LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 Time - 2:00 p. m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER , Hon. Harry E. Graham (Bir tle­ Russell): The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege of the House. Mr. Speaker, I, of course can sense from the anguish from across the way that members of the gover nment are not looking forward to hearing more debate in respect to the matters pertaining to Hydro. But Mr. Speaker, important new evidence has come to light.

Important new evidence has come to light which discloses and confirms in fact that misleading statements were in deed made by the Mini ster res ponsible for Hydro and by officials of Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Speaker, it's my intention to deal with the misleading statements and also to present to this Cham ber the evidence pertai ning to the grossly misle ading state ments tha t were made by the Minis ter responsible for Hydro as well as the officials that were reporting for Manitoba Hydro before the committee dealing with Public Utilities on April 7th of this year. Mr.

Speaker, in order to do tha t it will be necessary for me to background the statements that were made in committee and subsequent to the statements that were presented in committee, the statements that were made in the House. Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, a question was posed by the Member for St. Vital as to whether or not a legal opinion had been sought or received by Manitoba Hydro. And on April 7th, in committee, the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro stated, on Page 11 2 of Hansa rd, and I quote his words in Hansard, "Mr. Chairman, as you can appreciate, I was not involved at the time.

The question was asked on Friday. Mr. Bl achford and membe rs of staff researched the minu tes, consulted the people that were inv olved at that time, and the an swer has been given by Mr. Blachford, and I thought that the answer had been complete." Then the Mi nis ter resp onsible for Hydro advised the committee, "Mr. Bla chford has reported that no legal opinion was requested from Hydro nor documented presumably with the Hydro Board, at least with regard to this matter. I don't know what further information can be relayed to the committe e." Mr.

Speaker, further, there was reference that was made by officials of Ma nitoba Hydro to having researched the minut es and as a result of their resea rching the minu tes they were satisfied tha t there was no reference to a legal opinion having been received or sought from Mr. Steward Martin.

On April 9, 19 81, on Page 2597 in Hansard, the Minis ter is reported as stating, and I quote, "There was a suggestion last night that legal counsel at that time was concerned about a numb er of things and that information I was aware of, but to go beyond that, and to suggest that this thing had gone to the point where there was a reco mmendation or a legal opinion that a certain course of action should be taken, was dealt with last day, I think dealt with adequately by Hydro who did say that a legal opinion was not sought and was not documented." And I again underline the words, "was not sought and was not docu mented." The debate continued in the House on April 9th in this Chamber, before you, Mr.

Speaker, in respect to this matter of privilege. On April 9th, the Minister, on Page 2596 in Hansard in reference to myself, as Leader of the Opposition, stated, "He seems to be trying to make a point that somehow I received a legal opinion either directly or ind irectly from chief legal counsel, and even though he's told that it is not the case, he keeps coming back to it and he wants to say it over and over and over again and he insists tha t I never ans wered it.

" Then the Min ister resp onsible for Hydro further states that ind eed, "Chief Legal Counsel had departed from the services of Manitoba Hydro" and he adds that Chief Legal Counsel for Hydro was "disturbed about matters" and acknowl edges that Chief Legal Counsel was disturbed about matters. And then he continues, "and that somehow I intervened in this matter is just so much nonsense." Furthermore, the Mi nis ter respo nsible for Hydro states, "The Leader of the Opposition talks about stonewal ling.

Well, there was every possible effort made to assist them," and the Minister resp onsible for Hydro was making reference to the questions and an swers that were given by officials of Manitoba Hydro as well as himself in committee on April 7th. Then further on page 2597, the Min ister states ". . . that there was a question at the time of legal couns el at Hydro being distur bed about the progress, or lack of it, of events with regard to the work of Tri tschle r Inqui ry Comm issio n.

He was concerned about a numb er of things that I know he relayed, as has been indica ted to the Board of the former Chairman, some of those were related to me." Then he further says, "Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I was never presented with a legal opinion ." The Premier in speaking to this Cham ber on April 14 th, 19 81, and I regret the Premier is not present this afternoon, said in reference to the motion that was then presented in this Chamber that they had been confronted with a ". . . trumped-up issue that my honourable friend thinks is the biggest thing that's happened to him in his life.

I can only say if my hono urable friends ha ve any evidence tha t is wor thwhile, signed under oath, that is the Member for St. Johns talks about und er oath and smiles in his own cat-like way ... ", typical of the First Minister's side remarks during the course of his address, but he states that we are dealing with ". . . unsigned letters or things of that sort. Now if my hono urable friends can docu ment anyth ing of substance with respect to this issue of fabrications that they've put forward so far, then the House I'm sure would be prepared to give it another look.

But on the basis of the non -evidence that has appeared thus far, my honourable friends are really wasting 2919

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 their time and the time of this House ... " is the words that were uttered by the First Minister. Mr. Speaker, so what we have had throughout, in

summary, is statements by the officials of Manitoba Hydro; tha t the y ha d searched the mi nute s of Manitoba Hydro; that as a result of -(l nterje ction)­ yes and as the Mini ster of Natural Resour ces states, there were none. Yes we were told that there were no minu tes relating to this matter that we raised in Comm ittee.

We were advised of that by the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro and the Mini ster said that we had received total an d adequate answers pertai ning to the fact that the officials at Manitoba Hydro have reported back that th ere was no information on record in Manitoba Hydro, nor, and the y added, had the y been able to find any information from other sources. The Minis ter then went on during the course of the discussions, both in Committee and in this House, to reluctantly over a space of time to admit that he was made aware of disturbances and of concerns by Chi ef Legal Counsel, one Steward Mar tin.

Throughout the Minis ter had denied tha t he had received legal opinion or recommendations, at any time, pertai ning to the matter of Mani toba Hydro. So the issues are clear as to the background of this material and this motion that we're dealing with, Mr. Speaker. Straight statements - the Mini ster not aware of any opinion, no t aware of any recommendations.

The officials at Manitoba Hydro before the Committee, indica ted to the Committee that there were no records of minu tes, nor did they have any information that inde ed legal opinion had been presented to the Board of Manitoba Hydro or had at any time been dealt with, neither sought nor received. That is the position that we arrive at today, Mr. Speaker.

We have attempted through various motions in this Chamber to have this matter dealt with by other committees outside of this Chamber so that we could call all material witnesses to that committee, so that we could wipe away the cover-up and the stonewal ling that has taken place over the past two weeks. All that, Mr. Speaker, has been to no avail and all that we have received by way of response, Mr. Speaker, is the govern ment members whipping their members into line to defeat us by way of votes in this Chamber, again and again, Mr. Speaker. Or, Mr.

Speaker, we have been told by the First Min ister that · we can go to hell; that we can go to hell. That has been the substance of the First Minis ter's comments in this Chamber, except, and I now take the First Min ister who is not in his seat unfortunately, up on the fact that he indica ted that if members did come forward to this Cham ber with some add itional evidence, then members would take a look at that additional evidence. He suggested that the document that the Member for St. Vital had tabled in the House, indeed was not evidence and was not a written legal opinion. Mr.

Speaker, I want to deal with a minu te of Manitoba Hydro, and it was repor ted to us that no minute existed of Manitoba Hydro in committee; a minute of January 11 th, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, in the board room of Manitoba Hydro at 820 Taylot Avenue, Winnip eg, Manitoba. Present at that meeting was the Vice-Chairman of Manitoba Hydro at the time, Martin Wedepohl, J. S. Anderson, 2920 Arnold Brown, J. Hoogstraten, and Mr. Dennis Scott. And the minute is num bered 491- 79-16 , and I want to read that min ute into the records of Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

The Vice-Chairman stated that he had a meeting with the corporation's special counsel, Mr. W. S. Marti n, QC. Mr. Martin had ind icated that there were a nu mb er of aspects of the Comm ission's work which caused him concern. In this connection he had drafted a letter which if the Board concu rred he would forward to the com mi ssioner.

The Vic e­ Chairman stated that he had discussed the matter with the Mini ster respo nsible for Manitoba Hydro, Donald Crai k, and that they had agreed, and I repeat, and that the y had agreed - making reference to himself as Vice-Chairman of Manitoba Hydro and the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, Donald Craik, that they had agreed that it would be ina ppropriate, inap propriate, Mr. Speaker, is the word used in the minu te for such a letter to be sent, particularly as it could result in a delay in the proceedings; a delay in the proceedings. After discussion the Board concu rred. Mr.

Speaker, what we have by way of mi nute, which min ute, Mr. Speaker, it was denied ever existed. Which min ute, Mr. Speaker, was denied on the part of officials for Manitoba Hydro in which the Mini ster, Mr. Speaker, said never existed and which the Min ister said that the officials of Manitoba Hydro had an swered totally and full y when the y told the mem bers of the committee that no min ute existed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, said that no such minute existed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I bring to you the min ute of the records of Manitoba Hydro, Minute 491 -79- 16 which clearly, Mr.

Speaker, su bstantia tes the claim of Members of the Opposition have been pressing for the past two weeks that there was a letter that was brought to Manitoba Hydro by Chief Legal Counsel that Chief Legal Counsel expressed concerns about the proceedings of the Tritschler Commission and that that letter was discussed by the Vice-Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro with the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, and the result of that meeting according to the minute, there had been agreement. Agreement that -(I nterje ction)- Mr.

Speaker, I don't pay much attention to mem bers across the way because they have been saying for the past two weeks that no minute existed, that no evidence existed, Mr. Speaker, and Manitobans just don't take them seriously any more. Mr. Speaker, Manitobans take cover-ups seriously, they take stonew alling seriously and, Mr. Speaker, let me warn members across the way that they'd better now come straight.

They'd better now come straight so we can obtain the truth of this matter before a commitee of the Legislature in which this minute can be forwarded to that committee, so that we can ensure that all material witnesses are brought to that committee because, Mr. Speaker, the First Mini ster laughe d this aside last week, said there's no evidence, referred to the Member for St. Vital as bringing in unsigned letter into this Chamber. Mr.

Speaker, in case members suggest that the letter isn't a legal opinion, what it in dicates that 30-some members across the way, 30-some members across the way have done little better than the Mini ster respo nsible for Manitoba Hydro in that they have gone home and watched the Gong Show for the past

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 week rather than read the letter that was tabled in this Chamber. Because the letter details, Mr. Sp eaker, that indeed a legal opinion that the proceedings had gone beyond what was equitable, what was fair, that the proceedings in fact were of a Star Chamber manner, that some of the practices that were engaged in were as such that would have been better expected of Gestapo agents in the Second World War and, Mr. Speaker, in addition I say to honourable members, that that legal opinion recommended court action to be taken and that letter, accord ing to the minutes, - and, Mr.

Speaker, for members to continue to deny is to argue the height of the ridiculous - was taken up with the Minister responsible for Hydro and as a result of the Vice-Chairman for Manitoba Hy dro discussing that letter containing legal opinion with the Minister responsible for Hydro, it was agreed that it would not be - what are the words? That it would not be appropriate - appropriate to undertake any further actions pertaining to the letter. Mr. Speaker, we also have a letter from the Vice­ Chairman in today's paper, and, Mr.

Speaker, although the Vice-Chairman denies that there was any interference on the part of the Minister, doesn't go as far as the minute of Manitoba Hydro insofar as discussion as to any agreement with the Minister. What indeed the letter does indicate is that, yes, the opinion of Chief Legal Counsel was discussed with the Minister responsible for Hydro and that as a result of that discussion, the Vice-Chairman did return to the Board and he says that he took the responsibility for recommending that no action be undertaken.

