Manitoba Hansard — 18 June 1985 (Sitting 72A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-72a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITOBA Tuesday, 18 June, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres enting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I'd like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Development Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1984. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I'd like to table a return under

Section 30.2 of The Law Society Act and another one under

Section 20 of The Public Officers Act. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to question period, may I direct the attention of members to the gallery where there are 81 students of Grade 7 standing from the Beliveau School under the direction of Mr. Labelle, Mrs. Leonard and Mrs. Lavergne. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister for the Environment. There are 75 students of Grade 5 standing from the Hastings Elementa ry School under the direction of Mr.

Bushby and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Aiel. There are 25 students of Grade 5 standing from the Robert Smi th School unde r the dir ection of Mr s. Kulpack. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable First Minister. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Manitoba Economic Conference - cost of to government MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

My question is for the Honourable Minister of Indus try, Trade and Technolo gy. lt has to do with the Manitoba Economic Conference which was held about three weeks ago in Winnipeg. I wonder if the Minister could indicate how much the putting on of that conference cost the Government of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know the costs to the province of that conference as there was payment by registration as against the cost, but I'll get that information and provide it to the mem ber once I have it. MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder If the Minister could also ind icate wha t the organ izers of the conference, Canadian Trend Report, were paid for organizing the conference on behalf of the province. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Yes, I can get that information for the member, but also point out that the response to the conference was excellent from people within the business and indu stry in the Province of Manitoba, people from other parts of Canada, and Indeed people outside of Manitoba who came here to look at the various opportunities that are availing thems elves in the next decade of growth in the Province of Manitoba; so I might just add that the conference has been very successfu l, in terms of increasing the awareness of the economic development that's taking place in the Province of Manitoba. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speak er, that raises another question. I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not we could be provided with a list of the registrants to the conference. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, were the speakers who were on the panels paid by the conference organizers or the province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: No, none of the speakers were paid for their speaking at the conference. Civil Service - average salary of members MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, a question to the Minister of Finance.

Could he inform the House as to what the average salary of members of the Civil Service are in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I don't have that exact number; I'll take it as notice. 3049

Tll•sday, 18 June, 1885 Bill 115 - MGEA analysis of MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Government House Leader. I wonder if the Government House Leader could undertake to table in the House a copy of the Manitoba Government Employees Association Analysis of Bill 115 which was provided to the government outlining the bilingual staff requirements for their proposed Bill 115, providing French Language Services in the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that any information which was available was tabled and the representations made a year-and-a-half ago by the MGEA. I don't recall any further information than the detailed analysis contained in the brief at that time; but that's a year-and-a-half ago, Sir, and both that legislation and the committee hearings on that are both long since past and dead. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the members of the government have a short memory. I'll ask a question to the Deputy Premier.

Would she undertake , on behalf of the government, to table in the Legislature a copy of the Manitoba Government Employees Association Analysis of the number of bilingual civil servants that would be required under the terms of their proposed Bill 115? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has already been responded to. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is the Acting Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission , whose Estimates will likely begin tonight.

I would ask the Acting Minister to undertake to provide to the committee tonight, or whenever the Estimates start, a copy of the Manitoba Government Employees Association analysis of the number of bilingual civil servants required under the government's proposed Bill 115. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you. I believe that question has already been answered by the Government House Leader. Norquay Park - privatization of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Natural Resour ces.

During the examination of the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources, the Minister indicated that there would be a certain amount of privatization take place with respect to roadside parks. My specific question, is the Norquay Park, situated on the Trans Canada, among those being considered to be put out to tender for a private operation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not familiar with all of the park names that have been on the list for the tender process, but I will take that question under advisement . 1t may be, but I'm not certain that it is . MR. H. ENNS: A supplementary question to the same Minister. I appreciate the Minister may not have this information readily at hand. I would ask for him to take notice of one more particular park at Lynch's Point. But perhaps he could generally indicate to me whether or not that program is succeeding. Are a number of these properties being turned over to the private sector? HON. S.

USKIW: I am certain that Lynch's Point was advertised and we did get a response to that. I believe there's no agreement concluded and I'm not certain that there will be. The option is still open as to whether it becomes a private operation or remains within the public domain. I think we still have that option. Milk - price setting system MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The maximum price of milk charged to consumers will be increasing some time this week , as advertised by the Milk Prices Review Commission.

Will the minimum price be raising the same amount as the maximum? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the commission has been meeting with all representatives of the industry, the processors, the distributors and the retailers, in a follow-up to an undertaking last winter that they would review the entire costing structure of the production costs and will be making their decisions. Whether both will be changed, both the minimum and maximum, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any advice yet from the commission to this effect.

When they make their announcement the honourable member will be aware as well. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister. Does he , as the Minister, think that the minimum price should be increased or removed? MR. SPEAKER: The question seeks an opinion. Would the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to seek information? MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he remove the minimum 3050

Tuesday, 18 June, 1985 price-setting system for the consumers of milk in this province? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that the reason that we move - I'll repeat to him again - that we had to move to r�tablish controls in the milk industry was precisely for the reason that massive discounting was occurring and, in fact, the price discounting to retailers and not being passed onto consumers.

In fact when the increase to producers was announced in February of 1984, the subsequent increase announced by retailers and processors far exceeded - in fact, any increases that have taken place to date, including the increase that is being proposed and is being looked at by the commission, one can clearly state that this July inc rease will still keep milk prices in Manitoba below those that were increased in February, 1984. That's really the bottom line, the actual price of milk to consumers in the vast majority of stores in this province. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, why won't the Minister of Agriculture give those low-income families In society, those elderly people in society on minimum incomes, why will he not give them the opportunity to have mass savings in their milk consumption, the price of the milk that they consume, as he has indi cated were there? Why will he not remove the minimum price and give tho se low-income people and small children the opportunity to drink milk, Mr. Speaker? Why won't he take action? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I guess the best way to answer that question - if the honourable member is indicating that a 14-cent-a-litre incr ease in February of 1984 was giving poor people a chance to drink milk - I'll let him answer that question, because our milk prices are lower today a year-and-a-half after we imposed controls than they were in February of'84 when there were no controls. Boissevain Land Titles Office - court facilities, continuation of MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services.

Can the Minister advise the House whether or not it's the government's Intention to continue to provide court facilities In the old Land Titles Office in Boissevain? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The Department of Government Services has no plans at the present time to discontinue the provisions for that service from the Land Titles Building, Mr. Speaker. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, were the Minister or staff In his department giving consideration to moving the facilities out of that building? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, the memb ers of the Planning

Section of the department are always looking at the most efficient use of government facilities, and it may be that they have been discussing some of those options with the other user departments, but there has been no decision or any recommendation made from the department with regard to any changes to the current status there at the present time. Highways Department - leasing of space, Boissevain MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: A further supplementary to the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister tell the House whether or not it's his intention to continue to lease space for the Department of Hig hways from the town and municipali ty, in the Town of Boissevain? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi ni ster of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: We have no plans at the present time to change any of the leases in Boissevain, dealing with the Department of Highways. If there is such a plan or recommendation, I have not received it from staff. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, could the Minister provide some kind of assurance to the Town of Boissevain and the Municipality of Morton that the government will not be terminating its leases or will not be off-loading its costs onto the local government with respect to changes flowing from moving the land titles facility out of town? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't know. I think the member should be more specific about what he means in.-terms of offloading the costs of the Provincial Government on to the town. If he has some specific thoughts on how that is happening or how that might happen, I'd like to hear from him on that.

I have no plans in doing that at the present time. I've received no report to that effect from the department. lt is possible that they're looking at more efficient ways of utilizing space and that is something that they undertake in the general course of their duties and when recommendations come forward we'll consider them at that time. Festivals, provincial parks - regulation re expenses MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resources. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter of Natural Resources can advise the House if the Parks Branch of his department has a policy in place for the regulation of expenses incu rred during rock festivals or musical festivals in provincial parks, such as the one that's planned for Birds Hill Park on the 26th and 27th of July. 3051

TUesday, 18 June, 1185 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker , I believe what the member is suggesting that we get involved with respect to the question of management of those kinds of events. As the member knows the event that is being proposed by the Lions Club. We, of course, are not involved with their internal operat ions. There Is no current policy, however, with respect to who should be eligible and under what circum stances should park use be permitted and we will be developing a policy in that regard.

At the moment, the proposal that has been advanced and has been accepted with conditions is sort of an ad hoc arrangement in the absence of a policy. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker , I thank the Minister for those remarks.

I wonder can the Minister advise the House if the Parks Branch give any consideration at all when granting a permit for the use of Birds Hill Park that the annual musical festival at Boggy Creek, which is in my constituen cy, is held on the same three days as the one that's slated for Birds Hill Park and a lot of the experts figure that one or the other is going to lose their shirt during that weekend and likely it'll be the one at Boggy Creek. I wonder was any consideration gi ven to the granting of the permit un der tho se conditions? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Speaker , I suppose that's a thought that could be taken into ac coun t . it 's some thing that has not been considered to date because of the absence of a policy. When we do develop a policy I hope that we can deal with some of those kinds of problems. Conflicting events, if you like, might be a criterion, but at this particular point in time we don't have a policy and this arrangement is purely ad hoc not having had the experience before. Robert Fletcher Building - renovation of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, I addr ess my question to the Minister of Government Services. In introducing his Estimates for the year, he probably stated that the Rob ert Fletcher Building, where th ere had been renovations, won a Heritage Winnipeg Award in the architectural conservation category and we are very pleased with that. I know the staff in the department are very proud of winning that award for that building. I understand the other day 50 government emplo yees had to leave that building because of irritation of eyes, throat and nose.

I would ask the Minister can he disclose what errors his department made in planning with respect to either design or material selections that caused some numb er of Education staff emplo yees to leave that building? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Yes, I'm glad to be able to answer this because the member - I'm glad to an swer it anyway - (I nterjection) - that's right. The Member for Morris was relating the problems, the health problems, to the building that was renovated.

The building that was renovated, which we're very proud of, because it's an absolute first in renovating the outer shell of a building, and I'm sure it's going to win awards and act as an example for us to renovate other older buildings in the province without having to destroy them. But the building we renovated is 11 80 Portage and the one we're having problems with is 1200 Portage, No. 1. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. M.

