Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 11B (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-11b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thur sday, 11March, 1982 Time - 8: 00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY- NATURAL RESOURCES CHAIRMAN, Mr. Harapiak {The Pas): We are pres ently on 4.(a) (1). Mr. Minister. MR. MACKLING: Thank you, Mr. Chairma n, I would like the Comm ittee to recogn ize the staff that I have here.

Some of you earlier were wondering about the Ass istant Deputy Min isters and other staff and I will introduce them: on the far left, Dale Stewart, Assist ant Deputy Min ister; at the far end, Derek Doyle, Dep uty Minister; Bill Podolsky, you met earlier; Nick Car ter you met earlier; and in the hot seat here with me is Tom Weber. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on 4.(a) (1). The Honour able Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. HARRY ENNS {Lakeside ): Mr. Chairma n, among the major conc erns that the Water Resources people have had before them over a numb er of years is, of course, the whole matter of Garrison.

I would like to invite the Minister to indicate to the Comm ittee at this time a numb er of specific items resulting about which we have heard some general govern ment annou nce ments. I specifically would like to know insomuch as we are dealing with the Estimates where is the funding that has been pu blicly annou nced to the Anti-Garrison Lobby Group coming from? Is it in this appropriation or is it coming out of Executive Council' s appropria tion?

I would invite the Min ister to take this occa sion to flush out in greater detail some of his recent dis cussions that he has had in Ottawa and also to indi cate to us precisely what this greater presence in Washington, or Manitoba presence in Washington, how that is going to func tion? I am, of course, spec ifi cally interested in whether or not the department either in this appropriation or in some other area of his approp riations is providing the funds and if they are clearly identified as such. MR. MACKLING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Memb er for Lakeside for his commen ts.

There is not a great deal further by way of specific that I can indicate to mem bers in respect to the arrangement s at this date with the Federal Gove rnment. We have been in almost daily contact with the Federal Govern ment with conv ersations and correspo ndence back and forth conf irm ing the nicety of the detail in conne ction with our arrangemen ts. I am hopeful that tom orrow optim istically, Monday certainly I think, that we should be in a position to conf irm the nature of the agreement we made with Ottawa in respect to the arrangeme nts for a presence in Washington dealing with Garriso n.

We are reasonably certain that in those arrangement s it will have a twofo ld effect; we will be able to work clo sely and ensur e that Ottawa is work ing along with us in respect to Garri son, and yet we will have a 32 0 separate identical presence in Washi ngton on Garrison. One of the things that we mus t do is work as a team in respect to Garriso n. When I say that, I'm talking not just about the Federal Govern ment and the existing Man itoba Govern ment, I' m talking about the Of ficial Opp osition in this Legislature. I' m talking about all the parties in Ottawa.

Now, I don't think we've made any secret of the fact that we expect that there will be all party parliamentary representation involved in sub missions in Washington. There has been some dis cussion about that pro and con in the press from the federal side, but I think that the Federal Government will be qui te in favour of that kind of effort. Simi larly, I can see no reason, I see every advantage for all party representation from this Ho use in respect to our efforts in Washington respect ing the Garrison Pro ject.

This is an issue that - sure it's political, it's an important issue - but it's one that crosses political boundaries. I' m sur e that the memb ers of the previous administration reflected the concerns of Manitobans when they spoke out in con nection with this devel opment. There needs to be mor e pu blic ity within Manitoba on this qu estion and we are work ing to that end.

We've established an office here in the building, as mem bers know, and we are going to be spending some funds in respect to providing, if you would call a public ity ou treach camp aign, to inform Man itobans mor e particu larly what our concerns are in respect to Garrr ison. One of the things that I think we mu st do and I don't think there is suffi cient research into the que stion of the foreign biota affecting our fresh water fisheries, and we will have to address that problem. In respect to the funding of Garr ison, we haven't a line in the Estimates on that issue.

We are hopeful that we'll be able to develop programs at a very reasonable cost, and I've been discus sing that matter with Mr. Carter - as a matter of fact, as late as half-an-hour ago. Representation in Washington is expensive but then if we work out the details right, we want to make sure that we get the best for every dol lar we spend. There isn't a separate line in the Estim ates. We didn't know what to budge t here qu ite frankl y, because while we want to be very effective, we want to be very prudent in our spending.

We're confident that there's enough slip page or base within the Estimates to deal with this. How ever, there is - and I certa inly cleared this with my colle agues - the vehicle of Supp lemen tary Supply for this. It is somethi ng that we couldn' t put a precise figure on until we'd worked out arran gement s. It is not going to be a horrendous amount of mon ey in any event, but as I indicated in my remarks in the Legislatur e, I cannot see this as a lim ited pro gram. It's not going to be just this year that we will be conc erned with Garrison.

The development down there is a phase development, a long- range develop ment, and they have part of that development in place and even though the appropriations in the American Govern ment maybe forestalle d or aborted by our efforts at certain stages, it does not mean that propo nents of the project are going to give up. They have a plan, they have a scheme and they are going to work towards the fulfillm ent of it. So, as I see it, it's not this

Thursday, 11March, 1982 year only, it is going to be this year and next year and who knows how long after that. So we don't have a line in the Estim ates on it, but I make no apology for that, because we coul dn't quan tify that with prec ision and, in any event, it won't be a huge amount of mone y in our expectation. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, while I have some other qu estions I would ask the Comm ittee to allow me to defer to my colleague, the Memb er for Turtle Moun tain, for some further specific qu estions on the same su bject matter. oeM R. CHAI R MAN: The Member for Turtle Moun tain. MR. A.

BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Min ister could elaborate on what he meant by separate identical presence in Washington, and although he acknowledges that there is no specific line for expenditures here, I believe that it previously had been stated in the press that it could cost at least $1 50,000 to establish an office in Washington, and I note his reference to research being requi red as well. Would it be poss ible that the amount of mone y be req uired could be in the range of a qu arter-of-a-million dollars? MR. MACKLING: In dealing with the concerns in reverse order, Mr.

Chairman, the figur e of $1 50,000, I don't know where that comes from. That is not within my best gu esstimate. I would think that in this Bud get year we would n't be spending that mu ch; at this stage our arrangement s aren't such that I can be certain as to the figures so I won't spec ul ate on that, but I don't conceive of it being $1 50,000, som ewhat less than that, hopefu lly a great deal less than that, but I don't want to gu ess on the amount because the arrange ments are not comp lete.

In respect to my words, I don't think I indicated identical presence, a separate presence in Washington and I say that with delibera tion because in our discussions with the Federal Government, the Federal Government's conc ern was that the Federal Government is charged with enforce ment of International Treaty rights. They are the govern ment that is politically constrained to repres ent the interests of Canada in the enforce ment of those Treaty rights.

They are, I think, jus tifiably con cerned that the province would proliferate interna tional presence and it is no secret that they have been concerned about the separate international presence of representatives to the Province of Quebec.

It's not merely a jealous gu arding of their jurisdic tion as I con ceive it because in our discussions with the Federal Ministers they were genuinely conc erned to fight Garrison and to bend every effort from the federal position to advance the right that we are defending, but in our indication, we have said that with Ottawa we want a separate presence and we're going to have a separate presence in Washington.

We've used the word "office," really, we don't want to be hung up about the word "office"; we want people work ing in Washington for the people of Manitoba to ensure that we have people making representation there and looking out for our interests. Not that we don't trust that the Federal Govern ment is going to be doing somethi ng, but we do want to have people 32 1 responsible to us so that we can get a direct feedback and have some direct initiative as to what is being done in Washington on our behalf. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister iden tify then what areas of failing that there were in the actions taken by the Department of External Affairs in years past? What exactly is it that is going to be done now that was not being done before? MR. MACKLING: I woul dn't highlight any particu lar failure on the part of the Federal Govern ment. I don't think that I would necessarily say they failed in Manit oba's interests. They have a diversity of conc erns in respect to international matters between Canada and the United States.

They are heavily engaged in the concerns about poll ution of international waters, boun dary waters - if I can say international waters in the Great Lakes - concerned about acid rain pollu tion and they have, I think, an ongoing difficulty in respect to the American Government and administra tion in respect to policies in Canada that have caused some irritation in the United States, energy policies, amon gst one.

They have ongoing concerns in respect to trade balances and, for our part, we are concerned that in this great range of proble ms that the Federal Government has, where they have to have initiatives dealing and treating with the American Govern ment that Garrison be not the small issue that doesn't get the attention it deserves. That's why we were anxious that we have a presence in Washington, not that we're accu sing the Federal Govern ment of failur e.

I could n't docu ment that, but I think there's a feeling, an assess ment, on the part of Manitobans that we want to make sur e that a job is being done there and to do that, we should have a presence there in Washington. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could advise us then on where he or his department has received advice as to the necessity of this kind of representation, because it strikes me that there has been some confusion - at least there has been con fusion in my mind - because the information that I have, to a great extent, been gl eaned from the media.

I know that at one point it was promised that Manitoba would have an office in Washington and it was to be established with the fu ll co-oper ation of Ottawa External Affairs. The next report was that Ministers from Ottawa were conc erned that this was going to go ahead and then subs equently you and the Minister of Natural Resour ces and the Minister of Environment went to Ottawa, and there now seems to be some kind of an agreement coming clo se, but I gather the Mi nis ter still has conc erns that he thinks can best be dealt with by a separate provincial presence.

I'm just wond ering where that advice came from. MR. MACKLING: I can't indicate where the advice came from. I think that the New Democratic party, dur ing the course of the elec tion, and certainly there was a consensus of viewpoint that mu ch more had to be done in con nection with presenting Manitoba's opposition to the Garrison development. It is known that the Federal Government seemingl y was not alw ays aware of developments taking place in Wash ington, changes in appropriations. Not pointing a fin-

Thursday, 11 March, 1982 ger at anyone, it's a matter of utmo st conc ern to Man itobans that an effective oppos ition be registered in respect to the Garrison qu estion. I don't think it's productive at this stage, Mr. Chairman, and col leagues, to point fingers at anyone, either the past administration in this province or Ottawa or anyone else, and that will not be my position. My conc ern is that we act now and act as pru dently but as decisively as we can to effectively oppose this development. MR. RAN SOM: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that there is no effort on our part to direct blame towards any body.

This happens to be, as we all recog nize, a cru cial issue as far as the interests of Man itoba are con cerned, and over the years there have been positions adopted, they were adopted by the Schreyer govern ment and they were foll owed to a great extent by the Conservative administration. Certain actions were taken and others were not taken because of the pos sibility of weakening the position that the province was taking.

I understand now that the province will be taking a different route than they had been taking before and therefore I think it is perfectly in order to ask for some justification as to why that route has been changed because should the route of action that's being proposed fail for the reasons that have been thought about and discussed for several years, then of cour se the ul timate result would be very serious for Manitoba.

That's why I ask that qu estion, whether it's action that's being taken on the basis of some knowledge of the situation or whether it's being one that's taken on simply the basis of appearing to be necessary to create mor e activity. Perhaps I could ask a couple of spec ific qu estions, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Alan Scarth, a lawyer for Manitoba whom is well known to many people and had been involved in the Garrison issue from its very first days - I believe he was probably one of the first people to bring the issue to the attention of the govern ment - had served as an adviser to me when I was Minister of Natur al Resour ces and had conti nued on as an adviser to the Member for Lakeside when he was Minister of Natural Resour ces. I' m just wondering if Mr. Scarth is still retained by the government? MR . MACKLING: Deal ing with the qu esti ons in reverse order again or the observations in reverse order, Mr.

