Manitoba Hansard — 11 January 1990 (Sitting 101, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-101

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, January 11, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAY ERS ROUTI NE PR OCEE DINGS INTRODUC TION OF BILL S Bil l NO. 93 THE FRAN CHIS ES ACT Mr. Jim Maloway (Ei mwood) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 93, The Franchis es Act;

Loi sur les franch ises. ORAL QUE STION PER IOD Department of Health Administrative Decisions Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, because of this Government's lack of will and the Min ister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) carefree and fli ppant attitude towards health care in this province, the debate on health care has degenerated to an all tim e low.

We have a Mini ster yesterday who was doing everything possible to sh ift the blame onto the Health Sciences Centre by saying the elevator overhaul was not enough of a priority for the Health Sciences Centre. lt has now become clear tha t elevator impr ovements were enough of a priority because today, Mr. Speaker, we learn that the Health Sciences Centre will be getting funding from the Manitoba Health Services Comm ission. lt has now become blatantly apparent that the only person who fails to recognize the problems at the Health Sciences Centre is the Min ister of Health for the Province of Man itoba.

My question to the Min ister is this: why was the Min ister unaware that M HSC had approved funding for elevator repairs with new money the day after he had denied fu nding to the Health Scienc es Centr e to overhaul its elevator system? Who is calling the shots in the Department of Health? Hon. Donald Or chard (Minis ter of He alth): Mr . Speaker, with all due respect to my honourable friend, the Li beral Leader, her question both in

preamble and in statement is laced with error. At the Health Sciences Centre, in the capital budget which was tabled some two months ago, there are $97 mill ion worth of capital imp rovements throughout the Health Sciences Centre comp lex. Last month the Health Sciences Centre subm itted to the Manitoba Health Services Comm ission a list of capital improvements which totalled, I believe, some $80 million.

Of that they were given the verbal indication, iast month, that some $8.5 million would be made available for those capital impr ovements and that they could choose their priorities from the number that they had subm itted. Mr. Speaker, that process is completed. One of the projects which has been prioritiz ed in dis cussion between the Health Scienc es Centre management and the Mani toba Health Servic es Commis sion is the ele vator system along with some $7.4 mil lion of additional projects. Health Sciences Centre Emergency Department Upgrading Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): On November 23 and 24 we raised our concerns expressed to us by many in the profession with regard to the appalling conditions in the Health Sciences Emergency Department. Now, Mr. Speaker, the head of emergency has reaffirmed every one of those fears. When will this Min ister start listening to the authorities in the health care field and stop relying on his own diagnosis, which is flawed because of lack of knowledge and, quite frankly, arrogance? Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi nis ter of Health): Mr.

Speaker, when this issue was raised at the time of the tabling of a $246.5 million capital budget for this year, the largest ever in the his tory of the Province of Manitoba, inclusive of $97 milli on at the Health Sciences Centre for su bst antially needed impr oveme nts, improvements that were not needed si nce April 26, 1988 and the election of this Go vernment, but needed for a number of years and not acceded to, Mr.

Speaker, at that time, when the Emergency Ward at the Health Scienc es Centre was not part of the capital redevelopment, I indicated to them that for 15 years tempor ary trailers were put in place. In 1978 a previous administration announced a three phase redevelopment of the Health Sciences Centre, par t of which my honourable frien d, the Liberal Leader-i f she consults with her Health Critic-will know included the Emergency Department upgrade. Mr. Speaker- * (1 335) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Municipal Hospitals Upgrading Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): The Health Scienc es Centre is not the only hospital tha t has been allo wed to deterio rate under this admin istration. The Muni cipal Hospital, which we have raised over and over and over again, has many of the same crisis problems: overcrowding, poor ventilation, poor heating, the list is endless. How much longer will he allow conditions to deteriorate at the Municipal Hospital, or is he only going to respond on a day-to day basis on the basis of major crisis? Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi ni ster of Health): Mr. Speaker, the Mu nicipal Hospital has been an issue of 4224

Thursday, January 11, 1990 redevelopment before Government for 20 years. I have indicated with all sincerity to my honourable friend, when she has brought qu es tions of capital redevelopment to this House, that were this Government to exist for 15 of the next 20 years in the Province of Manitoba those capital projects would be undertaken. I fully admit to my honourable friend, the Li beral Leader, I am not a miracle maker. In 18 months I cannot renew every worn-down fa cility as a result of lack of capital spending in the past.

That is a reality, but our record is very, very clear and definitive, over $350 million of capital redevelopment in two capital budgets over 18 months for th e benefit of Ma nitobans, the professionals and those who need health care services in the Province of Mani toba. Health Advisory Network Extended Care Report Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Oppositio n): Mr. Speaker, this Min ister has created a Health Advisory Network which has become a protective shield for him. lt encases him and protects him from ever having to make a decision.

He promised this House the report on extended care from this network would be ready by May. lt was not He said it wou ld be ready mid-July. lt was not. He told us it would be ready mid-August. lt was not. He told us we would get it in mi d-September. We did not. He then told us we would get it in mid Decem ber, and we did not. When will this report be tabled in the Legislative Assem bly? Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi nis ter of Health): Mr . Speaker, shortly after I receive it. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend, the Li beral Leader, because I think Man itobans have to know.

My honou rable friend, the Li beral Leader, and her colleagues, joi ned by the NDP, said last year at this time that their first priority was the reconstruction of Klinic at a cost of $2.8 mill ion. Because we took time and worked with Klini c, we have a new facility. We have a renewed facility, not a new one, a renewed facility with more space, more parking, at a capital cost of $900,000, and also renovations to bring it up to a modern facil ity at a savings of in excess of $1 mil lion to the taxpayers of Manitoba. That is responsible management. Deer Lodge Hospital Extended Care Beds Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, but it is irresponsible management to leave senior citizens lying in hospital corridors when there are extended care beds that are waiting with the linens on them to have patients put in them. When will Deer Lodge Hospital beds be open? Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi nis ter of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated, as I have in the past on a number of occasions, that the Deer Lodge Hospital have budget as sig ned and are ready for service, and we will commit them to the most appropriate need in the system . Mr.

Speaker, I find my honourable friend, the Li beral Leader, to be giving one story in the Legislature, and a second story when she goes out to rural Manitob a wherein she said 40 percent of seniors in personal care hom es need not be there. Will she make up her-- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Health Care Acute Care Beds Mrs. Sharon Carstairs {Leader of the Opposii:ion): Mr . Speak er, patients must be gi ven the mo st appropriate care they can receive in the province.

Someti mes that is in the com munity, sometimes it ls within a personal care home, and sometimes it is within an acute care hospital , but the acute care beds are the most costly. Wha t is it costing this province in acute care costs because he has patients who need extended care beds • who cannot access them? Meanwhile, they are using • acute care beds. Hon. Donald Orc hard (Minis ter of Health ): Mr . Speaker, my honourable friend, the Liberal Leader, said the key word, "appropriate care," which is why we have increased sign ificantly the home care budget to keep seniors well and living in their homes.

That is why we have increased the support services for seniors grants to do the same thing. * (1 340) Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, the Liberal Leader (Mr s. Carstairs) says it is inappropriate to have 40 percent of Manitobans resident in the personal care home system when she is outside of the Legislature in rural Manitoba talking from knowledge. Is she saying in rural Manitoba, kick them out and in here saying, keep them in? Make up your mind. VIA Rail Cutbacks • Legal Intervention W Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, today we had confirmed the number of people in Man itoba that will be losing their jobs in 1990 as a result of the VIA Rai l cuts. We are aware that a number of positions in 1989 were also reduced in VIA Rai l. We are in the last week of the loss of our national dream and the national vision of a railway, particularly a railway in western Canada that goes on the southern route, Wi nnip eg , Re gina, Brandon, Medicine Hat, Calgary, Banff, to the Pacific Ocean, some thing that brought our country together and helped Manitoba be established as a province.

The Province of British Colum bia has already beaten the federal Government in court and the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are taking the federal Government to court. I would ask this Premier whether he will join the provinces, the municipal ities, the grass roots commun ity groups across Canada in really fighting 4225

Thursday, January 11, 1990 the federal Government, and is he too joining against the federal Government in any legal actions that can take place to save VIA Rail and save the workers in their com munities? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Memb er knows full well that we have been fighting the federal Government with respect to the VIA Rail cuts from the time they were announced in last year's federal budget, th at my Min ister of Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger) has writt en, telep honed, me t with on nume rous occasions his counterpart.

I, in my meetings with the First Minis ters both in Quebec City in August and in Ottawa in No vem ber, raised the issue of VIA and its cuts. We had a communique passed in Quebec City in August. We again raised the issue in Novem ber at the First Minis ters' Conference and got the support, I might say, of the Standing Comm ittee of Parliament to say tha t there should be a moratorium on VIA cuts until the federal Government comple tes the extensive study to which it is comm itted.

We believe that the federal Government should take note of the concerns of the regions, of the provinces outside of central Canada, the impa ct that they have, the devastating, negative im pact, Mr. Speaker. We are continuing to go after Ottawa in a political sense to ensure that they know that we do not believe that these cuts are in the best interest of Canada or Man itoba. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier in this House threatened the federal Government with court action on telecommun ications, some thing which of course the New Democratic Party partici pated in when we were in Government years ago.

Tomorrow -(interjection}- Well, we do not want to talk about the Li beral proposition on telecommun ications, you are right with the Tories. Tomorrow the Federal Court of Canada is hearing an application from environmental groups, from the federal New Democratic Party and other municipal ities of whether the federal Government broke the federal environmental law simil ar to Rafferty-Aiameda in getting rid of the VIA Rail by Order-in-Council without a full environmental im pact study.

Why does the Premier not stand up for Mani tobans and Manitoba com mun ities affected by VIA Rail cuts and stand up also for our environment and file as an intervener on the side of environmentalis ts and Mani toba communi ties against the federal Government? Would the Premier please give us that assurance today in the House, to stand up in court as an intervener? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to tell the federal Government that we believe that they are wrong in the VIA Rail cuts and the program that they have chosen without having done the thorough and comp lete study that they -(interjection)- *

(1345) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Honourable First Minis ter. Mr. Filmon: We will continue to tell the federal Government that we believe that they ought to do the comple te study that they are comm itted to before they make any decisions, final decisions about cuts. We will continue to tell them about the economic im pact on Manitoba of those cuts, the negative economic im pact. We will continue, both through the offices, the good offices of the Min ister of Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), the Minis ter of Tourism (Mr.

Ernst), who along with his colleagues passed a com muniqu e saying that it will have a negative effect on tourism in Manitoba. We will continue to make our views known very strongly, publicly to the federal Government, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, some of the same Premiers that joi ned the First Min ister in communiqu es and diplomatic missions to the federal Government and wishy-washy letters now are getting out of the diplomatic side of this fighting, joining the war and going to court against the federal Government.

Why is this Premier choosing not to fight the federal Government in court as other Premiers have success fully done and other Premiers are now doing and announcing in this countr y across Canada, really fighting the federal Government instead of just wish y-washy diplomatic mi sses across the bow? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the Memb er knows full well that in the one instance in which there was a successful action in court, there were special circumstances that we do not have in Man itoba. So he knows that is a red herring.

The fact of the matter is that we will continue to work, to make it be known to the federal Government that we do not agree with what they are doing and we will not change our position on that matter. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, surely the Premier, who has been directly affected by the Rafferty-Aiameda decision, which is the precedent going before the federal court tomorr ow, is directly aware of the fact that the federal Government has twice been ruled to not follow the guidelines under their own federal Environmental Act.

