Manitoba Hansard — 22 October 1996 (Sitting 68, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-68

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

, Second Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 68- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 22, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Aff"iliation Name Constih•enq � ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhu r-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charles wood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norben P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Ponage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Tunle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fon Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

4373 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, October 22, 1996 The Bouse met at 1:30 p.m. PRAY ERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Raymond Blue, D. Ansell, S. Bector and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families. Manitoba Telephone System Mr.

Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of M. Senff, Len Krentzer, C.M. Robson and others requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Al McKenzie, Heather Fisher, John Oltrop and others requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Anton Didwek, Maggie Quinton, Lena Boychuk and others requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Irene Bender, George Bender, Pearl Kreutzer and others requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY

4374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income incr eases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating fUll employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safo, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families. *

(1335) Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourab le member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It complies with the rules and practi ces of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands ofjobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4, 000 employees including more than 1, 000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and 1HAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honoura ble member for Dauphin (Mr. Struth ers). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. Mr.

Cler k (William Rem nant): The petition of the unders igned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province-wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, v.ith nearly 4,000 employees including more than 1,000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said bef ore and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WH EREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legis lative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private inte rests. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Economic Development Sixth Report Mr. Peter Dyck (Chai rperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the Sixth Report of th e Committee on Economic Development . - -

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4375 Mr. Clerk (William Remnant) : Your Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as its Sixth Report. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Your committee met on Friday, October 18, 1996, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the annual reports of the North Portage Development Corporation for the years ended March 31, 1992, andMarch 31, 1994; the financial statements for the North Portage Development Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1995; the financial statements for The Forks Renewal Corpora tion for the years ended March 31, 1994 and 1995; and the consolidated financial statements for the North Portage Development Corporation, operating as The Forks-North Portage Partnership, for the year ended March 31, 1996.

At that meeting, your committee elected Mr. McAlpine as its Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Ernie Keller, chairman of the board, Mr. Kent Smith, president and chief executive officer, and Mr. Gary Steiman, board member, provided such infor mation as was requested by members of the committee with respect to the reports and financial statements for The Forks-North Portage Partnership.

Your committee reports that it has considered the annual reports for the North Portage Development Corporation for the years ended March 31, 1992, and March 31, 1994 ; the financial statements for the North Portage Development Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1995; the financial statements for The Forks Renewal Corporation for the years ended March 31, 1994 and 1995; and the consolidated financial statements for the North Portage Development Corporation, operating as The Forks-North Portage Partnership, for the year ended March 31, 1996. Mr. Dyck: I move, seconded by the honourab le member for Riel (Mr.

Newman), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Law Amendments Fifth Report Mr. David Newman (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the Fifth Report of the Committee on Law Amendme nts. An Honourable Member: Dispen se. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its Fifth Report. Your committee met on Monday, October 21, 1996, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Assembly to consider bills reftrred. At that meeting your committee elected Mr.

Penner as its Vice-Chairperson. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill60-The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe du Barreau John Neuftld - Law Society of Manitoba Bill 66--The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Commission de Ia boxe et de Ia lutte Bob Holliday- World Wrestling Federation Your committee has considered: Bill25-The Jury Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les jures Bill 62-The Jobs Fund Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur le Fonds de soutien a l'emploi Bill 66--The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Commission de Ia boxe et de Ia lutte and has agreed to report the same without amendment.

4376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Your committee has also considered: Bill 22-The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT

section 9 of the Bill be amended (

a) in clause (a), by striking out "or" and "by-laws"; and (

b) in clause (b), by striking out "and" and "by-laws". Your committee has also considered: Bill 28-The Winnipeg Stock Exchange Act;

Loi sur Ia Bourse de Winnipeg and has agreed to report the same with the following MOTION: THAT

section 5 be amended in the English version by striking out "object" and substituting "objects". MOTION: THAT clause 7(J)(

b) be amended in the French version by striking out "maximun" and substituting "maxtmum MOTION: THAT subsection 9(6) be struck out and the following substituted: 0/ftcer cannot be director or member 9(6) No officer of the corpor ation, except the chair and any vice-chair of the board of directors, shall be a member of the Corporation and no officer of the Corporation, except the chair and any vice-chair of the board of directors and the president, shall be a director of the corporation. Your committee has also considered: amendment: Bill 45-The Consumer Protection Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia protection du consummateur MOTION: THAT clause JJ(J)(

c) be amended in the English version by adding "in" after "only". Your committee has also considered: Bill 29-The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Act;

Loi sur Ia Bourse des marchandises de Winnipeg and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT

section 1 be amended in the French version by striking out the definition "« marchandise • " et « contrat a terme •" and substituting the following: « marchandise • et « contrat a terme de marchandi.'tes •S'entendent au sens de Ia

Loi sur les contrats a terme. ("commodity", "commodity futures contract") and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT the proposed

section 61, as set out in

section 2 of the Bill, be renumbered as subsection 61(1) and the following be added as subsection 61 (2): Requirements re oral agreement 61

(2) If an agreement for a retail sale or retail hire purchase to which this Part applies is not in writing, the vendor shall provide to the buyer, at the time that the agreement is entered into, a written statement of the cancellation rights that conforms with the requirements prescribed by the Minister. MOTION: THAT the proposed subsection 62(1), as set out in

section 2 of the Bill, be amended by striking out " excluding Sundays and holidays,". -

, October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4377 MOTION: THAT the proposed subsection 62(3), as set out in

section 2 of the Bill, be amended by adding "any" before "goods" and before "services". MOTION: That Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Your committee has also considered: Bill 46-The Securities Amendment Act; Loi modijiant Ia

Loi sur /es valeurs mobilieres and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT the proposed subclause 149( r)(iii), as set out in

section 5 of the Bill, be amended in the English version by adding "of foes payable to the commission" after "exchanges". Your committee has also considered: Bi// 60-The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe du Barreau and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT clause 9(

b) of the Bill be struck out. MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal reforences necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Your committee voted to delete clause 8 of Bi/160. Your committee also voted to delete clause 10 of Bill 60. Mr. Newman: I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. *

(1340) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Sciences Centre Capital Projec ts-Operating Facilities Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. During the election campaign in March of 1995, the Premier promised major capital investments in the province of Manitoba, including major and significant investments in the Health Sciences Centre, as part of a health capital project.

The Premier specifically promised funds for the William Avenue project which would include the adult and pediatric surgical operating rooms and intensive care units at those hospitals. In 1995, an accreditation survey released after the election campaign stated that the operating rooms were in horrible shape and that new operating rooms were absolutely necessary and that construction must proceed in terms of the ongoing accreditation of those programs and facilities so vital to Manitobans.

I would like to ask the Premier, when is he going to keep his election promise and proceed with the capital commitments to the operating rooms that he made during the election campaign? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as has been said on numerous occasions subsequent to the 1995 election, in looking at our budget for the succeeding two years, two years in which we will be experiencing a reduction in transfer payments from Ottawa of about $230 million annually spread over a two-year period, we

4378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 had to evaluate all of our government's activities and particularly commitments in the area of capital expenditures. That course coincided with the commence ment of the regional health authority system of governance of our hospital system which did require us to take a look at priorities on a regional basis and to see whether or not commitments that were being made on an individual institution-by-institution basis would fit in with a greater plan looking at health care on a much more holistic basis, on a regional basis, and so we are in that process now.

The capital that was in place, the capital intentions that were in place prior to the freeze on capital spending are being evaluated, and I expect that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) will have some indications-just as we have already indicated that one of the priorities that is clearly evident on a province-wide basis is the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation capital works-that has been announced-because it clearly is in keeping with any plan of future development province-wide.

There will be other aspects that will undoubtedly include activities with respect to some of our major institutions, whether that be the Health Scie nces Centre or Brandon General Hospital or other places. But after, and only after, we do this re eval uation and priority-setting in concert with the regional health authorities will we be able to come out with any further information. I hope that will not take too long. Mr.

Doer : Madam Speaker, the Premier knows that during the election campaign, in his election promises of March of 1995, he stated-and I guess we should have been very careful when he made any statements in the cam paign-that all the cuts that the federal government had proposed or incorporated in the promises, and we have costed them out, but of course, he has a different story here today on the Health Sciences Centre capital, the telephones, you name it, a different story.

In light of the fact that we tabled the memo last May in this Chamber, talking about the operating rooms and the sign ificant impact that those deteriorating operating rooms were having on the quality and quantity of health care here in the province of Manitoba, the Premier said in June that the announcements on capital would be made within a month when the government made its comprehensive announcements on the urban capital projects.

Well, the Minister of Health made his comprehensive announcement, so-called, establishing the superboards and the roles of the urban hospitals on August 20 of 1996, and he talked about the sophisticated future of the Health Sciences Centre and the need for operating procedures, surgical procedures and transplant operations. Does the Premier really believe that having fruit flies, leaking ceilings and deteriorating conditions at the Health Sciences Centre 1s the kind of sophisticated future that the Health Sciences will have? Why does he not proceed with his election promise that he has made time and time again? *

(1345) Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I guess when you argue all sides of an issue all the time, the time comes when you get caught playing that game, and the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, just got caught again. He and his colleagues advocate one day for the maximum use of community hospitals and the capacity that exists in our operating rooms in our community hospitals.

Having won that argument, as evidenced in our announcement of August 20, he decides, well, maybe I can win again because maybe everybody will forget what was announced on August 20 and I can come out in October and argue in favour of greater capacity than ever at Health Sciences Centre. Well, maybe the honourable member needs to realize and have it brought home to him that you cannot have it all ways.

