Manitoba Hansard — 13 March 1973 (Sitting 22, 29th Legislature, 5th Session)

29-5-22

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

March 13, 1973 THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Tuesday, March 13, 1973 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 549 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 20 students of Grade 11 standing of the Precious Blood School. These students are under the direction of Mr. R. Painchaud. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, the Minister of Tourism, Rec-re ation and Cultural Affairs.

We also have 60 students of Grades 4 and 5 standing of the George Fitton School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Ken Pugh, Mrs. French, ·Mrs. Cairns and Miss Day. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Brandon East, the Minister of Industry and Commerce. We have 28 studen1s of Grades 5 and 6 standing of the Lord Roberts School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Johann and Mr. L. Chew. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Osborne.

On behalf of all the Honourable Members of the Legislative Assembly I welcome you here today. Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. PRESESENTING REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment)(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Special Committee of seven persons.

MR0 CLERK: Your Special Committee appointed to prepare a list of members to compose the Standing Committees ordered by the House beg leave to present the following as their First Report: Your Committee met on Wednesday, March 7th, 1973 and prepared the following list of members to compose the Standing Committees ordered by the House: PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS: Hon. Messrs. Doe rn, Hanuschak, Miller, Paulley, Schreyer, Toupin. Messrs. Blake, Borowski, Cherniack, Einarson, Girard, Gottfried, Henderson, Johnston (Portage), McGregor, Malinowski, Petursson, Mrs. Trueman. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: Hon. Messrs.

Hanuschak, Paulley, Schreyer, Toupin, Messrs. Asper, Blake, Borowski, Cherniack, Craik, Ferguson, Girard, Johannson, McKenzie, Malinowski, Mrs. Trueman, Messrs. Turnbull, Uruski, Walding. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND NATURAL RESOURCES: Hon. Messrs. Burtniak, Evans, Green, McBryde, Schreyer, Messrs. Asper, Barrow, Boyce, Craik, Enns, Froese, Graham, Jenkins, McGill, Shafransky, Sherman, Spivak, Uruski. AGRICULTURE: Hon. Messrs. Burtniak, McBryde, Pawley, Uskiw, Messrs. Adam, Barkman, Barrow, Boyce, Einarson, Ferguson, Froese, Gottfried, Henderson, Jorgenson, McGregor, Turnbull, Uruski, Watt. lVi:UNICIP AL AFFAIRS: Hon.

Messrs. Doern, Hanuschak, McBryde, Pawley, Messrs. Adam, Barkman, Barrow, Boyce, Froese, Graham, Johanns on, Johnston (Sturgeon Creek), McGill, McKellar, Moug, Uruski, Walding, Watt. LAW AMENDMENTS: Hon. Messrs. Doern, Green, Hanuschak, McBryde, Mackling, Miller, Paulley, Messrs. Adam, Barrow, Bilton, Boyce, Enns, Froese, Graham, Gottfried, Jenkins, Johannson, Johnston (Portage), Johnston (Sturgeon Creek), Jorgenson, McGill, McKellar, McKenzie, Patrick, Petursson, Shafransky, Sherman, Spivak, Mrs. Trueman, Messrs. Turnbull, Walding.

550 March 13 , 1973 PRESENTING RE PORTS OF SPECI AL COMMITTEES PRIVATE BILLS: Hon. Messrs. Burtniak; Desjardins , Mackling, Mi ll er, Messrs. Allard, Barkman, Bl ake, Cherniack, Ei narson, Ferguson, Jenki ns , Johnston (Sturgeon Creek) , McKe llar , Malinows ki, Petu rsson, Uruski , Walding; Watt. INDUSTRIAL RE LATIONS: Hon. Messrs. Doern, Green, Paulley , Messrs. Barrow, Bilton , Borowski, Boyce, Enns , Girard, Gottfried, Henderson, Jenkins, Johannson, McKenzie , Moug, Pat rick, Shafransky, Turnbull. STATUTORY REGU LATIONS AND ORDERS : Hon. Me ssrs . Doern, Desjardins, Ev ans, Mackl ing , Toupin, Messrs.

Allard, Bil ton , Cherniack, Girard, Gottfried, Graham, Johnston (P ortage) , McGreg or , Malinowski, Moug , Shafransky, Tur nbu 11 , Watt. EC ONOMIC DEVE LOPME NT: Hon. Messrs. Ev ans, Green , Pawl ey, Us kiw , Messrs. Adam, Barrow, Boyce , Craik, Froese , Gonick, Johnston (Sturg eon Cr eek) , Jorg enson, McGill, Patrick, Shafransky, Sherman, Spivak, Turnbu ll. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Mi nes and Resources. MR. GREEN : Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agri culture , that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Mi nisterial Statements ; Tabl ing of Reports . The Honourable Mi nister of Universities and College s. TABLING OF REP ORTS HON . SAUL A. MILLER (Minist er of Co lleges and Universities) (Seven Oaks ): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to lay before the table the following reports: The Annual Report of the Uni versity Grants Commis sion for the year ending March 31st, 1972; The Annual Financial Report of the Board of Governors of the Univ ersity of Manitoba, also for the year ending March 31st, 1972; the Br andon Universi ty Pres ident's Report, for the year ending March 31, 1972; and the Univ ers ity of Winnipeg Report for the fiscal year April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972. MR. SPEAKER: Any other reports ? The Honou rable the Attorney-General . HON . A. H. MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General)(St. James): Mr.

Speaker, I want to table a report as to the Trade Practices Inquiry Act. It is a nil report. Also the Annual Report covering the Department of Consumer and Co rporate and Internal Service s. MR. SPEAKER: Mi nisterial Statements or other reports ? The Honourable Mi nister of Labour. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT HON . RUSSE LL PAULLE Y (M inister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement in connection with the unempl oyment situation as it pertains to Manitoba and I have three copies, Mr. Speaker, showing the most recent statistics that have come to my hand respecting unemployment.

I am pleased to inform the House that the percen tage of un employment in Manitoba is reduced in February over January of this year from 5. 9 percent to 5. 6 percent and by comparison with February of 1972 a reduction from 6. 3 percent to 5. 6 per cent. At the present time , Mr. Speaker, on aoolll parative !>asia Manitoba is jointly with Alberta , the second lowest province in respect of percentage rates of unemployment in the whole in the Dominion of Canada. Canada's actual rate of unemp loyment for February was 7. 3 per cent. Ontario is the lowest in Canada, of 5 percent,.

Manitoba and Alberta share with a percentage rate of 5. 6 percent. When my friends in the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, look at the a:omparative labour force and the employmen t rates in the Province of Manitoba I am sure that all members will join with me in being reasonably satisfied of the increases that we have been able to achieve in the Provi nce of Manitoba. There has been an increase in the labour force in February from 391, 000 in January of this year to 394, 000 in February, or an increas e in the labour force of 3, 000; and als o, Mr.

Speaker, this indicates an increase in the labour force compare of February, 1973. compared with that of Februa ry, 19 72, of some 12 ,0 00 persons in the labour

Ma rch 13, 1973 551 MINISTERIAL ST ATEMENT (MR. PAULLEY cont'd. ) . . . . . force , indicating a growing comm unity. Also I sug gest, Mr. Speaker, poss ibly even more important is the figure s deal ing with those employed in Ma nitoba. The figure for Febr uary of this year indicates that there were 372 , 000 persons employed in Ma nitoba as against 369, 000 in January of this year, an increase of 3, 000 people empl oyed.

And if we look at the comparative months of February, 1972, and February of 1973, we find that there are i4, 000 more people employed in Ma nitoba this year over Last year which indicates, I am sure , to all members of the growin g eco nomy in the Prov ince of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Lea der of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (L eader of the Opposition)(Riv er Hei ghts) : Mr. Speaker, I · thank the Mi nister for his st atement.

Certainly we on this side are happy with the reasonable progress that has. been made , to use the terminolo gy of the Mi nister of Labour , and certainly U1e fact that it has been a reduction is· something that is quite acceptab le. But, Mr . Speaker, I doubt if a rate of 5. 6 percent is accep ta ble. Mr. Spea ker, I sugge st it is unacceptably high. Now part of the reasons why the stati stic s for Ma nitoba appear to be good is because people are leaving Ma nitoba, and they are leav ing Ma nitoba, Mr. Spe aker, because there are not enough permanent jobs being crea ted. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to if I may refer to certain statistics which are dated as of March 31st, 1972, but which I'm Led to believe from the Ca nada Manpower Tr aining Program Office would apply equally as well as of this year, which indicate for Manitoba that there are a total of approximately 13 ,0 00 people who are on Manpower Training Programs in this pro vince , and are not included in the statistical data that shows that 22, 000 people are looking for work in this province.

The breakdown would indicate that there are in skilled trainin g 3, 438 people, in language training 279, in academic upgrading 2, 225, in apprenticeship 1, 707 , in training in industry 2, 65 7, and there are 2, 983 people who are training on the job in the province. Mr. Speaker, that means that iliere are 35 , 000 people who will ultimately be added to the labour force and who will be looking for jobs. Within the next six weeks students will be leaving the universities and the problems of unemplo yment will continue to rise and continue to be a major problem in this prov ince.

I wonder if the Honoura ble Mi nister of Labour would be prepared, and I would ask him to furnish us with the information that would indicate the number of unemployed in this province who are between the age group of 17 to 19. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that until the pictur e is viewed from a total perspectiv e of the necessity of perma nent job requirement in this province, the statistics are mis leading in suggesting that unempl oyment has been met or that economic conditions are as good as the gov ernment wou ld like to sugge st. MR . SPE AKER: The Honoura ble Member for Assiniboia. · MR.

STEVE PATRICK (As siniboia): Mr. Speak er, I wish to thank the Mi nister for making ilie statement to the House and certainl y the reduction of unemployed is good news to everybody and .we'l l accept it.

On the oilier hand l think we should be concerned and remindful that there are still 22 ,0 00 people unemployed. · Second question, I don't think that we should be very happy with the figures of 5. 6 percent that are unemployed , because I'm sure that we are aware for the last two months the weather has been very permissible, ilie construction has been going on, and I'm just concerned that iliis 5. 6 percent is not the seasonal unemp loyed. I believe that this may continue into ilie sum mer.

So I'm sure I would have liked to have heard the Minister make reference that I'm sure that many of these that are unempl oyed are not in the construction industry which usually takes place during the winter mon ths. I would have also liked to hear from the Mi nister of Education in the respect what program he has undertaken or what he will be doing in respect to the university students and high school students. But, Mr.

Speak er, while on the face of it it may appear that the figures may be satisfac tory, I believe that they are not as satisfactory because certainly the weather has been good during the past two months and I'm inclined to believe that the 5. 6 pereent is not only seasonal unemployed, iliere are more. MR . SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for Rhineland hav e a point of order ? MR. JACOB M. FROE SE (Rhinela nd): On a point of ord er, Mr. Speaker . . MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

552 MINISTE RIAL STATEMENT March 13 , 1973 MR. FROESE : D<ies the government not have any papers that only two copies can be handed out? Certainly the rules do not prohibit, Mr. Speaker, that copies cannot be made available to other members of the House. I'm sure that the press must have got extra copies, and I deplore the fact that only two copies are made available. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: On the point of order. I only left my office a couple of moments ago.

