Manitoba Hansard — 12 September 1988 (Sitting 34A, 34th Legislature, 1st Session)

34-1-34a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 37 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOl. XXXV II No. 34A - 1:30 p.m., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1988. ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

NAME ALCOCK, Reg ANGUS, John ASHTON, Steve BURRELL, Parker CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CHARLES, Gwen CHEEMA, Gulzar CHORNOPYSKI, William COIII NERY, Edward Hon. COWAN,Jay CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DERKACH, leonard, Hon. DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DRIEDGER, Herold, L. DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Laurie EVANS, leonard FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen Hon. GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold GRAY, Avis HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R. HEMPHILL, Maureen KOZAK, Richard, J. LAMOUREUX, Kevin, M.

MALOWAY, Jim MANDRAKE, Ed MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. McCRAE, James Hon. MINENK O, Mark MANITOBA lEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fourth legislature Memb ers, Constituenc ies and Political Affiliation CONSTITUENCY Osborne St. Norbert Thompson Swan River Fort Rouge River Heights Selkirk Kil donan Burrows Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose du Lac Roblin- Russell Concordia Arthur Emerson Niakwa Aiel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Fort Garry Brandon East Tuxedo Vir den St.

Boniface Minnedosa Ellice Ki rkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Gimli Logan Transcona ln kster El mwood Assiniboia Morris Brandon West Seven Oaks MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. Rossmere OLESON, Charlotte Hon. Gladstone ORCHARD, Donald Hon. Pembina PANKRATZ, Helmut La Verendrye PATTERSON, Allan Radisson PENNER, Jack, Hon. Rhineland PLOHMAN, John Dauphin PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Turtle Mountain ROCH, Gilles Spring field ROSE, Bob St. Vital STORIE, Jerry Flin Flon TAYLOR, Harold Wolseley URUSKI, Bill lnterlake WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy St.

Johns YEO,Iva Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP PC LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC NDP NDP PC NDP LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC LIBERA L LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL NDP NDP LIB ERA L

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, September 12, 1988. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Federal Government Provincial Patronage Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker , my questio n is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon ). Late last week, the federal Government on ce again by-passed Mani to ba in prov iding funding to a multimillion dollar oi l sand project or oi l mega project at Lloydmi nster, heavy oi l, of course on ce again outside the Province of Manitoba.

This time, Alberta and Saskatchewan are going to benefit from the mun ificence of the federal Government. This weekend, a former senior environ mental official infor me d us the federal Go vernment has sha fted Man ito ba by supp or ting an irr igati o n project in Saskatchewan which severely thr eatens Manitoba's environ ment. Will the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon ) tell this House when will Manitoba cease to be the victim of federal Conservative patronage? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , just in case the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs) is not aware, I will tell her that we do not have any heavy oil here in Manitoba so we could not apply for that particular project. She is well aware of other programs and other init iatives that we are pursuing, and we are quite confident some of them will be recogniz ed and supported by the federal Government when we have a specific proposal to put forward that requires federal aid.

With respect to the issue of the pr oj ect in � Saskatchew an-the Rafferty-Aiameda Dam project and the allegati o ns of the effects that were made by the lawyer for the federal Government, I might indicate that my Minister of Natural Reso urces (Mr. Penner) has had a number of meetings with respect to that particular project with both the federal Government and the Government of Saskatchewan. Unlike the predecesso r Government, we have had our Minister of Natural Resour ces actively involved ensuring that Man ito ba's in terests were being prot ected.

The previo us ad min istra tio n wo uld no t meet with eith er Saskatchewan or the federal Government on those issues. I will turn it over to my Minister of Natural Res our ces (Mr. Penner) to give more specific details to the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs). *

(1335) Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speak er, it is certainly reass uring to know that when we have a project, we might get it funded. We thought this Government was pro active. Environmental Programs Rafferty-Aiameda Project Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): We have a question, please, to the Minister of the Envir on ment (Mr. Co nnery). In light of these new revelatio ns, has the Minister of the Envir on ment changed his position with regard to the envir on mental impli cati ons of this project on Man itoba? Hon.

Edward Connery (Minis ter of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health): I can assure the Member op posite and the people of Manitoba that when we took office, we on ly strengthened the resolve to ensure the water quality and the quantity for Manitobans was there. We are very strong in our commitment to ensure that is th ere. As the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon) said, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) is the lead Minister in the negotiations and we will have him answer that questio n. Mrs.

Carstairs: We have an Envir on ment Minister in this provi nce, and my questio n to the Minister of the Envir on ment: Has he ever been consulted about the environm ental impa ct of this project? Mr. Connery: We have had many , many meetings on the environ ment issues and the impacts of the water quality and the water volume tha t is comi ng down the river from Alameda. As the Member shoul d know, it is water quantity that is the concern because that will have the greatest effect on water qualit y. Since the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner) is the Minister who is negotiating with the federal Government, he will give you those answers. Technical Committee U.S./Cdn. Environmental Study Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): To the Envir on ment Minister: The U.S. Army Co rps of Engi neers, the U.S. Wildl ife Agency and now a senior Canadian environmental official have all stated that it will have a negative environ mental impa ct on Manitoba. Will the Minister now or der an environmental impact study in this province? Hon.

Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): I think it is time that the House knew that the re has been an on going technical committee established by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, the Government of Mani toba and the Government of Saskatchewan. This technical committee has studied not only water flows but also water qualities, which will result as of the construction of the Rafferty Aiameda Dam. The Province of Saskatchewan did an environmental impact study in their own province, but we must 1166

Monday, September 12, 1988 remember that environmental impact study in Saskatchewan pertain s to Saskatchewan only, as it only can. The Army Corps of Engineers in the United States has done , and is doing, an environmental study for North Dakota as it will affect North Dakota. The technical committee has indicated that they will table their findings and their report at the beginning of September, and we are waiting for that report.

However, if and when Manitoba would have or would do an environmental study, it would only be for within the boundaries of Manitoba and would not give us any environmental effects of water flowing from out of the Rafferty-Alameda system. Mrs. Carstairs: My question to the Environment Minister once again, environment leg islation makes it possible for him to conduct a study . Will he conduct an environmental impact study in Manitoba, for Manitobans, by Manitobans, to serve Manitobans? Mr. Penner: If the Honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs) wants to waste the money of Manitobans to do a study that would indicate absolutely nothing until we have heard from the technical committee that has been established to study exactly this, can anybody in this House tell me why we should, until we have the results of that study of that technical committee, enter into another study which would cost large amounts of money, which might just be duplicating what was already being done? *

(1340) Legislative Authorities Manitoba Impact Study Request Mrs. Sharon Carstairs {Leader of the Opposition): With a question to the Environment Minister (Mr. Connery) once again, if it is important enough for Saskatchewan to do impact studies and it is important enough for North Dakota, why is it not important enough for the Manitoba Environment Minister to do his job? Hon.

Edward Connery (Minister of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health): I would like to assure the Honourable Member that we are doing our job, that we have a committee in place that is looking at all the ramifications of all the areas involved, as the Minister for Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) has already said. We have that technical committee in place. Once that report comes through, we will have an opportunity to review the recommendations, and I am quite sure that we will do-well, I am not sure .

I know we will take the action that is required, but we have had ongoing meetings, we have had staff in Ottawa on an ongoing basis . There was a meeting last Friday of the individuals involved. Mr. Gotleib is meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources and myself on Tuesday. There is another meeting in Bismarck, North Dakota, on Wednesday. Our departments are on top of this issue. We have a resolve to ensure that Manitoba has the best quality water and volume of water that we can obtain. Tabling Assessment Request Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): In view of the fact that a former senior official to the federal Minister of Environment has indicated that the Rafferty Dam was approved as part of a backroom deal with Grant Devine, rather than after due consideration of Manitoba's concerns; and in view of the fact that the federal Minister did not even follow his own department 's guidelines with regard to environmental assessment and review that called for a public inquiry by an independent panel on projects such as this before they are licensed ; and in view of the fact that this incompetent Minister of Environment (Mr.

Connery) says that it will have positive effects on the Province of Manitoba , will this Minister of the Environment now explain to this House and the people of Manitoba why he supports this project, and will he table that information on which he has based his assessment in this House today? Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to indicate to this House that, as of June 22, I met with the Americans or my staffpeople met with the Americans, as well as with Canadian and Saskatchewan officials, to discuss the quantity and the quality of water coming down the Souris River.

On August 25, I met with the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan, and we discussed quantity and quality of water coming down the Souris River. On September 9, my officials met with American officials , Saskatchewan officials and Canadian officials to discuss again the quantity and quality of water in the Souris River. We are, as the Environmen t Minister (Mr. Connery) has indicated , meeting again this week not only with the federal and American and Saskatchewan officials, but we are going to also meet with Mr. Gotleib to discuss the Souris project.

Now I want to indicate to you that this is more , by far, that we have done in the last three months than the previous administration has done in three years to deal with the environmental impact of water quality in the Souris River. *

(1345) Mr. Plohman: The fact is that the federal Minister of Environment licensed that project on June 21 when this Minister was in office and when that Minister of Environment (Mr. Connery) was in office, and they did nothing at that time. I would ask this Minister of Environment whether he will at this time, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner), stop blaming someone else for their incompetence on this issue , and demand that the federal Minister now pull back on that licence for Saskatchewan on that particular project and demand that the federal Government immediately undertake the studies that they had promised to the people of Manitoba and provide us with that information immediately before going fo rward and allowing Saskatchewan to go forward with that project . 1167 Mr. Penner: I think the Honourable Member opposite should know that the licence issued to Saskatchewan .,

Monday, September 12, 1988 to start construction on the dam project states very clearly that the licence shall comply with any obligatio ns and respo nsibili ties which Canada may assume under any agreement entered into with the United States in respect to the impr ovement and any su bseq uent improvements or agreements ther eof. I think the op posite Member also needs to know that I person ally wrote a letter to Mr.

Clark asking that he go to the Un it ed States and ask the Am eric an Government to put in place somebody who will have the autho rity to give us the assurances that water flows coming ou t of North Dakota into Manitoba, in future, would be of the quality that is presently entailed in the agreement of 19 59. Mr. Plohman: I have never seen so much nons ense in my life. After the horse is ou t the barn, now he is going to ask for this infor matio n. The fact is ... . Mr. Speak er: Or de r, pl ease. The Ho nour able Government House Leader, on a point of or der. Hon.

James McCrae (Government House leader): Th e Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has been up several times today to put questio ns, and he knows that at this point in the game a carefully drawn

preamble is not even required at this point, just a questio n at this point of the proceedings. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honour able Government House Leader. If the Honourable Member for Dauphin would kindl y put his questio n. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker , I would ask the Mini ster of Natural Resour ces (Mr. Penner) to table that letter that he said that he has written to Joe Clark. And I would also table at this particular time a chronology of the efforts that our Government undertoo k on this issue, as well as letters that we sent to two federal Ministers, McMillan and Joe Clark, as well as the .

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have rec ogn ized the Honourable Member for Dauphin to kindly put his questio n. We are not tabling the repo rts. Clean Environment Commission Public Hearings Request Mr. John Plohman (D auphin): If this Mini ster of En vironment (Mr. Connery) -Mr .

Speak er, I am prepared to table this informatio n- will not contact the federal Mini ster of Env iron ment, Tom McMillan, who issued this licence as a result of a backroo m deal instead of on the basis of the interests of Manitoba, if he will not ask him to conduct the studies, will this Mini ster immediately convene hearings of the Clean Environment Co mmission so that Manitobans have an opp or tunity to voice their concerns on this project? Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.

Speaker , not onl y has this Government clearly indicated that we will not stand for it, we will not stand for water qual ities coming down that Souris River that 1168 are of a lesser quality than they were prior to the construction of that dam. Secondly, we have asked for assurances of substanti al and substantiated water flows down that Souris River.

