Manitoba Hansard — 21 March 1985 (Sitting 11A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-11a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 21 March, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commit tees . MINIST ERIAL STATE MEN TS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to table the cur rent outlook re the spring runo ff situation in Manit oba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Department of Health for the calendar year 19 84. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENN ER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to table the 61 st Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for fiscal'83-84. This was previously circulated to members when the House was not in Session but I am formally tabling it now . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to table the Annual Report for the Manitoba Horse Racing Commi ssion for the year 19 83-84. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ended March 31, 19 84. I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the year ending March 31, 19 84. I would like to table - and I apologize for this - only four copies of the Mineral Resources Division Annual Report; one for the Leader of the Opposit ion, one for the opposition clerk, one for the Clerk 's Office and one for the library. We were late in getting some figures in from Ottawa.

The complete printing will be done in I think two or three weeks and I will table the rest at that time. This is for the Manitoba Energy Resources Annual Report, year 19 83-84. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mi ni ster for the Environment. 278 HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an updated statement on the Carman situation, Mr. Speaker. I would like to update the House on the status of the clean-up operations at Carman. I have been informed by my staff that as of last night an alternate water supply is now in place for the community.

A pipeline and pumping system has been hooked up to the town's water treatment plant to provide water from further upstream on the Boyne River. Our department has analyzed the river water where this pumping operation is located and tests confirm that it is free of any of the chemical. The previous intake will remain closed until after the clean-up. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to inform the House that test results on the town's drinking water have indicated no trace of the chemical "Dinoseb". In terms of the actual clean-up operation itself, Mr.

Speak er, yesterday our department cleaned up a substantial portion of the chemical that was sitting on top of the river ice. We will be continuing our pumping and clean-up operations today on both the river bank itself and on the river bank property. Last night, Mr. Speaker, members of my departm�nt, EMO and the Department of Health met with Carman Town Council as well as three local physicians.

The meeting was called by my staff to fully update the community on the extent of the clean-up and the recommendation of the Department of Health that anybody who may have come into direct contact with the chemical should see their family physician for a medical examination. We have been informed that some children and several employees of the town may have come in direct contact with the chemical, and as a result officials of the Depart ment of Health have recommended that they consult their doctor as a precautionary measure. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to indicate to the House that our department, in co-operation with the Town of Carman, is setting up an information office to respond to public inquiries about the clean-up operation . This office will be opening up sometime this afternoon in the Town Hall of Carman. I would further like to report to my colleagues that our investigation as to the source of the chemical is continuing and as of today, officials of my department will be meeting with the RCMP in Carman to request their assistance in the investigation . Mr.

Speaker, I would like to clarify for the members opposite why there was an apparent time delay. On February 21s t, when the first report of the chemical was received, it was cleaned up by the town under the supervision of the local public health inspector. On March 1s t, when the second area of contamination was discovered on the river bank property, it was cleaned up immediately, then on March 12th, when the chemical was discovered on the river ice, we ini tia ted an emergency clean-up operation. Our investigation to date has revealed two distinct possibilites: (1) the chemical may have been dumped

Thu rsday, 21 March, 1985 on the river bank property and on top of the river ice after each of the clean-up operations had occurred; or (2) that the two other locations where the chemical subsequently was found may have been concealed by snow and ice. Town officials and staff of my department could find no trace of further contamination after each clean-up operation on February 21s t and March 1s t. Mr. Speaker, I will keep the House informed of any further development. Thank you. . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, this is not my normal critic role.

My colleague, the MLA for Radisson, is not with us unfortunately this afternoon, so I will take the opportunity to reply to the Minister's statement. I thank him for a part of the information. I was in Carman this morning and EMO has very effectively set up an alternate water supply for the Town of Carman. They have a pipeline established bringing water some 600, 800 feet upstream from the chemical contamination site and that water supply is effective, working well and not contaminated.

There has been a number of confusing reports in the media that rail cars were bringing water into Carman, etc., etc., and that did not happen, Mr. Speaker. They are using river water in their normal treatment plant process. Mr. Speaker, the Minister indicates some confusion in terms of report ing the chemic al spill and the departmental involvement in the clean-up and I think this, Sir, is where I certainly have some questions on the department's role in this chemical spill.

I posed the question to the Mini ster yesterday in question period as to when the February 21s t contamination was noticed and the clean-up was undertaken, whether there was an analysis done on the contaminant. That appears, Sir, not to have been done. Tha t raises two very imp ortant ques tions, Mr. Speake r, without kn owing what ch emic al was contaminating the snow in the environs of the Boyne River, which serves the community of Carman for their water supply, without knowing what chemical that was, how could a disposal recommendation have been made?

It's my understanding that the disposal of that February 21s t clean-up was in the local landfill site. That's hardly, Sir, a recommended procedure that the Department of Environment has taken in the past, nor should it be a procedure they undertake. Mr. Speaker, the area under which the chemical was discovered is on the slope of the Boyne River. There is no other place for the snowmelt to go but into the river.

That would indicate to me that when departmental staff and members of staff of this government on February 21 st were notified and on-site and discovered an unid entifie d ch emical contam inant, that it immediately should have caused them to undertake the actions on February 21s t that they apparently have undertaken in the last week. There is a three-to-four week delay here, Sir, that I think does not leave the departmental officials and this government accountable for their actions.

There is absolutely no question when one investigates the site of the original spill that it had implications of affecting the quality of water for the Town of Carman, because the slope drained it directly 279 into the river at a point some 600 or 700 feet upstream from the water intake for the Town of Carman.

Until the Minister provides the answer as to how his department could only discover on approximately the 19th of March what chemical they were dealing with, after being on-site February 21 st for a preliminary clean up, until he answers that question, Sir, the handling of this up until the 19th of March is very questionable by the department. I have no quarrel, Sir, with the handling that EMO has undertaken since the 20th of March. They have put in an emergency line; the water supply is secure. There has been very little disruption and very little anxiety in the Town of Carman.

But, Sir, the Minister and his depart ment kne w or had kno wledge - government officials had knowledge as early as the 21s t of February - that there was a potential chemical spill upstream from the water supply. It took until the 19 th or 20th of March to discover what chemical that was.

And I might remind you, Sir, since you were sitting on this side of the House, that had any other government undertaken such an inordinate delay in discovering what the chemical was upstream from a water intake, the Honourable Member for Churchill would have called in every environmental expert across the North American continent and blamed the government for irresponsible act ion and it tur ns up they are protect ing the government. Now, Mr. Speak er, this happened with this government and this Minis ter in ch arge of the Department of Environment.

From February 21s t until approximately the 19 th of March, they did not identify a chemical and, Mr. Speaker, they disposed of a chemical, a contaminant in a landfill site without knowing what it was. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not proper handling of this situation by the department. Currently, they are cleaning off the river ice, and they've got this product in barrels on the river ice to be removed presumably. But, Mr.

Speaker, until the Minister answers these basic questions as to the lack of action and the lack of identification of that chemical from February 21s t until about the 19 th of March, his departmental record of action in this case deserves a lot of hard questioning. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTROD UCT ION OF BILLS HON. S. USKIW introduced Bill No. 13,

An Act to amend The Water Resou rces Administration Act. HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 21,

An Act to amend The Financial Administration Act. HON. A. ANSTETT introduced Bill No. 22,

An Act to amend The Municipal Boundaries Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 22 students of Grade 9 standing from the General Wolfe Junicr School under the direction of Mr. Salfert. The scho·J is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Eliice.

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 In the loge to my left is a former member of the Assembly, Mr. McGill. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also prior to Oral Question period, I have a statement for the House. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEA KER: On Wednesda y, March 20th, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain rose in his place to raise a question regarding the circumstanc es concerning the time allocated to him during his remarks on the Throne Speech Debate on March 19 th. I undertook to look into the matter and report back to the House.

I have reviewed the relevant records, Hansard transcript , the Clerk's diary and the master tape. The Honour able Memb er for Turtle Moun tain is entitled under Rule 33 to speak for a maximum of 40 minutes within the time allocated for the Throne Speech Debate. It is the practice of the Chair to make working notes on a scratch pad of the time that a member begins speaking , noting interruptions such as points of order, and questions, etc., so as to assign the full time due to a member speak ing. The working notes are usually discarded at the end of the day.

By chance, the working notes of Tuesday evening were not discarded and are available for reference as to the times of members speaking. Those notes indicate that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain began his remarks at 8:37 p.m., and was followed by the Minister of Energy and Mines at 9:18 p.m., allowing one minu te for a question by another memb er which indicates an elapsed time of 41 minutes.

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain will recall that he was given the "five-minute" signal at 9:13 p. m., a few minutes before the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines inquired of the Chair how much time remained of the Ho nourable Member for Turtle Mountain's speaking time. In further examination of Hans ard records, the master-logger tape which operates with a 24-hour digital clock, indicates that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain concluded his remarks at 9:17 p.m., consistent with the Chair's timing.

However, the Hansard clock indi cates that the Ho nour abl e Mem ber for Turtle Mountain began his remarks at 8:42 p. m., a difference of five minutes, which was confirmed by the Clerk's diary. Therefore, I can only conclude tha.t I was in error in noting the commencement of the member's time. I accept full responsibility for the mistake and extend a complete apology to the honourable member and to the House. Having made that apology, I must observe that any suggestion that the Chair was influenced by another mem ber is entir ely without foundation, and any reflection on the Chair is enti rely out of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS Governor of North Dakota - discussions with MR. SP EAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. 280 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Given the news reports of a mor e concilia tor y tone on the part of the government officials of North Dakota towards Manitoba and various disputes that we have between us, I am wondering if the Premier had contacted leaders of the Government of North Dakota in an effort, perhaps, to set up discussions that might serve to bring together both sides in discussing items of mutual concern and _ interest. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: The Leader of the Opposition, for his question - yes, I had already contacted and spoken and met personally with the Governor of North Dakota some two or three weeks ago. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indicate whether the discussions that are held might lead towards a meeting with some leaders of this Legislature and the North Dakota Legislature and perhaps an opportunity to further discuss some of the concerns that we might have mutually amongst us. HON. H.

PAWLEY: The meeting that I held with Governor Sinner indeed did lead to a meeting involving two members of my Treasury Bench with the leadership in the North Dakota House and Senate. That meeting took place approximately 10 days ago and I trust, Mr. Speaker, it was a contributing factor toward the more conciliatory approach that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to.

Yes, in my meeting with Governor Sinner, we (lid discuss the possibility for political leadership in North Dakota to come together with political leadership in the Province of Manitoba, to have discussions in many areas of common concern involving North Dakota and Ma nitoba, for in stance, issues pertai ning to the exchange of tourism business as well as issues pertaining to . . .

