Manitoba Hansard — 27 March 1980 (Sitting 26A, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-26a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Time : 2:3 0 p.m . LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday , 27 March 1980 OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER , Hon . Harry E. Graham ( Birtle-Ru ssell) : Presenting Petitions • Reading and Receiving Petitions • • Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLIN G OF REPORTS MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERLIN G R. LYON ( Charleswood) : Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the House . Mr.

Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Manitoba has en tered into a significant agreement concerning the development of a Western Electric Power Grid . My colleague , the Honourable Donald Craik , the Minister of Energy and Mines, is today in Edmonton , where an agreement has been signed between the three provinces of Manitoba , Saskatchewan and Alberta. The agreement provides for a final , all-encompassing study that will determine the feasibility of the supply , transmission and purchase of electrical energy , including a measurement of benefits for the three participating provin ces.

The agreement signed today is the culmination of dis cussions between western provinces which began at the Western Premiers Conference in 1978, and which have continued since between Manitoba , Saskatchewan and Alberta. Designated Minisers and officials of the three provinces will constitute committees to manage the nec essary investigations and negotiations for the Grid and will report on or before September 30 , 1980 . An agreement for the actual construction and operation of transmission lines and interconnection s must await the results of this feasibility study .

The study assumes an initi al purchase by Alberta of 1, 000 megawatts of hydro-electric energy commencing in 1987 . It is also noteworthy and encouragi ng , Mr. Speaker , that Saskatchewan has expressed an interest in purchasing power from Manitoba on a firm basis. Mr. Speaker, a firm power sale of up to 1, OOO megawatts of hydro-electric energy , and the potential for future sales and increased security of supply that a power grid would provide are of immense importance to the province of Manitoba. The revenue implications to our Crown corporation , Manitoba Hydro , are also significant .

All three governments are optimistic about the outcome of the study . We expect the res ults will be positive , positive for all three partners. For Manitobans , this will mean the reactivation of construction on the Nelson River system, specifically at Limestone. The construction of addit ional generating plants on the Nelson is another possibility , depending upon developments in Manitoba , and other negotiations.

A Western Electric Power Grid and the resulting construction would allow our util ity , Man itoba Hydro , to proceed with orderly and economic development of our hydro-electric resources , in concert with requirements in the western provinces and in conformity with the basic commitment to the people of Manitoba as set forth in The Manitoba Hydro Act. Each of the prairie partners brings determination and the willin gness to work together for our mutual benefit , Mr. Speaker , and recognizes our mutual inter dependence.

This study , and the significant successes expected to result is another important accomplishment as we strive for our common goal of energy self -sufficiency for Western Canada and for Canada as a nation. It further demon strates what provinces can do when men and women have vision of what lies ahead and when they possess the will to translate their vision into action and deeds. - 1685 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 In the past, Mr. Speaker , Canadians have undertaken the construction of a national rai lway , a Trans-Canada Highway , and the St. Lawrence Seaway . A Western Power Grid would be but another example of the activities and accomplishments which strengthen our region and bind our nation. We are all aware of the need to conserve energy , and we are all aware of the benefits of substituting renewable energy for our non-renewable fossil fuels wherever possib le. A Western Electric Power Grid would contribute to both of these goa ls.

The wealth of our hydro-electric resource is an integral part of Manitoba' s development and heritage . It was in 1966 the then Premier , Duff Roblin , committed the provinc ial government to developing our northern rivers for the long-term benefit of all Manitobans . This governme nt , Mr. Speaker , remains committed to that goa l. I am proud that our government has re-established and continues the process of sound and prudent development of Manitoba 's hydro-electric resources instituted in the 19 60s .

An abundance of hydro-electric power will continue to provid e benefits to all Manitobans, as a secure and economic source of energy for all of our citizens and as an excellent attraction for all busi nesses expand ing or locating in Manitoba . Exports prudently negotiated can assist in this process. All three governments are optimistic that the final study wi ll result in transforming the concept of a grid into a reality . Finally , Mr. S peaker, I wish to table a copy of the agreement signed today .

I also wish to table the first of the studies examining the feasibility of a power grid undertaken for western provinces and titled, "Report on Western Electric Power Systems Study". I might add, Mr. Speaker, that consid erable work and refinement of the figures has occurred since this latter study was completed, and the original concept, as described in that report, has of course been altered. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that a statement is being made in the Legislatures of Saskatchewan and Alberta concurrently this afternoon with respect to this final feasibility study. MR .

SPEAKER : The Honoura ble Leader of the Opposi tion. MR . HOWARD PAWLEY (S elkirk) : Mr. Speaker , we welcome the announcement by the First Minister that a study is being entered into. We hope that that study will lead to action on the part of all parties to the agreement to bring about the development of the Western Electic Power Gri d. So I believe , Mr. Speaker , that all members share their support and encouragement of what will take place as a result of the study and anticipated action.

There are a number of co mments , however, that I wou ld like to undertake pertainin g to the announcement by the First Minister. First , Mr. Speaker, how fortunate we are that , ind eed, Manitoba has enjoy ed the benefit of men and women of vision . Mr. Speaker, unfortun ately those that were involved in the Tritschler Commi ssion Report were not those of visi on , for if we have followed the recom mendations of Tritschler Commi ssion Report the First Minister would not be in a position today to have undertaken this announcement. Secondly , Mr.

Speaker, refererice is made in the report to the vision of the former Premi er, Duff Robli n, in 1966 . Mr. Speaker , it was Premier Schreyer and the New Democratic Party Government from 1969- 70 on that made it possible that Manitoba would enjoy the capacity to export surplus power and energy to Saskatchewan and to Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I regret that although certainly it was former Premier Duff Roblin that entered into the agreement in 1966 that the First Minister might not for a moment have put asid e his partisan prejudices and had paid tribute to another former Premier , that in the person of former Premier Ed Schreyer of this province, that made today possible . So , Mr. Speaker, despite the Tritschler Commission Report , there have indeed been men and women of vision in Manitoba, men and women that have made today possib le. We would welcome the announcement by the First Minister.

We hope that the study will in fact translate itself into action and that there wi ll indeed be benefits in the future for Manitoba , and we look forward and will monitor the developments with interest. I believe that in the future we will also be able to export our surplus energy to the United States, that we will indeed be able to undertake further developments in Northern Manitoba soon because of the initial - 1686 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 work and undertakin g and imag ination that was provided principally dur ing the period of leadership under the former Premier of this province, Ed Schreyer . TABLING OF REPORTS MR . SPEAKER : The Honoura ble Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affair s. HON. WARNE R JORGE NSON (Morris ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Annual Report of the Clean Environment Commiss ion. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs . HON . NORMA PRICE (A ssinibo ia): Mr.

Speaker , I would like to table the Annual Report of the Legislative Library and the Provincial Archives for the year ending December 3lst , 1979 . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSON (S turgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Racing Commission for the year endin g December 3lst , 1979 . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. KEN MacMASTER (T hompson): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table the report of the Safety and Health in the Metallic Minin g Industry of the Province of Manitoba. MR.

SPEAKER : Notices of Motion ••• INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (O sborne) introduced Bill No . 4,

An Act to amend The Fatal Accidents Act and The Trustee Act and Bill No . 27 ,

An Act to amend The Liquor Control Act. ORAL QUESTIONS MR . SPEAKER : The Honoura ble Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY : Mr. Speaker, my question first is to the Minister of Economic Development. The Minister of Economic Development , some time in early February , indicated that a Montreal firm was being engaged to undertake a feasibility study pertainin g to a $50 million helicopter plant in Gim li. It was indicated that the report would be available on or before March 15th. Can the Minister advise (

a) whether he has received the report, (

b) if so, the rec ommendations within the feasibi lity study? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Economic Development . MR . JOHNSTO N: Mr. Speaker , we have not received the report as yet . We are expecting it more towards the end of April . MR. PAWLEY : Mr. Speaker, further questions to the Minister of Environm ent. This past Thursday , in dealing with quest ions pertainin g to the storage of PCBs at Werier Warehouse , the Minister had indicated that the con tainers were covered with plastic and were not leaking.

Can the Minister confirm that in fact the containers had leaked prior to transfer from Warehouse No. 1 to Warehouse No. 2, and that Dr. Yee of his Department indeed had been advised of this in October of 1979? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs . - 1687 -

Thursd ay , 27 March 1980 MR. JORGE NSON : No , Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm this. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY : Mr. Speaker, then will the Minister undertake to check this out and to provid e the House with information pertaining to leakage of one of the containers in October of 1979? MR . JORGE NSON : Mr. Speaker, I wi ll have to check what my honourable friend is sayin g. My understanding is that there was a piece of equipment that had been moved in there that was leaking but it di d not contain PCBs ; it contained just plain oil. MR.

PAWLEY : Further to the Minister of Environment. Can the Minister of Environment confirm that since notice of the existence of the PCBs , October of 1979 , until their transfer in the latter part of February 1980 , that no monitorin g was done on the part of his department insofar as the storage of those PCBs? MR. JORGE NSON : I am not sure what my honourable friend means by monitor ing . The PCBs were contained in sealed containers and there was, to the best of my knowledge , no leakage upon inspection on per iodic int ervals. MR .

PAWLEY : Further to the Mini ster, is the Minister prepared to advise as to the number of inspections which take place between early October and the end of February on the part of his department? MR . JORGE NSON: I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to advise as to the number of inspections during that period. MR . PAWLEY : A final supplementary to the Minist er. Is the Minister pre pared to table the report received from his department pertaining to the PCBs at Werier Warehouse? MR . JORGE NSON: I am prepared to table a report but that report will have to be compiled.

I know of no formal report that has been made in connection with those PCBs, at least it has not come across my desk, but I will endeavour to check and find out if there was one . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR . BLAKE: Could the Minister advise the House how many years the PCBs have been stored in that particular warehouse? MR . JORGENS ON : Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the PCBs were pur chased by J. Werier and Company in 1973 and, I presume , have been stored on those premises since that time . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . SIDNE Y GR EEN : Mr.

Speaker, I wish to add ress a questions to the First Minister. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the First Minister , in view of his statement as to previous development , could advise the House as to whether he could have made the ann ouncement that he made today if we had followed the recom mendations of Mr. Justice Tritschler of not building the Lake Winnipeg Regulation or the Churchill River Diversion in 197 0 , and instead have bought time and built a thermal plant and studied the matter further?

Could we have done that and would that not have had disastrous - let me read these words - "disastrous results for the people of the province of Manitoba", and prevented him from making the announcement that he made today? MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker, friend straight with respect to -Churchill System , with which Tritschler Report . I welcome the opportunity to set my honourable the whole sequence of development on the Nelson I have some fami liarity , regardless of the - 1688 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 My honourable friend is well aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Tritschler Report merely confirms the indictment that was laid agai nst my honourable friends when they were mishandlin g the affairs of Manitoba Hydro with their appointee, Mr. Cass-Beggs, whose overall administr ation, whose sequential development that took place under Mr. Cass-Beggs and the former Premier of this province, Mr. Speaker, cost the people of this province something on the order of $500 million to $800 million of lost money . And , Mr.

Speaker, if my honourable friend will stop yel ping like a wild dog from his seat, because I know what I'm saying doesn 't find favour with the Leader of the Opp osition, and you know why , Mr. Speaker? Because it 's true , and it 's documented for all time , a record of mishand ling and misappropriation of public funds and of public works, Mr. Speaker, that has never taken place in the history of any other province in the history of this country .

So if my honourable friend , the Member for Inkster, wants to stand in his place today or at any other time from now till the turn of the century and try to say that the mishandl ing of Manitoba Hydro under his administration contributed to today 's announcement , I can tell him that today 's announcement was made possible in spite of all of the mishandling of my honourable friends and that we have been able to bring it around in the last two years with an idea that my honourable friends never even thought of. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. MR . PAWLEY : Mr.

