such request of the Core Area Initia tives for such assistance, nor do I believe that kind of request would be one that could be entertained and is, in fact, not part of the Core Area Init iative Program at all. De velopment north of Portage Avenue MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Mi nister of Urban Affairs. Mr. Speaker, could he advise 2576

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 this House what changes he agreed to yesterday in his meeting with the Federal Minister and Mayor Norrie to the plan for the development north of Portage Avenue. The plan, Mr. Speaker, which the Premier said on Friday the government was prepared to approve, in principle. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can report that th ere was inten sive negotiations and discussions yesterday morning with Mr. Axworthy, the Mayor, the Premier and myself and those negotiations resumed in the afternoon with Mr. Axworthy and the Mayor.

We were able to find common ground on an approach to a major redevelopment project in the north of Portage area.

I can confirm that the tentative decision that was reached by us yesterd ay, and one which I've been informed moments ago was accepted by City Council, and one which will be discussed by Executive Council tomorrow, is that all the parties - that being the Federal Government, the Province of Manitoba, and the city - will agree to a joint task force to review and to work on specific procedures and projects for the Portage North area with a commitment of $20 million from each level of government, subject to final approval within 60 days of a specific plan.

I'm pleased that we've been able to continue the discussions that commenced some time ago and, through our efforts, bring about agreement between the Federal Government and the city on a commitment to work on a proposal for north of Portage. I do anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that within days there'll be further welcomed announcements with respect to other developments in the downtown area of Winnipeg. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in view of that answer, I would ask the Mi nister of Urban Affairs whether the Provincial Government intends to proceed immedi ately with expropriations, and whether or not, during the course of the study , the Mi nister of Urban Affairs will take up and support the city administration's position that, under the federal-provincial proposal, the city is expected to make a di sprop ortion ate financ ial commitment to the proposed development.

In their admi nist rative report they point out that the federal commitment is only some $23.4 million when you accept the fact that the Federal Government has had a longstanding commi tment to the National Research Council and the CBC; the Pr ovincial Government commi tment is $35.4 million, but the city commitment is $10 0.4 million; will he not support the city with respect to this position, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact, that real property tax incr eases have been substantial over the last two years, and the City of Winnipeg taxpayer will bear a further incr eased burden if the Federal Government and the province continue to impose such a heavy financial commi tment on the city? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes, they'll be straight answers, Mr. Speaker, to a rather long and rambling premable in question. First of all, I think it would be worthwhile to correct the member on some of the points he made. First of all, it should be emphasized that this year, Mr.

Speaker, the City of Winnipeg has the lowest mill rate incr ease in recent history in the City of Winnipeg. I would suggest to you, Sir, that is in good part, not totally because of the position that this government adopted with respect to assistance to the City of Winnipeg, and that that is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in regard to the further discussions that will be taking place on the North Portage development, the Provincial Government's position is clear that it is prepared to co-operate equally with the City of Winnipeg and the Federal Government.

As I indi cated previously , each level of government has made a tentative commitment of further funds to help bring about the revitalization of the downtown area, and provide much needed jobs. The reference that was made by the member to a specific document is not relevant because the specific proposal that document was addressing is no longer the specific document, or the specific proposal that's going to be dealt with by the task force.

I would just reinforce that the province's position is that it will support and work in equal portions with the other levels of government and make equal commitments as they do. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the tax increase in 1982 alone, the first year under this government, was double the total incr ease for four years under a Progressive Conservative home for an average assessed home in the City of Winnipeg, taxes have increased significantly again this year, does the Mi nister, under the study, support the diversion of funds away from the Core Area Ini tiative Program, and particul arly, the East Yards? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Mr. Speaker, again, the

preamble seems to go here, there and everywhere. I would just point out to the member that his reference to 1982 tax incr eases, that was also the year that the financial assistance, the payments from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg were of the highest percentage incr ease of the last seven years, so that any substantial in crease in the mill rate was not because of the lack of Provincial Government assistance to the City of Winnipeg in the year 1982. Mr.

Speaker, again, I state that there is a process for ongoing review within the next 60 days to look at specific proposals for the North Portage area. I am not in a position, nor would I agree to any transfer of funds outside of those that are specifica lly earmarked for the North Portage area, to be transferred to that program at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Cultural Affairs. HANSARD CORRECTIONS HON. E. KOSTVRA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to correct two errors in Hansard.

First of all, on Hansard of Thursday, May 5, Page 2415, on the left-hand side, top 2577

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 of the page, it quotes me as saying: "That condition has not been opposed by the province." The word "opposed" is incorrect; it should be "imposed by the provinc e." Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on Hansard of May 6 on Page 2480, right-hand side of the page near the top it quotes me as saying: "I can't confirm." What I did say, Mr. Speaker, is that "I can confirm that the Queen's Printer did invite, etc." MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you please call second reading on Page 4 of Bills 51 and 55 in that order?

SEC OND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL 51 - THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ELEC TION ACT HON. A. ADAM presented Bill No. 51,

An Act to Amend The Local Auth orities Election Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy for the critic, the Member for Swan River. Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to The Local Auth orities Election Act are intended to facilitate the enu merati ons which take place th is year prior to municipal elections being held in Octo ber. At present this Act requires the enumerations to commence by a specific date in June. An early start for an enumeration has not presented difficulties in rural Manitoba.

However, in the City of Winnipeg and presumably in certain other larger urban centres outside of the City of Winnipeg a great deal of change does take place between the months of June and September. This is parti cularly true of leased accommodations and the changes proposed establish final dates rather than commencement dates for the enumeration, revision and final completion of the list of electors. The bill, therefore, provides that a person who would be entitled to vote in either of two wards must advise the revising officer before the first Wednesday in Septem ber.

Previously that provision referred to the third Wednesday in August. A preliminary list must now be completed by the fourth Wednesday in Aug ust rather than the first Wednesday in June. Similarly the revision must be completed by the first Wednesday in September rather than the first Wednesday in June and the final list must be completed at least 14 days prior to nomination day. Previously that list had to be completed one month prior to nomination day. It should be noted, Mr.

Speaker, that none of these amendments preclude a muni cipality from beginning the work of enumeration during the most appropriate time in each municipal ity. Rather, the legislation will now specify only the completion dates for this work. I am certain members will appreciate the wisdom of such changes which will enable both urban and rural municipali ties to prepare the necessary lists of electors. l recommend this bill to the House, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: I move, seconded by the Member for St. Norbert, that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 55 THE LEGIS LATIVE ASSEM BLY ACT HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 55,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the provision of services to members of the Assembly, and more specifically with services that allow them to serve their constituents. As members will recall, some discussions were held between the two caucuses in this Assembly during the past year with a view to impr oving the ability of members to serve their constituents. These discussions were inconclusive.

