Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 67 (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-67

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGI SLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEA KER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Peti tions .. · . Reading and Receiving Petitions ... PRESE NTING REPO RTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMM ITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Flin Flon. MR. J. STORIE : Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, di rects me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Rupertsland, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MI NISTERIAL STATEM ENTS AND TABLING OF RE PORT S MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Mun ici pal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr . Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a nonpol itical statement? MR. SPEAK ER: Do es the Min ister have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minis ter. HON. A. ADAM: Say cheese, somebody said. Mr . Speaker, we have distribu ted to honourable members a sample of ch eese curds courtesy of the MANCO cheese group. This is a new product which is finding a market in the west and is being well accepted in some of our other provinc es, Mr . Speaker.

The MANCO production of fine cheddar cheeses, 50 percent has been marketed usually in the east. Unfortunately there is an overproduction of cheese in Ontario and Quebec and also, as well, a surplus of cheese in the Un ited States and because of that, there is a surplus here as well. The samples you have before you is to highl ight a very nutritious source of food produced in the Prov ince of Man itoba at the Manco -Winkler Cheese Fac tory and it is to be refrigerated or eaten as soon as possibl e, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Roblin-Rus sell. MR. W. McKENZ IE: Mr .

Speaker, I thank the Honour able Min ister for finally waking up after weeks of prodding here by the Op position to get this govern ment off their fann ies to recognize there's a bunch of people unemployed and a dair y in dustry that's falling down out there. Mr. Speaker, I si ncerely hope tha t the 50 employed (sic) workers are back on the job today after we see the government is going to react to my concerns and I sincerely hope the dairy ind ustry now will not have to lug their milk into Saskatchewan to get it processed. Thank you, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: Are there any further nonpolitical statements?

Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bill s. INTR OD UCTION OF GUES TS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Or al Questions, may I di rect the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 54 students of Grade 5 standing from the Southwood Elementary School in Steinb ach. These students are under the direction of Mr. Dueck and Mrs. Janzen. The school is in the const ituency of the Ho nourable Member for La Verendrye. On all behalf of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORA L QUES TIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition.

HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Mi nis ter of Min es and Energy. In view of the comment that was made by his federal counterpart, the Honourable Mr .

Lalonde, the other evening with respect to the "i nterest," I believe the word was, of the Federal Govern ment in tal king to Manit oba concern ing possible partici pation in the Churchill -Nelson Ri ver System construction and/or the transmission lines related thereto as they affect the Western In ter-Tie, can the Mini ster of Mi nes and Energy give assurance to the House that any of the comments or any of the discussions that he has had thus far or will have with the Federal Mini ster, will not result in any delay of the completion of the negotia tions for the Western Inter-Tie, a delay that might be occasioned by vir tue of the Federal Govern ment's ap parent in terest to al legedly help Mani toba financ ially? 2956 MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Energy and Mi nes. HON. W. PARA SIUK: Mr. Speaker, in all the negotia tions to date, financing has not been part of the nego tiations relating to the interim agreement or a final agreement with respect to a Western Inter-Tie. That was left to be discussed separately from those negoti ations and that is what is happening right now.

We will be pursuing the interim agreement with Saskatche wan and Alberta as expeditiously as possible, but of course it is incumbent upon Man itoba to ensure that it does have access to financing to cover its sign ificant portion of the cost of the power plant development and the Inter-Tie, which would be some 81 percent of the overall development cost.

Wednesday, 2 June , 19 82 HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, can the Min ister make any comment upon news reports attributed to Man it oba's Federal Min ister, the Honour able Mr . Axworthy, to the effect that the Federal Government would want to appoint a consultant to become involved appar ently in the economic viabil ity of this project, the stu dies on which have now gone on for some thr ee years, and the economic viabil ity of which was agreed upon amongst the three provinces well over a year ago? HON. W. PARA SIUK: Mr .

Speaker, I know that there are a lot of consultant studies available on the ques tion of viabi lity. Some of the terms of the interim agreement are a bit different from those originally looked at by the origi nal consultants, but nevertheless the thr ee western provinces believe that it is economi cally viable . There are consultant J?tudies to back that up, in fact, there's qui te a mass of consultant studies to back that up and if the Federal Government wants to appoint someone to take a qui ck look at tho se consultant studies, fine, I think that might be under standable from their perspective.

We want to expedite that process so that we can get a qui ck and fir m deci sion from them, but certainly that should n't be delay ing any of our ongoing discussions with the Sas katchewan and Alberta Governments. HON. S. LYON: Mr . Speaker, I want to thank the Min ister for tha t response and for that firm attitude with respect to any proposal for Federal Goverment con sultants. I think all Man itobans will be encouraged by the fact that this is, as we have known for a long ti me, a viable scheme and it is the intention of this govern ment to get on with the completion of the Inter-Tie.

Can the Minis ter undertake, Mr . Speaker, to consult with his federal counterpart or with Mr. Axworthy, and make known to the Ho use as soon as possible the extent of any requirements that the Federal Govern ment might wish in this regard. Can he concu rrently assure us that he will be telling them precisely wha t he has told the House today, that we want to get on with the job so tha t Limestone can start and all of the job s that will be generated by that start, and that this great regional concept of the Western Inter-Tie will become part of the integrated hydro-electric system of Canada? MR.

SPEA KER: The Honour able Min ister of Energy and Mi nes. HON. W. PARA SIUK: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with Mr. Lalonde in Ottawa within the next two weeks, I will certainly communicate that to him. In deed, I must say that was one of the initia tives undertaken by the First Mini ster and myself at the First Min isters' Conference in Ottawa earlier this year.

We impressed upon the Federal Government that the Western Inter Tie development was of benefit not only to the thr ee prairie provinces, but indeed to the entire nation in terms of providing a transmission link for our renewa ble source of energy between thr ee provinces. We felt that this would be a great breakthrough for Canada and we felt that sinc e there are front-end costs asso ciated with thi s, that the Federal Government should give consideration to financial support. We believe that a develoment of this nature is at least as important as an Alsands development.

In fact, 2957 we were encouraged by the recent statement by the Mini ster of Energy, federally, who says now that they will include electrical energy in their discussions, their calcu lations of national energy polic y, and tha t the Federal Government will indeed give serious con sideration to our request for financial support. We believe that is a very good step in terms of a good result, frankly, of co-operative federalism over the course of the last six months. I think that response from them was a rather expeditious response in terms of past responses to other requests for assistance.

Hopefully they'll proceed very qui ckly over the course of the next short while to ensure tha t comm itment is a firm one. MR. SPEA KER: The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Min ister. Yesterday the Man itoba Federation of Labour urged the government to undertake the immediate construction of Hydr o generating faci lities in the absence of assured sales. Mr .

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Public Utili ties and Natu ral Resour ces Committee of this Legislatur e has recently been advised by the Min ister, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and staff of Hydr o, that to undertake construc tion without assured sales would be financially rui nous to Hydr o, can the First Min ister advise whether or not he has informed the Man itoba Federation of Labour of the fact that it would be ruinous to Hydr o to proceed prior to conclusion of projects such as an agreement with Al can for the development of a smelt er in Man itoba, or to conclude the Western Power Grid or Inter-Tie?

Has he advised him of tha t or has he indeed contin ued to lead them to believe that it would be possible to fulfil! the campaign promise and develop Li mestone without assured sales? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, it is not Alcan that would trigger the development, it would be the West ern Inter-Tie Agreement, when it is comp leted, tha t would necessitate the early resumption. As the hon ourable member knows, there is presently under way now, orderly steps toward a resumption of Limestone. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr .

Speaker, my question was, what answer did he give to the Man itoba Federation of Labour? Did he tell the Man itoba Federation of Labour that, according to the staff of Hydr o and the Chai rman and through the Min ister, it would be financially rui nous to Hydro to undertake construction of Li mes tone without having assured sales for the power? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, our position is qui te clear on record. It has been clear during the comm it tee heari ngs, it has been made clear in this House, the reference to Hydr o construction was one of many, many items that was raised by the MFL in their brief.

The MF L is quite conscious of the position that we have been taking in this Legislature. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the Man itoba Federa tion of Labour brief not only calls upon the govern-

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 ment to undertake immediate constructio n, but makes the point th at it is wiser to undertake im mediate con struction without sales, than it is to have the sales prior to undertaking the construction. My question to the First Minister remains, what was his response to the Federation of Lab our? Did he inform them of the realities which this House has been informed of through the testimony of Hydr o officials at the U.tilities and Natural Resources Committee? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, we were there to listen to the brief.

We discussed aspects of their brief with the Ma nitoba Federation of Labour. The Man i toba Federation of Labour is very conscious of the position tha t we have taken. Mr . Speaker, we were not there to argue various points in the brief; we were there to listen. That seems to be a subject matter that escapes the minds of members across the way because they did so little listening during their four years that they were in government. Mr .

Speaker, we were there to listen, we heard and the Federation of Labour is very conscious of the position that has been taken by the government in this Legislature pertaining to Hydr o construction. If the honourable member wants to argue with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, he can do so on his own time. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, does the First Minister intend to respond to the brief of the Manitoba Federa tion of Labour? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we have received the entire brief which deals with many, many subjects.

I must, by the way, mention it was a well presented and very well artic ulated brief, very comprehensive in nature. It is one tha t will be responded to by this government, point by point, insofar as the many many areas tha t were covered in that brief dealing with mat ters of the economy, dealing with matters of labour relations and other aspects. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memberfor Emerson. MR. A. DRI EDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Natu ral Resources.

It would appear that the Army Corps of Engine ers from our neighbours to the south, namely, the USA. the United States, are again promoting the Roseau River Channel Impr ove ment Project. This is creating concern and anxiety to the councillor s and residents of the southeast. Could the Minister in dicate wh ere the project is at and wha t involv ement his department has had to date regarding this matter in the last few weeks? MR. SPEA KER: The Honour able Minister of Natur al Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr . Speaker, I first of all thank the honourable member for giving me notice of this question.

The proposal is a channel impr ovement on the Roseau River in the United States and the pro posed cost of that was $25 million, but contr ary to some current rumour, it is not being initiated at the present time. Although it's recommended by the Army Corps of En gineers the benefit cost ratio, when they established it at rates of 3.75 percent inte rest, was barely 1.1. At current rates of interest the re-evaluation now in progress wi ll give a much lower cost benefit ratio. Another difficulty for that development wi ll be the requirement of a local contribution from the Water Management District of $1.2 million.

At best, as we see it, these matters would not likely be resolved before the fall of 1983. In any case, we expect of the Depart ment of State and our External Affairs Department to negotiate an agreement because there would be an impact on Canada if that were to proceed. Departmen tal staff are going to be meeting, I think , next week with representatives of the RM of Franklin to confirm the facts that we have. Mr . Speaker, while I have the floor, I would like to answer a question the Honour able Member for Robl in had asked me in connection with the development of the Grandview Reservoir. I might say, Mr .

Speaker, tha t in addition to the Honour able Memb er for Robl in, the Honou rable Member for Dauph in has been urging me to review the concerns of the Town of Grandview in respect to the reservoir. I have had telephone com munication with the Mayor of Grandview, Mr. Olsen, this morning and I confirmed to him the commence ment of the reservoir. I have ind icated to him that we are notifying PFRA to im mediately initiate the tender ing process. The construction is expected to be com pleted during this fiscal year. Mr .

