Manitoba Hansard — 23 April 1985 (Sitting 35A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-35a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursda}f, 25 April, 1985. Time - 2:00 p. m. OP ENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESE NTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. MR. CLERK, W.

Remnant: Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as their First Report: Your Committee met on Tuesday, April 23, 1985 and Thursd ay, April 25, 19 85 in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the 19 84 Annual Report of The Ma nitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Your Committee received all information desired from Mr. Olafur P. Sigurdson, Chairman of the Board, and Mr. Carl Laufer, President and General Manager, with respect to matters pertaining to the 1984 Annual Report and the business of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

The fullest opportunity was accorded to all members of the Committee to seek any information desired. Your Committee examined the Annual Report of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending October 31, 19 84 and adopted the same as presented. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Concordia, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried . MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . .

Introduction of Bills .. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 60 students of Grade 9 standing from the Charleswood Junior High School. They are under the direction of Mr . Crew. The school is in the cons tituency of the Honourable Me mber for Charleswood. There are 45 students of Grade 5 standing from the R. F.Morrison School. They are under the direction of the Miss Jaszczyk. The school is in the constituency of the Kildonan. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS Media Secretary - salary increase MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I ask the Premier, at a time when many employees in the province are being asked to have very low demands for salary increases, and people in health care are being asked to take very minimal increases, how he can justify having his media secretary given an increase of 47 percent in just a two-year period? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the increases were, in fact, adjustments that were made in relationship to that. I'm quite prepared to defend the rationale of that during the Estimates review. MR. SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member that he should not ask a question which could be characterized as being argumentative. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: We're not arguing, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indicate why the publication of the Order-in Council that was passed July 4th giving this major increase was delayed from public knowledge until it was released on April 10, 1985, some nine months later. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll accept that question as one for notice. Manfor - salary of President MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct a question to the Minister responsible for Manfor and ask the Minister if he can confirm that the President and Chief Executive Officer of Manfor is being compensated at the rate of $100,000 a year, or paid on a monthly basis at $8,333 a month? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. 1240

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that it is in that range, Mr. Speaker. I believe the member knows that the salary paid to senior officials at Manfor is a matter between those officials and the board of directors, and in the case of the chief executive officer, he comes to Manfor with a very distinguished record in private enterprise in the forestry industry and was appointed after an extensive search by a professional personnel management enterprise and has do ne a very cred ible job in turning the corporation around.

The salary that is paid, I suppose, is commensurate with his experience, Mr. Speaker, and the demands of the job. MR. D. GOURLAY: A question to the same Minister. Was this present Minister the Minister responsible for Manfor when this present chief executive officer was signed to this agreement? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice for a determination of the exact date. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Can the Minister confirm that the Chief Executive Officer of Manfor is being paid a disturbance allowance, a net monthly amount of $1 ,000 after taxes and all deductions are made? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I believe the member's figures are somewhat askew. MR. D. GOURLAY: Another supplementary to the same Minister. I wonder if the Minister can advise the House if the chief executive officer is also entitled to receive a bonus for each 12 -month period of his employment of $50,000 in addition to his $100,000 a year and in addition to his net $1 ,000 disturbance allowance.

HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are terms and conditions within the cont ract that relate to performance bonuses and whether the member's figure is accurate or not, again, I will take the question as notice. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary to the same Minister. Can the Minister confirm that after the present chief executive officer had been in employment for over 12 months, the board could review his annual salary and make an adjustment upwards? I wonder if the Minister could advise whether the salary of $100,000 a year has been adjusted upwards, plus the various bonuses. HON. J.

STORIE: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the salary has not been adjusted at this point. I would just like to say to the member that the member's concern obviously is what the total amount of wages and benefits that might be entitled to the Chief Executive Officer of Manfor and I will indicate categorically that we are paying a substantial amount for the services of a chief executive officer for that corporation. Mr.

Speaker, while I and perhaps many other people find these sums of money substantial and perhaps 1241 inexplicable, I can assure the member that the search for a chief executive officer who would do Manfor proud, who would serve the purpose that he was intended to serve, that is, to take Manfor through a very difficult period in which there was a major upgrading going on, take Manfor from a position which had been somewhat lack lus tre over a decade and contribute to the organization and the development of a corporation that would be to the net benefit of Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker, we could have hired a box boy to do that job ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. STORIE: . . we chose to hire someone that would do the job . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister should not turn his question into a speech. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: A further supplementary to the same Minister. I wonder if the Minister could advise whether or not suitable office and living accommodation and club memberships at both The Pas and Winnipeg are being paid for by the taxpayers of Manitoba for this chief executive officer.

A MEMBER: In addition to everything else. MR. D. GOURLAY: In addition to membership in a golf club in Quebec. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I can only say, as I've indicated before, it was and is a difficult task to attract qualified people to a location like The Pas to take on the kind of challenge this particular individual was required to undertake. As to the particular circum stances about memberships, Mr. Speaker, I again will take that as notice and bring back the information. MPIC -delay in settling claims MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago, I took a question as notice from the Member for Minnedosa with respect to delay in settling claims at Autopac. I would like to report that, in fact, there were considerable - I bring this information for the benefit of all members of the House. The question was raised in the Ho use; I would assume this is the appropriate place to respond. There were considerable delays in January as a result of our weather. There was an 18 percent increase in the number of claims which resulted in delays of five to eight days.

The higher number of claims continued up until the last while. understand that MPIC is back to normal and we anticipate that, as of now, the claims should be handled within a matter of a day or two, as normal. In addition we've hired some 11 staff to expedite processing claims.

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 Manfor - salary of President MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: I direct a further question to the Minister responsible for Manfor and ask the Minister if he can confirm that the expenses of the chief executive officer for Ma nfor also inclu des payment for his cigarettes or cigars? IMR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, the member wants to make the point that the chief executive officer for Manfor is well paid.

I will take as notice the detailed question about the member's concern and will respond back in due course. llll R. D. GOURLAY: Another supplementary to the same Minister. Can the Minister advise the House as to what arrangements are made with the Chief Executive Officer of Manfor for the supply of a vehicle, automobile? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could save the member further questions on this topic and ask him to submit his list of questions to me in writing and I would be more than happy to respond. He has an opportunity to ask those kinds of questions, I suppose, in comm ittee as well.

I make no bones about the fact that we're paying exceptionally good money for this individual. Mr. Speaker, the kinds of negotiations that go on to attract a man of international calibre to Manfor, to take on what has been and is a significant challenge, is not an easy task.

Whether there were fringe benefits negotiated, dealing with memberships or the use of a car, I have taken as notice and I will endeavour to find out; but the point has to be made to the member opposite and to the opposition, if we are going to take seriously our responsibilty to run Manfor in an efficient, practical way, then we have to have management capable of doing that job, and if we have to spend the dollar to attract someone, then obviously we have no alternative. Mr.

Speaker, members opposite know that, in terms of the base sala ry, the salary provided the Ch ief Executive Officer of Manfor is not out of line with what is provided to those who are similarly responsible for Crown corporations and is far less than what is provided to senior executive officers of private corporations. l\ll R. D. GOURLAY: A further question to the same Minister.

I wonder if the Minister can advise the House whe ther or not he appr oves of th ese kinds of expenditures on the expense account of the chief executive officer; and also he mentioned he would take as notice the membership in the golf course in Quebec. I wonder if the Minister could bring back the actual cost involved with the membership and green fees involved by this chief executive officer in this golf course in Quebec. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. To seek a Minister's opinion is to ask for an opinion not for information. Does the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to seek information? l\ll R. D.

GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister if the Minister agrees with this participation in this golf course and, also the inclusion of cigarettes on his expense account? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The qu estion of agreement is a matter of opinion. Does the honourable member wish to ask for information? The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister th en whether or not he auth orizes the expenditure of cigarettes on his expense account? HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, I would point out to the member and perhaps he should know that obviously I do not authorize those kinds of things. The individual that we're talking about is emp loyed by the Board of Directors of Manfor. Mr. Speaker, the member has gone to some lengths to point out that the salary and the fringe benefits provided this individual are significant. I acknowledge that that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I feel as badly as anybody else that it takes that kind of money to attract talent. The question is, who would be the loser in the long run, Mr.

Speaker, if we did not get someone who is recognized in the industry . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. STORIE: . . . Mr. Speaker, the fact exists that there was a major candidate search undertaken by a pr ivate pr ofess ional group, the equiv alent of "Headh unters." It was not myself or any other member of the government that decided to select this individual and his salary package is negotiated in the context of what other individuals in that particular situation, having those particular requirements, is going to be paid. Mr.

Speaker, I should indicate clearly that the salary that's being paid to this individual is something that he will have to earn; it is not the gratuitous kind of salary that is being paid to individual Tory members by the Conservative Government in Ottawa. Loans - core area MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Ellice. MR. B. CORRIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Co-operative Development. Recently, there have been concerns raised about loan funding and fina ncing by the Department of Co-operative Development with respect to core area businesses and residences.

I'd ask the Minister if he can give a status report respecting this matter to the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Co operative Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1242

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 Indeed, there was some public commentary a week or so ago in respect to the practice of loaning for mortgages for both homes and businesses in the core area by the financial institutions. At that time, there was an indication on the part of one party that there was a practice in place called "redlining" which acted to restrict the availability and accessibility of loans to those individuals in certain geographic areas within the core area.

Upon receipt of the information and the concerns, I asked the department to contact the individual and the overall credit union system to discuss whether or not such a practice did exist.

I have been informed, in fact, that no practice does exist on the part of those credit unions, that they make their decisions on mortgages and loans on the basis of commonly accepted financial criteria which includes the area in which a facil ity may be pl aced, the assessment on that, and includes the ability of the individual to repay, but that is part of a normal practice and there are no specific exclusions based solely on the matter of geographic locations.

In fact, there was a report done recently which was quoted in those media reports and upon review of that report, it indicated very clearly that local credit unions are becoming an increasingly important support of mortgage and rehabilitation loans - (I nterjection) - It appears to me that they might not be interested in the role the credit union is playing in the core area, Mr. Speaker, but, in fact, the residents of the core area are and the residents of the province are.