He doesn't include in his letter, of course, the reference that as a result of the meeting with the Minister, the Minister and he both agreed that it would be inappropriate for any further steps to be undertaken. So, Mr. Speaker, I now place to members across the way the question, and they will have to answer this question along with other questions. First, Mr. Speaker, I would be interested as to whether the Minister responsible for Hydro has yet read the letter that has been referred to by members on this side of the Chamber.

As the memb er continued to watch the Gong Show, rather than - and if the Minister has indeed ripped himself away from the Gong Show, Mr. Speaker, and if he has had opportunity to read that letter, does it indeed remind him of a discussion that he had some time back with the Vice-Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, Martin Wedepohl? That's question number one.

Question numb er two - is he now prepared to recognize officials of Manitoba Hydro, despite earlier denials, and as per the letter in today's Free Press by the_ former Vice-Chairman that a special meeting of Manitoba Hydro was held to deal with the letter of legal opinion from Chief Legal Counsel? Are they now prepared to acknowledge that a special meeting of Manitoba Hydro's Board was held for that very purpose?

Further, are they now prepared to acknowledge that a letter was written and that letter did contain legal opinion and recommendations, or are members still going to claim that there was no written legal opinion, that there was no written letter, that there was no opinion, that there were no 2921 recommendations, that all that indeed was taking place was a disturbance on the part of Chief Legal Counsel Steward Martin, and that he left Manitoba Hydro for unk nown rea son, of which it was speculated by the Minister responsible for Hydro that it was illness on the part of Chief Legal Counsel, Steward Martin.

And most important, Mr. Speaker, now that we have brought to this Chamber a minute of Manitoba Hydro which we were informed some two weeks ago did not exist and which, Mr. Speaker, I only just this morning had opportunity to receive and to read, and that's why the Motion of Privilege, at this point. Is the Minister now going to be true to his words in this House, that he now has evidence from the minute book of Manitoba Hy dro, su bstantiating basically the claims by the Opposition in this Chamber, is he now prepared to call a committee of the Legislature to obtain the truth of this matter?

That is now the question. Or instead are we going to witness the continued ducking by the mem bers across the way of their responsibility? Will we continue to observe their nervous hiding of what they ought to be opening up with as fact; are we going to continue to witness? Mr. Speaker, I mentioned ten days ago that before the government was finished on this matter, Mr. Speaker, they would twist and they would squirm. Mr. Speaker, they have been twisting and they have been squirming for the past ten days.

I would suggest it would be a more fruitful exercise on the part of the government if they would squirm their way into a committee room so we could bring the material witnesses to that committee room so we could we obtain the truth of that matter. It would be more effective; it would be more fruitful. If members felt there wasn't evidence previously, there is now evidence, Mr. Speaker, there is now evidence and for members -( Interjec tion)- It just makes one wonder, Mr. Speaker, about credibility and whether there is any credibility that is left on the part of any of the members across the way.

And I except the Member for Rhineland from my comment because the Member for Rhineland did demonstrate credibility on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I except him from my comments. But, Mr. Speaker, is there any credibility left on the part of members across the way? Are they now prepared to state, now that we have found out there is a minute, a minute that had earlier been denied by officials of Manitoba Hydro and by the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, now that we've discovered that minute does exist - yes, now is the time for this matter to be referred to comm ittee. Mr.

Speaker, wha t we are challenging the members across the way is to be true to some principle. We are challenging the members across the way to be open. We are challenging the members across the way to place all documents on a table. We are challenging members across the way to bring witnesses before a comm ittee to give sworn evidence. Mr. Speaker, we are pr epared to state our credibility on a committee in order to deal with these matters. Mr. Speaker, what is the government afraid of? What is the government attempting to avoid? Mr.

Speaker, I can only conclude that the government is afraid of the truth, the truth, and that's why they

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 have been twisting and squirming for the past two weeks and, Mr. Speaker, rather than deal with this matter in the manner that would be expected of a responsible government, I anticipate they will twist and they will squirm for the next two weeks, the next month, the next year on this matter, as they continue to avoid, Mr. Speaker, dealing with this matter in a truthful and an open fashion. Mr.

Speaker, I am left with no alternative but to move the following motion: WH EREAS there is evidence now in the hands of the Members of the Legislative Assembly which shows that the Deputy Premier knew about and expressed his views about the letter prepared by special couns el for Ma nitob a Hydro expressing concerns about the Tritschler Commission, and; WH ER EAS the Chairman of Ma nitoba Hydro, General Manager of Manitoba Hydro and Deputy Premier, stated before a committe of the House that the min utes of the Manitoba Hydro Board did not ind icate any evidence that the special counsel had commun icated his opinion regarding the Tritschler Commission, and; WHE REAS the Deputy Premier has stated that he had no knowledge of a letter prepared by special counsel and that he did not inte rfere in Manitoba Hydro's legal affairs, and; WHERE AS there is need for evidence from the former special coun sel to Ma nitob a Hydro, Mr.

Steward Martin, and from the former members of the Manitoba Hydro Board to explain the misleading statements made by the Deputy Premier and others; THERE FORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be autho rized to enquire into: (

a) Manitoba Hydro Board minute No. 49 1- 79- 16 - and I repeat that for members across the way, No. 491 -79- 16 - and other matters regard ing legal advice to Manitoba Hydro regard ing the Tritschler Commission; (

b) possible breach by the Comm ission of its alleged terms of reference or the rules of natural justice; (

c) the Deputy Premier's acknowledged inaction regarding Manitoba Hydro's position vis-a-vis the Commission, and; (

d) all other matters arising from the letter prepared by special counsel and allegations made regarding this matter. I move, and seconded by the Memb er for St. Johns. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osb orne): Mr. Speaker, I firstly through you, Sir, request the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to table the minute that he has referred to. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Member for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, the minu tes of Hydro are a matter of public reco rd.

The committee heard evidence from the chief executive officer of Manitoba Hydro that they are available. I can in form the Honour able House Leader that I attended at Hydro yesterday. I saw the minu tes. They are in a book, they are bound, and they are there, and I think this committee would certainly have them when it is referred to the committee and there is therefore, Mr. Speaker, no need, I believe, to table a do cument of public record and therefore, Mr . Speaker, I don't see the point. If the member wants, as a request, he can get it later or he can get if from Hydro itself. MR. SPEAKER: Order.

The Honourable Government House Leader on the point of order. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's clearly established in the rules of this Chamber that any document referred to by a member during a speech at the request of another member should be tabled, and I am simply asking for same as a cour tesy. I don't happen to have a copy of the minute he has referred to, and either I or another member on this side might like to refer to it in speaking to this Matter of Privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Sp eaker, rather than - (I nterject ion) . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on the point of order. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that members like to talk about cover-up when in fact they have access to the minutes. If their Minister had done his homework we wouldn't be placed in this position today. Mr. Speaker, I will forward to the House Leader a copy of minute 49 1- 79- 16 for his assistance. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake on a point of order. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, I think I saw visibly where he had two sheets together, attached together, from the document he read, and he split them and he picked up another sheet, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not sure that the Attorney-General is giving the information that he read from. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I just wouldn't want the Member for Rock Lake to lose any sleep about that missing page.

I would send to the House Leader, who may share the first page of the reference to meetings of the members of the Manitoba Hydro­ Electric Board held Thur sday, January 11, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock in the Board Room, 820 Taylor Avenue, in the City of Win nipeg in the Province of Manitoba, in dicating the members that were present at that meeting. I'm prepared to send that page to the House Leader, Mr. Speaker. I would appr eciate, so that the Member for Rock Lake doesn't lose any sleep, that the House Leader do share that first page with . 2922

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Member for Rock Lake on a point of order. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the same point of order. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition di stinc tly had two sheets of paper attached together on the document that he was reading from, which the Attorney-General asked him to table, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition table the two sheets that he had, which he read from in the beginning of his speech. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. I stated what I believe are the rules, that a public document may not be tabled. However, the Leader of the Opposition, the next First Mini ster, did send the copies that were in his hands to the Leader of the House, and now that the Member for Rock Lake is challenging the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that, too, should be referred to the Committee of Public Utilities so that we can ascertain whether or not these minu tes are truly minu tes.

I expect the Member for Rock Lake to support me, that this be sent there to check on whether these minutes are in truth copies of the mi nutes. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake on a point of order. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the same point of order, since I heard the comments of the Member for St. Johns, and I'm hearing echoes that I should apologize. Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of apologizing. I think I unde rstand the rules of this House . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The honourable member did not have a point of order.

The Honour able Government House Leader on the point of order. MR. MERCIER: On the matter of privilege, Mr . Speaker, raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition . . . MR. SPEAKI;R: There is no matter of privilege yet before the Ho use. The honourable member had no point of order? I would like to have the opportunity to also look at the document that was the basis for the point of privilege raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The matter raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, I accepted his word that it was only this morning he received it, that it was the first opportunity he had to raise the matter. In that respect I believe the resolution he has put forward is in order and it would appear from the printed two sheets of paper I have here, which are not identified, that there is sufficient grounds for a prima facie case to be made. MOTION presented, QUESTION pu t. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the mere fact that there is no inclina tion on the part of government members to speak on this motion, that either they will accept it and move the matter into commit tee, or else they will just continue to stonewall it by using their majority to suppress any efforts to obtain further informati on. I would be pleased, Mr.

Speaker, to save the time of the House and not participate in the debate if there was an indic ation from the Ho use Leader that the motion is being accepted and ther efore there is no need to debate it further. But failing an ind ication from the government side that they are prepared to accept the motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to elabo rate somewhat then on this. I felt, Mr. Speaker, that Mr.

Ste ward Martin had clearly ind icated a point of view, and clearly felt that there ought to be some public method by which it could be brought to the attention of the public and of the Tritschler Comm ission tha t it was going beyond the bounds of what was expected of them. I believe that was done and I belie ved further that that information was commun icated to Hydro Board and Hydro Board decided in its wisdom not to author ize this to proceed. I believe that from what I saw before me and that was really the unsigned, seven-page docu ment which clearly was a dr aft of a letter add ressed to the Commission. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I volunte ered to and did, go to the Hydro offices, yesterday aftern oon , and I requested accesss to the Mi nut e Books. I was informed that there were certain rules to be foll owed in relation ... for example, Mr. Speaker, I could not make a copy of the minu tes. I could only make notes on the minutes, so I made notes on the minu tes, rather extensive, and I reviewed them. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the min utes that preceded the one that you have just seen deal with the Tritschler Commission from time to time. For example, back on November 10 th, 1978, Mr.

Bateman had produced a statement which he pr op osed to make to the Tritschler Commission and it was concurred in by the Board and the statement is attached as a

schedule to the Minu tes. The next meeting on December 13 th did not refer to the Tritschler Commission, but then the meeting of December 19th did indeed have a report from the Chairman, who was Mr. Bateman, who stated that he had recently had a meeting with Messrs. Martin and Smellie rela ting to the Tritschler Inquir y. Now, this was with both gentlemen.