I picked up what were three copies and will be glad to give to my honourable friend a copy of the statistical figures for Manitoba and, if I may, Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet I will be pleased to give to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and to any other interested per son in the Assembly, what statistical data I have in respect of age groups and the participation rates as between males and females. We're open bouse. MR. SPEAKER: I'd just like to state ·for the Honourable Member for Rhineland and also to the Minister that it was not a point of order but it was a courtesy that could be practised.

Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Oral Questions. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health· and Social Develop ment. It is reported that the Federal Government has ordered the Canada Manpower Centres across the country to give absolute preference to job referrals to persons drawing unemploy ment insurance, and secondly to those on welfare, and thirdly to those who are unemployed.

Now I wonder if the government can indicate whether !t will be their intention to allow this practice to be introduced and to operate, or whether there will be an objection from the Prov incial Government of Manitoba to the Federal Government on this? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Development)(Springfleld): Mr. Speaker, my answer to the question is: alors, it's about time. We have no objections. I think the Premier has had correspondence with federal ministers and maybe he would like to com ment. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I wonder if the Honourable Minister could repeat his answer. MR. TOUPIN: I said, alors , finally they are moving in the right direction. MR . SPIVAK: Well my question then, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Health and Social Development.

As a result of his answer which would indicate approval of the fact th at those on welfare would be included as second rather than as having first priority on jobs , is it the intention of the Provincial Government-- is it the intention of the Provincial Government to ask the Federal Government for additional support for those welfare recipients who are employable who are not in a position to have first preference on job opportunities ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON . EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I should advise the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition that some few weeks ago now I had written to the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau, indicating that if the Federal Govern ment intends to follow through with certain changes to The Unemployment Insurance Act, and certain other policy changes consequential thereon, that it will no doubt have some effect with respect to welfare levels and the amount of expenditures by the provinces with respect to wel fare.

So in the letter I indicated that we would expect the courtesy and co-operation of being advised by the Federal Government the extent to which they anticipate that their changes with respect to unemployment insurance may have an increasing -- an effect of increasing the amount of welfare expenditures. There is an interconnection I quite admit. I have not received a reply to date but I have proposed that the formula be agreed on which would take a base year beyond which if there is increase in expenditures, it be assumed 100 percent rather than 50 percent by the Federal Crown. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Well , Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister, and it's not intended to direct the same question but I think there's a bit of confusion as a result of the answer. I want to understand from tlie First Minister whether it will be the Provincial Govern ment's policy to recognize that Canada Manpower should in fact have a preference, first for

March 13, 1973 553 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. SPIVAK cont' d. ) . . . . . people who are on unemployment insurance, secondly for those who are on welfare, and thirdly for those who are unemployed but are not on unemploy ment insurance or welfare. Does the province agree that Canada Manpower should operate in that manner? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing implicit in my reply which would suggest that we do agree. In fact as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition realizes, the matter is a very complex and a series of inter-related aspects or problems.

If the economy as a whole fails to create new jobs in proportion to the increase in the labour force then of course there will be unemployment, and at that stage it seems to me a rather futile exercise to start arguing whether first priority ought to be to those on unemploy ment insurance as opposed to those who are able-bodied but on welfare or vice versa. I'm suggesting that despite the fact that in the last four years 23, OOO new jobs have been created in this province, it still, as honourable members like to point out, has not been enough; 23, OOO new jobs have been created.

At this point in time I'm merely suggesting to the Prime Minister of Canada that if they persist in wanting to give right of first access to new jobs to those on unemployment insurance, then this will mean an upward pressure on the numbers and expenditures on welfare, and in that case, because it is of consequence of federal action, there ought to be a federal financial responsibility. I think this answers my honourable friend's point. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I should like to indicate that once again I must remind honourable members of Citation 171 in Beauchesne, and this is also in respect to answers which is contained in Citation 172, or 181 I should say. 171 says at the top "when putting a question the member must confine himself to the narrowest limits in making a question; obser vation which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of the question." Let me point out in respect to answers: "Questions must be answered briefly, distinctly, and be limited to the necessary explanation.

So let us do our work the way our rules have set out for us to do. The Honourable Member for Wolseley, the Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. I. H. (Izzy) ASPER (Leader of the Liberal Party)(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister in his capacity as Hydro reporting. Does Manitoba Hydro in connection with the Lake Winnipeg regulation intend to place a control structure downstream from Norway House on the east channel at Sea River Falls? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as the Honourable the Member for Wolseley is aware, Manitoba Hydro is proceeding with the construction of control works and a generating plant at Jenpeg which is downstream of the Nelson River from Norway House. The site is referred to as Jenpeg. It is at the outlet of the short arm of the Nelson River into Cross Lake. I don't know if that's the geographical position my honourable friend is seeking but that's about as close as I can get without the aid of a map.

I might add that it is the Jenpeg control works and generating plant that -es it possible for Manitoba Hydro to proceed with the development of the Nelson while avoiding high level flooding. MR. ASPER: Could the First Minister explain how the government intends to deal with the 33 percent of the water of Lake Winnipeg that will escape under regulation by way of that east channel? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the percentage referred to by my honour able friend is slightly overstated. I wouldn't attempt to quantify the precise amount of the overstatement.

It is to my understanding more a question of the range of the 20 percent range that is to say 20 to 30 percent, but in any case the Utilities Committee will be meeting on Monday next and my honourable friend can ask the Chairman of Hydro directly. MR. ASPER: I wonder if the First Minister could tell the House with the plan he's de scribed, what the effect on water levels at Norway House will be, with the control structure system he's described. In effect, will it affect the new townsite and if so, is there a new townsite required? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, there have been of course, extensive engineering surveys and studies; there have been meetings with representatives of the community of Norway House.

554 March i3 , 1973 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. SCiffiEYER cont'd. ) • . • . . The advice given me is that there will be no significant effect on water levels at Norway House to the extent that there are, it will be very sli ght, it would be beneficial or enhancing, but it would be slight in any case. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. MORRIS McGRE GOR (Virden): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Minister able to advise the.

House, if he's now in a position to announce, whether or not the Government of Manitoba has signed an agreement with the Federal Government on the proposed Small Farm Development Program. Is it the intention of the Minister of signing such an agreement and when, as this is urgent having had inquiries from many young farmers and federal credit people this past weekend? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. RON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture)(La c du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to advise my honourable friend that negotiations are continuing in Winnipeg this week and hopefully will be finalized. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ass iniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of MuniCipal Affairs. Would the Minister be able to tell how many government vehicles are registered and insured out of the Winnipeg region? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. RON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Se lkirk): Mr.

Speaker, I think that the best plan, coorse of action, for the honourable member would be to file an Order for Return for this type of information , or else it could be dealt with during the Es timate review. MR. PATRICK: Perhaps I can rephrase my question. Is there any cars that are insured in the Br andon region and are leased to the departments in Winnipeg and are used exclusively in Winnipeg? MR.

PAWLEY: That again should be submitted by way of an Order for Return, but I would like to just comment to the honourable member that the same principle that would apply to a priva te corporation would apply to a public corporation or agency, and therefore, that any vehicles used or insured under Br andon would be used in area No. 2 principally, but further informa tion can be obtained in an Order for Return. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE : Mr. Speaker , I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Re sources.

Will a report on the Canada land inventory bP. tabled at this sess ion ? I notice there is no alloca tion in the estima tes for that purpose this year, and appar ently the work must have been completed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll ta ke the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. It relate s to the ex pla nation given before the other serie s of questions.

As a result of it, I wonder if I can pose a question that was asked before in this House but was not entirely answered. MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR. SPIVAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the government now in the process of examining those who are considered unemployable on welfare and reclass ifying them as employable wel fare rec ipients? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker I don't see how the question is related to the ques tion asked at the outset of the question period today but given the fact that it may be completely unrela ted, I will try to answer, that insofar as the Department of Health and Social Development is concerned, I think that the Minister has advised this House in the past on at least one or two occasions that from time to time a review was made of those who are on caseload of social allowance , and if there is sufficient medical reason and support for a reclassif ication into unemployable, then that is the course of action taken.

If the evidence and medical support is not there, then no change is made. I believe that that is about as good a layman's descr iption of the administration of that program that I can possibly make at this time. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary ques tion. I wonder if the Fi rst Minister can indicate to . the House how many have been reclas sified as employable ?

March 13, 1973 555 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that is a question for the Minister of Health and Social Development, and in any case, Sir, ought to be an Order for Return. MR, SPEAKER: The point is well taken. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR, J, FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General received a report from the RCMP re the alleged bribe made to the Minister of Health and Social Services? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR, MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I received a report some time ago indicating that on the basis of the information obtainable, there was no basis upon which proceedings ought to be taken. MR, F, JOHNSTON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Attorney General intend to release the report? MR, MACK LING: Mr. Speaker, historically and traditionally it has not been the subject, not been the practice of any government to release reports that are made by police. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question directed to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, if I can catch him on the way to his feet. Can he advise whether he has any knowledge, or can he confirm that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is having to pay a seven percent brokerage fee in Chicago for the distribution of fish from Manitoba? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR, SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are two points involved here. I don't know how you will handle it, Sir.

In the first place it is the Minister of Mines and Resources, that is the Minister reporting for the affairs of that corporation in this House; secondly, any deci sions governing the administration and operation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board is federal-interprovincial. The Province of Manitoba has one representative on a board that consists, I suppose, of nine or ten members. Sir, the Minister of Mines and Resources may be able to answer. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, at all events I don't think that I would answer as to an internal day to day managerial function of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, if I knew it. MR, CRAIK: Mr. Spe<iker, perhaps I can ask a supplementary question. In the so-called rationalization of the fishing industry in Manitoba, wasn't one of the prime purposes • . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is stating an opinion. MR, CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking a question.

If it was not one of the prime purposes and aims of setting up the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to do away with the brokerage costs that were being incurred through dealing with dealers in the Chicago area? MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, as i understand it the main purpose of the legislation which was originally introduced by the Conservative administration was to have a better deal for the primary producers of fish in the Province of Manitoba. MR. CRAIK: A final supplementary.

I wonder if the Minister through his nominated representative on the board could determine and advise the House whether brokerage fees as indicated at seven percent are being paid to Chicago brokers? MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I had already indicated that even if I knew, which I don't, I would not consider that a matter of ministerial interference into the internal management of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR, ASPER: Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Development Corporation, the Minister for Mines, will he undertake to ascertain for the House whether or not the salary paid to the President of Phoenix Data the government data computer company, is equivalent to the salaries paid to the Chairman of Hydro and Manitoba Telephone System, the two largest utilities? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that information is ascertainable but if the honourable member does not at this point have it, I'm prepared to get it for him.

I will find out what his salary is and will rely on my learned friend being able to see whether it is equiva lent to other things. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry.