I'll conclude very briefly by indicating very clearly that the report said that credit unions tend to be more flexible in their lending practices than other institutions and I think they have a record of which they can be quite proud. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do remind you of the long-standing tradition of this House of rotating from one side to the other side during question period. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Honourable Opposition House Leader that we have a long-standing, respected tradition of alternating from one side to the other with regard to the asking of questions. No such tradition prevails, Sir, with the answering by Ministers of questions they take as notice, since there are no Ministers on that side. MR. SPEAKER: I will remind members that it is the member who catches the Speaker's eye who speaks in debate or at question period.

I would also remind mem bers that it is a tradition in this House that members ask three questions, usually one question and two supplementaries. lord's Day Act - striking down of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took as notice a question from the Member for St. Norbert as to the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in The Lord's Day Act case. I think it's important to answer that to the extent that I can and as definitively as I can today so that there should be no ambiguity in the commercial world as to the effect of that decision.

I am satisfied, Sir, after purusing the decision and The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act and The Emplo yment Standards Act, tha t our legislation governing the hours of operation of retail establishments is valid and I went on to serve notice that it will be enforced so that the situation with respect to retail establishments in the Province of Manitoba this coming Sunday will be exactly the same as it was prior to the decision of the Supreme Court. Manfor - terms of contract of Pres. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: My question is for the Minister responsible for Manfor and it continues on the topic of the contract with the CEO of Manfor. I wonder if the Minister can indicate why the contract does allow for the individual to also pursue other business interests while being the Chief Executive Officer of Manfor. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the detailed reference that the member makes to the contract, but I'd indicated before that the negotiations to attract an individual of this kind were protracted, took some length of time.

Individual allowances, individual clauses in the contract which permit such activity, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, were a matter of negotiation. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the chief executive officer is at Manfor, is working full time, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition need have no fear about the dedication of the chief executive officer. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would also indicate whether or not he considers it to be a normal thing for the (Int erjection) - Mr.

Speaker, the Minister is answering on behalf of what he says is the normal standard for hiring chief executive officers. In addition to the $100,000 salary, in addition to the $50,000 bonus, in addition to the $1 ,000 per month after tax, net, in addition to the expenditures, in addition to the automobile, in addition to the office and accommodation costs, is it normal for him to get a nine-week vacation every year? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 1243

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the terms of the contract appear out of line or the members opposite would like to make them appear out of line. I have every confidence that the terms and conditions of the chief executive officer's contract are what were required to attract an individual of that calibre to Manfor to do a job. Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the member that he is no one's brother-in-law. MR. G. FIUll ON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Ord er. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

IMR. G. Fll !\110111: . . . could also indicate whether there are any limitations or restrictions whatsoever to the exp enses tha t this individual can submi t to the corporation for payment. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, the line of questioning that the Leader of the Opposition is taking us on almost leads one to want to be flippant Without having reference to the contract in front of me, I would suppose that one would imagine that a man of some 20 or 30 years experience in private industry, the man who has been a chief executive officer of a major international pulp and paper company would be submitting expenses that were reasonable, and I have no information to lead me to conclude otherwise. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I guess we're led to assume that cigarettes, books and golf course fees are reasonable.

But my question to the Minister is, did he negotiate this contract or, ii not, who negotiated the contract on behalf of the Government of Manitoba? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, no, I did not personally negotiate this contract. The contract was negotiated between Manfor and the chief executive officer with the assistance, as I've indicated on many occasions, and the advice of a profes sio nal "Headhunt er" organization who did, in fact, do the search - at least, that's my information. I was not involved in the original process. MR. G. FIUlll ON: Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister was not involved in the negotiation, was he required to approve of this contract? HOiii. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, if the member is asking was approval through Cabinet, it is . . . I'll take as notice exactly what the formal approval process was, whether it was through Cabinet or whether my signature would have been enough, I'll take it as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same Minister.

Could he confirm that in the event the chief executive officer's position is termi nated prior to February 15th of 19 86, that he will be entitled to continue to use the office, housing accommodation and club memberships for 60 days, that Manfor will pay for the return of his personal effects and first-class travel costs from Manitoba to Montreal and he should be entitled to purchase the automobile that he's using at its depreciated book value? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I assume that the member is reading from the contract so I'll have to assume that, in fact, is the case.

Mr. Speaker, to put it in context, we were asking an individual, as I've indicated on many occasions, who had a solid reputation who was being asked to take on a tremendous challenge, who was going to be asked to be located in The Pas. Obviously, the question of salary and benefits was negotiated; the full terms, Mr. Speaker, and whether in the eventuality that Manfor was to lose those services, there was provision for recompense for the fact that he had to locate here, obviously that is something that any individual who was looking at making that kind of a move would consider as part of his package. MR. G.

MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, our concern is not with respect to Mr. Sweeney, but with respect to the competence of this government to negotiate on behalf of the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Could the Minister indicate whether he and the government have entered into negotiations to renew this agreement with the chief executive officer? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that specific question as notice.

I would answer, in terms of the negotiations of this contract, when I'm able to table all of the information that has been asked over today, I will also table information with respect to the remuneration and the kinds of benefits that are available to other Crown corporation officers in the Federal Government, for example, and in the private sector.

What I have said and what I still believe to be true is that the Chief Executive Officer of Manfor is receiving a remuneration packag!'l which is not out of line with the kinds of packages that are available to other people, given the kinds of undertakings that the chief executive officer has undertaken, given the kinds of circumstances in relationship to the relocation that this chief executive officer was expected to incur. Mr.

Speaker, if members opposite want to make those kinds of comparisons, I have no hesitation in suggesting that they will find this kind of a package equivalent to what would be available to other chief executive officers in similar circumstances. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the First Minister. My question to the First Minister is, was the First Minister aware of what can only be described as extremely generous salary arrangements and expense arrangements made with the Chief Executive Officer of Manfor?

Was the First Minister aware of it and does 1244

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 he, in fact, approve of those kinds of settlements at this time when his gover nment, and indeed all Manitobans, are being asked to tighten their belts? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member is asking for an opinion. Would he wish to rephrase his question to seek information? MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking for his opinion; I'm simply asking the first question: Was he aware of this particular contract being signed by this particular executive officer of Manfor? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, all I was aware of is not the details, but in fact the remuneration being paid to this general manager was comparable with that paid to other comparative operations in Canada from east to west and that it was competitive on the open market situation with what was being paid elsewhere in the country. Houses, structur ally unsafe - Sale of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of MH RC concerning the sale of a house in my area and an engineer's report, which indicated that that house was structurally unsafe.

I want to ask the Minister a general question. If an owner of a property knows that a home is structurally unsafe, is he under an obligation, a legal obligation, to make that known to the next buyer? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question is both hypothetical and seeking a legal opinion. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: No, Mr . Speak er, this is not a hypothetical case. I'm quo ting from a complaint concerning the fact that somebody bought a house which was then found to be uns afe in regard to a structural report.

I'm simply asking the Minister whether it is possible to sell a home that is known to be structurally unsafe. Is that an illegal action? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member is asking a legal question, a question seeking a legal opinion. Do you wish to ask a question seeking information? The Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: I'll try a final question, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to ask the Minister whether, in the sale of a home, whether it is a case of caveat emptor or whether a person has the right to inform a buyer of possible structural unsafe conditions of that home.

Is that an ethical question or a legal question? Crown Corp. boards - Authority of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. Can the First Minister advise the Ho use whether or not boards of Crown corporations have unlimited authority to enter into agreements with their chief executive officers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, they do, in consultation with the Minister to whom they report. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister responsible for Manfor.

Did the board of directors consult with the Minister prior to entering into the contract with their chief executive officer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, the member is probably aware that the negotiations, as I indicated, to attract the chief executive officer were protracted and there was a transfer of responsibility for Manfor during that time. I'v e taken notic e specifically of the membe r's question, because I was . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I'm having some difficulty in hearing the honourable minister's answer. The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The mem bers obviously aren't too anxious for the information. I said I would bring it back and I would define that for him. What I wanted to make clear, Mr. Speaker, is that we'r e all concerned. Some mem bers from the backbench yell, well, how is Manfor doing? Mr.

Speaker, that is exactly the reason why this international search for a chief executive officer was undertaken; that is exactly the reason why the individual who is responsible is being paid a generous salary, and I'm not going to stand up and try and defend those kinds of levels of salary. The fact is that when you're looking for a chief executive officer, you com pete in an international market, Mr. Speaker. We were looking for an individual in an international market and to find the kind of individual that was required, we had to pay - obviously - top dollar. Mr.

Speaker, all I can say to the mem bers opposite, is that there was no politics involved in this. The chief executive officer is no political crony of mine or any member on this side. The chief executive officer is a mem ber who has an international reputa tion, an 1245

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 outstanding reputation. We negotiated in good faith to attract that individual. The members want to make fun of the terms and conditions that were required to attract that individual. I can only tell the mem bers . . . I want mem bers opposite to know that I am not pooh-poohing this issue. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the chief executive officer is being paid a generous salary. I want members opposite to be aware that I believe, in 19 76, the New Brunswick Government hired this individual at a greater salary than what he is being paid for Manfor . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. An answer to a question should not be a speech. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'll place my question to the First Minister, since the Minister responsible for Manfor eventually does not recall whether he approved the contract or not. My question to the First Minister is: Who on the government side approved of this contract, which has assumed proportions hitherto unknown in the history of the Government of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I'll accept that question as notice.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Sugar beet industry - reply to telex MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, if we can get the cackle to simmer down a bit, I would ask the First Minister a very important question, and that is whether or not he has received a response to the telex th at he forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada in regard to the sugar beet producers? � MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose for raising that question with me and, as was discussed yesterday in the House, time is of essence. I still have received no response. MR. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, as has been said yesterday, we are dealing with a $100 million industry. I would ask the First Minister if he's had any indication from the Prime Minister's office when an answer would be forthcoming in response to that telex, which is very crucial at this time. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I placed a telephone call to the Prime Minister's office asking the Prime Minister to respond urgently to the telex that was forwarded to him.

I gather that today the Prime Minister is campaigning in Ontario, so I can understand if I don't received a phone call back today or a returning telex. I trust that we will receive a reply at a very early point. Media Secretary - salary increase HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return for a moment to the question I accepted as notice from the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of this question period. The Leader of the Opposition posed to me a question to the effect that my media secretary had received a 47 percent increase over a two-year period. Mr.

Speaker, that is a mistaken assertion on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a 47 percent increase over a three-and-a-half year period, so the Leader of the Oppositon is quite mistaken in respect to his calculations. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. Orders of the Day . MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege, Sir, which I will follow with a substantive motion.