It is the government's view in presenting this bill that certain changes should be made at the present time to assist members and remove some of the technical problems that exist with the present services. The major changes which are being proposed in this bill include an incr ease in the number of trips allowed to rur al mem bers from th eir constituency to the Legisla tive Buildings, from the present 26 trips per Session to 40 trips in the year.

The incr ease from 26 trips to 40 reflects the need as we see it, of ML As, Mem bers of the Legis lature, to attend to the ir constituency, caucus and government business at times other than when the House is in Session. Although not all members will necessarily require the full 40 trips per year, this allows members to attend to their business at the seat of government throughout the year and not just dur ing the Legislative Sessio n. Mr. Speaker, in addition, provision is made for ML As to use a portion of the amount allocated for travel to and from their constituency wi thin their electoral division.

Thi s will be of particular impor tance to members with very large constituenci es where the cost of travel within the electoral division are normally very high. In addition, this bill provides that where travel cannot reasonably be made by private automobile, the cost of using another carrier will be allowed. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, to the franking privilege provided to all members in respect of each Session which allows them to mail to each one of their constituents and one household apiece, often referred to as their "Report from the Legislature," this bill will provide for the printing of this report at an expense 2578

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 not to exceed one and one-half times the mailing cost. I should say, Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that this level of allowance roughl y approximates the historical experience of mem bers with respect to printing costs for these household mailings. Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, recent changes by the Board of Internal Economy provided additional staffing to each caucus in the form of one additional secretarial position and one research officer.

In view of these changes I am recommending to the House in this bill that a special secretarial and research allowance of $1 ,000 per member per year, which has been used by each caucus to pay a portion of their secretarial and research salary expenses in the past, be reduced to $500 per member per year.

The bill also recommends that this allowance no longer be earmarked as "secretarial and research allowance" - and that's because there is the specific provision of this help - but be more broadly designated as an allowance for special suppli es and assistance leaving it up to the caucus to find and support those other services which they wish to provide. Mr. Speaker, in addition, a minor change has been made in the provision in The Legisl ative Assembly Act which allows members to use on a non-charter and incidental basis, the government air service.

The existing provision only allows members to travel to and from their constituency. The provision in this bill proposes that members be allowed to travel anywhere in the province using the government air service but with the strict requirement that it remain on a non-chartered and incidental basis in such fashion, that no other passenger is displ aced by the ML A making the trip and that the aircraft was making the trip for another specific purpose related to government business. Mr.

Speaker, in addition, this bill proposes to remove the $1,5 00 constituency service allowance which is now being paid to all members as a portion of their bi­ weekly indemni ty and expense cheque.

It is proposed that this current allowance - which is non-accountable and that's the main problem with it - be paid to all members regardless of whether or not the funds are actually spent on constituency service, be replaced; that this non-accountable $1 ,500 be replaced by a new constituency service 1').llowance of $2,500, but it is proposed that this allowance be an accountable form and be paid only upon the approval of bills and receipts submi tted by the member.

It's not possible, at this juncture, to determine how much individual members will make use of this provisio n, or whether or not they will spend up to, or in excess of the current $1,5 00.00. Although I'm sure some members will use the full accountable allowance which is being proposed, it is not possible for me to provide an estimate of the increased cost, if any, of this provision. In fact, although this has to be speculative, it is entirely likely that this change which is being proposed could actually result in a decrease in aggregate expenditures.

The type of expendi tures which will be approved for constituency purpose in terms of this accountable $2,500, wiil be identi fied by the Board of Internal Economy and closely monitored to ensure that only expendit ures which relate to ML As constituency service will be allowed. Another provision in the bill provides for the first­ time recognition of the full-time status of our Chief Pr esi ding Officer. Mr . Speaker's indem nity was increased last year from $6,000 to $1 2,000 per annum and it's proposed this year to remove the provision, which suggests that during the intersessional period Mr.

Speaker will come in on occasion on busine ss associated with his office and receive a per diem for each day in which he appears. This bill proposes to recognize the importance of Mr. Speaker's intersessional responsibili ties and replaces the per diem intersessional allowance with an annual allowance for services performed when the House is not in Session, of $3,500.00. Mr.

Speaker, I and other members on this side regret that the discussions during the last year with members of the opposition were inconclusive with regard to an expansion of members' services, capabili ties, for such services as provided, which we propose in this bill. Nevertheless, I'm hopeful that members will consider favourably the establishment of an all-party mechanism for dealing with these questions in the future.

NeverthelHss I am pleased to recommend these changes at this time, when an all-party mechanism is put in place - and I hope that one will shortly - and commences its activities and may want to review the whole question of members' services and may wish to recommend changes from time to time as experience dictates. In the light of the explanation given, Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill to the House. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mini ster of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commi ttee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I feel compelled to rise in the House at this time to utilize my opportunity for a grievance. Mr.

Speaker, I believe this is the first time since I've been a member of the House that I've used this vehicle which, of course, is available to all members whenever something is of vital importance to their constituencies or the people in their particular area, so I do not treat the matter light ly. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months there has been a move to relocate the Crop Insurance Office 2579

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 from Min nedosa to Neepawa. - (I nterjection) - Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, are laughing, they're treating this very lightl y. I want to assure you that this is a very serious matter in my constituen cy. The questions have been posed to the Minister on numerous occasions in a polite and gentlemanly manner - and we haven't received a firm answer from him and apparently he has not received a firm answer from the Board of Directors - but, Mr. Speaker, last March there was an

article appeared in the Neepawa paper which says, "Crop Insurance Office to be moved here from Min nedosa," and also the staff of that office in Minnedosa have been informed to be prepared to move on May 27th. So the fact that we haven't had an answer from the Mini ster, our people in the area and myself included, Mr. Speaker, feel that we have been deceived in this matter, not only by the Mi nister but by the board and the general manager of that board in not coming forward and giving us an answer by this date when they have been questioned on it several times.

When questioned by the press, the general manager said that tile move would be discussed through the proper channels and would not be discussed in the press, although he saw fit last March to discuss it with the press in Neepawa but not so the press in Minn edosa. Mr. Speaker, on the 30th of March we obtained a meeting with the Board of Directors. I was accompanied by two area farmers that are both muni cipal councillors and two of the municipa lities affected.

We had a very productive, I think, and inform ative meeting with the board - although it did appear to us at that time that probably the decision had already been made - and this past weekend or just prior to the weekend I understand some of the board members met with the local people in the Crop Insurance Office to tell them of the date when they would be required to move. Mr. Speaker, this is the spring of the year when farmers, of course, are now busy preparing for the spring season.