One problem that they feel very strongly about, and yet it is outside our jurisdiction, yet is a matter I feel that we ought to discuss, the impact of the low Canadian dollar, and that negative impact upon the economy of North Dakota in relationship to its proximity to Manitoba. Health care institutions - zero percent increases in salary components MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

In view of the fact that it's reported that his Deputy Minister has sent a letter to health care institutions in the province indicating, specifically, that they will be limited to a zero percent increase in salary component for the hospitals under their jurisdiction, does that indicate that the freeze on layoffs has been removed from the hospitals in the province as a result of that move?

Thu rsday, 21 March, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to make a correction, I doubt if it's the Deputy Minister that sent the letter. I think it was an interview with the Deputy Minister. The letter was sent by the Manitoba Health Services Commission. The letter is intended as a signal that they will be hard-bar gaining, there's no doubt about that.

I think that the people in the hospitals, and the message has to go out to Manitobans that if they want to protect wages and so on something will have to give, especially when one of our partners, the founding partners of the Medicare and hospitaliz ation, is not living up to expectancy in the funds that we are receiving. I think the message has to go out. Now, I could say that the same thing, the same direction that I issued a year or so ago - a couple of years ago - still exist that nobody will be laid off until this has been approved by the Commission.

It has to be subject to the Commission, unless this is someone who has been hired by some hospital over and above the guidelines in the allowance of the Manitoba Health Services Commission. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, given that the Minister, therefore, and his department have indicated that there will be no in crease in the funding for the salary component, and given as well that there are no layoffs to be allowed, and given as well that many of these organizations, many of these hospitals have ongoing contr acts in a final year of which they do ha ve commi tments for salary inc reases, how does the Minister suggest that they can meet these and where will the cuts come? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The contracts that have been approved by the Commission - they should have been approved - will be lived up to and that should be added to the base, if it hasn't been done already. Hydro rates - farm and residential increase MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Energy. On Page 15 of the National Energy Board Report, it indicates that during the course of the hearings, the Manitoba Hydro's council projected a 70 percent increase for hydro rates by the year 1993 for large industrial customers.

My question to the Minister is: in view of the fact that it's understood that farm and residential rates are considerably highe r, what would the comparable increase be for farm and residential customers of Manitoba Hydro? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to find the exact reference to the . . . MR. H. ENNS: It's Clause 517 in the middle of Page 15. 281 HON. W.

PARASIUK: What was indicated - there are the normal projections for hydro rate increases that will take place, I think I indicated in the Legislature, whereby Hydro indicated that hydro rate increases would increase at a level which they believe will be less than the rate of inflation, which in economic terms means that in real terms there will be a decrease in hydro rates relative to increases in other prices within the country. The rates for residential and home consumer users, Mr.

Speaker, would therefore be in the same type of proportion, but I think that's a matter that could be dealt with in detail at the Public Utilities Commit tee. But I certainly will take the question as notice and get the specific answer on that, but I wouldn't think that it would be out of line with the proportionate type of increase that was indicated on Page 15 of the report. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely seeking information and I do not want to be accused of spreading wrong information.

I would simply ask the Minister then, I could be right or I would be right by talking about a 100 percent increase for residential and farm use ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro by the year 1993. HON. W. PARASIUK: No, Mr. Speaker, that would depend upon the rate of inflation, and I would think that it would certainly not be in the order of 100 percent, as the member is now trying to indicate. Municipal taxes - possible reduction MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

Using as an example, an average home assessed at $7,000 in the Winn ipeg School Division No. 1, the total taxes on that home from 1977 to 1981 increased under a Conservative Government by $78.03. In four years under the NDP, the total taxes on that same home have increased by $344.32, four-and -a half times the total increase under a Conservative Government for a similar period. My question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier is: in view of the NDP election promise signed by the Premier in 1981 to ease the municipal tax burden, and in view of the fact that this is the last year in government for the NDP - thank God, Mr. Speaker! - when will the government reduce and ease the burden of municipal taxes on the public of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to make no apology for the level of assistance that has been given to the City of Winn ipeg since the election of this government. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, if we were treated as well by the Federal Government by way of transfer payments as this government has treated the City of Winnipeg, we would be dancing in the front of this Legislature.

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 We are, as of present information, liable to a 15 percent cut in transfer payments from the Federal Government in respect to equalization, Mr. Speaker. That has not happened insofar as transfer payments from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg. In fact I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is an increase of some approximately $3 million - I'm subject to being corrected - this year in payments to the City of Winn ipeg as opposed to last year. Mr. Speaker, we can assist to a certain extent, but we can only to a reasonable level hold the hands of munic ipal leadership.

Municipal leadership must bear responsibility insofar as their management of the affairs of their municipali ty, city, town or village. So I think that the honourable member might prefer to consider addressing his question to some of his friends and colleagues at City Hall. Ambulance and transit increases MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this government has failed miserably in maintaining its promises to the people of Manitoba in 1981. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the Premier's election promise and statement in 1981 where he said: "The city is cutting back and raising the price of essential services such as ambulances and buses ... ", could the Premier confirm that since 1981 ambulance charges to the people of Winn ipeg have risen by 33 percent, from $75 to $100, and transit fares have increased by 33 percent, from 60 cents to 80 cents for adults?

Could he confirm that those increases have taken place under this NOP Government that promised to ease the tax burden and condemned incr eases in pri ces of essential services such as ambu lances and buses, and he signed the statement? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member like to rephrase his question to deal with matters which are entirely within the administrative competence of the government? The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier in the � election of 1981 stated that the city was cutting back essential services and raising the prices of ambula nces and buses. Could he confirm that ambulance user fees have risen by 33 percent, from $75 to $100, under his NOP Govern ment, and that adult bus fares have increased by 33 percent, from 60 cents to 80 cents per adult? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That is the same question. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier does not wish to answer these questions which are very embarrassing to him.

Tascona, Cathy - financial assistance MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The question was ruled out of order by the Chair, and not by the First Minister. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. 282 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, a supplementa ry question to the Minister of Sports. I have a constituent, one Cathy Tascona, who is one of 10 women picked for the Canadian Powerlifting Team to attend world championships in Vienna, Austria in May of 1985. She is the first and only woman ever to be selected from Manitoba.

Could the Minister of Sports brush aside the regulations and bureaucracy in his department, and provide some financial assistance to assist Cathy Tascona in attending the world championships? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I'd like as much. But I can just see tomorrow morning people saying that I brushed aside all this bureaucratic interference to help people in my constituency, why can't I do something in their constituency and I would be in big trouble. Mr. Speaker, let's be fair. There is only so much money that can be spent on sports.

I remember that from the last 10 years ago when I first accepted the responsibility for Sports, there was a total of about $30,000 spent in this province, and now there are millions of dollars. We cannot possibly deal with every individual and every team as such. There are hundreds literally, and my friend knows that, hundreds of teams. And furthermore we did not take the revenue from the Lottery and put it in the Consol idated Fund where we could, as some people say, help the City of Winnipeg, help the hospitals and so on.

We gave out a large part of that to go to the Sports Federation so they can answer some of these needs. I would hope that they will be able to do something. Now as far as the rules and so on and to say that we will make one exception, although we'd like to do it very much, I think it would be improper. Swan River Curling Rink - Jobs Fund assistance MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOU RLAY: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Prem ier.

Appro ximately a week before the opening of the Session, my constituency had the distinct honour of having received a visit from the Premier and at least one of his Cabinet Ministers, at which time the Premier participated in the official opening of phase one of the new curling rink. I would ask the Minister at this time if he could advise the House as to whether he received an official invitation to participate in the Jobs Fund assisted construction of the curling rink, or did he request to be present there to - (I nterjection) - open the rink? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The Honourable the First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't really know. All that I know I had the very distinct pleasure of attending at a very warm and hospitable opening of the Swan River Curling Rink expansion, along with the Honourable Member for Swan River, and I thought we

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 enjoyed the evening. I know the people in Swan River appreciated very much the contribution by the Manitoba Government by way of the Jobs Fund insofar as the curling rink expansion and all that I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that everybody was very pleased that evening mutually. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A further question to the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House whether he had sent an invitation to mem bers of the NOP party in the Swan River constituency at taxpayers' expense to attend the official opening of the curling rink in Swan River? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether or not who was contacted. Mr. Speaker, I must just mention by way of interest, unlike the impression the honourable member appears to have, I felt there was general pleasure of the fact that there had indeed been Jobs Fund contribution to the Swan River Curling Rink, and that the Manitoba Government in co-operat ion with the Town of Swan River and the Swan River Curling Club had succeeded in ensuring - after some 18 months, I believe it was - that the curling rink in Swan River be back in operation. MR. D.

GOURLAY: I wonder if the Premier would advise the House if it is the policy of his government to have NOP rallies at official openings at all Jobs Fund assisted projects in Manitoba. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the honourable member's sensitivity because obviously at the opening of the curling rink there was a great deal of express ion of support for the efforts of this government. - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, probably to the honourable member's chagrin, there were some very good things said about this government, about the Jobs Fund activity. Mr.

Speaker, there was a community reception in which municipal people, business people, people from different clubs and organizations within Swan River were invited to attend. I'm sure approximately 42 percent were NOP and maybe 58 percent were Conservative, if we were to go by the results of the last election in Swan River. Wife abuse - TV and radio commercials and ads MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Community Services concerning the flood of TV and radio commercials on wife abuse and I'm referring specifically to the remarks of the co ordinator, Bernice Sutherland. (I nterjection) Well, I don't find this a laughing matter, maybe the honourable member does. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of statements made in recent days and most recently by the co ordinator of the program that, rather than countering what they are intended to counter, that they may be 283 increasing rather than reducing the level of wife abuse in the communit y.

And Mrs. Sut herland is saying perhaps the ads are counter-productive. I want to ask the Minister whether she can confirm that finding or comment on it? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see some report from the questioner as to what exactly was said. My understanding is that the ads are leading to more reporting, and I haven't heard any suggestion that they are influencing the numbers of abuse cases that are there. MR. R.

DOERN: I refer the Honourable Minister to the Free Press of yesterday and CKY of two days ago. - (Interjection) - Well, you have a subscription, why don't you tell us? Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister whether, in view of these statements which have been quoted on the radio, reported in the press by Mrs. Sutherland, there is in fact a danger that the ads may be counter productive and whether she would make an immediate reassessment of them and if so, revise the ads or withdraw them and replace them with something more suitable? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered the question.