I think we need to indicate the kind of cooperatio n that we have received from the Americans, as well as from the Saskatchewan people, when it comes to not on ly water flow, because it is on ly in year s like this when the pools in the Souris Rive r, when the rivers such as the Souris River quit s flowing, would become stagnant and the water would deteriorate to standards that we could not live with. lt is because of constructions that have taken place on the Souris River on previous water retention systems that we have been able to ask our American friends to flow waters down that Souris that would give our peop le water, not on ly water of better quantity than what would have been flowed down that river had there not been any construction on that river but better quality water.

Not onl y have they complied with the 20 cfs. flow under the provisions of the 1959 agreement, but they have increased not on ly to 20 cfs. but to 35 cfs. to give us water down the Souris River, a good quality water. * (1 350) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speak er, this Minister of Natural Resources talks about coop eratio n. I ask the Minister of the Env ironm ent (Mr. Connery): Was he consul ted bef o re tha t li cence was issued prematurely by the federal Minister of the En viron ment, and does he agree with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner), that hearings of the Clean Environment Co mmissio n in Mani toba would be a waste of money? Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker , as I indicated to you before, we have a four-party committee that is looking into not on ly quanti ty but also quality of the Souris water coming down that river. I am quite pleased with the results that we have been able to ob tain so far and the assurances that we have obt ained up to now and during the last two months of discussions with our American as well as our Saskatchewan counterparts. The letter that I received in respo nse from Mr.

Clark indicates very clearly that they are as concerned about water qualiti es for Mani toba as we are, and that we have assurances from the federal Government that no actio n will be taken that will deter the quality of water that we receive. Rafferty-Aiameda Project Manitoba Impact Criteria Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): My questio n is for the Minister of Labo ur and Env iron ment (Mr. Co nnery). The Saskatc he wan Env iron menta l Im pact Assessment Studies on the Rafferty-Aiameda have been faulted for their poor ly done water quali ty studies and the fact that there is little downstream study that has

Mond ay, September 12, 1988 been con ducted by them. North Dakota has had its Environmental Impact As sessment co nducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers. That report, alth ough relega te d to North Dakota , makes nega tive co mments on what will happ e n to Manitoba's water. On four other occasions, we on th is side have asked for furth er informati on for a compl ete study, along with public hearings. Mr. Spe aker, my questi on is tha t without adequate data, it is absolute ly impossible to know wha t the potential impacts are on Manitoba from the Rafferty Aiameda.

Wha t data, if any , is the Government using to co me to its absurd co nclusions? Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health): As the Member knows, we ha ve already told him, there is a technical committee in place tha t is negotia ti ng. I th ink, Mr. Speaker, th e important issue th at people of Manitoba should know is tha t th e main body of wate r which comes into Manitoba at the North Dakota Manitoba border origina te s in North Dakota. Prior to the dam going in, only 19 perce nt of th e water th at en ter s Ma nito ba from North Dakota origi na tes in Saska tchewan.

Saska tc hewan, by law, has the right to withhold or to impound 50 percent of tha t water. Wha t we will be seeing, Mr. Speaker , is about 10 percent of th e wate r co mi ng into Mani to ba, origina tin g in Saskatc hewan. Our concern is with the wate r coming out of North Dakota, the quality of water and the volume of water. Lake Darling is the major structure tha t controls the flow of wate r into Manitoba.

The Minister of Natu ral Resources' Depar tment and the Depart ment of Environment are working in cl ose cooperation with the federal Government We are having consul tativ e ta lks to en sure tha t Manitoba will at least maintain its existi ng flow of quali ty and quant ity. We are trying to increase the volume of water th a t Manitoba will be rece iving under th e 1959 In te rna ti onal Agree ment . Souris River Agreements Sigued Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): A questi on to th e same Minister, my question is to th e Minister of Labour and th e Environm ent (Mr. Cannery).

Given tha t there is insuf ficie nt wa ter in th e Souris River basin in Saskatc hewan to fill th e Rafferty-Aiameda reservoirs and tha t th ere is consideration to ta ke more of Souris wa ter th an 50 pe rcent and also to diver t Sou th Saska tc hewan wate r sout h to fill th ose re se rvoirs instead, Mr. Speaker, what studies has th is Minister ordered to carry out on th e impa ct of th ose furthe r water diversions on the northern Manitoba fishery and on the genera ti ng capacity po tential being limited of Manitoba Hydro? Hon.

Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): lt becomes fairly evid e nt when you li ste n to th e questions coming from Members oppo site tha t they have very litt le understanding of the real world out there.

When we talk about the ability of towns such as Souris to be able to avail th em selves of a quant ity of water ; when we talk about th e ability of farmers being able to avail the mselves of a quantity of water tha t thei r catt le and their farm s are being able to be maintaine d; whe n we ta lk about quality of wate r down in the Souris; whe n we talk about the whole debate and discussion tha t has gone on in the la st two or th ree months; whe n we ta lk about the processes tha t we have initia ted as a Government, then it becomes fairly evident th at , if th e Members opposite would want to come to my office and sit down and discuss privately wh er e we were at at th e disc ussions and th e negot iati ons th at were going on, we will provide them with th at But I will not stand here and debate or negot iate , either in th e media or in th is forum, the agree me nts th at we are inte nding to reac h with Saska tc hewan and th e federal and th e Ame rican Government. * (1 355) Mr.

Speaker: Order. We are not debati ng. Order, ple ase . We are not debati ng. This is Quest ion Period. The Honou rabl e Memb er for Wolse le y, with a supplementary question. Mr. Taylor: My question-a nd I hope it is to the Minister of Labour and the Environment (Mr. Connery) and not th e Member furth er sout h. As a giv en, th er e are adequ ate resources in the province , both within his department and in th e form of th e Interna ti onal Joint Commission to conduct proper studies which would produce the information required.

Will th is Mini ster assure the House and all Manitob ans th at he will not co ncur in the Rafferty-A iame da project as proposed until some appropr iate study has been carried out, or has he already signed away Manitoba's rights? Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker , I want to assure you and the House tha t noth ing will be done to deteriorate and no agreements will be signed to deteriorate the water qualities on th e Souris River. Keystone Club Political Membership Mr.

Reg Alcock (Osborne): So we see Rafferty Aiameda being proceeded with to help out Grant Devine at th e ex pense of Manitoba, nut we are familiar with th is kind of th ing, Mr. Spea ke r. We ha ve see n untendered co ntracts to the friendly firms by this Gover nment, tr ave l business routed to frien ds, the wholesale replace ment of boards and commissions, and now we hear about the Ke ystone Club. Mr. Speaker, my questi on is to the First Minister.

Has the Premier agreed to partici pate and have his Ministers partici pate in th e Keystone Club, membership in which is obta ined by the payment of $1 ,000 to his poli t ical Party? Mr. Speaker: Order, pleas e. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , I suggest th at the Member tor Osborne (Mr. Alcock) consult his 1169

Monday, September 12, 1988 colleagu e smiling, sitting behind him, because I recall when he raised this issue in 19 81. He said that this was some se cret orga ni zat ion th at was go in g to some how curry favour with the Governm ent because the se pe ople we re contribu tors to the Conse rvative Par ty. The fact of the matte r is, Mr. Speake r, that Member s of my Government will go an d speak before the Ke ystone Club, as they will before the Ca nadia n Club, as they will before the Chamber of Comme rce or environmental groups or labour groups or any other groups in this province upon invitatio n .

They will go an d they will provide informatio n an d respond to questions openly an d honestly about this Government an d its intentions for the betterment of this proviro;:;e. The Keystone Club is one of many organ izations that my Ministers will speak at an d provide informatio n to. We are meeting with the Young Presidents' Organization some time later this fall, literally hundreds of groups th at we will go an d spe ak before an d provid e informat ion about all the plans, all the commitments, all the ideas we have to make a better province an d a better life for Mani tobans. Mr. Alcock: Mr.

Speaker , I would be inte rested in knowing the fees he is charging th ose groups. I am glad though he referenced the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. An gus), beca use it was in fact during the Lyon Government the Member for St. Norbert made that comment. He suggested that, since the City of Winn ipeg could not get access to the Government, pe rhaps the City of Winn ipeg should purchas e a membership in the Ke ystone Club because that seemed to be the only way in which you could in fact get . . . Mr. Speaker: Will the honoura ble Member kindly put his ques tion ? Mr.

Alcock: Howeve r, I would like to ask the First Minis ter {Mr. Filmon), Mr. Speaker , is it the policy of this Gov ernm ent that some Mani toban s shall hav e ea sier access to the Government tha n others, access determine d by a donatio n to his political Party? .. (14 00) Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Speak er, I can tell you that the Member for St. Norber t (Mr. An gus) was as wrong then as the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is today in his alle gation. I can also tell him that, of my own free will, I am a member of the Keystone Club, as are several me mber s of my admi n istratio n.

They be liev e in supporting their political Party and they make finan cial contri butions to the political Pa rty, just as I see when I review the reports of contri butions made by Members opposite that all of them make contrib utions, or many of them, to their political Parti es. That is the way in which we fund our elections. That is the way in which we fund the efforts of our political Parties an d we make those contri butions. But I say this, Mr.

Speaker, that under no circumsta nces do I accept access to me or to my Party based on political pre ference, based on membership in a Pa rty or membership in an y other organizatio n , or contri butions to our Party, under no circumstances whatsoever. Mr. Alcock: I am ce rtain ly plea sed to hav e that re assuring stat em ent from the Fi rst Mini ster (Mr. Fil mon). Perhaps then , in the spirit of open Government, you might tell us how many members of the Ke ystone Club have received appointments from this Gov ernment or are members of firms that ha ve received contracts from this Government? Mr.

Filmon: To be quite frank with you, I could not tell the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) the answe r to that because I do not make myself familiar with who is a member of the club. lt never affects an y decisions that I make or an y informatio n that I make. There may well be hundreds of member s of the club. Under th ose circumstan ces, if some of them happ en to get appointments or work, it is because of the fact that we are making appointments of peopl e from all walks of life, from all areas of the province .

Under those circums tance s, the re ma y we ll have been some appointments that we have made who were members of the club. If so, I can assure the Member for Osborne it was not because of the ir membership in the club that they we re appoint ed. Unemployment Figures Minimum Wage Stats Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to address a quest ion to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Conne ry) who, in answ er to a ques tio n from my colle ague, the MLA for Logan (Ms.

Hemphill) last Friday, the Minister infer red that an increase in the minimum wage in Mani toba was the reason for the worsening of the youth unemployment in this province . But, Mr. Speaker, the recent statistics publis hed by Statistics Canada do not provide evidence of this. What the figure shows is that unemployment has worsene d August over August, this August compar ed to a year ago, for those over 25 tha n for those under 25.

For the youth, the increase went from 11. 0 percent to 11 .3 percen t, that is 0.3 percent incre ase , those over 25 it went from 5.9 percent to 6.5 percen t, an incre ase of 0.6 percen t, substantially quite a bit more. My question for the Minis ter then is this: How can th e Mini ste r concl ude tha t wors eni ng youth unemployment is a result in the increase of the minimum wage ? Hon. Edward Connery (Min ister of Labour): What 1 said on Friday, an d I guess the Member was not listening too well, the re was a varia nce in the mini mum wage for th ose between 15 an d 18 and for th ose over 18.