That particular office has a great number of claims that have resulted from over-wintering of crops that were damaged by frost last year and the inclement weather did not allow them to harvest those crops. They have been trying to harvest them this spring to see what might be salvaged with, I would say, probably very disastrous results.

I understand barley has been weighing out something like 25 lbs. to the bushel and some farmers have taken a round or two of the flax fields and found that it wasn't worth combining, so the staff are now busy looking at those claims, adjusting them and that has placed a fairly heavy burden on them, so at this particular time it's going to be very diff icult, Mr. Speaker, for them to arrange to move. So it's certainly a bad timing, to say nothing of the cost that will be involved to moving at this particular time. There is one staff member, Mr.

Speaker, who is married, has her home in Minnedosa, that will not be able to move, she will have to leave her positi on; to say nothing of the numerous objections from farmers and if the Minister is not aware of these objections that have been forthcoming, I would say that he must be out of touch with the problem, as he appears to be out of touch with some of the other programs. Mr. Speaker, I would say there has been some strong opposition to this proposed move, not only now but in the past, when it was sugge sted a few years back.

There has been opposition from some of the member's own party who have had representations made to them by some of their strong supporters in that particular area of Manitoba, although I doubt very much if he's received any opposition from the Member for Ste. Rose, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there have been letters from the Town of Minnedo sa, on February 8th, to the Mini ster of Agriculture pointing out their objections and some of the reasons, some of which I will read to you a little later. To date, Mr. Speaker, there has been no reply.

On February 18th, the Minister received a letter from the Minnedosa Farm Business Association, a very strong group of responsible young farmers. To date, there has been no reply to those letters. That is odd, and it is very disturbing to the local people who have taken the time to place their objections on record. As well, there has been a letter sent in from the Minnedosa Development Association, a Branch of the Chamber of Commerce. It seems odd, Mr.

Speaker, because the Minister has received letters on March 25th, from the Retail Merchants Association of Neepawa; on March 25th, a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of Neepawa; on March 28th, a letter from the Neepawa Area Development Association. I don't fault those people. They are certainly doing their job and have no doubt that they would welcome the addi tion of that Crop Insurance Office to their town. Those letters were all replied to, Mr. Speaker, on April 5th. This is a further slap in the face to the people of Min nedosa, Mr.

Speaker, because it is obvious, the decision has been made and they feel deceived once more in this particular instance. The Town of Minnedosa, when it was first rumoured that the Crop Insurance Office may be moved, wrote to the Minister in case his copy had gone astray because they hadn't received a reply. On March 29th, I forwarded copies to the Min ister just to make sure that he was aware of the concerns expressed in a formal way from the town. Mr. Speaker, I want to just quote from the letters that the Mi nister has received.

"The Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Minnedo sa wish to express their extreme concern over the possible relocation of the Area 12 office of the Ma ni toba Crop Insura nce Corporation from Minnedo sa to Neepawa. It is our understanding this proposal has been made to the Min ister and the move will take place mid-May 1983. Min nedosa, like all rural communities, is presently fighting for its economic survival due to the present recession in Canada. Morris Rod-Weeder Co.

Ltd., which employ 120 people at their Min nedosa factory is still shut down." I understand there are some 17 employees back to work there now but it has been quite a blow to the community, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to quote, "In the last 18 months, we have lost three major retail busine sses on our Main Street, closed due to the recession. We feel this is not the time for the Provincial Government to take another service away from our town and move it 17 miles down the hig hway to another community. The Crop Insurance Office has been located in Minnedo sa over the last 14 years.

The farmers of the area are well satisfied with its central location. "Mr. Mi nister, last November, you and the Premier met with over 60 elected muni cipal officials here in Min nedosa, and I had the pleasure of chairing that mee ting. I can assure you , the large majority of 2580

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 municipal people you met that day would not approve of the Crop Insurance Office being moved out of Minne dosa. The Premier said that day, 'The reasons for these meetings with municipal representatives was to bring government closer to the people, and we exchange ideas so government could become more efficient. We think meetings of this type are an excellent idea.' "May we suggest that instead of the government relocat ing offices, they look at the possibil ity of realigning the crop insur ance area boundaries.

In the case of Area 12, the boundaries do not take into consideration communit ies of in terest and natural trading areas. As an example, 80 percent of the farmers of the rural munic ipality of Harrison, and the rural municipality of Saskatchewan, which are in Area 13, never normally go to Hamio ta where Area 13 office is located. This also applies to many farmers in the rural municipality of Strathclair and the Local Government District of Park. "We notice all of the rural municipality of Westbourne is in Area 12.

In fairness, these farmers should not be expected to come to Minn edosa or to Neepawa for their crop insurance because their natural trading area is Portage la Prairie. We notice the rural municipality of Daly and the rural municipality of Elton are in Area 6. These farmers would never normally go to Souris where Area 6 office is located.'' As an aside, Mr. Speaker, to get from that area to Souris they must pass through the City of Brandon which just points up the ridicu lousness of some of the areas where a boundary changes should be looked at. To continue quoting, Mr. Speaker, from the Mayor's letter , "Mr .

Min ister, we ur ge you to have your department give full consi deration to the possibility of realignment of the area crop ins urance boundaries and attached is a resolution passed unanimously by the Council of th e Town of Minn edosa opposing the relocation of the Area 12 Crop Insurance Office. "In closing, we stress, because of the desperate economic conditions of Canada today, this is not the time to move government offices out of our community and we feel we have suggested reasonable alternatives that can overcome this situation.

"Yours truly, Frank Stewart, Mayor of Mi nnedosa.'' That letter was never replied to, Mr. Speaker, which is most unusual. A MEMBER: Terrible. Open government. Balderdash. MR. D. BLAKE: The members of the Mi nnedosa Farm Business Insurance Group also wrote to the Min ister on February 18th, Mr. Speaker, which hasn't been replied to. I won't bother quoting that letter, but they carry on to mention the present structure which serves the following municipalities; Clanwilliam, Minto, Odanah, Rosedale, Langford, Lansdowne, Westbourne, Glenella and the Local Government District of Park South.

"Close observation reveals that this does inde ed put the Minn edosa office at a considerable distance for farmers in the above-mentioned R.M.s. Those areas, Mr. Speaker, are some dis tance from Minn edosa, but 17 miles which brings them to Neepawa, is not that much of an imp rovement.

However, as opposed to moving the office to Neepawa at considerable expense to the corporation and at the risk of antagonizing farmers in the more westerly R.M. s, we propose that an equitable solution would be to shift the existing boundaries of the Minn edosa territory," they go on to state, "which is a reasonable soluti on.'' Mr. Speaker, that letter has never been replied to. A MEMBER: No reply. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, we find that this is unrealistic. The office has been in Mi nnedosa for 14 years, has served well.