Chairman, in respect to Alan Scarth, Alan Scarth is no longer cou nsel in respect to the Garrison matter. We have em ployed a yo ung lawyer, Barry Bergh with the firm of Pitblado & Hos kin, who is an environmental lawyer of high cali bre. We've had and contin ued to enjoy a good relationship with Mr. Scarth whom we expect to from time to time assist us in the event that there is an area in which he can be of assistance to us. There is no difficulty in our change in that arrangement, so far as either this govern ment or Mr. Scarth is conc erned, not to my knowledge.

In respect to the conc ern about what causes a change, well, I guess this can be very subj ective, Mr. Chairman, but we know that for a time it appeared that Garrison was halted; that changed. Litigation that had been taken by interest group s in the United States had been effective for a time. That has changed. We know that the administration in Washington has changed and with that change there seems to be mor e sym- 322 pathy for the propo nents of the Garrison Project. We are conc erned that we mu st do more than merely co mmu nicate with Ottawa asking them to defend our rights.

I think we have to demo nstrate to Ottawa that we are con cerned with this issue to the point where we're prepared to meet with them on such basis as is necessary to initiate a presence for the province in Washington to join in the fight against this develop ment. I think that it's fair for me to say that the Federal Govern ment is not hostile to this; fairly welcomes our initiatives. MR. RANSOM: Let me just put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that during the period of our administra tion we had excelle nt co-oper ation with the Federal Gove rnment, the Department of External Affairs, through Mr.

Scarth as the legal adviser and, indeed, the co-ord inator of our activities. We were in touch on many occasions on a daily basis with Mr. George Rejean in the External Affairs Office in Washington and had established what we felt to be was an excel lent line of com mun ication that gave us very timely informa tion, all owed us to take actions - I use the term "threats" in the terms of actions being taken - that could be threatening to Man itoba's interest. We were able to respond to those or react to them actually in advance because we had established that kind of relationship.

I know that was follow ed by the previous Schreyer administration, that sort of direct relation ship with the Federal Government. It concerns me a little bit, that I see some changes in the attitudes of some of the actors that are involv ed in this. When Mr. Axworthy was the Member for Fort Rouge he had som ewhat of a different position and in listening to the Min ister's respo nse here tonight, Mr. Chairman, I alm ost think that he tends to be mor e taking the position now that Mr. Axworthy used to take, and Mr. Axworthy seems to be taking the posi tion that the previous Schreyer administration used to take.

I migh t ask the Minister if he would be at all in agreement with this statement that Mr. Axworthy made on Ma rch 2, 19 77. Ad ebate was taking place on a resolution in the Hou se and Mr. Axworthy said and I quo te, " ... but sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the correct thing is not enou gh, sometimes you have to be tough , and some times you have to be unruly, and sometimes you have to be mad, and simply being correct and proper in procedure might be okay if you 're a debu tante going to a ball. But, Mr.

Speaker, we are not going to a ball on this one, we are in a hell of a political fight and if these gu ys across there don't recogn ize it, then I think we are going to lose the problem. " I'm wondering what the Minister's reaction would be to that sort of sentiment. MR.

MACKLING: Well, I think if the honourable mem ber was listening to what I said in this Ho use recently I indicated that I though t that our resistance to the Garrison Project would not be an easy matter, that it would be a tough fight and a protracted one, but that is not to indicate that I think the opponents of Garrison have to be un ruly and mad. You know , when you are mad, if you look in the dictionary you are in grave trou ble, because you are not in possessi on of your senses. I don't think we want to lose our cool in connection with our opposition. We have to be rational

Thursday, 11March, 1982 and decisive and forthright, thorou gh, yes tough, but understanding of the American position but deliber ate and dedicated in our interest to protect our envir onment. I disassociate with myself and anyone who sugge sts that we are goi ng to be un ruly and mad. We are going to be tough, yes. MR. RANS OM: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, there isn't really a change in position, maybe that is what the Minister is going to announce in a day or two.

Perhaps if I quo ted from one or two resolutions that the House had previously passed and the statements that had been made by memb ers of the New Democratic party previous ly, perhaps the Minister would indicate then that really the position hasn' t changed. For instance, the resolu tion that was passed in 19 77 said, among other things, that this gov ernment confi rms and endorses these steps taken by the Govern ment of Manitoba desig ned to place the province in the most favourabl e position before the International Joint Comm ission namely: (

a) In con tinued use of reasonable diplomatic means to deal with this problem and in obtaining progress through the use of such means; (

b) On the same resolution was in maintaining soli darity with and not under mining the Canadian Gov ernment in its external relations. Then, Mr.

Chairman, of course, the House, jus t two years ago, passed another resolu tion where it ended up this resol ution, by the way, was proposed by the present Premier - "THERE FORE BE IT RE SOLVED THAT this House sup port the action of the Manitoba Gov ernment and calls up on the Govern ment of Can ada to take whatever action is necessary to prevent the expenditure of fur ther funds on the Garri son Diversion Project until such time as the outst anding bilateral issues relating to this project are resolv ed." That was the resolu tion of two years ago. Then there were statements made by Mr.

Bostrom , both when he was Minister of Natural Resou rces in 19 77 and again when he was a memb er of the Op posi tion two years ago, and I qu ote those - on March 2, 19 77, he said: "I mu st say, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the position of the Manitoba Gove rnment, I believe that the Honou rable Minister of Mines has taken the correct and appropriate action in this respect.

He has followed the normal gov ernment channels through the Department of External Affairs to have the province's concern raised to the Govern ment of the United States and we are hanging the claim for ou r protection on the International Bou ndar ies Agr eement." Then fur ther, Mr . Chairman, "We are of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the policy and the program that we have pur sued is one which, whether ulti mately successful or not, will achieve the most favourabl e results. We have never had alternative pol icies sugge sted to us which we felt would be more advantageou s." He goes on, Mr.

Speaker, "It was also sug gested to us by various environmental groups that we ally ou rselves and actively sup port groups in Can ada who wish to joi n with groups in the United States who are urging a "Stop the Garris on prog ram" in the United States. We pointed out corr ectl y that it would be fatal to our position to be involved in the internal politics of the United States and that we would only oppose the Garrison insofar as it affected the Red and 323 Souris Rivers." Those were statements by Mr . Bos trom in 19 77 when he was Minister. Then jus t a fu rther short quo tation, Mr .

Chairman, that was made by Mr . Bostrom when he was the Member for Ru pertsla nd and this was the 29th of May, 19 80 follo wing a statement made by the First Minister conce rning co mmun ication with Cong ress at the time. Mr. Bostrom at the time said, "I would think, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this announcemen t that closer co-operation with the Canadian External Affairs Department wou ld be more valuabl e than the Prov ince of Manitoba attempti ng to put the case forward on its own.

"Further he said, "I would hope that the Prem ier and the Gov ernme nt of Manitoba is not simpl y attempting to gr andstand on this issue"; and further, a qu ote again, "The Garrison Diversion Pro ject is such a dangerous project to Manitoba that there should be no hesitation by govern ment of any stripe to deal in co-operation with the Federal Gov ernment in order to more effectively oppose this kind of measure rather than attempting to do it on a province basis.

One province means very little to the Government of the United States, but the Govern ment of Canada means a lot mo re, Mr Speaker." I would jus t ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he would anticipate that his announc ement within the next day or two would in any way mark a departure from the policies that were previou sly undertaken by a New Democratic Party Gov ernment and representatives of the New Demo cratic Party in opposition? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, and coll eagues, one will have to await the announcement for that evalua tion to be made and I could n't mak e that evalua tion.

You will make the evaluation after the announcement is made. In respect to the qu otations that you have cited of former Ministers and ML As and mem bers of this House, I have no quar rel with those statements. There is no qu estion but that this is an international issue and our Federal Govern ment is charged with the responsibility.

However, in matters that directly affect our pro vince, we are entitled, we are obligated I think as a gove rnment to be interested to the point where not only are we going to co mmunic ate with Ottawa, as we have and visited with Ottawa, but we are going to endeavou r to work as closely as possibl e with Ottawa to ensur e that the issue is defended to the best of their ability and ours as well. There is going to be a team work approach. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister advise the Co mmi ttee whether he regards the Bou ndary Waters Treaty as being the best defence or the onl y defence that is available to Canada and to the province? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the memb er is ask ing me to gu ess as to defences. My personal view is that the Treaty is our strongest defence. However, international treaties have been broken before; and then, of course, you migh t wind up with a reference to the World Court eventual ly. Yes, I think that in our relationship with our Am eri can brothers, we want to rely up on our written un der-

takings. The finest undertaking in respect to that is our international cove nant enshrined in our Bou n dary Waters Act, I think that's the name of the Act, The Water Treaties Act. But, of course, any Act and any act of man is sub ject to the

interpretation of men, and they may think things are poss ible under that Act that we don't think are possible. Under that Act. there's a com mitment that neither nation will do anything to affect the integrity of the water of the other country; they may quit e rightly say we're not attacking the integrity of you r water. Althou gh we may firml y believe they are and we think that we can prove it, we may be right but lose.

So that while I think we have to work primar ily through the Federal Gov ernme nt's initiatives, we want to bu ttress that and sup port that with political will on the part of the people of Manitoba; because the most successful way to co nvince those who have to make the decision is through political action and pol itical effort. We think the people of Manitoba want to speak out on this issue and we want to be the focus of that. We want to do our utmo st to make sur e that our understandings on this issue are known by the Amer ican Govern ment and those who are going to make the decisions. MR.

RANSOM: What other avenues does the Minister think migh t be available, then to Canada and to Manitoba? What other avenues of action might be available to protect our interests? MR. MACKLING: I wou ldn't specul ate, Mr. Chair man, on other avenues. The avenue that we will follow is the political one. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the polit ical one is another avenue separate from the Bou n dary Waters Treaty, through the diplomatic channels. The political route seems to me to be a separate one. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, when I said political I meant gove rnment to gove rnment, Canada to Wash ington, Man itoba with Canada to Washington. Of course, there are private special interest grou ps in the United States and Canada. We certainly don't want to discourage the initiatives that they are taking, but we as a province cannot be directly involved in those kind of initiatives. MR. RANSOM: Mr . Chairman, I'm not quit e clear on how the effort is go ing to be directed in Washington.

Is it going to be directed towards ensuring that The Bou ndary Waters Treaty Act is honoured and res pected, or is it going to be directed towards the inter nal political decisions of the United States with respect to funding, for instance? MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, in respect to the position that Manitoba will want to see developed in Washington, it will be that any funding that takes place in con nection with Garrison, will not be such that works will be brou ght into being, the effect of which will be to drain Missouri River Watershed or Missouri River Basin water into the Hu dson's Bay Basin. 11 March, 1982 324 MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, the concern that has always been expressed in the past that there was a possibility that by plac ing the que stion into the politi cal arena within the United States, that should that battle within the political arena be lost, that Manitoba and Canada's position is then weaker than it was before that battle was lost. That is a position put for ward by people who have been familiar with this situa tion for many years, both from a political and a legal point of view, and I know that that view is not held by the Member for lnkster, but I think it's a legitimate concern, Mr.

Chairman, which has kept the province from going that route for some 10 years now. That is why I asked previ ously what type of information the Minister has that leads him to make these decisions, because I want to understand what is being done, we want to sup port the government in tak ing correct actions to protect the interests of Manitoba, and if we think perhaps there's a possibility that they're making incorrect action, then I would be remiss if I didn't point that out, raise those qu estions with the Min ister. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, the honou rable member seeks to try and find some problem with what we're doing. I don't see the problem that he's trying to find. I think we are wo rking with the Federal Govern ment to register with those who make the decisio ns in Washington . Our concern is that any project that is developed in the United States, the effect of which is goi ng to pollute Manitoba waterways, does not meet with our approval. Now, if there's some problem with that, I'd like to hear it from the honourable memb er. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, now the Minister I think is attempting to cloud an issue that is - where we're placing perfectly straight forward and legiti mate qu estions he knows full well that the Govern ment of Man itoba for the last 10 years has consist ently taken the position that they didn't want that water transferred into Manitoba. The qu estion has always been, what is the mo st effective way to protect the interests of Manitobans?

