LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 5 June, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the commit tee to order. We are on Resolution 96, 4.(a) - The Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I missed practically of this afternoon's session. I was over in the Education estimates and I just caught the tail end of some remarks with respect to a proposed new bill being in the works as a result of an interim report of the Assessment Review Committee.

I am just wondering whether the Minister is prepared to release that interim report. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Mr . Chairman, as I indicated this afternoon, that I haven't had a chance to bring this interim report before Cabinet and there is some legislation being drafted with respect to the recommendations. I would hope to have this information available and tabled in the House hopefully by the end of next week at the latest. MR. SCHROEDER: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us when he received that interim report. MR.

GOURLAY: I can't just recall the exact date. I would say perhaps around the first of March. MR. SCHROEDER: Has he been in communication with the chairman since, that is, in terms of any updating of that report? MR. GOURLAY: I have had two three meetings with the chairman with respect to hearings that are taking place at the present time in northern Manitoba. I'm not sure of the dates that those hearings are completed but I believe it's around next week or so they're finished. MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister advise as to where the comm ittee will be holding heari ngs between now and the end of the hearings?

Is it strictly just up north? MR. GOURLAY: Yes, they have in Thompson and The Pas, I believe. I just can't recall the dates of those meetings which are in early June and then there is another meeting in Winnip eg to pick up presentations that were missed earlier, for anyone that wanted to submit further presentations. MR. SCHROEDER: And the bill that is currently being prepared, does the Minister expect to table that in the House shortly? Is it within the next few .• days? MR. GOURLAY: Yes, within the next few days. As I said, I hope that I could have that in before the end of next week. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 4.(a)- pass - the Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say, I find it to be an incredible position to be in to hear from the Minister that he is preparing legislation based on an interim report of a committee that is still holding hearings, of a committee that is still going to the people of this province and pretending to ask them for their opinions on what is going on with respect to municipal assessment. The taxpayers have been put to a great deal of expense in order to, hopefully, discover something about municipal assessment.

Now based on a report issued back in March, after which a number of hearings have been held, the Minister has told us he is preparing legislation which will be in the House by the end of the next week. Yet that committee is out there for what purpo se, up in northern Manitoba listening to people after a bill is in the process of being prepared. I find that totally incredible. We have the committee coming back into Winnipeg. It's going to hold another hearing here in Winnipeg to sort of clean up the remains. There were a few briefs that hadn't been heard, so they are going to come here and hear those people.

If I were one of those people coming to the hearing at this point in time, I must say that I would be questioning the purpose of coming. I would certainly be questioning the usefulness of the committee from the end of March, from the time it issued its report, and I would certainly be questioning the government in terms of $ecrecy between now and the end of next week. We know that there is a bill in the course of preparation. We know that it is based on a report which was issued at the end of March, and the government is not prepared to provide us with a copy of that report.

The government is not prepared to provide the people who go to these hearings in northern Manitoba with a copy of that report. I would suggest that what you are doing is not only tying one hand behind people's backs, you're tying both hands behind their backs and putting a blindfold over their eyes and asking them to come along and talk to the comm ittee. Why do esn't the commit tee or the government prepare or allow the people to see that report and then when people go to this committee between now and the end of next week, they can make some comments based on the interim recommendations of the committee?

I would strongly urge the Minister to do that. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, the legislation is based on recommendations that were contained in the recommendations from the interim report. The information supplied at the hearings that are still going on, of course, will be important and will be given every due consideration. 4421

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has stated again he is preparing legislation based on an interim report which was provided to the government at the end of March before which a number of heari ngs were held by that comm ittee. The government is saying to the people of Manitoba, we will ignore everybody whom we heard after the end of March of 1980. -(I nterjection)- I hear from the background that is not the case. I would suggest then that the Minister table the report immediately so that we can discuss it.

I would suggest not only for us, but also for those people who will appear before that committee between now and the end of next week that that report should be tabled, and I would suggest that the Minister apologize to those people who have been attending at those hearings between the end of March and now, and who will be attending between now and the end of next week, for secretly preparing a bill based on an interim report which you're not prepared to table and which these people do not have available to them when they go to discuss matters with a commission which appears to have made up its mind on what course of action to take; its made up its mind by the end of March of 1980, and I would suggest to the Minister that the balance of the hearings can be nothing short of a farce.

MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I would hope to be able to table the interim report by the end of next week at the latest. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: I was speaking on that very point, Mr. Chairman, before we we rose for the supper hour and I find it incredible that . . .

It's understandable that the government would bring in legislation if the interim report had been tabled but I find it incredible that the Minister is telling us - in fact unbelievable - that the Minister is telling us that the legislation is going to be introduced within the next day or two before the interim report or before the completed report is tabled in the House. The com ments made by my colleague from Rossmere are certainly appr opriate because it seems to me that the government hasn't learned.

What happened last year when they brought a School Act, a Public School bill in last year, under the same way; there were hearings held and all of a sudden we were faced with a bill, two weeks before the session ended and, subsequently, the government, after criticism from the op position and the pub lic, withdrew that bill, Mr. Chairman, withdrew the bill under pressure from the opposition and also other groups. Now they're doing exactly the same thing as they did last year and I find that unbelievable, Mr. Chairman. This is what I would call underhanded way of governing the province.

This is out and out dictatorship, I would say. Actually it's an insult to the members of this committee; it is an insult to the public of the province of Manitoba and to those people who attended those hearings. I wanted to speak on some other points on assessment, Mr. Chairman, but if the Minister wants to respond. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond that when the main report is tabled from the Review Commission, it will form the basis of most of the legislation. This is an interim report, with some interim legislation, that will be brought in at this time. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I think the Member for Ste. Rose still has the floor. MR. ADAM: Yes, I have other questions to ask but if my colleagues want to talk on this very point I would accede to them and come back to the assessment part of the . . .. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next member who has the Chairman's eye is the Member for Logan unless he wants to forego his place. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this issue. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I really can't see the purp ose of the Minister holding hearings.

It is, as my colleague has said, that there is pro posed legislation that is being considered on a preliminary report that the Minister evidently has had since March, we're now into June, that's two months ago. Surely there should have been some decision by Cabinet, some consideration of this preliminary report and now we find that here, in the dying days of the session, we're going to be given a bill on municipal assessment. I find it absolutely ludicrous that the government can operate in such a slipshod manner. I mean, you haven't even finished the hearings, the hearings are going on.

The Minister has stated the heari ngs are going to be held in Thompson, The Pas, completion here in the city of Winnipeg and this is a very complex situation, the assessment. The assessment, I imagine, in parts of Manitoba are as much as 10 to 15 years since reassessment in some areas. I don't think the Minister will dispute that too much, there are parts of Manitoba where an assessment hasn't been carried out at least in the last 10 to maybe 15 years. Now if the Minister is coming in with legislation tha t's going to make radical changes (Interjection)- Well, we don't know, we haven't seen the legislation.

It's all right for the member to say that ... It is the same thing as what we were assured last year, just a nice housecleaning bill. We'd clean up The Public Schools Act and The Public Administration Act and regardless of whether the government members here want to admit it or not, it was the opposition that raised the issue first; then it was the people that came here at the public hearings and make you pull your horns in and put the bill out for hearings. I'm just asking the Minister if this is the modus operandi that this government is going to operate, flying trial balloons all the time.

You 'll introduce this bill; it'll come to the Law Amendments Committee or the Municipal Affairs Committee and then when you get the flack you'll pull it back and say, we'll hold hearings. Why the heck can't you wait until you get your final report? The assessment is not that urgent that it has to be brought in at this time, especially in view of the fact that you've not even completed the hearings. By the Minister's own admission, he hasn't even cleared the preliminary report with Cabinet and he's telling us, well, I guess next week, Wednesday, which is 4422

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 Cabinet day, they're going to have a meeting on this preliminary report and then they might release the preliminary report next Friday; we'll get the report and we'll get the bill probably at the same time. I say this is pretty sloppy, pretty sloppy. -(In terjection)- ! would say to the Minister, consider seriously withholding any legislation until at least you have completed the hearings. I mean, it is an absolute insult to people who are going to be coming and making presentations on what they are finding - (I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, ·could you maintain order, please. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I think over the long haul I control it reasonably well, not 100 percent. MR. JENKINS: I understand that the Member for Emerson wishes to make a contribution but he can make his contribution when I'm through, and I'm not going to interrupt him when he is making his presentation, but when I am speaking I would expect that he at least show me the courtesy; if he doesn't want to, well, that's fine, then we can have a slug out match across the table, verbally of course. But to get back to the point, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Minister, I must say this is simply ludicrous that the government would operate . . . You are the people who are telling us that you're the great people who know how to organize things? My God, as your First Minister said, you couldn't even organize a peanut stand. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. Since the last time I spoke on this a few minutes ago, the Minister responded to the Member for Ste. Rose and stated that the legislation would be in accordance with the final report of the committee.

I find that to be even more astounding than what we have had up until this point in time. The committee is still ho lding hearings and people in northern Manitoba, presu mably, have spent some tim e preparing to go before this committee and point out the difficulties involved in assessment, meanwhile the committee had already reported to the Minister and we didn't know about it and certainly the people of northern Manitoba didn't know about it.

People here in Winnipeg were preparing reports and didn't know that there was already legislation being prepared, but now we're being told that the Minister knows that the legislation he's preparing is in accordance with the final report of this committee which means one of two things : One, the final report is already prepared and he knows what's in it, prior to the completion of the hearings in northern Manitoba and in Winnipeg, or whatever is being said in northern Manitoba and Win nipeg doesn't matter because they've already made up their minds, and in neither case is that satisfactory.

In neither case is that appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly hope that the Minister will tell this committee to consider all of the evidence that comes before it and to prepare a final submission based on all of the evidence, both from the people of northern Manitoba and Winnipeg, and from rural Manitoba.

Again, the Minister cannot tell this committee that the legislation is based on the final report of the assessment committee unless it has either already made up its mind and the rest of the hearings are totally irrelevant or in fact the comm ittee has provided a final report to him, in which case the balance of the hearings don't matter either.

Again, I would at least urge the Minister to at least table the interim report in order to clear the air so that the people who go to this committee, the assessment committee, between now and the end of next week, do so knowing what is in the mind of that committee, which has already made an interim report. MR. ADAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is one alternative that maybe the Member for Rossmere has missed. He mentioned two. The other thir d alternative would be that the government is telling the committee what to put into the report.

