Manitoba Hansard — 7 December 1989 (Sitting 86, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-86

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, December 7, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I am very pleased to table copies of the Manitoba-Ontario Hydro agreements, which Premier Peterson and I signed this morning, along with the chairman of the respective Hydro utilities. I believe the Leaders of the Opposition Parties have already received the background briefing material that was issued in conjunction with the signing ceremony.

I said this morning that the Ontario Hydro sale is the largest tangibl e example of interprovincial co-operation in recent memory. Mr. Speaker, it is a great deal more than that . It is the largest power sale by far that Manitoba has ever made . It goes without saying that it is the largest sale that we have ever made to another Canad ian province. In dollar terms, the sale will lead to the largest construction project in the history of Manitoba.

The basic facts are clear : a 1,000 megawatt sale; estimated revenues of $13 billion; in every year of the sale, lower hydro rates than would otherwise apply ; $5.5 billion in investment on Conawapa and the new transmission lines; up to 3,000 direct jobs during peak construction ; improved training for Native and northern Manitobans ; greater reliability and security in the Hydro system and protection of the environment. Those are the key facts about the sale and the project, but there are some other facts we should remember as well. First, we are talking about the sale of a renewable resource .

Some Manitobans forget how fortunate we are to have such vast reserves of renewable hydro-electric energy . Very few other provinces are blessed with the kind of endowment we sometimes take for granted . Another fact is that the projects we have announced today are exactly what we mean when we talk about sustainable development. It would be hard to produce a better example. Economic and environme ntal concerns are being reconciled in a responsible, well planned way, in a way which will mean permanent benefits for Manitoba now and for future generations.

Another fact is th at the sale will mean a major inflow of revenue from Ontario. That is the best kind of regional develop men t activity. It is the kind that we want and we need . We will reali ze a $13 billion cash inflow , and our resource heritage will remain intact and undiminished. •

(1335) Finally, another fact should be noted as well. This is an interprovi ncial project and essentially a Manitoba 3581 project. There was no federal financial involvement. Federal support has been automatic for the development of oil and gas in other provinces and for its transmission. In past years there has been some federal support in Manitoba for transmission line construction, but at the present time we are proceeding on our own with this project, and we are assured that it can be financed as part of our regular capital program.

In other words, we are developing our resources ourselves, and we are extremely proud of that fact . In fact, this is a day for all Manitobans to be proud. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): First of all, I want to thank the Premier (Mr. Filmon) for the tabling of these documents in such a fast way today. I mean that in all seriousness. It has not always been that agreements have been tabled on massive Hydro projects with that kind of, I think, responsible attitude towards the public and this House, and I thank the Government for that .

I also thank the Government for the process which it has annunciated . It took some persuading, I think, that they would make a full reference to the Public Utilities Board, but the Premier has committed himself to that. The Government should be commended for an attitude of wanting the public to have the opportunity to fully evaluate all contracts through this process of a Public Utilities Board hearing . I also congratulate them on an environmental assessment study that they have indicated they are prepared to do. We have some questions, and those questions will come later today.

From what we have seen to date, we admire very much the process that this Government has gone through . We admire the disclosure which they have to date provided to us, and because we have just seen the contracts, we hope that the contract indeed has in it all of the benefits that have been so described to us. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise this afternoon on the announcement and the tabling of the sale to Ontario and Ontario Hydro . The New Democrats have always believed that Hydro and Hydro development is the ace in the hole for Manitobans.

The tremendous resources we have in our northern river s, if appropriately developed, is the ace that we have. Just like Alberta has oil, other provinces have other resources . We have steadfastly believe that the development of our hydro resources in the most effective way is one of the ways in which we cannot only sell power but keep our rates low and competitive and attract needed industry to Manitoba . We signed an agreement with Ontario Hydro, Mr. Speaker, on August 28, 1987-1 have a copy of the contract here-for 200 megawatts of power. The parties agreed to continue negotiating through 1989 for an

Thursday, December 7, 1989 additional firm power sale for Manitoba between 400 and 1,000 megawatts for a period of up to 25 years . We are glad that the Government has followed through on the condition in the first 200 megawatt deal and brought forward the 1,000 megawatt sale to the Province of Ontario and the people of Ontario. On the one hand, we ensure that the environment is protected in Manitoba through an environmental impact study, necessary under the new Environment Act which we passed; on the other hand, the environment is very much an advantage to Manitoba now.

The markets we have in the United States and the markets we will have in Canada, with the changing beliefs on nuclear energy , the changing beliefs on coal and the destruction of our environment in terms of coal producing energy will allow us to continue on together any development of our hydro resources . Mr. Speaker, we will look at this agreement. We will ensure the training and job content for Manitobans, and that is where we will be addressing ourselves to throughout the debate. *

(1340) Let us stop the partisan politics on Hydro development, because it is and is always going to be a tremendous advantage, an ace in the hole for Manitoba development, something New Democrats have been saying for 20 years. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): I have a ministerial statement. I rise today to express the horror and shock that all Manitobans feel today at the massive killing of 14 women and wounding of another 13 people yesterday in Quebec.

On behalf of this House I would like to offer our condolences to the families of these victims and to offer our prayers for the recovery of the victims now in hospital. The effect that this type of killing can have on a community can be devastating. I know discussions will be held across Canada today and many people, particularly women, will have a growing sense of fear and discomfort about our safety. We have talked before in this House about the need for all women to feel safe . Women, all of us, must feel safe.

This random type of senseless killing makes us all question our safety, makes us challenge our belief that we live in a safe community, but it is particularly terrifying when it is apparently aimed at one group, in this case feminists, and the retaliation is toward all women . There will be a vigil, and I have not been informed yet as to the date, but as soon as I know I will be sure to let everyone in this House know. As many of you know, these vigils are held whenever a woman dies violently.

Although in the past these vigils have primarily been for abused women who have been killed by their partners , this one will be held because women were killed because they were women . How frightening . I know that this Government will continue to act as advocates for the safety of women, but it must give us all pause to experience the sense of helplessness at this random , senseless, unprovoked slaughte r. I ask that you all remember these women who have died today and in their remembrance join me in a m oment of silence. Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr.

Speaker, we will be pleased to join with the Minister , but we would like to put a few remarks on the record first. The tragic events of last evening at the Universite de Montreal horrified us all. Our deepest sympathies are extended to the families and friends of those who lost their lives and those who are injured and are lying in hospital. As a woman, I am particularly saddened by this apparent violence toward other women . We have made great strides in our nation toward equality . However, this act shows we still have a much longe r road to travel.

Monsieur le president , eel incident tragique au Quebec aurait pu se produire a n'importe quel endroit au Canada , dans n'importe quelle ville . Trop souvent , nous nous disons que ces incidents ne se produisen t jamais dans ce pays . Malheureusement, comme nous l'avons vu hier, cette impression est fausse. Nous avons perdu quatorze de nos concitoyennes-des personnes pleines d'avenir . Cet incident demontre encore une fois qu'il existe dans notre societe un malaise profond, surtout chez nos jeunes: le desespoir , l'angoisse, qui souvent se manifestent par des actes criminels, ou encore , le suicide .

II est temps que nous nous attardions a ce probleme pour eviler que des incidents tels que nous avons vus hier ne se produiront plus jamais . *

(1345) Monsieur le president, en ce jour triste pour le Quebec et enfin pou r tout le Canada , ii est approprie que nous communiquons aux Quebecois , par l'intermed iaire du Premier ministre du Quebec, notre temoignage de fraternite et d'humanite en ce temps difficile . (Translation) Mr. Speaker, this tragic incident in Quebec could have happened anywhere in Canada in any city. Far too often we tell ourselves that these incidents never happen in our country . Unfortunately as we saw yesterday such is not the case . We have lost 14 of our Canadian sisters, women with a bright future before them .

This incident demonstrates yet again that in our society there exists a deep malaise, especially in our young people, despair and anguish, which is often characterized by criminal acts or even suicide . It is time for us to address this problem in order to prevent such incidents as the one tha t occurred yester day from ever happening again . Mr. Speaker, on this sad day for Quebec and indeed for all of Canada , it is incumbent upon us to express 3582

Thursday, December 7, 1989 to all of the people of Quebec, through the Premier of Quebec, our feelings of fraternity and humanity at this difficult time. Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): I rise today to express our outrage, shock and grief at the senseless massacre of 14 students, and the wounding of 13 others at l'Ecole Polytechnique de l'universite de Montr eal. This senseless horror of yesterday is very hard to believe and impossible to understand. This tragedy, this barbaric massacre, is painful because 14 young people were shot down in the spring of their lives.

It is all the more painful because the murderer chose women, targeted feminists. Clearly this tragedy is an example of violence against women of the greatest most tragic proportions. Young women breaking new ground, working to contribute to society, to contribute to their province and this count ry, were killed in the most senseless, horrible, imaginable way. We join with everyone in this House to offer our sympathy, our thoughts, our prayers to the friends and families of the victims of this tragic massacre, which will I am sure bring little comfort to the family and friends of the victims.

I appreciate the opportunity to join with all Mem bers to express our grief through a moment of silence and to rededicate ourselves to fighting to end violence against women. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to observe a moment of silence for these unfortunate women ? Everybody will please rise. (A moment of silence was observed) INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Honour able Members' attention to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Aber deen School, ten Grades 7, 8 and 9 students. They are under the direction of Mr. Buss.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honour able Member for Bu rrows (Mr. Chornopyski). Also this afternoon, from the General Wolfe School, we have fifty Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mr. Lomas. This school is located in the constit uency of the Honour able Mem ber for Ellice (Ms. Gray). Also, from the Lockport School, we have twenty-five Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Sheila Whyte. This school is located in the constituency of the Hon ourable Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Char les). On behalf of all Honour able Members, I welcome you here this afternoon .

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Conawap a Proj ect Licensing Stag es Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): As I indicated earlier in my remarks to the Premier's (Mr . Filmon) announcement, we have a numb er of questions which we wish to ask the Premier today with respect to the sale that was announced at ten o'clock this morning. In the material that was put out by Manitoba Hydro there is a statement that licences will be granted in stages of the project.

Can the Min ister tell the House if impact studies will be required at each stage, even at stages where impact studies are not required by the legislation of the province? * (13 50) Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): The staging of licences is quite within the requirements of The Environment Act, but the Clean Environment Commission will have an opportunity to assess that as the process comes forward. Certainly all of the llcensing of the project will be handled in accordance with their recommendations. Environmental Impact Study Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker , as the Minis ter is well aware there comes a point where one has taken a project so far into its development that it is very difficult to reverse that position. Can the Mini ster tell us today if it is anticipated that before any of the licences are granted there will be a general environmental impact study commenced and condu cted and hopefully completed before any licence at any stage is granted? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speak er, the corporation has indicated they would be seeking all of their environmental clearances prior to the major portion of the construction getting under way. Conawapa Project Envi ronmental Impact Study Mrs . Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): One assumes from that that we have to leave it up to the Government or to Manitoba Hydro to determine what the major portion of that will be. Can we not get a commitment today that would ind icate that environmental impact study will in fact be conducted and concluded before any of this project has begun? Hon.