I will, however, speak to the individual and determine what her assessment and opinion is. I will also consult with other people who are carefully monitoring the impact of the ad campaign. Swan River Curling Club - Opening reception MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do want to provide a more precise answer to the momentous question that was posed to me a few moments ago by my friend the Honourable Member for Swan River. Mr.

Speaker, I am inf ormed ind eed by the Honour able Memb er for Northern Affairs that he was invited to participate in the opening of the Swan River Curling Club.

The Honourable Member for The Pas, the Minister of Northern Affairs, indicated that regrettably he'd be unable to attend on the particular day they had fixed but indicated that he'd be present with the Premier one week after that particular date, and would it be all right that the opening take place that point, to which the local people were delighted to reschedule the event so that the Minister of Nor1:,ern Affairs and the Premier would be able to attend that particular event. Mr.

Speaker, at that event there was a commun ity reception which included leaders of municipalities, businesses, community organizations, whatnot, and in the afternoon there was an excellent opportunity, too, to meet with people within the community. Mr. Speaker, in fact I am thinking I may have made a mistake a few moments ago when I sugge sted 58 percent Conservative and 42 percent NOP, it may be reverse now in view of the last three years in the Swan River ";onstituency.

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 Flood Assistance Program - Bellsite-Garland area HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, and further, I took a question as notice from the Honourable Member for Swan River about a week ago pertaining to boundaries, extension of certain areas in the Bellsite-Garland area of Swan River. The Minister of Agriculture has that matter presently under review.

In fact his regional directors in the Northwest and the Interlake have compiled an inventory of all possible area extensions, and we are receptive to the alterat ion of tho se boun daries subject to, of course - arid it is a Canada Man itoba agreement, federal - sensitivit y to the concerns of the farmers in that area that may have been left out as a result of the particular boundaries. It is my understanding the Mini ster of Agriculture will be making representations to the Federal Government in Ottawa pertaining to possible changes with respect to the boundary since it is a 50-50 agreement.

I believe I should add by way of note and just caution the honourable member that we're not overly optimistic because a similar effort on the part of the Saskatchewan Government to change its boundaries in areas that were affected by drought was not successful. But Mr.

Speaker, we're going to attempt to obtain federal support for the change of the boundary because I do think that there are farmers in the area that ought to have been excluded and we hope that the Federal Government will be sensitive to the very real concerns of farmers that were excluded by way of the boundaries that were prepared un der the Canada- Manitoba agreement. From our point of view, we are prepared to do our part. We await a response from the Federal Government. Morgentaler Clinic - prevention of abortions MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Attorney-General. It is stated by Henry Morgentaler that he intends to open this abortion clinic this Saturday . My question to the Attorne y-General, as the ch ief law officer of the province, what action does he intend to take to prevent Henry Morgentaler from performing abortions at his clinic in Winnip eg in contravention of the Crimin al Code? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Whether or not the actions of Dr.

Morgentaler or anyone else are in contravention of the Criminal Code are for the courts to determine and it would be improper for me to attempt at a judgment outside of the judicial system. That is why we have judges; that is why we have juries; that is why we have the presumption of innocence which pertains to anyone in the land and that's the way it ought to be and I am sure the Member for Pembina will agree with that.

I am satisfied by information supplied to me by my sen ior law officers and, in deed, th at the simi lar information has been supplied to the Attorney-General of Ontario, that there is no inju nctive remedy which 284 can be taken under the Criminal Code. However, that issue is before the courts tomorrow, I believe, and it may be that a different conclusion is arrived at by a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench and, of course, we will abide by any such decisions which are made in the judicial process. So I hope that my answer to the Member for Pembina gives him the information which he requires.

If there were - well, I think I've gone as far as I can in the circumstances. The issue is before the courts tomorrow and the courts will determine whether indeed there is some steps of the kind that he seems to indicate which can be taken. As I say, I have been satisfied by my senior law officers, as has the Attorney-General of Ontario, that no such injun ctive relief is available under the Criminal Code or criminal law generally. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, the Attorney-General didn't exactly answer the question as to what action he would take to assure Manitobans that he wouldn't allow the resumption of operations by Morgentaler this Saturday. Bill No. 2 - Extra fee billing MR. D. ORCHARD: I would pose a question to the Minister of Health, Sir. In introducing Bill No. 2 yesterday, the Minister of Health indicated, in answer to questions, that med.ical practitioners operating as an opted-out practitioner could do so providing their fee

schedule did not exceed the fee

schedule as prescribed by MHSC. If medical practitioners operate in excess of the fee schedules prescribed, will they be barred from medical practice in the Province of Mani toba un der the constituents of this Bill No. 2? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: To make sure that I understand the question, Mr. Speaker, if they charge more than the rate that has been allowed, well they won't be; it will be an offence and they will have to pay a fine. Now that is the main thing.

What's going to happen, I can't tell you, but it certainly will be an offence and they would have to pay the fine. It would be done illegally. Why I answered this way is that I, Mr. Speak er, do not issue a licences to doctors. This is done by the College of Physicians and Surgeons through legislation that we have here. But, without hesitation, I am saying that this would be done if they are doing it illegally and they won't be covered at all. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Health.

If the medical practitioner who has opted out for his billing procedure, if he does not comply with all of the regulations for that medical procedure, will he be barred from acting as a medical practitioner in the province? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I do think that the Honourable Member for Pembina's questions have to do with a bill which is before the House and is subject to a debate at a different time. If the honourable member has concerns and wishes to put forward an opinion on the bill, he should do so when the bill is next before the House.

Th ursday, 21 March, 1985 Tax imposition on non-residential property owners MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education took a ques tion from the Honour able Member for St. Norbert as notice yesterday, which related to the notification from the Public Schools Finance Board on the City of Winnipeg. That notification found its basis in the equalized assessment for the City of Winnipeg and for the whole province, which is prepared by my department, and I am responding on the Minister's behalf to the member.

That equalized assessment is not reflective of the downward adjustments made by the Municipal Board last January in accordance with the provisions of Bill 105 passed at our 19 83 Session - I might note unanimously by this House - which froze the equalized asse ssments at the 19 83 values pending the im plementation of the MA RC rec om mendations respecting assessment reforms.

So there have been neither adjustments upwards for added assessment or found asses sment of which some thing in the neighbourhood of $4 million in additional revenue to the City of Winnipeg this year on which no upward adjustment is made in equaliz ation; sim ilar ly, no downward adjustment in Winn ipeg or in several other communi ties across the province where adjustments one way or the other might have been warranted on the basis of reassessment over the last couple of years. Opted-out practitioners - provincial barring MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honouable Member for Pembina on a point of order., MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I believe I asked an initial question to the Min ister of Health and you expressed some concern about my first supplementary. I believe I have a second supplementary under normal question of a Minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I am not sure that a supplementary question can be properly in order if the original question was out of order. If the honourable member has another question, he may pose it. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under circumstances of no extra billing in the Province of Manitoba, could the Minister of Health inform me today whether opted-out medical practitioners who have violated any regulation to the profession will be barred from practice in the province? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That is the same question I ruled out of order just now. 285 Trade-offs with North Dakota MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I had a question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

In their meetings with the officials from the State of North Dakota, were there any trade-offs offered by the Province of Manitoba to placate the North Dakotans in regard to fish exports, the MANDAN line or any other matters? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, the meeting that was held some one week ago, thereabouts, was really a public relations exercise on the part of elected people on both sides of the border; something that we believe should have been ongoing for many many years for the benefit of all of us, and it's part of a new process that is under way at the moment.

We did not get involved in negotiations of any kind other than that we wanted to have meetings more frequently to deal with matters of mutual concern and, therefore, we have agreed in principle tha t those meetings will be held probably once or twice a year both here in Manitoba and in North Dakota. Road restrictions effective date MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Minister responsible for Highways and Transportation.

In view of the evidence of possibly an early spring break-up, I wonder if he can inform the House when the road restrictions will be placed in effect and what he has in mind as far as road restrictions this year are concerned? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice and report to the House as early as possible. MR. D. BLAKE: I wonder if the Minister could inform the House what restrictions are now in force as far as wide loads on the highways are concerned. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, again I will take that question as notice.

Road restrictions on wide loads re mobile homes MR. D. BLAKE: I am sure the Minister may be aware that the road restrictions now restricting 16 -foot wide loads from moving m0bi!e homes, if the restrictions remain in force, there be two mobile home plants that will be shut doNn and the mobile plants now that

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 have 12 to 15 units to be moved will be unable to move those units into place. I wonder if he might consider those regulations. These loads are not overweight loads by any stretch of the imagination; they are carried on 16 -wheel trailer units, and they're well within the load limits. I would like the Min ister to reconsider that restriction, and allow these people to move the units that have been sold, and the dealers are in the process of selling now, to move them into place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I just would say on that that I don't believe there have been any special changes that have been made to those regulations this past year. If there has been, I will look into it for the honourable member. I know that there are special permits that could be issued for situations that might develop of an emergency nature, and they would be considered. Henderson Highways Day Care Centre - physical and verbal abuse problems MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Commu nity Services.

Can the Min ister tell this House whether the problem of physical and verbal abuse at the Henderson Highway Day Care Centre has been resolved? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the situation with the day care at Henderson Highway is undergoing, I guess you would say, a process whereby the people in our department responsible for regulating and supervising are working with the board and with the staff to develop a healthy program and one that can be considered to meet these standards. They've been given provisional licences.

There has been significant improvement to date, but still some unresolved problems and, if we cannot resolve all these problems within the period of one year, because we've only been supervising this group since June 1st of last year, there will be no more licence granted to that day care. Henderson Highway Day Care Centre - meeting MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. The Parent Adviser Committe e of the Henderson High way Day Care Centre requested a meeting with the Minister. I wonder, can the Minister tell me whether this meeting has been held and, if not, does she know when it will be held. HON.

M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the situation at this day care is that they have not complied with the usual 286 expectation that there be a parent board, because they were operating with a church board when we took over regulating. We've been working by persuasion to get more parents onto the board. Our co-ordinator asked for a meeting with the Director of the Centre and with the Board and with the Parent Advisory Council and, at the meeting, the Parent Advisory Council had not been invited to attend so, in fact, the initiative to meet with the Parent Advisory Council has been coming from our office.

I will certainly be available to meet with the Advisory Council but, waiting for that, we've asked the co-ord ina tor to increase their supervision and contact with the centre. Vicon - location of head office MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Technology. He stated that the officials of the government and the Steelworkers Union and the officials from Vicon would be meeting on Tuesday the 12th to start discussions again regarding Vicon placing their operation in Manitoba.

