LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, .13 June, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: I'm awaiti ng copies for honourable members, would honourable members permit me to give you a statement first? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mini ster of Culture. HON. E. KO STYRA: Yes, Mr. Spea ker, I have a Ministerial Statement. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minis ter. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table, for the information of the members, a joint federal-provincial-territorial position paper on Regional Econ omic Dev elopment which is being released simultaneously by Economic Development Ministers across the country toda y. The paper has been in preparation since the First Ministers' Conference on the Economy in Regina in Febru ary, and it was agreed to, in Its present form, at the last Conference of Regional Development Minis ters in Vancouver on May 27th.

The paper represents some significant compromises between the traditional concerns of the larger, wealthier provinces and tho se of the small er, less-weal thy provinces. Those compromises reflect the fact that regional development policy has been the subject of intense and continuing deba te in this countr y since Confederation - and still is. In fact, it has been only a few years since an agreement was reached to include an Equa lization and Regional Disparities

Section in the Constitution. The critical parts of the paper, in our view, are the sections dealing with the nine Regional Economic Development principles which the First Min isters endorsed in February - some of which were first suggested by Manitoba. If there were any doubt before that, these principles now represent a joint policy commitment by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments, then this paper sets that doubt aside.

And the paper is also important because it lays out what the governments are calling a "Regional Economic Development Action Plan." Members will find details of that plan starting on Page 14 of the joint paper. Our endor sation of the joint paper also reflects my continued willingness to accept that the current Minister of Regional Indu strial Expansion is trying as best as he can to educate his colleagues In the federal Cabinet about the importance of a fair and balanced regional development policy. Unfortun ately, he doesn 't seem to have had much success.

The May 23rd federal Budget virtually ignored Regional Development and, in fact, we believe worked against it in a numb er of ways, such as: -The $50 million cut in Agriculture and the $75 million cut in transportation this year - over and above earlier cuts; -The $100 million cut in assistance for ind ustrial development and Native programs; -The planned $2 billion transfer payment cut by 1990; and -Some of the tax breaks such as the $550 million capital gains tax giveaway this year which seems likely to favour large, well-established indus tries and investors in Central Canada over smaller busi nesses in the other provinces.

In the wake of the federal Budget, we could have chosen not to endorse the joint position paper. Every one of the measures I listed is, in our view, totally incons istent with "Principle 5" in the paper, which states: "All major national policies should be judged, in part, in terms of their regional Impact.

And, so far as Is possible, these policies should reinfor ce the goal of fair and balanced regional economic development." But, if we had rejected the paper, our action in doing so might have been seen as a rejection of the joint guidelines which we worked hard to establish, or as a rejection of the co-operative approach to economic development. The first and most Important of the principles in the joint paper establishes the high priority which the Government of Canada, the provinces and the territories attach to the goal of Regional Economic Development.

The Government of Manitoba is convinced that balanced regional development across Canada is essential to the unity of this count ry. Without that sense of unit y, our economic development suffers, and as a consequence, economic development suffers in every province and region.

By endorsing the joint paper and reaffirming our willingness to co-operate with the Federal Government in development and Impl ementing Regional Development Policies, we are showing our good faith - just as we have shown it in our ongoing efforts, through the Manitoba Jobs Fund and other initiatives, to strengthen and diversify the Manitoba econo my. There is no doubt that we are doing our fair share. lt is now Incumb ent on the Government of Canada to start demonstrating, through positive action, that they, too, are genuinely committed to the guidelines which they have reaffirmed in this joint paper.

To conclude, I was very interested to see that, according to news reports, the Maritime Premiers have 2919

Thursday, 13 June, 1985 now expressed serious concerns about the federal Budget and the Federal Government's commitment to fair and balanced regional development. At 1:! conference earlier this week, they also voiced opposition to the Federal Government's plan to de­ index Old Age Security payments. They noted that it , too, runs directly counter to the principle of fairness - both fairness to Canadian pensioners and fairness to provinces and regions such as ours, where elderly citizens make up a higher-than-average proportion of the population. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek.

MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I was in Regina when the First Ministers' Conference was held there in February. 1t was refreshing to see that all governments across this country were going to work together to help this country out of the disastrous, economic slump that the previous Liberal Government had put us into .. Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased that the Province of Manitoba has agreed to work with all the other Provincial Governments across this country and with the Federal Government to develop a good economic climate within this country and this province so that development and investment will take place. Mr.

Speaker, we all know that there was a Federal Government Budget brought down just previously and certainly the Minister starts out on one hand by saying that we are all going to work together, and in the same document he decides that he has to do some Federal Government bashing, instead of saying that this is something that we are all going to work together to make a good situation in Canada.

Certainly there is going to be disagreements with the Federal Government regarding their Budget, but I really don't see, when you're saying on the one hand that you want to work together with all provinces and the Federal Government to create a good investment attitude within this province and, on the other hand, take the opportunity to try and bash the Federal Government which can only harm this province as far as relations are concerned. We are a province, by the way, that has done more to disinterest investors than any other government has ever done.

We have a 1.5 percent payroll tax in this province, we have labour legislation which is not the same as other provinces which makes it unfair and discourages investors. We have all kinds of other situations that this government has brought in, the worst job creation in this country, the worst job creation, as far as statistics are, of any province in the country, except Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. Then we have a situation with their business attitude, where Mr. Bulloch says that this Manitoba Government has the worst business attitude of any government in Canada. Now.

I say that after all that I am very pleased that they have decided to co-operate, but I just don't know what the government means by co-operate when they do it on one hand and then they don't co-operate on the other. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. 2920 HON. H. PAWLEY: M�. Speaker, I have a statement. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court ruled on the federal references in respect to the Manitoba laws. · Briefly, the decision means: Manitoba must enact all Its laws in French and English. The court has said that Manitoba must do so in the minimum period of time necessary.

The decision also asks Manitoba to make a presentation before court within 120 days to present its case as to how much time is necessary. Manitoba Intends to ask for a hearing at the earliest possible time. As Premier, I believe it is a tough decision with which Manitoba can live if the court provides the province with sufficient time. The decision may disappoint some and may strike others as imposing a too stringent obligation on the province. As you recall, it was the wish of many Manitobans, some on both sides of the controversy, to give the Supreme Court the final say.

No one should be surprised by today's decision, for ail Manitobans were aware of the uncertainty in having the Supreme Court in Ottawa provide a solution for us. Any Supreme Court decision would not be satisfactory to everyone, for the Supreme Court has given us a decision we can live with if the Supreme Court gives us sufficient time. Obviously we must now abide by the result and now concentrate fully on the concerns and the issues of the future. The decision would not affect, in any way, the daily lives of ordinary Manitobans .

Life in the province will go on much as it always has; and for those people who are not French speaking nothing will occur to change their lives in any way. The decision has no effect on the province's policy of providing language services, a policy which was established and was continued since 1980. The government will make every effort to comply with the terms of the decision. In fact. because of the hard work and the preparations we have undertaken during the past year to prepare ourselves for today's decision, we have substantially facilitated our ability to comply with it.

The translation has been proceeding over the last several years. A substantial number of the province's most important statutes have already been translated and are ready for re-enactment. With the anticipated assistance of the Federal Government, it is expected that overall requirements with regard to the enactment of legl!''ation in both languages can be met. Over the next several days we will als<. be looking at the implications of this ruling in respect to the Bilodeau case, to bills that are currently before the Legislature and the translation of existing and spent statutes.

We will be keeping the House informed as information is received. The Supreme Court decision brings us to the close of a difficult period for many Manitobans. We can, we must, now leave behind those things which might divide us and work together on those things which matter to ordinary Manitobans such as long-term economic development of our province, job opportunities and a better quality of life for all. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Thursday, 13 June, 1985 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Supreme Court of Canada has now reconfirmed what we have known since 1979; that is, that the laws of Manitoba must be printed and published in both English and French. That obligation was acknowledged and was accepted by the previous Conservative Government of our province and in 1980 that lengthy process of translation was begun. We undertook that obligation seriously and committed this province to proceeding with the translation of all our English only statutes as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

In 1980, all parties in the Manitoba Legislature suppor ted tha t commitment and the process of translation of statutes has been ongoing ever since, a commitment which I understand was accepted and carried on by the current admi nistration. Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms that obligation to translate, as well as the requirement to accomplish it as soon as possible. One of the funda mental resp onsibilit ies of governments is to maintain peace, order and social comity amongst all of its people.

What the Supreme Court decision today has done is demonstrate that the current administration in Manitoba has failed abysmally to meet this challenge and this fund amental requirement. Mr. Speaker, it is evident, from the Su preme Court decision tod ay, that this NDP admin istration has un nece ssaril y caus ed a great deal of tr auma, confrontation and deep social division amongst the people of Manitoba, as a result of its ill-conceived and unwarranted proposals.

To entrench an amendment to fully bilingualize our province and to enact legislation mandating French­ language services in all government departments, that needless trauma, that convulsion to the people of our province will take a good deal of time to overcome, but it must be done. Mr. Speaker, these wounds will heal, but this NDP admi nistration must bear the responsibility for opening them. Because, Mr. Speaker, it was not required; it was not necessary for the government to proceed in the manner in which it did.

The Government of Manitoba was advised by its own Legal Counsel in April of 19 82 - and I remind members that this is the same Legal Counsel, Mr. Kerr Twaddle, who presented Manitoba's case to the Supreme Court last summer - and he said, as follows: "it will be appreciated that such a constitutional extension cannot be imposed on Manitoba. As there remains an excellent chance of success in Bilodeau before the court, careful consideration should be given as to whether it should be agreed to as the price for relief of the obligation to translate all existing statutes." Mr.

Speaker, that is precisely what the tradeoff was, a relief against an obligation to translate existing statutes to be balanced against the constitutional amendment and the mandatory provision of services in all government departments in both French and English. And the judgment, at that time, by the Legal Counsel was that it was too high a price to pay; and the judgment of the people of Manitoba was that it was too high a price to pay. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General and the Premier and all of their colleagues ignored that advice.

And to the surprise of the people of Manitoba, to the surprise of this Legislature and, indeed, even it seems, according 2921 to the past president, to the surprise of the Societe franco-manitobaine, they introduced and attempted to force through this Legislature, with all of the might and power at their disposal , a proposal based on a negoti ated out-of-court settlement to entrench bilingualism and legislated government services, rather than let the Bilodeau case proceed to the Supreme Court. And that proposal, Mr.