I said to the Member that I asked the Department of Labour to do a study to see what effect that had on the em plo yment of young people between the ages of 15 and 18. The y in cl uded Sask atche wan in the re because they also ha ve no spread between the minimum wage to young people . The conclusion of that study sho wed that unemployment to youth between 15 an d 18 incre ase d. The re is no increase in unemployment that is acceptable to any Government an d much less to this Government. My collea gue , the Minister of 1170

Monday, September 12, 1988 Industry, Trade an d Tourism (Mr. Ernst), is working hard with the rest of his colleagues to ensur e that we can ha ve the best work clim ate for people in Mani toba. We are no t happy with an y of those statis tics, an d we will work our hardest to make Manitoba a good pl ace to work an d where the unemplo yment level is low. Mr. leonard IEvans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to studies an d surveys an d so on.

I would like to find out from him exactly what survey he is talking about or what study he is talking about, because the re have been many studies an d many surveys, an d there are arguments on both sides of that theoretical question. I would suggest that if he is so positive about a study or a survey that he has done with informatio n that he has that he should table it in this House. I would ask him at this point to table that informa tion for all Members of this House. Mr. Connery: Mr. Speake r, obviously the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Evan

s) thinks that this is a fictitious survey that was done. I would be very pleas ed to table this study. lt would have to be tomorrow because I do not have it in my hand but I would be very pleased for him to peruse it. Training for Tomorrow Program Cancellation Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon lEast): A supplementary question about studies an d surveys, it was indicated the other day in Inte rim Supply that the Train ing For Tomorrow Program -(Interjec tion)- My quest ion is with regard to the Train ing For Tomorrow Program which was terminated as of June 30, a major multimillio n dollar job program involving small business giving permanent jobs to mostly youn g people. This has been terminat ed.

I would like to know from the Minis ter what studies has his departmen t or has the Government concluded to stop this major program which has given thousands of jobs to young Manito bans over the years? What studies have you done there ? Hon. Edward Connery (Minis ter of Labour): Mr. Speak e r, I have asked our department to do further studies on the emp loyment an d the effects of various programs, but that will come forth in a ma tter of time. When we have that information availa ble for the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Eva ns), we will make it avai lable.

We are concerned as well-a nd I respe ct the Member for Brandon East being concerned about unemployment in Mani toba. We are eq ually or more so. When I have more information for the Member for Brandon East, I will make it availabl e . Human Rights Code Minimum Wage Reduction Mr. Allan Patterson (Radisson): My quest ion is to the Mini ster of La bour (Mr. Connery). On Friday, the Mini ster state d his concerns about the mini mum wage for younger people, the teen age rs of 16 an d 18, an d we all recognize that unemployment among youth is high an d that solutions for this problem are very despe rate ly needed.

This Government must indeed be short of ideas 1171 an d solutions if the only manner in which it feel s a problem can be dealt with is by introducing such aggressive measures as lowe ring the minimum wage . Let me assure the Minister that the higher mini mum wage is not the cause of youth unemp loyment in Mani toba, but rather his Government's lack of in itiative in this are a. Furthermore, an y such action would result in a clear violation of the Manitoba Human Rights Co de. Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: The Honoura ble Member for Rad isson , to finish his question. Mr.

Patterson: My question is to the Minis ter: Is he going to recommend the lowering of the mini mum wage for those under 18 ? Hon. Edward Connery (Minis ter of Labour): Mr. Speake r, all decisions on the mini mum wage go before Cabi ne t, as you know. Appropria te recommendations will go before Cabinet an d those decisions will be made. I do not foresee an y lower ing of an y minimum wage personally . Mr. Patterson: Mr.

Spe aker, to the same Min ister, will the Mini ster authorize a study to determine how the lower mini mum wage will disrupt the labour force by inciting em ployers to hire workers under the age of 18 rather than pay the higher wage to older em ployees . Mr. Connery: Mr. Spea ker, it is unfortunate when the Member has written questions an d cannot discern from the first an swe r that, no, we are not looking at lowering the mini mum wage . If an ything, we look for the highest wage s possi ble in Mani toba, becaus e pe opl e of Mani toba deserve the best. * (1 410) Youth Employment Incentives Mr.

Speaker: The Honoura ble Member for Radisson, with a final supplementar y. Mr. Allan Patterson (Rad isson): A se con d supplementar y, what programs will this Government introduce an d initiate to focus on youth em plo yment opp ortun ities? Hon. Edward Connery (Minis ter of labour): As the Me mber knows, our de partment does not in itiate programs. The Minister of Co mmunity Services (Mrs. Oleson) does, through her portfolio an d, with the Minis ter of Industry, Trade an d Tourism (Mr. Er nst), !hey gener ate the program for em ployment.

We do the recording an d the reportin g, an d th ose initiativ es will come from those departments. Discriminatory Wage Policy Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): As Youth critic, I have some furthe r questions for the Minister. Over the weeken d, we have seen a bit of a flipflop on the part of the Mini ster, who last Friday was talking about rolling

Monday, September 12, 1988 back the mini mum wage for young people. Now he is suggesti ng he is not going to roll it back. My question, however, to th e Minister: Will he say categorically now tha t he will not have a discriminato ry wage policy of any kind? Will he en sure th e move of the New Democratic Party whe n it was in Gover nment to equ alize the minimum wage between young people and other Ma nitobans will be kept, as is the case in seven juris dictions across Canada? Hon.

Edward Connery (Mi nister of labour): You can be assured tha t th is Gover nment will introd uce no discriminatory wage s of any kind in Manitoba. The actions of this Governme nt will be to en sure th e maxi mum em ployment of people in Ma nitoba, whether th ey be youth, wheth e r they be male s, females, whet her it be affirmative ac tion group people. We will atte mpt to en sure a job for every Ma nitoban. As everybody knows, th a t is not possible to make sure tha t ever ybody has a job. We would like tha t, but we will en sure tha t the em ployment rate will be the highest possi ble in Manitoba.

We are concer ned, we are acti ng and, along with my collea gues, we are tr ying to make Manit oba a good pla ce to live and a good place to work. Mr. Ashton: I assume by th at ans wer tha t questi on is , yes, th ere will be no discriminatory wages of any kind affecting th e mini mum wage . Given the fact tha t over the weekend th e Minister has undergone a miraculous conve rsion in terms of economic poli cy, will he now also support the reins tate ment of the many Jobs Fund programs th at directly provide job creation for young people th at this Governmen t is ta lking about cutting? Mr.

Conne ry: Well, as the Member knows, th at does not come under my jurisdiction. lt is a matter for Cabinet, and Cabi net does what they believe is in the best in te rests of Manitoba. We ha ve ma de man y decisions over the last few mont hs, all of them in the best interests of Ma nitobans. Mr. Speaker: The Honou rable Member for Thompson has ti me for one final questi on. Mr.

Ashton: My final question to the Minister, I wonde r if th e Minister could save hi msel f, th is Gover nment and this le gisla ture some em barrassme nt in the future and in dicate th at in the future he will consult about any statements on policy he makes, in this case for ex ample, with gr oups affecting young people and ot he r Manit obans who are concer ned about it , and not come in and make statements tha t he then tu rns around one weekend later and has to disown because he has obvio usly been ta ken to the woodshed by his Premier (Mr. Filmon). Mr. Speaker: The ti me for oral questions has exp ired.

NON-POLITICAL STATE MENT Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks): I would li ke to ask leave of the House to make a non-p olitical state ment. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honour able Member for Seven Oaks (Mr. Minenko) have leave ? (Agree

d) Mr. Minenko: On the first day of the Jewish New Year, I would ask tha t all Members of the Ma nitoba le gislature join me in commemor atin g the 40th anniv er sary of the esta blishme nt of th e State of Israel. Each year on April 22, Jews around the world cele brate the day whe n the State of Israel was born. Earlier this year, on April 21, th e Jewish community in Winnipeg comme morated this eve nt with song, dance and speeches at the Ce nte nnial Conce rt Hall.

Througho ut 1988, the Jewish community has he ld ma ny ev en ts locally , nationa ll y, and in terna tionally to ackno wledge th e many achieve ments of th is nation. The se achiev e me nt s in clude th e ag ric ultu ral mi racl e in th e dese rt and th e ma ny achieve ments in the arts and scie nces. The Jewish commun ity in Man it oba has cont ri bute d to th ese successes. Manitobans have assi sted with many of the projects in th e fields of education, ind ustry and culture.

I would ask tha t in th is ye ar whe n we are co mmemo rating th e 40t h ann iv er sary of th e establ ishmen t of th e state of Israel, all Members of the Manitoba Legisla ture join with me to ackn owle dge the contributi on Manitobans have made to th e Israe li state . Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. MATTER Of UR GENT PUBLIC IMPO RTANCE Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): I have a motion pursuant to Rule 27 of th e House. Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Hono urable Member for Niakwa (Mr.

Herold Driedger), tha t the ordina ry business of the House be set asi de to cons ider an urgen t matte r of pu blic im portance, name ly, tha t this legisla ture urge th e Gover nment of Ma nitoba not to sign any agreeme nt which would in any way concur in the Ra fferty-Ai ameda Project as it is now proposed, unti l a full and proper en vironme ntal im pa ct assessment conducte d on behalf of Manitoba and in cludi ng public heari ngs has been complete d. POINT OF OR DER Mr. Speaker: The Honoura ble Gover nment House le ader, ·on a point of order. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker , on a point of order, I think ea ch ti me a motion raised in this House under Rule 27 of our Rules relati ng to matters of urgent and pre ssing im porta nce, ea ch time I believe I ha ve raised the question of the motion in volved it sel f and, in this case , I do not believe th at we have any ex ception to tha t practice of bringi ng forward motions under Rule 27 which are not, in my submis sion, Sir, correctly put to the House.

In the case of the motion we have today, which I unfortu nately have not been give n a copy of, I thin k the motion calls upon somet hi ng more than just a debate in this House toda y. Rule 27 calls for and deals with debate on a parti cular matte r and, if I recall the motion read a moment ago by the Honou rable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor), it calls on the Gover nment either to do somet hing or not to do somethi ng, whi ch amounts to a direction to the Gover nment. Mr. Speaker, I would read to you Rule 27, Subrule (5)(f): "Th e discussion under the motion may not rai se 1172

Monday, September 12, 1988 an y question that, accor ding to the Rules, may be debated only on a distinct motion under notice." Mr. Speaker , I now have in my hand the motion moved by the Hono urable Member, an d it urges the Governm en t of Mani tob a not to sign an y agreement which would in any way concur in the Rafferty-Ai ameda project. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to tha nk the Hono urable Govern ment House Leader for his point. Rule 27(5)-1 have take n under cons ideration Rule 27, an d I will be coming back to the House with a statemen t on Rule 27.

Before determining whether the motion meets the requir ements of our Rule 27, the Hono urable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) has five minutes to state his case for urgency of debate on this matter. A spokesman for each of the other Parties will also have five minutes to address the position of their Party on the urgency of this matt er. Therefor e, I will be recognizing the Hono urable Member for Wolseley to state . . .. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker , I was not quite finished my comments on the point of or der. I am not discussing the merits of the issue. I understand I will be given five minutes to do that.

I am discussing the legali ty, if you like, of the motion as it is put to you, under Rule 27. I am arguing on the point of or der, that the motion as it is moved is improper an d ne ed not be discussed for five minutes by an yone because it is improper to bring to the House. Mr. Speaker: Th e Honou rable Opp osi tion Ho use Leader, on the same point of or der. Mr. Reg Alcock (O pposition House Leader): I am prepared to speak to this point of or der, Mr. Speaker . I thi nk, if the Hono urable Ho use Leader for th e Governm ent reads the motion care fully, he will notice two things.

One is that it calls on the Legislature to urge the Govern ment of Mani toba; that is the action that is requested. The second thing is, I think, if you were to research previous Speakers' Rulings, he will find that this motion , having noted his concerns in the past, is modelled on a motion that his Party put forward in the last House. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank both Hono urable Members. I will take this matter under consideration . The Hono urable Member for Wolseley has five minu tes to state his case. * (14 20) Mr.