556 March 13, 1973 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR, L, R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Social Development. I wonder if he can confirm that the 1973 esti mates for the Manitoba Health Services Commission contain the statement that there is no provision for amendments to the fee

schedule for the medical services? MR, SPEAKER: The question may be answered during the estimates. MR, SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can redirect the question to the Minister of Health and Social Development, and ask him in the light of the wording of the estimates for the Manitoba Health Services Commission whether or not realistic negotiations on a revised fee

schedule with the doctors are continuing? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR, TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker it is possible for a revision of the fee

schedule to continue. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR, SHERMAN: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it more than possible; is it actually taking place ? MR, TOUPIN: Not at this stage, Mr. Speaker. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR, J, WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Does the government have any plans for the erection of public housing on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg opposite the Hecia Island Causway? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

HON, LA URENT L. DESJARDINS (Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs) (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I think that the honourable member knows that the Minister of Tourism is not involved in public housing. Now if you are talking -- if the honourable member is talking about cottages and facilities for recreation, yes at Grindstone Park we have plans there that I'd be pleased to discuss during the time of my estimates. MR, McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question then to the Honourable Minister.

What studies are the government carrying out regarding the feasibility and the economic cost benefit of the summer cottages. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, is the honourable friend limiting himself to that area? Oh well this study has. been going on for awhile and it's still going on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR, ASPER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education.

Could he confirm that we understand him correctly in answer to a question that the operations of Phoenix Data are to be merged with the Manitoba Government's central computer service in the Norquay Building - is Phoenix Data to be merged into the government's central computer facility? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR, SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which is under review now.

The Prov ince of Manitoba has a computer rationalization task force in much the same way that the Province of Ontario has established a special task force to look at the advisability of rational izing computer capability within all agencies ofthe Crown and the departments of government themselves, so this is very much a matter under consideration at the present time here and in other jurisdictions that are trying to keep up with modern times in terms of the latest technology. MR,ASPER: Well in view of the answer, Mr.

Speaker, can either the First Minister or the Minister of Education indicate to the House where they intend to spend the 500 to 700 thousand on the High School Computer Service Program. Is it on the Phoenix Data corporate operation, or the government's central computer system? MR, SCHREYER: Well Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of internal policy which will be indicated in due course. They are both facilities owned by the Crown in any case, and I might add that the one facility was purchased at a considerably lower cost in relation to its capability than is normally obtainable. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR, LEONARD A. BARKMAN (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Education. Have tenders been let for 107 chassis to be delivered to Flyer Industries of Manitoba and if so, can the Minister tell this House what is intended to be built onto these chassis? MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. Order, please.

March 13, 1973 557 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education)(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, tenders have been called for somewhere in the order of a hundred-odd chassis. It would appear to me - now whether or not tenders have been let at this particular point in time I do not know, but I will take that question as notice. What is intended to be built on the chassis? If it should appear that the chassis is designed for a bus then we'll build a bus, or a bus on each chassis. MR. BARKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the - will the Minister also tell us if these buses will be tendered for or bought directly from Flyer Industries of Manitoba. MR. HANUSCHAK: As has been the practice of this government, we'll buy the bodies in the most economic manner possible, in the best interests of all the people of the Province of Manitoba. MR. BARKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended this last supplementary question but is it true that perhaps that every bus going out of there, the taxpayers are losing approximately $1,500, 00, MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd be most happy to debate that point with the honour- able member during my Estimates. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: To the First Minister, my question --(lnterjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR, ASPER: To the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Do we correctly understand him to have said that in connection with the regulation of Lake Winnipeg there will be the control structure at Jenpeg but nothing on the Nelson River east channel at Sea River Falls. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: I invited my honourable friend to ask that question directly of the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro. I can advise my honourable friend that there is no immediate plan for any regulating structure on the east channel, and there may well never be. However, it is a matter of engineering study and it depends on any cost on the cost benefit ratio of it. But I cannot confirm at this time that there is any intention to proceed with even a small regu lating structure on the east channel. I believe the question could be answered in much more detail on Monday.

MR, ASPER: Well in view of the answer, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Has the First Minister not been advised that there - in the absence of such a regulatory structure on the east channel, that there will be some flooding in Norway House, requiring the possibility of a new townsite. MR. SCHREYER: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised that. I've been advised that the effects of the Jenpeg control structure and Lake Winnipeg regulation, that the effects com munity of Norway House would be insignificant if not virtually immeasurable. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address my question either to the House Leader or to the Minister of Public Works. I'm not quite sure who's in charge. Is the name on the billboard or on the board at the entrance of the building showing the Member for St. Johns as the Minister of Finance going to remain there until he's reappointed or will it be changed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR, SCHREYER: I can only advise my honourable friend that the question of a Minister of Finance is something which if he and I were only a little more in tune politically is some thing which perhaps I could discuss with him . . .

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that there are three Ministers of the Crown being sued because of their actions as Ministers of the Crown, my question is: is the department, or is the government paying for all legal defence in this case? --(Interjection)-- MR, GREEN: Sir, on a point of order I too am being sued. So I want the honourable member to know that there's more than three are being sued. MR, SPEAKER: That was not a point of order.

The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, if it is true ..• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACK LING: If what the honourable member says is true, and that has to be

558 March 13, 1973 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (MR. MACKLING cont'd.) . . . . . determined yet, then we will consider the question as to how any defence would be paid for. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that still another Minister is being sued for a personal action, will the Crown be payi ng his defence costs? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCIIBEYER: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what the Member for Portage is alluding to but the clearly understood distinction here surely is that if there is a lawsuit relative to a Minister of the Crown in his capacity, in his acti ons ai:l a Minister of the Crown that is one thing; if it's got to do with some personal or private action of course, it is quite a different thing and it's very clear that there would be no, obviously, no involvement of public moneys. MR. SPEAKER: Order of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLE Y: Mr.

Speaker, the other day the Honourable Member for Virden gave me notice of a question that he was going to ask of me in connection with the buckling of a boom on the housing project on Edgeland Boulevard in Tuxedo; I assured my honourable friend that I would give him information as quickly as possible in regard to the incident. I would like to inform him, Sir, that the Workmen's Compensation Board has primarily the responsibility for the enforcing of safety regulations in Manitoba.

The Employment Safety Act which is admin istered by the Compensation Board requires that all indust rial trades and processes be carried on in a safe manner, and this would include the climbing cranes of the type used on the construo tion of the Edgeland Boule vard housing project.

Although there are no regulations under the Act applyi.ng to climbing cranes specifically, it is the Board's policy that before climbing cranes of this type may be installed at any site that they must be tested either by magnaflux or X-ray, both of which are widely accepted tests for determining if there is metal fatigue or any structural defects. Where a crane has been installed and has been in use for more than one year on the same site, it must be retested for structural defects.

These tests are carried out by the Workmen's Compensation Board in co-operation with the Department of Labour's Mechanical and Engineering Division. The climbing crane used on the Edgeland Boulevard housing project was tested prior to its being installed at the site and there was no indication at that time of any structural defects in the crane.

The crane is now in the process of being examined and tested by specialists to deter mine if the accident was caused by a structural defect in the metal, and the results of this investigation should be soon available, and I will be glad at that time to further inform my honourable friend. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIBARD (Emerson): Yes I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Universities and Colleges. I wonder if he now knows how many full-time teachers are involved in the IMP ACTE Program? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Universit ies and Colleges. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice; when I have the information I'll report to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCIIBEYER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Spe aker, I wish to take a few moments to raise a matter of grievance on supply motion. Mr. Speaker, this matter of grievance is raised in response to a statement made in this Chamber by the First Minister with reference to the costs of the Lake Winnipeg control and Jenpeg power sites. It has been stated in this House on February 23rd by myself that the costs now estimated by the government exceeded by approximately $77 million, the original costs which were indicated to members of this Assembly.

The First Minister on March the 9th, last Friday, in reply to a question stated th at this difference of cost is ludicrous and ridiculous, that in fact

March 13, 1973 559 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (MR. CRAIK cont'd.) . . . . the cost indicated has always been much higher than $100 million. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to take the opportunity to substantiate for the members of this Legislature and the public the factual information that has been provided to the members on these costs. First of all the last stated cost by Mr. Cass-Beggs to the Public Utilities and Natural Resources Committee are contained in the proceedings of that committee.

These are contained and provided as reference on Pages 12 to 13 of the September lOth, 1971, meeting of that committee, in which it is stated that all inclusive costs of the Lake Winnipeg control is $50 million plus or minus five percent. 2. The Jenpeg study report on August 1971, of August 1971, states on Page 21,

Section 71, conclusions, and I quote: "162 megawatt station can be constructed concurrently with the control works for an estimated cost of$ 54, 776, OOO. 00" These costs do not inc Jude -- and it states in the same paragraph-- do not include $36,666,000 attributed to Lake Winnipeg control, and they do not include as indicated in a sub-notice in the same paragraph, they do not include the power line. Thirdly, Mr.

Speaker, the combined total esti mated costs of Jenpeg and Lake Winnipeg control is then $54. 8 million indicated to the Public Utilities Committee through the report, which everyone has made available to them, and $50 million, as indicated by Mr. Cass-Beggs as being a firm figure, and a total -- giving a total of $104. 8 million plus the power line costs. Therefore, as stated on February 23rd, 1973 the costs given to the members of the Legislature were in the range of a total between 100 and 110 million dollars. Fourthly, Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba Hydro issued a press release in September, 1972, stating that the First Minister had attended a Hydro Board meeting at which time total cost for the project was then estimated at $177 million. While this increase alone should be staggering enough, it is also known that since that date problems in the channeling work have added further complications and may well now cause the estimate to exceed $177 million. That we will hope to find out, Mr. Speaker. Fifth, Mr. Speaker, it was generally estimated in the beginning by a former member of the Manitoba Hydro Board, Mr. D. L.

Campbell, and others, that the combined costs would be closer to $200 million rather than the $100 million indicated by the government and by Mr. Cass-Beggs at the Public Utilities meeting. There should be no question at this point that Mr. Campbell's estimates were in fact closer in 1971 than those of the government. Finally I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the First Minister in fact finds the cost dis crepancy stated by us to be ridiculous, he must surely now ask himself if the entire Lake Winnipeg control project cannot now be considered as ridiculous.

At the present time we have no alternative but to accuse the government of misinforming and misleading the people of Manitoba about the true costs of Lake Winnipeg control and Jenpeg development when this pro ject was undertaken in 1971. We have documented our position; the First Minister has not documented his, and I believe he has a direct responsibility to do so. Mr. Speaker, that's the matter of grievance which I wish to raise. It is a serious accusa tion by any First Minister to suggest that a member has in fact, the next thing to lied in pre senting figures to this House.

The figures that were presented by the Opposition in this House are documented figures on evidence placed either in the Public Utilities Committee or in state ments in fact made by the government itself. The government cannot shed off the responsibility to Manitoba Hydro in this matter. The First Minister was in attendance in the fall. of 1972, last fall, when the high figure, higher figure of$177 million was released and of course there must be a background to his involvement in this decision.

There is no question at this time, I don't believe in anyone's mind that sat through Public Utilities Committee in addition to the documented information, there is no doubt that the total cost of Lake Winnipeg control, plus Jenpeg, was generally considered to be of the order of $100 million. Mr. Speaker, our position is well founded, this project should be considered in the true light of what it really is. It is a disaster project. MR. SPEAKER: Motion agreed to. The Honourable Member for Logan. I indicated the motion agreed to. I call for the Chairman of the Committee.