Since two gov ernments, one of NOP philosophy and one of Conservative phi losophy have followed essentially the same route, I think it is a leg itimate qu estion to ask for an explana tion of why the present gov ernment thinks that some different cou rse of action needs to be taken and if the cou rse of action isn't different, Mr. Chairman, then fine. I would be happy to hear that. I realize the Minis ter has some problem here in that he is un able to announc e what his plans are for another day or two yet. I gu ess it's unfortunate then that we weren't dis cus sing this afterwards.

Those are the reasons why I raised the que stions. I know that people who have long been involved in fighting this qu estion in Mani toba are no longer involved. So I ask then, Mr. Chairman, who within the gov ernme nt now is going to be responsible for the overall co-ord ination of the province's activities with respect to Garrison? MR. MACKLING: In reverse order again, Mr. Chair man, it will be the Minister of Natural Resources; in respect to any change, there's no significant change except that if you consider a change in the magniti-

Thursday, 11 March, 1982 tude or the scope or the effort of the opposition - diplo matic opposition - opposition reg istered through the Federal Government and through the Provincial Gov ernment with Washington, this opposi tion has been ong oing. We haven't indicated anything otherwise, but we are stepping up that opposition. So the change, if you mu st find change, is one of degree. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says if I mus t find change; I'm not look ing for change. I'm simp ly trying to find out what the change is that was prom ised by the ND Party when they were fighting the election.

I believe the Minister of Environment stood up in the House two days ago and said that was a political prom ise; that we wou ld have an office, a presence in Washington and there will be. I'm sim ply trying to determine whether it's only a political promise or whether it is a well thought out position that in fact is goi ng to strengthen the hand of the province in Can ada. In deed, if it is, we certainly offer ou r full sup port to the Minis ter in carr ying on the fight that's been carried on for 10 years. The Minister, Mr. Chairman, said that he personally will be co-ord inating the activi ties.

I was wondering specifically if there wou ld be a senior civil servant assig ned to it or is the Minister going to personally co-ord inate all these activities? MR. MACKLING : The exact details of the co-ord i nation of this opposition has not been thoroughly identified. I'm not in a position to com ment on the arrangements with the Federal Gov ernment at this time, but at this end I will, through my office, be the focus of the opposition. MR.

RANSOM: If I understand it correctly then, there has not been a person designated within the provin cial gove rnme nt to be the focal point of activities that co-ordi nates with the Department of the Environmen t for instance, within our own province; plus the infor mation the office that's now being established here in the building; the new legal advisor that the Minister has, and who now will be in daily touch with the External Affairs Office in Washington, if that sort of thing is necessary. Have those details been worked out yet? MR. MACKLING: My Ministry. MR. RANSOM: Well, Mr .

Chairman, sim ply I recog nize that everything that happens within the Ministry is the responsibility of the Minister, but has he desig nated the Dep uty Minister is go ing to be the senior person or an Assistant Deputy or Director? Has any person of that nature been designated? MR. MACKLING: As I understand it, when the Minis ter is charged with the responsibility he uses his staff; his most imme diate staff is his Deputy Minister. MR. RANSOM: Mr . Chairman, then who do public groups go to or public individuals?

Should they have a concern about Garrison now and they want to have discussion with someone in the gove rnment? Do they go to the information office that's been established in this building? 325 MR. MACKLING: It wou ld depend. Certainly that is available and the first contact may well be with Miss Claudia Engels. From that point they have my entire staff, particula rly my Deputy Minister, who has been in almo st daily contact with Ottawa, available. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this qu estion was answered before and I may have missed the answer.

Does the Min ister intend to provide funding for grou ps in the province that are opposed to Gar ri son, such as the Action Comm ittee? MR. MACKLING: We have indicated to group s that are interested in this matter that we welcome their interest; their concern. To the extend that we can, we will facilitate their need for pamphlet material, if we have pamphlets that are available. We'll facilitate their group in providing any information that we have and help them co-ord inate any activity, but it doesn't involved direct funding. MR. RANSOM: Mr .

Chairman, I think I only have a cou ple mo re qu estions that I'd like to ask the Minister. One wou ld be - and he may not even want to answer this qu estion - but in view of the fact that we have had over the years the assurance of both the executive level of gov ernment in the United States - I sup pose the assurance has always come through the executive level of gove rnment of the United States - that indeed they wou ld honour the Bou ndary Waters Treaty. Does the Minister fear that there is a possibil ity that the Treaty might not be honoured? MR. MACKLING: I won't speculate on that, Mr.

Chairman, I think I' ve indicated that treaties can be interpreted in different ways and we want the Treaty interpreted in the way that we think best protects the interests of the people of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member from Turtle Mountain, do you have another qu estion? MR. RANSOM: Well I gu ess I have two more. The Minister made reference to the International Court. Has that possibility been examined lately or is that ju st a general reference that the Minister is making. MR. MACKLING: The latter. MR. RANSOM: Finall y, Mr.

Chairman, does the Min ister have any indication or any information concern ing the probability of the Garrison Project being de authorized within the next few months? MR. MACKLING: I would like to give you an affirma tive specula tive answer to that, but I won't specu late. We're going to be involved with Ottawa in initiatives in respect to that and we'll remain optim istic. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. DONAL D ORC HARD (Pembina ): Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

Since the change in admin istrations in Manitoba, has the Minister or his.predecessor written directly to External Affairs in Ottawa confi rming by letter - I realize there has been telephone calls and

discussions - the continu ed opposition of the new government to Garrison? MR. MACKLING: We have been not only in telephone conversa tion, but telex co mmuni cation and we have, my colle ague, Mr. Cowan and my colle ague, Mr . Scott and I met with the Federal Govern ment in the person of the Honour able Mark MacGuigan, Minister of External Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Environment and with Mr.

Axwor thy, who is the Memb er of Parlia ment and Member of Cabinet from this province, and we had an extensive discussion outl ining our con cerns, not only in respect to the whole qu estion of Garrison, but how we best co-ord inate our activities in opposition to that project. MR. ORCHAR D: So then I take it, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of a Minister-to- Minister letter as a means of formal com mun ication that such a letter hasn't been part of the com mun ications that have gone back and forth between gove rnments at the official Ministers' level? MR. MACKLING: I wou ldn't make that assump tion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ORCHARD: Could you possibly confirm whether that assum ption is correct or incorr ect during the course of the Estimates? MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, aftert he arran geme nts are confirmed with Ottawa I will feel mu ch more at liberty to table the correspondence and doc ument ation that the memb ers migh t be interested in. MR.

ORC HARD: In your conversations and discus sions with External Affairs in Ottawa, have you received any advice from them that the new govern ment in Manitoba should make direct written corres pondence to officials in Washington indicating that the position vis-a-vis Garrison has not changed with a change in government. MR. MACK LING: I don't believe that in conversations and in ou r com mun ications with Ottawa they asked us to com mun icate directly with the Em bassy regis tering those views. I think that the position of Mani toba in respect to Garrison is know n.

It's been con firmed for a period of many years and the position has been unchanged to the knowledge of the Federal Governme nt and to its Em bassy in Washington, with whom also we have had co mmun ication. MR. ORCHAR D: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't offer that as any cr iticism, but I think the record woul d show that when the admi nistration changed in the United States we reaffirmed our position with them as qu ickly as possibl e to avoid any potential confusion, shall we say.

I only ask those qu estions of direct commun ica tions both with Ottawa on a formal basis, via letter, Minister-to- Minister, would be to me one of the most appropriate means of com mun icating that in fact the position of the new gove rnment remains as firm and as adamant as was its predecessor government. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have 326 indicated that not only in writing but in respect to our physical presence in Ottawa and in our discussions with Em bassy officials and officials of the Federal Governmen t. MR. ORC HARD: Mr .

Chairman, the Minister has indicated certain concerns that he has, and if I inter pret it correctly was really asking all mem bers of the Man itoba Legislature to treat this issue not as one of political mo tivation but one of concern for Manitoba and its futur e welfare. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of supp ort that a Minister in you r gove rnment can expect from the Op position. Any question ing that we undertake is to determine ju st what cou rse of action the new government intends to take.

We want to be sur e that partisan politics don't become a part of the Garrison Diversion and I sup pose, Mr. Chairman, if I migh t gently draw to the Honou rable Minister's attention that when first qu es tioned in the House, I think if he were to re-read Hansard he migh t chastise himself about getting slig htly political in answers to qu estions that were placed to him by mem bers of the Oppo sition.

It is not our intention to critic ize you at this stage for that, but I ju st want to tell you that we intend not to mak e a crass political issue of the Garrison Project; we intend to work with you and we will live by your advice and trust that it will be recip rocated. On the specific topic of the election campaign undertaking by the New Democratic Party it was men tioned of the need and indeed the intention of the New Democratic party, should they become govern ment, to establish an office in Washington.

I realize the Min ister has indicated, let's not get hung up on the term "Office" in discussions tonight, but could the Minister indicate to me, in the think-tanking that went into that election prom ise, how many people did the New Democratic Party envision necessary to maintain an adequate presence of a Man itoba Garrison Office in Washington ? MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how to answer that qu estion and not offend what the honourabl e member 's concern is to ensur e that there is not political consideration given to these qu estions.

I think if I answer that qu estion I'm goi ng to be doing disservice to the position that the memb er has indi cated in the

preamble to his qu estion. I think that the time for political posturing of any kind in respect to this qu estion , if there was a time, is not now. We are charged with a responsibility to deal with this qu es tion. I am not here to chastise the previous admi nistra tion in any way. I am not go ing to reflect on what the previous administration did or didn't do, nor am I goi ng to be critic al of the Federal Gov ernment for what it has done or failed to do. I don't think we have anything to gain in that kind of an inqu iry.

I think we're here with a mut uality of concern and to re-exam ine why someone said this or why someone said that may have some historic value, but I'm concerned about the futur e, Mr . Chairman, and I don't see any value in that. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to the Minister if in my country perspective of what is im portant and what is unim portant, I think it is quit e important that Man itobans who may or may not have

Thur sday, 11 March, 1982 made their decision on how to vote on the basis of a com mitment by a political party during an election of an office in Washington, I think that it would be enlightening for this Comm ittee when we are review ing this government's intentions on Garrison, and how they are going to present the Manitoba case, to at least have some idea of what was the thought process, the conclusions drawn by the New Demo cratic Party whilst they were in Op position to come up with the election promise of establishment of an office in there.

I think that is only a reasonable and fair qu estion to ask at this time. I don't see anything particularly polit ical about it, if you had an intention of five people, two people, one person. It is important to Manitobans now to have an idea of what predicated that election prom ise and on what basis the decision was made to make that as an election comm itment. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr .

Chairman, I think I have indicated already that the New Democratic Party dur ing the course of the election made a com mitment based on its assess ment of what was needed to be done to address the problem of mounting evidence that the Garrison project in the United States was going ahead. That undertaking was to fight as effec tively as possible that developmen t and the way per ceived was to have a direct presence in Washington, and with that com mitment I don't disagree, I believe that was and continues to be a sou nd decision. MR. ORCHA RD: Mr .

