Manitoba Hansard — 3 June 1985 (Sitting 61A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-61a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 3 June, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports By Standing and Special Commit tees . MINIST ERIAL STAT EMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to table the 14th Annual Report of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission and to circul ate to the members a report on Intestate Succession by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Min es. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table some copies of a brochure entitled "The Manitoba Potash Project, May'85." This was made pub lic at an economic conference in Winnipeg last week. I'd like to provide copies of it to members. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a statement for the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members of the House that this is Environment Week in Canada and a host of activities are planned across Manitoba.

Environment Week is a combined effort of various governmental and private organizations. The principal aim of the week is to heighten public awareness of the im portance of our environment. The theme of Environment Week'85 is "Your Action Today - Our Environment Tomorrow." It is a reminder to all of us that environmental protection is everyone's respon sibil ity. I would also like to remind members that this week is also Peace Week in Canada and I can think of no other action that is more in tune to the protection of our environment than peace.

Obvi ously, a nuclear war would be our worst form of environmental dis aster, so it is most fitting that these two important issues are recogniz ed at the same time. Environ ment Week'85 officially started yesterday with a special opening ceremony at the Museum of Man and Na ture. The opening event featured the presentation of three environmental plays written by Manitoba students. Another major event planned for tom orrow and Wedn esday is a recycling conference here in Winnipeg.

The workshop is the first major undertaking of the Recycling Council of Manitoba which was established to promote and encourage recycling activities. A variety of different recycling issues will be discussed at the workshop, including ind ustrial recycling, composting, toxic waste reduction, and beverage container control. Mem bers will find on their desks a copy of the brochure on the recycling workshop. This worthwhile effort is receiving, as well, financial support from our government. A variety of other activities have also been scheduled for Environment Week.

These include: A free environmental film series at the National Film Board's Cinema Main; environmental lectures at the Winnip eg Centennial Library and the Museum of Man and Nature; and environmental di splays at the St. Vital Shopping Centre later on this week and on Saturday. You will also note that I have provided membe rs of the House with an Environment Week button, poster and calendar of events outlining the activities I have just mentioned. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage all mem bers to assist me in bringing recognition to this imp ortant week. Thank you very much. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Honourable Min ister for his remarks concerning Environment Week and I will be wearing this button in support of Environment Week. I would hope that all members of the House would consider Environment Week for the whole year, not just for one week in the year. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction Of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Prior tci Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where there are 17 students of Grade 6 standing from the Earl Grey School under the dir ection of Mr. Hanna. The school is In the constituency of the Honourable Minis ter of Community Services. There are 28 students of Grade 11 standing from the J.H. Bruns School under the direction of Mr. Pitcairn. The school is In the constituency of the Honourable Member for Niak wa. On behalf of all of the members I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS North of Portage Development - proposed type of facility MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 2527

Monday, 3 June, 1985 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Mi nister of Urban Affairs. I wonder if he could inform the House whether or not the province has yet decided what form the major public facility in the North of Portage Development Corporation to which the province committed itself in the Throne Speech - what form that facility will take. Has that yet been decided? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Urban Affairs. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It has been decided as far as the Provincial Government is concerned, but that now is to be considered by the corporation and it would be announced after that. As you know, the corporation is the body that is admin istering and deciding - that has the backing of the three partners. An application was made to them. MR. G. FILMON: So, Mr. Speaker, is the Mini ster indicating that the province has decided what type of facility it would like to construc t and has made the proposal to the North of Portage Development Corporation and is awaiting their response? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's right.

Pay Equity - intended leg islation MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: My next que stion is to the Acting Premi er. I wonder if she could tell us - the Throne Speech carried a commitment to pay equity and I'm wondering if the province is intending to introduce legislation in this Session to deal with that matter of pay equit y. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Intentions will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, surely it isn't too much to ask - I haven't asked for a date upon which it will be introduced, I haven't asked for the nature or the form of the matter - all I want to know is whether or not it is intended to be introduc ed in this Session of the Legislature. Could the Acting Premier go so far as to tell us at least that much? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech is an ind ication of intent. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, you know, this from an adminis tration that put forward freedom of information legislation so that people should be able to know what the intention of the government is, and the Acting Premier won't even ind icate whether or not they intend to introduce legislation in this Session of the Legislature. I think that's a sham and it's shameful, Mr. Speaker. But I'll go on with further questions. Abuse of elderly in society - intended legislation MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder if the Acting Premier could tell us whether or not it is the int ention of her government to int roduce in this Session of the Legislature, legislative changes to deal with the rising problem of elderly abuse in society in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as anyone on this side that the convention for introducing legislation is when first reading is on an Order Paper and the details are given at second reading and there is ample opportunity for debate.