They ind icated tha t in view of evidence which the Chairman and other members of the task force had given to the Commis sion that there could be a conflict between their responsibility as counsel to the corporation and their responsibility as counsel for indi vidual empl oyees including the Chairman, and they thereupon offered to withd raw. The Chairman stated tha t he had in dependentl y come to the conclusion that he should engage his own personal legal counsel. The minu te reads to the effect tha t after discussion, members of the Board agreed that they were satisfied with Martin and Smellie and that no 2923

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 conflict of int erest presently exists which would require them to withdraw. And the Board requested the secretary to arrange an early meeting with counsel so members could be briefed. Following a telephone call, the secretary advised that counsel would be available to meet with them at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minutes then conclude with a statement that the Board adjourned at 12 :52 and the minu tes do no t ind icate that meeting with counsel which was to be held the same afternoon of December 19th. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have reason to believe that the meeting was held, but there is no record of that meeting in the minu tes. I'm assuming that there was a decision to call it informal or whatever but there are no minu tes of that meeting although I do belie ve the meeting was held. Mr. Speaker, on January 3rd, there was a special meeting at which Mr. Wedepohl was present as was the Honourable Don Craik and it was stated at the mee ting as recorded in the mi nu tes that Mr. Wedepohl was appointed Vice-Chairman by Order-in­ Council 11 94/7 dated December 20th, 1978 and then item 490-79-3 of the minutes refers to Mr.

Craik stating th at Ord er-i n-Council 12 02/78 da ted December 28, 1978 revoked the appointment of Mr. Bateman and states that Mr. Craik explained the reason. Mr. Speaker, incidently, the reasons given by Mr. Craik were not referred to in the minu tes. And then there is mention that Mr. Fraser was appointed Chief Operating Officer and there was also in the minu tes this statement, Item 490-79-5 that the termination of Bateman's employment might cause concern amongst the staff of Hydro and they called in Mr. Mill s to the meeting ... MR.

SPEAKER: May I suggest to the honourable member that he stick to the subject matter which is before the House - the Resolution that was moved, and seconded by himself. I belie ve the information he is giving at the pr esent time bears very little resemblance to the Resolution before him. MR. CHERNIACK: On your point, I did not read the motion as you read it but listening to it, it seems to me that it ind icates that the committee should deal with other matters relating to the letter. And I want to point out to you certain matters in the letter related to that these minutes deal with.

Let me just conclude that I said that Mr. Mills was instructed to prepare a message to the staff of Hydro reaffirming the Board's confidence in the staff. Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason I mention this is that there was apparently a meeting between the Board and Counsel on the afternoon of December 19th. Mr. Bateman was fired by Order-in-Cou ncil December 28th; that's nine days later. The dra ft letter which has been made available to everybody which appears to be a draft of a letter to the Commission refers to Mr.

Bate man's employment having been termina ted which means that that draft had to have been written after the meeti ng was held on December 19 th and indeed after December 28th when Mr. Bateman was dismis sed, di scharged. That's the reason I referred to that. Now there's a meeting of January 11 th, 19 79, which is the meeting referred to by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, and there was the statement that the Vice-Chairman had met with Martin; Martin had ind icated a numb er of aspects which caused him concern and dr afted a letter which if the Board concurred, he would forward to the Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, the important point is that that draft letter was not subm itted to the Board immediately it was received, the Board wasn't meeting, but it was taken to Mr. Craik to the Honourable the Deputy Premier, and it was discus sed with him, if one is to belie ve the minutes of Hydro or what was report ed by the Vice-Chairman. lt was di scussed as he said. He di scussed the letter with the Deputy Premier and they had agreed that it would be inap propriate for such a letter to be sent particularly as it could result in a dela y in the pr oceed ings. Mr.

Sp eaker, I int erpola te now to say tha t obviously they are anxious to see that the proceed ings proceed without dela y and wha t the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition did not read, but which you or the House Leader have before them, is the very next paragraph. "The Vice-Chairman stated, he had discussions with Richard J. Scott, Q.C., counsel for the Commissioner to discuss matters related to the future work of the Commissi on." Mr.

Speaker, I pause again and I wonder, and I really would like to know, just what was it that was bei ng dis cussed between the Vice-C hairman of Hydro and Counsel to the Tritschler Commission in relation to future work of the Commission. I don't know, but he stated - now I go back to the mi nutes - "The Vice-C hairman stated it was a cordial meeting, and he received the distinct impression that the Commission was anxious to bring this business to a speedy conclusion." Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important that we were given the impression that the Honourable the Deputy Premier didn't know anything about it, then we were given the impression that a numb er of matters were di scussed by Dr. Wedepohl with the Deputy Premier, amongst which was somet hing about the concerns of Mr. Martin, but no reference to a letter.

The Deputy Premier and the Premier and other members question the actual existence of such a letter, and when it was subm itted or when a dr aft of a letter was submitted, they rejected it as being trumped-up, as being - well, we've discussed this before - fabricated, and now we find the records of Hydro clearly show there was a dr aft letter. They clearly show that the draft letter was discussed with the Deputy Premier. That's clear. There is no draft letter attached to the minutes. True. If the dr aft letter indeed was attached to the minutes, then, Mr. Speaker, there would not be a problem.

We would know the truth about the whole story, but it's not attached and I find no fault and make no comment about it, other than to say that it welsn't there an d there wasn't even mention of the fact that the dra ft letter was submitted to the Board itself. Wh at the minute says is that th e letter was submitted to the Vice-Chairman by Mr. Martin; that the Vice-Chairman di scussed the letter with the Deputy Premier; that they agreed that it would be inappr opriate and he so reported to the Board and the first sentence, "After di scussion the Board concurred." Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if the Deputy Premier had made any thr eats about the Board , but if there were any suggestions of that type, then that would 2924

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 be the occasion, I assume, when it may have been discussed , and the members who were present were Messrs. Wedepohl, Anderson, Brown, Hoogstraten and Scott and we don't kno w what transpir ed other than is in the minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get to the truth of this. In essence what does it mean? lt means that special counsel to Hydro, if that letter was his, which I belie ve it was, and I believe the Member for ln kster became a part-time amateur -(I nterje ction)- not an amateur.

He became a part-time handwriting expert and tells us that it appears clearly that this was a draft dealt with and prepared by Mr. Martin. What it does is critici ze severely the manner in which Mr. Tritschler conduc ted himself at the Commission; the manner in which Mr. Richard Scott conducted himself at the Commission Hearings and the way Mr. Scott dealt with witnesses dur ing the prelimin ary examinations and all that was designed to ind icate the opinion of Mr. Martin, that the Commission was exceeding its authority and going beyond the Terms of Reference. Mr.

Speaker, I suppose it's self-ser ving, but I can't help but tell you that having read that letter, which I believe to be a dr aft prepared by Mr. Martin, I went back to my own file s deal ing wit h my own appearanc e before the Commission and, Mr . Speaker, I attended at an examination by Mr. Scott in the office of the Commission, a prelimina ry before the Commission itself, and I ans wered questions of Mr. Scott and dealt with questions he asked. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I am wondering what relevance this line of remarks has to the matter before us. lt doesn't seem very relevant or germane to the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the Ho nourable Government House Leader are indeed well taken. I do apprecia te some of the private, intima te life of the Hon ourable Member for St. Johns, but I don't believe it is part of the privilege that is presently before us. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter of privilege before us is the letter, the dr aft letter, which was prepared by Mr. Martin, or ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The question before us is not the dr aft letter. That has been already dealt with by this Chamber. The Honour able Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I was going to complete my sentence with was to say that it was whether or not that draft letter was reviewed by the Deputy Premier, and whether he commented on it, and whether he discussed it with Mr. Wedepohl, and that's the letter we're talking about. We were told bring proof that there was such a letter and then that it was in deed truly something prepared by Mr. Martin.

Proof was asked for and the minute was produced, which does ind icate there was a draft. I just wanted to ind icate, Mr. Speaker, that I wrote a letter to Mr. Scott following on the nature of his 2925 examination and the way he dealt with my int erview and I received a reply from Mr. Scott, which I believe supports that my opinion on December 5th, which is before all this took place, was in accord with the dr aft of the letter by Mr. Martin. That's all I wanted to indi cate, but, of course, if it serves as a matter of greater concern for the House Leader, I will not pr oceed with it. All I'm saying, Mr.

Speaker, is the peculiar position that this House finds itself in with this entire matter. lt started with an opinion of legal counsel. lt's ending up now with a whole question of the acceptability of the statements being made to the House and to Committee by the senior persons of Hydro, who were not part of the meetings that took pla ce, but did say that they looked through the minu tes and the Deputy Premier hims elf. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it's becoming more and more of an important matter and when originally the Leader of the Opposition called it Hydro gate, ind icating the cover-up of the intent of Richard Nixon in Watergate, I thought it was a glib phra se, but, Mr. Speaker, it's becoming more and more a serious matter, much more than it was at the beginning and all of it because of the fear or reluctance of the gov ernment to partici pate in an open form of government. This reso lution before us provides for an open form of govern ment. Mr .

Speaker, if the meeting had been held as originally suggested, the matter would have behind us; it would have taken a couple of hours of the Committee's time; it would have been dealt with and the public would have judged whether or not Mr. Martin did prepare the letter and whether or not he was right in his opinion. Now we've spent a great deal of time in the democratic process, on behalf of the Opposition, in an effort to make sure that there is an opportunity for the people of Manitoba to find out through its legisla tive function, whether or not there is truth to the statements that had been made in the past.

And now it became a question the other day of the credibility of the Memb er for St. Vital, now it is constantly a question, not only the credibility of the Deputy Premier, but the credibility of all members who are denying the opportunity of the democratic process to refer the matter to committee for review and for investigation as set out in this reso lution. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition, I'v e tried to listen carefully to the remarks and questions and answers that have been given in this House over the past numb er of days with respect to this matter, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that firstly, I would submit, that there have not been, to my understanding or my knowledge, any evidence of any statements made that have been inconsis tent. We are asked in this motion, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the Standing Committee on Public Utiliti es, four matters: (

a) The Manitoba Hydro Board minu te which the Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition tabled in the House, or at least provided me with a copy of, and it's interesting to compare that minute, Mr. Speaker, with the Letter to the Editor in today's edition of the Winn ipeg Free Press. And for the

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 record of the House, there are parts of that letter to the editor from the former Vice-Chairman of the Hydro Board that I would wish to read into the record. He ind icates in his letter that early in Janu ary of 19 79 he became aware of Steward Martin's proposal to challenge the Commission of Inquiry because of his grie vances associated with the Commission in his role as legal counsel for Manitoba Hydro. He states, "I myself was shocked at his proposed course of action, namely to challenge the Terms of Reference of the Commission in the Mani toba courts.

The morale of Manitoba Hydro was at that time very low and declining. lt was my considered opinion that the best thing for us to do was to cooperate with the Comm ission of In qu iry, which was a properly constituted body, ... " A MEMBER: That's the Vice-C hairman speaking now. MR. MERCIER: . . . "in order to bring this phase of the corpora tion's history to a steady conclusion without compromising the integrity of the corporation or its staff. In my opinion the intervention proposed by Mr. Martin would have had no effect other than to protract the inqui ry and would not serve the best int erest of the utility.

With hindsight I believe that I was right and if called on to consider the situation today I would not find any reason to change my then reaction. "I informed the Minis ter about my viewpoint and my intent to so reco mmend to the Board. I also informed him of the general nature of Mr. Martin's grie van ces contai ned in his sub mission to the Board." lt doesn't say, Mr. Speaker, that he provided him with a copy of any opinion or a copy of any proposal, he informed him of the general nature, and certai nly no legal opinion. MR.

MERCIER: "Su bsequently, at a special meeting of the Board, my recommendation was ratified, the proposal was taken no further, and that as far as I was concerned was the end of the matter. "I am therefore very puzzled by the suggestion that there were threats by the Mini ster, since the course of action taken was in accordance with my recommendation in the first place." He then goes on to make certain remarks about some ina ccurate · reporting, in his view. Mr.

Speaker, it's clear from this statement, from the Vice-Chairman of Manitoba Hydro that he had made a decision, he had come to a recommendation on his own concerning Steward Martin's proposal, informed the Mini ster, and subequently informed the Board. The min utes, and I take them to be the accurate minu tes of the meeting that you ind icated earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is not hing official to ind icate they are the minutes, but I assume they are the minutes. They, Mr. Sp eaker, ind icated that he ha d discussed a letter from Mr.