Sir, on Tuesday night in this House I was named and asked to leave the Legislature without receiving the rights that every member has in this House. Sir, I refer to Hansard, where the Chairman said to me, "Would the Member for Sturgeon Creek repeat that statement for the record? " I did, but there is nothing on the record, Sir, and I'm not debating that I made a statement quietly sitting in my Chair . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. F. JOHNSTON: ... oh, I know, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: . . . and when I was asked what I said, I had the courtesy to respect the Chairman and say what I said. Mr. Speaker, I would refer - (I nterjection) - The rights of a member of this House are not funny to me and I assure you, Sir, that I would like to state that the right I did not have was that I was never given the opportunity to withdraw.

I was never asked if I would withdraw the statement which is not on the record, Sir, and I quote the House Leader when he said, "I believe, Sir, that what is required then is for you, as has been the past practice, to offer the member the opportunity to make an explanation or withdraw. " I was never given the opportunity to make an explanation or withdraw. I stood in my chair - (I nterjection) - I stood up - (I nterjection) - I'm addressing you, Sir, but I would say to the member that I have admitted that I answered the Chairman when he asked me, and it's not on the record.

I stood in my place, and the Deputy Speaker said, "Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek on a point of order." I said, "May I ask why? " And I had been allowed no explanation or no opportunity to withd raw. I would like to ask you, Sir, to take the matter under advisement. I would like you to have discussion with 1246

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 the Deputy Speaker and maybe if I did have rights taken from me, discuss with him his proper duties within this House. I would move, seconded by the Member for St. Norbert, that the matter be referred to the Comm ittee of Privileges and Elections. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Since I was not present on the occasion that the Honourable Member makes reference to, I will take the matter under advisement and consider it further. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the admissibility of the motion, are you suggesting that members will have an opportunity at a later date to add ress the admissibility of the motion? MR. SPEAKER: I have taken it under advisement. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I was standing - after the conclusion of the Member for Sturgeon Creek's remarks. I submit tha t mem bers usually have an opportunity on Matters of Privilege to address the admissibility of the motion. I trust, Sir, that if that opportunity is not available now, it will be available after you have had a chance to review the transcript of Tuesday's Session. MR.

SPEAKER: Order pl ease, order please. In conformity with the usual practice in such matters, I will ask any member who has advice for the Chair on the subject to stand up and give it at this time. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. AN STETT: Thank you , Mr . Sp eaker. appreciate this opportunity. I quite sincerely sympathize with the matter raised by the Honourable Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek.

In the discussion raised during the debate, Sir, which I know you will review, I think it is important to recognize that what occurred, under our rules, particularly those which relate to the demons tration of disrespect to the Chair, and the fact that that is a contempt of the House, were the relevant questions, and clearly the report to the comm ittee by the Acting Chair of the Committee citing the infraction of which the Member for Sturgeon Creek was accused was not disputed, and it is not disputed by him here today, even though it shows only as an interjection in Hansard.

I think, Sir, that is the nub of the question of a prima facie case of privilege. I believe it was the Chair's privilege. I believe that the inability of the honourable member to withdraw his statement - and I think that the member has a legitimate point on that score - was something on which I supported his right, but on which his own House Leader, on interjection on the same page from which he quotes, denied that right, Sir, and insisted that the rules be followed.

It would have only been with the leave of members to revert to the earlier opportunity that the right of the honourable member, as I saw it, could have been respected. The insistence of members on his side is what denied the honourable member the option of withdrawing. Sir, I think, on those grounds, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek does not have a prima facie case of privilege against the Chair or against the Deputy Speaker at that point. Members on this side attempted to expedite that matter.

But, Sir, I offer to you, and for your specific attention in the two paragraphs below that quo ted by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, the following statement: "If I may be of further assistance to the Government House Leader, if he wishes to proceed with this madness, then a formal motion for suspension of the Member for Sturgeon Creek's sitting privileges for the remainder of the Session is now in order. " Sir, as you know, under the rules, having reached that point, only by leave of the whole House could we revert to an earlier stage in the proceedings.

The demand from the Opposition House Leader was that we carry on with the madne ss that I agree was madness. Sir, I submit that if there is a case of privilege, it is against all mem bers because I believe that what happened in the House on Tuesday night was wrong. But I find difficulty assigning responsibility for that to any one member and I suggest that the Member for Sturgeon Creek does not, on those grounds, have a prima facie case that his privileges as a member were violated by the Chair of the committee, or by the Deputy Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Does any other member wish to advise the Chair without getting into an argument over the specifics? The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this again, Sir, briefly. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on the House Rules, Sir, nor am I about to talk about prima facie cases. I'm only trying to talk about common sense as to the rights of a member in this House, and I don't stand up and say that I agree that it was madness, but I'd read the Rule Book to say that I don't have a case, Sir.

I can only say, Sir, and I did not want to dwell on this; I did not want to say that I was sitting in my chair facing that way, with the Chairman sitting there, when I made the remark quietly and he asked me, what did I say. The Chairman didn't say, who were you speaking to? I was allowed no explanation whatsoever. I would have given him answers if I'd had the opportunity probably. For the member to talk about what happened after the House Leader made his statement about other things, I only refer, Sir, that I stood up and said, may I ask why?

I was given no answer and no privileges at any time; I was named and ejected lrom the House for the shortest period on record, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to add voice to the concern, the very legitimate concern, that my colleague, the Member for Sturgeon Creek has. I would ask you , Sir, in taking the matter under advisement, to regard the matter with the seriousness I know that you, Sir, will attach to it. Individual members take very seriously the question of suspension from this Cham ber. I assure you, Mr. 1247

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 Speaker, that although during the heat of the debate or the moment perhaps that isn't always evident, but it does blemish the member's record to some extent, and I know those - and I must speak of myself - that have had the penalty of suspension, even if it's only as it was in this case, very briefly, for a short time, nonetheless it's a concern to all of us. really think the only question that you have to concern yourself with is, did the member have - as our rules call for and as our practice calls for - the opportunity to reconsider his comments and to make a withdrawal. That, Mr.

Speaker, is fairly basic. Regrettably, that evening did not commend itself to the smoothest operation of the Ho use or the committee. There was considerable delay in decision-making on the part of the Chair. There was difficulty in finding a Speaker, Mr. Speaker. We then had the situation where the Chairman involved in the incident had to replace himself in your Chair, Sir, and of course that added to the concern of the members of the opposition. At that point in time, I don't for a moment disagree with my colleagues that it was indeed myself that asked for this madness to stop and to put the question.

But, Sir, that does not for one moment - and indeed the Government House Leader can have it either way, I don't really care whether he thinks that I owe the Member for Sturgeon Creek an apology or the House or whoever. The point of privilege that we're addressing, the matter of privilege that I believe the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek has, is the simple fact that he was not given the opportunity to reconsider his remarks and thereby avoid the penalty of being named. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, i don't think that the words that were uttered by the honourable friend were that bad. I think what made it bad is they were addressed to the person that was supposed to chair and keep the decorum in the House. I also am not a lawyer nor am I known for my knowledge of the rules; but I stand only after the words of the last speaker who spoke to say, on a number of occasions, that my honourable friend did not have a chance of something that he said in the heat of battle - that's understandable - did not have a chance to reconsider or to apologize or withdraw and I don't think that's right.

The situation was this, that it was not that loud, but from his seat, who addressed these words to the Chairman. The Chairman then turned to the member and he said, "Would you care to put that on record?" and to me that's certainly an indication that, hey, what are you doing? The member could have said, I'm not talking to you. He was the only one that thought that, or he could have said nothing, or he could have withdrawn. I don't think the Speaker had any other option, when somebody tells you ...

It's not that the words, as I said, were that bad, but if the rule says that you have to ask the people, then the Chairman was wrong, but to say that he did not have an occasion to reconsider is absolutely false. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank those honourable members who have offered their advice. I will indeed take the matter under advisement. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTET T: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the Ho use resolve itself into a Comm ittee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Health and the Honourable Mem ber for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPP LY SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: I call the committee to order.

The comm ittee is considering Appropriation No. 8, Fisheries 8.(a). HON. S. USKIW: No, we're beyond 8.(a), I think, aren't we? How far did we get down in Fisheries? We got away down to . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He hasn't got anything marked off here, so they may have had a discussion. HON. S. USKIW: Oh, yes. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Oka y, I'll ju st call Appropriation 8 - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: I know that the previous Chairman kept a list on his mind, not on a list.

There was a list there. - (I nterjection) - It doesn't matter who goes on first, so I will defer to the opposition, but I think I was on the list MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, you're covering Fisheries in general? I have a few questions and concerns dealing with fish and fish management and some work that is being done by a constituent of mine, Bill Henderson, at Oak Lake and the money that he has spent over the last few years to prevent or to try to prevent winterkill in Oak Lake.

I would like the Minister's response, both in the way of policy and how the department has looked at advancing some of the work that Bill Hende rson has done. We look at today's press and we've heard some of the problems at Pelican Lake where we see up to 90 percent of the fish lost because of shortage of oxygen. I would say the reverse is the case at Oak Lake. This last winter Bill Henderson spent $20,000 to rent a pump to put into the ice a structure of poles to make an 1248

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 aeration system work to put oxygen into the lake. I'm not sure now what kind of recognition he's getting from the department and the Fisheries people but for some time it was almost pooh-poohed that he was not doing anything very effectively. Well, he's lived in that area all his life and he knows Oak Lake; he has a resort there. I think that some recognition and consideration should be given to this man and the work that he's doing and the possible application of it and the use of his knowledge in other lakes in Manitoba, particularly in some of the shallower lakes.

The evidence is there. In fact, one of the concerns that he has and that I have is that in the operation that he's carrying out, there was a little bit of abuse of the resource by people coming in harvesting it when he was using the open water system and, in fact, has requested me to have consideration put forward to restrict the fishing when that kind of operation is taking place because it is like shooting fish in a barrel. People take advantage of them when they come to the area where they're getting air. In fact, I wou ld put a req uest forward that consideration be given by the department to reimburse Mr.

Hend erson and to use his expertise in other areas. I would like the Minister's comments as to how the department look at the work that is being done at Oak Lake because it's been effective. It's proven in the last number of years. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that indeed the member's comments are valid. The gentleman out there has apparently done fairly well with his program. It is paying off to some degree and is worthwhile monitoring for the benefit of the whole system. I'm quite prepared to take a lo ok at tha t, Mr . Chairman.