560 Ma rch 13 , 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Spea ker, we are on the Es tima tes of the Dep artment of Mines and Resour ces and I ca n deal with the subject matte r of the regulation , conser vation and control of our water reso urces. It ha s been discussed under the Es timate s of this depart ment alre ady in the past few days. Mr. Spea ker, -- (Interjection)-- Mr.

Speak er, there is a very definite historic pattern the extent to which the conser vation and control of the water resources of our province do excite frenzied argument and debate in this Chamber. Accusa tions of construction costs far in excess of original estima te s, accus ations of estimates being revised as the en gineering and const ruction proceeds along.

My honourable friends of coui ue would like to forget the fact that decisions made with res pect to the development of the Nelson River are based on sound engineering advice, and that the development of the Nelso n River has as a very important intrical part of it the requirement for certa in wate rs to be diverted from the Churchill River, and also for some regula tion of La ke Winnipe g, so that additional quantities of water can be made available in the winter low flow period rather than simply being excess to requirements flowing through the gener ating sta tions on the Nelson when water levels are high and the flows are exces sive.

It's interesting that my friends in the Conse rvative pa rty are still continuing their old ta ctic which is pretending that La ke Winnipeg regulation is not a necess ary feature of the Nelso n River Hydro El ectric Deve lopment Project. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Cha irma n, I rise on a point of order. When the Es timates of this depar tment was first brought before this House, the Mem ber for Riel was ta lking on this particul ar subject, and I draw to your attention the sta tement made by the House Le ader which was confirmed by you Sir , and you' ll find it on Pa ge 402 of Hansard.

The House Le ader sa id: ''Mr. Cha irman, perhaps we 'd better have some points of order on this subject so there can be some understa nding. I bel ieve that the proper bre ak then is that the Hydro economics of the quest ion are a proper respo nsibility of the Mi nister to whom Hydro reports.

The effects as they affect the environment and possibly the quest ion as to whether the depart ments or the government, through my department, have given sufficient consideration to these effects are probably the authority of my ministry, but I do not think we should have a debate on the Hydro economics of the is sue in this department. " And, Sir, your reply was: "I think that the point is well taken. I think the honoura ble member -- I think the honourable member under the department -- I think that we have to stick releva nt to the resol ution that is before us.

" Now the First Minister had an opportunity to reply on the grievance, and the reason it was raised as a grievance because at that time the House Lea der denied my friend, .my colle ague , the Member for Riel, the opportunity of rais ing that particular is sue during the course of the estima tes. Now this is what the First Mi nister is doing, and if the rule applies to this side of the House then I submit, Sir , that it applies to that side of the House as well, · and the Fi rst Minister is out of order. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Minister of Mine s and Reso urces on the same point of order. MR. GR EEN : Mr .

Cha irman, on the point of order. The honourable member has re ad my rem arks correctly. ! sa id that I thought that there should be the distinction between Hydro economics and the result of the Hydro program. I pleaded with my honourable friend to make that distinction. He sa id that there was no such distinction, and continued to talk about the two prices at which time I sa id, "fine, continue but don't expect me to answer for money which is not paid in my department.

" The remarks that I heard the First Minister make up until this point have had nothing to do with Hydro ec onomics; they have had to do with the environmental and other water resource re sult of the Hydro program, which everybody has been into, and I don't see why the First Mi nister can't also discuss it on these es timates. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Le ader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: On the point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sa me point of order? MR. SPIVAK: On the point of order, Mr. Spe aker. The Premier simply has to tell the truth , that's all that's required.

All he has to do it indicate whether the Honourable Mem ber for Riel's st atements are correct or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der, please.

r-- ---- i March 13th, 197 3 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESO URC E S MR. SCH REYER: Mr. Chair man, this is incredib l e that ..• MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Can I just make the point clear here. I think that ••• MR. SCHRE YER: He of all people should talk about telling the truth. Him? 561 MRO CHAIRMAN: I have heard nowhere so far the First Minister mentioning money and therefore he is not out of order. The First Minister. MR. SC HREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't expect special treatment under the rules but I do expect equal treatment under the rules.

Therefore what has to be determined is whether the Member for Morris was in fact correct when he stated that no one had been allowed to speak to the point of Hydro economics in its relationship to water resources. I be li eve that a perusal of Hansard will indicate whether the Member for Riel has in the past day or two on the estimates of this department in fact spoken about Hydro economics.

If he has, then I expect equal right s; if he has not, then I will des ist from speaking about Hydro economics and talk about water resource development and the extent to which it has taken place in the province in the past decade and the extent to which, quite apart from Hydro , there has been deviation from ori ginal estimates with respect to certain major water control works in this province, quite apart from Hydro.

My honourable friends are trying to pretend that a deviati on from estimates is something that orig inates only now for the first time in the his tory of this province0 I would si mply like to remind them if they make a sim ple li ttle check on two projects that they had some respon sibility for, the Portage la Prairie Diversion and the Red River Floodway, that by the time that the projects were constructed that in the case of the Portage Diversion, for example, they were deviating from estimates in the order of 75 to 80 percent.

Now let them check that if it isn't the truth, becaus e the first information that this House was given the estimates of the Water Control and Cons ervation Branch back in 1962 - - and I was a member here si tting here at that time - - we were given figures of nine million, ten millicn, eleven million, but does the world know that the cost of the Portage la Prairie Diversion ended up in the order of nine teen million, acid they're st ill not through . . . A MEMBER: And no water going down it either. MR.

SCHR EYER: Does the world know that when we were giv en in this Chamber the initi al engineering esl imate with respect to the cost of construction of the Red River Floodway we were given a figure of 54 million, and that by the way was carefully brought forward so as to make it difficult to find out what the period of amortization and the interest rate factor being used was, so they spoke in terms of 54 million amortize d over 50 years for an amortize d cost of 188 million at four percent, and in fact what is the cost or money in the construction of the Red River Floodway, and what will be the final amortize d costs ?

Will they be 20 or 30 million dollars below what they told this House would be the construction cost, the cost of amortiz ati on ? Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't have to stand here and accept, that from all people the Member for River Heights, the suggestion that I knowingly and will ingly misle d this House with respect to engineering cost estimates. I would find it hard to take from anyon� but from the Leader of the Oppo si tion of course it is a perversity to be accus ed in that IP..anner si nce he is one who can understand that best by looking in the mirror. In any case, Mr.

Chairman, the facts of the matter are that the figures that were brought forward in the initial instance with respect to Lake Winnipeg regulation, Churchill River Diversion, and the whole development of the Nelson River, we are dealing in very great, with a very great water resource and energy development. And here we are, Sir, wi th an effort - - I don't know whether it's by design or inadvertence but there is this polar extremity on the part of my fr iends oppos ite.

There are those who will do their very damndest to stop Churchill River diversion; and there are those on the other hand who have always opposed Lake Winnipeg regulation, and who by definition therefore were in favour of maximization of the level of flooding of Southern Indian Lake. And as far as I am concerned they are both extremists, and the government is trying to follow the best engineering advice so that we can proceed all ri ght with the development of the Nelson River development, which has a potential great benefit to the people of this province.

We are trying to do so by means of combining two water sch emes, Churchill River and Lake Winnipeg regulation, in a way that will minimize flooding on both of them. Mr. Speaker, it will be so si mple, it would have been so si mple to si mply forget about Lake Winnipeg regulation and to have therefore proceeded with that abortive 1969 proposal to

562 March 13, 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AN D RES OURCES (MR.

SCHRE YER cont'd) . . o •• go wi th the high level one million ac re flooding of Southern Indian Lake, and we didn't feel, Sir, that that was in the long-term interest and so after con side rable study, consider able engineer ing analysis, it was decide d that a combination with the proper timing of Lake Winni peg regulation plus Churchill Rive r dive rsion at South Indian Lake would make it possible to reduce the environm ental disturbance, community di sturbance, etc. , at South Indian Lake by vi rtue of getting some dependency, some reliance on storage on Lake Wi nnipe g f or winter flow supplements: Mr.

Speaker, that is the si mple essence of the matter. Honourable friends opposite in the two di fferent groups are playing polar opposit es on this, one atta cking Lake Winnipeg, the other attacking Churchill River diversion. Mr. Speaker, the Nelson Rive r development must proceed. My honourable frie nd the Member for Rie l wants to talk about figu res like 50 million, 54 milli on. He doesn't include transmission costs ; he did not include some other factor there.

I have indi cated to him on a previ ous occasion that he should on Monday next when the Chairman of Hydro, the Chief Executive Officer of Hydro will himse lf be present to answer questions directly. He will be able to get a sequential ac count with respect to the extent to which there has been revision of estimates on the Lake Winnipe g regulation project. I can tell him now that what he refers to. as a $5 0 million figure was brought forward in its fi rst firm manner at 56, 5 million, 56. 5.

His sugge stion about the cost of building 15 0 kilowatt or 15 0 megawatt plant at J enpeg, which is a part of the developme nt at J enpeg, regulation plus the buildi ng of a power plant, he uses a figure of 54 million or 55. That figure is only a conceptual one and in its initial instance was never to be describe d as an engineering figu re. The chief executive officer of Hydro will be able to deal with those asp ects in more deta il.

I tell my honourable frie nd the Member for Riel that the cost of bringing in a 15 0 megawatt plant at Jenpeg at the latest cost figu res we have will develop power at a unit price which wi ll be comparable to other plants that we have in the system. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, there clearly would not be any development of a generating facili ty at Jenpeg if the cost-benefit ratio were less than parity, obviously so.

Of course I wonder in retrosp ect what all of the cost-benefit ratios that were stated in the reports of about nine years ago, or ten years ago, on flood control works at Portage la Prairie and around Winnipeg, if all those haven't been thrown into a cocked hat as a result of the extent to which constructions costs deviate d from initial engineering estimates and initial conceptual estimates of cost. And then of course one knows that predicat ing a project on the basis of four percent money is sim ply unreali stic, and history has proven that to have been a false assumption.

At least I can tell my honourable frie nds that when we do - - when Manitoba Hydro does its cost analyses it does it on a basis of interest rates that are in line and realistic with interest rates that prevail, and are more likely to preva il in the future, than the four per cent interest rates that were used in all of those, not so many docume nts but the two or three docume nts that were circulated in this Chamber back in the days of the previou s adminis tration. Mr. Speaker, do my honourable frie nds want to talk in absolute dollar terms or percent age terms?

If they want to talk in absolute dollar terms it must be vie wed in the context of the whole developme nt of the Nelson; if they want to talk in percentage terms I would prefer them once again to check back on their own works that they have wrought such as the Portage la Prai rie Diversion and please tell us the percentage extent to which they devi ated from engin eering estimates. I can do a calculation in my head right as I stand here on the floor, $11 million, 11. 2 million, a final cost in the order of 19. 2 million. What kind of cost escalation would that be, Sir? A ME MBER: How about the Convention Centre?

It's the same thing. MR. SCHRE YER: There are always of course problems when one goes into any large scale project but in the end one must rely on a cost-benefit ratio that will hold up to be above par ity into the fores eeable future.