Surely the Premier of this province, where Rafferty Aiameda is such a big issue, could use that court case and that example as an intervener criteria for Manitoba to fight the federal Government. Why is the Premier not using the environmental success of the Rafferty Aiameda case and the guidelines that were not followed by the federal Government to sho w tangible and strong action against the federal Government in federal court tom orrow morning at ten o'clock in Ottawa? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the same response that I have given the Mem ber before.

We will continue polit ically, Min ister to Minis ter -(interjection}- Mem bers opposite think thi s is a joke.- (interjection}- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mr. Filmon: The Mem ber for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) wants to make light of it and we know exactly why he does. For them this is just strictly a politic al issue that they can have fun with in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the public will judge them accordingly. 4226

Thursday, January 11, 1990 ***** Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Mem ber for Dauphin, on a point of order. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Clearly I am not making light of it. This First Min ister, Mr. Speaker, is making light of this because all he will do is stand up and shout- Mr. Sp eaker: Order , plea se; order pl ease. The Honourable Mem ber does not have a point of order. lt is merely a dispute over the facts. VIA Rail Cutbacks Legal Intervention Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Order, please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Oppositi on): Mr. Speaker, tragically the federal Government of this nation ha s ess entially com pletely abd icated its responsi bilities, its responsi bilities particularly to the smaller provinces, its responsibili ties even in terms of constitutional issues. I believe that a very strong case can be made that VIA is indeed a constitutional issue. Can the Premier tell us why over and over again, when his Government is given the opportunity to intervene in court action, that he consis tently refuses to do it?

Why is he unable to stand up to his Tory cousins in Ottawa? * (1 350) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Leader of the Opposit ion (Mr s. Carstairs) was standing up to apolog ize to Man itobans for having misled them the day before yesterday and alleging that a thousand VIA positions were being cut in Man itoba, a number that exaggerates by more than fourfold, and I am sure threw great concern in the hearts and the minds of the workers of VIA. lt is those kinds of exaggerations, those kinds of needless fearmongering and allegations tha t I think do her a disservice.

The fact of the matter is we take our fight to the hig hest court in the land. I took our fight to the First Min isters' Conference and told the Prime Min ister face to face that what he was doing was wrong. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, but it mi ght come as a great shock to the Premier of this province, but supreme does mean that it is the hig hest court in the nation. Why is this Min ister unp repar ed to protect the interests of Manitobans?

Why is he unprepared to speak clearly on behalf of those interests when he is given the opportunity to appear in court on behalf of our cit izenry as other premiers are prepared to do? Mr. Filmon: Mr . Sp eak er, I speak pub licly for Ma nitobans. I take the views and the concerns of Ma nitobans to the hig hest public court in the land, and tha t is where people want to know where we stand on the issue. We have made it very clear and in fact as a result of the init iatives, the mee tings, and the concerns expressed by the Min ister of Transportation (Mr.

Albert Driedger), as a result of the public statements we made, we received the support of the parliamentary comm ittee that governs VIA Rail. They said publicly that the federal Government ought to hold back, put a moratorium on the cuts for a year. The federal Government has not lis tened . We will continue to fight the federal Government in the highe st political court in the land, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Leader of the Op position, with her final suppleme ntary question. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the obvious conclusion to that is the Prime Min ister is not listening.

He does not want to listen, and he will not listen until he is told to do so by the Court of Canada. Mr. Speaker, why is this First Min ister not prepared to take every single initia tive he can on behalf of the citizens of this province and of this nation, and protect our cons titutional right to train tr avel and trai n transpo rtation for passengers across our nation? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr s. Carstairs) is on very weak ground when she tries to purport, as a Liberal, her great support for VIA Rail. I quote from a Winnipeg Free Press

article earlier past year, quoting Jean-Luc Pepin, the former Min ister responsi ble for Transportation in the Li beral Trudeau Government, the Liberal Trudeau Government, which she worships- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Some Honourable Members: You do not want to hear the truth, eh? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable First Mi nister. Mr. Filmon: -the Li beral Trudeau Government, which she worships, that she wants to see reincarnated through Jean Chretien as Leader of the Li beral Party. Here it is, Mr.

Speaker, and I quote: Pepin accused the Li beral Party of hypocrisy for defending a network it contemplated shutting down completely while in Go vern ment. Turner keeps repea ting tha t the Government has broken his dream. it is really qu ite pathetic, Pepin said. Pepin said that his case for cuts to VIA Rail was so strong that many of the Minis ters of the Trudeau Go vernment sug gested shut ting down the whole network- Mr. Sp eaker: Order , please; order, please . The Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley. * (1 355) 4227

Thursday, January 11, 1990 Rafferty-Aiameda Dam Project Construction Suspension Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the federal Environment Depart ment has demo nst rated its unwilling ness to look after Manitoba's interests over the Rafferty-Aiameda project, and this adminis tration has been, so far, unwilling to stand up to its federal and Saskatchewan counterparts to protect Ma nitoba's interests. Mr.

Speaker, is the Min ister of the Environment aware th at on Monday, Janua ry 8, George Mcleo d, Min ister responsible for Sask Power, met with Lucien Bouchard in Ottawa and agreed that construction of the Alameda Dam would be halted while the independent panel is reviewing the issue, but construction will proceed on the Rafferty Dam leading to its completion before that panel can report? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, the Mem ber probably has a shor t memor y, but I stated when the House came back earlier this week that we had contacted Ottawa, we have contacted Saskatchewan, and asked that construction be halted until the proper environmental process is comp leted. licence Suspension Mr.

Harold Tayior (Wolseley): Given that this second secret deal represents a gross attack on Manitoba's interests and represents a total lack of comm itment at the federal level for environmental protection, will this Min ister demand the Rafferty-Aiameda licence be lifted, specifically be lifted, and that all construct ion be halted until the panel issues its report, other than the wishy -washy statement he made a week late? Hon. Glen Cummin gs (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, as I stated previously, I have already made our intentions and our concerns, laid it out clearly in front of Minis ter Bouchard, in front of the Saskatchewan Government. We want the construction stopped. Construction Suspension Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley, with his final supplementary question. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Where is the evidence of it? All three Parties in June '89 demanded that the panel be conducted before the project proceeded.

Why will the Min ister not stand up for that firm, united, all Party position of the Parties of this Legislature instead of wiffle-waffling as he has in face of this federal and Saskatche wan onslaught? Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Min ister. Order, please. Order. Hon. Glen Cummin gs (Minister of Environment): The Mem ber over there is talking about pussyfooting, and considering my girth, I have not pussyfooted for a long time. Mr. Speaker, both Ottawa and Regina have heard me coming. We have made our position clear, and if he cannot understand that, then that is his problem . CN Rail Layoff Aversion Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): We have just heard from the Premier as to his lack of action and the massive layoffs at VIA Rail as the federal Government, the Conservative Government in Ottawa, continues to shaft Canadians in the decimation of the rail transportation system in this country. We have seen the massive layoffs at CN in November. We have seen them at VIA Rail now in January. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have now learned that the CN intends to lay off up to 40 people in Dauphin as a result of the discontinuance of trains through West 353 and 359 on that line as well as East 338 and 354.

Up to 40 jobs could be impacted. With a population of 9,000 people, that is the equ ivalent of 2, 500 to 3,0 00 jobs in the City of Wi nnipeg, a massive reduction in jobs. * (1 400) I ask this Min ister whether he has opened a dialogue process with CN at least in this province, because he has been left out of decisions in the past, to raise the concerns about these layoffs in the province and try to have these layoffs which will be happening. I ask the Min ister if he can confirm that, and whether he can avert those layoffs and make every effort to do that for the workers that would be im pacted by this layoff.

Hon. Alb ert Driedger (Minis ter of Highw ays and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the question that the Mem ber asked, I would take tha t with a grain of salt, because some of the questions that he has raised in the past have led to some misconception with the people of Mani toba from time to time, like when he raised the question about the sanders on trains and indicated that it was a safety factor. lt was not a safety factor at all. They use sanders on trains to start trains, not to stop trains. I want to indicate that is why I say I want to take some of his questions with a grain of salt.

In regard to the question itself, I met with the vice chairman of CN, Mr. Cam pbell, less than a mo nth ago. The understanding that I had with him previously still stands, that prior to any layoffs they will notify myself and that I will have input and discussion with the compa ny. Grain Transport Study Crow Subsidy Payment Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Mem ber for Dauphin, with a supplementary question. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, clearly when we have raised issues with the Mini ster he has not been aware of the decisions that have been made. He fails to do his job as Minis ter.

I ask him, in light of the decisions that are made as a result of the massive cuts at CN, the decisions tha t are being made with regard to st udie s on the abandonment of rail lines in this province, by way of the payment of the Crow benefit to farmers as opposed to the railways, whether the Minis ter has received the 4228

Thursday, January 11, 1990 report by Deloitte Hask ins & Sells? Will he table a copy of that report and with it a copy of the Government's response and position on that issue in this Legislature? Mr. Alb ert Driedger (Mi nister of Hig hways and Transportation): The action and activity that has taken place in terms of paying the producer instead of the normal system that we have, we have been on top of that since it came forward with the Alberta group. The Min ister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has formed a comm ittee on which I have an ex officio mem ber.

My Director of Transportation is a part of tha t comm ittee, and we are looking at these aspects of it. We will be having hearings on that issue. We have major concerns. I certainly as Min ister of Highways and Transportation have major concerns about the concept of paying the producer, basically because of the im pact that it would have on the escal ated rail line abandonment as well as the impact it would have on the muni cipal and provincial road system . Grain Transport Study Crow Subsidy Payment Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Dauphin, with his final supplementa ry question. Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, this issue is moving along and this Min ister again is caught flat footed. I ask him, in view of the fact tha t 140 grain elevators would be closed and 480 kilomet res of track in that study alone are indicated would be abandoned as a result of this action, where is the Min ister 's action on this? Why has he not put forward a position, taken this to the people of Ma nitoba, and raised this issue so that we could protest in a united way to stop this kind of action that will continue to de cima te our rural areas in this province? Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The question has been put. The Honourable First Min ister. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the report that the Mem ber is referring to is a Discussion Paper tha t was developed as a resu lt of an ini tia tive undertaken by the Min ister of Agricu lture (Mr. Findlay) in which he set up an Agri-Food Advisory Council made up of people representing the producers of Ma nitoba, the farm groups, made up of people who have expertise in transportation and economics, with outside expertise, and with staff from various Government departments.

Now they have prepared a Discussion Paper giving all of the various avenues open to us in terms of the Crow benefit payment plan. Mr. Speaker, the whole point of the process was to have all of these various groups sit together to put out a Discussion Paper. The next part of the process is that they will have public hearings on this Discussion Paper, and they begin January 15 in Oak Bluff; January 16 in Carman; January 17 in Steinbach; January 18 in Teulon; January 23 in Brandon and Swan River; Janua ry 24 in Dauphin; 29 in Sho al Lake; 30 in Gladstone; 31 in Pi lot Mound; February 1 in Hartney.

Then, after the consultations with the public, at which concerns can be raised, questions can be asked. Then they will work toward the development of a policy, Mr. Speaker. That is the whole process, consulta tion, involvement of the public, involvement of producer groups, that is the process. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. North Portage Development Corp. Cost to Manitoba Mr. James Carr (Fo rt Roug e): Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Min ister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme).

