Manitoba Hansard — 16 April 1985 (Sitting 28A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-28a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 16 April, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Read ing and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . Mi n isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . SPE AKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, I have a statement for the House. On Mon day, April 15 th, the Honourable Attorney General rose in his place to raise a point of order regarding words spoken in debate by the Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood.

The Honourable Attorney General alleged that the words constituted a charge of misleading the House. In order to review the actual words used, as printed in Hansard, I took the matter under advisement. Hansard shows that the Honourable Member for Elmwood said, "Mr. Speaker, we'll have an opportunity to debate whether or not the Attorney-General is properly carrying out his functions.

I intend to argue in his Estimates that he is not, and I will also raise some points on succeeding days to see whether or not some of the information the Attorney-General has provided in this House is accurate or not, or misleading or not. So, we will have a chance to debate that." The words do not constitute a direct or hypothetical accusation, they merely ind icate an intent on the part of the Honourable Member for Elmwood to discuss certain matters during future Estimates debate. There is therefore no point of order. ORAL QUESTIONS life insurance and pension management field - government entry into MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it follows upon the revelation yesterday of the leaked Cabinet document that is a strategy plan of action for this adminis tration in its forthcoming years of government. Mr. Speaker, the document refers to a commitment that all new non -econ omic issues, programs and legislation and all non-controversial issues be deferred for three years.

My question to the Premier is: is this the reason why his government has decided to put off entering the life insurance and pension management field for the present time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. 901 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has raised this question because - I guess we haven't done too good a job of following our overall strategy - it seems to me that just about every piece of legislation we've introduc ed in the past year-and-a-half has been controversial in the minds of honourable members across the way.

I can't recall very mapy pieces of legislation that we have introduced that· honourable members have said was not controversial, whether it be the labour legislation, the big black cloud legislation that honourable members referred to last June, whether ind eed it was the French Language de bate that continued after September 15, 1983. Mr.

Speaker, I think in response to the Honourable leader of the Opposition that obviously we haven't done too good a job in following our major strategy that I think all Manitobans would support; that it's time that all governments in this country ensure that their main focus be on job creation, job preservation, the economic issues that are confronting and concerning Canadians as a whole, and that should be our top priority as government. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in case the Premier wasn't aware, it's the public who took great issue with the French language proposal of the government and in fact the labour legislation, it's not just the opposition. Mr. Speaker, following upon that, I wonder if the Premier could ind icate, in addition to the topic of the life insurance and pension management, if that Cabinet document in strategy is the reason why his administration isn't proceeding with assessment reform at the present time. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, I'm glad the leader of the Opposition is posing these questions to me because it gives me a chance of repeating what I've been saying for the last year-and-a-half as to the major focuses and attention of this government. The first point, Mr.

Speaker, on the government strategy - maybe we can get some better publ icity now as to the government's main focus of attention - that the top priority for government action over the next three years be improving economic opportunities - (I nterjection) - I know honourable members don't want to hear that . . . and dealing authoritatively with job creation and job preservation. And Mr. Speaker, as we've ind icated in Item No. 4, unfortunately, and I regret this, we don't have ,the monies for a lot of new expensiv e programming at this time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

I remind the honourable member that a question should not be an expression of opinion, of represen tation, an argument or a debate. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if in deed that is the government's direction and concern, why is it that

the direction and concern is limited to only certain key cons tituent groups who should benefit from their programs and policies? HON. H. PAWLEY: I don't consider farmers, small business people, labour, the young people of this province, the senior citizens of this province, the women, and on and on as only a few key constituent groups. The people of Manitoba are the constituency groups in this province. Mr.

Speaker, this New Democratic Party, unlike the Conservative Party across the way that cater primarily to the banks and the large financial institutions of this province, those are not the principal concerns of this government. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, it's evident that the Premier only listens to and is only concerned with certain people and wants to govern by dividing people rather than being responsible to all the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, is this Cabinet document the reason why this adminis tration is not proceeding with amendments to human rights legislation at the present time? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. I remind members that questions should seek information and not to make arguments. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, this admin istration has on the record many indications of where it really stands, commitments to anti-scab legislation, passed it in New Democratic Party meetings. We want to know, is that the hidden agenda, is that what this government really is going to do at the end of the three-year period talked about in this Cabinet document? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has conceded the next election.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about this government's intentions after the next three years, they might have any intentions when they are in opposition, but we are concerned about what they do when they are in government. We want to know what the hidden agenda is for this adminis tration. Mr. Speaker, when will this Premier tell the public what he is going to do with these major issues that he is now putting under the table? When will they surface?

When can we expect to see the New Democratic Party in government, or otherwise, in opposi tion, bring forward these platforms that are on the back burner? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think that indeed if we were concerned about contentious issues we wouldn't need moving under the auspices of the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs on assessment reform. I can't think of any particular su bject that would be more 902 1985 contentious. Mr. Speaker, this is our plan of strategy; I am proud of this plan of strategy. Mr.

Speaker, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to table his documents disclosing the Tory hidden strategy for the Province of Manitoba. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. If members can contain their exuberance, then perhaps we can proceed with question period. Potash Development - state of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of questions, or maybe three, to the Honourable First Min ister regarding this governmental strategy and plan of action for the next three years.

Can I ask the First Min ister, was the potash development shelved before or after this Cabi net meeting was held at Gimli? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, is the Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell advising me that the potash development in the Province of Manitoba, as we are attempting to achieve, is a contentious item and should be shelved? If that is what the honourable member is telling us, let him be clear by way of his question to us. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the First Min ister. He has days when he acts as silly as he did today.

Can I ask the First Min ister, does potash development in our province fall under Category 8 which says that a timetable for all public annou ncements will be set now for the next three years and that the timetable include adequate time for preparation of effective communications, or does it fall under Category 4 which says that all new non-economic issues, programs, legislation, with the exception of outstanding election commitments, which do not meet the . MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. W. McKENZIE: . . . test of importance to a key group? Which category does the potash development fall into, Mr. Speaker? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised the Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell, representing an area where I think we have the best potential potash mine that can be found anywhere in Canada, would ask this question. Mr. Speaker, it clearly fits under priority No. 1, that the top priority for government action over the next three years be improving economic opportu nit ies and dealing authoritatively with job creation and job preservation. Mr. Speaker, that is the priority. Potash development fits in clearly, Member for Roblin with that priority, Mr.

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 Speaker , and I am surp rised that the honourabl e member appears to be bad-mouthing potential potash development in Roblin-Ru ssell by referring to it as non economic. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Roblin-Rus sell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to irritate the First Min ister, I apologize if I irritated him. Can I ask the First Min ister, regarding these so-called key groups that are referred to in this document, are there any people in western Manitoba that are involved in these key groups?

Is there anybody that is known in western Manitoba in the potash indu stry, are any of those people from the area where the potash is part of this key group that's talked about in this document? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the honourable members that there is no $1 ,000 payment for the ears of the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, as inde ed has been the case in the past in this province. Mr. Speaker, I thought western Manitoba, indeed, was populated by farmers, and small busine sspeople, and senior citizens, and young people, and women, and other Mani tobans. If I'm wrong, then ... MR. W.

McKENZIE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the First Min ister didn't an swer my question. Who from western Manitoba is on one of these key groups regarding potash development for our province? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I heard the last word or two of the honourable member. Did he refer to potash, again? A MEMBER: Yes. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm simply amazed, because I thought potash development in western Manitoba was beneficial to the entire population of western Manitoba, the farmers, the business people, the workers, the young people and the senior citizens and all other people in western Ma nitoba. If the honourable member wants again to rise in his place and ind icate he's opposed to potash development that doesn't serve the interests of the Manitobans in the western part of this province, then let him so ind icate. Morgentaler Clinic Proceeding with prosecution MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General with respect to the proceedings against Dr. Morgentaler. Is it the intention, Mr. Speaker, of this Attorney-General to interfere with the announc ed decision of Senior Crown Attorney Wayne Myshkowsky to use the Ontario Court of Appeal decision only as a guide to the prosecution, but definitely to proceed with the prosecution against Dr. Morgentaler in Manitoba? 903 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: The Member for St.

Norbert does a disservice to the admin istration of law in this province by suggesting that there is some conflict or a dichotomy between the Attorney-General and his Crown Attorneys. Crown Attor neys acting as agents for the Attorney General speak with the voice of the Attorney-General when they speak in court.

What Senior Crown Prosecutor Wayne Myshkowsky had to say is not at all inconsistent with things that I have said right from the beginning when, for very acceptable and usual reasons, it was decided, with respect to when the Morgentaler charges would be tried, that we would await the outcome of constitutional and legal challenges presently before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Because, as I noted at that time, there is a possibility - and I said no more than that - that some of the challenges raised, in light of the Charter, which is not applicable, and other aspects of the Constitution, might in deed be sustained, in which case the legal substratrum of the charges would disappear. On the other hand, it might not, in which case the legal substratum of the charges would still be there, and we would then proceed to try the factual issues which juries are preeminently capable of trying. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I raised the question because the Attorney-General has interfered in the past. Defamation suits -Government Ministers MR. G. MERCIER: A question for the First Min ister, Mr. Speaker. Could the First Mini ster ind icate whether the outstanding defamation suits against himself and the Mini ster of Health have been settled? HON. H. PAWLEY: For myself, no. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would then ask the Mini ster who sits immediately to his right, the Minis ter of Health, whether the outstanding defamation suits against him have been settled? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Which one? I think I've got four or five, I've lost count. SOME HONOUR ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER : That's exactly what concerns members of this House, Mr. Speaker, they have already established a precedent by settling a defamation suit agai ns t the Attorney -General for $5,000 of the taxpayers' money. Could the Premier advise the House, and inform the House, as to whether taxpayers' funds are being used to finance the legal defence of the First Mi nister and the Mini ster of Health? MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I asked the First whether he could inform the House whether taxpayers' funds are being used to finance the defence of these defamation actions against the Premier and the Minis ter of Health, and will taxpayers' funds be used, once again, to settle defamation actions against Ministers of this government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked and answered last year. MR. G. MERCIER: I ask the First Minister, again, Mr.

Speaker, will he inform the House whether taxpayers' funds are being used to finance the defence of these defamation actions? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that honourable members can't do research from one year to the next, but the Attorney-General will respond to the question in order to help the honourable member with his research. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Gene ral. HON. FI.