Of course the easie st thing to do, Sir, would be to forget about all these deve lopments, to f orget about the Nelson River, or if we proceed to go ahead wi th half plants , half-size d plants, and I'm sure that the Member for Riel would be among the first, at least I hope he would, to admit that it would make the economics of Nelson River de velopment absolute - - not absolute but nonsense to a very large degree. The economics that have to be realize d on the Nelson River are such, the plants must be built of a size that maximize s the available water flows in the summer which in terms of winter flow, which is

March 13, 1973 563 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ..... obviously short, has to be supplemented. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, all in all my honourable friends had better contain their curiosity until Monday or Tuesday, until Monday next, the 19th, when the Committee on Utilities will meet with the Chairman of Hydro present. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, when the Premier spoke in the Throne Speech debate he gave us an impress ive set of documents which he stated were all the documents on the Hydro projects, very impress ive, all the studies - - I think it was this high. And he did that for the benefit of the Leader of the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member from Riel has expressed certain statements in this House and has documented it from the reports pres ented by the Premier. The Premier has spoken for the last few moments and has not answered at all the representations made by the Honourable Member from Riel. Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has used sarcasm and invectives and talked about the Nelson River project without answering the specific charge that he and his government have misled the people of Manitoba into believing the economics of Lake Winnipeg and Jenpeg were justified on a cost of $100 million. The Honourable Member for Riel referred to the fact that Premier Campbell made a representation that the cost would be closer to $200 million and he was laughed at by the then Chairman of Hydro and by the government. Mr.

Speaker, there are two myths ; in fact it could be suggested two falsehoods that are be ing perpetuated by the Premier in every conversation on this subject and by the government. One is that in some way high level has been effected directly as a result of the work that is being undertaken on Lake Winn ipeg regulation. Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is that if you do not proceed with Lake Winnipeg you will have high level diversion, and - - (Interjection) - - Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with high level diversion.

The second myth is that the costs of the project were justified on the basis of $100 million but now because the information is out and there is no way in which the government can back away from it, they now have to acknowledge that the cost was really never $100 million but was always much higher, and that the increased cost that we're now talking about is only a ten percent rise. Now, Mr.

Speaker, one has to question the credibility of a First Minister who at this time has to answer the political attack of his opponents but who has to remember his own moment in history with respect to a Hydro project that will be reviewed a decade from now, in which the record will show that the Premier has stood up in this House time after time and has stood up on the public platform and has in fact misreprese nted the costs of Lake Winnipeg regulation and Jenpeg to the people, and has attempted to justify a political action that was made at the time to avoid dealing With Churchill diversion, but unfortunately for him he's had to deal with it before the election not after.

Mr. Speaker, the words of Dotiglas Campbell come true when he suggested that the government was going to have to face up to the situation that the Nelson River project was going to have to be proceeded with, and tha1: Ohurchill River di version was going to have tQ. be proceeded with, and that the economics were such that they would justify that it should commence first, and that Lake Winnipeg may be necessary but if it would be necessary it wotild be necessary after 1990, and that the economic justification by Mr.

Cass- Beggs, and by the government, is not true because the costs that were proposed were not corre ct. And, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Riel has presented facts. He has pre sented an argument that is supported by statements and by the documentation presented to this House the other day by the First Minister. The First Minister has not answered. Instead he has used, he has used his position to talk about the broad picture of the Nelson River project and to suggest that in some way that answers the specific charge.

The charge remains, and the charge has not been answered, and it will be up to the people of Manitoba to determine who is really telling the truth. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, I don't expect the Leader of the Opposition to fully understand the nature of the Nelson River development because he has demonstrated that despite his four years in office as a Minister there were a number of things that went on that he later felt he did not quite understand or know about. The fact remains, Mr.

Chairman, that in the initial instance the regulation and control of Lake Winnipeg for purposes of Nelson River

564 March 13, 1973 SUPPLY - MJNES AND RESOURCES (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ..... Development was talked about in terms of a simple regula tion and control system and at that point in time figures were used of $50 million, and then very soon thereafter of $56. 5 million. There has been cost es calation I admit. The engineering cost analysis shows that there has been an escalation. It is in the order, to the best of my understanding, in the order of $10 million with respect to the control wo rks. Now my honoura ble friends want to br ing in the question of the generating station.

My honoura ble friends had better price what a 150 megawatt generating station should cost any where north of the 53rd parallel. Now let them not try to mix apples and oranges. We're talk ing about Lake Winnipeg regulatioll' and control, a figure of 50, then 56 million. I have indicated there is an es calation there in the order of 10 million, say 10 or 12 percent accordi ng to the iruormation I have.

Now if they want to bring in the dimension of a generating plant, a 150 mega watt generating plant, they had better compare that what it should cost with whatever iruorma tion they have, and they are free to ask the Cha irman of Hydro with respect to the probable cost of brin ging in a plant of the equivalent size anywhere north of the 53rd parallel of this pro vince. So let them not combine a generating plant with a control structure and say that there is that kind of gross deviation in estimates. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, one could go on at great length to explain to the Leader of the Oppositi on once again that there is a relationship between Lake Winnipeg regulation and the amount of diversion and flood ing that is required at Southern Indian Lake, because if you do not proceed with, and examine this, Sir, if one does not proceed with Lake Winnipeg regula ti on now, but admits that in about 15 years it may be necessary then, Sir, if as a result of do ing what is admitted li kely to be necessary in 15 years now, it makes it poss ible to avoid a high level flooding on Southern Indian Lake - - (Interjecti on) - - then why wou ldn't you do it that way, Sir ?

And the fact remains that even though doing it in this sequence has made it pos sible to reverse the absolute madness of Bill 15 that was introduced in this Hous e, and let the Leader of the Oppositi on not pretendthat that never occ urred, because right in the bill, right in the bill their motives were expo sed for all to see, to go to a high level flooding that's what they intended to do. It's not my say-so; it was right in the bill. Now they pretend that a high level flood ing was not necessary after all.

That's true, it's not necessary providi ng one proceeds with Lake Winnipeg regulation. - - (Interjection) - - Well if you say that, why didn't you say it in 1969 ? - - (Interjection) - - How dare you say that now when you tried to force this Legisla ture to put through a bill that woul d have resulted in 30 foot flood ing ? MR. CRAIK: It's not related to Lake Winnipeg. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mro Chairman, the Member for Riel says it's not related to Lake Winnipeg, and, Mr.

Speaker, the reason that they were going to the high level flooding is because they wanted to get the storage capability, the water storage capability on Southern Indian Lake. The reason they wanted to get it there is because they weren't making provision for any stor age capability on Lake Winnipeg, which is some thing that only they can answer for because it was right in the initial concept back in 1966.

And for whatever reasons, for what ever motivation, which I hope some day history will uncover, they reversed their course of action of 1966-67 which called for both Lake Winnipeg regul ation and Churchill River Diversion, both clearly enumerated in the plans and the concepts and in the formal agreement with Canada, and they tried to drop one altogether and go for a monstrous high leve l diversion at Southern Indian Lake. Now they say it wasn't necessary.

Well my God what were they doing in 1969, February, March, April when they brought in that bill, which would have meant flood ing of a million acres, the displac ing of a whole community, the complete transplantat ion of it; not just any impingement but a complete inundation and transplantation of it. Now they have the gall and the intelle ctual dishonesty to say that it wasn't necessary. - - (Interjection) - - Why did you bring in that Bill ? A MEMBER: Your studies you said it. Do you ever read them ? MR.

SCHREYER: Yes, and you didn't have the for esight to proceed with any studies before you brought in that bill or suffic ient studies. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not as though we, on this side are say ing that the high level flooding was unnecessary, their own words in the last twelve months, only in the last twelve months ull' fortun ately. I think Hansard will show that on perhaps ten occas ions now, different of them have stated, and Hansard will show this, that high level flooding is not necessary. They're saying it now; which in effect means that they

March 13, 1973 565 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ..... are pulling the rugs out from under themselves with respect to what they did in - - or tried to do in 1969. And there can be no divorce, there can be no divorce of the inter-relationship between Lake Winnipeg regulation and Lake Winnipeg storage fur the Nelson River and the level of diversion required at Southern Indian Lake. There can not be any divorce of the two, they are intimately connected. You know, Mr. Chairman, it is such a fundamental fact and point.

It lies at the very basis of the Nelson River development concept that for the honourable members now to pretend otherwise is staggering.

If there was no connection, then it obviously should have meant that in 1968 when they abandoned Lake Winnipeg Regulation, as an integral part of the Nelson, indicating however that they might do it 15 years later, so that they weren't really solving the problem, they were postponing it; but because they didn't have the guts to proceed and there fore were postponing it for 15 years, it meant one thing, they had to get their storage in the interval by high level flooding of Southern Indian Lake, 869 feet to 87 2 - - one million acres of flooding, 20 feet of water over the whole community; the complete transplantation of a whole community etc. , etc. , all because they tried to take a shortcut based on political �xpedience.

That's the nature of the way they were proceeding. Quite a far cry from the way they proceeded in the early 1960's when there were a few different men in the government O!l that day, in the early 608 , because I suppose if they had fiddled around in the early 60s the way they did in the late 60s, then I don't know if there would be flood protection around Winnipeg, or a diversion at Portage, or a dam at Russell, and by the way, let no one say that there can't always be amateur engineers to second-g uess what the engineers propose.

If one only takes a very cursory glimpse at the 1958- .59 engineering flood cost commission report, there are a multiplicity of options and alternatives contained therein - great argument and debate as to which was the better course of action; a dam at Russell and a dam at Holland, or a dam at Russell or Shellmouth, and a diversion at Portage, ill combination with-th!=l Red River floodway, etc.

In fact, there was a minority report by one of the Commissioners th,at there ought not to be a Red River Floodway but r;ither a. dredging of the course of the Red River as it flowed in its natural bed through Winnipeg, etc. , .and there wa.s great controversy and debate.

It is proving to. be n,o different now with respect to the development of the Nelson but we do not intend, Sir, because the amount of potential good for the people of this province by the development of the great Nelson River water resource requires that certain things be done, and that they be done in a certain sequence, in order to maintain the integrity of the cost- benefit economics involved, and .also in order to avoid a flooding and a removal of a whole commiinity, necess itated.now because they Were postppning for 15 years, and only 15 years, doing some- thing that they would ultimately have to do later anyway. - And so, if they are worried about the cost of Lake Winnipeg regulation now, and the member admits in i5 years it will be necessary, then presumably 15 years from now it would be all right for him if he were a member of the government in that day, in that future date, if there was an over-ride over engineering initial, engineer ing estimates, then presumably no one should say anything about it at that time, or what is my honourable friend suggesting ?

The point is that the amounts .involved here are based on the be'st engineering calculations and advice possible; the cost benefit ratio is above parity; - it is worth proceeding with .. And my honourable friends. obviously if they are really desirous . of getting at the full facts will have full opportunity to do so in a matter of what now - - tOday being Tuesday, in less than a week, and I think they can ·contain themselves that long. MR. CHAIRMAN: . The Honourable Leader of the Oppos ition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, when the professor was talking he had his hands like this as if he was in prayer, and, Mr.