Chairman, I appreciate that the Minister believes that was a sou nd and a fair decision, but as my coll eague, the Memb er for Tu rtle Mount ain, pointed out it was somewhat different from the posi tion put forward by the Official Op position in discus sion on the resolution conce rning Garrison in May of 19 80.

It wou ld be certainly most enlightening to know how the New Demo cratic Party position had changed and ju st what was envisioned in that change in terms of people and presence in Washington, and if the Minister is unwil ling to share that information with us tonight that is certainly his prerogative, but the qu es tions stem from the fact that it is a change in position that the Of ficial Opp osition held prior to the election and qu ite magi cally, shall I say, it became an election com mitment which was not part and parcel of New Democratic Party opposition policy. MR. MACKLING: Mr .

Chairman, I had indicated and I don't know where the honourabl e member was when his coll eague, the Memb er for Turtle Mount ain, was asking me these same qu estions, but I again will endeavour to indicate that the Garrison Project and Manitoba's position vis-a-vis the Garrison Project has not been static. It has changed. Changes have occ urr ed in the United States, the developme nts of proceeding apace, funds that had been blocked have been freed. There is new im portance, there is new urgency in registering the most effective opposition we can to that development.

Now, the change, as I have indicated to you r col leag ue, in our position is one of degree. We have never said that we accept Garrison. The NOP adminis tration prior to you r administration did not even say we accept Garrison, they resisted Garrison, so you r 32 7 administration resisted Gar rison. We are resisting Garrison, we are resisting to a greater degree. Our change is one of degree, we are going to fight a little harder, we perceive, is the way we are going. There is no difference. The difference is one of how you go about it. It is like the difference between, Mr.

Chair man, having the Honou rable Memb er for Tu rtle Mou ntain ask a few qu estions, evoke these answers, and then having a succession of the same qu estions put; it is a qu estion of degree. If you want to register, if you want to keep on indicating some concern, you can do it over and over again. I'm not saying that takes away from you r concern, but it is all a qu estion of degree. MR. ORCHARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of degree and I sup pose in the eyes of the Op position we want to know to what degree the new administration is stepping up there fight against Garrison.

One thing that would be most helpful, which was the reason I asked you what did you have envisioned when you set out you r platform election promise to set up an office in Washington, what did you envision in terms of staff, etc. etc. Now, you haven't answered that and I appre ciate that is you r prerogative. But if you are stepping up you r degree of objection to Gar rison, we want to know what you had envisioned so that we can get a handle on how many dollars you are goi ng to spend.

Here we have a Minister who is saying that things have changed, the gove rnment has changed, there is a greater degree of opposition to Garrison, there is an election prom ise of setting up an office in Washington and we come to the Estimates, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister has made no provision whatsoever for the funding.

The Minister himself cautio ned us when he started out on Garrison that he did not want politics to be made of this item, that he wanted us to work together in fighting Garrison, which we have done for the last ten years, with the Schreyer administration while we were Opp osition and with the Lyon adminis tration while the NOP were Op position.

Here we have a Minister come along after an elec tion promis e has been made, he cannot give us the backgr ound as to what predicated that election prom ise, as to what the intention of the New Democratic Party was in terms of setting up an office; how many people, full- time staff, part-time staff, Amer ican staff, Canadian staff, what technical expertise, none of that information is available and he tells us that things have change that they have stepped up their opposi tion to Gar rison.

I repeat, we come to the Estimates of this Department and there is not even a gu esstimate of an expenditure to help renew this fight against Garrison, this renewed and stepped-up fight against Garrison . The Minister himself said about 1 O min utes ago that the political will mu st be demonstrated by the Prov ince of Man itoba, that the political will mu st be dem onstrated. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggge st to the Minister that any Co ngressman and any Senator in the United States, who is astutely watching the new Govern ment of Manitoba and what their position is going to be on Garrison, (1) has not received any formal commun ication from this new gove rnment, (2) is going to peruse the Estimates that come down two days ago and are going to see that there's no money

Thur sday, 11 March, 1982 set aside for this Garrison office that was an election prom ise. Now, if the Minister thinks that we should demonst rate our pol itical will, I sugge st he go back to the drawing board and enter a line in this Estimate Book of his demo nstrating his politic al will in terms of providing some funding for this stepped-up opposi tion. Because to date, Mr. Chairman, we have words and words only. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is con cerned about a line.

I think that actions speak louder than words and we have already in the cou rse of the short time we have been in office, by our com mun ication with the Em bassy in Washington, by our com munic ations with the Federal Government , both by telex and by telephone and by personal visit, demonstrated initiative in this matter. For the honourable memb er to say that Cong ress men are going to be concerne d because they don't see a line in our Estimates, I wish that were true.

I wish that Cong ressmen and the United States of Ame rica Senators had an appreciation for what goes on in Canada like the honourable memb er perceives. The difficu lty that we face is that many of our southern colleague s, if I can call them that, Congr ess men and Senators have no perception of this country or of this province or its waterways, or insufficient perception of it, or the problems that we face in respect to this problem.

We perceive that we have a real need to educate and explain to Cong ressmen and Senators throughout the length and breadth of the United States, that it's impr udent and unw ise to divert water badly needed in the United States, divert it north into Canada. We have a great educational job to do. Then for the honourable memb er to be concerned to know what motivated the precise thinking? How many bodies were conceptual ized as being in Washington, six people, seven people, two people? How big an office? How many doll ars in the bu dget? It's what we do that counts.

I perceived in the qu estions of your colleague, the Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mount ain, a concern that we were going to be spending too muc h. Now if we had a line in the Budget for $500, 000, I can tell by the tone of the qu estions you'd be critic al that was too mu ch money. On the other hand, when I indicate that we are developing a very pragma tic and a very rea sonable approach to cos ting and we're not goi ng to com mit ourselves to spending of large sums of money where that isn't warranted, there seems to be some criticism that we haven't put an arbitrary sum of mone y in the Budg et.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. MR. ORCHAR D: Mr. Chairman, we are not asking to have it both ways; we are ask ing to have it one way. We want to know, basis an election campaign prom ise, which the Minister tells us now, let's not get polit ics involved in this; and lo and behold, his party comes out du ring an election camp aign to appeal to a lobby group against Ga rrison by saying that we're goi ng to have an office in Washington, which tonight he can't tell us how many people, how mu ch space, what it's going to do. Now, you know -(I nterjection)- MR.

CHAIRMAN: Wou ld the Memb er for Rob lin- 328 Ru ssell lik e to - excuse me. Would the Memb er for Robl in-Ru ssell like to give on the Speaker's list? - (I nterjection)- Well, th en, let the person speak. The Member for Pem bina. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: -(Interjec tion)- Maybe you can excuse yourself, then read it. There are proceedings going on now. The Member for Pembina. -(Int erject ion)- Not allowed. If you want to read it, read it to yourself. If you want to read it out loud, there are other rooms in this ... The Member for Pem bina. MR. ORCH ARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Min ister has said again actions speak louder than words. It's what we do that counts. Mr . Chairman, that is why I reiterate the hollowness of what the Minister is say ing. He's saying action speaks louder than words with no money in the Estimates. It's what we do that counts with no mo ney in the Estimates.

If I were an Am erican Co ngressman taking a look at a new gov ernment in the Province of Man itoba who is espousi ng during an election camp aign that they are going to set up a lobby office in Washington, that they were making gr eat words of concern, and then had absolutely no provision in the spending Estimates of his department to carry out that office location in Washington, I wou ld qu estion seriously if the words had any teeth in them.

The teeth should have been put in the Estimates of spending to clearly demonstrate to Manitobans that you are serious about your election promise and to clearly demonstrate to the Am ericans even though my honourable friend has some concern that Ame ricans don't know what goes on in Manitoba. I can assure you that the Americans know today that there is no provision for any funding of Garrison in you r Estimates after you had made that election promise. I sug gest to you, Mr .

Min ister, that you r words have jus t meant practically nothing when you haven't put any money which transla tes into action on the Garri son Project and the office you promis ed in Washing ton. You've destroyed, in my estimation, the efforts you 've put in in the last three mon ths by failing to have any presence in dollar s and cents in the Estim ates of this department. The Minister says that had he put in $500,000, we wou ld have objected because he was spending too mu ch mo ney. I don't kno w where he got this im pres sion from any memb er of the Op position tonight.

We have not asked him whether he was going to spend what amount of dollar s. He said $1 50,000 and there was not one murmur of que stioning of that figur e by anybody in Her Majesty's Op position here tonight. For him to mak e that kind of blatant assu mpt ion that we wou ld have decried that he was spending too mu ch money if he had one-half mill ion dollar s in there is not factual, and it's not based on anything that has taken in this Comm ittee tonight. What we wou ld have appreciated, Mr .

Chairman, was the Minister doing as he has said twice tonight, that actions speak louder than words; it's what we do that counts. He has done nothing and that is what

Thur sday, 11 March, 1982 con cerns us in this renewed and invigorated and expanded action that his gove rnment is going to take against Garrison. It translates into nothing accord ing to these Estimates and that is of great concern to Her Majesty's Loyal Op position and it is of great concern to those Manitobans who listened to an election prom ise of increased action . I' d like to know how the Minister can sit there and not be concerned about the public perception of what his gove rnment is doing on Garrison. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, you'll pardon me if I smile at this stage because the honourable memb er continues to say that; I thought that I' d made it clear that I think it's time, you know, that we look forward and not look backward on this. I have invited all col leagues in the House to join in respect to the concern and how we best approach it, but the honourable memb er co ntinues to flog the qu estion of the absence of a line in the Estimates. Wel l, in the days ahead, Mr.

Chairman, before this Session is out, the honourable member will have an oppor tun ity to review what progress we are making in respect to our initiatives in respect to Garrison. The initiatives in respect to Garrison will not be over next week; they'll not be over next month; they'll not be over next year. The honourable memb er will have am ple oppor tuni ty to make an evalua tion, a political evaluation, closer to the favourable day that he wants. If he wants to make political gain on this issue, he'll have ample opportun ity for that.

At this ju nctur e I am not the least bit defensive about the fact that we don't have a line in our Estim ates. We will be spending money. I am hopeful that the honourable member s will appreciate and approve of the dollars we spend in connection with our initiatives. MR. ORCHARD: Well, Mr .

Chairman, once again the Minister says he wants us to look forward and not backward, and we looked forward in the Estimates to some provision for funding for the Washington Office for the increased lobby against Garrison, and let me assu re you we have a lot of backward look ing to do because it's not in the Estimates and that is what causes the Op position concern. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Lakeside. MR. ENNS : Wel l, Mr. Chairman, allo w me to, at this time, for the record indicate my disappointment that Mr.

Allen Scarth is no longer providing cou nsel to this Minister and the government on this particular matter. Mr . Scarth, aside from being very capable, the issue was a very personal one to him. I know that the kind of advice he provided to Mr. Green, to Mr. Schreyer, to Mr. Ransom and to myself was of the highest quali ty. I can recall all too often being called Saturday morn ing, Sun day morn ings at the ranch, or him being in my office before office hours at qu arter to eight to be on top of anything that was breaking, either in Ottawa or in Washington or in North Dako ta, on this matter.

I certainly wou ld be remiss if I didn't ackno wledge the services to Manitobans by Mr. Scarth in this instance. I make a point of saying that not to reflect in any way about the capabilities of a Mr. Birt, whom I don't know, I accept the Minister's statement that he is highly 329 qu alified to carry on this work.