Speaker, would have taken us a quantum leap forward into a status that was historically, socially, and practically not warranted or, for that matter, not supported by the vast majority of the citizens of our province. This ill-considered action, without consultation, without the support of the people of the province, resulted in an imposition upon our citizens of a government-induced trauma that broke down relationships that had taken generations to build. lt is, indeed, regrettable that the arrogance and the insensitivity of this NDP administration's actions need never have taken place. Mr.

Speaker, this Supreme Court decision is a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. lt recognizes our obligations and the inheritance of laws passed by many governments who were unknowingly In non-compliance with the provisions of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, but it does not create legal chaos; it does not impose a penalty; and it does not amend our Constitution or impose compu lsory bilingual services in all of our government departments. Some observers have said that this judgment, that this decision, confirms that we are fully bilingual.

Section 23 makes us bilingual to the extent that

Section 13 3 of the Federal Constitution makes Canada bilingual in the courts, in the Legislature and in the printing and publishing of our laws. But I remind members that it was not

Section 133 of the Federal Constitution that made Canada fully bilingual. lt took

an act of Parliament passed by the Trudeau Government in 1968 to do that. Only by further constitutional amendment, or legislative action, could the additional obligations be placed on Manitoba such as were being proposed by those ill-conceived plans of this NDP administration, a proposal that Manitobans rejected.

The decision recognizes that we must have time to translate, but that we must act in good faith to ensure that the task that was undertaken, with the support of all parties in 19 80 in this Legislature, in response to the Forest decision, must be proceeded with on an orderly basis and as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, let the record show that our opposition during the long and heated debates on the French language issue In this House, from May of 19 83 to March of 1984, was not opposition to the obligation to translate; we accepted that obligation and we continue to do so.

Our fundamental opposition was to the ill-conceived and unwarranted proposal by this government to change our Constitution and to entrench bilingual provisions against the will of the vast majority of the people. Mr. Speaker, there is no more sword over our heads today than there was in 19 79, and I would urge this administration and the Attorney-General to prepare the necessary information for the Supreme Court to demons trate that we are prepared to fulfil ! our obligations to translate our laws in the minimum time possible.

Thur sdar, 13 June, 1985 We look forward to working with all groups and all people in Manitoba to heal the wounds, to put an end to the divisiveness and to restore social order once more to our province. As well, we will concentrate our efforts on the economic development of our province to build a better future for all of our people. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Notices of Motion . . .. IN TRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 55,

An Act to amend The Liquor Control Act; Loi amendant la

loi sur le controle des alcools. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 60 students of Grade 6 standing from the R. J. Waugh Elementary School. The students are under the direction of Mr. Grant and Mrs. Kempthorne. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. There are 30 students of Grade 5 standing from the Elmdale School under the direction of Mrs. Baker. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Also prior to Oral Questions, I have a ruling for the House. On Wednesday, June 12 th, the Honourable Member for Emerson raised a matter of privilege concerning a reply by the Honourable Minister of Education to a question. In order to review Hansard and consider the facts, I took the matter under advisement. Given the timing of the events mentioned in the Honourable Member for Emerson's remarks, I am satisfied that he raised the matter at the first available opportunity.

A careful reading of the remarks of the Honourable Member for Emerson indicates that he is alleging that a breach of privilege occurred when the Honourable Minister of Education deliberately misled the Assembly, or at least the honourable member. The fact that the Minister's remarks might have caused confusion or aggravation to the people of St. Pierre is irrele vant, sinc e privilege concerns the Assembly or its members.

The deliberate misleading of the House by a member is a serious matter and probably constitutes a breach of privilege. lt must be borne in mind, however, that a deliberate misleading of the House involves an intent to mislead and/or knowledge that the statement would mislead. Had the Honourable Member for Emerson's third question on Monday been asked in isolation, a good case could be made for a breach of privilege since the Hon ourabl e Minis ter's reply was inc orrect, giv en subsequent statements, in that the question seeks general information about any meeting.

However, it was not asked in isolation, since the two preceding questions sought information regarding a meeting at a specified date and time. There is no evidence to suggest that the Honourable Minister did not understand the third question to also deal with the meeting at a specified time. Given the reported facts of the matter, I conclude that the Honourable Minister was not aware that her answer would mislead the House, neither was there an intent to mislead. Therefore, there is not sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the setting aside of the normal business of the House to debate this matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS Constitution - further amendments MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Lead er of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Given the fact that the Supreme Court decision of today doesn't appear to require it, is the government planning any further constitutional amendments or proposals with respect to bilingua lism in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, no, and there never were. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the government is not planning any future proposals with respect to a const itutional amendment on bilingualism in Manitoba. I have a further question: will he assure us that there will be no secret negotiations with any group in society in Manitoba with respect to constitutional amendments or legislative changes on the issue of bilingualism in Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: Let me, again, correct the Leader of the Opposition. Any suggestion there were ever any secret negotiations is incorrect. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the answer is, no, to the Leader of the Opposition's question. MR.

G. FILMON: I simply asked the Premier whether he would assure us that there would be none in future. That's all I want to know from the Premier. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure. did the honourable member ask me a question, or did he rise on a point of order? He would have to clarify himself. MR. G. FILMON: I'm asking a question. Will you assure us there will be none in the future? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I answered that question. To respond to it again would be repetitive; there never were; there will not be in the future. 2922

Thu rsday, 13 June, 1985 Statutes - number translated MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourabl e Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the statement from the Premier today indicates that a substantial number of the province's most important statutes have already been translated and are ready for re-enactment. I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate how many pages of statutes have been translated and are ready to be introduced in the House but have not yet done so. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, ins ofar as the translation that has taken place in respect to continuing consolidation as of April 23rd of this year : the percentage published, 12 percent; ready to publish, 21 percent; revised, 12 percent; translated, 38 percent; in progress, 12 percent; not assigned, 5 percent. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indicate why those statutes that have been translated into French and are ready for re-enactment - and I didn't get all of the precise figures by the First Minister - but I wonder why those have not already been introduced into the Legislature for re-enactment. HON.

H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we've been awaiting the Supreme Court decision. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Norbert. Order please, order please. Order please. I am trying to hear the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the First Minister could indicate how many pages of statutes were translated into French prior to the start of this Session of the Legislature and could have been introduced at the beginning of this Session, but have not yet been introduced by the government. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately the opposition has now exposed the dribble of the case that they've been presenting for quite some time. Mr. Speaker, it was the opposition that assured us, and assured Manitobans, that the 1980 Bill 2 was adequate, and that Bill 2, in itself, was sufficient in order to deal with the statutes. Mr. Speaker, let the honourable members not rewrite the history of the past 18 months. Mr. Speaker, this morning, Bill 2, the 1980 legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada said Bill 2 (198 0) was invalid. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. Order please. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, could the First Minister indicate how many pages of statutes being translated prior to the start of this Session and were ready for re-enactment at this Session but were not introduced? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that question has been responded to. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, could the First Minister indicate which statutes were translated into French prior to the start of this Session and have not yet been introduced for re-enactment? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'll accept that question as notice. Statutes - cost-shared by Ottawa MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the First Minister. Given that there is little value to the average French-speaking Manitoban in terms of the translation of these statutes; given that the value is probably on behalf of a few French-speaking lawyers; and given the expense of translating Mani toba's statutes, will the government be asking Ottawa to assume either some or all of the costs of translation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I find the question rather unusual coming from the Member for Elmwood, his sudden concern with respect to the costs of translation. Those costs did not exist a year ago. Mr. Speaker, that has already been the part of the negotiations that we have been undertaking with the government in Ottawa. We are satisfied that the government in Ottawa will provide assistance in order to permit us to carry on with the necessary legal obligations imposed upon us by the Supreme Court of Canada. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, holding aside a statement that I made in 1980 saying that Ottawa should pay the full cost of translation in this Chamber, I would like to ask the Minister, given the fact that the Secretary of State funded challenges by Mr. Forest and Mr. Bilodeau, funded the SFM and other groups in the plebiscite fight and, in effect, has precipitated this situation which is of little practical value to the average French- spea king Ma nitoban, would the Premier consider sending Ottawa the bill for 10 0 percent of the translation costs, based on the fact that whoever calls the tune should also pay the piper? Mr.

Speaker, I ask the First Minister to clarify his position. He gave me an answer to the first question; I'm asking him another question. Would he consider sending the full costs of translation to the Federal Government which properly should pay that bill? HON. H. PAWLEY :. Mr. Speaker, I don't accept the honourable member's premises for one bit, therefore, it's impossible to respond to a question with incorrect premises. 2923

Thu rsday, 13 June, 1985 Bill 115 - necessity for MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, several years ago Bill No. 11 5,

An Act to Provide Extension of French Services, was put through this Chamber with some effort to second reading, into the committee stage for Law Amendments with bells ringing, etc. Today, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the Premier indicates in his statement on Page 2, "The decision has no effect on the Provincial Government's policy of providing language services - a policy which was established and has continued since 1980." Can the First Minister now acknowledge that perhaps there was never any necessity for that Bill 11 5 at that time? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the bill was introduced at that time. lt was part of a package which remains indeed my first preference. If that package had been completed rather than the court-im posed decision of today, Mr. Speaker, this decision today is not my first choice, but it is a choice that we're prepared to live with, to ac commod ate and to work towards its fulfillment. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I choose to want to believe what the Premier indicated today, that the Supreme Court decision will have no effect on the Provincial Government's policy to provide language services.

Will the Minister not agree with me, and agree with his own words, that bill or no bill, if the government has a will to provide those services, those services can be provided? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question with respect to the providing of those services since 19 80. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today we have an additional 4,000 bills, statutes, that require translation beyond that which was the case some year­ and-a-half ago. In addition, Mr.

Speak er, we have an unspecified number of spent bills that we may have to provide for translation beyond that which was intended some one year ago, plus regulations. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question, and I choose not to be diverted by the Premier's diversion atte mpt. The que stion is the provision of language services and I take it from the Premier's statement that the government is in no way impeded with or without Bill 11 5 in providing those services.

So I must conclude and I ask the Premier, is it the Premier's and this government's desire at that time and still today, to have had it in an official capacity - on other words, to have the province declared officially bilingual that prompted him at that time to provide that legislation to this House? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that bill did not do as the honourable member has just indicated it did. All that bill would have done, Mr.