Speaker , on the point of or der , in view of the latitude provided to the First Minister in his response , is the same latitude going to be provided to members of the Opposition to provide responses to the answers that are being provided? MR . SPEAKER : Order please, order please. May I point out to all honour able members, and I have read to you from Beauchesne bef ore , if the honourable members want to listen, that the phrasing of a question that invites a lengthy detailed answer is the responsi bility of the person that asked the question. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the answer had absolutely no relationship with the que stion , which was very predictable, Mr. Speaker , and since you have ruled on the poin t of order that the question should not invite a debate, Mr. Speaker, I will again ask the question , and you see, Mr. Speaker, whether it can be answered very quickly .

In view of the Minister 's announcement and in view of the fact that past hydro development was referred to in his announcement , would he confirm exactly , would he confirm that if he followed the recommendations of the Tritschler Report which I am quoting , "Hydro was not ready in '7 0 to commit either Lake Winnipeg Regulation or Churchill River Diversion , it should have bought time to complete studies by purchase arrangements with adjacent utilities or by the buildin g of a thermal plant .

We should have bought power from other sources or built a thermal plant ." I' m asking yo u, if we would have followed those recommendations , would the Minister have been able to make the announcement that he's making today? MR . SPEAKER : Order please , order please . May I suggest to the honourable member that the question is argum entive. It is also hypothetical. It is based on a supposition that does not exist . Would the Honourable Member for Inkster care to rephrase his question? MR. GR EEN : Mr. Speaker, I wi ll rephrase the question . Mr. Speaker, would the first Minister , in view of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, which has always moved the Conservatives, in view of the fact that there is controversy over this subject, in view of the faat that there is controversy , would the First Minister consider appoint ing me as a one-man commissioner - and I offer to serve without fee - and to afford me $3 million to show, Mr. Speaker, that the Tritschler Report would have resulted in dis astrous results for the people of the province of Manitoba, and the First Minister would not have been able to make the announcement that he is making ; would he do that? - 1689 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 MR. LYON : Mr. Speaker, I have to thank my honourable friend for his very generous offer of his services to look into a charge and evid ence and indictment and a finding of guilty that the proper commission has already passed upon . May I remind my honourable friend, however, Mr. Speaker, that the former distinguished leader of my honourable friend' s party was the one who called for just such a com mission in 1975 , and then never proceeded to put it into place.

If my honourable friend s object to commission evidence of the kind that my honourable friend from Inkster is reading from , why did n't his government get around to fulfill ing the promise of the former leader to have just such a commi ssion? Now, to answer him very shortl y , Mr.

Speaker, no , I wouldn't appoint him , be cause I say to my honourable friend that to anyone who wishes to read the report the evid ence is irrefutable that my honourable friend s did mism anage the affairs ot Maniatoba Hydro , did conceal from the Public Utilit ies Committee of this Legislature information that the committee should have had and, Mr. Speaker, that is in the report if my honourable friend would care to read that

section to the people of Manitoba on television as well, Mr. Speaker. So I say , Mr. Speaker , to my honourable friend that he may not like either the report of the Tritschler Commi ssion , and even worse , he and his leader may not like the answers they get to their questions but they are the truth. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GR EEN : Mr. Speaker , the member has said that the court has already ruled, I hereby give noti ce, Mr. Speaker, that an appeal will be launched against that rule . That appeal will be launched and the jud ge will be reversed.

He has already been partially reversed in the federal election. He will be completely reversed in the future , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether the Honourable , the First Minister would have been able to make the announcement that he is making today , if the people of Manitoba had not had the initiati ve, the energy , the wisd om and the will to put into place the Churchill River Diversion , Lake Winnipeg Regul ation and Jenpeg. Would he have been able to make that announcement? MR . LYON : Mr. Speaker, again I can hardly wait to answer my honourable friend.

The answer to his question in short is , of course , yes, because Jenpeg and Lake Winnipeg Regul ation should never have been built in the first place. Never in a month of Sundays should they have - $330 milli on of the money of the people of Manitoba invested in one of the most useless power projects ever put in place in the history of this or any other provin ce. Does my honourable friend want another answer? MR . SPEAKER : Ord er, ord er please . The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GRE EN : Mr.

Speaker, I ask the First Minister whether he considers as useless a facility which was put into place at a cost of $180 mil lion and produces power which is now sellin g at $20 . million a year , whether $20 million a year in power produced and being sold shows that a facility on which you spent $180 mi llion, is worth zero . Is that Progressive Conservative economics? MR. LYON : Mr. Speaker, commonsense economics is that you don 't build power plants that you don't need. Jenpeg was not ever part of the developmental system of the Nelson-Churchill system until Mr. Cass-Beggs came on the scene .

My honour able friend knows that quite well too. It is the most expensive hydro generating facility ever put into place in the history of Manitoba. It is generating power at a cost per kilowatt hour away beyond the cost of any other facil ity in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker , and it should never have been built in the first place. So to reiterate my answer to the honourable member , Mr.

Speaker, it is clearly and plainly this, that notwithstanding the fact that the NDP and their appointees saw fit to mishandle Manitoba Hydro , we have been able to overcome that and to enter into a Western Grid Feasibility Study notwithstanding all of the harm that they di d, not only to Manitoba Hydro but to the ratepayers of this province for gener ations yet to come . - 1690 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 MR. SPEAKER : Order, ord er please . If I sense there's a need for an urgent debate we could perhaps shorten the question period. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Honourable, the First Minister whether he will produce any hydro electric economist who has a sanity certificate who will say that a facility that produces and sells $20 million worth of power a year is worth zero , whether any economist will confirm the position of the First Minister? Is it worth zero? MR.

LYON: I can only suggest to my honourable friend that in his moments of reflection, that in a moment of reflection that I hope will come to him shortly when he gets control of himself again, that he , Mr. Speaker, will take time to read the report of the Commission into Manitoba Hydro where he will find what I have jus t been saying to him documented, chapter, lin e and verse , by some of the most senior consultants on the North American continent who were assisting the Commission of Inquir y and who said that Jenpeg should never have been built , perio d, paragra ph. MR.

SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Inkster on a point of order. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has said that I have not read the report . On a point of ord er I have read the report but like leading a horse to water , Mr. Speaker, you can lead both the Prime Minister and my self to read it , you cannot make one of them understand it , that's the First Minister. MR. SPEAKER : I want to point out to the Honourable Member for Inkster that a disagreement on whether a person has read a report or not is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREE N : It 's not a disagreement .

The Honourable First Minister has charged me with not reading the report. It 's not a disagreement I'm telling him I read the report and I am entitled to put that on the record. I take it that he may get an 'A' in reading but he gets zero in understand ing . MR. SPEAKER : Agai n, I want to point out to the honourable member that every member in this Chamber has a right to stand up and correct a statement but it is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON : Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and I would like to ask the Minister if he or his office has received any inform ation from the federal government , either from the Department of Agriculture or the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and my question per tains to information to find out whether or not it is the intention of the federal government to put all grains grown by farmers in western Canada completely under the ju risdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (A rthur) : Mr.

Speaker, the only information I have received has been through the news media that in fact the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board made a comment that he thought the majority of farmers in western Canada were desirous of that taking place. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary quest ion . I would like to ask the Minister if he will use his goo d offices to express the wishes, particularly of farmers of Manitoba , as to whether or not this would be in agree ment, that they have all grains placed under the Canadian Wheat Board? MR. DOWNEY : Mr.

Speaker, on the matter that is brought up by the Member for Rock Lake I would have to say that there would have to be a lot more consult ation taken place between the grain producers of the province and the elected - 16 91 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 officials before a decision of this magnitud e could be made and I would say that in fairness to them, they did have a plebiscite a few years ago on whether or not rapeseed would come under the control of the Candian Wheat Board and at that particular time , Mr. Speaker, it was voted down by the farmers of western Canada . MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for St. Vital . MR. D. JAMES WALDING : Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the First Minister and ask him if he can confirm that Hydro wi ll never be able to build or produce hydro power cheaper on a per kilowatt hour basis than they can presently produce from Jenpeg? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable the First Minister. MR. LYON : Mr. Speaker , my understanding is that the plant that was com missioned last June , we ll in ad vance of when it needed to be commissioned, is pro ducing power at a kilowatt charge cheaper than Jenpeg . Jenpeg is still the most expensive hydro electric power ever put into place in the history of Manitoba .

It need never have been done. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker , a supplementary to the same Minister. Can he confirm that the present cost of Jenpeg power is 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour? The cost of producing power from Brandon and Selkirk thermal stations is 9 cents and 16 cents per kilowatt hour? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if My honourable friend wants to talk about apples and oranges he can go and juggle them. Mr. Speaker , the hydro-electric generating cost of Jenpeg is what I talked about . We all have thermal supp lements.

Every province has some thermal supplements. -- (I nterjection)- - No , I ask my honourable friend for Inkster to restrain himself, --( Interj ection)-- I •v e never been more totally restrained or happy to answer questions in my lif e , Mr. Speaker , I'm de lighted to answer the questions of my honourable friend. Because , Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend s are on the worst losin g wicket that they could ever hope to get on. The indic tment that has been laid against and their maladministration during eight years when they tried to manage Manitoba Hydro redounds in infamy and will for all generations to come .

MR. WALDING : A supp lementary , Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the First Minister whether it is true that when the turbines are spinnin g and all Manitobans have sufficient power for their use , that the cost of the next kilowatt hour is one-fifth of one cent per kilowatt hour because that is the cost of the water rental used to produce that kilowatt hour . MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I don 't know but I, of cour se, can suspect where my honourable friend learned his economics, and it wasn 't in the school of common sense, I must say . All I can say to my honourable friend, Mr.

Speaker, is that you don 1 t put hundreds of millions of dollars into place in capital investments where you have no market for the product from the plant when it opens up. Manitoba stands today in a position of 40 percent overcapacity because of the mal administration of my honourable friend s oppos ite. Against that background, Mr. Speaker , if my honourable friend wants to say , should we be selling interruptible power to the United States to salvage what we can, to salvage what we can out of that overbuild ing , then I agree with him .

And that is what Manitoba Hydro has been forced to do because of the overbuild ing committed by my honourable friend s who, today , Mr. Speaker, would like to say to everyone in Manitoba that black is white and up is down . What they di d, stands in the report of the Commi ssion and they were warned, Mr. Speaker, they were warned every foot of the way as they em barked upon this disastrous course .

They were warned by a former Premier of Manitoba , Douglas Campbell, who had been appointed to the board; they were warned by Kri s Krist janson , who resigned from the board; and they still proceeded pig headedly with the bigge st misuse of public funds in the history of this province. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Glad stone. - 1692 -

Thursd ay , 27 March 1980 MR . JIM FERGUS ON : Yes, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Highways and ask him if he would reveal to the House the details of an accid ent that happened this morning , west of Carberry , involving two trucks and a train in which, I und erstand, that there is some more leakage of a substance. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Highway s. HON . DON ORCHARD (P embina) : We ll, Mr.

Speaker, this morning there was a level crossing accident in foggy cond itions on the Trans-Canad a Hig hway, about a mile-and-a-half west of the junction of PTH No. 5 and the Trans-Canada Highway . The accident involved a collision with a train by a semi-trailer truck in which the driv er , unfortunately , was killed in that acc id ent. A second accident followed whereby a second truck collid ed with the train , also . That second truck, the driver was injure d, he's in the Carberry Hospital; and the second truck was carrying a fertilizer product from Simplot Chemical in Brandon, Mr. Speaker.

It was a nitrogen solution product and in collision with the train the transport truck and trailer , the transport trailer rolled over and there has been a certain amount of nitrogen solution spilled from that trailer as a result of the overturn. Currently the carrier has engaged Paul 's Hauling to be on the scene and as I understand it , they' re on the scene right now pumping off the balance of the nitrogen solution that is still contained in the transport truck.