The office operates at a less cost-per-claim than any other Crop Insurance Office in the province which speaks well of the service that staff have provided to farmers in the area. To our knowledge, there has never been a complaint. Mr. Speaker, what about this caring government? These promises and there is a list of them that you have seen Mr. Deputy Speaker from time to time. You have seen this book obviously being used. "We can build a dynamic future, we can turn around harsh economic times," promis ed the Premier.

I won't quote too many of them, you've hear them all before, but there are a number of promises in here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that would fit. A lot of the situation that I am presently discussing, unless decisive action is taken now, Manitoba farms or rural communities that service them are simply going to vanish. Well, when you start dealing blows such as this, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to communities such as Mi nnedosa, I don't really know what we can expect because the meetings that have been held throughout rural Manitoba by the Premier and his Cabinet, that we will listen to your concerns; we want to have a consensus. The municip al meeting held in Min nedosa was chaired by a former Conservative M.P., Craig Stewart, who is now Mayor of the town. I suppose they wanted him to chair the mee ting maybe to add a li ttle class and respectability to their meeting, I don't really know, but the concerns and opinions that were expressed that day have obviously fallen on deaf ears, Mr.

Speaker. You have to look at headlines such as this: "Pawley is the NOP." - (Interjection) - There's an

article that says, "Pawley is the NOP," yes, the Fi rst Min ister. Mr. Speak er, we know other head line s, I don't particular have it, but another former First Mi nister of this province, who is not here now, but represented that party, said at one time and got a great headline, "The name of the game is winning elections, even if it means bending your principles." MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, who said that? MR. D. BLAKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt they're bending them to some considerable extent.

Just in discussion with the First Mi nister at a rather popular and well-attended di nner meeting last Wednesday, which I must say was one of the better evenings that I've spent for quite some time, the Premier ind icated to me that he felt that they had a fairly good shot at winning the Min nedosa constituency next time. Well, Mr. Speaker, if he had he's certainly blown it by the move of this crop insurance office out of that town. If it proceeds the Min ister still has ample opportunity to make his feelings known, but if they think they have 2581

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 a good shot at that, Mr. Speaker, I think we have an excellent shot at the constituency of Selkirk next time around. Mr. Speaker, not only did the Min ister not reply to the letters that he received from the Town of Min nedosa and various other organizations, he has not replied to an Order for Return that I placed on the order paper March 18th. Somebody has just slipped that out of my notes, I guess, Mr.

Speaker, because I don't see it here, but I asked in that Order for an economic benefit study; I asked him to give us the rental of the office space; I asked him for the cost per claim with that particular crop insur ance office, and the various other expense items that are going to be in volved with the transfer of that office. Mr.

Speaker , if the Min ister is really in terested in serving the farmers and serving the farmers' best inter ests, he has every opportunity to study the whole problem of the communi ty's in terest and the trading patterns of the various areas now served by the crop insurance districts as they have been set up. I realize, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they were set up some 14 years ago. Trading patterns do change, to some degree, but, Mr. Speaker, this move can still be halted if the Min ister is concerned and wants to take a look at the wishes of the farmer, if he's in terested in serving the farmer's best in terest.

As I menti oned before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has not been a complaint, to our knowledge, of the service that office has provided. It's something that has been in the mind of some of the bureaucrats, I suppose, in the crop insurance area. There has been a claim that they're going to save money; that we're going to be looking at very, very closely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the office space is not going to be as accessible and probably as economically profitable as the office space that is now provided.

On top of that, I mentioned earlier there's one staff person, an older married lady, and she is not going to be able to move to Neepawa, naturally, and she will likely not be able to find similar work or suitable work in Minn edosa. To look at the letters for those that approve of the move and talk about the economic benefits and all of the trade and commerce that's going to be deriving to their town when this office is located in the new community, Mr.

Speaker, all you have to do is reverse that, and if that is true, then that economic benefit and all that trade is going to be lost to the business area and to the community of Minn edosa. At this particular time, when this government has stressed time and time again, Mr. Speaker, that they are in terested in serving the best int erests of the farmers, they're in terested in the viability of the rural towns that are now all strugglin g for their economic existence, it just seems odd, Mr. Speaker, that they would fly in the face of the opposition that has been received .

In addition to the letters they received from the town and the other Chambers of Commerce and what not, Mr. Speaker, there have been resolutions from a number of the municipalit ies that have been forwarded to the Min ister, also strongly objecting to that move. So, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the patterns of trade are there; Minn edosa Farm Crop Insurance Office has served the farmers in that area well with no complai nts.

The move has never officially been communicated to me, even though the general manager said that those that appeared before the Board in delegation form would be advised before any press releases were made. The fact that the staff were informed last Friday afternoon that the move would take place on May 27th, Mr. Speaker, just leaves us to feel that we have been deceived; that they have gone ahead with their decision without paying any attention to the objections that they have receiv ed. This was attempted a few years back, Mr. Speaker.

There were no economic benefits proven at that time, and the move was stopped. I urge the Min ister to take a long look at it because this move can still be halted. Now if the Member for Ste. Rose happened to make an election promise last election, that's something that he will have to live with. It is going to be a hardship on the busi ness community of Mi nnedosa, Mr.

Speaker, and I urge the Min ister to take a long hard look at the economic facts, and I'm sure that ii he gets around to filling the Order for Return which I submitted to him on March 18th - it's almost two months now, he must have those answers - he will find that the economic benefits are not really there and the farmers are not going to be served in any greater degree. I urge him to contact the Crop Insurance Board and put a halt to this foolishness of moving the office from Minn edosa to Neepawa. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

QUESTION put, MOTION carried, and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Su pply to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Northern Affairs, and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We are now starting 10 .(a)( 1). HON. A. MACKLING : Mr.

Chairman, by way of introduction of this section, first of all, I'd like to reintroduce Al Roberts, the Dir ector of this Section, Surveys and Mapping, to members. I think most of you know Al, a longtime member of this department. I'm advised that Al is looking forward to retirement this October and I think, at this time, I would like to acknowledge, on behalf of all members, the debt of gratitude that we, on behalf of the people of Manitoba, express to him for the excellence of his service on behalf of the people.

Despite the fact that Al has reached the age where he's showing an intention to retire and, of course, that's not compu lsory as everyone knows, he and hi s department have shown very signif icant initia tives in respect to bringing our surveying and mapping forward into the most modern techniques. I will have something further to say, perhaps in answer to questions, in respect to that; the remote sensing is particularly int eresting, or should be, to members. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I throw the matters open for questions. 2582

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I want to join the Min ister in expressing members of the opposition's appreciation for service of your di rector. I would hope that he can be persuaded to carry on for awhile. I think maybe it's just a matter of getting to learn to live with you, Mr. Minis ter, and learning to love you a little bit and realize that one shouldn' t make these decisions in haste. Seriously, Mr.