Can the Minister inform the House what progress has been made in those discussions? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The discussions were between the union and the company, and I believe there was some assistance from representatives of the Department of Labour with respect to that particular meeting. I understand that those meetings are still continuing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commi ttee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION pr esented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Sup ply to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair. COMMI TTEE OF SUPPL Y MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: We are considering the resolution granting Interim Supply. The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

I have a question for the Minister of Finance relating to the

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 Municipal Tax Sharing Agreements. Is it correct that the money paid to the mun icipalities under the tax sharing agreement is done so under legislation, and it is not a matter of yearly discretion on the part of the government in its Budget? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: The legislation, as I understand it, requires that an amount, whatever is estimated, be sent to the municipalities, but it is up to the government to determine how that is calculated; that is, there is urban service, rural service - I'm not sure.

I don't think there's a rural service category, but there are different categories. There are a numb er of opportunit ies to change the distribution as to how the money goes, No. 1. No. 2, I don't believe there is anything in the legislation that says that there is a specific date on which it has to be done, based on specific figures at a specific time. Over a period of time, you review it and occasionally there are overpayments and there are underpayments, and that sometimes has to do with what happens in future years as well. MR. B.

RANSOM: Perhaps if the Minister of Municipal Affairs was going to respond to the same question, Mr. Chairman, I yield the floor. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mini ster of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the statutory provision relates to the dedica tion of the gi ven percentages, 2.2 percent of income tax and 1 percent of corporate taxable income. The actual distribution is determined under a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council Order. Those orders vary from year to year, depending both upon the amount and the distribution.

There is an Urba n Ser vices Su pplement for munic ipalitie s larger tha n 5,000, and one for municipalities smaller than 5,000. Those two amounts are different, in addition, there is a base amount. All of that, in effect, could be changed in any given year as well, but that basic formula has been in place for quite a number of years, I understand virtually since the inception of the program back in 1976, and it's only the amounts that have been varied. Some years the Urban Services Supplement have been increased, as well as the base; other years, only the base. That is what is discretionary.

The dedication of the funds for municipal purposes is provided for in the act, but no distribution is statutory. MR. B. RANSOM: A further question then to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said, 2.2 percent of personal income tax revenues. Does he mean 2.2 percent or 2.2 percentage points of the amount of tax that's due? HON. A. ANST ETT: The latter. MR. B. RANSOM: It's the latter, the Minister indicates, Mr. Chairman.

So my further question to the Minister then is that when he says there is a further 13.6 million for local government general support, is that 13.6 million 287 based on the cost sharing, based on the 2.2 points and the 1 percentage of corporate income tax, or is tha t something that the go vernment has ind eed budgeted for, that sort of increase, on a discretionary basis? HON. A.

ANSTETT: If I can understand the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain's question, I believe he is asking the nature of the budgetary provision for the additional amount of local government support which is intended to offset the health and education levy, which is paid out actually at a level of about 1. 55 percent of payroll costs, slightly more than . . . That is a budgetary item, it's provided in the Estimates; that does not come from the provincial-municipal tax sharing statutory arrangement. There are two separate amounts referred to.

One is paid in July as an offset for provincial m u ni cipal tax shari ng. The other is paid in late September, which is the offset on the health and education levy so that the burden of that levy is not imposed upon local government. MR. B. RANSOM: When the announcement was made that there will be 33.2 million for municipalities under the Tax Sharing Pact - I understand that it is based on the 2.2 points of personal income tax and 1 percent of corporate income tax - how much of an increase does that represent over what was due under that formula last year? HON. A. ANSTETT: 9. 7 percent. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to speak for a few moments about the burden that this government has placed on homeowners in this city and throughout this province. Mr. Chairman, I can recall, as Minister of Urban Affairs for four years un der our govern ment, being in Comm ittee of Supply. The former Member of St Johns said to me, "Does the Minister and the government feel in any way responsible for the level of real property taxation?" I replied: "Yes, I do and we do." And we were responsible, Mr. Chairman. The Member for St.

Johns said he was glad to hear that because he felt, as I did, that the Provincial Government bore responsibility for the level of real property taxation in this province and obviously the NDP felt the same way, Mr. Chairman, because in 1981 in th eir elect ion document signed by the Premier, they promised to ". . . ease the property tax burden." Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat some of the statistics I used in the question period which, unfortunateiy and regrettably the Premier did not respond to. MEMBER: Because they were wrong. MR. G. MERCIER: They're not wrong, Mr. Chairman.

In the City of Winn ipeg School Division No. 1 for an average home assessed at $7,000, the net increase in taxes was $78.03. Those -.·•ere statistics, Mr. Chairman, that were prepared b· department whilst I was the Min ister. Mr. Chairr·· since the NDP has been in power, with the irv taxes approved by the City by the Chairman increase in

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 of Winnip eg Council yesterday, there has been a net in crease on th at home, over four years of NOP Government, of $344.32, four-and-one-half times the in crease that occurr ed under a Co nservative Government for a similar time period. This comes from a government, Mr. Chairman, that promised to ease the property tax burden. We can recall, those of us who were in the House at the time, Mr. Chairman, the NOP in opposition criticizing us for increases that had taken place in amb ulance services, amb ulance user charges and transit. Mr.

Chairman, the ambulance user charges have increased by 33 percent since this government took office for a total amount of $25, from $75 to $10 0.00. The adult bus fares have increased by 33.33 percent, from 60 cents to 80 cents for adult fares, Mr. Chairman. So much for the promises of the New Democratic Party in the election of 1981. They have not provided, Mr. Chairman. any relief to the homeowners of the Winnipeg School Division or other divisions.

I regrettabl y note th at in my constitue ncy, the Fort Garry School Division increase and the Seine River School Division increase, both of which apply to parts of my constituenc y, have been raised very considerably this year. On an average home assessed at $7,000 in Fort Garry, it's $77.80; and in the Seine River, $7 1 .60, Mr. Chairman. So I think that this government has betrayed homeowners in this city by not doing anything to ease the property tax burden. In fact, they have harshly increased the property tax burden. Mr.

Chairman, this government has introduced Interim Supply at this particular time, and I want to make a comment on that, because I think what they have done demonstrates either their incom petence or an attempt to manipu late on the part of this government by doing so at this time. They decided a long time, Mr. Chairman, when the House was going to be. They knew that they would need some Interim Supply; yet they called the Budget for this evening. Only two afternoons of debate on Interim Supply are allowed. It's going to have to continue into the month of April, because it's not going to pass today.

Then what will they be saying in April when the members of the opposition want to continue debating the nume rous areas of contention and concern that we have with respect to the administration of the affairs of this province by this government? They're going to say, look, we're under pressure. You've got to pass this. They are trying to manip ulate this House. They're either trying to manipulate it, or they are incom petent. I for one, Mr. Chairman, don't care how long we have to debate Interim Supply in April. It is not going to be our responsibility that it won't be passed.

It is the responsibility of this government for incompetently once again mismanaging the affairs of this province, Mr. Chairman. So let the Government House Leader and the Minister of Fina nce be aware now. the position at least I believe that should be taken on this particular side. We're not going to pass it until we have finished talking about all the areas of incompetence of this government, Mr. Chairman, and that means we can go on for an awful long time. Mr. Chairman, we have in this province an extreme crisis. We have 48,000 unemplo yed persons in this 288 province.

It's always interesting when you look at that figure, which is 20,000 more than when this government took office, to note - (I nterjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. G. MERCIER: It's always interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, how many are not included. Native persons in this province are not included in the unemployment figures. I believe the figure is about 45,000. The Government House Leader says, and it's the same in every other province, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the Government House Leader to examine the statistics about where Native people live in this country. HON. A. ANSTETT: That's right.

Saskatchewan first, Manitoba second. MR. G. MERCIER: That's right, Saskatchewan first, Manitoba second. Mr. Chairman, we have a significant number of people, 80-90 percent probably of Native people are unemployed at the present time, so you have to add that to the number of unemp loyed people. You have to add, Mr. Chairman, the number of welfare recipients (I nterjection) - able-bodied welfare recipients, the Member for Turtle Mountain reminds me. That is very significant, the Member for Turtle Mountain went over those figures the other day. You have to add to that figure, Mr.

Chairman, the numbers of discouraged workers, people who have given up looking for a job. So it's not just that 48,000 people, it's a figure that's much much larger and, therefore, makes the situation that much worse in this province. What is the NOP answer? The NOP answer,. Mr. Chairman, supported by massive expenditur es on advertising, on the addition of political aides and commun icators, is Li mestone. Forgett ing all the arguments, Mr.

Chairman, about the cost to the hydro cons umer as a result of the advancement of construction, forgetting about those - for the purpose of this argument, I am not going to address that particular area - at its peak it will provide 1, 400 jobs and when it's all over, apparently, there will only be some 40 people who will be required to operate that particular facility. So, Mr. Chairman, that is not the answer to the unemployment problem in Manitoba.

What is required in Manitoba is a long-term plan to establish a climate for investment in this pr ovince which will create permanent jobs for the young and middle aged and older workers of this province because Limestone is not going to solve their problems, Mr. Chairman. That is the area where this government, Mr. Chairman, is the weakest because we have seen, for example, the decrease in manufacturing that has taken place in this province; that the Conference Board refers to the fact that manufacturing in Manitoba, unlike other provinces, has not gotten out of the recession levels, unlike other provinces.

There perhaps is a growth in the service sector but, Mr. Chairman. if you examine what people earn in the manuf acturing sector, com pared to the average earnings in the service sector, there is quite a difference. In the manufacturing sector in 1983 the average weekly

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 earning was some $378 per week; in the service sector it was nearly $1 00 less per week. What is happening is we are losing the better paying jobs in Manitoba and, if there is any replacement, they are in the service sector which are lower paying jobs. So that's not doing very much, Mr. Chairman, for workers in Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, the members opposite, the Premier, and the First Min ister talk about an in creasing percentage of investment in Manitoba. But what has happened, Mr.

Chairman, is investment went so low under the NOP that any increase is bound to have a significant increase percentagewise. But what is really happening to Manitoba, the important figure, is that Manitoba's share of Canadian private investment has dropped significant ly. That's why we are not creating the perman ent, better pa ying kinds of jobs that Manitoba should be producing for the workers of this particular province. Why is that taking place, Mr. Chairman?

That's taking place because of the burdens that this government has placed on the private sector, the payroll tax, the sales tax, the removal of the hydro freeze, the labour legislation, and we see that just recently in the case of Vicon and Co-op Implements. I stand here and predict now, Mr. Chairman, that unless the Minister of Industry makes an extremely substantial grant to Vicon to locate in Manitoba to overcome the adverse effects of the payroll tax, and at assuming the existing collective agreement-which is required by their labour legislation, Vicon is going to locate elsewhere and not in Manitoba.