Martin with the Mini ster responsible for Manitoba Hydro and they had agreed that it would be inappr opriate for such a letter to be sent, particularly as it could result in the delay in the proceedings. After discussion, the Board concurred. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing inconsistent in those minutes with the letter to the editor today from Dean Wedep ohl, nor with any previous stat ement, I su ggest, by the Deputy Premier, the Mini ster responsible for Manitoba Hydro. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the motion by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition goes on, in paragraph (b), to have the Standing Committee on Public Utiliti es inquire into possible breach by the Commission of its alleged Terms of Reference of the rules of natural justice. Mr. Sp eaker, I think tha t is very in appropr iate. The former Vice -Chairman of the Board had some re commenda tions or material before him apparently, he made a decision on it as to the proper course of action, he took it to the Board, the Board approved his reco mmendation, Mr.

Speaker, so I submit to you th at ther e is no substantia tion, no justification for proceeding with that kind of an inquiry by the Standing Committee. Mr. Speaker, the motion goes on, in paragraph (

c) to have the Standing Committee inq uire into the Deputy Premier's acknowledged inaction regard ing Manitoba Hydro's position vis-a-vis the Commission and indeed, Mr. Speaker, I fail to un derstand why that is included in the motion. The letter from Mr. Wedepohl indic ates in fact that Mr. Wedepohl had come to the conclusion not to challenge the Terms of Reference of the Commission. He had made that decision, he informed the Mini ster, he recommended that to the Board and the Board concurred - (I nterje ction)- MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The Ho nour able Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, one thing that no one has mentioned and I'm amazed that no one has mentioned it, certainly members do mention it when they think it appropriate to their objective at the time, we're asked in this inquiry it would appear, by the Standing Committee, to look into legal advice to Manitoba Hydro. Now, Mr. Speaker, and I am saying this as a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, there are many people who would say that you could give the same facts to ten different lawyers and pay them for ten different opinions, and you'd get ten di fferent opinions. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have here a situation in which apparently there was some advice of some kind, some kind of proposal from Mr. Martin, on which the Vice- Chairman of the Board made a decision, informed the Minister, recommended action to the Board of Mani toba Hydro, not to challenge the Terms of Reference and the Board concu rred in that rec ommendation, Mr . Sp eaker. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no basis here for any enquiry by Standing Committee or anyone else.

I think the letter in today's edition of the Winn ipeg Free Press by Dean Wedepohl, which is not inc onsistent at all with the minu tes, which have been tabled in this Ho use by the Leader of the Opposi tion, clearly outline what happened. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention in these min utes of a legal opinion, just a reference to a meeting by the Vice-Chairman with the Corpora tion's special counsel, Mr. Martin, in which he ind icated certain aspects of the Commission's work caused him concern. So, Mr.

Speaker, I submit to you, Sir, that there is nothing before the House, nothing before the members of this House, which justify the enquir y that 2926

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 is referred to in the motion of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. There is not, to my kno wledge at this time, any evidence of any incons istent statements by the Deputy Premier, as a matter of fact that the Leader of the Opposition refers to some comments that no legal opinion was requested or sought, certainly is not in any way inconsistent with a legal opinion coming forward, without any request. So, Mr . Speaker, there's no evidenc e of any incons istency and sta tements. There is a clear indic ation now, from the letter from Mr.

Wedepohl, as to the cou rse of events that took place. They substantiate the Deputy Premier's position and, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the evidence before the Chamb er at this particular time, I can see no other way for the government to deal with this matter than to defeat the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Memb er for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this matter into perspective in sofar as I'm concerned. Mr.

Sp eaker, we are dealing with a situation which results from a lawyer giving a Board certain advice which was then not foll owed and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I tell my friends in the government, that I respect that. Indeed more than respect that, I would do it and get it. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when the members of the Water Commission and one of them is in this room, said that they were going to go beyond their Terms of Reference and said that they were going to conduct their proceedings in a certain way, I put it on the record in writing, that if ... MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease.

May I ask the honourable member to confine his things to this, rather than bring in the Water Commision and various other un related matters. MR. GREEN: If a member is not allow ed to present historical analogies and historical alternatives then, Mr. Speaker, I think that the debate in the House would become even mo re mun dane than it is already. I don't intend to be a contributor to that. I want to tell the members that in writing and then tabled in the House, I told the Commission, that if they Wil-nted to proceed that way I would withd raw the reference and refer it to somebody else and, Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you that I respect the right of a government to do it, not only do I respect it, I guard it and would want to do it myself and would not want to take it away from the Cons ervative Government. Mr. Speaker, I don't need the credibility of Steward Martin and I'm no t saying tha t that's no t a worthwhile addition to some, but I do not need the credibility of Steward Martin to debunk the Tritschler Commission, because that has already been done and there isn't one thing that's contained in that reference, Mr. Speaker, that Mr.

Martin made to the Board of Directors of Manitoba Hydro, that I did not make in this House and more, Mr. Speaker, and more, that all of those things, that are contained in Mr. Martin's report, are things that I said without seeing that report, Mr . Speaker, just seeing the actions and the report of the Tritschler Commission. So there may be some that feel that this gives an additional debunking to the Tritschler Commission 2927 but I don't think the Tritschler Commission has any credibili ty left in any event. So I am not concerned, Mr.

Speaker, with trying to resurr ect this already dead Commission for the purpose of trying to attract credibility to a position which I don't feel the least bit needing of credibi li ty on, becaus e it's the government that needs cre dibili ty on that issue, not the Opposition. But there is one issue, Mr. Speaker, and that issue stems from the Mini ster and his Chairman, before Commission, making it appear that this did not happen. Well, Mr.

Speaker, not only is that an issue in itself, but when one looks at the history and one has this Min ister, this Deputy Premier, firing a civil servant of some 40 years st anding, before the Commission had made any findi ngs, Mr. Speaker ... Mr. Bateman went before Commission and was pursued by a lawyer into making a false statement, Mr.

Speaker, or a statement which the lawyer said was false, because the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro happened to say that a report which was open to anybody; he used the word "recommendatio n" and the lawyer thought there was no recommendation and he should have used the word "findings" and on that basis, Mr. Speaker, this Mini ster fired a man before the Commission had commented on whether in fact there had been misleading of the Board and got rid of that civil servant. Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister did and what his main Chairman did, Mr.

Kristjanson, were far more an example of misleading of a Commission than anything Bateman did and, Mr. Speaker, I say what's good for the goose, is good for the Deputy Premier. Why is not Kristjanson fired? Kristjanson came before the committee and said that the 1966 Agreement provided for a transmission line, Kettle Rapids, the Chur chill River Diver sion, and Lake Winnip eg Regulation, in that order. A highly political mi sleading del ib erate state ment in writi ng, Mr. Speaker, in writing. He wasn't being pursued by a lawyer. He wasn't being tricked.

He deli berately, politically, and knowingly mislead the comm ittee. Why was he not fired? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point out to the honourable member that we have a debate dealing with a motion, moved by the Hono urable Leader of the Opposition, and seconded by the Ho nourable Memb er for St. Johns, and I would ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the action that is requested in that reso lution. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the resolution: "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Stan ding Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be author ized to enquire into: (

d) all other matters arising from the letter prepared by special counsel and the allegations made regard ing this matt er." One of the things that arises from the letter that was prepared by special counsel and the allegation regard ing this matter is that the Mini ster and the Chairman of Hydro and the Managing Director of Hydro gave evidence misleading to a committee that it did not exist - virtually saying it did not exist, Mr. Speaker. I remember the equ ivocating, and whether there was a formal opinion, whether there was a legal opinion, whether it was containe d in the min utes. Those things are not true, Mr. Speaker, and

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 I was sitting in that committee meeting, and others sat at that committee meeting. And if you want to nit-pick, Mr. Speaker, and say that's the kind of thing that is going to be accepted at a Legislative Committee - and my question, Mr. Speaker, that has to be referred to this committee is, why has Mr. Kristjanson not been fired? Why has Mr. Craik not resigned - excuse me, why has the Deputy Premier not resigned? Because they made, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that I ask them to be judged as they have judged. That's the issue. That's the only issue, Mr. Speaker; that's the only issue.

I do no t agree with my friends in the New Democratic Party that the issue as to whether this opinion was accepted or not accepted makes any difference as to whether the Commis sion went beyond its Terms of Reference or didn' t go beyond.

I don't care, but I do care about a Mini ster who fires a civil servant who gave 40 years of his life to this province before a Commission termi nates on the basis that he made a misleading statement to a comm ittee; hi res his poli tical hat, the present Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro, let's that political hat make a deli berately poli ti cal mi slead ing statement before the commit tee him self, Mr. Speaker, mi sleads by conduct of om ission or commission to mislead the committee. Why are they not fired? I want that referred, Mr. Speaker, to the Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections. Mr.

Speaker, Cass-Beggs is found to have made a misleading statement by a judge on findings that would be su pported by no cour t in the world, because he said that, I have determined that Mr. Cass-Beggs knew when he made the statement that the estima te was $50 million, that he didn't know - not a single word of evidence that Cass-Beggs didn't know, except Mr. Tritschler's intuition that he knew; that he knew. Mr. Speaker, I say that the present Chairman of Manitoba Hydro is a political hat for the Cons ervative Party, Mr. Speaker. I would ask, Mr.

Speaker, that the honourable members refer that to committee if they want to, and I will say the same thing at committee, Mr. Speaker, because the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro got up and said, and wrote down in a report, a political position of the Cons ervative Party. which is unsu bstantiated by any evidence, and mislead, delib erately mislead the Hydro committee on that question; said that a report in 1966 called for something to be done in that order, and the next day, Mr. Speaker, came back and he said he has to withd raw three little words, thr ee little words, in that order, Mr. Speaker.

He should write a song about it. it's a good title for a song actually; thr ee little words. Mr. Speaker, that's what I want referred to the committee and I have one more comment to make on this, Mr. Speaker. I noted that I was quoted in the Brandon Sun as having lis tened to Mr. Craik berate the previous government and then it said, on Friday last, that I said that Mr. Craik was a liar. I went to the Hansard, Mr. Speaker, because I know I didn' t say that. I said that he mislead the committee. And the Hansard shows recording Mr. Craik saying of Mr. Green, you are lying, you are lying.

And the Brandon Sun takes that as me saying that Mr. Craik is a liar. Now what I said, Mr. Speaker, was that I didn't want the honourable member to withd raw his remarks, that I was qu ite satisfied to leave them on the 2928 record, because being called a liar by Mr. Craik, by the Ho nourable Deputy Premier, is to have, Mr. Speaker, an endor sation of your integrity, because anything he says, the reverse is true. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON.

GARY FILMON (River Heights): Mr. li!Re�tker, I am inter ested in the tenor of the deba te bec:ause the motion revolves around the assumption that there was a letter prepared by the special counsel for Mani toba Hydro, a letter, Mr. Speaker, which has not been identified, which has not, even in the records of the minutes which the Leader of the Opposition quoted from, that letter was not ind icated to have been presented either to the Vice-Chairman or to the Board of Manitoba Hydro. And I will read it over again. The Vice-Chairman stated that he had a meeting with the Corpora tion's special counsel, Mr. W. S.

Martin, QC. Mr. Martin had indi cated that there were a number of aspects of the Commission's work which caused him concern. In this connection he had dr afted a letter. it didn't say he had presented it. He had drafted a letter, which if the Board concu rred , he would forward to the commissioner. Now the rest of it ind icates that the Board did not concur so ther efore the letter was never presented, and th erefore in my view, Mr.