Harold Taylor (Wolseley): lt is not with pleasure that I rise to address this matter but one of ne cessity, ne cessity because there is no other route available to us in dealing with this matter in that the Govern ment on four other occasions before today has chosen not to give the an swers or the action nec essary to deal with it. There is no other opportunit y, Mr. Speaker , to deal with the motion dealing with the Rafferty-Ai ameda project in that we are under Estimates process an d, in that process, the Natural Resources and En vironment departme nts will be discussed long into the process.

I am very sorry to say that the time management which was initiated by us has not been adhered to an d, as a res ult, we may not get to the Depar tme nt of Envir on ment in this Estimates process. We definitely will not get to Natural Resources which is the ot her appropriate department, being that it is secon d to la st. Given that situation, the only opportunity avail able to us is to deal with this as a matter of urgent public impo rtan ce through the method of putting into effect Rule 27. Now if one takes a close look, Mr. Speaker , at the precedents to be found in Beauchesne,

Chapter 6, citing No . 285, 285 specifically gives very wide an d considerable discretion to the Speaker to deal in matters of this nature an d has been used on many occasions to allow a debate of this type an d of this impor tance. I would also though like to take a moment to cite No. 287, an d 287 deals with the word "U rgency" an d talks of the "urgency of debate." The reason it speaks to that is that there will be no other op portun ity to bring this matter forward, therefore something else will happen .

Because something else will happe n -i n other words, there is impending action -w e will not in this House have the opportunity to deal with the matter of the Rafferty-A iameda, because po tent ially th e Go ver n ment will have signed away the righ ts of Mani toba witho ut having done the proper studies. The purpose of this debate is to bring to the full the issues as they are on the matter of the Rafferty-Ai ameda an d the poten tial impacts on things such as water qual ity, water quant ity, wildl ife, fisheries, power gen eration an d those sorts of things.

We wish in this debate to be dealing with an urging of the Governm en t to take action in this matter, as they should be respon sible for.

If, however, we do not have a debate on this matter now, potentially befo re the en d of this month, the Govern ment of Manitob a could sign away the rights of Mani tobans to change the proj ect, to ame nd that proj ect , to get a full knowledge of the impacts of the Rafferty-Aiameda project an d all the ensuing repercussion s, so that they know what must be changed an d so that they know what has to be asked for in the way of compensat ion , so that it is no t the public purse of Mani toba that will be tapped in the future to make amends to those Mani tobans who are detrimentally affected by this sort of thing.

The time we have left is less tha n thr ee weeks. That is rather significant. There is barely time for this Government to get a hold of this subject at long last, an d to come to a conclusion that it does need more information before it can come to an y conclusion, before it can sign away an ything.

Therefore, I would urge you to look at those cites cont ained on pages 90, 91, 92 an d 93 of Beauchesne to deal with this matter in what we think in proposing it from this side of the House a very fair, reason able measure to bring forward debate, in fact, the only device avai lable to bring forward debate on this matter. I am asking for your positive concu rren ce in allowing debate to take place this afternoon, an d in the setting aside of the regular busin ess of the Legislature of Manitoba. Thank you. 1173

Monday, September 12, 1988 Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): In addition to my suggest ion to you a few moments ago about th e inappr op riateness of the resolution or the motion th at we are now unfortunately discussing, I would like to make a few other comments. 1 share with all Honourable Members a conc ern about seeing to it th at our interests are safeguarded an d ta ken care of, an d th at th e righ ts and privi leges of all Manitobans who are fortunate eno ugh to live in th is province are safeguarded by those Govern ments tha t have th e power to do that.

I suggest to the Hono urable Member, regardless of th e ta ct th at I object to th e reference to th e signing of an agreeme nt in th is resolution, th e fact is tha t my understa nding is th at Manito ba is not required to either sign anyt hing or not sign an ything. So th at on its face the resolution is patently ridiculous an d th e Hono urable Member does not know what he is talking about when he brings th is matt er forward. But if it would ple ase th e Hono urable Member to have a debate, well, ther e are op portunities ava ilable for th e Hono urable Member to debate.

I bring to your attent ion Resolution No. 3 for a private Member's consideration which happens to stan d in th e name of the Hono urable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylo r), th e first person who would have an op portunity if, by leave, Hono urable Members in th is House should agree to a discussion of this matter in Private Members' Hour. I am willing today to say th at on behalf of the Hono urable Members on this side of th e House, leave would be granted for today's Private Members' Hour to proceed directly to Reso lution No. 3, stan ding in th e name of th e Hono urable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylo r).

Yet th e Hono urable Member did not see fit to come forward an d ask me, through his House Leader (Mr. Alcock), if we would agree to such a th ing. There seems to be something else involved here an d perhaps I will leave it to your ima gina tion , Mr. Speak er, because there are rules about what one can an d cannot say in th is place. Citation 287 of Beauchesne refers to urgenc y, which is one of the requi rements under our Rule No. 27.

I will read Citation No. 287 for Hono urable Members: " 'Urgenc y' within thi s rule does not apply to th e matter itself, but means 'urgency of debate', when th e ordinary op portunities provided by th e rules of th e House do not permit the subject to be brough t on early eno ugh an d public interest demands th at discussion take place immediatel y." Mr. Speaker, what is different today from the situation tha t existed on Friday or the situa tion tha t existed previous to tha t?

I suggest to you tha t the main research done by the Liberal Party is th e research prov ided to th em by the Winn ipeg Free Press which refers to one Elizabeth May, a former federal employee, who has made a certain stat ement which happens to be simila r to statement s by th e Hono urable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylo r). All of a sudden, th e Hono urable Member for Wolseley sees some kind of urgency here th at did not exist last week.

The other point is th at the Honourable Member for Wolseley an d all Hono urable Members in th is place, who have not used the privilege, have the right to use th eir right of th e use of th e grievan ce rule in ou r Rule Book to have a debate on this or an y other matter. So, Mr. Speaker , on pretty well every account , th e Hono urable Member is out to lunch on his applica tion today. He an d others in th e Opposition do not know how to draw a resolution for th is kind of debate. I have referred to th is on each an d every occasion about th e form th at th ese resolutions take.

Some Hono urable Mem ber migh t be able to find so me example s somewhere tha t an improper resolution was allowed once before. I suggest tha t one precedent does not a custom or a usage or a tradition make, an d th at we better be careful before we head off on th ese dangerous pat hs on how we are going to use our Rule s for th e future. I suggest th at the format of th is Rule makes it absolutely impossible to go ahead at this point .

If th at should fail, which I suggest it should not on the basis of the Rules, the other arguments that I make are equally as strong an d I suggest tha t the Hono urable Member has ot he r op po rtuni ti es. The ma tter is impo rtant but it does not fall under the definition of urgency set out in Cita tion 287 of Beauchesne. The debate referred to by the Hono urable Member does not fit with our Rule No. 27. I make those arguments stron gly. The Govern ment of Manito ba has business to do. The Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr.

Taylor) is ob viously on his own agenda an d it really has nothing to do with what is right an d what is th e best thing for th e people of this province. Mr. Speaker: The Hono urable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan ) will also have five minutes to address th e urgenc y. Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): The Minister of Highw ays an d Transport ation (Mr. Driedger) asked me what I think. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) tells me not to thi nk.

As much as I like to follow his example in th is House, I am afraid I cannot on thi s occasion , nor can I allow th is op portunity to speak to th is call for an emergency debate by the Li beral Pa rty to go by witho ut making some note of the remarkable tr an sformation tha t en ables th em to put forward th eir call for an emergenc y debate without even the slig htest hint of hyp oc ri sy, wit hout even th e sligh t blush nor emba rrassment . * (14 30) No one should be too surprised at any thing th ey do inside this House since last Thursday when th ey opened th eir arms an d em braced th e Member for Springfield (Mr.

Roch), as they would a long-los t brother, an d immediately called him one of th eir own. Now they are calling th e eme rgency debate process one of th eir own. That is sort of political op portun ism. One has to question just who took most advantage of th e opportunity I just referenced last Thur sday. lt should clearly demonstrate th eir abilities to change th eir political stripes as easily as th ey change their mind, an d indeed they have changed their mind on emergency debates by their call for this particular one.

Now I make th at point because th is resolution , th is call for an emer gency debate does signal a 18 0-degree 1174

Monday , September 12, 1988 turn. lt is the second one we saw today in this House. We saw one on the part of the Mini ster of Labour (Mr. Con nery) with respect to comments he made last Friday. He did not do a f!ipflop. He did backward cartwheels down from the Premier's Office to his own after he was called in to bring about that remarkable change. But it does represent a 18 0-degree turnabout from their previous position on emerge ncy deba tes in this Legislature.

So in determining whether or not this debate or at least the need for this debate is urgent under the rules of the Legislature, one must put it in a proper context. In order to do that, one must look at how the authors of this motion have responded to requests for other emergency deba tes on other subjects during the Session. On July 22, they spoke and voted against an emergency debate in support of the In-Vitro Fertilization program. They voted with the Cons ervatives against childle ss couples-you can keep shaking your head, Mr. Premier (Mr. Filmon). Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

We are discussing this matter of urgent public impor tance. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a serious matt er. The Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) will address this issue. Mr. Cowan: At that time, they did not think it to be urgent. At that time, they said that the NDP were only grandstanding and that they were opposed to that debate. They were opposed at that time because they did not think that it fit within the rules that are requir ed for emergency debates.

So, either as justification or a blatant excuse they said, and I am quoting them, that it did not fit within ". . . the certain rules which are required for emergency debates, which said that debate was out of order unless there was no other opportunity to di scuss the subj ect in the Ho use," and they mentioned some possible opportunities for discussion such as the Question Period -(Interjection)- And Budget and Throne Speech, and we will come to that. The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.

Carstairs) also tried to excuse away the Liberal's decision to vote against supporting the in-vitro program by stating that she believed that the Government would act on this program Mr. Speaker: Ord er, plea se. I have asked th e Honourable Member to state quite clearly the urgency of the matter before the House at this time. The Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) will kindly address the issue. Mr. Cowan: Mr. Speaker , with all due respect, I have mentioned why it is on numerous occasions the Li berals have voted and spoken against emergency debates referencing the rules.

They referenced the rules; I have referenced the rules. I will continue to do that as I conduct an his torical overview of why it is we should deal with their request for urgency in this instance, as compa red to how they dealt with urgency in previous instances. She also strongly objected-and listen very carefully for the word "rules" here-to what she said were " .. attempts to twist House Rules," when the NDP called for an emergency debate on that important issue.

Perhaps it is only a twisting of the Rules when the NDP calls for it and not when the Li berals call for it. lt is interesting to note that the Liberals were wrong when they thought that the Co nservative Government would act before the Budget and, for that reason, one has to note that just today we heard on the radio that the In-Vitro Fertilization program could not start up for an entire year now even if approval was given because they thought they would act before the Budget. They were wrong in that particular instance.

They were wrong again on July 27 when they voted and spoke against a resolution called by the NDP for an emergency debate in support of the Port of Churchill. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member's time has expired. Order, please. I have received the requir ed prior notice of the Honourable Mem ber's matter of ur gent public importance. For such a matter to be given priority over the regularly scheduled busine ss of the House and to be debated im media tely , there must be no other reaso nable opportunity to consider it.

I believe, in this case, there are other reaso nable opportunities such as: during examina tion of the Es tima tes of the Manitoba Water Services Board under the Department of Agriculture, which are to be consi dered next in the Chamber; by raising a grievance when the motion to go into Comm ittee of Supply is before the House; or by introducing a Private Member's resolution. If the House were to grant unanimous consent, it would also be possible to continue the debate on Res olution No. 3 , intro duced by the Honourable Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak), in Private Members' Hour today.