If the person has made a contribution out of which we benefit, there may be some logic there in trying to look at sharing some of his expense, if indeed we have gained something from the work that he has done and where we would apply that knowledge elsewhere. I think that's a fair comment. I don't know if I have authority to do that, but I'm prepared to look at that. On the other hand, the department has some difficulty in looking at the whole oxygen question, the pumping of oxygen into lakes as a means of dealing with that problem, because of the costs of doing so.

It's basically a money issue, a very expensive proposition; so I'm not sure that I can commit that the department will have the resources with which to do a whole host of shallow water or lakes in Manitoba in order to prevent the killing off of fish due to lack of oxygen. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's comments. The numbers I think are correct, and I do have to give credit where it's due. I think there was a $2,500 provincial assistance given to this man this past winter.

However, when you look at the size of Oak Lake and you look at the num bers of people that use it for fishing, both winter and sum mer, I think it's important that the total amount could be paid because the num bers that have been given to me by Mr. Hend erson are tha t he spent $20,000, approximately, of his own money so that would come to about $22,000-$25,000, to conserve the fish over a winter is not unreasonable, I don't think, when it comes to saving a resource.

The other question that I ask the Minister - and I do appreciate the Minister's consideration, because I'm sure that if the Minister took a look at it, that he would in fact appreciate any return of funds for the work that he's done. The other question I ask the Minister, and that is, one of the difficulties that Mr.

Hende rson had was that a large number of people were coming in harvesting the fish as they were coming to the aeration system that he had developed and really was not doing anything more than abusing the resource in another way; and he, in discussions with me has requested that some consideration be given to restrict, when that kind of operation is taking place, the removal of fish from that system. I can support that because, after all, what is the point of spending the money just to allow an overharvest at that particular time?

When they say that it's like shooting fish in a barrel when the fish are corning to the aeration hole, it's not difficult for people to scoop them out in large quantities. It also inhibited some of the work that Mr. Henderson was doing. I think consideration could be given to certain times of the year shutting it right off while that kind of activity is taking place, even though it may not be that popular. I'd like the Minister's comments on that regard as well. I would hope that the Minister, if he's not aware of or does not understand totally the work that Mr.

Henderson's doing that he do take a few minutes to sit down and hear his case and see some of the work he's done. I can highly recommend the man knows what he's doing. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, the program obviously seems to be very much working to the advantage of that particular lake, if what the member says is accurate. I would be very interested in reviewing that. In fact, it somewhat intrigues me to the point where I think I should go and see the site and monitor it to see just how it is performing.

Yes, there's the big question and we have that with respect to the deer question as well as the fisheries, and that is how far do we go policywise in artificially providing for marginal lakes with respect to fishery or for the deer population that is moving further and further north given favourable climatic conditions from time to time, but then which gets trapped in those situations when sort of normal climatic conditions recur. There's no end to the argument that you can support a lot more deer if you want to artificially keep them there at huge cost to the people of Manitoba.

We've done a fair amount of that this winter. So, the two are parallel situations; one in the Fisheries and one in the Wildlife area where the question of how much public expense we go to to try to keep these operations going even though, naturally speaking, they were never viable operations, either the lakes with respect to the Fishery or the deer population where they should not be. With respect to regulating fishing during aeration proceedings on a lake, I'm advised that we are preparing 1249

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 regulations that would allow us the right to close down the fishery during that critical time period and that makes a lot of sense. I thank the Mem ber for Arthur for that suggestion. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. There was some discussion at the last sitting in regard to the pilot project with a three-inch mesh in the southern part of Lake Manitoba.

I know that there were attempts, not legall y, but there were attempts by fish ermen many ma ny years ago to try and use undersized mesh on Lake Manitoba for that very purpose when they were still using cotton nets and linen nets. The nets are far more efficient now with the nylon and fine thread and they can also camouflage the netting. I'm a bit conc e rned , because there's some controversy there between the different groups of fishermen and, of course, I have concern about depleting our fish population and particularly those that we want to see mature to a spawning size, which takes quite a number of years.

So in the decision to go ahead with the pilot project, I want to know whether or not th ose re commenda tions came as a result of recommendations from a biologist and that there was an overabundance of perch, and I don't know what size they were. When I was fishing you could get, with a three-and-three-quarter inch mesh, we would get them up to a pound, sometimes a pound and a quarter. That, I think, is getting pretty scarce now. I would imagine with a three-inch mesh, you wouldn't get a large large perch. I would ask as well whether or not there is a sauger fishery?

Is there a sauger population in the southern part of Manitoba, and if there is a sauger fishery, there must be a pickerel fishery. They generally inhabit the same feeding grounds. The sauger is a cousin, I guess, of the pickerel and of course that brings up another question. - (I nterjection) - No, I think they're much closer than the tulibee and the goldeye. It brings up another question. When the fisherman market sauger, they usually get a much lower price than they do for the pickerel. At least, that's the way it was when I was in the industry. That brings up another question.

When we go to purchase pickerel fillets at the market, we see some very small fillets, extremely small pickerel fillets and they're advertised as pickerel; I wonder where are they caught and in what nets are they caught, because you certainly can't catch those in three-and-three-quarter inch nets? They have to be caught in undersized nets - or are they marketing sauger as picker el?

If that's the case, if tha t is what's happening, is that they're marketing sauger as pickerel, then the consumer is being shafted because the fisherman does not get, in my view, the same price for his sauger as he does for the pickerel. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, S. Ashton: Mr. Minister. HON. S. USKIW: With respect to Lake Manitoba, we are intending to, and have been maintaining Lake Manitoba as a pickerel fishery so that other species of course are sort of second opportunity, if you like.

The downsizing of nets to three inch, on a short term basis this winter, was designed only for the fishing of perch for a very short period of time, which proved to be reasonably economical to do, which allowed for new income for fishermen in the area and which will probably be repeated upon full evaluation, although we're not certain at this point in time. It was done in a way that didn't involve the catching ol pickerel and that is the important thing.

With respect to Lake Winnipeg, however, we use three inch nets there, generally, because it's a different fishery altogether and we don't have the same concerns as we do on Lake Manitoba. With respect to the method of packaging and marking fish species for sale to the retail market, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, of course, is responsible for that and I'm not able to comment on whether or not sauger is being displa yed as pickerel in the supermarket or whether it's because the fillet size is small, because we do allow the catching of pickerel on Lake Winnipeg with a three-inch mesh.

It could be a combination; I have no way of knowing that. I would have to assume that the three-inch mesh on Lake Winnipeg provides an ample supply of small fish to the corporation, of the pickerel species. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: I can understand that some small pickerel would probably come from Lake Winnipeg, that's sauger fishery.

What percentage, what impact did the - the Minister responded that we were able to catch perch without any other species, but I have difficulty with that because having been a fisherman for man y, many years myself, I have some knowledge of winter fishery. What percentage of pickerel were caught, along with perch or saugers? There must be some information there. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised that because of the timing and location of the perch fishery last winter that we were able to minimize the amount of take of the pickerel species and that the combined species of pickerel and sauger amounted to no more than about 5 percent of the take, while we were fishing the perch, so it's a very minimal take-out of pickerel that's occurred. MR. A.

ADAM: I would imagine that once the fishermen have invested in gill nets for three-inch fishing, they would certainly want to continue that because they have a very substantial investment, not only in the gill nets but in the floats and the sinkers and I suppose the nets would probably last five years of operation and they would be very reluctant, I presume, not to be able to carry on with that fishery; and if it is not going to impact that adversely on pickerel, sauger's about the same size as the perch so that's not as crucial, but if it's not going to impact that greatly on the pickerel population, I presume that it would in order to proceed with that.

I've got a few more questions. One has to do with Lake Dauphin, and that is, I believe there's been a change in the gill net size there and I know that the fish being caught are a much larger size. They're three to four-pounders and it would seem to me that you're 1250

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 catching pickerel of spawning size. I suppose I could ask the question, what are the spawning streams? Are they deteriorating? I guess they probably are. I believe the mesh size used to be four inches on Lake Dauphin and that's been changed and for the last year or two I understand that fishermen have been catching more poundage - I'm not sure if they're catching more numbers of fish, but they're getting more poundage and probably more numbers as well. Is this the right way to proceed, though? I guess that's the intention, to allow the smaller fish to grow up to a larger size.

I think that's the intent; but in the meantime we are catching a very substantial num ber of spawners so that's one question I had. The other one was whether or not the fish hatchery on Lake Winnipegosis is still operating and also whether or not the re's any communic ation between the Provincial Department of Fisheries and the federal people who have established a fish hatchery on Lake Dau phin.

I don't kno w whether there's any commun ication on Lake Dauphin, but last year when I raised this qu estion with the previous Minis ter, apparently the provincial people were unaware that there was a federal hatchery going up on Lake Dauphin. I'm just wondering how do we co-ordinate our work with the federal people not to overlap? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, Lake Dauphin, I'm advis ed , is in terri ble shape as far as fishery is concerned. There has been a revision upward of the net size, but as the member would probably know, we don't take fish out during the spawning season in any event.

There's a ma jor pr oblem with respect to sedimentation of that lake. As a matter of fact, the Water Commission has been seized of that issue and has filed a report. The solution to that is one that's going to take some time and a tremendous amount of money, a scarce resource as well. It'll take some years before we're able to come to a full solution with respect to the fishery operation of Lake Dauphin. In respect to the hatchery at Winnipegosis; that one burned down and has not been replaced, so we don't have a hatch ery th ere at the present time.

The Government of Canada has a mobile research hatchery facility. I think it's on Lake Dauphin. That is not intended to be a permanent structure as I'm aware, but rather a research facility for a time definite. MR. A. ADAM: They have built, in regards to the fish hatchery at Lake Dauphin, a number of buildings there, and I believe they have also constructed rearing ponds to rear them during the summer as there is around Lake Winnipegosis.

I guess the next question would be: are we putting the fry into these rearing ponds - th ere are qu ite a nu mber of them around Lake Winnipegosis - to rear in the summe rtime and then turn them out in the fall into Lake Winnipegosis? The other question was whether or not there's any commun ications taking place between the federal efforts and the provincial efforts in regard to co ordinating the effort? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, there is federal provincial liaison and I don't think either one or the other works in isolation, so that we are aware of what is happening. 1251 There is a lot of fish being released into those waters. I don't know how many million, but we have an ongoing program that does try to restock those lakes. With respect to Lake Dauphin, I neglected to mention one very important point, and that is that the basic problem there has to do with the reduction in the size of the spawning area because of sedimentation that is taking place.