Ga,y Filmon (Premier): I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) should know a numb er of things. First, this is not a project that is new on the horizon of Manitoba. It is one that has been in the conceptual stage since at least the 1960s. It has had a great deal of preliminary work done. In fact, there has been a year of review of environmental assessment on the project up until this point.

There have been reports done on the potential environmental impact, in that these reports will form the basis for consideration of how much further environmental analysis will have to be done to ensure there are no negative effects to the project. I also point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) that there is a full year allowed for in those 3583

Thursday, December 7, 1989 agreements. She will see that when she has a chance to go through them, whereby th e environ men tal processes on both sides of the border, because Ontario will have to be doing theirs concurrently on their transmission line facilities, the agreement contemplates at least a year for environmental assessment review and public hearing process to take place. So it is built in, there is consideration given, so that I believe we can be assured that no major efforts to proceed with the project need take place until the full environmental assessment is done.

Prefe rential Employment Policy Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition}: As the Premier has just pointed out, we have just been given the contracts, and therefore we have not had the opportunity to study them. Can the Premier tell the House today if included in those contracts are any preferential employment clauses for the employment of Northerners and Natives? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr . Speaker, I should say to the Leader of the Opposition that is not a matter over which Ontario should have jurisdiction. Quite frank ly, that is a matter over which Manitoba has jurisdiction.

Ontario's interest is in receiving the power in the quantity and at the time that they need it for their system. That is their contractual requirement. It is our obligation to deal with how we produce that power and how we provide and assure that it will be provided to Ontario. In the course of doing so we need to construct the Conawapa dam and the north-south transmission facility by Bi-pole Three.

It is under those construction agreements that we will put in place the requirements which we believe are fair and reasonable for enhanced northern and Native employment opportunities, enhanced opportunities for our contractors, suppliers and Manitoba businesses in general. Those are the policies of both Manitoba Hydro and indeed this Government. Mrs.

Carstairs: So we can clarify what the Premier is saying, is the Premier saying today in the House that no contra ctor will be given a contract, or the general contractor, the overall contractor, will not be given a contract with this Government for this project without preferential statements and agreements, within that contractor, for Manitoba business and Northerners and Natives? * (1 355) Mr. Filmon: What I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition is that is not a matter of contractual agreement between Manitoba and Ontario.

That is not appropriate to be a matter that Ontario should dictate to us whether or not we can do preferential hiring, that Ontario can dictate to us whether or not we can call for preferential treatment for Manitoba bidders, or Manitoba contractors, or whatever have you; that we, as a province, have an obligation to ensure that we assess all of the economic opportunities at our disposal, that we utilize the tools of economic development in this province in ways that we can maximize the benefits to the people of Manitoba, whether they be contractors, whether they be businesses, whether they be skilled tradesmen and workers throughout our province.

Of course, that is something that we would like to do and we would like to ensure that we make it possible for Manitobans to enjoy the greatest benefits out of this, the greatest project that has ever been undertaken in our province's histor y. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased at the word "possi ble," that it will be, after all, this Government that draws the contracts. In the drawing of the contracts, will they ensure that those contracts include in them preferential treatment for Northerners, Natives and Manitoba business? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will point out a number of thing s.

Within the Nelson-Burntwood collective agreement there are opportunities and requirements for Manitoba Hydro to ensure participation of Natives and northern Manitobans as part of the process, a very impo rtant part of the process. We have also committed that we will learn from the example and from the experience of the limestone development, to improve upon those achievements that were there for northern and Native participation with respect to the utilization of suppliers and contractors in Manitoba. There are many factors involved.

I will say this, though, that Manitoba businesses, contractors and suppliers are never asking th e Government to choose a higher bid because it is a Manitoba comp any. They have always consistent ly, whether it be the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa tion, the Cham bers of Commerce, the Construction Associa tion, the heavy construction industry, said that we should give, on a tender basis, the contracts to the lowest qualified bidders, and we will be consistent with that.

Where we can help them is by ensuring that we make maximum information possi ble available to them so that they can gear up for it, so we can have contracts in sizes that are of a reasonable size for them to bid on, because in many cases contracts of $1. 5 billion, or something of that nature, would not be possible for one construction firm, or even a Manitoba consortium, to access- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.

Speaker, because limestone was hurried, and it was hurried not because of careful planning, but because of a political agenda - (interjection}- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Nativ e Training Prog ram s Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Oppositio n): Mr . Speaker, all too often Natives, in the early stages, were trained only as cooks and cleaners. In the later stages more suitable and more high-level training was available. As a result of the layoffs of almost all of the 3584

Thursday, December 7, 1989 Natives originally associated with Limestone training, how does this Government envisage that there will be more skilled training available to our Native communities than there were in the early stages of the Limestone project? *

(1400) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Let us unde rstand first that for Limestone much of the training infrastructure and training progra mming was begun just a matter of months or less than a year before the major civil works contract was issued. As a consequence, we did not have a time frame of a year or two to develop the kinds of skilled tradesmen that would be able to participate.

We are looking at a time frame in excess of four years in which to develop the training , the programming and the infr astructure so tha t those Natives and those Northerners who do not have the skills today may have the skills developed by the time they are required for major civil work s and the major elements of construction of Conawapa. We think we have a major advantage in that respect and an opportunity to ensure that it happens in a much better way. Conawapa Project Native Involvement Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker , my question is to the Premier .

Today the Premier signed a hydro expor t agreement with Ontario Hydro that will lead to the construction of the largest single project in the history of northern Manitoba . The aboriginal people had a partnership with this Government and today the partnership is no longer there. A few moments ago the Limestone Aboriginal Partnershi p Board announced, and dissolved today. They have dissolved because they are completely frustrated in dealing with th is Government. Mr. Speaker, through you, why did the Government not info rm the aboriginal people of today's annou ncemen t?

Why were they not briefed of today's agreement ? They also presented a paper to this Government in August and to date they have not received a response . Why has this Government driven the partnership to the point to which it could no longer continue ? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have an example of exactly what the NDP's relationship was and their idea of including Natives in the process .

They set up the Limestone Aboriginal Partnership Directorate and they funded a committee , so to speak, but they were not involved in the real decisions and the real opportunities for maximizing Native content in that project. They may well have thou ght that their contribut ion was to have a committee of those people set up and not listen to them, not involve them , and certainly not consider them in the decision making . Mr.

Speaker , they have not dissolved themselves because of any lack of a relationship by our - (interj ection)- From the minute we were elected, they met with us to tell us that they were set up as a committee. They were never asked to do anything meaningful by the NDP. That is exactly what they told us. Their role, their mission, their mandate, under the Limestone Aboriginal Partnership Directorate was one that did not invo lve them in any meaningful or serious way in the Limestone development. I have said earl ier that we will learn from the experiences of Limestone.

Many of the faults and weaknesses of Limestone were because of the fact that the NDP paid lip-service and set up committees rather than involve the Native people. We will not do that. Conawapa Project Native Training Programs Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, this Government closed down the Limestone Training Agency last year.

Considering the flexibility by the Limestone Training Centre meant more Natives were trained and later employed on the project , what special measures will this Government make to make sure that northern Natives have opportunity to be trained to work on the project on Conawapa and also on Bi-pole Three? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I would like to correct the Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) with regard to his false accusation that in fact the training agency in northern Manitoba has been shut down . The training agency in northern Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, has been changed in name from the Limestone Training Agency to the Northern Training Agency as it should be named. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please . Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker , I would also like to point out that when we took Government there were some seven employees of the Northern Training Employment Agency working in Winnipeg. We have transferred the administrative part of the Northern Training Employment Agency to the North where it should be, and it is going to be run by northern Manitobans as it should be. Conawapa Project Native Benefits Mr.

Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, through 1986 and '89, the elections, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his Party have promised the communities on the east side of Lake Winnipeg that they would link the main hydro line into these communities . Since Bi-pole Three will be built on the east side, what can my constituents expect to benefit from this power? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, when there is a transmission line facility that is going on that side of the lake that is close by many, many Native communities in this province, and it involves the investment of $1 . 7 billion in a major construction project, I would think that there will be plenty of opportunities for employment, for working, for construction work, for all sorts of economic opportunities for the Natives to access in that area. 3585

Thursday , December 7, 1989 I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we too have continued to work to try and negotia te that other transmission line specifically to communities including the home community of the Member for Rupertsland (Mr . Harper). That continues to be a very high priority with us. We have had a successful agreement consumma ted with the Province of Ontario. We hope to have another successful agreement with the federal Government to construct that transmission facility to serve seven commun ities in that northeast part of Manitoba, many of which are very fam iliar to the Mem ber for Rupertsland.

Treaty Land Claims Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I have a final new question for the Premier. Since this project will affect the Indian lands, Indian lands that are still outstanding, many of the commun ities where this bipole project will be built are Indi an lands that are outsta nding- Oxford House, Gods Narrows, Gods River, Red Sucker Lake, Garden Hill, Wasagamack and St. Theresa -treaty line entitlements which are still outstan ding. Is this Government prepared to settle those land issues which are outstanding for many years before the construction of the Bi-pole Three? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, again, when we came to office we were told by Native people throughout the North that they had major outstanding disputes and disagreements with the former NOP Government -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order . The Honourable First Minis ter. Mr. Filmon: -not the least of which was the Northern Flood Agreement. They were very, very bitter at the treatment they had received at the hands of their New Democratic representatives, many of whom they had elected in their areas.

As a result, sinc e we have been in Gov ernment we have advanced $10 million of compensation that was being denied to them by the former New Democratic Government on the Northern Flood Agreement. They were very bitter, and understandably so, at the ill treatment they received from their own representatives in the NOP Government. They were very upset at the fact that they had not been able to make progress on settlement of land claims. We indicated to them that we would continue to work with them with a view to settling those land claims, Mr. Speaker.

We have been having some good meetings and I believe making some good progress and showing good faith. In whatever we do, the Native people, their rights and their holdings will be very much considered as part of the process so that they are taken into account very seriously.-(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Conawapa Project Envi ronm ent al Hearings Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the Minis ter of Natural Resources (Mr . Enns) on November 8 of this year said we did not have to worry about an EIS for Conawapa. The Minis ter of Environment (Mr.