Speaker, is not legitimate to be consi dered because I think anybody, whether he be a professional, whether he be a lawyer, an engineer, can sit at his desk and in a fit of an xiety or pique or agitation over un derstandably the difficulties that he was having at the commi ttee, or at the Commission, because inde ed he was having difficulty attempting to defend the inap propriate actions of Manitoba Hydro in the course of events of the development of the Nelson River.

I think he was having di fficult y with the evidence that was coming out that was very very damaging not only to the Utility, some of its people, and inde ed to the memb ers of the former government for their waste and mismana gement and ina pp ropria te di rect ion tha t they were giving politically to the Hydro. So under those conditions, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's understandable that somebody might have had some agitation and in the course of that agitation drafted the essence of an opinion, but at that time it was obviously not asked for by Hydro. it was no t presented to Hydro, and it is still not legitimate evidence or anything that we ought to be concerned about, because I say, Mr. Speaker, that on the other hand there was suggestion by members opposite that they were mislead in committee by the chief executive officer of Hydro, and I will repeat what Mr.

Bla chford said from the min utes of the committee of Tuesday, the 7th of April, concerning Mr. Walding's ques tion, "Did Mani toba Hydro lawyers give an opinion that Ju dge Tritschler was exceed ing his Terms of Reference? We looked into this and no request for an opinion was asked of Manitoba Hydro lawyers nor did they give an opinion in this respect.

I believe the other questions that were asked were ther efore void after this." it's obvious that the minutes do not say that they requested an opinion and in fact they specifically requested that an opinion not be presented. - (I nterje ction)- They did not, the board did not, the

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 Vice -Chairman ap parently had some dis cussions about an opinion -(I nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. If the honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair, we may avoid some of this cross-chatter. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is obvious from the minut es that opinion was specifically not sought and not requested and I say, Mr.

Speaker, that the members opposite are up a blind trail, that they have laid no evidence before this House that should ind icate that we ought to proceed with this because in fact the very evidence that they have presented ind icates that opinion was specifically not requested on the reco mmenda tion of the Vice­ Chairman of Manitoba Hydro at the time. More so than that, Mr.

Speaker, we have had a series of accusations brought before us that have endea voured to bring this whole issue before the commit tee again and those accusations included suggestions that thr eats were uttered by the Minis ter resp onsible, threats about the firing of the Hydro Board members and none of that is substantia ted either by the letter.

In fact it's denied by the letter that we're presented today by the former Vice­ Chairman of Mani toba Hydro or in deed by the min utes of this particular meeting. lt ind icates that the ball was carrie d by the Vice -Chairman of Ma ni tob a Hydro and tha t the Min ister really, although he was made aware verbally of it, had very little to do with it.

I might indic ate that the Minister had never at any time ind icated that he wasn't aware of it, he simply ind icated that he had not issued those thr eats and that he had not specifically had a formal opinion, and that's confirmed over and over again, by reading Hansard of either the debates that took place in committee or the debates that have taken place in this House and I submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that no evidence that should cause us to put this to a committee has been presented either today or in the past, and I suggest that this matter is just totally out of all proportion because in the final analysis the Minister had the power to vary and expand the Terms of Reference of the Commission.

He had no need to do anything about an opinion. lt was his own Board who specifically asked that that opinion not be presented because their objective, as I believe his objective and all Manitobans, would be to bring it all out in the open, to clear the air, and to not suppress any information at the enqui ry; let the enquir y have the widest, broadest possible Terms of Reference, and that's exactly what happened, and tha t's exactly wha t it was in tended to ha ve happened , and that's why this presents us with nothing more than a smoke-screen and nothing that we should be taking action on here today, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In hearing some of the comments of the Attorney­ General and now the Min ister of Consumer Affairs, Mr. Speaker, I can only come to one conclusion - in cred ibl e. Mr. Sp eaker, the actions of this government and its Min isters are nothing short of being incredible in terms of the way that they have handl ed this affair. We have the Mini ster of Consumer Affairs try to justify to us that no letter was ever received by the Board, Mr. Speaker, and no opinion was given to the Board. Mr. Speaker, we have statements.

You know, it even goes further than that, it even goes to the present Chairman of the Board, who came to committee and told committee tha t the records and the minutes of Hydro were checked and that there was no opinion, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the present general manager came to the Board and he said on April 7th, 19 81, page 109, concerning Mr. Walding's question: "Did Manitoba Hydro lawyers give an opinion that Judge Tritschler was exceeding his terms of reference? We looked into this and no request for an opinion was asked of Mani toba lawyers, nor did they give an opinion in this respect.

I believe the other questions that were asked are th erefore void after this." Mr. Speaker, I went beyond that a while later. I asked Mr. Blachford, because we questioned him further whether or not, you know, who was he talking about. So he talked about Mr. Smellie in his remarks, that he asked Mr . Smelli e. And in my questioning I asked Mr. Bla chford whether or not - and I'll read my remarks in to the record, Mr. Speaker: "Mr.

Chairman, it has been provided to this committee by a Board member that concerns and matters were raised by legal counsel at the time and at the time, Chief Legal Counsel, when these concerns were raised was not Mr. Smellie, but Mr. Martin at the time. Am I correct on that matter? lt was raised by a Board member here who was present at the Board. Surely the same cou rtesy that was given to members of this committee in asking the present legal counsel whether he gave an opinion; surely when the matter was raised, the legal counsel at the time was not Mr. Smellie, but Mr.

Martin and if he was the legal counsel at the time, you know, actually the questions were not answered that were posed by Mr. Walding. Clearly they were not ans wered because the fact of the matter is that a Board member came to this committee, said that this was raised ... " and it's his own calling, Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster of Consumer Affairs sits right next to the Member for Rhineland, the member who brought this to the attention of the committee that this matter was raised at the Board. He could have asked the Member for Rhineland whether or not his statements were accurate to the committee.

He's the member who revealed that there was a dis cussion before commi ttee between cou ns el and board members, and I go on, Mr. Speaker, " ... a person who was completely ... " -(I nterje ction)- Clearly they were not answered because the fact of the matter is the Board member came to this committee said that this was raised and the person who was alleged to have raised this was not even asked. " . . . a person who was completely different than the individual that was di scussed and a Board member of this committee raised that matter. " The reply, Mr. Speaker, came from Mr.

Blachford, and I quote, "The information that was given on Friday was that no opinion was asked or given. They did not refer only to the last legal counsel for Hydro." Mr. Speaker, they did not even refer to the last legal counsel so they . . . The General Manager in his remarks clearly ind icated that he had spoken to everyone involved. Mr. Speaker, if that is not 2929

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 misleading members of the comm ittee but even going further, Mr. Sp eaker, even the Gen eral Manager, the Chairman of the Board , spoke to Comm ittee; I had it un derlined. Mr. Speaker, the present General Manager spoke to the committee and ind icated in defense of his statements and I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I had it in Ha nsard in front of me, and I've mispla ced it.

The fact of the matter is, the present Chairman of Manitoba Hydro ind icated and confi rme d tha t records were che cked in Manitoba Hydro, records and minut es were checked, perused, and that there was no record of this ever having been raised, Mr. Speaker. You know, clearly, Mr. Speaker, when statements like that were made and then a memb er of this House goes and gets the minutes of Hydro and the minutes of Hydro show that clearly ... Yes, Mr. Sp eaker, on April 7th, 19 81, page 11 2, Mr . Kristjans on, and I quote, "Mr . Chairman, as you can appr eciate, I was not involv ed at the time.

The question was asked on Friday. Mr. Bla chford and members of staff researched the minut es, consulted with people that were inv olved at that time, and the answer was given by Mr. Blachford, and I thought the answer had been complete." If that was not mi slea ding, Mr. Sp eaker, to me mb ers of this committee and the members of the public, that he clearly ind icated that the minutes were researc hed, Mr. Speaker, the gall of a public servant to come before committee and ind icate that the minu tes were researched. Mr.

Speaker, the Mini ster respo nsible for Hydro as was ind icated by the Member for ln kster, fired a long-time civil servant for less than misleading and clearly misleading this House, Mr. Speaker. And the members of the government side, the Mini ster of Consumer Affairs, has the gall to stand up here and the Attorney-G eneral, and to ind icate that we should vote against this; there is no difficulty with this matter at all? Mr. Speaker, you know, there are books written about the episode of Richard Nixon, and you look, they went in three stages. First of all, Mr. Speaker, Richard Nixon denied everything.

He den ied every thing that he was imp lic ated in. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Deputy Premier denied ever having any kno wledge of this whole episode. He denied everything and then when the Member for Rhi neland rai sed some is sues tha t th ere were concerns raised, the Deputy Pr emier started remembering that there were discussions between he and the former Vice-Chairman of the board, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't that remind you of the scenario going back to dear old Richard, Mr. Speaker? Then there was the matter of the records, Mr.

Speaker, the thing that the President of the Un ited States didn't do was to get rid of the tapes; the tapes were located. Surely, Mr. Speaker, maybe the prese nt Chairman of Manitoba Hydro or the Deputy Premier should have burnt the minutes of the meeting of the meeting of Mani toba Hydro when a letter tha t ... Mr. Speaker, surely there should have been a burning of the minu tes. At least they would have had a one­ upmanship on Richard Nixon in terms of the affair but, Mr. Speaker, why didn't they deal with the min utes? Mr.

Speaker, and the impl ications in the minut es indicating that - look, there was no thr eat on the Board at all, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, how best 2930 would a secretary to the Board speak about a matter that would be as sensitive as this but to use the words of . . . it would be inappr opriate for such a letter to be sent? Mr. Speaker, how much more sensitive could a matter have been put in the record than using the word "inappr opriate" Mr. Speaker? One can just -(I nterje ction)- Yes, Mr. Speaker, if one can carry that definition forward, one could say it was inappropria te.

You know, you either don't talk or we'll remove you. But, tha t's inappropria te, Mr. Speaker, don't you dare send that letter. Well, Mr. Sp eaker, to have mem bers of the Treasury Bench get up and speak in this House and say that certai nly ther e was no mi slea ding of memb ers of this Ho use and mem bers of this committee, surely, Mr. Speaker, flies in the face of everything that has been raised.

Surely, if there was no record of the min utes and the Chairman of the Board who has been appointed by the Con servatives after they fired the former Chairman ind icated clearly on the record that the min utes were checked, and now the min utes are here, Mr. Speaker, the min utes are public; the min utes were checked. How can they explain this? How can they tell the people of Manitoba that, sorry, Mr. Speaker, we didn't burn the minu tes? That's the reason we didn't get rid of the evidence. That's the reason that we got caugh t with our pants down , so to speak, Mr. Speaker.

That's the reason we're in this mess, Mr. Speaker, because we really didn't get rid of the evidence, Mr. Speaker. Did they want to go one step further? Do they want to have that letter analyzed, Mr. Speaker, that they don't want to accept in the record? Do they want to check the typewriter whether or not this matter came from Steward Martin's office? Do you want that to happen? I mean, that can cert ainly be done. Why don't we call the experts, Mr. Speaker? You seem not to want to talk to Steward Martin, then talk to his typewriter, Mr. Speaker, ana lyze the typewriter, Mr.

Speaker, if you don't want to talk to Steward Mar tin, Mr. Speaker, speak to the typewriter, maybe you'll get a bit more information with respect to that letter. Why don't we do that? What's the next step, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, if the members of the government will not call this committee together and clear the air, surely, Mr. Speaker, they can't hold out forever on this matter. Surely, the Premier by this time should be scratching his head and wondering who will be one of the other colleagues who will make the next Deputy Premier. That's the least that he can do, Mr.