The No rth Por tage Dev elopment Corporation is facing a very difficult and crucial decision, should it allow the housing project to be put on the auction block, or should it step in and take over the operation. Could the Min ister stop the stonewalling that we have received from him over these last number of days and tell us, once and for all, wha t are the costs of each of 4lll those possi bilities to the people of Man itoba? ,. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not this Min ister who is stonewalling, it is the other Mem ber across the way trying to gather points.

I explained to him earlier this week that I have three rep resentatives on the board, three of nine. They are having a meeting on Monday to decide. They are gathering the information and that information will come forward as a re sult of that meeting. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as Housing Min ister, putting it on the auction block does not prevent North of Portage, even at that time, of picking up that particular building. However, we will do the best decision for the citizens of Mani toba and I am sure our representative will do that. Documentation Request Mr.

James Carr (Fort Rouge): lt is imp ossi ble for the .. people of Mani toba to make an intell igent judgment • about this decision facing North Portage unless all of the information is made public. We know that the Min ister is only a one-third partner in the corporation. Will he use his leadership abilities, question mark, to pressure the other two partners to make all of these documents available to the people of Mani toba? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Mi nister of Hou sing): Speaking of question mark, blank, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have explained to him- maybe the Mem ber is a little slow.

I have explained to him that my particular people sitting on the board will take into consideration all the ramifications of taking over the building. We have an agreement that was adopted by the previous Government in 1986 that at that time showed that particular company was in some financial trouble. However, and it was made public at that time through a release made on October 10, 1986, Mr. Speaker, we 4229

Thursday, January 11 , 1990 cannot change those agre ements. We will do the best of our ability to make sure those agreements work. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, with his final supple mentary question. Mr. Carr: A supplementary question to the Min ister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme), and I challenge him to give the Mem bers of this Legislature, and through us, the people of Manitoba, one good reason why he will not make thos e documents public? Mr. Duch arme: Mr. Speaker, is the Mem ber across the way questioning the capabil ities of Dr.

Naimark, the people who have been sitting on this board? Is he questioning the nine mem bers, three of them , is he questioning that? Mr. Speaker, I have more confidence in the North of Portage representatives than he has. Ducks Unlimited Canada Corporate Headquarters Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Mr . Speaker , my question is to the Min ister of Natural Resou rces (Mr.

Enns). * (1 410) Despite a lack of information from this Government regarding the proposed Ducks Unlimi ted corporate headquarters and interpretative centre at the Oak Hammock Marsh, there are many environmental groups opposing this project including groups that are set up to assist th e Minis ter. Gr oups like the Ma ni toba Naturalists Society, the Fort Whyte Centre, and the Manitoba Heritage Habitat Corporation have expressed opposition to this project.

Will the Minis ter agree today to stop all planning and withhold all approval for this project until his department has comp leted full consultation with all groups and has comple ted an inde pendent and in depth study , environmental study, on this proposal? Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources}: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that neither my department nor this Government are the proponents of this project.

I have also made it abundantly clear in the discussions that I have had with executive mem bers of Ducks Unlim ited that they should expect to go through the fullest and the most comp lete environmental process that would be required, and that, certainly in my judgment, would include public hearings. Mr. Harapiak: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Min ister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) as wel l. An independent study is necessary on this project becaus e of the planning and inv olv ement of the Department of Natural Resources on this project .

On Tuesda y, Dec em ber 29, the Minis ter of Na tu ral Resources said, and I quote: the Government of Man itoba is not, I repeat, not provi ding $900,000 for this project. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Through the Canada -M anitoba Touris m Agre ement, the Government is indeed providing up to a milli on dollars to this project. Will the Min ister now, despite his past statement, confirm that the Government is providing alm ost a milli on dollars to this project? Mr. Enns: Mr.

Speaker, Ducks Unlimi ted, and I might say-allow me this moment to indicate my, and certainly this Government's, and I think the people of Manitoba's, appreciation for the work that Ducks Unlim ited by and large has done in the rehabilitation of wetlands and concern for wildlife management in our province, they, as they are entitled to, have indicated an interest, made applic ation to my colleague, the Minis ter of Tourism (Mr. Ernst), to avail thems elves of some funds. No proposal has reached this Government in a form that decisions have to be made upon.

When they do arrive on our desk, the y will be considered like any other proposal, Mr. Speaker. Again, let me just simpl y reiterate that Ducks Unlimi ted are the proponents of it- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Mem ber for The Pas, with his final supplementary question . Mr. Harapiak: Mr. Speaker, this morning on the radio program , Terry Neraasen, a chie f biologist with Ducks Unlimi ted, said that they must build their head office at the Oak Ham mock Marsh because the Government has made that a condition of getting a million dollar grant on an interpretative centre.

Given this, according to Ducks Unlimi ted it is the Manit oba Government who is provide- Mr. Speaker: Order , ple ase; order, ple ase. The Hono urable Mem ber kindl y put his qu es tion now, please. Mr. Harapiak: Will the Government agree today to remove the condition requiring Ducks Unlimit ed, who ruined the environmentally sensitive area, and straighten out this mess? Mr. Enns: Mr . Speaker , I categ orically deny th e impli cations of that question. There have been no conditions set by this Government to try to encourage or discourage Ducks Unlimi ted from doing anything. They have come to us with a proposal.

They have talked about a possibili ty of providing a facility in that area and have asked what, if any, available help might be made available to them. lt has been indicated that some help cou ld be made available from the tou ris m agreement. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has exp ired. MATTER OF PRIVILEG E Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion, the Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor), that the alleged matter of contempt reported to this House on October 4, 1989, by the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development 4230

Thursday, January 11, 1990 be referred to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report. The Honourable Mem ber for lnkster has five minu tes remaining. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, I believe tha t in regard to this particular motion tha t there is a very serious problem here. The problem is that this Government is not taking what happened on May 1 of last year seriously. They fail to realize what in fact they have done to parliamentary tradition. The Minis ter of Health (Mr.

Orchard) yesterday said at six o'c lock, once we had adjourned , that we in the Li beral Party were jus t wasting time, just wanting to waste another day by not calling for the question, by not voting on it that day. The Government House Leader (Mr. McCr ae) accuses us of just trying to grab headlines. The Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey), and I want to quote what the Min ister of Northern Affairs said yesterday: "Tha nk God we can get up from a comm ittee if we want to and leave it and we are not chain ed to that chair or afraid of a police at the door to hold us there at gunpoint-and then there was an interjection-"Y es. Well, no, that is not an incredible statement." Mr. Speaker, it was an incredible state ment. Tha t Min ister and I bel ieve the ma jo rity of the Min isters that have spoken in respect to this particular ruling are of the opinion that it is not of a serious nature. Mr. Speaker, nothing can be so far from the truth.

This is a very serious thing that has occurred, and I wish the Government would be treating it in the manner in which it deserves to be treated. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up from where I left off yesterday. I was comment ing on the timing and the will of the comm ittee. Late tha t evening at 2: 10 there was no doubt in terms of the Members of that comm ittee on where or when the comm ittee should meet again. lt was made very clear that we did not want to adjourn; rather we wanted to recess till nine o'clock in the morning. We had tried to point that out.

In fairness, as I tried to state to the Chai rperson, I believe the Chai rperson was put on the spot. Albeit tha t it was not a very comfortable spot to be put into, the Chairp erson had a res pon sibil ity. He had a responsi bility to ensure that he did carry out the will of the comm ittee. He had at his right hand side the Clerk of this Cham ber. He could have consu lted. If he wanted to take a 10-15 mi nute recess break at tha t time in order to consult, he had that option . Rather, Mr.

Speaker, in frustration, the Chai rperson put down the gavel saying th at the comm ittee is recessed and walked out of the comm ittee. He had in fact , in my opinion, done some thing that I believe was a mistake, a mis take that does need to be addressed. That is why I am so pleased with the ruling that you have come down, that it go further from here. lt is im portant that it does not come to an end here, that it does go to the comm ittee to discuss at length what needs to be done to correct the action that this Government has taken. * (1 420) In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to comment tha t the Minis ter of Finance (Mr . Man ness) had no right, no right whatsoever, in order to walk out on a duly called comm ittee. lt is unfortunate, whether the rest of the Conservative Mem bers of that comm ittee were aware of the fact, but it was unfortunate that they too decided to walk out of that particula r meeting. By doing so, if they did it intentional ly, if they knew what they were doing, I believe that they were wrong. If they had walked out maybe to go to the washroom or whatever it might have been-or unintentionall y, well, I would extend my apologies to them. (Mr.

Neil Gaudry, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) The Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) had no right to walk out. lt was very deliberate; he knew what he was doing. Mr . Acting Speaker, the Min ister of Finance has regretted what he did. He has said that he regrets actually walking out, and the Min ister of Finance, through his own admissions to a degree, has admitted that it was wrong to do it. I think the Mini ster of Finance is moving towards the right direction, but he needs to .. admit what was done by the Government was wrong, � it was unparliamenta ry, it was unacceptable.

A thing of this nature should never happen again. That is why in the official Opposition we will pursue this until the matter has been resolved fully. We have to restore the respect in the parliament ary system that this Government has seen fit to ignore. On that note, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would conclude my remarks. Thank you. Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I too would like to put some brief remarks on the record pertaining to this incident, because clearly it has led us to a situation which is unique in the history of our Legislature and perhaps in many other Legislatures, a situation where we are debating a motion to ask the Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections to consider whether the actions of two of our Mem bers in this Cham ber were in contempt of the Legislature. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I may have been one of the first people on the evening of May 2 to indicate that I believe � the actions of the Minis ter and the Chair were a ,. contempt of each of the co mm ittee Mem bers as individual ML As and of the Legislature. I was not speak ing from any deep understanding of the specific rules of procedure of this House nor of any in-depth study of Beauchesn e's, Erskine May or any of the other experts on parliame ntary democracy and the rules that flow from it.

I was speak ing out of common sense that what was taking place on the early morning of May 2 was inappropriate, was antidemo cratic, and if it did not techn ically breach our rules, then it should have. Mr. Acting Speaker, I have said this to many Mem bers on many occasions when we have discussed this particular matter, and that is, while I have a great deal of respect for both of the individuals who took

part in this, and I do not believe that this was a contrived planned event, I do not believe that the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in some devious way planned to subvert the role of the comm ittee or act in a contem ptible way with respect to individual ML As. 4231

Thursday, January 11 , 1990 However, I believe that even these individuals on sober second thought will come to the same conclusion that Mem bers of the Government, regardless of whether it is a min ority or majority Government, cannot act in this way. If they can, Mr. Acting Speaker, then they can truly frustrate the activities of any comm ittee of this Legislature at any time. lt was not just the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Manne ss) or the Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr. Gillesh amme

r) who were in a quandary that evening. The Min ister has explained himself, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his words as recorded in Hansard, he may have been frustrated. The Min ister of Finance is not the only Min ister who has been held late into the evening, into the early hours, and even into the morning in comm ittee. That has happened on many occasions in this Legislature. I have been a Mem ber of a comm ittee when that has happened.

I have been a Min ister when that has happened, and on no occasion in the his tory of our Legislature, at least to my knowledge, certainly within my knowledge, my years in the Legislature, has ever one acted in the way that these two Mem bers acted, never. We have to address this in some form . We cannot allow this precedent to forever change the way we behave in commit tee. We have to do that to protect our rights as individual ML As, and we have to do that to protect democracy as it is unfolded in Manito ba. We in some ways are unique in that we operate our comm ittees by allo wing public presenta tions.