Because the agreement respecting the Rafferty-Aiameda project is not due to be signed until the end of this month, I have some difficulty accept ing that the public interest will suffer if this matter is not debated today. In comparing the motion of the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr . Tay lor) with Pr ivate Mem bers' Resolution No. 3, I note that both motions propose the holding of public hearings into the impa ct of the project. Admi ttedly , in one case, the he arings are to be conducted by the federal Government and, in the other, on behalf of Manitoba.

Our rules stipula te that a motion respecting a matter of urgent public importance shall not anticipa te a matter to which a notice o! motion which has previously been given and not withdrawn. I believe that this matter does antici pate Private Member's Resolution No. 3. With respect. I must ther efore, in accordance with our Rules and practices, rule the Honourable Member's motion out of order as a matter of urgent public imp ortance. The Opposition House Leader. Mr. Reg Alcock (Opposition House leader): Mr. Speaker , it is with great regret that I must challenge your ruling. 1175

Monday, September 12, 1988 Mr. Speaker: Call in the Member s. Yeas an d Nays? Okay. The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustaine d? All those in favour of the motion, pleas e say Yea. All th ose oppo sed, ple ase say Nay. In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Alcock: Yeas an d Nays, Mr. Speak e r . Mr. Speaker: Call in the Members. The quest ion before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustaine d?

All those in favour of the motion will ple ase rise . * (151 0) A STANDING VOTE was taken , the result being as follows: YEAS BurreH, Connery, Cummi ng s, Derk ach, Downey , Driedger (E merson) , Ducha rme , Ernst, Filmon, Find la y, Gilleshamm er, Hammond, McCrae, Mitchelson , Neufel d, Ole son , Orchard, Pan kratz, Penne r, Praznik.

NAYS Alcock, An gus, Ashton , Carstairs, Charl es, Chee ma, Chornopyski, Co wan, Driedge r (N iakw a), Edwards, Evans (Brandon East) , Evans (Fort Garry) Gaudry, Gray, Ha rper, He mphill, Ko zak, Lamour eu x, Mal oway, Mandrak e, Minenko , Patte rson, Plohma n, Roch, Rose , Storie , Taylor, Uruski, Wasylycia-Le is, Yeo. Mr. Clerk, William Remnant: Yeas, 20; Nays, 30. Mr. Sp eaker: Th e ruli ng of th e Ch air has been over turne d. The ques tion before the House is: Shall debate procee d? All th ose in favour, ple ase say Yea. All th ose opposed will ple ase say Nay. In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr.

Harold Taylor (Wolseley): The issue before us is the Raffer ty-Ai ame da pr oje ct in sout hweste rn Sask atchewan . Included with that are a series of dams for the purp ose of irri gation of farm land, for flood control an d, in the case of the Rafferty, as a cooling pond for the new Sha nd Gene rating Statio n to be cons tructed by Saskatch ew an Hydro. This is a Saskatch ew an project with significa nt im pacts on No rth Da ko ta an d on Man itoba. The Province of Saskatch ew an has been issued a licence by its En vironment Department after it carried out an envir onmental impa ct asses sment study.

Would that that study have been better done, because there are very serious questions as to the wate r quality modelling that was done for that study, both in the sense of inclusion of historical data an d in the cali bration of the models em ployed, which puts in question the data being brought forward by Saskatch ewan as to its negativ e impacts downstream on both North Dakota an d on Mani toba. (Mr.

Deputy Speaker , Mark Minen ko, in the Chair .) In addition, the Saskatch e wan study does lit tle work in the sense of further impa cts downstre am on both wate r quality an d wate r flow as it proceeds through the rest of the system. To say the least, we do no t have a system study. We have a partial an d questionabl e Saskatch ew an environmental impa ct study. We have a somewhat better envir onmental impact study for North Da ko ta, conduc te d by the U. S. Army Corps of Engin eers, an d with appropr iate supplements from the U.S. Wildlife Service .

Th at service concludes that the re will be very major impacts on wildlife in both North Dakota an d in Saskatch e wan an d alludes to same in Manitoba. lt does, however, make very special mention of flow proble ms in Manitoba. lt talks about the fact that the re will be, in a wet year, poten tially 10 0 percent flow into Mani toba of the flows that we have today, but we have not had very many wet years. In the case of an average year of rainfall, the re will be up to 85 percent of flow into Mani toba from the now diver ted Souris River wate rs.

In dry years, there will only be 45 percent of the present flows into Manitoba-only 45 percent? That is the sort of a year that we are exper iencing no w. Th is is really quite signi ficant on Mani toba as it potentially impacts fish in the river, it impacts other biota, it impacts wildl ife alongsid e the riv er shores. lt also speaks of whether the re will be sufficient wate r quality given the impa ct of wate r quantity. Now when one talks about a diminut ion of wate r quan tity , it is not a case of you just have less water to deal with.

As soon as the re is a diminut ion of wate r flow in a low-flow river, what you do start to have is more growth in that river because there are now slower , more sluggish flows. You have silting up of the shallows, you have reduction of the wetlands. There is a whole series of impacts that must be dealt with, ones that unfortun ate ly we have no t yet addres sed in Mani toba.

Whethe r the NDP would hav e condu cte d th ose studies had they retained Governm ent in the spring of this year, I would suggest, may be debatable. lt may be debatabl e in the sense of what was thei r inten t. lt may also have been debatable given how the federal Gover nm en t is playin g thi s issue in the sen se of including Mani toba as a participa nt because the re has been very, very little information coming out of this. The Premi er (Mr. Filmon) has said across the House Mani toba does no t have to sign anythin g, an d he was addres sing myse lf as the mover of the motion for the eme rgenc y debate.

If that is the case, then something has change d radically , because in Canada over the last 50 years there has not been a wate r agreement signed in an y fashion, wheth e r it was sharing of wate r for irrigatio n, whet he r it was flood control, whe ther it was hydro generatio n, whether it was internatio n al locks on the St. Lawren ce River , the re has no t been one document that has been signed between Canada an d the U.S. that has not had the concurrence of the adjacent states an d provinces. That goes for both senior Governments an d is something that should be borne in mind.

If Mani toba is not signing an ything , then I would suggest the re is a derel iction of duty in the sense that Manitoba is no t saying what it is it wants to do, what 11 76 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

Monday , September 12, 1988 its views are on this project , and it certainly does not have the studies to back up any sent iments it may have in any case, and tha t is the reason for to day's debate. On July 27, on Aug ust 17, twice, and on August 23, I raised those matters before th is House and got th e, in effect, nil response from th e Min ister resp onsible, the Minister of Labour and Environmen t (Mr. Co nnery), and note tha t I put Environm ent second because tha t is what happens here in this province.

Environm ent is very much secondary for the carryings on of th e Film on Government We have to day th e example of ans wers being atte mpted to be put on th e record by the Min ister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) inste ad of th e Min ister of Labour and Environ ment (Mr. Conn ery). I guess he does not read th e same document tha t I read or he certa inly does not read it in th e same way and have th e same understanding of English th at I do.

This document says very clearly th at North Dakota is not likely to be able to meet the statement in the 1909 Water Boundaries Treaty between Canada and the U.S. in tha t it will send across waters of a deleterious nature, waters th at are of not th e same quality as going across th at bounda ry toda y, and ditto for Saskatchewan . I would suggest th at th is Governm ent can no way possibly negotiate fully without having tha t sort of informati on. .. (15 20) On th e other hand, th e Premier (Mr. Filmon) says we have nothin g to sign.

At th e same ti me, in th is House, we have had comments from th e Minister of Labour and Environ men t {Mr . Con nery). In pri vate conversat ions, four ti mes he has to ld me, "Harold, we have negotiated down there." And I belie ve Manitoba does have negotiators down th ere. There has been ta lk about th e informal rela ti onships tha t go on with th e U.S. and Saskatchewan aut horities at the technical leveL But how can you negotiate for Mani toba if you do not have th e backing?

We have a partial Saska tchewan study, we have a better U.S. one, we have got nothing in Manito ba, and we do not have a system study. So let us get serious about th is issue. Let us have Manitoba do its work for a change here on th is matter. Let us have th ose th ings carried out properly . And yes, there is a sign off, and the Minister of Environment (Mr. Connery) has said th ere is a sign off, and th at is normal on interna ti onal agreements of th is type th at there is an annex to those agreements in which th e lower levels of Government , th e adjacent provinces and states, do sign off.

That is when you put in conditions to th e agreement , and th at is when you amend projects because of a study having been carried out. Manitoba does not know whet her we have to amend th is project. it does not know it because it does not have the basic informati on. If we do like it, after amend ment or not after amendme nt , we must know th e im pacts because th e im pacts will ha ve dol lar conseque nces for the province. We should not, as the Province of Manitoba, be funding th ose consequenc es.

The proponents of the project, i.e., Saska tchewan and North Dakot a, should be the ones tha t pay for those consequences. So how is there to be compensa tion? How do you calib rate tha t compensa ti on when you do not know what th e heck th e impact is going to be? A great way to negotiate! I hope the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is listening well, because I am hoping after th is and the attendant press and public concern th at will come of this tha t there will be directi on given to th is project. I am hoping we are not going to see the Americans go thr ough with this and provide th is money now.

I hope we see a morato rium. I hope we see tha t money lapse for a year and th e U,S. has to go th rough its financial process in th e next fiscal year with hopefully a new admin ist ration in place which will give some cognizance to its own American reports. There will be ti me to th ink this thing out properly and we will not see the Raffert y-Aiameda project implemented in the fashion tha t it is today because it would be harebrained to hav e th is happen.

I th ink th e dereliction of duty tha t we have seen on the opposite side of th e House is indicat ive of the lack of seriou sness th at this Govern ment ta ke s on environmental matters. Whet her we are talking the Min ister of th e Environ ment (Mr. Connery) or we are talking th e kiss-off toda y and th e lack of understa nding today by this Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner), we are seeing here where th e Filmon Governm ent does st and on en viron mental ma tt ers and on matter s importan t in th is natu re to Manito bans all over the province.

I hope there is a real izat ion in southwes t Manitoba what can happen out of th is. The flows on the Souris River in Saska tchewan are such th at , if Saska tc hewan takes its 50 percent as it wants-and it wants more than th at . I would like th at on the record. They are already negotiat ing for 60 percent . They cannot possibly fill tho se reservoirs in a reasonable length of ti me. We are talking two to four decades.

They are going to tap waters in th e wetl ands habita t and, more important ly, they are going to tap South Saska tchewan waters, bring it thr ough th e Qu' Appelle, th rough a connecting corridor, down to the top end of th e Moose Mountain Cr eek, and th ereby take waters away from northern Manitoba's fishery and northern Mani to ba's power genera ti ng capacity . That requires acti on. Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is certainly with inte rest th at I listen to th e Honourable Member from across the way on some of th e comments th at he has made regard ing th e Souris-R afferty project in Saska tc hewan. There are a num ber of issues tha t he raises tha t are Manitoba's concerns and will be Manitoba's concerns. There are some inequit ies or ina ccuracies tha t he st ates. He stat es th e wildl ife organ ization from North Dakota-h e indicat es tha t th ere will be severe damage to Manitoba. I suggest to him tha t he mus t be reading a different document then what I have been read ing.

The Souris Riv er is an im porta nt wate rway for Mani toba, and hopefu ll y will remain a signi ficant wat erway for Manitoba. lt supplies water to numerous communiti es in our province, as well as individual 11 77

Monday, September 12, 1988 farmers and others who rely on the Souris River for water. There has been a project cons tructed on the Souris River some numb er of years ago which, of course, formed Lake Darling in No rth Dak ota.