Cummings) this week stated that he will not support intervener funding for any groups and that northern Natives are solely the respon sibility of the federal Govern ment. This was followed by comments from the Premier that Cona wapa is just one more in a series of dams and an EIS is no big deal, in effect. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minis ter of the Environment (Mr . Cummings). Will the Minis ter pledge- ***** An Honourable Member: Mr. Speaker, on a point of ord er. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable First Min ister, on a point of order. Hon . Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, we cannot tolerate the Me mb er for Wolseley (Mr . Taylor) deliberately putting false information on the record. I have never said that an EIS for Conawapa is no big deal, and he had better withdraw that.-(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable First Min ister does not have a point of order. The Honour able Member for Wolseley kindly put your question now, please.-(interjection)-Order, please. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. There was no point of order, it was a dispute over the facts. POINT OF ORDER Mr.

Speaker: The Honour able Member for Thompson, on a new point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the First Min ister (Mr. Filmon) may have some concerns about the statement by the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor), but the First Minis ter should not impute that any Member has deliberately put misinformation on the record, which is what the First Minis ter said. So if anybody should withdraw any comments it should be the comments of the First Minis ter, on the point of order , which were unparliamentary.-(inte rjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order for the Member for Thompson, the Chair will review the Hansard tapes. 3586

Thursday , December 7, 1989 ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley, kindly put his question, please. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr . Speaker , my comments were referring to the Mi nister's earlier answer this afternoon and comments he made from his seat yesterday afternoon. *

(1410) This question is to the Minis ter of Environment (Mr . Cummi ngs). Will the Mi nister pledge that a comprehensiv e EIS, complete with public hearings, will be held before any further work is conduc ted by Manitoba Hydro? Will he also explain how that EIS is to be conducted with the full involvement of all northern people, be they status or non-status Indians, Metis, or non-Native people? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Well, as I said yesterday, and I have said many times in this House, the environmental hearing process is structured so that everyone can feel comfortable appearing before that process. Also it should be clearly understood there has already been a considerable amount of work done by Hydro towards preparing for an environmental impact assessment of this project.

It should also be clearly pointed out that no major undertakings of this nature can be done without environmental impact studies being done as oppo sed to what has happened under other examples in this province when the projects went ahead without these types of studies. River Diver sion s Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the issue is not access the process, but capability to deal with it. Mr.

Speaker, my question is, can this Mini ster assure the Hous e that his Government is in no way contemplating a repeat of the fiasco of the Churchill River diversion through the diversion of the Seal and Hayes Rivers so as to supplement the Nelson River dams? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker , in an obvious attempt by the Opposition to try and turn what is one of the single finest days for the people of Manitoba into some sort of a fiasco that he is trying to build about some future projects, I suggest that he concentrate his questions on this project, one of the single most important projects for Manitoba Hydro, one which we have pledged ou rselves to very sound Public Utilities and Clean Environment Commission process, that he concentrate on that and not try to raise spectres of something that might happen at some mythical future date. Conawapa Proje c t River Diver sion s Mr.

Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, more oversized dams can tragically beget more river diversions. My question is, will the Minis ter now state 3587 his Government's policy about further river diversions, given that the generating capacity of Long Spruce, Kettle Rapids and Limestone dams is already significantly overbuilt and available for more water if it is made available through interba se and diversions such as the Seal and Hayes Rivers? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speak er, to my knowledge, Manitoba Hydro has no plans to deal with any further river diversions.

They have a very concrete and very well developed plan to continue to develop the capacity remaining on both the Burntwood River and the Lower Nelson River, capacity that is well established and well studied in terms of its opportunities for further dam development in the future. Each one of those has been laid out in a long-term plan for Manitoba Hydro and does not involve the future diversion of other rivers into the system. Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, anything that he refers to would be, I think in the terms of the Member for Ste. Rose du Lac (Mr .

Cumm ings), a mythical consideration for some long-term future time, a time in the future when neither that Member nor anybody else in this House is likely to be arou nd, when somebody might conside r, if they got to that point. The development plans between now and the year 2020 that are available for Manitoba Hydro have nothing to do with further river diversions. Fire arm s Control Photo Licence s Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Min ister of Justice (Mr . Mccrae).

As has been noted earlier today, all Canadians are shocked and deeply saddened by the senseless murders of 14 women in Montr eal yesterday and the wounding of 13 more students at the Un iversity of Montreal. Mr. Speaker, as is being discussed in fact today in Quebec itself, we must commit ourselves to effective gun control in this coun try. Massacres like the one yesterday and indeed the one in this province a few short months ago may still occur, but we as legislators have a duty to try to minimize the chance that it will ever happen again.

Can the Min ister indicate what recent progress has been made in getting the federal Government to put photos on firearm certificates so that retailers know the person who gets the gun is indeed the person who qualified for the certificate? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion at the federal and provincial level relating to the matter the Honour able Member raises.

Certainly at the federal and provincial meeting in Charlottetown in June, and shortly after my return from that meeting, we had the tragic and horrific occurrence with respect to the Reid fam ily in St. Bon iface, which resulted in further correspondence between myself and the federal Minis ter of Justice relating to gun control. With respect to the specific question raised about photos on firearms, I will review my file and inform the Honourable Mem ber.

Thursday, December 7, 1989 Firearms Legislation Enforcement Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Again, for the Minister of Justice. Coincidentally , the chief provincial firearms officers from across Canada are meeting this very day at their annual meeting in Ottawa . Has the Minister , through our chief provincial firearms officer, Mr. Duncan, been assured by the federal Minister of Justice that effective enforcement of the firearm legislation already in place will be addressed imminently by the federal Government ? Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The issue, as the Honourable Member stated in his quest ions, is being discussed , and when the firearms enforcement officer returns I will ask him for a report on his discussions. Firearms Control Child and Family Services Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Finally, for the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) , on June 13 of this year the Minister took on notice the following question posed by the Leader of the Opposition .

Can the Minister tell us today what procedures are in place to assist family service workers in the detection and the reporting of firearms and other dangerous weapons in homes where violence is evidenced? Can the Minister today answer that question? Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services) : Mr. Speaker, yes, I undertook to discuss the matter with the Leader of the Opposition after that, and I possibly did not bring it to the House , but I did discuss it with her.

One of the problems that would occur with Family Services workers going into a home-we would certainly want to protect the safety of those workers as well. So we would not want to have the social worker gett ing involved in actual seizing of guns or anything like that. In many, many cases the social workers , if they are aware that there is a potential problem of that nature , certainly take the police with them when they go to a home . Minister of Energy and Mines Ontario Hydro Agreement Signing Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): A positive announcement today is being tarnished with the announcement that the Limestone aboriginal partnership, an organization that is made up of the MKO, the Metis organizations , the Northern Assembly of Chiefs and aboriginal womens ' groups , has withdrawn their partnership from the provincial Government, Mr. Speaker . My question to the Premier is this .

He has got a Minister that he has assigned major responsibility for implementing this project , that has been called by Roger Matas a Legislative Analyst-the Minister has no directions for the Seniors Directorate and no ability to develop any of his own . He has been refe rred to as a Minister that prefers to be on a warm beach rather than carrying out his responsibilities and workloa d. Today we have had a major component of the success of the future development of Limestone fumbled - Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please. Mr.

Doer: My question to the Premier is this : why did he assign the Minister responsib le for Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) to this major responsibility and why was the Minister responsible for a $15 billion project missing today from the announcement that was made this morning at the Legislative Building? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Member for Concordia has asked a ques tion which deserves an answer . The Minister of Energy and Mines is away with my concurrence on a short leave for health reasons .

That was planned with me last weekend because of certain circumstances that I am not prepared to discuss with the Member, and regrettably his health wou ld not permit him to be here this week . I am sorry if the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) wants to make an issue of it. • (1420 ) Mr. Doer: We have received all kinds of information for the last couple of weeks th at he was going away on vacation today , but I hope that the Ministe r is well. We would wish him well on his health . Competence Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Oppos ition): My question is to the Premier on the competen ce of the Minister.

It has been well recognized in this Chamber and outside in the public of Manitoba that the Minister , although a very nice person , is not one well equ ipped to deal with heavy responsibilities of Cab inet. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister himself has taken away the Seniors Directorate and reassigned it. I would ask the Premier , does he tru ly believe that the Minister he has announced today responsible is able to carry on all the components and responsibilities of this $15 billion project so that all Manitobans, including Native Manitobans, will benefit in the most positive way? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) wants to imply that one person singlehandedly , sitting in a Minister 's office, is goi ng to drive all aspects of this project. That is so far from the truth that it is hard to believe that Member sat in Cabinet himself, because major decisions take place on a co-ordinated basis across many, many disc iplines in Government. Within the Conawapa develo pment there will be a very strong role to be playe d by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) ; ther e will be a very strong role to be played by the Minis ter of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Ernst ); there will be a very strong role to be played by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings); there will be a very strong role to be played by the Minister of Labour (Mrs . Hammond) ; of Education and Training (Mr. Derkach) . 3588

Thursday, December 7, 1989 All of these elements will go into putting together a co-ordinated project that respects the environment, involves the investment of major, major money in job creation, economic development, provides for training for No rtherners and Natives, and provides for community development, and on and on, Mr. Speak er. I will answer the rest of the- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable Member for Concordia, with his final supplementary question. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, and the strongest role of all has been assigned to the Minis ter responsible for Energy and Mines (Mr .

Neufeld), a person who has bungled the Seniors Directorate, bungled the Lynn Lake mine, bungled a number of other major activities, and has said there is no correlation between health and age in this House. You have assigned that individual to a $15 billion project. Are you not over loading an individual with major respon sibilities which will have negative consequenc es for the citizens of Manitoba, particularly northern citizens of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, we are talking about an individual who is among the most capable people sitting in thi s Legislative Cham ber, who has kno wledge, understanding.and experience in finance, in economic development that exceeds that of all of the Mem bers combine d in the New Democratic Caucus in thi s Cham ber. His abilities, his understanding, his talent exceed those of all those NDP Members combined when it comes to finance and when it comes to a major project such as this. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say that with respect to the annou ncement made today by the Lime stone Aboriginal Partnership Directorate Board, their quote in their very first sentence of their press release I think establishes what I said in my first response to the Mem ber for Chur chill (Mr . Cowan), quo te: The Limestone Aboriginal Partnership Directorate Board has decided to dissolve in frustration due to the reluctance of successive Governments to provide the necessary resources to carry out meaningful consultation with the board- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

Suicide Rates Correction al Instit ution s Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Honourable - (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minis ter of Justice has the floor. Mr. Mccrae: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr . Edwards) raised some questions respecting suicides and about a report made by the Chief Medical Examiner for Manitoba, a report he called the annual report.