The people of Manitoba, through their consultations with the government of Manitoba, made it crystal clear that, let us use the resources that we already have that are in good shape and make sure that they are properly utilized before we get carried away building all kinds of new capacity. We now have a much better idea of what we need at Health Sciences Centre and at St. Boniface Hospital and all the various facilities than we had prior to the announcement on August 20, and work will go forward from there Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, we actually believe the gov ernment is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time; it can plan for the community hospitals and for the major surgical wards. This either/or after the election campaign-[interjection] -

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4379 Well, maybe the Premier wants to stand up and answer why he keeps breaking his promise time and time again. His word means nothing to the people of this province. He can heckle all he wants. His word means nothing.

In light of the fact that there are fruit flies in the operating room; there is a report from the Health Sciences Centre; the Premier made an election promise to deal with the Health Sciences Centre; surgery was cancelled at least three days last week; open-heart surgery was cancelled three days last week, I would like to ask the Premier, what is he going to tell the accreditation team that is going to visit Winnipeg, after their 1995 report, next month, in terms of his promise to build those operating rooms for all Manitobans as he had promised? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, aside from the fact that the question of the Leader of the Opposition has been asked and answered-he did refer in his

preamble to his second question to coronary artery bypass surgery- I point out to the honourable member that for Health Sciences Centre in 1995-96, 941,000 additional dollars were approved for that particular program, and in '96-97, this additional funding was incorporated into the global budget of that facility. The result of the increased funding over the years for these programs at Health Sciences Centre, for example, in '93-94 there were 163 coronary artery bypass surgeries; in '94-95, there were 196 and in '95-96 there were 256--each year up, up, up.

So funding is certainly being made avail able, and I mentioned yesterday that the surger ies overall at the two teaching hospitals for corona ry artery bypass surgery were up from 523 to 729 to a minimum of 1,000 this year-very, very significant increases for Manitobans. Holiday Haven Nursing Home Investigation Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, from time to time all MLAs hear tragic stories about situations that occ ur in nursing homes.

Most of these can be attributed to individual nursing home difficulties at one time or the other, but I have spoken with close to a dozen individuals and had an opportunity to see documen tation about very serious problems occurring at Holiday Haven private nursing home. Is the minister aware of any investigation going on in his department concerning Holiday Haven, and has he received a letter specifically alleging that there was a case of mana gement abuse of a patient and that, as recently as two weeks ago, the fire department phoned that nursing home about problems with a potential fue hazard?

Is the minister aware of any investigation in his department? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, on an ongoing basis, the personal care home req uirements of Manitobans are monitored, and when issues arise that call into question the standards or the ability for personal care homes to abide by the standards that are set, those are issues that are always on the desk of the Department of Health. Madam Speaker, it was not that long ago that a review was conducted into the opemtions of personal care homes throughout Manitoba to have a look at the requirements that are there.

We have a combination in the province of some older buildings and some brand new ones that are all supposed to meet certain standards. It is the res ponsibility of the department to ensure that our standards are being met, and if there are infractions they are looked into by the department and corrective action is taken. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that Holiday Haven Nursing Home has a large number of falls of residents, broken bones and a high rate of skin breakdown? Mr.

McCrae: Well, if there is information additional to that information that is in the possession of the department, we would welcome if the honourable member has something new or some fresh information that we do not already have. We would be very happy to have that information so that we can make sure that the residents in our personal care homes receive the care to which they are entitled under our system and to ensure that no facility falls below those standards that are expected of personal care homes in Manitoba. "'(1350 ) Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that both the Public Trustee, Deer Lodge hospital and other institutions are concerned about patient care at Holiday Haven?

4380 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member has asked these questions now three times in a row, and I have said that my department makes it its business to ensure an ongoing monitoring of personal care home operations throughout the province. If there are further specifics with regard to this particular personal care home, we would be very pleased to inquire into them and look further into the allegations. Investigation-Employee Protection Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): A new question.

Madam Speaker, will the minister today commit that he will launch a full-scale investigation of Holiday Haven, one that includes legal protection for employees of not only the Department of Health but of Holiday Haven Nursing Home when they tell their stories, and will he guarantee that these people who tell their stories will not face any kind of retribution from the department or mana gement? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I would appreciate knowing if the honourable member has information that the department is not in possession of.

I would suggest that it would be his responsibility as well as any other Manitoban's responsibility to bring those issues to the attention of the authorities. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, the minister did not guarantee that- Madam Speaker : Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan was recognized for a supplementary question. Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

When I forward documents to the minister and when the minister has the opportunity to review documents in his department's possession, will he guarantee that employees of the Department of Health and employees who work there, who speak to this full-scale investigation that ought to be launched, will have no retribution or no job action taken against them if they tell their stories? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, without engaging in theatrics as the honourable member has done today, something he does not do all the time but he does resort to it from time to time, there are safeguards in place for people in our province. Our province has a system of personal care homes that works under certain require ments and certain standards and if those standards are bre ached, there are ways to investigate those things.

I will extend every protection that is in my power to extend to people who want simply to do what I want and what the honourable member wants, which is to provide the best possible care for people in the care of personal care homes in Manitoba. Investigation-Interim Management Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, since the department, as recently as December 1989, stepped in to operate a nursing home, will the minister consider the possibility of his department stepping in and operating Holiday Haven Home at least until an inv estigation is complete into the incidents that have occurred at that home and ought to be investigated? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): I understand that there are significant powers in the legis lation that we have on the statute books of Manitoba to allow the government the powers to do what needs to be done to provide protectioo to people and to ensure that their care does not full below certain standards, but while the honourable member is making demands that government exercise the power that it has, why does he, on the other hand, Madam Speaker, argue against every single power bestowed upon the government in Bill 49? Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Consultations Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, in recent days we have seen the degree to which this government will go in terms of MTS and ignoring conflicts of interest with the MTS financial advisory group, 161 Bay Stree t, Toronto, Ontario, but in response to a question yesterday we also heard the Premier suggest that "the government listened to many, many different people and undertook analyses of a whole variety of different perspectives on the issue.

The policy decision was made as a result of a composite of all of the information available to us." I would like to ask if the First Minister could explain why his governmen t received the docwnent from the MTS - -

, October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4381 fmancial advisory group on April 30, 1996, and anno unced the decision to sell MTS, two days later, on May 2. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have talked in the past about, for instance, advice that was received or information that was received from the Crown Corporations Council in which they attributed to Manitoba Telephone System a high-risk category, in fact the highest risk circumstances of any of our Crown corporations because of the $800 million of debt that it was carrying, the highest debt-equity ratio of any telecommunications company in Canada, along with the fact that over 70 percent of its revenues were in competition with the private sector.

I talked about the fact that we had made many other analyses and I refer-there was an

article in the Free Press during the period of time, in the months leading up to that final decision, that the issue was that there was all sorts of strong rationale for privatizing the telephone system. The issue was whether or not in doing so we could get a reasonable price for the people of Manitoba. What the brokers' analysis showed was that we could get a reasonable price for the public of Manitoba, the people of Manitoba, and therefore the decision was straightforward. That is why we made it. *

(1355) Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, I am still trying to get some clarification of the Premier's statement about the many, many people they talked to. I want to ask the Premier if he can also explain why we have received a response to our Freedom of Inf ormation request in terms of what studies MTS has, in terms of privatization, why the response from MTS states that MTS has not had any studies done on privatization and is not using any studies for the privatization of MTS. How does he explain why even MTS was not involved in the privatization decision? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, Manitoba Telephone System is a corporation that operates to provide tele communications services to the people of Manitoba on as broad a basis as possible, as efficiently as possible, as cost-effe ctively as possible. The decision as to whether or not they ought to be doing so in private ownership or public ownership is not that of the corporation to make; it is that of the government that represents the ownership of the corporation. It is the ownership, not the management, that would make that deci sion, and that is a decision that we as a government have taken.

Madam Spea ker : The honourable memb er for Thompson, with a fmal supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as a fmal supplementary, I want to get some clarification again of the Premier's words. Now he is saying-and I want to ask the Premier to clarify this. Is he saying that MTS should not have been involved in the decision of privatization, but he has no problem with them now running a $400,000 adver tising campaign on privatization? Which is it again? Which version of the Premier's word are we supposed to believe on the issue of MTS?

Are we supposed to believe his original promise not to sell or are we supposed to believe his words now trying to explain how they made the decision to sell MTS in two days? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I want to repeat, not that I fe ar that memb ers of the public will believe anything that he says, because he has proven to lack credibility on so many occasions, but again- Madam Speaker : Order, please. Point of Order Mr.

Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, if the Premier is to be concerned about anyone believing words, it should be his words, and I would like to ask him to withdraw his comments about myself and perhaps start for once telling the truth to the people of Manitoba. Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader) : Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I listened carefully to what the member for Thompson indicated in his point of order, and then I mused for a moment about it to determine whether or not he in fact contravened his own point of order by standing up.

I think he asked the Premier to withdraw for something that he just ref erred to the Premier as. So I do not think he has a point of order at all; in fact, he tends to abuse Question Period on a regular basis by standing up on points of order .

4382 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Madam Speaker : On the point of order raised by the honowable member for Thompson, I would remind both the honourable First Minister and the member for Thompson that no one benefits from name-calling and from accusation and innuendo. I would remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words carefully. * * * Madam Speaker : The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, as I have said many times for the benefit of the member for Thompson, and others, and I said at the news conference at which we announced the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System, the fact of the matter is that in April of 1995, when asked whether or not we planned to sell the Manitoba Telephone System, I said, no, I did not see any reason why. Subsequent to that, when we received reports, for instance, that indicated that over 70 percent of its revenues were in competition with the private sector, that with an- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable First Minister, to complete his response. Mr. Filmon: -$800-million debt and the highest debt eq guaranteed by the people of Manitoba and a debt-equity ratio that was the highest of any telco in Canada, Madam Speaker, there was obviously a reason why we ought to take a look at that option and we did and concluded in the end that it was in the best interests of the people of Manitoba to be able to commercialize Manitoba Teleph one System and to ensure that it would have an even stronger future than it does today. *

(1400) Manitoba Telephone System MG Communications Role Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for MTS. I would like to table a document for the House that lists the directors of a telecommunications company called MG Communications. MTS owns 20 percent of this company and has a senior level manager, the director of rruuketing, listed as a director. I do not raise this issue as an accusation of impropriety on the part of either the government or MTS but rather would like to give the minister the opportunity to clear the air.