I find that would be astounding, if that was the case, but that's the way it could come out. But I'm going to leave that because the y'll have to live with that; the government will have to live with that kind of a situation. Anyway I wanted to get back to what we were talking about before supper and that was on the assessments . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Chairman, I think the Member for Rossmere didn't understand what I said earlier, that the final report, when that will be coming in, I'm not sure when, but the bulk of the legislation dealing with it would be considered at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rossmere, if Ste. Rose gives up the floor. The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, just to respond to what the Minister said, it may well be that what he just finished saying is what he intended to say but I believe that if we look at the record, the record will show that he said that legislation would be based on the final report, the legislation which he is bringing in next week. MR. GOURLAY: I didn't say that at all. MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought, as I recall it, the member to be wrong on that assumption; earlier, I really mentally thought that and I could be wrong on that. I suppose only Hansard will prove which one is right. The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, before adjourning for the dinner hour we were talkin g about the assessment of farm buildings and now that's being done. I understood the Minister, in response to questions from the committee members, indicated that all farm buildings, when an assessment takes place, the buildings are assessed, not necessarily taxed but they are assessed as to value. That's what I understand the Minister did tell us. The residential buildi ngs and the farm bui ldings would not be assessed for tax if the farmer was a bona tide full­ time farmer. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the assessment of farm residences, I indicated that 4423

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 where a municipality is coming up for re-assessment the rural residences or farm residences are assessed and put in the exempt column. Eventually, we hope to include all farm buildings to be assessed and also the farm people that are making their livelihood from farming, of course it goes in the exempt column. Other rural people living on farmsteads but deriving their income from other sources would be taxable, and I think this is really what you have indicated. MR.

ADAM: The Minister, I think, is indicating that at the present time only residential farm buildings are being assessed and not other buildings on the farm, such as garages or any other building except the residence. MR. GOURLAY: That's right. MR. ADAM: Well, I find that kind of odd, too. If we are going to assess buildings we should assess them all and just do it once, instead of having to send people out again to reassess them. -(l nterjection)­ No, they're just assessing the residential not the other buildings. -(I nterjection)- Well, that's not what I understood the Minister to say.

I believe the Minister went on to say, perhaps he could correct me if I have misunderstood him, the Minister went on to say a full-time farmer would be exempt but another farmer who had off-farm work, more than probably 50 percent I presume, the buildings would be taxable. Or would that include anyone that works off the farm, just to supplement the farm income to keep it in operation? Because in many cases, Mr. Chairman, that is what is happening. Mr. Chairman, I would have no difficulty naming 25 farmers whose wives are teachers or nurses and working full-time to supplement the farm income.

I'd have no trouble finding all kinds of people in that category. So when the members start sneering on the other side, you know, they're not fooling anybody but themselves. All we have to do is look at stat istics of what 's happening in the farm scene to see how many people are now working out to supplement income and there are more and more hours being spent off farm to supplement incomes. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that we assess farm buildings.

I think perhaps we, as farmers, should be maybe looking at that and looking at land as maybe paying a business tax such as other people have to pay, based on volume. Maybe that's the way we should be looking at it; volume of operation, a business tax. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR . GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I migh t just interject at this point. The legislation has not been changed since you formed the government. It's still the same legislation now as it was then. The changes that would be coming forth would be recommended and brought forward by the review commission. MR.

ADAM: Yes, it may be time that we do look at different ways of assessing land because the farmers now, I believe, having to carry a much larger percentage of taxation, espe cially education tax because of the large areas of land that they have to have to make a living, larger and larger holdings. Perhaps it would be to the advantage of farmers if we looked at different ways of taxation. I know that they are ask ing, farmers are ask ing, and the Municipal Association is asking, for changes in the assessment, the way land is assessed.

The Minister hasn't said there is no change in the way land is assessed but could the Minister indicate how land is assessed, farmlands? MR. GOURLAY: Generally, Mr. Ch airman, the assessment is based on the productivity of the soil and also the relation to the market value. MR. ADAM: Could the Minister indicate just what percentage of market value, what percentage is used to arrive at the ... Okay, say the value is 50,000, just to use a figure? MR. GOURLAY: I understand it's based on statistical information based on 20 percent of 1975 values. MR.

ADAM: The 19 75 value, 20 percent of the market value of the land plus productivity? MR. GOURLAY: Based on 19 75 prices. MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, when the government wants to buy land, when they want to buy land from an individual, they usually base the market value on agricultural productivity and not on market value. MR. GOURLAY: Yes, I indicated both factors are used in determining the assessment. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, what I am saying now is when the government wants to buy land for its own use, when they want to buy land for highways or whatever it is from a farmer, they buy it on the average value of the land and it's usually on the productivity of the land. MR. GOURLAY: We're mixing oranges and apples here I think. MR. ADAM: I'm just saying that there are two ways of assessing. When they want to collect taxes they use one set of guidelines and when they're buying land they use another set. The Minister, when I asked him about the Special Municipal Loan Fund, he indicated that did not come under his department.

Am I correct? MR. GOURLAY: That 's right. That's been administered under the Department of Labour and Manpower. MR. ADAM: And yet it's in the report here. Why would it appear in this book? If we can't discuss it, why is it here? MR. GOURLAY: This is where a municipality is borrowing money in excess of the loan and they have to go to the Municipal Board. MR. ADAM: And we're unable to ask the Minister any questions in regard to this program then? He does not have any information to give the committee. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman? 4424

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 MR. GOURLAY: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: No, I'll pass for now. Anybody else? MR. CH AIRMAN: 4. (a)- pass; 4.(b)­ pass. Resolved that ther e be gr anted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 3,050, 700 for Municipal Affairs- pass. Resolution 97, 5.(a) - The Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, this is the item where I would like to explore more fully what I consider to be so bizarre a state of affairs as to be unbelievable that even I don't believe it, and I'm hoping, although I am beginning to doubt as to whether the Minister will show that I am wrong or to even add to the bizarreness of what has occurred. I refer to the situation that occurred in the Local Government District of Alexander and I am not going to repeat too much, I just want to briefly state my knowledge of the history is that there was, in the Local Go vernment District of Alexander, five councillors.

That as is not uncommon in any political assembly, the five did not agree with each other unanimously on every question. Probably they didn't agree unanimously on very many questions. That there was friction between the Local Government District of Alexander and the local government district administrator by the name of Mr. Andries, and here is where the difficulties start. That Mr.

Andries, in league with two councillors, got two resignations from these people on a Friday, the 14 th, I believe it was April, although I'm not sure, that at the same day he tried to get a resignation from a third person because if he had a resignation from three out of five there would be no quorum and the Minister would be able to appoint a new council; that he was unsuccessful in getting the appointment of the resignation of a third person; that on the 18 th, which I gather was a Tuesday but I'm not sure of the dates, a meeting of the council was held.

The local government district administrator was present at the meeting and knew that two councillors had submitted resignations in writing, which were seen by a third councillor. Despite the fact that he knew that, he did not advise the mayor that these people had resigned, in which case there would have been a quorum. There would have been three if they could get the other councillor there. At least there would be a quorum of councillors who had not resigned and they could have conducted the council business.

That the administrator kept this fact from the knowledge of the council and from the knowledge of the Minister, although I'm not sure of that. I want the Minister to tell me that; I hope that is the case. That the local government district administrator then went back to the home of the third councillor whom he hoped to get a resignation from; that he prevailed upon this third councillor to resign and then produced three resignations, thereby having successfully performed what in Latin America would be called a coup d' etat, except there they shoot you. They don't sort of get resignations and ha ve you expelled.

But the principl es are the same, tha t ther e was an insurrection carried on by the head bureaucrat with the co-operation of some of the opp osition politicians, and that he there convinced this third councillor to resign and there was waiting in the wings an officer by the name of Loeppky from the Department of Municipal Affairs waiting there on the 18 th of that month, who then took those resignations into Winnip eg and produced three resignations; whereupon I am advised that either before suspe nding the council or after suspending the council, the mayor and the one remaining councillor, plus the third one who had resigned, came and saw the Minister, explained the circumstances under which his resignation was obtained, and said that he wouldn't have resigned had it not been for the actions of this local government district administrator.

The Minister, despite this knowledge apparently, and I'm almost begging to the Minister, say it isn't so because if it is so, it's the most unbelievable set of circumstances that I have heard with regard to bur eaucra cy, the Mi nister and the elected representatives at a local level in 14 years that I have been in the Legislature.

That the Minister then suspended the council and appointed the person who engin eered the coup d'e tat to be the admi nistrator; that the local government district admin istrator then appoi nted the resigne d councillors, who participated in this conspiracy to be members of committees of council, one by the name of Hunter - not the second, but one by the name of Hunter. Now, all of that would be strange and bizarre enough, except what occurs later compounds t�e problem.

The Minister is advised of these events in the House, does not challenge the accuracy of any of them, not a single one of them, and says that because I have brought to his attention facts that he did not know previously - and I would be interested to know what facts he didn't know previously - he is going to accept the voluntary resignation, although I don't why he should be permitted to voluntarily resign, of Mr. And ries to send in another admini strator and call immed iate elections.

The elections are called and two people win by acclamation, one of whom - to make this story even more bizarre, because comical is not the right word - is the person who resigned. She runs for re­ election and another one is named by acclamation - I don't know which one that is; I don't know if that is Mr. Vincent or not - and there is an election pending. That the Minister then reappoints - and I don't care and I'm not sure that it's accurate because the Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet asked whether the council asked for him - but whether they asked for him or not, now we know we have a new political council.

We have four people. The reeve doesn't vote unless there's a tie, so there may be now in favour of the conspirator. There may be two who would vote in his favour, although I don't know that they did. But even if there was, does the Minister regard that as something which entitles him to send that administrator back to be the local government district administrator of the council? Because if so, Mr. Chairman - and I'm hoping that the Minister will say it isn't so - that I say that this Minister is incompetent to handle any government department. That if he would reappoint Mr.

Andries for one day knowing what we now know and without 4425

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 any challenge to the facts whatsoever, that if the Minister would make such a reappointment, I question, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister is competent to handle any government department, because under no circumstances should that man be reappointed to deal with that council. Now I would like the Minister to tell me what I am in error about, because I must be in er.ror about something. There must be something to this which is not true, although I have tried to check it.

I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt in each case to the fact that things were done rightly, that Andries participated in an insurrection; that he used the resignations of three councillors to achieve that; that he was subsequently appointed; that they were subsequently elected and the Minister, knowing what Andries had done, reappointed him on the basis that he would no longer be there after August. I don't care whether he was asked or whether he was not asked. I also want to know from the Minister . . .

Because at no time did I suggest that something illegal took place, illegal in the sense that somebody could go to jail for it or somebody could be fined for it, improper in every sense of the word. What the lawyer told the Minister - because the Minister says he is relying on a legal report, and if he is relying on a legal report, then I think tha t the mem bers of this committee should see that report. Because I'm interested to know what legal man that we had that would say that there is nothing wrong with this. I want to question the advice that the Minister has received.

And I'm not saying illegal, I'm asking whether it is prudent, whether first of all the facts, as they have been enumerated, are incorrect, and if they are incorrect certainly I would want to know what is incorrect about them, because the facts, as I have enumerated them, were all documented in writing by the councillor who was ill and who was approached and convinced to resign. I have given the Minister a letter to that effect. The Minister says that he now says no. The Member for Lac du Bonnet says that Mr. Vincent has not changed his mind. I think we should have Mr.