Speaker, in the way that they have treated other civil servants. The Premier should be treating his own Deputy Premier in this respect, and to save the integrity, not only of members here but the Member for Rhineland, the only member on that side who at least adm itted that this matter was rais ed in committee and concern was raised, but he ind icated to the committee, he said, "Look, you know, we really didn't want to deal with this matter because we al ready decided that we were going to cooperate fully." How are we going to cooperate fully, Mr. Sp eaker?

The Vic e-Ch airman stated tha t he discussed the letter with the Honourable Donald W. Craik, Mini ster responsible for Manitoba Hydro, and they had agreed that it would be in appropriate for such a letter to be sent particularly as it could result in the delay of the proceed ings.

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 Mr. Speaker, how could the Board do anything other than cooperate; other than resi gn? Mr. Speaker, the Board could have res igned. Mr. Speaker, maybe that's what should have happened; Board members should have resigned on this whole matter then it would have been opened right then and there, but they didn' t resign, Mr. Speaker. lt would be int eresting in light of the letter that has been now published in the Free Press to bring Mr. Wedepohl to the committee. Surely members would want him to clear the air on this matter and his discussions with the Deputy Premier. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, we would be prepared to call Mr. Martin to committee. The members want to deny that. Why would they want to even deny that such a letter existed, Mr. Speaker? They really don't want to deny that a letter existed but yet they continue, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the government will reconsider its position and certainly to clear the air in this matter, call the Commit tee in post-haste, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, you know, it is for anybody that is keeping track of this big issue that the Leader of the Opposition has found how the target has changed in the course of the week that he has been raising just now. lt started of, if you recall, Mr. Speaker, with that unsigned, unvalidated document. So we dealt with that, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the only responsible way any respon sible group of people could deal with it. I mean, do you tell me, does anybody tell me, and we do get it , we all get anonymous notes from time to time, letters, something like that, maybe from our constituents from time to time.

Do you really try to chase them down or take them too seriously? If people have n't got -(I nterject ion)- wel l, Mr . Speaker, the Honourable for St. Johns now tells and looks at me with a straight face that he takes every anonymous letter that he receives seriously, then he is stre tching his credibility a pretty pretty long way. But, Mr. Speaker, that was the first issue, then all of a sudden, we got to dealing with the, I think it was even the matter of the Memb er of St. Vital 's personal, you know, credibility in having brought the issue before the House.

That took up another day that we discussed this matter on. Now we're back to ... we forget, Sir, that we have ind icated and the Deputy Premier has ind icated precisely the steps that are available, that can validate that letter, that there is no restriction put on by this government or by Manitoba Hydro in terms of releasing any former counsel with respect to client and solicitor rela tionship. Mr. Speaker, that is true. That offer was made, that offer was made here in this Chamber . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. The Honour able Member for St. Johns on a matter of privilege. MR.

CHERNIACK: On a matter of privilege. I'm sure tha t the Ho nour able the Min ister of Natur al Resources would not like to mislead the House. And I think, it should be dr awn to his attention that there is nowhere on record any ind ication that Mr. Martin has been released from his solici tor-cl ient relationship with Hydro. Nowhere does that say that. 2931 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. MR. ENNS: The Member for St. Johns pretends, with some sincerity in his voice, to detract, to deviate from the simple statement, the true statement that I made, that there is no hindrance from Mr.

Martin releasing himself from any obligation that he feels with respect to client-solicitor rela tionship, absolutely none that was ind icated by the Mini ster responsible for Mani toba Hydro, that was ind icated several times by the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro and that, Mr. Speaker, is on the record. That is on record, but then, Mr.

Speaker, we have come back now full circle, we've come back full circle in dealing, which the Member from ln kster was quick enough to point out, you know, completely an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the dredged-up drama that the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to say. He is talking about what the Tritschler Report concluded or what they did not conclude, the Terms of Reference of that report, or the la ck of Terms of Reference of that report. Mr.

Speaker, what I'm trying to point out is how this issue is moving around and different targets are chosen from time to time because with the aid of the media the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has, in his mind, finally got a bit of an issue going in an otherwise pretty dull performance during this whole sessio n, and specifically during this Budget Debate. Mr. Speaker, let me deal, without straying from the rules that we bind ourselves with respect to this question, let's understand what is at the root cause of this concern.

The honourable members opposite feel and have to accept a gr eat deal of the responsibility for the mess they left Manitoba Hydro in. Mr. Speaker, the honourable members opposite have to accept the respon sibili ty that that mess had to be straightened up and was straightened up. Mr. Speaker, there is no particular pleasure in firing a long-time public servant, but, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that is what had to be done and that was done. I don't make any of these comments to detract from Mr. Bateman's many years of service.

I might remind honourable members opposite that under different circumstances, the same maligned Mr. Kristjanson, now Chairman of the Board, gave up long service with Mani toba Hydro and a very promising career, because of his convictions with respect to the dir ection that Manitoba Hydro was going under their leader ship. That is being forgotten . Mr. Speaker, I can't forget that, because the same executive officer, Mr.

Bateman, four months, thr ee months before the last election was up in South Indian Lake with me on a whole week-end advising me, as the then Mini ster of Natural Resources, to go to the high level project on South Indian Lake. An election occurred and tha t prof essional advice changed overnight. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. We do have a res olution before us and I hope the honourable member would keep his remarks to the resolution before the House. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try to follow that advice.

The Honourable Member for lnkster, I think, was given the opportunity to suggest to us members that the real issue at stake was the firing of

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 the Executive Officer of Mani toba Hydro by the Min ister currently responsible for Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Speaker, he attempts to draw some parallel to the situation of what I believe he called the change in three little words. Mr. Speaker, it took an expensive, yes it was an expensive inqu iry, and a good lawyer to drag out of the then Executive Officer of Manitoba Hydro the fact that he had misled the Com mittee of this House year after year with respect to the plans that were being put before us on an annual basis on the development of Hydro in the north. Mr.

Speaker, that's not just myself saying that. That is on record. The members opposite may not like everything that Mr. Tritschler concluded with, but they cannot deny it because the participant, the person himself, Mr. Bateman, acknowledges that he misled representatives of the people of Manitoba as they sat on that Committee. (Int erjection)- Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not argue because I would be breaking the rules. The present Chairman, Mr. Speaker, needed no such Commission of Inqu iry to make a correct that the honourable member now likes to dr aw some parallel to as three little words.

He obviously, and quite frankly, I think I would say this to his face if he were present, perhaps not fully conversant, not fully experienced with the importance to which the putting together of words can be in this situation, saw that an

interpretation or an error, if you like, existed in the manner and way in which he had presented the presenta tion, the opening statement, by Manitoba Hydro to the Committee and voluntarily changed it. Changed it. (Inte rject ion)- All right, that's fine, but he changed it. (Int erject ion)- Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue. The honourable members opposite have an understandable proprietary dealing about Mr. Bateman, that's unde rstandable.

After all, he misled, misdirected the management of Hydro; he caused the Hydro rates to in crease by 15 0 percent in a short five or six years of their admi nistration; any executive officer for no other reason deserves to be fired but for those reasons. Under our four years we have stabili zed the Hydro rates for the next five years. That's just the simple difference. And the people of Manitoba will un derstand that, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about that action, they've criticized the Min ister for having the guts , for having the courage, to fire a senior civil · servant.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it isn't easy. it isn't easy. Members opposite believe that one can displace or remove a senior influential public servant just at the tip of a hat, or that there is any pleasure in doin g that. Mr. Speaker, what is the general complaint of the public at large? The greatest thing is that we, policy makers, are all too often not given the opportunity to di rect policy; that we are captives of our civil servants; that we cannot, in effect, bring about the changes that the public often requires, particularly when a change of government is brought into being. Mr.

Speaker, this government, whether it was the First Min ister, in terms of recognizing that he could not work with a certain Deputy Mini ster; whether it was the Deputy Premier in terms of recognizing that we obviously could not be working for too long a situation with the then Chairman of Mani toba Hydro and the executive officers; there was just too much 2932 water under the bridge, too many public committee meetings that we were sitting on as Opposition members, and that we were being led around on a merry-go-r ound path with respect to Hydro development, Mr. Speaker.

There were just too many other good people that were inv olved that were hurt by tha t, including the former Premier of this province, then a di rector of Manitoba, who was ridiculed by Executive Officers of hydro as being somebody playing with schoolboy arithmetic. MFI. SPEAKER: Order please. I would refer the hono urable member to the resolution and if the honourable member wants me to, I will read the resolution to him: THER EFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be auth orized to inquir e into . . . the Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize, but let us put this into its proper perspective. The Leader of the Opposition Is having a bit of fun with this. The fact of the matter is they are smarting, still smarting from the fact that the former General Manager and Executive Officer of Manitoba Hydro was fired by this admin istra tion. We believe he had to be fired by this adminis tration, we make no apology for that.

Since his departure, rates to the cons umin g public of Manitoba Hydro have not gone up -(lnt erject ion)­ that's not something that the honourable members opposite can say. But for any reason, is anybody seriously challenging that the then Acting Chairman acted in any way that is not proper, that is not appropriate with respect to the manner and way in which Mr. Martin's proposals were dealt with? By the way, Mr. Speaker, again, it's not a question, but Mr.

Martin, an appointee of theirs, I believe a friend of the Premier Schr eyer 's, who ha s no t received legal work from this adminis tration, will not receive legal work from this admin istra tion, so, Mr. Speaker, th at's an un ders tandabl e sou r grape disgruntled person that feels that his people are being attacked and he may well have suggested to somebody, yet to be proven -(Int erject ion)- Mr. Speaker, the Chairman, the duly appointed Chairman of Mani toba Hydro, dealt with the matter. The suggestion, in fact, is quite the reverse of what is being portrayed in this House.

You rememb er at one time the question was whether the Deputy Premier had exercised pressure, coerced the members of the board and Manitoba Hydro not to accept certain information , supposed informa tion. Mr . Speaker, we're not talking about that now anymore, because Mr. Wedepohl has cleared that matter up. lt's rather strange tha t this in formation was available to the Free Press long before this deba te started, in written form, signed, Mr. Speaker, by a re sponsible former Chairman of the Bo ard of Manitoba Hydro, or Vice-Chairman, I believe it is, but, Mr. Speaker, we choose to ignore that.

So the issue really, and we understand it, and I think the people of Mani toba un ders tand; the previous admin istration is out to do anything they can to get even, if you like, with the fact that we had the courage to remove the former Chairman and Executive Officer of Manitoba Hydro, and yes, we had, if you like, the cour age to appoint Mr . Kristjanson to that Board, knowing full well that we

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 would get this kind of reaction. Mr. Speaker, the only difference being that Mr. Kristjanson will not be under any disillusion as to his tenureship should a change of government occur. I have the comforting knowledge that he will be able to serve out to his retiring age of 65 under this admin istration so that particular difficulty will not be faced by the present Chairman of Manitoba Hydro. That is the issue, and let's just keep that before us.

I think there is a little danger, perhaps, with some of our members, and some of our own members on this side of the House, not having had the experience of sitting in and watching the Hydro debate develop during the decade of the '70s, not unde rstanding the kind of contr oversy that developed throughout the '70s on this issue, not knowing the steps that were taken by certain individuals such as Mr. Kristjanson or by Mr. Bateman on this issue, and what we now see is a continuing effort by members opposite to dis credit the Tritschler Report, to di scr edit the Tritschler Report, and that, Mr.