They will only be here if this Minister of Industry makes a substantial grant to buy those jobs for Manitoba to overcome what they've done by instituting the payroll tax, by their labour legislation. Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll see what happens. (I nterjection) - I don't know what Saskatchewan is offering. I can tell you what . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. MR. G. MERCIER: I can tell the Minister of Industry, Mr. Chairman, what Saskatchewan is not offering. They are not offering a payroll tax and they are not offering the labour legislation. Mr.

Chairman, this side of the House realizes the importance of jobs and we are not prepared to drive jobs out of this province. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order. The member is ready to proceed? The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret very much that the Minister of Industry left the House after speaking from his seat because he should have stayed here. He should have stayed here, Mr.

Chairman, to listen to this debate and become a part of this debate because what we are talking about is what apparently members ... 289 POINT OF ORDER MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Member for Wolseley on a point of order. MS. M. PHILLIP S: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that a member is not supposed to refer to a member's absence or presence in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please, order please. The Member for Wolseley has a point of order. The rules of the House apply in committee. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur on a point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: Does the same non-smoking rule apply in that same ruling? MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules regarding smoking have not been passed yet. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It remains to be seen what will happen with respect to Vicon and whether they locate in the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman. We on this side hope that they do locate in Manitoba because this government needs all the help it can get in providing jobs to people in Manitoba. What I am saying, Mr.

Chairman, is expressing the deep and serious concern on the part of this House for the level of unemployment in this province which is caused, certainly in part, by what this government has done to discou rage in vestment and the establishment of jobs in this province. What I am saying is that the Minister of Industry is going to have to offer a very sign ificant grant to Vicon to overcome the payroll tax and to overcome !heir labour legislation to have them locate in this province. Mr.

Chairman, what we are saying on this side of the House is that there is going to have to be long-term planning to create a climate in this province that will create permanent jobs for the workers of Manitoba. That has not occurred, and there are some very worrisome signs and statistics that leave me certainly with the impression that the effects of the government's actions over the past three-and-a-half years are now coming home to roost, and are causing some very very serious problems for the workers of Manitoba.

Limestone, forgetting about all the arguments about the cost to the consumer of the advansement, is not going to solve those problems, Mr. Chairman, is not going to solve those problems. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make a few remarks at this particular stage of this Interim Supply. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. C':airman, I don't intend to speak at any length, but I '' 11nk a few of the comments made by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert reply.

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 The first point that he made reflected on the ability of this House to deal with debate on a variety of items in which the opposition has interest. I want to suggest to the honourable member that there will be, during the first month that this House is in Session, more opportunity for wide-ranging debate than there has been in many of the years in which he has been a mem ber of this House. Mr. Chairman, we have had since the 7th of March debate on the Throne Speech in which members have an opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on virtually any topic of interest.

We yesterday engaged in the In terim Supp ly Debate which provide s the same opportunity . . . MR. B. RANSOM: We can't ask questions. HON. A. ANSTETT: . . . are doing the same today. The Member for Turtle Mountain says from his seat, we can't ask questions there. Well certainly the purpose of the House beyond question period is to provide for debate. If anything, Interim Supply provides the same opportunity for debate, as members wish to avail themselves of that opportuni ty, as the Throne Speech or the Budget The Budget Debate will begin tonight, and will last eight additional days.

Honourable members oppo site will have that opportunity to debate at length. It's very seldom, except during the last couple of years, and last year was the first year in which the Throne Speech and Budget were essentially back-to back, providing virtually a month of complete cover the-waterfront debate.

For the honourable member to suggest that somehow the plans of the Minister of Finance to introduce his Budget tomorrow and the failure of the government to have asked for Interim Supply at an earlier time when the House was in the Throne Speech Debate, shows a real misunderstanding of what the purpose of Supply is. MR. G. MERCIER: Call the House earlier. HON. A. ANSTETT: The member says, call the House earlier. Mr.

Chairman, we've been waiting for two weeks in view of the demands of ho nour able mem bers opposite during the winter to call the House, and we still haven't had from them a question period which was even interesting to the point where all of these drama tic issues th ey wanted to explore with the government, this hammering the government was going to be getting just has not occurred. I've been wondering where th ey're keeping their dry powder, because everything they've used so far is wet and fizzled.

So to suggest for a minute that there was some need to get Interim earlier shows a real misunderstanding of the purpose of Interim Suppl y. MR. H. ENNS: It shows a hell of a lot of arrogance on your part. HON. A. ANSTETT: I won't reply to the Member for Lakeside, other than to suggest that the House this year started at or about the time it normally starts if you go back over the last 20 years and take an average Session start date, give a week or two. We were well within that normal range of start dates. 290 Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat ridiculous for the Member for St.

Norbert, who has on this side been Government House Leader, to suggest that the only opportunity that members opposite have to do this great criticism of the government, which he claims is coming and for which we've been patiently waiting for two full weeks, is Interim Supply. I might expect that from some members opposite but from one who has been House Leader, I know that he's very much aware of the rules and of all of the tremendous opportuniti es available to engage in debate in this House, and doesn't need to trump up that excuse. But, Mr.

Chairman, he did make another criticism which I had heard before with regard to the levels of municipal taxation. I found it rather interesting. He added the current year city budget which had not been done in a brochur e he distrib uted around his constituenc y, and of which I was privileged to receive a copy, in which he compa red property tax increases during the Progressive Conservative Government years from 19 78 through 19 81 property tax years to the present administration, 19 82 tax year through 19 84 tax year and we don't have all the final budgets for municip alities for 19 85. Mr.

Chairman, I would like you and members of the House to take note of some comparison figures that I have had compiled showing the levels of tax increases in those years. Mr. Chairman, to avoid any suggestion that there was any bias to the City of Winnipeg, I ;:ilso selected from the stand ard sample used by the Department of Municipal Affairs, it's a sample that has been place for many years and also used by the Member for St. Norbert when he occupied that same portfolio, a standard sample of 24 municipalities outside the City of Winnip eg and the City of Winnipeg. Mr.

Chairman, the figures are as follows: From 19 78 to 19 81 inclusive, property taxes in those 25 selected municipal jurisdictions went up 21 .3 percent - 1978 to 19 81. From 19 82-84 they went up 10.7 percent, almost exactly half of the figure that they went up from 1978- 81, inclusive. Well I suggest the Member for St. Norbert do as my Premier suggested to his Leader of the Opposition, and that is, do some more research or get a new researcher. Mr. Chairman, just in case the member doesn't like those facts . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: . . . he can consult the statistical

summary prepared when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs for '78 and'79, and that same

summary prepared by the Member for Swan River when he was Minister under his authority in'80 and'81, and the comparative documents prepared in the same format for every year since then. That's where that data comes from - 21. 3 percent for '78 to'81 inclusive; 10.7, one-tenth of a percentage point more than half, barely 51 percent of the total during the Tory years. Now, just so we don't want to be too selective here, let's look at what it was just in the City of Winnipeg. In the City of Winnipeg, the '78 to'81 increase, 11. 5 percent;'82 to'84, 9.8 percent. A MEMBER: Do'81 to'84.

Thu rsday, 21 March, 1985 HON. A. ANSTETT: '81? A MEMBER: Yes, you're missing a year. HON. A. ANSTETT: You would like 198 1? A MEMBER: You're not basing it on the continuous HON. A. ANSTETT: I see. The honourable member suggests that 19 81, a year when his government, he was Minister of Finance and bears a great deal of the culpabili ty for these figures. In 1981 the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain was Minister of Finance on this side of the Chamber for 10 of the 12 months of the year and was the Minister responsible at the time all of these municipalities struck their budgets.

For some reason, and I've noticed this with a few of the other statistical calculations, the 1981 calendar or fiscal year, the Member for Turtle Mountain always wants to credit to this government because it was his "bad news" year. Well, Mr. Chairman, we on this side will never let the Member for Turtle Mountain deny the credit for the disaster he was as Minister of Finance in that year in particular. Mr. Chairman, I repeat just so the member knows what I said. From 19 78 to 1981 the increase in the City of Winnipeg was 11.5 percent; from'82 to'84 inclusive, 9.8 perc ent.

The Hono urable Memb er for Turtle Mountain has a penchant for being wrong. · The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on Tuesday night, if I may digress, Mr. Chairman, suggested - (I nterjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert on a point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Would the Hono urable Government Hous e Leader table the documents he's referring to? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm reading from a staff mem oran dum. I'm prepared to table the document when I'm finished. I'd like the original back though.

But the honourable member is certainly entitled to have a copy. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has a penchant for being wrong, I started to say, Mr. Chairman. I'm being gentle when I suggest that Mr. Chairman. I could say things that implied that he provided some mental direction, but I'm not going to go that far. On Tuesday night he suggested that it was an NOP campaign from '77 to '81 to create this slogan, "Will the last person to leave Manitoba turn out the lights?" - (Interjection) Yes.

You see, he either has a very faulty memory or he forgets that that cartoon was used in Progressive Cons ervative campaign literature in the 1977 election campaign, and only two years later when people were leaving Manitoba en masse was their own cartoon turned around on them and now he's wincing at the cuts. It's always a loud protest when one is hoisted on one's own petard. 291 Mr.

Chairman, the average increase in the 24 non Winnipeg jurisdictions, because I said I would provide the honourable member with the complete table, the average increase for the non-Winnipeg, 24 in the sample, was 21. 7 percent, '78 to'81 inclusive; and 10.8 percent,'82 to'84 inclusive.

So the data upon which the honourable member relies, of which I don't know the base, leaves some doubt as to the suggestion that property taxes in the Province of Manitoba, certainly within this sample which at least four Ministers have considered representative of the province as a whole including two on the other side, leaves some doubt as to the accuracy of the statistics that he used in this House this afternoon or that he spread throughout his constituency and I suspect some of his colleagues did as well throughout their constituencies suggesting that property taxes ha ve incr eased more un der this administration than under theirs when, Sir, just the opposite is the truth.

Mr. Chairman, I may wish to participate again if I hear mo re ridiculous statements from mem bers opposite. I think part of our obligation on this side is to listen, look for construct ive criticism, and heed it. But, Sir, we also have an obligation to rebut nonsense and to ensure that the facts are on the record. We will attest to that at every opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: I welcome the opportunity to rebut ridiculous statements and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, of course, is the author of a great many ridiculous statements, but there happens to be one before us at the moment that I'd like to deal with this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I've spoken over the past week or two in the course of the Throne Speech debate about the duplicity that's practised by this government, the double speech and the double dealing. How they say one thing and do another.