That's really our problem there. - (I nterjection) - It's the cultivated acreage surrounding the lake that is resulting in washing into the lake an awful lot of top soil and so on. MR. A. ADAM: Mr. Chairperson, has the department considered in their liaison with the federal people, are they doing anything in the area of trout spawning and trout hatchery, because the pickerel are under extreme pressure by sport fishing which has no control on size. You can catch tiny little fellows and great big ones. With gill nets you can control the size that you want to catch, but with sports fishing that's pretty difficult.

So, there is the extreme pressure on that particular species. It's a desired species. Everybody is after that particular species, not only the commercial fisherman, but the sport fishing. It seems to me that the more trout fishery you have available, and I think the Member for Minnedosa raised questions about the trout fishery in our last meeting, it seems to me that the more areas that we can develop trout fishery, the less pressure there will be on the pickerel fishing. Would it not be possible to have discussions with the Federal Government to have them make some efforts in that direction?

What are we doing in the area of trout fishery? - (I nterjection) - If we could deal with everything that comes to caucus, indeed I would be very happy. HON. S. USK IW: Mr . Chairman, the Federal Government does have a crossbreeding operation in the Interlake. That is another research program of theirs with respect to trout. We have two trout hatcheries in Manitoba in order that we might supply the lakes that we service. There is some experimentation going on with respect to brook trout, I believe it is, up in Duck Mountain area that the department is promoting at the present time. MR. A.

ADAM: I have only a couple of more questions. The commercial fishing is a major industry in my constituency and I wanted to touch on fish farming a bit. I know that it has been quite successful in Japan and I think in British Columbia, and I'm not sure whether the climate here is that suitable. I know it has been done in the pothole country. I want to ask whether or not there's been any change in eligibility for commercial licensing? I believe there are three types of licensing. There is the helper, the operators and the commercial; I think there are three units.

I'd like to ask whether there's any change in eligibility there? The other ques tion, it was qu ite controversial and I think the former Member for Turtle Mountain was involved, created quite a controversy in moving towards the sale of quota, if you will, or sale of licensing on the lakes which created a value and which created quite a stir, and I guess we won two federal seats over it, but be that as it may.

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 I would like to know on the last question whether or not there's any pressure being applied to the Minister to move in that direction, because I would not want to see that happen unless the fishermen are totally in agreement and have had their input in that kind of a decision. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of licensing changes that take place depending on the given lake and the sort of consultative process that we undertake with the fishermen of any particular lake.

Essentially, if we're looking at Lake Winnipeg as an example, with respect to the criteria, I think that hasn't changed. There is a very serious problem. I don't know that I would be exaggerating if I were to use the term that we have a chaotic situation with respect to licensing on Lake Winnipeg at the present time. Am I overstating it? - (I nterjection) No, I'm understating it, ok ay. We have to deal with it. I kn ow how the Me m ber for Ste.

Rose feels philosophically about the last point that he raised with me, but I'm very much of the view that we may have to move in the direction of assigning quotas under proper guidelines, so that one person could not capture the whole quota of the lake. I think we have to recognize that may be a mechanism that we might have to recommend. There is a trial project under way with respect to that idea at Matheson Island.

Without wanting to say that we've made a decision departmentally, I would like to suggest that my opinion is that we should get on with it and resolve that issue, because it's only becoming a greater problem. We've had, I guess, a limited experience with respect to the pilot. I don't think we should wait too long to make that decision. I will be recommending a course of action very soon with respect to that question. It may recommend a transferability of quotas within certain guidelines. It's my understanding that the bulk of the fishermen on Lake Winnipeg would prefer that option.

There's been an awful lot of discussion about it. I have talked to people that I have a great deal of respect for in the industry and I'm led to believe that that probably is the most acceptable proposition at the moment, albe it there's logic in having some reservation about the way that would work. Really, we shouldn't be discussing that here because it's not yet before us, but it's fair in the sense that we're considering that option, yes. MR. A. ADAM: Yes, there's an attempt to look at that possibility on Lake Manitoba as well.

We might be able to understand it on Lake Winnipeg and, then again, there have to be a lot of questions raised. You have a summer fishery there and you have a very substantial investment in boats and equipment and whatnot. Lake Manitoba has. what I consider to be and always has been, a part-time fishery. It's an operation where people do it as a supplement of another income of sorts, whether it be out working and fishing or whether it be ranching and fishing or any other occupation in addition to that and, therefore, it doesn't seem practical on Lake Manitoba that one could make a full-time living at fishing.

It's a winter fishery, it's not a summer fishery and it seems to me that if we were to have a summer fishery there, the lake would be depleted in no time at all. Winter fishing is much more difficult; it's not as productive as summer fishing. If there ever was a time when we would move toward summer fishing on Lake Manitoba, it wouldn't last very long. I just raise those cautions, because I can see the problems that we could run into there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had a phone call the other day, a complaint about the Souris River. Apparently, there's someone along that river in the vicinity of Wawanesa that blocks off the river - I guess you can't say "blocks off," but they must put up a net or some barrier to catch fish and feed them to their hogs. Apparently this has been reported last year and this year. The RCMP don't seem to feel it's their jurisdiction and the person that was calling me naturally felt that it wasn't right that this was going on and that no fish could get down through this and make their way into the rest of the river system. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I would appreciate if the mem ber, off the record if she wishes, would give us the specific site location of that obstruction or whatever. MRS. C. OLESON: Yes, I will do that. HON. S. USKIW: It's certainly not a legal practice. MRS. C. OLESON: No, I'll do that. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. I wonder if the Minister could give me some information. What year was it that the three-inch mesh was allowed to be used on Lake Winnipeg? HON. S. USKIW: I'm told it's sometime in the '50s. MR. L. HYDE: In the '50s. Oka y, thank you.

That's what I wanted. HON. S. USKIW: Just in the south end channel area of Lake Winnipeg. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go back a minute just to make a comment on the transferability of licences, because the Member for Ste. Rose brought that up. I'd just like to put on the record that I'm sure that when this committee meets 10 or 15 years from now that they will come to a point where they will agree that transferability of licences was the only way to make the industry viable. HON. S. USKIW: I agree sooner than that. MR. B.

RANSOM: Maybe sooner than that. I predict it in 10 years from now it'll be very widespread, because 1252

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 entrepreneurs cannot be expected to invest money and take risks if they don't have protection for the resource base that they work with. I say very straightforwardly that I believe that the Member for Ste. Rose did a disservice to the fishermen when he went out and attended meetings where public servants were out to explain a proposed policy and the Mem ber for Ste. Rose went out and did his best to stir up opposition to that idea.

That's his right, but I say that time will show that he did a disservice to those fishermen and that some of the same fishermen who opposed that idea at the time, perhaps only because it hadn't been adequately explained and all of the details worked out, some of those same fishermen now realize that that may, indeed, be the answer to their problems. We were not appr oac hing it from any sort of philosophical benefit for Conservatives by seeing the fishery move in that direction. What we were trying to do was see that people be able to make a living from the fishing industry.

That was an idea and I think that time will prove that it was a pretty good idea basically. There may be some restrictions, as the Minister has said, that need to be placed on. I'd like to commend the Branch for their five-year report that, unfortunately, was just laid before us a couple of days ago and I know - (I nterjection) - that I for one - well, you could have held it till next week, Mr. Minister, but you're already in violation by not tabling it sooner.

I don't say it by way of criticism, I just say that unfortunately I, for one, have not had time to study the report and to be able to discuss it intelligently before the comm ittee today or in the next day or two; but I'm pleased to see that it's there.

I see that, in looking through it rather quickly, that it doesn't seem to strictly conform with the legislation in the sense that it doesn't appear to me to deal with individual species that are listed in the schedule, so I only ask the Minister why that is, whether it's simply too compl icated to deal with individual species at this time, whether the information simply isn't available or just what the reason is. HON. S.

USKIW: I'm advised by the staff that they felt it would be overly complex to do it on an individual species basis, not that it can't be done, but they felt that would be a very cumbersome approach. I want to advise the Member for Turtle Mountain that we had received that report only on Tuesday and I had, on first blush, decided that perhaps I shouldn't table it now because I haven't had a chance to read it and therefore I would not be able to respond to its content.

On second review, I decided that would be unfair because then I would be holding it in my possession, not giving members a chance to discuss it in this comm ittee, so I then decided to table it. For whatever it's worth, I haven't read it and therefore I'm ignorant of its content at this point in time, but it's there for your benefit. Back to the other issue that the member raises, transferability of quotas. The people that I've spoken with, fishermen in the Lake Winnipeg area, have said to me, get on with it; we think you should go that direction.

I would hazard a guess that if you had a referendum on that issue, within the rules that they have set down - there is a committee or a report on that - on how it could be done, without giving up the fishery to one individual per se, in the long run, within those parameters they hazard a guess that 95 percent of the fishermen would support that, so I have to take cognizance of that and we will be reviewing that policy fairly soon. MR. Ft RANSOM: Just to add a word further on the transferability of licences, the Member for Ste.

Rose may or may not be aware of the extent to which licences are transferred now, under the table, and to lay it on the table is, to me, a much more legitimate thing to do. It doesn't make much sense to me that a person who might be employed in Winnipeg, but holds a licence and is able to allow someone else on the lake to fish that licence and then to cream off the top, to me, is putting our heads in the sand if we try and hide from that. Far better to bring it out into the open and let the market function openly, rather than a black market function, which in effect is what's happening now.

With respect to the five-year report, I just would like to point out to the Minister and to the staff that the reason for asking for each species to be dealt with was that I know and others know that there isn't a great deal of information available on some of these species and, indeed, it may be repetitive. But I think there is value in stating what is known, and by implication, what isn't known and in the long run, the management of the Fishery will benefit from that kind of reporting. I'd just like to make one other suggestion to the Minister.

I put this request to the previous Minister of Natural Resources concerning the five-year Wildlife report and that was that I think we should consider an oppo rtunity for the commit tee to meet and ask questions of the Director of Fisheries, for instance, as well as the Minister, in the same way that we ask questions of the Deputy Minister of Finance when we sit in committee to discuss the financial resources of the provinces. When we do an accounting for the financial resources of the province, it's acceptable for a committee to question senior civil servants.

