Manitoba Hansard — 28 April 1983 (Sitting 56A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-56a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature oflhe Leglslatlve Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlahed und9r tM adhot'lty ot The Honourable D. Jeme• Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 56A - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 28 APRIL, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Prinlttr. Province of Mlltlitobll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affil iation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, a.c., Hori. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW. Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NOP NOP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NOP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NDP PC NDP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 28 April, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commi ttees Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 64,

An Act to amend The Marital Property Act; and Bill No. 65,

An Act to amend The Family Maintenance Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 19 students from the Fort Alexander High School. They are of grades 10 and 11 , they are under the direction of Mrs. Eyolfson and Miss Swam py. They are from the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Highways. There are 40 students visiting Winn ipeg from Welli ngton Juni or Hi gh in Nanaimo, B.C. and 40 Students of Grade 11 Standing from the Nelson Mcintyre Col legiate. They are under the direction of Mrs. Gates, Mr.

Bill Peckham, Mrs. Micheline Cawley and Mr. Peter Cawley. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Health. On behalf of all of the members I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Manitoba Hydro - foreign borrowings MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we were told in the Utilities Commi ttee this morning by Manitoba Hydro that the accumulated loss to date on foreign borrowings for that corporation amounts to about $85 million. I di rect this qu estion to the First Min ister.

The accumulated net loss to this point amounts to $85 million, the possible loss on the books is $320 million. In view of the foreign borrowing which the government is now un dertaking as a consequence of the unprecedented deficit of the government which is this year projected to be $578 million, what assurance can the First Minister give the House that the taxpayers of Manitoba will not be exposed to the same type of risk with the present foreign borrowings that are taking place? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the Minister of Hydro to deal with that question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, the term foreign bo rrowing relates to borr owings offshore and borrowings from the United States and any people who have been doing any analysis indicate that we do have risk in foreign borrowings in terms of differences with respect to exchange rates. Those risks might, indeed, be greater in terms of our exchange rate differential with the United States than it might be with other currencies.

The Government of Manitoba bases its borrowings on the technical advice of the staff of the Department of Finance and I've heard people on the other side of the House say that the technical staff of the Department of Finance provide excellent advice. They, indeed, followed that advice when they were in office. Mr. Speaker, we intend to follow the technical advice of people in the Department of Finance as to the best course of raising our financial requirements. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, this year within the additional $15 5 million of debt servicing costs which the government expects to incur, there is a figure of approximately $68 million of non-recurring costs due to losses on foreign exchange, most of which occurs as a consequence of borrowing in Swiss francs. The question to the Minister of Hydro, or the First Minister, is, how great is the risk to which Manitobans are exposed by being forced into these markets to borrow because of the extremely high deficits which this government is incurring? HON. W PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Turtle Mo untain has gi ven us a rather mi xed -up question. He is saying that we are incurring debts because of deficits, and then he complains about the Hydro debt and the fact that we've had exchange rate losses with respect to Hydro debt. Hydro debt - there's no relationship, Mr. Spea ker, to the deficits of the Province of Manitoba, in terms of departmental spending. I would have thought that the Member for Turtle Mountain would have been able to recognize those differences having been a Minister of Finance. What we are doing when we are undertaking Hydro debt, Mr.

Speaker, is building up the assets of the Province of Manitoba. So although we run some risk, when we do that, of exchange rate fluctuations, let me assure the people of Manitoba that the assets that have been built through the Hydro system far exceed the amount of debt that we have incurred against the assets of the Hydro system, and far exceed any of the exchange rate losses that we may have suffered in building that asset which is so valuable, not only for today, Mr. Speaker, but for future generations, to Manitobans. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister responsible for Hydro is indeed ill-informed about responsibilities within his own area; $19 million of the $68 million - 2165

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, if the mem bers oppo site don't wish to hear a basis of facts, upon which the question is being based, the Minister of Hydro said that costs related to Hydro borrowing do not affect the debt of the province. I am simply pointing out to the Mini ster of Finance, to correct his erroneous statement, that $19 million of the cost of this year's projected deficit relates to the borrowing of Manitoba Hydro. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The Ho nourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. R.

PENNER: The Member for Turtle Mountain says he's rising simply to point out something. That's a declaratory statement that has nothing to do with a question or question period. If he wants to make that kind of statement the opportunity is still afforded him in Public Utilities Commi ttee, and if he wants to ask a question he can ask it with a supplementary, and a

preamble that's app ropriate to it, but not to get up and say, I'm simply rising to point out something, which he did. That is not in order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, to the same point. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Hydro makes an erroneous statement, surely the Government House Leader does not intend to try and prevent members of the opposition from correcting those erroneous statements. A MEMBER: Right on. HON. R. PENNER: That's not what question period is about MR. L.

SHERMAN: You can't leave that nonsense on the record; we have a right to reply to nonsense. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Perhaps the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain would care to rephrase his statement in the form of a question. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that $19 million of the deficit, of the $578 million deficit which the government intends to incur this year, relates to foreign borrowing, to losses related to foreign borrowings by Hydro, and a further $49 million to losses for general government debt; can the First Minister tell the people of Manitoba to how much risk he is exposing the taxpayers of this province by continuing these types of borrowings? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the fact remains that insofar as borrowing by any and all juri sdictions, whether it be provincial jurisdictions, whether it be the federal jurisdiction itself; whether it be indeed from borr owings that took pl ace by the pr evious admini stration as well in areas such as Japan; in areas such as Switzerland; they did their share of borrowings in those jurisdictions as well, Mr. Speaker; there is obviously a risk factor and any and all recognize that there is a risk factor in regard to the fluctuation of exchange rates. But, Mr.

Speaker, to only identify the negative side and to ignore the fact that in Manitoba we are building the assets of the province; we are building our Hydro system; we are building our telephone system; we are building our hospital and personal care home facilities; we are building the wealth of the province, Mr. Speaker. Just as in any business operation, Mr. Speaker, in building assets there is risk, whether it be at the provincial level, whether it be at the municipal level, whether it be at the senior level of government. MR. B. RANSOM: A further question to the First Minister.

The last time that the government borrowed in Japan they announced that they had obtained an amount of money at a very favourable rate, and a short time later turned around and hedged that money at a higher interest rate in the United States. Is it the government's intention to hedge the present and the most recent loan taken out in Japan? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance follows the professional and technical advice of those that are indeed professional in this field.

He will be following that advice and will be forward ing to the Treasury Bench the benefit of the advice that he recieves from those that are technically skilled to deal with areas such as the area that the Member for Turtle Mountain has referred to. Once we've received that kind of technical advice, then we will make the kind of decision that is reasonable, based upon the technical advice received, and assuming responsibility politically for whatever decision is made at that time. Manitoba Hydro borrowings re Chairman MR. B. RANSOM: A further question to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Can the First Minister advise the House whether or not his Minister of Finance has been taking any advice from Saul Cherniack, the present Chairman of Hydro and former NOP member of this Legislature, with respect to borrowings? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would assume and I would trust indeed that the Minister of Finance is one that is open to the acceptance of views and opinions from those with experience, those with abil ity, would turn to the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro just as he would turn to many other individuals with skill and with knowledge in this particular field. Mr.

Speaker, it is recognized that the Chairman of Hydro does have certain expertise in this field. Mr. Speaker, it would be fol ly, indeed, on the part of the Minister of Finance to ignore the kind of advice in weighing the arrival at recommendations, the kind of advice that could be received from the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro. Cl-215 water bombers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. Earlier 2166

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 this week I asked the First Minister if CAE would be receiving the contracts for the tail assembly and the wing assembly of the 215 water bomber from Canadair . Since that time, Sir, it's been reported by Mr. Roberts that spin-off work would come to Winnipeg, among other centres. Can the Minister inform us what spin off work will be coming to Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister, because this was reported at the beginning of last week, if anybody in her department has been in contact with CAE, the General Manager, Mr. Woolley, regard ing receiving this contract from Canadair so that the workers who were working on this project in Manitoba can be put back to work on this job. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice, as well, but it is my understanding CAE is terminating their work here in Winnipeg, and that this does not substantially alter this situation. However, I will pursue the issue from that perspective. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, if CAE is terminating and do not intend to re-open to handle this contract, will the Minister be in touch with Ottawa, or people at Canadair , to see that this work that has been being done in Manitoba is done by somebody else, because the Federal Government could put the money here to set up the jigs which are here now; will the Minister, if CAE doesn't do it, be making representation to Canadair and the Federal Government to see that the work is done here? HON. M. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will pursue the question with all the ramifications suggested. Camp Shilo Report MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder if he could inform the House and the people of my area what the situation is with the lease between the Department of National Defence and the province with regard to the property at Camp Shilo, Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I app reciate the honourable member having given me advance notice of the question.

However, I can indicate to him that we've had negotiations over a lengthy period of time; as you 'll recall, we have required an environmental study to confirm the effects of the leasing arrangements with the military on the area. We have studied that report, we ha ve been in intensive negotiations with the Department of National Defence and will be able to report fairly soon the results of those negotiations. MR. D.

BLAKE: A supplementary with regard to the government's concern with job creation, the Department of National Defence, I understand, is prepared to spend something like $30 million in upgrading the buildings and other facilities at the base, as is, the German army are prepared to spend many millions of dollars there also on the training facilities. It would seem the sooner those negotiations are completed, the sooner there may be some work activity created in that area. Would the Minister give this his urgent attention and see that this can be completed as quickly as possible? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity to personally talk with Mr. Crowe of the Department of National Defence from Ottawa when he was in Manitoba negotiating with my staff, and I was pleased at the degree of co-operation that was exhibited in those negotiations, and I can indicate that I did express a concern in respect to all possible development at that location. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Could the Minister confirm to the House that the environmental study that was done there on the range site, is not the reason for the holdup in the negotiations of the lease contract? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, there has never been any particular holdup in the negotiations. For some reason or another, some people felt that time was of the essence in respect to these negotiations, the Department of National Defence in Ottawa did not feel that was the case. They agreed with our concerns about the sensitivity of the environment there because it is a unique environment in Manitoba, and they agreed that there are some environmental problems associated with the military use of the area.