Speaker, was to avoid the situation which we are confronted with today in which we are required to translate some 4,000 statutes; we are required to translate a number, yet unspecified, of what is called spent statutes. We would have, Mr. Speaker, been able to have avoided sums of money still not estimated accurately, in return for continuing to simply provide the language services that previous administration intended to provide, this administration intended to provide. Bilingual Manitoba - objective MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have a concern, I just heard the Minister say that his first option was to make Manitoba officially bilingual. Is that his objective and has he planned to carry it out? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the only reference to the words "official langua ges" was in the 1980 bill put forward by the Conservative administration in 1980, Bill 2, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada this morning. Statutes - time to translate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, just a further question to the First Minister with respect to his statistics on translation of statutes, can he give an indication or an estimate of the amount of time that will be required to translate the balance of the statutes? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that cannot be accurately responded to at this stage. We will be applying to the court within the 12 0-day period that is granted to us to apply. We'll be asking for time in order to permit us to proceed with the translation.

The amount of time will depend and earlier we had, I believe, 10 years to translate in respect to a small portion compared to the total number of statutes. The amount of costs will depend upon, firstly, the extended time which the court will provide us, whether it be one year or five years, or ten years; and secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have no idea at this point as to the number of spent statutes that may now have to be transla ted, of which there was no anticipation or expectation at all before, might require translation. Crop insur ance - extension re reseeding MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR.

J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, this is on another su bject; I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the extension on the crop insurance as of today on late seeding, is he assured that all farmers will be able to get their crops planted by midnight tonight under the reseeding programs that they have undertaken? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Min ister of Agriculture. 2924

Thursday, 13 June, 1985 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speake r, one certainly can't be assured as to individual decisions that farmers might want to make in terms of reseeding; however, Sir, it should be pointed out to the honourable member that the recommended deadline in terms of those crops, which the deadline ended on the 10th, was already 10 days longer than the recommended deadline in terms of rec ommendations made to farmers. There are certainly other options which the farmers might be prepared to und ertake if they wish to.

However, Sir, one should not guide his own operations on the basis of the crop insurance deadlines because, as well, we are concerned with being faced with claims later on in the end of the year should the crop be caught in terms of an early frost. The percentage that the crop insurance places on extending the deadline, as it is 10 days beyond the recommended deadline, is that there is a 50-50 chance only that the crop with the already extended deadline in terms of what was normally recommended has only a 50-50 chance of making it to an early frost in the fall, so that difficulty is still there. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the final question is: tonight is the deadline and there won't be any further consideration on individual appeals, if in fact there were uncontrollable circums tances to deal with, would there be an outside appeal mechanism for individual farmers who may not be able to meet the 12 o'clock deadline tonight? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, no, there will not be any additional fields in terms of the deadline. I wish to advise the honourable member that this is the first time in the history of crop insurance that an extension of deadline has occurred. MPIC -garages, Autopac repairs MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for Autopac. I posed some questions to him last week about some rather arbitrary and unfair treatment that MP IC was doling out to a car dealership in my area preventing him from operati ng his business and offering customers a discounted service. Is the Mini ster still standing by his efforts that there is no policy in place whereby Autopac will prevent repair dealerships from offering service to customers in Manitoba at a saving to the customer? MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. lt is rather a coinci dence, I was standing up to respond to that very question. I have to admit that when the Member for Pembina asked the question last week A MEMBER: A five-day delay waiting for it. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: . . . there is a good reason for the delay and I wanted to addre ss the question when the member was present. I think tha t is courtesy.

The ques tion, when it was raised last week, I immedia tely responded that there was not a penalty and I was at that time thinking of the issue of the repair to windshields. That same word was used just a moment ago. There in fact is not a penalty where a windshield is repair ed , but the memb er in fact referred to a replacement of windshields.

I will confirm that in fact it has been MPIC policy for the past year that where a repair shop or a windshield replacement shop offers a dis count, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation will not honour the full claim but will pay out only the claim after the $50 or $100 deductible is removed from that claim. In the case of the member's constituent, we were aware that this firm had been discounting replacement windshields. A notice had been sent out last June or July. The firm agreed to comply with M PlC policy. Last Februar y, we were again made aware of discounting.

The firm was again reminded of M PlC policy. The firm has deli berately di sregarded MP IC policy and I understand is challenging this matter in the courts. I should ind icate that MPIC policy with respect to not allowing for a full claim in the case of discounting of replacement windshields is consistent with policy in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the matter is indeed before the courts, it would seem inadvisable and inappr opriate to ask questions about the matter. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter is not before the courts as the Minister alleges. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minis ter is: why would Autopac have a policy in place which denies customers und ertaking automotive repairs from any savings that a dealer is willing to give the customer? Why is Autopac preventing that freedom of busi ness negotiations between a customer and a dealership performing that work? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Far from being a question of freedom, it is a question of honouring an agreement.

As the member is aware, the ind ustry negotiates with the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation rates and price lists for windshields. lt is a hard-fought negotiation and, apparently , if the dealer feels that he can dis count by $50 or $100, then we must be overpaying him. Now most of the dealers do not feel that way. lt just so happens tha t - at least my un derstanding and I certainly concur with that - these dealers who want to start discounting are really doing so at the expense of many other small busi ness persons.

One only has to read some of the correspondence I receive from persons who have had their windshields repaired by these people who discount and then literally fly away by night or deal with letters from the glass ind ustry who have bills outsta nding from people who have discounted and are short-term operators, and tha t is the histor y. So, again, I suggest that there in fact is an agreement between the indus try and the corporation and firms, such as the one in Carman.

Southland Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd . is not compl ying with the nego tiated agreement; therefore, they must be dealt with by policy as annou nced last June. 2925

Thursday, 13 Ju ne, 1i85 MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the Minister is not calling my dealership in Carman a fly­ by-night operator and accusing him of being a fly-by­ night operator, which is what the implication he laid out here today was. If he's making that kind of an allegation, I want an apology on behalf of my dealership in Carman. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Question. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the question to the Mini ster is: why is Autopac with holding the $50 deductible, even from customers who have paid it?

Why are they being that tough and petty with this dealership who has complied in part with the order after it came out and now Autopac is withholding the $50 windshield deduction, even if it has been col lected from the customer? Why are they withholding that money from my dealership in Carman? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: First of all, I want to clarify what must be a misunderstanding in the member's mind. I never at any time referred to your constituent at Carman as being fly-by-night.

I did say that there has been, in the past in Manitoba, a considerable number of operators who have been providing discounts and, within a short period of time, are no longer on the scene, having left behind a trail of bills, and so on. However, the question is why is MPIC withholding the $50.00? The reason is that the firm has been warned that it is operating in contravention of M PlC policy. And as long as the firm does not want adhere to policy that is set out, then M PlC will carry out the policy we have, that we will only pay as allowed under

Section 26 of the regulations,

Part 3, incidentally, and I can quote that: "That MPIC is only responsible for that portion of a claim less the deductible." And if the dealer is providing a discount, then the part of the claim that is paid is the claim less that discount, whether it be $50, $100 or a hunting knife, or whatever it was in the case at Carman. Western Canada Lotteries Foundation - buying out of Federal Government MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday 1 had responded to a question from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the buy out of the Federal Go ver nment's participation in lotteries, and the agreement that was reached with all the provinces in Canada, and I indicated to him that the cost to the Province of Manitoba, through the Lotteries Western Canada Foundation, was approximately $7 million. I was out on my approximation slightly, the actual figure is $4.3 million. MPIC - garages, Autopac repairs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minis ter responsible for Autopac explain why Southland Pontiac in Carman has had $50 deducted by Autopac on a windshield replacement claim, even when the customer has paid the $50 deductible? Why are they punishing my dealership in that manner? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If the member will provide me with the details of that specific claim, I will certainly look into it. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister responsible for Autopac do just that.

Get hold of Autopac and ask them why they've been withholding money from my dealership when the customer has paid the deductible? They ani penalizing . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I remind the Honourable Member that Oral Question period is for seeking information and not for giving it. Regional Mu nicipal Convention - attendance at MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Robiin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a qu estion for the Hono ur able Min ister of Na tur al Resources.

I wonder if the Minister of Natural Resources has made any plans to attend the Regional Municipal Conventi on, which is held in the Village of lnglis sometime later in the month. The reason is because of the fact that the municipalities that will be present there are in or around the periphery of both the Riding Mountains and the Duck Mountain Provincial Parks. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, that's a subject matter that have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with the Unio n of Ma nitoba Muni cipalities, but I am attempting to contact them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY HANSARD CORRECTION MR. SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Me mber for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: A correction in Hansard, Mr. Speaker. On Page 2876 where it says "high on," in the second paragraph of my statem ent, it should have said "behind." MR. SPEAKER: Duly noted. The Honourable Government House Leader. HOUSE BUSINESS HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Opposition House Leader was advised by the Clerk 2926

Thursd ay, 13 June, 1985 yesterd ay, as I had requested, that we would be proceeding with Royal Assent this afternoon at 4:20 p.m. on Bill 2, the bill that bans extra billing. I regret to advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that in accordance with the Supr eme Court decision this morning, we cannot and will not be proceeding with Royal Assent on that bill, and I will be advising the House at a later date how we will address the re­ enactment requirements with regard to that proposed legislation. So the Royal Assent today, Sir, is cancelled.

Sir, I wish also to advise the House that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet again next Tuesday, June 18 th, to continue consideration of the Report of the Manitoba Hydro­ Electric Board and the Manitoba Energy Authority; as well that same morning, Sir, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will consider the Report of Manitoba Forestry, Manfor. On Thursday, June 20th, Sir, assuming that committee has completed its consideration of Manfor - if not, it will continue that - it will commence consideration of A.E. McKenzie Seed Company. So A.E .

McKenzie will follow Manfor in the Standing Committee on Economic Development. And following that, Sir, possibly as early as June 25th, depending on how long is taken for each of the reports, we would consider the report in Economic Development, 10:00 a.m. for all meetings. the Report on Economic Development Committee for the Manitoba Development Corporation, including William Clare, I believe, and Flyer Industries. So those four meetings, Sir, with the reports being taken up in that order as the previous assigned report is completed, it may take those three meetings, it may take additional meetings.

COMMIT TEE CORRECTIONS HON. A. ANSTETT: Sir, I have a Hansard correction for Thu rsd ay, June 6th, on behalf of one of our distinguished citizens who appeared at the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, and I have, Sir, checked with the Clerk and verified that there are some typographical and transcription errors in the transcript of that report. I refer, Sir, to Pages 35 and 36 of the Report of the Standing Committee of 8:00 p.m., Thursday, June 6th.