The cleanup crew, or a cleanup crew, is on the site from Simplot Chemical to make sure that the spilled nitrogen solution , the fertilizer, is adequately contained in the immediate area where the accident and the roll-over occurred. We have a number of departments with personnel on the scene, Mr. Speaker, and it 's my understand that the spi ll is contained. It 's not considered to be a serious spill and everything , Mr. Speaker • • • MR. SPEAKER : Order please. The Honourable Member for Kild onan on a point of order. MR .

PETER FOX: I realize that the Honourable Minister is provid ing inform ation , but I think he's stretching it . He 's making a long story out of something he could have sai d, there is an acc ident and there was a spill , and that 's it . MR . SPEAKER : I want to thank the Honourable Member for Kildonan for the words of advice. I do realize that the answer does seem to be rather long . I just hope that all members take that into consid eration when they ' re asking questions as we ll as when they'r e waiting for the answers. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GR EEN : On a point of order.

It may well be that the Minister has to do what he's doing , but can we revert to statements and have him do it , so that it can be treated as a proper statement. He had the impression it was finished. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR . RUSSELL DOE RN : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, and ask him whether • MR. SPEAKER : Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. MR. MERCIE R : Yes, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order , the Minister for Highways had not finished completing his answer to that question , I don't believe.

MR. SPEAKER : Order please. As far as I am concerned the Minister has finished his statement. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR . DOERN : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources , and ask him whether he would agree that the experiments con ducted with the polar bears that he approved, in which two out of three of the - 1693 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 animals died, were not necessary as indi cated by Clive Roots, who is the Director bf the Assiniboine Park Zoo , who said that they did n't prove a thing and, secondly , that if you make a liv ing thing eat oil it will di e. I ask him whether those experiments were not , in fact, a complete waste of time . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON . BRIAN RANSOM (S ouris-Kill arney ): Mr. Speaker , I would prefer to await the final report from the scientists involved in the project before I would be prepared to make that conclusion. MR . DOE RN : Yes , Mr.

Speaker, I might jus t add "a waste of time" and also , I believe , $80 ,0 00 .0 0. I wou ld ask him whether he would also concede the complete failure of the Polar Bear Committee that he appoin ted to ensure the humane treat ment and protection for the animals. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I first of all , should point out to the honour able member that if, in fact, it was $80, 000 involved that I wou ld not want to leave the impression that was an expenditure by our govern ment , but it was rather one undertaken by the federal governm ent .

Neither can I conclud e that the com mittee did not carry out its responsibilities to see that the bears were not treated in an inhumane fashion . It was not expected, on the basis of information that was known, that one or more bears would die as a result of the experiment . If the honourable member wi ll recall the original proposal for the study made in December of 1978 , it was thought to be necessary at that time to sacrifice the bears in order to be able to conduct the post-mortem examinations to look for cellular damage and that sort of thing.

So this was entirely unexpected and has nothing to do with the manner in which the commi ttee carried out its responsib ilities . MR . SPEAKER : The Honoura ble Member for Elmwood with a final supplementary . MR . DOE RN : I wou ld ask the Minister whether he can report on the condition of the third polar bear that survive d. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. MR . RANSOM: The latest inform ation that I have, Mr. Speaker, is that the third bear is still aliv e and it is expected to live , but if the honourable member would be interested then we wi ll be happy to keep him posted. MR .

SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR . GARY FIL.MON : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister respon sible for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation. I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not it is the intention of MHRC to sell off its senior citizens housing. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. MR. JOHNST ON : Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation to sell off the housing . There's been no recommendation by the board at any time. MR . FIL.MON : Well in that case , Mr.

Speaker, if MHRC has no intention of selling off its senior citizen housing , what does the Minister intend to do about rumours , or what is obviously a rumour that the government intends to sell them off? MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. MR. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, I have had calls from the MP, Mr. Bockstael, because he's had calls from senior ci tizen ladies who have been cr ying . There's - 1694 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 been calls come into the MHRC office with people cry ing . It' s been spread around through the whole of the senior citizens accommodation in Winnipeg that we are intending to sell them. Mr. Bockstael had one lady say to him that because we voted for yo u, Mr. Bockstael, the Conservatives are going to sell it . Now, Mr. Speaker, I am checking at the present time , as much as possib le, to find out where it came from but I can assure you , Mr. Speaker, I will use every possible means to settle the minds of the senior ci tizens that are liv ing in our accommodations . MR .

SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR . A.R. (P ete) ADAM: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. I would address my question to whichever Minister is responsible for Transportation and ask that Minister if he could advise if he has met with the Federal Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin when he was in Winnipeg. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Highway s. MR . ORCHARD : Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR . ADAM : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transportation if the question of the Crow rate was di scussed with the federal Minister. MR . ORCHARD : Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR . ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister if he could confirm if this government has made a recommendation that the Crow rate be changed or abol ished in favour of a compensatory ra te. today . MR . ORCHARD : Mr. Speaker, it seems as if the House is full of rumours MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge . MRS . JUNE WESTBURY : Mr. Speaker, my que stion is addressed to the Attorney -General.

Would the Honourable Attorney-General explain how it would come about that the Clerk of the Court had issued a suspension of a driver's licence for a speeding ticket is sued in 1976, that suspension ordered in March of 1980? MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Attorney-General . MR. MERCIER : Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as noti ce. Perhaps if the Member for Fort Rouge would advise me as to the particulars and names I can look that matter up for her. MRS .

WESTBU RY : While the Honourable Attorney-General is looking into that, could he also look into the fact that a registered letter informing a driver of a suspension was received on March 17, 1980 , for a suspension taking effect on March 5, 1980 , resulting in the fact that this driver was drivin g around unknowingly suspended for 12 days? MR . MERCIER : Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that matter would relate more to the Minister of Highway s, who is responsible for the Motor Vehicles Branch, Mr.

Speaker, but unless the Member for Fort Rouge advises either my self or the Minister for Hig hways of the particulars , it will be impossible for us to look it up . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR . BRIAN CORRIN : Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Housing. I would ask whether the Mini ster, in view of last night's City Council decision to withdraw its support for 1980 from its own new Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation , will be withdrawing provincial financial support from the project. - 1695 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. MR . JOHNSTON : The letter transmitted to the Mayor made no indication as to what the city would do , Mr. Speaker. The letter transmitted to the Mayor said the province would participate to the tune of $200 ,0 00 a year for five years and that 's a commitment we intend to keep if they want to use it . MR. COR RIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. satisfied in view of the shortfall of being provided to the corporation in corporation?

Could the Minister advise whether he is now fund ing , whether there are sufficient funds order to assure the viability of the new MR. JOHNST ON : Mr. Speaker, I don't make the decisions for the city . We made a commitment as a provincial government to provide that money and we will do so . As the Member for West Kildonan mentioned , maybe it isn't necessary . Well, I have said that the money for the CMHC is booked for 1980 . The money is used for the whole of Manitoba , the CMHC money . And , Mr.

Speaker, maybe there'l l be a time when they come across a good buy , or something of that nature , that they ' 11 be able to move forward and do because we gave the assistance. MR . SPEAKER : supplementary . The Honourable Member for Wellington with a final MR . CORRI N: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, in view of that response and that commitment on the part of the Minister and his governm ent , we would ask whether or not the Minister would contemplate telescoping his provincial commitment of $1 million in order to make up the shortfall that will be experienced by the Corporation as a result of last night 's decision to reduce the city commitment by $200 ,0 00 .00. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, wi ll the Minister provide $400 ,0 00 from the provincial commitment this year in order to bring the new Corporation 's funding foundation up to its original commitment level?

And I ask him that in view of the fact that he has assured us now that the Member for West Kildonan was correct and that CMHC funding will be available for the Housing Corporation next year. MR . JOHNST ON : Mr. Speaker, I'v e never said that there wouldn 't be possibly some money from CMHC last year , they look at every project individu ally . As far as telescoping , and making it $400 ,0 00 , that hasn 't been dis cussed . The letter committed to the Mayor said that we were open for dis cussion.

If something is good , it 's good ; weill take a look at it , but it 's not our intention to go running forward and say $400 ,0 00 this year without dis cussion or the feasibility of doin g it. MR. SPEAKER : Order please . The time for question period having expired , we will proceed with Orders of the Day . The Honourable Member for Gladstone . BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE - COMMITTEES MR . JAMES R. FERGUSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day , I would like to make some changes on committees, and substitute the name of Mr. Filmon for Mr. Steen in Public Utili ties ; Mr. Filmon for Mr.

Minaker in Public Accounts ; Mr. Hyde for Mr. Gourlay in Agri culture ; Mrs. Westbury for Mr . Green on Law Amendments; Mr. Kovnats for Mr . Steen in Rules ; and Mr . McGregor for Mr. McGill on Rules. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Attorney-General . MR . MERCIER : Mr. Speaker, might I first advise members the Public Accounts Committee will meet on Tuesday , April lst, at 10:00 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Attorney-Genera l. - 1696 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 MR . MERCIER : Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the Minister of Government Services, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty . MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Interim Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - INTERIM SUPPLY CHAIRMAN, Mr. Abe Kovnats (R adisso n) : This committee will come to or der. Interim Supply--p ass. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN : Yes, Mr. Chairman .

I had not intended to speak on Interim Supply but, Mr. Chairman, for what has been said in the House today and the kind of misrepresentation that has been made, longstandin g dedicated civil servants have been dismissed on the basis of sugge sting that something is contained in a document which is not contained in a document . You will all recall, Mr. Chairman , that Mr. Batemen, who was a civil servant in this province of many years standing, was di smissed by the Progressive Conservative governm ent, on the basis, Mr.

Chairman , on this specious basis , that he had said that the Hydro Development Program was based on the recommendations and the Task Force Report . And under cross-examin ation , Mr. Chairman , he acknowledged that they wer en't recom mendations . But the report was there for anybody who wanted to see it. Mr. Bateman was not misrepresentin g the report ; he was indicating that that report was the basis upon which the Hydro Development Program proceeded .

And then some lawyer said to him : "There were no recommendations in the report." And he said , "W ell, I guess they weren 't recommendations ." "So then, you were misleadin g the House" . And he said , "W ell , maybe that was misleadin g". "And you knew it to be misleadin g". And on that basis, Mr. Chairman , a long -standin g civil servant employed by the Province of Mani toba, was fired. When in fact, Mr.

Chairman, the Tritschler Commission Report itself say s that the sequence, not the sequence, the program of Lake Winnipeg Regul ation , the program of Churchill River Diversion, were programs which were based on the conclusions of the Task Force Report . And we are quib bling about the words "conclusions" or "recommendations". But they were all based on those things , and Mr. Batemen di d not mislead . But we have the First Minister get up today and say , Mr. Chairman , that the Tritschler Report confirms what Doug Campbell said ; and confirms what Kristjanson said . Mr.

Chairman , the First Minister should resign on the basis of the standards that he set for Mr. Bateman . Mr. Justice Tritschler doesn 't confirm what Campbell said , nor does he confirm what Kristjanson said. Both of them said that he should proceed with Churchill River Diversion ; right away . Mr. Chairman , Mr. Justice Tritschler said. • and by the way , the First Minister then said that Tritscher finds that these people had been warning the government all along and that they were the ones who should have been li stened to. We ll, Mr. Chairman, the Tritschler Report says nothing of the kind .

The interesting feature about the Tritschler Report , Mr. Chairman , is that it confirms none of the criticisms that were made by the honourable members when they were in opposi tion ; none of them. The Tritscher Report , in fact, Mr. Chairman , is a find ing against what was said by the members when they were in opposition because they said we should have proceeded with the Churchill River Diversion , and Mr. Tritschler , who admits that he has not evaluated what any of these changes has cost, and says that they cannot be evaluated . This is what he said , Mr.