They have been understanding and co-operative, and I assume the agreement that will be confirmed to the House will meet with the satisfaction of all of the people of Manitoba. Cottage lot increases in Provincial Parks MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct my questions to the same Minister and would ask the Minister, in light of the fairly substantial and large increases in the lease fees that will be charged cottage owners in the Province of Manitoba, I wonder if the Minister could inform the House whether or not he gave a commitment to the Cottage Owners' Association that he would talk to them about any rate increases and discuss the matter with them before he made such an announcement. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall making any specific commitment in respect to rate increases. 2167

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 I think it is necessary that we consult. Certainly there has been a very extensive consultation process in connection with the Whiteshell Master Plan and the Wh iteshell cottage owners ha ve had extensive opportunities to indicate their concerns respecting all manner of issues affecting them and that door is still open. I think that the cottage owners would be the first to admit that they have had ample access and opportu nity to di alogue with both me and my department in respect to the issues that affect them. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gather from that answer that the Minister did not promise the Whiteshell and District Cottage Owners' Association that he would talk to them before he effected any rate increases. I understand that's what his answer is. I would like to ask him a further question, whether or not the Ma nitoba Gove rnment, in the Parks Department, has set up a mechanism where people can appeal the assessments that have been filed on their cottage lots?

In other words, has he set up a process such as the Court of Revision where people can send their grievances or appear before any tribunal to indicate that their assessment is either too high in relationship to what other lakes are maybe being charged or what other cottage owners are being charged? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to confirm to the honourable member that I have shared the concern that has been brought to my attention in respect to the manner of assessment.

But I want to confirm to all members of the House that we don't assess the cottage, we assess the value of the land only, because it's only the land that we rent to the person who builds or otherwise has constructed a cabin or cottage on that Crown land. We have two types of lots; we have lakefront lots and second tier and third tier and so on. They're all, as I understand it, based on a fairly uniform basis of assessment. I've heard that there are some disparities in assessment and I intend to look ihto those.

I'm concerned that there be a fair method of appeal of any assessment if an assessment is considered too high. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of areas in government, certainly in my department, where it is indicated that the Minister makes the decision and I would like to see a mechanism where there can be an appeal mechanism for all of that kind of decision. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the fact that these assessments have now gone out and there are some people that feel that the whole situation is such that the fees are much too high, and in light of the fact that there have also been some comparisons made and there seem to be some discrepancies as far as the type of the assessment that has been provided, will the Minister assure this House that some kind of comm ittee or group will be set up which people can apply to, to try and have their grievances heard and that that will be done in the very near future? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I've indicated that I think that some formal mechanism. for dealing with appraisals and assessments should be looked at and I've indicated my concern to do that, but when the honourable member says that everyone has been subjected to a very substantial increase, I would like to set the record straight. In accordance with this formula of going to 2 percent of the market value, we will be 50 percent less than what is charged in Saskatchewan; we will be one-third of the assessed fee in Ontario; we are 50 percent of the fees that are charged in Riding Mountain. But Mr.

Speaker, in addition to that, because of the maximum being set at 2 percent, there are some cottage owners who are renting Crown land that will have a reduction in their rental this year, and they total some 35 units who will see a reduction from anywhere from $1 to $60 in their annual rent. Another 91 cottage owners will have no change at all. Others of course will receive an increase anywhere from $1 to $60 per year and when they attain a rental of 2 percent of the market value, then that is the proposed ceiling. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could inform the House what the anticipated increase in revenue will be by this move. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, it is in the order of $287, 15 7 in 1983, and I want to say, in addition, during the course of the hearings on the Whiteshell Master Plan, and that is the area I guess of the most concer n, there were submissions made that the prohibition of being able to rent a cottage in park areas be considered and that is one of the proposals that we are looking at, so that anyone that is in very difficult financial circumstances, if we adopt that policy, would be enabled to sublet his or her cottage and I don't think that the $60 per year, under those circumstances, if that policy is implemented, would be that terribly affected.

MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question to the First Minister and would ask him, in light of the fact that the Minister of Education ind icated the other day that she is setting up a Commun ications Branch within her department which is going to cost the taxpayers some $300,000 and will have some thing like seven people dissem inating information out; and in light of the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources and Parks has now indicated this new fee structure will bring in $284,000, which is some $1 6,000 less than this new group is going to cost the taxpayer and the Education Department; would the First Minister do away with that commun ication propaganda group within the Department of Education and then he would not have to increase the cottage lot fees?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eaker, ob vio usly, the honourable member hasn't listened carefully to the Min ister of Educa tion. The Mini ster of Education indicated that no additional monies would be spent, but inde ed there was a centralizi ng of the communi cations functions within the department; not additional monies, but a centralizing of those functions 2168

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 within the department that deal with communi cation to ensure that there is a better job of communi cating with Manitobans than was the case under the pre existing system that, really, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately did a less than adequate job of communi cating in a proper way to Manitobans. MACC - crop insurance contracts MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, or the First Minister, in his absence.

Can the First Minister or whomever confirm that the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation is requiring a personal guarantee from shareholders of corporate farms who are holders of crop insurance contracts for this year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Whilst the Acting Minister is taking that question as notice, would he also attempt to provide information as to whether those shareholders in corpor ate farms, because of a perfect payment record with the Crop Insurance Corporation, declined to sign the personal guarantee as requested?

Will the Minister endeavour to find out whether their crop insurance contracts will be cancelled this year or next year, and while he's at it would the Acting Minister of Agriculture find out if information that I requested some three weeks ago from the Minister of Agriculture on crop insurance contract payments of premiums is now available? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I will take those questions as notice. MPIC - life insurance and pensions MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the First Minister or the Mi nister responsible for the Manitoba Publi c Insurance Corporation. Mr. Speaker, it's been some time since we have had the Throne Speech before us, but the Throne Speech indicated clearly the government's intention to expand the role of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation into general life insurance as well as some pension programs. My question to the First Minister, or the Mi nister responsible for the corporation, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation of this kind during the life of this Session? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, that qu estion is presently under review. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Spea ker, I'm sure honourable membe rs oppo site will concur that should such legislation come forward it would surely be considered as major and very important legislation, the kind that the industry and the people of Manitoba should have ample time to review.

My question is simply to the First Minister, can he not give some assurance to the private sector, who are actively involved in providing that service in Manitoba, whether or not they can expect to see the introduction of that legislation during the course of this Session? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: If I could just relate back for the benefit of the Member for Lakeside, the Throne Speech indicated that there would be a study as to the feasibility of the entry of the Ma nitoba Publi c Insu rance Corporation into fields pertaining to life and pension management areas in order to more fully complement their existing portfolio. Mr. Speaker, that study, that analysis, is taking place. There will be not be time for legislation this Session pertaining to that as the study, the analysis, will not be comp leted for a numb er of months. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, it really works that much easier in the House if we are just candid and honest with each other. I, for one, congratulate the government for recognizing that this is a major piece of legislation and people, Manitobans, and businesses require time to adjust to it. It would have been easier if the First Minister would have just given us that answer in the first instance. Thank you. Hydrochloric acid spill - Waskada MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FllMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.

In view of the statements by the Deputy Mayor of Waskada that the only reason the town citizens were not endangered by the fumes from the spill of 12 ,000 litres of hydrochlori c acid the other evening was that the wind was blowing away from the town, and in view of the fact that the provincial officials did not arrive at the site for more than eight hours, does he intend to take any precautions or actions to ensure that there will be better protection from such hazards in future? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: Thank you, I think for the sake of clarification it must be noted that the Environmental Control Services did not arrive on the site because the officials that were on-site, which included local officials and others, indicated that there was not a need for them to arrive on the site until the next morning. They were enroute and, in fact, at that time it was determined that it was not necessary for them to come until the next morning, that the situation was under control. So that is, in fact, why they did not arrive for eight hours.

Of course, this type of issue goes beyond any one specific accident and certainly we have concerns about it. It's my understanding that the Emergency Measures 2169

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 Organization is reviewing emergency planning with municipalities in regard to these sorts of incidents and the Minister responsible may want to make some comme nts on what has happened in specific regard to Waskada. On the part of the Environmental Management Division, the government as a whole, we are concerned about this accident. We are concerned about the type of accident that occurred and how do we prevent major tragedies from occurring from these types of accidents in the future.

What we are going to do in this particular instance in regard to these sorts of dangerous commodities being stored around schools, around public buildi ngs, where there are individuals who may be sensitive to any exposures that are in one grouping, is to work with the Department of Education.

I under stand the Public Schools Finance Board or another body, perhaps the Minister, will be sending out a letter asking that school boards and principals review operations around their facilities to determine if they have concerns, and if they do in fact have concerns to forward those concerns to the Envir onmental Ma nagement Division, and we will respond with information and advice.

As well, the hazardous materials legislation and the Hazardous Materials and Special Waste Management Program, which is currently being developed, will in a large part enable us to provide enabling legislation to deal with these sorts of situations to prevent this sort of land- use confl ict which can resu lt in a tragic environmental accident from occurring in the future. Those are our plans for future situations.

Of course, we want to review where there are potential hazards now and to provide assistance and advice to groups which may be affected by those hazards; firstly, to remove them, if possible; and secondly, to ensure they know what to do in the event of an accident. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that, even had they pr oceeded im med iately, the provincial environmental officials, or EMO, could not have been there for a matter of at least several hours, probably four at minimum. At the same time, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that this ma terial, hydrochloric acid is in very considerable use because it is used in cleaning drilling rigs, and so it is available now throughout that oil patch area in southwestern Manitoba, and there are many towns and villages around that are in danger. What precautions and what actions will the Minister take now? We're not talking about future land use planning and all of that, the land use conflicts exist; what will the Minister's department be doing now to protect people against the danger? HON. J.

COWAN: I was in conversation with the Minister responsible for Energy and Mines, previous to the question period today, and indicated to him that we have exactly the type of concern that the member has just laid on the table; that is, that there are storage areas in that particular area of the province in some concentration.

He has assured me that he will be checking with the Petroleum Branch to determine where those sites are, and to provide recommendations for the clarification of any potential problems, and to ensure that proper procedures are in place to prevent or mitigate against these types of accidents in the future. In specific regard to that area, that action has already been undertaken and I would expect that the Minister of Energy and Mines has already, or will very shortly, be giving direction to his department to do that sort of a survey. I think that, in large part, will identify the problem areas.

Emergency Measures Organization Guidelines MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just to add to that information that was given, in terms of the role of Emergency Measures Organization. There has been a number of plans completed with various villages, and towns, and municipalities throughout the province, emerge ncy plans that have been initiated by the Emergency Measures Organization. In this case the Village of Waskada had not indi cated , although overtures had been made, they had not indicated an interest in an emergency plan up to this point.