Speaker, there were concerns about the clea nup of the river channel as a possible alternative. My department will continue to examine the concerns about the river channel but we're satisfied that the reservoir wi ll meet the requirements of the town's supply so, therefore, we've given it an urgent go ahead. I think we wi ll continue to study the causes of flooding upstream of the town without reference to what is obvio usly a needed dependable source of water supply for the town. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister in charge of Co-operative Development. I would ask him if the negotiations with the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires movement in the province with regard to the $29.5 mil lion loan, have been completed? 2958 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Mu nici pal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr . Speaker, in response to that question, the negotiations have not been completed at this point in ti me, but I believe tha t they are nearing completion. MR. R. BANMAN: A supplementary question, Mr . Speaker.

I wonder if the Mi nister could inform the House when he expects the monies wi ll be advanced to the two systems. HON. A. ADAM : That would depend on how soon we can finalize the negotiations with the systems out there and how soon we can get the Capital Supply Bill through the Legislatu re.

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 MR. R. BANMAN: A question to the Min ister of Financ e. I wonder if the Min ister of Fina nce could inform the House whether or not hi s department or any people in his office are studying the possibil ities of the provinc e opening up their own ban king system? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Fi nance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I don't know of anyone in my department who is looking at setting up our own bank ing system. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I see the Min ister of Natu ral Resources said they should have done it 20 years ago, but I would ask the Minis ter of Finance whether or not, in ligh t of the urgings from the Mani toba Federation of Labour in the brief in whi ch they urged the government to open up their own lending institutions, and in ligh t of the fact tha t we are now already in the position of helping out the credit union system.

I wonder if the Min ister could inform the House whether or not he will be res ponding to the Man itoba Federation of Lab our and telling them that he does not intend to open any banking institutions, provi ncially owned. HON. V. SCHROEDE R: Mr. Speaker, the mem ber indic ated that it should have been done 20 years ago. I guess one of the problems was that 20 years ago we weren't in office. It had been done earlier than tha t in the Province of Alberta and I believe with some con siderable success.

I would quit e frankly question whether in the 19 80s the same ci rcumstances apply, so tha t is why there is no one currently studying that question in the Department of Fin ance, I suppose. MR. SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if the Attorney-General could assure this House that in the event of a strike by the City of Winnip eg Polic e Force, somethin g which no member of this House or I'm sure no member of City Council would desir e to see happen, but in that unfortunate event, can he assure this Ho use and the citizens of the City of Winnip eg that he will exercise his right and responsibil ity under the RCMP contr act to call in members of the RCMP to provide emergency police services? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr .

Speaker, I am of course aware of my responsi bil it ies in this area and I think it would be doing a disservice to the ongoing negotiations albeit they're at a standst ill during these few days, I hope few days, to make any premature announcement. What would have to happen would be a complete breakdown of negotiations followed by a strike tha t created a problem such that the City Council, through its Pol ice Commission, thought that it needed assis tance to mai ntain order on the streets and a request from the City Council to myself at that tim e.

Discus sions would be held between myself on behalf of the government, the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and city officials to discuss the situation in ligh t of the situation that then pertained. I do assure the Member for St. Norbert that I' m fully aware of my responsibi lities, that I have kept abreast of the situation, that I have discussed in general the situation with the representatives from the RCMP at my regular meetings and that in the event of a request from the City of Winn ipeg as I've just outlined, that request will be dealt with at that ti me. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney-General could be a little more reassuring to the residents of this city who - again, I don't want to see a police strike and I don't think anybody else in the city does - but in the event that there is one, can he not assure this House and the residents of this city tha t he will call in the RCMP to provide the emergency police services that are required? HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Speaker, I hope tha t the Member for St. Norbe rt and the members opposite will understand if I do not care to go beyond the statement that I have made.

I really am quite sinc ere in saying that it is my view that if I were to make any more definitive a statement in antici pation of wha t might be the case, that it could seriously impair bargai ning. For example, if I were to say categorically that in the event of some job action on the part of the City of Winnip eg police, that the RCMP detachment would be called in in some force, then it might greatly weaken the situa tion at the table in terms of bargai ning. It might be seen as an improper intrusion in a situation which is still that of bargainin g albeit with some difficulty.

Let's just wait and see. 2959 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, what I am concerned about is a proper intrusion to protect the public inter est and the lives and safety of the citizens of the City of Winn ipeg. Is the Attorney-General saying that there is a possibili ty tha t if there is a City of Winn ipeg police strike, he will not call in the RCMP to provide emer gency police services? HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Speaker, I made a very guarded and careful statement. I will not be provoked by improper questions into going beyond that. I do not want to interfere with the bargaining situation.

I don't think tha t my abilit y to act as Attorney-General need be calle d into question in terms of the safety of the citi zens of the City of Winnip eg, but I am leaving it to what I hope is the good sense of those at the bargain ing tab le to come to an early conclusion on their bargai ning responsibil ities. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My ques tion is for the Ho nourable Min ister responsible for Housing.

In view of the fact that news reports yester day indicated that single family housing starts in Win ni peg for the first five months of this year are down 76 percent over the first five mon ths of last year, and in view of the opinion expressed by the Man itoba Home Bui lders Association and the Multi Family Residential Council of the Housing and Ur ban Development Association of Man itoba that recently announced

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 provincial rent control s will make new residential construction uneconomic al, will the Min ister be recommending to his colleague, the Minister of Con sumer and Corporate Affairs, that the il l-conceived provisions in the rent control bill recently announc ed be amended to prevent a serious loss of construction jobs and economic development in Man itoba ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Natu ral Resources. HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr .

Speaker, it is now public knowledge that contai ned within the Budget is provi sion for housing sti mulus in this province and that is appropria te, given the cir cumstances that the hon ourable member has outlined, confi rming the facts that the Bui lders Association have commented on publicly, but the question of the impact on rent legisla tion I do not agree with. There's no question but that with a shortage of housing there will be pressure on rents and it is very ti mely that we have moved to provide rent control contrary to what the honour able member's suggesting. MR. G.

FILMON: Is the Mini ster now telling us, Mr. Speaker, tha t in order to make up for the adverse effects of the rent control program, that the govern ment and the people of Man itoba are now going to have to subsidi ze developers to construct rental hous ing in this province at total public cost, which would not be the case if it were not for the il l-conceived provisions in the rent control bill? HON. A. MACKL ING: Mr . Speaker, the role of the Opposition is to present constructive argument and constructive questions.

What is ind icated in his ques tion is tha t we have created a cli mate that has reduced construction. That is basically false. The honourable member knows tha t during their period, construction withered and nothing was done in Winn ipeg in respect to development. No public housing units were built at all during their term of office that I'm aware of. The only impetus was in respect to elderly persons' hous ing. There is not a criti cal shortage in that area, but there certainl y is in housing.

There was a tremendous slowdown in the economy of this province and that was occasioned by the deliberate protracted restraint of the previous government. The housing problem that we have in this province today is dir ectly attrib uted to the negligence on the part of the previous administrat ion. We are moving to address that prob lem, but I will not accept any criticism of this govern ment that's been in office for barely not qui te six months in respect to the lack of construction in this provin ce. MR. G.

FILM ON: I'm surprised that the Min ister didn't bring in President Reagan's economic policies as well when he add ressed the answer, because he obviousl y is groping for a problem. Mr. Speaker, is the Min ister saying that the effect of the 6 percent vacancy rate had noth ing to do with the lack of construction and the effects of the federal dry-up in

section 43, loan money had noth ing to do with the things that have occurred in the past couple of years? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr . Speaker, the honourable member now recognizes that he must be on the def ensive. Noth ing was done sign ificantly in respect to construction during the term of their office, and the fact that he is now alleging that rent controls that were deemed necessary because of the difficult vacanc y rates are a cause of the difficulty is just being dishon est, Mr . Speaker. Obviously, we have a construction problem. That problem is not unique to Man itoba.

It's occasioned by high interest rates that were supported by the pre vious admin istrat ion, and I don't raise the spectre of Ronald Reagan in this province, but the honourable member does. Some of the honourable member's col leagues went down to applaud the installation of Ronald Reagan as the Pre sident of the Un ited States and they welcomed the high interest rates that Ronald Reagan represents and tha t their Conservative Party represented in Ottawa. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, in view of the rather odd attitudes of the honourable member about his version of the travel ing habi ts of members of the previous admin istra tion, I was the one who, Sir , went to the Republican National Convention and saw Ronald Reagan nominated for the Presidency, which he sub sequently won .. Would my honourable friend think that is a repre hensible thing to do or did he think it was equally reprehensible when his leader went to the Social ist In ternational Meeting in Vancouver with a bunch of left-wing kooks and partici pated in that meeting? HON. A. MACKLI NG: Mr .

Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has not only been proud to be associated with Reaganomics, he was proud to be associated with that other pleading government in Canada, the Conservative Govern ment. We heard people from over there talking that the Crosbie Budget that was a tough budget, high in terest budget, didn 't go far enough. That's the kind of attitude they represent. 2960 HON. S. l YON: Mr . Speaker, now that we know, Sir, in the mind of the Min ister of Resources, his relative value as to meeti ngs that politicians should attend, may I direct a question to the Mini ster of Fin ance?

Yesterday he took as notice a question I asked him as to the cost of implementing the agreement which still is subject to ratif ication with the MGEA by the taxpayers of Man itoba. He said he would take the question for notice and ind icate to the House wha t the figure will be for that proposed settlement. Could he tell the House today what that figure is please? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Min ister of Fi nance. HON. V. SCHRO EDER: No, Mr . Speaker, I don't have a definitive figure as of today yet. I expect to have it as soon as my department has time to work out the figure. HON. S. l YON: Then, Mr .

Speaker, I must direct a

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 question to the same Min ister in his capacity as Mini s ter of Labour. Is he telling this House that he is autho rizing the Civil Service Commission of Ma nitoba, the negotiati ng team, to make an offer to the MGE A of Man itoba without knowing what the cost of that offer is going to be to the taxpayers of Manit oba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Labour. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, I had indicated yesterday that the cost, as I understood it, because of the fact that in every year there are a number of civil servants who retire, who quit, are promoted and there fore there are a large number of vacancies and large periods of time in the year in which there are vacan cies in job positions , the cost isn't a simp le matter of a multiplication of the number of civil servants at a spe cific time plus the average settlement of just under 13 percent; rather the total cost would come out to somewhere in the neighb ourhood of $16 milli on, under $20 million.

I had indicated to the Leader of the Opp osition yesterday that I would try to get a more definitive number for him. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, how ever, tha t last year his government entered into an agreement with the physicians in this province that yielded a 15 percent, more than a 15 percent increase, 15 .8 percent increase, to people earning a sign ificant sum of money and certainly that settlement had an impact on wha t the members of the Civil Service expected to get this year. Mr .

Speaker, these kinds of backgrounds - the physicians ' settlement, the Auto pac settl ement, other govern ment settlem ents, teachers' settlements - are thin gs that were in the air when we were negotiating with the MG EA. We were not negotiating an a vacuum. We were negotiating in a his torical perspective where there were people with high inc omes who had received signif icantly above inflation increases in the immediately preceding year. HON. S. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, after listening to the circum locutions of the Mi nister of Labour and/or Mi n ister of Finance, I believe we are all becoming better aware of where the vacuum exists. But, Sir, I want to ask the Mini ster tha t as and when he obtains this ill usive figure, which he should have known before he offered this amount as a fin al settlement, will he be bringin g this fig ure in as part of the Supplementary Supply which I expect this House will be getting very shortly?