PENNER: The Government of Manitoba, like all governments, is covered by an insurance policy with respect to the action of various members and officials and employees of government when acting in their capacity as such, and whether or not the insurers, through their solicitors, are called upon to defend one or a hundred actions makes no difference at all to the general premium which is paid. Morgentaler Clinic - charges possibly dropped MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. Given that the Crown has adjourned Dr.

Morgentaler's case for another two months, and given that the doctor has indicated that he will be reopening his clinic soon, did the Crown agree to reconsider and possibly drop its charges if the acquittal is upheld? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to deal with any hypothetical as to what might happen "if," but what indeed the Crown Attorney agreed to in fact is a matter of public record. The Crown Attorney did not agree to any thing.

The Crown Attorney said for the record - and it's on the record and I suspect that the honourable member knows that it's on the record, because he gets his information from the papers and it's in the papers; indeed, it was in all the papers - that the matters will be tried. So there's his answer. MR. FI. DOEF!N: Mr. Speaker, I also obtain some of my information from lawyers which is more than the Attorney-General does. 904 1985 MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. R. DOER lll: Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to ask the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to wait an unlimited period of time before proceeding charges, because of the possibility that the appeal Ontario may go to the Supreme Court which may take a year or more before a final decision is rendered. SP EAKER: Order please. The question is hypothetical. Would the honourable member to rephrase his question. The Honourable Member for E!mwood. R. I would like to ask the is unlimited with whether he any final date upon will then order the case to proceed? HON. R. PENNER : Mr.

Speaker, my patience is unlimited with just about anybody, including the Member for Elmwood. Indeed, that has to be unlimited patience. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of law, when a constitutional challenge is raised to a law under which someone is being charged and ultimately may be tried, then it is the usual course to await the outcome of that constitutional challenge. It may in fact be definitively addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. You were quite right, Sir, in noting the hypothetical nature of the question.

We will not know until the Ontario Court of Appeal renders its judgment as to whether it is rendered with finality in that case or not. At that time, advised by my senior officials, advised by the nature of the judgment itself, advised by the state of the law in this period, a decision will be made. It's not a question of my patience at all, Sir, it's a question of the way in which the law operates. The way in which the law operates in this instance as in most others is quite rational, and it would be so to most reasonable people. 111111 .... ..,,.,.,.,t..1 .... Clinic Co1nditi«l1n of bail MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to also ask the Attorney-General whether he is willing to allow Dr. Morgentaler to continually break or violate normal conditions of bail? Is it not a fact that in bail one of the conditions is that the law not broken, and in this case that the clinic not be ,,,.,�n'"''"i� MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe the question is argumentative. Would the honourable member wish to rephrase his question. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'll attempt to reword it, and simply ask the Attorney-General whether it is not the case that Dr.

Morgentaler is violating his conditions of bail by breaking the existing law? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question asks for an opinion. Would the honourable member wish to ask a question for information? The Honour:,hle Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOEBl+l· !'II try once more, Mr. Speal<er. I would simply ask Attorney-General whether it is not a

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 condition of bail for Dr. Morgentaler or anyone else to continue to uphold rather than break the law? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is the most fundamental rule of the criminal justice system which we derive from England that one golden thread runs through the fabric of that law, and that is that every person is presumed to be inno cent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his or her peers. That fundamental rule of law persists and must always persist in the eyes of right-thinking persons, No. 1.

No. 2, that issue was in fact addressed in this case by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Judge Sam Minuk of the Provincial Judges Court on the 27th day of June, 1983, addressed that question and gave judgment on that question, and though conditions of bail, somewhat simi lar to the type proposed by the member, had in fact been placed by the bail magistrate the night before upon the arrest of the accused, the provincial court jud ge, into whose jurisdic tion it then came in a judgment, which is a matter of record and which I have said, looking at the presumption of in nocence which as a judge he would do, that he did not think that kind ol condition of bail was legally appropriate; and that judgment stands.

I am not going to usurp my function and purport to act as a judge, or purport to act as a jury; that is not my function and it will never be my function. Import tariff - Manitoba hogs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the First Mi nis ter. In view of the fact that approximately two weeks ago the First Mini ster of this province, Mr. Speaker, misled this Chamber and the people of Manitoba in his response to . . . SOME HONOU RABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable member kno ws that he should not make that sort of accusation against another member of the House. If the honourable member has a question, would he please pose it. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that two or three weeks ago, approximately two weeks ago, the First Min ister ind icated to the Chamber and the people of Manitoba that he had contacted the federal Mi nister of Agriculture dealing with the imposition of U.S. hog tariff and, in fact, today is again playing politics with the issue in not coming to grips with the fact that the hog producers are losing thousands and millions of dollars because of the tariff, will the First Min ister instruct the Min ister of Agriculture to prepare a case for the hog producers of Manitoba and be prepared to present it to the International Commerce Department when they either come to this province, or have it done in Ottawa and, as well, present the case to Washington when in fact that is the kind of positive action that could be taken by this Min ister?

Will he do that? MR. SPEAKER: The Honounible First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, again let me repeat, in case there be any misunderstan ding. What I said two weeks ago was correct; I have raised the matter of possible hog importation restrictions with the Mini ster of Agriculture for Canada at the meeting that I had dealing with a wide range of agricultural issues. Let there be no misunderstanding or distortion of that fact, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, I do not consider it to be playing politics. Honourable members may feel it is politics to be speaking up for the hog producers of this province, Mr.

Speaker, to call upon the Prime Min ister of this countr y who has just comple ted the Shamr ock Conference with the President of the United States, to call upon the President of the Uni ted States to live up to the spirit of that Shamrock Conference and to remove the restrictions in respect to importation of hogs from Canada into the United States. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that it is costing, in his own figures, or I believe I heard them correctly, some $16 million to $18 million to the hog producers of Manitoba, will he and his government prove to the hog producers of Manitoba that he's not playing politics with them and provide in the hog stabilization sufficient funds to cover that shortfall? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Spea ker, the Mini ster of Agriculture will answer the specifics of that question, but let me assure the honourable members he may not be aware, but the hog producers of this province know that this New Democratic Party government is serving and working for the hog producers of this province, and the Mini ster of Agriculture will give the specifics. Dairy farming regulations - possible change MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the dairy policy, Mr.

Speaker, that is in the Province of · Manitoba, recently been introduced, is blowing opposite to what the dairy producers want - the Minis ter is restricting them from selling their dairy herds or portions of their quotas to operate to maximum efficiency - is the Minister of Agriculture, after meeting with thousands of dairy producers, prepared to change that policy and revert back to one of common sense which is in agreement with the dairy producers? 905 MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, first of all I would like to ind icate to the honourable member that we are, and intend to stick with our hog producers of this province. We will continue to support them. The Stabilization Program that we put in this province is long term, not short term as was the case when they were in office, Mr. Speaker, a one-shot deal and that was the end of the assistance to the hog producers. Mr. Speaker, we are sticking with the hog producers of this province.

Sir, with respect to the dairy policy that the honourable member raises, I find their position, or at least as put forward by the Honourable Memb er for Arthur, totally

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 a flip-flop from when they were in office. I don't know what he is getting at, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the position of the gove rnment. The position of this government continues to be that there is great difficulty, and producers will see over a period of time the difficulty that there is if they move to the area of, in fact, placing value for quota. Mr.

Speaker, we would not have gotten into the difficulty that we're in had he enforced the policy that he enu nciated to the board in 1978 to allow partial transfers of quotas, and that quotas, in fact, if they had gained value should have been cancelled. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a dereliction of duties clearly by the Cons ervative Government of the Day. Hecia Island and Grand Beach Provincial Parks - May opening MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier of the province.

After a long Manitoba winter, people of Manitoba look forward to the first long summer weekend in May, can the First Min ister assure Man itobans that the Hecia Island Provincial Park and the Grand Beach Provincial Park are going to be open on the May long weekend? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. I indeed hope that they will be, but we'll take that question as notice. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the Premier then, if the Premier is hoping that those two parks will be open, can he assure Manitobans that all provincial parks will be open on the long May weekend coming up? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful if the honourable member had, since he's anxious and properly anxious to know the answer to this question, send me a note a few minutes before question period so I could have double-checked, in view of the fact that the Min ister of Natural Resources is not with us today. Mr. Speaker, I'll gladly accept that question as notice to what is a very important question.

Casino - provision of vouchers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had taken as notice a couple of questions from the Member for La Verend rye over the last few days. One was in regard to the Manitoba Lottery Foundation wherein he asked whether or not the Lotteries Foundation, in the operation of a casino, was providing vouchers for early patrons of the one casino.

I can confirm that that in deed did take place and was done in co-opera tion, in consultation with the Manitoba Community Education Association that was the volunteer organization running that casino. I have suggested to the Foundation that they review any other future promotional activities, with 906 respect to casinos, with the charitable organizations that are involved with the running of those casinos. I would also just comment, Mr.

Speaker, that the suggestion that was made in the Free Press by the member that the casinos have scantily-clad women offering free drinks will not be entertained at all by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation. Flyer Industries - Visit to Ontario bus mfg. HON. E. KOSTYRA: The second question was with respect to Flyer Ind ustries requesting information with respect to a meeting of some representatives of the Flyer union and Ontario Bus Ind ustries.

I can confirm that there was a meeting held at the request of Ontario Bus Indu stries, and that a numb er of representatives of the union did meet with them, the costs of which were borne by Flyer Ind ustries. Casino - provision of vouchers MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minis ter could assure the people of Manitoba that the practice of paying people $5 to attend the casino at 11 o'clock in the morning will not be tolerated by the government. HON. E. KOSTYRA: As I indi cated, Mr.

Speaker, I have suggested to the Lotteries Foundation that they review any and all of their promotional activities with respect to casinos with the charitable organizations that are involved. The responsibilities of the Foundation is to work with the charitable organizations to ensure that they receive maximum returns from the operation of casinos in the province, and we want to ensure that that is the case. However, it's my view that any promotional activities should be in keeping with the overall approa ch of that organization and I have suggested that they review such promotional practices. MR. R.

BANMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Min ister would tell the Lotteries Board that that is not an acceptable practice and they should not continue to do that. Casinos - hours of operation MR. R. BANMAN: I would also ask the Min ister if he has asked the Lotteries Commission to review the changes in hours which now allow the gambling to start at 11 o'clock, rather than in the afternoon. HON. E. KOSTYRA: No, Mr. Speaker. The Highway Traffic Act - Amendments to MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mb er for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is directed to the Honourable Min ister responsible for Highways and The Highway Traffic Act.