To his credit he has always stated that he takes any charge of conflict of interest very seriously and with the pending privatization of MTS, I believe Manitobans deserve an answer to my questions. Can the minister explain why MTS invested in a long distance reseller and installed its director of marketing as a company director after the conflict-of-interest problems it had with the bankrupted NetLink communications? Bon.

Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, excuse me, I think the member has identi fied what really is going on in the telecom munica tions industry today. There are niche markets, there are opportunities that need to be addressed by strategic alliance. MTS has taken the maximum owner ship in this particular company, some 20 percent, to allow them to haYe rates across the U.S. border that will allow business to come and be done in Manitoba.

It is an opportunity to expand the business opportunity for MTS in a strategic alliance with a particular company. Any other elemen ts about conflict of interest, I will take as notice and respond back to the member. Mr. Gaudry: I thank the minister for his answer. Will the minister confirm or deny that MTS entered into a long-term contract with MG Communications to provide long-distance time for Manitoba call centres, and will these contracts form part of the KPMG prospectus? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, I think I have already answered that in the first answer, indicating that, yes, they entered into a strategic alliance with a 20 percent ownership to allow long-distance business to happen in Manitoba so there is net use of the system in Manitoba and jobs created in Manitoba as opposed to in the U.S. Faneuil Corporation Telephone Bill Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface ): Will the minister confirm that on May 24, 1996, Faneuil was behind $750,000 in its phone bill to MTS, and will the minister

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITOBA 4383 guarantee today that F aneuil is continuing to pay its bill to MTS on time? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): I can confirm that my understanding at this stage is that they are completely paid on every account with MTS. Fishing Industry Illegal Exports Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Natural Resources-and my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources-he confirmed that he and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) met with Ken Sigurdson and others as stated in the affidavit tabled by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). Can the minister confirm that between he and the Minister of Agriculture, four meetings occurred with this group and that he gave this group permission to export their fish outside the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation? Bon. Albert Driedg er (Minister of Natural Resou rces): Madam Speaker, categorically I deny that statement. Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, is the nuruster contending that those who made the statements in the affidavits are lying, and will he testifY in court to that effect? Mr.

Driedger: When required, I will make my necessary statements. Mr. Struthers: Can the minister tell the House whether it is the normal practice for the Minister of Natural Resources to advise people to break Sections 3, 9 and 13 ofhis own Fisheries Act and virtually all of

Part 3 of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Act? Mr. Driedg er : Totally irr esponsible statements with not one shred of truth in them. Fishing Industry Sisipuk Lake-Illegal Exports Mr. Tim Sale (Crescen twood): Yesterday the Minister ofNatural Resources released a statement saying that he never told Kim Sigurdson and others to fish illegally. No one has ever alleged that he did. In fact, those involved- Some Honourable Member s: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker : Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood, to pose his question now. Mr. Sale: In fact, those involved never alleged that.

What they said was that Pascall Bighetty had a valid licence to fish Sisipuk Lake. What the individuals claimed and still claim is that the ministers involved agreed to let them fish and process fish unhindered for export, contrary to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act. My question to the Minister ofNatural Resources is, what was the substance of the discussions he had with Mr. Sigurdson, Mr. Bighetty and others regarding the taking and export offish from Sisipuk Lake? Bon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Re sources): Madam Speaker, in my meeting with these people in my office at that time the discussion took place on the basis of their wanting to take and catch fish and process them. Basically, the request was whether they could fish in Lake Sisipuk and move the fish to the fish plant in the Interlake. At that time I said I have no ob jection if they got permission from the Pukatawagan Band who are basically the people responsible for that Sisipuk Lake.

If they got permission from them, I would allow them to catch fish and transport them to be processed at the Interlake fish plant out there. The discussion also further to that went on about whether they could export, and that is not within my-I never gave any commitment or authorization because I could not. That is under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It is federal legislation, and I told them at that time that there was no way that they could take and export that. Mr.

Sale: If nothing that was being contemplated was illegal, can the minister indicate why he thinks it was necessary for there to be four different meetings with two different cabinet ministers if all that was being discussed was already legal and acceptable? Mr. Driedger: There never were four meetings related to this sub ject. I met with Mr. Kim Sigurdson at a

4384 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 previous time when he was concerned about what was happe ning at Island Lake and the exclusion from Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation at that time. I supported that request between the four bands that were out there, which ultimately got approval from the federal minister. It also had been requested for the Pukatawagan area. That request was denied by the federal minister. But we never had four meetings related to this issue. Mr. Sale: A new question, Madam Speaker. I want to quote from a letter which Mr. Enns, Mr. Driedger and the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) have. It is from Pascali Bighetty. I am quoting now: I have been recently asked to defend Mr. Robert Gaudry and Mr. Orner Coutu. Both have been charged with offences under The Natural Resources Act. They have pleaded not guilty to these charges for a variety of reasons and contend that they were given permission by both of you to fish within their legal quotas and export their catch. Minister Enns had meetings twice in his office last summ er where he assured Mr. Sigurdson, Mr. Aitken, Mr. Gaudry and myself that the Natural Resources officials would not interrupt or impede this venture.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I want to pose my question quoting from the letter. The letter indicates that Minister Driedger is quoted as saying- Madam Speaker : Order, please. I recognize it is your first question, but we do have guidelines relative to time limits and the member has well exceeded the time limit pennissible. Would the honourable member please pose his question now. *

(1410) Mr. Sale: Would the minister tell the House why in this letter he is quoted as saying, "If it's O.K. with Harry it's O.K. with me." What was okay with Harry, Madam Speaker? Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, in my last answer I clarified exactly the position of what happened at that meeting and the commitment made, and anything beyond that is not true. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, according to our rules, I should have tabled this document since I quoted from it, and I would like to do so. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Crescentwood. W oodstone Technologies Pro,·incial Auditor's Report Release Mr.

Clif Evans (Interlake) : Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Rural Development, and my questions concern Woodstone Technologies, which yesterday filed a bankruptcy and insolvency claim at the Court of Queen's Bench. As the government well knows, we have always supported Grow Bonds. However, we share concerns over Woodstone mana gement which led the Finance minister to order an audit of the company last March, and we understand that the Minister of Rural Development has now had the Pro\incial Auditor's Report in his office for over two weeks.

Will the Minister of Rural Development release the Auditor's Report to the public before creditors vote upon the company's offer, so they will have full benefit of the audit information? Bon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Developmen t): Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for the question. Certainly, there is no question about the fact that Woodstone Technologies are having their fair share of difficulty with regard to restructuring their finances.

Indeed, there was a proposal made before the courts yesterday to restructure the indebtedness of the company in the hope that not only will the company be able to continue but, indeed, the jobs there will be preserved for the long term for the residents of Portage and area. It is also true that we did request the Provincial Auditor to take a look at Woodstone and to give us his recom mendations. This is not the first time that we did this. Back in 1994 my staff asked the Provincial Auditor to come in and do the very same thing to assure us that the processes that were undertaken were as they should be.

At the present time, I understand that staff and the Provincial Auditor are going through the Auditor's

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4385 Report, and when I receive it on my desk I will be more than happy to table it. Debt Write-off Proposal Mr. ClifEvans (Inte rlake) : Madam Speaker, I wish to table the proposal by Woodstone. Has the province agreed to the company's proposal to write off W oodstone's debt to Grow Bonds in exchange fo r pref erred shares in the company, which is in this proposal? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development) : Madam Speaker, with regard to my last response, I should just correct that last statement I made.

The Auditor's statement will be tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stef anson), not by myself . Secondly, with respect to the proposal, there are 21 days in which this proposal will be considered by the creditors. At this point in time, we have just received the proposal, as of yesterday, and certainly we will be paying attention to it. No position has been taken at this time. Investment Protection Mr.

ClifEvans (Interlake) : Madam Speaker, does the minister have confidence in the current management due to the past track record of Woodstone and will further protect public investment, and can he maintain that the province's investment in pref erred shares will not result in further loss if he so chooses to go that way? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development) : Madam Speaker, I should say, first of all, that the province's guarantee to the investors in Grow Bonds is still there, and that should not be in any way perceived as the province not living up to its commitment with regard to the guarantee.

That is in place and it will be honoured, but let me assure the member that it is in all of our best interests to see that W oodstone Technologies continues. They have a technology that I am told has a considerable value to it. Madam Speaker, we want to ensure that that company is managed in an eff ective way so that the losses are no longer incurred and that the jobs that are present in that company in Portage will stay in Portage fo r the benefit of the community and the people who work in that plant. Railway Industry Bay Line Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I would like to respond to a question taken as notice yesterday by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) from the member fo r Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) regarding Churchill, the Bay Line and the current process that CN is involved with in terms of setting up a regional rail system in the North. I want to tell the member that the Manitoba govern ment's position has been very strongly in fa vour of finding an economic and commercial solution to the fu rther operation of the rail lines in northern Manitoba and the Port of Churchill.

We have been involved in various initiatives in that context in terms of the task fo rce, in terms of supporting Gateway North Trans portation and their proposal to CN. I am very confident at this stage that CN is in the negotiation process with interested parties that will lead to that long-term economic viability fo r the lines in the North and the use of the port.