We operate them in a little different way than many other Legis latures, in fact all other Legislatu res across the country. Mr. Acting Speaker, the principle that Min isters are th ere to ans wer que stions until ind ividual ML As, individual commit tee Mem bers, ha ve asked the questions they feel they need to ask , is a principle we cannot abandon . Individual Government Mem bers, Minis ters, cannot determine arbitrarily when questions are going to cease, when answers are sufficient, when the volume, the quantity of material, that is on the record is sufficient.

That is not the job of individual Minis ters or Chai rpersons of our committees. lt is totally unacceptable. I did not join this debate, nor will I be supporting this motion in any vindictive way towards either of the Mem bers referenced. I have said to Mem bers of the Government, particula rly when it comes to the Mem ber for Min nedosa, that he was left in a very uncomfortable situa tion, without the experience or perhaps the expertise available to him to deal with it.

We as a com mittee, and I include the Chairp erson, were left with no one to answer the imp ortant questions that we did have, so I do not believe, although I may not be a Mem ber of that comm ittee, I will not be asking for any particular punishment to be meted out to the Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr. Gillesh amme r). Wha t I do want out of all of this is an understanding by all Mem bers of the Legislature that the operation of those comm ittees are sacrosanc t. They cannot be undermined willingly or unwittingly by Mem bers of the Governme nt or Mem bers of either Opposition Party.

We have to have a comm ittee system that works. Yes, the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) may have been frustrated. I have been involved in comm ittee hearings and Estima tes debates that are frustrating and seem to go on ad nauseum. That does not give me the right to determine for everyone else when the questions are finished or the answers are satisfactor y. That is not good enough, and for the Minister of Finance to determine that, is arrogance. I said it was arrogance at the time, it may have been borne out of frustration, but it is arrogance.

For him, the Minis ter of Finance, to say, I answered the questions and they were all perfect answers and they should have been satisfied, is arrogance. The Minis ter has said he has answered all of our questions, he answered them in detail. The fact of the matter: he is not. The fact of the matter is: just as we repeated some questions, the Minis ter repeated some tired phrases when it came to the negotiations. Mr.

Acting Speaker, if the other side of the record is going to be clear, we also have to empha size that the Opposition Mem bers, my colleagues, had obtained a document only that evening which the Minis ter said was not available, the Min ister said the public could not have access to that document. Mr. Acting Speaker, we found we were given that document and it was obtained through the Un ited States Se curit ies Comm ission.

That document was available publicly, and there were a whole series of questions wh ich that document raised which the Min ister indicated he was not prepared to answer, or when he attempted to answer he answered so vaguely that we could not be satisfied . * (1 430) Mr. Acting Speaker, really the substance of the debate that evening is not the issue. The Minis ter may not have been happy with the questions and we may not have been happy with the answers.

What is at issue is the right of individual Mem bers to ask questions to their satisfact ion, not someone els e's, certainly not someone in the Government, certainly not the Minis ter to whom those questions are addressed. We have to find a way through the Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections to ensure that someho w this is addressed, that someho w our rules are amended to make it clear what the obligations of the Min ister are with respect to questions asked in Standing Comm ittees, what the obligations of the Chair are when actions like this occur in the future, should that ever happen.

I want to say that my motive in getting involved in this dis cussion and in pursuing the origi nal motion with other Mem bers of the Opposition is to make sure that we find a way to resolve this, that this incident, by virtue of our neg lect, by virtue of the fact that we do not act on it, become part of the precedence of this Legislature. We have to recognize that there was a problem and we have to address it. Mr. Acting Speaker, I wanted to add just one more thing, and the Mem ber for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) who may want to talk on this will be given an opportunity.

I want to say that one of the most distressing things 4232

Thursday, January 11, 1990 about this has been the unwilling ness, I guess, of Mem bers opposite, in particular the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) in his remarks, to acknowledge quite clearly the fact that a mis take was made. I know that the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Man ness) says, I regret lea ving the com mit tee. I kn ow the Mem ber for Min nedo sa (Mr . Gill eshammer) ha s made his explanation. lt seems to me tha t this issue, this debate could have been foreshortened quite easily if the Mem ber for Morris (Mr. Man ness) and the Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Attorney General (Mr.

McCrae) or perhaps the Attorney General is acting as House Leader-had stood up and said clearly this is not acceptable behaviour. Never mind the rational ization for why it occurred, it is not acceptable. If they would have admitted that it was

an act of contempt in some respect and that it was not going to be tolerated and they would work with us to adjust the rules, rather than this defensive posturing which we have seen, this rational ization which was unnecessary. When someone asked me how the Speaker was going to rule, I did not have to refer to Beauchesne's or Erskine May or House Rules to know th at this was a serious matter which had to be addressed.

We are into a debate now and I fear tha t Members, particularly the two Mem bers who have been cited, have left themselv es open by enter taining this deba te rather than acknowledging the problem and saying, yes, we are prepared to work towards a solution. I hope we are prepared to work towards a solution because we need one. If the Government had acted the way it has acted today in a majority Government situation, we would have been in trouble, because this Legislature could not have ensured that this was addressed in the way that we have. So, Mr.

Acting Speaker, in the sense that we are making history today in debating this contempt motion , we are fortunate tha t it happened at this time in his tory when Ma nitoba has a mi nority Government. The will of the Legislature is going to prevail. lt is fortunate it did not happen when a Government was in place which had a huge majority and could force its will on the Legisla ture. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, let us not lose the opportunity to redress this problem, to amend our rule so that this will never happen again.

To the individuals who have been affected, I am sure that I join them in sympathizing and empathizing with their circumstance. As I said, I do not think that any of this was done mal iciously or deliberately. lt was done foolish ly, and it was done out of a certain lack of appreciation for the true role of Opposition Members in comm ittee.

I hope that this has enlightened some Mem bers, particula rly of the front bench on the Government side, as to the very real need to maintain an open commi ttee st ructure, giving committee Members unlimited freedom to ask questions until they are satis fied with the answers or too tired to continue, if that be the case. lt is not up to the Government or individual Minis ters or the Chair to decide. Mr. Acting Speaker, I leave the debate for other people. I hope that we can deal with this expeditiously and that there is the will, once we get out of this Cham ber, to actually amend the rules. Thank you. Mr.

Bob Rose (St. Vital): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and put some of my comments as a Mem ber of that comm ittee on the record and hopefully maintain the decorum of this House and take as high a road as I can under the circums tances in deference to the respect of the House, but it is certainly not a pleasu re in the true sense to have to come up and make a debate on this type of an issue, particularly when it involves one of your, even though it is somebody on the other side of the House, it is a fellow Mem ber of this House. lt is unfortunate that some of the remarks that we heard from the Government speakers were not the high road.

They alluded to thin gs that were not true. Certainly we know that. There were maybe some rumours and scuttlebutt, but I think they should have checked that out, but anyway I guess that is wha t happens in the heat of battle. We find that unfortunate. I think that the public perception of politicians is already certainly in question and it is incumbent upon us in our positions to try and at least keep that perception level and to increase it, rather than having more public cynicism. Mr. Acting Speaker, I will deal first with the matter of the Ho nour able Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr .

Gilleshammer), who I consider the principal player here. Unfortunately, in this incident-ag ain I have known this Mem ber for some years and had some contact with him. Indeed after the unfortunate incident after two o'clo ck in the morn ing, I kept hoping tha t the Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa would do what I thought was the proper thing to do. That would be, in one particular instance, to merely acknowledge a mis take was made.

That mi stake now has been acknowledged I think clearly by the Speaker and it is pretty clear, as the speaker before me said, that it is just a matter of moral ity or of co mmon sense that the Government should have known some thing occurred that night that should not have happened. They had some time to think of it over the night, and they could have come back into the meeting at nine o'clo ck in the morning, and that would have been the end of the matter as far as the night was concerned, and everything would have been reconciled.

Or else he could have even taken a higher road I think and merely acknowledged that in the heat of battle, or the middle of the night- you know we all have our individual circums tances of how we feel on any particular day. Some days we have a lot of high days and some days we have low days.

A mere apology, taken the high road, and an apology the next day, or even in su bsequent days right up until yeste rday morning, would have ended the need for this debate here we have today and yesterday, and the days to follow, and indeed in the comm ittee, and all the time it takes up, the House time it takes up, to debate the matter. Mr. Acti ng Speaker, it would appear unfortunately, and I say unfortunately for the Honourable Member for 4233

Thursday, January 11, 1990 Mi nnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), that somewhere along the line in the night he had his marching orders of what to do. In spite of the fact that he has an im partial position-and in all respect for the Mem ber, who I have already said I have known for some years. lt is obvious that he had march ing orders and he stuck with them. As far as Party solidarity, I guess we have to respect him for that much. lt was a decision he had to make and he ought to live with it.

As I said before I have empa thy for the Honourable Mem ber tha t he was put in to this pos ition, an unf ortu nate position perhaps, and I think it is unfortunate that the Honourable Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr. Gil leshammer) has to take the brunt of the whole attack. lt is very obvious that this was a team game, this was not an individual. I am a little disappoi nted, Mr. Acting Speaker- ***** Th e Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): On a point of order, the Honourable Min ister of Justice. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): When the Honourable Mem ber refers to the Honourable Member for Min nedosa (Mr.

Gilleshammer) being issued marching orders, I think it would be wise for the Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital (Mr. Rose) to be reminded that this is about the only place in this province, this Chamber is about the only place in this province, where the Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital can be saved harm less from making slan derous remarks. He might want to remem ber that before he steps outside this Cham ber and says some of the things he is saying today. Th e Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. ***** Mr. Rose: lt is interesting that the Minis ter of Justice (Mr.

McCrae) comes up and he is getting in his position to start to feel that he is a lawyer and knows legal

interpretation. My observation of him is he knows absolutely nothing about the law, and that was clearly indicated earlier in debates when he and his colleague, the Min ister of Autopac, kept saying tha t you will prejudice tha t case, you will prejudice that case. He does not know what prejudice is on a case. I had the permission of my person that I was talking about to do it. I only helped this case and he knows tha t. By their servant going to the newspaper and spilling all the biased details, that is prejudice. I have not seen the Attorney General or the Min ister of Autopac do anything about tha t. *

(1440) I do not know where there was anything slan derous or any remark-! said that the Mem ber had marching papers. In fact I will correct that. I did not say he had marching papers, it appeared to me that was it. lt was obvious, we saw the huddling, we saw the joking going on, we saw the frivolous attitude of the Mem bers. I do not want to name them right now, but if you want to get into details. I tried to take the high road, but if we do not want to take the high road, we can take it elsewhere, but I will try to keep it that way. I would hope that the Min ister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae) would rid himself of the amount of venom that he showed yesterday. I was a little surprised. I also have a lot of respect for the Min ister of Justice in the past, but he lost his cool. He took a vicious attack at our Leader and other people and that was a personal nature, and I personally have been trying to keep away from that. So I would hope that he would keep his remarks. I also want to correct a mi sconception, Mr. Acting Speaker, that seemed to be put on the record by the Honourable Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr. Gillesham mer).

I hope he was joking when he alluded to the fact that because we had a conf erence in Min nedosa that weekend that we mal iciously gave the media some sort of a story. I think that when he makes those sort of remarks, I believe he does a disservice to all the media people in Manitoba, that they do not have a mind of their own, and that they would take a biased approach to some thing. In that regard, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think he has imp ugned and dis cred ited the in tegrity of tha t Min nedosa Tribune, alludes to the fact that it was fed by our Party.