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 In view of Judge Ferg's recent decision in the Court of Queen 's Bench that two sections of The Highway Traffic Act are now unconstitutional, will the Min ister be bringing in amendments to that legislation this Session to correct that situation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously, that question is premature at this time. I will want to consult with my colleague, the Attorney -General, on that decision as to whether it will be appealed.

The procedure that has been in place allows for notification of suspension by certified or registered mail. The department was completely within the bounds of the act, it has been the case for the last nine years that this process was in place, and they are following the procedures consistent with the act. However, we will have to review the implications with the Attorney General's Department to determine if changes have to • be made. MR. D. BLAKE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

There were some changes in The Summaries Conviction Act, I think , that maybe departed somewhat from the procedure that had been followed in the past; but I am sure the Min ister will appreciate, and he has had different cases brought to his attention by now, I am sure, that merely by mailing out a registered letter is not a guarantee that person has received the letter, and that is causing a great deal of hardship in certain cases. I think the Mi nis ter, when he amends the legislation, if he would bring in legislation that the notification of a suspension of driving privileges must be done personally . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. If the honourable member has a question, would he please place it and not make a statement to the House. The Honourable Member for Min nedosa. � MR. D. BLAKE: I just got to my question, Mr. Speaker. ' I said, will the Mini ster assure the House and the people of Ma ni toba that when a motor vehicle driver is suspended, has his driving privileges suspended, will he be notified personally rather than by mail? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Min ister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr .

Speaker, the question is very interesting because the costs of doing that, of course, would be enormous. That procedure has been in place, in terms of mailing of notices, for the last nine years. What the member is suggesting is that every one be hand delivered. Currently the department sends out about 2,500 notices of suspension per month, that is a large number - about 24,500 last year, in the year. So it would mean a great deal of additional human resources and we are evaluating what those would be, what the requirements would be to indeed do that.

It is one of great concern to me; one that we would have to consider very carefully, Mr. Speaker. 907 Life insurance and pension mgmt study Government entry into MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I took a number of questions as notice from the Leader of the Opposition. One was whether or not staff at MP IC had met with Mr. J.J. Brown. I can confirm that no staff had met with Mr. Brown - I am sorry, that was the Member for Turtle Mountain. Rent increases by landlords HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Another question that was raised last Thursday was in respect to the report on the Core Area In itiative. I would like to take this opportunity just to correct the assumptions that were in correct that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Core Area Home Repair Program is an enhancement of the federal program, the RAP Progam, which allows up to $3,500 in grants to landlords within the core area providing that they match that amount, or it could be a lesser amount, but the extent of the grant will not be more than the landlord's contribution.

As part of this program, it is a requirement that the landlord has to agree to a regime of controlled rents appr oved by Canada Mor tgage and Housing Corporation. In this respect, the allowable rent increase perm itted by Canada Housing and Mo rtgage Corporation is calculated to reflect only that portion of the expenditure brought about by the landlord's in vestment, not the grant part. So, in fact, public funds are not being used to inc rease rents for the tenants.

In addition, there is a req uirement that the landlord notify his tenants of the upgrading that is to take place, to advise them of the anticipated in crease, and to provide them with in formation of the various shelter allowance programs that are available to the tenants to offset the incr eased costs. This is consistent with our Rent Regulation Act.

Just as provision was made for an exem ption perio d of five years for new construction to provide incentive to the private sector, so this particular way of dealing with incr eases to exempt landlords making major improvements to their facilities as an in centive, they are exempted for a given period of time, and the incr eases have to be agreed to by Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourabl e Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Mini ster can ind icate then that he is satisfied that the assertion in the article, or in the Core Area Initiatives Report, that there was a 27 percent in crease in one year, on average, under these programs, if that's correct and if it meets the guidelines; and secondly, if he would ind icate whether or not the landlords who were referred to in the report did in deed meet the requirements of notifying the tenants ahead of time and estimating the in crease in rent that would accrue as a result of the improvements. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I think the Leader of the Opposition didn't quite hear me. I said that when landlords in the core take advantage of this program,

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 they are not subject to the provincial rent incr ease guidelines, that the rents must be approved by Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation. In fact, there may well have been in creases of 27 percent or so, but they have been offset by the provincial Shelter Allowance Program so that the tenant is probably in no worse off situation after the building has been rehabed than previous. As to whether or not the actual work was done, that would be a respons ib ility of Canada Mortgage and Housing who approves that particular incr ease. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The time for Oral Questions has expired. INTRODUC TION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 15 adult students from the Riverton Adult Day Care School under the direction of Mr s. Mockman. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. NON-POLI TICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to request leave of the House to give a non-political announcement. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: At this time I would like to cong ratulate the Carberry Classique Precision Skating Team who won the Silver Medal in the Western Canada Division of the Precision Skating Championships which were held in Thunder Bay on the Easter weekend. The team, coached by Kathy Cairne y, won the medal despite stiff competition by 22 other novice teams. I am sure that I speak for all Manitobans when I say how proud I am of this hard working group of girls who are worthy representatives of this province.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It would be my intention to move into Supply, but I wish first to call the Second Reading, standing in the name of the Min ister of Finance, on Bill 21, and then I will be asking for Supply. SECOND READING BILL NO. 21 - THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 21,

An Act to amend The Financial Admin istration Act, for Second Reading. 908 MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you. The amendments are relatively few and technical in nature. Some are related and pertain to accounting for revenue earned during the fiscal year but not received until after the end of the year. There is another amendment providing for the establishment of an additional parameter when the Lieutena nt-Go ver nor-in-Council establ is hes parameters for borrowing. The repeal of one portion and the amendment to another are related in that the new

section will permit retention periods for documents to be established and changed by regulation rather than by statute. When the bill reaches committee stage, I can provide a more detailed explanation for the information . . . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: I'd like to ask the Minister a question of clarification. No. 1, is it his intention that this amendment will be put into force this year, and what would he estimate that the impact would be in shifting revenue?

How much revenue would be involved in that last 15 days if they went from 15 to 30 days? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I don't have the answer to that. I'll take that as notice and get back to the member as quickly as possible. MR. B. RANSOM: I move then, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe there may be a predisposition to dispense with Private Members' Hour, by leave. If there is, I will move the motion to that effect. MR.

SPEAKER: Is there leave to dispense with Private Members' Hour today? There appears to be leave. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Min ister of Health, 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. And that such committee sit, by leave, through Private Members' Hour. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain.

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to avail myself of the opportunity to have that once per Session grievance that each member of the Legislature is entitled to, and the subject matter that I intend to grieve over is the government's annou nced intention to close the Land Titles Office in Boissevain which of course is in my constituency. By way of background, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the land titles system in the year that we're going into, in the fiscal year that we are into now, is expected to make a profit of $5,655,400.00.

That's an excess of revenues over expenditures that amounts to approximately $40,000 per employee in the land titles office system. Now, Mr. Speaker, a little bit of background with respect to the Boissevain Land Titles Office. I point out, for the information of the members, that the office in Boissevain was opened in 19 03. The present building that houses the Land Titles Office was built in that year for some $12, 000, by the way, and opened in 19 03. Since that period of time, for 82 years, that office has been providing service to the people of southwestern Ma nitoba.

It also, of course, has been provi ding employment to varying numbers of people in that area. At the moment, there are five full-time positions associated with the Land Titles Office, one part-time position and of course the janitorial services that are required for the building. The Land Titles Office being located in that area, of course, keeps revenues in the region. Revenues that are gene rated in the region to some extent at least stay there as a consequence of the salaries paid to people who work there. In 19 84, I expe ct that the revenue will exceed expenditures in that office by approximately $40,000.00.

Now, we have had some difficulty in getting information that is completely consistent although the Minister's department has provided us with some information. I guess one of the difficulties in this matter is that the Attorney-General's Department does not file an annual report, hence there is no annual report that deals with the land titles system. The one further matter of history is that under a previous Attorney-General, I think it was in 1976, that the present First Minister was serving as Attorney General, that a preliminary decision, at least, was made at that time to close the office.

I give the First Min ister credit that he listened to the arguments that were put forward at the time and realized that it would not be either good public policy or good politics for the Government of the Day to close that office, and so the decision was reversed and the office has stayed there. Of course, it has gone on to do more business in recent years than it has done for a long time.

Unfortuna tely, the present Attorney-General has accepted advice, or on his own, decided to proceed with the closing of this office, and unfortunately it was done in a very abrupt and off-hand manner because it was only at the beginning of February of this year that staff, employees of the office, local government, users of the facility and myself, as Member of the Legislature representing the area, learned that the Land Titles Office was to be closed on April 26th, just 10 days from now. A facility that had been in that area since 19 03 was to be closed very abruptly; the decision was never discussed publicly.

There was never any discussion with the users of ttie facility or with the local 909 government or to my knowledge with the people who work there. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, this came as a great shock to the people who work there and as shock to the people who live in the area because of the impact that has taken five full-time employees and two part time employees out of the work force in a town the size of Boissevain has. The equivalent of that with respect to Winn ipeg would be to remove a work force of approximately 2, 100 people from Winnipeg.

That would be a similar impact to what this closure of this office in Boissevain will have on that community. The question that comes to my mind and the question that comes to the mind of all of the people in the area who are so deeply concerned about this is why? Why is the government proceeding to close the Land Titles Office? The best ind ication that we get is from a statement made by the First Minister in this House on the 14th of March, it appears on Page 11 6 of Hansard, and the Fi rst Min ister sa id, "Mr .

Speaker, the recommendation that originates with the department is to the effect that there are sound, good reasons as to why the Boissevain Land Titles Office ought to be closed in the interests of economy." So what we have here from the First Mini ster then is an ind ication that the recommendation has come forward from staff to close the office because it makes economic sense to do so. Well, what we don't know, Mr. Speaker, is exactly how will that be achieved? How are these savings going to be recognized by closing this office? Are there going to be staff cuts?

Will there be fewer people working in the land titles office system because we know, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a contract signed that doesn't allow for any layoffs. There may be people retire and leave some vacancies that way, but I want to know are there going to be staff reductions that will account for this saving, which I believe I'm correct to say, that the Attorney-General has used the figure that the saving would be well in excess of $1 00,000.00? I want to know where are the savings with respect to space costs, for housing land titles when they move it to Brandon?