The Throne Speech gives a summa ry of the various pieces of legislation and initi atives that the government is undertaking. Those things have occurred and as we move on with the business of this Session, all those other questions will be answered. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I know full well that question period is not a time for debate of issues. I don't wish to debate with the acting Premier any aspects of legislation or the intentions of the Throne Speech.

What I would like to know is that people of all various different groups in society are asking us whether or not the government is intending to proceed with certain types of legislation. There is a question in the minds of social workers; there is a question in the minds of police officers as to whether or not this government plans to deal with the rising increase in elderly abuse by introducing legislation. My question is, is that a consideration that the government is giving at the present time? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the question that we on this side are receiving from people is, why are the second reading debate of bills waiting so long for comment by the opposit ion. They know the way the busi ness of the house flows along. They can . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, if government is not intending to intr oduce legislation to deal with the rising problem of elderly abuse in Manitoba, my question to the Acting Premier is whether or not the government is looking at providing some specific services in the area of counselling, in the area of education to the concerns, because in the year 1981 alone there were over 400 reported cases of elderly abuse which was a gross understatement, according to authorities in the area.

What is the government doing in the area of bringing forth programs in counselling and education to let people know of the concerns in this area of elderly abuse? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, during the year the Min ister of Health has acquainted us with the severity 2528

Monda� 3 June, 1985 of the problem and has brought forward various strategies for dealing with all the legislative programmatic elements. He can comment further on the state of the development of those programs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, one of the first acts of this government was to appoint a Provincial Gerontologist to reinforce the advisory committee and to have it report dir ectly to the gerontologist. The gerontologist is the Provincial Gerontologist, although they report to the Min ister of Health.

It has an inter-departmental comm ittee to make sure that there's participation from everyone. There has been, I think last week, and my friends were invited to this, there was a Conference on Aging that took place here at the university. There's been an awful of work; there's been discussion zeroed in on the question of abuse to the eld erly. The depar tment's in the process of discussing with the Attorney-General.

This morning I met with the people who are concerned, who are dealing with the abuse to childr en and asked them to give us some advice on that to see if some of the same organization would be the same; and I'm saying that we're very aware and concerned of this problem and if and whenever we're ready with legislation, legislation is not necessarily the most im portant thing, nor the only thing. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, one of the concerns that's been raised by experts in the field is that it's a question of requiring people to report suspected cases of elderly abuse, just as the new Child Welfare Act requir es that people who suspect abuse to childr en report that to the authorities. Is the Min ister giving consideration to that sort of legislation being introduced to try and curtail and curb the problem of elderly abuse in society? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It's a li ttle more complex than that. There is abuse and an added abuse with the elderly is financial abuse, people who are using their funds.

It is not a simple matter; you'r e asking people to report against families, children that are living with these people and this is what we're looking at to see if we will respect the rights of everybody, discussing with the people. As I say, we're very much aware, but I would hope that we're not going to get involved in this as a politi cal football. There's an awful lot of work to be done and if that is done the only one that will suffer will be the elderly. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not looking for getting involved in a politi cal football, but precisely the point that the Minis ter of Health raises about asking people to report against family mem bers is what The Child Welfare Act requires, is people report against family mem bers if indeed they are involved in child abuse. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Min ister of Health is, is the government considering the development of legislation that would require the reporting of suspected cases of abuse against our elderly who are very vulnerable, in a psychological, physical and a financial manner? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The government is looking at anything and everything that will protect the elderly. To single out something at this time, I think would be wrong. There are still discussions going on. In fact this morning, as I said, I di scussed with Dr. Ken McRae, to see if the expertise that they gain in their field could be helpful, and he assures me that it can. There's di scussion on many levels and I've asked my honourable friend to be patient. I think his main concerns would be, are we aware of what's going on; are we concerned; do we intend to do some thing about it? And it's yes, yes and yes.

Bill 26 - MTS letter re passage of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Premier has just chastised members of the opposition for not debating bills on second reading. Mr. Speaker, I, today received in the mail a letter from the President of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, one Murray Smith, asking the opposition to give speedy passage to Bill 26. Has the government or any of its Mini sters neglected to tell Mr.