HEMPHILL: The Department of Education has two buildings, right across the street from each other, so it's understandable, I guess, getting them mixed up -11 80 is the one that was renovated and 120 0 ... HON. E. KOSTYRA: Especially Conservatives, they always get mixed up. A MEMBER: 11 81. HON. M. HEMPHILL: 11 81. Yes. The problem, Mr. Speaker , is one of air control. We've had extensive examination and we found out that there is not a bacteriological problem related to this, which was our first concern, it seems to be ventilation and air control.

We've had meeti ngs between the Department of Education, the union, the Workplace Safety and Health, Government Services, and my department, and we think we will have it settled by the end of the week. Right now, staff are working and they're working in other accommodations. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker , seeing the Minister of Education is an expert on governmental affairs matters, can she tell me what it cost to upgrade the Fletcher Building that she drew reference to? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker , I can get the exact figur e for the member at a later date, but I can tell him it was a lot less than it would have cost us to destroy the building and put up a new one. Since . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Actually , it was a very good thing to do because a lot of work had gone into renovating the inside of the building . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker , the outer shell of that building was in such bad shape, the ventilation, 3052

TUesday, 18 June, 1985 the heating, we were losing so much money in heating, we had two choices: Renovate the outer shell, which had never been done before; or destroy the whole building, and since about a million dollars had been spent on renovations in the interior, clearly we made the right decision in renovation. Also, it's going to be an example for everybody else to follow in renovation of older buildings. MPIC- garages, Autopac repairs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney-General must have attended a cell meeting; he's exceptionally buoyant today, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Autopac. On Thursday of last week I posed a question to him as to why Autopac was insisting on deducting from a claim payable to my garage owner in Carman, when in fact the garage owner had collected the deductible from the owner, from the insured. Why is Autopac persisting in penalizing my garage in such an obtuse fashion? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I don't know the specifics of that particular case, but it's my understanding that the firm has not committed itself to . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: . . . not carrying out the practice of waiving the deductible. Until such time as the firm in Carman agrees to comply with the policy of the corporation, the corporation will keep deducting the deductible portion from the settlement with the auto body shop. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question to pose to the Minister: When will he get control of Autopac?

Obviously, the garage owner is complying with the policy because he's deducting and collecting the deductible from his customers. He is complying with Autopac policy and they insist on removing the $50 from his reimbursement. Will he stop that practice? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind members that Oral Question Period is for seeking information and not for giving it to the House. Does the Honourable Member for Pembina wish to restate his question? MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister indicated that when the garage complies with Autopac poli cy, they will stop deducting the $50.00. it's obvious the garage has complied with the policy because they have deducted and collected the deductible from the . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I will repeat, Oral Questions is a time for gaining information not for giving it. If the honourable member has a question will he pose it? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister accept the responsibility that he's been given in Cabinet and ask Autopac to quit penalizing the garage owner in Carman who is complying with their policy by collecting the deductible on windshield replacement, and stop withholding $50 per windshieid replacement when the garage is operating within the policy guidelines of Autopac? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, I suppose that once MPIC has a commitment from the firm that it will consistently follow the policy guidelines, then it will be treated as any other firm.

This situation that the Member for Pembina mentions where the deductible has been paid by the policyholder may well be an isolated incident. Until, as I indicated, the firm consistently follows the policy as laid out by MPIC there'll be no change towards the way it's being treated. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister responsible is, how many examples of compliance with Autopac policy does he need before he will intervene and stop this perverse penalization of my garage owner in Carman? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: May I say that perverse penalization is a fairly strong term.

I should remind the Member for Pembina that last summer this same firm agreed to abide by the policy guidelines of MPIC. Apparently last February that firm must have felt it wasn't doing well enough and had to use some little scheme so it could attract business to put it in a more favourable position than the neighbouring auto repair shops then it started waiving the deductible. Until such time as the firm consistently and commits itself to following the same rules as are required by other firms then it will be treated . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Autopac. In view of the fact that this policy that the corporation put in place last June is designed to remove any benefit a customer might receive from an individual undertaking Autopac repairs, can the Minister indicate whether auto body firms who are offering a rental courtesy car free of charge to the customer while their vehicle is being repaired, whether the cost of providing that car is deducted from those body shops providing that free service to the customer? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, I'll respond to that.

First of all, let me remind the Member for Pembina that the rates that are paid to the windshield replacement firms are negotiated rates. Apparently, the member doesn't understand what an agreement is all 3053

TUetday, 18 June, 1985 about. This was an agreement that was negotiated by the corporation and, I believe, the ATA on behalf of the windshield replacement firms and apparently his constituent doesn't want to abide by the rules of the game. If the firm doesn't abide by the rules of the game, then it will be treated as laid down by policy last June by MPIC. With respect to the provision of the use of rental cars for major repairs, that is not a matter that has been addressed by the corporation because there's been no concern expressed by the auto repair indus try.

In the case of the wlndshield replacements, there have been complaints to the corporation that it was an unfair practice and, therefore, the corporation took the steps it did in the best interests of the policyholders and the windshield replacement firms. MR. D. ORCHARD: So then is the Minis ter now indicating that we operate in Manitoba in a completely controlled society as far as Autopac repairs go, that no entrepreneur can do anything outside of what the corporation dictates? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. If the honourable member has a question seeking information, would he pose it?

Director of Criminal Prosecutions - appointment of MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General. I wonder if he could inform the House if he or his department have yet appointed a Director of Criminal Prosecutions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: The department as such does not appoint a director of prosecutions. That is in a category where it must be a Cabinet-appr oved appointment. There are recommendations that will be addressed by Cabi net either this week or next.

I ex pect the appointment will be officially made and announc ed within the next few days. Civil Service Commission - hiring of visible minorities MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: My question is for the Acting Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission. I wonder if he could attempt to find and bring to committee tonight, unless he has them readily available, the statistics on how many visible minorities are currently emp loyed in the Manitoba Civil Service. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I think that question would best be asked when the comm ittee reviews the Civil Service Comm ission. MR. G. FILMON: In view of the fact that we are going to be star tin g th e Estima tes of the Civil Service Commission later today, I'm simply giving the courtesy of notice so that the Minister may have that available tonight for the discussion. I wonder if he might also pass along to the Minister for tonight's Estimates debate a request for information of the number of women and the relative pay rates in the Civil Service Commission. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I'll pass those comments on to the Min ister resp onsibl e for the Civil Service Commission. Bankruptcies, farms - rate of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker , to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that in 1982 to 1984, Manitoba led the way in farm bankruptcies with 15 4 family farms declaring bankru ptcy, that compares to Saskatchewan of 117 and Alb erta of 145, Mr. Speaker - could the Minister of Agriculture give us an upda te as to this time in 1985? Are the number of bankrup tcies carrying on at the same rate or is there a decrease? MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take the specifics, in terms of numbers, as notice. I know that the bankrup tcy rate in the Province of Manitoba has been decreasing. it's still of major concern to us. What I can tell the honourable member is that there has been, in terms of net farm incomes, a greater increase than anywhere in any province in this country, there's been a 77 percent increase in net farm incomes this year over last.

That's still far below what we would like it to be, Sir, but it still shows a greater increase in net farm incomes of any province in this count ry. But the government is clearly still very concerned with the numb er of bankruptcies that are there, whether it be in Manitoba or anywhere in the count ry. Farm financing is still the key issue, Mr. Speaker. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that our net incomes are reported to be up, why have we seen the increased bankrup tcies in Manitoba? Why are the bankrup tcies increasing in Manitoba when the net farm incomes are going up? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'll answer the question for the honourable member this way. Had we not inherited a continued support of high interest rate policy, of both the present administration and the previous Liberal administration, Mr. Speaker, many farmers in this province and across this country would not have gone through the crisis that they are going through, in terms of the support that they had for high interest rates. MR. J. DOWNEY: If it's high interest rates, then why did he raise the in terest rates for the Ma ni toba Agricultural Credit Corporation from 10 to 13 percent? 3054

TUHday, 18 June, 1985 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that the changes in the program were those that were enunci ated by his administration. All those loans were, in fact, on five-year renewals issued by his admin istration. Sir, as well, all loans under the regular lending program are now, and went down for this year, I'll remind the honourable member, to 8 percent, something that his own colleagues in Ottawa were not prepared to do.

In stead, what we see is FCC rates consistently higher by half to three quarters of 1 percent than those of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. What we do see is a $65 million cutback in November of'85 to agriculture in this count ry, $50 million in this Budget and an additional $50 million over the next three years. Is that what you call support for agriculture on a national basis, Mr. Speaker? lt is a complete abandonment of agriculture in this country. Grasshopper infestation - proposed control program MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I heard a report this morning on one of the local radio stations as I was driving to the Legislature, indicating from a grain company that the grasshopper infestation was less of a thr eat now than it was several days ago. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that through my own personal observation and contact with farmers, that is not the case and that the grasshopper infestation is continuing at a very rapid rate, will the Min ister of Agricultur e break down and fin ally help the farm community and provide spray for the farmers so that they can kill those grasshoppers? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'm advised as well that the gr ain com pany , whose information the honourable member is challenging, I und erstand that they also said that chemicals were available for farmers, which he challenged a week ago, that they were not available. I hope he heard that . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, I presume the honourable member doesn't want an answer. The plans that our department put into place in co-ordination with the municipalities and local groups are working as effectively as we had set out and we began this win ter. The chemicals are available.

There was - I have to admit - in certain localities, spot shortages for one day of certain chemicals, not of all chemicals, of certain chemicals and I will tell the honourable member the reason why. Some muni cipalities decided to pur chase their entire spray program in one lump sum, leaving those spot shortages of particular chemicals; but there were other chemicals that were available if people decided to use alternatives, so that was the only reason. Mr. Speaker, the longstanding program in support of the farm community of providing for the costs will continue, Sir. There is no intent on changing the policy.

If one compar es our situation as com pared to Saskatchewan, which is viewed as eight to ten times as severe as ours, in terms of acres covered, the Province of Saskatchewan doesn't even provide near the type of assistance that is being pushed by the honourable members opposite. Interest Rate Relief Program - billing and collecting repayable portion MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Min ister of Agriculture.

During the Estimate process, the Minis ter ind icated he would provide me information as to the number of failure-to pay the loan portion of the Interest Rate Relief Program, as far as the farm portion of that program went. Could the Min ister indic ate when he might be able to make that information available to me? A MEMBER: Never. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had done that; I will check. In the event that I didn't, I will bring the honourable member that information. I asked the corporation to provide that information for me, Sir, and I will do so. Borrowing requirement - status of MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister of Finance. He's been travelling so much, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see him back. I believe that the government had a net borrowing requirement of some $1 ,400 million. I wonder if the Min ister could update the House as to how much of that money has been borrowed to date and what the outstanding requirement remains at. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I want to thank the member for that question. He'll understand my spending some time in conversation.