Is the present space going to be adequate in Brandon? Is the present staff going to be adequate in Brandon? Because the present staff in Boissevain, the four people below the registrar and the part-time help that's available for microfilming, those people are fully engaged. Is all of that work simply going to be transferred to the Brandon office and the people in Brandon are expected to pick that up?

Or can we expect that a year from now, or two years from now, that the people in the Brandon Land Titles Office are going to say we simply can't handle the load and we've got to have more staff - and all that will have been accomplished. Well, is that the office will have been moved from Boissevain to Brandon and that the department is going to end up with the same costs down the road? Or is there going to be computerization? Is there some change here that is going to allow for this magnitude of saving?

Because if the Attorney General is right when he talks about savings in excess of $10 0,000, I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that for the most recent year for which information is available, 19 83-84, the total cost of operating the Boissevain Land Titles Office was $1 92,846.00. It defies its strange credibility as to how it is going to be possible to save over 50 percent of the cost of

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 operating that office by moving it to Brandon. I really have to see that kind of justification. I have to see those figures in black and white as to exactly how it's going to be done before I can accept that. What's the government going to do about the existing building? That building has been there since 19 03. I believe I'm correct to say that within the last two years the government has spent approximately $200,000 renovating that building, basically, for the Land Titles Office because they were concerned about maintaining the quality of the records.

I know there's a part-time court which serves as a courthouse as well, Mr. Speaker, but that's only one day every week or every two weeks. It's basically a Land Titles Office and that's the reason the money was spent for the renovation of it, so I want to know what they're going to do with the buil ding.

Does it mean that the government might, in fact, be now moving some other government staff with Highways, for instance, out of the Civic Centre in Boissevain and into this building which will mean if they do that that the local government then is going to have empty space on its hands, and it will be a cost to the local government?

Is there in fact a possi bili ty, as one of my colleagues has mentioned, that this building might in deed be designated as an historical government because it was built in 19 03 and there really is no other building to my knowledge in southwestern Manitoba that is more tied in with the development of that part of the province than the Land Titles Office? I mean that was fundamental. Before the development of that area could begin by European settlers, they had to have a system of dealing with land titles, and since 19 03 that's been housed in Boissevain.

I would like to know what are the other cost options that the department has exami ned before they proceeded with this decision? For instance, I know from information available in the Public; Accounts that for fiscal 1981- 82 the salaries for people in the Boissevain Land Titles Office totalled $86,265.00. By 1982-83 that figure had gone to $15 2,912, so the salary costs associated with that office in one year went from $86,265 to $15 2,91 2.00.

The reason was, primarily, that the office had been operat ing without a full-time regis trar, and it was operat ing qu ite well, qu ite effectively, quite efficiently, and obviously the costs were under control. But when they put a full-time registrar in, that automatically added over $50,000 to the salary costs of running that office, and he's not needed. That's the one position that is not needed on anything close to a full-time basis in that office, and there could be substantial savings as a consequence of rationalization on that aspect alone.

I don't know how closely they looked at revenues, but a lot of the activity that has been taking place through that office has to do with the oil industry. It only costs, as I unde rstand, $15 a flat fee to file a caveat with respect to mineral leases. I'm told by people who work there that amount of money is no t proportional to the effort that is required to file that, and it's not proportional to what's charged with respect to mortgages and some of the other functions that the office performs.

So there is that possibility that fee might be somewhat higher and that the office would have a better financial balance than it presently has, but it prese ntly shows an excess of profits over expenditures. 910 Mr. Speaker, I would also ask if there are savings to be made in that office, savings of over $10 0,000, what about the Dauphin office? Because the Dauphin office in 1984-85 did fewer registrations than the Boissevain Land Titles Office. I have this information that is provided for me through the Mini ster's Office from the general manager of the Land Titles Office.

This is information that has been provided and I thank them for it, but it shows that in fiscal year'84-85 the total registrations through the Dauphin Land Titles Office were 5,6 10. The total registration through the Boissevain office were 5,886. I also would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Dauphin Land Titles Office has one more full-time position than the Boissevain Land Titles Office has. So there we have a situation where they have more staff, but did fewer registrations. Now, they did take in more revenue in total than the Boissevain office did, but not per staff.

The information that I have been provided with is for fiscal'83-84 and'84-85. If one combines those figures and divides them by the number of staff that are in those offices, then we find that for those two years each employee in the Dauphin office generated $39,964 of reven ue. Each employee in the Boissevain office generated $43,958. So there we have $4,0 00 more per empl oyee being generated by employees of the Boissevain office than we do in Dauphin. Now, I'd like to know, Mr.

Speaker, did the staff of the Attorney-General's Department, on the basis of this kind of information, recommend that the Boissevain Land Titles Office be closed and the Dauphin Land Titles Office be kept open? I would like to see that, and I would hope that, consistent with the answer that the Attorney-General gave me in the House to provide justification, he would provide us with the specific recommendations that were made by the staff. I would hope that the First Minis ter at least would avail himself of that inf ormation. What is different about Dauphin?

What is it that would see that office have some reason for being maintained with higher staff and lower registrations and lower revenues per employee? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is it about the Dauphin office that is different than about the Boissevain office or about the Neepawa office? What are the government's plans?

Can the Attorney-General say that all of these actions, the closing of the Boissevain office, the keeping open of the Dauphin office, the plans for the Neepawa office, all of that stems directly from the recommendation of his staff and that he has no further plans with respect to those other offices as well? Now, let's assume just for the sake of argument, Mr. Speaker, that there is a saving to be made. I certainly remain to be convinced as to whether there is any saving.

I have to be convinced of that, because I really don't think it's there in anything like the proportion that the Min ister has indicated, but suppose there is a saving. Is it good public policy, No. 1, to have made this decision without any consultation, to have made this decision in secret by passing an Order-in-Council? I mean this is a service that has been in the area since 19 03, in that same building since 19 03. It's been as much a part of !hat community as the churches of that community have. It is the one thing that has prevailed over that period of time. The government

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 came in and passed an Order-in-Council without a word of consultation to close it. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the argument is sound, why would they not have gone to the local council and gone to the users and laid it out and said, here it is? For economic reasons, we have to close this down. For this reason, we have to close this one but we're not closing Dauphin even though this one actually gene rates more revenue per employee than Dauphin and explain it to them. Would that not have been better public policy?

Is it good public policy to remove six or seven people from the region where the fees are generated? This is a situation where the fees relative to these transactions really are generated in that area. By taking these employees out of that area, we are now going to take all of the money out of the area. Now that's colonialism on a very small scale. That's taking all - well, the Government House Leader laughs. That's what it is. He is taking revenues that are generated in that area and taking them completely out and putting them into another area. I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, whether that is good public policy for the government to do that? I want to know, Mr. Speaker, whether it's good public policy to consolidate government services into larger centres. Does it really make sense in terms of serving the public to consolidate services into larger centres rather than having the services out there close to the people that they serve? I don't think that's good public policy, but I raise the question.

Is it good public policy to hit a small town like Boissevain with the loss of public sector jobs while at the same time, at exactly the same time, the government is spending tens of thousands of dollars - indeed, I think it's fair to say hundreds of thousands of dollars - within that town on Main Street Manitoba to help create jobs.

What we're doing, and I say this without hesitation because I know that the mayor of the town, the council and many other people, will read my remarks and I say without hesitation, that is not the kind of priority that I would pursue to go into a town and spend $240,000 to tear up concrete sidewalks that are quite serviceable and to replace them with something that admittedly looks nice. It is not good public policy to tear down steel lamp standards that were only put in in 19 72, and replace them with lamp standards that give a better ambiance to the Main Street.

For this, the government spends $240,000, while it's closing down a service that has been in that area since 19 03. What kind of public policy is that, to be spending money on job creation and improving the ambiance of the area, while at the same time they're pulling out staff who generate more revenue than it costs to have them there? Is it good public policy for the government to proceed to close this office upon the basis of savings when they appear not to be willing to pick up similar savings that are available at another office?

If I'm wrong on that question, I would hope that the Attorney-General would show me the facts that ind icate that I'm wrong when I say that the Boissevain Land Titles Office generates more revenue per employee than the Dauphin office, and that they took more registrations, they did more registrations in 19 84-85 in Boissevain than they did in Dauphin. I don't think the Attorney-General was here when I referred to this earlier.

I thank. him for providing some 911 in formation to me through his office, and this is one of the facts shown in this information, that the total registrations in the Dauphin office in fiscal 1984-85 were $5,610 ; in the Boissevain office they're $5,886. For the two-year period, there's more revenue generated by the Boissevain office per employee than there is in the Dauphin office. Now, if there is over $1 00,000 to be saved in Boissevain, why isn't there over $1 00,000 to be saved in Dauphin, and if there is why isn't the government proceeding to close Dauphin?

Is that good public policy to justify the closing of one office on the basis of savings and not to proceed to save the taxpayers' money on the other office? Mr. Speaker, does it make sense for the government to rail against the private sector for closing down busin esses, non ec onomic busi nesses, at the same time as the government closes down an office that's making a profit? Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, how in past years, when Swift's closed, when Maple Leaf Mills closed . A MEMBER: Safeway store. MR. B.

RANSOM: ... or a Safeway store, the members opposite were among the first to condemn them and to demand to see their books? They wanted to see the books. Let's open those books and see whether this plant should really be closed. What kind of public policy is it then for the government themselves to proceed to close an office that's making a profit?

And based on the increase in the land titles fees, the revenue from that office in 19 85-86 is expected to be close to $300,000, and the costs will be in the range of $200,000, so that we can expect that office, left where it is, would make a profit in the range of $1 00,000.00. Is it good public policy for the government to offload costs onto the users?

We hear the government opposite talk about the Federal Government, condemn the Federal Government, for offloading costs, whether it's onto farmers for inspection of their potatoes, whether it's the Federal Government cutting back in payments to the province in some area. The province argues, and rightly so, don't control your deficit simply by loading it onto the province; and what the province is doing here is exactly that, they're going to put additional costs onto the users. Now, the Attorney-General has pointed out that approximately 80 percent of the work is conducted by mail.

Fine, but 20 percent of it isn't. For a lot of users, it's now going to mean travelling further to an office in Brandon than they're going to have to travel to the office in Boissevain. A lot of the activity that takes place in that office now relates to the oil ind ustry, and we all know that's located in southwestern Manitoba. It's a lot closer to Boissevain than it is to Brandon. So there is no question that any saving that the government makes here is to some extent going to simply result in greater costs to the user of that facility. Is that good public policy?