Do you suppose that he could work him self into a position to let the Ho use know what that figure is before we receive it in pri nted form as part of the Supplementary Supply or, indeed, is he aware of the fact that it is customary to bring it in as Supplementary Supply while the House is sitti ng? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated to the Leader of the Opp osition, just yesterday, that we sti ll don't have an agreement.

We won't have an agreement until after it is ratified by the MGE A and the Cabi net and I would hope that the Leader of the Op position could wait until we do have an agreement in order that we can tell him exactly what will transpir e from that point on. But I can assure him that what will transpire is what is customary. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Min ister of Finance, the Leader of the Op position will not wait until the Min ister of Finance gets around to it in his own incompetent way. The question that is being put to the Mi nister of Fina nce, Mr .

Speaker, is very si mply this, he and his colleagues made an offer to the Man itoba Government Employees Association for a two-year settlement. Tha t offer is still subject to ratification: we all admit that. What is the cost of the offer to the taxpayers of Man itoba that he has prof fered to the MGE A? He surely knows that. If he doesn't know it, he should get into another portfolio. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr .

Speaker, last year, under that incompetent former First Min ister of this pro vinc e, we were required to come forward with $80 mil lion in Special Warrants because of miscalcu la tions by that government, that former government, in terms of its spending. I have stood here and said that it is approxi mately $16 million we are talking about; it is somewhere under $20 million. What we are ta lking about is an area that is not going to be exactly to the dollar. He well knows that, but it is not going to be $80 milli on out, the way his incompetent government was last year. HON. S. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, I'll try to make the ques tion simple for the better understanding of the Mini s ter of Finance. Mr . Speaker, we're beginni ng to under stand that we've got to go right back to alphabet terms. Is it true, to the Mini ster of Fina nce, tha t he has provided $10 milli on in the current Estima tes for the increase in salary to be provided to the civil servants of Manitoba this year? Very sim ple. Is there $10 million in the current Estimates? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr . Speaker, there is $10 mil lion in the current Estima tes.

I'm surprised that the Leader of the Op position doesn't know that without asking the question again . It is the exact amount tha t was in the Estimates two years ago, when there was a situation tha t is simi lar to what we have today, where there wasn't an agreement with the MGEA. So there's nothing unusual about that particular amount. 2961 HON. S. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, now go to letter "B" in the alphab et, is it true, to the Min ister of Fi nance, that the total cost of the offer that his government has made to the MGE A for the first year of the two-year agreement will be $16 million approximately - we real ize th at there will be variations, a fool realizes that or is that $16 milli on plus the $10 mill ion that he has in the Esti mates? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr . Speaker, I didn't say tha t it was exactly $16 million, I said it was somewhere under $20 milli on and that amount is the total amount.

It is not an amount in addition to the $10 mill ion and the reason for that is, as I had said yesterday, that we expect with the normal attrition rates tha t we expe rience in the Civil Service that this is the amount of extra cost that we will be incurring in addition to what is in the Esti mates. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, just to make certainty double sure, to the Min ister of Labour, can we take it

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 for granted that the 400 additional civil servants which this government is hiring in these Estima tes this year, when all other governments are trying to put a lid on hir ing, is it true tha t the expenses for those 400 civil servants are not buil t in to the incr ease in salary but are rather to be found thr oughout the Esti mates in the various departments in which these people will be hired? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, those costs are built into the Estima tes of the various departments in which those indi viduals are found, but I should say to the Leader of the Op position tha t a number of those hirings are simply replacements of people on contract from the outside so that there is not double numbers; that there is a considerable number, I believe, close to 40 percent of the number he refers to; and secondly, there is a signi ficant number of people hi red in order to take care of the Rent Control Program. So there are very good and logical reasons for some of those hi r ings.

I should also say tha t, in terms of Civil Service per population, we are fairly low in the country, as we were in 1977. MR. SPEAK ER: Or der please. The time for Or al Ques tions having expired, Or ders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEA KER: The Honour able Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on Second Read ing on Bill Nos. 2, 23, 32 and 36? ADJOURNED DEBA TES SECOND RE ADING - PUBLIC BI LLS Bill NO. 2 - THE RESI DE NTIAL RE NT REG UL ATI ON ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Bill No. 2, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SH ERM AN: I am pleased to have the opportun ity, Mr. Speaker, to add ress a few comments to the House in connection with Bill 2, The Residential Rent Regulation Act. At the outset, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say tha t the subject is one that is extremely difficult to address in a political arena, or a political atmosphere, in any way that could be descri bed as being essen tially objective because the whole subject of rent con trol has become such an emotional issue and has become a consider ation that is surrounded by so much emotional ism and subjective feeling from all sides of vir tually all components in the community.

As a consequence, it becomes difficult to debate the ad·;antages or disadvantages of specific approaches in conceptual terms and in legislative terms to this subject and succeed in delivering realistic messages and meaningful messages that are properly conveyed to the public and are properly understood by the pub lic.

That really is one of the difficulties that the Pro- gressive Conservative Caucus faces with respect to this legislation in this current Session, and that any caucus and any party faces in dealing with the subject of rent control at any time, when there is a specific politi cal th rust coming from one direction for recog nizable rent control legislation that meets any kind of idealogical or political objective. In this case, there is a th rust coming for a recogniz able form of rent control legislation tha t meets a polit ical ideological objective.

That objective is held and pursued by the government of the day, by the New Democratic Party, and is a follow-up of positions taken by the NOP during the past eighteen months, when they were in Opp osition and the Progressive Conservative Party was in government, and particu larly to positions espoused and promises delivered by the NOP during the recent provinc ial election cam paign.

So it has become an ideological political thrust aimed at an id entifiable conclusion to which the NOP and its supporters can point , Sir , and say, aha, there it is, there is what we promised you, rent control. 2962 Thu s, as I have said, it becomes difficult for any component, whether it be the Progressive Conserva tive Party or whatever group in society, any compo nent in society to stand up and analyze, assess and eval uate that th rust and that objective in terms that will guarantee delivery of a sensi ble, meaningful, real istic message to the public because the attempt will be obscur ed under the ideological and politi cal pres sures that have been brought into play, and will be obscured by the emotionalism that surr ounds the issue sin ce it was a central fact and central feature of the new government's election campaign.

Further to that, the economic conditions of the day and the social condi tions tha t flow from today's troubled eco nomic conditions, intensify the emotionalism asso cia ted with the issue. Many pe ople look upon rent control as a panacea for many many of our ills. Many of us have not looked very profoundly beyond the superficial terminology of the language itself; have not perhaps evaluated all the ramifications of somethin g like rent control as fully as they need to be evaluated; and hence have come to the conclusion in our own minds, and I think this can be said of many of us, Mr .

Speaker, have come to the conclusion in our own minds that one of the major bogeymen of the day, one of the major evils of the day is to be found in the levels of rentals being char ged for rented residential accommodation in our society and the frequency with which those rental levels rise and the degree by wh ich they rise and tha t, Sir, a great many of our problems would be resolved, a great many of our difficu lties would disappear if we only had rent control.

Rent control is the magic phrase, the magic answer to much of the frustration, much of the fear and anxie ty in an economic and financial sense that burdens us today.

So those two factors, the fact tha t a promise of rent control was a central feature of an election campaign that emphasized rather clearly and heavi ly some spe cific ideological points and specific ideological ambi tions and the fact that all of us live in troubled eco nomic times and have come to embrace, to some degree, panaceas like rent control, or wage and price control, or various other forms of regulation as the possible potential answers to some of our problems,

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 have combi ned to make a truly objective, truly rea sonable and productive debate about rent control and its merits are very very difficult.

But the Progressive Conservative Party has attemp ted in the debate held up to this point in time, on Bill No. 2 at this stage, Second Read ing stage, to identify some of those concerns relative to rent control, that must be addressed by the legislators in this Cham ber and tha t must be recognized by the people of Mani toba, the taxpayers of Mani toba and more fundamen tally, the renters of Man itoba before this legislation or anything akin to it is given complete passage through the House because there are ramific ations, there are developments, there is fallout from legislation of this kind.

Th ere is in this particular bill, we feel, a package of potential weaknesses and difficulties that could pro duce a situation. Mr . Speaker, where those who embrace the concept of rent control as the salvation for their or our problems could find themselves inher iting under certain types of rent control legislation a far more onerous burden and a far more difficult rental environment. certainly a far more difficult shelter and accommodation environment than either is the case at the present time or was the case in the province before there was any form of rent regulation or rent control whatsoever.

So it's been important for members in Opp osition to try to point out to the government and through the government, to and through the media and through the community, to the renters beyond, Mr. Speaker, what some of the pitfalls and difficultie s are.

We cer tai nly feel strongly that a number of weaknesses and difficu lties can be identified in this legislation as it appears at the present time and we intend at commit tee stage, with the aid of those spokesmen from the general public and the public representations that will be made, to examin e the legislation in detail in an attempt to reinforce it as fully as possible to make it workable, to make it acceptable, to make it work and insofar as it's possibl e, to make it good. Mr .

Speaker, a number of my colleagues have spoken on the bill and it's not my intention to review or reiterate their conclusion s or redefine the difficulties that they identified and pla ced on the record where this legislation is concerned.

Suffice it to say that we see a considerable number of difficulties and they range across a spectrum of subjects that incl udes the built-in impl ication of a vastly expanded and expen sive bureaucracy to admini ster and police this legisla tion, a bureaucracy reflected in the concept, for example. of the rent regulation officers, rent appeal panels and the central registry, all of which are pro vided for in the bill before us. In addition to that, we see difficultie s with the 9 percent thr eshold and considerable reference has been made to tha t.

I know the Min ister has had that brought to his attention, Mr . Speaker. We fear tha t 9 percent threshold will turn out to be more a floor than a cei ling. We have difficu lties with the provisions rela tive to the pass-through that's being permitted the landlord where his mortgage related costs are con cerned under the legislation as it's presently drafted. We have conc ern for the impact on the development of shelter acco mmodation, new shelter accommoda tion, the inv estment in new shelter acco mmodation and the improvement and upgrading of existing shel ter accommodation is concerned.

Over and above all that, Mr . Speaker, I think our primary concern is with the low income renter, the lower income renter in the community. We feel si ncerely and strongly that many aspects of this legislation will mil itate against the best interests of the lower income renter in Manitoba and he or she should be put on their guard with respect to those implicit difficulties. Tho se concerns, Sir, lie at the root of a very great deal of wha t my colleagues have had to say about this legislatio n.

We believe that in its present form, it pos sesses the capacity and the potential to be harmful to low inco me renters in Man itoba and to be harmful and disadvantageous to the development of new, and the improvement of existing shelter acco mmodations throughout the province. In fact, Sir , it appears that this bill has been produced as the result of a rather desperate developmental drive by the government in order to fulfil! an election promise.

On the surface of the legislation as it is presently constituted, there would appear to have been some rather hasty work done, notwithstan ding the fact that many of us in Mani toba awaited the appearance of the bill for some consi derable time followi ng the govern ment's origin al promise. But I can't resist or avoid the conclusion as I study the legislation and discuss it with the members of the community, Mr .