However, they have indicated now that they would like to discuss emergency planning in the future, and they have asked the representative, the Emerg ency Measures Organization person that is stationed out in the Brandon -Western region of the province, to attend a meeting on May 4th to discuss emergency plans for their village. MR. G. FILMON: Well in view of that answer, Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Government Services, responsible for EMO, tell the public then what other villages and towns have refus ed assistance and the advice of EMO in coming up with an emergency plan, so that the public will be alerted to the areas in which they are in danger because there has been no co operation between EMO and the towns and villages involved. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did not say they have refused to discuss, they just had not indicated an interest when they had been contacted by EMO officials.

There are a total of 29 plans that have been compl eted, and another 26 that are curr ently in progress; there are a large num ber, of course, that have not comple ted those plans. I can give information on those that are completed, and those that are currently planning, and those that have indicated no interest to date, however, I don't know whether the House would want all of that information at this time.

I can tell you though that there are a large number that have undertaken these plans and are very pleased with the emergency plans that they have in place, and others, as the emergencies arise, certainly react in a positive way because they realize then that emergency planning is necessary and an important part of the local government function. I believe over the next while we will, of course, have more responses to the requests from EMO to develop emergency plans, and they will have more of them in place as we go along.

I think this is a good program; it has just started over the last year or so, so therefore, it is an ongoing program. 2170

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 Legal Counsel opinion re Attorney-General MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the First Minister in response to a question from me indicated that he would table in this House a copy of the opinion from Legal Counsel which justified the action taken by the Provincial Government in having the taxpayers pay the cost of an action against the Attorney-General. I would ask the First Minister when he will be tabling that opinion? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'll call upon the Attorney-General to deal with that question as it was taken in his absence. HON. R. PENNER: It can be tabled at any time, in fact, I offered that document when I spoke in this House the other day. That document, which is required under The Financial Admin istration Act, indeed, I thought was attached to the Order-in -Council, but if it's not there I'll table it in the House. Workers Compensation Board - offices, vehicles MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Attorney General then for that undertaking to table the opinion.

A supplementary question to the Minister responsible for the Workers Com pensation Board, Mr. Speaker. Could he confirm reports that the two new members of the Workers Com pensation Board which he appointed have been assigned offices to each individual, that those offices have been redecorated, painted and carpeted, and that those two new appoin tments have had assigned automobiles for their own use to them? Could he confirm that and could he advise us of the amount of the costs required or incurred as a result of those actions by the Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: Well, I can advise the member that they have had cars assigned to them, yes. I cannot offer detailed advice on the offices; I'm not certain if that has been the case or not, but I would certainly be prepared to look into it and provide that information to the member. The detailed information which he requests in respect to cost is something that I would have to find out and forward to him over a period of time. It may be best done, I'm told, by an Order for Return if that's the way in which the member would like to proceed. Garrison Diversion Project - deferral MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Mem ber for Lakeside asked me about the reasons for a postponement of a meeting of officials in respect to the Garrison Diversion Development, and the information that I've been given is that the reason for the deferral of the meeting was that Thomas Niles Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, who was to head the American delegation, had been called to a meeting in Europe and would be unable to attend.

The American group suggested that while they would be prepared to proceed with the meeting, with the more junior member of the Department of State heading the delegation, they would prefer to postpone the meeting until Mr. Niles could attend. So that is the rationale on the part of the American group for wanting a deferral of the meeting.

I might advise the House that in respect to a meeting of any further delegation, in respect to Garrison in Washington, I have held discussions, there have been conversations with the Federal Government and with people in Washington, as to the timing, the composition of a delegation and I will be giving further information to the House in due course on that. Workers Compensation Board - offices, vehicles MR. SPEA KE R: The Ho nourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Just, with permission, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the assignment of vehicles, a number of vehicles have been reassigned within departments. There is actually a reduction in government vehicles, overall, in the fleet this year; and in response to the qu estion that the Min ister responsi ble for the Com pensation Board was referring to, many of the cars that have been assigned new have been redeployed or reassigned within the departments and, therefore, have not added to the total number of vehicles. Workers Compensation Board - assessment on workers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Minister responsible for the Workers Compe nsation Board. Can he con firm that the assessments on emp loyers by the Workers Com pensation Board will be increased very shortly? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: If they have not already been increased, they will be increased, and when I confirm that I have to indicate, too, that the reason for them being increased at this time is that, over a period years, upon an analysis of the trend lines, it was found that, while assessments had been going down, costs had been goin g up, and that the previous Workers Com pensation Boards did not take into account the future viability of the Fund in determining what those assessments would be. So we are now at a state where 2171

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 we, in fact, have to raise the assessments; we don't like to do it, but it should have been done for the past number of years when it was not being don e and so, that being the fact, yes, they are being increased and, if the member wants to review the board report which we just gave to him recently, I'm certain he'll find information showing how the assessment rates over a period of years, a large number of years, have been steadily decreasing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Time for Oral Questions having expired, Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'd like permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a non-political announcement if I could? MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Earlier this month the Dauphin Regional Comp rehensive School, a team for Reach For The Top, won the Reach For The Top competition for Manitoba and we, in the Dauphin area, are very proud of the excellence that these people have achieved. Their team is made of Rob Damsgaard, Brad Day, David Lysack, John Orisko and coach, John Tkach.

We are very proud of the excellence, as I said, that these people have achieved and I want to, as their MLA, and on behalf of the Legislature and the people of Manitoba, wish them every success in the national championships that they will be participating in in Toronto next month and to extend our congratulations. MR. SPEAKER: Orde�s of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Community Services and Corrections that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carr ied and the Hous e resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Suppl y to be gr anted to He r Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Education; and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPP LY SUPP LY - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPO RTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee please come to order.

We are now starting Item No. 4.(

a) Highw ays and Tran sportation, Op erations - Hi ghways and Airpor ts, Mechanical Division. The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicates 280 SMYs in the Mechanical Division. That seems like a fairly significant increase. Is there a sizable increase there and, if so, why? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that's the same kind of an answer that I gave the other day on another item. We have 84 positions, but we actually were using 121. So, what we've done is converted them, I guess. We are showing it as it actually is; these are departmental staff.

MR. D. ORCH ARD: I do n't know if the Min ister understood me. My SMY information last year indicates there were 244 SMYs in Mechanical Division; this year it shows 280. HON. S. USKIW: There were 84 in departmentals, and we actually used 121 last year, so that gives you your increase. There is no change in numbers projected for this year, it's just that we're projecting the real num bers that were there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Does that mean that some of the reduction in the construction for term SMYs ends up in Mechanical Division, is that fair? HON. S.

USKIW: These were there last year, but they weren't accounted for in this way. MR. D. ORCHARD: Going back to '81-82, there were 244 SMYs. Are you saying that was the case in '81- 82, as well? HON. S. USKIW: I am advised that it was, yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's interesting because I never was advised they were there. HON. S. USKIW: Perhaps the member would want to recall that in the departmentals what we had was a global allocation of staff positions that we never reached at any time. There was a big reduction of that, on the surface, as presented in these Estimates this year.

I believe our total departmental was something like 796 and we've reduced that by 340. Tha t's in the construction end, but it's the same kind of thing. They were never really utilized, at least those full numbers were not, so we brought that area down to where we think it should be. I'm not talking about what the member may think, and that is full-time civil servants; we're talking about departmentals. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, then out of the 280 SMYs that are in Mechanical Divisi on, how many are permanent? HON. S. USKIW: Of that num ber, 16 0 are permanent staff. 2172

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: The status on the rest of them? HON. S. USKIW: 12 0 are the departmentals. MR. D. ORCHARD: That was the same staff that was there in fiscal '82-83? HON. S. USKIW: We had approval for 16 0, we actually used 15 8. MR. D. ORCHARD: In the departmental? HON. S. USKIW: We had approval for 84, we used 121. MR. D. ORCHARD: So you've added a number of approvals, but are you also saying that in fiscal '82- 83 you in fact had those people working there without approval? Where was the staffing authority coming from under which those extra 36 people were working? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the approval is in the global figure in this particular compon ent. We were using more than what was always indicated for this component. The member might want to know that these are hourly employees. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then that begs the question of where else within the department was that global app roval from which additional staff was drawn and given to Mechanical Division? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, we reduced the bodies in the construction area. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Well, then when the Minister indicated that wasn't what happened about three or four questions ago, that indeed is what has happened, because I asked that question whether that's where some of the depa rtmentals came from is from construction. At first, the Minister indicated that wasn't the case; now, that is the case, that there are SMYs from the global app rovals from construction that have been transferred to the Mechanical Division. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, again I want to tell the Member for Pembina that the global departmental figure was somewhere in the order of 890-some-odd which were never used at any time over the last decade and a half. So the transfers took place between that and other sectors and this is one of them. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is the Minister saying of those 890- some global approvals that any of them were ever filled and salaries paid according to them? HON. S. USKIW: Again, the member must understand what we're talking about.

We're talking about hourly paid staff, so the approval for 1, 000 persons may mean 2,000 persons for six months of the year, or may mean 500 persons that were actually utilized and 500 were not called upon. So it is just an estimate that has been used over the years, and it's a number that wasn't reduced till this year. We are reducing that number by 340 from 796 in the construction end, but the 796 were never used. Our peak utilization there - I don't know if I have that here; we don't have it on this sheet - I think it was around 500. Of the 796, there were 280 that were never used.

That 796 figure goes back many many years, back to '78-79, in fact, it's before that even, Mr. Chairman. It might interest the Member for Pembina to know and he has probably forgotten, probably knew but has forgotten, that lump figure of staff years was put in, in order to accommodate what was up to that point in time a fairly significant overtime situation. So some years ago, during the '70s, the government decided to allow enough flexibility by allocating staff positions so that there wouldn't be the overtime, but we never utilized the full amoun t that was authorized. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I am just trying to find my notes here. The increase in Salaries, we've got a situation here where accordingly SMYs have been seemingly allocated properly now. There is only an 18 - percent increase in the print over print on Salaries. Is it fair to assume then that even though the SMYs were not necessarily allocated to the department that the salary costs were paid by the department, because it would seem that if you've added 36 people you should have a substantially higher salary complement than an 18-percent increase print over print? HON. S. USKIW: The department advised that the dollars were there.