Chairman, yesterday I raised a question, I raise it particularly in this division of your department that, again, the item Other Expenditur es shows, in virtually all in stances, a substantial decrease. I'm particularly concerned about the item in (

b) Legal Surveys where the year just passed some $340,000 was available for Other Expenditur es, that is being reduced to $215, 000 in Other Expe ndi tur es. Mr . Chairman, if there was one particular area that I know that Mr. Roberts and the department is only too well aware of and, certain ly, particularly those of us who live in rural Manitoba, have become very much aware of, and that is, the state of affairs with respect to many of our markers; our whole survey situation in rural Manitoba is becoming increasingly more expensive for people who require the services of surveyors, for various reasons.

We find out to what extent the system has been allowed to fall in neglect, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't lay this at the footsteps of this Min ister or of this government; it's something, thoug h, that I think, certainly in the last few years of the preceding government we were becoming more and more aware of. I would have like to have had greater success in provi din g additional dollars in this particular area of work.

Some incr eases were provided and we were getting successful in persuading your colleague, the Attorney-General, who can also be of assistance in this area, to supplement some of his estim ates to begin a restoration program, a long-term restoration program, but one that would see the survey markers, survey systems in the province being substantially updated. While I note that, again, the incr eases allotted in this branch accommoda te the salary incr eases of the emplo yees, I'm di sturb ed that the item, Other Expenditures, again is somewhat reduced.

I say to the honourable Minis ter, not only do we have in the area of surveyi ng, both I would suppose within government and in the pri vate sector, a dep ressed market, have had a depressed job situation for the last number of years, due to some extent through the downturn of economic activi ty, not as many sub -divisions and expansion programs taking place in the province, and that has been the case for a number of years.

But quite in addition to the need for providin g a certain level of work for surveyors, generally, in the Province of Manitoba, so that we retain some of their expertise in the province, there is the very real cost associated with completing legal documents, legal land transfers, that the neglected survey system impo ses on people.

Su rvey work, survey costs, can vary tremendously from a few hundred dollars, or $700 or $800, to $1 0,000, to get a simple lot su rveyed in rural Manitoba if the markers have been destroyed, for one reason or other, careless farm practices, big farm machinery knocking down markers, and the surveyors have to go back four, five, six

section miles to establish appropriate data on which a legal survey can be drawn. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Min ister to comment on that aspect of this department. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member does perceive accurately a reduction in the work of retracing the surveys. There is a marked reduction here; it's a question of general belt-tightening. It's optional spending. It's true that it's imp ortant spending. We have reduced the amount signific antly. There is $1 25,000 reduction but most of the reduction is in respect to retracement by contract.

Some of the work is being taken on by staff so the reduction is not - of the actual work - is not as sharp as the figur es ind icate. There's no question but this is vital and necessary work, it is ongoing, it's just not being completed as quick ly. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr . Chairman, I know my colleague, the Member for Emerson, has some further questions along these lines. I only want to register my very real concern in this area. I think it's an area where reduction is short-sighted. Mr.

Chairman, I will continue to say this, if this government was practising general restraint; if this government was asking all departments to live with 5 or 6 or 7 percent in creases, or indeed incr eases of what the revenues of the province were coming in at, 9 or 10 percent, and was exacting that from all other departments of government, then, Mr. Chairman, I would be the first one to be prepared to co-operate with this government.

The trouble is, this isn't a particularly glamorous program, not too many people know that this program is imp ortant, not too many people know the need for this program so it gets a fairly substantial - I don't even know what in percentage terms that's a pretty healthy reduction from $340,000 to $2 15,000 in this one item but, Mr. Chairman, that's not the case. This government is spending 17 to 18 to 19 percent more. This government is imposing new taxes on the people of Manitoba and this government isn't exercising restraint, generally speaking, as far as government expen di tur es are going.

Gr owth in gove rnment expenditur es by this Min ister, by this Cabinet, is running at around 18 percent and likely closer to 20 percent by the time the year is ended.

I'm just saying to the Min ister in the strongest possible terms, it's not fair to those people who require this service that simply because there isn't as much politics in a program like this, it i.sn't up front, it isn't an immed iate vote-getter, that programs like this get cut back because this is costing a lot of people a great deal of money when they go to subdivide a home for their son and daughter that's getting married and he wants to set up a residence on the farmstead, or when other people are trading property or property is being sold in rural Manitoba. Again, Mr.

Chairman, it is principally a rural problem. Again we find very substantial reductions in service at a time that these same rural people are being asked to pay a higher sales tax, are being asked to pay higher fuel taxes, are being asked to pay innovative new payroll taxes, all in all to support a government that is not 2583

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 worried about our deficit, is running a massiv e unprecedented a $500 million deficit, and whose general spending is running at the rate of 18 percent-20 percent more. I don't think it's go od enough to have departments such as this be asked to take a reduction. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Mem ber for Lakeside has very aptly described the feeling that we have of exactly what's happening here, and I have to express deep disappointment in this Min ister's reduction in this particular area, because I know of the effect it has on many cases in the rural area, and it just ill ustrates, again, as my colleague ind icated, that this government has no feeling for the rural area. We've seen that in Hig hways, we've seen that in Agriculture and we see that in his department, that there's just a total disr epect and disregard for the rural people.

I want to pursue this survey busi ness a little further in this area, and just ill ustrate to the Min ister what is happening because, in many cases, where the rural people when they apply for, let's say, FCC loan or MACC loan, other things with the banks, when they register a mortgage, it is requi red that they have a proper survey done nowadays. I can show the Min ister instances where the cost of a survey was $6,000 for a $2,000 property.

These are the kind of things that are creating major problems out there, and then to have a reduction; I think there should have been a major in crease in this area to re-establish some of these markets because our regulations, with in the financial institutions, as well as our government regulations, in many cases, demand that a proper survey be taken, and here we have a reduction. All we do is make the farmers or the rural people again foot the cost and it's creating many problems like that.

It is also my understanding that, in certain areas, pilot projects - not pilot projects, and this is where I'd like some information. For example, in the LGD of Stuartburn, a certain block was desig nated last year that was surveyed by the Provincial Government. The question that I have, who designa tes which area should be surveyed, I'm talking of a particular section. The people in the next

section were the ones that ended up having to foot a bill of $6,000 for a small property because it was along the riv er, but the other

section was designa ted by government to have the pins re­ established at no cost to the people. The question that I have is, who establishes which areas will get the benefit of having stakes or the area resurveyed or not, survey mounters reinstated! could the Mini ster maybe clarify that? HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Chairman, could I get a clarification of the last point, the last question that was MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member for Emerson please clarify? MR. A. DRIEDGER: In the LGD of Stuartburn, a certain area was designa ted to be surveyed .