Speaker, that it really represents simply a formal ized response to, or a formal ized follow-through on an election promise by a government that seized on this issue, as I have sai d, a highl y emotional issue, as one that provided it with consid erable election campaign ammunition.

Having gone into the election sayi ng tha t they would deliver rent controls for Ma nitobans, that they would protect Man itoba renters agai nst the demon landlord, they had to deliver. 2963 It was a promise and although it's been pointed out in the House from time to time sin ce the Session got under way that many of their promises have not been fulfilled, I must say that I think credit and recognition must be given the government to some degree in tha t area, Mr . Speaker, because they have acted and attempted to move on some of their campaign prom ises and this was one of them.

The Min ister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs, the Min ister responsible for Man itoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, obviously possesses sufficient clout and sufficient influence with his Cabine t and caucus colleagues to ensure tha t one of the promises related to his depart ment was certainly going to be one tha t the new gov ernment was going to deliver on and I give him credit for that. But I think that the bill as it's constituted at the moment represents a pretty hasty attempt to meet that promise, to meet that pledge. I don't think it has been fully or carefully thought thr ough.

It simp ly, as I say, provides the government with the opportunity of say ing, well we promised you rent control; we prom ised you protection agains t the demon landlord; here it is. Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, renters in Mani toba are going to expect that their rents are not going to rise. In fact, as a consequence of the position taken by the NOP when it was in Opp osition during the last year-and-a-half or two years of the Progressive Con servative Governm ent's tenure of office, and as a con sequence of the specific things said in the election I

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 campai gn last October and Novem ber by NOP candi dates, Man itoba renters expect, as one of my col leagues has suggested in debate, that their rents are not going to rise in the foreseeable future; there is certainly not going to be any sig nificant increase in rents for Ma nitoba renters during the next one, two, th ree, four years. Tha t is the conclusion to which Man itoba renters were invited to come, by the position taken and the promises made by the new government of the day, the government opposite, and the govern ment of the day is going to have to live with that, Mr.

Speaker. They have raised hopes; they have raised expecta tions I think, falsely, and they're going to have to live with that and this legisla tion certainly is not going to enable them to deliver on that promise. So one of the weaknesses in it is a weakness that will redound upon the Min ister hi mself and his colleagues themselves. the clear and vivid demonstration in a very sh ort period of time, tha t the promise was hol low and false and can not be kept. Mr .

Speaker. having said all that, I wish to advise the Min ister and the House and you, Sir , that it is not the intention of my caucus colleagues, or me, to stand in the way of constructive and in tensive exami nation and evaluation of what the Min ister is proposing in Bill 2. We have deliberated at some length, during the past two weeks or more. on the content and nature of the legislation.

We have difficulty with some of the aspects of the content and nature of the legislation but we do not, Sir , have difficulty with the principle of the bill, the principle being the protection of the renter in Mani toba agains t unfair or unreasonable rent increases, against hardship rent increases. There is no question that many among us are suffer ing real har dship today in the renter market.

Ther e is no argument wi th a suggestion, or with the poi nt that there are examples of true hardship among renters in Man itoba today, as there are simil ar examples among renters all over No rth America, probably all over the world. There is no question either tha t there is some real hards hi p, measurable, demonstrable, seen every day, caused by general economic conditi ons for ren ters, for persons who rent their shelter and their hous ing accommodation. Worse than that, Mr .

Speaker, there is perceived hards hip; there is the fear of hardsh ip; there is the anx iety and the tension and the fear in the hearts and minds of many renters that even though their rent perhaps didn't go up signif icantly or substantially last year, or the year before, the danger is always there that thei r rents are going to go up to a degree which they can't accommodate, which they can't handle and they're going to find themselves on the street looking for new accommodation. I know that fear, that thought, troub les many a Man itoba renter. Speaking for and with my party, I want to say to him and her. Mr .

Speaker, that Man itoba renter. that we're aware of that fear. that anx iety, that perception and in some cases, that very reality. We shar e the ambitions of all, whether inside or outside this Chamb er, to reinforce the safety net for the Mani toba renter; to guarantee him or her protec tion agai nst unfair, unreasonable hard ship rent increases. For that reason, Sir, we find ourselves alig ned with the principle contained in Bill 2.

We're very anxious to hear the representations that will be forthco ming from the public and others at Law Amendments Committee or whatever committee finds itself char ged with the responsibil ity of clause-by clause examination of this bill because there will be specific suggestions emanating in that process for the strengthening and improvement of Bill 2.

We believe that it may well be possible that Bill 2 will turn out to be an acceptable piece of legislation with certain rein forcements and improvements and refinements; with certain modifica tions with some of that str engthening which I've suggested is necessary.

So we do want to move the bill on to tha t stage and listen to the public representations that will be made, and the expert professional representations tha t will be made and, in particu lar, the perspective that will be brought to tha t course of the legisla tive process by renters themselves, by those who are most directly affected, along with the landlor ds, of course, of Bill 2. At that point in time I submit, Mr . Speaker, there will be some, and not a few perhaps on our side, who will be offering and proposing im provements to the legisla tion themselves. Mr.

Speaker, final ly, I would just like to add the observation that in the end what's at issue here is the long-range best interest of the Man itoba renter; that obviously is a combi nation of a number of thi ngs, an improved economy for one thing, improved security in terms of job opportunities for another, but also, Sir, it's a combi nation, both of protection agai nst unfair or hardsh ip rent increases and a guarantee of a wide. attractive cho ice of housing and acco mmodation.

In dealing with any issues such as rent control, govern ments and oppositions, legislators and public, the people they represent. have to be very careful, very careful, I submi t, Mr . Speaker, not to move so emphat ically on one side of the spectrum, or one side of the equation as to damage irreparably the other side.

The other side of the spectrum in this case, being the establ ishm ent of a cli mate tha t is conduc ive to the development of attractive options, reasonably avail able options and alternatives, in the she lter and accommodation field; for no renter, no matter what his anx iety or fear, or her anxiety or fear today, with respect to the current rate of rent that he or she is paying, wants willin gly to be boxed into a situation where there is no alternative, there is no option, there is no way out, where he or she is trapped.

So we had to preserve that freedom and flexibili ty of option and movement and this bill, whil e attempting to guarantee and reinforce the safety net for the renter, must also attempt to guarantee and reinforce his and her options for freedom and flexibil ity in choic e now and in the future. So we will be focusing on some of those aspects of the legislation. Mr . Speaker, and looking forward to close examination of the bill in clause-by cla use form at the committee stage.

On that basis and on the basis of the comments that have already been contrib uted in this debate by my colleagues I can advise you, Sir , at this juncture that the Progressive Conservative Caucus supports the principle of Bill 2 and wishe s to see it move on to committee study. 2964 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs will be closi ng debate. The Honou rable Min ister.

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes, Mr . Speaker, if no other members desire to speak, I'd like to conclude debate on Second Reading. Mr . Speaker, first of all, I'd li ke to just recognize the assistance that I had in preparing this bill for debate in the Ho use, the assistance tha t I received from the Member for Ell ice who was the Legisla tive Assistant worki ng with me.

He spent long hours with me assist ing me in the actual drafting of the bill, consulting with various organizations and groups, and I would like to compliment him and thank him for his involvement which I found very productive in the drafting of the legislation. Mr . Speaker, when I had intr oduced Bill 2 for debate on Second Reading, I had invited some constructive suggestions from members opposite on the contents of the bill and the gen eral approach. Unfortunately, Mr .

Speaker, outside of, quite frankly, the last com ments from the Memb er for Fort Garry, I saw none of that in the debate that took place in the House, espe cially from Members opposite. What we saw in debate was a rerun of what was heard during the last election campaign. Over and over again, members opposite said that we really did have a rent control program in effect, a rent control program in place for the last number of years in Mani toba and that the New Democratic Party was not sug gesting anything new, tha t there was a program in place that was serving Man itobans well.

They claimed that experts also agreed with them that there was an effective rent control program in Mani toba.

Well, whether or not some so-called experts agreed that th ere was some form of rent contr ol in the Provinc e of Man itoba, it was clear by what we heard prior and during the election campaign, and in deed in the results of the election campaign, tha t the people of Man itoba, the tenants in Man itoba, knew and did not believe that there was a rent control program in place in the Provinc e of Manitoba, an effective rent control program in place and operating in the Province of Ma nitoba for the last two years.

The Memb er for Sturgeon Creek, in discussing the fact that there was an effective program in place, talked about the kind of good it did for tenants in his constituency. Well, it was just recently, Mr . Speaker, back last January that results of an arbitration deci sion with respect to a major block in his constituency was made known where the increases allowed by the Arbitr ation Board were some 34 percent increase and it was a reduction from, I believe it was 36 percent - a reduction of 2 percent.

In fact, there was a recent decision rendered in the same apartment complex that upheld the increases requested by the landlord. So for him to argue tha t the program was worki ng, the facts of the matter are sim ply the opposite. The program didn 't work, Mr. Speaker, because of two main facts: one is that all of the onus for the program was on the tenants. The tenant had to initia te the complaint. All of the onus was on the tenant and the tenant could only complain and his case could only be heard on the basis of how hi s proposed rent compared with other rents in the same area. So if, Mr .

Speaker, there were arti ficially high rents in that par ticular area and the particular land lord who tha t tenant had to pay rent to asked for incr eases to bring it up to that already artificially high level, he had no case; not whether or not the increase was fair or was needed for the actual operating costs of tha t building or to keep that building in repai r, tha t had no relation ship to what the increase was going to be and what would be determined under the legislation.

The other part of it was tha t it was on the bas is of comparable properties and on the avai labil ity of other rental acco mmodation. We now know that the present situation with availabil ity is considerably different than it was last fall, than it was a year ago, tha t we've now got a vacancy rate as latest reported from CMHC of only 2 percent overall in the City of Winnip eg. I'd like now to spend a few minutes, Mr . Speaker, discussing a few of the areas that were touched upon by some of the mem bers opposite during debate.

There was some discussion, some debate that rent controls would allow units to get into disrepair, that maintenance wouldn't be done on rental units in the Province of Manit oba. Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the allowable incr eases that will be allowed under The Residential Rent Regu lation Act will allow for landlords and owners to main tain their properties, will allo w them to have increases in order to pay for the ongoing operating costs, main tenance costs and repair costs of keeping their pre mises in repair. Second, we have within the legislation a new and in novative

section tha t to my knowledge does not exist or has not existed in any other rent regulation or rent control legislation in any jurisdic tion in Canada, or in the Un ited States for that matter, where we are going to allow exemptions from rent controls, from The Rent Regulation Act for units that undergo total rehabil itation. 2965 I can say tha t there is a great deal of interest in this section, Mr . Speaker. In fact, just last week, I met with a Calgary developer who is in the process of buying a number of units of apartment build ings in Winnip eg and wanted to discuss with us how that

section would impact on it because he wants to totally rehabil itate those units, and they are units that I am informed are in the process of being closed down and demolis hed if something is not done. This developer recognizes that he can, through the provisions that will be in the Act and the regulations, have an exemption and is going ahead, as I understand it, in proceeding to buy tho se properties. So I don't accept the argument that we're going to see rental units in the provi nce deteriorate or be dem olis hed.