Vincent in this room and, if it's necessary, Mr. Chairman, to get him into this room as a witness. I think we should have Mr. Andries in this room. I think we should have Mr. Leoppky in this room. I think that this is serious enough that we should have these people as witnesses and, if we can't have them as witnesses - and it may not be the appropriate place to have them as witnesses at a meeting of the Committee of Supply - but we can have them as wit nesses in a meeting of the Commit tee on Privileges and Elections. I have asked the Minister to refer this matter to such a committee so that he can clean house.

But if he doesn't want to clean house, Mr. Chairman, I do and I think that the members of this committee do and the members of the Legislature should want to, regardless of the public. This is not a political question in terms of whether it is Conservative or New Democrat. It's a question of the due admin istration of local gover nment districts in this province. If the Minister won't refer it so we can ask Mr. Vincent, did this happen, so we can ask Mr. Andries, so we can ask the Reeve. They are charging that the Minister knew of these things, that Mr.

Vincent came into the Minister's office and told him this is what occurred and, despite that, the Minister made this appointment. If that's the case, Mr. Chairman - and I am hoping that the Minister will say this himself - that then I want to know what is so. And if there's a dispute, Mr. Chairman, then I think that this matter should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections so we can have the people involved in here, to ask them what occurred. I'd like to know from the Minister, what am I misreading? Because it is unbelievable and I find it difficult to believe.

If you will tell me what part of my understanding is incorrect and if that depends on Mr. Vincent's story, then I want Mr. Vincent here because Mr. Vincent sent the letter which is tabled in the Legislature, which confirms every word that I have just related to the Minister. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, to relate back over the history of the case, as I recall it, I just can't remember the exact dates when this situation first came to my attention but it was sometime after Ma rch 18 th, the day of the meet ing when the resignations supposedly had taken place.

I was advised by staff that three members of the LGD of Alexander had resigned and therefore there was not a quorum left, so the LGD would not be able to function as a municipal body. So the course of action open to me was that there was not a quorum so the councii could not function, the two remaining council members would be suspended until such time as another election would be held to elect a quorum. That same week . . . I believe it was the next week, the next Monday morning, as I recal l, I invited Reeve Thompson to come into my office to discuss the situation.

In the meantime, Deputy Reeve Oscar Papineau had called me and I believe we discussed the fact that the Reeve was coming in, that he would come along as well, that was fine. They arrived at my office on Monday morning and they had decided, the Reeve and Deputy Reeve, to bring along Mr. Vincent, one of the resigned council members. We discussed the situation that we were in, in the LGD of Alexander, and I indicated to the Reeve that it would be necessary for me to suspend herself and the Deputy and that, in the meantime, Mr.

Andries would act as the resident administrator until the situation could be become resolved. There was some discussion at that time that the administrator had gone to see Mr. Vincent and advised him that he had received some resignations from two other councillors and discussed th e situation with him. My Deputy was in the office at the time and asked Mr. Vincent on three separate occasions if it was true that Mr. Andries had pressured him into resigning and he would not respond to those questions. He did not answer those questions. He did not indicate to me that he had been pressured into resigning.

However, there was indication that Mr. Andries had the resignations in his hand on the Friday evening prior to the council meeting, so we had this checked out and staff had gone to the two councillors tha t had su pposedly resig ned. - (I nterjection)- This is before the council meeting. They said that they had intended to resign and had given copies of resignations to Mr. Andries to hold in 4426

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 trust, that they had not decided to resign. They were going to give it some consideration. Then when you brought in some information to the House with respect to copies of minutes that were held at a su bsequent meeting, chair ed by th e administrator, I had not received any such minutes at that time - I believe they did come in subsequently, maybe the next day or a day or so later - but I did not have them when you had raised the question. I was, to say the least, surprised that Mr. Andries would appoint Mrs. Hunter, the resigned council member, to some boards in the district.

So, as a result of the publicity that came from the question period of the House that day, Mr. Andries was concerned about allegations about his conduct. He discussed the matter with my Deputy Minister and suggested that he would request a temporary leave of absence until these allegations could be checked out and cleared. A MEMBER: Which allegations? MR. GOURLAY: The allegations that were raised by Mr. Green in the House, as a result of the publicity that came from question periods in the House.

I believe it was with respect to his actions, with respect to actions taken at the council meeting, and I think there were some other details that surfaced at that time with respect to his credibility. I accepted his temporary leave of absence. And the details, you've also submitted a letter I believe, I don't know, within a few days of that same time from Mr. Vincent, indicating that he had advised my Deputy Minister and Mr. Loeppky of being pressured into -(I nterjection)- and myself.

It would indicate from the letter that on two occasions the three of us had been together and he had come and met with us and talked with us. This was not the case. Mr. Loeppky was not at the meeting which we had in my office with the Reeve, Deputy Reeve and Mr. Vincent; there was Mr. Forrest, myself and my executive assistant. I ha d another staff member, other than Mr. Loeppky, who was in the area and interviewed the council members with respect to their resignations. They indicated that th ey did not present their resignations formally until the meeting of the 18 th and that Mr.

Loeppky was at the council meeting. He had been attending council meetings on a regular basis, as a service rep. from the Municipal Affairs Department, and he arrived and parked his car in front of the office, as I recall, as he indicated to me, at about 10 o'clock or shortly before when the meetings start, and he was present during the entire council meeting. When the meeting ended, Mr. Andries left the council cham bers and asked Mr. Loeppky if he would mind waiting before he returned to Winnipeg because he would like to see him. Mr. Andries, as I recall, had gone to talk to Mr.

Vincent and discussed with him the situation with respect to what had gone on at the council meetings. This was the situation, as I understand it, that Mr. Andries visited Mr. Vincent on many occasions. This wasn't something that just happened prior to or at the time of the resignations; he had visited Mr. Vincent on numerous occasions and visited with him. Mr. Loeppky had no indication that any of the council members had resigned until that council meeting day of March 18 th.

He did not bring the formal resignation; he had copies for the Winnipeg file of the resignations that he brought back to Winnip eg with him. Now, subsequently, when the member of staff had interviewed the council members, he did also interview Mr. Vincent after you had tabled his letter in the Legislature and he assured my staff member that in no way did Mr. Andries ever pressure him into resigning. So this information, in view of the situation, I felt should be passed along to legal counsel within the Department of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Donald. I submitted all the information that I had on the case.

He has replied that, in his opinion, Mr. Andries had not violated his duties as an administrator. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what legal question Mr. Donald has answered, and I've asked the Minister to submit his report, but I have never charged, nor does any of the material suggest the commission of any offence which a lawyer would look into and I'm surprised that the Minister would ask a lawyer to answer that type of question. The question is not whether Mr.

Andries violated the law as an administrator, the question is whether the Minister would have a local government district in place who does that kind of thing. And if you need a lawyer to answer that question then it is a further demonstration of the lack of management in this department. Because if you've got an administrator who says that he could receive resignations in trust, then I suggest to you that the man is absolutely incapable and should be seen by you as undesirable to have as an administrator. Doesn't the Minister know what has happened here?

Now it is confirmed, although it was previously denied, that the resignations were first in his hands on the 14 th; that he went to see Vincent on the 14 th. Does the Minister want me to draw pictures for him? He went to Vincent with two resignations and said, look, these two people have resigned; we need a third resig nation. Therefore, he had what he considered to be conditional resignations. You find me in the Act, such a thing as a conditional resignation. A resignation takes effect from the time it's in the hands of the clerk. It was in the hands of the clerk.

On the 18 th he conducted a meeting and did not tell the Reeve that he had resignations of two councillors and he kept them as conditional resignations; he, the person who is to serve the council, has got two resignations which he's going to use for the purpose of getting a third and if doesn't get the third, the two are not applicable. This is a conspi racy, Mr. Chairman, not a conspiracy which results in people being prosecuted at law. I don't know why you needed Mr. Donald to advise you. This is a conspiracy by the administrator and now everything that has been suggested has been confirmed.

There was some doubt, now you have resolved the doubt, that resignations he had in his hands on the 14 th. Look at the Act. The Act says a resignation takes effect from the time that it is given to the clerk. But the clerk cannot involve himself in dealing with conditional resignations. He is not to involve himself in the political structure of the 4427

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 council at all; at least that's the way I understand it and if the Minister doesn't understand it that way there is something, in my view, terribly wrong with the administration of the Department of Municipal Affairs. So we've got a local government distric t administrator running around saying that he's got conditional resignations in his pocket, in trust, which he can use when he gets a third. Isn't that bad enough?

If nothing else was said, if Vincent confirmed that he wants to resign, that he didn't do anything wrong, is it not bad enough that you have an administrator running around getting conditional resignations, which he says he can use when he gets a third? Because I think if that were the only thing that happened, that the Minister has no business . . . The Minister, knowing that, appointed this man to be the administrator of the council and, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say it, made the innocent people the victims.

The news of this suspension was not that the local government district administrator had engaged in a conspiracy to subvert a locally elected council but that the two people who stayed on and did not resign had allegations against them as to impropriety, that's what came out. Mr. Chairman, what comparable mismanagement, not in terms of dealing with funds and other things but dealing with what a local government district is, what the councillors are supposed to be, what support staff are supposed to be, what comparable mismanagement are we aware of?

The Minister knew when he appointed Andries that Andries had these resignations three days before a meeting at which the people who had resigned attended and participated in the meeting and the administrator did not tell either the Minister or the Reeve that these people were no longer on council. If they had done so ... I mean you're all politicians. Don't you know what would have happened; don't you know what has happened here?

These two people resigned to get rid of the council, not because they wanted to resign, but they were keeping an ace in the hole; their resignation would have strings on it until they could get a third, because if it didn't have those strings on it they were letting the other thr ee councillors run the council.

So if the administrator had told the other politician that there are now only the three of you, you're enemies have departed, those three would have run the council and the local government district administrator had no business keeping a secret the resignations of two councillors and no business saying that he held them in trust. There is no such concept and if their lawyer tells you that there is such a concept I suggest to you that the lawyer is wrong. There is no such concept. Use any word you want, collusion, insurrection, conspiracy, they all apply.

Now Reeve Thompson, Papineau, and Vincent came into the office. Vincent sends the Minister or sends a letter, a public letter, saying that in that office he told the Minister and the people who were there that he thought this was sneaky, that he thought it was petty - I can't remember the exact words, maybe th e memb er ha s the letter, the member will get the letter - and that if he had it to do again he wouldn't resign, and that he resigned because Mr. Vincent had come to him and convinced him that he should resign. -(Int erjection)- Mr. Andries, right, sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable . MR.