Speaker, what I believe he was thinking was, please God allow me to be able to talk about other things, irrelevant things ; allow me to be able to use certain figures ; allow me to be able to pres ent my case in such a way that no one will in anyway be able to discern the facts that I have no facts to answer the charge that has be_en made. Mr. : Speaker, the First Minister has suggested, do we have the gut;:;?

I will say to him, does he have the guts to allow technical experts to come before the Standing Committee of Public Utilities on Lake Winnipeg regulation and Jenpeg and give their testimony - - not Hydro Mem bers, no hearings now, no hearings now. Allow this present Standing Committee to have

566 March 13, 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR, SPIVAK cont'd) . . . .. people come forward and deal with Lake Winnipeg regulation and Jenpeg. Is he going to have the guts to allow the facts to be placed on the table, or is he going to try and avoid, as he has just in the last few moments, the charges that are being made. Mr.

Speaker I want to refer to the letter of Douglas Campbell, dated June 28, 197 1, and I want to refer just to two or three paragraphs and I leave this with the Premier, because it's my belief that Douglas Campbell's, you know, concern has proved to be correct; that what he suggested was goilg to happen is happening, and that his original proposal that the government proceed with the Nelson River project and the Churchill Diversion first was the correct one, and what we have now is a political decision that is going to cost the people the $177 million without any real economic benefit.

In his letter he says and I quote, and it's on page 7, "Therefore the government shares with the Board the responsibility for a plan that will forego the many millions of dollars annually that would have been available by developing the Churchill River Diversion rather than Lake Winnipeg regulation.

To waste the $50 million, and I predict it will greatly exceed that estimate, on this scheme is bad enough, but to have such a sterile investment costing us huge amounts of money every year instead of a viable and remunerative development that would generate profits as well as energy and thereby make it possible to keep our power costs the lowest in Canada, is tragic. " And he finishes, Mr. Chairman, in this paragraph. "Time will tell whether I am right or wrong.

I confidently await time's verdict, but I shudder to think of the unnecessary financial burden which will be forced on Hydro users in the meantime and for all time to come. " Mr. Speaker, that is going to be the legacy of Ed. Schreyer in this province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chair man, I welcome the last, _if only the last comment of my honourable friend, that one I welcome. I certainly do await with tierenity the judgment, shall we say, of history with respect to the development of the Nelson River and all of the components necessary to the development of the Nelson.

Now it's rather interesting Mr. Chairman, that we have this continued, this �ntinued battle, disa greement,, cqntrov�rsy. We have on the one hand the Leader of the Opposition wanting us to bring fol'\Vard certain experts that are quite bound and determined to show that the economics of Lake Winnipeg regulation and power generation are not impressive, that they are non-existent in terms of economic benefit, and. then on the other hand we have the "Stop, Look and Listen" crowd.

Now the "Stop Look and Listen" .crowd have never opposed Lake Winnipeg regulation because to give them credit for one thing, they know that without Lake Winnipeg regulation the Churchill River diversion would have had to be carried out on a scale of about 55, OOO cfB and about 30 feet of flooding, in other words the monstrous high level diversion, Now look, Mr. Chairman, they can't have it both ways. The two twins of the apocalypse the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader -of the Liberal Party, they can't have it both ways.

The one is fighting Churchill River diversion the other is fighting Lake Winnipeg regulation, and if we had neither of those two , then the Nelson River development is a colossal stupidity and blunder. Now let that fact sink in. Now of course, the Leader - - look, sit down, I'm not nowhere thr<>ugh. The Leader oI the Liberal Party has talked about stopping looking and listening with respect to Churchill River Diversion; the Leader of the Opposition is saying, pro ceed, and in fact it's too late, you should have proceeded earlier and higher and faster with Churchill River diversion.

They both have their sets of experts, and frankly, Sir, we have listened to both. We have listened to Hydro enginee:r:ing advice. We have listened to the

interpretation by our Hydro engineers of the consulting studies done by Underwood and McLellan, Crippen Acres etc., etc. , and we have come to certain conclusions: (

a) that the Nelson River project must be proceeded with in all of the plants downstream on the Nelson from Kettle, and that in order to avoid the ludicrous spectacle of building half-size plants there has to be supplementation of water flows on the Nelson, supplementation and in the winter, supplementation plus. Certainly to do tha:t means supplement from where ?

Well supplement by means of a combination of diversion from the Churchill River, but not the monstrously high level flooding of 1969 which was stopped, but a lower, more modified scheme plus therefore, because the quantum of water involved is lesser, therefore it has to be made up by means of dependency on storage from Lake Winnipeg to supplement winter flows.

,- ---------- I March 1 3, 197 3 567 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. SCHREYER cont'

d) Now there it is in laymen's terms. And I know that we can continue from now as we could have with the floodway debate, and the Portage diversion debate, and the Holland dam debate. We could continue ad infinitum arguing among the different options open. Mr. Chairman, in the end one has to proceed and try to salvage what is still a very good development, the Nelson, and to do it in a way that maximizes the future returns for the people of this province and maxi., mizes the utilization of a renewable resource, water which will, as long as rain falls, continue to flow.

We are living at a time when this generation, young people living today, in their very young years are already of that generation that will be looking at a very definite finiteness, limitation of availability of fossil fuels, therefore it is to me incredible that we should be so torn amongst ourselves with respect to the development of a renewable water resource which we know we're going to harness some day.

Therefore, why not harness it sooner so as to obtain the benefit that will derive from it in the interval between now and when you would admit you had to do it anyway instead of letting it run to the sea unharnessed. It is not as though, Mr. Chairman, that by using water energy sooner rather than later that we are somehow adding to the sum total of available water energy at some future date. Because we are not detracting; it is not a storeable energy form in the same sense as a pool of oil underground or a field of natural gas underground. It is not storeable and therefore postponable as to future use. It flows.

If you're going to harness it in 1985 or 1988, harness it now if there is a productive human use for it that can pay the amount required to cover the cost of producing it with a margin for the people of this province. . • . • • continued on next page · .

568 March 13 , 1973 MINES AND RESOURCES. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr . Chairman, !b elieve some of the members in this House weren't in 1965 when the first debate began about the proposal. And although I was here then I still don't !mow all the information and facts on which to base a judgment, I have heard this battle refought a hundre d times I suppose, either at public meetings or in this Chamber or in the Public Utilities Co mmittee. And one thing that does disturb me is that we don't seem to be learning anything from history.

The Premier alluded to the Po rtage Diver sion. At that time there was a small but vocal group in the Portage area who were against it and were fighting it out but the massive power of government was brought into force and there was no way that thing could be stopped. And as the Premier said, the costs esca lated, problems have developed, To this day there are problems there that members - except for the Member for Lakeside probably don't know about.

That that Diversion at Portage is ch anging drastically, the makeup of Lake Manitoba and it's helping to destroy the Marsh Now I'll talk about that later, but I make the point. Why didn't government - why doesn't government give people a chance to voice their objections ? Why don't the government give- in the case of the Portage Diversion there was no chance for anybody, there was a couple of highly political emotional meetings held and that's all.

The government didn't change, they weuldn't let people have a reasonable say, they just gave them a chance to get it off their chest and then they proceeded. · And we have now, now we have the spectacle in the past two years , of the Premier now of this pro vince and the Leader of the Opposition who was part of the administration that put in the Portage Diversion, both saying that the Portage Diversion I guess was a mistake, there should have been another approach taken to solve the problem of time to time flooding on the reaches of the Assiniboine down river from Portage. We ll can't we learn from that?

Can't we say in the case of the case of the South Indian Lake debate that there have been so many groups of people • • • MR. SCHREYER: The honourable member, a point of privilege. I hope my honourable friend does not mind it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: I would not like the honourable member to leave it on the record that I have stated that the Portage Diversion was a mistake. I made only two points.

Number one, was that the cost escalation in the end was approximately 80 percent ov er what was initially pres ented to this House; and Number two, that if, if the decision had been taken for a dam at Holla nd, Manitoba, the Portage la Prairie Diversion might not have been necessary. But without the other I wouldn't want it to be described as a mistake just pure and simple. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, I stand corrected but I allude again to the Portage Diversion it was based on a cost benefit ratio based on an original cost in the neighborhood of 10 or 11 million dollars. So the cos t benefit ratio isn't worth a darn when the cost comes out at 19 to 20 million. So perhaps I over simplified the Premier!.s statement. But the Leader of the Opposition said it was a mistake, he said it last year if he was repor ted correctly in the news papers. Now I return to the South Indian Lake controversy.

Surely when there are so many different groups of people and it's been said that some of the differences of opinion is for political reasons, and I will buy that too, some people politically are opposing it perhaps for reasons of their· own and perhaps through sincerity.

When we have a member, at least one member in the governing party who has been sitting in caucus and has probably heard more about the planning of the South Indian Lake operation than members in the Opposition of late years have heard, it disturbs me that a member, at least one member on the government caucus and we're told there are more, are differing With their frmit bench on this matter. It disturbs me that when we find the community affected have hired lawyers to stop it, try and stop it. My God, Mr.

Chairman, if this thing was going to take place in Elmwood or Tuxedo or Selkirk there would be a civil war before that thing took place. MR. GREEN: It happened numerous times. MR. G. JOHNSTON: The Minister of Mine�; has said it's happened numerous times. MR. GREEN; That is correc t. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well all I am saying is this is a democracy and people shouldn' t have things rammed down their throats without proper hearings and without doing it the democratic

March 13, 197 3 569 MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. JOHNSTON cont'd) ..... manner . And the Minister is the one that had the law changed, so we couldn' t discuss it in here. MR. GREEN : Mr . Chairman, on a point of privilege. I had no law changed which.avoided any discuss ion in this House. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken ... MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I take that statement back, but I make this statement, that he had the law altered so that the Manitoba Hydro didn' t have to get a licence from the Water Board. MR. GREE N: That is also not correct, you know, that' s Newbury faLs ism.

It is not true, there is a licence, a licence was issued ... A MEMBER: Without hearings . MR. GREEN: There was a licence and there was no requirement under the previous law to have hearings , for my honourable friend 's benef it. --(Interjection)-- MR. G, JOHNSTON: I apologize again to my honourable fr iend, but did he not have it arranged, by law, so that the Water Commission didn't have to hold hearings or were not - were unable to hold hearings . --(l nterjection)-- MR. GREEN: No, Mr. Chairman, if my honourabl e friend will give me two minutes I will give him the facts . MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resourc es. MR. GREEN: Under the Act as it was previously to the Cabinet changing it, which I am one member, the law required that an advertisement be published telling people that the Hydro intended to do this and asking them whether they were for it or against it. And we said, kno wing that the decision has been made it would be a fraud to publi sh such an advertis ement. The Act then said that the Minister "may" ask that publ ic hearings be held. The Act, I believe has not been changed in that respect.

The Act said that the Director of Water Works shall say that this is a good pro ject and we said, that knowing that this is a government position we were not going to hide behind the Director of Water Works to si gn that certificate, it had to be si gned by the Minist er. Thos e were the changes. None of which eliminated the need for a licence, none of which changed any effect of those laws or whether pu blic hearings had to or did not have to be held. They eliminated the need for an advertisement which would have caused more mis understanding than exists at the present time.