The questions related to the availability of rescue kniv es in our penal institutions, about training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, about a standardized manner for the observance of in mates, and respecting how in mates are observed as they near their release dates. Mr. Speaker, all of the questions asked by the Honourable Member relate to recommendations made by an inquest back in 1987.

It should be pointed out there have been no suicides in our penal institutions since 1987 and that all of the recommendations which were made were implemented prior to the release of the report the Honour able Member was referring to. That report was not an annual report, as the Honourable Member implied; the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Examiner was tabled several months ago in this House. The report he was referring to was an annual review for 1987. There is nothing sinister about the report coming out when it does; that is when it usually comes out.

The point is that the Honour able Member-it really should be taken note, the fact that the Honour able Mem ber never seems to do his homework when he comes into -(interjection)-this House. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Speech Pathologi sts Student Assi stance Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Another example of this lip-service Government is demonstrated by the lack of assistance to students attending un iversity to study speech pathology. No courses are available in our own province, Mr.

Speaker, yet over and over we hear of the severe shortage of speech patholo gists for preschool children, for school age children, and for our seniors. In response to a question on November 20, the Min ister of Education (Mr . Derkach) said that earlier this year the First Minis ter (Mr . Filmon) signed an agreement with Minne sota whereby students from Manitoba would be able to access the univ ersities in Minne sota. My question to the Mini ster of Education (Mr . Derkach) is this: why then are students being denied monetary assistance for speech pathology programs in northern universities in the Un ited States?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate that, first of all, the Member here was asking why we do not have speech pathology programs in Manitoba. I guess if we had unlimited resources we could do all of those things, but because we have agreements with other provinces and jurisdictions in the Un ited States, we are able to share resources, which is a more sensible way to go. That has not just started in the last six months or so; that has been ongoing for some time.

Students attending those universities are given every opportunity to be able to attend those universities, and where assistance is required, I am certainly able to look at those requests. Mrs. Yeo: Mr. Speaker, why are students being told, and I quote from a letter I received, that a similar 3589

Thursday, December 7, 1989 program is available in Canada, as a means of deterring interested Manitobans from accessing the universities that are south of the border, institutions that are much closer to home than the universities in eastern Ontario? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the Member has not brought this specific incident to my attention at this point in time.

However, I have to tell you in a general sense that if we as Manitobans are able to provide those programs in this province, then we feel that it is a priority of ours to assist those students who are coming to the institutions within our province, rather than assisting those students who may wish to attend another un iversity elsewhere that offers similar programs. Mrs. Yeo: I wish the Minis ter would read his mail, Mr. Speaker. The Minis ter referred on November 20 to a fairly significant marketing program to assure that we can attract every possible individual in this province.

Will the Minis ter review the policy on student aid to ensure that this policy is more closely aligned to that statement, to help students when they go to un iversity to return to Manitoba? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I just might indicate by example. When we are in a position to interview students from the United States who are taking speech pathology, for example, we indeed send several of our staff over there to ensure that we can make available to them the kinds of job opportunities that are available in this province.

We indeed do a fairly active campaign in trying to attract as many students or as many candidates to this province as we possibly can. I think the department over the last number of years has done a fairly good job in attracting high quality people. We will continue to do that in the future. Me nt ally Handic app ed Progr ams Granting Form ula Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Mem ber for The Pas has time for one short question. Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Minis ter of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson).

I think most Manitobans agreed with the Welcome Home Program which was instituted in the early'80s. They recognized that the community was a place for the mentally handicapped people to be where they can grow and develop under the care and support of their family, the community and the volunteers.

Thousands of the mentally handicapped adults in this province rely on the day programs to develop skills and confidence and become productive members of a communit y. * (14 30) Can the Mi nister tell the Ho use whether her department will be proceeding with a new administrative grant formula for mentally hand icapped programs in 1990 and whether the formula will be based solely upon the size of the agency, and whether that formula will result in sharp funding cuts for organizations, and what consultations she undertook prior to putting this- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The Honourable Memb er has posed his question. The Honourable Minis ter of Family Services. Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services): I did put in a new funding formula this year, to take effect this year, for these organizations that the Member speaks of, and perhaps we could have a full discussion on it in Estimates, because it is rather complicated. No agency will lose funding this year as a result of that, but some of them may in the future have less. It goes with the size of the agen cy, how many per diems are being paid, and it is on a formula basis. Mr.

Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hono urable Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr . Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty . In the Ch amber is the Department of the Environment; in Room 255, the Department of Housing. Following Environment would be Northern Affairs, and following Housing would be Energy. HOUSE BUSINESS Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday we went into second reading in committee on a number of Bills, and in the Opposition we have requested adequate time to deal with them, particularly given the fact that a number of Min isters that we had questions of were not present yesterday. I am wondering why the Government House Leader (Mr . Mcc rae) has decided not to proceed into the committee today. We recognize the Min ister of Finance (Mr .

Man ness) is not here, but we are anxious to ask questions of other Min isters in committee stage and second reading on various finance Bills as part of our general hope to be able to pass those Bills by the end of the week. Un less that takes place, we are concerned there will not be adequate time to deal with these questions tomor row. Pointing out once again, Mr. Speaker, the Min isters were not present yesterday-a num ber of Minis ters so I would like to ask the Government House Leader how he intends to

schedule the affairs of the House to ensure adequate consideration of those four Bills which are currently in second reading In the Comm ittee of the Whole. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by the Hono urable Mem ber and I note that the Honourable Opposition House Leader (Mr. Alcock) has been passing notes back and forth today relating to the Business of the House, but I point out to -(interject ion)-The Hono urable Member for Springfield (Mr . Roch) asks if there is anything wrong with that. The answer is an emphatic no. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 3590

Thursday, December 7, 1989 that. That is what House Leaders are supposed to do, and that is what they do on a daily basis. I wonder what the point is that the Honourable Member for Springfield is trying to make with his question. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Springfield, on Hous e Busine ss. Mr. Gilles Roch (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, his tone of voice indicated- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Roch: He asked me a question. I am trying to respo nd. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , please.

The Ho nourable Government House leader, on House Business. Mr. Mccrae: On the point raised by the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton), who wants to do the House Business apparently on the floor of the House in open Session, I remind him that Bill 34 was introduced for second reading in this House on the 13th of October. I remind him and the Ho nourable Opposition House Leader (Mr . Alcock) that Bill 27 was introd uced for second reading in this House on June 16 of this year.

I remind them that Bill 53 was introduced on October 11; and that Bill 86, The Statute Law Amendment Taxation Act, was intr oduced on November 24. If the Honourable Member wants to make something of that, Mr. Speaker, that is The Statute Law Amendment Act for Taxation on November 24. I must say that plans for the House are made in consultation with House Leaders, and more and more frequently with Ho use Leaders who seem to want to do business in open Sessi on. More and more frequently I am asked for changes to the plans to be made at the last minute.

Well, when that is done, you throw one side or the other off, you throw your own colleagues off. Those kinds of requests do come and I do, politely as I can, decline such requests out of respect for all of the Members of the House. So that, I hope, will suffice for an answer for tod ay. The Hono urable Members, both of them, received correspondence from me a couple of weeks ago respecting the wish of the Mini ster of Finance (Mr . Manne ss) and the Government to deal with these Bills. I suggest, Sir , that there has been adequate time.

If they do not want to pass the Bills on Friday, I guess that is their busine ss. That has been our request and I thought that was the understanding we had. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on House Business. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I think I missed the answer to my question in that I made representations to the House Leader previously, privately. The House Leader 3591 chose not to go ahead with it. I was asking essent ially if the Ho use Leader perhaps changed his mind. We are trying to be co-operative in this situation. All we arE! asking is for sufficient time to deal with those Bills.

We are trying to do what is in the best interest of the province and pass these important Finance Bills. That is why I was wondering if he would not perhaps reconsider and whether he would indicate if he is not g�ing to call those Bills today in Commit tee of the Whole, when he expects to have sufficient time to deal it, those important Bills. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I can see where there is no room in our Routine Proceedings for House Business, as we are attempting to do here at the moment.

I would strongly recommend that the th ree House Leaders sit aside in one of the loges and discuss the way this House is going to operate today. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Now, before putting the question to t lie House, I would like to draw Honourable Members' attention to the loge to my right where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Dave Blake, the former Mem ber for Minne dosa. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. It has been moved by the Honourable Government Ho use Leader (Mr . Mc Crae), seconded by the Honourable Min ister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr.

Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to her Majesty. MA TTER OF GRI EVANCE Mr. Bob Rose (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker , I rise on a matter of grievance.-(inaudib le)-I appreciate the opportunity today to refute some allegations and what have you on the part of some Min isters of the Government who had indicated that this Member from St. Vital does not co-operate in any way or manner so that we do not have, as the Minis ter of Health (Mr. Orchard), would say, use a more co-operative manner rather than confrontat ional. Mr.

Speaker, I think that many Mini sters of the Government will agree that I, since I have been a Member of this House, have co-operated with them on matters rather than bring them to the House. I think that the Minis ter in charge of Workers Compensation (Mr. Con nery), indeed of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), Training (Derkach), Health (Mr . Orchard), Urban Affairs (Mr . Ducharme), Rural Dev elopment (Mr . Penner), Natural Resources (Mr . Enns), and particularly perhaps the Mini ster of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey) will recall incidents that I brought across and had resolved without any politics or confrontation attached to them. When it is pointed out by certain Min isters in a derogatory way in this House that I do not co-operate

Thursday, December 7, 1989 and that I bring, as one Min ister said, "ridiculous points like that to this House involving people in distress," I take exception to that, Mr. Speaker, and I resent same. I think that I take pleasure of one of the rewards of being in public service -and I have only been in it six years -is not that you are looking at media or public attention, not the power or prestige but the real joy comes when you are able to help people. That is the essence, I believe, of being an ML A. I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, and to the Government, if a person cannot come to their Member of their Legislature, that Mem ber of the Legislature cannot come to this House, to help a person in distress in this province, and wherein- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are having some difficulty with this one bank on Hansard. Would the House be agreeable to allowing the Honourable Member for St. Vital (Mr . Rose) to move down to the bench of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek (Mrs. Yeo)? Is that agreeable? Agreed, and carry on with his remarks. The Honour able Member for St. Vi tal. (interjection)-Order, please. Mr.

Rose: Thanks again, Mr. Speaker. I want to say if a person in Manitoba in distress or with other problems canno t come to their MLA and that ML A therefore comes to this Legislature and gets that resolved, which we have done in many, many cases, then where in heaven's name can they come? For instance, points of discussion is that I have items the Min ister of Economic Security-she wonders why I come into the House with matters. We have matters of people in distress. I brought up items way back in August of Mr. Norman Peters, Mr. Bill Dmitrik way back in September .