Chairman , he said that in 1970 , when the New Dem ocratic Party government came to power, they should have shelved the Churchill River Diversi on ; they should have shelved Lake Winnipeg Regulation ; they should have built a thermal plant ; and they should have engaged in studies . And the result of those studies remains a mystery as to what would have happened. Mr. Chairman , that would have been a disaster for the people of the Province of Manitoba .

We would have been defeated in 19 73, and rightly so , if we built the thermal plant and delayed construction of the Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulat ion . Annd maybe Mr. Justice Tritschler is thinking in retrospect; - 1697 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 maybe that's what he hoped we would do so that we would have been defeated in 1973 . And as it was, Mr.

Chairman , over those years between 1969 and 1979 , in spite of criticism of the most contradictory kind - proceed with the Churchill, don't proceed with the Churchill, proceed with Lake Winnipeg, don't proceed with Lake Winnipeg - we put in place all of the facilities which have enabled a five -year freeze of hydro-electric rates and which have enabled the kind of announce ment that was made by the First Mini ster today , because without those faciliti es that announcement could not have been made. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting thing who the First Minister seeks to hope to make credib le.

What you do , Mr. Chairman, you are answerable for; you 'v e got to go back to your constituents. What I do I have to go answer to the public for. What the members of the government do , they have to answer to the public for. What a judge do es, Mr. Chairman, can be reversed on appeal . What the Appeal Court does , can be reversed in the Supreme Court of Canada . But nobody holds George Tritschler responsible except, Mr. Chairman , the people of the prov ince of Manitoba .

And his report is so incr edib le that within weeks of its being issued the people overwhelmingly voted for the party that the First Minist er says wasted $500 million to $700 million. Mr. Chairman, I have an interesting personal observation. I walk down the streets of Winnipeg ; I walk into Hudso n' s Bay ; I walk into Ea tons ; I go into restaurants and generally - and this is good for a politi cian - I am recognized and people are generally friend ly .

Not one citizen in the province of Manitoba has come up to me and said , "You cost me $500 mil lion to $700 million" , because nobody , nobody believes what the First Minister is saying. Nobody . Well, I am telling you , Mr. Chairman , that if there was a condemnation that this government cost the people $500 million to $700 million and the people be lieved it , they would not have voted for them in the federal election. And , Mr. Chairman, they would be telling it to me to my face. But nobody has made that remark.

And the people of the province of Manitoba have filled that vacuum of responsibility which doesn 't exist for Mr. Justice Tritschler, which exists for the Member for Lakeside , which exists for the Member for Souris-Kill arney , which exists for my self, which exists for most judges who can be reversed on app eal , but doesn 't exist for this man who said , "I will serve without pay as a one-man Commission to examine the criticism or to employ the terms of reference". And , Mr. Chairman, it 's very interesting because I'm not goin g to deal with the Tritschler Report today .

I' ve given notice there will be a Notice of Appeal filed . Mind you , it 's a N otice of Appeal after the effect because I am sure that the appeal has already been registered . But there will be a Notice of Appeal filed before this Legislature indicat ing the errors , the omissions , the inconsist encies, the outrageous statements and methods of judicial reasoning that have led to this document ; this document , Mr.

Chairman , which doesn 't limit itself to Hydro development ; which the man is so insistent on getting into the political involve ment that even after he has fini shed his enqu iry and some official of Manitoba Hydro issues a statement - some official last year issued a statement sayin g: "Look , we'v e been doing the right thing all along" . A separate chapter, Mr. Chairman , is devoted to Mr. Justice Tritschler. We ll, is it a who le chapter? I' m not sure it 's a whole chapter, well, it probably is. What is it? Hydro 's Public Relations . I'm not sure that that is the chapter, Mr.

Chairman, but I'v e read it and there is a separate allowance made of criti cizing this Hydro of ficial who had the nerve to say that we 'v e been right all along and we 'v e been doing the right thing . That is also included in George Tritschler's terms of reference. So I say to you I'm not going to deal with the matter today . I am only going to deal , Mr. Chairman, with certain succinct facts because the First Minister has chosen to say that Mr. Justice Tritschler has found $500 million to $700 mi llion. He has not found 500 to 70 0 cents. He says he can't quantif y it , Mr. Chairman.

He says he can 't quantify it . He doesn 't say , "Jenpeg is a waste of $180 millio n". He can 't say it . What he says is that Jenpeg need not have been built , even though the first recommendation says it should have been built . He says it need not but he doesn 't say what is it worth to the people of Manitoba today? He can' t answer. That's a dangerous question to answer because then he 'd have to find out . And what happens is that Jenpeg produces $20 million of electricity a year which is sold and amortized on the basis of its investment.

It is there; it is earning its way and it 's available to do the kind of things that are necessary for the First Minister to make his announcement today . - 1698 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 But anybody who says an asset produc ing $20 milli on a year is worth nothing is an idi ot , is a financ ial idiot . Mr. Chairman , they have an asset ; and I ask the Minister of Finan ce, would you say that CF! is worth nothing? Well, he should know, he would never value it at nothing . It' s a good proje ct. It' s produc ing. It loses $10 mill ion a day but he doesn't value it at nothin g . He's probably valuing it at something like $1 50 million even though it loses $10 milli on a year . Did I say a day? A year . --( Interjection)-- Well, I changed that. I make it a year .

It loses $10 million a year even on the basis of its existi ng financial statement which shows no losses but which relieves it of interest of more than $10 mill ion a year. But we have financ ial wizards on the other side . You know, I went to a group of financ ial analy sts and I said to them, "If you had an asset which was producing $20 milli on a year , could you value it at zero? And they said , "No , who does that? " And I sa id, "Progressive Conservatives, that's their arithmetic". Because Trits chler di dn't say that. Tritschler never added up those figur es. What happened was, Mr.

Chairman, when the Minister of Finance got the report he was looking for that statement because the Conservatives for five years have run around this province saying that the New Democrats have cost you - they started at $200 mi llion , then $300 mi llion , then $400 million, then $600 mil lion - and they gave the reason . Mr. Chairman, they gave the reason ; because you built Lake Winnipeg before you built Churchill. If you would have built Churchill first you would have saved $600 milli on. When the Minister of Fin ance got the report it was a dis aster. A disaster .

Tritschler hasn't been able to say that one cent was lost by building Lake Winnipeg before Churchill . --( Interjection)-- Mr. Chairman , Mr. Justice Tritschler has not been able to find one cent in losses by building Lake Winnipeg before Churchill. As a matter of fact he says it cannot be quantified and that the Task Force Report confirms what Bateman had been saying all along , that there was only a marginal di fference between going one way or the other way . When Mr. Craik got this - excuse me , the Minister of Finance - he was thunder struck.

The reporters are going to get this document , they' re not going to find any $600 mi llion . So the Minister did a very peculiar thing . He ran through the report; he went through the facilities that Mr. Justice Tritschler said may be were not necessary when they were bui lt; he added them up and he says it comes to $800 mi llion ; but he placed no value on the facilities . Mr. Chairman , this is Progressive Conservative arithmetic . These are the people who are handlin g the affairs of the people of Manitoba. How long can we let this last?

How long can the people of Manitoba trust their affairs to people who calculate in that way? Mr. Chairman, In indicated I am not goin g to do it all today . I mean, I have been very anxious to get into it but I' m not going to do it today , I'm going to confin e myself to certain basic propositions and I' m glad the First Minister is here. Because the First Minister talks about reading and I'm going to deal with the reading , Mr. Chairman . He has shown himself to be a gradu ate. He says that the Tritschler Report confirms Campbell ; it doesn't .

Campbell said you should build CRD ; the Tritschler Report says no . He says the Tritschler Report confirms Kristjanson , Kristjanson said you should build CRD ; the Tritschler Report says no. He says that it cost $600 mil lion ; the Tritschler Report doesn't say that. Mr. Chairman , I have read the entire report. I read it for my learned friend . I cannot make him understand it . Mr. Justice Tritschler says that when we took over the government we should have gone ahead with neither program. We should have built a thermal plant and studied it . The honourable member says no , that's not what it says. Mr.

Chairman , my honourable friends not only have a problem with arithmetic , they have a problem with English . They cannot understand the English language . I read it to the House earlier and I' m goin g to take a few minutes now again to find the page because my honourble friend has to hear it read again . --( Interjec tion)-- I' m interested to hear the honourable member protesting that Mr. Justice Tritschler never said that because that would obviously be horrendous , wouldn't it? I me an , if Tritschler said that it would be a terrible mistake on his part, would it not?

I ask the Member for Lakeside, who says that Mr. Justice Tritschler never said that . What he is saying is that Mr. Justice Tritschler never said that because that would be totally wrong , wouldn' t it? --( Interjection)-- - 16 99 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 Mr. Chairman , I have lost the page . I had it here. MR . ENNS : Great gobs of money were shot down the drain by you idiots , and that happens to be the truth. MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman , I' ve found the page . The honourable member says that Mr. Justice Tritschler di d not say that we should have proceeded neither with the Churchill River Diversion nor the Lake Winnipeg Regulation ; we should have built a thermal plant and done studi es. The honourable member says that Mr. Justice Tritschler di dn't say that and he also says that that would have been a terrible thing . Mr.

Chairman , that' s what he said . He knows I have found the page and he is a little concer ned now. I am going to read what Mr. Justice Tritschler said : "Hydro was not ready in 197 0 to commit either Lake Winnipeg Regulation or CRD . It should have bought time to complete proper studies by purchase agreements. We should have bought power with adjacent utiliti es or by the buildin g of a thermal plant . It rushed into both projects, with disastrous results". Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Justice Tritschler says that in 1970 we shouldn't have built CRD .

Kristjanson said we should have; Campbell says we should have, and we don't know what these studies of Mr. Justice Tritschler's would have found out . If you are engaging in studies in 19 70, I presume that it is to find out . So that he never said that we should ever go ahead with these programs . That is the basis of the Tritschler Report and that, Mr. Chairman, would have been a dis aster. And if we would have done that the Member for Lakeside would have been on this side of the House yellin g, "Studie s, we've got the CRD , we 've studied it for years , why are you not proceeding with it?

" But we would have said , "We are engaging in studies because we hope a Judge nine years from now will say that we were right in studyin g". That's what he say s, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lyon says that Campbell is confirmed by Tritschler; that' s false. Mr. Lyon says that Kristjanson is confirmed by Tritschler; that is false. Mr. Lyon says that the Tritschler found losses $500 to $700 million ; that is false , all of those figur es. --( Interj ection)-- Oh , Mr. Chairman , now he says that Tritschler doesn't say it . That's true. MR. ENNS : We never said that. MR . GRE EN: He has finally read the Tritschler Report .

MR . ENNS : We never said that Tritschler said that. MR . GR EEN: Now, Mr. Chairman , get that , get that , get the Member for Lakeside's remarks. He says that the Conservatives have never said that the Tritschler Report confirms losses of $500 to $700 mill ion. MR . ENNS : No , that's not right . No , no , no . That's a good courtroom lawyer for you • • • MR . GREEN : Mr. Chairman, there is nothing ; Mr. Chairman , there is nothing in the Tritschler Report unless - and I' ve given you •• MR . ENNS : You get paid $75 an hour across the street for do ing that, but not here. MR . GREEN: Mr.

Chairman , I have given you how they can get there. I have given you how they can get there. I' ve added the figures for you. --( Interje ction)- - If you take a $180 million asset which is producin g $20 million a year and say that it is worth nothing , which is apparently the way Progressive Conservatives calculate, then you can get to $8 million . But Mr. Justice Tritschler wouldn' t do that. No economist would do that. No accountant would do that. Nobody in fact who had any knowledge of elementary mathematics or economics, would do that.