Speaker, by the way, is one of the better compliments that report is recei ving. One would have thought that by now, you know, we haven't been raising it in particular, but by now that might have gone its way as reports finally do go their way. Like the many reports that we've had with respect to Hydro. We had a dandy one before my time called Grand Rapids Hauling Report. That was a dandy. That was a massive scandal of the ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I again remind the member that we have a specific resolution before the House and I would ask him to dir ect his remarks to the resolution at hand. MR.

ENNS: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties is that the target, as I started off, keeps changing on this reso lution, so you have to forgive me if I am not so clear as to what the reso lution is. In fact, the House Leader and I, we had to ask ourselves just what is it today that this particular resolution, even though it's on the same issue, is targetting on. So the target that we're looking for is Manitoba Hydro Board minu tes, all right, re garding the Tritschler Commission.

I suspect that allows me all kinds of leeway to speak about the difficulty that the members opposite are having in coming to grips with the reality, with the truth of the Tritschler Commission, with the Goda wful mess that Manitoba Hydro was in under that admin istra tion, and the fact that certain surgical steps had to be taken to correct that situation, and one of them included the firing of Mr. Bateman. Mr. Speaker, I suppose that is contained in the motion before us and we could speak about it. We want to talk about the possible breach (

b) of the reso lution, the possible breach of the commission in its alleged Terms of Reference or the rules of natural justice. Well, that term, natural justice, I have to always wonder particularly what it refers to. Mr.

Speaker, without having any legal training at all, but having been around a Cabinet table for some time, any, any - I won't use the word schoolboy because that was their terminology for a former Premier of this province - but any kin dergarten graduate would recognize that a Term of Reference, if there was some suggestion, if indeed the Deputy Premier would have reported to us and said, look, 2933 fellows, there's a possibility, I hear some rumblings tha t the Tritschler Inquir y cou ld be cha ll enged because it's going beyond its Terms of Reference, why we would have changed the Terms of Reference.

We would have changed the Terms of Reference, it's that simple. Just that simple. But what I'm atta cking here is the veracity in believing that anybody could take that as serious legal advice, and that's obviously what the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro at that time said.

That's obviously what the Board of Directors recog nized; that while a lawyer, a legal counsel, may have his nose out of joint, he certainly could not present any plausible case that would stand in any court and Manitoba Hydro would look foolish, Manitoba Hydro would have looked foolish taking this kind of an issue to court. (Interjec tion)- No, that's not my opinion. That is the opinion of the duly appointed Chairman, or Acting Chairman of Mani toba Hy dro and supported by the Board of Dir ectors at that time. Let's not lose sight of that argument.

If honourable members are saying that we should ignore that kind of action by the duly appointed Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, by the Directors of Manitoba Hydro, then, Mr. Speaker, that's an entirely different ball game. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I've said enough on the sub ject matter, but simply to ind icate to honourable members that we und erstand what your problem is gentlemen . We have no problem. We have no problem.

You are, you know, scratching and fighting and trying to find and build an issue, partly because you think you can build one on this issue more deeply because you are still smarting; you are still smarting because of respo nsibility that has to be placed on your shoulders, and that Judge Tritschler properly placed on your shoulde rs, as a result of the mess of Manitoba Hydro. That is the issue, and the cost to the people is 15 0 percent rise in Hydro rates that need not have been there, that need not have been there, that need not have been there.

Now that will be a wrinkle that will cause them discomfort as long as any of the existing breed are arou nd, Mr. Speaker. They have to live with it and it's documented in the Tritschler Report and that is the whole purpose of this exercise. The Deputy Premier has made it clear, his position on this matter. He has made it clear that the Leader of the Opposition has access to Mr. Wedepohl, to individual members or past members of the Board, as well as anybody else in this House. lt simply, Mr. Speaker, is not an appropriate issue to place before a Commit tee of this House. Mr.

Speaker, the business of this House, which is as slow and cum bersome, you know, by many people who will judge it in terms of its performance, would come to a complete standstill if we were to seriously accept this motion that is before us, and that is that we should take a non-issue such as this before a Committee of this House. lt is simply nothing that a Committee of this House should spend its time for. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): The Honourable Member for Winn ipeg Centre. MR. J.R. (Bud) BOYCE: Mr.

Speaker, this is the fourth occasion that such matters have come before the House and I won't repeat myself, but I could in response to the Member for Lakeside say, you know,

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 you using 4 1/2 percent as a base in terest rate in perpetuity caused some proble m for the New Democratic Party Government and that some of their projections were off. I could say simply, you know, bring forth such arguments as that was a stupid bill the former Member for Mines and Natural Resources brought before the House in 1969 vis-a-vis flooding the South Indian Lake and all that, Mr. Speaker. In sitting through this fourth debate on the Matter of Privilege, and I look around and I made a speech one day about all the symbolism in this room.

Old Moses over there shaking his finger at us and Solon over here, and I hear such statements by the Mini ster of the Crown that he doesn't know what natural justice is, and the reason he doesn't is because we don't define it, as we don't define Matters of Privileges of this Legislature. lt is up to us to decide what is a Matter of Privilege. I couldn't help but thinking in looking at people opposite, my mind goes back to the late Fifties when one of the former members of Rossmere raised a que stion with one of the Ministers of the Crown about a possible conflict of inte rest down around the Centennial Centre.

Mr. Speaker, that man resigned. That man resigned his seat and they called a by­ election and he ran and he was re-elected, so the people decided, but there was integrity, there was int egrity, Mr. Speaker. I've tried to make this case and I have neither the wit nor the words once again to sway men's mind, but, Mr. Speaker, these people are running around the province saying -(I nterjec tion)- Ha] Ha] Ha] I want it on the record, the Member for Minn edosa laughs. To me it's a serious matter. (l nterje ction)­ You're right and perhaps I'm a basis for humour.

That may well be, but what is happening is not What is happening is not, because you people are destroying the system. If you want this body to function as a Legislature, not as a court of law - (Int erject ion)- it's a Matter of Privile ge if the Member for Minnedosa still doesn't know what a Matter of Privilege of this House is. (l nterje ction)­ Get on with the business of the House.

As long as we have members elected to this House who refuse to accept their respo nsibili ty, that the di scharge ... in my view, that when a Mini ster of the Crown stands in this House and misleads the House that is a Matter of Privilege and it used to be the case that the Min ister resigned when wit nesses come before a Committee of this Legislature and prima facie case has been made that the Commi ttee was mislead, because there is a variance between the minu te which was presented and the words which are recorded in Hans ard as ha ving been given as response to a question, a prima facie case has been made.

So why, Mr. Speaker, is the government afraid to let the process work. Let the process work, because that isn't the question, that isn't what is at stake; it's not whether our mistakes as a government are worse than your mistakes, or vice versa; it is, will the process work when it comes down to the crunch? Will members who are elected to Parliaments and Legislatures in this country ensure that the system works or whether they will not? That's been my debate on three di fferent occasions relative to similar points.

Will the process work? lt will only work if mem bers oppo site stop functioning as a one-man rule and exercise their individual respo nsibility to the people who elected them, because, Mr. Speaker, parties are a matter of convenience of this House. We are all members of this House and we organi ze ourselves into parties, as a matter of convenience, but in the final crunch it comes down to us each indi vidually to discharge our respo nsibility. So I ask once again of members opposite, let the process work. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Hono urable Minister of Finance. HON.

BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killar ney): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this question or this issue, seems to me to centre to a very great extent around a misunderstanding of an initial question, which has subsequently come to be int erpreted as misleading ans wers. Mr. Sp eaker, ther e was a mi slead ing question, if in fact the answer they wanted was the information that they now have come to, and let me go back and place on the record again, the original question that was asked of the Committee. Mr.

Walding said on Friday, April 3rd, he said, "I would like to ask whether Hydro received a legal opinion from any of those gentlemen giving a legal opinion that the Tritschler Commission was exceeding its Terms of Reference?" Now, Mr. Sp eaker, I'm no t a la wyer but (lnt erject ion)- MR. DEP UTY SPEAK ER: Order pl ease. Order please. lt strikes me . . . Order please. I would hope tha t the hono ur able memb ers would gi ve the cou rtesy to the member who is speaking the chance to complete his remarks, so that I can hear them.

I don't care whether anybody else does, but at this point I would like to hear the honourable member. The Honourable Minister. MR. RANSOM: lt strikes me that the term "legal opinion" has some rather specific meaning to it, and I think that the Member for St. Vital knew that when he placed the question, because he stressed twice in the first question "a legal opini on". He was advised that at that time that Hydro officials would enquir e as to whether or not there was a legal opinio n provided. I think that the Chairman said, "Maybe Mr. Kristjanson and Mr.

Blachford can take some of these questions as notice and get the answers for you. As you well know, neither of them were connected with Hydro at tha t time." Mr . Walding, "I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and I recognize the honesty of a reply that is not known. If there is an undertaking that it will be looked into, then it would quite satisfactory for me." So he asked very specifically, was there a legal opinion and they undertook to see if, in fact, there was a legal opinion. On the next day that the Committee met, Mr.

Speaker, then the Mini ster of Energy and Min es, in following up on questions from the Leader of the Opposition said in reference to the Member for St. Vital, "He was asking as to whether or not the Board had been advised formally by a lawyer or their legal couns el with regard to certain procedures that should be fol lowed in regard to the Tri tschler Commissio n". Then only a moment or two later, the 2934

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 Member for St. Vital said, "Yes.", and the Chairman asked the Member for St. Vital, "Mr . Walding, is that then your und erst anding?" and he was referring to a statement made by the Minister of Energy and Mines as to whether or not the Board had been advised formally by a lawyer. Mr. Walding, "Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman, substantially as Mr. Craik has said." Now, it strikes me being a layman, Mr. Speaker, that there was something specific being asked for. The Mini ster of Energy and Mines was enquiring as to whether in fact that is what was being asked for, a formal legal opinion.

The Chairman turned to the Mem ber for St. Vital and said, "Is tha t your underst anding?" and the Member for St. Vital said, "Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman, substantially as Mr. Craik has said." Then Mr. Bla chford went on, Mr. Speaker, and said - concerning Mr. Walding's question, "Did Manitoba Hydro lawyers give an opinion that Judge Tritschler was exceeding his Terms of Refere nce?" - "We looked into this and no request for an opinion was asked of Manitoba lawyers, nor did they give an opinion in this respect ." Mr. Speaker, that is an answer, a full answer, to the questions that were asked by the Member for St.

Vital. Now, su bsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, then the members opposite proceeded to present 7 pages of material, which were subsequently ruled out of order, because they were di rected to no one and their source could not be identified and the Member for St. Vital, in fact, did not take any responsibility for that material, but they attempted then to use that material as an indication that the Mini ster of Energy and Mines had somehow mislead the Committee in his responses to their questions. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what the Mini ster of Energy and Mines said. He said, "Mr .

Chairman, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition directly that the former legal counsel certai nly did not in any dir ect way advise me of his feelings in this regard. I'm quite aware of the fact from the former Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, that Mr.

Martin left under a high degree of disturbance over the affairs with regard to representing Hydro on the work of the Commission and so on, so if that is any help to him, that's about as much help as I can give him", and he goes on and he says, " . . . but there was no formal, as you can see, just so the record is complete, there is no evidence in Hydro of at least a formal concern being expressed about the Terms of Reference of the Commission, although it is quite possible he may have on a personal basis expr essed th ose concerns." Agai n, Mr . Sp eaker, th ere is a clear (I nterje ction)- Mr.