It will lead to more and more economic activity in the North, more and more north-south trade, so I can tell the member this is a very important point in time if the negotiations are going on, but I and my department have a high level of confidence we will see a very successful solution. Farm Lands Owne rship Act Justification Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan Rive r): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has stated many times that he wants to see our hog production double in this province. In the past, Manitobans have met the demand to increase hog production and they will if the demand is there.

We understand that this government is trying to attract hog operations from Holland to bring their operations into Manitoba. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell this House if the purpose of Bill 68 is to open Manitoba borders to allow fo reigners to buy up land

4386 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 in Manitoba to set up their hog operations in this province. Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, the modest amendments being proposed in Bill 68, The Farmlands Ownership Act, you know, ones that we can discuss at committee, are meant and designed solely to make farmlands available equally to all Canadians. They take the Manitoba restriction out. I consider a Canadian from Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia being every bit as much of a Canadian as I am from Manitoba, and that is the limit to the amendments being proposed.

Foreign Owne rship Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House whether Bill 68 will open the door for people from other provinces and foreigners to buy land and then have the opportunity to have access to the elk that this government has captured and said that they would protect for Manitoba farmers? Hon.

Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to assure the honourable member, and again it is my hope the government House leader will-that we will have Bill 68 referred to committee shortly so we can discuss the details of the bill more appropriately at committee stage, but there is no more to the amendments to the farmlands ownership bill that are contained therein. Issues that she raises with respect to hog production from the Netherlands or elk purchases are exercises in fantasy.

We welcome inquiries from around the world to look at the exciting things that are happening in agriculture in Manitoba but certainly it is not being spurred on by any modest amendments on Bill 68. *

(1420) Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister tell us why he will not leave in place the legislation that protects land for Manitobans, rather than opening up the doors and driving up the price of land and restricting Manitobans from expanding, as we have seen when the government has made exemptions and allowed foreigners to buy land in this province? It has driven up the price of land and restricted our Manitoba farmers from purchasing the land. Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) suggests, he is yet to see a single acre leave Manitoba and nor have I.

I want to assure all members of the House our land is strong and safe, and it shall stay here. None of the restrictions with respect to foreign ownership are changed in the act, only those interested to come and fium in Manitoba and meet the conditions with respect to landed immigrant status, and they have to be vetted through this board, the Farm Lands Ownership Board None of those are being changed, I wish to assure her. Madam Speaker : Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker : I have a ruling for the House.

During Question Period on October 10, 1996, I took under ad,isement a point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). His point of order \Vas that the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), in answering a question, was not specifically answering a question and was provoking debate. I took the matter under advisement in order to review Hansard. The question posed was, will the minister release the list of people \\no are supposed to be on those boards and give a guarantee that in future the boards will be elected?

In his reply the minister listed a number of organizations which had raised concerns about the proposed regional health boards. I am ruling that the minister was not dealing with the matter raised, and I would encourage ministers to comply with Beauchesne Citation 417, when answering questions to be brief and to deal with the matter raised. However, in respect to the other part of the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, I do not find that the minister was provoking debate. * * * -

, October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4387 MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Kiwanis Courts Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek) : I want to inform the members that a couple of weeks ago Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts, a facility in the constituency of Sturgeon Creek, had the official opening. I had the pleasure, along with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), to attend this event. The Kiwanis Courts is a senior complex located in the constituency of Sturgeon Creek at 2300 Ness.

The Kiwanis Courts has been providing secure and affordable nonprofit housing for those in their retirement years for over 30 years. Building on this unparalleled tradition of service and with an eye towards the future, the complex was completely renovated and upgraded. The reconstruction of this building will ensure that it continues to serve those in their retirement years for many years to come. The building is already fully rented, and there is currently a waiting list for future occupants. I think this shows the fme reputation that the staff of the Kiwanis Courts have helped to build.

It is also an acknowledg ment of the comfort and security that the residents receive at Kiwanis Courts. Many of you are aware of the challenges I faced with it in trying to get this facility reconstructed in order that seniors could benefit. I know that members across the way were doing their very best to try and stop any progress and improvements that I was trying to make for the seniors in Sturgeon Creek. I know that the members opposite will particularly be disappointed to learn that all things are well and good in Sturgeon Creek.

I would like to go on record on behalf of the residents of Sturgeon Creek and thank the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and all my colleagues in the government in supporting me in providing these well-deserved seniors with a tremendous facility. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minnesota Seniors Federation Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, October 16 , the president ofthe Manitoba Society of Seniors, Mary Pankiw, and I attended the 21s t annual convention of the Minnesota Seniors Federation in Freeport, Minnesota.

Over 300 seniors renewed friendships, debated resolutions and heard from representatives ofthe U.S. senatorial candidates. The Minnesota Seniors Federation will be concentrating on three areas of concern over the next year, health care reform, prescription drug costs and social security, issues that are of deep concern to Manitoba and Canadian seniors as well. Mary Pankiw and I found the Minnesota seniors to be warm, friendly and very interested in our health care issues. They travelled to Winnipeg in 1995 and again this sunun er to publicize the need for prescription drug refurm in Minnesota.

This year, they also participated in the home care strike. The Minnesota seniors were extremely pleased when we told them that the home care system was largely public, due in no small part to their participation in the home care strike. I know all Manitoba legislators wish the Minnesota Seniors Federation good luck in their continuing fight for a safe, healthy and secure future for Minnesota seniors and will recognize that their fight is our fight. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker : Order, please.

I wonder if I might ask all those members having private meetings to do so either in the loges or outside the Chamber. Kathleen Brown-Royal Victorian Order Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize in the House today a very s�ial event that happened in London, England, this morning, which I feel deserves our recognition. This morning, Mrs.

Kathleen Brown, Chief of Protocol for the Province of Manitoba, and someone who is known and respected by all members of this House, was awarded the honour of the Royal Victorian Order by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in a special ceremony at Buckingham Palace. This is the 1 OOth anniversary of the Royal Victorian Order established in 18 96 by Queen Victoria and it is an award conferred for extraordinary important or personal service to the sovereign or members of the royal family. Mrs. Brown is the first Manitoban to ever receive the award and she was also the only Canadian

4388 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 named to the Queen's Birthday Honours List announced in June. On behalf of all members of this House and indeed the people of Manitoba, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Brown on receiving this very prestigious award. Minister of Justice Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, we witnessed in recent weeks the tragic spectacle of a govermnent which will not take responsibili ty fo r its mistakes. When that happens, the parliamentary system is diminished and the respect of citizens fo r a fundamental democmtic fo rum is lost.

So there is a great deal at stake in the Premier's refusal to request the resi gnation of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). We know that the Minister of Justice knew in May that there was no space in Manitoba's jails for people sentenced to intermittent jail sentences. The minister's error was in not inf orming all parties to the justice system: Crown attorneys, def ence lawyers and, most importantly, the judges who must pass those sentences. Some def ence lawyers knew; most Crown attorneys and judges did not. We had, theref ore, in Manitoba unequal justice and that is a most serious matter.

If an accused person cannot be guaranteed equal justice, then there is no ju stice. The minister and the Premier have tried to evade responsibility. They blame it on the Headingley riots, but this cannot excuse the minister's error. It does not explain the existence of unequal justice. They have argued the minister made mention of the difficulties of accommodation during Estimates, but reading Hansard is not required of judges or Crown prosecutors and it cannot be reasonably expected that they would have known of the changes from this.

Hansard is not the official gazette, nor does it carry the weight of a ministerial written notification . The minister's argument does not exonerate her from being responsible fo r unequal justice in the courts of this province. Finally, Madam Speaker, the minister has tried to pass off responsibility fo r her error to her civil servants, naming them by position. This is unacceptable. Civil servants are bound by confidenti ality oaths; they cannot respond publ icly to the minister' s accusations.

Not only has the minister betrayed their trust, but she and the Premier have in so doing undermined the fundamental role of the civil service, and that is to be able to speak truth to power. Can any civil servant in Manitoba now be secure that the minister will not use him or her to evade what is in parliamentary practice ministerial responsibility? Madam Speaker, I will conclude with the words of Monique Begin, when she wrote to the Krever inquiry.

Justice is off ended, she said, if people at the top of govermnent in bureaucratic structures are not held responsible fo r their actions but employees at less senior levels of the hierarchy are. Moreover, public ethics requires that those at the top be accountable. I believe the Minister of Justice- Madam Speaker : Order, please. The honourable member's time has long expired. * (1 430) Immigration Agreement Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Madam Speaker, I ju st wanted to take a couple of minutes to extend congratulations both to the fe deral minister and the provincial minister with respect to the immigration bi lateral agreement that has been achieved. Over the years, it has always been a very important issu e fo r the provincial caucus because we have recognized and acknowledged the importance of the bilateral agreement or at least to achieve that bilateral agreement.

Manitoba, indeed, will benefit tremendously by achieving this particular agreement and hopefully what we will see is a governm ent that is aggressive in terms of trying to match the needs of the province of Manitoba with the many diff erent immigrants throughout the world that want to be able to contribute to Canada, in particular to the province of Manitoba, and provide opportunities fo r those people while at the same time allowing the social fa bric and the economic fa bric of Manitoba to do that much better as a direct result of this particular agreement.

So I applaud all those individuals that have participated in ensuring that this agreement was achieved -

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4389 today. I have not read over the details. I know I have some very strong opinions in terms of the numbers that I would have liked to have seen. Personally, I had liked the idea of 1 percent for the province of Manitoba based on our population, and hopefully, Madam Speaker, we were successful in achieving what is in Manitoba's best interest. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet tonight at 7 p.m. to consider Bills 36 and 49. The public representations having been concluded on both those bills, we will now be dealing with clause-by-clause consideration. An Honourable Member: And maybe 54. Mr. Ernst: Well, Madam Speaker, those bills for sure and if there may be a subsequent bill, I will announce it later in the House.