Smith that the opposition waited nearly one and-a-half months to receive the printed Bill 26, after it was introduc ed for first reading? Head lice - Brandon schools MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Mini ster of Health. Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Health received, approximately three weeks ago, a petition from a Mrs. Lewis and a Mrs. Prokopchuk in Brandon, appended to which were approximately 300 names ·of parents who are concerned about the outbreak of head lice in the Brandon schools.

Can the Min ister of Health ind icate what action he and his department have taken to assist the teachers and the parents in controlling that outbreak? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I've asked for a report and investigation from the department. I've been away for the last three days. I'll check as soon as possible to find out what the outcome of that is. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the public health nursing staff has been vacant - two positions out of six for the past several months - could the Mi ni ster ind icate whether enha nced recruitment efforts have been taking place to replace those public health nurses so that the normal service will be reinstated to the schools and prevent a further 2529

Monday, 3 June, 1985 extension of the problem of head lice in the Brandon schools? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'll report as to the state of the replacement of staff at the same time. Beef 'N Reef Restaurant - variation in market value MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Min ister of Northern Affairs.

Can the Minister inform the House as to the difference between the price of the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant as reported in the paper of $500,000 and the value having dropped to $250,000 - other than the statement that was in the paper from the chairman, no very specific answers. Does the Mini ster have any specific answers as to the reasons? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we had quite a lengthy debate on this su bject in our comm ittee, and now it looks like they have done the evaluation on it and that's the best price that anybody is interested in paying for those. An evaluation was done on it and that's the best market value that they come up with. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Receiver's report has come out since the comm ittee was held. In the commit tee mee tings, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jones, to an answer from a question for me - I' ll be very brief, Sir, so the Minis ter will understand the point of the question - I asked Mr.

Jones if because of the ARDA Agreement, would GDF or the Manitoba Government be responsible to pay back any of the funds to the ARDA or Federal Government. HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jones, at the time the chairman, stated that he said that it's just a standard clause on all federal ARDA grant offers and he did not expect - he said that he would take the time to investigate at that time - that there would be any request from the Federal Government. Has the Minis ter not been in formed by Mr.

Jones that the Federal Government is asking for their proportion of the monies that are received for the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant on the sale of the restaurant? Has he been informed that the Federal Government is requesting their portion of the money which will reduce the amount of recovery for the Province of Manitoba? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Mini ster when he's taking it as notice that he take the letter which I'll table right now, written on May 15th, almost two weeks ago, from the Federal Government requesting their portion of the funds back. I wonder if he'd ask the head of GDF to keep him informed of these matters. Disaster Fund - Assistance to Ontario re tornado MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I dir ect this question to the Min ister of Finance. The question arises out of the un precedented storm damage done to Ontario communities over the weekend.

It seems to me I recall that dating back from the 1950 flood, we have a disaster fund in Manitoba. I wonder if the Min ister can ind icate to me whether that fund, indeed, still is in existence and whether or not the proportion of the damage done to our Ontario neighbours is of such magnititude that the government may well wish to consider contributing to the relief of the residents of Ontario. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Fina nce. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for that question.

Certainly, we'll check into it and see what there is available and what procedures there might be if there is any funding available. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: The question is either to the Deputy Premier or to the Min ister of Finance. The question asked of me of a neighbour is, would it be possible for Manitobans to make a contribution to the relief program in Ontario and, if so, would the government be co-ordinating or trying to organize some sort of program to allow Manitobans to make or to transfer money or goods to the people in Ontario who have been hurt by the storms?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think this kind of request is rather unusual. There is a process in place between the Federal Government and the provinces, a cost-sharing arrangement. We've had num erous disasters in this province over the last number of years where the formula allows for the province to pay the first dollar per capita and after that a sharing formula takes place. It's the same with the Federal Government's agreement with Ontario and that will be the mechanism whereby that disaster is paid for, Mr. Speaker. MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Speaker, the Min ister seems to have misund erstood the question. Manitoba was a recipient of a fair amount of aid, I think, if not North America wide, then worldwide, during the 1950 flood. The question I asked is if Manitobans, not the government, wanted to make contributions to those people who had trouble in Ontario because of the 2530

Monday, 3 June, 1985 storms, what mechanism would the government be undertaking or would they undertake any mechanism to allow the Manitobans to convey these funds or goods to the people in Ontario? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that there are mechanisms already in place with respect to contributions to charitable organizations.