I said yesterday, and I stand very firmly again, that indeed it migh t well have been in practice if the quotes in the paper are such that he did talk to Mem bers of our caucus or one Memb er of our caucus. Indeed he only talked to the reporter, Darryl Kalicha k, to only one person in our caucus,

whereas there are two NDP Mem bers that are-no, I am sorry, I will correct that- the re were two Li berals and two NDP in the article. lt also mentione d comments from the Clerk of the Legislature, and so any allegations that he made were certainly without foundation. I would like him also to provide proof of his later remarks, that indeed when the facts unfolded that the Min nedosa paper printed a retraction and said that the Opposition was only playing politics. I might have missed some edition of that paper.

I usually read it every week pretty thorough ly, but I do not recall nor can I research any such retraction, but I do, and Mr. Acting Speaker, may I also say in that regard that if some of our Mem bers did go with a story to the media, is that not a right of Mem bers of the Legislature? The facts printed in there coincide exactly with the ruling of the Speaker yesterday. They have remarks of a very im partial person, the Clerk of this Legislature.

I would not see anything wrong if a Mem ber did approach the media, because if we gave them a biased story we would expect them to sort out the facts and govern thems elves accordingly like they always do. I think that is rather hypocritic al, Mr. Acting Speaker, tha t we would be accused of such a thing when it was not even true, because the

article is in no way biased; it is very factual and reports the news. That is what the newspapers are there for. I do noti ce in resear ching the

article tha t the Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) 4234

Thursday, January 11, 1990 has a regular column in the newspaper to advise his constituents. I give him credit for that, that is something that we like to do too. If that is not feeding the media information, I do not know what is. A nice picture of the Honourable Memb er for Min nedosa and the funding approved for Min nedosa Hospital, great stuff, great politi cal stuff. I guess all politicians have done it. lt reads as though it came out of the Honour able Memb er's pocket which he kn ows he is only recycling taxpayers' money out to Minnedosa.

As a matter of fact, the Member for Min nedosa knows indeed, better than I do, just how popular that hospital is in Min nedosa. He is fully aware of the talk in Min nedosa, and he knows of the popularity of the new facil ities. Certainly, if he would indicate to the Min nedosa Tribune that he was responsible for the funding, which I am no t alluding he did, but if he did in this

article that would be mis leading for the people of Min nedosa and indeed the people of Manitoba. I am just wondering when we are on the item of the newspaper what they will say now tha t we have a ruling by the Speaker and that it indicates that our point all along was true. When this ruling by the Speaker does go in the paper, will the Memb er for Min nedosa again say, well, that was just politic king, that is part of the game. lt will be interesting to see what his com ments to the local media are in that regard. Mr. Acting Speaker, in his address the Min ister of Finance (Mr.

Manne ss) sort of indicated-a nd I may have the remarks a little bit wrong, and if so I stand corrected, but I was listening to him on intercom, and he indicated there was a bit of raucous attitude at the beginning of the meeting. On bala nce, and the record shows that this was on both sides or all sides, it started out a little stormy, and the reason that it turned out a little stormy was the Government had been withholding a report that they said was not available and that they said was confidential .

All of a sudden, just minutes before the meeting, it turned up in our hands, the two Mem bers of the Opp osit ion, and when this was dis cl osed their explanation of same was anything but satisfacto ry. lt is amazing that they kept saying they could not get the report, and yet Mic hael Anderson from the Indian bands got it by a very simple call to Washington. In other words, it was available to 250 million Americans and in fact North Americans. In fact the whole world was available when it is in Washin gton, and yet it was not available to the Mem bers of the comm ittee and the Legislature in Manito ba.

Now that is just a deplorable situation, but this was a fact. This is why things got a little bit out of hand, and you can see where they were. Cons eq uently, as a matter of fact, it turned out that the Government knew, they knew in their negotiations that it had to be filed with the Securities Comm issi on. They did not think there was anything wrong at that time. They did not question it, and therefore they knew it would become a public document and it would be rel eased in Wa shi ngton.

Yet tha t Min ister in his comments blamed Repap, his partner in this deal, for breaking a disclosure clause, a thing tha t they quite obviously did not do. In my judgment, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is no validity for its confidentiality at all, that document. lt turned out to be such, and we do not know what the Government was so afraid of discussing openly, so they showed right from the beginning, even before the meeting, that they were not interested in discussing the att itudes or the information contained in the divestiture document, the agreement with the Repap organization. Indeed, Mr.

Acting Speaker, this Government should have encouraged the broad public scrutiny of the document and the deal to assess the economic and also very im portantly the ecological aspects of the deal. At that point, I know that the Free Press' Val Werier said at that portion of the meeting, and he described it somewhat like the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Man ness), that the meeting became more or less of a fiasco.

I think those were the commen ts that they made. lt was interesting that during tha t part of the debate the Min ister of Finance pointed out, and it is quoted right in the Free Press, he says: Man ness lost his temper and shouted, I do not give a damn if it is my signature. I have not seen any retractions of that in the Free Press, and certainly I witnessed same. We have to assume that there was a disturbance on both sides of the Cham ber. We have al ready acknowledged that ther e was on both side s.

The Minis ter of Finance seems to be holier than thou, that he was sitting there like Little Lord Fauntleroy, not doing anything. Yet at the same time he had lost his temper and shouted: I do not give a damn if it is my signature. Probably nobody else gave a damn if it was his signature either. But then the comm ittee, in my judgment, did settle down to some serious business of finding out what was contained in this, I think it was a 200-page document that we were given a very short time to exam ine. I felt that the comm ittee was going along rather well at that point.

There were some procedural disputes and arguments which were cleared up by the Chairman or by agreement. There were a lot of questions that we asked. In retrospect, questions that were extremely serious, im portant for the people of Manitoba and some of them, we had staff there, they were very informed, we got informed answers and we were happy with some of them. Some of the questions were certainly lacking in their content. Obviously the Government was not even fully aware of what was in the document, and certainly did not have the background information about it.

They cared so little that they failed to bring the president of Repap to the meeting. We questioned them about that. Where was the president? They said, oh well, he was just nothing in this thing, we just paid him $100,000 to be a sort of a figurehead. We know that the president at that time was a good pick by the Tory Government, was a good pick to head up Repap. An Honourable Member: He was the president of Manfor, not Repap. Mr. Rose: I am sorry, I correct that. He was the president of Ma nfor . I appr eciate that, thank you for tha t 4235

Thursday, January 11, 1990 correction. He was brought for the divestiture and of course at the last moment. Of course he did not, according to the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) he had nothing to do with the divestiture. As a matter of fact, the word out on the street, the reliable word out on the street was that he was no longer the president of Repap. Now either the Government- An Honour able Member: Manfor. * (1 450) Mr. Rose: I correct that again, Manfor. Pardon me, Mr. Acting Speaker.

The Government that night denied, in fact they just out and out according to the record said, they were not sure of the status of Mr. Paul Oemare. Therefore, when we asked questions in regard to his area, we were told that we should have asked tho se questions earlier,

whereas Mr. Demare never was at any previous meetings either. There were lots of unanswered questions that we wanted to ask the then president of Manf or.- (interjection)- I got three times lucky there. Other questions which myself and Mem bers of the comm ittee, both in the Li berals and the NDP -1 think th ey had some very pertinent and im portant questions to ask. They asked, for instance, why we were exporting pulp and subsequently losing the paper-making jobs. As a result now in Ma nitoba even we buy some of our kr aft paper from the U.S. Was th at taken into consideration?

Why did we give up those-we try in this country to get manufacturing jobs, and here we do the basic whole sale type of jobs, the resource jobs, and we do not get down to the making of the paper. We wanted to know what the rationale was at. lt might have been good. lt might have been bad. You have to make a decision on some of those things, but we wanted to know the rationale behind it and have our input and at least the knowledge to explain to people. We wanted to know-and I see that mentioned two or three times in the record-why there were no specific job guarantees in place for Northerners.

This is a very important issue for our Natives and our northern people. We also wanted to know, in relation to that, what training prog rams were in place for tho se No rther ners, particula rly in view of the fact of the Government's callous attitude towards the Jobs Fund. We realize that the Jobs Fund was a bit of a fiasco, but that did not mean all of it where the NTEA portion of it, which was previously the Li mestone Training and Educ ation Prog ram, was very im portant and acknowledged over Canada, a very, very good program.

We were won dering, in light of that, did the Government any longer give a darn about northern training and northern jobs. Perhaps they did, but they were not prepared to come back with any specific plans that were agreed to with the Repap people to ensure a preference for our northern people and our Natives as employees of the new company that took over Repap. We wanted to know the im portant things of the financial arrangements that were with Hydro to supply power. Wh at was the deal? lt was a multi year deal, and it seemed to be very fuzzy that they had some deals tied to new deals.

Did this mean they may have rate reductions in future? To that it still remains fuzzy, Mr. Acting Speaker. We do not have any answers to that even to this day. We wanted to know-and it was not available that night, would you believe at the very last stroke it was not available to the Government, and the record clearly shows that-who the directors of Repap were and what the sha re structure was. You will read the record and you will see, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that the Government, at that point -a nd they were to sign it the next day or certainly within 48 hours did not know exactly who they were going to sign the deal with and what their sh are structure was, but they would assure us that before it was signe d that would all be ti cket y-boo. We ha ve sti ll never ha d th at assurance. We still do not know really who we sig ned the deal with. lt is still up in the air.

Those are the things that we agreed that we would stay all night to get the answers to if necessary, because I think those were questions, and the answers to them were im portant to all the people of Mani toba. Certainly, a lot of our questioning was along the line of the protection of the environment. We wanted to know that. Tha t in itself could have taken a full meeting. That could have taken four or five or six hours, but we knew the deadline was coming. We were trying to keep thin gs moving as fast as possible, but we did not get satisfactory answers on the environment.

In fact, we virtually got no answers on what was being done to protect the enviro nment for this very massiv e program in Man itoba.- (interjection)- Pardon me -(interjection)-Mr. Acting Speaker, he says you should have gone to the hearings; the Mi nister of Environment (Mr. Cummin gs) said you should have gone to the hearings. Is that what you said? -(interjection)- Well, I was at the hearings. I did get the minutes, and I did study them. I was not at all the hearings, but I was there present at a couple. If the question was directed to me, Mr. Acting Speaker, these are legitimate.

You could see, anybody in this House could see that these are legitima te questions, and as representatives of the people, we deserved explana tions and we deserved answers to these questions. An important question we asked, and some time a few days later it came out in an

article in the Free Press. I am surprised that they had the same thoughts as I had. Keeping Data from Public Shows Up in Repap Fiasco was written by Val Werier on the 13th of May. He says in the first paragraph, one salient fact that has not emerged in the sale of Manfor, the provincially owned forest industry, is that it made a turnabout and was operating at a profit. Well, if you read the questions that I asked in regard to that, and you read the answers, then If you were able now to get an audited statement or an unaudited statement from Manfor, you would clearly see how far the Mi nister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was off base. Why we continued on that and spent more time than 4236

Thursday, January 11, 1990 we should is because we had the inf ormation ahead of time, and we wanted to see if we could get the Min ister of Finance to come even close to our figures. We know, and it has been acknowledged now by an authoritative person in this same article, from Ma nfor, that they were making a milli on dollars a month. That is the question we asked. lt is on the record: we hear that they are making a mi llion dolla rs a month, is that true? The Minis ter of Fin ance resp onded tha t he forecasted they were going to lose $25 milli on in 1989.

We would certainly be interested at this time, and we were promis ed a report shortly of just how accurate the $25 milli on was. Then he said some thing of the nature of, you know, when we are talking a hundred milli on, what is another mil lion dollars here or there. lt sounds like a remark that we have heard from a Min ister across the way previously in dealing with across the way there. We wanted to know in regard to that where these considera tions-a nd we even compl imented the Government.