We brought these matters up not only to the Minis ter but to her special advisor, her special assistant as they call them, and we meet them at time to time. They have got a letter in the mail, or they are just going to call you, or they are going to meet you on Mon day morning and tell you what the resolve of that matter is or what they are going to do, and what do you do, you never hear from them. * (14 40) A particular point that I take exception to is the case of the Sais family.

That was the one where the little child had lost the tips of her fing ers, and the Government department callously gouged the money back from them, or intended to gouge the mone y back from the child, who needed that when she reached the age of majority which was the court decision. (Mr . William Chornopyski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) I thought that was a matter that a caring Government could handle without coming to the House, and so therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did bring it to the Mini ster's attention, I think it was on October 18.

It was an appeal, it was a last chance to get something done and I had stated that in my correspondence of the 18th to the Minis ter. What. do I get? I would get a reply after the appeal date, a letter from the Mini ster's department, not from the Min ister directly, saying that they had received my letter. That is great. It just goes across the building. Seven days later they received it and they would bring it to the Minis ter's attention. That is the importance they put on items like that.

They could have said they would bring it to the Min ister's attention and in brackets could have put "some day." You know, that is about the importance they put on it. So what did I do? I came into this Ho use on September 13 with the item, and at that time I think certainly all Members of this House, perhaps with the exception of the Minis ter, realized the gravity of the situation and the injustice caused to a Manito ban family. What did we do? The very next day we read in the newspaper that there had been a resolve of it.

No communication with me, no communic ation with my Party , no re ply to my letter-you read it in the newspaper. This is the kind of co-operation our Mini ster wants. That is what she expects. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just a few days later, I brought another matter to the House about a family who had gone without food or housing allowance even though they had applied for social assistance six weeks before. Their department used every objection in the world almost to deny them their rightful benefits under the Canada Assistance Plan.

This Min ister at that time said, "Why do you bring these ridiculous points like that to this House?" Ridiculous that some family of five have gone without food and housing allowance for six weeks.-(interjection)- The Minis ter warbles from her seat that she called me ridiculous. You know, before that I was referring to the instance. I think that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that might even, as the Minis ter just warbled that she was calling me ridiculous, have been even more unparliamentary, and I think I would have taken a lot more exception to that. That is the attitude of this Minis ter.

That is the attitude that she is known for throughout this province, the attitude she takes in attending meetings and listens to people's concerns. Her department and this Minis ter are very conspicuous by their absence at meetings where people gather to help the working poor and those people on social assistance. The vigil the other day, there was not one person in their department -giv en up, although there were bishops and archbishops, seven denominations of churches gathered to protest and do somet hing to help the working poor and those people on social allowance with housing. I want to point out, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that this incident of Melissa Campbell came after this Min ister said that we should not be bringing these matters into the House and that I should bring them personally, although there was still this unattended item on her desk, the other two items that I have mentioned, plus a letter, that same thing came exactly the same day. A letter I had written on the 21 st, came from the Mi nister the same sort of stereotype letter, you know; some day we will have a look at this, but it has been received and hallelujah, thank God it did not go by the post office.

Now it is December 7, 21s t to the 7th, these 3592

Thursday, December 7, 1989 are matters of urgency to Manitobans, and I do not think that the Minister is so busy that her department cannot look after it, still no resolve to it. It is by coincidence today that the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), Mr. Deputy Speaker, brought up the matter of an item that the Minister had not replied to. I do not recall the date but that is not the only one.

I know that there is no obligation on the part of the Government to answer questions, but I would think when somebody on this side of the House , in the Opposition rose to bring out some concern or information they needed and the Minister indeed would say, I will take that as notice and get back with the information to the Member , that that would be done. What we have here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is we have four items still , going back two and a half months that this Minister does not see fit to answer as of today. She does not have to, I guess , but she did give a commitment.

Why did she not rise at her place on those particular dates and say the information was not forthcoming or just refuse to answer? Instead she said she will bring that info rmation back , and she has not , but then coincidentally today, in answer to the question , she got up and said something like, the next day I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) . An Honourable Member: I did . Mr. Rose: That is absolutely incorrect , and if she did speak to the Leader of the Opposition and she gave the type of convoluted answer she gave today in the House, it would not mean anything anyway.

I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have talked to my Leader and that is completely false . She is flabbergasted that this Minister of economic security should bring such an answer to this House when indeed she knows that it is misleading and not accurate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, some few months ago an item was brought to my attention about a very serious misc arriage of justice in this province . I examined it somewhat and I was convinced that there indeed had been wrong delivery of justice on this person , even though it dated back 13 years ago .

That does not deter me at all; I do not care how old a miscarriage of justice is, I will still carry the ball for any Manitoban. I completely concurred with the Minister , this is an item to deal with Autopac. We met several times . I was reall y pleased at certain stages , of the co-operation that we were getting . There was politics attached to the item; there were some damning things to the Government in the way that they handled the thing .

I was not prepared to play politics with the matter because I thought that more importantly the matter be resolved for that citizen whose life had been in anguish for 13 years because he had been wrongfully accused of something that he had no power at all to have avoided . I want to just, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, put on the record , and the reason I want to put this on the record is that it seems to me that at some point late in the game the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation became a slave to the bureaucracy in Autopac and did the same thing, fell into the same trap that they did, of just cover up . This is just another Manitoban who perhaps drives a truck, and it is 13 years old, and who really cares? He can go to his grave in anguish and his family can be in that anguish. This is not an isolated case .

They say you should not bring a particular case this is not an isolated case in Manitoba, and they well know that it is not. If we do not bring these to the public attention , then those other people who have suffered an injustice in this province will never believe and never know that there is an avenue for redress. When phone calls come to this Government with people in distress, they say things , and I can document this. Everything you hear today can be documented.

They say, well , hire a lawyer, that is the way to go, or else, in one particular case what they did with the Government depa rtment, they said, we will get back to you . This was the Minister's department, Autopac. They said, we will get back to you. Instead of getting back to him, they phoned his lawyer to see if the man was violent. When they were assured that he was not violent, that was the end of the case . They did not care .

The same day this individual whom I am talking about here phoned the Attorney General , and both Ministers have admitted now that there were phone calls to their office, and that can be documented. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) received a phone call-it apparently lasted about 30 minutes , the same person . It could have been resolved right there months ago by the Government . They had an opportunity, but they had to come to the Opposition.

The Liberal Party in Manitoba, those with a social conscience, those with a caring for people, that is who people are realizing they must come to for all matters like this- *

(1450) An Honourable Member: Especially when you are handing out cards downtown. Mr. Rose: I am sorry, the Minister of economic security would like to put a remark on the record which she having what downtown? An Honourable Member: Cards . Handing out your cards in the welfare office. An Honourable Member: She says you are making yourself too available, Bob . You should not be talking to people. An Honourable Member: You are not supposed to talk to Government bureaucrats . Mr. Rose: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I am just appalled at a remark like that, that I am handing out my cards at a welfare office .

You know full well that I do not. If I did, I would not see that there would be that much wrong with it if we could be of service to the people either in that department or elsewhere . I categorically deny ever having handed out a card at a welfare office. 3593

Thursday, December 7, 1989 I have been in welfare offices to help people . I have talked with the people. I have phoned them on dozens of occasions and gradually, gradually we are getting an area of co-operation. I only come to this Minister when the bureaucracy cannot proceed any further in resolving something, because it needs a decision by, like the cases I have just cited, the three of them, they need the discretion of the Minister because the writing of the Act can be interpreted a couple of ways, or if they need some direction from the Minister's department. What we see here is just the tip of the iceberg .

I get items, maybe not as serious as these, but every day, come to my home or to my office here, or in letters. Most of them we are able to resolve just like we are able to resolve workers compensation items or other items including UIC or social assistance , whatever . It is only the ones that get bogged down that we come here . I did want to review some of the facts . I want to put it in the perspective that this could happen to anybody in this Chamber or anyone of your family, that this injustice could happen and I think that is important that we protect it.

There will be innocent people charged and put in jail and all the rest of it. We want to make sure that every safeguard is put in place that sort of thing will not happen . In this country there is still an understanding that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with a preponderance of evidence . This is not always the case . On July 8, 1976, this 26-year-old driver of a semi trailer was taking a load of mail up to Grand Rapids . It was a nice July night, a little shower had occurred around Moosehorn when he arrived there . It is 100 miles from here.

Just previous to that he had stopped at Ashern for a cup of coffee, and ironically the girl asked him if he wanted a second cup of coffee. He said , "No , I do not have time," and she said, "Well, come on. Certainly it will not kill you, another cup of coffee ." Well, it almost did . In fact, if he had had another cup of coffee he would not have been in the accident , or if he had stayed five seconds later-that is what fate is all about . About nine miles out of Ashern this gentleman entered a curve in the road that skirts the old elevator at Moosehorn .

Those that have been on that highway know that there have been several serious and fatal accidents on the highway . This is an extremely deceptive curve; it is a wonder that it was ever built like that . At that time when he went in there he noticed another semi-trailer was crossing Highway 6 and he stopped to a dead stop to let it proceed. Shortly thereafter, another semi trailer passed him going south . Obviously the south lane was clear. I have gone to the trouble, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, of three months, and the Minister well knows this, of checking out witnesses, visiting people, and I have found no speck of evidence to the contrary of what I will put on the record here today. It is regretful that I have to take the time of the House to put this in the record , but from the remarks we have heard during Question Period, the Government just does not seem to want to understand or cannot understand. Hopefully , by putting this on the record they will now have some compassion and understanding.

I want to say that two qualified witnesses will confirm that this semitrailer did stop , and that it was proceeding at a cautious speed thereafter, and the semitrailer passed in that clear lane. The gentleman regained some speed, and as he was leaving the final curve to the straightaway highway outside Moosehorn , he saw an auto directly in his northbound lane . Collision and fire subsequently cost the lives of five persons in that automobile. The driver, Podolsky , survived, but certainly not without an abundance of pain and anguish.

I have read the RCMP officers' report, and I talked to the RCMP officers, and they have concluded their complete and unequivocal exoneration of the gentleman for any responsibility at all. The report indicates there were no skid marks, there were no brakes applied by either vehicle . William John Ross was 75 years old and was definitely the driver of the automobile , although for six years they tried to prove otherwise, which was an impossible thing . At the time, this 75-year-old man at the wheel was driving from a 14-hour day of fishing and had been on the road another two hours .

An expert RCMP officer on impairment was on the scene , and he says and repeats just last month, there were absolutely no signs of impairment. Police conclude that the two vehicles met head-on squarely well into Podolsky's northbound lane, and I quote from the report , "The southbound Ross vehicle crossed the centre line into the path of the northbound sem i." Pictures taken , and I have them here, clearly show that impact was well into the northbound lane which corroborates the police report .