We recognize that the Minister is not a technical person and can't answer some of the questions, and it seems to me that since that report only comes once every five years, we can't do justice to it in a few minutes in Estimates review, that we really should consider that. It might even be extended to allowing the public to make submissions the way they do to Law Amendments Comm ittee. It's just a suggestion that I put forward to the Minister. I'd like to ask a couple of specific questions. Can the Minister give me a report on events at Pelican Lake and Rock Lake over the past winter?

I'm not asking for detail, but just what happened and where is it at today? HON. S. USKIW: Both of those lakes have been winter killed, Mr. Chairman. We did do a salvage operation one lake and at the present time we're involved with the clean-up of those lakes, which obviously is a major job, major undertaking. There is going to have to be a restocking, I presume, as a result, a major restocking that will take place. The long -term solution, I gu ess, is yet to be determined or found. Perhaps the Member for Turtle Mountain has some opinion on that. I don't know that 1253

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 there is one that is satisfactory or that is 100 percent proof, and if there is one, I don't know what the costs are. Obviously you have to have more depth of water in lakes to avoid winter kill and the question is, where do you draw the water from and so on. Perhaps the mem ber wants to add further to his comments. MR. B. RANSOM: First of all, I'd like to ask just on the question of stocking and then I'll follow up on the other. Are there plans set at the moment for the restocking of Pelican or Rock lake? The indication is that there are plans set.

Can the Minister just give me a rough indication of what that program will be? HON. S. USKIW: The plan is to stock Rock lake with adult pike and pickerel fry in both Rock and Pelican, several millions of fingerlings. MR. B. RANSOM: With respect then to Pelican lake, first of all, there was a plan being developed at the time that we were in government that would have seen water diverted from the Pernbina River through an intake channel and also there was to be an outlet channel put in place as well to prevent unduly high levels of water. HON. S.

USKIW: Would the member clarify whether he's referring Rock or Pelican lake? MR. B. RANSOM: I'm talking about Pelican lake where there was a plan in place and, indeed, land was acquired and i think even some of the materials had been acquired. My question to the Minister is not about the construction of the thing but whether or not the staff and he feel that that sort of project would be beneficial to the fishery? I recognize that nothing is likely to be 100 percent effective, but would it be beneficial to the fishery?

Can they give us any kind of indication about whether they think it would reduce the frequency of winter kill by 50 percent or 80 percent or 20 percent - any kind of assessment? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, yes, the mem ber is absolutely correct. There was a project that was on the books some few years ago and due to priorization that project was not proceeded with. I guess the monies were either lapsed or repriorized or whatever.

It is true had that been proceeded with that Pelican lake would be in a better condition than it is at the moment and would reduce the frequency of the problem of oxygen that we've had to experience there from time to time. To what extent, I don't know. Would it eliminate it or not? It depends on total drainage into the area too, I suppose, the total volume of water corning in. In essence, yes, it would substantially improve that lake's fishery. MR. B.

RANSOM: I assume that the same sort of comment might apply to Rock lake then, that if there is any raising of the level there that it would have a sim ilar effect - and the Minister is indicating perhaps that they would appraise that differently. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, yes, the difference with Rock lake is that you would have to raise it 1254 substantially in order to get the same benefit.

A two foot rise in that lake would simply inundate a lot of acreage which would contribute to further reducing the oxygen in the lake because of the plant life and so on that you would be adding to the lake, so it would aggravate the situation, certainly not help it any unless you went - how many feet? - you'd have to go five or six feet up on Rock lake to achieve results. I don't know whether that's practicai or not given the shoreline situation. MR. B. RANSOM: Just a couple of other things then, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Fisheries people deserve some commendation for undertaking the kind of salvage operation that they undertook this past winter at Pelican lake. I know they ran some serious risk there, of course, that if there had not been a winter kill, they were not going to look very good. There was some unhappiness locally, of course, with people who have a vital interest in the management of the resource.

I guess the only thing that could be suggested would be that another time they might try and communicate a little more widely beforehand about what is under way, but I think it did turn out quite well and there were a lot of people involved in that and they felt pretty good about being able to get involved directly in some hands-on kind of handling of the resources. I think a final question then has to do with the situation in Turtle Mountain as to the lakes there and whether or not they are proceeding with the rearing experiments. I'm no! even sure that "experiment" is the proper term anyrnore.

It may be an operational situation now for rearing walleye in some of the small lakes in Turtle Mountain. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, we're not doing any rearing of pickerel in the area, but we are trying to develop two additional lakes through an aeration experiment, Adam and Bower lakes. MR. B. RANSOM: Was th ere not an experime nt conducted two or three years ago where walleye were raised, perhaps released, into lake Bower as fry and harvested in the fall for tr.ansfer to other lakes and that it was very successful in that they got rapid growth over the summer and no predation? HON. s.

USKIW: Yes, I'm advised that there may have been some experimentation but the attempt now is to develop a real fishery in the area. It's a much more serious venture at the moment. MR. B. RANSOM: I can appreciate that has some benefit directly for Bower, but with respect to raising fish for transfer and stocking of other lakes then, are they doing that same kind of thing in other lakes? When you have a situation like lake Dauphin that the Member for Ste.

Rose was referring to, if you've got enough of those lakes and you can transfer enough fish into it that have been reared somewhere else, they can surive as adults. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, yes, just to show that I don't leave the wrong impression, we are rearing more

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 pickerel in that particular region. We are also committing more staff to that particular fishery, so that we recognize the importance of doing something in the area. With respect to the question of the salvage operation, we're very pleased with the fact that we had a lot of local initiative and support for that program. I think that's a real credit to the local community as well.

I want to compliment the Member for Turtle Mountain on one thing that perhaps many are not aware of and, that is, it's come to my attention that the five-year report was really an innovation of his when he was Minister of Natural Resources. It was a very worthy objective and, hopefully, its worth will be realized as we peruse those reports and carry forward to the years ahead. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Malinowski: The Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Every time the Minister of Resources, regardless of political stripe, goes to Swan River I'm sure they get bombarded with enquiries about restocking some of the lakes in the area. I know the Minister has been up to Swan River recently. I'm just wondering if he can bring me up-to-date on what is planned for the coming year with respect to restocking fish in the lakes in the Duck Mountains and perhaps the Porcupine area as well. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the effort in that area is to rehabilitate Two Mile Lake and Glad Lake into a substantive trout fishery. Two Mile and Glad. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr.

Chairman, I believe the other day we were talking about some funding in the Fisheries through the Canada Federal Agreement. Are there any programs for restocking lakes under this agreement? HON. S. USKIW: No. MR. D. GOURLA Y: With respect to Destination Manitoba, has there been any funding from that area spent in the Duck Mountains or anywhere in the Swan Valley area? HON. S. USKIW: Not for fish, Mr. Chairman, no. MR. D. GOURLAY: Did the department not submit an application - perhaps it was denied - but through some funding from the source of Destination Manitoba? HON. S.

USKIW: There doesn't seem to be any knowledge of it, Mr. Chairman. If the member's aware, perhaps there may have been something. MR. D. GOURLAY: Perhaps it was in another area, not necessarily in the Fisheries, so I'll leave it at that. With respect to Two Mile Lake and Glad Lake, did you indicate the types of fish that will be . HON. S. USKIW: Trout. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Thank you.

The Member for Turtle Mountain put some comments on the record in that I had done a disservice by attending some of the meetings when they were trying to convince fishermen to move toward a licensed value or whatever was the designation or the name of it. I want to put on the record that I only attended a couple of meetings, as I recall, and it was at the invitation of fishermen in my area that wanted me there and what they were saying is, you're our representative and we want you there.

I recall at one meeting - I'm not sure if it was Waterhen and perhaps the director was there, I don't remember exactly - but one of the fishermen stood up and said, we want to hear our representative speak here this evening and we want to hear his views. My response was that it was not my meeting; I had not set up the meeting and that I didn't feel that I should be speaking, but they insisted that I did speak and I was invited by those who were in charge of the meeting to come up and speak and I did. I spoke my view and I still have that opinion, as far as Lake Manitoba is concerned.

I would question at this point in time whether that would be the right direction to proceed, as far as Lake Manitoba is concerned. HON. S. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, our pressure on that issue has risen in the Lake Winnipeg fishery. I don't know of any move on the Lake Manitoba fishery from the fishermen themselves, so that if we're going to address the issue, my guess would be that we will apply it on those lakes where there seems to be a will or support for that kind of a program. It's certainly in the initial stages.

It may be that subsequently other fisheries may want to follow suit, but it's not our intent to impose something on a fishery that people don't want. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have too many questions, but being involved with the Environmental Department, it comes to mind about the picture I saw in the paper of the dead fish at Pelican Lake. I heard the reason for it and I'm not about to be critical, but I would like to know what the department is doing about the disposal of the dead fish. Can the Honourable Minister advise? HON. S.

USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I'm not certain what the final disposition of the dead fish is, but the disposition of it is governed by a local health officer who makes a decision on methodology and disposal. It could be disposal into the garbage or the nuisance grounds or it could be that they're converted to other uses, but it's go verned by the health officer's recommendation. MR. A. KOVNATS: Not to make any big issue about it, Mr.

Minister, but we do have regulations covering dead anima ls and we'v e got some pr etty strict regulations concerning dead cattle and how they must be disposed of and I can understand the reason for the disposal of the dead. I would think that maybe fish should come somewhat under the same sort of a policy, 1255

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 and I was just wondering whether the Minister would be prepared to advise whether he has contemplated a policy of handling dead fish, or is he going to leave the responsibility in somebody else's hands. Then again, Sam, I don't want to make a big issue about it, but I have to be concerned about the environmental part of it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let the Min ister answer the first question and then . . MR. A. KOVNATS: Tell that member down there to keep his nose out of it because it's none of his business. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Minister. HON. S. USICIW: Mr.

Chairman, there's really no analogous situation between livestock and fish with respect to the need to protect the public from disease. in the livestock area, there is a problem for which the legislation and regulations deal with the issue. With respect to fish, there is not an equivalent concern healthwise. A lot of the fish are eaten up by the birds before you can get at them, so environmentally, other than the smell, it's not a serious thing. Notwithstanding that, how we dispose of them is governed by health authorities, so that the environment or public health issues are addressed. MR. A.