MR. D. ORCHARD: And paying for staff that was there but not according to past sheets assigned specifically to Mechanical Division? HON. S. USKIW: That sums it up, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, the Mechanical Division, over a couple of winters where we had no snow in a lot of the districts, were doing a first-class job of fixing up the equipment fleet. Instead of having the men do very little, they were doing a lot of equipment repair work; preventative main tenance maybe even accelerated preventative main tenance. In theory, that was an attempt to keep men occupied.

Instead of having them sit around doing nothing, it was good use of money. It should have, I would have thought, reflected itself in lowered expenditures in the following years and that doesn't seem to have happened. Was there not any benefit to doin g that accelerated preventative maintenance, if you will, for lack of a better term for it, that's what was going on, I guess, but yet we have our Other Expenditures related to vehicle and fleet maintenance still going up year by year? Was there no advantage to doing that two and three years ago? HON. S.

USKIW: Well, the member would note that the Other Expenditures increase amounts to $403,000, and that's for the increase in the price of parts, depreciation and the cost of additional units. MR. D. ORCHARD: I think the Minister indicated purchase of equipm ent. That properly would be under Warehouse Stores under Purchases, would it not? Where does the new equipm ent purchases come in? 2173

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the department advises that the 400,000 is a very nominal increase. I really don't know what's at issue there. MR. D. ORCHARD: I guess maybe this is part of the confusion that stems from what the Minister of Finance has derated me for attacking him on. The presentation of the Estimates changed fairly significantly this year, and under Mechanical Division this year, we simply have Salaries and Wages and Other Expenditures. Last year under Mechanical Division, we had Salaries, Wages, Other Expenditures, Equipment, Tools and Highways Build ings.

Now are we assuming that Equipment and Tools and Highway Buildings and Storage Yards, which were separate items last year and are now rolled into the Other Expenditures? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, then is it fair to assume that the Other Expenditures, which are the operating costs of the fleet, are adequ ate in view of, I understand, fuels and all your lubrication, everything of that nature in running the maintenance fleet, plus equipm ent, tools, build ings are all rolled into this

section with a 3 percent increase? Does this mean that we're going to see a reduction in the level of maintenance, because obviously with a 3 percent increase gl obal on the Other Expen diture budget, and having rolled in about $1 70,000 of Other Expenditures to make that 3.23 percent increase, are we seeing a Mechanical Division that is goin g to pr ove to be doin g actually less maintenance work in the Province of Manitoba because of the lead indicator that your Other Expenditures are down? HON. S. USKIW: No, Mr.

Chairman, the intent is not to reduce the level of maintenance whatever, although there is no doubt that we're trying to operate in a much tighter financial arrangement. MR. D. ORCHARD: I realize that the Minister is saying the intent is not to reduce the level of maintenance, but I can't see how he can get around the actuality of that happening.

I won't ask the question now, I'll wait till we get into Line 7, where we get into Maintenance Program, and I'll give the Minister notice of the question now so that when we get into the debate of that I would like to know what portion of that Budget was expended last year because, as I und erstand it, the Recovery

section under 4.(a)(3) is primarily recovered under 7.(

b) the Maintenance of the Prima ry Hig hways. Those recoveries from Mechanical Division are for the use of departmental equipm ent, primarily in maintaining the highways; snow clearing, gravelling, blading, salting, etc., etc.

I realize the Minister is making the case that it's not their intention to reduce the level of maintenance, but if last year's budget was fully expended - and I know the Minister knows what I'm going to arrive at - and this year's operating costs out of Mechanical Division are only up 3.25 percent where - fuel is just one factor, probably increasing year over year - and the Minister will have that figure - by probably 20 percent, that you are going to be running a Mechanical Division that's going to only be able to provide fewer hours of actual operation and maintenance of the highway system.

So we'll get into that discussion, Mr. Chairman, more fully when we reach Item 7 .(

b) and I just give the Minister notice that will require some extensive discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a)( 1) . MR. D. ORCHARD: Unless the Minister has a comment HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member's point is valid to some degree; however, he will have to recall that the increase in fuel prices is not going to be what was originally projected. Whatever increases there are, are marginal, by comparison, to what was projected to be, so we don't anticipate a problem in that area. MR. D.

ORCHARD: One final question, can the Minister give us now or later on this evening the book value of the fleet and a list of any additions of equipment that the department intends to purchase in terms of trucks, motor graders, front-end loaders, whatever, a list of equip ment they wish to purcha se this year? There's been a change in the accounting system. I recall that the department fought vigorously to prevent and lost but - (I nterjection) - oh, yes, that's going back three years ago when that change was made.

Could the Minister provide us with the information of new equipment purchases, etc., later on, or right now if he has it, and the book value of the fleet now? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, the undepr eciated value is now at $8,921 ,897.00. The additional equipm ent purchases throughout the districts - does the member want me to recite all of the items? MR. D. ORCHARD: Maybe a global figure, a total figure for the budget, if he would, please? HON. S. USKIW: I'll have to do that by district then, Mr. Chairman. District 1 is $54,000; District 2 is $30,000; District 3 is $40,000; the total is $850,000.00. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Possibly the Minister could pull from the budget the value that's being spent in the Northern Highways Districts, the Interlake, is that No. 9, District 9? HON. S. USKIW: District 10 is what we want. Did you want 11 ? llllR. D. ORCHARD: Yes. HON. S. USKIW: It's $87,000.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: And District 10 ? HON. S. USKIW: $92,000.00. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Those items can pass, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a )( 1)- pass; 4.(a)(2 )- pass; 4.(a)(3)- pass; 4.(b)( 1)- pass; 4.( b)(2)- pass? 2174

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the decrease in Other Expenditures, is that as a result of having that inventory management system in place? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, it's the non-recurring expenses for designing to the computerized warehouse storage inventory system. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, in terms of the purchases, that's all your parts, etc., as I under stand it, that you use. It was my understanding that one of the main features that inventory management control system was that you would be able to operate on a lower value of inventory.

I realize that purchases are going to go up in price simply to maintain the inflationary price increase of the parts, but is the department able to maintain a lower value of inventory on the shelves at any particular time and achieve the kind of savings that were projected when that system was propo sed some three or four years ago? Is the inventory of parts actually down because the system is working well? HON. S. USKIW: The inventory reduction that has been effected as a result of that is in the amoun t of $77 1 ,000.00. That's still a projection though.

It says will occur over a period of years now as the stock is reduced, as it's being used up. MR. D. ORCHARD: It said "over a period of years," you don't have a ballpark figure as to how long it is going to take - one year, two years, to accomplish that? HON. S. USKIW: The indication is probably by the fifth year we should have reached that. MR. D. ORCHARD: From this year. Well, that, Mr. Chairman, just in terms of interest alone, I suppose, would amount to more than that, pretty close to $10 0,000 a year. I think that's pretty close to the kind of numbers that were being talked about in the system.

This is an area that I didn't pursue vigorously enough when I was in the department, but there's a good service out of Carman that offers filter washing complete with a guarantee, etc., etc. They offer a pickup service throughout all of Manitoba. I think they have, as one of their customers in The Pas, for instance, Manfor is on it for some of their equip ment. The owner of this business in Carman made a number of approaches to the Mechanical Division to interest them in the service; it was always turned down and rejected for a number of reasons.

As I say, I quite frankly didn't spend the time pursuing it actively enough to possibly even require a couple of district offices to try the service to see how it would work out. There's 30-40 percent savings, and maybe higher, depending on the type of filter, the value of the filter, that could be achieved through this system. I know the businessman has some substantial accounts in the coal min ing industry in southeast Saskatchewan. Their savings were quite significant.

I wonder if the Minister - I don't expect an answer; well, maybe he has got an answer today - might make a note of that and see if that's been pursued lately and whether they could achieve some additional cost savings by pursuing that. HON. S. USKIW: We've made a note of that, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you. I think we can pass Warehouse Stores, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Warehouse Stores, 4.(b)( 1)-p ass; 4.(b)(2)- pass; 4.(b)(3)-pa ss; 4.(b)(4)- pass; 4.( c)(1) ? MR. D. ORCHARD: On Northern Airports, I note that it used to be called Airports and Roads and now it's simply Northern Airports.

Has the road maintenance portion included in here been dropped and deferred to another line in the Estimates, Mr. Chairman? HON. S. USKIW: I'm told that the minor roadworks in and around the airport settlements are still included, although it doesn't mention them by specific terms. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the maintenance of Northern Airports, I know was always a very very touchy subject because there was time to time, when we received compla ints in Winnipeg, that the level of maintenance wasn't good enough, that the condition of some of these Northern remote strips was not good.

Of course, with air travel you only get two chances, one landing and one taking off, and people like to have reasonably good airstrips. There is in here an increase in the Other Expenditures which I would assume would be the maintenance portion; it's only increasing by not even 3 percent. Is the Min ister at all concerned that the level of maintenance is insufficient to keep those airstrips in the kind of shape to guarantee safe use? HON. S. USKIW: Well, again, Mr.

Chairman, I have to say that I admit that it's a nominal amount, but we are living in a tight financial situation and we are going to attempt to achieve those goals. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, I know that someone in the government is tallyin g all our requests for more expenditure but, Mr. Chairman, on this particular item I was always very very sensitive to legitimate complaints about the maintenance of our airfields. If they were falling back, I took that with a great deal of concern because one accident could be very very costly in terms of human lives.

Also, some of these airstrips are used for medical evacuations, etc., which you can't pick and choose your time to land on them. So I offer no other comment than I hope that the level of the maintenance provided in this budget is sufficient for continued good operation of those Northern airstrips. HON. S. USKIW: One point that should be noted and it wouldn't be shown in the Estimates, but there is one additional airport added, and that's the Lac du Bonnet Airport has been taken back by the province. The former Minister must probably now why. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Is the present Minister indicating that the former Minister pulled it off? HON. S. USKIW: Well, I'm willing to share the credit if credit is due. I don't know whether that was under way at that time, but I have no problem with that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, no, I didn't mean that. I mean, Mr. Chairman, I don't need any accolades in rural 2175

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 Manitoba; they call me the king of the road build ers now compa red to this Minister, so don't really need any more credit, but I thank the Minister nevertheless. A MEMBER: Only in Morden. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Cha irman, I heard an interjection from the short-lived MLA from Springfield.