I've had very few questions this Session. In fact, it's sort of nice, once in a while, to have one. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: it's so nice to see this smiling bunch, Mr. Speaker. They're all in such good shape today; but I should tell the member I was back on Friday and I don't recall any questions. I was trying to start providing information.

One of the reasons I can't give all of the information right now is that I don't have the latest num bers, with respect to the Manitoba Properties share; I believe the one year period there is pretty well over. I know the latest 3055

Tueeday, 18 June, 1985 I saw was that we got about 185 million out of that in this - 185 million approxi mately. But I'll get a comp lete upda te to the mem ber. He knows of the other loans as well. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MA. A. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , I wonder if I could have leave to make a short non-political annou ncement or a comment. MA. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? We are still in Oral Question period. If there are no further oral questio ns - the Honourable Member for Elmwood. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Etmwood. MA. A.

DOERN: Mr. Speaker , I think that the occasion should not go unnoticed that the Honourable Sam Uskiw, who Is one of the most popular and well-liked members of this Chamber ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. A. DOEAN: . . . has just celebrated his 25th year in public life and had a major social event last weekend in Beausejour with 500 well-wishers and I think that all members would want to wish him well on his Si lver Anniv ersary. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, Hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I would like to make a non-political statement. MA. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker , I'd like to commend and congratulate Roger Schwegel of The Pas on his excellent performance in Sunday's Seventh Annual Manitoba Marathon, which was held on June 16th. Roger ran the race in 2 hours, 22 minutes and 32 seconds. This event is held annually to raise funds for the mentally handica pped in Manitoba. Roger Schwegel has represented not only The Pas, but Manitoba and Canada well.

He's been the top Canadian in this international event for the last thr ee consecutive years. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that it's in order, but I do wish to acknowledge the well wishes and the comments of the Member for Elmwood; and also to acknowledge the representation from th e Conservative Caucus at the event, and others that had attended. Thank you very kindly. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker , since members are In such good spirits and I arrived a couple of minutes late for the House today, I'm wondering if I could get leave to make a Ministerial Statement on Mainstreet Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? Leave has not been granted. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMIT TEE BUSINESS HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker , I would propose to move the House into a Committee of Supp ly, but first I wish to advise honour able members that the Standing Commi ttee on Economic Develo pm ent , which is scheduled for this Thursday and next Tuesday, will sit and will continue consideration of the Manfor Report until its completion. On completion of that report, we'll commence consideration of the A. E. McKenzie Report, and following that, Manitoba Development Corporation.

I will advise members shortly as to the date for the next meeting of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities, once I have consulted with the Minister on available dates for that committee to consider Hydro. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, and subject to leave, if it is granted to waive Private Members' Hour - perhaps I should ask for that first. A MEMBER: No. HON. A. ANSTETT: No, okay. Mr. Speaker , I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Education, and the Honourable Member for Bu rrows in the Chair for the Department of Energy and Mines. CONCURRENT CO MMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ENERGY AN D MINES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: Comm ittee, please come to order. We are considering Item No. 3.(b)

(1) Petroleum, Salaries; 3.(b)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Member for Lakeside. 3056

TUesday, 18 June, 1985 MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'm just confirming that we are on Item (

b) Petroleum. I believe my colleague from Turtle Mountain has questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether the Minister has the copy of the Annual Report of the division at hand. If he does, perhaps look at Table 6, Page 37.

There are some figures in this table which I find extremely interesting and we have referred to these before, that beginning in 1980 with the new expansion in exploration, the total oil sales in 1980 came to just under $55 million and the following year in 19 81 the industry reported total expenditures were just over 55 million; 1981 the sales were 64 million, the expenditures over 82; in the following year of 1982 - in that same year of'82 then, sales were 100 million and the next year in'83 the reported expenditur es were 11 6 million and so on.

The interesting thing here to me being that, in recent years, the industry seems to have been putting more money back into the industry than the total sales value. I'm wondering if there's any indication of how that has been continuing for 19 84 and 1985. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. W. PARASIUK: We have the numbers for'84. The total production was $1 69,29 6, 154 and the industry reported total expenditures are $125 million. That's an estimate. We don't have our'85. MR. B. RANSOM: lt would now would appear then that trend is falling off.

I suppose that's the revenues, the sales in'83 which was over a 50 percent increase. I'm assuming th at would la rgely reflect the new production coming in from the Waskada field. HON. W. PARASIUK: This would be both increased production and new oil prices. MR. B. RANSOM: Can the Minister give just a rough indication of how much of that would be attributed to increased prices and how much to expande d production? Mr. Chairman, it's not necessary to take the time - we can probably calculate it from the information that's available in the table. HON. W. PARASIUK: We don't have the calculations.

If you want, they can do a calculation and pass it on to you while we're talking. MR. B. RANSOM: it's evident enough I guess, from the figur es then that he's provided. If he could give us the production . . . HON. W. PARASIUK: Take a look, it goes from 582 to 737. MR. B. RANSOM: What would the production be then for'84? HON. W. PARASIUK: 793. To'84. MR. B. RANSOM: One other question that I have has to do with the deep drilling.

What kind of activity has there been, if any, in terms of deep drilling in the southw est to get right down to the Cambrian, or whatever the formation is, that's below where production's taking place now? HON. W. PARASIUK: I'm informed that there's been in the order of three to six per year over the last few years. I know that one of the major companies has been doing a lot of seismic work and we've just had discussions with them and they still think that the deep wells will indeed bear fruit. it's just that the great success has been with the Spearfish zone wells. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, I'm very pleased personally with these statistics that show the increase in exploration for oil and increase in production that's taking place in the southwest, because I think to a very significant extent it came about as a result of changes that were made in royalty structu res and a return to the leasing of Crown lands. In view of the success of that, I'm wondering if the Minister has given any consideration to providing some kind of additional incentive for deep drilling.

I'm not talking about incentives that take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and give it to companies, but that would simply perhaps provide a longer royalty free period that would encourage companies to do deep drilling rather than the sort of exploration that's going on, which is admittedly important but centres mostly around areas of known production and production from already proven strata; so has the Minister given any consideration to some further incentive? HON. W. PARASIUK: I've been informed that the existing program does provide some incentive for deep drilling.

The program expires next year, so it's a matter of taking a look at either extending that or making some modifications to the incentives program. I usually sit down with the department through the summ er, with some seminars, and certainly I'll take the member's suggestion under advisement.

I'v e jus t had a meeting with one of the major producers in the area, one of the company's that's had a long experience in drilling, also drilling some deep wells, and they didn't raise anything of this nature; but certainly I'll take the matter under advisement and I'll have some discussions with people in the indu stry, generally. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of change in the appropriations for this

section of the Minister's Estimates. When we were dealing earlier at the committee stage, or when the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation was report ing to commi ttee, the staffing information was gi ven and Ma ni toba Oil and Gas Corpora tion of Manitoba operates with what I would describe as a reasonably lean force. But my question to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman is, is the separation between Manitoba Mineral Oil and Gas Corporation and the departmental function total and complete, or is there 3057

Tuesday, 18 June, 1985 still, at this stage, any functions being carried on that could be described, in the interests of the corpora tion, in the initial years? In other words, there's no cross subsidy coming out of this petroleum division of the department that could be so described. HON. W. PARASIUK: No, there isn't. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(b)(1)- pass; 3.(b)(2)- pass. 3.(c)( 1) Mineral Resources, Mines, Salaries; 3.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity to discuss at some length mining activity, general ly, under the initial heading of this resolution, entitled Mineral Resources. Departmentally , the Minister seems to indicate by his appropriations no significant staff changes other than those that he mentioned in his introduction of the division, with respect to senior staff and specific responses that he made to the Member for Turtle Mountain earlier.

The activities of this division are again not in any way cross-su bsidizing the operations of the same question I asked just a moment ago, of the Manitoba Mineral Resources? HON. W. PARASIUK: The answer there is no as well. There's a complete separation. MR. H. ENNS: The ongoing commitment that Manitoba Mineral Resources has to the Trout Lake operation, which goes back a considerable num ber of years, is enti rely managed thr ough the Ma nitoba Min eral Resou rces Corporation and not through the department? HON. W. PARASIUK: That's correct. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, on the item of Salaries, I note a minimal increase which I would assume to be princi pally salary adjustments during the cou rse of the year. However, earlier on, the Minister indicated to me that as of last April, I believe, several members of this division that were related to the safety inspection of mines had indeed been transferred to the Department of Labour - (Interjection) - or Environment and Workplace Safety, in any event transferred out of this appropriation.

Would the Minister care to go through the figures a little bit with me and indicate to me why that doesn't appear to be showing up in this appropriation? HON. W. PARASIUK: Since that took place last year, it was in previous years reflected in those Estimates, and this is reflecting what exists within the department on an adjus ted basis, last year to this year. There was a Reconciliation Statement on Page 63 of the Estimates last year, relating to a transfer of, I think, $61 7,000, and staff that I indicated yesterday. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(c)(t)- pass; 3.(c)(2)-pass. 3.(d)( 1) Geological Services, Salaries; 3.(d)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, this is the division that procures the kind of base data geological information for the branch and for the indust ry, to the extent that we publ icize that information. I would assume that with the emphasis being placed - the exploration emphasis being placed - I believe, if I recall rightly, of both the Manitoba Mineral Resources Corporation and the branch in the Lynn Lake area - I'm trying to recall by memory - it was indicated I believe that upwards to 60 percent of the activity was directed in that area.

Can the Minister assure me that that is not at the expense of other areas that the department normally services within this appropriation? HON. W. PARASIUK: The 60 percent referral was to MMR , which is the corporation which is doing exploration and development. The geo-science work or geological services work is, indeed, being spread out through the province. At the same time, there is some emphasis on the Lynn Lake-Leaf Rapids area. Since this is providing geo-science data of a general nature and people will make specific decisions off that data, this is more spread out. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, our attention is, of course, riveted on those main mineral resources that are known to us and, particularl y, those and again in those areas that we have by reason of policy every reason to concentrate on, that is to try to find additional copper, zinc and nickel geological information that would continue that exploration work. However, there are, of course, other resources and from time to time one hears of gypsum deposits, tin, iron. Does the branch have any information with respect what I call these other resources that don't receive the kind of attention that the principal mineral resources do? HON.