In spite of the thorough RCMP report, MPIC , Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, the only people we can be insured with certainly at that time in this province, shows instead to take possession and use an illegal, highly confidential statistical report by Transport Canada and use that to assess 75 percent of the responsibility for the accident to Mr. Podolsky. Mr. Podolsky never received any compensation for anguish, lost wages and other damages. Before this matter ever came into the House , Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I must stress again , all these facts were available to the Minister , available for him and his staff to check, and double-check and triple -check, but instead they choose to whitewash the item once more because it was just I guess another Manitoba truck driver, and it was too old to really care about. We got more urgent business , urgent like taking an unmarked blue van into Assiniboia to play a ridiculous game of electioneering when we are at no time near the election. *

(1500) But they found time for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they continue to find time for those silly things , but they do not find time to answer phone calls, and do what is best for the people of Manitoba who suffered injustices . 3594

Thursday, December 7, 1989 This man only received some minor interim compensation, but he inherited the anguish of being accused-picture yourself , picture your family , picture your friends. You have innocently driven on the road , somebody smashed your vehicle, and you are told that you killed him . Just place yourself in that position . Podolsky's lawyer indicates the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation may also have wrongly used another private and biased report in their determination of liability.

It is one point we have not been able to check, but the suspicion goes in that direction, that they used not only one report, but two . Oddly enough in this case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and including in the cover-up , there was no inquest and no charges were ever laid. Obviously I would think the reason for that is that if an inquest had been held which the lawyer for the plaintiff was asked , or if there had been charges laid against him, then the evidence would have come out in a court of law, and the truth would have prevailed .

But it was made sure the truth never prevailed, and therefore, it was never before any sort of a judge-I think deliberately . Because if he had that, if he had his day in court , they would have conclusively proven, 10, 11, 12, 13 years ago, that he had no responsibility at all in this accident . Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of Canada's top accident investigators, who was well aware of the facts because he wrote the Transport Canada report, is amazed at the turn of events, and those are his words-amazed at the turn of events-that Podolsky would be held responsible at all.

Several persons were interviewed recently in the Moosehorn district by myself, and some of whom were at the accident site that night , like firemen, nurses, undertakers, doctors, and all-and I do not think I know of a better word to describe it were flabbergasted at the fact that Podolsky was given the least bit of blame.

You would know that in a small town how much discussion and rehashing of such an incident would be, and I think the opinions of those people who are fully in view of the facts that were available , plus the witnesses who were there, to the truck coming by, came to that conclusion .- (interjection) That mike is working. An Honourable Member: Mr. Deputy Speaker, after that, how much time does he have left? Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member has approximately 16 minutes left. Mr. Rose: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, somehow this report, obtained by the Manitoba Public Insurance agency, was used as a bluff and those are not my words. Those are the words of the chief investigator . They were used as a bluff on Podolsky and his lawyers, a blackmail he did not say blackmail, I am saying that now. He says, and this was held over his head and his lawyer 's head, so he would be unsuccessful in any lawsuits against MPIC . It almost worked, thanks to the help of the Government on the other side .

This professional accident investigator also said later that MPIC could not possibly make a determination of liability on the basis of the Transport Canada report. If he does not know, who does? 3595 Anyway, having learned about this incident in late August and having investigated fully, I wrote to the Minister about the consequences on September 12. On October 3, I got a reply to my letter from the Minister , and there are some interesting things in there . The Minister made the same mistakes that Autopac made. He somehow assumed that this confidential, fully sanitiz ed report, somehow referred to Podolsky .

I do not know how he could ever come to that conclusion because the report on the front of it does not have any identification of who or where or why the accident was . In fact, the letter accompanying it from the chief of the accident investigation in Ottawa says, "Enclosed please find one copy of an accident invest igation report which could be the one concerning your accident." In other words , he almost reached into a grab bag and came out with this . " Please understand that we have no way of being certain that this report covers your accident.

All accident investigation reports prepared according to the road safety directorate are sanitized purposely at the time of writing to protect information received about those involved in the accident." Yet the Minister in his letter says, since the initial RCMP investigation indicated the impact that occurred in Mr. Podolsky's lane of travel, it appeared that the southbound vehicle had been on the wrong side of the road at the time of the impact. Now that is what he says about the RCMP. Now who shou ld be more qualified?

But then he says, and this is what Autopac did too, they said a subsequent investigation was carried out by the Road Safety Division of Transport Canada who specialize in accident reconstruction. The findings of their report indicate that Mr. Podolsky had drifted across the centre of the road and into the south bound lanes at the point where the highway begins to curve to the right. When the driver of the oncoming vehicle realized that he was on a collision course with a semi, he applied his brakes . Mr. Podolsky then veered back to his right on his own side of the road, just as the collision occured .

What a wonderful re-examination and reconstruction of an accident , picked out of the air obviously so that he would be voided of any benefits from the accident . It goes on further to say in the Minister's letter, if the southbound vehicle had on its own accord wandered across the centre line of the road , then the southbound driver would be held responsible. If they do not, that report which the RCMP said that is refuted, that is nonsense, I guess . However , if Mr.

Podolsky , the big if, they do not say that he did, but if he had crossed the centre road thereby creating the emergency situation which the south-bound driver had attempted to avoid, then Mr. Podolsky would have largely been responsible for the accident which he was even though the collision occurred on his side of the road. Now, is that not interesting? You are on your side of the road and somebody hits you and you are responsible .

Following a review of the accident reconstruction report and the completion of examination of discovery that is another thing, there never was such a thing, but the Minister seems to allude to it. It appeared that Mr. Podolsky had not in fact contributed largely to the accident by letting his vehicle wander to the left prior

Thursday, December 7, 1989 to rendering the curve . Now if he had he might have rendered there to avoid a child, a bicycle, a car, another truck, a deer, a rabbit . He has every right to be in that other lane as long as there is not another vehicle in it at the same time. It was the recommendation in Mr. Podolsky's letter, Mr. So and So, that the liability be assessed 75-25 in favour of the southbound vehicle, that is absolutely a lie as is attr ibuted lately by Mr. Fishman . The various lawyers which have represented Mr.

Podolsky have all had full access to the accident information including the examination to discoveries which is absolute false because never did they have access to the report that condemned him and found him guilty of the accident . How can the Minister now say when he already knew about this road report, and he knew that Podolsky did not have it? How could be possibly say he had access which he is entitled to under the law? There has been no attempt on the part of MPIC to hide any facts or evidence which might influence the question of liability.

For 13 years, they hid this report and yet the Minister says nothing was hidden . *

(1510) Interesting here that Mr. Podolsky finally found a lawyer that would represent him, and he wrote this back to me. After reading the Minister's report, I then wrote three letters to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and received no response to any of those letters. I was subsequently served with a motion to dismiss Mr. Podolsky's action for delay. Nice thing on your and my agency's part, eh? We tell them that we want documents, so we go to court and they examine that after the third one and go to the court to have the whole thing dismissed-nice reply to a letter.

That is the sort of letter that we get from the Minister, so why would we expect anything different from Autopac? In fact, I consider it grossly improper and unprofessional that my letters were not responded to and that Mr. Podolsky, once having obtained a lawyer to act and proceed with this matter, was met with a motion to dismiss his action for delay. In fact, the motion to dismiss for delay was indicated by my efforts to contact the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and proceed with this matter. It goes on to further say that this is heavy handed, and I certainly agree with him.

I think the fact that the Minister wrote this letter, where he mistakenly assumes this false and damaging report refers to Ken Podolsky, and on page 6 of Hansard, November 27, he stated in the House unsubstantiated innuendo damaging Mr. Podolsky about a phone call that came to him. I think it is a very serious matter that the Minister would take this action, that he would have connected Mr. Podolsky to a very damaging report without any proof whatsoever that it refers to him. By that action he has libelled him and therefore damaged his reputation even further. A public apology to Mr.

Podolsky should be made by that Minister , if he is to maintain any credibility here in this House or indeed in Manitoba . On the subject of that also, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would be interested to see the memo that was received from Autopac to the Minister and see what it contained. We have a letter in the interim from the fellow who made this report and he says it was highly confidential. It was coded and confidential and the source of the information was not revealed . All notebooks and field sketches were destroyed. That is how confidential and that is how classified the documents was.

Use of reports outside sources was prohibited until released by Transport Canada . It says that information came from both direct interviews and indirect sources, no system was in place to verify its authenticity and veracity. That is why he later calls the report worthless, the author of the report. A professional engineer might well have secured injury data . A medical doctor could just as easily contributed to engineering information . That is how professional it was; that was just a statistical document.

He goes on to say, and this is the author of the report who is a professional investigator, that one thing is certain, Mr. Podolsky 's name never appeared in any of our permanent records. The passing of these report s along for other uses would be surprising to me. That is what he said in an earlier conversation with me too. It was generally understood that these reports would be used to scientific research purposes only and would be sanitized to a degree that use for other purposes would be possible , but yet when this came to the attention of MPIC, they gloated and gleaned .

I do not know whether they instituted the movement to them , but when they did they obviously took it to their advantage to deny one of our citizens the rights that he has under the only insurance company we can insure ourselves and our automobiles in this prov ince while driving . It goes on to further say these so-called multidisciplinary acc ident reports were in no way intended to lend support to any law enforcement agency. It is my understanding that Mr. Podolsky is totally absolved of any blame by the police force , charged with the responsibility of investigating this crash .

Surely, this ought to be the final word in any settlement. This is a known professional in Canada. The police report, I have already alluded to it, say that the two vehic les met head-on squarely in Podolsky 's lane . The Ross vehicle was on the wrong side of the road completely and no way was he impaired by alcohol or drugs . He says, I have 30 years of service , this letter was written March 8, 1 989, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have 30 years of experience with the RCMP and became a breathalyzer operator in 1969 .

I have a great deal of experience relating to all toxic and chemical abuse by people that I encounter over the year. He goes further on to say that he is so convinced and so appalled that this would happen, tha t Mr. Podolsky says, please, keep me advised as to whether or not I will be needed to testify. That RCMP officer was even honest to me. I asked him, is there a chance that you missed skid marks . He said yes, it was raining and it could be missed. So I talked to the other-that was in Edmonton-I talked to the other RCMP oft1cer who was in Killarney-Kuebler .

I asked him the same question and he said , no, the road was wet the night before , but I purposely walked three or 400 feet down the highway to the north to see if there was any skid 3596

Thursday, December 7, 1989 marks, there were none. That is how thoroughly he went in to it. I repeat, the investigator said and these are his words, it was illegally used to bluff Podolsky and held over his head of him as lawyers. He says in his quote to me, these adjusters are known in Manitoba to be brutal and we found many, many cases of this. He said, it is absolut ely in credible that they could blame responsibility based on this information.