The Provincial Government undertook to surveying it at no cost to the LG D or to anybody in the area; retraced, I suppose. How is this desig nated or how is it established which area has a priority? Does the government do that? Does the department do that, or how is it exactly established which area gets the benefit of that? HON. A. MACKLING: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that a retracement of a survey by our branch, and its priority will be contingent on the deg ree of in terest that exists within the government in respect to that retracement, that is, the extent that the Crown itself has some int erest in that.

Is a department of the government in volved in some way with that land for establishing a drain, a road? Is there Crown land involved? Is there a survey that has gone missing, a retracement survey that's gone missing? A lot of those things would influence the priori ty, the ur genc y, of the gover nment to do a retracement. I might say, in answer to the honourable member, the generality of his comments, I totally di sagree with the remarks that reduction in spending that is forced upon government in times of constraint ind icates a di srespect or disr egard for any of its people. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: That's the way it comes out. HON. A. MACKLING: We have an oblig ation to try and spend money where it will create as many jobs as possible, we have an oblig ation to maintain services - and that we are doing. In respect to surveys generally, I'm advised that under

Part 1 of The Su rveys Act,

Section 7 of that Act provides that Rural Municipalities do have the responsibil ity for maintenance of survey monuments in the municipal ity. In addition to the monies that are found within this budget, I'm also advised that there's $10 0,000 to be found in the budget of the Attorney-General under Land Titles Office Retracement Surveys. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, I have ljii fficulty with this Mi nister's clarification on some of tlM1;>e things.

It's my impr ession he's fudging around it to some degree, it would appear that if services are requir ed for Crown lands and drai nages, anything to do with government, then these surveys will be undertaken. If it has to do with the priva te individual service to people then there is no regard for it. As far as the establishment of which area would receive this kind of a benefit I find it highly in terest ing th at, for example, the councils of municipaliti es or LGDs would not have some say in th e matter that they could express some concern as to which area should have a prior ity.

It's the heavy hand of government that makes a decision that we're going to do it here and we do not consult with people, contrary to the aspect that this gov ernment is always trying to leave that we' re consulting with people. Well, they certainly don't consult with the people when they establish which areas are going to be resurveyed. Then this Mi nister says well, we're cutting back and creating jobs and what have you. Well, if we want to get into that, I'd like to ind icate to him that one of the best job-creators is hig hway­ building.

Many of the contractors have many people employed in that so if we want to get into that whole aspect of what creates jobs certainly the record to date is not very good right now in terms of job creation 2584

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 considering the money that they've cut back in the rural areas. I would just like to ind icate to the Minis ter that his explanation as to how the surveys are being established is not satis factory to me at all and I am very dis appoi nted in the approach that he's taken to the whole aspect of surveying. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is suggesting that I'm fudging something. I'm fudging nothing. I think, Mr. Chairman, that in the words he uses, he's fudging so much he's going to mis lead people as to what's involved here.

We maintain a Surveys and Mapping Branch; we provide essential services and exceptional services to people at cost. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, our Surveys Branch provides services to municip alities below our cost. We're concerned to review our costs and we know that it's costing us more for the work we're gi ving to munici paliti es than what we're recovering in payment from th em. So to sugg est that someho w we're neglecting people in this province, is absolutely false, Mr. Chairman. But what we're talking about here, is the retracement of surveys, surveys that were made years and yei:irs ago.

It's true, there is work to be done here, but we've got to look at priorities of spending. We've got to look at areas in which, by the judicious use of public money, we can get the most economic thrust and development, so we have to make these tough decisions. The honourable member may not like them, but to suggest that we're neglecting surveys in the generality of his remarks, is misleading and that is not true. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: But, Mr. Chairman, just to carry this on a little further.

The point that I am hoping that we are trying to make with the Minis ter, is that the costs associated with the survey requi rements, requirements that are being set out by a number of di fferent agencies, government agencies; a young family wants to build a new home in rural Manitoba and he wants to get a loan, he requires a legal survey. On the one hand governments are quick to hand out grants, $3,000 building grants if you want to build a new home, because that has a lot of upfront appeal to it; that it has some sex to it from a political point of view.

But then you turn right around and that young person has to pay out $5,000 or $6,000 to get his property surveyed, and that is hidden in the cost. I am sayi ng, I simply want to underline the impor tance of this particular aspect of this part of the Min ister's responsibi lities. Mr. Chairman, I note that in general, there would appear to be no staff reductions except perhaps in the Map Distribution where the salary figure is less. Can the Min ister ind icate what, if any, staffing changes have occurred in this division? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I am advised there is no staffing changes.

Let me, now that I have the floor again for a moment, indi cate that what is involved here is a reduction to $75,000 from an his toric grant of $1 00,000 in this area funding. It is not a massive cutback. I understand that there was an ind ication of increased spending by the previous Min ister, however, that had not been authorized by the Legislature. For years there had been a level of spending at $1 00,000, this is a cutback then from a $10 0,000 to $75 ,000.00. It is not a massive cutback so, therefore, it is not as significant of turning our back on a problem.

There is work to be done there, but in our opinion, we could shift our priorities slightly and that is not a massive change in priorities. MR. CHAIRMAN: (10 .(a)( 1) to 10 .(c)(2) were each read and passed.) 10. (d)( 1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Min ister, are there particular areas where concentration of mapping programs are currently under way? Can the Min ister just de scribe this item in the appropriations? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, under Geographic Mapping, we have the following activities: The compilation and printing of specially maps for resource bounda ry and land di sposition pur poses. The compilation and printing of the Atlas of Manitoba. I would like to draw to the honourable members' attention the very distinguished cover on this Manitoba Atlas which is now available at the very modest price of $51 .00. It is a beautiful pictorial displa y of the resources of Manitoba and I commend it, either for perusal, preferably by purchase by members of the Assembly. Under this

section also there's the compilation of base maps at scales of 1 to the 500,000th and smaller. Provision of map-ori ented photographic services, including aerial photographs. MR. CHAIRMAN: 10 .(d) (1) -pa ss; 10 .(d) (2)- pass; 10 .(e)( 1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr . Chairman, maybe just a little further in dication of what's happening in the general area of Map Distribution and Remote Sensing. It's in this area that I note a salary reduction from $259,900 to $23 1,000, however the Min ister assures that there's no salary changes. I'm assuming that some money in that department took a cut.

HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr . Chairman, first of all, just to give you an idea of the activities of this section. The actitivities provide for maintenance of a map distribution system, including both public and priva te regional dealerships. Mai ntenance of the Provincial Air Pho to Lib rary of vertical aerial ph oto prints is a approxi mately thr ee-quarters of a mil lion pri nts. Provision of rem ote sensing services with both in strumentation and professional support, and provision of 70 millim etre aerial pho tography service for government departments.

The remote sensing, as I allud ed earl ier , is util izat ion of the most modern techniques to record, by way of aerial sensing, resources and the changes that occur in them so that we can more clearly determine the age of, for example, our forest stands, losses from fire and so on. It's a very valuable tool for resource determ ination. 2585

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 In respect to the changes in staff, there are no changes in staff. There was an ind ication, pursuant to the adjustments we were making, the cutbacks, the retrenchment, that there would be some reduction of staff, but that has been avoided and there's been no change in staff. MR. CHAIRMAN: 10. (e)(1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, how did the Min ister explain that reduction in the amounts allocated for Salaries? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised that there was a reduction in overtime paid and, as I indic ated, there were two staff positions which we thought we were going to lose, but we did not lose them. I think they reflected in the dollar amounts here. MR. CHAIRMAN: 10. (e)( 1)- pass; 10. (e)(2)-pass; 10 .(e)(3)-pass. Resolution 12 5: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,036,800 for Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1984- pass. 11 .(a)( 1) - the Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr .

Chairman, for clarification, I wanted to speak on the Shilo property in the Shilo Range area and the leases there. Would this be the proper

section or should I do it under Capital? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, before I answer that question from the honourable member, I would like to introduce to our colleagues here; I think you all know Derrick Doyle, but the gentleman on his left is Jack Schroeder who is in charge of contracts and admi ni strat ion for Engi neering and Construc tion division. Mr. Bill Newton is engaged in another matter and could not be with us. I assure you he's hale and hearty and doing good work. In respect to the Shilo lease.

We have been negotiating with the Federal Government for some time and negotiations have arrived at a stage where I think that we will be making an announcement very shortly in respect to a disposition of that lease. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, the Min ister has told us that. I just wanted to get something a little more tangible, sort of something to take home so-to-speak. A MEMBER: You don't get that from this Minis ter. HON. A. MACKLING: I can gather that. My colleague says, "you don't get that from this Min ister. " I've been listening for the last couple of days and I gathered that. Mr.

Chairman, that is a vital concern to the area out there. It seems there have been many months of discussions going on. I will just quote a paragraph from a letter that I have in front of me. "Mr. Alvin Mackling, the Province's Mi nis ter of Natur al Resources has expressed certain concerns about the im pact of our training activities on the environment, and these are being addressed by the Shilo Environmental Advisory Commit tee, a federa l-pr ovincial academic body established to advise the Base Commander on all environmental matters.

Indeed, my department takes pride in how well the training area has been managed, not only in mini mizing any adverse effects, but also enhancing and prote cting the Shilo Range. The chairman of this committee has expressed satisfaction that environmental concerns raised, as a result of Canadian and German milit ary activity at Shilo, are being met in a satisfactory manner. I just wonder what is the holdup, Mr. Min ister? Why is this lease not been completed and signed?

Everyone seems agreed that the environment is not in jeopardy; people in the area want to see that work proceed; they're prepared to spend many milli ons of dollars. In this time of chronic unemployment it would seem an excellent opportunity to get this under way and get some people in my area back to work. Is there some reason, Mr. Chairman, that you're not at li berty to divulge, or you don't care to let us in on, that this is being held up? HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman, there's no desire on my part to hold anything back.

Naturally I am ho peful th at we can have a release of this information prior to May 25th. We are anxious to let the people of Manitoba and the people of Shilo, Brandon and that area know that we are anxious for development in that area, very anxious. We demons trated our comm itment early to the Federal Government when, some many months ago, there was a real scare - I suppose I could use that word - that somehow that lease would not be renewed by our government.

We did move quickly to reassure the Federal Government that we did not feel, we did not have the view that the continuance of the lease would be something that would be detrimental to the long-term in terest of Mani toba. We ind icated our willin gness to negotiate a further long-term lease, but we wanted to talk about the details of the lease and they were prepared to see that process carry on in a reasonable time frame. Time was not of the essence with the Department of National Defence because they had our assurances in respect to renewal of the lease.

What we were concerned about is knowing the imp act on the environment, of the training program that goes on there. We'd had an indi cation that there was some detrimental environmental effects from the shelling. We know that there have been fires; we know that there is leafy spurge there, so we did want to have an environmental review of the im pact of that activity there. We've had that review. It has now been studied and that took some time and we have been negotiating with the Federal Government.

We have been concerned to know what the Federal Government is going to do, from a long-term planning point of view in respect to that base and we have arrived at some understanding now of their commitments, and very shortly, I hope, that we'll be able to outline to everyone concerned what the provisions of the revised lease will be. I'm reasonably convinced that most people in Manitoba will be delighted. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fir st question that comes to mind is the Mi nister mentioned 2586

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 that he hoped to have the details released, or have this lease signed by May 25th. I just wonder what was so magical about that number, May 25th , that date. MR. H. ENNS: Well, it's the day after Queen Victoria's birthda y. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minis ter. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, Queen Victoria's birthday is a memorable day in Canada. I always enjoy the outdoors on that day.

But no, that particular date that I mentioned, I think we, sitting around this table, are aware of the fact th at th ere is some public involvement on that day and I'm not targeting for a release on that day or 48 hours before. I know that we're anxious to get the information out and I hope that it can be done early enough so the people in that area will know we have been working at it and have come up with something reasonable. MR. D. BLAKE: Well I'm reassured that the Min ister hopes to have a release by that date.

I hope he's not letting his Legislative Assistant panic him into some rash decisions with some silly note, that they may want to test the Cruise, or a Cruise-like missile in the Shilo ranges. Mr. Chairman, we have had that range for the last 50 years, I suppose, and leafy spurge has been there for all of those years. I don't suppose that it's getting any worse or any less with the shelling and the activities of the armed forces which bring a great deal of commercial activity to our area.

Could the Minis ter give us some idea of what the environmental study, that they weighed so heavily on, cost the Province of Manitoba and who were the authors of it? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the study was carried out by a Mr. Mi ke McKernan, whom I think is very knowledgeable. I beli eve he had a past experience in having studied that area before and the cost of the study was $1,5 00.00. In respect to the concern of the honourable member about my Legislative Assistant, let me assure him that he is a most re sponsi ble and valued Legis lativ e Assistant, so far as this Mini ster is concerned.