Sir, on Page 35, in the last paragraph of the first column, reference is made in the following sentence: "Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I will not go into the details of Bill No. 2 from the point of view of the medical profession per se, since they know they are pains." The words "they are" should read, "their," in the possessive, Sir. In the next column, first paragraph, Sir, the quote attibuted to Mr. Turner.

"Well, we are not getting enough money so we'll make it deductible from income tax." The phrase, Sir, was "non-deductible." And, Sir, in the last paragraph on the same page, "When a member of the Polish Bureau of the Soviet Union" should read, "Politburo of the Soviet Union." On Page 36, Sir, the fourth full paragraph, the third line thereof, the word "without" should read "with" the case of the military or the case of the RCMP.

And, Sir, the last correction refers to a tribute the witness made to Mary Beth Dolin where it reads, "she also came here and contributed unmercifully," the word should be, Sir, "unmeasurably" to this country the highest esteem I can ever pay to her. The transcript quotation, Sir, having been checked, I can only offer what I have been given, even if it may be not necessarily be grammatically correct. Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to verify with the Opposition House Leader, whether there's a will to dispense with Private Membe rs' Hour today, so I would ask that here and now.

If there is, I would move the House into Committee of Supply, if we have leave, without interrupting for Private Members' Hour. MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to dispense with Private Members' Hour today? I believe leave has not been granted. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education, 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.

MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Education, and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Housing. CONC URRENT CO MMITT EES OF SUP PLY SU PPLY - HOUSING MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: Committee, please come to order. We are still on Item No. 1. (bX 1) General Administration, Executive Support: Salaries, 1. (bX2) Other Expenditures - Mr. Minister. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Before we get into that, I would like to respond to some of the questions that were asked last Tuesday evening and make a correction. On Page 30 of the notes that I provided to the members of the committee, I had indicated there were thr ee project prop osals under our Co-operative HomeStart Program representing 204 units. That should have read eight project proposals. lt was a typographical error. I had also been asked some questions with respect to the housing situation at Churchill.

The question has been raised as to whether there had been any advice provided not to use the sites that have been selected. I am advised that both the Churchill Council and the local housing authority agreed to the location of the duplexes on sites already owned by MHR C. We are not aware of any objection, at least certainly not any correspondence that I can recall seeing nor does staff recall any objection to that particular site. In respect to the status of these 10 units, there are still some minor deficiencies. These are being looked after at the present time.

The manager of the Churchill Housing Authority is currently contacting senior citizens who now reside in our family units with the intention that they move to the new EPH units, thus freeing up their present accommodation for families from their 2927

Thureday, 13 June, 1985 present waiting list. I am advised that the tenants should start moving into the new residences on July 1st of this year. There was a question also raised about the number of units that are vacant at the present time. I had ind icated that we thought there were two. In fact, I am advised that there are four units on James Street in Chur chill which have been vacant since late winter when it was determined that major work would have to be un dertaken to repair a recurring sewer line freeze-up problem.

The question was also raised as to whether or not the cost of repairs would be in excess of the value of the home. I am advised that there is a request for supplement ary funding from the Churchill Housing Author ity, and that the estimated cost will be somewhere in the neighb ourhood of $36,000 to repair the sewers that service the four units that have been vacated. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NO ROMAN: Who would bear the costs of that? Didn't you say that you were trying to get someone else to bear the cost on that? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: No, I had indi cated that the Ch urchill Ho using Authority had requested of the Ma ni toba Housing and Renewal Corporation a supplementary $36,000.00. That will be cost shared, 1 believe, with Canada Mortgage and Housing, 50-50. MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Chairman. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Just one final bit of information. There was a request for a breakdown of the admin istrative costs for each of the 28 programs within Manitoba Housing and I believe these have now been circulated. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)(1)- pass; 1.(b)(2)- pass. 1.(c)

(1) Research and Planning: Salaries; 1. (c)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: On Research and Pla nning, particularly on the Other Expenditur es, I'm not worried about the Salaries, what is the cause of the inc rease of roughly $45,000 in that portion of it? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The increase of $44,200 is mainly associated with in creased activity in the inner city core area and would advise that a good part of that is for consultants. MR. R. NORDMAN: For instance, would land banking come under this heading? If it does, what amount of land banking has MHR C done and in what areas? HON. J. BU CKLASCHUK: Yes, th e expenses associated with land banking are found in

Section 3, Program Delivery, further down. MR. R. NORDMAN: That's okay. Fine. If we would refer back to that when we come to that portion, just bank that question. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(c)(1) - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, under Research and Planning, what is the criteria when there is a request from a town or a muni cipality or even In the City of Winnipeg regard ing the numb er of applications or demands for public housing, or senior citizens' housing, does the department still have as a formula as to the number of applications which gives them a guideline to the number of units being built? What ratio do they use at the present time? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The ratio that's presently used is generally thr ee to one, for every thr ee applications we try to deliver one unit. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: The Minister in his opening remarks referred to rural and northern housing, the number of units that had been built in the past three years. What particular research was done to give the department and the Federal Government the numbers that were built that the Min ister referred to in his open ing remarks? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, the number of units that are built will depend on a numb er of factors: No. 1, the allocation that is provided to us through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporat ion; and secondly, the units are built on the basis of surveys that are carried out on need and demand.

We respond to inqui ries from towns or municip alities or villages to have these surveys carried out. Sometimes they are carried out by a local organ izat ion, but other times the y are carried out by staff or summer staff from the department. On the basis of the surveys and the allocations provided, we then deliver as many units as we can. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister mentions, in his opening statement, I believe it is the Woodlands Project in Selkirk, Manitoba.

To date, as far as I know, there was spent by the NDP Government, before 19 77, $2.2 million for zero lot line pieces of property that were probably 28- to 33-foot frontage and they are all 70 feet deep. At that time, it was planned between the hospital and the garbage dump, and of cou rse the roads and some of the facilities were put in, and CMHC, Canada Mortgage and Housing, at that time would not provide any mortgages for that particular type of unit or in that area.

The project did not supply the type of demand that was required in the Selkirk area, as a matter of fact, moved ahead with some objection from some people within the department. Now we have, as I mentioned, $2.2 million spent and the carrying char ges on that money. How much more money is being spent on this particular project and how many lots will you end up with and how much will they sell for? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The question about the cost of developing this subdivision with respect to Phase 1 which inv olves 43 lots, the costs, I'm advised, are some $270,000.00.

I don't have a figure for the second phase which will in volve somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2928

Thursday, 13 June, 1985 80 lots, because we haven't even yet had a subdivision approval from the Selkirk District Planning Board. Now, it would be correct to say that the $270,000 is in addition to what had been previously spent, but what we are doing by developing this property is once and for all stopping the in terest clock from ticking away which would have meant further losses to the corporation. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying there were 43 small lots there, and now there are 80 large lots? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No. There are two phases to this subdivision.

What has happened is that the smaller lots have generally been - the first phase has been resubdivided so we now have, I believe, 55-foot lots. There are 43 of them. In the second phase, there will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80 lots, and I beli eve they're going to be 60-foot lots, up to 60 feet. The whole area has been resubdivided, and further to the question as to the cost of the lots I believe they're selling in the neigh bourhood of $1 0,000 each. MR; F. JOHNSTON: What has the research told the department as to the demand for these lots in Selkirk? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Well, the demand has been very good. As a matter of fact, there are now 15 homes under cons tr uction. So me of these are already occupied. The other 28 lots, I believe, have been sold to builders, so virtually every lot in the first pha se has now been spoken for. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the statement of the Min ister ind icates that they have plans for getting into For Sale housing. Certainly the new bill that is in the House would allow the department - and I would call it a department now; it's no longer a corporation - to get into probably any type of housing that they so choose.

What plans does the department have and what research have they done regarding getting into For Sale housing? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm not too clear what is meant by For Sale housing. My understanding is what type of housing does Manitoba Housing intend to become involved with in building and then selling, we're referring only to the type of program we have within the core. MR. F. JOHNSTON: There are no plans to do such projects as The Pas or Nassau Square? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister in his opening statement made some references to the number of northern houses that had been built in the previous government's time. I regard his statements as very political statements. If that's the way he wants it, that's the way it will be. I'm rather dis appointed in some of the staff that they would take the attitude to agree to that type of statement or present it Mr.

Chairman, I refer to the Research Department at the present time in the research that is done by the government to move ahead on housing and I would sincerely hope that the Min ister would have some jurisdiction or have some reigns within the department so that the following that has happened within the Housing Department won't happen again.

I read from a letter, Sir, regarding research. lt is called "For Sale Housing," and it is regarding the research of the department. lt is add ressed to myself from the general manager and it says: "The involvement of MHR C in the field of 'For Sale' housing includes the projects: "(

a) Rural and Northern -approximately 475 units originally scheduled to be for sale were init iated before effective transfer of title arrangements could be worked out Result: (1) we were forced to place occupants on a rental basis pe nding su rvey and registration of land. lt will probably take a minimum of five years from now to clear this backlog. Comment: The cost of this admin istrative nightmar e is incalculable. Ongoing mai ntenance costs are high.

I would like to sugg est to the Min ister that one of the reasons we could not move as fast as we wanted to was because of this nightmare that was referred to, regarding the Research Department at that time and I bring this up so the Research Department will be cognizant of what has happened in the past lt says: "(

b) The Pas -Mobile Home Park and Bell Avenue subdivision were initia ted without any skilled market projections being developed. Result: The Mobile Home Park losses will be in the order of $60,000" - and they were. "The Bell Avenue su bdivision losses will be in the order of $500,000" - and they were. Ongoing carrying charges for unsold lots and units represent a continuing cost of $50,000 annual ly. The Research Department should take cognizance of this. "(

c) Nassau Square -Marketing analysis was not applied and in addition subsequent marketing techniques were di sastrous. Contract methods and control were poor. lt is difficult to pinp oint precisely who was responsible for what Probable losses are in the neighbourhood of $350,000" - and they were. The Research Department should take cogniz ance of this when they are doing their research. "(

d) Portage la Prairie subdivision -These lots have been an inventory for over a year. Of 11 9 lots only 10 have been sold. Carrying charges are not being accumula ted and added to 'for sale' price on any basis, i.e., no price review has been conducted. The policy for refusing sales to builders is absurd. 1t is doubtful that we will recoup our investment We have revised the policy recently. Regarding the research as far as Brandon is concerned, I would suggest they take into consideration "(

e) Brandon su bdivision -No market analysis conducted prior to the decision to proceed. Design costs have been incurred. There is no confirmation that the designs will be usable. This 2929

Thu raday, 13 Ju ne, 1185 project has been stopped just before tender awards. Regarding the lnkster Gardens which are presently up there so we can take into consideration any more studies that they have in (f), we certainly should be reminded. "(

f) lnks ter Gardens -Again no market analysis preceded design. No policy defining the housing objectiv es were ever form ula ted . Marketing policy was not formulated until a matter of weeks before the first serviced land was expected to be available for sale. At the time of writing, a firm contract with the marketing agency has not been concluded. "Comment: In almost every instance no detailed project budget was ever required and no market analysis included before funds were expended. Effect:

(1) Project management cannot be measured against specific objectives.