We have given landlords and developers the opportunity with the legislation, with the new section, to take on major rehabilitative projects with respect to rental acco mmodation in the City of Winn ipeg, in the province, because there are a number of apartment buil dings tha t are at the stage where they need exten sive renovati ons, and I believe this

section will facili tate and will allow developers to seize on that oppor tunity and keep some of that much needed rental housing units on the market. There was also comment in debate with respect to the new provision for a registry. It was stated by the Member for Tuxedo that here we're going to have government keeping track and keeping lists of every renter in the provinc e and where he moves and when he moves. That's simply not true, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the registry is, for the first time in the

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 Provinc e of Ma nitoba, to have an effective catalogue, an effective base data bank of rental acco mmodation in the provinc e because only one small part or one part of the rental units are under survey right now through CMHC, but there is no actual statistics deal ing with all rental acco mmodations in the Provinc e of Mani toba. That is the sole purpose of that registry, Mr . Speaker. INTR ODUC TIO N OF GUE STS MR. SPEAKER: Or der please.

If I might interrupt the Honour able Min ister for a moment to di rect the atten tion of honourable members to the gallery where we have 60 students of Grade 8 standing from the Vir den Juni or High School. They are under the dir ection of Mr. Plaisier and they are from the constituenc y of the Honour able Memb er for Virden. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ADJO UR NED DE BATES (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The concept of having a registry, of having information ava ilable to government with respect to rental hous ing is not new. Tha t is done in many other sectors of our economy so tha t government can better plan with respect to particular ind ustries or particular sectors of our economy.

I think it'll be useful for us to have tha t information and to be in a better position to respond to the needs of the rental housing ind ustry and to tenants in the Provinc e of Man itoba by havi ng the actual information with respect to rental accommoda tions in the Provinc e of Man itoba. Th ere was also a great deal of discussion in fact as late as Question Period today, Mr . Speaker, on the effect of new construc tion. Th ere is, as previously indicated in the legislation, an exemption period for new construction for newly construc ted units.

I'm informed by developers that the average rental period for apartment blocks has been at the most a four-year period and tha t was when vacancy rates were at a higher level than they are today.

So it would be fair to assume that new units, if they were to be constructed, to be rented up in a shor ter period of time given the low vacancy rates that exist in the provinc e at the present time, that would give developers the opportu nity to rent up their buildin gs so that they could ach ieve near or full occupancy, but also allow them to establish rent levels at a level tha t they would feel is sufficien t to meet their requirements with respect to financing the building and then would allow those buildi ngs to be again controlled after that in itial period.

The problem with the lack of new construc tion, and I think it would be recognized by members opposite though they would care not to say it, and it certainly h&s been stated to me by the many developers that we have met with, is that the major problem is the high interest rates that exist in the country at the present time.

That is the greatest deterrent to any develop ment, including the development of further residential rental units in the Provi nce of Manit oba and indeed all across Canada, and until high interest rates come down, that we are going to see very little construction in Man itoba or in other parts of the cou ntry. The other factor tha t has a great impact on that is the lack and the removal of the federal incentiv es that existed for rental housing construction thr oughout the country. There was a flurry of building when there was a number of federal incentive programs available for developers.

It 's certainly true that rent controls, rent regulation has some impact on it, but to suggest that's the sole reason that there isn't going to be any and hasn't been any construction of new units in the provi nce is sim ply not true, Mr . Speaker. In fact, over the last two years when there was no real effective rent controls, there was very little constr uction.

In fact, if one looks back over a period of time when we last had rent controls in the Province of Man itoba, we had in excess of 4,000 units of rental housing construction being constructed during a period of rent control, of pretty restrictive rent controls, far more restrictive than what is contained in this legislation. The last area I wanted to comment on, Mr.

Speaker, that was mentioned in debate and was mentioned by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek with respect to statements reportedly made by myself to the media with respect to possible changes in the legislation, and sug gesting that I was not open and was not prepared to consult with interested people, individ uals and organizations in the provinc e with respect to the lt?gislation. -(l nterjection)- Well, first of all, Mr .

Speaker, I can tell you that with the assistance of the Member for Ell ice as my Legisla tive Assistant and myself, we have consulted exten siv ely with many people throughout the provinc e on this legislation. When we first assumed office we met with many of the groups and conti nued that through to the present day. I have met on at least four occa si ons with the Executive of the Manit oba Landlo rds Association and had extensive meetings with them and have met with their general membership on two occas ions, Mr.

Speaker; I have met with the Man itoba Home Bui lders Association on thr ee different occa sions dealing specifically with this legislation; I have had meetings with six of the major developers in the Province of Man itoba who are active in thi s area; I' ve met with many individual landlords, tenants and solic itors who act on behalf of both tenants and landlords. 2966 So I have been very open to listen to the points raised by many that are interested in this legislation. We've been receptive, Mr .

Speaker, to the suggestions that have been put forward and I have found them particularly helpful as we've developed this legisla tion, as we've gone through the onerous job of draft ing the legislation, and many of those concerns that were raised have been embodied in the legislation. So for him to suggest that I'm not open, I take great offence to. My comments were in relation to the last meeting that I had with the Man itoba Landl ords Association. They asked me if the government would be proposi ng major chan ges to the basic pol icies contained in the Act. I responded, Mr .

Speaker, tha t no, I did not believe that the government would be making major chan ges to the legislation, tha t I did not indic ate I would not be open to public representation and indeed the representations that would be made in

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 committee by members opposite to particula r sec tions of the bill. In that regard. I was quite heartened to hear the positive and constructive comments for the first time from the member opposite, the Member for Fort Garry, with respect to the Op position's attitude to this legislation. He was the first member that spoke tha t way but I'm not going to leave any false expecta tions to the Man itoba landlords. We are going to make major cha nges.

We have discussed over and over again those points with them, but we have been open with them. we have been sin cere with them. outlining the provisions to the bill and have taken into account their many representations . I might add. Mr . Speaker, that some of those groups in meeting with us have told me tha t it is much easier to see members of this government than it has been in the past to meet members opposite when they were in government. that they had a much more difficult time even if they could get in to meet and discuss issues. So we have been very open. Mr.

Speaker. to -(I nter jection )- if the member wants figures. I will give him individ uals who told me that. if he would like, but those are the facts and I will stand by tho se state ments. Mr . Speaker. I will conclude shortly so that we can get into commit tee and discuss

section by

section of the Act. I think though. generally, we have to look at housing and this legislation in a particu lar fashion. Housing is not the same as other commodities in the market place. Housing is affected in a different way with respect to supply and demand. It 's not like when someone goes to buy a commodity at the grocery store. be it a bar of soap, and if the price goes up, the person can either try to buy a cheaper bar of soap or indeed use less. That is the same with other commodi ties. Housing is different. Mr. Speaker. it is not tha t easy to suddenly move into another apartment block.

Ther e is the cost of moving; there is the disruption to childr en who may be in school and the thought of being thrust out of one neighb ourhood into another. So there is need to have some controls on this sector of the economy more so than others. particul arly when you get situations where there is little competi tion in the marketplace as we have at the present time with vacancy rates at a low level. It does and it has been proven over tim e, Mr .

Speaker, that rent increases move up and we have seen that happening over the past year, increases well in excess of the cost of living. in excess of the cost of operating tho se complexes. I made mention of the increases of 34 percent in one apartment block in the Member for Stu rgeon Creek's constituenc y. I've had calls of increases of 45 and 50 percent tha t are taking place over the past six months to a year.

So we are seeing a situation that is unique to the housing sector that doesn't exist in other marketplaces where people don't have the opportunity and there isn't the competi tion tha t exists in other marketplaces. so there is no question tha t th ere is a need for the government to take the kind of action that is being taken by the introduction of this legislati on. In closing, Mr .

Speaker, I would hope, given the last comments of the Member for Fort Garry, that we will have some as we get into clause-by-clause consi dera tion of the bill, some constructive suggestions from the Op position with respect to particular sections of the bill, so that we can have the best legislation that's possible, the best that can be operated and admini s tered for the betterment of both tenants and landlords in the Province of Man itoba. Thank you, Mr . Speaker. QU ESTI ON put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 23 -THE LE GAL AID SERVICES SOCIE TY OF MANI TOBA ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On Bill No. 23. the proposed motion of the Honour able Attorney-General.

an Act to amend The Legal Aid Services Society of Man itoba Act, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Vi rden. 2967 MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. Mr . Speaker. I have had the opportunity to peruse the Hans ard which carried the remarks of the Honour able Attorney-General when he introduced this bill to the Ho use. I also had the opportunity of sitting in Commit tee of Supply where we discussed to some extent some of the ramific ations that are qui te apparent by a change such as that tha t is proposed in this particular bill.

One of the things that causes me a fai r degree of concern is the power that is granted to the Legal Aid Society to investigate and make their decision on whether or not a certific ate is issued and the ramifica tions that are in herent in that investigation. It seems quite clear and the intent of the legislation is to give the society the power of investigatio n. to look at a group in society to determine the indi vidual financia l status of members of that group and whether or not they have sufficient funds to pay the legal costs in respect to the application that is subm itted.

That is qui te clearly spelled out in the legislation proposed. I want you to think for a minute, Mr. Speaker, of the implications that are involved and what it might do to society. There are certain people, I am sure. that would love to be involved in a proposal say, for example. an envir onmental study on the hazards of a cement plant in the city, but they know that if they joi ned that group, because of their financial status, that it might affect detrimentally the objective of the group that are apply ing for legal aid.

Probably the Attorney-General hadn't consider ed that when he brought forward this legisla tion. It could prevent people with some financial means from taking an active

part in a type of program which obviousl y the Attorney-General is thinkin g it would be in the interest of the publi c to have those groups active. It also, by its very nature, by having an investigation into the financial affairs of each and every member of that group, comes dangerously close to an invasion of priva cy. Now I realize that when you were asking for assistance from the state. the state has a right to tha t kind of investigation and that's why I say it comes dangerously close.

But the thin g tha t concerned me was the detrimental effect tha t it could have if, say, there was one wealthy person involved. the Society and its commit tee could say, "Well. th ere's a man that's got the bucks; he could afford it." Does tha t deny the rest of the members in tha t group the righ t

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 to Legal Aid? I suggest to you. Mr. Speaker. that if this goes thr ough, you are going to be creating quit e a night mare for the members of the Legal Aid Soci ety in determinin g whether or not any particu lar group qual ifies for Legal Aid. I ask you. Mr . Speaker. do we really want to create that kind of nightmare or is it better that we confine the activities of Legal Aid to helping indi vid uals? Ob viously, the Attorney-Gener al has consi dered tha t problem.

I'm sure he must have consid ered that problem before he decided to bring in this legisla tion but I'm not convinc ed in my own mind that he has chosen a wise course. It 's quite conceivable that the harm that could even tually grow through society in having some groups eligible for funding and some groups not eligib le because of the appearance of a certain name in that group, may do more harm to publi c action than it would ever do good.

It places on the should ers of the members of the Legal Aid Committee, who are study ing all applications for certificates, a very particular onus to try and be fai r, because I can tell you. Sir , tha t in very few cases is society unani mous in the particu lar dir ection it wants to go. on a consumer point of view. or an envir onmental point of view. Tho se are the two fields tha t the Min ister is attempting to control at this ti me.