W. PARASIUK: I don't have any specifically here. I know that the department and its geologists publis h papers and attend conferences where they will have private sector companies who are considering their program for the upcoming year or two years or five years and we've presented papers on potash; we've presented papers on chromium; we've presented papers with respect to gold as gold came back into the limelight. Obviousl y, there's stoneware clay from the Ste.

Rose du Lac area; shale from the Pembina Mountain area; sand, from a variety of places; they have non-swelling bentonite used mainly in the clarification of petroleum and vegetable oils and tha t's mined by Pem bina Mountain Clays near Morden; we've got gypsum and we have, indeed, been looking at the whole question of limestone used in the production of cement; work being done in the Mafeking area in addition to the limestone that's being quarried at Steep Rock - there's a big quarry at Steep Rock - it's also being quarried at Mafeking and people are taking a look at further limestone possibilities in the Mafek ing area.

Then, of course, there's the whole matter of the high quality silica sand from Black Island and other potential prospects for silica sand in and around Lake Winnipeg. 3058

Tue•day, 18 June, 1985 In another area that I think is important is the sphagnum peat moss that is produced in southeastern Manitoba and used for horticultural purposes. I think that there is an interesting value added and some interesting possibilities. So these are your less glamorous areas than the others, but we don't have anything major of a non gla morous nature looming on the horizon. I think the one thing that is interesting is the work that indeed is being done by Tanco. That's proceeding nicely, so ... MR. H. ENNS: I'll just ask this general question, not particularly germane to this particular

section of the Estimates, but silica sand that is being poured from Black Island, is that all being exported or have we had any success in applying it here in Manitoba? it seems to me we had an operation . . . HON. W. PARASIUK: I would have to take that one under advisement and try and check back. I know that there have been a num ber of discussions from time to time with groups, practically from virtually around the world, trying to in terest them in the high quality silica sand, especially also since we've got long-term low cost power.

There have been discussions bloom a bit and then they recede, but I don't know specifically and I'd have to take that under advisement. I thought that some of it might have been used in foundry work, but I would not want to be definitive on that. MR. H. ENNS: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. In the Geological Services undertaken by the division, the Other Expenditures are virtually unchanged. Has this

section of the department utilized aircraft to any extent and would that cost be included? To me, it would not appear so, but is in the Geological Services Branch and that, I gather, in the use of aircraft of any sign ificant consequenc e? HON. W. PARASIUK: Our aircraft would probably be put into the next one, (

e) Canada-Manitoba Mineral Development Ag reement and we'r e worked out arrangements with the Federal Government, in terms of the Federal Department of Energy , Mine s and Resources, because that's where th ey do a lot of geo mapping, work like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.( d)(1)- pass; 3.(d)(2)- pass. 3.(e) ( 1) Canad a-Manitoba Mine ral Development Agreement: Salaries; 3.(e)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Min ister to briefly describe what it is that we are doing currently under this item, nam ely, the Canada-Manitoba Mineral Development Agreement. What year are we in? HON. W. PARASIUK: The agreement was formally signed by myself on February 22, 1984 and by, at that time, the Honourable Wiliia m Rompk ey, who was Min ister of State for Mines, on April 18 , 1984.

The agreement is for a five-year term, 1984-1 989 and the Federal and Provincial Governments will contribute $ 14.8 million and $9.9 million respectively, for a tot al of $24.7 million, so it's a greater amount of federal funding than provincial funding. There are technical subcomm ittees established for each of the four sectors of the agreement as follows: Sector A is Geo-scientific Investigations; Sector B is Mining and Research and Technology; Sector C is Development and Marketing Studies; Sector D is Public Information, Evaluation and Admin istration.

In Sector A, you have geo-scientific projects co ordinated by Manitoba Geological Services Branch and Geological Survey of Canada. The 1984-85 activities were augmented by 14 applied geo-science research agreements cont racted to univ ersities in Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada. And a field program consisted of 53 provincial projects, 16 federal projects and completed and reported upon in a meeting with the industry which was held November 14th and 15th, 1984.

During the initial stages of the agreement emphasis has been given to areas surrounding existing mining districts at Lynn Lake, Flin Flon and southeast Manitoba. Again part of that is because you're starting out from some type of an existing infrastructure, so that the incremental cost of bringing on a new mine isn't that great and you tend to work from some areas where you have some strengths and existing knowledge. Sector B.

What we've had there - there's an Ind ustry Government Liaison Committee established between the Manitoba Mining Association and the Department of Energy and Mines to encourage ind ustry input and co-operation in the development, monitoring and execution of projects under Sectors B and C; Sectors B and C, of course, being mining and research and technology; and Sector-C. development and marketing studies. In a November 16, 1984 meeting there was a number of indus try proposals, particularly in the mining and smelting area made by Hudson Bay and lnco.

In the fiscal year 1984-85, the province in itiated projects to develop computer-assistance systems for designed underground mining operations, as well as research into disposal of mine tailings. The federal activity focused on min eral processing, ground control and underground communications systems.

One project with potentially economic, significant economic ramifications to Manitoba mines is studying the applicability of a hydro metallurgical process to mitigating the problem of S02 emissions in Mani toba's Hud-Bay Smelter; and there we may end up with sulphur, and frankly sulphur is becoming a fairly valuable commodity in the world right now, so we may be able to deal with a problem of sulphur emissions, and at the same time possibly alleviate the cost of all that by having a by-product that can achieve some profit.

In Sector C, in 19 84-85, one project assessed economic factors related to the province's copper-zinc indu stry. A second assessed the impa ct of changes in mining activity in the Lynn Lake region and work has also com menced on a comprehensive information package to develop an expansion of the province's industrial minerals area, and that's the type of activity or the area that we were just discussing a couple of min utes ago, when you're talking about things like Lime stone or gypsum or bentonite.

In Sector D, work that is under way Includes Minerals Identity Package, a brochure explaining the agreement and evaluation framework to measure the im pact of output stemming from agreement activities and long- 3059

term communication strategy, emphasizing acceleration of geo-scientific activity as a support to the private sector. In terms of this year, there are work plans under way for 1985-86 in which Canada will develop some, I guess all told, some $3.2 million in minerals programming; and Manitoba, through a couple of its activities, both on the capital side and through the enabling vote, will be delivering some $2.3 million all told, a bit more than this Estimate, but it's highligh ted in a footnote on Note 1 at the bottom. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I'd just ask the general question. it's my recollection that in calling on some experience in the Department of Natural Resources, for instance that Manitoba sometimes gets less than what I would call it's "fair share" in these federal sup ported joint agreements, partially because of the scale of our operations. I'm more familiar with the foresty operations where the bigger provinces, such as British Columbia or Ontario or Quebec, with a bigger forestry operation, tend to proportionately receive a greater measure of support.

I recall having to constantly battle on behalf of Manitoba's position to retain some equ ity in respect to the Federal Go vernmen t's participation in resource development in our province. I would just ask the Minister, recognizing that much the same can be said about mining in Canada, that cer tainly some of the other provinces like British Columbia, and notably, Ontario, are major mining areas in the country; is he satisfied that we are doing as well as we can with respect to federal participation in assisting the department and the government in this activity? HON. W.

PARASIUK: I guess we're all a bit like Oliver Twist and we'd like a bit more. But at the same time I think that with respect to this agreement, at this particular stage I'm pleased, in the sense that I think - and I mentioned this yesterday or certainly on Friday - that some of the provinces have been hung-up debating jurisdiction over mining with the Federal Government, even though we're in a - I think a fairly severe - transition over, I'd say, a 15-20 year period in the mining industry and I think it req uires focused effort on the part of the Federal Government.

I think it's going to take focused efforts on the part of Provincial Governments and focused efforts on the part of the industr y, labour communiti es themselves. I mean that's the reality and they have to realize what it is and try and cope with it and do the best possible that one can, under conditions that I think aren't going to be the same as they were just after the Second World War. So we have adopted the approach of trying to work in as co-operative of a way as we can with the Federal Government and we've gotten off the mark quickly on this one.

As a result, I think that we have received a pretty good effort on the part of the Federal Government. I think there's always a bit of work to do in terms of sorting out who delivers what, how it's delivered, and I've Sf!id that before, that I think that in many of these instances the Federal Government should establish some priorities, establish some strategy and probably leave more of the day-to-day delivery to the province. I think that works best in trying to set 3060 up a dupl icate delivery service, although in the case of a geological survey it's been around for a long time at the national level.

So I'm not displeased with what I see happening here. We tend to do an upda te all the time to see what other provinces are doing and I think, on a per capita basis or proportiona te basis, we've held our own and probably have done a bit better by being quicker off the mark. The one area where I'm hopeful that we might be able to do something additional and innovative concerns the whole area of single-enterprise communities. That again is breaking new ground. As I said before, I'm not sure of the extent to which other provinces are supportive of the Federal Government getting involved.

I take a very strong position th at th e Federal Government should pay attention to these, for reasons that I won't go into again today, and we'll see over the course of the next two to thr ee months how well we do there, because it's just not a matter of Lynn Lake facing a closure of the Fox Lake Mine, this is what every mining community faces.

And to the extent that we put our heads in the sand and don't look at these things, and try not to, or avoid developing mechanisms or processes to deal with these problems, which perhaps one can't predict the exact date but it's a bit like death and taxes, you know they're going to be happening and one should be trying to make allowances for them or make adequa te pr epara tion on a continge ncy basis. We think we're doing a bit with the Mining Community Reserve Fund. I think it's a good idea. lt provides a focus for atten tion. I think it does help a community feel that they aren't there by themselves.

We do have a fund that the community is looking to. They're not quite sure what else exists out there and, hopefully , we'll be able to do some work over the course of the next two to thr ee months and, as I said, it's my hope that we would be able to report back to the people of Manitoba that we have achieved some suc cess and made some progress in this whole area of single enterprise communities adjustments. MR. H. ENNS: I thank the Minister for that statement.

The Minister indicated earlier that it would be perhaps under this appropriation of some $1,10 4,800 that any chartering of aircraft that the department engaged in would be included. I wonder if the Minister can break out that item, give the committee some idea of the amount of air charter time that the branch is, in fact, employing. By the way, just before the Minister answers, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You normally maintain reasonably good control of committe es, but the level of side discussion is becoming such that it's getting more difficult for the Minister and I to engage in a conversation here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call upon the unnamed members to please be considerate to the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: That means you, lnkster. MR. CHAIRMAN: I did not name anybody. The Member for Lakeside.