(2) Sales of the finished product are not assumed and sales targets have not been met. "Conclusion:lf these activities had been carried out by a private company (or within financial limitations of accou ntability) the company would be bankrupt and the assets sold. Di rectors would have been dismi ssed by the shareholders and the officers of the corporation terminated. The quality of the programming, planning and control applied to these projects has been poor to the point of being most non-existent. Recommen dations - I guess, to the Research Department, would be as follows:

(1) That no futur e 'for sale' operati ons be conducted pending a complete review of the objectives of the Corporation and the development of management capabilities and procedures to achieve the objectives.

(2) That the directors responsible be asked to resign.

(3) That the staff involved and advising on the implementing of projects be asked to resign or transfer. "F ootnote:The writer has no confidence in the capacity of the directors and the staff involved to effect ively mana ge the affairs of the Corporation." That is signed by J.F. Gordon, General Manager, who is known to be an NDP supporter; worked with the government on the Leaf Rapids corporation and was put in as the Manager in 1977, about a month and a half before the election and when I arrived on the scene, I received this letter.

So I would ask the Minister, on the basis of that letter, which I will table and give anybody copies that wants them, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister makes sure that his Planning and Research Department is such that that kind of a mess is not there when we take over again? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: A couple of things, I'm rather interested in the history. First of all, the member made some reference to my introductory remarks and, one would assume from the remarks that he felt those were the remarks of staff. The introductory remarks are from the Minister responsible for the department.

If they sounded political, that's the Minister's feelings; it is not a statement from the department. With respect to the memo of 19 77, I can assure the member that the staff we have at the present time are, in my opinion, very competent; they have been right on in many of our projects and, as a matter of fact, I would think that they even underestimated some mar ket pote ntial of some of the projects we've undertaken. So the concerns that may have been expressed by Mr. Gordon in 1977, eight years ago, I don't think are at all relevant to the department today. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's fine, Mr.

Chairman, we'll just let the record stand. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Tourism. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, I think it is important that the records stand. The record should also show that from 19 77 to 19 81, the member opposite, who had some responsibility for the corporation during that time, chose to do nothing about it; chose not to develop a strategy to deal with existing problems - and no one denies that there were existing problems. Of course the problem was exacerbated by the lack of action.

The lack of action was, not only in the area of housing, it was virtually in every other front and they were rewarded for their lack of initiative. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister who did - and he doesn't have to say had something to do with it, I was the Minister; I take my responsibilities. Mr.

Chairman, I would only say that, if he wants to go back in the records, he'll find a report on The Pas, Bell Avenue, to show what was done about it; he'll find a report on Nassau Square to show what was done about it; he'll find a report on Brandon and Portage la Prairie to show what was done about it; maybe he should take that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (c)( 1) - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, what then is the current status of Mobile Home Program? HON. G. STORIE: That's not under 1. (c( 1) is it? MR. R.

NORDMAN: Where else would it be then? lt wouldn't be under Program Delivery. lt wouldn't be under Transfer Payments. Okay then, shall we say, what plans have you to create, or are there any plans to create, a mobile home park in the Winnipeg area, in light of the fact that there just seems to be such a demand for mobile homes? I know I have one in my area in Assiniboia, and it has expande d to the point - it's a priv ately owned organization - it is so packed with mobile homes that you couldn't get another one in.

With the closing of the mobile home out in the Bird's Hill area two or three years ago, I know the people had to move out of there; where they eventually went to, I don't know. But there doesn't seem to me to be any mobile homes with any real planning, I think the bloody things just hatched, 2930

Thursday, 13 June, 1985 rather than were planned. So I am just wondering if, under MHR C, there might be any plans to open up a mobile home park. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well I have not received a single request from anyone that I can recall. I don't think that staff are aware of any pressing demands, h wever, if there is a need, then we are certainly open to any requests from the industry. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (c)(1 )-pass; 1. (c)(2)- pass. 1. (d)

(1) Communications: Salaries, 1. (d)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Could the Minister give us an explana tion of this particular area? What do es Communi cat ions encompass? Could we have the number of staff people? Basically what is it, just advertising? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The increase from last year is basically due to the increased volume of activity. We have increased the advertising for the Rent Regulation Bureau.

We have also had increased costs associated with the official openings of new projects such as our RentaiStart, Co-op HomeStart, and there has been a half an additional staff year to handle additional workload resulting from increased program activity. MR. R. NOR OMAN: I can appreciate that last year was basically the first year of this department as a single entity. So are you still in the throes of expansion, or are you rapidly coming to a position that is stable in your hiring? Unless your activity increases, would this be basically a stable budget? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: The amalgamation of the Housing and Renewal Corporation into the department took place on April 1, 19 84. Staff has been fairly stable, I believe. We have a total of about 252 staff at the present time, as compared to 250 last year. I would anticipate that those levels will be fairly stable. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (d)(1 )-pass; 1. (d)(2)- pass. 1. (e)( 1) Support Services: Salaries, 1. (e)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JO HNSTON: Mr . Chairman, the Su ppor t Services, I wonder if the Minister could outline what the Support Services entails. We're looking at 2.5 million here. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Under Support Services, we have Budget and Finance, Personnel Services, Accou nting, Legal Services, Information Management and Internal Audi t, as you may see from the organizational diagram that was provided last Tuesday. In terms of staff, there are 48 staff. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, the personnel in there, and the answer that you gave to the Member for Assiniboia was, I believe, 217 of a staff, was it? 250 in total staff; 252. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, 252 in total for the department. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I'm just asking that, because Personnel Services is in there. Mr. Chairman, in the presentation by the Minister he stated, I believe, in the first part of it - and I just don't have that with me. But I believe he made some indication to cost savings in personnel, etc., because of the administrative change in the department, having a Housing Department and the corporation.

I believe the personnel will now work for the Housing Department, and the Housing Department will handle the affairs of the corporation. How many staff will this saving be that the Minister refers to? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: In fact, when the corporation was amalgamated into the department, there were not any staff reductions, but the fact is that over the past three or four years I believe the operating budget for the department has increased considerably without any corresponding increase in staff. So certainly there must be administrative and cost efficiencies that have been brought about in the last three years.

MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I don't follow that. If you have the same amount of staff, where have you saved the money - you talk about administrative efficiencies? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Let's put it another way. I had indic ated tha t our budgets had increased consider ably in terms of the level of activity within the department. I had indicated that we have something like 28 programs at the present time which is a fairly significant increase over the number of programs that existed in 19 81, yet we are able to do that with a very minor increase in staff.

As a matter of fact, from 1981- 82, our staff has increased by a matter of 15 to 20 percent

whereas the capital and total expenditures for the department have increased by 250-350 percent. So the staff is able to deliver far more than it had in the past and that's what we mean by administrative and cost efficiencies. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, you have increased the staff, you haven't cut it down. What cost efficiencies would remain? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The cost efficiencies are that the increase in staff has an increase in percentage, is a fraction of the increase in expenditures by the department.

At the same time, just as an example, within Property Management we are increasing our inventory of housing by 500 to 600 units a year. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, virtually no increase in staff in that area. That's just one example. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, basically the staff who can handle 1, 000 or 11 ,000 can handle another 600, that's not a problem. lt didn't used to be anyway. But the efficiencies then are in the area of different equipment, computers or what? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, there has been some implementation of modern technology into the operation of the department and that certainly has brought about efficiencies and held down the increase in the number of staff. 2931

Thursday, 13 June, 1985 MR. F. JOHNSTON: So the efficiencies of your staff has go ne up and the efficiencies have been accomplished by bringing in more modern equipment. In other words, I would imagine you have your units on computer now and you have your Critical Home Repair on computer instead of that roomful of cards. So basically the efficiencies have been accomplished with modernization of your programming. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (e)( 1) -pass; 1.(e)(2)- pass. There will be no resolution on this vote because of the Minister's Salary. 2.(a)( 1) Property Management and Landlord and Tenant Affairs, Landlord and Tenant Affairs: Salaries; 2.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: I guess this is the department where I have the most complaints, particu lar ly in the Rentalsman's section. lt is reported that in the Rentalsman's office in the past year , ther e were close to 90 ,000 incoming telephone calls. I don't know what staff you have down there answering the telephone, but 90,000 calls, that averages out to about 3,600 calls per day. I just don't know if you are working an eight-hour day, whether it is possible or not to have that many calls. So can you respond to that at all?

Now I got these figures from one of the government reports and it isn't a figure that I've made up; but I'm just curious to know, how can they possibly handle that many calls? If you want to go back to another one. Again, I don't know how many staff members you have in your Brandon office, but it is reported that in the Brandon office you have handled 20,000 people in two years. That would necessitate an average of 40 cases being handl ed per day. Ther e ag ain, it seems like an impossible task. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Well, I must admit that I was quite surprised when I saw that number of calls a year and I have had it confirmed that in fact those are correct. lt really means somewhere around 400 calls a working day. We do have a staff of 27 in the office of the Rentalsman. I don't have the exact number for Brandon. I'm advised there are three.

We are hoping to resolve what may appear to be a problem by the amalgamation of the office of the Rentalsman and the Rent Regulation Bureau because I feel that quite often the Rentalsman's office receives calls that should be directed to the Reg ul ation Bur eau and vice versa. So with the amalgamation of the two offices, a lot of the calls may be redirected which will then bring down a total number of calls. MR. R. NORDMAN: Who generally precipitates the complaint? Is it the landlord or is it the tenant? Or is it pretty well even? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I would suppose that it would be a mixture of both landlords and tenants just gauging by the mail that I receive. I understand that with respect to the calls, it would be predominantly tenants. I might have a breakdown. I think it is in the Annual Report where the calls were initiated and, of course, there are more tenants than there are landlords. MR. R. NORDMAN: Yes, that's true. I understand there is a real backlog of complaints that haven't been satisfied by either/or, has the department been able to catch up on some of those? Where are we with that backlog now? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Most of the inquiries are handled fairly expeditiously. The one area of difficulty has been that of security deposits; I believe it takes up to five months to resolve these. We would hope that there might be some solution to this problem and in this regard we are reviewing our landlord and tenant legislation. We will be soliciting briefs from both tenants and landlords to see how we can bring about greater efficiencies in the administration of this branch. MR. R. NORDMAN: If that deposit is placed in the hands of the Rentalsman, why should it take so long if you say five months?