GREEN: Now just a minute, Mr. Chairman, if it wasn't enough for the Minister to have behaved differently, tha t he knew tha t conditional resignations, which are an impossibility, were going to be used to manipulate a third resignation, it wasn't enough that he knew that, that he would suspend these councillors and appoint the chief conspirator to be the runner of the district, then what about what he learned subsequently? He learned subsequently from Mr. Vincent that Mr. Andries had been over at his house with two resignations and asked him to resign .

So let's dismiss the fact that the administrator had two resignations which he was using to manipulate a third. The Minister was aware that Mr. Andries had taken two resignations which were now legitimate, or at least they were still conditional, in my view, until he got the third. Well, he went to get the third. He had two conditional in trust resignations; there's no argument about that. Took them over to Vincent and said, now I need yours. Did Mr. Andries go over to Mr. Vincent's house and show him two resignations and talk about the hockey game that was taking place that night? That's not what Vincent says.

Around 4 p.m. Ma rch 14 th, Richard Andries, Resident Administrator came to my home with two resignations, Hunter and Fontaine. He attempted to obtain my resignation too. I resisted but when he left an hour and a half later, I was worried. So he was there for an hour and a half asking about his health, with two resignations which he showed him. On the evening of March 18th, Councillors Hunter and Fontaine came to my home in Robert Andries' car. The three of them are now in cahoots.

They claimed nothing had been accomplished at the council meeting that day; the Local Government District of Alexander had no money and everything was going wrong. They asked to take my resignation in with their s. Under the circumstances, having worried since Friday, knowing I still needed a period for recuperation, I resigned under duress, that's the words in the letter, signed by Vincent. If the Minister is going to say that something else happened, Vincent should be here, before the committee, not this committee. All of this had been explained to Mr.

Abe Loeppky, for Mu nicipal Affairs, the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs, D. Gourlay, and his Deputy Chief, Forrest. While Hu nter and Fontaine were obta ining my resignations, R. A. Andries was in his office and A. Loeppky's car was parked in front. A. Loeppky had been at the meeting that day. Fontaine reluctantly admitted Loeppky was in the office with Mr. Andries and would be taking the resignations to Winnipeg. So he says, Hunter and Fontaine were obtaining his resignation. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Andries didn't come into the house on the 18 th, it's not clear.

On the evening of March 18 th councillors Hunter and Fontaine came to my home in Robert Andries car with the resignation. He doesn't say that Andries came in that night, and if I have assumed that, and that is wrong, then that is a fact that has to be withdrawn, because he doesn't say that. 4428

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 I further told the Minister, his Deputy and Loeppky, that I felt the whole performance was childish, ridiculous, and sneaky and that I was prepared to withdraw my resignation. Four people have asked me if I would resign now. Being in better health I have told all fou r, Loeppky, Min ister, CTV, and the Tribune, that I would not now resign.

My concern is that Councillors Hunter and Fontaine should have attended a meeting with council four days after they resigned; that the resignations were not brought to the attention of council on March 18th; that the Administrator and Councillors Hunter and Fontaine should have pressured me while I was on leave of absence, so he says, the Administrator, Hunter and Fontaine, should have pressured me while I was on leave of absence from council which I didn't know at the time as I had been too ill to read the minutes. Further, that the Administrator should deny this on public property. Mr.

Chairman, I will admit that there is one fact here that I am not clear now about, whether Andries came into the house on the 18th, because it doesn't say that. But he does say that the Administrator, Hunt er and Fontaine, had pressured him into resigning and I got the impression that the Minister agreed that Andries was at his place on the 18th. If he was or was not does not change anything, it does not change a great deal, because he did come to his home on the 14th and stayed there for an hour and a half trying to get him to resign. Mr. Chairman, this letter has been tabled in the House.

The Minister says that Mr. Loeppky told him that Andries didn't pressure him. Well, that's not what he says in this letter which he sent To whom it may concern. If the Minister wants to interrupt me, it's okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, it wa sn't Mr. Loeppky who had inte rviewed Mr. Vincent on the occas ion, I mentioned that Mr. Vincent had said he wasn't pressured by Mr. Andries. It was another member of staff. The information I have also was that Mr. Andries did not, as I recall, did not go to Mr. Vincent's house on the 18th. He did ask Mr. Loeppky.

He left the Council Chambers, but he had asked Mr. Loeppky if he would no t ret urn to Winnip eg after the council meeting; he'd like to see him before he left. But the two resigned council members had gone to Mr. Vincent's house and discussed the situation with respect to the council meet ing and had said that the y had signed resignations that were not . . . they wanted to attend another council meeting, hopefully that the situation would correct itself and they might be able to resolve difficulties with respect to local government district business.

They resigned on the 18th and this information was all given to the lawyer to rule on the validity of the resignations, whether in fact they had resigned on the 14th or whether they had on the 18th, the resignations that came into the office were all dated the 18th. This was subsequently, of course, and we based the resignations on the 18th. The lawyer had ind icated that, in his opinion, th e resignations were effective March 18th, not the 14th. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, then I think we should get the letter to the lawyer and the answer, because there is absolutely no basis, in my view, for saying that a resignation given to the local government district administrator on the 14th is not effective on the 14th. Maybe the lawyer is not aware that they were given on the 14th to the gentleman, because they are affective if they were given and if the lawyer has asnwered that to the contrary, then it's contrary to the Act. But in any event, Mr.

Chairman, we're not dealing with a question of legality and I do recognize that there is some, at least error, in my own assumption, that he went to the home on the 18th. They came there in Mr. Andries car with the resignations. Andries was there for an hour-and-a­ half trying to get him to resign on the 14th, that doesn't change anything. It means he made one trip as part of this conspir acy rather than two and he participated in this conspi racy by not mentioning on the 18th that these two people had already resigned, which they had, and he had the resignations in his pocket, in his hand. Now, Mr.

Chairman, all right, maybe there were mistakes made, but certainly we cannot accept the Minister's statement because it's not the Minister's statement. The Minister is saying that a member of his staff talked to Vincent and in that discussion Vincent repudiated this letter. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable. It is third-hand evidence, to refute a letter that is signed by the man himself. And surely the Minister is not going to ask the committee to accept that when there has been tabled a letter by Mr.

Vinc ent himself. -(Int erjec tion)- Yes, has Vincent sent another letter saying this is not correct, or is this not his letter? Was I mislead? Have I been given a false letter? Is this a forgery? I mean, I want to know if I've been duped. Well the Minister, who is a dupe, says I have been. I want to be proved to have been duped. I want, Mr. Chairman, ·Mr. Vincent to come to this committee and say - and Mr. Downey is now charging that this is a false letter that this is a forgery and I have been duped. That's what he said, that's what he said, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I would ask all speakers to come through the Chair. I heard no remark like would the Honourable Member for In kster . . . MR. GREEN: If the member wishes to withdraw the remark I accept the withdrawal. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the weakness of this commit tee, we' re too close. The Min ister of Agriculture on a point of order. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Chairman, I didn't many any such accusation and I have no statement to withdraw because I didn't make any. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I held up this letter and I said I want to know whether I've been duped and the Minister said, yes, you have. MR.

DOWNEY: I nodded in the affirmative, that's what I did, Mr. Chairman. 4429

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: One speaker at a time. It is hard for the Chairman to control. We'r e at striking distance of one another and it is the weakness of this committee in this room. MR. GREEN: No, I said he was a dupe. He said I was duped. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson has been trying to get the floor and just to . . . The Minister of Agriculture if he has a point of order we'll listen to it. The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should get down to the bottom of this. A MEMBER: May I have the chair, Mr. Chairman? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I was going to, just to break the monotony, or the . MR. GREEN: Point of privilege. I'll be finished ... Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Nobody else has been referred to as being monotonous. Discrimination, discrimination. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to change the pace a little bit, the Member for Emerson has been trying to get the floor and I'll recognize him and I will go back to the Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, you have, I've noticed, I've sat at these meetings waiting while you have had one member dealing with a certain point and I'm going to ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: I know, th at' s the general principle of the Chair, but seeing that we have conflict down there, when you iron that out, we'll come up to this end . . . MR. GREEN: I've ironed it out. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Thank you , Mr. Chairman. I think th e Memb er for lnkster is overdramatizing the whole situation of the LGD of Alexander. The situation is not that unique. I think he has a total lack of understanding of rural politics, as rural people possibly have a lack of understanding of the politics that goes on in this House at times.

I would like to vefify that to some degree. In my third term as Reeve of the R.M. of Hanover, one year after my election by acclamation, I had certain problems within my council at that time, a split, a three and three split at that time. To my regret, at this time, at that time what I was trying to do was give effect and I resigned and I wrote out in handwriting to the secretary, a letter stating that because I felt I was not being able to pull council together, that I would tender my resignation.

Possibly what the Member for lnkster doesn't realize is the reliance of Reeve on the secretary-treasurer or the administrator, whatever the case may be, that you get most of your advice and knowledge from them to some degree because th ey'r e qu alified in that direction, and as local layman it's not always that good or, how should I say, you're not qualified to understand the

interpretation of many of these things. At that time, the secretary advised me, he said, take it back, think it over. He said, qualify your reasons, this kind of thing. So what happened at the subsequent council meeting after that, Mr. Chairman, I had typed out a letter of resignation, not because I wanted to resign but I wanted to make an effect. I wanted to change things in my council. I felt it was for the betterment because I could not pull them together. For th at reason I resigned. I submitted my resignation at the end of that council meeting.

The secretary-treasurer of the day at that time held that resignation for a certain period of time and when we talk, and this is why I say the Member for lnkster does not really understand rural politics, I went out to the field 50 miles away and I was baling alfalfa at that time and I had two different groups come and visit me and negotiate with me, not one­ and-a-half hours but thr ee hours individually, to reconsider, and the points, and try to negotiate. This is pa rt of rural politics. And he is dramatizing a situation here because of certain rural politics that go on. He makes a big issue out of it.

Letter this date, that date. In my particular case there was always two weeks involved until finally the whole thing blew. I was trying to do it for effect, as I am sure the councillors in that council were. We had misunderstandings in our council and I dare say, if the Member for lnkster would visit some of the rural councils, there are a lot of splits, a lot of problems there. Some possibly resign quietly, some do it - (Interjection)- secretary-treasurer is involved always; some do it for effect; some just throw up their hands and walk out. So this is not that unique a situation.

For days in the House du ring question period, tonight here, we've had a tirade about this particular issue in Alexander, which I don't think is that unusual. If you would check with rural councils all over the province, there have been problems all around. There have been accusa tions between councils. I have had cases, in one of my municipalities, I won't say the name, where there were chairs lifted in defense of each other. So what is the big issue here? Certain members resign for effect, and here we go, and we're having a big tirade about technicalities, hours spent negotiating, what have you.