I would expect that organizations such as the Mennonite Central Commit tee and possi bly some Ontario organizations would be involved in the clean-up and, of course, donations to those kinds of organizations are charitable donations within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and as long as they are within that act, people would be entitled to deduct that from their taxable income. MR. C. BIRT: To my knowledge and to the best of news reports I've seen, there has been no agency taking any responsi bility to try and co-ordinate any assistance program for the people in Ontario.

The question I want to know is, will the government be taking a lead to help the people in Ontario, keeping in mind what they did for us in the 1950 flood? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that there will shortly be agencies involved there, as there have been here and as there have been in other jurisdictions in North America, and at that time certainly the aid provided by Manitobans would be deductible in that fashion. I've ind icated, in response to the question of the Member for Lakeside, that if there is anything in any fund remaining from 1950, we will certai nly be looking at that as well.

Freedom of Information Act - Delay in introducing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: My question is to the Deputy Premi er. Bill No. 5, The Freedom of Information Act, was given first reading in the House on March 15 , 1985. Why did it take two-and-a-half months to finally introduce it into the House on May 31, 1985? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the bill is ordered for debate and will be introduced for second reading tomorrow; but I have no hesitation in answering the question.

The reason that it took that time is that we wanted to make it, as it is, the best freedom of information bill in the count ry. CAT scan facilities - Brandon area MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. 2531 MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Min ister of Health.

I wonder if the Honourable Mini ster of Health in the government could tell me what plans are in the works to provide CAT scan facilities in the Brandon area, especi ally to serve the needs of cancer patients from Western Manitoba and the Brandon area who presently must travel to Winnipeg for that type of treatment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer my honourable friend to the Estimates. That was covered quite extensively. MR. W.

McKENZIE: I wonder could the Minis ter then advise the House the reason or reasons for the delay in the provision of this type of service for the people of Western Manitoba who are finding it an extreme hardship now to make the necessary reservations for those patients, regarding the need of that kind of care, to have to be transported back and forth to the city. Land prices - Increase in MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who's made a number of remarks concerning the adverse impact of the Federal Budge t as he see it. Assuming that there is an increase in the price of land, does the Minis ter have a plan to intervene in the economy? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, we do have a long-term federal plan that's going to take maybe one or two more elections. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm dir ecting a question to the Mi nister of Finance concerning some of his remarks about the likely 'increase in the cost of land, remarks that he made just a few days ago, and I want to ask him whether he is giving consideration to land banking or buying up tracts of land to offset this proposed increase that he anticipates? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we still have some land and we can look at ways of making more of that available.

I believe in the last few years we did put - what was it? - Meadows West on the market and there may be other pieces of land that we can be looking at developing; but I would suggest that the member refer that to the Min ister of Housing. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, then I would direct that question to the Mini ster of Housing and ask him whether he is considering releasing lands now owned by the province or continuing to land bank, in anticipation of an increase in the price of land?

Monday, 3 J une, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, as the Min ister of Finance has ind icated, during the past two years the province has been very deeply involved in providing land for affordable housing in Meadows West and other areas. We still do have some inventory and we will develop that property as the need is demons trated to help maintain affordable housing in our province. Resurveying in muncipalities - Status of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.

GOURLAY: I dir ect a question to the Attorney General and ask the Attorney-General if he can advise as to the resurvey of the land base in munic ipalities, is it still being carried out and, if so, what municip alities will be included in this coming year for resurveys? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I'll take the second part of the question as notice, of which freedom is, of course, a requisite.

Yes, included in the Attorney-General's Estima tes for this year there is the same sum as was included in the Estimates last year and in the year before for continuing the resurvey of the outdated survey. The Member is well aware of some of the problems with posts that have dis appeared, lin es that are out of kilter from the old surveys and things of that kind. We're proceeding with it, but I will bring in the information or provide the member with information as to what the plan is for this year. Seatbelts and injuries - Status of analysis MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, I address my question to the Minis ter of Hig hways. Some 10 days ago I asked him a question with respect to a report presented to him by a constituent of mine, Mr. Martins, dealing with an analysis of injuri es before and after the advent of seatbelts. The Min ister ind icated at that time that I believe an analysis of that report had reached his office and he was just reviewing it. Could he indic ate what is the holdup and why is it taking so long to share the analysis done by his department, with the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Hig hways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Speaker, time really flies here. I didn't believe that it was 10 days ago that I answered that question. At that time, I ind icated the Deputy Minis ter was reviewing it, not that I was reviewing it. He hasn't completed his review yet and as soon as he has and it gets in, I'm sure there's many other prior ities and we're in the middle of Es tima tes consideration for Government Services as well at this time, but the member can rest assured that we will share all of the information once we get that report on the statistics. I've ind icated that in the past and I have no hesitation in doing that.