The only one who would do that is a Progressi ve Conservative , he's the only one who would do that. - 1700 -

Thursday , 27 March 198 0 So , Mr. Chairman, I told you I'm not going to deal with it all today . I am going to file the Notice of Appeal showing all of the errors that have been made but I can say this, that although I cannot say that the Minister doesn' t know how to read , what I know is that Mr. Craik , when he got this report, had to make an invention and he made his invention and we are now engaged in the Craik school of falsification of which student No. 1 is the First Minister . Student No . 1 is the First Minister , Mr. Chairman. And when the First Minister said that this was so , when he adopted Mr.

Craik's remarks, he said it was a Conservative estimate, Mr. Chairman. He should have said that it was a Progressive-Conservative estimate because that's the kind of estimate it is. Mr. Chairman, I have not only read the report in its entirety , every word , but I have received sound professional engineerin g advice that the following con clusions , that these are the conclusio ns that are documented in the report : No. 1. The sequence of Lake Winnipeg Regulat ion , Churchill River Diversion adopted by Manitoba Hydro , was based on and supported by the conclusions of the Task Force Report which indi cated, Mr.

Chairman -- ( Interjection )-- This is the Tritschler Report. This is in the Tritschler Report . In the report, Mr. Chair man, which indicated that there was no substantial economic di fference as between either sequence. That's what the Task Force Report said . It said that the dif ferences were margina l. There may have been a short-term advantage . -- ( Interjec tion)-- That' s what the first version said . MR . LYON: That's after you've tinkered with them. MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman , that's what the first version said MR . LYON : You misread the report. You misled the House . MR. GREEN: Mr.

Justice Tritschler said there was no substantial dif ference between the first version or the second version and those are practically his word s. He said there was no substantial diff erence. Mr. Chairman , that's No . 1. Not only does Mr. Justice Tritschler --( Interjection )-- The Commi ssion heard no evidence - just a minute - it heard no evidence and made no findings, that hav ing proceeded with this sequence there was a waste to the taxpayers of $600 mi l lion, let alone 600 million cents. Mr.

Justice Tritschler makes no quantitative finding as between going in one dir ection or going in the other direction , and says he can't - says he can't , Mr. Chairman. -- ( Interjection )-- Sure , go ahead . MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR . LYON : Mr. Chairman , would my honourable friend care to refresh his memory and tell me if these statements by Mr. Justice Tritschler are true? On Page 465: "The final cost of the combined Lake Winnipeg Regulation-Jenpeg is some $315 milli on .

The cost allocated to control work is $125 million , as compared to the $50 million proje cted at the time of the LWR project". And on Page 21 : "Had a proper project evaluation been carried out , it would have demonstrated that Jenpeg was not viable for power. Obstinate refusal to heed warnings has resulted in substantial and unnec essary costs being borne by the Manitoba consumers ". Will my honourable friend confirm that that's in the report? MR . CHAIRMAN : The Honourble Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman , I think that there are lots of irrational state ments in the Tritschler Report. Mr.

Chairman, but not one of the statements that he had read makes a finding . He says that an estimate of $50 million was in creased to $125 milli on . He doesn't say there's been a loss of $75 milli on. He doesn't say the proj ect isn't worth $125 million. He doesn 1 t say that that has been a waste of $125 million . I' ll show you the same George Tritschler, about what he said when he was defending the Grand Rapids project, who said that these - 1701 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 kinds of installations are normal , the same George Tritschler, Mr. Chairman , the same George Tritschler. In the percentage they are comparable. But anyway , my friend read out statements . Did any of those statements say that there has been a loss of $600 million by proceeding in a di fferent sequence? They need not have been built . Does any of those statements make a finding as to what they are worth today to the Province of Manitoba? MR . LYON: Why build something you don't need? It's like the government garage . MR. GREEN : Well, Mr. Chairman , that may be true ; that may be true.

But my honourable friend goes from there to a very interesting conclusion. I don 't need another house, and I build one , and somebody says, "You fool, why did you build it?" And it cost me $20 ,0 00 to build , but is worth $30 ,0 00 .00. By my friend 's reasoning , the house is worth zero ; by my reasoning it 's worth $30 , 000 even though I di dn't need it. Now I am not saying that we di dn't need it , but Mr.

Justice Tritschler makes no finding as to what those facilities are worth to the Manitoba Hydro system and he does not say that we are $600 million worse off for having built them, and that's what the. • .oh, take it easy . When I hear the kind of junk that's posed at me from the other side of the House it 's hard to take it easy . MR. CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Member has five min utes. MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I am going to make these statements again and I am going to run them through without a question just so that they will sink in. 1.

The sequence of Lake Winnipeg Regulat ion , Churchill River Di version adopted by Manitoba Hydro was based on and supported by the conclusions of the Task Force Report which indicated that there was no substantial economic dif ference as between either sequence. All of these thin gs are findin gs of the Tritschler Report or conclusions which are based on what Mr. Justice Tritscher wrote. 2. The Commi ssion heard no evidence and made no findings that, having pro ceeded with this sequence, there was a waste to the taxpayers of $600 millio n, let alone 600 mi llion cents. They don't find any waste. 3.

There is no evidence, and this is the important thing, there is no evi dence or findings that any alternative program or scheme of development would have resulted in greater economy than that which was achieved. Mr. Justice Tritschler makes no attempt to say , if they had left this out they would be further ahead or that they would have saved money or that they would have a more valuable system.

The only alternative sugge stion that 's made by Tritschler is that in 1970 when we came to power , and you remember the pressure that was on us to get Hydro Development, we should have built a thermal plant or bought power from Ontario and Saskatchewan , and studied . Mr. Chairman , if we di d that, we should have been def eated ; and the reason that we di dn' t do that, the reason that we took the bull by the horns •• � Mr.

Chairman , I' ve stopped for a diversio n, one of the most interesting statements I heard on television was made by Dave Courchene, who said very seriously , "Now is the time to take the bull by the tail and look it straight in the ey e". We took the bull by the horns and we went ahead with these projects, Mr. Chairman . And if the First Minister , who is here, and I am anxious to dis cuss this with him, I tell him that I' m not finish ed , that I am preparing a Notice of Appeal that will be much more detailed than what I'm dealin g with at present. I just want to get over the three subjects which I know, Mr.

Chairman, are not in the report. Now the First Minister , who thinks that he is good at readin g , I repeat, he gets zero for comprehension. He proceeds on the assumption that a completed pro ject built before its time has no value . Isn't that what he's saying? That if you do something in advance of its time it 's worth nothing. Isn't that stupid , Mr. Chairman? That if you built the hydro plant, and you found that you could have built it two years later, it seems to me that even if that was your con clusion it doesn 't become worth nothing .

You carry your interest charges for two years ; that's what you do, to hundreds of milli ons. Mr. Chairman , you 'd better calcalute that. Now if Jenpeg was built two years too early ••• - 1702 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 MR. LYON : Jenpeg should never have been built . MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman , you know, the Minister says that Jenpeg should never have been built . Even Mr. Justice Tritschler says that the first recommend ation upon which Jenpeg was based was right , that at the time that they received the first recommendation to go ahead with Jenpeg it made sense and they should have gone ahead with it. That some years later, some time ••• -- ( Interjection )-- it ' s not in there? MR. LYON : I said , you 'd better find the quote. MR. GREEN : I wi ll sure find it for you .

That some time later there was a re-evaluation and before they started they could have stopped. That's what Mr. Justice Tritschler said. My learned friend says he di dn't find that; may be he didn 't read the report, Mr. Chairman . That's what he said . That the first recom mendation, and we ' 11 test each others memory on this, that the first recommend ation was it made sense when they brought it in, but that some years later there was some changes and they shouldn 't have proceeded with it, which I happen to dis agree with Mr. Justice Tritschler.

And I had the responsibility to go to the citizens ••• he is very fortunate, you know, he doesn 't have to answer to anybody , not to anybody , therefore he can make any irresponsible statement he wants. illll ntA� �t, Mr. Chairman. I say that this book contains irresponsible state- MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. The honourable member 's time is up . MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman , I do not back off one step from that. I don 't care if he's a judge , I don 't care if he's God , he has made irresponsible state ments. MR . CHAIRMAN : Order please. The Honourable First Minister. MR . LYON : Mr.

Chairman , I start with those well-worn words that I had not intended to participate in this debate. But hearing some of the comments and un fortunately , the last comment by my honourable friend from Inkster, and I do wish that he would reconsider what he has just said. MR . GREEN : Mr. Chairman, I want to reconsider . I want to reconsider for my honourable friend . I want to go back to what Mr. Sevigny ••• mine. MR . CHAIRMAN : Order please , order please. Order please. MR . LY ON : My honourable friend has had his chance, may be he'l l let me have MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Honourable First Minister.

MR . LYON : I think my honourable friend will , Mr. Chairman , after the heat of the moment has passed his fevered brow, wish to reflect and cogitate upon some of the implications of his last remarks, because he, by implication , and I give him every benefit of the doubt , because he is an honourable man. I'm speaking of the Member for Inkster. I say that I do not think that he would wish , even by implication , to question in any way the integrity of the former Chief Justice of the Queen' s Bench of Manitoba. So , Mr.

Chairman , I merely ask my honourable friend to reflect upon that pro position and perhaps when the passion of the moment has passed he may agree that my friendly suggestion to him would be worth following . Mr.

Chairman , my honourable friend has made a number of deviations from the report of the Tritschler Commi ssion this afternoon in an attempt , in an attempt that I find is intellectually unsupportable from a mind as good as the Honourable Member for Inkster, to say in effect that up is down, that black is white , that round is square , and really , he is saying he should almost qualif y for being a member of the "flat earth society ." How anyone can read the Commission of Inquiry - 1703 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 into Manitoba Hydro , which my honourable friend has in front of him and come up with some of the statements that he has made, and even more particularly , his former leader , the Leader of the Opposi tion , makes from time to time , and I'v e even heard the Member for St.

Vital on television on one occasion tryin g to make cement out of straw, and doin g a valiant job but failing abysmally , trying to worm their way out of the clear precise findings that were made by the Commi ssion of Inquiry with respect to the fundamental mism anagement of the Hydro Electric Util ity when my honourable friends had responsibility for government in this province. The report, I know, bothers my honourable friends but their comments about it will not in any way dif fuse, or in any way color the truth that is contained in that report. Because it was the truth, Mr.

Chairman , that was self-evident , I would think, to many many people, certainly many members of the Hydro staff were aware of th is, throughout the peace. But my honourable friends persisted in pro ceeding ahead on matters that , as it turns out unfortunately for even generations yet unborn , were beyond their ken , and proceeded on a course , and the word that I have used on many occasions , was dis astrous. I believe that word is used in the Commission Report as well, a dis astrous course of development . Now what di d Mr.

Justice Tritschler say on the development sequences - and that's what we ' re talking about . He said , on page 23 , "The development sequence adopted for the util ization of the Nelson-Churchill River Systems , di d not promote economy and efficien cy ", and these are excerpts , Mr. Chairman , "Lake Winnipeg Reg ulation should not have been committed. Jenpeg power commitment should have been cancelled . Long Spruce was committed too early without any economic justif ica tion. The Churchill River Diversion was re-committed in 1972 without adequate appreciation of engineering and mitigation problems .

Burntwood River plants per ceived to be an economic alternative , remain unavailable as they have not been adequately studied . Limestone was committed in 1975 in the absence of other al ternatives and construction was commenced without adequate analy sis of the econom ics of postponement". Now, Mr. Chairman , those are a collection of statements made as findings by the Commi ssion with respect to hydro . Now , my honourable friend wants to argue about what it cost. Now, Mr.