This happens all the time. Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, I think we're being a little absurd in this situation and unless the Member for lnkster can appreciate what goes on there, the people out in the country think that we're crazy out here at times, and that's a fact. I'm saying that for effect, but you know, we have to understand the situations. We can't in the House here debate things that we know very little about because some individual has written the Member for lnkster a letter. I think the Minister has been handling this thing quite adequately.

He's tried to explain, in all sincerity and honesty, and I think we have to give him credit for that and the more we mention this thing the worse we get it out there, and that's the last thing the rural people need is us people here mixing their pots. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify that. I hope that I would have never had to, in this session or in this Legislature, indicate my resignation as a Reeve for which I have taken my shame and my dishonour to some degree, but I felt under the circumstances 4430

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 what the Member for lnkster is bringing up here, I wanted to bring this up and say that's not an unusual situation. -(I nterjection)- Oh no, oh no, I'v e learned my lesson. This time it will be a fight. I'm not through yet, Mr. Chairman. I think the Member for lnkster, is a very capable individual and if he would just try and visualize the situation out there instead of making an issue of it out here, I think we'd be able to make progress and pass it on with these things. Ther e are many problems within the LGDs and municipalities and the member knows that.

He can go to any council and find out all kinds of problems. I can take you to five in my area right now where there are problems. Some resign to try to make effect, some don't, so what's the big issue? Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I really believe that we should indulge the Member for Emerson.

He is a man with very little understanding of any type of politics, rural or urban, and I think that we should let him make his monotonous speeches and sort of symp ath ize with him th at he's a man of little understanding and little intellect and a guy who really doesn't impress, he really doesn't app reciate things. -(lnt erjections)- MR. CHAIRMAN: One speaker at one time. MR.

GREEN: You know, we have to bear with people here who have no understanding of politics, rural or otherwise, and who think that things that are happening are usual, that it is a usual thing for a local government administrator to combine together with two councillors in a local rural area against three other councillors in a local rural area and try to undo the council and then that the Minister goes ahead and appoin ts this local gover nme nt administrator in place of the council. We have people here who think that is usual, Mr.

Chairman, and really we have to be fair with them and sort of listen to them patiently and get their remarks on the basis that you have to have patience with such people even though they don't understand, even though they have no knowledge of the world, even though if they have no knowledge of rural areas or urban areas or any other type of areas. Sometimes a person like that gets into the Legislature and I suppose we have to tolerate that. It's a problem and we have to tolerate it but we'll be able to just pretend, Mr. Chairman, that the thing has never been said. Now let's get back, Mr.

Chairman, to the problem.

After all of these things have happened, after all of these things have happened, after the Minister has been made aware of the involvement of the local government district, after he has been sent a letter by a rural person saying that he's been pressured by two other rural people into resigning, saying that the local government di strict admini strator had an effected it, saying that the staff of Municipal Affairs had effected it and saying that all we have to do in order to answer that letter is have somebody tell the Minister that he spoke to this man and the man said that he wasn't pressured, I mean, some people think that's all right but we have to understand that these people have no understanding of affairs, that these situations are not normal but some people think that they are normal.

Mr. Chairman, after all of that, when the council comes to life again, who is appointed? The local gov ernment distric t adminis trator. Conspirator No. 1 is appointed and the Minister says, well, the local council asked me to. Well, I wouldn't care if they did or they didn't, because I understand rural politics. I say that when there are four, and two are the old ones and one of them is the Reeve, and two are newly elected, that the vote could be 2-1 and the Reeve would not vote, and the two could be on the side of the local government district admini strator, who has wrongfully involved himself in this affair.

I say that, at that point, the Minister does not reappoint that person. That is my understanding of rural, urban, any kind of politics, and it's unfortunate that we have peopl e who don't unde rstand that here but we tolerate them and we listen to them. We indulge them, Mr. Chairman, because we are kind people here. We don't want to make anybody feel bad. But that is the situation, Mr.

Chairman, that the Minister has reappointed this person and, on the basis of a letter which he refuses to show us from the lawyer, on advice which we don't know what it was, which he has never revealed - the questions to the lawyer - and on the basis that there's nothing wrong with what has happ ened here. Well, I submit that there is a great deal wrong, that the worst thing about what has happened here is that the two remaining councillors took the brunt of this attack.

The Minister, who understands rural politics a little better than other people at this table, at least knew th at he ha d to apol ogize to th ose two people because they are human beings whether they live in rural areas or urban areas, and they become the subject of an attack in the newspapers that they have done something improper and that's why they have been suspended. Well, I understand people, rural people and urban people, and I know that those rural people were very up set with that allegation. Oh, yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. It's the member who doesn't understand people. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson.

MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member for lnkster indicates that, you know, very boring and lack of knowledge of politics. Well, he's been at various times putting out challenges to other members on this side of the House, that you would run wherever somebody would challenge you. Well, I would challenge you, who know all about politics, to run in my constituency next time around. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll come and speak in your constituency, that's what I said. MR. DRIEDGER: I have the floor. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege.

I never challenged any members that I would run in their constituency with the exception of the Member for St. Matthews, but I said that I would come to the constitu ency of the Me mber for Pembina and Lakeside and speak there, and I'll come in yours, too. 4431

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 MR. DRIEDGER: Well, since you have so much political knowledge and ability, then why don't you come and run in my area? MR. GREEN: You run in lnkster. We need more candidates. MR . DRIEDGER: Do I have the floor, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: No one has the floor for the moment. I think if we'd return to the subject matter, 5.(a), rather than personal attack on fellow members of this Chamber, would be more to gain for the taxpayers, that it should be concerned. The Member for Emerson. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's interesting enough that the Member for lnkster is waving a letter that is so important where he has all the details on there. The other day he made a 40- minute boring speech in the House relating to one letter in the Tribune or Free Press, I don't know which one, and he said that was one man's opinion; if that was one man's opinion, it should not count at all. Today, he's waving one man's letter here and he says, this opinion should count for everybody right now.

By the Member for lnkster bringing up this specific problem from the LGD of Alexander in this House he has created more problems for these people than anybody ever could. That is the sorry part about it. As far as I am concerned, this matter should be laid to rest and the Member for lnkster should keep his nose out of it. -(In terjection)- No, I will tell you something. The Honourable Member for Flin Flon is saying, we should do away with it all. These people know how to run their affairs.

The local politics is something that you . . . well, you probab ly understand much better than the Member for lnkster does. -( Interjection)- Yes, I'm sure you do. But it's a different ballgame. He looks at the technicalities, like lawyers always do. He talks of, you know, boring comments from myself. Well, can you imagine how I feel about his comments once in a while? He makes 40-minute speeches endlessly about every

article that he feels he is qualified on. Well, I'm just a local layman. He says I don't know much about politics. I can accept that fact, but the people in my area elected me to represent them, as he got elected by his people, not even in his own area. Wh erever he runs, that's his privilege. But my people have faith in me. If they don't have, the next election they can kick me out. And the same thing happens at the rural level with municipal politics and LGD politics. And here we have a big tirade.

The people always have problems, there are always problems, all kinds of problems within the LGDs and rural municipalities because they are dealing with the grassroots. We deal here at the higher level. What we do and what the Member for lnkster has done has created additional problems for people in rural areas where there's problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr.

Chairman, I think the problem that we're running into, as a committee, is the fact that there is no disagreement, that there are problems that occur in all kinds of local government authorities, whether it be the LGD or municipal council or city councils. Now you have factions and you have groups and you have divisions within those councils. Mr. Chairman, there are conspiracies within council; one group of politicians conspire against another group of politicians to get their own way. Mr.

Chairman, what we are dealing with here is not stirring the pot of the people of the LGD of Alexander, but the fact is that an official of the Minister is the one that was leading the conspiracy. If the Minister didn't see that, if his officials don't understand that, then they are very very naive about local politics, very naive, because all the evidence is, everything that has been presented to us, shows that the offic ial, tha t the local government district administrator was in fact leading the conspiracy, along with two councillors, against the other three councillors, to get their own way. Mr.

Chairman, that is what is not acceptable and for the Minister to not understand that's what is happening and to not take appropri ate action when that is happening is the problem that this commmittee faces and the problem that this Minister has. The situation in Alexander, Mr. Chairperson, would be like if the Clerk of the House here or the Lieutenant-Governor, or the Premier's senior civil servant.got together with us in the opposition to overthrow the government. That would be an analgous situation; because that is what happened in Alexander.

The senior civil servant, an employee of the Mi nister, responsible to council, joined together with the opposition, the minority in council, to overthrow the existing council. Mr. Chairman, tha t should be obvious to the Minister and it should be obvious to the officials, and then to make the mistakes, in terms of how to handle that situation that the Minister has made, shows the incompetence in terms of administering the department. And then, Mr.

Chairperson, to make matters worse, then the Minister came along and reappointed the administrator to run that particular council, to be the senior administrator for that council. Mr. Chairperson, that would be like the people presently in control of Uganda to say ldi Amin, come on back till August the 1st; we want you to look after things until . . . Mr.

Chairperson, so that's the kind of situation we're in and that's the problem we're trying to deal with and not a problem that there is factions, that there is disagreements, that there is internal fights within the LGDs, within all kinds of elected bodies in the province of Manitoba. But the fact is that we have a civil servant taking the lead in th at type of activity, in that type of conspiracy. Mr.

Chairman, members of this House who have been around for a while, and I am familiar with the fact that this is one of the problems we had to deal with, I know in rural Manitoba, in northern Manitoba, was to reduce the control, to reduce the power, to reduce the politicking of the civil servants and give the politicking over to the local elected people. That was the fight and that was the battle to make sure that the local people did have that kind of authority, did have the responsibility and were able to be the politicians locally to meet the local needs.

There were lots of fights in that , local fights, local 4432

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 disa greements, all kinds of them but, Mr. Chairperson, what had to be done was to keep the civil servants out of those kind of fights and out of that kind of conspi racy. Mr. Chairman, I can recall in 1969, when I was first elected, taking the Minister of Municipal Affairs to the Local Govern ment Dist rict of Gr and Rapids where the community people were complaining of the complete control of everything that happened in their community by the LGD admin istrator. The administrator tried to line up local people on his side.

Some people would come out and say, no, he was doing what they wanted and the other people were saying the admin istrator was comple tely running everything on his own, without involving the local people. Mr. Chairperson, the civil servants in that case - I can remember the new Min ister of Municipal Affairs gett ing pressure from the civil servants saying, don't listen to the people, listen to the admin istrator. Don't listen to the people, listen to the administrator because he knows what's going on.

Those are just trou ble-causers, just like the Member for Inkster is a trou ble-causer, bringing this matter up again. Those other people are just troub le­ causers. What the Minister finally had to do was to transfer the LGD Admini strator out of that community to another community; that's how we had to solve the situation. The administrator in the Local Government District of Gr and Rapids in 1969 was Richar d Andries. So, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the Minister, whatever he do es, after all these probl ems, to address himself to the direct concerns that we have in terms of the administrators being directly involved in the polit ical activity leading up to conspi racy. I would also ask the Minister, when he does transfer Mr. Andries, not to transfer him back to Grand Rapids. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER : Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think a certain historical perspective on this situation is in order because there should be no doubt in anyone's mind th at this is somet hin g which caught th e department unawares.