I've heard as long as eight. Why should it take that long? If there was no great damage done to the apartment or the house, if it was just basically an in and outer, why should it take such a long time to satisfy the tenant or the landlord, whichever? What complicates it? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I guess the length of time to settle some of these security deposit problems is due to the fact that there are differences of opinions to varying degrees between the landlord and the tenants. All the Office of the Rentalsman can do is mediate, and the mediation process does take time.

The landlord simply can't arbitrate on behalf of one party or the other but have to reach a resolution through mediation. MR. R. NORDMAN: Well, I don't know. lt just seems that it takes an awful long time to settle the thing. I would hope that the department will seriously look at it. Like I said before, I think that's one of the main areas where I get complaints is in the mediation of those security deposits. HON. J. BUCKL ASCHUK: I wou ld share those concerns, too.

I would hope that we will resolve some of these problems through our committee review which will hopefully provide a more streamlined administrative process. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, on the elderly housing and the public housing units, the housing authorities have been made up of th ree recommendations from the municipalities or towns, three tenants and thr ee recommendations or appointments from the Minis ter or, depending on the size of the unit, could be two, two and two.

Is it the intention to keep that particular procedure or formula while appointing housing authorities throughout the province? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: There has been no thought given to changing the status quo. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Are the recommendations from municipalities accepted if they submit three or two, 2932

Thursct.y, 13 June, 1985 whatever the case may be, or are they requested to send in more than the numb er of names required for the Min ister to make a choice? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The policy manual for the adminis tration of MHR C units states that municipal bodies are to provide I believe two nominations for each position, and the Min ister will appoint one of those persons. That has been the policy I believe for a good numb er of years. I don't think it has changed since the previous admin istration or probably since the Schreyer administration. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: I know that there is legislation in the House, but the new legislation lays out a formula of who those people can be. So the Min ister is not intending on changing the procedure, because of course the new legislation will allow it to be that way, so that there is no contemplated change In the procedure. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: As the Mem ber for Assiniboia may be aware, there was no provision in the act for housing authorities in Northern Manitoba. We say rural and northern, because we mean rural in the sense of unorgan ized territor y.

The formula that's laid out in the legislation before the House at the present time will apply only to the northern housing authorities and remote communities. Up until now, they have been di rectly admin istered by the corporation and by the department. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)(1)-pass; 2.(a)(2)- pass. 2.(b)(1) - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: The Buy and Renovate Program, I notice in the report we have a considerable chunk in here. This is another area, where I think I get a lot of complaints on, is on the Buy and Renovate.

I know I spoke to the Minis ter some time back before he had the reorganization and I don't kn ow th at the reorganization bettered the program at all. I still have contractors saying that they refuse to bid on a Buy and Renovate contract simply because they're sick and tir ed of having to wait for their money from MHR C. The Min ister is currently working on one for me where the young man has been waiting as long as just about eight months since he entered into the agreement or entered into the program. He still hasn't put a spade into the ground.

He's got all his mortgages and such taken care of, but as far as any work being done to the house, nothing has been done and accomplished. In principle, I can see that it could be a good program, but what in the world is wrong with the program that it is creating such animosity amongst buyers and sellers and contractors? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, again, I appreciate the member's concerns. it Is one program that I certainly think is a very good program for providing affordable housing for our Manitoba residents, but it has also been a fairly complex program. We have a numb er of levels of gov ernment inv olved.

We have Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Involved; we have Core Area involved; real estate agencies Involved; there is the Land Titles Office involved. There are so many parties to this that it has taken time. One of the biggest problems has been where the contractor's work is being overseen by the purch aser and we found in the past that some of the pur ch asers were simply not qualified to act as an overseer and didn't see that the project was done properly.

Under the current program, and we've had by far fewer complaints, Manitoba Housing oversees the construction project and is working somewhat better to the point that we usually receive I believe a letter of complime nt about the program, but undeniably it has had its problems. MR. R. NORDMAN: I will admit that in all likelihood that I, as the critic, would only hear from the people who are having problems. I will admit that, but the problems that most of these people who have contacted me I think they're legitim ate.

I do appreciate the efforts that the Mi nister and the department are making in trying to alleviate the problem that we have at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)(1)-pass; 2.(a)(2)- pass. 2.( b)

(1) Property Management: Salaries; 2.(b)

(2) Other Expenditu res - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, about five or six years ago, there was a report commissioned by the Winnipeg Housing Authority for a lady to do a report on the condition of the units owned by the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation specifically within the City of Winnipeg. That report was submitted to the Ho using Autho rity and, in turn, to the Ho usin g Depart ment. lt ind icated at that time that there were some serious problems in construction from the units that had been built.

There were the problems with icing; there were problems with humidity and freezing in the wintertime; there were problems with patio doors and, on a couple of occasions, some of the earlier ones that were built, especially in St. Vital; one other that the buildings were in a condition that were not good; and, as landlords, the fact that the government was the landlord, they should be good landlords.

There was a specific amount of money set aside each year although not as near as much as was required to upgrade and keep these buildings in a condition that would have them last 50 years, which is what the mortgage is for, with the conditions with the Federal Government. What Is being done at the present time to up grade those conditions in the units that were needing specific attention, and what is being done to make sure that the buildings are being kept up so that they will not deteriorate in such a way that they will be very costly to repair? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, I would agree that the buildings should be kept up to a standard so that they will last for the lifetime of the mortgage. I can report that insofar as those units under the management of the Winnipeg Regional Housing Auth ority, the buildings are inspected periodical ly. Inspection should be carried out very shortly, as a matter of fact, I think it's by biannual inspection. If you feel that the Winnip eg Regional Housing Authority is underspending, we will so advise them. But 2933

Thuracter, 13 June, 1986 we do review the quality of our housing stock; we are involved in upgrading, retrofitting, and certainly in my capacity as the Chair of MHR C I'm aware of the preventative measures that we're taking and the remedial repairs that have to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, we are spending about $6 million a year for regular maintenance - that's not taking into account painting and that type of upgrading - and we have about a $1.1 million unallocated fund which we will use for remedial repairs as they're brought to our attention.

So in total we're spending probably in the neighbour hood or in excess of $7 million to maintain the quality of our housing or to retrofit it or upgrade it, whatever the case may be. MR. F. JOHNSTON: There was a program or a research done on the basis of whether to examine the energy efficiency and upgrade the energy efficiency? Is that program still intact? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, it is. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, the City of Winnipeg By-law No. 3518 , the Residential Building Improvements by-law, what effect is that having on MHR C properties? HON. J.

BUCK LASC HUK: We've look ed at that particular by-law as it stands. My understanding is that the cost to the corporation will be somewhere in the neighbour hood of about $8 million. MR. R. NORDMAN: When does that come into effect, January 1, 19 86? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Some of the requirements, I believe, are in force at the present time, but the major costs will be in October 1, 1986. MR. R. NORDMAN: All work in this phase - I just noticed it here myself - had to be done by October 1, 19 88. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: There are a number of requirements of that by-law, and the first stage, I believe, was October 1, 1984. That was the smoke detectors. Then there's another

section for October 1, 19 86, and then a third

section for October 1, 19 88. MR. R. NORDMAN: We are already into the upgrading of that to comply with that by-law? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm sorry, I missed that question. MR. R. NORDMAN: We are already into the program of upgrading to comply with the by-law? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, we have met the 19 84 requirements. MR. R. NORDMAN: The Co-operative HomeStart, how is it moving? Are you getting any action on it? Is there any development? You have a fair amount of money in here for it. I know there is a program for Co-op Ho meStart, but I'm just curious as to how it's developing. HON. J.

BUCKL ASCHUK: I have made some references to the Co-op HomeStart under my opening remarks. As I ind icated, there are eigh t project proposals representing some 204 units that we are aware of at the present time. There, I believe, are three projects under construction for a total of about 15 0 units. We are receiving expressions of interest almost daily on this program, so there is a lot of interest in the co-operative housing option in Manitoba. MR. R. NORDMAN: In what areas of the city are we looking at? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: There have been inquiries from both within the central part of Winnipeg and from the suburbs. it's fairly widespread. I don't think we could say there Is more interest in one area than another. In addition, there is a project under construction at Brandon, and we've had additional interest from there. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Regarding the funds for the upgrading that I spoke of and the energy program, is the Federal Government participating financially with those programs? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, it does. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: On what percentage federal and percentage provincial? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Normally, 50 percent. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2. (b)( 1) -p ass; 2.(b)(2)-pass. Resolution No. 99: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,900,600 for Housing, Property Management and Landlord and Tenant Affairs, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1986-p ass. Item No. 3.(a)( 1) Program Delivery, Administrative Costs: Sal aries; 3.( a)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(

b) Grants and Subsidies - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, on the Co-op High Im pact Gr ants, the co-op programs that were developed, I believe, back in 1976 or 1975, the programs were developed on the basis that the co-op units were to be built and the subsidies, I believe, from the Federal and Provincial Governments were to be made available as the units were taken up or rented, which was different from the normal understanding of co-op type housing when it was usually the units were all sold before the buildings were built, but the department decided that the units should be built and the funding should come along as the units were rented.

Under that circums tance, the units were rented and the Provincial and Federal Governments had to advance money and in Brandon, as a matter of fact, advance money so the taxes could be paid. What type of programs is the department putting together now as far as co-op programs? What are the guidelines of the program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Under the Co-operative HomeStart Program, there are three programs. First 2934

of all, we will provide some assistance for the cost of feasibility studies to ensure that the project has a likelihood of succeeding. Under the second program there is a supplementary assistance to that provided through Canada Mortgage and Housing to make sure that the housing is affordable for lower-income families. Under program three, we provide financing for the renovation of existing housing or conversion of non­ residential to residential buildings. MR. F. JOHNSTON: The Minister in his opening remarks referred to older buildings being renovated for co-op housing.