Tuesday, 18 June, 1985 MR. H. ENNS: Well, I asked the question whether the Mini ster could br eak out the air time th at the department is engaged in. HON. W. PARASIUK: I can undertake to try and get the exact information. I take it that around $85,000 to $1 00,000 is spent on chartered aircraft. MR. H. ENNS: My specific reason for asking was - does the government use charter Manitoba Air service or is this outside charter? If it is government air is the appropriation paid to Manitoba Air? HON. W.

PARASIUK: We have to pay for whatever charter service is used, so that would be Manitoba Air or there might be some specific companies that are outfitted a bit better for that activity. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(eX 1)-p ass; 3.(eX2)-pass. 3.( fX1) Surface Rights Board, Salaries; 3.(fX2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have some information that they would like to raise at this particular time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some general concerns as have the farm commun ity dealing with the past and present operations of the Surface Rights Board. I have some specific questions dealing with a letter the Min ister of Resources received, I believe it was in December of 1984 - I'm not sure, the constituent either lives on the border of my constituen cy or in my colleague's constituency of Virden. I received a call again yesterday from this individual. I have a previous letter from him or a copy of a letter, an open letter sent to the Mini ster on May 17th.

The concern of the call today and yesterday was the fact that a letter as of December 1984 still has not been answered by the Mini ster and the individual is anxious to hear from him. I would ask the Minister why he hasn't answered that individual? As well, I want to put on the record this open letter that was sent to the Mi nister on May 17th from the same person, Mr. Philip Francis. I'll read it because I think it's important.

The information that it contains relates dir ectly to the Surface Rights Board, the fact that the regulations as I un derstand it are not in place, so they have not got any regulations to operate by. The concerns brought forward in the letter I thin k should be answered by the Min ister and I would expect his response. I'll read the letter to the committee. "The Honourable Wilson Para siuk, Mi nis ter of Mine s and Ene rgy, Legislative Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Dear Mr. Parasiuk: Last Wednesday, May 15th, I attended a hearing held by the Surface Rights Board of Manitoba.

Also attending for Chevron Canada Resources was a lawyer, I believe, from Winnipeg. lt seemed to me all through two hearings held that day that he, the lawyer, was making and having accepted rules and regulations for the said board. On one occasion the board made a ruling on a matter only to change that ruling after the lawyer mentioned would not accept their first ruling. A fairly interesting situation. I feel the board should have enough authority to make a ruling and have it stand against the lawyer for either of the parties which it is mediating between.

"Again, in the afternoon, much of the same thing happened. The board said they would accept a written submission by a landowner only to have the lawyer argue they should not. Lo and behold, again, they changed the ruling and said they would not accept the written submission. With no rules or regulations in the act, we and the board are at a disadvantage to Chevron's lawyers who have been involved for many years with hearings before Surface Rights Board in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

At present, there is no way we can compete with Chevron who are prepared to spend thousands of dollars on cases which are only worth a few hundred dollars to a land owner. Then if the board's ruling is in favour dollar-wise, of the land owner, take it to appeal, another large amount of money to spend. lt is time now for you to take a stand for the landowner or give jurisdiction over to another department of the government, preferably Agriculture. I remain, a dissatisfied landowner, Phillip Francis." The first question to the Min ister is, why was there no response to the Individual's letter of December 1984?

And what about the status of regulations and directions as far as the Surface Rights Board is concerned? Does the Min ister have any comments? HON. W. PARASIUK: My former Acting Deputy Minister had been involved in helping to get the Surface Rights Board just admi nistratively off the ground and when that letter came in, it was in his files and my former Acting Deputy took ill, and frankly - and I apologize for that, I think Mr. Francis might have been contacted yesterday - that letter was misplaced.

We just came across it when we were going through and looking through in relation to the May 17th letter, and it was a matter of that letter being misplaced. That's with respect to the letter not being answered. With respect to the question of regulations, my un derstanding is that the board is in the process of developing the regulations. They have a lawyer and I expect to be apprised of that in the near future. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, is the Mi nister not concerned about the accusations of Mr. Francis, and the fact that there appeared to be some inconsistencies, some change in direction of the board?

Is he satisfied that the regulations and activities carried on by the board, following the late Judge Ferg's comments last year on a judgment of his, that the board was inept and incompetent in their activities? Is he satisfied with the development of regulations in that whole area, that things are being handled in the best interests of the landowners? Because I can assure him, talking to the Landowners' Surface Rights Association and many individuals, they haven't been happy for quite some time in the activities of the board.

They've lost confidence In the board, and I'm sorry, there's been a strong request for changes for the responsibility of the board to be transferred to the Department of Agriculture or another jurisdiction. Has there been any action or move by the government to change the board to another department? 3061

Tuead•y, 18 June, 1185 HON. W. PARASIUK: I'd certainly like to speak on that because I don't feel possessive about the board. I mean, If there is a perception out there on the part of the public that there is a bias because it's reporting to the Minister of Energy and Mines, then I'm quite prepared to look at where it might go.

I'm not sure wheth er, in fact, taking it from the Department of Energy and Mines and putting it under the aegis of the Departme nt of Agricultur e puts it into a neutral spot; or maybe it's something that should be put - since it is a qua si-judi cial entity - under the Attorney-General's Department because it does operate on that basis. I'm certainly not against looking at that and I'm in the process of looking at that whole matter. MR. J. DOWNEY: I'm sure, Mr.

Chairman, that will probably give some individuals a bit of relief that there's at least some consideration being given to taking it from the Department of Energy and Mines, because the disastrous way in which it has been handled and has not been working in the best interests, in general, of the farm community and/or the oil companies, because you cannot have those individuals who are not getting along in the way in which they are doing so in the past. As I said, confidence has been lost in the board and the activites.

I ask the Minister, will he be meeting with the Su rface Rights Asso ciation to help develop some of th e regulations? Will he carry out discussions in the near future to see, before those regulations are put in place, that they're acceptable in a general way with those individuals as I would expect him to carry out with the petroleum indu stry. I think it's incumbent upon him to get on with the job. There's some oil development being held up because of lack of regulations in place and working together. There are some injustices being caused on some of the landowners, who don't know where they're at.

There are excessive legal costs being incurred by many people and it just has to be dealt with. So I ask the Minister if he's prepared to meet with the Surface Rights Association and the farm community as well as the oil industr y, to discuss some of the regulations and some of the changes that have to be made. A MEMBER: What regulations? MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, before he puts the regulations in place. HON. W. PARASIUK: When the board has finished that work, certainly, I would intend to make sure that it's circula ted to people in the Su rface Rights Associa tion, to muni cipalities and to people in the industr y.

MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I feel that comfortable with the board writing the regulations or not. I would think that the Minister, it's incumb ent upon him to fully discuss the kinds of regulations that are going to be implemented with the Surface Rights Association and with the oil companies. Granted, I don't expect them to write the regulations, but I think that because we've had some experience now and the difficulties they've gone through, possibly it would be fruitful to have some discussions with the Minister and the Su rface Rights Association before they imp lemented them.

I ask him if he plans to carry out such a meeting or a process of meetings. HON. W. PARASIUK: Certainly, I would expect that that would be done over the course of the upcoming months. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, again, I go back to the question as to the transfer of responsibilities. How soon will he be making recommendations, either to the Premier or to his Cabinet, that the responsibility should be changed from his department to either the Attorney General or to the Department of Agriculture? And if one were to follow the wishes of the farm community and those people affected, it should go to Agricultur e.

If he was looking at the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, it should go to Agricultur e. That's where it is in those two provinces. In Alberta it's in Agriculture, as I understand it; as well in Saskatchewan it answers to the Department of Agriculture, which by the way was recommended when the bill was being heard before this Legislative Assembly. I believe Mr. Kohaly from Estevan made that case to the committee when we were preparing legislation, the surface rights legislation.

I think there's a major dis appointm ent in this government because there was a strong lobby put forward, following the Nugent Report to proceed with legislation, and legislation was proceeded on. They made their case before the commi ttee but, unfortu nately, there are a lot of dissatisfied people. In fact, the way it has been carried out, there are a lot of people questioning as to whether or not it has worked to the advantage of anyone other than just to further break down the relations between the oil companies and the farm commu nity.

In many cases, in my first hand experience, there are certain individual landowners who feel very badly treated by the performance of the board. As well, Mr. Chairman, I have to make a comment. I asked the Minister some time ago if he would table in the Legislature - and I haven't got a copy of it - I guess maybe he has tabled the Annual Report of the Sur face Rights Board? lt really is very obvious that there is very little in it. I know that the board has carried on certain activities. There are no comments as to costs of operation, any major initiatives, the fact that they're working on any regulations.

I find that there are about four pages and it really doesn't have any financial matters, any comments or any statement as to how they've expended the monies, the numb ers of meetings, and some of the di ssati sfact ion. I'm really qu ite disappointed in the content of the report. There's more cover than there is anything else. So I think it might be helpful to the board - and I say this to probably help them - if there had been a more complete coverage of what kind of activities have taken place.

I plead with the Minister to take as immed iate action as possible to have the Surface Rights Board transferred to another department. I plead with the Minister, as well, to meet with and to discuss the surface rights problems with the association before regulations are final ized so that at least the intent of what the government are planning to do are fully discussed. That dis cussion, I feel, should be carried out with the 3062

Tuesday, 18 June, 1985 operators as well because there are two groups involved - and get on with the job. I would hope that the Mini ster would take seriously the judgm ent of the late Judge Ferg, when the comment came down of his judgment, and the fact that he considered them inept and incompetent and I think that's a reflection on the Min ister. I have no other thing to conclude but that, that he's prepared to leave that judgm ent on the record and, real ly, no one has repudiated it. lt really stays on the record, that that's the kind of activities that they're carrying on.

So I say, as a result of that, there isn't any confidence in the whole carryings-on by this Min ister and the Surface Rights Board. HON. W. PARASIUK: If, in fact, the member's logic, his way of thinking is to take one judgment by one judge and infer from that a whole condemnation of the board and then to go beyond th at and infer condemnation and lack of confidence in the Min ister, that obviously reflects his thinking style, and that's fair enough. I take it for what it is. I certainly don't get into debates with judges. One could; there are a lot of inciden ces where one might want to, but I don't.

A judge has made a ruling; I'm not sure. One could look at that and look at a whole set of Justice Ferg's rulings over a whole period of time, but I don't do that. They've made a ruling. I've received a number of comments and letters from time to time. There have been favourable statements about the Surface Rights Boards; on occasion there's been a negative statement. One side is happy with one ruling, the other side isn't happy; then another side's happy with the ruling a while later and then the other side isn't going to be happy. You're going to have that with something like a Su rface Rights Board.