Chairman , when you say that Lake Winnipeg Regulation should not have been comm itted , you mean that means it shouldn't have been done at that time and the report goes on to say , "if ev er , if ever , if ever" , Mr. Chairman . MR . GREEN : I want to ask the Honourable Minister a questi on. He certainly asked me a question. finish. MR. LYON : My honourable friend is free to ask me any questions when I MR . CHAIRMAN : Order please . Order please. The Honourable First Minister. MR .

LYON : The Commissi on. .o n the development sequence, because there was some objection taken by my honourable friends in the course of Question Period when I mentioned the fact that the Public Utilities Committee of this House had been misled . On page 20 , what d.oes the Commission say?

The Commission is critic al of those who publicly misrepresented the validity of the sequence chosen, that is , Lake Winnipeg Regulation before Churchill River Diversion , or remained si lent when circumstances warranted correction of misstatements. -- ( Interjection )-- And all the Member for Inkster can say is that the Commission was wrong when they made that findin g a fa ct. MR. GREEN: That's right , that's right . What is it based on? MR . LYON : Mr. Chairman , on page 19 , on the Regulation of Lake Winnipeg , what did the Commission say?

"The construction of Lake Winnipeg Regulation prior to the Churchill River Diversion did not promote effic iency in the supply of power. Economic strategy should have di ctated the development of the Churchill River Diversion in advance of Lake Winnipeg Regulati on ." My honourable friend can twist and turn and wiggle all he wishes. That is the fact. That is the find ing, and that is the fact. - 1704 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 Well, Mr. Chairman , if you build something that you don't need and you have to pay carryin g charges on it, my honourable friend has been in business long enough to know, that if you put $315 million - and I correct the figure , I think I used the figure $330 million before - but if you put $315 million in place for Lake Winnipeg Regulation and for a power plant that you don't need , then, Mr. Chairman , you are paying carrying charges in the scores of millions of dollars , to say noth ing , Mr.

Chairman , of the fact that the particular projects in question might never have needed to be built , and if at all , way down in the 1990s . And that's in the report and I'l l come to that , just to refresh my honourable friend 's memory . On page 20 , "The timing of Lake Winnipeg Regulation and associated power de velopment at Jenpeg was not an optimal choice. Had the Churchill River Diversion preceded Lake Winnipeg Regul ation , the need for subsequent development of Lake Winnipeg Regulation was not a certainty . Hydro 's commitment of it was inexcus able. 11 Those were the words of the Commi ssion , Mr.

Chairman . No need to specu late about it. That's it . Hydro 's commitment of it was inexcusable. -- ( Interjection)- - On page 454 of the report , Mr. Chairman , "Cass-Beggs and Bateman stated to the public that the board decisions to proceed with Lake Winnipeg Regulation ahead of the Churchill Diversion were based on the final report of the task force. Their statements were false" . -- ( Interjection )-- Oh , well, you see now, Mr.

Chairman , we'r e going to have a commission report written by the Member for Inkster because he doesn 't like the one that came in from a neutral source ; he's going to write one himself. So I say to my honourable friend that kind of an argument from him really does a lot of harm to his intellectual reputation . Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has got to say more in this House, his former leader and colleagues have got to say more in this House than it isn't right . They 'v e got to prove it isn't rig ht. On Page 18 , "Cass-Beggs gave figures to the Standing Committee which were false and Mr.

Bateman , who knew better, remained silent . Other staff members must be faulted for failure to correct statements known by them to be erroneous . 11 What does my honourable friend say about that? Was the Commi ssion wrong there, too? Mr.

Chairman, on Page 17, "Costs of Lake Winnipeg Regulation were consistently under-esti mated by Hydro with the carelessness ranging from from reckless to ir responsible ." And that's part of the record of Manitoba under the guidance of the New Democrats, who claim to be managers of public affairs. -- ( Interjection )-- The Member for Inkster says that the Commission made an irresponsible statement , yes . Well , Mr. Chairman , there is an ultimate court of appeal that my honourable friend is well aware of and that 1 s the public opinion.

I' m quite satisfied with the brand that has been quite profitably imprinted on my honourable friends for a kind of callous mi smanagement and maladmi nistration by this report is something that they and their party are going to carry for many many decades in this province, and they deserve to because of what they cost this province. Mr. Chairman , on Page 465 , "The final costs for the combined Lake Winnipeg Regulation-Jenpeg project is some $315 mi llion . The cost allocated to control work is $125 milli on, as compared to the $50 million projected at the time of the Lake Winnipeg Regulation project. " MR .

GREEN: What's it worth? MR . LYON : We ll, if my honourable friend at some stage in the course of this Sessions wants to stand up and give us a di ssertation on the worth of Lake Winnipeg Regul ation , I'd love to be here to hear it because, Mr. Chairman , no such justif ication exist s, not on this world anyway . It may in my honourable friend 's private little world but it doesn't in the real world that we'r e talking about . Mr. Chairman , on Page 21, what di d the Commission say , "Had a proper project evaluation been carried out it would have demonstrated that Jenpeg was not viable for power.

Obstinate refusal to heed warnings has resulted in substantial and unnecessary costs being borne by Manitoba consumers ." My honourable friends say that findin g was wrong, too? Oh, yes , on Page 465 , Mr. Chairman , "The decision to proceed with the Jenpeg Generating Station was a serious and costly error. Obtuseness of the approach followed by Hydro meeting to its committal to the Russian tender compounded the original decision error ." - 1705 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 Mr. Chairman, the Hydro Task Force my honourable friend tries to make out in some kind of verbal witchery that he's carryin g on, that the Hydro Task Force was a justif ication for anything. On Page 17 , what did the Commission say? "The se quence and program recommended by Cass-Beggs and adopted was at variance with the news of the task force and Hydro 's executive ." Mr. Chairman, read Page 104 , "The conclusions do not thoroughly reflect the engineerin g and economic judgment of the task force that Lake Winnipeg Regulation should not be installed in advance of CRD . 11 Mr.

Chairman , carrying on , on Page 17 , and I ask my honourable friends to pay particular attention to this, "After July 30 , 19 70 , the public was subjected to a continuing course of mis inform ation and deception. " Was that what my honourable friend • • --( Interj ection)- - Sometime in this session I would love to hear my honourable friends respond to that indic tment, and find it. At Page 453, Mr. Chairman, "The chairman orchestrated the work of the task force to validate his earlier conclusions . This does not absolve the task force members of responsibility for their work and report .

They should have, but did not adhere to their terms of reference" , Mr. Chairman under the guidance of my honourable friends opposi te, a pattern of deception and withholding of facts from the public of Manitoba that was found as a fact by the Commission of Inquiry by my honourable friends opposite and principally by their appoin tee, their first ap pointee as the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro , Mr. Cass-Beg gs .

The Member for Elmwood says "a good man ", let him read the report and see what kind of a good man he thinks he is , after he's finished the report. -- ( Interjection)-- And somebody on the other side has the gall to say , "And who was Tritschler?" Well, Mr. Chairman , we all know who Cass-Beggs is and we all know what he, aided and abetted by the former Premier of this province and my honourable friends opposite , cost the pub lic of Manitoba, a political appointm ent that they mad e, a political appointment that they made in this province after he had been fired in the Province of Saskat chewan .

We all know about Mr. Cass-Beggs . Mr. Chairman , on Page 118 , because my honourable friend from Inkster was talk ing about Mr. Campbell, "Mr . Douglas Campbell questioned the decision in a letter to the board"; we' re talking about the task force study and let me interrupt , Mr. Chairman . Mr. Douglas Campbell is a man who was a distin guished Premier of this province and a friend , I think, to all of us in this House . He was approached, as we all know, by the former Premier , Mr. Schreyer , to sit on the Hydro Board . He was asked by the former Premier to sit on the Hydro Board .

On Page 18 , what is said there? "Mr . Douglas Campbell questioned the decision in a letter to the board on April 12 , 1971 . He claimed that Task Force Report was not a sound , technical or practical appraisal . Mr. Batemen chose to interpret this statement as expressing doubt about the integrity of the task force and converted a question regarding the technical soundness of the task force into a question about the pro fessional integrity of the members ." Mr. Chairman , and later on I'l l come to the point where Mr.

Campbell then went personally to the former Premier of this province and literally pleaded with him to stop the dis astrous course of action upon which that NDP government was embark ed with the most important util ity that we have responsibility for in this House . So , let my honourable friends say that those findings are not true . Let them prove that they'r e not true . Mr. Chairman , on Page ll2 , in dealing the actions of Hydro staff, Cass-Beggs mislead the board by not informing it of the real opinion of the task force mem bers, which was known to him.

"Senior members of Hydro , who were present at the board meetings of July 22 and 30 , 1970 , should have been insured that the board , and hence the governm ent, were properly informed ." Where is that willowy voice across the way that wants to talk about Mr. Cass-Beggs now? And there's lots more here and you 'r e going to hear it. Mr. Chairman , on Page 119, a statement from the Council of Profession Engineers was issu ed .

Quoting from that statement, "There is no intention of getting in volved in the politi cal considerations of this or any other matter unless evidence that engineerin g information is being misrepresented to justif y a political decis ion . None of the members of the task force was placed in a position that compro mised his profession responsibility ," and the Commission then goes on to say , "The association could not have been privy to the circumstances under which the task force prepared its report, as brought out in evidence." - 1706 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 Mr. Chairman , these are just a few selective quotes that I' m giving to indicate to my honourable friend , the Member for Inkster, that squirm and twist and words as he will or may , he can't evade the findings that were made with respect to this continued course of deception that was practised by that Chairman of Manitoba Hydro and carried out right into the Public Utilities Committee of this very Legislature , chaired by member of the Legislature who was also a board member of Hydro . How judicial ; how judicial , Mr. Chairman . Well, Mr.

Chairman , on Page 410 of the report, and I'm just giving my honour able friends the briefest quotes I can , "Hydro has often failed to provide timely ·and accurate information . It is concluded that inaccurate information provided through the early 1970s had much to do with the delays in completing the Churchill River Diversion. Recent information releases," this is coming up to recent times , Mr. Chairman , "of Hydro have continued to be self-serving and do not correctly reflect known facts.

The Director of Public Affairs made a public pronouncement stating : This 197 9 surplus shows critics that the course of action we followed was the right one . We have gone through a lot of public abuse and now our build ing is paying off. " Mr. Chairman, is not the line we 'r e hearing from our honourable friends op posite that is being parroted or was being parroted by the Director of Information at Manitoba Hydro? And what did the Commission say about that? "Senior manage ment ," said the Commi ssion, "is well aware that these public pronouncements were inaccurate .

The 197 9 surplus does not prove that the course followed by Hydro was correct. The rates charged to Hydro 's customers are based on a cost of the serv ice which has been inf lated by the necessity to recover the cost of facilities that were imprud ently incurred and which were not required ." That 's the findin g of the Commission . And the Commi ssion continue s, Mr.

Chairman , "The customer would not realize that the amount he was being charged was larger than it would have been but for some managerial blunders durin g the preceding years , nor was he told of all the reasons why Hydro 's 1978-79 performance was better than was stated in the release ." Mr.

Chairman , ag ain , on Page 410 , "The reader was int ended to understand that generating capacity of Jenpeg and Long Spruce were good news, shielded from the fact that evi dence showed that Jenpeg generation was committed unnecessarily , was a financial disaster , and the power produced the most expensive in Hydro 's hist ory , and Long Spruce was constructed in advance of Manitoba 's need , while provid ing significant revenues , is not profitable. " Is my honourable friend or any of his colleagues going to stand in their place and say , "That's jus t not true"? MR . GREEN: That's not true . MR .