Is it good public policy - I come back to a question I raised earlier - to depopulate the rural areas? And again we hear the members opposite condemn the Federal Government for any moves that they've made with respect to Gimli, or whether it's with respect to Churchill, and now the government turns around and

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 does the same thing without even having the benefit of being able to say that this is a dead weight cost on the taxpayer. This is not a dead weight cost on the taxpayer; these people earn revenue for the taxpayers of Manitoba. The whole system is going to earn about $40,000 profit in the fiscal year that we're in if the Mi nister's projections for revenue and expenses are correct.

Is it good public policy to be closing down government jobs in an area like that while the government in another department has a program where they'll make grants of taxpayers' money to any individual who is prepared to start a business and create new jobs? Does that really make sense as a matter of public policy? Does it make good sense to raise the fees while the service is being lowered? The fees to the land titles system, since this government was in office, in 19 81- 82, the revenue was $5,204,000; in 19 85-86, it's projected to be $1 0 million.

That's virtually a doubling of the revenue generated essen tially from an in crease in fees, but the people who use that office are going to have poorer quality service than they had before. I must say that I received a letter from the Attorney General that could have been written by a PR man for the CPR because we - (I nterjection) well, you may have because it appears that the Attorney-General is having some difficulty in the present situation. But, nevertheless, I would like to read this.

"I am writing at this time to inform you that the Provincial Government will be transferring services presently provided by the Boissevain Land Titles Office to the Brandon District Office as of April 26, 1985." That's the sort of notice that people in our rural communi ties used to get from the CPR and in deed the CNR when they shut down stations.

Then he goes on and he says, "This change is among a number of changes to be implemented by this department and is part of the long:term objectives to improve the efficiency of services provided by the Attorney-General's Department as a whole." We've all heard that when they shut down the stations, when the railway shut the stations. Somehow by taking people out of the community, they said they were going to improve the efficien cy. Then he said, "Well, the physical loss of this office may impact upon your constituency.

Let me assure you that the service delivery through the Brandon office to Boissevain and district will be a high priority. To that end the Land Titles staff will make every effort to ensure a smooth transition at a level of service commensurate with the experienc e." Trying to tell those people there that by moving this service out of their town that really they're going to be better served, and I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Attorney-General, when he leaves here after the next election, should go to the CPR and maybe he could get a job writing justifications for some of the reductions in service at the railways. I shouldn't single out just the CPR, the CNR has done exactly the same kind of thing. That's a matter of public policy, but I'll ask the members opposite, is it a matter of good political policy to go against the people, to go against the employees, to go again st the users, to go agains t the local governments in a massive way, in an absolutely massive way?

Let me just make reference - do I have about six minutes left, Mr. Speaker? 912 I have quite a numb er of letters, Mr. Speaker, letters that have come to the government protesting what they're doing. I'll just quickly go through some. Here's one from the Rural Munici pality of Brenda. They are located quite some distance. They're the second municipality removed from it, and they say that the Provincial Government should have consulted the local councils beforehand, the lost employment in families will hurt the local economy. The services provided from Brandon will no t be more efficient.

Add itional inconvenience for transactions resulting from oil related activities in the southwest oil patch will occur. Then another one from the village of Waskada protesting the closure, from Dunrea with the Munici pality of Riverside, the Killarney Credit Union. Let me read a paragraph from this letter from the Killarney Credit Union: "I feel that I must, on behalf of our credit union, express the concern we have for not being able to continue to receive the very excellent service we've enjoyed from the Boissevain Land Titles Office.

Our many credit union members and communities know that we will no longer be able to effect our many mortgage and other land transactions within the time frames we have become accustomed to. This also means dollars to all of us in many different ways, be it in terest on mortgage loans transactions, cost of travel to Brandon for rush transactions, or loss of revenue to our immediate area, Boissevain, through job loss, and people further drawn to patronizing Brandon, rather than a rural community. This is Killarney; this isn't Boissevain writing, it's the Killarney Credit Union.

Another one from Mehan Haddad and Company talking about the efficient prompt and courteous service that they get. I wish I had time to read all these into the record, but I don't. But he says, "I'm also concerned about the general tendency to centralize functions and, thereby, deprive smaller communities of elements vital to their continued existence." That runs through all of these letters, and can't the members opposite see what that means from a political perspective, when they are the party that is seen as taking services out of communities, of consolidating services.

Don't they see what that means from a political point of view? Souris-Glenwood Civic Association, opposed to the centralization of government offices, there it is again. The Town of Boissevain, of course, wrote as one would expect them to protest this kind of move. There's a letter from Mrs. Carol Kentner , just a private citizen, private individual, took it on herself to write to the government and protest, and she says among other things: "It seems to me we're being punished for not sending an NOP member to the Legislature.

I hope I'm naive enough to believe that a political decision such as this can be reversed without loss of face, especially as it seems to be a hasty decision without special thought being given to the residents in areas concerned. An Order-in-Council may be rescinded, I sincerely hope you will do this." That's just an individual, unsolicited, writing in that case to the Premier.

Another letter from Mcinni s-Burbidge that says: "In the last five to six years, there's been considerable benefit to the Province of Manitoba from the new oil developments which are serviced, to a large degree, through the Boissevain Land Titles Office. It appears to us that closing the Boissevain Land Title Office will reduce the quality of service available to those oil

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 companies which have been contributing considerably to the in crease in government revenues from the oil and gas busine ss, as well as directly through the payment of land titles fees." There are others. A letter from Brock Lee, a barrister in Carman; another from the Manitoba Real Estate Association; from Dome Petroleum Limited; from S.E. Sym and Associates, Land Consultants Limited; from Omega Hydrocarbons; from Andex Oil Company Limited.

And there's one quotation from Andex: "While the majority of our activity is in the Boissevain Land Titles district, we are active in the Brandon district as well. When we compare the two offices, we are convinced that this move will lead to a very serious deterioration of service. Our service problems in Brandon are chronic." This is Andex Oil Company Limited writing, in this case, to the honourable Attorney-General. You just have a massive number of people who are opposed. They are warning what the government is going to do, that there's going to be a deterioration of services. Why do it?

Why do it when it's making a profit? Another letter from Tundra Exploration Company as well protesting. - (Interjection) - Yes, and some of these even conduct busin ess with the government. I urge the Attorney-General and his First Min ister, you know, it's tempting to ask, don't they care about the ordinary people in Southwestern Manitoba? Don't they care about the ordinary people? Don't they listen? Don't they listen to all of these ordinary people that are making this request to the government?

And I make a final plea to the Attorney-General and to the First Mini ster to make the decision to keep this office open, because it makes sense in public policy; it makes sense economically, and our party is committed that, when we go back in government, we will re-open that office, because we believe in decentralizing government services, not in centralizing them. We have a record, Mr. Speaker, of decentralizing services in Muni cipal Planning, in Natural Resources, in the Water Services Board area; we have a record of decentralizing. We care about communiti es, even if this government doesn't. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, rising on the grievance. There are a numb er of matters I would like to place on the record.

I don't think that they will be persuasive with respect to the Member for Turtle Mountain, or perhaps any of his colleagues, since it's always the case that in the abstracts we can all of us support, and indeed in times such as the ones that we're now experiencing and will likely in a sense experience for a long long time, times when one has to look at issues of restraint and constraint, it will always be the case that when economie s are sought and effect ed, everybody will support that in the abstract.

But the moment it affects a particular locality, a particular locality, a particular office, and particular employees, those whose ox is being gored will, quite naturally, and I'm not at all unsympathetic, feel hurt and look at other ways in which such savings could be effected - not me, you; not us, them. That will be a natural response. Now I'm just, for example, in order to put aside, I'll deal with that if the member can contain his volatile 913 temper.

I will deal with the question of what savings in a moment, but I just want to place on the record, to put aside so that, indeed, the Memb er for Turtle Mountain - if the Member for Sturgeon Creek doesn't want to listen, that's typical, but the Member for Turtle Mountain at least may listen to me as I listened to him - to put aside the notion that this is a political decision. I'll deal only with my own department.

In my own department, after looking at a whole number of options in which to try to operate at at least a reasonable level of service, there were, I think at the moment, only two offices, as such, in particular communities which were closed down. One, as it happens, is in a Conservative constituency; the other is in an NOP constituency. One is the Land Titles Office in Boissevain, and the other is the Legal Aid Lasem Office in St. Bon iface. Now tell me about political decisions when we're struggling hard to make honourable decisions.

Now, as a matter of fact, the number of people employed in each office is about identical. The overall global budget in about each office is identical. Now, with respect to Boissevain, much talk has been made about profit. First of all, none of that profit - and I prefer to use the word "revenue" because that's really what we're talking about - not a penny of that revenue will be lost because every land titles transaction which must be made will be made now in Brandon, rather than in Boissevain. So that, indeed, Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of a loss of revenue.

The savings, indeed, are real because the staff positions totalling, in terms of annual salaries in' 85-86 dollars, about $10 8,000, are simply made throughout the whole system by attrition; that is, people who are being transferred are being trans ferred to vacant positions. Now let me just use one example so that the member, who I know to be intelligent, will at least know that we started off from logical premises.

He may not accept that the conclusions are logical, or ones that he would support, but I do want him to un derstand that this was made at least with a modicum of reason, and I think a great deal of reason. The senior district registrar, a lawyer, in Boissevain is being transferred to Winnip eg as a replacement for the deputy district registrar in Winnip eg, who is being transferred to Dauphin where there is a retirement. So three legal positions are reduced to two, but no incumbent is being fired or terminated; we are shrinking the system.

What really is involved here is that - and I'll expand on that notion of some shrinking in the system - mana gement consultants, Kellogg, Thorne and Stevenson, I believe is the name of the firm - I will verify it - working wilh our land titles system over a lengthy period of time have determined, indeed, that over a lengthy period of time we must more and more move to computerization.

Indeed, in terms. of being able to give better and more efficient and more reliable service through computerization and, to safeguard the records through computerization, because the records are very much at risk in the way in which they have been kept in traditional ways, that there is a logical reason for, in fact, centralizing everything ultimately 10, 15 years down the line in one major land titles office in Winnipeg. That was presented by the registrar-general on his own motion, as it were, as an option open to

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 government, an option which was not accepted. But. nevertheless, looking in that area overall and at the impact of computerization which is taking place in the Winnip eg Land Titles Office, the result of computerization which is taking place in the Winnip eg Land Titles Office of the general registry and other components in the Winnipeg Land Titles Office, we, in presenting that program through Treasury Board a couple of years ago, indicated that there would be a shrin kage in the system as a whole of some 25 employees over a five-year period.