You're not going to have a Surface Rights Board that's going to come up with decisions that everyone is happy with. I think that the Surface Rights Board has, in fact, achieved a lot. There's a lot happening in the oil area there. I think there have been some modifications; I think people have had an opportunity to have surface rights agreements opened up that have been outstanding for 30 years, where they never had a chance to get any compensation, any change for compensation. Some of them complained that when it was opened up they didn't make enough money from that.

They made a lot more than what they were making 20 years ago or 15 years ago or 10 years ago or five years ago. They have made those arrangements themselves years back, or th eir pred ecessors have made th ose arrangements years back. When one says, we didn't follow specifically the advice of a Mr. Kohaly, there's some advice that we follow and some advice we don't follow from Mr. Kohaly; and I've looked at what's happened. I've had chances to discuss this from time to time with people on the surface rights and , as I said, I don't feel terribly possessive of it.

But I do have a concern when someone says, well, we want to put it under the Department of Agriculture because we want judgments that are only good for the farmer, because that's not a fair approach to take to that as well. I think it has to be a balanced approach and I think the member should, in fact, try and take a balanced approach on this as well, because I know that there are mun icipalities in the area and that there are farmers in the area who want the oil development to take place.

One of the things that they sometimes would like to see, obviously, is they would like to see a surface rights lease be as big as a mineral rights lease - and I had, and the member had nothing to do with the historical circumstances of split mineral and surface rights leases. That happened a long, long time ago, and I can appreciate the concerns that farmers have when they have looked after the land maybe for two or three generations and they have someone come in with a mi neral rights lease and say, I, in fact, want to go onto your land to do XYZ.

In some instances, people can reach an agreement and in some instances the farmer doesn 't want the person on their land in any circumstance. That's understandable, but we do have laws pertaining to mineral rights leases that existed a long time ago. One can't remake history; one can try and just ameli orate some of the injus tices of the past and ameliorate some of the circumstances of the past and hope that one can do that in an evolving way. I believe that, in an evolving way, the Surface Rights Board is carrying out its functions and I have confidence in them. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I made comment about the report and the fact there was no financial activity reported by board. Is there a copy of the financial activity of the board, the numbers of meetings and that type of thing? HON. W PARASIUK: I do not have that with me. I can get it for the members. MR. J. DOWNEY : I would appr eciate that, Mr . Chairman. I think it's important to know. I note that the amount of money requested is the same as last year. lt's just a matter of getting an idea of the activities of the board in financial matters.

The Min ister has not answered me specifically regarding when he sees the regulations being in place. What kind of time frame does he see for that to happen, because I again go back to Mr. Francis' letter where he makes reference to changes made by the board on the day of the hearing. I'd like him to comment as to how fast he thinks that will take place, and is he satisfied with that kind of report that he sees from Mr. Francis? HON. W PARASIUK: I won't comment on Mr. Francis' letter. I would like to hear from the surface rights people themselves. I never take a position of only saying, well, what is in a letter.

I try and hear both sides of the story and I certainly intend to try and hear both sides of the story on this before I pass comment on it. I would think that would be a fair approach that the Member for Arthur might take as well. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, will we have the opportunity to hear what the Surface Rights Board have to say in response to the comments of Mr. Francis? If so, I would request that we see what the response is and that the Min ister make it available to us when it's available. Will he do that? 3063

TUesday, 18 June, 1985 A MEMBER: That seems fair. HON. W. PARASIUK: Seeing as how it was an open letter sent with a copy to you, I certainly would expect to make the reply available to you as well. MR. J. DOWNEY: His reply will be made available. Will we hear the comments of the Sur face Rights Board? HON. W. PARASIUK: If the Sur face Rights Board answers the letter directly, they would be hearing from them. Otherwise, I will be taking their comments and incorporating them in a letter that I respond to. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I think that when you look at it, this is really the first time that we've had an opportunity to look at the Su rface Rights Board before this committee. We have to note that it was the previous government that set up the Nugent Study and when this government came into office, I have to commend the Minister, he grabbed the ball and he ran with it. On surface rights legislation, he went out and he met with the people and he promised them legislation and it came forward in this House and it passed with the approval of all sides of the Legislature. MR. H. ENNS: Right. I remember that day well, Harry. MR.

H. GRAHAM: So, Mr. Chairman, up to that point, everybody was in perfect agreement; everybody was hap py, but once the legislation passed, things sort of died. He appointed a six-member board, fired half of them and at the same time, to my knowledge he has not given any direction to the board in the form of regulations and the board has been struggling - a new board - in the absence of regulation and I'm sure the Mini ster has nu merous letters on file req uesting direction, regulations and that. Yet, we haven't seen any sign of any regulations coming forward. The Member for Arthur has asked about regulations.

The Minister hasn't yet given any clear indication of when regulations will be coming forward under the legislation. I think it's very imp ortant for the people who are appearing before the board. I think it's important for members of the board and I think it's important for the general public to know just what kind of regulations the Minister intends to draft to adminster the Su rface Rights Board. This board has been trying to operate for a year-and-a-half and it's operating more or less in the dark. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of what is going to happen. HON. W.

PARASIUK: There are ju risdictions that operate without regulations. The Su rface Rights Board members have gone to take a look at hearings in Saskatchewan to see how they've conducted their affairs. They talked to people in Alberta as well. There are different ways in which one can approach this. They were taking a look at what the experience in those other jurisdictions has been.

I would expect that they would be coming forward with something to me over the course of the summer and we would see where we'd go from there. lt may be that I would want them to be revised and modified before I would have them discuss with the indu stry but, certainly, that process will be undertaken as I indicated to the Member for Arthur . MR. H. GRAHAM: A second question to the Minister and it arises from his answer. Is he then contemplating changes to the Sur face Rights legislation that would remove the regulation

section from the act? HON. W. PARASIUK: No, certainly not at this Session. I wouldn't expect that would be necessary. We would see what happens over the course of the summer and the fall. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have seen what most people consider to be good legislation. Everybody seemed to be quite happy with the Su rface Rights legislation when it was put in place. There has been an appointed board according to the Annual Report that we got. They have issued 12 orders. HON. W. PARASIUK: What's the year end? MR. H. GRAHAM: This report is 15 months behind times. We haven't seen any other report.

We have seen no updating of that even though it's three months past the year end, we still haven't seen an upda ted report. We understand that most reports are three, four, five months in the making so we're not condemning him for not having that report before us at the present time. But what we have occu rring is a gene ral dissatisfaction in the oil community at the present time. We're finding farmers who are very dissatisfied. We're finding oil companies that are very dissatisfied. lt looks as though there is some breakdown somewhere in the operation of the Su rface Rights legislation.

There has been suggestions that maybe it's because there is no leadership shown in the form of regulations. The Minister is not giving any indication so far that regulations are going to be forthcoming or even necessary as the Member for Lakeside has said. HON. W. PARASIUK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order being raised. HON. W. PARASIUK: I think what I clearly said was that there are some jurisdictions that do not have regulations, that I expected to have something coming before me over the summer. That's what I said. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank the Mini ster for that information.

He said some time over the summ er. Does that mean it'll be - summ er, I imagine, ends on the third week in September so it'll be some time after that that there might be some leadership shown with the Sur face Rights legislation. What time frame are we looking at? HON. W. PARASIUK: I'd indicated that I would expect to receive material over the sum mer. I said I'd look at it to determine whether it needed any revision before it went out to the general public. I would expect that some time in later summer or early fall it would be 3064

Tuesday , 18 June, 1985 going out to the farming community, to the municipalities and to industry. MR. H. GRAHAM: What the Minister is saying is that it may be considerable time after that before we get things out where people can take a look at some regulations. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that by that time that there may be a severe dissatisfaction in the communities with the activities of the Minister.

I suggest to the Minister that we all know that the efforts he is putting in in Hydro, with limestone, trying to improve the image of his party prior to an election, he's doing that in one field, but I suggest the Minister is slippin g badly in another field. - (Interjection) - He may be slipping badly in them both. What we're seeing is a great disappoi ntment in the public Image of this Minister in the Surface Rights legislation field. He has not provided the leadership.

He offered tremendous encouragement with the alacrity with which he moved on Surface Rights legislation and then just left it dangling in the wind. Maybe there was far too much expectation of the Minister by the public in the beginning and that's entirely possible. At the present time, the community in the oil industry is very disillusioned with this Minister particularly in the field of Surface Rights legislation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arth ur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the Minister dealing with the removal of three members of the board.

This happened at a time when one of the members was being challenged by one of the oil companies as to whether or not she had a conflict of interest. Has the Surface Rights Board or the province picked up her legal charges while she was acting as a member of the Surface Rights Board in that regard? HON. W. PARASJUK: No, they haven't. She was informed that they would not when she went out and incurred the expenses. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, so there is no compensation or there isn't any costs being picked up when she, in fact, did appeal the case? HON. W. PARASJUK: No, they're not. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Does the Minister plan on replacing any of those individuals that he removed from the board to increase the number of the board or is he going to carry on with a three-member board? HON. W. PARASJUK: At this particular stage it would be my intention to carry on with the three-member board, but I will certainly have an opportunity over the course of, I'd say, the next four months to have dis cussions with, again, people in the farming community, mu nicip alitie s and the industry and determine wheth er, in fact, there should be any expansions or not.

I would do that after a period, but I don't have any intention at this particular time. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, there were 12 board orders issued - a year ago. that's right and the report that we held before us. lt says, "Although the board has issued a total of 12 orders, several under appeal . .. "Have those appeals been settled at this point or what stage are they at, Mr. Chairman, and how many were under appeal? HON. W. PARASIUK: I'll have to check and get a bit more specifics on that. I believe that there were something in the order of eight under appeal. All told there have been 51 board orders issued.

I must say that in the whole set of areas the process seems to be working. There are something in the order of 433 leases and agreements registered over the course of the. I think, the last year and I had my data up to January, 1985, I guess. I don't have more recent data at this particular stage. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicated there were 433. Was there a major withdrawal of those people who had applied to the Surface Rights Board for reconsideration or settlement or judgment on their cases? HON. W. PARASIUK: No.