He might want to take time out from his commi ttee duties to go home and patch fences at home with his constituents for particpation at the flag-burning rally because there are some upset citizens out there that are not too happy with their MLA and he wouldn't have to worry about me going down the road next election. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Pembin a alleges that I participated in a flag-burning rally. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I would very much like him to clarify that remark and withdraw the suggestion that I, in any way, participated in flag burning, which is implied in the statement he makes. I was at a protest, but I was in no way involved with a flag burning, and any such suggestion implies that. I would ask him to choose his words a little more carefully in the future. A MEMBER: Sloppy with your words, Don. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind both mem bers that speeches in the Committee of the Whole House should be strictly relevant to the item or cl ause under discussion. The Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Does that include that interjections should be relevant to the subject matter, as well, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: It depends on who's doing the interjection. The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, if I can speak further to the point of order. Mr. Chairman, my interjection only related to the nature in which the member, who self-described, claimed he was king of the road builders. I suggested only that he was king of the road going down the road ever since November 17, 19 81. That was an interjection very much directed and relevant to his claim to being king of the road.

It was he who brought up the extraneous item which had nothing to do with roads or highways. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, are we going to get back to Estimates sometime this afternoon? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to go back into the item right now. MR. D. ORCHARD: Good, thank you. Mr. Chairman, we can pass Airports. We can get on to the Marine Services, if you wish. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(c)(1)- pass; 4.(c)(2)- pass; 4.(d)( 1). The Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, under what do we discuss Airports, other than Northern Airports? HON. S.

USKIW: Oh, you can do it right now, as far as I am concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister said that it can be done right now. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, I wanted to ask the Minister if he is currently developing a regional airport policy for Manitoba? HON. S. USKIW: Let's say that the spirit is there, the funds are not. MR. D. GOURLAY: I appreciate that comment. I am just wondering if the actual policy details are being worked on to be presented. HON. S. USKIW: There has been work don e by the department in that area, but we have not adopted a policy, as of this date; that's a matter that is yet to be dealt with.

We have some ongoing problems because there is no policy but, in any event, we don't have any money for that kind of a program this year. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, Mr. Chairma n, the situation, with respect to developing upgrading to the Swan River Airport, which was being brought in, in view of the serious forest fire hazard potential in that area, and at the same time a regional airport concept was being worked on. I understand that the Minister is proceeding with the upgrading at Swan River, but some difficulty because of the fact that there is no policy in place; is this correct? HON. S.

USKIW: We are having a total review done of where we are at, with respect to that airport, based on the fact that we really don't have a policy for what is, in fact, taking place there, yet. Now, there may be one, and I believe it desirable to develop a regional airport policy. I don't know how long it will take to have that developed. The Swan River one seems to be a bit of a hybrid situation, it doesn't fall into anything. We don't know just where to attach its responsibility. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, I can understand what the Minister is saying.

I think though that he will also agree that there is some extenuating circumstances in that particular part of the province, and that it is important that the water bombers can land at the Swan River Airport, in order to service the forestry area there in case there is another emergency situation.

However, having said that, this may create some problems in other parts of the province wanting some attention by the province to upgrade their particular airports, but I think there is sufficient extenuating circumstances in that area to support proceeding with some upgrading at this time, even though there may not be a regional policy established for the province as a whole. HON. S. USKIW: I know what the member is alludin g to, and we have money in these Estimates for continued 2176

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 work there, but it seems to me that we're at loose ends at the moment as to what our role ought to be there. It has to be more clearly defined, and the nature of the airport that we would want to develop comes into question, as well. If we're going to put any kind of money into a regional airport, and I believe Swan River is a logical location for one, then I believe the standards will have to be looked at from the point of view of overall provincial benefit, as opposed to having a airport of some special status for municipal airport commission benefits.

There is quite a different world between local airport needs and provincial airport needs, obviously, and we haven't defined that, quite frankly. MR. D. GOURL AY: Can the Mi nister gi ve some assurance that this will be attended to in the current year to establish some policy direction so that upgrading can proceed in an orderly fashion and eventually, perhaps, establishing provincial regional airport policy. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I did indicate a few moments ago that we are looking at that question, (

a) the development of a rationale for being that extensively involved in the Swan River Airport, and from that may flow other policy spinoffs, if you like, for a provincial regional airport program. At the moment there is nothing in pl ace that we can link that airport dev elopme nt pr oject to, so it's a matter of understanding where we're going with money spent on, large sums of money that is, on local airports.

If it's local airports then we shouldn't be doing it; if it's provincial region al ai rport s, then we need some clarification of where we're going with that, certainly more than Swan River is entitled to have some attention in that area. We're in that stage of trying to develop some opinion as to where we should be going. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Member for Springfield wish to speak? The Member for Pembin a. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, on the topic that my colleague, the MLA for Swan River, has just brought up with the Minister, we've already got a policy whereby we provide assistance grants to a lot of local airports, Swan River, indeed, being one of them, and we have additional monies that have been put into Leaf Rapids Airport in Northern Manitoba, and fairly substantial sums, similar to what was anticipated at Swan River.

Leaf Rapids for the basis, it's got pr etty unique circumstances, and that's why Swan River was being looked at and, I suppose, it takes a natural disaster to trigger government's awareness of a problem, and that's exactly what happened in the case of the Swan River Airport. We had a severe forest fire situation in the spring of 1980, and Swan River is unique in that it's quite a distance from The Pas, quite a distance from Dauphin, and also in the centre of some pretty productive forest preserves. We had to water bomb in the Porcupin es out of Dauphin.

Now everybody loves Dauphin, but it's just a little bit too far away from an airpla ne that moves at a 13 5 miles an hour, and that's why we annou nced the intent to proceed with development at the Swan River Airport, realizing, as the Minister says, and I recognize that it was a Ministerial decision, it was a government decision that exceeded, possibly, known guidelines for that kind of funding, but we did it because of the circumstances of the Swan Valley and that airport. The area is, indeed, unique and we have developed a fleet of three CL-2 15 water bom bers.

I think, we've got more provincial owne rship of those water bomb ers than other province except Quebec, I believe, unless other provinces have since purchased quite a few of them; I don't think Ontario even has as many as we do. Those are the most effective ways to combat forest fires, there's no question, in terms of aircraft combat of forest fires, and the Swan River Airport just makes so much more effective use of them if we ever have a series of fires like we did in the spring of 1980.

I know there were problems that we were running into, technical problems, in terms of the redevelopment there, and costs that were above what the department originally estimated and thought they would be, but I would hope that the Minister can proceed posthaste on that because the need is clearly justifiable there. Certainly the regional airport policy was one that we were looking at and trying to pick a major airport in, let's say, every second highways district, or something along that nature.

There was none that I could see that had the most favourable number of requirements that Swan River had throughout the rest of the province. There was Russel l, there was Morden, there was Deloraine, there was Steinbach, possibly, or Lac du Bonnet as major regional airports, and none of them had the unique set of circumstances that Swan River did. So I just offer those comm ents and hope the Minister can proceed with that policy development posthaste. HON. S. USK IW: Well, Mr. Cha irm an, the whole question of relating that expenditure to the water bomber is, indeed, nothing else but a question.

The information that I have is that we may never land a water bomber at Swan River. MR. D. ORCHARD: Not the way it is now, that's right. HON. S. USKIW: Well, even if we had a fully developed airstrip, in that the likelihood of the need is questionable, No. 1; No. 2, the installation of facilities to service a water bomber would be fairly expensive. A MEMBER: At Swan River. HON. S. USKIW: Yes. Anyway, we're not precluding it, I'm just highlighting some of the points that have been made. That doesn't mean that we don't want to look at Swan River as a very important area for a regional airport.

It has a daily passenger service and, I think, that's worthwhile from the point of view of where Swan River is located. There are many reasons that compel a posi tive attitude toward the continued development of that airport. I wouldn't want to link it just to the water bomber question because, I think, that would be the weakest link on which to expend $1 million-plus which it's going to take, in order to build the kind of airport that would meet reasonable provincial expectations. We have to develop a rationale somewhat broader than the CL- 21 5. Once we do that we also have to be satisfied that 2177

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 there aren't any petty local restrictions that are imposed on that airport, and I'm sure the Member for Swan River knows what I speak of there. We're not going to spend $1 million-plus and then end up with handicaps of operation because of some local problems that arise with respect to the use of that airport and the objections of one or two people in the area. We would be irresponsible to spend that kind of money and have some restriction placed on the airport's use because of lack of agreement locally.

All of those things have to be sorted out and, hopefully, they will be sorted out, and we have funds in this year's estimates to continue on with that airport's development; but we are not going to spend that money in advance of having some of the criterion laid down hard and fast and accepted by everyone, including the local people. That has to be dealt with, Mr. Chairman, but I want to, again, remind members that I believe that Swan River is a logical location for a good provincial airport.

I see nothing wrong with that, given its location, distance from Winnipeg, and there are a number of other such locations throughout the province. It wouldn't bother me one bit to have that one as the pilot, but we must do it in a way that is rational and makes sense from a provincial perspective. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.( d)

(1) MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, just hold it, we're in Marine Services now. Ho w many ferries do es the NO P Government have? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that under (d)? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, that's under (d). MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d)(2). MR. D. ORCHARD: I'm waiting for an answer, Mr. Chairman, as to how many ferries there are in the government? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister doesn't want to answer. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, he wants to answer. HON. S. USKIW: We have seven, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is that more ferries than you had back a year or two ago? Have you added some?

HON. S. USKIW: My understanding is we've mothballed one, Mr. Chairman, so there must be a reduction, is that correct? MR. D. ORCHARD: How do you mothball a ferry? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if that line of questioning is finished I have a specific . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, he isn't finished yet. Mr. Minister. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, we built one cable ferry last year so that's an additional. MR. D. ORCHARD: Where is that, at Cross Lake? HON. S. USKIW: At Cross Lake, yes. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Was it the Charlie Sinclair that was taken out of service because of the bridge, and is that the one that's mothballed? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, all the others ferries are deplo yed in the same locations they were before? HON. S. USKIW: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Are they going to be running the same number of hours, etc., etc? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not so certain about that, there have been demands for extended service in a number of commun ities; we have also initiated a new policy, and that is, the abolishment of fees-for service, in other words, there are no toll charges on any of them anymore, which means that any person has the option of using them as many times as they wish at no cost, no direct charge. In other words, Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that the ferry service is no different than the use of a public highway because indeed they are the highway of those communities.