As we all know, this is a matter that isn't going to disappear tomorrow, next month, or next year, to use the Minister's own word ings; it's been with us for 10 years and will likely be with us for another nu mber of years, and so that con tinuity of advice, co ntinuity of counsel, cont inuity of those persons most knowledgeable in dealing with the personalities involved seems to me to be of utmo st importance, and that obviously Manitobans have lost in the fact that we no longer have the services of Mr. Scarth in that capacity. Mr . Chairman, I will not repeat what my colleagues have so capably dwelt on.

Under the qu estioning of my co lleague, the Member for Turtle Mount ain, the Minister could not really indicate any serious change or could not point out a change of policy from that which previous administrations have held in this mat ter. I think Mr. Minister, up on reading the record of tonight's qu estioning, will have to come to that same co nclusion; so therefore we are left really with what the Memb er for Pembina has pointed out. We are dealing with the Estimates of gove rnment spending, and in particular the Department of Natur al Resour ces.

We have no firm answer as to the scale of assis tance to be offered. What we have been very mu ch aware of by the Minister in the Chamber, and through the media during the election and post-election, that, and I can't find a different word for it, but a considera ble amount of electioneering grandstanding has taken place for which we have not been able to attach any particular dollars, because that is a way that we mea su re, in dealing with the Estimates, a government's com mitment to a particular program. Mr. Chairman, I put those remarks on the record.

I am genuinely disturbed that a person with the kind of dedication, who has demonstrated his capability in serving administrations of different political hues, such as Mr. Scarth, is no longer actively involved in the ongoi ng discussions that we will have to have. It wou ld seem to me that he wou ld have been a very natural person to have been involved in whatever setup that the Minister intends to create. When asked precisely what kind of a group will be co-or dinating and heading this new group, again we have very vague and undefinitive answers. Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other com ment.

The Minister indicates the necessity of educati ng Am erican Senators and Congressmen, and I co uldn' t agree with him more; not ju st on this issue but the abysmal ignorance of our Am erican col leagues on Canadian affairs keeps demonstra ting itself over and over again. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this gov ernment is more concerned about educati ng Manitobans who need precious little education on the matter of the Garrison. We know what it's going to do to Lake Win nipeg.

We know what it's going to do to our water qual ity and we know what the problems are in the terms of Man itoba, so are we setting up the office in this building to educate Manitobans, to politicize Manitobans about the matter, or are we genuinely and seriously worried about educ ating those people that are most in need of that educ ation, American Sena tors and Amer ican Cong ressmen ? It seems to me that when my Leader, a few years ago, took the trou ble and the time, both in pamphlet

11 March, 1982 form, in letter form, and by direct visit, that was per ceived at the time to be the kind of action that the Op position took some offense to. Mr . Chairman, I want to see that action directed to the American Con gress, the Amer ican Senate. Those are the people that, in the final analysis, are going to interpret the Bou ndary Waters Treaty in a way that will not be harmful to Canada. That's where the education needs to be directed qu ite frankl y, not to too many people in Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied, having put those com ments on the record, to have this matter move on.

I should indicate that, of course, there are many other memb ers that will want to speak on this and/or other items having to do in this appropriation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Turtle Mount ain. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't planning to speak on this issue again until the Min ister indicated that I had somehow indicated that he might be spend ing too mu ch money on this su bject. That was never indicated in my qu estioning, Mr. Chairman.

My qu es tioning was directed to try and determine what the government intended to do, and if possible, to offer some advice if I felt that what they were doing might weaken the position instead of strenghten it, because having been a Minister of the department for some years, I have had some exposure to the various argu me nts related to this issue. I was in no way reflecting on the possibility that they might be spending too muc h money. But let me tell you , Mr. Chairman, what I have determi ned from listening to the discus sion. The Min ister has identified, he says a need for more research in Man itoba.

I don't know what that is sup posed to be, what research is requir ed, because the study group that reported to the International Joi nt Com mission established what the poss ible damages were to Mani toba and determ ined thatthe risk was simp ly too great to accept and any fu rther study in my view is not go ing to prove very mu ch. Our case is already about as strong as it can be as as a conseq uenc e of the report to the International Joi nt Com mission, but the Minis ter has said more research is needed, although he hasn't explained to us what research that wou ld be or what pu rpose it's going to serve.

I have heard no clear statement from the Minister about what they are going to do with a presence in Washington; how the people are going to operate there in Washington compar ed to how the interests had been represented before. I have learned that there is no money present in the Estimates to estab lish that presence, to do any of the research that the Minister says is necessary. I have determ ined that they have a new legal advisor wo rking on this qu es tion. I' ve determ ined that there is no person within the department who can be named who is co-ord inating activities with respect to Garrison.

The one thing I have learned that has been done, is that there has been an information office established to tell Man itobans about the problem with Garrison . It has always been my con cern, my understanding for the past fou r years, that Manitobans understand this issue very wel l. They kno w that it is not in their interest, they know they are opposed to it, and they 33 0 want their go vernment to know what they are doing in attempting to oppose it. Mr . Chairman, my confi dence has not been heightened by listening to the answers of the Mi nister. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I have indi cated in answers to the extensive qu estions by member s of Her Majesty's Loyal Op position that we are making provision for the spending. There will be mo ney provided. We haven't got the precise dollar figur es worked out because the arrangement with Ottawa have not been confirmed. I have indicated in my answers that my Deputy Minister and the entire Ministry of Natural Resou rces is inbeing and capable of dealing with the matters in con nection with Garrison.

When the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain qu estioned me about the cost, he indicated was it going to cost as mu ch as $1 50,000.00. If I im plied from those qu estions that he was concerned about whether or not it was goi ng to cost all that mu ch, then I may have been in error. He seemed to be imp lying a real concern as to whether or not we wou ld have to spend that kind of money. I indicated in my answers that what we did have to spend would be carefully spent. I did perceive some concern about how mu ch this was goi ng to cost and I didn't feel that there's anything wrong with that qu estioning.

But to sugge st that we haven't provided any money in align is, I think, being a little nice about the qu estion, because there's no doubt in anyone's mind as to the fact that gove rnment does freq uently - it's com monp lace for a program to be initiated without there being a budgetary provi sion made. It's provided by special warrant. My hon ourable friends have done that time in and time out dur ing their term in office and to que stion our doing it now, I think is being a little different.

Now, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mount ain is concerned about what I talked about with research; well Senator Mar k Andrews has accused us of not being specific in respect to our concerns in respect to biota transfer and my depar tment has confirmed to me that we need more specifics in respect to the biota problems, because there wasn't a great deal of work done in that respect earlier and there needs to be more work done in that field. Now, in respect to the generality of those concerns again, Mr.

Chairman, I' ve indicated that we are pre pared to make every effort to make sur e that we have as far as possible a non-partisan approach to the problems. I' ve asked the honourable mem bers not to look back. If they continue to want to look back, alright then, Mr. Chairman , I'll be quit e content to have Her Majesty's Loyal Op position informed, but ju st loo king on, if that's the position they want to take. -(I nterjection)- No it's not a threat. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR.

CLAYTON MAN NESS (Morris): I' d like to ask the Minister, have there been or will there will be any additions to External Affairs offices in Washington, so that those persons can deal directly with this issue? MR. CHAI RMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. MACKLING: I'm not in a position to comment on those specifics until later on as I' ve indicated. MR. MANNESS: What gu arantees or assuranc es have we received from Ottawa that they will devote greater diplomatic efforts to this whole effort? MR. MACKLING: I can't speak for Ottawa, but I can indicate that at our meeting with the Ministers that I referred to, they indicated a genuine concern in respect to Garrison; recog nized the changes that had occurred in Washington in respect to it, and agreed with us that more should be done. MR. CHAIRMAN: Memb er for Robl in-R uss ell. MR.

WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin-Russell): I thank you , Mr. Chairman, I ju st have a couple of brief qu es tions. I am most concerned about this matter being in the Throne Speech and not alig ned in the Estimates that are before us. I maybe shou ldn't blame this Minis ter because he was only appointed in the last little while to the portfolio. In his earlier remarks, Mr . Chairman, in the debate, he told this com mittee that he's goi ng to ensur e that Ottawa is work ing with us. I think that's verbatim, as he put it.

Could he give me an idea as how he's goi ng to proceed with that type of liason with Ottawa to ensure that they're work ing bet ter with us than he did before? Does that involve mo re dollar s? Does it involve a new approach or is it some thing that hasn't happened before? MR. CHAI RMAN: Mr. Minister. MR. MACKLING: Mr . Chairman, I don't know how the Honou rable Memb er from Robli n-Ru ssel l expects me to answer that qu estion when I have refused to answer similar que stions of his col leagues.

I am not in a posi tion at this stage to indicate the nature of the particu lar arrangeme nts that will be in effect with the Federal Government. MR. CHA IRM AN: The Memb er for Robli n-Ru ssell with a further qu estion. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Honou rable Minister mentio ned he's going to set up an all- party representation from this province. Is that in Ottawa or is that in Washington? He mentioned that it's goi ng to be all parties, that's the Progressives, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the ND P; and how many? MR. MACK LING: Mr.

Chairman, I indicated at the outset my concern that this not be a partisan issue; that we not look backwards but look forwards in respect to this. I really haven't changed my thinking on that, although I have been concerned about the natur e of the qu estions that have been put to me tonight. MR. Mc KENZIE: If I may, Mr . Chairman, the Honour able Minister told this com mittee that he's setting up an all-par ty representation and I think it's only fair for the comm ittee, because we're expending taxpayers' dollars, to indicate to the com mittee if he can.

Is that 11 March, 1982 33 1 go ing to be, this comm ittee -a re they are going to be federal people? Are they going to be ML A's? Are they going to be legal people and where is he goi ng to set the com mittee up? In Washington, in Ottawa or jus t in this building? MR. MACKLI NG: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the Honourable Memb er was to have heard me say that I was going to set up an all-member com mittee. I said no such thing. I said that in my expection it will be desirable that there be all-par ty representation from time to time on this qu estion.

I didn't talk about all party com mittees or associations. MR. McKE NZIE: Well, then is this an ad hoe com mit tee, may I ask the Honourable Minister? MR. MACKLING: No com mittee. MR. McKENZIE: No com mittee. So basical ly it's kind of a smokescreen, may I ask the Minister? But actually the com mittee is not going to be set up. There'll be all-par ty representation, is that the way he said it? But actually it is not going to be an active com mittee with an appointed chairman, et cetera. MR. MA CKLI NG: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member will have to await the development of that kind of thing.

I have indicated what I perceive to be possible, and among things possible with goo dwill, I can see joint representation being made in respect to this matter. With a lack of goodwill that may not occur. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Ro blin- Rus sel l, any further qu estions? MR. McKE NZIE: The Honourable Minister can be assu red of the goo dwill of this ML A, I guar antee him. But on the other hand I have a duty to the taxpayers that I represent in my cons tituenc y who want to know what we are doing with the taxpayers' dollar s and how we are spending them, and we have these spending Estimates before us.

We don't have a line on this subject matter, the Minister refuses to tell us how mu ch money he is going to spend. He doesn't have a figur e and yet there it is in the Throne Speech, "Manitoba will be represented in Washington." Washington, it said and I think I have some ju stifica tion in asking these qu estions. Now can I ask the Honourable Minister, Mr . Chairman, this pub licity program that he is goi ng to put on as was raised earlier, I don't think there is a man, woman or child in this province, in fact of all of Canada, that doesn't thorough ly understand the Garrison problem.

So I am taking it for granted that those dollars will be expended some place out side of Manitoba, because I have not yet seen anybody in this province that doesn't sup port the Schreyer gove rnment or the Lyon gove rnment and their position on Garrison, Mr . Chairman. So I wonder what kind of a public ity campaign is he prop osing and if he is goi ng to camp aign in Washington he needs more bucks than he is talking about here tonight. Ju st on behalf of the taxpayers in my consti tuenc y alone, I am not worried about the other ML As, what kind of a figure is he loo king at for this publ icity campaign?

MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I have resisted and I will co ntinue to resist trying to precisely identify for my collea gu es here the cost of pu blicity campaigns; we will of course want to be effective, but we will want to be prudent. On the other hand, I mu st disagree with the honoura ble member that everyone knows and compl etely understands the issues in respect to Gar rison.

I would like that to be the case, but I think it is important that Man itobans who travel to the United States, and where there are Am erican visitors co ming here, are able to articul ate our concerns in a rational and in a reasonable and in an informed way to help the understanding of Ame ricans in respect to our con cerns. I think that we owe it to our citizens first to ensure that they are informed as to where the prob lems lie and how we are proposing to deal with them. MR. McKENZIE: I thank the Honou rable Minister, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder then, could the Honoura ble Min ister advise the Co mmi ttee before they closed off this department, would he come out with a pu blic state ment of the expenditu res that are expected, roughly, in fairly broad figur es, that we can take back to our constituents and say, we apologize, the line is not in the Estim ates that are before us, but these taxpayers' dollars in this province are goi ng to be expended to set up this Washington office? I woul d like to tell the people in Robli n-R ussell I don't know about the other ML As - what it is going to cost us.

Before we close off these Estimates, will the Minister give the Com mittee that assurance? MR. MACKLING: Mr . Chairman, about a month and a-half, two months hence, somethi ng like, that we had a debate on the Bud get. I am reasonably confident that by that time we will have confirme d the arrange ments certainly with the Federal Govern ment. We will have a better assess ment as to what our pu blicity costs will be and I think at that time, I will be able to give some precision to the overall costs. MR. McKE NZIE: Mr.

Chairman, am I to take back the words to the people in my constituency that we are giving this Minister a free rein. He has not a line in his Estimates; no, he can expend whatever he wants. It is in the Speech from the Throne; it was an election prom ise and this gove rnment has not got the courage or the au dacity to tell this Com mittee what it is going to cost. Is that the kind of a gov ernment that we have in this province today, Mr. Chairman? MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, the House has to approve Sup plementary Estimates, Sup plementary Sup ply, and du ring the course of the Bu dget the hon ourable member will have am ple time to inform his constituents through his rhetoric in the House as to the excesses in our funding. MR. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to make any fur ther comment, but the Minister has made one statement in there that gov ernment s I think he meant specifical ly our administration - fre qu ently institutes new progr amming without Estimate funding and often does it by special warrant. Mr .

Chairman, that is one thing I think I am knowledgea ble enough about our budg eting procedures and our 332 estimate proced ures; that is something we did not do in a matter of the importance of Garrison . I want to recall once again to the Minister that it was an election prom ise by his gove rnment; it was a Throne Speech com mitment and I don't find fault with him personal ly because he is new to this department.

But I do find an extreme faul t in failure with the Estimate process that his colleag ues went through in that they are going to leave this Minister with the lame and the weak excuse that freq uent ly prog rams are introduced and fu nded by special warrant when, ( 1) it was an election prom ise and one of considerable high profile; (2) of suffi cient profile to this new administration to mention specific ally in the Throne Speech and to fail at any com mitment whatsoever to funding. I cannot accept that from this Minister and I regret that his coll eagues have hung him out to dry on this one in this regard. Mr.

Chairman, I ju st have a problem with this in that what we have gotten so far is nothing but pur ely polit ical motivation up on the new government and no desire, no com mitment, no plan in how they are goi ng to carry out an election prom ise. I do not believe that they had the sligh test idea as to what they were com mitting thems elves to in the election, because they have since met with the Federal Governme nt and I believe been straightened out.

We'll see when this announcement is made in the next cou ple of days and I am deeply disappointed, as I know the Manitobans who are concerned about Garrison are disappointed in that to date we have had words, words, words and no action and no funding. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have had words tonight; we have had qu estions tonight. I have indicated what we have done thus far, I will be indicat ing shortly further on that. Since these initiatives are new, there is nothing cast in stone about how mu ch this is goi ng to cost.

We are going to be pragmatic in that, and so I am not in a position to say it's going to cost $500,000, $250,000 or $50,000 and we are going to spend, but we are going to spend wisely. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tu rtle Mount ain. MR. RANSO M: Mr . Chairman, in respect to the need to educate Manitobans, it may very well be that the Minister is correct in his statement in that regard, but I mu st say that during fou r years of being in govern ment, I never encou ntered one person in Manitoba, not one Man itoban, who was in favour of the Ga rrison Project.

I think Manitobans are universally opposed to Gar rison, so I' m not entirely sur e what is go ing to be gained by an educational effort for Manitobans. Per haps, if you're planning to educate Manitobans so they'll serve as Am bassadors to the U. S. so they can expl ain it better, that's a possibility. I hope that we'll be able to demonstrate that actu ally happened. I also heard Senator Andrews' com ments about the no research indicating what the im pact of Garrison would be. I had great difficul ty in understanding how he coul d possi bly make that kind of com ment, Mr.

Chairman, and it struck me that what had to be done there was that the technical report of the Comm ittee that reported to the IJC, would have to be placed before Senator Andrews, because in my view it dem onstrated beyond reasonable doub t that there was

Thur sday, 11 March, 1982 the possibility of very significant damage to the fisher ies and to the waters in Man itoba and that risk was unacceptable. I think there is a danger and I hope that the Minister will take this as a very serious con cern - I think there is a danger in suc cumbin g to the sug gestion that mo re research is required, because by doing that and by beginning more research, you will be ackno wledging that there is some su bstance to what the Senator has said. I always took the position. Mr.

Chairman, that the report which had been done for the International Joint Co mmis sion was the ult imate analysis and pro jection of what the im pact of Garrison wou ld be. I think that the Minister wou ld be well advised to con tinu e to stick to that report and nothing else and don't ack nowledge for a minu te that there is necessity of additio nal research. You don't need additional research to demons trate to Manitobans that they don't want this project. Manitobans, every man and woman know that they don't want this project.

What you have to co nvince Senator Andrews of is that we already have that information and that it has been determi ned by the International Joi nt Comm ission that there is an unacceptable risk to Manitoba. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I think that to the extent that we improve the knowledge of Manitobans in respect to this issue, we strengthen our position and I think that's necessary. I think that there may be a great many people who know about Garrison, and I would agree with the honourable mem bers that anyone that knows about Garris on is not favou rably inclined toward it.

What we want to ensur e is that as many people, as many Manitobans as possible, know about it; and knowi ng about it, then will be opposed to it. There are people, I'm sur e, in this province that really don't understand what it's all about. We want to enlist the help of everyone in respect to that. Regar ding the research, I agree with the honour able member that we don't indicate to Senator Mark Andrews or anyone else that the evidence that was presented to the International Joint Comm ission was inadequate.

However, I am indicating here that my un derstanding is, through my Department staff, that we can im prove up on the knowledge we have in respect to the effect of the foreign biota in our system, therefore, the better to prove our argu ment in respect to the reaction, the destruction of our fresh water fishery. I'm not saying that there wasn't sufficient, I'm saying that we can im prove the argu ment by loo king and by researching further. That's my un derstanding. MR. RANSOM: Mr .

Chairman, I warn the Minister there is a danger involved in that because the report which was made to the International Joint Com mis sion was made on the basis of information gathered by some of the best brains available in both the United States and Canada. There was agreement amo ngst experts from both sides of the border on that techni cal report; and it was accepted by the International Joi nt Comm ission.

Unless fu rther research is done in the same way, then you risk concentra ting the discus sion on the val idity of you r research and not on the issue that the Int ernational Joint Com mission has clearly identified, which is that the risk is there and it is unacceptable. 333 MR. MACKLING: I don't want to argue this at length. It has been indicated to me that we cou ld im prove the extent of our research in respect to the effect of the biota in our system.

It's not to say that the evidence that was placed before the International Joint Co mmi ssion of itself is not sufficient, but if we can add to the qua ntitative proof that we have in respect to the reaction on our fishery, that will suppl ement our case, rather than take away from it. MR. RANSOM: Mr . Chairman, if Manitoba can attempt to add to the information that is there, then North Dakota can attempt to detract from it and to prove you're wro ng.

This is a point that has been very care fully considered over the years since the International Joint Comm ission Report was made and I sim ply urge the Minister to look very carefully at this qu estion for himself and not to be undul y swayed by people who may not have the depth of understanding of this issue that is necessary to really make the decisions that are going to be in the best interests of Manitobans. I know it is always easy to call for more research. That's sort of a standard thing to do is to call for more research.

I ask the Minister to examine that qu estion very care fully before he mak es that decision. MR. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the honourable memb er can be assured that a very careful assess ment of that will be made before any decision is made. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. ARNO LD BRO WN (Rhin eland): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern was along the same line. I read the

article that appeared in the paper on the statement that Senator Mark Andrews had made that Canada had never done a scientific study and that the effects of the Garris on Dam on Canada cou ld not be based on scientific fact because we had not done the study. I wonder, has the Minister sent a letter of objection asking withdrawal from Senator Mark Andrews for making a statement such as that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. MR. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not. I don't think I'm going to get ugly with Senator Andrews. MR. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, I don't think that we're ask ing the Minister to get ugly with Senator Mark Andrews, but it seems to me when somebody obviously is making a statement which is not based on fact, it should be drawn to his attention that there is such a study; that we're talking about scientific facts and poss ibly a copy should be sent to Senator Mark Andrews, a copy of the study, along with a letter ask ing him to withdraw the statements that he had made. It can be done in a friendly way. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think maybe the memb er may be right; maybe it could be done.

I really do think it's like carr ying coals to Newcastle because I'm co nvinced that Senator Andrews knows that there was a study, he knows the results of that and we're involved in not merely a difference of opin-

11 March, 1982 ion. He is determ ined to have his way in respect to that project and he's saying things that I believe he knows to be not compl etely correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on 4.(a) (1) . MR. ENNS : Mr . Chairman, there are so few things that go down these days. I'm intrig ued why the salar ies of the administration of the Water Resources Departmen t is down by some $7,0 00.00. Did Mr . Weber actually take that pay cut or is there some other explanation? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Minister. MR. MACKLING: We've got a problem, ju st a moment. I'm advised that one position was reclassified down, that's what happened.

MR. EN NS: Can you confi rm, was that Mr. Weber's position? MR. MACKLING: I can confirm it was not. MR. CHAIRM AN: 4. (a) (2 ) -pass; 4.(b )(1) . MR. ENNS : Mr . Chairman, on this item , on Water Licensing, I'm sur e that you want to have a fairly intensive discus sion. I'm looking at the time, it reads 10 o'clock, I wonder whether or not there's a disposi tion on the part of the Comm ittee for the Comm ittee to rise. It's up to the mem bers of the Comm ittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Commit tee rise. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. CHAIRMAN, Jerry T.

Storie (Flin Flon): I would like to direct the attention of the memb ers to the Gal lery on my left where there is a group from the 42nd Wolf Cub Pac k. They are in the Seven Oaks Constitue ncy and under the direction of Mr. Lloyd Price. SUPPl Y -COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAIRMAN: I would direct your attention to Page 24 of the Estimates Book we're on 1. (e)

(1) Salaries. The Hono ur able Memb er for Fort Garry MR. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the time of the dinner hour break the Minister was responding, I believe, to a qu estion, or perhaps a position that I put to him, with respect to the challenge of carrying out the requir eme nts of the reg ula tion for standards of care in Gu est Home s and Gu est Home facilities througho ut the province; the oblig ations of the province and the department to meet req uirements that are encou ntered in this field from the point of view of the health care of the resi dents, in addition to the physical safety of their sur roundings. I had raised the point at the time, Mr .