If a commit tee grants Legal Aid to one group and refuses to grant Legal Aid to another group, then it could be construed that there was the intention of the government only to fund those that were tryi ng to influence public opinion in a certain direction. I sug gest to the Honou rable Attorney-General that if he persists in carrying through with this type of legisla tion. tho se kinds of ch arges can be laid and tho se kinds of attempts might very legiti mately be employed. I would think it would not be in the interests of all Man itobans should that occur. Mr.

Speaker. the more I look at this bill, the more concerned I become about the intention of the Attorney-General when he brought this in. I know his history of inti mate relatio nship with Legal Aid; I know his activities in the start-up of Legal Aid in this pro vi nce. I would like to ask the Attorney-General if his intentions were as strong at the very start of Legal Aid to fund certain groups in society for public legal activ ity or has that belief grown later on. Mr. Speaker. I have been somewha t critical of Legal Aid in the past but I have never really opposed the concept in tota lity.

One of the fields that I think is probably building a "Cadil lac" out of the Legal Aid system is expanding it into this field of public sector support. I think it's quit e val id if a group in society wants to take legal action in any particu lar direction. that they should have a responsi bil ity amongst them selves to fund it. I think that's an admir able cause and on top of that, when a person digs into their own pocket, they become more convi nced that they are actively taking

part in what is occurring. But if you go to any shopping centre. hang up a petition and get a whole bunch of sig natures on it and say, "This is the group tha t wants to oppose a certa in thing and now we're applying for Legal Aid," how much commitment and involvement is there in the total number of people who have sign ed that petition? I suggest to you very little and it's only a self-i nterested few. a half-dozen or so that are behind the whole thing, that really have an interest at heart. So, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to you that this bill in particular in my opinion does not move Legal Aid in a dir ection which I would like to see it go and I would hope that members would have somber second thought s before we pass this legislation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAK ER, J. Storie: The Honou rable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: If there are no other members rising to ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker. I beg to move. seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAK ER: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Min ister of Municip al Affairs. Bill No. 32,

an Act to amend The Mu nicip al Act, tha t stands in the name of the Honour able Me mber for Swan Ri ver. (Stand) The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it had been my intention to have you call Bill No. 36. I noticed that it is standing in the name of the Honou rable Member for Pembina and he is not avai lable to speak on that motion this afternoon. 2968 I would ask you to call Second Read ing on Bill No. 21. SECOND READI NG - GOVER NMEN T BI LLS Bill NO. 21 - THE COMMUNI TY CHILD DAY CARE STAN DARDS ACT HON. L.

EVANS presented Bill No. 21, The Commun ity Child Day Care Standards Act. for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you. Mr . Speaker. This par ticular Bill No. 21. The Co mmunity Child Day Care Standards Act, is a fulfillment of a policy th rust indi cated in the Speech from the Thr one earlier this year and it's part of the government's th rust to develop and ensure high standards of child day care in the Prov ince of Man itoba. There are some very specific rea sons for this legislation coming forth at this time.

One. of course. is to clear up some public confusion which has resulted from the involvement of both Pro vincial Governm ents as well as Munici pal Govern ments in the licencing of day care facilities. Secondly, the licenci ng jurisdic tion split that I referred to has resulted in different terminology and standards applied in different parts of the Provinc e

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 of Man itoba. Thir dly, the municip al and provincial licencing requir ements currently used in the day care program regulations were developed back in the mid-1 950s and do, in our opinion, require updating to recognize new developments and monitoring and enforcement of needs. So therefore, Mr . Speaker, the Act has been to develop, to define clearly what day care is, who needs a lic ence to provide that service and who is responsi ble for the admin istration of the legislation. I'd like to take this opportunity to outline the main features of the Act for the members of the Legislature.

I would begin by referring to the categories of day care facil ities which will require licences to operate.

There are four types of facili ties: (1) a day care centre is defined as a facili ty for more than eight childr en or to more than five childr en, all of whom are less than six years old, or to more than three childr en who are less than two years old; (2) family day care homes are for up to eight chil dren in a priv ate home of whom no more than five are less than six years old and not more than thr ee are less than two years old; (3) group day care homes for eight to twelve chil dren in a private home of whom not more than thr ee are less than two years old; (4) occas ional day care centres or a day care centre providing intermittent or casual day care services.

These categories and licencing requirements, Mr . Speaker, will apply to both nonprofit and to the com mercial day care centres tha t now operate in the prov ince or may operate in the future. A licence to operate will be optional in a private home where up to four childr en are receiving care, including the childr en of the operator and other childr en of whom not more than two are under two years of age. The provisions of the Act will not apply to care provided to chil dren by relatives, by public schools or Sunday schools, by hospitals, by recreation programs or in summer camp programs.

The Act states clearly that the Provincial Govern ment is the sole licencing authority for the day care services in the province and in addition sets out gen eral conditions governing the issuing of lic ences and provides the authori ty to pass detailed regulations for staffing, health, nutrition and program activity stand ards. The Act also provides for the refusal, suspension and relocation of licences if licencing requir ements are not met and outlines the right of appeal for lic enc ing and subsidy decisions to the Social Services Advi sory Committee.

Where a licence has expired or has been revoked and where day care services may be withdr awn, the Minis ter may appoint an admin istrator to operate the centre for up to 90 days while other arrangements are made. Another feature of the legislation, Mr . Speaker, in direct response to the needs of the day care commun ity, a nine member Staff Qualifications Review Com mittee will advise the Min ister on staffing matters and will act as an appeal body for day care staff who disagree with departmental qualif ication decisions.

The last point I would make in terms of the essence of the bill, the Act authori zes grants to nonprofit day care centres and lic enced family and group day care homes and the payment of subsid ies on behalf of families using nonpr ofit day care services. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of interest expressed in this proposed legislation by the com munity at large and particularly by the many many child day care assoc iations that exist in the province.

I have spoken to many indi viduals myself in my travels around the province and I know there are great expec tat ions being held up for this particular leg islation. I think generally the community at large in Manit oba welcomes this thrust on the part of the government.

They welcome our concern about providing adequate child day care provisions ·and in this day and age, where more than one member of the family happens to be working, there seems to be an inc reasing need for this type of service and I think it's incumbent upon government at this point to ensure tha t we have nothing but the best standards in the Provi nce of Man itoba. So I' m confident, Mr .

Speaker, that this Community Chil d Day Care Standards Act, together with this year's budgetary provisions, where we increased the monies available for day care substantially, these together will make day care in Man itoba among the best to be found anywhere in Canada. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Tuxedo that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJO URNED DE BATE - CROW RATE MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Govern ment House Leader. HON. L. DESJAR DI NS: Mr .

Speaker, I understand tha t the members of the Opp osition are willing and anxious to take

part in the debate on the Crow Rate so would you call that. We wouldn't want them to wait any longer, if they shut up we can call it right away. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mi nister of Highw ays and Transpor ta tion; the motion is stan ding in the name of the Hon ourable Member for Virden. The Honourable Member for Vir den. 2969 MR. H. GRA HAM: Mr . Speaker, I ajourned this debate for my leader. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to see that the members of the government have finall y screwed up their courage and have called this item agai n even though, Mr .

Speaker, we have not heard anything from them on the Crow sin ce the late, and by them only, lamented demise of the Social ist Govern ment of Saskatchewan. I think that the Member for Vir den, Mr . Speaker, did the House a singular service yesterday by using up his grievance on the motion to go into Supply, to bring to the attention of thi s government and to bring to the attention of the people of Man itoba, the depth of sinc erity that was attached to this motion when it was brought in by the Min ister of Transpor ta-

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 tion some two or thr ee months ago. The urgency that was attached to it by the First Min ister who was. only a matter of five or six weeks ago, goading the Op posi tion about not speaking on the issue and then of course he, Mr . Speaker, taking the fugitive's role and stri king for cover hims elf once the real purpose of the resolution . which had been to serve the partisan inter ests of the Premier of Saskatchewan. had been defaulted by the people of Saskatchewan. So. Mr .

Speaker. all I can say is that the sincerity of the hon ourable members with respect to this motion. is clear for everyone in Man itoba to see. particularly the farm community. I intend, Mr . Speaker, to take some time today to talk, not so much about the history of grain transpor tation in Canada because that is availa ble in tomes that are freely access ible to all members of the Ho use. Suffice it to say that these historical pieces do exist and they are extremely valuable for the insight into the totality of the problem of grain transpor tation which they provide.

I would suggest. not only to members on the far side of the House but to all of us, including myself from time to time, that we do ourselves. we do the public of Man itoba a service if we go back to review the well springs of how the grain transportation system started in western Canada. If we recount. as we should as citizens of Man itoba, that on the walls of this very building there exists a bronze plaque commemorating the fi rst export of grain from western Canada. from this Provi nce of Man itoba late in the final quarter of the 19 th Century. in 18 76 or thereabouts. Tha t historic perspective, Sir .

I think is something that all of us need to be reminded of from time to time, and in the context of tha t hi storic perspective we come to deduce the reason for the statutory rate, we can see as well some of the benefits which are certainly measurable and some of the dis advantages which have flowed from it over the years. All of us need this refreshin g of memory from time to time lest all of us. including myself. get carried away with some of the mythology and some of the emotion that bui lds up necessarily, from time to time. on an issue so subject to both.

But it is not my intention at this portion of the debate. Sir, to rehearse all of the earlier history of this topic but rather to confine my remarks today to the more recent past and. more particularly, what is of interest to the farming community in western Canada, the future. Where are we going to be in the future? So. Mr .

Speaker. in dealing with the recent past I think it is evident from wha t has transpi red in the last th ree to four years. that the statutory rate is only one of a broad system of interrelated problems which form part of the challenge that faces the farm community in western Canada and it is somethin g that we must acknowledge, namely, that the statutory rate. while being an important part of this array of problems, is not the whole problem in itself. It is my intention. Mr . Speaker. to move at the con clusion of my remarks today a substantive amend ment which we have attempted, Mr .

Speaker. to couch in terms that we hope will be noncontroversial, even to my honour able controversial friends opposite, and terms which we hope, Sir , can broaden the approach that is taken in the amendment that we are presently faced with and will broaden the spectrum of view so that hopefully we can gain support from all sides of the House for the amendment that I will be proposing. Mr .

Speaker. in dealing with the recent past I start. first of all. with the First Min isters Economic Confer ence in Novem ber of 19 78 and I must say, Sir, that on Man itoba 's ini tiative there was added to the commu nique tha t emerged from that First Min isters Confer ence in November of 19 78, a

summary of conclusions. one of which was as follows - I quote for the record. "The First Min isters," that is the Prime Min ister and the ten Premiers of Canada as they then were, "agreed tha t there should be a meeting at the earliest practical date to discuss the grain transportation and hand li ng system. Partici pants would include the First Minis ters of the four western provinces. the Federal Mi nister responsible for the Wheat Board, the Federal Min ister of Agriculture. the Presidents of C.P. Rail and Cana dian National Rai lways. 2970 Well, Mr.

Speaker, following upon that agreement. which was part of the com munique issued from that conference which by the way, Sir , was one of the most positive economic conferences that had been held up to that time and I must say, even having regard to the conference that the First Min ister partici pated in. in February of this year. I think it was a more productive conference than even that because there were a number of in itiatives that were dealt with at tha t conference.