When we build bridges over waterways, we don't build toll bridges in this province. Where we don't build bridges, we have ferry services, so we have decided to eliminate all of the fees which may change the utilization factor substantially, so we don't know what kind of enrichment will result, in terms of service, because of the no direct charge system that we now empl oy. MR. D. ORCHARD: When was that decision to drop the user fee established? HON. S. USKIW: Well, it's effective for this fiscal year, the current year. MR. D. ORCHARD: What's the reduction in income? HON. S.

USKIW: The fees that we're giving up are somewhere in the order of $50,000.00. There will be additional costs as well, so it's an added expense of probably $70,000 or $80,000.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then how is it that there is a $55,000 reduction in your Other Expenditures? How are you going to operate ferries, presumably with more scheduling, with $55,000 less? HON. S. USKIW: That $55,000 represents the savings realized by replacing a motorized ferry with the cable ferry, the Charlie Sinclair. 2178

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: That's very interesting that you're going to achieve that kind of savings. What the Minister is saying then is that - I take it you haven't set a

schedule for this year to know whether your operating hours are extended or any of the other requests for service that from time to time have been made in the ferry operation - you're going to be able to accomplish all this with a drop in revenues and an increase in expenditures because you're going to be running more schedules presumably? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't surprise me if this item has red ink at the end of the year. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then if it doesn't surprise you, you must have an idea of how much it's underestimated. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, given the fact that it will be the first time in our history that we are going to have service without toll charges, it is difficult to estimate the extended use that may be made of that system and the resulting extra costs, so we have to look at this first year as a bit of a pilot year. Next year, we'll be much wiser. MR. D. ORCHARD: The Treesbank ferry, is there a user charge on it? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that's operated by the local government. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Since then taxpayers in southern Manitoba are going to be paying for the operation of the Treesbank ferry, and now that the Minister has removed the user cha rge for ferries in No rthern Manitoba with the analogy that he gave us, is he going to comp ensate the mun icipal ity involved in the Treesbank ferry for the operation of that ferry as a result of his new policy in Northern Manitoba, and he'll be providing that policy universally across the province? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the particular ferry that the member wants to deal with has been and continues to be funded by the Provincial Government, by this depart me nt, and by grant to the lo cal government. MR. D. ORCHARD: And that grant has always been sufficient to cover 100 percent of the operating costs? HON. S. USKIW: As far as we're aware, it has, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr.

Chairman, last year a constituent of mine started operation of a ferry service from Thompson to South Indian Lake and there was some contact from myself and the constituent with the Department of Highw ays and Transportation, and the Department of Northern Affairs in regard to the specific operation, and also the more general question as to whether a government ferry system would be established in that area.

I'm just wondering if there's been any update in this particular matter and whether the department is looking, at sometime in the near future, of instituting a ferry service to that commu nity from the City of Thompson. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that's an area that we haven't concluded. It's my understanding that the Minister of Northern Affairs - and I have yet to further discuss that question. MR. S. ASHTON: I would certainly indicate my own support for such a ferry service.

The set up last year from the priv ate individual, although somewhat uneconomical in some ways, was certainly an excellent service and was used quite extensively by a number of people in the community of South Indian Lake since they do not have access to Thompson via highways during the summer, so there's certainly something they need out there. I think what is really needed is a combin ed operation with the Department of Northern Af fairs, and the Department of High ways and Transportation in terms of perhaps determining what the need exactly is and the best ways of servicing that commu nity. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, again, I want to tell the Member for Thompson that we probably concur with his sentiments, but I'm not just sure that I can recall where we are at with respect to the developm ent of that service. I know there's some material on file on it, material that I don't have here, but I know some work has been done in that area but I can't give him a commi tment as to when something might happen. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I think most of the questions I wanted to ask have been answered, Mr. Chairman, the fees being eliminated in the North.

There was a ferry service between Cross Lake and Norway House and the hours were a problem a couple of years ago and I wondered if new scheduling had been set. The ferry ceased operations at one time at, say, 10 o'clock in the evening and if you arrived at the landing later than that you had to sit there until the next morning until the ferry started, and I wondered if that problem had been eliminated. With the removal of the crew, if that's the area where you now have cable ferry service, I don't suppose that problem would exist. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised that problem still is with us because of the fact that we can't operate without lighting on either side, and that is not yet in place. MR. D. BLAKE: That's fine then, Mr. Chairman, thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I'm interested in the question asked by the Member for Thompson, and I would just like some clarification from the Minister as to what's being proposed in his negotiations with the Minister of Northern Affairs, or discussions with that Minister, because from what I take from the comments of the Member for Thompson what we're really looking 2179

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 at here is river transportation as oppo sed to an across the-river ferry which is the case in most of the ferry operations, is that correct? HON. S. USKIW: Not as far as I under stand it, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the details to be more explicit. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Minister can tell me how you get from Thompson to South Indian Lake by crossing one body of water.

That involves a substantial amount of river travel, negotiating the Missi Falls Control Structure into the Churchill River system or Rat River system from Burntwood and then into South Indian Lake. It appears to me that that is a proposal wh ich cal ls for the institution of river transportation as oppo sed to a ferry. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe anything of that nature is entertained at the moment. MR. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.( dX1) -pa ss; 4.(dX2)- pass. Resolution 99.

Resolve that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,853,600 for Highways and Transportation for the fiscal year ending the 31 March, 1984- pass. 5.(a). the Member for Springfield. MR. A. AN STETT: Yes, Mr. Chairma n, on the Government Air Division question, I have a question I'd like to ask on the behalf of the Member for Swan River as well as in my own interest.

When the Stand ing Commit tee on Agricult ur e travelled to Swan River for its hearings on the Western Transportation Initiative and arrangements were made to travel to that town, we were advised that a DC-3 could not land at the Swan River Airport that certain impr ovements were in the process of being made to upgr ade that airport and yet when we travelled by chartered planes at some substantial expense over the cost of a DC-3, we hact to take two planes instead of the one that would have been able to fly in otherwise.

I was advised by some of the people involved in providing that transportation that DC-3s land at Swan River Airport regularly and I'm wondering if the Minister can explain why the Government Air Division chose the more expensive proposal to transport the Legislative Commi ttee than using the DC-3s in that instance. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really can't give that answer. I'd have to take that question as notice. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a) - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the extra seven staff, is that for water bomber crew?

The extra seven staff, is that for the addi tional water bomber? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, yes, the member is correct. In the Estimates last year there were 70 but then when we brought the water bomber in we had Sup plementary Estimates for both the water bomber and the staffing of seven people, which brought it up to 77. So the level is not increasing this year over last excepting it was not in the Main Estimates last year. MR. D. ORCHARD: How many aircraft are in the Government Air Division now? HON. S. USKIW: We operated a total of 16 of which one was leased. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Can the Minister list the aircraft compleme nt? HON. S. USKIW: We have three CL-2 15s, the member is aware; one Pip er Aztec, 5-passenger; one 4- passenger Cessna; Sky Master, one 7-passenger; Citation. We still have the MU-2 which is not operational. We leased an additional 5-passenger Piper Aztec; five Turbo Beaver; one DHC-2 Beaver, one DHC-3 Otter and I mentioned the Citation. MR. A. ANSTETT: Have you ordered any planes from Canadair? HON. S. USKIW: Well, we might get a bargain right now. Yes there is a bargain on CL-21 5s. Well, there's a Piper Chieftain that we purchased.

We terminated an Aztec lease when the Piper Chieftain was purchased and the price of the Chieftain was $270,000 in Canadian funds. MR. D. ORCHARD: What's the Chieftain being used for? HON. S. USKIW: Essentially it's a 9-passenger aircraft and it does carry court parties, personnel and so on. One of the problems we had with the Aztec Pryor was that it was never large enough to accommodate a full contingent. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is the Minister contemplating any other aircraft purchases? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chair man, there is some thrust on the part of Natural Resources to look at the Canadair offer on CL-2 15s.

I don't know whether something will happen there or not or who is going to fund whatever does happen. I believe if we buy one we get one supplied by the Federal Government, so it's a lease arrangement. There is a subs tantial inducement there and it maybe that it may be taken up. Apart from that we have no idea of any other need for aircraft. The Chieftain, by the way, is also used as a patient air transport plane in Northern Manitoba. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, can the Minister indicate the approxima te purchase price of the CL-2 15 now? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I only have indirect knowledge of the new policy at the federal level of making them available to jurisdictions across Canada on somewhat of an inducement basis. Whether the Department of Natural Resources will take them up, I don't know, I can't be any more specific than that. MR. D. ORCHARD: It would be interesting for the Minister to find out, since air division is the one that must buy, staff and maintain the 21 5s, it would be interesting for the committee to have the Minister get 2180

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 a little more detail on that program so we could possibly discuss it later on tonight. The purchase price of the last two CL -215 s, I think, was around the $4 million mark, but that was two or three years ago now. The biggest cost of that is in maintaining your pilot crews.

It might be one of those offers from the Federal Government that, on the surface, appears too good to refuse, but if the Province of Manitoba must maintain those crews, and you pretty well have to maintain them year around, the standby costs of having that extra two water bom bers will be fairly significant to the province.

I don't know whether a fleet of five water bombers of that capability isn't more than what the province really requires, because we certainly had pretty good success with two of them and we thought, at one time, that the three would quite adequately provide forest fire protection, as good as could be reasonably expected from the province. You could go first-class and have a fleet of 10 0 of them and put out any fire in a couple of hours, but then that's beyond any province's budget. I would - and I know the Minister will do this - very cautiously view that offer from the Federal Government.

The upfront capital isn't often what kills you, as is often the case with so many government expenditures, the initial capital investment is often the smallest part, it's the staffing, maintenance and operational upkeep of an aircraft like that that can be really a drain on your provincial budget and they are used only for forest fire fighting. We attempted to strike up some kind of a deal with Australia in the off season so that we had six months of use down under when their forest fire season was on in their summer and our wi nter, and that didn't really work out.

I suspect that if the Federal Government is quite generous with the provinces, right now, no doubt they've got quite a sales effort worldwide, and probably any effort of a southern hemisphere exchange on those water bomb ers might have probably disappeared. They are a dead-weight cost all winter, they sit out there for seven months and our crews on staff, etc., as the Minister well knows. I'd hope he very carefully does the num bers on it. The MU-2 is not operational; it's been fixed, it's airworthy.