I would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet tomorrow night, Wednesday at 7 p.m. to further consider Bills 32, 33 and 47, Bill l2 having been concluded, I understand. Madam Spea ker : The Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet this evening, Tuesday, October 22, at 7 p.m. to consider Bills 36 and 49; tomorrow, Wednesday, October 23, 7 p.m, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet to consider Bills 32, 33 and 47. Mr. Ernst: Would you call the Opposition Day motions, please. OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Mrs. Wowchuk), that

BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly indicate its support for the maintenance of the Canadian Wheat Board as a single-desk selling agency, and reject the Western Grain Marketing Panel's recommendations which would weaken the Canadian Wheat Board; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Manitoba government to join with the Saskatchewan government to intervene in opposition to Alberta's court challenge of the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly. Motion presented. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to move this motion today, and I want to indicate that I feel it is a really good opportunity for all members of this Legislature to talk about an issue that has been the subject of some discussion and, dare I say, some controversy in Manitoba. I look forward not only to the vote later on in this motion, but also the contribution from all members of this House, whether they be from rural Manitoba or whether they be from other areas of the province, because I think we all recognize to begin with the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board.

It is the largest employer in Manitoba or the largest company in terms of volume. It has had a very significant role for Canadian farmers and currently we benefit greatly from the marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board. Our market share is far greater than it would be, I believe, under any other system, approaching 22 percent, and I think it is important for us as we stand to begin discussion on this resolution to recognize that fact, just how important the Canadian Wheat Board is. I also want to explain the intent of this resolution. We want each and every member of this Legislature to take a stand.

I note that many members on the government side have been-[interjection] well, it depends on where they take a stand. There are a number of members who are on the record very clearly as being opposed to the current Wheat Board structure, who want to see the single-desk approach eliminated. There are a number of members on the record in their own communities, in the press, the local media, indicating very clearly that is where they stand. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) I know there are many people out there making that argument. There are certainly some farmers and a

4390 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 number of people who perhaps are not necessarily fanners but are truckers, who have been actively trying to break the law, have been involved in a number of lawsuits, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the intent is to break the Wheat Board. Let there be no doubt about it. If we were to follow the course of action that is being followed by this group of farmers-and I would suggest, a small group of fanners and, more particularly, a small group of truckers who are not active farmers-we would see the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Now I want to focus in on some of the relevant points of the resolution because there are a number of positions that governments are taking. The Alberta government is very clearly opposed to the current Wheat Board structure. The Alberta court challenge, I believe, would lead to the end of the Wheat Board as we know it, and I think it is important to recognize that the Saskatchewan government is taking a very strong position on that.

The Saskatchewan government is going to be involved in interventi ons, court action, that it is going to look at the current situation with the Wheat Board, and I say that we look, as is outlined in the resolution, to our government to do the same thing. Last week I had the opportunity to tour much of rural Manitoba with my colleagues the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). We were out listening to people on a number ofissues-Manitoba Telephone System-but I can tell you another issue we were listening to people on was the �eat Board.

Everywhere we went and talked to people m the coffee shops of rural Manitoba, it is very much an issue that is on people's minds. What I find inter esting is the historical perspectives of some of the people who can talk about what happened prior to the Wheat Board being in place and being in this dominant position. You know, they are saying that all these opponents of the Wheat Board currently are trying to truck grain into the United States; they basically want to roll back the clock and they reminded people about what an inequitabl; system that was.

I know the member for Swan River talk_� very eloquently, within her ov.n family, renuruscence s of what happened before the Wheat Board provided the kind of service it does to Canadian farmers. That is what I find interesting, because if I can pull out the sort of confused message that we get from the Con servatives across the way, the first thing they do is they try and duck a clear position on this issue. If they had a clear position, they would be there involved in the court case either supporting the Alberta or supporting the Saskatchewan position. We want them to support the Saskatchewan interventi on.

But they try and duck that. When they get out into their 0\\'11 communities, I notice a number of members and I think the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) is one of them who has been very clear on the record-who then start stating their position.

If you read between the sort of the official nonposition and then compare it to the position they state in their communities, there can be no doubt in my mind that this government does not support t�e Wheat Board as it currently exists, particularly the smgle-desk position. * (1 440) The biggest red herring you will hear is the talk of change because, of course, there have been changes to the Wheat Board. There have been significant changes throughout the Wheat Board's history. Sign ificant changes. There will always be chan ges.

But, at some point in time, you cannot use change as a way to get out of taking a position of princ iple, a position that you have to take when it comes to some key decisions. Whether you want to argue this, that or the other, at some point in time, you are either for or you are against the single-desk type of structure. You are either for or against the court position taken by Alberta. You support either the Alberta or the Saskatchewan position. You canno t have it both ways.

Yes, there are changes, but the bottom line is, do you support the Wheat Board basically with a fundamental position and strength that it has as a single-desk agency? That is what we want to hear from all members of the Legislature. I can say that our caucus has been very quick. We outlined in this motion, we want to see support for the Saskatchewan interven tion. We oppose the Alberta court challenge. We do not think the Alberta court challenge represents the best interests of western grain producers.

Not only that, I would suggest that many people in Alberta would question their position, but we very clearly believe that, apart from a minority of producers, the vast majority of people in this province want to see the Wheat Board maintain its current monopoly position. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what con cerns me the most when we are dealing with nwketi.ng agencies-and I follow very -

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 439 1 intently some of the previous discussions we have seen in terms of hogs, Manitoba pork, the whole debate. I have watched very much the debate on the Wheat Board. In the end, at some point in time, for a marketing board to have the ability to act as a true marketing board, you have to have the central element of the single-desk. There may be some minor exceptions to that, but, once you start going to the heart of getting away from single-desk, you do not essentially have a marketing board in the sense that we know that we have a marketing board.

We are in a world, by the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where a lot of things that could be changed cannot be unchanged anymore due to free trade and N AFT A, and that is why decisions nowadays are that much more important. It used to be that, if you did not like what a government did, you could vote it out. Nowadays there are greater consequences. I know this is a concern that has to be expressed in terms of marketing boards, because once you lose something like the Wheat Board under the free trade and NAFTA, you cannot necessarily get it back, and that is something that has to be noted on the record.

I think too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one thing is very clear. I talked about the position in this House of different parties, and that the federal position essentially is no position at all. I think they have managed to take people on one side of the issue and on the other side of the issue and satisfY no one. Typical Liberals, I suppose, one might be tempted to respond, and I look forward to the Liberal position in this House on this. I hope they will speak out because the federal position-I believe what people are saying out in rural Manitoba was : it opens the crack up going into this election.

They do not want to be seen as opposing the Wheat Board, but they are opening the doors. I, at least, give credit to some of the Conservative members for stating their position. This is very clear that they support the Alberta position, and I think that is something that I give them credit for. I want to just conclude by saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is definitely an issue out there. It is an issue not just amongst farmers, but many rural Manitobans who understand that agriculture issues are key to the development of their communities.

I talked to many retired farmers who are just as concerned about what is going to happen in terms of the Wheat Board as they would be as if they were active farmers. That is why we brought this motion forward to the Manitoba Legislature. Some may say, well, is this not a federal issue? I do not believe it is. I believe this is one of the critical two or three issues facing Manitoba, and I say all of Manitoba, including rural Manitoba, but those of us in any area of the province.

I think that it is important that we as legislators take a stand, and I look forward not only to the speeches on the record today from all members of this House on the vote, because I believe we have an opportunity, if this Legislature supports this resolution, to make a very clear position in support of the intervention in opposition to the destruction we would see of the single-desk marketing principle, that under lying principle of the Wheat Board.

We have the opportunity to take a stand, and I would urge each and every member of the House to support this resolution and send a clear message to the federal government that we support the Canadian Wheat Board, and we support it with the single-desk principle being untouched, one of the basic principles of the foundation of the Wheat Board. Hon. Harry Eons (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate this issue this afternoon in the Manitoba Legislature.

It is an issue that regrettably will continue to be debated and discussed probably with some increased vigour as farmers across the land put their machines away for the season and fmish up their fall work and have that bit of extra time to discuss with neighbours about the issue that is extremely important to their ongoing well-being, the well-being of our province, the well-being of our country because, as I am fond of saying, although in our highly urbanized society where surprisingly 3 or 4 percent of our population is actively engaged in food production, we make an inordinate contribution to the overall economic well-being of our province and of our country.

In the province of Manitoba, it hovers around the 20 or 22 percent that this 3 or 4 percent of Manitobans who are actively engaged in food production contribute to the well-being of our province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, how often do we hear from members of the opposition, certainly from interested

4392 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 members in the public that before a government or before a minister makes a hard and fundamental decision on an important issue that the responsible jurisdiction, in this case the federal government, the federal minister should back off, should study the matter, study the matter with competent people to provide them all with the necessary information on the sub ject matter and then to take the results of those recommendations to a significant degree of public discussion, public debate throughout the jurisdiction, throughout the part of the country where this is an important issue?

In this case the Canadian Wheat Board has of course the jurisdiction restricted to western Canada . That means Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and to a lesser extent British Columbia. Now, with all due respect, and giving full credit to the federal minister, the Liberal federal minister, the Honourable Mr. Ralph Goodale, he did just that.

He recognized well over a year ago that there were growing difficulties and discontent that was beginning to manifest itself, admittedly with a relatively small group of producers that were challenging the way we have traditionally, certainly since 1946 with some changes, marketed and governed the distribution and sale of cereal crops, principally wheat, in western Canada. So in response to that, he did not act hastily. He did not act inadv isedly. No, he did what I have just described a little while ago.