Well, followi ng upon that agreement between the Federal and the 10 Provincial Governme nts or the Provincial Governments involved, Man itoba took the lead in conv ening a national conference on grain handling and transportation here in Winnip eg to which a wide cross

section of people were invi ted, all of whom were related to the grain industry. Mr .

Speaker, those attending that conference that took place in this building on Januar y 8th and 9th, 19 79, were the Premiers of Man itoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta; the British Columbia Min ister of Agricul ture representing the Premier of British Columbia; the Federal Minis ter responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board; the major grain companie s - that includes. of course. the Pools, the Un ited Grain Gr owers, the pri vate companie s as well; the Canadian Wheat Board; the Canadian Lab our Congress. who were there to discuss grain handlin g and transportation.

On the second day, we were joi ned by the Federal Min ister of Labour, as well as representatives of shipping firms. transport firms. the Great Lakes Shipping Association and so on. It was about as wide a conference, in terms of its representation. as had ever been convened in the history of our country to deal with grain handling and transportation in Man itoba or in Canada.

I was pleased, privi leged and cou nted as certainl y something of which I am personally proud, that I was able to co-ch air that meeting with the then Min ister of Transport, the Honourable Otto Lang, and to partici pate in a cooperative venture, which was unique in terms of the results that were able to be obtained when all parties were able to sit around the table and to discuss the problems and the opportunities that were facing the agricultural industry in Canada at that time and which contin ued in some measure to face the agricultur al industry in Canada today. Mr .

Speaker, I takethe liberty of reading a few words from the opening statement that Mani toba made at

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 that conference on Januar y 8th, 19 79, because I think that the words spoken then bear some close relevance to the re solution under dis cussion and to the prob lems which are sti ll in some measure before us. And I quote, Mr. Speaker, from the statement of opening remarks that I made to that conference on behalf of the Govern ment of Man itoba at that time. This by the way is a publi c document; it's filed in the House and it's a Sessional Paper of the House, No. 68 of 19 79, and it can be referred to by anyone who wishe s to see the full text.

"The situation we are facing today is not tolerable. We have a rapidly expanding market waiti ng to buy our grain. We have the grai n on our farms but we can't sell it because of our inabili ty to move the grain to export positions. Hundr eds of mill ions of dollars have been lost to our prairie farmers and our hardearned reputation as a supplier is deteriorating because of our fai lure to meet our export commitments. We now run the risk of losing valuable customers. From expe rience we know that once a market is lost it is difficult to re-establish a place in th at market.

I doubt that we would tolerate a simi lar situation facing any other Canadian industry. "The problems we are facing in grain transpor tation are complex and interrelated and no single element of the grain transportation system is responsible for our present dilemma. Rather, problems exist in the opera tions and capacity of the physical system with the institutional framework and in the basic financial con siderations associated with grain transporta tion." Mr.

Speaker, one could go on to quote other excerpts from that, but I think tha t those brief quotes will indic ate to you the parameters of the problem as they were being described at that time by me, repres enting the Government of Manit oba and, indeed, after that opening statement we proceeded into a two-day conference where, I think, very measurable results came from it.

The communique that was issued at the conclusion of tha t conference in grai n handling and transporta tion - and this was a communique which carried with it the approval of the particip ants, even though it was given in the name of the five governments attending - went on to note the importance of the great western grain industry to the national economy, the grain industry being the thir d largest earner of frneign exchange for the nati on, with exports often surpass ing $3 billion per year.

Some 20 mill ion tonnes are currently in 19 79 being exported, and the Canadian Wheat Board estimates that the world demand for Canadian grains may increase substantial ly. In fact, the estimate given at that time, if my memory is cor rect, was 30 mill ion tonnes by 19 85, and 19 85 is now three years closer to us than it was then. Mr. Speaker, a number of interesting and coopera tive suggestions were made.

It's not my intention to detail all of the results, but I read from the - again conti nuing from the communique that issued from that meeti ng - "Ade q uate facil itie s at Princ e Rupert ." was said in the communique to be " ... essential and the key to unlocking the present con gestion that we have. While Vancouver will conti nue to be a major port on the West Coast, a second port is urgently required to provide the grain ind ustry with a viable alternative. The exchange of grain cars between 2971 C.N. and C.P. is essential to ensure an adequate flow of grain." Mr .

Speaker, I digress to say, listen to this - listen to what the communique said: "And the Presidents of the two rail roads, together with the Federal Min ister of Transport, agreed that the necessary arrangements would be made." And that agreement took place, Mr . Speaker, around the table. It hasn't always worked to the complete satisfaction since of everyone and there are improvements sti ll to be made, but it was possible to have the President of the C.P., the President of the C.N. and the Mi nister of Transport at one table, unique in the history of this country to have tha t kind of discussion take place.

"Optim ization of Churchill and Thunder Bay are also important on the overall plan for maxi mizing Canada's grain exports." And the communique went on to talk about the constr ai nts that were apparent in the operational areas and it went on to tal k about the appoi ntment proposals that were made at that meet ing, Mr . Speaker, for a special transportation coordi nator. Tha t is the meeting out of which there emerged a consensus that there should be a special transporta tion coordi nator and subsequently, Dr.

Hugh Ho rner, then the Deputy Premier of Alberta, was appoi nted to tha t position and in hi s brief term of office of about a year, year-and-a-half, headq uartered here in the City of Winnip eg in Man itoba, he made measurable improvements through his coordinati ng activities in the del ivery and the efficiency of delivery of grain in Canada. One could go on to talk about other things that emerged from that conference. It was at that confer ence, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier of Alberta reported that out of the Heritage Fund of Alberta, the Govern ment of Alberta was prepared to do the financing for the consortium that was at that stage working upon ideas for the expansion of the port facil ities at Prince Rupert. Subsequent to that conference, I can mention that at the Western Premiers Conference in Prin ce George some thr ee months later, all of the premiers, I think save the Premier of Alberta, were able to travel to Princ e Rupert at the ini tiative of the four premiers with the B.C. Gove rnment acting as host.

We tou red the harbour area, saw the existi ng facili ties, saw Ridl ey Is land, which was subsequently earmarked as the site for the development of the port area, and went on to see measurable improvements take place and measu rable activities result from that conference. As I said, it is not my purpose, Mr . Speaker, to rehearse old history, but it is my pu rpose, to some members, to bring up-to-date some of the recent occurrences which have taken place in grain handling and transportation because these were breakthrough in iti atives that were being accomplished. Si nce tha t time, Mr .

Speaker, further improvements have con tin ued to be made; improvements, such as, in the hopper car fleet, the Provinces of Alberta and Sas katchewan actually committed many millions of dol lars to augmenting that fleet. The Province of Mani toba for one year committed something li ke $2 milli on to the rental of extra hopper cars which increased the amount of rolling stock which, in turn, had a beneficial effect upon increased deliveries in the following years. Mr. Speaker, there was announced by the two railways, boxcar improvement programs which caused

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 extra jobs to be created here in Man itoba. Boxcars being used, for instance, on stretches of rail line such as the Ch urchill line which cannot handle the large hopper cars. There was a general agreement, as I mentioned from the communiq ue, on car exchanges between C.P. and C.N., something that they previously had thought couldn't be done, but tha t started to be done as well.

There was general agreement among all of the partic ipants that the aim and the object of getting our grain to market was too big to founder on any narrow partisan concern, to founder on any narrow concern of any of the grai n companie s or any of the farm organizations or any of the other transport companies or the Wheat Board or anybody else concerned.

I can say, Sir , without fear of contradiction and I know others including the former Premier of Sas katchewan will corrobo rate this, I am sure, that there was a spirit of cooperation at that meeting that is perhaps unusual in the annals of Canadian discus sions on problems of this national magnitude. If I may say so, Sir , tha t is wha t must be rekindl ed among the four western prov inces, that spirit of cooperation. This was not a case - my honourable friends opposite want to talk about Fed bash ing on this , that and the other thing and so on - this was a case, Mr .

Speaker, where a Provincial Premier and a Federal Min ister, who were certainly no partisan political friends, sat and co-chair ed at a fundamentally important meeting for the futur e of the agricultural industry in Canada and results were obtai ned. There was no Fed bash.

So my plea is that we should not be putting forward resolutions which have a narrow tunnelvision view to them, but rather we should be dealing with resolutions in this House tha t will lead the farm community of Mani toba to understand that same vision which ani mated that conference in 19 79 and that same spi rit of cooperation -(lnt erjection)-Mr. Speaker, I hear mutterings from the Memb er for Ste. Rose. The Member for Ste. Rose, Mr . Speaker, was one of those few who did n't understand wha t was going on at that time with respect to this meeting, doesn't understand it now, and for that matter, Mr .

Speaker, never will understand it. Mr. Speaker, notwithst anding the rather unintelligi ble interruptions by the Memb er for Ste. Rose, I want to say to the First Min ister who is in the Ho use, because this is someth ing that should involve the attention of the Premier of Man itoba because it affects the largest ind ustry in Man itoba - agricu lture - with all of the processing of pri mary products that are related to it, this is an issue that is not much given to narrow partisan advantage. It 's not an issue on which a party temporarily in office should try to take narrow parti san advantage.

It 's much too important, Mr. Speaker, to the future of our agricu ltural industry and should be treated by those who are temporarily in office as pre miers or as Min isters of Agricult ure or wha tever in a spirit of cooperation with all of the different parties who were involved because upon it hi nges the future of agricu lture, hinges the future of the family farm, hin ges the future of young farmers starting out today who are the most efficient farmers on the face of the earth. Thank God they are.

They are the most efficient and the farm community of this province and indeed of Western Canada needs no instruction from any government as to how to produce grain, how to pro duce oils eeds and so on efficiently. We are amongst the most efficient in this country, and let me say, Mr . Speaker, one of the reasons we're the most efficient is that priv ate ownership has helped us be that way. It is the great sti mulator. Private ownersh ip of land has been the great stimulator to that cost efficiency in production. So, Mr .

Speaker, Man itoba, I say to the First Min is ter, has traditionally taken the lead, not only in federal-provincial conferences but at the Western Premiers Conference with respect to grain hand ling and transporta tion. I would hope that lead and tha t in itia tive which appeared to be lost last fall and moved over temporarily to the Province of Saskatchewan wh ere the then Premier, Mr. Blakeney, tried to call a conference. Un fortunately, nobody came. He brought his harp to the party and nobody asked him to play, but that lead is Man itoba's lead.

Tha t is not a lead tha t should reside with the Province of Saskatchewan. Man itoba is in a unique position to recapture that lead, and I say si ncerely to my honourable friend, the First Mini ster, that I hope that he will not abandon that lead as appeared to be the case last fall; that Man itoba will again be speaking with a voice of cooperation, of reason and of common sense on behalf of the total agricultural community of this pro vi nce. Now, Mr .

Speaker, we understand that my honour able friends don't represent a very large portion of the agricultur al co mmunity of this provi nce, and this party does, but as government they must speak on behalf of the total farm community, not on behalf just of the Ma nitoba Farmers Un ion, not just on behalf of the Pool, not just on behalf of the Farm Bureau, but the total farm community; and they canno t become the captive of just their political friends in the NF U who only represent a small sliver of the farm community in Man itoba or, indeed, in Canada.