The Deputy Minister and I were at a meeting in the LGD of Alexander several years ago; I am sure he will recall it well. There were several hundreds of people in a packed hall whose basic ob ject ive was to get rid of their local government district adminis trator. And, of course, th at is the distinction between this particular situation and the ordinary municipality of which the Member for Emerson speaks.

I, like the Member for Emerson, have spent some time in rural Manitoba, some 26 years altogether, including my law practice out in rural Manitoba, and I have seen secretary­ treasurers come and secretary-treasurers go in municipalities, because municipalities can fire their secretary-treasurers, there's no difficulty there. What we have here is a provincial civil servant who is sent into a district and asked to run the affairs.

And basically until a few years ago, until the NDP were elected, the administrator was the king and it was under the former admin istration that the local council was given a certain amount of power. One of those powers was not the power to get rid of their local government district administrator and possibly if that had been given we wo uldn't be in this mess right now. I would suggest again, that the department had full knowledge of the feeling of the local population in the LGD of Alexander with respect to a preference for a move of that admi nistrator.

This wa sn't a situation where there was no foreknowledge that there were some political intrigues going on. Any resignations, anything going on down there should have been greeted by Mr. Leoppky and everybody else, with the greatest of suspicion because of the background.

There had been requests for transfer, in fact, the Minister himself is well aware that, I believe it was a year or two ago, the administrator was not transferred because his department told the LGD that the only way they could tran sfer him was to pay for his house and there were certain other incidental costs and they decided that it was too costly. That's something that would never have happened in the Rural Municipality of Emerson. That is a unique situation that the people of the LGD of Alexander were faced with, so when we discuss this issue let us not get an LGD confused with a municipality. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 5. (a) - the Memb er for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: We're under Services to Municipalities and I would ask the Minister whether he could provide us with an explanation as to the services provided by the Municipal Department to municipalities. MR. GOURLAY: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Under this branch th ey provide cou ncillin g services to all municipalities throughout the province. MR. SCHROEDER: services? Wh at type of councilling MR. GOURLAY: With respect to administration. I think it briefly gives some details; principally in the areas of municipal admini stration and data collect ion. MR.

SCHROEDER : How many people does the Minister have on staff to provide those services? MR. GOURLAY: Thirty-one. MR. SCHROEDER: Does th is service include suggestions with respect to municipal planning, land use planning? MR. GOURLAY: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet was on the list. It was vacant so I passed him up. The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I didn't hear the Minister respond to the com ments of the Member for In kster but I wish to add to those comments and I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he intends to continue with the policy of having Richard Andries continue as Administrator of the LGD of Alexander, despite the facts that have 4433

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 been presented to him, both by his officials and, indeed, by members of this committee. That's No. 1. No. 2, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has received a second letter from Mr. Vincent today, challenging the Minister's remarks which he made in the House a couple of days ago, as to whether or not he would have taken the positions that he had taken had he not been ill. -(I nterjection)- Tha t's right. Now the Mi nister made that statement in th e knowledge that Mr. Vincent is a candi date in the curr ent election campaign in the LGD of Alexander. Mr.

Chairman, if that is erroneous information, then what it appears to me as, a situation where somewhere along the way the staff of the department, in informing the Minister, is actually meddling in the electoral process of the LGD because it is now made to appear that Mr. Vincent is not of stable mind or body or whatever it is since, from the Minister's statement, he's changing his mind almost every day. Now Mr.

Vincent had indicated yesterday that he was very upset with the Minister's statement as he saw it, on the TV network or wherever it was in the media, and that he was writing the Minister a letter pointing out to the Minister that is not his position; that everything in this letter he still stands behind. Mr. Chairman, if the Minister has again misinformed the committee, and indeed Manitobans, on this issue, I suggest he owes the candidate, Mr. Vincent, an apology for creating problems for him in the election, for intruding himself into that election by making erroneous statements as to the position of Mr.

Vincent on this particular issue. We would like to know from the Minister whether he intends to continue having Mr. Andries administer the affairs of the LGD. Mr. Chairman, I'm not satisfied with the argument the Minister presents; that he is understaffed or short of staff and he can't do anything about that situation; because he has the option, since he has a number of administrators, of transferring administrators both ways, one out of the LGD and one into the LGD without increasing any staff or without having to wait for the hiring process, to add to staff in order to facilitate the problems in the LGD.

There's a tremendous amount of elasticity within the Departme nt of Mu nicipal Affairs and, Mr. Chairman, it might interest the committee to know, that while the Minister does not have manpower to spare, that his manpower besides Richard Andries, happened to be at the LGD almost every day in the last few weeks, almost every day, other than Richard Andries. So, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister ought to clean up his act. There is an election under way in the LGD and it ought to be a clean election and the Minister should not be involved in influencing the results of that election.

He should not have an administrator there involved as an administrator during the election process, who was responsible for causing the election in the first place, or played a role in it. So, Mr.

Chairman, there's an awful lot that we expect from this Minister in terms of corrective measures, to make that election decent, above board and beyond suspicion; because if the present administrator continues to work at that LGD during the course of the election campaign, no matter which way that election goes, no matter who the winner is, there are going to be arguments as to the role of the department in that election. MR. GREEN: You don't understand rural politics. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister should appreciate the gravity of the situation in the LGD. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster.

MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I really think that the Minister has to tell this comm ittee tha t this gentleman, Mr. Andries, is not going to be involved in that local government district and if I were the Minister, I would not have him involved in any local government district. Mr.

Chairman, now I have advice from people who are in rural politi cs. (I nterjection)- If I didn't know before I have now several members, the Member for The Pas, the Member for Rossmere, the Member for Lac du Bonnet, who have some knowledge of rural politics and I find that the same kind of thing can happen in rural politics as in any other politics, which is what I suspected in the first place.

I said that there are difficulties in every political arena, whether it's the Local Government District of Alexander or the city of Winnipeg or any other place, or Emerson as the case may be, and the only point I was making is that the local government district administrator should not be an initiator of the elimination of a council. Is that such an as tonishing proposition? Or does the Minister agree with the Member for Emerson that local government district administrators should be upsetting the councils that they are responsible to?

If that's the case, if that is the declared position of the Conservative administration, that it is quite open to a local government administrator to engage in a conspiracy with a minority on council, to usurp the council, put it on the record and we will know that and we will tell the people of Emerson that that is the policy of the Conservative party. If it's not the policy of the Conservative party, then get rid of that local government district administrator. Do not permit him to continue. If you don't then we have to question whether the Minister is properly dealing with those people. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)- pass; 5.(b)- pass - the Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Member for lnkster that the Minister ought to be making a reply to what's been occurring here in the last hour and I would urge the Minister to do so. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to make some comments with respect to the situation, the comments from the Member for Lac du Bonnet. He indicated that the statements that I made in the House would be damaging to the election chances of certain people in the LGD of Alexander.

I can only say that the questions and the persistence of the members opposite in bringing this matter before the media on a twice weekly basis for the last three or 4434

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 four weeks, has probably done more damage to the situation out there than I can comment. MR. SCHROEDER: The truth always hurts. MR. GOURLAY: However, I must say that I have tried to comply with the wishes of the local people. They insisted that there should be an election so there could be a quorum to enable the LGD to administer their own affairs. The by-elections were called and the election for the one remaining seat will be held, I believe it's on the 11th of June.

The situation with Richard Andries, the council passed a resolution at their meeting yesterday and it gave three readings to a bylaw appointing Richard Andries as Re turnin g Officer wit hout any discussion or comment. Now you're raising a fuss and stink here and yet none of the council members there saw fit to argue or discuss this appointment. I can also tell you that I wish to have Richard Andries tra nsferred out of that area as soon as possible and as soon as we can sit down with the LG D council and come up with a satisfactory replacement.

I would expect we would have to advertise for a new man because under the collective agreement we have with the other LGDs, we just can't up and transfer an administrator from Grand Rapids or from Snow Lake or from Churchill that quickly and I'm not sure that that's what I want to do in any case. But I would like to have officials from my department discuss the situation with the local government district officials so that there will be some agreement on a replacement for Richar d Andries, at the earliest possible date.

I think that it's advisable that under the situation that has existed there, not in the last three or four months, but obviously the Member for The Pas was aware that this man, he caused trouble in Gr and Rapids and it was under the previous administration that transferred him to the LGD of Alexander. So I can tell you that we are concerned with the situation, we would like to see things returned to reaso nably normal circumstances in the LG D of Alexander and we're prepared to sit down with the LGD Council and get this resolved as quickly as possible. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry, I was distr acted by the Member for Rock Lake. Mr. Chairperson, I'm not sure that the Minister really understands the point that was being made, in fact he cou ldn't understand the point in light of the comments that he ma de. The pr oblem is, Mr. Chairperson, th at we have -(I nter ject ion)- I appreciate, Mr. Chairperson, the assistance I am getting from the Member for Portage La Prairie, who wants me to call you 'chairman', Mr. Chairperson. If I may continue, Mr. Chairperson, I will. Mr. Chairman - Mr. Chairperson, I don't believe that the Minister understands the situation, Mr.

Chairperson, because the issue before us right now is the fact that there was in the local political situation a conspi racy to overthrow the council and get a new council. That conspi racy was led by the LGD admin istrator. Mr. Ch airperson, the fact that the Minister mentioned that that particular admin istrator was transferred before, Mr.

Chairperson, I don't think is very relevant, because it is my understanding from the people within the department and from people at Grand Rapids who had insis ted th at he be tr ans ferred out of Gr and Rapids, th at th e admi nis tr ator did a good job when he was transferred there, that Mr. Andries did a good job. That he listened to the counci f, that he followed the council direction and I was not aware of problems in that local government district with the way Mr. Andr ies was beha ving, until recently, until my colleague for Rossmere informed me that some of the old patterns had emerged again.

But it appears that the disciplinary action that was taken before had worked and that the administrator had carried on quite satisfactorily. Mr. Chairperson, I don't think that this committee can let this item pass by, unless th e Min ister indic ates his willin gness to take some definite, concrete action. There is an election going on right now. The Minister's statements in the House affect that election. The appointment of Mr. Andries as the returning officer affects the outcome of that election. And, Mr.