Older buildin gs - that takes in a broad spectrum - are you speaking of renovating older apartment blocks or warehouse buildings, or houses, or what type of units were you referring to when you specified older buildings? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: When we talk about older buildings we are talking about older apartments and, as the member indicated, conversion of warehouses to housing. We haven't had any, that I'm aware of, requests for conversions of schools, let's say, but that would certainly be possible, converting a school to a co-operative housing program, and larger homes into a co-operative structure. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: In the case of older apartment blocks, how is the pu rchase made? Does the department purchase them with the federal-provincial money and then renovate them and then rent them, or how does the co-op situation work under that circumstance? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, we don't become involved in purchasing the building. We simply assist the co-operative through financing the acquisition. MR. F. JOHNSTON: How many older apartment blocks are being worked on at the present time? Or, how many have been done and how many are contemplated? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Eight projects have been contemplated.

There have been no commitments thus far. But it's the eight I made reference to earlier today - the 204 units, I believe. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I'm looking at the rundown that was presented to us by the Minister, and I thank him for that, but I see 19 84-85 , 60.4; and Co-op High Impact Grant is this year to be 13 .6. There is a decrease here. How many co-op units were put together last year and how many will be done this year? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I notice the reference on the sheets that I handed out. They are two different programs. The ones that I have been referring to are under the Co-op HomeStart Program.

The Co-op High Impact Grant is an existing program that I believe is being phased out this year. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That was the program that's been in effect for several years? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I believe this to have been a seven-year program and this is the last year of that term. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I know what that one is. That's where we had to move in and bail them out a bit. So when we are speaking of the co-ops that you referred to for this year, with older buildings and warehouses, etc., were down below here - Co-op Hom eStart, gr ants for project feasibilit y study - $114 ,000.00.

Is that for studies only? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That's for studies and previously referred to that as being program one. MR. F. JOHNSTON: So the Co-op HomeStart Program is in the study period only? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, no, the Co-op HomeStart Program comes under MHR C capital, but the costs associated with the feasibility studies are under the program operating costs for the department. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Okay. We'll get to the capital program then a you are referring to the $1 .036 million on Page 2. That's the . . . cost. So your Co-op HomeStart grants on Page 1 are for feasibility studies only.

How much of that $1 14 ,000 Is being paid for by the Federal Government? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: None. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Where does the Federal Goverment come in for support of. your co-op program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: lt comes in under program two, the financing for the construction of new projects. Under program three, there is some assistance from the Federal Government through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. So In fact they have a part to play in both program two and program three. MR. F. JOHNSTON: What percentage do they have In that program two and three? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Under program two, the assistance from the Federal Government is minimally between 75 to 80 percent of the ongoing operating costs. Under program three, the renovations or conversions, I believe the maximimum assistance available is $4,000 per unit, in grants. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour is now 4:30 p.m. We are interrupting the proceedings of this committee for the Private Members' Hour. We shall return at 8:00 p.m. this evening. SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Education, Item 3.(

a) School Grants and Other Assistance - the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanki ng th e Min ister and her department for providing to me a number of tables of statistics that I had requested at earlier dates. I haven't 2935

Thursd ay, 13 June, 1985 had the full opportunity to review them, so I would ask the Minister for her indulgence at times if I look like I'm struggling with a few of the figures. - (Interject ion) - Well, the Minister says we're all struggling and I guess we're all strugg ling, but I think it's worth it when we look at the size of the appropriation. Probably the more items we're able to put on the record, the easier it will maybe be for ourselves or those who come in the future. Mr.

Chairman, I will beg in on this page called, "Summary of 1985 Support." If the Minister's staff has had an opportunity to review any of the Estimates from last year, some of the questions that I'll pose will be quite similar to the ones posed last year. The first line indicates that a total support of roughly $568 million is to be directed towards, I take it, to the public school system in the year that we're in, 19 85.

Could the Minister tell me what the total cost - and I think she may have the other day - but again I would ask her what the total cost is of all the public divisions throughout the Province of Manitoba? What is the total education bill run in the Province of Manitoba? HON. M. HEMPHILL: $713 million, Mr. Chairman, total operating expenditures. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I take it when the Minister says total operating, she's meaning the only thing excluded is capital. That being the case, Mr.

Chairman - and I've never asked for this before - but I'm wondering if the Minister could show me, using these numbers or any other supplementary information, how it is the government works out a share of finance of 80 percent or whatever the percentage works out to be. What number divided by which other number allows the government, whatever government it is, to make certain claims with respect to the percentage of funding? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, I hope I can give this to him so he can understand it.

You take the total operating support grant less the local government support grant and the revenue from opted-out Indian bands. That gives you $738.9 million. MR. C. MANNESS: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was waiting for the other half of another number, because I can't divide when I only have one number. I'm wondering whether that's the denomi nator or the numerator. Where is the other part of the equation? HON. M. HEMPHILL: 576 million. MR. C. MANNESS: Pardon? HON. M. HEMPHILL: 576 million. MR. C. MANNESS: What is that? HON. M. HEMPHILL: You divide the first figure, the 738 million, into the 576 million. MR. C.

MANNESS: And that comes out to roughly 80 percent. Now, I thought that the total operating less the local government support came to 738.9 million. Was that a wrong

interpretation on my part? HON. M. HEMPHILL: it's total expenditure including capital less those two, the local government support grant and the revenue from opted-out Indian bands. MR. C. MANNESS: Okay, that creates the denominator, and the 576 million represents what? - I would ask the Minister. HON. M. HEMPHILL: The total support to school divisions, Mr. Chairman. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you. I finally have that straight after many years, I su ppose, of always wondering where that figure or any figure around that number, what its derivation or where its source was. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister indicated the other day that the uniform application of a constant levy that hasn't changed in three years had created some additional $2. 5 million or $3 million because of reassessments in some areas, I assume. Can the Minister tell me what the total increase in special levies is across all school divisions? First of all, what was called upon under that taxing authority? How much has it amounted to in total? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, that's the figure, I believe, we gave yesterday. The total Special Levy increase is $15.8 million. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Minister realizes now that, since her government has come into power, that the cumula tive increases of taxes that covers increased expenditures directed it toward education, are now in the order of $90 million in the space of four years. lt seems to me as I recall from Estimates last year, the total increase because of an increase in support levies across the province in this government's first term of office plus the increase in special mill rates in the various school divisions throughout the province over the last four years now total somewhere close to $90 million.

I would ask whether the Minister would accept that statement of mine as fact? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Not qu ite, $83 million, Mr. Chairman. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to debate the $7 million, I just wanted to know. In my figures it was 90, but I will have to accept the Minister's figure obviously because she has staff and the statistics probably to bear it out. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask some additional questions with regard to the private school support. The Minister has provided for us in the House a review of the increased grants and the additional shared services to be covered.

I'm wondering if the Minister can indicate whether any commitment has been made to the Manitoba Federation of Independent Schools, as to the acceptance of a formula under which that society would have a long-range understanding of what commitment they could expect from government in years to come. HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Chairman, there has been no commitment. 2936

Thurad•� 13 June, 1885 MR. C. MANNESS: A year ago I asked the Minis ter whether her department had sought any legal opinion from the Attorney-General with respect to suggestions by the Federation of Inde pendent Schools that it may, in due course, proceed to courts, both provincially and federally, under the Charter of Rights with respect to forcing government to gu arantee them some specific level of support. I'm wondering if the Min ister or the department has sought legal advice from the Attorney­ General, or if any has been provided. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did seek legal advice. MR. C.

MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, there was another part to the question. Was advice given? If so, can the Min ister di sclose that to the House? HON. M. HEMPHILL: My recollection is that he did not believe that the Charter gave the guarantee. MR. C. MANNESS: The Minis ter the other day also ind icated that in creased support this year fell into thr ee basic areas, two of them involving increased shared services commitments plus, I un derstand, some commitment to clinician services within the public school system. I'm wondering if the Mini ster can expand on both those areas. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, presently private schools are allowed to have shared service agreements or contracts with public schools for the delivery of some programs where they send their students to the public schools. Usually, these are in the area of indu strial arts and home economics. Almost all the shared services are in those two areas. Previous ly, they had to choose either shared services or the grant or a combi nation of both. If they opted for shared services, they were deducted from their grant.

What we have done this year is to say that they are entitled to have their students included in the enrolment figures for those programs and the services that will be provided do not have to be deducted from the grant. In other words, they can get their full grant and they can also have access to those programs they were receiving under shared service agreements. We have also expanded the industrial arts and home economics to include clinic ian services which were not included at all before.

We have said that they can include their students, the private school students, in the enrol ment of the local school di visions and the calculation of grants for clinicians. So that means that students in private schools who need clinician services can be included in the enrolment count of the public schools and have access to those services without any deduction also from the regular grant. MR. C. MANNESS: What is that impact then on the school division? Are they covered? Or is there any additional cost to them? Are the additional costs all covered then by this new arrangement? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr .

Chairman, there is no additional financial impact to the school divisions since the students will be counted in their regular enrolment by the Department of Education, and they will receive the funding on the same basis. The cost of the in crease in the shared services which is contained in this budget is $315,000.00. MR. C.

MANNESS: For some period of time now, the in dependent school network has been concerned with the payroll tax that has been levied upon them and which has been removed from the public school system, but has not been removed from the private system; can the Min ister indic ate whether any change has been brought to that unfair levying of taxation? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, there is no change to date. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, when I asked the Min ister at the beginning of this particular time, I asked her how much money would be spent, in total, in school divisions of this year.

She indica ted that operat ing, I take it would be $713 million and, in addition, she offered as an answer to another question, that the total operating, plus capital, plus local government support, would be somewhere around $739 million. Last year, total expenditures across the school divisions were $734; now I'm wondering whether that included capital and, if it did, it would appear then that there's roughly a $5 million increase in total expenditures across all school divisions in this province. Would that be a fair statement? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Yes, the total expenditures, including capital, $734.3 in 1984, and $762.8 in 1985. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, how many dollars this year we're taking out of school divisions' surplus accounts and directed toward increased expenditures. Last year, the Mini ster ind icated there was some $7.4 million came through surplus last year, how much of the total accumula ted spending was serviced out of surplus this year? HON. M. HEMPHILL: They used about $5.9 million in their surplus, about half the boards in the province have a surplus and some of them used a fair amount of the surplus.

They had some divisions, who had surpluses, did not use any surplus at all. There is the total of $28.5 million in surplus with the school divisions; they used $5.9 million of it. MR. C. MANNESS: I'm curious about the surplus. In two years $19 million has been used in surplus. How was this figure changed over the last five years? Was it significantly higher five years ago, has there been a constant draw down, or has there been some adding to it over the last couple of years? I'd just like a general remark with respect to surpluses. MR. DEPUTY CHA IRMAN, D. Malin owak i: The Honour able Min ister. HON. M.