The Honourable Member for Wolseley is pub lish ing many advertisemen ts . He has an opportunity of having the law changed. He can get the members on this side of the House who are free human beings , and the members on that side of the House who are free human beings, to exerc ise the democratic process, bring this government down and that way prevent the Nelson River Program which he is opposed to. That is my understanding of the democratic process -. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Member for Portage. MR, G. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, when the Minister has the Chairman of the Water Board removed because there was a dis agreement between them . . . MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, if the honourable ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources . MR. GREEN: I knew that the honourable member doesn 't --(Interj ection)-- All right let him make any miss tatements that he wants like you do . Forget about it. MR . G. JOHNSTON: I do not intend to make a mis .. ,--(Interj ection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order ! A MEMBER: You're a damn liar. MR. CHAIRMAN: ORDER! The Honourable Member for Portage la Prai rie.

MR, G. JOHNSTON: Mr . Chairman, I apologi ze, if the Minister did not have the chair man removed. I thought he did. MR. GRE EN : Mr. Ch airman, I did change the chairman but not for the reasons indicated by the honourable member. That' s right. MR. G, JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is mighty touchy. I fail to see the technical difference that he's talking about here. A chairman that wasn't going along with what his thinking was --(Interj ection)-- MR. SCHREYER: On a point of privile ge. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Ministe r.

570 March 13, 1973 MINES AND RESOURCES MR. SCHREYER: Now there we have a specific statement which I -- now the Member for Portage la Prairie I regard as one who would be willing to yield for a minute to attempt to get the fac ts . He refers to the Chairman of the Water Commission as not going along. The other day I read a letter from the Chairman of the Water Commission on to the record in which he indicated appro val for proceeding with a diversion of the Churchill River. Now if the honourable friend would like I will get the letter from my of fice and I will send it along to him so that he may read it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Member for Portage la .Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: ... his wo rd and I apologize if this was the

interpretation that I put on, was that there was a difference of opinion and one had to go. MR. GREEN: I gav.e the reason at the time. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I return to the different groups who have been dis senting with the government over this matter. The South Indian Lake Indian gro up who are taking objection and are going to court with their objections . The Metis Federation of the No rth, is that . . . ? MR. GREEN : Manitoba Metis Federation. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Yes, they' re obj ecting to the govern ment's action in this matter. There' s a churchmen' s gro up of the north who are disagreeing.

As I said, there are some political people who are disagreeing. There,•s a group at the university who are expert in the field of water management and hydro matters . They're dis agreeing with the gove rnment. Surely, Mr. Chairman, government should at least give these people a chance, preferably by a Royal Commission. But my friends opposite will say well it' s too late the operation is entrain, it' s started. But then they can take at.least one other course, and that is this , that the Public utilities Committee should not be held down by the governm ent's majority.

If we want to call expert witnesses or people we think are expert in the field who take the opp osite tack to what Hydro take then I appeal to the governnent to let us call those people before the Public Utilities Committee; and if it takes two weeks straight or whatever time it takes, to have both sides at Public Utilities so that the members who vote on that committee can hear both sides . And that' s all I ask, that's all I ask.

That because of the controversy across the province and the growing opposition -- in my opinion there' s growing oppos ition -- the government has a duty to even with their Public Utilities Committee where they have a majorit y, not. to stifle the Opposition who want to call expert witness before the committee. That• s all I ask. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources . MR. GREEN: Mr .... A MEMBER: I have a suggestion I want to make. MR . CHAIRMAN: The honourable member has already been recognized once -- in this debate. MR. GREEN: That is correct, Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member has not been recognized and if . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I said in this debate that has been taking place orn resolution 82 (a) (1 ) the honourable member certainly has been recognized. MR . GREEN: I think he's referring to today, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared -- I don' t believe that I have been . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, pleas e. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. POINT OF PRIVILEGE MR. PAULLEY: May I on a point of personal privilege, because every member of this committee of the Whole House is entitled to personal privilege.

A:i:i.d the Honourable Member fo r Riel was casting aspersions on the Chairman of this committee, and I regret as a member of this committee that one who has been a Cabinet Minister of the Government of Manitoba should conduct himself so. And I suggest, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, whether there has been or has not been a recog nition of my ho nourable friend from Riel that this is not cause enough for him to cast aspersions on the conduct of this committee. Mr . Chairman, as far as .. . --( Interj ection) -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

,------ - - ---- -- -- March 13, 1973 571 MINES AND RESOURCES MR, PAULLEY: Mr . Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege, which is the prerogative of every member of this Assembly. And if the honourable member ... A MEMBER: State your point of privilege. MR. PAULLEY: I have done, because my point of privilege, for the benefit of the Member for Morris, was because one of the honourable members of this committee was casting aspersions on the manner in which the Chairman of the Committee was conducting the proceedi ngs .

And surely to good ness my honourable friend from Morris, who is chirping of course as he normally does, seated on his butt, suggested that is not a point of personal privilege, I say, Mr. Chairman, that every member of this Assembly has the right of personal privilege and I am exercising that right right now. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a matter of privilege here as well. The last day when I spoke on the Estimates I presume you were referring to Mr . Chairman, the bounds of the matters which we were to discuss were fairly well spelled out and were adhered to when I spoke on them. They were. Mr.

Chairman, you made a ruling at that time and that ruling was stuck to . What you have done today in order to get back at what I consider is an injustice on behalf of the government, I had to use up one grievance which each member of this House is allowed to use in a session. .Mr. Chairman, there was answers given to that by the First Minister without him having to use up his grievance in reply, answers, Mr. Chair-· man, which would have been ruled out last day on the grounds which they involve, namely, the econom ics, the dollars and cents of the proj ect involved. Mr.

Chairman, the answers to them introduced a great amount of material which was incorrect and which I could have raised - rose on a point of privilege to correct the First Minis ter . And I rose twice foll owing his remarks to answer them and was ruled by you inform ally, Mr. Chairman, that I had in fact already spok en onc e. Mr . Chairman, I did not speak on this matter that was raised the last day because it was ruled by you that the matter of the econ omics on Lake Winnipeg development were not within the bounds of discuss ion of this department. So, Mr. Chairman, I raise a grievance now with your rulings .

MR. GREEN: Mr . Chairman, let me on the point of order indicate that no such ruling was made, no such ruling was certainly adhered to . There was a comment made by myself saying that I would like to have the lines drawn, then saying I'l l let the honourable member speak and try when I can. I did try, and after I did, Mr. Speaker, after I did, this is the remarks made by the Member for Riel, after the so- called ruling that he is talking about was made. The project at that time was indicated to be a cost, a total of 50 the cost of the controls for Lake Winnipeg were to cost $50 million.

It was generally accepted that this was the cost for the proj ect with some additional costs for power aspects of it. The total of these, Mr. Chairman, and I refer you to the Jenpeg inf ormation that was filed in August 71 showed a cos t figure which put it in the vicinity of totally 100 million. The next three paragraphs Mr. Speaker, which he says he made after a ruling was made that he coul dn't make them and I invite my hono urable friend to look and see whether that is in fact so, were made in exactly the same vein as his grievance today.

He can' t come in here and whine that he was forced to make these remarks today because he was forced by your ruling no t to make -- Mr . Chairman, no ruling was made. Observations were made, the member was never ruled out of order and in fact made the remarks which I had orig inally objected to -- and if he'll go back two pages he'll find the objection, if he'll go forward two page.s after the obj ection he will find that he made the very remarks which he now complains you have prevented him from making. So with greatest of respect, Mr .

Chairman, to the honourable member I suggest that any suggestion that there has been impartiality -- that there has been a lack of impartiality o n the Chair is contemptible and is not to be acceded to by the House. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourbale Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the matters that have been raised here today. MR, GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if the point is taken then I believe that I have been reco gnized. A MEMBER: That's right. He was recog nized. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources .

572 March 13, 197 3 POINT OF PRIVILEGE MR. GREEN: That's right . MR. PAULLEY: I raised a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, he was recogn ized. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, ... --(l nterjection)- MR. PAULLEY: Oh I know a little bit abo ut the rules . MINES AND RESOURCES cont'd MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, you know, the suggestion, Mr . Chairman, that is being made by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie is that som ehow people have been prelll ented from making their views known on this question; and, Mr .

Chairman, the suggestion is that the prevention of views being made known is as a. res ult som ehow of the Public utilities Committee conducting its elf in the way in which it has always conducted its elf. Mr . Chairman, thos e who say that people have been prevented fro m making their views known are either ignorant of what takes place in the world er are directly mis leading themselves or the Ho use; because, Mr. Chairman, everybody 's views have been made known not once, not twice, not three times, but doze ns of times on this issue. Is anybody suggesting that Mr . Campbell couldn't make his views kno wn?

He made his views known as a board member; he made his views known before Public utilities Commit tee; he made his views known before two meetings of the Water Commission, and, Mr . Chairman, he made his views known on innum erable other occa sions at public meetings of one kind or another sponsored by citize ns which I consider to be a part of the democratic proce ss. And hasn't this been true of every single other principle involved in this case. Som ehow it' s been suggested that Bob Newbury has not been able to make his views known . Mr .

Speaker, Bob Newbury made his views known while he was working for the study group, before he was working for the study group and will make his views known after he is working for the study group. The same is true, Mr . - (Interjec tion)-- Well, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Wolseley says, before I fired him. No w the Honourable Member for Wols ele y says, the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party says that this is how he will behave as Premier. He will not ha�e the Churchill River Diversion, he will decide not to proceed with it.

On the best advice available he will come to the conclusion that he will not -- well, okay, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm pos tulating, I'm pos tulating. Let us assume that the Member for Wo lseley or the Leader of the Liberal Party - and this is ho w I infer that he will operate. He will come to the conclusion, if one can believe him, which is difficult, that there will be no diversion of the Churchill River, that they will hold . . . . hearings , there will be a bias against it, he will listen to Dr . Newbury, to Mr.

Booy who wants by the way pumping as I understand it, and Professor Lansdown, and will come to the conclusion that there should be no diversion. And then he will proceed with the normal course of government and he will hire people to do whatever has to be done in connection with it. For instance, he will hire people to study the inter-connection between Saskatchewan and Manitoba and he will let this inter cenne.ction be farmed out to a university group, and the university group will have on it some body who says, Asper is insane. Asper is a iiar. Asper is arrogant .

Asper is stop ping a diversion which is going to ma_ke the people of Manitoba millions of dollar s. Now it's true that I am only here to work on a study to decide whether there should be an inter-connection between Manitoba and Saskatchewan but in all cons.cience while working on this study I am go ing to use the information to show that Izzy Asper is insane. And Mr. Asper says that when that happens he will say to this person working on the study, he will pat him on the head and he say, nice boy,. I believe that you are exercising your democratic right.

I am goin g to continue to have you work on this study which is engaged with an inter connection between Manitoba and Saskatchewan; despite the fact that you tell me that this is insane, that we should no t be proceeding here and that part of the time you are engaged on this study is going to be used to give information to the eff ect that we are all wet. Now that is the proposition that the Leader of the Liberal Party is putting forward that he would exercise if he was the Premier of Manitob a. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe him, and I think, Mr.