We gave the Governme nt credit and said you hired the right president, you did the right thing, you turned Ma nfor around. Tha t is admirable, we appreciate that the Government did that, that is what the taxpayers of Manitoba expectedm but the thing is, they had a very low starting point because the social ists had had their hands on it for so long that it was just a shemo zzle. We will give them credit tha t they did an extremely better job than the socialis ts did on it for years and years and years. We gave tha t cred it right at the mee ting.

For instance- and we will give them credit again- the board feet of lumber went up from 270,000 to 360,000 per day. That is good work. The paper mill went up from 360 to 400 tonnes per day. That is good work. Even you acknowledge that, Harry. This is coming from a knowledgeable, authorita tive person from the Ma nfor operation to the Free Press. He said, and he quotes in the paper it was a good, viable operation, th ey did this with no increase in staff. They said they could not keep up with the demand. They said they had the best craft in North America. Now Manitoba has none, they jus t have pulp.

They said they have this because they have excellent equi pment and high qua lity wood fibre. He went on to say that this profitabil ity was no flash in the pan. lt was going to be on an ongoing basis because it was a good, viable operation. Listen, I commend my neighbour, Paul Demare, who is the president. I think he should be given a lot of credit for that, and the Tory Government, too, given some credit, because they are the ones who chose him, even though he was a Tory supporter. That is maybe one case where patronage worked out pretty good. We acknowledge that, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Then when he said it was no flash in the pan, he had some concern, this authorita tive person, that here we are taking a large opera tion in Manitoba that was environmentally friendly to one com pared with Repap, which is obviously under their process of making bleached kraft, much more harmful to the environment.

In that regard, there was a lot of concern on our part that when they mentio ned· and we knew that this was not environmentally friendly, we wanted to have answers as to what was going to happen in the operation, both of the chem icals coming in, and the chemicals on site and the chem icals going out of there. Yes, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we did ask these questions and ma ny, many more, but we did not get satisfactory answers to mos t of them. * (15 00) I am wondering with the advanced time that the Gov ernment kne w about the dives titure, I am flab bergasted that the Min ister did not know this, and that indeed we have to read it in the Free Press later on. Facts we could not get out of the Government, we got from the Free Press. Facts we could not get out of the Government, we got from Washington.

I think this is a disgraceful way to treat the people not only in the Legislature, but also the people of Manitoba because this was no small deal, Mr. Acting Speaker. lt is a big deal. lt involved over 40,000 acres of our stan ding tim ber, and I think, environmentally and econom ically, a very im portant matter to the people of Man itoba. Mr. Acti ng Speaker, unlike the Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), I do not have a longstanding time in public life, and I respect his knowledge and history of these places.

I do have a few years of experience, and those people with more experience than I could tell that indeed I got my facts wrong. I did sit on school boards, I sat on a city council, and now I have sat in the Legislature. I have never seen such a show as this. As a matter of fact, I think the Speaker described it earlier, not this time, but when he first came on, tha t this was probably a precedent in all of Canada.

I am sure the veterans in this House and elsewhere, and ex-mem bers, can tell me if that is right, that it is without preced ent in Canada, probably in the Common wealth. lt is certainly unprecedented that I ever sat in a comm ittee meeting, no matter where I sat, as a trustee or at City Hall that somebody would walk out. I have seen mem bers walk out, tired in the middle of the night, but there was an obligation once you got down to the quorum figures, Mr. Acting Speaker, to stay there. In this particular case, I want to put it on the record Mr.

Acting Speaker, I would ask you how much tim e I have left, please? Half hour? Okay, thank you very much. I think that -(interjection)- Do you want to speak on this? I think that the Tories really-wha tever reason it may be, there may be some thing that is hidden. That night I sensed they thought that they were above the law, above the Legislature, and they shattered that night their election promises. Of course, it would not be the first time they broke election promises and sh attered them indeed, but they broke their promise of open Government and good management.

Indeed, they railroaded, stam peded and trampled the rig hts of this Legislature. The Mem bers of that comm ittee, they insulted them, the other Mem bers, and 4237

Thursday, January 11, 1990 indeed in doing that they put that to all the people of Ma nitoba. Now in a previous meeting they had tried to do the same thing, but as the Honourable Mem ber for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) points out, they did not get away with it because they were not in the majority. What a travesty, Mr.

Acting Speaker, this would have been to the people of Manitoba had there been a majority of Tories on the comm ittee or in the Government. lt is very, very scary indeed, and it sh ows why the people of Manitoba will now stand up and acknowledge what has happened here, acknowledge that they do not trust the Tories and they will never again give them a ma jor ity Government becau se the y know how dangerous they are with a mino rity Government. What the y would be with a majority is just unthink able.

So that gives me some satisfact ion to know that in the next few years we will not see a majority Tory Government, because the people will remember this. Th ey remember their other acts of arrogance, and they are certainly going to cont inue to remember this one. As a matter of fact, in his own antics after the meeting the Min ister of Fin ance (Mr. Man ness) called it a theatre of the absurd. Well certainly it was a theatre of the absurd, and you know who the players were.

The people of Manitoba will remember this, and they will remember what would have happened if they had given the Tories a majority Government and what a disaster it would have been for the province. I had alluded earlier, Mr. Acting Speaker, to the Min ister of Finance saying, you know, what is another mi llion dollars here or there when you are talking about a hundred million dollar divestiture? That was the cavalier sort of approach that was made. We have heard tha t sort of approach before by the Tories, but that was said that night.

I say to you that if a milli on dollars does not -(interjection)-all of a sudden the Government wants to talk. The Min ister, who used to be the Min ister in charge of Seniors, is chirping from his chair about some thing, and I hope he gets up and speaks after me because it is a long time since we have heard any common sense from him. If he wants to put some thing on the record, there will certainly be time available for him. I say to you, Mr.

Acting Speaker, tha t if we were not really worried about a million dollars or so here and th ere, why were we worried about an hour or so here and there, because twice during the evening, and the record clearly sh ows it, the Min ister of Finance said he was prepared, in reply to a question from the Ho nourable Mem ber for Churc hill (Mr. Cowan), who said, we are probably going to have to go through this report all through the night. The reply from the Min ister of Finance was, well, so be it, we will.

Just a few minutes later, when it was brought up that the meeting would go on, he said , we made a com mitment to the people of Manitoba to fully disclose this deal. We never break our promise. We always live up to our commitments, and we will sit through the evening. That is not the exact quote, but if you want that, we can dig it out too. That was in essence what the Minis ter said. A shor t while later the march ing orders were given, and boom, 4238 the place was empty, with no explanation. Now, Mr.

Acting Speaker, you would have thought that they themselves wanted to have full disclosure for the public, because now the burden is on the Government, 100 percent. If this deal goes sour, and I hope it does not, I hope it turns out well for the people of Manitoba. You will recall we were for this divestiture, our Party, under the right conditions. We wanted to know what th ose conditions were. They were never given to us.

Otherwise, because they have not given the people of Manitoba and this Legislature full disclosure, they will not be able to come back and say, well, you knew all the facts, you could have helped us correct them beforehand, and you did not do it. The burden now, Mr. Acting Speaker, is on the Government's shoul ders, to make sure that the environment and the economics of this deal and all the other aspects of it are proper and kept in perspective. I want to say, Mr.

A cting Speaker, that I appreciate the opportunity to put some of my thoug hts on record about not only the Repap-Ma nfor deal, but some of the events that unfortunately took part that night when the Government trampled on the rights of Man itobans. They set a prec edent in Canada and in the Comm onwealth with their arrogant attitude. If there is one thing that the Tories are tagged with in this province, it is the word "arrogant," arrogant and lack of respect for people and it is unfortunate. lt is unfortunate really that the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr.

Gilleshammer) was in the Chair at that time when the marching orders came forward. I take no pleasure from that from a personal standpoint, but it is unfortunate and he has to live with it. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to say that last year in April the people of St. Vital, my constituency, elected me to represent them in provincial affairs and protect their interests. That I was trying to do on that night in the wee hours of May 2. * (1510 ) The Honourable Mem ber for Min nedosa, by breaking the quorum, denied not only my rights, but also as well the citizens of St. Vital.

Therefore, I fully recommend a full hearing of this in the Commit tee of Privileges and Elections, because this Mem ber, to this late date, has not done the honourable thing. The simpl e th ing for him to do is acknowledge the mi stake and apologize to the Legislature why he breached his position of confidence and trust in this body. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Mr. Gilles Roch (Springfield): Mr. Acting Speaker, we have before us here a very serious matter. We have a situation where the Government had absolutely no respect for the demo cratic process. We ha ve a situation-w ell the Mem ber for La Verendrye (Mr.

Pankratz) seems to disagree, but I have to point out to him that given the situation in this House the ele ctorate, in their wis dom, ele cted a mi nority Government. That is reflected in all comm ittees. The facts are that night they could have been on any comm ittee, it happened to be the commit tee studying the Repap deal.

Thursday, January 11 , 1990 Mr. Acting Speaker, it is custom ary that when a commit tee is hearing the Mini ster is there to answer questions. So no matter whether it is convenient for the Min ister or not, whether he feels like it or not or what the time of the day is the fact is the committee had decided that they wanted to go as long as they wanted to get the information they requir ed. Under the guis e of negotiations, in my opinion, the Minis ter was just refusing to provide Mem bers with the information they re quired.

The unfortunate part, the bottom line to all this is that if Government Mem bers, many of them Mem bers of the Executive Counci l, walked out, sho wed a total lack of respect for the dem ocratic process and parliamentary procedure and indeed of Mem bers right to know that was bad enough, but there was still a quorum. Then, Mr. Acti ng Speaker, the Min ister who is inde ed responsi ble to answer the que stions walked out showing his total and utter contempt to the rights and privileges of Mem bers in this House and indeed decisions of all of Manitoba.

Notwiths tanding that the Chai rman of the Commit tee walked out, which puts into question his im partiality. I think that is the issue here. Although people are elected in various ridings under various Party banners the fact still remains that once one assumes the Chair , whether it be of the Legislature, whether it be of a comm ittee, he has to apply the rules im partially to all Mem bers there. Mr. Acting Speaker, I would submit that the Chairman by walking out of the comm ittee that night, after a motion to adjourn had been defeated, sh owed partiality towards his Conservative Caucus colleagues.

Now, outside the commit tee he has every right to be partisan, outside of chairing that commit tee he has every right to support and be partial toward his col leagues. But when one is chairing a comm ittee, Mr. Acting Speaker, one must not do that, one must have respect for the rules of order, one must have respect for the privi leges of all Mem bers. Mr. Acting Sp eaker, one cannot let his own personal bias get in the way of his responsibil ity. We would have a very dangerous precedent if this motion were not carried, I am referring to the motion which is before us right now.

Although we are in a min ority situation, it appears that this Government is showing its arrogance by having walked out of that comm ittee. We see it daily in Question Period. I believe that no matter how many Mem bers a Government has, it should always respect the rights of other Mem bers, Opposition Mem bers and indeed their own Mem bers. The Mem ber for Emerson (Mr. Albert Driedger) has demonstrated recently that he does not have too much respect for the rights of the Mem ber for La Verendrye (Mr. Pankratz), but that is another internal situation that they have between thems elves.