He looked about and found himself, what he believed in his judgment, and I happen to concur with him, a competent group of experienced Canadians to sit on a committee, sit on a farm panel to examine the issues that confront the Canadian Wheat Board and what is demanded in a rapidly changing marketplace, the kind of marketing structures that are required as we move into the year 2000. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the federal minister had full authority to do all these things. He appointed qualified people from Alberta, from Saskatchewan, from Manitoba.

I can tell honourable members that the Manitoba delegation on that, sometimes described as a blue ribbon panel, was one of our better and aggressive farmers, Owen McAuley, from the western part of our province, a solid grain producer and cattle producer, I might add, who has often been called upon to provide advice, not just to provincial governments but to federal governments. He was a main architect to some of the initial safety programs like the GRIP program that were formulated five or six years ago, was working on behalf of the federal government at that time.

He has worked on behalf of the provincial government in various advisory capacity roles. He was our Manitoba representative on that blue ribbon committee. I cite that only to give you an indication that these were not some faceless bureaucrats or civil servants that Mr. Goodale found to do his bidding. These were people who seriously looked at the wheat question, at the grain board and at the Wheat Board. * (1 450) Mr. Deputy Speaker, what did they do? They did not just ship themselves down in Ottawa or in any other capital city of the West and deliberate amongst them selv es.

They actively moved within the communities. They held meetings. They held meetings in Brandon. They held meetings in Portage. I think there were about five or six meetings in Manitoba. They had more meetings, as you would expect, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta. They consulted directly with farmers involved on this question. All ofthis took the better part of a year. They then sat back and digested everything that they had heard on the landscape and, in due time, produced a report.

We refer to it as the panel on the Canadian Wheat Board study report Those recommendations, certainly as you would expect, did not meet all the expectations of the various positions people for grain farmers have with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, but they did make some very fundamental suggestions. For those who believe that I am one of them, the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) wants this clearly put on the record, I also want to put on the record that really what the member for Thompson and the New Democratic Party's position and the National Farmers Union party's position is with respect to the Wheat Board. It was stated just by the member for Thompson quite eloquently. You know, it is time to take a stand. Just take that stand, and let the rest of the world pass you by, because this is a changing world. He said they do want to just take that stand and not budge and not acknowledge what is happening in the world and the world will pass them by.

These experts on the panel, they knew the Canadian Wheat Board had to change to survive. I reject the resolution as being put before this Chamber calling for us essentially to ignore that basic fact. - -

" October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4393 One more little piece of inform ation. It is quite likely that the Alberta court challenge currently bef ore the Wheat Board would have been withdrawn if the fe deral government would have had the willingness to accept the advice fr om their own panel of experts . I received that bit of information directly from the Honourab le Walter Paszkowski, the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta. Taking all of that into account, I am confident that the position that the Manitoba government is taking on this issu e is the appropriate one, is the correct one .

We believe there is a future, an ongoing future and a viability to the Canadian Wheat Board, but it must change, and we accept, for the most part, the changes as recommended by the panel report. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in the House today in support of the resolution that we are debating in support of the continuation of the single-desk selling under the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would hope that members opposite will come to the vote this afternoon, later on, in support of our position as well when they have had a chance and an opportunity to hear the debate on all sides ofthis issue. I will agree with one of the comments that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) made when he said that even though there are only 3 to 4 percent of the people in Manitoba actively engaged in food production in the province, it has had a far greater impact on the history of the province of Manitoba and continues to have a far greater impact curr ently in the province of Manitoba than 3 or 4 percent would lead one to believe.

The issues that face the province of Manitoba in agriculture continue to be in all the surveys that are done of people in the province, continue to be a high priority and a high concern for the residents in the province of Manitoba, which I think is remark able, given the fact that our population is becoming more and more concentrated in the Capital Region. Upwards of between two-thirds and three-quarters of the people in the province of Manitoba now live in the Capital Region.

While there is a farm actually located inside the city limits of the city of Winni peg, that is an anomaly, and the Capital Region is becoming more and more urbanized rather than a combination of urban and rural . If we were not discussing the Canadian Wheat Board, I would like to go on at length about the problems with the urbanization of the Capital Region. However, I do want to agree with the Minister of Agriculture that agriculture plays an enorm ously important

part in the livelihood of many Manitoban s, and the Canadian Wheat Board, more specifically, plays an incredibly important

part in that agricultural component of our provin ce's economy. The Canadian Wheat Board, headquartered in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, is the only firm, the only firm headquartered in Winnipeg to make the Financial Post top 500. The glass is either half empty or half full in that. I mean, you could say, it is too bad that Investors or Great-West Life or other financial institutions have not made the Financial Post top 500, but it is, I think, very indicative that our one claim to fame in this context, in the Financial Post top 500 corporations, is the Canadian Wheat Board .

The Canadian Wheat Board employs directly 500 people in the city of Winn ipeg. It is not a small economic factor in the city of Winnipeg. Just the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board itself have a major role to play in the economic life of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. So when we are discussing the future of the Canadian Wheat Board we are not talking about something that is only a fe deral responsibility. We are not talking about something that only relates to 3 or 4 percent of the population of the province of Manitoba who are directly engaged in food production.

We are talking about a major player in the province of Manitoba. We are talking about, as I have stated in this House in the past, when people outside the province of Manitoba, when people outside Canada are asked what they know about Winnipeg or Manitoba, if they know anything at all about Winnipeg or Manitoba they used to know about the Winnipeg Jets, they know about the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. Many of them know about the Museum of Man and Nature-it is not the Museum of Man and Nature anymore, but what was called the Museum of Man and Nature . Many people will know about the Western Canada Aviation Museum.

There are areas that people know about in the city of Winnipeg, but one very important factor in the city of

4394 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba is the Canadian Wheat Board. Not only is it in the Financial Post top 500 corporations, but it is also our link to many parts of the world. It is our link in Manitoba because it is headquartered here. It is also important to the other grain-producing provinces. The Canadian Wheat Board is ju st not a Manitoba or a Winnipeg entity; it is something that has a great deal of importance to the entire economy of the prairie region.

We all know that the prairie region needs all the help it can get from viable economic institutions such as the Canadian Wheat Board.

When we are losing out in many cases to British Columbia, to Alberta, to Ontario, to the States, much of our former economic greatness, we have major problems coming up in our ability to be seen as a transportation hub, which is something that used to happen, but with the cuts to jobs to CN and CP, with the closing of-the emasculation of the Weston yards, with the cuts to rail transportation, jobs going to Montreal, jobs going to Alberta, we have a problem in our transportation hub. "' (1 500) We have problems in our financial institutions.

We used to be seen as a headquarters of many of the insurance companies, et cetera, and we are losing those head office jobs. Head office jobs are leaving the province of Manitoba, and it is not only the loss of those jobs that is a problem, it is a loss of the influence that those jobs give. The fact that you have a head office headquartered in Winnipeg, in Manitoba, is very important, and right now, basically what we have is the Canadian Wheat Board.

So it is important economically to the province of Manitoba; it is important economically to the city of Winnipeg; but, more importantly, the Canadian Wheat Board is an essential component of our prairie provinces' economic and, I would suggest, social fibre. If we lose the Canadian Wheat Board, and I will agree with the motion that, if the recommendations of the Goodale commission were to be implemented, it would not mean change for the Canadian Wl)eat Board, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has stated.

It would not mean just change; it would mean, within a very short period of time, the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think that is the crux of the matter here. The crux of the difference between our position, the position that is put forward here, and the position of the Minister of Agriculture, and perhaps some of his other colleagues, is that you can make the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that were recommended in the Goodale commission without, in effect, destroying the Wheat Board. Our position is you cannot make those kinds of sweeping changes.

It ultimately comes down to the crux of sing le-desk selling. Our position is, yes, there are changes that need to be made at the Wheat Board, but one change, I would suggest to the members opposite, that must not be implemented is the elimination of the single-desk selling. The Canadian Wheat Board must retain its capability for single-desk selltng, or it will, in effect, be no longer the Canadian Wheat Board.

The province of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg, the prairie region itself and even, I might suggest, the country of Canada would be the poorer without the Canadian Wheat Board's ability to maintain the single-desk selling. That is the crux of this matter. That is the reason we are in opposition to the Alberta government appeal; that is the reason that the Farmers for Justice are, in effect, farmers for just us. We must maintain the Canadian Wheat Board single-desk selling ability, or we will have lost a major component to our economic and social viability. Thank you. Bon.

Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my grandfather was Harry Pallister. He was a farmer and he was a fellow who went around to all the neighbourhood kitchens and talked to the farmers in my area, which is Edwin, Manitoba. He proposed to them that they get together and bring their grain to the elevator, the local elevator that they would establish. They established that elevator because he had one pool. My grandfather was given the honour of hauling the first wagonload of grain by horse and wagon to that elevator, the first wagonload of wheat. My dad was a farmer.

My dad was instrumental in the founding of a local trucking association, the co-op trucking association, which made available hard assets that farmers individually might not have been able to afford but collectively they were able to do that. My brother, Jim Pallister, actually a fourth-generation farmer, set up a local marketing club that benefited the farmers of our area tremendously. He has been -

" October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4395 instrumental with scholarship support in sending over a dozen 4-H members to post-secondary training, and he is a member of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' and the Farmers for Justice. What do these gentlemen have in common? Each of them was interested in social justice. Each ofthem was interested in more than themselves. They were interested in their neighbours and their neighbours' well-being, and all of them were willing to stand and challenge the status quo.

In the rabid defence for institutional regimentation the members opposite lose sight of something very important. When they attack people who are willing to oppose a status quo position they lose sight of the individuals and they discredit the motivations of those individuals. This is co-op week. Co-ops were started in 18 44 in Rochdale, England, with 28 weavers establishing themselves. Now the co-op movement has grown so that in this country there are more than 12 million Canadian co-op memberships coast to coast, 10 ,000 co-operatives established in this country.