KOVNATS: I would think that these fish could be of some benefit to hog farmers or mink ranchers or people of that nature and I know that there's a great difficulty in trying to bringing them in from the North to the south, particularly after they're dead, but I was trying to find out whether there were any regulations and the Minister has put my mind at ease concerning the health hazards not being anywhere near comparable and I'm prepared to accept that. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's been considerable work done with crossbreeding speckled and lake trout and splake in the Northern areas. Has there been any movement? Are there any lakes in the southern part of the province that they've planted splake in? I think maybe one lake in the Turtle Mountains? HON. S. USKIW: Williams Lake is one lake which we've put them into. MR. D. BLAKE: Has it been successful? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. D.

BLAKE: In the sport fishing, has the Minister given any consideration, or is he thinking about giving any consideration to increasing the possession limit to possibly a two-day limit, instead of the one-day? I'm thinking of the money we're spending to attract tourists up here, and to have them come 1, 200 miles and allow them to take home four pickerel just seems a little . . . As a personal viewpoint, I think a two-day possession might eliminate some of the tendencies or the feelings of the odd fisherman to maybe try and get that extra day's limit home with him, undetected, shall we say. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the information I have is that that policy was in effect some years ago and was discontinued because if it were to continue it would deplete the lakes much too quickly. It had a negative effect on fish stock in the lake. MR. D. BLAKE: I think maybe you're being a little naive there, Mr. Chairman, when you've got four conservation officers covering the whole western part of Manitoba. I don't think there's anypiace that was not taking two-day's limit if they get a chance. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a fair comment. My staff advise me that we still rely on the honour system to quite a degree.

MR. D. BLAKE: That brings us to the honour system. What about a size limit? l have always thrown back small fish; I don't see any point in keeping an eight or ten-inch long pickerel. If you don't get a decent sized pickerel to make a fillet out of it, you might as well put it back and hope you'll get it again next year. What is the reasoning behind taking the size limit off? HON. S. USKIW: I'm advised that it tends to depress the size of the stock of the fishery. That was discontinued some years ago. MR. D. BLAKE: It's okay if I continue to do it though. There's no objection to it? Just a final question, Mr.

Chairman. I fish Clear Lake quite a bit with very, very little success and I just wondered - there are other people that go up there and always come home with their limit of pickerel and nobody can find out where they go. I was just wondering under the new Freedom of Information Act that's going to be brought in if we might somehow be able to find out where the hell they're going. HON. S. USKIW: No . . . MR. D. BLAKE: He's not going to answer. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if there's any change in the commercial fishing in Red Deer Lake, Swan Lake, or Dawson Bay, Lake Winnipegosis? Has there been any recent changes in the com mercial fishing in those lakes? HON. S. USKIW: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. E. HARPER: I want to ask the Minister - and it's in regard to Limestone. I travelled through all the commun ities and particularly the communities that are 1256

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 close to lime stone were questioning us as a working group about the fish. They wanted to find out what the Department of Natural Resources is doing in terms of protecting, I believe the brook trout. Then they had some information relating to fish ladders. I was just wondering what programs are being anticipated for the construction of Limestone. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, we are doing a fair amount of co-ordinating work with respect to that issue. There are impact consultants working on that and our input is made through that vehicle. MR. E.

HARPER: The only reason I said we had asked these questions quite some time ago and then they have been put through some channels, so we haven't got word back yet, so I was just wondering where this was at. I know the Natural Resources had some input. I was saying that we had put these questions through approp riate departments and appropriate people and we hadn't received any information. I was wondering where this was at. HON. S. USKIW: I see, okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll endeavour to track that down and advise the mem ber. Mr . Chairman, I'm not sur e whether tha t's the document that I have here.

This is in response to his previous question here. We have the answers for him. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Natural Resources Fisheries-pa ss? The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I expect the Mem ber for Emerson was finished his questioning on Fisheries. He's at a medical appointment. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The member is concerned about his opportunity. There will be another one later on the Salary. The only disadvantage of that is that there are no staff at that time. MR. D. BLAKE: I think we can pass it and go on to Wildlife for tonight Mr. Chairman.

We won't get into it now, I don't expect. By the time you get the formalities done, it'll be time for Committee rise. You can pass this item. HON. S. USKIW: You can pass Fisheries. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, so then Fisheries . HON. S. USKIW: Read out the resolution. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: Reso lution No. 12 5: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,707,500 for Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending the 31s t Day of March, 19 86- pass. The hour is now 4:30 p.m. and I am interrupting the proceedings for Private Members' Hour. The Committee will return at 8:00 o'clock this evening.

SUPPL Y - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Heal th, Item 7, Manitoba He alth Services Commission, Administration - Mr. Minister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Mem ber for Pembina wanted to know the number of emp loyees at the Commission and also at the Cadham Lab that were over the $40,000.00. There has been no change in 19 84-85 and there has been no change, or very little change, over the period of years. There hasn't been any big change in job classification or salary increase, so therefore I'm not repeating them.

They're exactly the same as of now. On Administration, 6; Executive, 2; Internal Audit, 1; Administration Division, 4; Urban Facilities Division, 2; Rural Health and Ambulance Services, 3; Personal Care Homes, 2; Construction and Operational Planning, 4; Ins urance Division, 4; He alth Information System Division, 8; Air Ambulance, 1, for a sub-total of 37. Now the Laboratory and X-ray Services . . . 7 - that's out of 209 and 6 out of Cadham, out of 96.5, for a total of 50. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, on Tuesday night we had been engaged in some debate concerning a letter that the Minister of Health had sent out to all chairmen, hospitals, personal care homes and health centres in which the Minister of Health had suggested that the reason the government was only going to have 0.8 percent growth in revenues was mainly because of the projected loss in equa lization payments; and he also attempted to make the point that the EPF funding for health and post-secondary education at the federal level was $100 million less than Manitoba's share.

He then went on to make an observation that, while technically correct, was designed to leave the impression that Manitoba was somehow losing $200 million because their average income, average capacity to raise revenue, was $200 million short of the all-provincial average.

As I say, while technically correct, it's irrelevant to any sort of discussion with the health care institutions because that all-province average has never been the basis for equalization in Canada, but because the Minister of Health foolishly accepted the advice given by the Minister of Finance and put it into his letter without justifying it, then I think he used his position as Minister of Health to leave an incorrect impression with the chairmen of hospitals, personal care homes and health centres.

We then were treated to the rather lengthy piece of bafflegab by the Minister of Finance, trying to justify the statement that went out in this letter because it had been raised with him that, far from having a $25 million increase in revenues, indeed the Provincial Government had had a much greater increase than that in revenues; and of course that they actually had included $72 million in his revenue projections from equalization.

He didn't assume that he was going to lose that at all - and indeed, he ended up with $50 million. 1257 Of course, in the revenue projections that were tabled before the House, it became evident that the increase

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 in established programs financing funds from the Federal Government this year were up $57 million, while the total increase in education and health spending was only up 61 - hardly justification to go to the health care institutions and tell them that this is why we're not spending more money. The Minister of Finance said that changes had taken place, that when he made that statement earlier on, that was the best information he had. Well, perhaps.

We recognize that there are changes that take places, that there are adjustments, but I have to point out to the Minister of Health, to the House, because I'm sure the Minister of Health is already aware of it, that in the letter dated April 22nd that went out from the chief budget officer to the hospitals, non-proprietary personal care homes and health centres - in the letter that went out, he unfortunately quoted from the Minister's letter of January, saying that government revenue is expected to grow by under $25 million or 0.8 percent - this statement as of April 22nd.

That is a most unfortunate statement going out to say, in effect, that the Minister's letter of January 7th was indeed true. Well, of course it's not true and we know that at this point the government has far greater revenues coming in, aside from any tax increases that they impose. So, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest that the only reasonable thing for the Minister of Health to do at this point is to write a letter to all of the people that received the previous two letters and say, these are the increases that our government has received by way of revenues from the Federal Government in equa lization, in EPF, in gro wth in our own taxes and in new taxes; and in light of all these considerations, in light of all this revenue that we're getting, we are sticking with certain priorities.

The Minister has the right and his government has the right to make those priorities, but I believe it would only be fair to the health care institutions to lay the facts before them as to what revenues the government has and what the decisions the government has made with respect to funding for health care institutions. I hope that the Minister of Health will consider that very carefully because he has said on many occasions, Mr.

Chairman, that the problems and the crisis that the health care system in this province is faced with is going to require the attention of government, of opposition, of the users, of the administrators, of the professionals in the system, of everybody in the system; and I don't believe that the cause of helping to maintain a quality health care system into the future is going to be helped by giving information to the administrators of health care institutions that misleads them as to the reasons for the government making the decision.

I would ask the Minister if he would write to those same people, lay out the facts and simply say, these are the decisions that we, as the government of this province, think it's necessary to take. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. '\I. SCHROEDER: I'm sure the Minister of Health will address that last portion. As I'd indicated previously, the letter referred to as the January letter was done on the basis of information pr ovided from the Department of Finance and I would assume that, obviously, the later letter went out with someone not taking a look at the facts as they had been updated.

I should go over some of the numbers though that have been presented in the House. The Budget,'85-86, indicated a total revenue increase of $15 3.5 millio n. Tha t incl ud ed a $72 millio n equalization which had not been included and very clearly was excluded from the January letter and it of course included our taxation increase. So when we get down to it we were at considerably less than a 2 percent outage in terms of what we expected in January and where we were in April without those two adjustments. I think that everyone here understands why those adjustments were made.

What I'd ask the opposition to do is follow its own suggestions, however, with respect to looking at global amounts of money available. When you look at global amounts of money available as per the 1985-86 Budget, federal source revenues including all of federal source revenues that they collect for us, revenues that they provide to us under agreements, etc ., increased, according to Budget documents, by $24.3 million total, including the EPF payments, including the equalization payments, including income tax payments, including the corporate income tax, the whole works.

All of the federal source payments increased by $24.3 million and tha t was, Mr . Chairman, before the cut in equalization. - (I nterjection) - Well, the Member for Turtle Mountain doesn't like that but that's a fact of life. That is looking at the whole forest and not one tree, not picking out one tree. Taxpayers understand that; they look at the bottom line. They don't look in the middle of the page somewhere and see one increase and nail their hats on that one increase; that's not the way they work and that's not the way they budget and that's not the way this government budgets.

When you look at the bottom line for all of that federal funding after the cut of $22 million from that $24.3 million increase, our total federal source revenues increased this year from last year, according to our predictions today, by $2.3 million. We have that wonderful group over on the other side suggesting that somehow that is such a magnanimous of increase in funding that we should never ever again sugge st th at the Federal Go vernm ent should be responsible for anything happening in this province.