Chairman, that the previous government, the govern ment of which I was honour ed to be a mem ber, 334 wrestled with this same challenge and I recognize that there is no easy answer to it but certainly, easy or not, the answer does not lie in theory.

There is no dis agreement, I am sure, on either side of this House, that the responsibilities that need to be discharged in this area are essentially the responsibil ities of Public Health nu rses, Com muni ty Health workers and the like; nor is there any disagreement that we have a su bstantial, whether it's sufficient or not is open to debate, but a substantial field capability of Public Health nur ses and a somewha t less substa ntial field capability, but a significant one nevertheless, of Com muni ty Health workers.

But the qu estion is, whether, in view of the caseloads that all tho se dedi cated professionals carry in the Commu nity Services field, they are able to cope with the responsibilities that have been laid on them by im plication, throug h the establishm ent of regula tons govern ing the opera tional standards of gu est homes. This was, if not que s tion nu mber one, it was at least qu estion numb er two or th ree that we faced some two years ago when we first addressed the need for standardization of levels of operation and care in the gu est home field.

The Minister has remi nded us that we do have such pro fessionals in the field and I accept this, but that doesn't answer the qu estion as to whether they can cope with this additional responsibil ity. In addition to that, Mr . Chairman, I think I had asked him about the whole area of nutrition and proper diet which was another matter of concern when we were looking at this sub ject.

I want to say that I am not arguing for a moment tha t someth ing is not better than nothing; certainly some thing is better than nothing, and certainly before there were standards and regula tions it could be argued that in some gue st homes, and in some gu est home environments, there was nothing in the way of what we are discus sing here to ensur e the proper environment and proper moni toring of medic ation and the general physical well being of gu est home residents.

So, whatever we do is a step of prog ress and I don't disput e that, but we were reminded by the Opp osition of the Day two years ago, and qu ite legitima tely, that there were needs out there in the gu est home popula tion and once the govern ment, and we certainly had the sup port of the Oppo sition of the Day in doing it, onc e the former govern ment did move in this direc tion, we agreed with the consensus of the Legislature of the Day that those needs had to be part and parcel of the gue st home package that was being put together.

The Minister certainly would not have accepted from me or from my colleague, the former Min ister of Commu nity Services, the rather bland answer that we have Public Health nur ses and Com muni ty Health workers in the system. I am sur e he would n't have accepted that, in fact, I know that at the time he did not accept that, althou gh his responsibili ties were in another area at that time, and I simply put that position to him now; nor can we accept that kind of general ization from him.

What has got to be done if standards and regu lations are going to work, what has got to be done if indeed we are serious about im proving the level of the gu est homes in the pro vinc e, what has got to be done if indeed we mean that the living environment and the atmo sphere for those residents in those gu est homes is to be up to a certain

Thursday, 11 March, 1982 standard, that their health is as im portant as their bed, is that we have to put personnel in place who can get round to those gue st homes and follow up on the perso ns in the residences in qu estion insofar as they need monitoring, in respect to their health. So I return to that qu estion at this point, Mr. Chair man, as we return to the consideration of this item. What is the go vernment doing?

What has the Minister got in place now to put the proper perso nnel into the circuit, into the system, to monitor those homes, to follow up on dischar ged patients, to follo w up on post-mentally ill patients, to follow up on the person who has to take 3 types of pills 3 times a day and who, because it's hu man natur e among a lot of us, will not take them in that proper seq uence, will not take them in that proper order, unle ss someone is watching to see that he or she does so?

And what is being done to ensur e that they are getting at least two meals a day and that the meals are adequate from a nutritional point of view? That's a fair qu estion because it was put to us two years ago; in fact, it's a central and fu nda mental com ponent of this whole conc ept, otherwise we migh t as well have standards and regu lations. We might as wel l operate on the free-wheeling, carte blanche basis in the gu est-home field that existed prior to the developme nt of the regulations and the standards. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not quit e sur e what the specific qu estion was that the honour able member was raising. MR. SHER MAN: Mr . Chairman, my qu estion is what is the Minister doing to make sur e there are enough people and the right people in the system and in the circuit to make this whole concept work? MR. EVANS: Mr. Sherman, I think this is a bit repeti tive.

I don't mind discussi ng it further, but I tried to assure the Hono urable Member for Fort Garry before the supp er-hour break that we had indeed, and as he knows, a fairly broad range of perso nnel in the field from different backgrounds with different particular skills in the gu est home field. Well, Mr .

Chairman, as I indicated also, this was one reason we thought there should be an increase in the staff and I would be pleased therefore, I'm sur e I can look forward to the mem bers suppo rt, when I advise him and other mem bers of the Ho use that we found it necessary to increase the regional personal services staff by 20. It's going from 250.5 staff years to 270.5 staff years. We think that's a consi derable increase in staff and I think it should go some way to relieving the concerns that have been expressed by the mem ber for Fort Garry.

Perhaps this is an ap propr iate time to give the member this listing of SMY s as we call them, as I promis ed him before the supp er break. If he has some specific sug gestions with regard to gu est- home inspection and upgr ading I'd be pleased to get them. As I am advised by staff, the matter is in hand and we're proceeding expeditious ly. One of the problems, as the member knows, is the matter of identifying them; where are they out there?

I believe we read off some figur es showing that to a large extent' we have 16 3 identified and we've had 10 6 applied for a licence 335 so that to a large extent we've zeroed in on the number that we think are out there that have to be reviewed and inspected and licenses issued. As I said, 19 licenses have been issued, 87 inspect ions are com menced over and above the 19 , so that's 10 6. The 10 6 is the total applications for licenses received and that breaks down: 87 inspections comme nced, 19 licenses issued. Perhaps the Page would like to give this information on staff years to the memb er. MR.

SHERMAN: I would like to thank the Min ister for that list, Mr. Chairman, that is important to the general view of the Estimates for this whole department, thank you. I appreciate receiving it. I want to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, whether the 20 or 20.5 staff man years that are being added to the regional field service delivery system in this con nection or represent personnel who are assigned to the office of residential care, to the gu est home field or whether they are part of a general expansion in regional field services staff. MR.

EVANS: The staff we've been talking about are for the general operations in the field, whatever they may be, not specifically for gu est homes. As a matter of fact I think that that would be totally inappropriate to have 20 people ju st to be, as I said rather facetiously before the supp er hour, "guest home inspectors." As I gather, that is not necessary. But you're right, there is an overload of cases and so on to some degree and this is one way of copi ng with it and this is what it is. It's simply a general increase of the field operation in order to better cope with the case load that they've got.

In doing so, we're able to cope with other problems as well as the gu est home licensing. MR. SHER MAN: Mr. Chairman, it's a bit difficult to stick precisely to the line that we're sup posed to be on in the exami nation of these Estimates because of the transfer of a certain nu mber of responsibilities and functions over to help so I will try to stick to the line, but I have to refer to a couple of other things in order to put the qu estions that I want to put.

The Minister has said that the field service delivery system compl ement is going to be expanded by 20 SM Ys in regional personal services which we haven't come to yet, but I have to refer to it because of my qu estion and that's a welcome initiative. Bu t Regional Personal Services had an SMY complement at this time last year, or very recently at the cu rrent time, Mr. Chairman, of 750, provided all those positions were fill ed -t here might have been some vaca ncies but the establishm ent was for 750; 726 was the situation a year ago; then 24 were added in the past year for a total of 750.

The 24 that were added in the past year were the best that the government could get out of an initial request by the department for some thing like nine additional staff man years in Reg ional Personal Servi ces and certa inly 24 was a welcome addition, but it represented one-third of what the Minister's own offi cials sitting in front of him felt was needed in the field. It was all that could be fu nded and financed at the tim e. They were requir ed because of needs in the regional field delivery system generally right across

the spectrum whether it was Public Health Nursing or whether it was Child and Family Services or whether it was Emp loyment Services. So what the Min ister is proposing to add now in this year's increase are another 20 SMY s who are needed in those general services. The Min ister sugge sts that I am being repiti tive but I am trying not to be but I have to come back to the basic qu estion as to how he proposes to conduc t and enforce these standards of care or mo nitoring that are requir ed in the gu est home spectru m. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hono urable Minister. MR.

EVANS: I ju st want to remind the honour able memb er that he is not cog nizant of the fact that in 19 78 the gov ernment in which he was a memb er had a very serious cutback in staff and they were either positions deleted - maybe some of them were vacant but there were approximately 10 0 SM Ys deleted as a restraint measur e. Now that was both Health and Commu nity Services, I believe. Bu t nevertheless I don't know whether the situation at that time was such that that kind of a cutback was warranted.

I think that's where a lot of the overload, the heavy case work that the memb er talks about, perhaps that emanates from that large cutback at that time. Bu t the fact is, there was a deletion of about 10 0 staff positions in 19 78 and mind you, since then there has been some increase and here is another bit of an increase now. I believe the Minister of Health may have some thing to say about some additional staff increases in the field still trying to make up for the cuts that occ u rred three or four years ago. MR. SHERM AN: Mr.

Chairman, that may be although it's not precisely accu rate in the implication that it makes. But even if it were precisely accurate, the fact of the matter is there was no gu est home progr am at that time. Whatever reductions were made at that time were made through a process of attrition; they were vacancies that were not filled. I would suspect there' re some vacancies in the establishme nt right now. I rec ogn ize that the establishment of 750 no longer applies to this department.

Approximately 500 of them , I pre sume, have gone over to Heal th, leaving it around 200-and-some-o dd, perhaps 250 in this department. But I would estimate that there are probably some vacancies right now in that establ ishment. There cer tainly have been vaca ncies in the north, in regional personal services, that our gov ernment tried very dili gently for a period of a year to fill, in various sub offices of the Norman and Thom pson regions.

The problem that the Minister and the gov ernment face today is that there is a new services being created within the system now, and that is the Gu est Home Standard And Mo nitoring Service. And if he is suffer ing from what was a fairly tight rein on the Regional Personal Services field staff dur ing the early years of the previous governme nt's administration, and he feels that he still has some thing with which he has to cope in that regard, then I simply sugge st to him that it underscores the im port of the qu estion that I origi nally put.

If he feels that Regional Personal Services was not at a level and a com plement and an estab lishment in terms of SM Ys that was requir ed, and that the previous gov ernment did not meet the necessary 11 March, 1982 336 target in terms of numb ers of personnel - wel l, he was given the opportun ity on November 17 th, 19 81, to do some thing about it. We could debate that all night; he may be right, he may be wrong; I may be right, I may be wrong; but he obviousl y feels that Regional Personal Services didn't have enough people in it. We felt last year it didn't have enought people in it.

We went originally, in our preliminary Estimates process, to looking at a request for an increase of some 90-94 perso nnel and the best we could get, and the Minister fully knows the process one has to go through, was 24. Now, if he feels that the Regional Perso nal Servi ces complement has been short changed, does it matter how was short-c hanged, or who it was short-c hanged by? He's the Minister now, he belongs to the party that is the government now, he had obviously some dispute with the position that we took. Is he going to do anything about it?

Because I don't think with the objectives and the concepts that we're striving to achieve in the gu est home system , and he was a memb er of the Op position that put it to the go vernment to which I belong, very blun tly, and very clearly. And I don't think with those objectives that he's going to be able to meet them , at the level of personnel that he's contemp lating. Particu larly, I think if he had 20 new SMY s going into the gu est home field it would be an excellent start, Mr . Chairman, perhaps sufficient to cope with what has to be done.