The members opposite, when they attack individuals, reveal an ignorance of the history of their country, of this region, of this province, and of the farmers of this province. Co-ops were founded as our pools, as our caisse populaires and credit unions, as was the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, which some of the members opposite may be familiar with, on the Rochdale principles. The foundation upon which each of these successful organizations stands is the Rochdale principle No. 1, voluntary membership. The Canadian Wheat Board is not a co-op.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not exist on the basis of the Rochdale principles, since it was given a legislative monopoly by the federal government. Due to the war effort patriotic farmers supported it at that time. By the way, for members opposite, the war has been over for some time. The reality is that the Canadian Wheat Board is not a co-op. Membership is not voluntary and the members should know and should make the distinction between those two things.

The very foundation of the Co operative Commonwealth Federation was the principle of voluntary membership, so when they speak in defence of institutions they should be sure to make the distinction between a co-op, a true co-operative, and what it is they defend. The defence of minority views in our society is something that many of us have risen in support of The members opposite curren tly are in a minority position and so they should listen, I believe, carefully, as carefully as I listened to their views. Mr. Deputy Speak er : Order, please.

I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but those members who want to put their voices to the record will have plenty of opportunity. We have a good afternoon to do that. At this time, I would appreciate it if we would all listen to what the honourable member has to say and maybe he will listen to what you have to say when it is your turn. The honourable minister, to continue. Mr. Pallister: Our society rests on a foundation which is one that recognizes that minority views are important and should be heard.

So it is that we listen in this House on a regular basis to the views of the members opposite who are in a minority. I respect that and I respect their right to express their views. The reality is, however, when they rise in defence of the Canadian Wheat Board as a monopoly institution then they are agreeing to the suppression of minority views, and that is a contradiction in itself. When society allows for the suppression of minority views there must be a compelling case made that those views should be suppressed to the greater benefit of all in society. Such a compelling case must be made and has not been made.

Such a compelling case needs to be made if the members are to support their position that the Canadian Wheat Board should remain as a coercive monopoly in its structure. The New Democratic Party says that in this province farmers should be jailed if they have a minority view. They say that it is unacceptable to hold such a view. That is not reconciliation, that is intransigence, it should not be accepted as an intelligent position, and it is not by members on this side of the House.

The reality is the New Democratic Party view in Manitoba is a minority view in the sense that over 90 percent of western Canadian farmers support some changes to the Canadian Wheat Board,

whereas the members opposite support none. * (15 10)

4396 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Furthermore, I think it is important to recognize that the position of the members opposite is not one that is held by fanners. I have lived among fanners, I am proud to have been raised by a fann family, I have spoken to many fanners in this province, I have worked with fanners most of my life, and I can tell you that fanners are fair-minded people. That was reinforced the other night when I got a call at home from a gentleman, in the member for Interlake's (Mr. Clif Evans) riding, from Ashern.

He phoned me at home late at night-and I do not mind that, I like that-and he said that he was very concerned. He said he felt that the federal Liberal government's handling of this issue was arrogant and embarrassing. He said he felt it was especially arrogant to commission a $2-million panel to study and hear the views of people concerned with the issue and then ignore their recommendations.

He also said, he also suggested that this issue was divisive, and he was very concerned that the proposals that the federal government had made in terms of resolving it would exacerbate the circumstances around it, the division around it, to the detriment of all Manitobans. He said he felt that it was important for me to know that he was a strong Wheat Board supporter and so were his friends, but he felt it was not fair or just that fanners should be fined or jailed as a consequence of not agreeing with him .

He suggested something, and I share this with the members opposite as a position that he put forward, something for them to consider. He said that in his area there were a lot of co-op supporters. He said that he was under the understanding that membership had its privileges, but he also said that meaningful membership requires a commitment. So he suggested that those who do not agree with using the Canadian Wheat Board or would like to use it occasionally should not have that right.

He suggested to me that they should either join or get out, one or the other, and that they should make a five-year commitment if they wish to support the Canadian Wheat Board. He likened the benefits to be derived by associating with the Canadian Wheat Board, which are indisputable benefits, he likened those benefits to a rowing team. He said if you are on a rowing team you cannot just ride, you cannot just sit there and get the benefit of everybody else's work, you have to pull on the oars.

You cannot steer a different way or you are going to have a negative effect on the team, and you sure as heck should not be rowing against everybody else while you are in the same boat. He sug gested that the fanners who do not want to be part of the Canadian Wheat Board should not be, and they should go their ov.n way. He said it without malice ; he said it in a fair-minded way.

He said he did not wish them bad luck, he hoped they did just fine, but that if they wanted all the benefits, they had to make the commitment commensurate with supporting the Canadian Wheat Board, and that is what he put forward as a proposal. I raise it today in the House in the spirit of nonpartisanship as something that the members opposite may like to give some thoughts to. I think the key issue is with any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, there has to be an assured supply of grain.

This particular gentleman suggested to me, he felt that if fanners had to make the commitment one way or the other, in his estimation 95 percent of the flow, minimum, would be guaranteed. The flow of wheat would be guaranteed to continue the way it was going to the Canadian Wheat Board. He felt that the principle of volunteerism as it exists with co-ops and with the various other organizations that are founded on voluntary membership would actually be a source of additional strength to the Canadian Wheat Board in our society.

In closing, I would just like to say that whichever panel, the panel's recommendations or the recommendations from this gentlemen from Ashern, whichever suggestion you would like to consider for members of this House, I think it is far preferable and superior to the alternative that is being proposed by the members opposite, which puts us on a divisive path of inflexible rigidity, which is a betrayal to our own history, which is a betrayal to the tolerance, the understanding and the accommodation of minority views that we have exemplified in our province and our country for many years and which would simply see us constructing more jail cells for fanners.

Thank you. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Government Services just insulted everybody who has a rural and fann background in this provmce. -

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4397 My grandfather was Stan Paul. He was a farmer in the Swan Valley region. His frrst job was working on the threshing teams that used to criss-cross the Swan River Valley and take the crop off every fall. He worked his way up to being a foreman of one of those threshing units. Then, once the technology changed and things moved on, my grandf ather, Stan Paul, understood, as many Manitoban farmers do, that things change. He understood that the way we farm changes.

What he also understood, what this member who spoke previous to me and this minister and this government cannot understand or maybe does not want to understand, is that there are certain principles that do not change. What they have to decide is whether they are going to stand up for the principle of fairness in agriculture or whether they are going to stand up for the cheap way to make a fe w quick bucks for a few quick elitists in the farm world today, and that is the decision that you have to make. To stand in this House, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and try to get people to believe that just because he has a farm background, the Minist er of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), that nobody else understands this issue, is just an absolute slap in the face for all of us who have put so much time and eff ort into building the rural part of this province and not just the rural part of our province, because we know that the urban part of Manitoba depends basically on rural Manitoba and the success of farming in Manitoba.

So let not the members across stand and righteously claim that somehow they have a monopoly on what is right for rural Manitoba because many on this side also have our roots firmly rooted in rural Manitoba. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member. An Honourable Member: You are losing control, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Spea ker : No, I will not lose control, Mr. Minister. At this time, the honourable member for Dauphin has the floor. Some of us have had the opportunity to put our words on the record; others are waiting.

At this time, I would like to hear the honourable member for Dauphin. The honourable member for Dauphin, to continue . Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to say that I am awfully proud of the work that my grandf ather did in the area of agriculture, and I am awfully proud that he passed those principles upon which he stood down to my mother's generat ion, who also understands the importance of rural living and the importance of agriculture in Manitoba.

I would like to think that I picked up on a little bit of what my grandfather seeded way back then, before the Wheat Board was put in place in 193 5. I will tell you, when my grandfather used to hitch up the team of horses and haul his wheat to the grain buyer in Swan River, he did not know in the morning, when he left his farm, what that price was going to be by the time he got to the elevator in the afternoon. He was so much at the whim of the grain buyer at the time that the price could fall right through the floor when the grain buyer knew that he could not turn around with his load of wheat and take it back.

The grain buyer knew that my grandfather had to dump that wheat there, no matter what the price was. What this government and what the Liberal govern ment in Ottawa is proposing is that we go back to those days, we get rid of the single-desk selling advantage of the Canadian Wheat Board. The members across the way can laugh, and they can attack my family and a lot of other rural families the way they have been on this issue. They can turn this into personal issues all they like, like they have been doing, but they do not have one shred of evidence to say what I am saying is wrong.

They rely on cliches such as freedom, cliches such as choice, the freedom to choose, the freedom for a very few farmers in locations in this province close enough to an American market, big enough to supply an American market, maybe; those are the few that they think should have the choice. Those are the ones that they think should have the freedom to choose where they market their grain. Then, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when the Canadian Wheat Board is lost and the single-desk selling advantage of the Wheat Board is gone, it will be those same farmers who think they should get right back into the Wheat Board and depress farther the price of grain. That is where we are headed with this deci sion. That is where we are headed in Manitoba agriculture right now. I think that deep down, when you scratch very deep into this

4398 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Conservative government, they know what I am saying is right. They will not admit to it. Most of them will not stand in this House and say, I am a dual marketer because they know that all this rhetoric they have been throwing at us about all the polls that have been taken, they know that they are blowing hot air on it. They understand that farmers want single-desk selling to be kept as is. That is the one part of the Canadian Wheat Board that farmers do not want to change.

Other things, farmers say, sure, we can put up with a change here and a change there, but if you change the single-desk selling advantage of the Wheat Board you have killed the Wheat Board period. Do not pawn it off as some kind of a marketing club for farmers. Do not tell us that the Canadian Wheat Board is going to have its advantage when we get rid of single-desk selling. You are trying to fool people and it is not the honest way of doing things. Some of the members across the way do have enough courage to say where they stand on this issue. The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), the member for Morris (Mr.