Would it not be for the water retention capacity of Lake Darling in North Dakota an d the cooperatio n that we have had from North Dakotans at this time, there are some of our communities an d individuals living along that stream who would simply have been without water for some time this summer. lt is because of the water retention dams that have been built an d constr ucted in the Souris watershed that we have in Manitoba, in fact, been able to en sure our communi ties that they will have water an d that they will be able to remai n viable.

The quality of water that the Honourable Member refers to is somethi ng that is of conc ern to all Mani tobans. We are as concern ed on this side of the House as he is that the quality of water that we receive from other jurisdictions, whether it is our Ameri can friends or our friends from Sask atchewan or Ontario or an y of the other provinces that flow water into Mani toba, that the quality be such that our communi ties are going to be able to use this water an d use it in confidence.

The agreeme nt, the Water Treaty of 19 09, refers to a process which will be put in place or has been put in place that we will will use. lt is simply the Boundary Waters Treaty of 19 09 that I refer to. The original reference by Canada-United States requesting a joint commission, which was established in 1940, gives us the assurances that we will retain qual ity as well as quantity down that Souris River. The other agreement that I referred to before is the agreement of 19 59 which en sures Manitoba, during the months of June to the en d of October, a flow of 20 cubic feet per second of water into Manitoba.

Had it not been for the constructio n of Lake Darling an d the dam that retains the amount of water behin d Lake Darling, we simply would no t have had the assurance that we would be able to flow that amount of water into Manitoba. As far as Rafferty an d Alameda are concerned, yes. The communities in North Da kota that live along the Sour is Ri ver wa nted, an d ha ve for ma ny years, assurances an d some sort of action take n by their Govern ment to assure thems elves that the large floods that cause huge amounts of damage to cities such as Mino t would be constr ain ed.

The Govern ment of the United States is going to contribut e some $41 millio n to the constructio n of a project in Saskatche wan that will retain those large fluxes of water that some of us experienc e periodical ly, especially those of us who are un fortun ate en ough to li ve in those areas th at experience flood waters. I am well aware of what it means to live in a flood-stricken area.

The damages that have been estimated that would have been incurred by Mino t, North Dakota , had not Lake Da rling, had not other flood prevent ions been take n , could have been somewher e in the neighbou rhood of $380 millio n a few years ago when the high flood waters down the Souris River were expe rie nced, $380 mill ion worth of da mage plus countless other damages that were incurred that simply we were not able to calcu late, such as damages to our land s, damages to our infrastructures an d countless other damages that simply I no r an ybody else has an y way of calcula tin g. lt becomes somewhat questionable why the Honourable Member would raise at this time or the Liberals across the way would raise at this time the environmental impacts to Mani toba. * (15 30) Again I refer to the ability of the Rafferty-Aiameda to maintai n an d retain those large fluxes of water that we experie nce periodically an d th at cause huge environmental damage during the Spring of the year an d those times of year that we have large rains, an d we simply have no way of controlling those large amounts of water.

This will allow Saskatche wan to retain those large amounts of waters behind the dam an d regul arly, on a regulated basis, flow some of those waters through that will prevent the kind of flood damage that I referred to a little while ago. Those were some of the advant ages that were referred to my hono urable colleague a few days ago in this Chambe r. lt is also of immeasurable imp ortance to people in the United States an d the rest of the Souris River Valley who experience those kinds of large amounts of flood water comin g down the Souris River.

However, it is not only North Da kotans who experience those damages. lt is also those of us who live in Mani toba-a nd the quality of water that is experienced during tho se flood periods, I say to you, an d I say to you Mr. Speak er, are of such a quality that few of us would wan t to experie nce an d few of us would wan t to have to consume. The regulations of waters or the ability to regulate flows down the Souris because of constructio n of water retent ion facilities could be somewhat beneficial to Mani toba.

The damages tha t were referred to by the Honourable Member from across the way, that were referred to by the Wildl ife Federation of North Dakota, are also questionable-a nd they say "may be," not "will be." I think it is imperative that we pay attention to what is real an d what is perceived in this debate. We in Mani toba have indicated very clearly that we are wil ling to cooperate in every way to allow Saskatche wan an d North Da kota to construct the two dams that are being referred to in this debate.

However, we have also at the same time indicated very clearly that we will no t stand idly by an d watch our water qu ali ty deteriorate as wel l as our qu an tity be jeopardized. As I have indicated before, we are doing everything in our power as a third-pa rty partici pant in this project to assure that Mani tobans will not be subjected to poorer quali ty waters than we have today an d lesser quantities than we flow down that river. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I am very pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss this very impo rtant issue here today in the Legislature an d ho pe th at it does bring some sani ty to the Govern ment of Manitoba, these Members across the way who seem to think that taking someone's word 117 8 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

Mond ay, September 12, 1988 that there will not be any effects is good enough when dealing with the of Manitoba. That is what concerns me, this faith, very similar to the kind of blind faith that they have taken with the Mulroney Government on the free trade issue. Without getting the facts together and kno wing those facts and assessi ng those facts, they make a predetermined decision that everything is going to be okay. That is what worries us so much, the action of this Government in previous issues like free trade and very much the similarity of their performance on this particular issue.

This particular project has been of major concern to us for a number of years. As a matter of fact, back in 19 85 al ready, we had officials meeting on this issue when we first became aware that Manitoba would be impacted by a project taking place in Saskatchewan. As far back as 1985, we have had numerous meetings with staff during that time, so I reject completely the statements of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) at this time that the former Government did not take its responsibility seriously on this issue and attempt to ensur e that Man itoba's in terests were protected.

We did in deed attempt to ensur e that Manitoba's interests were protected, but the impo rtant factor here is that the licence had not been issued by the federal Minis ter, by the federal Department of the Environment, so that we were receiving assurances from federal Min isters, from senior federal bureaucrats, to our officials th at Ma nitoba's in terests would be considered to our satisfaction before any action was taken on the licensing of this dam. So we were shocked on June 21 when the federal Minister issued this licence, indeed issued it prematurely without having a documentation.

That is why I believe what Elizabeth May is saying on this issue. I feel she is right here. There have been enough signs pointing to this. There have been senior offici als in the Department of the Environment pr eviously who expressed dire concerns about this and the fast-tracking approach that the Saskatchewan Government was taking on this issue. I think that El izabeth May is right on. She has raised a very important issue for the people of Manitoba now. I cannot understand why these two Ministers of Environment (Mr. Connery) and Natural Resources (Mr.

Penner) can continue to put their heads in the sand and say everything is just fine when they have that kind of evidence, along with all the other evidence. Let us remember one of the reasons we were very suspicious of this issue was because the true purpose of the building of this dam is of course to facilita te the construction of a Shand generat ing sta tion, a major hydro power station in Saskatchewan, which means that they will be purchasing less Manitoba hydro in the future at a higher cost in Saskatchewan to build this dam.

That is not what they h'lve been telling the people of Saskatchewan, but that is the information that we have, that it will actually cost them more per kilo watt hour to build that station, but they want to justify it. They have been fast tracking this dam through so that they can build the Shand generat ing station for the political benefits of Premier Grant Devine and Deputy Premier Berntson in the Province of Saskatchewan. That is what we belie ve are the motives behind the fast-track approach. They do not care what the wildl ife organizations and conservation organizations think about this project.

They are not concerned about that. They are a nuisance to them. As fast as they can get this through, the better, and they have got North Dakota money because they are worried about floods in North Dakota. That is what seems to be the major concern of this Mini ster of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner), the flooding in Minot. That is what he is taking as his primary concern rather than the concerns of the environment of Manitoba and the impact on the people of Manitoba who live along the Souris River and depend on that waterway.

So I have taken a position with the federal Mini ster consistently over the last number of years on this issue when we were in Government that we wanted all of this docum entation to our satisfact ion. We were assured, we felt, by the federal Minister of External Affairs, Joe Clark, that indeed they would ensure that Manitoba's concerns were dealt with before allowing Saskatchewan to proceed or issuing a licence. That does not seem to have been the case at all. They went ahead with this thing in June before those studies were done.

The Minister admits that a technical committee has been set up, but they have not reported. So meanwhile, the construction is going ahead and plans are proceeding as fast as they can go and we still do not know what the imp acts are. If that is not letting the horse out of the barn and then closing the door, I do not know what is. * (15 40) That is why we say the federal Minis ter, first of all, should withdraw that licence that he has issued so that construction is stopped.

Then the studies can be done and then a decision could be made that is based on the facts, on the best information that we have, because the Member who introduced this resolution, it was correct in saying that there has not been those studies for Manitoba. The reason our Government did not order thos e stud ies by the Manitoba Clean Environ ment Comm ission is because we felt tha t the federal Environment Department should be responsible on a matter of int erna ti ona l im portance dealing with a numb er of jurisdic tions, should be pri marily first, resp onsible, for that kind of a study.

Then at this point in time, if they are letting us down in Manitoba as Manitobans, if the federal Government is no t considering our wishes, then we have to rely on our Min ister of Environment (Mr . Con nery) to show leadership and ensure that we have an impa ct statement to determine what the impacts are so then we can negotiate with those other parties, But, in fact, that project should be stopped immediately and first, and that is our major concern here. So we think that the Mini ster should immediately change his position and indicate in the stronge st terms his concern to Mr.

McMillan, who issued that licence prematurely on this project, and to the Prime Minister, to all of Manitoba's Mini sters, and indicate to them that we demand to have the impacts on Manitoba known before this project proceeds any further. 11 79

Monday, September 12, 1988 I want to tell you something. We did not, as a Govern ment, wan t to meddle in the internal affairs of Saskatc hewan , so we played that part of it very low key. We kn ew ther e were a lo t of conc ern s in Saskatchewa n an d we knew what their motives were. (lnterjection}- Well, I find this very strange that the Minis ter of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner} now would object to that because he can just ask his officials.

I played that very low key as Minis ter because I wan ted to en sure that Saskatc hewan 's politics were not being misin terpreted or mixed in with Mani toba, an d that is what I did. But once the federal Government pla yed political games, ba ckr oom deals, with the Saskatc hewan Govern ment to fast track this thing through, then we have to change our position an d we have to demand, in the strongest terms, fairness for Manitoba which is being overlooked for political expedienc y. We know what was goin g on in Saskatc hewan with this project but we did no t wan t to int erfere, as I said, an d we did no t.

But we said to the Federal Govern ment, "Make sure that our concerns are dealt with." They said, "Yes , your concern s will be dealt with an d will be consi dered right through." -{Interjec tion}- You are darn rights I will read Ha ns ard. lt is just amazi ng that these people in Govern ment, the Conservatives in Government here, will fall into the trap with Saskatche wan an d with the federal Mul roney Conservative Gover nme nt at the expense of Manitoba that they would allow them to play politics with this Government right here an d fall right into the trap because they hap pen to be of the same political stripe. lt put political expediency ahead of Manitoba's interest, an d that is what we find so regrettable in this issue.

Of course, it is consist en t with the way they approach many different issues. I wan ted to, Mr. Deputy Speaker , before table in this House a piece of information that provides a chronology of a numb er of meetings that we had an d letters that we wrote to indi cate clearly that these Minis ters were not provi ding the true facts, as we know them, to this House when they said that our Government did not represent Manitoba's int erest over the last numb er of years.

In addition to that, I wan t to en sure that all Memb ers ar e aware th at we had requi red, as a statement of principle, all of the studies first before a licence would be issued. We made those statements clearly to the federal Mini ster, an d we demand that this Mini ster now listen to the wildlife federations, to the U.S. Depart ment of the Interi or, who also shares those concerns -and l have information to that effect- shares those concerns that . . . . Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is over. Order, please. Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): I, too, have some regrets. The Member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohma n} just referred to a few that I have been aware of of what was happe ning in Saskatc hewa n an d had not done an ything about it because they were waiting for a certain process to be carried through. Maybe they should have gotten in volved sooner. The regret that I have is that we tend to have, at this point in time, a rather diverging opinio n in the nature of what constitu tes environmental impact an d what does no t.