He, himself, who you would think would be on the other side, said you would be absolutely amazed by the turn of events and I repeat that he was completely exonerated by the police and they would be the ones to testify in court. Again he comes and he says, listen, this is incredible this should happen in Manitoba. Please keep me posted and whatever I can do to help. I talked to the other policemen and he said yes, one of the RCMP officers whose family was killed in the accident did come and asked lots of questions the next morning, interfered in the accident report.

He did not want to believe that his dad was dead. He says, this evidence was stacked. He said this RCMP officer talked him, he says the evidence was stacked against Podols ky. In 30 years in the force, he said this is one item that never did settle with him that this injustice was done. In fact, he says all indication would be that the car that hit him should have veered to the right. I said that Podolsky in his report, the police said, that as I rolled my truck north I slowed to approximately five miles an hour and gave an Arnold Bros.

Transport driver time to clear the highway which he is backing his unit across. He tooted his air horn and waved thanks, as did a very slow moving vehicle, the Gardewine Transport. That is the detail that we have. Went down to Mo ose Horn and saw evidence of people who verified his statement of 13 years ago. Unequ ivocally, are prepared to appear in court and I have notes of a meeting with them.

It is an interesting thing of this Government also and I quote just a little divergence here-that on November 1, in reply to a question to the Min ister of economic security when I asked him why they do not prosecute rather than do another means, where there is a very small amount of welfare fraud in them, and I want to stress that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But when I asked why they would not lay criminal charges, this Min ister said there are other means if somebody defrauds the Go vernment. It is a criminal charge, they have never done that.

Well, the Min ister replied in this House that would be dragging people to the courts and clog the courts. I do not know what they are there for. Just the other day, I asked the Min ister about people in that some department, Autopac being fired and quit because of an investigation and he said for one thing, I have raised it on a number of occasions, which is absolutely false, but he says that Autopa c-1 am trying to get the quote here-in deed says that it is under a hundred dollars that was involved, and then I guess he indicated no charges were laid.

Well that indicates to me and to Manitobans that, if you steal under a hundred dollars, it is not a crime, or are they saying, if you steal from the Government under a hundred dollars it is not time. It is in teresting to see in the same day, a couple of days ago, the Mini ster say that a thing like that Autopac would not condone anything that appeared to be anywhere near the edge of what is correct. That was our whole point. They seem to be doing things that are not correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I think that I would like to thank you and the House for the opportunity to put at least half of the pertinent points on the record. There are many, many more, but I think that those points should be able to convince the Minis ter that he is going to have to put his front foot down with Autopac, and intervene on these things and other matters that we brought to his attention to make sure that mess is cleaned up for once and for all. Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member's time has expired.

QUEST ION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Minn edosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) in the Chair for the Department of Housing; and the Honourable Member for Burrows (Mr . Chorno pyski) in the Chair for the Department of Environment. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUP PLY-HOUSING Mr. Chairman (Harold Gilleshammer): We will call this committee meeting to order to discuss the Estimates of the Department of Ho using. When fast we met we were dealing with item 1 General Adminis tration; 1. (

b) Executive Support; 1. (b )( 1) Salaries $268,700-the Member for lnkster. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): I would like to start off where f had left off on Tuesday and start with a question on when were the proposals received from the consorti um or, I should say, actually resubmitted from the consor tium, Genstar and Ladco? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Housing): I will give you Genstar's first. Genstar first had given us information that they would be submitting a proposal. In August they let us know, and we had to wait for their manager or their president, Les Cosman, to come into town.

We met with Les and Mic key Labrie on October 20, 1988, when they brought in their final proposal. NWC advised us on September 16 that they would be resubmitting their proposal. We sat down with them and then they submitted their final revision on September 16. So to the Mem ber, we did have a deadline, the end of August. The reason for that was to try to get people on intent and not on proposals, and then we worked back from there. So we actually were quite lenient.

We left ourselves open to hear anybody that was coming forward , and as you must realize, in the development busi ness there are not too many that will come forward and submit these types of proposals. Mr. Lamoureux: I guess the proposal call itself went out on June 30 of last year. I do not have a copy of 3597

Thursday, December 7, 1989 it in front of me. I do not know what happened to the ccipy that I did receive, but I believe it was June 30. Mr. Ducharme: They sent it out to their members on June 30. That is what the homebui lders did. They sent out a letter suggesting that we will receive proposals until the end of August. Mr. Lamoureux: I guess this is where I had a considerable amount of concern, Mr . Chairperson, the fact that the proposal call, or I should actually say the method in which the Government put out the proposal call, is really what I would call into question.

It is not to belittle the homebuilders association, I believe it is a fine organization, and I think they did a fine job, all things considered, in terms of ensuring that their members were notified that this particular contract was out. I am wondering if the Minis ter is of the opinion the proposal call with memorandum, going out on June 30 with the deadline of Augus t 30, if that was really enough time for perspective companies or interested parties to submit a proposal. Mr. Ducharme: Yes, I feel it was.

What had happened is, before when there were propo sal calls made, and I do not know what the date that was usually on the first one that was done, on this property and the Meadows West was about eight weeks -(interjection) about eight weeks. Ho wever, the problem with that one was what we were told in the industry, and talking to the homebuilders was that the proposal call that went out originally, and I am talking about the one that was done by the previous administration, was a little too restrictive. It did not allow enough people or it was very restrictive on what the guidelines were.

We felt that it was quite well-known that the land was available, it was quite well-known that MHR C's lands are available, period, on any proposals and so we actually had received information. If someone would have come in to us some time in September and Oc tober-w e even allowed, I think the Genstar proposal, where they came in September was maybe even different than the one they came in-t he original Letter of Intent. So we were very open to allow proposals to come right up.

As a matter of fact, we did not close off any proposals until we finally signed an agreement, almost until the end of December of that year. * (15 30) So if we had any people notifying us, we were quite open to talk to them. We were quite open and we were very, very open with both groups, Genstar and the other group. The other group, even after that deadline came forward and sai d, hey, we have some alternative suggestions that we would like to offer you.

But you have to remember that the group that finally was successful, the others were at a disadvantage because they did not have land adjoining that they could offer to market and manage, and we would get 95 percent of the profit on our lands. There was no one coming forward with that type of opportuhity so it made it unique in a different situation. Genstar would want to come in on one way, the other group would want to come in the other way. Genstar wanted to use the same proposal with us that they did with the City of Winnipeg, on the City of Winnipeg's property.

That was one proposal and the other proposal was the other group who had their proposal and then there were different proposals. We were very, very open, so myself as Min ister had no problem. To be honest with you, I was even commended. I could read you a letter that I received from the Manitoba house builders commending the way we handled the proposal and commending us that we looked into the guarantee that the small builders, who come forward with their want for lots, would be looked at and we were very, very cautious of that. I have no problem with the way it was handled because you are in a limited market.

We did contact any people that had shown any concerns before, Cairns and Qualico, these types of people that showed interest before. We did not just receive and say, ok ay, we are not listening to any more. We did contact anybody who gave any proposals before. For instance, Qualico in their development, thought that they had lots in that south end of the city. Cairns was mainly doing their other area in Fort Garry, so there were others that were contacted. We contacted anybody who had made a proposal on the original proposal call put in by the previous administration. Mr.

Lamoureux: I wonder if the Min ister perceives any type of conflict or problem that could be caused by receiving proposals, given that a deadline was set at the end of August, but receiving proposals at different time periods. He has mentioned one on December 16, one on October 20 and he was very easy in terms of allowing them to resubmit or amend their proposals and the content of them.

I am wondering if the Minis ter sees any conflict in that, and maybe also if he could inform me if one of the companies would have submitted a revision, would the other two companies be aware of the resubmission of the other company. Mr. Ducharme: No, once we saw that there were proposals coming forward from the interested parties that were dealing with the market, for instance, we looked at a couple that-the other company that was Gens tar and the other one who we gave lots of opportun ity. We did not close off as of that date.

We continued to see people and tried to come up with what we felt was best for the area. I do not see any conflict as far as not allowing people to hear about the proposal. I was very conscious of that. I felt that if anybody was out there, they knew. I cannot say that we did not advertise somewhere in Toronto or Alberta, but I certainly assure you that in any discussions I had with the industry there was no question from them. Maybe I could give you the letter: The Min ister of course will be reviewing all proposals during the summer and making the decision by the end of Augus t.

I did not say that I was closing off any proposals, but I wanted to give some type of lead-way that was available so that I could hear from anybody who was int erested. Anybody who was anything in the Manitoba Home Bui lders Asso ciation, 3598

Thursday, December 7, 1989 anybody whose knowledge might pass on to a developer will generally have something to do with-because you just cannnot develop this type of property without having probably been involved in it before or have some major concern or association with Manitoba Home Builders.-(interjection)- The previous adminis tr ation did have a broad pro posal call, so it did give us an indication of what type of people were interested in this kind of land. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr .

Chairperson, the Min ister in making reference to a letter-maybe he should not have read what he did read-did he not say that he would be making a decision at the end of August? Mr. Ducharme: That is not my letter . I do not know where they got that, because I had indicated that I would like to have something completed by the end of the summer so that we could start looking at the proposals to get into. That is not my letter. I am just giving you the letter that was written by the Home Builders Associa tion. I did not write that letter.

The attempt was to try to come up with a reso lution by the end of the summer. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, again I am going to go to the point in which, if you are receiving proposal calls in different time periods, and if you are allowed to resubmit endlessly, I would maybe suggest that you are leaving yourself open for one company finding out what the other company is proposing. I am wondering how many changes were made, or did Genstar or the consortium make any changes upon hearing that Ladco had picked up an additional piece of prope rty, or when Ladco made a change, did not Genstar be privy to that? Mr.

Ducharme: I can tell you, it is not like a simple sale or simple call. As a matter of fact, I would say that probably Genstar and the other group-I am talking about the collective group-would probably solicit us through their lawyer and through negotiations after we had heard on who was interested, probably had more chances to change their original proposal than anybody else. Genstar was probably, of the group, the one that was most definite on how their proposal call went, because they have done so many with the City of Winnipeg.

I think they have done four or five, very large, in the Fort Garr y area, Lindenwoods area, so they were adamant. They said this is the way we do it, and we sat down with them and we had theirs. The other group that you are referring to who came forward from the consort ium, we sat down with their lawyers quite a few times to try and come up with something that would even be close to the one we had originally received in that date from Ladco.

Ladco, to be honest with you, I do not think changed theirs, other than how we received our mon ies, along the line maybe that way we insisted that we would be more concerned about certain items on how we receive our mone y. To be honest with you, we could sit at this table all day long. I have no qualms about the way it was handled, because I understand in the real estate business, I understand in the development busine ss, how people sit down and do proposals, so I have no problem with the procedure that was followed.