Ind eed, that is what is happening in the land titles system as a whole as a result of the beginnings of computerization beginning, again let me say, Mr. Speaker, in the Winnip eg Land Titles Office. So, as a result of that, there are vacancies which can be filled as we shrink the system down. It may not be only in this area that that happens. But why Boissevain? Okay, first of all, Mr. Speaker, it was not a political question and I have just given the evidence for that.

But, in terms of looking at the figures, Boissevain, in terms of net revenue - now the Member for Turtle Mountain chose to present the issue as revenue, he used the term "profit per employee" - I think the bottom line figure is the net revenue, and the net revenue in Boissevain year in and year out, going back to'80-81, '81-82,'82-83,'83-84,'84-85, is at the bottom of the list.

Indeed, for the years which he selects for his particular method of analysis, and I will take'83- 84, the last full year, the net revenue from Boissevain - that is the fees less the operating costs, including salaries - was $4,854 - .2 percent of the whole system. The next highest was Dauphin with some $27,000 - 1. 1 percent of the system. So if one looks at the'84-85, Dauphin showed some 85,000 of net revenue, 1. 6 percent of the system; Boissevain, 41 ,000 - .8 percent. So, in terms of net reven ue, Boissevain was at the lowest end of the spectrum. But there is another factor that h"as to be taken into account.

The Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs adverted to that in a remark he made from his seat. If one looks at the geography, you have in close proximity - members will be more familiar than I am with the exact numb er of kilometres - Neepawa, Morden, Portage, Brandon and Boissevain clustered in a relatively small cluster in the southwestern part of this province. That is, clearly, if you are being responsible in government in terms of the delivery of service, far more than is needed in terms of a land titles office.

Dauphin is not part of that cluster; it's clearly in a distinct economic and geographical zone from that group of offices, so that the answer to the question of "why Boissevain?" Let me sum up to this point certainly it's not political; certainly, the figures show that in terms of activity - and I will come to that in a moment - and net revenue, it has been at the bottom of the heap for many years.

Again, in answer to that same question, "why Boissevain and not Dauphin?" It is that Boissevain is not only at the bottom of the heap in terms of activity and revenue, but it is part of a cluster of land titles offices which clearly are servicing the same general geographic, economic and social zone. In terms of the figures used by the Member for Turtle Mountain, he takes a look at activity, Dauphin and Boissevain, in figures which were provided through my office.

The key figure which I would like to place before the House and before the member is that the major 914 transactions - transfers and mortgages - 2,553 in' 84- 85 in Dauphin, 1, 467 in Boissevain; certificates of title issued: 2,034 in Dauphin, 12 80 in Boissevain. Where there is more activity in Boissevain is in the registration of cavaets having to do with the oil activity, the vast majority of which are registered by mail and quite often from law offices in Calgary where the head officies of some of those companies are.

So that activity, which really stems out of the head offices of oil firms in Calgary, or at least a signi ficant part of it, accounts for where there is some busyness, if you will, in the Boissevain Land Titles Office, but you can just as easily mail a letter from Calgary to Brandon, perhaps easier, than you can from Calgary to Boissevain. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Turtle Mountain appropriately asks, where does this recommendation come from? It comes from staff in the Land Titles Office.

I received a proposal from the registrar-general over a year ago, in the last fiscal year, of the kind that I described dealing with the computerization of the system as a whole. It did not seem to me to be anything more than a general forecast of what might happen in the system 10, 15, 20 or 25 years from now, but I am not so sure that, indeed, is the inevitable result of computerization.

I do know and, therefore, that is the only premise I used, that computerization that has already taken place and started in the Winnipeg Land Titles Office over the fiv e-year span of its implementation has already produced some vacancies and gives us some means to shrink the system and therefore shrink costs. It's been asked what is the public policy issues here.

Well, there are many and we could debate them in the abstract for a long long time, but surely one central issue of public policy is that where it is possible for a government to save money and to be able, in doing so, to do as much as a government can, working in and with the private sector to generate private sector employment, it should do so. That I think is a fairly sound aspect of public policy and ought not to be denigrated. Certainly, the members opposite have vociferously and loudly called for the saving of money and they will do so throughout this period of the Estimates.

But, in doing so, they will address targets which to them seem more appropriate as targets, but they will still be talking the language of saving money. What they are criticizing is the particular way in which, in this instance, money is being saved. They say, well, you might save at least as much and probably a lot more if you didn't advertise as much. But, Mr.

Speaker, addressing that, because it has been raised , what is really described as advertising by the members opposite is, if one analyzes it in full measure, the communication of vital information to the public about programs about which they should be aware. Well, there is some giggling by members opposite who are sometimes prone to giggle as school children will. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, a right is not a right if it is unkno wn; a program is not a program if it cannot be taken advantage of by those to whom it is addressed; and the workings of government and what it can deliver and the par2.rneters within which it delivers and how government might be accessed is an important aspect of an intelligent public policy in my view. Therefore, we

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 make no apology for spending the money necessary to commun icate to the public the avai labil ity of governmental programs. That's an aspect of public policy. They may decide that as a matter of public policy they don't want to spend a penny in that area. That of course has never been true of a Con servative Government. Conservative Governments of every stripe, from red to blue, spend money in communicating what it deems to be important information to the public. It is said that the decision here was made in secret. No, Mr.

Speaker, the decision was not made in secret, although I have said this to the delegation that called upon me from Boissevain and surrounding areas and from lawyers practising in the area, I do apologize for not more fully consulting the people in the area. But officials in the Land Titles Office have been working with the employees in Land Titles Offices throughout the system along with the consultants in looking at future prospects for the land titles system in Manitoba. It was not secret, Mr. Speaker. It was not as well commun icated and there was not as much consultation as there should have been.

I will be the first to admit that and I apologize for it, but it was not a secret decision and there were no hidden agendas. It was not an und ercover operation. It was one that was arrived at on the basis of recommendations of staff in a genuine effort to find the money in order to sustain the existing programs of the Department of the Attorney-General as close as we could to the operational levels of previous years and, where necessary, to make some enrichment.

For example, and again I make no apologies about it, we knew that there was an increasing backlog in dealing with complaints to the Hu man Rights Commission, because we were short one or two human rights officers and in deed one that should be in Brandon. We were able through the Estimates exercise, and this will come up in my Estimates, to provide some small additional support but significant additional support to the Human Rights Commission. So one makes those judgments. Sometimes one is right; sometimes one is wrong.

And it may be that in the long run it will prove to be an error in judgment with respect to Boissevain. I don't think so. It's clear that here, given what is happening throughout the system as a whole, and I repeat because it must be repeated, there was the possi bility of some shrinking in the system without any loss of service, I emphasize; without any loss of revenue, I emphasize; but certainly with a saving to the public purse, a saving that could be repriorized in other areas where there was palpably a need to deliver better service. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to provide that information to the member and members opposite, to the House, to make it clear that there was and remains a rational basis for making the decision, that in deed there is a genuine saving in ongoing dollars of something in the vicinity of $95,677 a year which is not an insigni ficant amount of money. That would be in 19 85-86 dollars. I would be pleased to document it for the Member for Turtle Mountain at any time, provide him with the same figures that I had used that have been provided to me in arriving at that decision.

I will provide him with all of the figures which have been provided to me with respect to the revenue and net revenue position of the 915 respective Land Titles Offices over the preceding years. He will see that, even though he might not agree with the decision, it was not a decision loosely made or irrationally arrived at. One final comment that has to do with the question of users travelling to Brandon, it has been pointed out, and I don't think the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain disagreed, that over 80 percent of the service is by mail, that is, is requested by mail and delivered by mail.

As I said, the mails run just as efficiently to Brandon, perhaps more so than it does to Boissevain. Indeed, with respect to those transactions which are best handled not through mail but by a lawyer or someone from a law office going down to the Land Titles Office - lawyers from Boissevain regularly go to Brandon for all kinds of legal work associated with their practices - and there is no particular problem, I think, associated with doing that land titles work in Brandon. You know, some remark was made about the service from the Brandon office.

I have in my possession just as an example an unsolicited letter, not sent to me but sent to the district registrar of the Brandon Land Titles Office from the law firm of Pitblado and Hoskin which - (In terjection) - the Member for Turtle Mountain has read a letter into the record, let me read this one. "This letter is to thank your office and, in particular, Messrs." - so and so and so and so, that's employees - "for their co-operation in providing the writer upon one day's notice with photocopies of approximately 25 caveats, two mortgages, postponements and ground leases.

There was a great deal of urgency in having this documentation in Toronto immediately, and this could not have been accompl ished without the assistance of your office." The employees of the land titles system in Brandon are just as efficient and conscientious as the employees of the Land Titles Office in Boissevain or inde ed throughout our sys tem. They have in deed, when something has been drawn to their attention by a registrant in Winnipeg or wherever that it's a matter of urgen cy, they have and they do resp ond .

The turnaround time in Brandon is approximately the same as the turnaround time in Boissevain, so there will be no loss of efficiency in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I close. I don't want to take up too much time of the House. I thought it was important that I do address the concerns raised by the Member for Turtle Mountain by pointing out in

summary the following. The possibility existed in the land titles system for a signi ficant saving. It would have been in my view irresponsible not to make that saving, particularly when they were priority areas in terms of human services that needed some influx of resources, both in terms of staff years and money, and the money had to be found within a very marginal in crease in the Estimates of the Department of the Attorney-General,, as will be seen when we move into my Estimates. Second ly, there was nothing political about the decision.

The Boissevain Land Titles Office in terms of net revenue, year in and year out, has been very sign ificantly at the bottom of the heap. That seemed a logical place to make that kind of a saving within the land titles system. Thirdly, there will be no loss of efficiency. The Brandon Land Titles Office stands fully ready and able to deliver the service.

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 But in conclusion, I do want to say that I regret - of course, I do. It's difficult to make these kinds of decisions. There is a human component to these decisions, a very real and significant human component to these decisions. I know that there are some of the employees who are not happy about having to move, even though their moving costs are being assumed by government in the course of this transition, but I don't see how governments can operate without taking the hard decisions when they have to be made.