LY ON : The Member for Inkster obliges me , he says after a two and-a- half year study with a close review of all of the evidence - I believe that my honourable friend gave evidence - that find ing is not true . MR . GREEN: That is not a correct finding . MR . LYON : My honourable friend 's got the rest of the session and , indeed , Mr. Chairman, the rest of his lif e to try to prove that it 's not true. MR . GREEN: I will ; it won 't take me that long . MR . LYON: Yes, ye s, well, Mr. Chairman . MR . GREEN: It won't take 10 minu tes. MR .

LYON : "A review of Hydro 's public relations points to the conclusion that its Department of Public Relations should change its obje ctives to provide the public with factual in formation and not indulge in a self-serving public re lations program ." Mr. Chairman , does my honourable friend want to hear some more about the find ings of the Commission that he --( Interj ection )-- oh , no , it doesn 't matter. My honourable friend - it 's funny , he did n't bother quot ing any of these though , did he? - 1707 -

Ttlursday, 27 March 1980 MR . GREEN : No. MR. LYON : No , he didn 't quote any of these findings of the Commi ssion when he was tryin g to squirm, twist , and get himself, and his colle agues and his former leader off the hook on which they are impaled for all time . And , Mr.

Speaker, I don 't take any particular joy in them, because as my honourable friend knows, I was one of those who , as a private citi zen , went before the Lake Winnipeg Regula tion Board and , in effect, pleaded with my honourable friends to stop the course that they were on at that time because it was going to cost the ratepayers of Manitoba a large amount of money . I think the figure I used back 197 1 or '7 2, when I made one submission to that board was, if my memory serves me , Mr. Chairman , $50 million .

I pleaded then with the government of the former Premier of this province to stop the course of action that they were engaged upo n, because it was patently obvious to anyone who knew any thing about Hydro , that they were on a di sastrous cour se. Mr. Chairman , the Commission has now found that is the case. Ttlere were many many people throughout the length and breadth of Manitoba who knew it but because , as the Commi ssion found , that the obtuseness of my honourable friends and some people of Manitoba Hydro , the people of Manitoba were subjected to these tremendous costs and their rates were escalating.

Let my honourable friend get on to this topic some time in this session , or in the rest of his lif etime , and tell the people of Manitoba why it was necessary on a compound basis for them and their instrument , Manitoba Hydro , to raise Hydro rates 150 percent over a three-to-four-year period . Maybe my honourable friends would like to answer that qu estion , and then in the course of answering it , Mr. Chairman , they can begin to tell us about why you have to pay carryin g charges on capital installations that need not have been committed or put into place, and that was what causes hydro rates to rise .

Because when you 'r e paying carryin g charges on things that you don 't need to bui ld, it costs the pub lic money . It 's a very simple proposition. MR . CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Minister has five minu tes. MR . LYON : Mr. Chairman , well, my honourable friend has the rest of the session to try to explain some of these very common-sense findin gs that were made by the Commi ssion. Mr.

Chairman , on Page 18 : "Repeated attempts to expose the facts by opponents of the sequence and program were blocked by the government majority on the Stand- ing Committee on Public Utilit ies , which deemed it fitti ng that a government mem ber, also a member of the Hydro board , should preside as Chairman during examin ation of Hydro 's affai rs ." That's a find ing of the Commi ssion , Mr. Chairman. My honourable friend , I sup pose , says that's not true either. -- ( Interjection )-- I see.

My honourable friend says that it wasn 't the member of the Hydro Board and the Socialist Govern ment who was the Chairman , I said who blocked the attempt s? Because I was there on a few occasions as a private citiz en and saw the blocking take place, Mr. Chairman . Ttlat's a finding of fact which my honourable friend can wiggle all he wishes about . It happened . It 's true and was found in the Commission report .

I'd love to hear his comment about how the government majority of which he was a member at that time , blocked - blocked - in this committee of the Legislature , the attempt by opponents of this sequential development scheme to get their case be fore the committee. I'd love to hear my honourable friend prove that that isn't true . --( Interjection)- - And on Page 234 , Mr. Chairman : "The repeated ignoring of these warnings was unfortunate and demonstrates an unwi llingness to review hydro critically ." Another example was the establishment of the special Advisory Commi ttee to Cabinet.

"Solidarity of approach between governme nt and Hydro was the posture adopted throughout , and govern ment was unwilling to admit the possibilit y of error . It shut its eyes and failed to respond to the many concerns being expres sed about Hydro . This solidarity of approach and lack of criti cal appraisal of Hydro by government is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that Mr. Schreyer testified that from time to time he had reservations and concerns about Hydro ." - 1708 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 And the Leader of the Opposition gets up today and asks that peons of praise should be offered to the leadership in that period, covered by the Commission 's report in that statement, and many others that appear - not very likely , Mr. Chairman . Not very likely .

On Hydro rate increases on Page 19 : "How much such deviation have cost the consumer cannot be precisely quantified ." That's true . �It is obvious to the Commission that the adverse impact on rates has been significant ." Page 23: "The Commi ssion finds that Hydro 's actions have resulted in signific ant and unnecessary increases in rates. It is certain that a very large sum is involved , one which must be borne by Manitoba consumers ." Does my honourable friend say that that is a mistaken finding as well? And he's got today and the rest of the session to prove that that finding is wrong , Mr. Chairman.

And on Page 34 6: "There is no evidence that the government or Hydro paid any serious attention to the warning of siginficant weaknesses in Hydro 's financial position or the implication that the increasing demands for capital to support its projected expansion program could jeopard ize the province's capacity to support its other programs ." On the export of power , Page 14 the Commi ssion found : "Failure to recognize the importance of export marketing has been a major defic iency in Hydro 's planning process." And the Leader of the Opposition stands up today and battles words about wanting to take credit for the Western Grid .

Some credit , Mr. Chairman , some credit that government could take for anything except the maladm inistration of Hydro for eight years. Well , Mr. Chairman , with only a minute left, that I'v e only begun to make my point . And if my honourable friends wish to continue the debate on Hydro , I can assure them that I will be happy to join them at any time , because they cannot, notwithstanding, Mr. Chairman, they cannot in any way , shape or form try to di s tort the words of the Commission report. They are certainly free to try to dis prove them and I invite my honourable friends to attempt to do that.

But to say merely it isn 't true is not good enough. It won 't wash here in the Legislature . It won 't wash with the people of Man itoba. My honourable friends , Mr. Chairman , my honourble friends killed their own albatross ; it 'l l now hang around their necks for the rest of their lives. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN : might as well let me say that I intend to prove every- thing that I say out of the mouth of Mr. Just ice Tritschler, using no other evi dence, Mr. Chairman .

With respect to the fact that my learned friend will con tinue to read what I have termed , advi sedly , irresponsible statements, I repeat that , Mr. Chairman. My honourable friend says I' ve chal lenged the integ rity . I don't challenge my friend 's integrity . He believes everything he sa ys. Mr. Justice Tritschler be lieves everything he sa ys, but they are irresponsible statements. I am not sink ing to the depths of Conservatives, Mr. Chairman . And by the way I happened to agree with those Conservatives at the time. Mr. Pearson set up a commi ssion to examine Mr. Deifenbaker.

It was the most vindict ive , politi cal act ever committed in the history of Canada . Mr. Deifen baker had some choice words to say about a Supreme Court Justi ce , a sitting Jus t ice, Mr. Justice Spence. He was sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada and Mr. Deifenbaker said , and I'm paraphrasin g : "A drum-head commission set up in politi cal vindictiveness and desi gned to bring about a desired result ." That's what the Conservatives said about a commissio n. Mr. Sevigny was much more eloqu ent. He said , when they first came to him , "Horse manure , 11 and he didn 't say "manur e", Mr.

Chairman . -- ( Interjection )-- I am telling you what Sevigny said . Mr. Chairman , I have given my remark about the commission. I said that there are irresponsible statements in this report ; that they are responsible to nobody ; that there is no appeal ; that he does not have to face the electorate ; that he doesn 't have to face anybody ; that he is not appeal able, and has proceeded accordingly . As a matter of fact, a judge proceeding in court is subject to appeal . And we say , oh, yes , I' ve told the members of the House that I will file my appeal , Mr. - 1709 -

Thursday , 27 March 198 0 Chairman. I certainly will. My honourable friend should know what is irrespons ible . About a week ago the Member for Morris got up and said , 3, 500 have left , and I don 't dis agree with the Member for Morris. At the time he knew that there was another estimate. At the time he knew that there was another estimate, but he said , "I 'm not going to bring another estimate in because it , too, may be wrong". I sympathize with the honourable member. I sympathize with him. He had 35; it came in wrong .

He knew about another one , and he said , "I 'm not going to say any thing , that one might come in wrong ." For doing that, and even on no evidence whatsoever, because Mr. Ju stice Tritschler doesn 't find , he doesn 't find that Cass-Beggs knew - or not on any evi dence - he said , "I believe that when Cass Beggs gave the figure $50 million, he knew there was another one . Bateman said he knew that Cass-Beggs was giving a wrong figure , but he did n't want to change him. But all that we are talking about is an estimate. If it 's good enough --( Interjection )-- Mr. Chairman, if it 's good enough • • • MR .

LYON: For how many months di d they ••• to the House . MR . GREEN : They came in and then they gave us the next estimate at the next report. Mr. Chairman, if it 's good enough for the Member for Morris to say that, "I had an estimate of $35 ,0 00 . I got a new one but I wasn 't going to give that one , because I would be found wrong aga in. " And he doesn 't get fired , and no irresponsible statements are made about him misleading the House . And I don't say it , because he di dn't mislead the House . Why do they say that when Cass-Beggs does that?

He had an est imate of $50 million ••• A MEMBER : That's di fferent. MR . GREEN : Well, of course . Mr. Chairman , of course . Do you know what the First Minister said just now . He said , "I di dn 't say that, the Commission said it .1 1 Because it 's an irresponsible statement; he wouldn 't make it. He says that the Commi ssion made it . He said that the Commission made it . MR. LYON: Yes, that's right . MR . GREEN: Now I'm going to read you, Mr. Chairman , my finding. Mr. Chairman, I am going to read you the findin gs.

What was told to the House on numerous occasions , is that Cass-Beggs came and told us that there was a marginal difference between going Lake Winnipeg first , or Churchill River first , and that given the fact that it was within mathematical error, and scientif ic error, we could choose one or the other, and choosing Lake Winnipeg gave us more time to study Churchill River , which Tritschler says we should do, by the way , which Tritschler says we should do . Now, that's what we were told . That's what was said at all times. Here are the Task Force report findings .

They say exactly that, and I'm reading from the Tri tschler Report , and these are the Task Force Report findings. The comparison of the short-term economics. MR . CHAIRMAN : Order please . The hour is 4:3 0. I am interrupting the pro ceeding for Private Members ' Hour and will return at 8:00 o' clock tonight . PRIVATE MEMBERS ' HOUR MR . SPEAKER : We 'r e now on Private Members ' Hour. The first item of busi ness on Thursdays in Private Members' Hour is Public Bills . We have a Public Bill today , Bill No . 25 , standing in the name of the Honourable Member for River Heights.

SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILL S BILL NO . 25 -

AN ACT TO AMEND

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE SINKING FUND TRUSTEES - 1710 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 MR . GARY FIL MON (R iver Heights) presented Bill No . 25 ,

An Act to amend

An Act to Incorporate the Sinkin g Fund Trustees of the Winnipeg School Division No . 1, for second reading . MOTION presented . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR . FILMON : Mr. Speaker, the explanation of the amendment is one that has been done in the past. It 's a change in the amount of money that's allowable to be paid to Trustees who are not members of the profession , not staff members of the Winnipeg School Board .

Consequently they are paid a fee of $100 per meeting attended , for attending meetings of the Trustees of the Sinkin g Fund and up to a maximum of $1 , 200 is what appears in the present legislat ion. That limit is to be increased to $1 ,8 00 .00. This is in keeping with the progress of time . The limit has been changed in the past. A number of years ago it was increased to the $1 , 200 . Now it 's being sub sequently increased to the $1 , 800 so that these people can be adequately paid in accordance with normal remuneration of the times. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Logan. MR .