An Honourable Member: lt is not as bad as the one you had with your constituents when they elected you as a Conservative. Mr. Roch: Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, the Mem ber for Eme rson talks about my election. I had two mil lstones around my neck when I ran in 1986 and 1988; one was Gary Filmon, one was Brian Mulr oney. I can say I never rode my Leader's coattails here, that is for sure; I got here despite not because of. Two-thirds of the Mem bers of the Government Party felt the same way I did.

The Mem ber for Emerson is being very cocky in his seat there, because he has taken the Steinbach seat away from the Mem ber for La Verendrye. He would be surprised at how many people out there are going to be seeking the Li beral nomi nation, how many people out there are donating mo ney to the Li beral Party. So he better build those highw ays quickl y. He can leave the road between Lorette and lie des Chenes in worse condition than muni cipal roads. 1t has been like this for several years now and he is doing so intentional ly, just to show again arrogance, showi ng contempt for Opposition Mem bers.

He is upset because this Go vern ment was bre aking all of its elec tion promises, including at the time, although they had done a comple te flip-flop on the Meech Lake issue, at the time when I had said in public meetings, that I was not going to support the Meech Lake Accord, I was not .41 going to, he is upset, they are upset that I crossed over � because of that, and therefore they have said, although not on the public record, that Springfield will get nothing. lt happened under the NDP admin istration after I defeated one of their Minis ters, and it is happening now under this Go vernment, because I was refusing to be under their thumb like the Min ister for Emerson (Mr.

Albert Driedger) is of the First Minis ter. An Honour able Member: Playing politics with public money. Mr. Roch: That is right, as the Mem ber for lnkster (Mr. Lamour eux) said, he is playing politics with public money. An Honour able Member: We cannot wait to see whether they will vote for you or not. Mr. Roch: Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, that decision is in their court. Several Mem bers on this side, including � myself, have chal lenged this Government to go to the � people. Mr. Acting Speaker, the Member for Emerson says, they love me out there.

Well, I hope he is right, but I am willing to respect the decision of the electorate when it comes. As a matter of fact, we do not have a choice. When they make a decision we have to live with it, and that includes the Min ister for Emerson, too, the Min ister ir respo nsible for Hig hways and Transportation. An Honour able Member: Talk about contempt. Mr. Roch: Mr. Acting Speaker, to get back, the Member for Gladstone (Mrs. Oleson) talks about contempt.

There is a person who has sho wn comple te disrespect and disregard for the people who are involved in the whole child care issue, day care issue.- (interjection)- Mr. Acting Speake r, the Mem ber for Emerson (Ai bert Driedger) says I should be called back to order. The 4239

Thursday, January 11, 1990 whole issue here is contempt for the rights and privileges of Mem bers of this House. These Min isters jus t have absolutely no concept of what respect is. Dr. Death, the Mem ber for Pem bina (Mr. Orchard), has showed that daily in this Question Period. lt is just unimaginable what it could be like if there was a majority in this Government. They are acting com pletely opposite in the way they talk and act now than they did when they were in Opposi tion.

I could not believe when we were having the Standing Com mitte e on Muni ci pal Affairs me eting, tha t the Min ister respo nsible for Ru ral Devel opment, the Mem ber for Rhin eland (Mr. Penner), how he had become so manipula ted by the bureaucrats with his department that he has lost touch with reality. * (15 20) Here we have a Government and a Cabinet dominated by farmers, and yet farmers were com ing to the Li beral Opposition to air their concerns. Unfortunately, because of the constitutional reasons, we were unable to present certain exemptions to help out those people. Mr.

Acting Speaker, this was just one example of the contempt that this Government shows. I think this is what that early morning of May 2 - (interjec tion) - The Memb er for La Verendrye (Mr . Pankratz) says, was I at the meeting? Were you? - (interjection)- Well, I was not That is why we have comm ittees, Mr. Acting Speaker. Obviously here are the people in charge of the province, the Government, and they do not know why we have comm ittees.

Yes, well, were you at the meeti ng?-a s if to say there they are showing contemt and arrogance again, as if to say, because I was not at the meeting that I should not even be talking about it. The fact is, we have comm ittees to be able to delegate some of the work that has to be done. Like the recent Standing Comm ittee on Muni cipal Affairs that dealt with Bill No. 79. lt would be ludicrous if all 57 Mem bers sat on every commit tee, then there would be no need for comm ittees.

As a matter of fact, it is my hum ble opinion that possi bly the Estim ates process could go to a little bit of a smaller comm ittee version to expedite matters, but that is a whole other issue to be decided by a whole different comm ittee. The comm ittee studying the Manfor Report was going to report back to the House, should have reported back to the House in a proper fash ion. This was not possi ble, was rendered pract ically im possi ble although theoretically possi ble, with the walkout of the the Min ister responsible for the Repap deal and the walkout of the Chairman of the comm ittee.

I think this is, by the various exam ples I used a whil e ago, I think this whole situation highl ights and sym bolizes the arrogance that has grown into this Government.- (interject ion)- The Member for Emerson (Mr. Albert Driedger) wants to have the -(interjection)- who walked first, he says. The Mem ber for Emerson seems to think that it is im proper for Mem bers, while willing to work all night, willing to work all night, and the Mem bers of the Opposition were willing if necessary to work all night, and in so doing, in preparing thems elves in whatever fashion necessary, people have to eat.

There is nothing wrong with that. If you have to work all night you need energy. Mem bers opposite, Mem bers of the Government obviously had no intention of respecting that. They were hoping to just go through the formaliti es of having the comm ittee hearing and coming back to the House and getting it through. I do not think that is proper in a majority situation, but at least they would have had the numbers to carry the adjournment motion. The fact remains they did not have the numbers.

They just disrespected the decision of the comm ittee Mem bers, so we cannot have it our way the heck with you guys we are walking out. lt was totally improper. I think that in retrospect every Mem ber probably realizes that they have made a mis take, they should not have it At least the Chairman should have remained there and the comm ittee could have kept on, but that is not what happened. Mr. Acting Speaker, it seems to me that they have to be held accountable.

I think the sooner this matter gets before the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections the sooner the matter can be dealt with and the sooner we can have a precedent here in Manitoba for such situations that they may never occur again. lt is very, very im portant for the democratic process. This is why our system evolved the way it is, to provide checks and balances in this system . lt may be inconvenient at times for Mem bers of the Government lt may make things awkward, but the system works. Church ill once said, democracy is one of the worst forms of Government except there is none better.

He is absolutely correct, there is none better. Part of that system is having respect for individual Mem bers. Part of that system is Mem bers having respect for the Chair. If the Chair acts in a contemptible and partial way you cannot have respect for the Chair- An Honourable Member: How often have you burned the Speaker? Mr. Roch: The Memb er for Emerson (Mr . Al bert Driedger) says, how many times have we burned the Speaker. 1 would suggest not once. We still have the same Speaker in this House as we did in July of '88- An Honourable Member: And a fine Speaker he is, too.

An Honourable Member: When the Speaker makes a ruling and you vote against him that is not burning the Speaker? Mr. Roch: Mr. Acting Speaker, again the Mem ber for Emerson (Mr. Albert Driedger) demonstrates his lack of respect and contempt for the Mem bers. He is saying that because Mem bers do not agree with the ruling of the Speaker they should not have the right to reverse that. The Members of this House, in their collective wisdom, elect a certain person as a Speaker. That does not 4240

Thursday, January 11, 1990 mean you will always agree with his rulings, and if you so disagree you challenge that ruling, which is the right of each and every Member as you can challenge the ruling of a Chair in comm ittee. If tha t motion is carried, the Speaker's Ruling has been overturned and you go accordingly to the wishes of Mem bers. Again, that rule is there to prevent one person from becoming autocratic. We have to have those checks and balances. By and large you respect the Speaker's Rulin gs, by and large you do, but there are certain times when it cannot be done.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong, nothing out of order, in overturning a Speaker's Ruling. What the Mem ber for Emerson (Mr. Albert Driedger) does not see is it does not point out to-and I wish that maybe he would want to get up and speak after this and talk about the situation, becaus e wha t happened that night was a motion was made by a Government Mem ber, the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) hims elf I believe, because he did not want to keep on being scr utin ized by the commit tee Mem bers. He wanted to keep informa tion from Ma nitobans through their duly elected Mem bers. The motion was defeated.

The majority of Mem bers on the comm ittee said, no, even though it is 2 in the morning we wish to keep on. lt is not unusual in this Legislature. I have chaired a comm ittee one time which sat until approxima tely 4:30 in the morning. That was in a majority Government situation. Did that Chairman respect the vote? No. Did the Min ister respect the vote? No. Did the Government Mem bers respect the vote? No. They all walked out in contempt for and with comple te disr egard for democracy.

By refusing to respect the decision of the Mem bers on that comm ittee, a majority decision, they have in fact said, we hold the people of this province in contempt in this respect thereof too, because it was on behalf, whatever infor mation Mem bers get at comm ittee is on the record, becomes public, the media if they so desire may publish it. They did not want the information to get out. Why? Tha t is what I would like to know. Why? If there is no thing to hide, then put it on the table.

If you have some thing to hide, well then why are you hiding it? lt may be more difficult to negotiate at times when you are a Crown agency. The very nature of the fact that an agency is owned by the people tells me that the people should have the right to know what kind of deal is being negotiated. A private compa ny, it is a different matter; they have a certain advantage. But Crown corporations have to be able to be accountable to the people. * (1 530) lt is ludicrous that people of Man itoba have to rely on the United States of America to provide information which is being dealt with here in our province.

We have Mem bers in this Legislature who some time s hold the Americans in contempt, but by and large they have a far more open system of informa tion for their citizens than we do. We may not agree with everything they do, but at least if we want to know what they are doing, we can get it from them. As a matter of fact, if you want to know what our Governments are doing here, we can get it from them. Mr. Acting Speaker, it becomes increasingly important to ha ve acc ountabil ity in this Leg isla ture, in this Government, in this province. Mr.

Acting Speaker, it is my utm ost belief the sooner this matter is dealt with, the better it will be. I would hope they realize what has happened, what they have done here. I would hope that after this matter has been dealt with that not just this Government, but all future Governments, whether minor ity or majorit y, will respect the comm ittee 's right for informa tion, will respect individual Mem bers' rights for information, will respect indeed the result of a vote by comm ittee Mem bers. This motion that we have before us will make a decision which will be precedent-setting.

As the Speaker said in his ruling the other day, there is no precedent in the Man itoba Leg islature, but th ere are preced ents elsewhere. I think in retrospect that the, although they may not admi t it, Government Mem bers, including the Min ister of Fina nce (Mr . Man ness) and the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), probably agree privately to thems elves that they have made a mi stake. Probably deep down inside, without admitting it, they will be happy to get a, having said those words, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would hope.

I notice the Mem ber for Min nedosa has been listening intently to most of the comments being made today, which shows that he is taking this serious ly. I think he is regretting it, what he did that night, and probably he was prodded on by Mem bers of the Executive Council. Probably that is the reason why. Mr. Acting Speaker, having said these words, I would hope that from now on this Go vernment and all futur e Governments will respect the wishes of the Mem bers of this House. Thank you. Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Acting Speaker, we have before us a debate on one of the most sign ificant aspects of our life as parliamentarians, and we are indeed parliamentarians. I think we should take a look historically at the word "parliamen t." Where does it come from and what does it mean? Well, it is originally of course a French-Norman word "parlement ." lt comes from the word "parler," to speak. That is what we do in this Assembly. We speak. Historical ly, not always were these rights accorded. We take our his tory from the mother Parliament, Great Britai n.