HEMPHILL: I would say, in general, we'd have to add up theery specific figures if he wants the exact figures. In general, it's fair to say that there's probably been a little more drawing down of surpluses in the last couple of years than they were in previous years. 2937

Thurs day, 13 June, 1985 However, as I indicated, there is still quite a number of divisions who have surpluses who didn't touch them at all. So it varies from division to division and it actually depends on what their circumstances are that particular year. They don't all have a bad year at the same time, or a year where they feel that they are pressed and need to draw on their surplus, and they draw on it for a wide variety of reasons. But, in general, I would say there's a few more drawing than there were previously. In 1983, we had $31. 8 million and in 1984 we had $28.5 million. So that gives you some idea.

MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Chairman, what that tells me is that, even though it's being drawn down one year, it's rebuilding to some degree also within the same year. The net change isn't obviously similar to the amount by which it's being drawn down. Does the Minister have any stated policy or any strong views with respect to this surplus, in total? Does she consider it too large, the right amount; should it be larger? I wish she would share her views with me.

Does she see it as something that shouldn't exist. and I guess even a more specific question, how does it correlate to her deeming of school divisions being wealthy or poor? She uses that quite often. I'm curious as to whether there's any relationship there at all. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, when I talk about wealthy school divisions and poor school divisions, I am not referring to their surplus at all. What we refer to is their ability to raise money on a mill, their balanced assessment.

So that's one of the main criteria for identification of a division and it doesn't even mean they're particularly rich, it means in relative terms, I suppose, they have an ability to raise a lot more money on a mill than does another division. There is up and down. School divisions sometimes budget for a surplus and, when they finalize their budget, it may not be at the same level as they thought that it was going to be when they bring in their final budgets. Sometimes they're taking money out and sometimes they have a bit of a surplus at the end of it.

I think what I have communicated to them on the surplus - first of all there isn't any magic figure - there isn't an acc eptable amount of surplus, or an unacceptable amount of surplus; nor do I take a position that they should or should not have a surplus. Some of them feel quite strongly - maybe they were brought up in depression days, I don't know, but some of them feel quite strongly that they need to have a cushion, a kitty, some they can draw on if they get in very difficulty financial straits.

However, what I have said to them when we've been providing the information on the funding that was available, when money has been tight, is that the programs had been designed apparently, or supposedly, to meet the needs of the school divisions to provide programs, and the funding and formulas are not provided in such a way as to provide surpluses. So, in general, my position is that I assume that the criteria and the formula for funding are reasonable and the money they're getting is largely expected to be used for programs.

Particularly, in more limited resource years, when money is tighter and we are trying very hard to provide enough money to maintain programs and services, I certainly would not expect at the expense of any programs or services in a school division, to have an increase in their surplus, to have them use the money they get to increase or improve their surplus position at the same time as they were cutting back on programs or staffing. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, is it possible that divisions which do not have great ability to raise money by Special Levy, but yet may do well under the basic grant formulas, would have some potential in increasing their surplus to a large amount? I'm trying to gain some perspective for these surpluses. Over what range do they exist and, more importantly, is there anything the Minister could do to those two or three cases of school divisions that may have very large surpluses and yet, because of the state of the formula, find that they are still covering their expenditures quite well and are able to put some savings away? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, most divisions these days, as I said before, are not adding to their surplus. Some are not dipping into them and using them, but I think it's unlikely that many of them are adding to the surplus. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move into another area and that is the total support to school divisions. The Minister has indicated that is roughly $576 million. I would ask what share of that has been raised through the provincial levy over all properties' balanced assessment? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Very close to 35, but we'll get the exact figure.

I think it has just hit below 35 this year, 34 point something - 32 percent. MR. C. MANNES S: Mr. Chairman, the Mi niste r indicates it is roughly 32 percent. I believe last year it was 35. So what the Minister then is saying, roughly, that she's held the levy on property. She's fixed it at a number. lt has been there for three years now. The general provincial levy across all properties has been fixed and therefore, the government is reaching into general revenues for a larger share of the total support package that is going out to the public school system.

I dare say that would be politically most acceptable and it would work toward the 90 percent objective which the Minister indicates. However, as many Manitobans are aware, it is also the reason why we have such a massive deficit, in part, in this province, because a large portion of government funding that is directed towards Education - and indeed Health - is borrowed money. I ask the Minister whether she has any general views with respect to the continuing emphasis on borrowed money in support of education? HON. M. HEMPHILL: First of all, Mr.

Chairman, I think that there has been a difference in attitude between the two governments in the raising of money. When the previous government was in, they were relying more on the Education Support Levy for the raising of money and its true that we have frozen that, have relied less on it and they are taking our money from consolidated revenue, which we think is a fairer way and doesn't add as much to the local property taxpayer, but is more 2938

Thuradey, 13 June, 1888 generally shared by coming out of the consolida ted pot by the larger tax base. I think that's a better way to do it.

I think Education has been getting about the same level of the provincial pot over the years; it hasn't been getting a lot more and it hasn't been getting a lot less. lt has been staying around 19 to 20 percent of the total provincial expenditures which says to me - and there hasn't been a change in quite a long time - it says to me that Education is being funded at about the same reasonable level and is accepted that that's a reasonable level of funding, isn't getting a sort of major increase and I think it is consistent with the feelings of the public.

I would think that there not be either a lot more mone y or tremendous cut s in education. I think they believe that the level of expenditure is fairly acceptable, although I would admit in years like this year, we would have all preferred to have a bit more. So I'm not sure that the relationship that the Member for Morris is trying to make, that the large amount of money that is going out to Education is significantly adding to the provincial debt. I would say Education is continuing to get about the same share as it has and couldn't be identified separately as a major factor on the debt. MR. CHAIRMAN, P.

Eyler: Mr. Manness. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, obviously there is a great philosophical difference. The Minister says that we are talking about a greater tax base in support of Education, looking at all Manitobans' ability to pay income tax because, of course, when you go to the consolidated revenue fund that is the largest source, that plus transfer monies from Ottawa.

But my point is, although I have no difficulty in saying that philosophically we probably want to go to the same point, both parties, that being 90 percent funding by the Provincial Government in support of education, the Minister fails to distinguish the fact that the support that she's drawing out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund today is not tax dollars, it's basically borrowed money, money that will have to be repaid back by this generation of young people and their descendants in years to come.

I guess my very general question is: does the Minister have any concern at all about the growing deficit, realizing that her department, as she points out, share of the total pool of resources available to government hasn't changed significantly over the year, a very direct question, realizing that the Department of Education has one of the largest shares of the total monies available, those that have been raised during this time plus those that have been borrowed. Does she not feel that education, to some degree, has to also be part of the decision with respect to the provincial deficit?

If she accepts my logic thus far, how far is she prepared to go in support of her Finance Minister and her Premier and the government to continue to mount these deficits in the $500 million range? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to put words in the mouth of the Member for Morris that he hasn't actually said, but in the questions that he was raising - but I'll try and, if it's not accurate, you will tell me, I'm sure.

The que stions that he raised ju st now, and a statement that he made earlier, yesterday or the day before when we were in Estimates, that suggested that the amount of money going for education, that our children were going to be paying for it in years to come; and the questions that he's raising this morning make me think that he actually believes perhaps that he didn't support the 2 percent increase, or he seems to be saying to me, do I think I should have taken so much, or I should have so much to run the education system when we have the level of deficit that we have in the Province of Manitoba.

If that's his question, and my sense is that it is, my answer is unequivocable, and it is, yes. I would have hated to see what was happening in other provinces where their approach to a poor economy and to contr olling deficits was qu ite different than our government's is; that is, to drastically cut programs, to drastically cut services, to drastically cut staffing.

If you look at a province like British Columbia where they laid off, I think, about 2,000 teachers, they closed down entire institutions, cut off entire programs, I think that the children and the society , whether it's in Manitoba or in Canada, are going to be paying for that for years to come. The negative effects on the education system will be felt long after the economy has improved.

In other words, I think that they have taken a difficult financial period where we are all strugg ling, and that their solutions are so extreme that they are going to cause a dreadfully serious negative impact on the education system. Our approach was different, and mine is in education. That is that, although money is tight and we want to manage it and maintain the expenditures to the best that we can, we believe that this is not either the time to cut back in services and programs, or not a time for government to withdraw from doing things that it can do that will help stimulate the economy.

Construction is a very good example, where the members opposite take the view when money gets a little tight to freeze construction and stop construction. We say that, if we build - and a good example is the more than doubling of the building of schools, going from $15 million to $37 million in this year, to do two things: to upgrade and renovate our older schools across the province in a short period of time, but also to provide jobs in a poor economy, to stimulate business and suppliers to give work for them, and busi ness and supplies. So in tough, economic times, we do the opposite.

We try to be active, and try to use the tool of government to help stimulate the economy and businesses like construction and business, while we're maintaining our systems. I said, when I talked about the amount of money that was going out to school divisions, that 1 knew it wouldn't be as much as they had hoped for and as much as they were asking for, but I honestly believed that it was enough to maintain programs if they controlled their expenditures, and they did. They've reduced their expenditures tremendously over the last few years. I'll just try and find the piece of paper.

They've reduced expenditures from 15 percent, in'82 to 10 percent to 5.8 percent to 3.9 percent. 2939

Thu rsday, 13 June, 1985 MR. C. MANNESS: Those are the increases. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Those are the increases, but they've reduced from a 15 percent increase to a 10 percent increase to a 5 percent increase. MR. C. MANNESS: Don't make it sound like it dropped. Don't forget that. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Well make your point with the school boards, because they're the ones that set the budgets and that determine the level of expenditure, not the Provincial Government.

The point I'm making is that, by reducing the level of increases that they had in previous years, we were able in Manitoba to maintain programs and to not have cuts in programs and major cuts in staff. Now I'm proud of that and, if he is saying that am I so concerned about the deficit that I would have either preferred or believed that we should have taken more extreme measures in education and given them zero, or perhaps taken money away and lived with the impact of that, my answer is an unequivocable, no.

I prefer, as does the Finance Min ister and our government, to maintain our health care systems, to maintain our education systems, to try and have taxes at, not a desirable level, but an acceptable level, and to have our deficit at a level that is not desirable either, but acceptable during these times. So we're trying to get the balance where we're using all of the tools, but we're not taking simplistic and easy ways out by slashing and cutting programs that are going to affect both the health and the education of our children and the people of Manitoba. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, I thank the Minister for her comments. She said she hoped she wouldn't put words