In respect to the observation about the Cruise or something else, we have made it quite clear early in our discussions with Ottawa, that in any lease there would certainly have to be an understandin g that in no way can any nuclear weapon be tested in that area. MR. D. BLAKE: I can share the Min ister's concern in testing nuclear weapons. I'm sure that would be the farthest thing from anyone's mind.

But that's right, the Cruise is not a nuclear weapon, it's merely a controlled, unguided aircraft, the controls are manufactured in Canada and I think it should be tested in all haste, whether it be done in Alberta, or if they want to do it at Shilo I can't see that it would preclude the signing of that lease. I am reassured that the Minis ter is giving this im portant matter some of his preferred attention and has put it ahead of whether it's legal to shoot squirrels or trap gophers on Sunday.

I would urge him to continue to give it that top priority rating that he has ind icated to us that it has, and we'll be looking forward with keen int erest to an announcement before that other date that we're all looking for in the Brandon-Souris area. MR. CHAIRMAN: 11 .(a)( 1) -p ass; 11 .(a )(2) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, you've got me div erted becaus e I didn't want to in terrupt. The preceding five or 10 minu tes was, of course, entirely out of order.

We're dealing with management of Crown lands which could have been di scussed when we were dealing with Crown lands and perhaps on your salary, but knowing my colleague's int erest in the matter of the Shilo Range, I didn' t in terject at that time and I appreci ate your willing ness to respond at that time. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Mi nister is very understanding. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, dealing with Engineering and Construction, can the Mi nister first of all indi cate, have there been any staff changes, re-organizational changes take place in this department?

This is the department, as I understand it, from the re-organization that took place some time ago that is responsible for the Engineering and Technical Services support for what we'd call, Water Resources Branch, as well as in the expanded role now, all the construction and engineering that takes place in a department, whether it's in Parks, Water Resource related work - is that right? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is right. This branch does provide the bodies to provide the init iatives in many of our departments, many of not only the other sections in this department.

I'm sure that our expertise is relied upon by municip alities, conservation districts and others. The honour able mem ber aske d about staff reductions. No people were laid off - we didn't reduce live bodies, in other words - but we did have a number of vacant positions where they were not filled and they compr ised , one in the accounting secti on; five engi neers; one drafting technician; two technicians; five departmental survey staff, a total of 14 staff years that were unfilled that are not provided for now in the budget. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, again I note the reduction in the item listed under Other Expenditur es, the most notable one being in Regional Engi neering Services where the reduction is from $930,000 to $782,000. However, Mr. Chairman, in this instance I understand it because, of course, the overall capital program has suffered a very serious reduction of some 50 percent to 60 percent, some $6 mil lion to $7 million and I would expect, therefore, some of the service costs associated with that capital program to show a reduction. Is that an adequate explanation for why the reduction is shown, Mr. Min ister? HON. A.

MACKLING: Generally speaking, yes, Mr. Chairman. There's some reduction in replacement of survey instruments, some reduction in traveling and 2587

Tuesday, 10 May, 1983 mileage due to redeployment of staff and some reduced activity in drainage. I think that summarizes in a quick, general way those changes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour bei ng 4:30 we are interrupting the proceeding of this comm ittee for Private Members' Hour. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, prior to rising, I would ind icate to the Minis ter and the staff that we would be inclin ed to come rather qui ckly to Acq uis ition/ Construction of Physical Assets.

I would ask the Min ister to have whatever information available for us after our adjournment in terms of actual construction programs that are being planned for the coming year. HON. A. MACKLING: Very good, we will. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair thanks the Member for Lakeside. So we are going into Priva te Mem bers' Hour. SUPPLY - NORTHERN AFF AIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs, Item 4.(

a) Northern Development Agreement, Salaries and Wages. Mr. Min ister. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, last evening just before we adjourned, the Member for Turtle Mountain had a number of questions respecting the Cross Lake arena. I indi cated to him that I would get back to him on some of the detail at the earliest possible moment. I have some of that detail now that I would like to share with him and if he requires further information as a result of what we give to him today, if he would let me know, we would try to obtain that as well.

Mani toba Hydro awarded the cont ract for the construction of Cross Lake Arena on February 24, 1983 to Ed Penner Construc tion Li mited. It is my understanding that the contract budgeted an amount of $2.4 million. If the Member for Turtle Mountain remembered, last night we dis cussed this briefly . There were a number of di fferent figur es that were used and they ranged from $2 mil lion to $3.5 mill ion. The Provincial Government is in volved through two departments. One, is the Department of Northern Affairs as a party to the Northern Flood Agreement.

The second, is through the Department of Labour and Emplo yment Servi ces through the Ne w Carreers Program, which I understand is being used to train arena managers and attendants under the provisions of the Interim Ord er. One of the provisions of the order, if I recall it correctly, is that local residents be trained to undertake those sorts of jobs so that there is a small, but nonetheless there is, an economic development component and a skill development component in the arena. Right now it is antici pated that the arena will be scheduled for completion in November of this year.

It is being construc ted under the provisions of the arbit rators Inte rim Order which I shared with the members opposite last night as per their request of the other day. Manitoba Hydro is paying the initial cost of the arena construction. The Interim Order itself deals with the characteristics and design of the arena, the ongoing management and administration of the complex by Cross Lake Recreation Complex lncoporated, which is comprised of both the community council at Cross Lake and the Cross Lake Indian Band.

The Interim Order also adresses ongoing operation and maintenance fund and deals with on­ the-job training for the construction phase and ongoing adminis tration and management trai ning for the complexes, I referenced earli er, is being done through New Careers. On April 21, 19 82, Man itoba Hydro req ue sted participation of the parties on a steering commit tee. That steerin g committee was to take a look at the best ways or at least allow for discussion of a number of di fferent ways for the construction and subsequent operation of the arena.

It was designed to ensure that the four parties are closely in volved and fully aware of the steps being taken to construct the arena with maximum local employment in the shortest possible ti me. It is also mandated to look at ongoing admin istration so that it be set up to manage a completed arena in keeping with the Interim Consent Ord er. The steering committee is composed or represented as from Manitoba Hydro, from the Government of Manitoba, Cross Lake Indian Band, Government of Canada and the Cross Lake Communi ty Council. The Manitoba Hydro contracted with A.F.

Eshmade and Associates Limited for the arena design. That was a specific question which the member requested further information on last night. I can confirm that that is in deed the case. I hope that information is of some value to him. If he requires more, I would be more than happy to try to obtain it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: One further question which is largely confirmation from the Mi ni ster then, that the steering committee was not requested to meet until April 21, 19 82. Did the ste ering commit tee make a recommendation with respect to the hiring of Eshmade? HON. J.

COWAN: Perhaps I could check dir ectly with the Manitoba Hydro to obtain that information or with the chai rperson of the steering commit tee. I and my staff