Pitura), they have both stated that they are in favour of dual marketing. After the plebiscite in Alberta on hogs, the minister himself, the minister said that his position on the Wheat Board was the same as his stand on the Manitoba hog marketing board. So what is it? Why will this government not just be honest, stand up to the farmers in Manitoba and say, we believe in dual mruketing?

You are not going to do that because you do not want to face the wrath of farmers who disagree with you fundamentally. * (1 520) It would be the honest thing to do and I would hope that this government decides which way it is going on this issue. Both the Keystone Agricultural Producers and the National Farmers Union, I know how touchy the government is when somebody mentions the National Farmers Union, but both Keystone Agricultural Producers and the National Farmers Union say that you are doing the wrong thing by losing the advantage of single-desk selling, and they point to studies.

They do not pull cliches out of the air. They point to studies, the studies say that producers would lose money without the Canadian Wheat Board. The studies that they produce say that farmers would have lost more than $50 a tonne on barley and about $27 a tonne on wheat if they had gone to the open market as opposed to single-desk selling. Name me one fact that you have that says that dual mruketing is better than single-desk selling. Do not just reach up in the air and pull out all kinds of old, worn-out Tory cliches and toss them across to us, and do not put them out to the farmers of Manitoba.

Give them some facts, give them some figures, give them some statistics that back up your case. I challenge you to do that, knowing full well that you cannot do that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to point out, too, that in the three prairie provinces a committee of agricultural economists who studied the Wheat Board concluded that the Wheat Board contributed $34.50 per tonne more to producers than they would have received in an open market system. Again, there is something that the govern-ment just has not been able to refute.

I want to put forward probably the real reason why this current government is a dual marketing favoured government. It fits their ideology. It fits exactly into the way they see the problems shaping up over the next number of years where a very few fanners may benefit at the expense of the very many. If my grandfather were alive today, his stomach would turn just to hear what this government is doing in the field of agriculture. My grandfather would be deeply offended by the speech that the Minister of Government Services (Mr.

Pallister) just foisted upon this Legislature and the slap in the face that many people in this province have just got after years and years of struggle and toil in planting the seeds that has made this province great. Thank you. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and put a few words on the record about the circumstances that agriculture faces. I guess I speak from the position of having been a Minister of Agriculture, being involved in the agricultural industry and hearing peoples' views on a consistent basis.

I think it is like any other issue. There is not a black and there is not a white. This is a world of change. You cannot deny change. Things are moving and, if we are going to succeed economically, it is going to require that we adapt to that change on an ongoing basis. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has put some comments on the record. Probably I will refer to them directly but it is not always about, you can make a circumstance fit your ideology. I

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4399 think it applies to the members opposite. It probably applies to us too. I think back to the circumstances agriculture was in in the mid-'80s, late '80s, in terms of, farmers were receiving $2 a bushel for wheat when their costs were $4 a bushel. Governm ent had to step in in a very big way to help the farm community in western Canada to survive circumstances beyond any of their control, beyond the Wheat Board's control, in terms of how the world price of wheat was set.

We came through that process by working together to evolve in a changed way how farmers were supported. Clearly those days of government being able to step in and support farmers when that kind of urgency happens again are very, very limited. We stepped in at a time when it was necessary but if it happens in 1998 or the year 2000 because of actions taken by Europe, the United States, the farmers will not be able to depend on government in Canada as much in the future as they have in the past simply because of economic circumstances that exist. The member opposite mentioned conditions of 1935. Well, this is 19 96.

Things are different now. Farmers are more sophisticated. The degree of technology that they have at their disposal in terms of being able to know what is going on in the world is significantly improved. The way the Wheat Board operates has significantly changed in the last 25 years. I have dealt with the Wheat Board for a long time, and I have watched them function and not change until they get pushed to the wall, and then they do do some changes. I think back, and will just mention some of the things that have happened, and these are all positive elements on how they do business on behalf offarmers.

Back in the late 1960s the people that fed grain, hog and cattle farmers, were saying that they are not getting a fair price for feed grain. So a dual market was set up in western Canada called a nonboard feed market and a board feed market. So we have had a dual market within western Canada for 25 years. I remember before that happened the same hue and cry of, the sky is falling, came from members opposite and the NFU.

I would like the members opposite to point to one instance where that did not work in terms ofbetter arbitrage of the price of feed grains and the price of pork and beef in the North American market. It worked. You have to evolve in the change in a progressive and reasonable and mtional way, and the process that is being gone through right now is, how does the farm community maximize its return from the marketplace in a wide variety of things they produce? The Wheat Board has the sole responsibility for selling wheat and export barley, not domestic barley, but export barley.

The farmer may grow sugar beets, canota, flax, peas, lentils, fava beans, hogs, beef, and he does not need a monopoly to sell those commodities. So I am insulted when the member opposite says that farmers cannot compete. Absolutely they can. It is imperative that they have the flexibility to compete. Now, the federal government looked at the issue and said, we have got a challenge here, how do we adapt?

The panel of several experts from across western Canada, with widely divergent points of view in terms of their history, went through a significant process of consultation-some $2 million worth has been mentioned here today-and came up with a series of recommen dations of some degree of progressive change. They did not recommend getting rid of the monopoly on selling wheat. They did not recommend that. They did not recommend the dual market in wheat. So the members opposite had better be carefui of how they try to project gloom and doom when it really does not exist.

I will tell you that the strong supporters of the Wheat Board also want greater accountability, a little increased flexibility, a little adaptation to allow our producers to maximize their net return, and it will happen in a lot of different ways and a lot of different steps. Many of the recommendations of that panel are okay with the majority of producers, but I want the members opposite to understand very clearly: It is not black and it is not white; it is a series of grays, it is a series of evolving changes. An Honourable Member: It is kind of like a Holstein. Mr.

Findlay: Well, Holsteins are black and white unfortunately, as my urban member mentions Holsteins:

4400 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 1996 Mr. Deputy Speaker, the members opposite-Alberta has taken a strong position on one side of the issue, a very strong position that they do not believe the Wheat Board can exist. Saskatchewan has taken another position that says, well, nothing can change, we have to lock our heads in the 1970s and stay there. We are taking a much more progressive position in that- An Honourable Member: As you would expect. * (1 530) Mr. Findlay: As we have always done.

We are at a state of changing circumstances with regard to what we produce and where it is marketed and where it is exported to. Just look at the Wheat Board, the challenges they have had We used to sell almost exclusively to Russia and the market is totally gone. Bef ore that, almost exclusively to Britain; that market is gone. Today it is Pacific Rim; it is U.S. That is dramatic change, and the Wheat Board had done a goodjob of evolving in that process. So it is not about getting rid of the Wheat Board or locking ourselves into a hopeless situation of no change.

It is a process of constructive change, and the panel made a lot of recommendations in that context. We cannot let our ideology get in the way, as the members opposite do. They quote the NFU, they quote Saskatchewan. That is not a progressive way to deal with the circumstances, because you cannot deny that the fa rmers of Manitoba are the furthest from salt water of any exporting part of the world, and if we are going to have a growing economy in Manitoba, we want the majority, as much as possible of our commodities produced on the fa rm to have further value added bef ore they are exported.

So the Wheat Board has to evolve so it can allow that to happen without putting in the way many restrictions that used to exist in the past. I think we need to talk about how we evolve to maximize the income of fa rmers, the ability of the Wheat Board to function and the ability of value-added industries to be developed in Manitoba to create jobs in Manitoba. Agriculture is a producer of raw product, and if there is any problem agriculture has had over the last 20 or 30 years, we exported too much in the raw fo rm.

We must do more of that value-added process, and I think that was recognized in the panel and the discussions they had with the various people. How do we evolve to promote jobs in Manitoba and western Canada? With the WGTA disappearing, you talk to fa rmers today. Ask them what they see on their grain receipt. They see a big freight bill that astounds them and those costs passed right back to the fa rmer. Now he has to be able to adapt to get the best price, whether it is contracting with the Wheat Board or contracting through the Wheat Board with a niche market somewhere.

Let us say, some buyer wants 16 percent No. I wheat. Well, how does that buyer get 16 percent No. 1 wheat? He cannot pick it up at Thunder Bay or at Vancouver or Montreal because it is a blend there. The funny thing is the fa rmer goes to the elevator and he sells wheat 12 percent protein, 14 or 16, it is all dumped in the same bin. You cannot go to a niche market that wants high protein with that process. You have to be able to contract directly from the buyer and the producer through the Wheat Board or through an agent of the Wheat Board to allow that connection to happen, to serve that niche market.

We cannot ignore those opportunities, because there are certain markets in the world that want that. Maybe it is a certain variety of wheat, maybe it is a certain protein content, maybe it is a certain lysine content, those opportunities exist and we can do that. We do it with canola, we can do it with french fries, we can do it with hogs, but we need to change and evolve so that other opportunities fo r farm ers happen.

My missi on is always to maximize the return fo r the fa rmer at the farm gate, allow him to use every mechanism possible to do that, and I personally believe the Wheat Board can be a strong ally in that process but it must adapt and change with things that are going on. The panel has started to open the door to more change. As I said earlier, many changes have happened. Whether it is dual marketing in domestic feed grains, whether it is contracting direct to the producer or whether it is reducing the amount of restrictive quotas that fa rmers had to deal with, we made those changes.

We need to allow them to continue to make changes that will allow the industry to grow and the economic return to Manitoba, not only on the farm but off the farm , to expand and grow - -

October 22, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 440 1 in the province of Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to stand today and speak to the resolution that the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has brought before us and to speak in support of this resolution. I want to go back for a few moments though, back to the comments that were ma

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-68
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 68.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	437595d69c20648c7171ae565da67f9590d27972

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