That is the most ludicrous proposition to be put forward by any opposition I would suggest in many many years. Tha t demonst rates the total bankru ptcy of the arguments made by the opposition. They're taking one figure. They're saying there's a $50 million increase or wh atever the num ber is in Es tablished Programs Finance. They ignore all the other figures and they say, well, all this should be dumped into Health somehow, although on the other hand they say it shouldn't because you should look at your overall revenues.

Then they say, well, let's put it all into Health and then, of course, we would be down by approximately $50 million for all our other programming from the Federal Government. We have the Mem ber for Pembina, of course, in about as close to a dishonest fashion as any member in his House could come without being dishonest, suggesting that we were out by eight-fold or something like that in terms of our calculations of revenue in January. That is just absolutely ridiculous. It is false; it is inaccurate. I think it's an abomination on this Legislature to have 1258

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 people making those kinds of statements to us. Those statements simply are not in accordance with the facts. It seems to me that every time they start talking about equalization and Established Programs Financing, they seem to try to make a point of doing it when I'm occupied somewhere else.

They try to do it with the Minister of Health who is not the Minister responsible for those programs and they know it full well, but they want to play these silly little games in the Minister of Health's Estimates because he doesn't have the staff here who are available to deal with the issues that they raise here constantly in my absence and in the absence of my staff. I ask you, wait for my Estimates when I have my staff here and my documents here. We will deal with EPF; we will deal with equalization. We will deal with those issues.

We have dealt with them fairly; we have dealt with them openly; we have dealt with them to the benefit of Manitobans. I want to make one other point. The Member for Turtle Mountain suggests that when we talk about the $200 million shortfall that never in history has resource revenue been calculated in equalization. Well, of course, on that he's wrong again as he has been on so many other things. I would refer him to Mr. Courchene's book on the evolution of equalization payments. I think that would do many members of the Legislature some good. I refer to Page 52 of that book on equalization payments.

I'm going to quote a bit. "The second significant alteration over the 19 72-77 period occurred as a result of the mushrooming of the world oil price in 19 73 and 19 74. In the fall of 19 74, the Federal Go vernment annou nced th at ener gy royalties and revenues would no longer be equalized in full." Making it very clear that before that time they were equalized in full, he was wrong when he suggested that somehow it had never been historically the case that was done. The Government of the Day in Manitoba at that time opposed that move. I believe the Sterling Lyon Government opposed that move but I will check.

There was a Blue Paper presented to the Minister of Fina nce federal ly by the Min ister of Fina nce provincially in 19 81. I think we will check the record and find that governments in Manitoba for the past decade and more opposed that and said all along that you look at the average - (I nterjection) - The Member for Virden wouldn't kno w the meaning of that.

Governments in this province have consistently said that when you average up to the national standard, you do that in accordance with the formulas that have been developed, and we have a formula that would take into account all resource revenue if only it wasn't based on five provinces. If it was based on 10 provinces, all resource revenue would be in and we wouldn't be having these kinds of problems. When we make that kind of a statement in our letters, such as the January letter, it is absolutely correct. We were referring to no formula.

We were referring to the fact that we believe that equalization - (I nterjection) - Well, the Member for Pembina says nothing about the Domtar grants to Quebec, the millions of dollars spent on tobacco-raising subsidies by the Federal Government for his friends from Quebec and Ontario, subsidies that put people in the hospitals here in Manitoba and put costs on to our Minister of Health. He says nothing at all about the petro-chemical industry and its $15 million subsidy that was given by the Mulroney Government into Mo ntreal after the election.

He says nothing at all about time after time after time federal subsid ies into places like Que bec and he continually stands up here and criticizes us when we say we should get our fair share here in Manitoba. I think that's shameful behaviour on the part of the Member of Pembina. I think he should grow up and he should stand up for Manitoba. I think he should stand up for Manitoba and for fairness. What we're talking about is only fairness. Mr.

Chairman, talking about fairness, we heard the other day the Federal Government telling our people that a commodity that is grown in three provinces can't be part of a national package because it's not national. There are only three provinces. Well, how about the Autopac? Ontario and Quebec grow the cars, so to speak. They are subsidized. We can't buy foreign cars because that would do those companies out of profit. How about our bus industry here in Manitoba? Do we get the other side of that benefit? No, of course not. It goes to Quebec; it goes to Ontario.

Those people are saying that's perfectly fine to keep on subsidizing industry out there when we say we want fairness here, when we say as the quid pro quo in Confederation, we expect the glue of Confedera tion, and that is equalization, to be dealt out - (I nterjection) - You bet. We're into the glue of Confederation . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: . . . I think the Member for Lakeside would agree with me. You know, we have many of those kinds of regional programs that benefit one region against the other.

We have grain benefits, we have agricultural stabilization benefits and so on and so on, one of the things that at the end of the day, means we can live together a little better as Canadians, is the Equalization Program that evens things out among the provinces that benefited from those national programs - because we all pay for those national programs - and puts us into a little better position relative to the provinces that benefited more than we did, because some provinces do benefit more than we do from Confederation.

Central Canada has traditionally benefited considerably more from Confederation than have provinces in the hinterland like Manitoba. We must stand up strongly to continue to impress successive federal governments, it's not this Federal Government who made the terrible change in equalization this time ar ound, we 've said all alon g it's the previ ous government. At the same time we have to caution members opposite not to get carried away with the rhetoric on that issue - (I nterjection) - the Member for Lakeside says he thinks I'm right.

He was saying in the House - (Interject ion) - well, I think he's usually reasonable. Once in a while he's wrong though. Just the other day in the House the Member for Lakeside ind icated tha t we had agreed to this arrangement in 19 82 and, of course, he knows that we had not. A MEMBER: How many more minutes of bafflegab does the honourable member have left? 1259

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 HON. V. SCHROEDER: I have a meeting at 3:30, so you don't have to worry. He knows that statement was incorrect. I'll spend the evening reading your remarks in Hansard, don't worry. But the Member for Lakeside stated the other day that we had agreed with the Federal Government to this change in equalization.

He knows that he was wrong and I'm sure that during the course of this debate he will stand up and indicate that he was wrong, because clearly we fought against that change throughout, to the extent of our government appearing before the Federal Finance Comm ittee to speak against it several days before it was passed, and the other people who were against it were the federal Tories. The federal Tories supported us on it.

The federal Tories were saying it's wrong to do these kinds of things to Manitoba and these people on the other side keep saying, what a wonderful thing it is for Manitoba that we're getting only $22 million less in equa lization payments next year than we got last year, even though our need under the formula has increased by something in the range of 70 percent; and they say that's wonderful and they say that it's even greater that the year after we're due to receive another $25 million cut in equalization and they say that that is just wonderful. They say that is really magnanimous. We say that it's not fair.

We say that it's not fair. We say that what is fair is to provide us at least with what we received the previous year unless the formula indicates that we should require less, and of course the formula shows no such thing. - (I nterjection) - No, we don't complain at all if the formula begins to show that we have become so well-to-do that we no longer need as much and if you have an NOP Government for another five or six years, I'm sure that will happen.

In the late 1970s, the Member for Virden probably doesn't know this, but never has equalization grown so fast in this province as during the years of the Lyon administration when the formula just so dramatically increased because of the incredible difficulties they placed this economy into. We hope though, in the next five years or so, we can turn that around; but meanwhile . . . A MEMBER: Who brought it up? Who signed the letter? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: .. . as long as the members want to talk about equalization I will, between meetings, be showing up here as a bit of a "truth squad" to keep them a little bit in line, to keep their worst excesses - and I refer especially to the Member for Pembina - I'll keep his remarks in mind and make sure that they are rebutted as they should be, because he never bats more than about somewhere in the range of 10 percent, and that's too bad. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Finance has attempted to explain away why he can't be quite factual with his public presentations in Finance; and he tries to say that we've go t to work in co-operat ion with the Federal Government, we've got to stand up and fairly present the Manitoba position because if we don't fight for Manitoba we're going to lose every time. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance should know that one of the first ground rules of establishing any kind of credibility, when you are negotiating with the Federal Government, is at least to have your facts straight and your figures correct.

That is exactly why we got to this debate in Health Estimates, where the Finance Minister had to come in and attempt once again to bail out their most senior Minister for signing a letter that isn't factual and sending it out to chairmen of hospitals, personal care home boards, health centres, the administrators of same, the MHO , the Nursing Home Association of Manitoba and the Manitoba Health Services Commission. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Finance stands in this House and lectures us, lectures us poor mortals over in the opposition on how errant and wayward we are and he lectures us about getting our facts straight. He lectures us about having the proper information and making a true presentation of the facts. I might remind you, Mr.

Chairman, this is the same Minister of Finance who, in his presentation of the Public Accounts, was one of the first ones in the time I've been here where a Minister of Finance, since I've been an elected mem ber, ever pr esented the Public Accou nts of Manitoba where the Provi ncial Auditor would not endorse them and the Minister of Finance is standing up and telling us on this side of the House that we have to be factual, that we have to have our figures correct, when he's the Finance Minis ter that the Provi ncial Auditor would not sign the Provincia l Accounts of Manitoba?

That's like a corporation going to their shareholders with their financial statements unsigned by their auditor because they're not factual and true. How many financial officers in a corporation could get away with that and not be fired in the private sector? None. But this Minister of Finance did it. His Auditor wouldn't sign his financial report as to the factual presentat ion of the finan ces of the Provinc e of Ma nitoba; and this group over here, this New Democratic Government says, well, that's fine, that's fine, he's doing a good job.

He's distorting the figures; he's leaving an impression that's wrong on the people of Manitoba. That's what he's attempting to do. That's what we want to do; we want to cover everything up, distort, change the presentation, we want to fool the people. Mr. Chairman, that's the stage we were at on Tuesday afternoon, when we asked some very elementary questions of the Minister of Finance on how he could sign his January 7th . . . A MEMBER: Minister of Health, not Finance. MR. D. ORCHARD: ... I'm sorry. I got a little carried away on the Minister of Finance, yes.

We started Tuesday afternoon by asking the Minister of Health how he could sign a January 7th letter which was not factually correct and to the Minister's credit he said, well, I didn't develop the information on that; that came 1260

Thursday, 25 April, 1985 from Finance; so therefore we got the Minister of Finance in here to attempt to justify why he gave those wrong figures to the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-35a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 35a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	88787a4a568fac32fcfa7e99faac95609b46fcc0

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