Talk about how the Minister of Education calls a press conference and says that she's going to be working towards 90 percent of educational funding and then she, two weeks later, anno unces that educational funding is going up to by 2 percent, half of inflation and therefore moving further away from 90 percent funding. That's the kind of thing we've been dealing with. Now just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs put out a press release; a press release dealing with the tax-sharing pact that the municipalities have with the government.

Now we just confirmed through questions earlier in this Sessi1 •1 this afternoon that indeed the amount of money that goes lo the muncipalities is set in law, 2.2 percentage points of the personal income tax, I percent of the corporate tax. The Minister of Municipal Affairs --(I nterjection) - Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs now is changing from what he had confirmed before, but it really doesn't matter - (I nterjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Mini ster of Municipal Affairs on a ,1t of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: The member is saying from his sta nce speak ing I said it was I percent of

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 corporation or corporate tax. I know for the record, Sir, because I'm very clear on the point, that there's quite a difference between that and what I did say, which was I percent of corporate taxable income. The member knows there's a substantial difference. He can check the record. He can verify that from the statute itself. He should know better. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. IB. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, the point that I want to make is simply confirmed by the Minister. The amount of money going to the municipalities is set in the statute.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs just reconfirmed it again. And he said that it's up 9.7 percent this year over last year. Why then does he put out a press release that says that it's going up 9.7 percent because of this government's commitment to muni cipalities? It has nothing to do with the government's commitment to mun icipalities. The press release says: "In 1984 tax sharing payments increased 3 percent. This year's increase of 9.7 percent ... "-(I nterjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. IB. RANSOM: The press release says, Mr.

Chairman, "In 1984 tax-sharing payments increased 3 percent. This year's increase of 9.7 percent is" - and this is in quotes to quote the Minister of Municipal Affairs - "dramatically higher than all other grants provided this year to local governments, school boards and other public agencies, such as hospitals". Mr. Anstett said, "It reflects our commitment to assist mun icipalities keep mill rate increases to a minimum." That is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. He had no choice, Mr.

Chairman, he had no choice except under the law to pass that amount of money on to the municipalities, and what he wants to do is put out a press release that tries to indicate to the people of Manitoba th at some how he made the discretionary move to increase this. That's simply not true, Mr. Chairman. It's not true. This, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that said it's the responsibility of members to refute ridiculous statements when they hear them. Well, there's a ridiculous statement, that the Mini ster of Municipal Affairs has put out through the propaganda arm of this government.

It's just one more example of the kind of distortion that takes place through the millions of dollars that the government is spending on its propaganda; that's what their priority is. Mr. Chairman, there are some other points that I would like to deal briefly with, and perhaps we can get some answers. Maybe the Minister of Finance would answer if the Minister responsible for Energy and Mines is unavailable to answer some of these questions.

The members opposite don't seem to understand why we have some concerns about the Hydro scheduling, the fact that the government is proceeding with the construction of Limestone Generating Station at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out some of the his tory related to the Limestone project; the fact, for example, that construction was once before started in the spring of 1976.

That construction was 292 undertaken on the basis that experts had made a recommendation that because of expected growth load, it was going to be required; that there would be an in service date, I think at that time, of 1983. The Limestone Generating Station was going to be required by 19 83, and so construction was undertaken in May of 1976. Now, it's evident from the Tritschler Report that there was some qu estion at th at time as to whether construction should have started in 1976 or not, that is, could have gone to 1977, a six-year span of time during which the plant could have been built.

I think I can provide a quotation from the Tritschler Report that says: "In May of 19 76, when the Board formally committed Hydro to construction of Limestone for a 19 83 in- service date, there was already concern within Hydro and government about the continued downturn in demand for electricity. Under these circumstances, the board should have insisted on further analysis of the costs and risks of defer ring commitment, recognizing that a six-year construction

schedule was considered possible." There was a six-year construction

schedule that was possible then, but the government chose to go with a seven-year construction schedule. The consequence of that was that they committed about $90 million to the construction of the cofferdam. Then, in the summer of 19 77, due to a downturn in the expected growth of demand for electricity, the government decided to suspend construction of Limestone, only one year after making the decision to go ahead. Now we'll see, Mr.

Chairman, that had they worked on the shorter period of time for construction, if they'd worked on six years instead of seven years, then they would never have begun the construction, they would never have put that $90 million into the cofferdam because, by the summer of 1977, it was already evident that they could not proceed with the construction. Indeed, it was deferred at that point. Subsequently in 19 78, the decision was made final that it would have to remain suspended in accordance with the decision of the Hydro Board in the summer of 1977.

It's also interesting that at the time it was suspended in 19 77, the expected in-service date had then moved from 19 83 to 19 87. By 19 79, when the Tritschler Report was completed, the expected in-service date had been set back a further two years to 19 89. By this point in time and over the last couple of years the expected in- service date has been set back even further to 1993. So it's very evident on the basis of experience in this province that the best estimates that have been made available to the government, to the Legislature, to the committee have been wrong.

They have been wrong more often than they have been right. That would indicate to me at least, Mr. Chairman, that the wisest course of action is to proceed with a short period of construction because it allows you to be able to estimate more accurately what the requirement is going to be from that power dam. If they had done that, if they had delayed construction in 1976 and said we'll go with a six-year construction period in stead of seven, they would never have committed that cofferdam.

The taxpayers of Manitoba, the Hydro ratepayers, would not have been paying interest on a $90-million cofferdam that has been there now for nine years. That's quite a lot of interest. The Minister of Finance will know that $90 million over nine

Thursd ay, 21 March, 1985 years at today's interest rates, or the interest rates it's been since that time, will more than have doubled. That one decision has cost Hydro ratepayers over $1 00 million, right there. The whole revenue tha t Manitoba Hydro had, and the Minister just tabled the report today, $352 million from sales within the province. So the cost of that one decision alone has been equal to about a third of the revenue that Manitoba Hydro gets from in-province sales.

So is it any wonder that we express concern about this decision that when we have been told in the committee that for a 1993 in-service date - it's estimated when Limestone will be needed for Manitoba - that construction could have begun in '86 or '87, '87 really was what they were telling us two years ago? Then the government went to the National Energy Board and they made a request. Their submission was for a one-year advancem ent. We qu estioned the advisability of that, but in fact what they're going for is a two-year advancement. It's a two-year advancement, Mr. Chairman.

So there's the concern, so why we think that there may be a risk being run here, an unnecessary risk being run, and we think that it's being run basically because it fits in with the government's election schedule. Because there is no objective body that reviews that decision, make no mistake. The National Energy Board did not review and approve of the government's construction schedule. What the National Energy Board approved _was the government's request to sell power. That has been approved, but not the construction schedule.

It is an interesting comment that comes out in the Winnip eg Free Press today which isn't a direct quotation from the Minister of Energy, but it is at least an indication of the reasoning. I know that I have heard this reasoning put forward before, and so I would like to deal with it to some extent. That is what the Minister supposedly has said, that the project will not be completed until 19 90, and that the interest bills won't have to be paid until the revenue starts to roll in, which only means that the interest costs are being capitalized.

Sure, they're not being paid in the year that the first borrowing takes place and the cost is incurred. There are many people who would argue that that should be the case, that it really does reflect the true cost but they're not. They eventually will be paid and if the plant is built two years before it's required, if it starts two years before it's required and it's completed two years before it's required, at the other end of that construction

schedule you have a plant in place two years earlier than you needed it and you have the whole cost committed for two years earlier than you need it if, in fact, it turns out that construction was begun one year or two years earlier; the point being that that's the risk that is being run; that if it started a year too early, you really have committed $3 billion a year too early and the interest cost on that, Mr. Chairman, is likely to be $350 million, $375 million. So, sure, there's going to be a cost there; that's the potential risk that's being run.

There is one other point that the Minister of Energy and Mines raises occasionally - and I have heard this one made by other members and I would certainly hope that we would not hear it from the Minister of Finance because it's such a ridiculous position to be putting forward - and that is that it's going to be cheaper to 293 construct it now than it will a year or two years from now. But what a stupid argument , Mr. Chairman!

When inflation is running at less than five and interest rates are running at what, 13 percent; so that the increase, the gap between inflationary increases in the cost of building the dam and the cost of the capital that has to go into it is 8 percent So that for every year that the dam is built before it's needed, there really is a cost of 8 percent involved. Just to illustrate that point further, if we look at the Tritschle r Repor t again , it had some inte resting information in it that has to do with the cost escalation. I would like to ask the Min ister of Finance what he would think of this proposition.

It says here that " ... the design and engineering for the Limestone project has been somewhat variabl e as ind icated by the projected cost of the development. An initial cost estimate of some $400 million had been increased to $750 million by the time the project was presented to the board for approval in 19 75. Even this estimate proved to be much too low and a revised estimate some two years later projected a cost of $1, 138, 000,000.00." So that means that by the time the project was suspended in 19 77, the projected cost at that time was already getting up in the range of 1.1 billion to 1. 2 billion.

Now, if the argument of it's cheaper to build now than next year holds presently, then surely it would hold also that they should have proceeded and built it because it would only cost 1. 2 billion instead of the 2.5 billion or 3 billion that it's going to cost by the time they complete it. Does the Minister of Finance think that would have been a wise thing to do? Does he think that would have saved money? Perhaps if the Minister of Finance could indicate whether he would accept that kind of argument or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Are you ready for the question? The Minister of Finance. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I have a fair amount to say about this. I am pleased to see that the Member for Turtle Mountain finally, at least, is talking about hydro-electric development. It's unfortunate that he is just staying in the past and not talking at all about the future, but at least there is one member opposite who is wanting to talk about Hydro and is not making the ridiculous claims that have been made by some people on that side. The member asks, should we have built it because it was cheaper? I don't have the answer to that; I don't know what kind of revenue we could have gotten on the other side.

I presume that was looked at by Hydro and it was determined that there wasn't sufficient possibility for interruptible sales or any other kinds of sales in th ose years, and ti mes have cha nged considerably. One difference that we have today, Mr. Chairman, a very significant difference between what we had then and what we have now is it's not only Manitoba Hydro who has gone over the numbers; it's not only the NOP that have gone over the num bers; it's also the National Energy Board that have gone over the num bers; and

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 they tell us that they have found nothing to contradict the findings of Manitoba Hydro. They have looked at loa d gr owth rates; the y have loo ked at the reasonableness of projections for interruptible sales on the two-year versus one-year advancement and they make it very clear that it is not up to them to say yes or no to how we build our dams. But what they do say is, that according to their calculation we are going to have more net revenue for Manitoba Hydro by building two years early than if we build one year early in order to complete the sale to NSP.