How else could we as government meet the expectations of the citizens who pay the taxes who are asking us to operate as economically and efficiently as we can in these times? I think that when one looks particularly at the last two Budgets of the Min ister of Finance and notices that we have not imposed any sign ificant tax in creases on the citizens of Manitoba, one of the reasons for that, Mr. Speaker, is that we have in the last two, three years in particular operated a very lean and efficient governmental apparatus. Sometimes that hurts and I regret that. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: I wonder if the Attorney-General would entertain a question. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. B. RANSOM: Can the Attorney-General advise me whether the savi ngs of $95,677 is di rectly attributable to closing down the Boissevain office, or is it an overall saving within the system accruing as a consequence of other actions taken such as not filling the deputy registrar's position in Neepawa? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable ,!l.ttorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: No. The $95,677 is di rectly attributable to the Boissevain closing.

QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Maje sty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Health, and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation. And, by leave, committe e sit through Pr ivate Members' Hour today. CONCURRENT COMMIT TEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: This committee will please come to order. This committee is considering Item No. 5.(

a) Salaries, Transportation Policy and Research; 5.(

b) Other Expenditures; 5.(

c) Rural Transportation Grants for the Mobility Disadvantaged. The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe if the Min ister could just give us a quick thumbnail sketch 916 of what his department has undertaken in the way of Transportation Policy and Research, what action has been taken regarding the branch line situation and the rail transportation in the north. I imagine that comes under this program, and then maybe, if any questions arise from that, we can take it from there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, there are a number of studies under way, under the subagreements that we have put in place with the Government of Canada, both the transportation subagreement, as well as the Chur chill suba greemen t, and the member asked specificall y about on e dealing with rail line abandonment.

There is a study, the terms of reference have been drawn up, and I believe it has been awarded and is in progress under the subagreements dealing with the whole issue of rail line abandonment and what effect the rail line abandonment has had on the highway system, both provincially and municipally, in terms of the extra costs to the provincial jurisdiction.

As the member may be aware, there was a study done in 19 80 on the effects of rail line abandonment which, at that time, yielded the results that there was approximately $52 million additional cost to the province as a result of rail line abandonments that had been abandoned or were in the progress of being considered for abandonm ent by the CTC.

The Federal Government has not accepted the basis, those figures, and necessarily the terms of reference that we used for that study and that is why it's necessary, under the subagreements, to go one step further and to define a study further that would be acceptable to both the Provincial and Federal Governments, and we hope that we can follow upon that study with some tangible results from the Federal Government with regard to the costs that are associated with rail line abandonment.

Hopefully, there will be a responsibi lity recognized by the railways, as well as the Federal level of government, to compen sate municipalities in the Provincial Government so that we don't have to bear the full costs of rail line abandonment in the province. So that study is under way under the subagreements and is continuing. There are a number of others dealing with the transportation in Northern Manitoba.

For example, there is a Northern Manitoba Passenger and Freight study to examine the number of interlocking transportation concerns and examine potential investment tradeoffs, and a work ing group has been formed with representation from the Highways and Transportation Department, Northern Affairs, Natural Resources and Transport Canada. Terms of reference have been drafted and consultation on them is continuing, and the gathering of data has begun as well.

Ther e is a study on the orderly and rational development of regional airports in the province; a feasibility study for the potential for intercommunity rural bus services, including interlining with mainline facilities; and trade -offs with other government expenditures is being undertaken; a definition study for transportation mon itoring on an analysis and planning syster�.; a study of the potential uses of computerized transportation networks in a wide range

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 of applications in the Manitoba Transportation System; a study to determine the feasibility of es tablishing a multi-modal terminal for the intercity bus, rail, local bus and transit services with the existing CN station being considered as a possible site; there is a study to assess the im pact on carriers and shi ppers and the consequences for freight transportation services in Manitoba resulting from changes in the regulatory environment for the motor carrier industry. There are a numb er that will be undertaken by the Transportation Institute as well.

We're also following up with a numb er of studies on the season extension at the Port of Churchill under the subagreements, others being done on the testing of permafrost impact on the rail line, and ways of improving the stability of the rail line to Churchill. The Churchill studies involve season extension, alternate commodities that can be used and the economic advantages of shipping through the Port of Churchill. So those are some of the studies that are being undertaken under the subagreements. They are all in various stages of progress at the present time. MR. D.

IEllA.KE: I think the Min ister will agree that we now have a Federal Transport Min ister that is probably one of the most conscientious and capable understanding Transportation Minis ters we've had for some time. I am sure that the Mini ster will find that he'll co-operate very well with the Honourable Don Mazankowski, especially on the stand that he has taken since acquiring that portfolio on rail line abandonment. He is certainly taking another look at it. I wonder if the Mini ster might enlarge a bit on what has been done to encourage and incr ease the traffic through the Port of Churchill. HON. J.

Pl OHMAN: We have un dertaken a numb er of initiatives to bolster the role of the Port of Churchill, to expand its use to become a major port for Canada and in that, of course, are continuing to make efforts to have the Government of Saskatchewan, which would benefit the most from incr eased utilization because the catchment area for Churchill is largely in the Province of Saskatchewan, as well as some benefits to Alberta. So we're continuing to dialogue with those provinces and the Federal Government.

Under the subagreements the development of the light-weight rail car should have a tremendous beneficial effect on the utilization of the port in the future, because it will mean a more efficient means of transportation, rather than using the old boxcars that have been used in the past to service the port. That car is currently under development at Transcona, and should be ready for testing by July of this year. If everything goes well, we hope to go forward with the production of that car and utilize the funds that have been budge ted for that purpose under the subagreement of some $38 million.

We have also taken the position, in some disagreement with the Federal Government at the present time, that there should be a run of boxcar rehabilitation done at Transcona to ensure that there is adequate rolling stock until that new light-weight rail car is on-track, and also to protect some of the jobs at Transcona and prevent some of the layoffs.

So we've been in a dialogue with the Federal Mini ster on that issue, as well as with CN. 917 The provision of the new transmission line to provide permanent power at a reasonable cost to Churchill is a rather important step for that community, and to ensure the long-term potential is realized, the benefits to Churchill are realized to our province of an incr eased use of the Port of Churchill. As well, there are studies, and not only studies, practical experiments, geotechnical experiments being undertaken on the line to determine ways to stabilize the line in the permafrost.

Those are continuing under the subagreement with a contract that will be let and could go forward in the coming win ter. As well, we are going to, under the subagreements, the development of the new tug, 2,600 horsepower, to service the port is going forward. The contract should be ready to be let in the very near future. The design work, I believe, is almost complete on it. We hope that it will be built in Manitoba under the subagreement's provisions. There are a number of important improvements to the air infrastructure at the Port of Churchill with regard to the terminal.

As well, dredging will take place this coming year to ensure that larger ships that will be loaded will not ground out when they're being loaded. So that's an important development in terms of the depth of the berths there. The dust collection facilities, removal of asbestos for healthier working conditions for the employees there is an important factor.

In the meantime, we're undertaking five or six specific studies that should be completed by August under the auspices of the subagreements; one dealing with the maximum utilization of the existing facilities at the port; another dealing with the potential for the season extension. I can say that, while that study is going forward, we are also planning for a season extension, including the provision of icebreaker support that would be required for a 40-day extension to the end of November and, at the same time, lining up possible shipments through that time of the year to add to the season.

It's important that part of the season, the season extension, would operate in the black if at all possible, even if it's done on a demonstration basis, although we're prepared to go ahead this first year to demons trate that it can be done. As well, there are a number of other studies, the potential for import and export of commodities other than grain, and we're looking at such things as urea fertilizer the Soviets have indicated they have in plentiful supply and that could be imported through the Port of Churchill. Of course, that's a possibility.

Urea is - although it would compete with maybe Simplot up at Brandon, but we have to determine whether there are sufficient supplies at the present time, whether we are importing and, if we are, why shouldn't it come through Churchill - in pellet form and would be an excellent two-way traffic commodity.

In addition, there are liquor and vehicles, machinery, things like that that could be imported through the port, and we're also exploring other exports through there, including dried corn from the northern United States as a possibility that hasn't existed in the past - just generally, a greater utilization in terms of grain at the present time. The studies I hope will determine whether there are other commodities that can be identified, that can be

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 economically shipped, either exported or imported through the port. But our customers, the purchasers of Canadian grains, have a great deal to say about what port is used in terms of where they receive their exports, their grain from when they purchase it, and so we are talking with those countries to determine whether there are ways that we can entice them, encourage them to use the port to a greater extent.

The Soviets ind icated to us that the sailing distance, sailing time from the Soviet Union to Churchill is about eight days less than from Thunder Bay, eight days at $1 5,000 a day, each way, eight days, that's sixteen days, that's $240,000 saving to them on one trip because of the shorter sailing distance.

Of course, they have indi cated that they are favourably dis posed to utilizing the port to a greater extent, but they would like to see some tradeoffs of some kind and, if we purchase something from them, or if we can utilize their expertise in the area of permafrost or ice control at the Port or something like that, that would go a long way to yielding results for us in terms of the amount of grain they purchase through the port.

So we think there are some possibilities for productive results of those discussions, and we want to talk to other countries that import grain from the Port of Churchill, and we're actively working on that. The other studies that are going on as well are the potential for resupply operations at Churchill; the potential for expanded tourism; and the area of marine insur ance, ways that we can red uce the cost of insurance there based on experience, not on theoretical conditions.

Certainl y those cou ntries that are experienced in operating through the Hudson Strait into Churchill are much less risk than those that don't have a great deal of experience, and there should be lower insurance premiums and we are exploring ways to do that. Those are the kinds of things that we are undertaking through the subagreements and actively working with other countries to see whether we can have them co operate in exten din g the currencies and greater utilization of the port.

We are also looking at CIDA grains, as well, that are shipped as foreign aid and feel that there is no reason why a few shipments of those couldn't be made through Churchill. Each time we add a little bit to the shipments. Of course, it makes a big difference in the viability of the port getting it up towards a million tonnes a year which would make a tremendous difference in its economic viability. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr.