Chairperson, since the Minister has had one of his departmental officials there almost every day, for the last two weeks anyway, it seems that there is within the depa rment the man power necessary to replace Mr. Andries at this time, and I think that's the only option open to the Minister and if he could reassure the committ ee that that's his intention, I'm sure the committee would let the matter go. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for the Minister. Could he advise as to what the moving arrangements are this time. Who will be paying for the house, if anybody?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the moving costs and the house situation, that would be borne by the Municipal Affai rs Department. MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister explain why it is that now it is that department which will be bearing the cost and just about two years it was supposed to be the local taxpayers of the LGD of Alexander who were to bear that cost? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I was not the Minister of the day, I'm not sure why they would want that stipulation at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR.

USKIW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that I have to raise since the Minister is not committed to the only direction which would make some sense and that is to take the parties that have a conflict of interest out of the arena. Can the Minister assure, and how can he assur e this commit tee, that notwithstanding the fact that the LGD administrator was indeed involved, and he admits that he was involved, in pursuit of an action which resulted in the 4435

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 demise of the council, can he today assure us, in some way, that the same person is not going to, in any way, interfere with the election process under way to fill that council vacancy that now exists. How can he assure us that, Mr. Chairman, is the first question? The second question I have is that despite the results of the election, in the LGD, and despite the wishes of the LGD Council su bsequent to the election, is the Minister committed, irrevocably, with his policy of moving the LGD administrator out of that district? MR.

GOURLAY: I'll be prepared to comply with the wishes of the LGD Council. MR. USKIW: Ah, well! Well, Mr. Chairman, that tells us everything now. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask for the Minister to resign on this one. Mr. Chairman, we have here a situation where his staff member had done in a whole council, he's put in there to administer the affairs, he's going to be kept there to influence the results of the election, in the hopes that he gets a three to two situation, in order that he will be reinstated as the LGD Administrator for Alexander. That's what the Minister just said. Mr.

Chairman, he's saying he's going to go along with the wishes of the council, even though he may accept the fact that the results of this election are influenced by his administrator. Mr. Chairman, this is disgusting. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Roblin says we put him there. I can tell you that I did not know the name of Andries until I was told about this event, and is the Member for Roblin saying that because we appointed an admi nistrator, we are responsible for every wrong act that he commits for time immemorial? Because, Mr.

Chairman, that's another Prog ressive Conservative, you know - (I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, you know, it's like the Conservatives who up until 1977 said everything that we did was wrong and starting in 19 77 they said everything that we did is right and we were a model government and they are going to follow what we are doing. A MEMBER: No way. No way. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's what the Member for Roblin said. Mr. Chairman, the Min ister has ju st again indicated, either naivete or lack of knowledge of rural politics.

He says that they gave three readings to a by-law appointing him as the returning officer. The reason, Mr. Chairman, that I suggested that occurred is th at he was the local government di strict administrator and the returning officer is the local government district administrator. He was the man that was there, they don't hire a new man, he has been the person that the department has assigned to be there, so they have named him the returning officer.

Not because they want Andries, and even if they did, the complaint that I am making as a mem ber of this Legislature is that the Minister cannot approbate in any way - that's what the Member for Lac du Bonnet tried to point out - cannot approbate in any way the continuance of a civil servant in that area who has himself involved himself in the machinations of the politics which the Minister says he's going to follow in determining whether he will be there or not.

The only way that the Minister can resolve this situation is to say, regardless of what the municipal council says, and regardless of what turns out, I, the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs will not tolerate an administrator who behaves in that way. Now is the Minister saying that he will tolerate these actions, because the actions have themselves influenced the affair. The Member for Emerson says that it's the opposition who are now interfering with local politics in the Local Government District of Alexander. That's true, Mr. Cha irman, we are.

We say, that it is intolerable to have a local government di strict council manipulated by the Municipal Affairs civil servant. We say that that's intolerable. We say that that affects local government district politics in the province of Manitoba. And the Member for Lac du Bonnet makes a very strong point if the Minister says that he's going to let this go through and if the council, that they get, hopefully, says that they want Andries, he's going to let that government district administrator -(I nterjection)- that's exactly what he said. That's exactly what he said. Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Lac du Bonnet asked a specific question - can he assure us that this local government district administrator will be there regardless of the new election; the Minister answered I will try to follow the wishes of the council. That was his answer. And I'm suggesting to you that the local government district administrator has been involved in the politics whereby he seeks his own appointment. That is intolerable, Mr.

Chairman, and if the Minister chooses to behave in that way, then the Member for Lac du Bonnet is perfectly right, that the Minister should resign, because we cannot, the members on this side, say that we will have a Department of Municipal Affairs that is administered in that way. MR. GOURLAY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear then, obviously I didn't get my message across to the members opposite.

I said that I already have complied with the wishes of the council, it's already a known fact that Richard Andries will be transferred, he's in place now and they agreed unanimously to put him there and he will be transferred. I'm complying with the councils' wishes; he'll be in place until we can relocate him and that will be as soon as possible, as soon as we can sit down with the LG D Council and work out a satisfactory replacement for him. I've said that two or three times already, so I don't know how you could be confused with what I'm saying now. MR. GREEN: Well then, Mr.

Chairman, I have only one further question. Why is he there now? Knowing what we do know, why is he there now? And if the Minister answers, that is the wish of the council, I say that answer is not satisfactory because the Minister cannot agree to have a local government district administrator there who has behaved this way with respect to the council. Now I don't know what the wishes of the council are, what I do know is what this administrator has done vis-a-vis the council and the 4436

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 Minister had no business reappointing him to that council. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROE DER: The Minister just finished saying that he would comply with the wishes of council. I would like then to ask him whether, if the new council requests that the motion to transfer Richard Andries be rescinded, he will comply with that request? MR. GOURLAY: Well, that would be something I guess that would be considered if it occurred but as far as I'm concerned Richar d Andr ies will be transferred because that is the wishes of the council right now. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, in the Minister's answer he stated that that would be considered, that is the Minister would consider a request by the council to rescind its earlier request to transfer Richard Andries. I again ask the Minister, in the event that he receives that type of request, after these elections are finished, will he accede to that request and not transfer Richard Andries? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I read from the members opposite that they would wish that I would disregard the wishes of council in this case.

If a resolution came in unanimo usly agre eing th at Richard Andries should remain there, you are saying that I should disregard that advice? MR. SCHR OEDER: Mr. Cha irman, I would appreciate it if the Minister did not put words in my mouth. I know that it will be one sweet long time before you would get a resolution unanimous from that current group to keep Richard Andries in the LGD of Alexander.

The question I asked was, and it doesn't have to be unanimous, if there was a resolution passed by a majority of the LGD of Alexander council, requesting that the Minister keep Richard Andries in the LGD of Alexander, passed August 1, 19 80, will the Minister accede to that request? MR. GOURLAY: I would have to say that it would be very doubtful that Richard Andries would be in LGD of Alexander after August 1s t. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I will try it again. Within a matter of a few days, I believe it's June 11t h, th ere will be an election in the LGD of Alexander and we will then have five councillors.

If that council, at its first meeting after that election, which is well before August 1s t, 19 80, passes a resolution asking the Mi nister to keep Richard Andries in the LGD of Alexander, will he accede to that request? MR. GOURLAY: I will consider that when it comes before me. Right now it's hypothetical. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b) - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the statement of the Minister, in my opinion is irresponsible. It is not worthy of his office.

It is not the kind of answer you would expect from a responsible government or responsible department, and if the Minister isn't sure of his position on this issue, I would have expected that the least he would do is say, let me think this one over till tomorrow morning if he's not sure. I would give him till tomorrow morning. But in the absence of that, Mr. Chairman, if he is adamant on this point, then, Mr. Chairman, this Minister should resign. He doesn't know what's happen ing. He doesn't know what his department is doing. He doesn't know what his staff are doing.

He doesn't appreciate the implications of the wrongdoing that has already taken place on the part of his staff members. -(In terjection)- Yes, there is no question about that, Mr. Chairman. There is no question about that. Anyone who wants to look at the history of the LGD of Alexander, I can tell you, a book can be written about it. Let's understand, Mr. Chairman, that the person who is in question here originally fired the person who is the reeve that was suspended by this Minister. It goes away back, Mr. Chairman. The person was fired by Richard Andries.

That person ran for office and became his boss as reeve of the council. This administrator is manipulating to undo the choice of the people of the LGD of Alexander. That's what's involved. There has been an election. Either you respect the results of an election, Mr. Chairman, or you don't. Now obviously this Minister does not respect the results of the election of three years ago, or two-and-a-half years ago. If that election is going to be changed, it will be changed in October of this year, Mr. Chairman, but it shouldn't be changed by the manipulations of the Department of Municipal Affairs.

That should not occur. And if the Minister doesn't see that, he has no business serving for the people of Manitoba as Minister of the Crown. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b)- pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 824,400 for Municipal Affairs- pass. Resolution 98, 6.(a)- pass - The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister explain the Municipal Planning Services provided in the last year for the municipalities? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. GOURLAY: I didn't quite hear your question. MR.

SCHROEDER: Could the Minister give an outline as to the activities of the Municipal Planning Branch in the past year? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Cha irman, this service provides advisory planning services to the various municipalities involved in the province. The function of the branch falls into two general categories; the Planning Advisory Service to local government, and then there's the Planning Advisory Service to the provincial government. MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister advise as to the number of applications for subdivision received 4437

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 by municipalities or by this branch in the last twelve months? MR. GOURLAY: From April 1, 19 79 to March 31s t, 19 80, ther e were 1, 722. Appr oved were 1, 463; rejected 228. MR. SCHROEDER: How many are pending? MR. GOURLAY: Approxim ately 1,014 . MR. SCHROEDER: Could the minister provide us with the position of the government at the current time as to the requirements which are to be met in order that an application for subd ivision will be approved? That is, what is your basic policy on land use planning at this time? MR.

GOURLAY: They have to conform to locally adopted provincial policies. MR. SCHROEDER: And what happens where you don't have locally adopted provincial policies? MR. GOURLAY: The provincial land use policies apply. MR. SCHROEDER: What are the provincial land use policies? That was my first question. MR. GOURLAY: There is publication available on this. MR. SCHROEDER: Is that the policy which was set about two years ago by the then Minister in charge, Mr. Jorgenson? MR. GOURLAY: Yes, that's correct. MR. SCHROEDER: And is the Minister saying that is the policy which is currently followed strictly by his department?

MR. GOURLAY: It's the guideline that's used. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we're all aware that there are a great deal of difficulties involved in assessing subdivision applications out in rural areas. I would like to refer th e Mi nister specifically to an application. I don't have the application number, but I am advised that there was a subdivision app roved for a number of lots between Fraserwood and Gimli. There were some 20 lots or so. Is the Minister familiar with that subdivision? Pardon me? MR. GOURLAY: Yes. MR.

SCHROEDER: The Minister also, with respect to that subdivision, might recollect receiving a letter from one William Halabura, who is a hog farmer in the vicinity of this particular subdivision? MR. GOURLAY: Yes. MR. SCHROEDER: Can the Minister advise as to the class of land which was involved in this subdivision? MR. GOURLAY: That is with respect to 12 lot subdivision? MR. SCHROEDER: That sounds about right. It's within a mile or less, about half a mile of Mr. Halabura's farm. MR. GOURLAY: don't have the exact classification, but it was grazing property. It wasn't considered prime agricultural land. MR.

SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, is it not correct that the current agricultural policy is that all lands of class 1, 2, 3 and 4 are considered agricultural, and if not, what is the policy? MR. GOURLAY: These are some questions that should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. MR. SCHROEDER: I would hope that the Municipal Planning Branch, within its department, would have some knowledge as to what kind of land should be subdivided and what shouldn't, but I will go back to that letter from Mr. Halabura, which I believe the Minister has a copy of.

He's a hog farmer, who has been involved in farming basically all his life. One of the concerns he has is: The current land and subdivision issues make it unsafe to expand for fear of being shut down, yet I produce 230 weanlings monthly and do not desire to disrupt production for it takes three years to develop it. The provincial government has not restricted absorption of large 80-acre parcels of agricultural land for residential use.

The hog manure valued at 6 cents per gallon in liquid form should be dumped on agricultural land as a very cheap and effective fertilizer source, but residential encroachment will lead to conflicting use of this source. Now of course, his hog ranch is within ab out a ha lf a mile of this 12 -lot residentia l subdivision. I am wondering whether the Minister has any comments. And incidentally, the hog ranch is northwest of the subdivision, and I am sure the Minister is familiar with the prevailing winds in this province. Does he have any comments on that? MR.

GOURLAY: When applications are received for subdivisions, the various departments that might have some concerns or inputs receive copies of these for their perusal and comments and decisions with respect to the use of this land. MR. SCHROEDER: Is the Minister saying that this type of mixing of res identia l and agricultur al operations is one that has no concern to him? MR. GOURLAY: Yes, it is of much concern, and this is why the various departments are circulated with the information so that they can respond with respect to the various concerns th at each department might see fit to respond. MR.

SCHROEDER: The Minister is also aware, I am sure, of the situation in the Rural Municipality of Rockwood, where several farmers, John and Stan Fox, who are on a hog farm, which has been in existence since 18 90, are being th reatened with closure. They're being asked to wind down their operation. They've been on there since 18 90. That's a long time. One of the problems that we face is are 4438

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 these encroachments of these residential lots into the heart of the agricultural lands of the province; especially within 40 or 50 miles of the city it's a serious problem. I certainly would hope that the Minister and his department would very seriously consider the impact of these kinds of residential subdivisions on farming operations. It wasn't that many years ago that several other hog operations were closed down, one on Henderson Highway about five miles, not even five miles, several miles south of Lockport, Manitoba, Springfield Hog Farm was shut down.

These types of cases, I would submit, are rather upsetting, especially when you consider some of the other costs inv olv ed in th ese basically unplanned rural subdi visions. I would like the Minister's comment on that. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, this is why the provincial land use policies were put in pla ce, to try and protect the interests of various types of farming operations and whatever. MR.

SCHROEDER: Back to that specific subdivision between Fraserwood and Gimli, could the Minister advise as to how many unsold vacant lots there are in that particular area, and if not, it seems to me that one of the requirements of your planning policy is that there should be some demand for these lots. If th ere is no such in formation in your department then I ask you, why not? MR. GOURLAY: One of the stipulations is that we request information with respect to demand for such residential rural lots on these subdivisions. There has to be dem on strated demand for this type of subdivision. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Chairman, I find that to be an inte resting statement and it's one which, quite frankly, isn't supported by the facts in most of the subdivision applications in this province. I would refer the Minister to a subdivision application which was recently conditionally approved in the LGD of Piney for 15 lots, somet hing like that. Certainly in that par ticula r in stance - I don't kno w, maybe the Minister has some in formation with respect to salability in that area - but certainly in that instance there was no request made of the developer to provide that information and I'm just wondering whether that is . . .

I suggest to the Minister that is not a standard practice of his branch. MR. GOURLAY: I should perhaps clarify that earlier statement, that we do take into consideration the advice and views of the local council in these matters as well with respect to their concerns. MR. SCHROED ER: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we either have a land use policy in the province or we don't. And if we have it, then surely the municipal planning branch ought to be following that policy in determining whether it approves or rejects subdivision applications.

If it is not going to follow that policy, you might as well get rid of the whole works of them. If you're going to follow it, then do it properly. And if one of your conditions is to determine the salability of those lots, then surely it is up to your department to make sure that that is informa tion that you have ava ilab le before you appro ve the subdivision application. MR. GOURLAY: Yes.

With respect to the planning as was mentioned earlier, the various departments are circulated and if they follow the land use and if they have concerns, they'll report them back to the planning branch, if they feel that there's some good reasons why, in their department, they feel that the subdivision should be turned down. These pol icies are appli ed over the province. There's some general applications applied and we depend heavily on the various departments to bring forth their concerns to the planning. POINT OF PRIVILEGE MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster on a point of privilege. MR.

GREEN: Yes, it's a point of privilege because the Minister ind icated tha t Mr. Vincent did not confirm the statements that he has made. I was just walking out of the building and went to the place where my letters are and I have a letter dated June 4. It appears to be a copy of a letter sent to the Honour abl e Doug Gou rlay, Leg isla tive Build ings, Winnip eg, Mani toba, dated June 4, St. George, Manitoba. In response to your remarks in the Legislature about the transfer of R.A. Andries, I feel you twisted my words.

Surely you are aware that there is a by-election coming up in Alexander, Ward 3, in which I am a candidate. Either you are playing games or you are protecting someone. I made a statement of true fact in your office and in the letter tabled in the Legislature and printed in the press. I have no reason to change that statement and I will not change it for anyone. Yours truly, Edgar Vincent. A copy to the media and to all MLAs, so I bring that to the attention of the members. MR. GOURLAY: It's interesting you should receive it before the Minister. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, it could be - I was a Minister and I know that mail sometimes takes a little while to get to a ministerial desk. Mine is a copy, it's not a letter to me and it's indicated to the media and to all the members. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Chairman, on the same point of privi lege. I think if I'm not mistaken that was the same matter that was raised in the question period to day and the Min ister answered at that point. A MEMBER: What's that got to do with it? MR. GREEN: So what?

I'm now producing a letter which was sent to me, which I have prod uced and tabled. MR. CRAIK: No. Mr. Chairman, on the point of priv il ege, what the Memb er for In kster has demons trated , that he's quite prepared to raise a point of privilege so that the Minister could not have 4439

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 replied it, having gone back to his mail after the question period today and come back in the normal course of events, and answered it tomorrow. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster on the same point of privilege. MR. GREEN: Yes. It is my duty, Mr. Chairman, and I will not hold anything back. I was going out of the building; I picked up two letters; one is from the Overview; the other one has got no return address and I wish to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I'm not suggesting he received it. I'm not suggesting he knows about it.

But I want to indicate to him that such a letter has been sent. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister on the same point of privilege. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, that same information was brought to the attention of the Minister in the question period today. MR. GREEN: I was not in question period today. I was not aware of any letter. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, nobody else here is responsible for his absence from the question period except himself. I just pointed out that it was raised in the question period today. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, if a letter was read in the House of similar to what I have just read, I will apologize; but I am advised that no such letter was read and that the Minister of Finance is making a specious point. I have done my duty. I am supposed to do it at the first opportunity, which I have done. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would recognize a point of privilege and maybe we better return to the subject matter and the next one on the list was - if Rossmere is finished or not - the Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHRO EDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could the Minister advise what is the procedure followed by the municipal planning branch where a rejection of theirs is appealed to the municipal board? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. GOURLAY: Where the application is rejected the

partie s are advised th at the case will be presented to the municipal board. The municipal board is advised to hold a hearing at such time as the various departments prepare their information, or case, to be presented at the hearing. MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister explain why, on occasion, when the ... well, we'll start at the beginning. A person comes in and ma kes an application for a subdivision at one of your branch offices. It is reviewed. It is sent out to your various government departments and then it is sent on to the municipality involved with the recommendation of the municipal planning branch.

The municip ality then, makes a decision. If it's a negative decision, well that's the end of your job. If it's a positive decision, then it's up to your branch to determine whether it will accede to the wishes of the municipality or whether it will override th at appr oval and nevertheless reject. When you do reject and there is an appeal from your objection, is it not true that at least on occasion in the pa st year, once the objection is raised to the municipal board your planning branch backs off and in fact accedes to the request for the subdivision approval? MR.

GOURLAY: Not unless th ere was new information brought forward at the time that it would have some bearing on the reversal of the decision. MR. SCHROEDER: I will refer you to a specific case in the Rural Municipality of Brokenhead where precisely that occurred within the last six months or so. In fact, I wrote the letter asking for a hearing by the municipal board on behalf of an individual and very shortly thereafter we were notified that the application for subdivision was now being approved, without a hearing, without going to the municipal board.

There was a reversal of decision by your branch and I would like to know the process by which that reversal of decision was made and what, if any, new information was provided? MR. GOURLAY: In that particular situation, there was a reversal of a decision by the Department of Agriculture. MR. SCHROEDER: Could th e Minister explain whether that reversal of decision was based on a request from the municipal planning branch or from the municipal department? MR. GOURLAY: The situation was reviewed internally by the Department of Agriculture and they reversed their decision on it. MR.

SCHROEDER: Would the Minister agree with the proposition that in the past year or so, since he has become Minister, ther e have been some suggestions that at least within the Department of Agriculture that its role has been downgraded, that the individuals involved in making assessments are feeling more and more that their assessment is worthless, and that the municipal planning branch is not prepared to back them up? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I would say that question would be more appropria tely put to the Minister of Agriculture.

I'm not in a position to assess whether the Department of Agriculture has been downgrading the planning process. MR. SCHROEDER: That's fine, I'll pass if the Leader wants to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he can advise the process that is undertaken pertaining to public reserves along rivers at the present time. What is the government policy? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. 4440

Thursday, 5 June, 1980 MR. GOURLAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's an internal review looking at that question right now and they're preparing a report to be brought before the PLUG Committee shortly. MR. PAWLEY: I wonder if the Minister could advise me that until such time as the review is completed, what is the policy or the position of the government? MR. GOURLAY: There's been no change with respect to public reserves along rivers. MR. PAWLEY: What is that ... ? MR.

GOURLAY: It's left to the discretion of the local municipality as to the amount of reserve that they would request; or if there's some special concerns th at the province thr ough the planning branch has in that particular given area. The is the current policy on that and has been in effect for some time. MR. PAWLEY: Could the Minister advise in what instances would the province exercise an interest? MR. GOURLAY: In the case where there was a hazard to public health or safety. MR.

PAWLEY: I want to ask the Minister if, in a certain case in which a public reserve has been allowed along a river in the past, and a further subdivision is developed along that river, would the poli