But they're going into the regular functions of the Regional Personal Services Branch, and the time they get to spend on gu est- home care, and the mo nitoring of the conditions under which gue st-home residents live, will be the tag end of their work shift. It'll be the end of the work day, and the end of the week, and it'll be that extra load, and that extra job that they ju st haven't got time to do properly.

I think he should be giving very serious consideration to establish ment, in order to get this system off the ground and wor king properly, of a team of social workers, a multid iciplinary team of social workers, that is assigned specifically to follow through for the next year to ensur e that the gu est- home intentions, and objectives do find thems elves sol idly established. Onc e that base is buil t, it would probably be relatively sim ple to spr ead the work load among the case loads of the regular personnel in the Field Services delivery team.

But someth ing has got to be done to get the pro gram established and movi ng; perhaps a special unit, a special team, and a special comm itment for a year or so, is worth considering. I think he's going to have difficu lty on the basis of the numb ers of personnel that he has specified are includ ed in the request that he's making in these Estimates. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister, where for exampl e, are the commun ity me ntal health workers going to come from?

There will be com mu nity mental health workers needed, post-discharge personnel needed to lo ok after hospital disch argees, and the mental health field is one of the crucial fields requir ing that kind of personnel. Where are they going to come from? Are the staff man years that are being added to the field, the Regional Personal Services Team, going to include some com muni ty mental health workers, specific ally?

MR. EVANS: First of all, the memb er is now asking qu estions beyond the office of residential care. We have a small staff in here of five people, and it's their job to organ ize the resources of the department, and particular ly the field staff. to ensur e that we can direct those resources, as required, to this particular prob lem that the member is referring to.

So it's really a qu estion of org anizing existing resources, and if the mem ber wants to go on and talk about. who makes up the field staff, the regional staff, that someth ing that we should discus s under the appropr iate item, which is under Page 25, Item 3, Commu nity Social Services Reg ional Op erations. But when this program started, I gather that there was no particular identification of the need for new staff at that time, because it was recogn ized it was going to be a slow process.

The department had already gone through a similar process in identifying and of making sur e that 10 0 gr oup homes for children were licensed and inspected, and up to the standards that we thought that they should be up to. So that process had already been gone through. Now, the same office in effect, is taking on this respo nsibility which started last year. I submit to the memb er that if he went out and hired a whole raft of perso nnel, an army of peo ple, and you rushed out to look at ju st gu est homes, I wonder what do they do after the initial licensing, and after the initial inspection and so for th.

That is not necessarily the best way of getting the most efficient use of staff. It's far better to use the personnel that you have in the field who have expertise in different areas; people who know what the problems of the mentally retarded are. home economis ts or hu man ecol ogists as they are now called who know some thing abou t nutrition and so on, and we think that we can get the most efficient return for the dollar of staff resou rces in this way.

The main thing is that we ensur e that if there is a complaint out there, that if there is a problem that we know of in any commu nity, that we zero in on it im mediately. That, I understand has been done. To the best of our ability we have been meeting all com plaints. It's a slow process adm ittedly. Part of the slowne ss is the identification of these so-called gu est homes and it's proceeding and it seems to be pro ceeding wel l. To do what the honour able memb er sug gests may be a misalloca tion of resources.

At any rate, if he wants to get into the debate or review of what the field staff is doing, I sug gest we discuss it under 3( a) , Reg ional Personal Services. MR. SHER MAN: That's acceptable, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask the Honour able Minister what changes there have been, if any, in the past few months, and what may be cont empla ted, if anything, in the way of change in the co ming fiscal year with respect to this office's responsibilities for monitoring of residential group homes related, for examp le, to The Child Wel fare Act and in the fields of mental health and me ntal retardation and in the field of the infirm eldery and the infirm elderly programs. Last year there were some additional staff that was provided specifically, Mr.

Chairman, to deal with the increased involvement that the office had with facilities for the mentally retarded and the elderly. I would appreciate the Minister's advice as to whether that is being expanded in any way; whether it's going to continue to be pur sued; 11 March, 1982 337 whether there were any other changes relative to the office's responsibi lities to those group homes in the areas that I've referred to which are independent of the gu est home field. MR.

EVANS: As I indicated to the honourable memb er earlier, we've success fully inspected and licens ed up to 1 OO group homes for children although! it's down to 88 now. There's been some! disappearance of those types and that's deliberate. When you ask about what are we doing in the area of inspecting ho mes that house mentally retarded, many of these people are in these gu est homes So I don't know how you can ju st separate or say you want to talk about being mentally retarded, for exam ple, apart from the gu est homes because qu ite a few are in the so-called gu est homes.

But as I said, I referred to the children; it's been an ongoing process that's well under way. It's a fail acco mpli or it's a task that has been comp leted but has to carry on. There's been a successful and tho rough licensing to our knowledge of all such child ren's group homes. I don't know what else new that the honour able member would like us to undertake. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sur e that the governme nt should be entertaining anything new.

I'm fully aware that some people in gu est homes suffer from mental handicaps, whether it's mild mental retardation or mental ill health, but there are specific residential group homes that would not be classified as gu est homes, that serve persons in the mental retardation co mmu nity and the mental health com mu nity specifically. They're not part of the 16 3 or 16 5 gu est homes which we are looki ng at, which are essentially are roaming hous es, boarding houses.

My qu estion is simply whether the office of res idential care is em barked on any different initiatives or any change, or contem plating any change, with respect to the monitori ng req uire me nts that they pur sue in the fields of mental retardation and mental health annd those group homes specifically. MR. EVANS: I should remi nd the mem ber that the regu lations we have in place refer to these facilities as residential care facilties and as su ch, this term and regulations relate to all facilities serving over four clients.

So it doesn't matter whether they've got prob lems with alcoho lism; whether it's problems of mental retardation; whether it's children; whether it's mental ill ness cases or the elderly or whatever, any facility that has four or more comes under the regulations of residential care. I'm reminded that the regulation relates to the size of the facility that exists. It's deemed to exist if there are four mor e; not the natur e of the residence, the nature of their problem. MR. SHERMAN: I'd like to ask the Minister whether those group homes are being inspected in the same way the gu est homes are being inspected?

MR. EVANS: Home s in child welfare; they're all inspected - this is what I said a few min utes ago - and licensed. That's what you're referring to. MR. SHERMAN: No, Mr . Chairman, that's not what

I'm referring to. I'm referring to the group homes for the mentally retarded and the me ntally ill. I'm not referring to the 16 3 gu est homes in this province which we identified. I know where those 16 3 gu est homes are. I was involved in that process. I' m talking about group homes for those who are mentally retarded or post-mentally ill. The Minister tells me that they fall under the same regul ations as the regu lations for gu est homes.

If the gu est homes were being inspected and req uired to meet standards laid down under those regul ations for licensing - those regul ations presum ably are new insofar as the group homes for mental retardation and post-mentally ill are concerned - are those homes being inspected and requested to meet the same kinds of standards? MR. EVANS: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.( e) (1 )- pass; 1. (e)

(2) Other Expenditures-pass. We are going to move to Resolu tion No. 31 . 2. Financ ial and Admini strative Servic es, 2. (a) ( 1) Salaries. The Member for Fort Garry MR. SHER MAN: Would the Minister advise the Comm ittee who replaced Mr . Peter Schmidt as the Director of this division, Mr. Chairman? MR. EVANS: There is no one in this position at the present time, that person, I believe, left a couple of years ago, but this whole area is being loo ked at in terms of some reorganization that is deemed neces sary within the department. MR.

SHERMAN: Is there a staff person who is carry ing out the responsibil ities of Admin istrative Services Director in the department? MR. EVANS: There is someone who has a partial responsibily, well he has a responsibility in this area along with some other duties. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a) (1 )- pass; 2.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures-pass; 2.(b)

(1) Salaries. The Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, there is a fairly sign if icant increase in the appropriation being requested under Perso nnel Management Services in 19 82-83 over 19 81 -82, and I would ask the Minister for an explanation of it, please? MR.

EVANS: This emanates from the split in the department and, as the memb er knows, he was party to this so he knows perhaps mor e than I do, but there was an effort made to split the department fairly and adequately and so on but, after it occurred, there appeared to be an overload in this area so it was deemed necessary to add personnel and this is why those two are slotted for this area. MR. SHERMAN: Mr . Chairman, there was a split in the department all right but it was supposed to come out even.

Can the Minister advise the Comm ittee what the SMY compl ement for Perso nnel Management 11 March, 1982 338 Services in Commu nity Services and Correc tions before the split? He has given me a list here and I appreciate it of the com parisons between 19 81- 82 and 19 82-83, but I presume the 19 81 -82 figures are based on the establishment after the split. Could he advise the Comm ittee how many personnel were incl uded in the Perso nnel Management Services branch before the transition and the shift of some fu nctions over to Health took place? MR.

EVANS: Our best reco llection is the numb er 13 , that is our best honest reco ll ection, 13 . This is some thing that would ha ve to be checked but we think it is a fair recollec tion. MR. SHERMAN: So there were 13 at the time when the whole branch was under Communi ty Services and Correc tions, Mr. Chairman, and the split took place and part of Personnel Management went over to Health. I know we are not on the Health Estim ates, Mr. Chairman, but what I would like to know is how many stayed with Commu nity Services and Correc tions and how many went over to Health. I have to refer to the Health Estimates, Mr .

Chairman. MR. EVANS: Six went over to He alth, seven and six equals 13 . MR. SHERMAN: We are now being asked to approve an increase in that seven to nine on the Communi ty Services side and we may, by the time we get into Health , be asked to increase that six to eight on the Health side.

So, in other words, we started out with a Perso nnel Mana gement branch of 13 ; we split the responsibilities, we made the best efforts we could to ensur e that it wou ld not involve any icr ease in staff, and we may be sitting here ton ight looking at an increase of staff from 13 in this branch to some thing above 50, maybe even 17 or 18 . Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? MR. EVANS: I am not sur e what the member was referring when he said 50. You mean the total? Well this is on the list here. He has the information in front of him.

If you are speculating, I'm not sur e whether you were speculati ng or whether were simply refer ring to the statistics we have here. -(l nterjection) You can specu late as I can. MR. SHERMAN: Mr . Chairman, I think this is a fairly serious point un less the Department of Health has reduced its personnel in this branch by two.

Yes, I am speculating on one end of the scale but I don't have to specula te on the other end, the Minister has qu ite honestly and directly provided me with the informa tion and with the list that shows that on the Commun ity Services side it has gone from seven up to nine; so I am specula ting that maybe it has gone up by two on the Health side too.

But even leaving that out of it, say the Health side is where it was, at six, we are now looking at a Perso nnel Ma nagement Service capabili ty in the departme nts of Health and Com muni ty Ser vices which was 13 and now is at least 15, resulti ng from a division of certa in respo nsibilities between the two departments, when certainly one of the primary objectives of everyone involv ed, and I know that they

Thursday, 11 March, 1982 addressed it very conscientiously, was to carry out the split without increasing staff. I ask the Minister why it has been necessary to increase staff. MR. EVANS: Wel l, I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that this group was overloaded before the split and they are still overworked and it's necessary for good organ ization, good management and for an efficiently-run department to have two mor e in this area. I can assure the mem ber, also, that no other increase that he sees before him, no additional staff listed before him, relates to a problem emanating from the split.

The rest relates to services .that the Department wishe s to provide in administering the various program responsibiliti

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-11b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 11b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7d77e66886ed0f662bf81a975de1ba534f80a24d

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