That is very clear; that is what they say. They say that we will have net revenue benefits to Manitoba Hydro greater by going two years early than ii we don't go two years early. The members opposite say the experts have been wrong in that. Yes, they have. The experts have been wrong on both sides of the questions.

The experts have been wrong, I remember back in the early 1970s when I was involved somewhat with the natural gas issue at which time we had people like - and this was before the energy price explosion - we had people making fun of Tommy Douglas, the Imperial Oil people having cartoons about us and the world drowning in oil in the year 3,000 or something like that, and saying that this man was predicting doom and gloom and it was just nonsense.

A couple of years later suddenly the price of oil jumped from $2 a barrel to $20 or something like that - I don't have the exact numbers - but the experts were wrong on the other side and in the last couple of years, last year and this year, what are the load growths for Hydro for last year, 7 percent? HON. 'W. PARASIUK: They are up 4.5 percent and they say with normal weather conditions to 6 percent. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Normalized for weather, 6 percent. What are we calculating - 3. 1 or 3.2 percent over the period coming up. What are the people who are analyzing this industry saying about needs?

That probably we are underestimating right now as we were overestimating in the 1970s. So there we have the possibility on the other side. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has talked a great deal about Limestone and the decision. I wasn't around then; I am not prepared to defend him. I only point out that he cannot just add the cost of that cofferdam, the $90 million and the interest costs, and say that it wouldn't have been spent now. It is true that there may be differences.

It is true that it may have cost us money - I don't have the numbers - but it is also true that if we built it today it would cost us more money. How much money it cost us, I don't have the numb ers, but it's something that we could factually determine. I don't suggest that we build part of the plant ahead of time in order to avoid inflation, but I do suggest that occasionally there are things that are happening out there .. A MEMBER: Why do. you go out and campaign on that basis then? A MEMBER: Because your Minister of Mines and Energy is spreading it all over the country. 294 HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Well, I'm sure Wilson will have his shot at it. He is delighted that we have turned to discussing this very important issue. - (I nterjection) - Jim got me off my train of thought there for a second. I have been busy thinking about other things this afternoon, but again I want to say I'm delighted that we are back onto this kind of topic. I remember now what I was going to say. A couple of days ago, there was an annou ncement in the Press with respect to the speed-up of Hydro Quebec and its next set of projects.

It may be that it's related to an election, but on the other hand you have Bourassa saying that he wants to get that economy going with some hydro-electric deals. The government and Hydro now are saying that they are beginning to gear up for th e next project which would, as I understand it, be a much larger project than what we're going on. The point being this, that right now we are the only show in town in North America. That's a fact; nobody else is building a hydro-electric dam. That means that we're in a position now to be able to deal with the companies that produce the turbi nes and generators, etc.

They are hungry right now. They are looking at this project and saying, boy, we really would like to do this because we want to keep our people busy and so on. That is a part of the equation that has to be put forward. The Member for Morris, I really wish, would read the National Energy Board decision, so that he would understand a little bit about what is happening here and maybe not make such stupid comments. I refer to Page 25, "The Disposition of the Issue." "The Board is required . . . "- (Int erjection) - This is what the board is required to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: The board has a responsibilit y, and the responsibility it puts succinctly. "The Board is required to satisfy itself that the power to be exported is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Cana dian requirements, and that the price to be charged is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest." That is what that board was charged with doing. After hearing all of the evidence, it came to the conclusion that indeed the whole sale was just and reasonable. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V.

SCHROEDER: The board's finding is that there is a high degree of certainty that the firm export will yield net benefits to Canada under either the two-year or one-year advancement. That's what they said. "The Board is satisfied that the revenues from this export will accrue to the benefit of Manitoba and Canada." Those are the kinds of things the board says after going through very caref ul ly, and it came to the conclusion that the price charged would be significantly greater than that charged to similar kinds of users in Canada. - (Interjection) Of course not.

The Member for Lakeside denied that the other day, but he has been denying also that it would have benefits to Manitoba. He suggested the board didn't say that when, in fact, the board did say that. He suggested it would be cheap

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 power to the United States when in fact the board said that it would be at significantly greater rates to the United States. The board has care fully exami ned the cases representing both the Sales Sequence and the 500- megawatt Only Sequence. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order. The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Again, here we are. We have a decision that says, yes, it will be a benefit to Manitoba - yes.

I would hope that the Member for Morris will take the time to read that decision so he will not again have so ill-informed a set of comments. The National Energy Board said there would be a profit of $20 million extra by going two years ahead. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. The Member for Pembina will have his opportun ity. We will be anticipating his response at the proper time. Order. The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I said that the board had used the words "significantly greater." I was wrong.

It is "substantially greater." I believe those words have some similarity. They said the board is aware that the export price would be substantially greater than the rates paid by the applicant's large, industrial customers. You see , the concerns raised by the mem bers opposite to the mining community - for instance, the Mining Association of Manitoba contacted us and said they were concerned. We have sat down with them, and we think we are able to allay their fears and point out that indeed if we went the way the Tories would have us go that they would be paying more for their hydro-electric power.

They would absolutely have to pay more, because the board has found that there is the profit that Wilson Parasiuk said there would be; that there is more profit proceeding two years ahead instead of one year ahead for Manitoba Hydro; and, if we didn't have that sale, they know that we would have to commence building the Limestone a year or two from now anyway. We would then fund it out of the taxpayers' pockets in Manitoba. That $1.7 billion would come out of the taxpayer's pocket here, rather than out of the industrial customers, Northern States Power in Minnesota.

That is exactly what the Member for Lakeside would want us to do. He would want us to play Chicken Little, say, no, no, no, we won't sell this power. He would like to distort the fact that there is - they keep saying, well, why do they have the dam in place in 19 90 when they're only starting to sell at the end of 1992, 1993? They can understand a little bit about Hydro.

I don't believe that they are so ignorant as not to know that the in-service refers to the first generators; that we don't have them all installed until the end of 1992, presuming that everything goes on schedule; and that there will be work proceeding during that time. Of course, we could delay it if we didn't have the sale, 295 but if we didn't have the sale we would lose the $1.7 billion in profits. That's something that I think has to be addressed by members opposite. They have been found wrong on every single issue.

The National Energy Board, an independent body, has said they found nothing wrong with Hydro's calculations, absolutely nothing wrong with Hydro's calculations. And there they are. MR. B. RANSOM: They didn't look at advancement. It wasn't their mandate. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Oh, I'm sorry. The Member for Turtle Moun tain says, "The y didn't look at advancement." Read that paper, Sir, Page 27: "The Board has carefully examined the cases representing both the Sale Sequence and the 500-megawatt Only Sequence cases.

The evaluation of the 500-mega watt Only Sequence case, assu ming only the one -year advancement required to meet the proposed firm export sale shows that the excess of Manitoba Hydro's revenues over its costs is expected to exceed $365 million." That's 19 84 dollars. They go on: "The Board notes that for the Sale Sequence, from Manitoba Hydro's perspective, the excess of revenues over costs for the two-year advancement would be about $20 million more than for the one-year advancement.

From the perspective of Canada as a whole, corresponding benefits would be of a similar range as those for the one-year advancement." Now, there we are, " ... excess of revenues over costs for the two-year advancement would be about $20 million more than for the one-year advancement." One-year advancement is at the $365 million, 19 84 dollars. Let it not be said that that board did not examine the two-year option. They did examine it and they found it to be right, and they found it to be profitable for the people of Ma nito ba. Read the document if you have to. Read the document. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order please. The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, I've been accused of not being a socialist anymore. A MEMBER: He's a funny looking socialist; that's the reason. A MEMBER: But nobody ever said you never made a mistake. HON. V. SCHROEDER: That is true, and I would be the fi rst to admit when I make mistakes and I would like to see other people, especially people on that side, stand up and admit when they make mistakes.

There's that suggestion out there that just maybe we didn't get the best price and I've already covered the fact that Mark Eliesen, this individual that brings up apoplexy in members opposite, Mark Eliesen and Hydro and Wilson Parasiuk have been told by the National Energy Board they got the best price possible - that's bargaining - didn't get anything less than what was possible, and I am very very impressed with that.

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 Those people work hard and they deserve our thanks. They deserve our thanks. The Member for Turtle Mountain had indicated they didn't look at the two-year advancement. There is another quote on Page 28, the cost recovery analysis - 7.3. 1 - "In the Board's cost recovery analysis the approach taken, as in the applicant's analysis, was to determine the difference in net revenues to Manitoba Hydro between the export sale and the no-export sale cases." Okay, that's how they determined it. What would the cost be to Hydro ii they have the sale?

What would the cost be to Hydro if they don't have the sale? And what would be the benefits, of course? What do they say? "The results of the Board's analysis" - not Hydro's analysis - "the Board's analysis !or the Sale Sequence showed that Manitoba Hydro could be expected to derive net" - not gross - "net revenues of about $385 million from the two-year advancement case." There can be no doubt that that board looked very care fully at the two-year advancement case and found that Hydro had proven its point. And where were the Conservatives at the time? They were sitting there not daring to ask a question.

They were sitting there and saying oh, the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in, the know-nothing-bunch, who wouldn't ask the question in order to clarify things because they knew - I believe they knew - that every time they asked a question we had the correct answers for them. There has never been a case in Manitoba history where we have proven more clearly, where any government has proven more clearly, the benefit of this particular sale. As I said the other day, the Tories weren't prepared to go through th at kind of grilling on th eir Saskatchewan-Alberta deal.

That's when they were going to just sell their power at cost, no profit. There wouldn't have been this $485 million 19 84 dollars; 1. 7 billion in as-received dollars - no siree, Bob. They thought that just the advancement of hydro construction would be sufficient benefit to Manitoba for them to start. They didn't want a profit from King Peter - and when I say King Peter that is not meant with disrespect - I have great respect for the Premier of Alberta. He did a good job of negotiating.

I don't believe there is any National Energy Board anywhere in the world that would have said that we got the best possible price on that particular deal. No siree! But that's what the Energy Board said with respect to Mark Eliesen, Wilson Parasiuk and Manitoba Hydro, the best possible price. That's tremendous; that's real bargaining.

The board goes on and continue s again - it's Page 28 - "The results of the Board's analysis for the 500 megawatt Only Sequence, which is associated with a one-year advancement of Limes tone, shows that Manitoba Hydro could be expected to derive net revenues of some $365 million." - 365 compared to 385. What would anyone as a responsible legislator do? Go two years and get an extra $20 million or one year and lose the $20 million?