I think there are something in the order of 93 applicatio ns for variation of compensation as of January 1985. MR. J. DOWNEY: Were there 95? HON. W. PARASIUK: 93. MR. J. DOWNEY: 93 variations of compensation. What has been the highest as far as that is concerned - the variation of compensation, as far as applicants to the board? HON. W. PARASIUK: I don't know what you're getting at. What's been the high award? MR. J. DOWNEY: No, what has been the highest number of appli cations to the board on variation of awards? HON. W. PARASIUK: That's the high level that I have right here. I really couldn't say.

I'll have to get that information for the member. MR. J. DOWNEY: One of the concerns I want to bring before the Minister, as it indicates again in their report, there were a large number of applications for variations. "lt was felt that by choosing several pilot cases, the board may be able to have the majority settle without the necessity of hearings.

Pilot cases are to be held in April of 1984." Following those pilot cases, I know that my colleage from Virden and I had met with the surface rights people, and they brought forward the concern that it could, In fact, further damage some of the settlements that were being made if they weren't satified with it. So I wondered if there was a withdrawal of people wanting to get their settlements solved by the board or if the number maintained the same? HON. W. PARASIUK: I will have to take that question as notice and get the information. 3065

Tueeday, 18 June, 1985 MR. J. DOWNEY: I would appreciate it if the Minister would report back, because there were concerns brought to our attention that in fact the pilot cases were not going to assist, but were going to damage some of the negotiations that had been carried on by the individuals without using the board. I guess, Mr. Chairman, my concluding remarks would be that I would urge the Minister to - and I do think it's extremely imp ortant that the board operate in fairness. I don't believe that they should lean one way or the other, that we want to see the development of oil take place.

We want to see fairness; the surface rights owners treated fair ly. We want to see the opportunity to develop the oil carried on by the operators. But as I see it, as it's brought to our attention by the Su rface Rights Association and by individuals that it is not being carried out in that manner today; that there Is a desir e to have it transferred from his department; that ther e is need for some guidelin es, as far as regulations are concerned, so that we don't have occurring what has been brought to our attention and what has been put on the record by Mr. Phillip Francis.

I'm sure that further checking would substantiate from the Su rface Rights Association that this kind of thing had carried on and it cannot be tol erated in the best interests of fairness and development of the oil indu stry. So the quicker the First Minister of this province takes action to take it from his responsibil ity, and either puts it in the Attorney-General or Agriculture, which I think would be fair, because it's proven to be fair and working well in both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

I may not be correct in Al berta, but I kn ow tha t in Saskatchewa n, it reports to the Department of Agriculture and I think it does in Al berta, as well.

But I want that kind of action taken, and I would think it's incumbent upon this Minister to draw the guidelines, by regulation, but do so in consultation with the Surface Rights Association and with the petroleum indus try, or else we will continue to see disruption and dissatisfaction and, in fact, delay of oil drilling activity in the southwest, if the landowners aren't treated fairly because they'll continue to try to block the development that has taken place in the past. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(fX 1) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. The Minister indicated there were 433 transactions.

Were they transactions that were negotiated by the Sur face Rights Board or were they registered? HON. W. PARASIUK: Registered. MR. H. GRAHAM: Registered, and of those 433, was it 91, 93? HON. W. PARASIUK: You have 93 applications for variation of compensa tion. That could be an ongoing basis. Before they go before the board, people could reach agreement on them, that happens. There were 51 board orders issued. MR. H. GRAHAM: In the 51 board orders that were issued, how many of those were for right of entry? HON. W. PARASIUK: I don't know. MR. H. GRAHAM: The Min ister doe sn't have a breakdown on that? HON. W.

PARASIUK: No, I don't have that detailed information. A MEMBER: Why not? HON. W. PARASIUK: I don't have it. I could fly the guy in. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister indicate how many of those 91 that the board rendered a decision on, how many were appealed? HON. W. PARASIUK: My understanding is that eight were appealed, but I would take that to get the specific detail and provide that to the member. MR. H. GRAHAM: The Minister doesn't have the information as to who initiated the appeal, whether it was the farmer or the oil company? HON. W.

PARASIUK: I think it was the oil company but I can't be certain. I think it was the oil company that initiated the appeal. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I don't have too many further questions on the Su rface Rights Board, as such on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(fX 1)-p ass; 3.(fX2)-pa ss. Resolution 61: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6, 170,300 for Energy and Mines - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, this is a fairly significant amount of money and when we were dealing with the Standing Com mittee on Economic Development, there were several questions asked of the Minister at that time which he suggested that we ask in this particular committee. Now, unfortu nately, other commitments prevented me from attending this committee hearing yesterday afternoon but I would like to carry on, if I may, asking the Minister some questions dealing with ManOil and their involvement in a pipeline from Waskada to Cromer. Mr.

Chairman, I believe the Minister indicated that there was an original agreement or an understa nding, I guess, with the Inter-City Gas on a 25-75 share basis to enter into an agreement to construct a pipeline. I believe that agreement was entered into before tender proposals were called by the Natural Oil and Gas Corporation.

Subsequent ly, we find that of the four tenders that were called the one that was selected was the Inter City Gas and we find out later that the 75-25 was changed and the province now has a 10 percent interest and I believe Inter-City dropped some of their shares and we now have a third member in that. At the time of the tendering, the Minister indicated or when I asked him questions - it's on Page 36 of the Hansard of the Standing Committee on Economic 3066

TUflday, 18 June, 1985 Development - the Minister said, "When I took that question as notice I had to, unfortun ately , leave the country on government business and I have not had a chance to take up the matter fully. I certainly will have it taken up by the time my Estimates come before the Legislature." Can the Minister now give me the particulars of the tendering process? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: Mr. Minister. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Yes, first of all, I'd like to impress upon the member and other people that this was a notice for application that was made and not a call for tender s as some parties ma y have incorr ectly understood. The parties making application were doing so in order to be able to construct and operate a pipeline, not to build a pipeline for the government. As the Honourable Member for Virden is aware, four separate applications were received and through public notice in late October 1983, were made available for review by any interested parties.

The companies making application to the board were Consol idated Pipelines Com pany, Pembina Resources Limited, Inter-City Gas Corporation, and Simmons Pipelines Limited in conjunction with Omega Hydrocarbons Limited. This was reviewed by the Oil and Natural Gas Conservation Board. A public meeting was scheduled for December 8, 1983 but when no interested parties indicated they wished to appear to present their positions to the public meeting, it was cancelled.

I might just give, I think, the prices that were put forward with those applications; Consolidated Pipelines Compa ny, $4,063,000; Pembina Resources Limited, $5,681 ,000 and their bid included an additional lateral and pump station and this is basically the Newscope battery; Inter-City Gas Corporation, they had a capital cost estimate actually - was $4,326,300 including the Newscope battery; Consolida ted Pipelines Company didn't include the Newscope battery and Simmons Pipelines Limited-Omega Hydrocarbons Limited, their estimated capital costs were In the order of $4,344,0 00 not including the Newscope battery.

Based on a review of the application and discussions held with the individual applic ants on December 8 and 9, 1983, it was announced on February 29, 1984 that ICG Manitoba Pipelines Limited had been granted a construction permit. lt was envisaged at that time that Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation would participate up to a 25 percent interest. During September and October , 19 84, negotiations between the parties involved resulted in ownership of the pipeline being changed, as the member indic ates, or being modified.

Inter-City Gas Corporation, which is the operator, has 60 percent of the pipeline; Omega Hydrocarbons, which is a major produ cer, has 30 percent and Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation has 10 percent. Construction of the pipeline began on October 3, 19 84. lt was completed by December 31, 19 84 and the first oil was pumped through the line in early January of 1985. Inter-City Gas is currently conducting final right -of-way restoration work and all survey drawings for registration of survey plans are being finalized. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, is the Minister telling us that there was no unde rstanding, that no negotiations took place with Inter-City Gas prior to the calling of those tenders? HON. W. PARASIUK: Prior to the calling of appl ications. MR. H. GRAHAM: Of applications. HON. W. PARASIUK: Prior to the calling of appl ications, the applications were called in terms of the exact date.

This was May 17, "No tice To All Operators." I indicated April 28 - this is 1983 - that the Waskada pipeline may be built and operating in 1984 and on May 17, 1983, there was a notice to all operators regarding application to construct and operate a Waskada pipeline to be accepted by the Oil and Natural Gas Conservation Board. There were no discussions at that time. This is 1983. MR. H. GRAHAM: In 1983. Can the Minister give me those dates again? ln'83? HON. W.

PARASIUK: I said that there was a notice to all operators regarding the application to construct and operate Waskada pipeline to be accepted by the Oil and Natural Gas Conservation Board and this notice was May 17, 1983. MR. H. GRAHAM: May 17, 1983. HON. W. PARASIUK: The applications to construct the pipeline were received on August 5, 1983, after an extension from July 15, which was the original deadline 1983, to August 5, 1983, and it was extended to August 5, 1983. That was when the applications were finally received. MR. H. GRAHAM: They were awarded in November, was it? HON. W.

PARASIUK: No, the dis cussi ons were December 8th and 9th and the awarding was February 29, 1984. MR. H. GRAHAM: Awarded on February 28th or 29th? When did the province first enter negotiations with Inter City Gas through ManOi i? HON. W. PARASIUK: I have no idea, frank ly. The com panies had had some discussions with Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation and I don't have specifics as to when discussions took place; but I do know that they'd indicated that they would be interested in being involved with Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, this pipeline has not been considered to be a public utility. Is that correct? HON. W. PARASIUK: After dis cussions with th e indus try, they advised that we shouldn't be dealing with it as a public utility, that in other provinces it isn't dealt with as a public utility and that one does it through market forces, although I felt that if there were problems, then I would have to consider treating it as a public utility, but we haven't treated it as a public utili ty. We've tried to, quote, "let the market work." 3067

l'llndiiJ, 11 June, 1885 MR. H. GRAHAM: At the present time, could the Minister indicate how much of the oil produced in the Waskada area Is utilizing that pipeline? HON. W. PARASIUK: I've been informed that it's in the order of 80 percent. MR. H. GRAHAM: And the one-fifth of the oil that's not utilizing it, Is it because there are no feeder lines or Is it because of the price factor In the negotiations for the uti lization? HON. W.

PARASIUK: There are no feeder lines right now and the truck terminal tha t could be used as a terminal for that pipeline isn't operat ing yet and we'll see what happens after the truck terminal's in place. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, at the present time, could the Minister indicate which oil companies are not utilizing the pipeline? HON. W. PARASIUK: The companies at present that are using it are Omega, Chevron and Newscope. MR. H. GRAHAM: There are only thr ee oil companies that are presently using the . . . HON. W. PARASIUK: Constituting 80 percent of the production, yes. MR. H.