So I issue that appeal sinc erely to the First Min ister, that he take the lead, tha t he grasp the lead which seemed to drop from his hands last fall, and that some signal be given again by Man itoba tha t it is prepared to act as the coordina tor and as the one who will in itia te further discussions of this kind because we must, Mr . Speaker, in the interest of the ind ustry, keep moving on all fronts, at all times.

If there is any slacking off then this goal that has been set of 30 mill ion tonnes cannot be reached and that will reflect adversely upon the economic future, not only of this region but, more particu larly, of indi vid ual farmers in this region. We have concerns, of course, tha t the Crow canno t be looked at in isolation, we know that. All problems, as I've said before, and as I quoted from earlier com ments, are interrelated. 2972 We acknowledge that sin ce 19 79, as I've said earlier, many improvements have been made; turnaround time has improved and so on. But, Mr .

Speaker, we also have to acknowledge in the course of this debate that hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money, and at least $1 00 million of producers' money - and th ere are only 15 0,000 producers in Canada - $10 0 mil lion of their money has gone in recent years into di rect and indir ect support of rail transpor tation in Canada, the buying of hopper cars by the Wh eat Board, the buying of hopper cars by the Government of Canada, the Branch Line Support System by the Government of Canada into which hundreds of mil-

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 lions of dollars was put and so on. So, Mr .

Speaker, if we're dealing with this topic as we must as part of the overall problem in grain han dling and transporta tion, we must acknowledge that the statutory rate is being eroded as we sit here today and has been eroded for many years and in some ways has become part of the mythology of Western Canada because, while that rate is only being charged to the farmer, the farmer, his pocket, is being pic ked on the other hand by the Govern ment of Canada, by the Canadian Board, to pay for rolling stock, to pay for line improvements and other payments that are being taken out of his other pocket whil e some would try to tell him that the statutory rate is sti ll in place.

Mr . Speaker, one wou ld have to be an ostrich; one, Sir , would have to be a di nosaur not to know of such facts. Those facts are clearly apparent to anyb ody who has done any study on this topic. The statutory rate is being subsid ized by the tax payers and the producers in Canada today. Service, that is efficient service, has not yet been achie ved and that's wha t we want to ach ieve on behalf of the farm ing community in Western Canada.

We've got to get that product to market and we've still got holes in that system, we've still got clamps in the system, which prevent that desirable situation from coming about. So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Crow can not be dealt with in isolation; it's got to be dealt with as one of a number of interrelated problems that face the western farm producers. Mr .

Speaker, farm organizations right across Canada and particula rly in Western Canada - I must say particula rly since that national meeting on transportation held here in Winn ipeg - farm organiza tions, the major ones who represent the productive farm community in Canada, have taken a lead in bring ing this issue to the table for discuss ion. They did it of their own ini tia tive and, Mr . Speaker, I admit there is no unanimity.

I don't know for whom the present Min ister of Agricultur e speaks, but I know this, that if he doesn't speak for the farm community of Mani toba on grain transportation any better than he speaks for the beef producers on beef production and compulsory beef marketing, then he'd better keep qui et and listen because he may learn something. Mr. Speaker, I know that there is no unanimi ty of view among farm organizations but it is signif icant, Mr .

Speaker, tha t the Man itoba Pool, the Uni teci Grain Growers, the Man itoba Farm Bureau, the Western Agricu ltural Conference, have all agreed on the need for the statutory rate to be reviewed as part of the overall problem. The role of government, Mr. Speaker - and one shouldn't have to give lessons to a government about this - is to partici pate, not to act as an ostrich, not to take a position th at is carved in stone and say, we won't listen to any evidence because this is part of our ideology because the NFU tells us it is and so on. But it is the role of government, Mr .

Speaker, to have some vision for the future opportunities tha t are avai lable to the farm community in Ma nitoba and in Western Canada. Mr . Speaker, I don't know what will result from the Gil son Report. It 's going to be one of a series of reports that have looked in this and other grain trans portation related matters over the years; it's the latest only of many studies and we can't prejudge what it's going to say.

But I caution, Sir , again, that Man itoba should be taking the lead after that report becomes public and Man itoba can't take the lead if it's got its head buried in the sand like an ostrich and says, but we can't talk about this or we can't talk about that. The NFU position is not the position of the farm commun ity of Man itoba and it can't afford, in the public inter est, to be the position of any government of Man itoba. Well, Mr .

Speaker, the Gover nment of Mani toba, this Legislatu re, has got to guard the public interest, not the interest of any narrow sliver farm organ ization which offers partisan support from time to time to a transient government. Mr. Speaker, I would think that this government, more than any government, should perhaps have seen the folly of trying to predetermine the farmers' will in Mani toba. We remember, Mr .

Speaker, the success of this government trying to impose some of their kooky marketing plans on the dair y ind ustry; their kooky marketing plans with respect to beef stabil ization; their $45 million boon doggle on the beef industry that they perpetrated in the last years of the Sch reyer Admin istra tion. We know, Mr. Speaker, that they tried to predetermine the will of farmers with respect to the Crow rate and they can't do that because their meetings have been a disaster. So I say, Mr .

Speaker, my hon ourable friends should learn on this issue, should learn to listen a bit to the farm community as the current Min ister of Agri culture is havi ng to do because of the political pres sure that we and others have brought upon him. If they do tha t, Mr . Speaker, their programs and polic ies will be a darn sigh t better than anyth ing we've seen thus far. So, I thank my colleague, the Member for Vir den, for doing the service that he has done to the House in bringing this matter to the floor again and, Mr .

Speaker, in order to put this matter in proper perspec tive, Sir, I'm pleased to move, seconded by the Hon ourable Member for Virden; THAT the resolution be amended by striking out all the words afterthe word "wh ereas" in the first line and substituting therefore the following: 2973 Canada's grain producers are among the world's most efficient and have developed export markets for grain which can provide increasing economic bene fits for themselves, their region and the nati on; and WHERE AS the major restricting factor preventing our grain producers from maintai ning and expanding the na tion's reputation as a reliable exporter of grains is the inabili ty of our integrated handl ing and trans portation system to move inc reasing volumes of grain into export positions; and WHER EAS the problems associated with grain transportation and rates have led to a range of chal lenges to be overcome, including in part (

a) a deterio rated railway branch line system; (

b) a declin ing and aging boxcar fleet; (

c) main line capacity restraints; (

d) cost anomal ies related to the movement of pro cessed agricultur al goods versus grain and oil seeds; and (

e) port development including the underutiliza tion of Churchill and, indir ectly, the uncertainty of Princ e Rupert expansion; and WHE RE AS labour-management dis putes centred pri marily at the major ports and at times within the rai lways, have thr eatened or caused economic losses

Wednesday, 2 June, 19 82 to Man itoba grain producers; and WHERE AS Canada's declining share of growing world trade in all grains and oil seeds will continue, unless all of the above interrelated problems are addressed and resolved with dispatch; and WHERE AS the Government of Canada is presently negotia ti ng the question of the statutory grain rate, an integral part of the history of grain transportation which has benefited Western producers; and

WHEREAS in recent years the Canadian Wheat Board and governments, Federal and Provi ncial, have subsidized rail transportation from taxpayers' and producers' funds, thereby eroding the origi nal protec tion afforded by the statutory rate; and WHERE AS the Legislative Assembly considers the financial security of Man itoba farmers and the eco nomic prosperity of rural communities to be of the utmost importance; THEREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED that the Legisla tive Assembly of Man itoba urge that the Govern ment of Canada , in its negotiation to resolve the Crow Rate issue, be guided by the principle s of (

a) protecting Man itoba's grain producers by assuring that the hi s toric benefits of the Crow Rate are maintained; and (

b) ensuring tha t all Man itoba grain produced can be transported to market. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Gove rnment Ho use Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I notice th at the time is 4:30. 1 simply wanted to state for the record that we are reserving the right to raise the question of whether or not the amend ment is in order but not to speak to tha t question today. We will speak to that question at the next sitting of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Members will note that the question has not yet been put to the Ho use.

I note that the proposed amendment was seconded by the Honour able Me mber for Vir den, who has already spoken. I presume the Opp osition has some other name to replace it with. The Honourable Leader of the Op position. HON. S. LYON: Mr . Speaker, the Member for Vir den gave his place to me but the Memb er for Fort Garry will second the motion. Thank you, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: With that change , it being Private Members' Hour , I will look this proposed amendment over before this next reaches the floor. IN SESSION PRIV ATE MEMBERS ' HOUR MR.

SPEAKER: Un der Priv ate Members' Hour for today we have reached the proposed resolution of the Honour able Member for El mwood, Resolution No. 6. The resolution is open. RES . NO. 6 - CPR LAND TAX ASSE SSMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Memb er for Ri ver East. MR. P. EYLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a few words in support of this resolution.

I suppose most people know I've spent a great deal of time in my previous career as an historian and I sup pose one of my personal quir ks is that I tend to look at thi ngs in terms of their historical background; how they've evolved; how the situation has arrived at the state of today's affairs. Mr . Speaker, I would like to support this resolution, not only because the tax exemptions for the CPR, the reduced taxes for the CPR in Winnip eg, are an anach ronism in today's world, but also because it's a con stant reminder of a sordid and very unsavoury

chapter in Man itoba's past history. It's a

chapter I think we should be ashamed of but I don't think we should bury it and forget it. Mr . Speaker, in speaking about the events which brought about the development of Winnip eg as the metropolit an centre of Western Canada, and by that I mean the events which lead to the location of the CPR main line bridge in Winnip eg and the establishm ent of the shops and depot here. Mr . Speaker, between 18 73 and 18 78, the Li beral Govern ment took on the construction of the Pacific Rai lway as a public works.

During the Crow debate several weeks ago, one of the members opposite stood up and said that it proceeded very slowly, but I would say tha t it proceeded at the rate tha t the gov ernment found the money to build it. I think more important is th� approach that the Li beral Govern ment took to building this railroad.

They planned to buil d it in the national interest, not in the interest of a few people but in the national interest and, because of tha t, when it came to choosing the cross ing of the Red Ri ver they looked at the flood situation at Winnip eg and they looked at the flood situation at Selkirk and, based on strict engineeri ng studies, they decided that they would cross the Red Ri ver at Selki rk. 2974 Mr. Speaker, the people of Winnip eg weren't very happy about that and they continually lobb ied with the Federal Govern ment to change tha t location but the Li berals constantly refused.

However, in 18 78 when the Conservative Government under Sir John A. came back into power, the CPR syndicate was set up and the crossing of the Red Ri ver was changed to Winnip eg. Why? Well, Mr . Speaker, it's because there were a lot of people who had vested interests. It wasn't an engineering decision, it was a matter of priv ate interest. One of the major factors was the Hudson's Bay Company. The Hudson's Bay Company had 1, 750 acres of land in Winn ipeg.

That parcel of land which lies south of Notre Dame and north of the Assinib oine, from the Legisla ture to the Red Ri ver, and they realized that if the CPR crossed the Red Ri ver in Winnip eg that the metropolis would develop here and not in Selkir k and in Selkir k they didn 't have any land. So obviously they wanted a city here where they could speculate on the land and make a lot of money, so wha t they did was th ey had agents in Winn ipeg, based on their Jong experience in this country, write letters to the gov ernment stating that the flood problems weren't nearly as

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-67
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 67.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	158a8c115c3a92628079175b8808c32dcdf4a1d0

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