Chairman, maybe we could use some of the surplus Soviet missiles to remove some of the icebergs out of the Hudson Strait to make shipping a little easier through there without the disadvantages that that presents in the particular season of the year. I am sure the Mini ster will agree that to use the facility of that port to its full advantage is going to require two-way traffic through the port, and to do that is going to require some extensive warehousing facilities at the Port of Churchill. Has there anything been done to provide warehousing facilities at the port? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: No, not at the present time under the subagreement, but that is a natural follow-up to 918 some of the short-term studies that we are ind icating are under way at the present time in terms of the physical requirements at the port. If they bear out to be positive, we are certainly going to be prepared to discuss that aspect with the Federal Government as well in terms of putting in place the infrastructure that is required.

There are obviously limitations to the port's facilities at the present time, but that doesn't mean with some relatively minor expenditures that there could be a tremendous difference in the cost benefit of utilizing the port for the customers as well as for Manitoba and for Saskatchewan producers.

I think that we have to recognize there are limitations, but there are also cost benefits even with one-way traffic with grain at the present time, depending on where it's going, and we should be taking advantage of the benefits that are there and then build from that over a period of time to get in place other inf rastructure that is required to handle other commodities over a period of time.

We think that the matter of a season extension has a great deal of promise for the viability of the port because if grain from the current year's crop can be shipped through in stead of having to be held over, if it can be shipped through the port, and that in the latter part of October and November would be the case, that would make a big difference in the potential for the port and the amount of business that we can do through the port, even on one-way traffic.

But it is desirable to have two-way traffic, I agree, and that will mean for certain kinds of two-way traffic some improved in frast ructur e at the port. However, things like machinery, cars, it wouldn't be significant improvements necessary because they have been brought through the port previously. MR. D. BLAKE: Item 3. under the Other Activities, the Transportation Division , the Urban Bus In dustrial Development Agreement for $50 million to establish Winnip eg as a national centre for the development and manufacture of advanced technology urban buses.

In view of the situation with Flyer Bus Manufacturing plant now, Mr. Chairman, what is happening, or what is the situation with this forward thrust? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I und erstand that there are discussions going forward between the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology and the federal Min isters regarding this subagreement. It is not administered through my department so I am not directly involved with it. MR. D. BLAKE: What is happening with the rail bus transportation system in the Northern areas? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: The rail bus has been developed and experimented on, has been tested for a number of months on the Winn ipeg rail line, the Greater Winn ipeg Water District rail line, and those tests are going ahead. We expect, within the next couple of weeks to a month, to be transferring the rail bus to Thompson for further testing there on the Info line. There are some problems that have developed with regard to its certification by CTC and requirements as to whether it would operate as a train or a bus. There

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 are a lot of details in that area that have to be worked out before it can be operating on a rail line owned by CN or GP. But certainly progress has being made in the development, and we're encou raged with the potential that the rail bus has for servicing particularly Northern communities, particularly where roads are not available. It has been well received by the Federal Min ister, as well.

We've had detailed discussions on all of these areas with Federal Mini ster Don Mazankowski, and he as well has ind icated his preference for development of new technology that can assist us in providing adequate transportation services in Northern areas. So it has potential, I think, for all provinces in the future, but it's a matter of working through the initial stages which are quite complicated. We have representatives on the working committee from CN to provide the kind of technical advice, engi neering advice, as we work through this.

It's not progressing quite as quickly as we had hoped, but we un derstand now that, within the next month, it will be moved up to the Thompson site for further testing. MR. D. BLAKE: Are we the only province that is testing or researching this mode of transportation? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are other developments in this area. This particular development, using a regular highway bus technology, is not being carried on in other areas of the country at this time.

There has, of course, been experience with the British Leland bus built for rail, and it is being brought over by Transport Canada to be tested in Eastern Canada as well. But, we're very hopeful, and we'll continue to press for any developments with regard to this particular technology being retained here in the province and that any production of this particular model in the future would take place here in Manitoba, as opposed to Eastern Canada. Of course, that's one of the matters that we have to constantly struggle with when we're looking at something like this.

We like to see all the jobs in the manufacturing take place here in the pr ovin ce, and work ing with ind ustry, trade and technology in developing and identifying companies that would have the capability once this is to the stage that it can be into production. MR. D. BLAKE: This bus body that's being used on the rail, is that manufactured here at Flyer? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The current one is an old Flyer inter-city bus body, but we're hoping in the second phase to use an MCI bus, inter-city bus, as the body for this project. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: I'd like to ask the Min ister.

He has ind icated he has carried out a lot of studies. How does he allocate the studies? Is all that work tendered out? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, some of them are tend ered by Transport Canada under the subagreements and some of them are done by the Provincial Government depending who is the imple n:lenting agen cy. 919 MR. J. DOW NEY : But they are all tendered? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, we put out proposal calls for all of those. MR. J. DOWNEY: Will all those studies be made available to members of the Legislature; will they be made public; and how many of them are complete, or are available now? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, none of the studies that are being undertaken are completed at this point. Most of them are in progress, and it would have to be a decision by both levels of government, a joint decision, as to the dispensation and action that would be taken on those studies, as to whether they would be made public, or in what form they would be made public; that is a matter that would have to be considered by the Joint Management Committee. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, I'd like to know what the Min ister's policy would be, Mr.

Chairman, or is, as it relates to those kinds of studies; does he not feel with the use of taxpayers' money that they should be made available to the public? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly wouldn't feel that there would be any difficulty. I think it would be a great advantage to have the members of the opposition receive some of that valuable advice and have them supportive of some of the undertakings that are in progress. So, I think it would be advantageous to share that information as much as is possible, but, cer tainly we'd have to consider that with Don Mazankowski, the Federal Min ister. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, in reference to the Port of Churchill and the activity along the Churchill line, the organization known as Hudson Bay Route Association, which I believe had their meeting yesterday in Swan River, have for many many years now put a lot of effort forward and tried to continue to promote the use of the Port of Churchill.

In any of the study activity and the work being done at looking at options for the use of the Port of Churchill on the Churchill line, have the Hudson Bay Route Association been hired to do any of the work that is being carried out, or membership of that Hudson Bay Route Association, are they being used to make recommendations, and as a part of the overall study work that's taking place? HON. J. PLOHMAN: They certainly do not have the staff or the resources to undertake the studies in a formal way, but they have been very closely involved and informed with the work that's going on.

As a matter of fact, I was at the Hudson Bay Route Association annual meeting last night in Swan River and spoke there and provided the latest information. I might mention that the member's colleague, the Memb er for Swan River, was there as well last evening, and we had an excellent meeting and certainly recognized the long standing experience of the members of the Hudson Bay Route Association, and we'll undertake to continue to provid e them with in form ation that we are undertaking and asking, as I did last night, for their

Tuesday, 16 April, 1985 input into all of these studies, and their comments on them as we go along so that we take advantage of their expertise. Over the last while we've received a num ber of letters from various members who have suggestions, and we encourage that. I certainly encouraged that last evening. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the - maybe not quite within the jurisdiction of the Mini ster of Transpor tation, but he has been carryi ng th e responsibility apparently for some of the policy on grain transportation and that type of activity.

Has the Minister been involved in or in volved with changes, or proposed changes, the review that is taking place with The Western Canada Transportation Act? What involvement has he had, or what policies has he been putting forward to them, or has he been putting anything forward? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: We have been encouraging the Federal Government to provide a forum where we will be able to have direct input into the changes that are being made, and generally are taking a very strong position that in the future any changes that are made would encourage the payments, first of all, in the Crow benefit, in that area, to be continued to be made to the railways because we feel strongly that, if this is changed, there will be a rather wholesale abandonment of rail lines in the future, and there has been no provision made for compensation or consideration of muni cipali ties and certainly for the province and communities in that area.

Of course, in the other area of variable rates, we've taken a strong stand that the variable rates should not be allowed in any changes that are made under The Western Grain Transportation Act and we will continue to do that. MR. J. DOWNEY: What research Qr what work has the government done in regard to the payment of Crow benefit to the railroad versus the farm community? What background material has he got, or can he make available, for which he has come to that conclusion? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Our staff in transportation, and also in agriculture, have worked together in putting together a proposal for the committee dealing with the Crow benefit, and I can make the brief available to the mem ber.

It was made, I belie ve, last fa ll, public information, and we've utilized, through the staff, all of the existing information that was put together by various levels of government, other governments, and various organizations to determine a position on that and, as a result of all of that information, have come up with our position that the benefit really must continue to be paid to the railways to ensure that it is a transportation subsidy and not another kind of subsidy that therefore could lose its permanence in the future.

We see some rather large pitfalls in moving away from the payment to the railways as a transportation subsidy, particularly a transportation subsidy for export of grain. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well I'm just trying to get from the Min ister what documentation he has available or what work he has done to come up with that position. Has he got numbers or any factual information that would support the position that he is putting forward? 920 HON. J. PLOHMAN: We have, as I indi cated, a large numb er of previous studies that have been done on this issue. As the member knows, this is not a new matter.

The Crow was around for a long time, and there was a lot of study and a lot of debate on it.

As I ind icated, our staff in consultation with the Department of Agriculture staff have worked together in putting together the facts and figures on the benefits to Manitoba producers of continuing to pay the benefit to the railways and feel that, if we were to change from that system, we would have a tremendous economic loss to the province through discouragement to use the railway system, the railway mode, more use of trucking, as I've ind icated, greater cost to the highway system, greater cost to individual producers to transport their grain.

Certainly the smaller producers would have a great deal of difficulty in trucking longer distances, because they would encounter additional costs in purchasing the kind of equipm ent that would be necessar y. So we have weighed all of the pros and cons of it, and feel that the detrimental effects to a great degree would be felt here in Manitoba. We have a different situation, as the member knows, us and Saskatchewan, with regard to the branch line network than Alberta does. So they have obviously taken a different position, because they don't stand to lose in the way this province would.

For that reason, we have to take a very different position than they do in terms of protect ing th e infr astructure in the small communities and small producers throughout the province. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard any subs tantiv e evidenc e to su ppor t the Mini ster's statements. He makes a statement that Manitoba is somewhat different than Alberta. I would wonder what kind of difference he is able to point out. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I don't have the exact number of miles of branch lines in Manitoba compared to Alberta, but there is no doubt that Alberta does not have the elab orate branch line system that Manitoba and Saskatchewan have. Therefore, our communities who are served by those br anch lin es throughout the province stand to lose much more. When there is a deterioration in service to those lines and the closure of the many elevators on those branch lines resulting in a drop-off in business because of the change in the payment, we would end up having a large

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-28a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 28a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2948f245056c5e9b53c240a1d79d8aa388571ca3

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