GRAHAM: I believe Omega has pretty close to 70 percent of the production in that area. 1 have no further questions then, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: I was in the middle of read ing the resolution. I will read the resolution again. Resolution No. 61: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $6, 170,300 for Energy and Mines, Mineral Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1986- pass. The Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: if the Minister will unde rtake to provide to me, either in the House or by memo, some details relative to the Expend itur es Related to Capital, Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets, I want to ind icate to him th at I'm prepared to pass these Estimates at this time. HON. W. PARASIUK: Sure, I will present th at information to him. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, just one final question of the Minister. On the Oil and Gas Conservation Board, is Mr. Chenler still the Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: The time being 4:30 p.m. I was instructed by the Clerk to interrupt. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Okay. I will have to take tha t one as notice because I think he's still on the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: The appropriation is passed. MR. H. ENNS: Including the Minister's Salary? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we going to pass every thing? (Agreed). 4.(a)-pass; 4.(b)- pass; 1.(a)- pass. Resolution No. 59: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $1 ,600,500 for Energy and Mines, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1986-pass.

Resolution No. 62: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $1 ,306,400 for Energy and Mines, Expenditures Related to Capital pass. The committee will meet again at 8:00 o'clock tonight. Committee rise. SUPPLY - EDUCA TION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Education. Item 4.(

b) Curriculum Development and Imp lementation - the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe when we finished off last night, we were discussing the wisdom of increasing the time allotted to the basic courses, the basic core of curriculum within the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to a different area today and ask the Minister a number of questions, again as a form of explo ratory questions. An

article in the paper, March 28, 1985, Indicated that the Manitoba Teachers' Society decided that there should be public school for chil dren at age four, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious as to whether the Minister feels this proposal, even though it's obviously just in a conceptual form, whether a proposal such as this would meet in favour with her feelings and her attitudes towards educa tion? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly it's an interesting suggestion and one tha t is quite complicated and would need a lot of study and thought and di scussion, but it's certai nly worth exploring. We got into a fair discussion the other night with the Me mb er for Fort Gar ry, where he was suggesting to me that it was logical to move the day care program into the education system, because we've got some empty classrooms and some empty spaces and because there would already be educational standards and criteria that would be set up; and rather than develop a brand new system, perhaps we should consider moving it into the other one.

I suppo se my answer on this one, without going into the length of it, is along the same line, tha t there are differences of very young children. What we're looking at in day care is the care of children and some programs that recognize how childr en of that age need to be looked after and how they learn. A lot of the learning is done through informal activities and a lot of it is done through play. They are not developed mentally, actually, at the age of four, to move, into what we would 3068

Tuesday, 18 June, 1185 call, a traditional education program delivered in the normal traditional ways. So if there was going to be examination, we'd clearly be looking at a number of things. We'd be looking at the cost. We'd be looking at program and looking at how to develop a program that suits the care and learning of youn g childr en, presc hool, without automaticall y acc eptin g or moving them into an education system that was developed for children of other ages that does not in fact suit the younger children. So it would have to be done I think very carefully.

However there is one aspect that would be very positive, I suppose, and that's early identification, in that one of the things that people are always talking about is that the earlier we Identify learning disabilities, speech disabilites, problems with children, probably the less problems they're going to have with it down the road and the less interference with their learning. So there are some good things to it and some things that actually could be dangerous and would have to be considered very carefully.

We're certainly willing to explore it, If a number of the groups and organizations within the education system believe it is a top priority and worthy of exploration. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, not to, in any way, contradict those words spoken by my colleague, the Member for Fort Garr y, I don't honestly believe that these issues are quite the same. Certainly when the Mini ster or society as a whole decides or gives consideration to a program, whereby those children aged four, can find their way into the public school, the system, I don't think can be construed as being synonymous with day care.

I mean there are many instances where these young children would be coming from homes where there would be adequate care, adequate parental care in place. So to me the issue can't be decided on the basis of those merits, or is the Min ister saying from her point of view, that the consideration as to whether or not four-year-olds should find their way into the public school system, voluntarily or otherwise, will be determined, in a major part, by circumstances that have parents or a parent, a single parent, working outside of the home? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, I didn't mean to - there is some relationship, because the suggestion was from the previous member, that kids from two months - or whatever the age is - up to school age be incorporated into the school system and he was saying the day care program that takes care of children up until they are school age. So there is a crossover there, with the Member for Morris suggesting only that we look at children who are four years old. I still make the same point, that any major expansion like that, we would have to look at a number of things.

One of them, in limited resource period, would be the expansion of a program, at a time when we're having some difficulties maintaining the existing programs. Certainly if the need is identified and people agree that it's a top priority, then you can look at redistribution and perhaps the decision would be that this is important enough for us to do.

We'd also have to look at readiness of the child and the age and development of the child and how those children are handled, because they are very different, in terms of what they need and what you do with them, than the school-age children, where you assume that they are ready for a school situation. So there has been up to date, and I know society is changing, but general agreement that care of children will be done by the home up until school age.

The reason of course that this is coming about Is that there is a lot of concern about the number of mothers that are working, the number of single parents, and the lack of care or sometimes inadequate care that some children may be getting at home, and maybe we better move them into the school system so they're looked after there. I still continue to say that if everybody saw it as a top priority, that we should explore it, and that we would have to take a lot of things into consideration; not just the cost but how the program would be developed and how you would handle the children.

Because I'm very reluctant to put very young children out of an informal learning mode or atmosphere and move them into a very formal rigid structured atmosphere, when they are not ready for it. So we'd have to look at a lot of issues in the examination of that Issue. MR. C. MANNES S: Mr. Chairman, a final supplementary. The Minister rightly acknowledges that at these early ages children are at various levels of ability and understanding and preparedness for schooling. No doubt, that's one of the reasons why kindergarten is voluntar y.

Would the Minister care to speculate as to whether or not she could see where society in all its forms would want to see the lowering of school age dropped to four, now that five-year-olds, those that are dir ected into th e present volun tary ki ndergarten classification, begin their formal school education and therefore five-year-olds would be considered to be in Grade 1? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to consider that at all. Kindergarten right now in its design and in its present delivery is a pre-readi ness program.

Its purpose is to prepare children for the education program and for formal education. 1t is not as rigid, as structured, as formal as the education program. it's to get them used to learning in a group situation. it's to get them used to being in a classroom with a teacher. They still do a lot of their teaming through play and through much more informal activities.

If there was any suggestion that they went In at four it would have to be adjusted to be accommodating to the five year-aids that are in the pre-kindergarten, pre-readiness program, not make the four-year-olds the readine ss for-school program and the five-year-olds the first Grade 1, considered to be in Grade 1. I think that's too early.

The programs that were designed were designed for a reason and th e development of children and the way children learn has a lot to do with the design. r wouldn't think we would consider changing it unless there was considerable data and information that the design that we had was not useful or not meeting the purpose for which it was intended. 3069

Tueaday, 18 June, 1985 MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, the Throne Sp eech Debate, Thursday, March 7, 1985. lt was in the area of Education and indicated that the Government of the Day will take steps to improve and protect the quality of education in our province. I suppose the writer, the government, believed that there was some shortcoming and that some steps had to be taken.

To continue, the Throne Speech said, "We will examine existing practices to enhance our efforts in four areas: teaching and instruction; programs and curriculum; public involvement; and assessment." I'd like to ask the Minister - I asked this question one other time in the House - I'd like to ask her again. When the government, through the Throne Speech, indi cated that it wanted to develop and improve Education through enhancing efforts in the area of assessment, specifically what was meant? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: I think first of all, I have indicated in the House previously that we are increasing the assessment that we're going to be undertaking and that we're going to be doing an assessment in a number of major areas. I think I responded the other day to say that we're doing a first-ever and a major assessment of the Kindergarten Program. We were just talking about that. The Kindergarten Program was brought in the late '60s and it hasn't been assessed, hasn't had an evaluation. lt's a very important program and it's time we took a look at it.

We want to make sure that it is doing what it was intended to do and that is preparing our five-year-olds for school in an appropriate way. Our next series of assessments are going to be in the area of Science. We just did Social Studies and Reading; we're doing kindergarten; Science in Grades 3, 6 and 9 will be the next one that's done; Maths in 3, 6, 9, and then Science will be done from K-6, and also a survey of 7-9.

So, one of the ways that we're going to improve our assessment, I think, is through the subjects and the programs that we are assessing and the importance we're placing on getting that information.

I think the second way that we're going to look at the question of assessment, because it's an important question and a big question and a complex question and it doesn't have easy answers, one of the problems that we have is that th ose - and most everybody is concerned about evaluation and assess ment of students, and often see what are maybe simplistic answers to a very complicated question and one that doesn't really deal with the issues that we want to deal with.

So, while we want to look at assessment and we're prepared to look at it collectively with all of the people involved in the education system, we don't want to either be pushed or move into going back to the old system which had a lot of warts and a lot of faults and a lot of deficiencies, nor moved into a system that appears to the public - and I must say that at some times it's appealing to be able to go into a system just for the pu rpose of being able to say that we've got this one exam and this one exam is going to tell us eerything about this child's ability and intel lect and capability to handle this program and future programs, and then go out to the public and say, this is the measurement and you can count on it and it shows that we're doing our job.

We're assessing these kids and we know what they're doing and we can say where everybody is at right across the province, but it's not accurate. lt doesn't take into consideration all the things that should be taken into consideration. lt has a lot of deficiencies. What we want to do is look at things like the CTBS tests which are presently used, which are not designed and do not deal with Manitoba curriculum. They deal with some of the things that are in Manitoba curriculum and some of the basics but not designed to test on Manitoba curriculum.

We will be starting, I think, a number of activities, one of which is continuing to undertake the assessment program that we have announc ed and that we have planned for the next year or two; the second is to start working with trus tees and superintendents and par tic ula rly school divisions tha t are faced with particular problems and find out, look at the testing that we're doing and start talking about what testing are they doing; how is it working; what testing are we doing; what are the deficiencies.

We might, for instance, as a result of tho se discussions agree to develop a Manitoba test that is used instead of the CTBS test that would give us more accura te information than does the CTBS test and that would take into consideration the student population that we have. it's ridiculous to have a test that, for instance, in a school division like Winnipeg School Division does not do anything to address the fact that you have a large population of children who have English as a second language, and who may have great difficulty in the early year

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-72a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 72a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	23cdee8ad73f612a5a028b0d381bdf41ed279b3c

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