WILLIA M JENKI NS : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honour able Member for Rossmere, that debate be adjour ned . MOTION presented and carried . MR . SPEAKER : The second item of business is Private Bills. We have a Private Bill. The Honourable Member for Cresc entwood. (S tand) May we then proceed to Proposed Resolutions. RESOLUTION NO . 9 - APPOI NTMENT OF CLERK 'S ASS 'T /CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER MR . SPEAKER : Resolution No. 9, standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet. He has twenty minut es. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR . SAMUEL USKIW : Thank you , Mr.

Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Resolu tion before us of course deals with the question of the way in which a very im portant servant of this Assembly was selected by the Premier of this province, and indeed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-C ouncil . And the resolved part of this Reso lution sugge sts that this House deplore the partisan appoin tment of a Clerk As sistant and Chief Electoral Offi cer, and make such recommendations as it deems advisa ble, to the President of the Executive Counc il and the Board of Internal Economy Commi ssioners and this Assembly . Mr.

Speaker, it 's not often in the course of the history of this Assembly , and I'm sure perhaps it has never occurred before - and I happened to research that - but I would hazard a guess that this kind of Resolution would not normally arise or on the Order Paper, excepting that we find , Mr. Speaker , there has indeed been quite a change of style on the part of government in recent years , and in particu lar since this government has taken control of the affairs of the province, Mr. Speaker.

It seems that the need to appear to be non-partisan in the appointment of a position that is indeed a position that would service all of the people of Mani toba and all of the politi cal parties in Manitoba , it seems to me that the ap pointment of that person , or the fact that it should be a non-partisan ap pointment , has gone by the waysi de . And I say that , Mr.

Speaker, because it has been made abunda ntly clear on a number of occasions that that particular individ ual who has been appointed , has had a fair degree of politi cal involvement, is known for his political beliefs , and therefore it creates a problem to himself, Mr. Speaker, in accepting such an ap pointment , and it creates a problem to members - 17 11 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 of the Assembly who may question the wisdom of that appoi ntment. And , Mr. Speak er , I want to say that that has nothing to do with whether or not he is able, has the capacity to carry out his responsibilit ies . It has to do with whether or not it is perceived by all members of the House that we have an appointed person that is in the service of this Assembly that will use that appointment in an unbiased and non-partisan way. I think, Mr. Speaker, it makes it somewhat dif ficult for members here to accept that appointment as it was made, because we recognize that in our rules, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the assis tant to the Clerk of the House , the rules in di cate that the assistant is an officer of the Assembly. That's under

Section 92 of our rul es. On

Section 103, Mr. Speaker, we find that vacancies are to be fill ed , and I will quo te: "The filling of any vacancy in the service of the Assembly shall be made by the Board of Internal Economy Commission ers , on the representation of the Speaker , after enquiry touching the necessity for the continuance of the of fice. " And that, Mr. Speaker, is an important point in trying to deal with the qu estion of appointments to what should be a non-partisan position. We find , Mr. Speaker, that under

Section 5, it 's indicated that the Board of Internal Economy controls the officers and employees of the Legislative Assembly . And so we find that we have some di fficulty in accepting the appointment that has been made in the person that is now responsible in that area.

Section 4(1) of The Elections Act, Mr. Speaker, indeed sugg ests that it is a Lieutenant Governor-in-C ounc il appointment , and no one is arguing against that, Mr. Speaker. But let's examine , Mr. Speaker, what the responsibilities are of the Chief Electoral Offi cer. This is a person who has a dual responsibil ity . We must appreciate the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer has to supervise - or his duties are , one of his duties are - is supervision of the election process.

That obviously is a very sensitive position, and one would have thought that the gov ernment of the day , whoever it was, from time to time , when this qu estion aris es, would want to make certain that the appoin tment would have all the appearances of non-partisan ship. The more important aspect, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the fact that this ap pointment is also an appointment to the Electoral Divisions Boundaries Commi s sion.

And we have just completed a new or. • .y es, we have just completed studies and recommendations that were accepted by this Assembly as to the new constituency boundaries that would become effective in the next election. And , Mr. Speaker, we recogniz ed , and I have had now a number of opportunit ies in that connection , in both experiences of mine , I find that there have been vast changes with respect to boundar ies in my own particular area which one may not appreciate , Mr. Speaker. In the first instance, my whole constituency was wiped out .

In this particular example , we have a very awkward boundary situation , and I think even the Commis sion agreed that it 's awkward. But , Mr. Speaker, we decided not to challenge any of those recommendations on the assumption that the commissioners did their best, that that was their • they were convinced of that positi on that the boundaries that if they were re commending to this Assembly were the best that they could come up with under the circumstances, and no one really is quest ioning that, Mr. Speaker.

But we now have a situation where we recognize that the First Minister of this province, and he has made mention of it on one or two occasions , is not happy with that boundaries commis sion. I recall some comment made - and I don't know if it 's on the record or off the recor d - but on the part of the First Mini ster, where he wasn 't certain that the make-up of that commission was such that they could do a reasonable jo b in redrawing the electoral boundaries in this province. And he wasn 't referring to the individual s.

He was referring to the positions ; the Chief Justice of Manitoba, the presid ent of the univer sity , and the Chief Electoral Of ficer of the province. The Premier at least knew whether or not they had the capacity to fully understand and appreciate the circumstances and considerations that must go into the drawing of new boundari es. And so we now find ourselves in the position, Mr.

Speaker where we have the First Minister having already altered the make-up of that commissi on , not by the posit ions that are represented on the Commi ssion , but by introducing a partisan element into the Commission through the person that was appoin ted. So we from this side can easily argue , Mr. Speaker - rightly or wrongly , and I suppose no one will ever really know - that the First Minister has now one Conservative confirmed - 1712 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 on the so-called independent Electoral Boundaries Commi ssion. That argument can now be made because of this appointment . And I was dis appointed when I realiz ed , Mr. Speaker, that that is now the situation , because it is one of those things that will carry on forever and a day until there is a replacement. I don 't know how that argument will ever be resolved , Mr. Speaker, to the satisfaction of 57 members in this Assembly .

Now, I don 't know what the positi on of the First Minister is, whether he truly wanted a partisan position within the Bounda ries Commission , or whether he truly feels that this individual can separate his party loyalty from his responsibil ities on the Commission . I really don 't know what motivates the First Minister . I know that it doesn 't look good , Mr. Speaker. And I know that it will be ques tioned as long as that person is there. And perhaps unfairly questioned , perhaps unfair to the person who has that position. But , Mr.

Speaker , if you want to question it and it 's open to question , then could you imagine the scenarios that can be developed with respect to the next electoral boundary division changes that take place several years down the road . And I remind members of what happened in Saskatchewan when Ross Thatcher was Premier , when he decided that he was really going to do a job on the constituency boundaries in order to maintain and sustain his politi cal party in power - the gerrym ander approach that he used in Saskatchewan at that time . As I recall it , Mr.

Speaker, at that particular time there were some 20 ridin gs, 20 constituenc ies , that were obviously gerrymandered , that is , in the opinion of the media and the opinion of the opposition , in the opinion of any one that took a look at what was happening to the boundary changes in that province at that time. Mr. Speaker, I simply point it out because in the subsequent election campaign, Premier Thatcher lost 18 of those 20 ridings that were gerrymand ered.

And so , while it may be of some comfort to members opposit e, if this is their thinking behind this appointment , that they have now some one in the Commission that will argue their position with respect to the drawing of new boundaries the next time that this has to be done , Mr.

Speaker , I am no t sure , I'm not just sure that it will not come back to haunt them, because we have a good example to the west of us in the province of Saskatchewan where it did not work , where the people knew what they were doin g , and where the people reacted to that kind of a maneuver in the most positive manner by defeating the government in the first election after those boundaries were drawn. So , Mr. Speaker, I think it 's wrong , I think it 's irrespon sible , and if it is the belief on the other side that they want to have a partisan position here, then, Mr.

Speaker, I think it 's incu mbent on them to delete or amend The Elections Act, especially

section 4(5) , Mr. Speaker , and I want to quote to you

section 4( 5). It says, "R emoval of Chief Electoral Offic er. The Chief Electoral Officer is removable by the Lieutenant Governor-in-C ouncil only by Order-in -Council made on an address of the Assembly carried by a vote by two-thirds of the members vot ing thereon." So , Mr. Speaker , if the Conservative Party wants this to be a par tisan posit ion, I suggest that they should bring in an amendment and de lete this

section so that it is indeed the government by Order-in-C ouncil can choose the person that they want to se rve as Chief Electoral Offi cer. And we will accept it as such. I wouldn 't accept it as being a moral way of approaching it , but we will accept the reality of it. And when governments change , that position would have to change with the governm ent , Mr. Speaker. It 's very simple. Mr. Speaker, I think they want the best of both worlds.

They want the appear ance of neutrality , yet they want to inject partisanship into that position, and so now we have an impo ssible situat ion where the Chief Electoral Officer will likely not be completely trusted by all members of the Assembly at any given time. And I •m not referring to the members that are in this Assembly now, Mr. Speaker , it could be members that are present here, it could be new members sub sequently elected . But when you have that kind of a partisan approach to an ap pointment of a Chief Electoral Offi cer , it 's inevitable, Mr.

Speaker , that there will be questions rais ed , eyebrows raised , as to the propriety of that kind of an appointment. Now, Mr. Speaker, jus t the other day we had an announc ement on the part of the Assistant Clerk, who de ci ded that he was going to enter the political arena . And , Mr. Speaker, he al luded to the fact that this government was bent - in his press release - he alluded to the fact that this government was bent on the idea of - 1713 -

Thursday , 27 March 1980 politi ciz ing the key people in the Public Service, and that he was objecting to it and this is one of the reasons that he has decided to become politically involved himself. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do n't know how much pressures were brought to bear on that particular person. I do know that in the course of •• • in the number of years that I have known the individu al , that I could not extract from him a parti san point of view in all of the years that we were in governm ent , and the years that we were in the opposition , durin g the time that he served this Assembly .

I at no time was ever in a position to be able to find out his philosophy , his politi cal party, I could not extract from him a politi cal point of view. I be lieve that he maintained a very very neutral image as a servant of this Assembly . And I find it tragic that he feels so strong about this point , that he feels so certain that this government is indeed politi cizi ng the key positions that should not be politiciz ed , that he undertook to resign his posit ion and is now seeking public offic e. Now I want to wish him well , of course, Mr.

Speaker , for obvious reasons , but that is not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is , Mr. Speaker, that members opposite should search a little de eper and determine in their own min ds, whether or not this was a practical , logical method and appointment that should have been made. And if they feel that there is some doubt and reason to doubt , then I believe that this Re solution points the direction and a way for them to resolve the problem. Thank you , Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON . HARRY J. ENNS (La keside ): Mr.

Speaker , on the general matter that has been raised by several speakers in dis cussin g this Resolution , I have to really make a very serious effort to restrain myse lf when the general talk of politiciz ing the Civil Service is referred to and is subscribed to us as being, in some way , initiators of that tre nd , which I refute is there necessarily . But cer tainly , Mr.

Speaker, those of us that were in the Chamber when that government passed legislation - passed legislat ion , Sir - to poli ticize the Civil Service , and we , at that time , in oppositi on , we expressed our concern about it - we ex pressed our concern about it . So , I'm somewhat amu sed that members opposite would even raise that particular matter in deal ing with this Resolution. Mr. Speaker , I really suggest that the Resolution was a Resolut

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-26a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 26a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5b1ac3487ff3ebe0a64810f12603413afc4e8c88

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