Speaker, would you mind asking the Leader of the Opposition, if he would give me the cou rtesy of allowing me to place th ese few comments on the record. He persists in interrupting continuously. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that there was a very specific question asked. lt was tested to see that that's the question that was being asked. lt was confirmed. The answer was given. At t he same time the Mini ster of Energy and Mines said, "He may have, on a personal basis, expr essed those concerns." He was giving every ind ication that a concern had been expressed .

There is nothing inc onsistent with what was being said then with what's being said now. One need only look at the letter that is in the Free Press today from the former Vice-Chairman of Hydro to show that is so, Mr. Speaker. But when the members opposite found that they could not gain su bstantially on that point, they then switched to trying to make the case that somehow the reputation of the Member for St.

Vital was at stake, having impaled himself on his own bayonet for bringing in that sort of information, he then turns around and says, someone's got to help me to clear my reputation because I in troduced this material. That didn' t work either, Mr. Speaker, so no w we have a reso lution before the House again, and I would like to deal specifical ly with some of the sections of that resolution.

And it says: WHE REAS there is evidence now in the hands of members of the Legislative Assembly which shows the Deputy Premier knew about and expressed his views about the letter prepared by special counsel for Manitoba Hydro expressing concerns with the Tritschler Commission. Now all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker - not all of a sudden, they've been moving around, I shouldn't say it, but they now have moved away from their original question of - Was there a legal opinion? That has now gone from the que stion as far as they'r e concerned.

" ... which shows the Deputy Premier knew about and expressed his views about the letter ... " There is no letter. To our knowledge there is no letter, Mr. Speaker. There was reference to a proposed letter; there were seven pages of material in trod uced into this Ho use or attempted to be introduced into this House which I have had a look at, and I must say, as a layman, that I would hardly consider that to be in the form of a legal opinion. If that was a legal opinion, Mr.

Speaker, I certainly would not want to be paying for it. lt may have been, as the Minister of Energy and Mines pointed out, a personal opinion, concern, expressed by the former counsel for Hydro, that may have been. So, Mr. Sp eaker, the fi rst WHERE AS of the re solution contains nothing substantive.

The seco nd re solution says: WHERE AS the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, General Manager of Manitoba Hydro and Deputy Premier stated before a Comm ittee of the House that the minu tes of the Manitoba Hydro Board did not ind icate any evidence tha t the special coun sel had communi cated his opinion rega rding the Tritschler Comm ission. Mr. Speaker, that WHER EAS is simply not true, and the record shows it's not true. That is not what they put on the record. They put on the record that there was no legal opinion asked for and none provided.

They weren't asked about personal opinions expr essed by a lawyer whose case was going badly. The second WHERE AS is simply inc orrect, Mr. Speaker. Then, WHER EAS the Deputy Premier has stated he had no knowledge of a letter prepared by the special counsel, and that he did not in terfere in Manitoba Hydro's legal affairs. Mr. Speaker, I can't find where he said there was no knowledge of a letter. I'm not even sure that that's a relevant question. At least it was no t rel evant as to what was being asked pr eviously. He said tha t perhaps ther e was a personal opinion expressed.

I think in the House later he said that he had not seen a letter, and none of us yet know that in fact there was a letter. So what is it 2935

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 about the third paragraph, the third WHERE AS, that contribut es any thing subs tantiv e towards thi s resolution. He stated he did not in terfere in Manitoba Hydro's legal affairs, and in deed that's the case, Mr. Speaker. He has no t in terfered in Hydro's legal affairs. Perhaps if he had he might have been able to clear up the question that's being put toward by the members opposite in an attempt to dis credit the Minis ter and to di scr edit some of the staff of Manitoba Hydro.

The fourth WH EREAS says: WHERE AS there is need for evidence from the former special counsel to Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Steward Martin, and from the former members of Manitoba Hydro Board to explain the mislead ing statements made by the Deputy Premier and others. Mr. Speaker, th ere is no misleading statement on the record. Go back to the original question that was asked by the Member for St. Vital, a legal opinion. What does the minute say that was introduced today, Mr. Speaker? it says, "The Vice-Chairman stated tha t he had had a meeting with the corporation special counsel, Mr. W. S. Marti n, Q.C. Mr.

Martin had indic ated that there were a number of aspects of the Commission's work which caused him concern. In that connection he had drafted a letter, which, if the Board concurred, he would forward to the Commissioner." Now, Mr. Speaker, he said there were a number of aspects of the Commission's work which caused him concern. Is that a legal opinion? -(l nterje ction)­ Well, Mr. Speaker, if that's - the Memb er for lnks ter, the fat cat from lnks ter that can command $1 00 or $12 5 an hour I guess knows about legal opinions, but if that was a legal opinion.

If those seven pages of material that were introduced into this House which were simply a vitriolic attack on the Commission and on the counsel for the Commission, if that constitutes a legal opinion, Mr. Speaker, then I would be surprised. The minu te goes on, Mr. _Speaker, to say, "The Vice-Chairman stated tha t he had di scussed the letter with the Hon. Donald W. Craik, Mini ster resp onsible for Ma nitoba Hydro, and the y had agreed that it would be inappropr iate for such a letter to be sent, particularly as it could result in a delay in the proce edings. They have made much, Mr.

Speaker, of the word, inappr opriate. I think some of my colleagues have dealt with that question, which I don't think is one that is relevant to the original question placed by the members opposite, but if the government sees fit to establish a Commission of In quir y, I think that ina ppropriate is probably a proper way to describe the response of a Mini ster who would quite naturally say we established the Commission for a purpose, and I think it would be inap propriate to try and block the proceed ings of the Commission, which we have established.

I think that the letter that Dean Wedepohl has placed on the record today, Mr. Speaker, is also relevant and I think that it should be read as well, because it not only ind icates the nature of the exchange and tha t the exchange is ent ir ely consistent with everyth ing that's been said by the Minister of Energy and Mines, and it also deals with the question of the alleged threats that were made to Board members. He said, Mr. Speaker, "I wish to refer to the recent cont roversy rela ting to the 2936 Tritschler Inqu iry into affairs of Manitoba Hydro.

Early in January 1979, I became aware of Steward Martin's proposal to challenge the Commission of Inquir y, because of his grievances, associated with the Comm ission in his role as legal counsel for Mani toba Hydro." - the end of the seco nd paragraph. They refer to gr ievances, Mr. Sp eaker, his grievances. He's not talking about a legal opinion that was asked for, but the grievances of the lawyer. Then Mr. Wedepohl goes on, "1, myself, was shocked at his pro posed cou rse of action, namely to challenge the Terms of Reference of the Commission in the Manitoba Courts.

The morale of Manitoba Hydro was at that time very low and declining. lt was my consid erate opinion that the best thing for us to do was co-operate with the Commission of Inq uiry, which was a properly constituted body, in order to bring this phase of the corpora tion's his tory to a steady conclusion without compromising the int egrity of the corporation or its staff. In my opinion the intervention proposed by Mr. Mart in, would have had no effect, other than to protract the Inq uiry and would not serve the best in terest of the utility.

With hindsight I believe that I was right and if called on to consider the situation today, I would not find any reason to change my then react ion. I informed the Minister about my viewpoint and my intent to so recommend to the Board. I also informed him of the general nature of Mr. Martin's grievances contained in his submission to the Board. "Su bsequently at a special meeting of the Board my recommendation was ratified, the proposal was taken no further and that, as far as I was concerned, was the end of the matte r." So, Mr.

Speaker, th ere simpl y is no thin g misleading or inconsistent with the answers that were given by the Minister of Energy and Mines and by the officials of Hydro. There is nothing inconsistent or misleading about their answers relative to the questions that were asked by the Member for St. Vital and there is nothing inconsis tent with what the Mini ster of Energy and Mines has placed before the Committee or before this House in the letter that today appeared in the Free Press, written by the former Vice-Chairman of Manitaba Hydro. Mr.

Speaker, I have also pointed out there are a number of statements in the reso lution that simply are not correct. I believe that the members opposite are simply att empting to continually shif t their ground on this issue, in an effort to tr y and emba rrass the government and senior people in Manitoba Hydro. The y would like to see the Commi ttee called aga in, so that this sorts of perso nal opinion and vicious attacks tha t were outlined in those seven pages that no one kno ws for sure where they came from, Mr .

Sp eaker, that perhaps that's the sort of thing that they would like to see put forward in Committee. Mr. Speaker, that simply is not something that is either going to be constructive or is even relevant to the specific questions and answers that have been asked and given and, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the course of action and responsible thing for the government to do is to simply defeat the reso lution that's before us. MR. SPEAKER, Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell): The Honourable Member for St. Vital.

Wednesday, 22 April, 1981 MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't intending to get into this debate again, because it's tending to get repetitive and we're hear ing the same qu otations and the same arguments made each time the matter comes up and is dis cussed and voted down by the government again and again and again and again. However, Mr.

Speaker, just as I came in, I did hear the Mini ster of Finance making some reference to me and to stat ements tha t I ha d made and I une rstand he made the suggestion that it was all my fault, because I asked misleading questions and then he proceeded to read out a que stion that I had asked of Hydro staff, implying, I presume, that the question was misleading. The question as he quoted it was to the effect that, was there a legal opinion given to the Board of Manitoba Hydro, by their legal counsel. Now, I'm not sure if the Min ister of Finance considers the question to be misleading, Mr. Speaker.

I consider it to be very straigh tforward. it's a request asking for information and information was given in answer to the question. Does the Minis ter consider it a little odd that I should ask if there was a legal opinion asked for by legal counsel? Well, maybe he considers it odd, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly wouldn't ask if they'd had an opinion as to the weather that day from their legal counsel, or to whether the counsel had commented on the hockey score on the day before.

Since that is one of the tasks of a legal counsel is to give legal advice, do legal work and give legal opinion, should it come as any su rprise to the Mini ster of Finance that I had asked whether he'd given a legal opinion? Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer was given to us the next morning, but not in the context that the Minister of Finance read to us. In the replies for the next morning the Mini ster quoted me as saying that I had agreed with the Mini ster and that it was substantially as the Mi nister had said, but it was not in that context, Mr. Speaker.

If the Min ister would care to read the first two pages of Hansard, he would find that the discussion as introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, the Member for Crescentwood, had to do with the production of Hydro minutes and that discussion took up the first two pages. If I can quote the Chairman, his opening remarks in calling the Committee to order says, "Members of the Committee will recall that on Friday last when we met that Mr. Walding at that time asked if minutes of Hydro Board meetings and internal documents could be made available to him.

At the time I said that I would take it under advisement and discuss the matter with the Senior Clerk of the Legislature. I've also talked to legal counsel and frankly, we're not much further ahead than we were on Friday. What I could do for the benefit of Members of Committee is to refer to Beauchesne and read it into the record ." I spoke next, Mr. Speaker, and I said on a point of order, I don't believe tha t you put the question entir ely accurately.

I was not ask ing for Board minu tes, the matter tha t you took unde r consideration was no t the pr od uction of tho se papers, it was the power of this committee to call for persons and paper s to be prod uced to the committee. That discussion was continued by myself, the Chairman, the Member for ln kster, the Minister, 2937 and the Leader of the Opposition, and then the Minister again. Perhaps I should just quote the last words of the Mi nister which comes before the quote that the Min ister of Finance just gave, and the Minister had said, "Mr.

Chairman, aga in, I think that the in terpretation that the Leader of the Opposition has put on it is the one I went away with as well at the end of last week. Mr. Walding was not asking for minutes specifically, he was asking as to whether or not the Board had been advised formally by a lawyer or their legal counsel with regard to certain procedures that should be follo wed and regarded to the Tritschler Commission. Somehow the issue of th