Conservatives say they are always bold in action and that is after having used all of the reasonable sensitivity analyses that have been done by the experts for Hydro and have been done by the experts for the National Energy Board. A MEMBER: The same experts that did it in '76. 296 A MEMBER: Who are they selling at 20 million? A MEMBER: The same experts that did it in 19 81, Brian, you were prepared to go then. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, there's a bigger risk of doing something where you have a fixed cost and if you go above the fixed cost you start losing because you can't put it in your rate base.

I don't think that the Member for Turtle Moun tain understands the contract they entered into. They entered into a contract under which Limestone was valued at a fixed amount - I think it was 1.1 billion or $928 million - and if it came in about that, that wasn't in the rate base and we would have to pay interest on that year after year after year without having any possibility of profits out of that sale. That's the kind of negotiating they did and now they are sitting there like Chicken Littles trying to pick holes. I don't mind them trying to pick holes.

I accept the right of the Member for Turtle Mountain to pick holes; I do not accept the right of the Member for Lakeside to deliberately distort what has been said in this report. I don't believe that he has that right. That right he doesn't have; no member has. MR. B. RANSOM: Have you estimated the cost, Vic? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Turtle Mountain asked, did I estimate the costs . . We estimate costs continuously. Sometimes we're wrong; sometimes we're right.

Just for example, when the Member for Turtle Mountain was Minister of Finance, he brought in a Provincial Budget which incidentally had in'81- 82 a much higher rate percentage increase in growth in expenditures than in any year since then. But in that year he brought in a Budget and he had certain numbers, and he was wrong. The next year I came in with a set of numbers and I was wrong. Two years running we had numb ers where we had unde rest ima ted the amount of the budgetary requirements of the Province of Manitoba.

In the next couple of years, notwithstanding the predictions of the Member for Turtle Mountain who said for'83-84, I believe, we would have a deficit of $1 billion, we were at $434 million. That's what you . . . MR. B. RANSOM: Show me where I said that. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I believe it was December 10, 1982. I will find the quote in Hansard for you and I will bring it back. You said it would be about $1 billion, the deficit, and that will be grist for another speech. I'll look forward to that. Anyway, I said it would $579 million. All of those people opposite stood up.

The Member for Pembina stood up, had the gall to say he was betting his bottom dollar that the deficit would be far higher than 579. He never sent his bottom dollar anywhere. He lost. We came in at $434 million. The point is they go both ways. So metime s we 're wrong because we have overest im ated a defici t; sometime s we're wrong because we've underestimated a deficit. We have to go with our best possible poll. In this particular instance, with what we believe at this stage to be a conservative estimate - a fairly

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 conservative estimate of loan growth - 3. 1 percent in a year of 6 percent adjusted growth. If it was adjusted for normal weather, we would have had a 6 percent growth rate in Hydro this year, and we are saying we will only have 3 percent. The experts in New York are telling us that across North America the numbers will have to be adjusted upward, that the num bers are simply too low.

Yet the members opposite are simply arguing the other side of the case continu ously, notwithstanding the fact that the National Energy Board has now come along and said that they found nothing wrong with anything that Manitoba Hydro had done in terms of instant analyses, nothing wrong whatsoever. It's obvious to me that we are going to have to read and reread and reread some more of this report because just today we had the Member for Turtle Mountain say he had not realized that they had actually looked at the two-year advancement case. I'm glad that he picked something up today.

I'm sure that there are members ... MR. B. RANSOM: I said they had no mandate, you didn't even apply for that. HON. V. SCHROEDER: They did, they checked the arithmetic, they set up a formal paper. A MEMBER: They checked the arithmetic, that's the issue. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Look at these guys skate and slide. Skating, sliding all over the place. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, what was the mandate of the board? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well let's read the whole thing.

"The Board's assessment of the export proposal has not, however, turned up anything to suggest that the utilities generation expansion decisions are wrong.'' So don't you try to suggest that they ... MR. H. ENNS: We have enough reason, we have a Tritschler judicial inquiry to show how wrong you were in '76, and the people of Manitoba are still paying for it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: Another one of your Tory hacks, flax and bagmen-type of approach.

Our hydro rates are the lowest in North America, as the result of good solid planning by an NOP administration, as opposed to a bunch of Tories, including the Member for Lakeside, who were going to flood half of Manitoba, and give the other half away. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 297 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: You want to get into history1 Don't be ridiculous. They were going to flood half 01 it and give the other half away, and we were lucky, the people of Manitoba were very fortunate to get rid o1 that group of incompetent, know-nothing people.

A MEMBER: That's what's been substantiated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. I called the Member for Lakeside to order. The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Interesting, very interesting. The board's mandate was to satisfy itself that the power to be exported is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian requirements, and that the price to be charged is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest; that was their mandate.

In pursuing that mandate they looked at the two year advancement case, and the one-year advancement case, and found that if we advanced it by two years we'd get a net $20 million extra profit beyond what we would get if we advanced it for one year, and there is this group of crybabies trying to convince the taxpayers of Manitoba that we should do it on the one year basis, or not sell it at all. A MEMBER: Tell us who you're selling it to. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Tell us who you're selling it to? Oh my goodness, my goodness! A MEMBER: Who? Who? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: There, again, that demonstrates that, although they were physically at the hearings, they really were sitting there as the fellows, "See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil." They wouldn't ask questions because they knew that they would be proven wrong; they didn't want to hear anything, because then they would know that they were incorrect when they made speeches; they didn't want to see any of the graphs and exhibits that were put forward, because that again would give them too much knowledge so that they couldn't, from their ignorance and darkness, come to the Legislature and make any kind of uninf ormed statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. The hour is 4:30, time for Private Members' Hour. Committee rise. Mr. Speaker , the Com mittee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directed me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. IN SE SSION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for lnkster, that the report of the commi ttee be received.

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 MOTION presented and carried. PRIVATE ME MBERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: The time being 4:30 p.m., Private Members' Hour. Proposed Resolutions, the Honourable Member for Elmwood. In the absence of the honourable member, Resolution No. 2, the Honourable Member for Riel. RES. NO. 2 -ABOLITION OF THE SE NATE MRS. D. DODICK: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Concordia, WH ERE AS the fund amenta l purp oses of the Constitution of Canada is to protect the basic rights of Canadians in a free and democratic Canada; WHERE AS Canadians adhere to the principle of democracy, and desire that their legislative institutions be democratic; WH EREAS democratic rights of Canadians are protected in the Constitution of Canada and have their clearest expression in the House of Commons and the Provincial Legislatures; WH EREAS the Senate of Canada enjoys legislative powers, but exercises these powers without popular mandate; WHERE AS the Senate of Canada is a product of an earlier period when democracy had not yet matured in Canada; THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that this Legislative Assembly request the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces to act as expeditiously as possible to abolish the Senate of Canada.

MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be the sponsor of this resolution. As members of both sides will agree, the Canadian Senate has been a costly waste of taxpayers' money for over 100 years. At the creation of the Senate, it was decided that appoint ees had to possess 4,000 worth of real property above any debts or liabilities, net assets of at least 4,000, and be at least 30 years of age. Clearly, the Senate in 1867 was not meant to be either democratic or to represent Canadians from all walks of life. I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that those who suggest that's all history, the Senate needs reform, etc., that some other things have changed since 18 67. Women now have the vote. Finally, after nearly 10 0 years, Natives have the vote and here, in our Legislature, we have the first Treaty Indi an elected to the Manitoba Legislature, the Honourable Member for Rupertsland. The world has changed remarkably since 18 67, as has this country. The Canadian Senate, by contrast, has changed very little. We now have 104 senators whose fortunes have raised their salaries to $63,000 per year. I note they have no longer been appointed for life.

Apparently after 11 8 years this is the only real reform that the Senate has accepted. What do these senators do for their taxpayers' money? Well, from what I see, very little except for 298 minor debatings and trivial announcements. The Senate originates nothing, and it only acts or reflects briefly on bills sent to it by the House of Commons. In practice, this means that during the average five- month House of Commons Session, the Senate has literally nothing of consequence to do for at least three months. Of course, even when the Senate sits, it doesn't necessarily act. It often merely sits out of routine.

For instance, I looked up the Senate Hansard the other day and found it met for about 15 minutes, and then adjourned for two weeks until March 12 th. I guess the strain of filling three afternoons a week of idle chatter was too much and they really needed a break. On January 22nd, the Senate got some publicity and sudden interest when the Liberal-dominating members stalled a money bill previously passed by all three parties in the House of Commons. The reason the Senate stalled the bill was obvious.

The Senate is the only place in the country where the Liberal party is still a majority, and some of those recently-appointed bagmen and spent-party hacks think they are still running the coun try. This is, of course, nonsense. The Senate has no more relevance to modern Canada than the federal Liberal Party, both are replicas of another era. Just two years ago, the federal Liberals commissioned yet another study on Senate Reform.

The report and the commission generated much publicity and interest as Senators travelled across the country talking of reforms and regional presentations and elected Senate and all of the different programs. Once again, an army of academic and politicians debated the pros and the cons of a Senate Reform. I don't know how many of the Senators travelled to England and Australia to study their governments, but I suspect a few got some fancy trips. It seems to be a stimulation of the federal Royal Commi ssions that no commission is complete without a few trips to Europe.

Regardless, by mid-1984, the report was ready for the archives and federal Liberals were ready to act. Accordingly, in the logic that explains why there are only two elected Liberals, federal or provincial west of Lake Superior, the Liberals appointed a gallery of hacks and bagmen to the Senate; so many, in fact, that Trudeau got his successor, John Turner, to dole out the last batch of patronage after the election was called so that the Liberals would not lose their majority in the House of Commons.

When the Senate was created, Canada was a sparcely pop ul ated coun try with poor transporta tion, communi cations and weak provincial governments. These conditions no longer exist. Provincial representation in the federal Cabinet has always been more impo rtant th an Senators alleged reg ional representation. The Senate, recognizing its lack of mandate, has in recent years ratified without changing most bills and amending others slightly with the agreement of the House of Commons. Its former role as alleged regional representation has been effectively replaced by the regular federal-provincial conferences.

Transportation and communication theologies have changed and have eased the need for the Senate to represent these isolated regions. Canada is now a mature democratic and, as such, should abolish the legacy of another era. In maintaining the funding for the collection of an appointed political hack at $63,000

Thursday, 21 March, 1985 each, plus expenses, while preaching restraint is an affront of common sense. The Canadian Senate currently cost taxpayers over $35 million a year. - (I nterjection) -- Numerous times we have heard defenders of the Senate, defend it by claiming that all that was necessary was a few mild reforms. This, in my opinion, is avoiding the real issue. It is not merely the term of tenure of the Senators tha

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-11a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 11a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	52c2717a4fdebd086beeb8bda515832c7b492339

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