We have in here, in a situa tion that has happened with the Rafferty-Ai ameda Dam, something that where Gover nm ents have provi ded or un dertake n some environmental impact assessments as they may affect the small jurisdiction, each as they affect their own , none of them taking a look at the whole intrab asin impact, because if there is one thing we have learned in the Eighties, it is that there is no single environmental concern an ywhere that does not have impacts far beyond its borders.

We have only to take a look at the relatio nship that seems to be developing between some of the-our habi ts with cosmetics an d the spraying of aerosols as these eventually filter up through the atmosphere to affect the ozone layer which will affect us directly. I mean none of us would have ever thought of this in the Sixties.

We happen to have here a situatio n where there is an economic development which tells us that investment is more important than the long-term environmental impact We have to be convinced first that our concerns here, which are downstream not only of the water that we are to receive but also downwind of the potential Shand pollu tant s that might be creat ed-! do not say that there wi ll be because I assume this Shand elect ric facility, one of its aspects should be the installat ion of hi gh-capacity scrubbers in the stacks so we should no t have to fear for acid rain -but the whole aspect that this migh t be something that could affect us is something that we should use when we sit down an d determine what our priorities are. lt is commonly accepted no w that environmental degrad ation flows downstream as I indicated earli er.

Now, even if we take a look at the particular project as it exists on its own merits, I think we have to find that this, too, is questionable. Perhaps, here again, rather tha n taking a look at en vironmental impacts of a potential reservoir that is filled, we should perhaps take a look at some of the impacts that might be created by what we do when we start interfering with the flow of water to the way it would no rmally flow. In certain parts of. this world where we accelerate the flow of water with the production of drainage ditches, we cause runoff.-(In terjection} - I will an swer that question shortly.

The Minis ter of the En vironment asked if we wished to have this be a desert. Mr. Penner: There is a part of this province that is drying up. Mr. Herold Driedger: I am glad the Minister of Natural Resources brought that to my attention, too. There are parts of this province that are drying up. What he is referring to is an y land west of the 10 0 milli meter isohy et. Let us go back to inches. The 20-inch isohyet which passes through Winn ipeg, west of Winn ipeg, we receive less an d less an d less rainfall each year.

When you receive rainfall of about 10 inches per year, we have what is tech ni cally classified as a semi-desert. This is the situation that you have in the area where these two dams are to be built an d you want to have this negligible natural water replacement to fill two reservoirs which, when they are full, if they are full, the actual numb ers of years that are being an ticipated for 1180 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

Monday, September 12, 1988 these things to fill up is incredible. We are looking at 35 years. To fill them up, I have also heard -now there are people here on this side who have some more of the detailed evidence, but I have also heard that there are not decisions yet, but there are intentions to hasten the filling of these reservoirs with the digging of deep water wells or the Rafferty reservoir and perhaps the diversion of the South Saskatchewan River to hasten the filling of the Alameda reservoir .

What I ask us to think about here is what are we saying then to those people who have listened to us when we objected so strenuously with respect to the potential basin problems, the inter-basin transfer of water problems, when we put up objections to the Garrison? We need to think care fully what we do here, but I was also refe rring to the fact that when we start interfering with the natural flow-not that we wish to negatively look at every modificati on- but we have to start thinking about what we do when we do actually either provide a ditch to hasten the water flow or to build a dam to delay water flow.

All of these two things need to be looked at in conjunction. We need to take a look at the environment holistically , not independent ly. We cannot carve out a certain part of the planet or a certain part of the province and say that this only will be affected. * (1 550) The effects will not stop at the Saskatchewan border. They will not stop at the North Dakota border.

There will be a complete and total basin effect, regardless of whether or not the impacts may, in actual point of fact, when we have taken our total study and have satisfied ourselves that ever ything has been taken into consideration, then we may say, all right, this will happen and we are aware that this is going to happen and we have made decisions, fully cognizant of what those impacts will be. There have been plans, more grandi ose than this one, which antici pated building dams where water was flowing at that time wastefully south.

I am thinking of the Niger River in the Sahara which was to be dammed and have a massive lake being created right in the middle of the Sahara, bringing all kinds of bountiful water to the dry region, bringing water where no water was before-all this under the subtropical anticyclone which would mean that we would hasten evaporation and therefore essen tially have a salt lake in the middle of the desert. We have the same kind of thing, actual ly, potentiall y, here in Saskatchewan. This is a dry region; you are going to have evaporat ion; the water will become salty.

Furthermore, as you increase the runoff into these reservoirs to try to cause the reservoirs to fill up faster, these runoffs, being from farm land, will carry with them not only the salts and the phospha tes and the nitrates that we produce by virtue of fertilization, but also certain of the pesticides and things of that nature which flow off, and herbicides, which we apply as we carry on modern farming techniq ues. What happens here is you 1181 end up looking at -(Interjection)- If I could just finish this statement here.

We end up having a situation where the waters the mselv es can beco me. for the flow downstream to North Dakota, toxic. One more aspect that perhaps might be addressed in this issue right here, since the two dams-the Rafferty and the Alameda-h appen to be in the ridings of friends of the Prime Minister, perhaps, here we have once again an ind icat ion of the deal-m aking tra ditio n of the Mulroney Government.

All we want to see is that the guarantees that were made to Manitoba's water quality are actually fulfilled, and those need to be fulfilled not only in actual point of fact but also in perception that this is being done. The fact that the permit was issued before our concerns were satisfied suggests to me that we are hastening towards some form of disaster which we will only find out after the fact. Mr. Bill Uruski (lnterlake): I am amazed, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that there is silence from the Government benches.- (Interjection)- Oh, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) is now indicating he is waiting to see whether there is any new information. The Premier should have been on his telephone to the Prime Minister long ago instead of putting his head in the sand and saying everything will be fine, we believe Grant Devine. Where is this whole era of cooperation that we were going to see between the new provincial Government and Ottawa and all the Con servative provinces of this country? The Premier may be on the telephone, but there is no one at the other end. They have left him hanging on the line. There is no one answ ering. And we have the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Connery) and the Minis ter of Natural Resou rces (Mr. Penner) of this province basically saying we think it is great, this project is good; there is a drought in the Province of Manitoba and the western part of our province is going dry, so why would we not now be in favour of this project? Everyone knows that the need for conservat ion of water right across No rth Am eric a is of utmo st imp ortance. No one argues that point.

The fact of the matter is Manitoba, since 19 85, has raised a number of concerns to say that, look, we are not opposed to this project but we want to be assured that the quality and the quantity of water can in fact be protected, and the likely body in which to review this project is Ottawa, because you basically have two Canadian jurisdictions, one a proponent and one a recipient of the water, not quite agreeing to what all the imp acts might be, and Ottawa to pla y the dominant role in sayi ng, look, here is how we view it. The former Min ister of Nat ural Resources, the Member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohman), wrote, after an all officials meeting held by Environment Canada in Ottawa, and we in fact cong ratu la ted the federal Government for taking the leading role, their rightful role in this project, to say that all interests will be protected and that there would be the necessary environmental impa ct studies to review all the concerns before any approvals are granted. We have here the spectacle over the last number of months of a Government which I consider very weak,

Monday, September 12, 1988 a very weak Government. I say this in the kindest terms. Can you imagine a Minister of Environment of any jurisdiction getting up, without having any studies to show the impact of this project saying I think this project is good, it is good for Manitoba; why would not we want any mo re water? We are shor t of water in southwestern Manitoba. That is really what has been said.

He goes around and he repeats it on the weekend and yet, over the weekend, the chief legal advisor on environmental issues, a political advisor who has a great knowledge and experience in environmental matters who was hired by the Minister McMillan in Otta wa, said that there was a backroom deal between Ottawa and Saskat chewan to approve this project with no assessment whatso ever. Now talk about having your federal colleagues pour water on your head here in Manitoba. These people in Manitoba must be saying oh, no, what have we said?

Here we have a political conundrum in Ottawa where the chief political advisor has now resigned and accused her own Mini ster of politics in an issue that should not have been politically motivated, and we have these Min isters saying it is still a good deal. If that is not an indi ctment of a weak Go ve rnment and of weak Ministers, nothing else is. These people who are to be protecting the interests of Manitobans seem to sit there and talk about it is a great deal, we need the water. Of course, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, we all agree.

No one on this side of the House does not agree that there should be works or at least the need for preservation of water, and water quality should not be there, but let us do our homework. These guys are prepared to do it by putting their heads in the sand, in the proverbial sand. That is really the issue here. it is the incomp etence of those people on the other side. This admin istrative group, this admin istrative strong group, that said we know how to govern, we will have good relations with Ottawa, where are they? They are going to speak to the- An Honourable Member: Federal Minister. * (16 00) Mr.

Uruski: No, they are not even going to speak to the federal Minister. They are going to speak to our Canadian Am bassador to Wash ington. That is a laugh. I say that is a laugh because the political decision was not made by the Canadian Amba ssador in Was hington; it was made by the federal Minister of Environment, after Manitoba, back in December of '87, following the November meeting, the Minister, John Plohman, wrote to the Honourable Joe Clark indicating that we were agreed to the process that was set up, and that we wanted to cooperate fully with Ottawa's lead to make the necessary environmental studies.

No! only that, the Minister, the now-Mini ster of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), and I hope he gets up and puts his face on the table, who even was so concerned about the impacts of this project, he called a public meeting in Melita, invited U.S. officials, invited Manitoba officials. I have not heard him; I have not heard a peep from the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey). Where does he stand? Is he in agreement for his Ministers now to sit mum on the subject?

After he, in '86, spoke out so loudly and raised his concerns about this project, in fact, advocated the International Joint Commission to review and rule on this project. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Uruski: Mr. Deputy Speaker , we will be waiting to see the remarks of the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) on this issue, how one can twist and turn from the position he took in '86. That is, in essence, the weakness of the Government. You are in Opposition; you take one road. You are in Government; well, you have friends in Ottawa that you do not want to em barrass and do not want to push, so you sit quiet.

Ottawa has left them out to dry; they have hung them out to dry. They have poured water over them, water that they say they needed, they have got it. They have got it right over their heads, yet they will not say anyth ing. lt is almost like Chi nese torture. Ho w long will it take the Cons ervative Government to react to water being dumped on their head and speak out on this issue and say "hold back this licence, hold back this licence until the necessary environmental studies are done"? They are sitting quiet.

Is this the same kin d of a deal that was cooked up between Ottawa and Saskatchewan prior to the Saskatchewan election to say we will have disaster payments to farmers? Mr. Deputy Speaker , it is clear that the Premier of Saska tchewan has more clout than the Government of Manitoba, This clearly shows the weak ness of the Government. I asked the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to stand up for Man itobans and shout from the Golden Boy to say- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

I hope that I can rise to take a different look at the problem from a different perspective. The perspective that I would like to take it from is the respons ibilit ies of Gove rnment, the acknowledgment of Government and the tests that Government uses to determine whether or not they have something worth looking at or not. So I suspect, partially because I am in the Opposition and partially because I am not privy to the same information as the Minister has, that I have to go with what I see on the surface as information that is avai lable to me.

I think that it is prudent for politicians to ask them selves whether or not a request such as this, which is a very serious request, does it pass a test of reasonableness? Does this request pass a test of reasonableness? And then, what I think we have to do is took at whether or not, and/or what are the negative impacts of this request? I ask you, and l ask all Members of this House of the Government, of the admin istration, what are the negatives of looking at this particular project? Let me put on the record for evidence, the evidence that has come to me. The evidence is in clause one, 11 82

Monday, September 12, 19 88 is a report from a former deputy director, a lady by the name of Elizabeth May. I do not know this person, I have no axe to grind with her, I have no insider's information, it is simply the information as it was reported to the general public. lt says that Elizabeth May says that Manitoba's interests have been shafted.