The fi rst attempt at any kind of discussion that we can find his torically is at King Arthur's round table, where he deliberately, despite being the Mo narch of the Land, put himself at a round table, somewhat similar to this round room, and said, I will speak as one of equals despite the fact that I have the power of being the national monarch . And so began through public process, debate. That public process, that public participation, has evolved over the centuries, and many of the dates that I am 4241

Thursday, January 11 , 1990 going to use today are familiar to each and every one of you in this room. We begin with Magn a Charta in 1215 . Perhaps the right that granted there, above and beyond rights, but the one most im portant was the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the right to know when you were taken. into custody, why you were taken into custody, and then the right to a trial, the right to speak on your own behalf at that trial. That is what we are talking about, the freedom of speech. And why was King John su bjected to that?

Well, if we look at our history, we know that Rich ard Coeur de-lion, Richa rd the Lion Hearted, had been off in The Crusades and his brother had attempted to usurp more and more of his authority, but the aristocrats of the day said that is not a problem, because Rich ard will come home. Well unfortunately that did not happen, and so they made the decision that this monarch had to be told that there were certain unalienable rights that belonged to each individual citizen within Britain at that particular time.

So the nobles met at Runnymede, and at Runnymede they presented the monarch with a document, a document which said , in that very first Ch arter of Rights that we have rights. One of those rights is to speak and to speak on our own behalf. Well shor tly after that Britain entered into a period of great prosperity under the Tudors, who first came to the Throne in 1497. Henry VII was the first, but certai nly the mo narch who received the greatest accolades was Elizabeth I who came to the Th rone in 1558 and ruled until 1603. Good Queen Bess she was referred to.

She is probably the most absolute of all absolute monarchs in Great Britai n. The only lim itation upon her authority was the lim itation that was im posed on King John in 1215 under Magna Cha rta. But she did not abuse those rights. She seemed to understand, as ma ny monarchs later did not, that there was a balance. There was always a strength that you could exercise, but you could only go so far. When she died in 1603, the Tudor fam ily died out with her, and they had to go to Scotland and bring in the Stuarts.

Well the Stuarts very quickly got thems elves into difficulty, because the Stuarts did not understand th at fine distinction between an absolute mona rch and an absolute monarch who understands that he or she can only go so far. The Stuarts denied the freedom of speech, and so it was a Stuart that was presented in 1628 with the Pe tition of Right, and the Petition or Right demanded more authority. The Petition of Right said very clearly, there must be more opportunities to speak. There must be more opportunit ies for dialogue. There must be more participation of the people.

When the Stu art fam ily no longer governed and had control of the monarchy in Britai n, it was because they had gone through a period of a Common wealth under Ol iver Cromwell and the Stu art restoration, and they had to look outside of the imm ediate fam ily. In 1689, they actually went to Holland, and they brought forth to Britain a Stuart who had married into the Dutch monarchy.

Before the British aristoc racy, and we really are to a great degree talking about the rights of the aristocracy at this point in his torical trad ition, the rights of the aristocracy were to be further granted under the Bill of Rights, and so in order for this new mona rchy more powers were given to those tha t did not possess absolute power. * (1 540) By 1832, a whole new evolution of powers had begun, because in 1832, in Britai n, began the first reform Bill. The first reform Bill of 1832 has often been greeted as a major victory for the people. In fact that victory was still very limi ted.

In 1832, all they did was to say that the upper-income earners could finally get the right to vote, that upper-income earners could finally go to Parliame nt and speak, and of course women were not allowed to participate in this exercise whatso ever. lt took a number of those reform Acts in order for more and more to achieve the ability to speak. We went through the Reform Act of 1867 and another in 1884.

By the end of 1884, every male in Great Britain had the authority to speak in Parliament, but regrettably there was still the dynamic of a House of Commons and a House of Lords, and the House of Lords could override anything that the House of Commons said. That was not changed until 191 1 in the Parliament Act.

Throughout all this period of time we saw the evolution of the rights of parliamentarians, the evolution of a Cabinet, the evolution of rules of procedure, the evolution of House Rules, the evolution of words like "privilege," the ev olution of words like "contempt." There is no constitution in Britain. lt is a series of Acts, but they have never been com bined. They have never said exactly what the constitution of Great Britain should be, and so everything is determined on precedent.

Precedent shows very clearly how sign ificant are the privileges of those who are elected to offices such as all of us in this room hold. Canadian his tori cal trad ition, which took and borrowed in its Parliamentary system from Great Britain, is some what different, but essentially it follows along parallel lines. When we signed the British North America Act in 1867, those of you who have studied th at Act may be amazed that Parliament gets short shrift. There is very little mention of it. There is no mention of Cabinet. There is no mention of the way in which a House would function.

There is no mention of words like "privilege." Ther e is no mention of words like "r espect" or "contempt." lt is si mply an acceptance that as the system evolved, these rights and privileges accrue to those individuals elected to serve in those offices. We have gone through a very difficult period in Canadian history, and we are still going through it. The Meech Lake Accord, which was signed in June of 1987, was fraught with difficulties, and this Assem bly has indicated, through its Task Force Report, its great difficulti es.

I think everyone who sat on the task force, no matter what our politi cal affiliation, was struck over and over and over again by the number of individuals who spoke about process, who said: I want as a Canadian the right to speak; I want as a Canadian the right to determine my Constitution , and I am being denied that opportunity throughout this land because people will not let me speak; they will not allow me to exercise tha t most fu ndamental of all dem ocratic powers. 4242

Thursday, January 11, 1990 In our Meech Lake Task Force Report, we spoke clearly about the necessity of process, the necessity to involve individuals, to involve Canadians, and to say in the clearest possible terms that a Constitution does not belong to 10 Premiers and one Prime Minister. The Constitution belongs to 25 million Canadians , and those 25 million Canadians must have the authority to speak clearly. If they cannot speak clearly in their own representative being, then through those duly elected representatives to the Legislature.

There are individuals in all Parties who have become known as great parliamentarians . I think about Stanley Knowles, who sits daily in the House of Commons in Ottawa at a table that has been given to him out of great honour and respect for his love of parliamentary tradition, and his great knowledge of that tradition, a man who has the utmost respect for parliamentary rights and privileges. Because everyone who served with him recognized those , they greet him and they want him sitting at that table each and every day that he is physically capable of so doing. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I first learned of my own parliamentary tradition when I was quite young. My father was already a Cabinet Minister when I was born, and when I was nine years old I changed schools. There were two ways of going home, one was a direct route from the convent to my house, the other was to use my bus ticket to go from the convent to the Legislative Assembly, stop at the Legislative Assembly, and catch a ride with my dad on the way home .

I used to go into the Legislature in Province House, which is the oldest building representing Parliament in Canada because Nova Scotia was the first province to get responsible Government. I used to sit there from abou t four o'clock in the afternoon until 5:30 when the House would rise, and I would listen to Estimates, debates and speeches and I got caught up in the tradition . In those days, they used to separate the galleries fro m lady's galleries to men's galler ies.

The lady's gallery was now in this House what we call the Speaker's Gallery, and because I was a young woman, although very young, I was escorted to the lady's gallery . In those days the Speaker used to wear striped trousers, a frock coat and a very tall hat . He would spot me up in the gallery , and I would get his silk hat doffed each day that I would attend. Of course my father does what I have seen the Premier (Mr. Filmon) do often when you recognize someone up in the gallery , and he would wave to that particular individual.

I began to understand the tradition, the rules and the regulations, and wonder sometimes why everyone obeys them. Why do they do this everyday? Why is the Mace brought in, in a certain way? Why is it placed in a certain way? Why is it on the table sometimes and why is it under the table at other times? Why does the Speaker sit in the chair sometimes and why do some othe r Members sometimes get up and go speak at that particular tim e and move into that chair?

I realized of course that part of the parliamentary tradition was that you had to have rules or order would not prevail, you had to have traditions in order for the heritage to be passed on from generation unto 4243 generation, and that is why, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have the set of rules . That is why we have evolved the way we have. We have a motion before this House, which is the most serious motion that can be placed before this Chamber. It is a motion , which must not be treated frivolously. It is a motion that must be exa mined with all of the historical tradition that is known to all of us.

I first learned of this incident in the early hours of May 2, 1989, and I was struck by a conversation with the MLA for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) who would be the first to say I think did not clearly understand exactly what had happened. He questioned the process . He was concerned about the process, and so a whole series and chain of events commenced. I think that when we deal with this issue, we must do so in the proudest traditions of parliamentary debate. We must do so because we are dealing with colleagues . We are dealing with individuals for whom we have great respect .

We are dealing with Members of the Legislative Assembly, duly elected by the voters of the ir individual constituencies . We do it, Mr. Acting Speaker, because we know that it is important , not for the 57 people gathered in this room , but for the whole historical evolution of Parliament , for the freedom of speech, for the right to parley, the right to speak, the right to stand up each and every day and defend the individuals within our society who cannot be here, who cannot speak themselves. I urge everyone to do this with the greates t possible dignity that we can bring to the parliamentary tradition *

(1550) Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): Mr. Acting Speaker , I rise to speak in this debate today after many years in this Chamber, not as many as some, but more than most, because it is a circumstance that in my history in this Chamber is so unusual that it provokes one to spea k about the very basic tenets and principles upon which this Chamber operates. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs . Carst airs) for her comments and the historical context in which she placed this entire debate .

I do so because I think there are times when we must truly reflect not upon only the issue before us but upon the history that has brought us to be able to stand in this place and reflect upon issues such as this and many more important issues on a day-to-day basis, and the safeguards that have been built into the system through many different experiences, not all of them positive, that enable us to feel comfortable that when we are elected to be representatives of the people of this provinc e we will indeed be able to represent the people in this Chamber .

In order to be able to represent the people in this Chamber we must be able to speak, and that is what this entire event is all about. It is about the attempt of a Government to prevent Members of this Legislature from speaking , and I will go into that in more detail in my comments. I did not want to get into the actual events of the evening in question without having placed it in that proper context. This is a fundamen tal matter. It is one which in a large way will shape future Parl iaments not only in

Thursday, January 11, 1990 Manitoba but across th e country and in the Commonwealth . This deb ate is about several fundamental issues so vital to the democratic operations of the Legislature that we have a responsibility to stand in our place and to ensure that what happened on May 1 never happens again. This debate is about a number of specific issues. The first, as I indicated , is the ability of legislators to question the Government on issues of concern to the electora te.

We are vote d int o this position by people who expect of us and in fact demand of us the ability to find out from the Government, whether we are a Member of that Government or not, it is not just restricted to Opp osition, it is not just applicable to Opposition, it is applicable to all Member s of this Chamber , to find out about the issues of concern to them. This deba te is about the role of the Opposition more specifically in making this Chamber work to the benefit of all Manitobans.

Indeed this debate is about the contemptuous way two Members of this House abused their power and ran from their responsibility, as Members of the Government , to answer those questions to be responsible . Finally-and I do not think we should just lay all the blame on those two individuals because they acted in concert with all of their colleagues , each and every one of them.

While they may not be in direct contempt, as indicated by the Speaker of this House , they certainly are part of a conspiracy that resulted in Members of this House not being able to fulfill the role to which the people of this province have elected them to fulfill. So the debate is also about the obvious and evident support that these two Members enjoyed from the entire Government in perpetuating and continuing that contempt. I tell you, Mr. Acting Speaker, having been involved in the committee meetings before May 1 and having been involved in that committee meeting, although I was not a Member of the committe

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-101
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 101.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	692771d8962cbfb8ce9045210cc44fe030172a80

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