Is the department planning on flying it, again, or are they planning on selling it, or what's the plans for the MU-2? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the member is right; it's been restored to its air worthiness, no doubt. The market for aircraft is not a good market at the present time; hasn't been for a long, long time. It is an aircraft that's for sale, so it's not being utilized and we do not plan to put it back into service. MR. D. ORCHARD: I take it we're continuing to make payments on that aircraft as it sits on the ground? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. D.

ORCHARD: What's the yearly payment on that one; on the MU-2? HON. S. USKIW: About $90,000, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: There has been reports in the newspapers that certain people in the medic al profession have concerns about the use of the Citation for medical evacuation. No doubt, you are going to be faced with the request to have a specifically designed medical aircraft put into service and I think the costs on those are quite high. Does the Minister anticipate making that kind of an expenditure for a specifically designed medical air ambul ance? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the people that have commented and, in particular, the professionals in the health field, have commented on the fact that we don't have an adequate air ambul ance service. Really there should be a correction to that, and that is, that we don't have an air ambulance service and never had one. What we have is a Patient Air Transport Service which is quite different. If the Department of Health decides to enrich their program, which indeed would provide for air ambulance services, then, of course, that decision will be made in that department.

We will merely be the delivery department of that service, and so we have no way of pondering what the policy will be in that area. With respect to the CL-2 15 , the price of those aircraft are now $5.8 million, which is al most a $2 million increase, or a 50 percent increase over what they were a couple of years ago. The operating costs are about $350,000 per year; that's the crew costs. It is, indeed, a substantial commitment if we decide to pursue that national effort. Again, I leave that in the hands of the other department as to whether or not that's a worthy offer for our consideration or not. MR. D.

ORCHARD : Well I was involved with the purchase of both of those most recently acquired 215 s; one of them on an emergency basis, and the second one on a commitment. Now, when we bought the second one, we were very insistent on bringing some of the contract work to Winnipeg; CAE Indu stries had a contract for airflaps, it was a component of the water bomber and they made, I forget how many sets of them, for either 15 or 30 aircraft, and that was part of the deal that we struck with Canadair to purchase another water bom ber.

Is the Minister anticipating that, in entering this agreement, a similar - even though CAE is no longer in business, there are other aerospace firms in Winnipeg - is the Minister contemplating a tie in, onc e aga in, so that Eco nomic Dev elopment negotiates an offset contract if we were to enter into that deal? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is something that has to be taken up by whoever makes that decision, I suppose. If we do the bargaining we'll certainly keep that in mind. It's very hypothetical at this point because we are dealing with the question of another department.

I'm not sure how productive it is to belabour the point in this department at the present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a) - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Can the Minister provide a sheet - I know Air Division used to turn them out on a regular basis - of the hours flown for each aircraft, water bombers included. I don't want it today, but if he could just table that information for me so we can peruse it at a later date. 2181

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 HON. s. USKIW: I just wanted to concur in that, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, could the Minister also provide, as well as the hours for aircraft, the hours flown per department? That's a figure that the department draws up to show the departmental use of aircraft. As well, Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate whether he has any intention on moving, for instance, the air ambu lance or the air patient evacuation plane up to Thompson? HON. M. HEMP HILL: Mr.

Chair man, we've had discussion of that although, as I recall it, the consensus of opinion was that nothing would be gained by doing that. I'm not sure of the arguments that still prevail to move it up to Thompson. Mr. Chairman, the member I presume is aware, but I might refresh his memory, the Chieftain that we have purchased provides a shuttle service between remote airstrips, remote communities and Thompson. The Citation, of course, provides service between Thompson and Winnipeg per se, so you have a dual effort there on the part of two crews and two aircraft.

At the mome nt there is no service capacity for the Citation at Thompson, whether or not that's something that could be arranged for, I don't know. But in any event the logistic s of transportin g patients from Northern Manitoba to Winnipeg are that, other than those that are dom iciled in Thomps on itself, the Chieftain, while it's on its way to pick up the patient, the Citation is on its way to meet it at Thompson and so on. That's the arrangement. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr.

Chairman, the twofold questions here which we'r e lookin g at, in terms of patient transportation, in general, and also the station of the aircraft, I'd like to indicate that I have received a fair amount of feedback from my constituents on both these particular aspects. Perhaps I can indicate that feedback when we return after a supper break tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembin a. MR. D. ORCHARD: I would pass this item right now and the Member for Thompson could direct his remarks in Minister's Salary. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the Minister's pleasure? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I have no problem in either holding this item or allowing the member an oppor tunity to pursue this question even though we have passed it, if that is agreeable to the committee. They can either hold it or pass it but allow the member to make a few comments at 8 o'clock. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, we might just as well hold it then, Mr. Chairman. HON. S. USKIW: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour being 4:30, we are interrupting the proceed ings of the committee for Private Members' Hour. SUP PLY - EDUCA TION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order.

We're considering the Estimates of the Department of Education, Item 3.(a), School Gr ants and Other Assistance. The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that today we can enter into some rather compr ehensive analysis of the overall funding as has been determined for this year for the pu blic educa tion system in Manitoba, zeroing in on the level of support and the nature of the grants that are being given this year.

Can the Minister confirm the numbers that I seem to have put together in analyzing the material that her department has kindly provided for me that seems to indicate that the overall increase in expected spending by public school boards in the province is in the range of about $60 million over last year, and that her department's input out of General Revenues is up about, I think, the figure is $3 1 million, which means that about $29 million will be added to the property tax rolls in the province this year? MR. CH AIRMAN: The Ho nourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if we could have just a moment. The Member for Tuxedo has given us quite a few figures that he has got in a different form and it's just going to take us a minute to confirm the points that he's raised. Mr. Chairman, I think that, while they're working out one of the other final questions that the member raised, I'll say a few things in general about the level of support given by the province last year. As the Member for Tuxedo might be aware, the support given by the Province of Manitoba was one of the most generous in the country to the education system and school boards.

I'll just give you some of the percentages to show the comparisons. Saskatchewan gave a 7.3 percent increase; Alberta 5 percent; Ontario 5. 73 percent and Manitoba's increases was 9.3 percent to school divisions. On top of that, Mr. Chairman, we comp letely offset the impact of the 1.5 special ... Could you hold on just a minute, Mr. Chairman? I'm having trouble hearing myself talk. We gave a 9.3 percent increase to school divisions; we offset the impact of the 1. 5 Health and Education Levy.

We also maintained the inflation factor that was in the Educational Support Program, giving them an increase in their grants of 10.4 percent. We put an additional $25 million into the Educational Support Program; $2.5 million into Transporation; $5 million into Special Needs; and went up to $19 million in the Suppl emental Program. We had a number of goals in mind when we gave the level of support we did to school divisions and we achieved all three of those goals, I believe.

The first one was to give to school divisions enough money to allow them to maintain their programs and their services; and the second was to put enough money, from the province, to offset the impact on the property taxpayer, to the degree that we could; and the third 2182

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 .vas to take the money that we had and redistribute and reallocate it to special high needs divisions, schools and stude nts. I think when we go through the information that we have that will show the impact of the Supp lemental Program; the impact of the Small Schools Program, and the percentage increase that went in from the government, that we will be able to demon strate that the Province of Manitoba did more to maintain the education system in their province during a difficult year than has most any other province. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, com ments like, "more than others," and "makin g comparisons, utilizing the statistics," such as the Minister has, of 7. something in one pr ovince versus 9.3 in this province and so on, I think the Minister will agree that those kinds of figure are oftentimes misleading and one can't necessarily go on the actual figures in a relative sense.

I prefer to use the same kind of relative comparison when I look at education, which this Minister and this government have said is a very high priority with them, and I have some of the epistles that the Minister's party, in running for election, put together, with comments by her Leader as to their commitments to education, not the least of which was to ease the property tax burden in this province. We have seen, in two successive years, that there has not been an easing of the property tax burden as a result of the actions of her admi nistration.

When we use the figure of 9.3 percent, that includes the offset of the 1.5 percent payroll tax, so if you want to take that, then the actual is somewhat less; it may be in the range of 8 percent. I say to her that it's dependent as well on the actions of the school divisions, in other words, how much their spend ing pl ans increased this year versus other years. I remind her that this is an election year for school boards and if she looks at school board budgets in general this year, they're leaner than they are in many other years. Why?

Because school boards have to come up for re-elections so school trustees are a little less likely to try and put through large increases in budget, knowing that the province is only giving them a certain amount that they have set and that amount is, say, the 9.3 percent which also includes their contribution towards the payroll tax, and given that set of circum stances, I say that they have reduced their own expectations in terms of whether or not they want to do this, that or the other thing in their division.

The Minister alluded to the fact that in certain divisions where cutbacks have taken place, she's not happy with it because she felt they were jeopardizin g their programming but that was a local government decision and the Minister alluded to that the last time we were speaking on this particular topic. So I say to the Minister that we have to examine the overall picture.

So what I see in the overall picture is that last year the overall difference in requirement for divisions, the overall requirement was about $30 million more that they had to take out of the prope rty taxpayer - in fact I think it was greater than that last year - this year it's about $29 million and that adds to mill rates throughout this province. Part of it is added through the Education Support Levy, part of it will be added through Special Levies and I say that the Minister is not carrying through her commitment to reduce the dependency on property tax in this province.

In fact, she is not doing anything about that particular commitment. Moreso than that, I say to the Minister that the overall increase in spending of this government in its Estimates this year is in excess of 19 percent greater than last year. Education got 9.3 percent. How is that a priority in her eyes or in anybody's eyes? For her to get an increase that is less than half of the average increase given, in spending across the board for this provincial government, it hardly seems to me to be a priority item. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, I think that the Member for Tuxedo has raised a number of points.

These are very complex questions and points that are being made and probably take a little while for us to discuss them and kind of go back and forth on them. I want to clear up one inaccuracy that was mentioned in his remarks where he suggested that the 9.2 percent increase was inclusive. In other words, the 1. 5 offset was included in the 9.2 percent and that is not so. The percentage increase is 9.2 percent and school divisions will be given a compen satory grant that will completely offset the impact of the 1. 5, that is totally above the 9.2 percent increase that they received.

I want to talk for a minute about his point about depen dence on property tax. What he is suggesting is how concerned his members of the opposition are about the continued dependen ce and there are a couple of points that I would like to make on that matter. First of all, I suppose it is fair to say that the Education Supp ort Levy that was brought in three years ago that was a three-year program, didn't touch this issue. It did to a very small degree and as always, I want to give the members opposite their fair due for changes they've made that did have some impact. There was a slight change.