If there had never been a prop osal call before, maybe we would have been notified by a lot of these people that put in origina lly, but we did go back to those people and a lot of them told us that they were not interested in a proposal or submitting a proposal. * (15 40) Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I think the Min ister says himself that we could probably debate this endlessly in terms of the method and so forth in terms of the proposal call and the way it went forward.

I am of the opinion with my colleagues in the Liberal Party that this was maybe not the best proposal call that the Gover nment has put out; au contraire, that there should have been a proposal call in which everyo ne would have been entitled to give a possible submission, and a proper amount of time should have been allocated. There is no saying an inte rested private citizen might have been interested in developing it as something. You do not necessarily have to be a home builder. There are different types of proposals that the Minis ter might have received had he advertised it properly.

So on that note, I am going to leave the proposal call aspect of it and let him know that I am, and the Li beral Party is, very disappointed in terms of the manner in which the Minis ter and the Government seek to deal in that land, and what I would like to do now- Mr. Ducharme: Just to comment on that.

If the critic believes that someone who has never had any association with the Manitoba Ho me Builders Association or the house-building industry would put in a proposal and not have heard about the developer ! mean, a private individual, to put up the type of funding and the knowledge that is involved in the proposal, if he feels that he could get somebody to bring forward a proposition that will give us more than 95 percent profit on our share of the land, I would like to see it.

I mean, in the real estate business, most house sales and you do not have the management, all you do is the marketing-the average is 6 per cent. That is what we are getting. I mean, we are getting 95 percent of the profit on that piece of land. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Ch airperson, I guess the Min ister says it when he says he went for the largest profit, the most money that could be made on it.

If there would have been a non-profit organization that came forward, for example, maybe to build a community centre, or a multi-cultural centre, there are other uses for property than housing development, especially when you look around at the residential serviced lots that are available in the City of Winnipeg. Had the proposal call gone through the Winn ipeg Free Press and the rural papers, we might have heard from someone that would have been interested in constructing something other than housing. We will never know that, because the proposal call did not go out with that type of mechanism.

I find that somewhat unfortunate, and it is disappointing. Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Chairman, if the Member across the way is saying that we should be giving this land 3599

Thursday, December 7, 1989 away to a low profit, I disagee with him on one item. When we have a participation with CMHC, they will pay us for the land. Why would we give away the money and save the federal Government that money? That is where I am coming from. I would sooner obtain the money , and if I am going to make a profit on this land, you are going to have other areas of the city where the marketing shows that you should have different types of housing. Where the federal Government will pay me 75 percent towards the cost of land, why would I give it away?

When you come in to a joint agreement with the federal Government, they will participate in the land and they will pay us for the land. So why should I give the federal Government the land for this type of housing when I can make money on one part, and I can turn around and I can get the federal Government to participate and pay their 75 percent of their cost in the other land? Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I never said that the Minis ter had to give the land away.

What I did say is that the Min ister did not have to have one motive and one motive only, and that was to raise as much money off that piece of land as possible. There are other alternatives that we might have been able to look at, but we were never able to look at those other alternatives because the Min ister of Ho using {Mr . Ducharme), in my opinion and in the Liberal Party's opinion, did not put out the proposal call in a proper man ner. As I say, we could go on endlessly to discuss that point of view. I would just as soon leave it at that, Mr.

Chairperson, and move on into another aspect of the Ladco-MHRC deal. Mr. Ducharme: Since you gave me your Liberal policy, I will stand by, and we will be different from the critic. I will say to you that that was the Conservative policy, it was a decision of the Conse rvative Cabinet. It was a decision by my department to tell me that this was head and shoulders above any other proposal we have received, and I will go along with that. I have to make a decision. I am the Minis ter, and I have no problem with that.

I will stand by the decision we made, when we can give back to the taxpayers of Manitoba 95 percent profit on their particular land. Mr. Lamoureux: Now that we are talking about the No. 1 motive for the Government for entering into that particular deal, and that of course being the highest dollar possible, not taking into consideration other effects or other things such as non-profit housing or having an important component of non-profit housing in the development itself, I would ask dollars ahead of people, as the Member for St. Vital {Mr . Rose) points out.

I think that proves not only in this particular department but in other departments. I am looking at part of the deal, or the deal itself, that was entered into with MHR C and Ladco, and they have a year from date tender contra ct is awarded, which, I guess, is the third or fourth last page of the contract.-{interjection)-The Mini ster has it? Okay. What I am interested in is, first of all, is the agreement now in effect in terms of the five years? Mr. Ducharme: No. Mr. Lamoureux: No work has been started at this point in time.

I am wondering if the Min ister can tell me when he is anticipating some work to start? * {1 550) Mr. Ducharme: What we are doing now is approaching the City of Winnipeg to- remember, you have to have a zoning agreement put in place, and we are hoping to have that in place by late spring. When that happens, then we will enter into actual lots. We are hoping for that to happen, and that is our time frame at this time. Mr. Lamoureux: So, come fall time, we will be looking at seeing some of the lots being developed, the Min ister points out, or at least he hopes to see that. Mr. Ducharme: Yes. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Chairperson, the other day I had asked the Minis ter in Question Period in regard to the amount of profit that is going to be made in the first five years. I had stated that it was going to be more than 50 percent in the first five years. The Minis ter told me that I was wrong and in fact that was not going to be the case. I am wondering, now th at he might have the documents in front of him, if he can confirm that I was wrong at that time. Mr.

Ducharme: Yes, when you mentioned that we had said in our bulletin that we sent out that we would make $9.2 million, we were talking net, and I think you were referring to the chart that was talking gross for the five years. To give you an idea, gross profits in the life of the joint venture were projected at $14 million to $15 million which we originally announced. Net profits at retirement of the debt associated with th e MHR C parcel is estimated between $9 million and $10 million.

The life of the joint venture is projected at 13 years on the basis of the accelerated cash flow of 75 percent of total revenues accruing to MHR C during the first five years. A profit of in excess of $5 million is anticipated during that time, sufficient to retire MHR C landholding costs with the balance of $9 million to $10 million and net profits received during the last eight years. Mr. Lamoureux: Using the chart I have before me, I have, as the Minis ter has pointed out, a 13 -year time span in which he has in the first five years $5.25 million being made.

He then has at the end of 13 years projected that MHR C would be making $15 .34 million. Is that correct? Mr. Ducharme: $1 5.34 million, that is correct. Mr. Lamoureux: Then I would ask, Mr. Chairperson, why would-in the news service press release that the Minis ter himself put out, and I quote, the cost of developing the land is just estimated at $46.6 million 3600

Thursday, December 7, 1989 with Manitoba Housing's share of profit projected at $9.7 million . Mr. Ducharme: You are talking about including gross development costs in one and not in the other. We are talking two different items in the announcement. We are talking in that statement there, you mentioned I said $9.2 million, correct? Mr. Lamoureux: $9.7 million. Mr. Ducharme: Yes. Mr. Lamoureux: So that is net profit. Mr. Ducharme: Yes, that is what I meant. The gross profit is $15 .34 million . We are talking net and gross.

You remember, we have a difference in our land costs that we have invested in this land, and our land cost that takes us away from the $15 million . We got over what is our total land cost?-$3.6 million , plus we have, and projec ted to be around $6 million-$5.2 million you have to put to develop the land. You understand what I am saying? I am saying that in the reference I am referring to net. In here I am referring to gross . Mr. Lamoureux: In drawing up the agreement itself, I do not believe the Department of Housing would have been privy to the knowledge that the GST would be coming in.

I am wondering if that is going to have any impact on the projection on what this Government is projecting to make on this particular project. Mr. Ducharme: Of course, we did not have any reflection when we did ours on the GST because-but are you saying, do we feel that this should be up-Io date stats? Remember , if you want to go back through the years , we got our single housing costs in the St. Boniface-St. Vital area. In 1988 there were 521 lots; in 1987 there were 705 ; and in 1986 there were 1,000.

So, we are projec ting, we are still anticipating with those figures that we used before to determine ours , without the GST. If the GST comes along and there is an increase in building, of course we would be glad to see that, because all it does is accelerate, and we get back our money that much quicker. That is why we asked for the profits , to get more than Ladco in the first five years because we wanted to recover . Remember , we only have 37 percent of the land, but we are asking for 75 percent of the profits in the first five years to try and get our money back that much quicker . Mr.

Lamoureux: I am wondering if the Minister-just before I had left the other day I had mentioned in terms of the number of servi ced lots- Mr. Ducharme: Nineteen hundred . Yes, that is what it was originally . Mr. Lamoureux: The other day in the Chamber the Minister made reference to 120. How many is he 3601 anticipating on putting every year? The other day believe he had mentioned 120 inside the Chamber . Mr.

Ducharme : When we did our projections , the average amount was 120 lots , I believe -(inter jection)- 142 lots in a year, and I did say to the Member that the average and the lowest you have ever had in that area was 120 lots . But , remember at that time they were competing with River Park South, and so there is movement to run in that particular area . If however, you do have a heavy influx-say if the GST comes in, we would be glad to handle more. Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the Minister can give me an idea on the raw servicing cost of Meadows West area . Mr. Ducharme: Could you maybe redefine that?

Do you want to know how much we spent per lot, or the overall cost to develop that land? Mr. Lamoureux: I am looking at, how much does it cost the province to retain that property? Mr. Ducharme: Our holding costs? Mr. Lamoureux: Your holding costs. Mr. Ducharme: What I can do for now is I can give you an approximate figure, and then get back to the Member on what the exact figure is. Yesterday I did approximate-I said , 1,600 lots and I should have said there are 1,900 , but around $150,000 to $200 ,000 a year interest. Mr.

Lamoureux: Has Meadows Wes t- and I am assuming the proposal call that you are still looking to divest MHRC of Meadows West along with the other pieces of property? Have there been any other proposals submitted on those projects? Mr. Ducharme: To the Member, Meadows West has been a piece of property that when we started to go into proposal call, when we asked-you will see by the letter, the one we sent out to the home builders that you said was not-well , you and I have a difference of opinion and I will not get into that one again . The proposal call did ask for Meadows West and John Bruce.

We did not receive any proposal calls at that time and we have not received any since . I think probably it is because in the housing starts, in the availability of land , if you take a look at the analysis our people do analysis when they are doing developing-they found that Meadows West, I guess the people who are looking around Meadows West have a very, very -(interjection)- No, no, I am not knocking Meadows West, it is a good area . It is almost as good as St. Vital, just about . Remember before we went into this proposal, in any of these proposals, we had an independen

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-86
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 86.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	86c2c0ec77ad853456ccedaedc3477142f95d646

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