Chairman, that what we are coming down to in this debate of what the Member for Riel did and what the Member for -- the Leader

March 13, 197 3 573 MINES AND RESOURCES (MR, GREEN cont 'd) . .... of the Opposition Party did is -- we are coming down to the crunch after all the experts are in, after everybody has made their pitch, and I remember last year the Leader of the Opposition said or the Member for Riel I think it was he who said, how can you go ahead with this proj ect - that's Lake Winnipeg regulation. A former Premier is against it; a former Minister of Mines and Resource s is against it; a former chairman or vice-c hairman of Manitoba Hydro is against it . All of these people are against it, ho.v can you proceed with it ?

Now we know what they will do if they were in government, Mr . Chairman, They are go ing to rely on a former Premier, former Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, former Ministe r of Mines and Natural Resources . And let us assume, Mr. Chairman, that they got into governm ent; they said they're going to dispense with Lake Winnipeg regulation; they're going to go to 754 on the Churchill because that is their program --(Interjection)-- 854 . I'm sorry. Thanks to the Honourable Member for correction. And then let us say that people were against it , and a former Premier was against it --(Interje ction) -- Ed Schreyer.

Former Chairman of Manitoba Hydro, Cass -Beggs was against it, former Minister of Mines and Natural Resou rces, Sid Green was against it. By that analogy, Mr. Speaker, they' d have to stop the program, because all of these people are against it. Now that is what the hon ourable members' position was last year --(Interjection)-- Well, Mr . Speaker, it is a lot of junk. I agree that it is a lot of jumk but I will read from Hansard . . . A MEMBER: But he said it. MR.

GREEN: ..... that that is the posi tion that the Member for Riel or if not the Member for Riel, members on that side of the House, his Leader, which I .assume he follows his pos ition although I no tice that he follows pretty far behind, but the fact is that that is the position that were being reported, and now the question is coming down to the crunch, and what they are saying is that you're being told some thing by one side, you' re being told someth ing by other side and now it' s a question of whose judgment you' re re lying on and who do you believe.

If we can show that this guy said some thing which is a lie then everything that he says is a lie and you don' t have to believe him And the Member for Wo lseley, the Leader of the Liberal Party comes in and shows that I told a lie. I said that we have reason to believe that the Churchill River Diversion can be accomplished without fl ooding. And if he will read the entire speech, I said on numerous occa sions that we are talking about a low level diversion, that one which wo uld do no damage -- and I thought it would do no damage and I'm wrong --- but that that was a lie. That was a betrayal .

And this is intended to show -- and then the despicable thing which I read in the paper that someh ow Mr. Newbury was taken off the study because I know that he has inf ormation. He didn't say that in the Ho use, that I know that he has information which makes this whole program a disaster. Mr. Speaker, I go t up in the House -- I think the member is supposed to take a Ministe r's word. I don 't expect him to take my word because I think that he believes everybody behaves the way he does and therefore he will take nob ody's word because he knows that his word is no goo d. But, Mr.

Chairman, I tell you as I stand here that I know of no information by the study group which is being forwarded to us which is the reason for that study group being taken off the project. The study group was taken off the pro ject because they are very politica lly involved in it; we prefer to do the work in ho use. If some body is very emotionally against what we are doing we expect him not to do it. He also said that the members of my department, pro fes si onal engineers had to pleas e me to make a livin g.' Mr .

Chairman, I challenge him to fin d anybody who now works or who worked before or who was on the Water Commission who said that I wanted them to tell me what I thought, or to make statements which were favourable to me. The ho nourable member will not find a person. But he thinks that .that is the case - because, Mr . Speaker, that is what is in his mind. The Member for River Heights , the Leader of the Opposition, _in trying to throw the lie to the Premier again, trying to -- they can't defeat the proje ct but som ehow if they can defeat the credibility in their mind they think that they'v e got it made.

The Leader of the Opposition says that D. L. Campbell said in delivering a letter to Hydro that the proj ect is going to cost 50 million and he thinks it will go higher . They first of all say that when that estimate was thrown out and the Premier adopted it that the Premier knew that the estimate waE' Lm:orrect Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely incomprehensible, --(Interjection)--

March 13 , 1973 574 MINES AND RESOURCES (MR . GREEN cont'

d) Mr. Chairman, you know the honourable member talks about lies . I had an interesting experi ence with the honourable member . We were lining up for a radio show on the -- what's CJOB? - Peter Warren, just before the election. I considered it a joke at the time but apparently it wasn't a joke. The member walked into the radio show huffing and puffing and he said, "Well I have just been through Wolseley consti luency and half the apart ments that I went to smelled of pot. " So Peter Warren said, "Will you repeat that on the air ?" He said, "of course no t. " Peter Warren said, "I'll ask you about it.

" He says, "I'l l deny it. " That is the honourable member, that is the honourable member's way of reg arding the truth. You'll ask me about it, I'll deny it. As si mple as that, that's the end of it. Mr. Speaker, that happened,. At the time, Mr. Speaker, I regarded it as bit of a joke. At the time I regarded it as a bit of a joke and nothing to talk abo ut. But now that the honourable member, you know he thinks it is a joke. Well I don' t think so, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think it's a joke because I know that the honourable member now proceeds to deal with this question of reducing credibility on the most outrageous basis and the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the $50 million figure that was used by Mr. Campbell had no relation to the $177 million figure and the Honourable Lea�r oft heqppo sitionknows it, because at the time that the first '$50 million figure came in, at the time that the economics of the project were considered Jenpeg wasn' t even a fact as a generating station. It came in, Mr. Speaker , -- Mr.

Ch airman, my recollection is and the honourable member will have opportunity to correct me -- is that after this program was agreed to in September of 1970 that Mr. Cass�Beggs came to a meeting of Public utilities Committee and announced that in addition to the regulation part of the program there would be a generating station at Jenpeg as sort of a fringe benefit, that that wasn' t even one of the orig inal comp onents . It is not found in the task for ce report, a generating station on Jenpeg. Mr . Chairman, the initial 50 million had to do with Lake Winnipeg regulation as such.

It did not have to do with a generating station. Not only would nobody make such a statement that it wou,ld be outrage ous , you know it would be an outrageous lie to talk about a generating station plus Lake Winnipeg regulation controls , plus the dam, plus the channels at $50 million. If some one was �ing to tell a falsehood about that he would do it more cleverly. Mr. Speaker, that was never a factor and I am sure that D. L. Campbell would not say that that $50 million figure included the generating station. The generating station was an added com ponent and was not part of the orig inal 50 .niillion.

The Honourable Member for Riel the other day thought how can I get the Minister of Mines on his credibility, and he said, Mr . Speaker, that --(Interjection)-- well we' ll see whether it' s not persecution. He said that I had gone about saying that Lake Winnipeg would be kept within lake --- 715 most of the time, that I had not -- that my pos ition had been found to be wrong by the Water Commission and 'he Ititroduced a graph which I agreed I couldn't read . Two things , Mr . Speaker, I'll get to the graph eventually.

The fact is that the graph that he talks about is an October graph, the one that he pointed out to me, and it uses, Mr. --- well I'll get to the graph -- it uses wind eff ect, and at no time, and at every meeting that I was at, and I'm going to prove it, did I say to the people that 7ll and .715 were figures that I was using including wind eff ect. I specif ically said at each meeting that it would not include wind eff ect, that all of the ff gures that Iw asusing did not include wind effec t. Furthermore, I told the people that the water would be higher than it would normally be in the fa ll .

I told them at these meetings and the honourable member was there, and I'll read fr om the transcript. So. to try to now make me appear to have misled the people on that issue is absolutely ri diculou s. "Although we will in some years have 715 when it would have been 17, in order to pay for that peak in other years where we would have had 714 we may be as high as 715 , and one loss, one advantage is taken care of by the other raising the average leve l. " In other words the advantage of loS"ing the peak is taken care of by raising the level at other times . Mr.

Chairman, I wonder -- I know the honourable member would let me indicate what I did say. I said no one has ever said we would guaranteee that the water would not go over 715 feet. And I'm �ing to read all of these references because I said it so many times that it was not an accident. I made it a point of telling the people that in the fall the water may be higher than it would be under normal conditions . "I don't remember the point. Had we been

March 13, 1973 57 5 MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... regulating Lare Winnipeg at that time the level of the lake would have been below 715, 715 below. Therefore the amount of damage which would have occurred on that day would have been less than occu rred under natural conditions . The level of water during the fall has been over 715 and when you have winds with water over 15 you have lots of damage. We say that for those occasions which were the worst flood years we would have reduced your problem by having that water reduced from whatever it was, 715 . 5 to 715 feet.

I can't see us fl ooding the lake when we take the water from 711 to 715 . I know' ' -- and I want the Honoura ble Member for Riel to listen to this --"I know that this also involves taking the water at certain times from 714 to 714. 5 perhaps, or close to 715 , but the benefits that come from reducing the higher W3rter levels more than compensate for any poss ible problems that come from increasing from 714 to 715 . 11 Mr. Speaker, at every meeting I indicated that there would be an increase in water le vels in some occasions to take off the peaks.

What I was saying was that our studies indicate that by taking the water off the peak level is more benefit than adding water between level 714 and 715, and I agreed that water would be added between 714 and 715. I can' t come before you and say that everything about Lake Winnipeg regulation is good, because there are some proble ms . Let me indicate one of the problems .

When we reduce the level of the Lake from 711 to 715 and take the water down those two feet during the wor st flood period, it also means as a trade- off that there would be times when the water wo uld have been 714 and when we would be putting , it up to 715 ; so that you have a condition on Lake Winnipeg when the water would be 715 where under natural conditions it would have been 714. But as against this , I repeat, the conditions where it was at its worst at 717, would be no more.

We also have a si tuation with regard to the fact that the average level will be sli ghtly higher, and if one took the last 50 years into account the average level would be approx imately a fq ot higher.

Now this man says I misled the people on those questfons in order to attack credibli•l.iiy" I said it again at every meeting, so the beach would never be as bad as it was unles s, and I have checked up on this but I want to emphasize it, unless we had levels which would result in levels of not 717 but 710, 719 or 720, and even in thos e years if we suddenly had water at the level of 720, regulation would bring it down to 718. Now, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member takes out a graph and says that the graph says that the water is going to be more often over 715 than it would be under natural conditions .

Of course, the graph that he pointed to was an October graph. Mr. Speaker he po inted to an Octob er graph but let not that be the most serious problem. The fact is that he took a graph which had wind conditi ons, and that is not in graph, that is language which I can understand because it refers to the fact that wind effect is included. All daily elevations shown include the effect of maximum daily wind, wind setup recorded at Gimli . I never ever said that with wind effect we could keep the water below 715 . --(Inter jection)-- Yes. MR. CHAIBMAN: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR.

CRAIK: Does the wind effect not apply to both the normal condition and the control condition ? MR . GREEN: Absolutely. And I said, Mr. Chairman -- I told the people at every meeting that if it was 715 and we had wind effects that would bring it up to whatever figure, le t's say the wind effect was 2 feet, that would bring it up to 717, that at certain tim es of the year, when it normally would have been 714, we would have it at 715, and with wind effects you would have a worse condition than you would

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-5-22
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 5th hansardpdf 22.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	27793be2a28e8c0820087c51702f1b32f0d98bb5

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