That change was that they increased their reliance on the Education Support Levy and in doing so decreased it on the Special Levy. Now what that does is it takes some of the pressure off some of the most disadvantaged boards and it does get the revenue from a broader base instead of the local school division base, so by changing the mix there they did do something to alleviate some of the pressures in some of the school divisions for property tax increase, but that's all they did. I mean, they did not deal with the basic issue of property tax reliance for the education system.

The basis for raising money continued and the elements continued to be exactly the same as they had been under the Foundation Program, except for the minor change that I just mentioned. I'd like also to comment on the number of factors that affect the mill rate at the school division level - and we know what they are - and certainly the amount of money that the province puts in is one of the major factors, no question about that.

We also know that their level of board expenditures is another major factor as is the disparity in assessment base which ranges in this province from about 7,800-7,900 to 23,000 or 24,000, a tremendous range and inequity in ability to raise money. But let's just look at the record of the governments over the previous years in terms of their level of direct provincial support and percentage of net expenditure put in by the province. In 1977 it was 47.4 percent; in 2183

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 1978 it was 46.6 percent; in 1979 it was 44.6 percent; and in 1980 it was 43.7 percent. In 1981 it was 51. 2 percent; in 1982, 54.3 percent and this year 54.4 percent. So, I must say that there are a number of things that we have to look at that tell the story.

That's only one of them, but that is a very important piece of the story where we are able to say that the percentage of direct support from the Provincial Government, which has a direct effect on the amount of special levy and the size of the mill rate has been higher this year, this difficult year, than it was in previous years and that we not only maintained what we did last year, but we even managed to give a slight increase.

I think that the other major effort made by this government to maintain programs and provide equity across the province and at the same time to reduce the inequity and the ability to raise money, which we recognize is one of the major deficiencies of the Educational Support Program, it's a Supplemental Program, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman that when you look at the supplements - what we did was we took $19 million I believe it was.

Give me some nods to tell me if I'm getting the right figures; $16 million not including Winnipeg, $1 6.8 million this year and allocated it to school divisions on the basis of need. For that need there were two criteria. One was assessment base, the di spar ity imba lanc ed in assessment; the other was the per pupil expenditures. I want to give you, first of all, a general

summary of what that program did. That program saved half of the divisions in Manitoba from being in either serious or very serious financial difficu lty. That information has come from the boards themselves where we know that the impact of the mill rate increases in those divisions had we not had the program in place, would have been serious indeed. I am going to just touch on the mill rate reductions in the school divisions. First of all, I think I said that the average of the mill rate increase, and if I haven't said this before, I want to put this figure on record.

The average mill rate increase across the province, using both Education Support Levy and the special levy is 2.4. The Supplemental Program offset totally that 2.4 in 44 school divisions, and in many cases much more than offset. I am just going to name a few of them so we can see the impact of the Suppl emental Program. Where St. James-Assiniboia got over a 4 mill, the impact was 4 mills, in St.

Boniface it was 9.1 mills, Transcona Springfield it was 10.7, Seine River 13 mills, Hanover 5 mills, Turtle River 18 mills; Garden Valley 9 mills, Birdtail River 5.6 mills, Turtle Mountain 14 mills, Kelsey 14 and Flin Flon 15 mills. We can give you the list. The range goes from . 1 up to, I think the maximum, the highest one not including districts whict> are a special situation, goes up to nearly 19 mills. That is actually an offset and a reduction in what the mill rates would have been in each of those divisions had we not brought the Suppl emental Program in.

So, that we have totally offset for 44 divisions, the total impact of a very small average 2.4 percent mill rate increase as a result of the program, and in many divisions have given them money that had they not had it, their programs would have been cut seriously. What would have happened if the Suppl emental Program hadn't been brought in last year and this year? It is clea r. School boards would have been seriously seriously cutting programs or staff, or the mill rate increases would have been phenomenal and unbearable for their taxpayers.

It is only because of the total increase that went to school divisions and the allocation of that money, and bringing in the special programs that helped in the major areas of deficiencies, small schools supplemental program, that they have managed and been able to both maintain programs and services and keep the taxes down. If we go for minute and just look at the farm and residential comparison of total school tax mill rate based on balanced assessment, it helps to tell the story about the impact of the Supplemental Program and the level of funding.

Where we have places like Agassiz with .7; Lord Selkirk with a decrease of 1. 6; Seven Oaks with a decrease of 1; Boundary with a decrease of 18.6; Red River 3.7; Rhineland .8; Morris Macdonald 1; Whitehorse Plain 3.9; Pembina Valley .7; Tiger Hill 2; Dauphin-Ochre with a reduction of 2.4; Swan Valley with a reduction of 1.1; Kelsey with a reduction of 2.4; Flin Flon a reduction of 1. 2; Turtle Mountain 2.

These figures, and we have them for all the school divisions in the province, these figures clearly show that the increase in mills on the local taxpayer are in many cases offset, in some cases reduced completely, and in most cases what could be considered quite reasonably modest mill rate increases that they expect to have or deal with in any year. I think that those are probably some of the areas that the Member for Tuxedo might want to go into a bit more. I think that we'll probably leave it at that. MR. G.

FILMON: Just so that we're operating from the same set of figures, was the increase in the Education Support Levy last year 4.2 mills? Am I recalling correctly? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, the increase is 4.2 mills, 2.5 this year. MR. G. FILMON: That's what I thought. So, we're talking about 6. 7 mills having been added to the Education Support Levy in the past two years.

If the Minister wants to make the case that because of her method of funding, this year's special grants ought to be compa red only to the increase of 2.5 mills, I say to her it has to be compared to the total increase of the last two years in the Education Support Levy. In fact, it's two years of increases that you're having to offset by the special levy. Not just one year, but two years because you already offset last year's once, but still is additive, it's cumu lative.

It adds to the base, and so therefore you have to compare what the difference would have been had you not added 4.2 mills last year and 2.5 mills this year. I have gone through that calculation and more than half the divisions are worse off because of that increase of 4.2 and 2.5, 6. 7 mills. Your special grants don't offset that amount this year for more than half your divisions, that's No. 1. No. 2, there was absolutely no onus or necessity on the part of the Provincial Government to raise part of its funds by adding to the Education Support Levy. That was not contemplated and that was 2184

Thursday, 28 April, 1983 not mandated by the program; that was your decision and you have to take the responsibility for it. Therefore, you have added, out of your wisdom and out of your desire to fund in a particular way, 6. 7 mills in the last two years. Now, that is just on the Education Support Levy.

You also have to acknowledge that in two years you've added a total of $37.4 last year and $29 million this year, for a total of $66.4 million to the real property taxes of this province by what I consider to be under funding and not following the integrity of the Education Support Program as it was contempl ated. That, Mr. Chairman, has resulted in real property taxes increasing in excess of 25 percent on average for school purposes in this province in the last two years. That's the cumula tive increase of the combin ation between the special levies and the Education Support Levy which you have placed on.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that is the problem, and that despite all of the other fancy figures that the Minister wants to use does not indica te to me any commitment or desire to lessen the impact on the property tax rolls of this province. In fact, this year on average the $29 million increase that comes out of property taxes is going to result on average in nine mills being added across the board in this province. Last year was something like 12 mills.

So the cumula tive increase between what you have added through the Education Support Levy and what is going to be added through special levies this year is going to be about nine mills. Last year it was about 12; you've added 21 mills across the board on average across the province for education taxation, education support. I say that is a problem and one that you're going to have to live with because that compares to our four years in government. It's been said before, the Member for St.

Norbert came up with a figure as it relates to Winnipeg No. 1, where the increase in your very first year of government was dou ble, the total increase in four years of 'Our government on the average house in Winnipeg School Division No. 1. That's a problem you're going to have to live with and no amount of trying to selectively use statistics is going to convince people that they're not paying as much in property taxes when they all know that they're paying a great deal more as a result of the manner in which you're handling education financing in this province.

There is not only a continued depen dence on the property tax, but there is an increasing dependence on the prop erty tax. The special grants are interesting in that they don't seem to bear any particular logic to them. They're made in response to a fire that comes up. You're putting out brush fires every time one divison seems to go up inord inately, bang, on goes another special grant. I'm only too happy as a representative of part of the area covered by Winnipeg School Division No. 1 to see their taxes this year alleviated to a certain extent because of the grants you've given.

I'd like to know a number of things: Where is the $5 million that's been announced? It doesn't appear to be in the Estimates and, if not, where is it? Is the $2 million in these Estimates? I believe it to be; I just want confirmation of that. That was a problem we had last year. Your $2 million grant didn't show up in the Estimates, and we're trying to figure out where it is. The other thing is where is the amount for the alleviation of the 1.5 percent payroll tax that you say isn't in the 9.2 percent increase, so where is that in the Estimates?

I'd like us all to be working from the same set of figures if we can. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, we have a question to ask. First of all, I'll give the answer to the $2 million. The Winnipeg School Divison $2 million is in there; it was in last year, too. It's under Other Support, as it was last year. The $5 million, we're not sure which $5 million you're talking about. You asked about where is the $5 million, but we don't know what the question is related to. Could the Member for Tuxedo provide us with that information? MR. G. FILMON: I'll have to check my files.

Can you tell me about the 1.5 percent payroll tax at this point in time? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: The Honourable Minister. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the payroll tax is being handled in Resolution 144 which is not under my Estimates. It is also not in the 9.2 percent increase, so that this is being handled outside of my dep artment. There is a line for it under Local Government General Support, Item No. 144. I wonder if I could make a correction because I think the Member for Tuxedo is searching for something that he will not find.

The $2 million last year came through Supplementary; it would have been in Other Support had it been in that bu dget. It came through Sup plementary Supply, and it is this year where the Special Grants are under Other Support. MR. G. FILMON: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, is there anything else other than what is shown under Other Support in the information I have been given for Winnipeg No. 1? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Is there anything else for Winnipeg No. 1 other than the $2 million grant? MR. G. FILMON: Right. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Sacre-Coeur has always been a Winnipeg School Division, but not other than that.

There's no special funding. MR. G. FILMON: Perhaps the $5 million : was looking at then was in the Special Needs Program category. Is that for Winnipeg No. 1, or is that spread out amongst various divisions? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Chairman, it's not for Winnipeg No. 1. It is the increas

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-56a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 56a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	74df2b038d7b32d515040b3b04fcc4b08b3b2de6

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