Now she, I have to assume, is a person who is in a more knowledgeable position than I am, and more privy to more specific information than I am, and so I take what she has to say with inter est, and I want to know why what she is alleging, and what sort of personal gain she may have. I find that the indications, and I have no reason to doubt these indications, are that she felt so strongly about this particular concern that she resigned her position. There are not very many people in this country who have $60,000 a year jobs, who are prepared to give them up on a whim of principle.

I think that there is some credibility to a person who is prepared to put her money where her mouth is. So she has credentials, and she has made a quantum leap, a quantum leap based on her belief in the accuracy of what she is saying. So I go on, and I look at the next reality of information that comes to my attention. That is that we have a federal Minister, Mr. Tom McMillan, who has been accused of trading off a grasslands project for a dam project. Now, I might not be concerned about that trade off because it is loose jargon and loose words when it is reported that an individual has sacrificed something.

If the only impact was on Saskatchewan I would be less interested, but when I read on to find that this particular project that has been traded off, to use the words of the information that came to my attention, is going to possibly have an effect on the waters of Manitoba, then I say to myself, well I have a bit more concern. Let me move on to the specific concerns that I have, and again I am only going from the information on the public record. I am looking at the Souris water qual ity, and let me suggest that as I go back to Mr.

McMillan and his interest in this particular thing, he of course signs the agreements to allow the water transfer to be traded back and forth across the borders. When I see and I read in the continuing

article that the quality and quantity of Souris water may be affected, I add another li ttle conc ern to the specifics that I ha ve been developing. 1 think that it is important to note that as I build my case on behalf of Manitobans, and my concern as a responsible politician is in their best interest as best I can, I see that the Town of Souris and 20 licensed water users in southern Manitoba rely on the river for municipal, industrial and irrigation water supplies. lt has been estima ted that it would cost $1 million to replace its water supply if quantity or quality of the Souris River is downgraded. * (1 61 0) Mr.

Deputy Speak er, these are not my words. I am not a professional engine er. I am not a water resources person. I am John Q. Public in this particular case, saying that on one hand we have individuals suggesting, and it goes on to report that it is Mr. Connery that is sugges tin g-Mr . Cann ery, the Member for Portage that the only potential problem with a project could be that the reduction of water flows could harm the flushing effect of the current form of water qua lity.

Now, I am sitting here as a Liberal Member of this Ho use, as a re sponsi bl e pers on, saying to the Government is there something wrong with having a public hearing. I see that it goes on to say in these articles that there is not enough time to have a public hearing. Mr. Deputy Spe aker, with respect, what are we potentially sacrificing in relation to what we are getting?

If there is nothing to hide, if there is no negative imp act, if there is no reason that we should not be paying any attention to this particular problem that is developing in Saskatchewan causing water to flow in a controlled fashion into the United States and then back into Ma ni toba, then wha t on earth is the reasonable reason for not having public hearings? Why is it such a dastardly thing to do to ask those technical people, those individuals to set up shop someplace, and put the facts on the table and to look at a project of this nature as it impacts, positively or negative ly, on Manitobans?

The very worst that would happen is that we would find out that there is a negative impact. What is the best that would happen? We would find out that we as Manitobans, as elected responsible Members of this Legislature, have been vindicated, that we have been proven that we are absolutely right that there is no negative impact. Looking at the possible consequences of negative impact, I think that it is only responsible that we look at what those impacts may be. I think that it is important that we look at those people who have done the studies. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers says that you can expect between 45 percent to 100 percent of the water that we are getting now.

I mean if we are talking about more than 50 percent of the water flows being reduced in one way, shape or form than we have got right now and we see that the other side of the coin, our Ministers and the other people, say that the Town of Souris will be adversely affected to the tune of $1 million if the quality or quantity of water is adjusted, it says to me that it forces the issue. lt talks specifically to the point of reasonableness. lt is not reaso nable to not have some form of a public inqu iry. Is it going to be an investment? Is it the cost that we are talking about? I do not know.

I would like to hear from the Government. Stand up and say these are the reasons why we should not have a public hearing on the negative, positive and/ or potential, one way or the other, impact of this particular project. Let us look at the facts again, just from John Q.'s public perspective. Washington has put up $4 i million to protect Minot from flooding or from something else, I am not sure. There is something in here that says that if we start controlling this water we can release it in flows that will make it less than sort of a bulk rush of water in the spring runoff.

That may be very well and good, but tho se guys who have built the dams are the guys who are going to be able to control the water. What if they decide to turn the water taps off in Saskatchewan so that they do not come through on 11 83 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

into Manitoba? Do you not think that we should be sitting there having had some perspective, having had some insiders informa tion? lt does not pass the test o! reasonabl eness. I have not heard one good reason why we should not have public inqui ries, public hearings, an d/or statements of account on the public record. There is no reason we should not be able to go to the public in a public forum, put the project on the table and hear the facts in an hone st to go odn ess straightfor wa rd fashion. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker. Hon.

Edward Cormery (Minister of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health): I am indeed pleased to say a few words on this particular subject because it is very ne ar and very dear to my heart . I am very concerned about the Rafferty-Aiameda Dam in the sense that it does a lot of good things for Mani toba. We hope that it does not do anything negative. We have been concerned from the outset.

From right after I was made the Minister of Enviro nm ent, we have ha d brie fing mee ting s with our staff, with the intergovernmental department to be appraised of what was happe ni ng with the Ra fferty -Alameda Dam prop osaL We were concerned to know that Manitoba's interests were being protected. We are not talking about something that is going to be affecting Man itoba now or Manit oba in the next year or 10 years. We are talking about our childr en , our grandchildren, an d hopefully as long as this world hangs together, this planet hangs together , for many, many other generations.

We are dealing with a subject that is very, very important. The NDP would like us to conduct studies. They have wanted us to conduct studies on just about everything that arises in this province. We do have some competen t people in our departments who are doing their job.

When public hearings are required, and I am not afraid to call for public hearings as we have seen in the Brando n situation where there was a con cern by the people, we called for public hearings to assure that full public input was put there. lt is kind of ironic that right from the very beginning, the proposer of this resolut ion thought that Manitoba was a signature to the agreement. That is how much he knows about the whole thing. He thought that Manitoba signs. In essence, the agreement is between Ca nada and the USA.

Manitoba an d Sask atchewan both have an input into the negotiations in talking with the federal officials to assure that our interests are put forward into this agreeme nt. The question is, will the money lapse if we do not go ahead with the agreement very qui ckly? We are not going to push to have it so that it is in pla ce before the money lapses. The mon ey, if it laps es, will be reissued, I am sure. it will be made available once agai n, the $41 million, which really, Bismarck is saying they want for flood control. Flood control is a major part of this dam prop osal.

Part of it is for the Shand Generating Statio n for cooling of water; part of it is for irrigatio n. I am very familiar with the need for irrigation. The Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) maybe sits over there 1988 and laughs and jokes about a very serious issue but it is not. Irriga tio n for people south eas tern Saska tchewan is a very crucial issue. We should not just say, no, they canno t have water. to protect our interest, but I think they have their inte rest too, as we do in Mani toba with other creeks and rivers.

We will fight for Manitoba's interests and we are not too concerned whether it is a Co nservative Government in Saskatchewan and Ottawa. The rights and the concerns of Mani tobans are first. Mr. Uruski: The Mini ster of Environment (Mr. Conn ery) accused the Mem ber for Wolseley (Mr . Taylor) of laughing on this issue. I am sitting here listening to the Minister of Enviro nm ent and I also overheard the Member for Wolsel ey.

He was not at all laughing at this issue, an d I wish that the Minister of Enviro nm ent would withd raw those com ments and not leave any im pu tat ions on a Memb er of this Hou se by the comments that he has made of the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor). Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minister of the Environme nt, to the point of order. Mr. Connery: I saw the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) laughing while we were discussing an impor tant issue. If he is not interested in listeni ng to the debate, then I would suggest that he leave the room.

I mean anybody can laugh if he wants, but the issue is too serious to- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. I thank all Memb ers of the Hou se for their advice, but the Honour able Member does not have a point of order. The Honourable Mini ster of the Enviro nme nt. Mr. Connery: Thank you very much. Mr. Deputy Spea ker, this Government, they say, is not environment conscious. I can tell you that what I in herited from the previous Gove rnme nt was an absolute mess, an d as the National Report Ca rd said, that Manitoba was tenth out of 10 provinc es.

I do not enjoy being in last place , but I look forward to the challenge of bringing Manitoba up so that it will be respec table in the en viron ment issues and in a respectable position within Ca nada . We are not there, we have got a long way to go, but we will attempt to get there. * (16 20) We should be discussi ng the im portanc e of impounding water . With the changing clim ate and atmosphere, impoundment of water is going to become a very, very major issue. Manitoba itself has to look at the impounding of water in many are as.

Some time ago, the Portage diversion went in-1 believe it was around 1961 or 1962-to protect the valley along the Assiniboine River from extreme flooding condit ions. If we could look back today an d do the thing over, I am sure we would have put in the Holland Dam because now that water that we are diverting to Lake Manitoba is so vital and precious to our existence that we need to be impounding it, and there are going to be a lot 11 84

Monday, September 12, 1988 more dams going on, and, yes, environmental studies need to be done on them. We will be making sure that the environment is protected in doing so, but if we do not have irrigation and if we do not have drinking water, if we do not have water for cattle, we are not going to have any reason to be here. So we have to protect the interests of Manitobans today and Manitobans in many , many years down the road. The NDP get up and they talk about the immediacy and the concerns all of a sudden that they have for Rafferty-A iameda.

I am told that they would not go to the meetings where they were discussing the issues and the problems, that they shied away. The NDP were a Government of lip service and very little action, and that shows for itself. The Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) said the federal Government should conduct the hearings. Well, they were unloading all of their responsibility onto the federal Government and they really did not do very much . Our department is meeting on a regular basis. We had a meeting just yesterday with our departments. We met again today. We want it all ongoing. As you know, Mr.

Gotleib is going to be in tomorrow and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) and I will be speaking with Mr. Gotleib, because, as you know, we have to raise the agre ement away from the corps of army engineers into the state so that we can get some proper agreements. These things have to be done. Manitoba officials are meeting on a continuous basis with federal officials to discuss the Rafferty-A iameda project and to ensure that Manitoba's interests are done. lt was quite interesting to listen to the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) who said he pla yed it low key.

Well, yes, the NDP environment concerns were low key. There was not much of an environment department. Being last place environmentally shows you what was going on. They raise issues now tha t they did not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with when they were in Government. We can look at the Flin Flon situation where they complain about material that came in under their regime and then blame another department. Look at the Member for Wolseley (Mr.

Taylor} who knew about the PCBs and for two weeks did not say anything about it; who went to our department, over in Building 2 in Tuxedo, and said: How are PCBs supposed to be contained and hand led safely? They said: Do you know about any PCBs? And he would not tell them that there were PCBs in Transcona. lt was not until a tragic fire in St. Basile le Grande, and all of a sudden there was an interest, a public interest. All of a sudden the environmental ists came out of the wall and ran to the press to make a big scene. The Member for Niakwa (Mr. Herold Driedger) knew about it since last year.

I think it was April 7 or 8, '87, that he knew about that car in Transcona. So when we listen to the environmental concerns of the Members of the Liberal Pa rty, I think their record shows that they are a sham-you know, "Tay lor-made" stories by the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor). lt is quite obvious that the Liberal Party does not have much of a research department. If they do, they are not doing much, because they are following the press. Yo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-1-34a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 1st hansardpdf 34a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4d2f3958f48f33387c71b9c42831b8a0a8c8fddf

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