I have said that to the member before. Speed limits - raising of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No doubt the Minis ter is a classic example of time flying when you're having fun. Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Mini ster of Highways, in his review of the speed limits in Manitoba and the potential that he is currently studying of raising the speed limits to 100 kilometres per hour, has the Mi nister studied the statistics in the United States of the drop in inju ries and deaths on the highways, coinciding with the year that they dropped their speed limi ts to 55 in the United States, such information being very beneficial to the Min ister who is about to make a decision to raise the speed limits in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Highways. HON. J. PLO�MAN: Mr.

Speaker, there's been a lot of information compiled on this issue, both in the United States and Canada and other parts of the world. We have to consider all of them. It's very inconclusive, I can tell you that. There's many different points of view. According to the extensive study that was done with regard to speed limits in the United States, it seemed to be that they would be recommending to incr ease those speed limits again, they then backed off and maintained them as they are at the present time.

I think some of the major steps that have led to a decrease in inju ries and deaths and one that we have taken in this province is the seatbelt legislation, Mr. Speaker. There, we have taken strong action to ensure that there would be a reduction in injuries and deaths in this province, that has been the case and has been in the case in other areas, and it is certainly true that the member is probably confusing the statistics for the seat belts with the reduction in speed limits, and he has to pull those apart and ensure that he has analysed them each separately, Mr. Speaker. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, the only confusion in statistics are the ones that the Mini ster is currently trying to settle out and has some difficulty in doing so. Mr. Speaker, would the Mini ster avail him self of statistical information from the United States, where no seatbelt law existed or was introduced and the speed limit was dropped, resulting in a substantial saving in both personal injury and deaths on the highways as a result of lowering the speed limi ts, prior to making his decision on raising the speed limits in Manitoba? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, we'll look at all of that information as I've ind icated.

I think it should be pointed out here that there's no ind ication from any source in this government that we should be looking at raising speed limits across the board. What I've said 2532

Monday, 3 June, 1985 is that there are many provincial trunk highways that are currently at 100 kilome tres an hour and a number that are at 90 kilom etres an hour ; there's an incons istency there and I said there should be a consistent basis and a rationale for making those kinds of decisions. We're going to look at whether those speed limits should be increased on some major trunk hig hways and we'll consider all of the information that is available. MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Min ister of Busine ss Dev elopment. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, if I may be permitted leave to make a non-political statement? MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minis ter have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minis ter. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It may have been an oversight, but there a group of 20 students from Cold Lake School in Sherridon in my constituency in the gallery and I would certainly like to welcome them here on behalf of all the members in the Cham ber. MR. SPEAKER: I assure the member it's not an oversight; he was a little quicker than I was. COMMI TTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. C.

DODICK: I have commit tee changes, Mr. Speaker, on Public Util ities and Natural Resources: The Member for Transcona for St. James; The Pas for ln kster; and Osborne for Burrows. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you please call the following bills from the Order Paper for Second Reading, in this order: Bill No. 47, Bill No. 3, Bill No. 15. SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 47 -THE INFANTS' ESTATES ACT HON. R. PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 47, The Infants' Estates Act;

Loi sur les biens des mineurs, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in recommending to the House, Bill 47, The Infants' Estates Act. This bill is a companion piece to The Child and Family Services Act currently before the House. When, in 1982, a committee was struck to consider the existing Child Welfare Act, the committee decided that The Child and Family Services Act should deal only with matters affecting the physical and mental well-being of child ren. According ly,

Part 7 of The Child Welfare Act, which deals with estate matters, finds no place in that legislation and so we're introducing it in the form of a separate bill. When staff of my department looked at

Part 7, it became obvious that it was in need of updating, not simply re-enacting in another form. Many of the existing sections have survived virtually unchanged since the passage of the first Child Welfare Act in 1922, I remember it well. For example, the $2,000 limit on

summary admin istration of infants' estates has been unchanged for 61 years, even though the value of money of course, has changed dramatically in that time. The Public Trustee and the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench were consulted on the changes to be made in producing this bill, and I can assure the honour able members that the only changes of substance from the existing legislation consist of raising the dollar value for the

summary admin istration of estates from $2,000 to $10 ,000, and also to provide that the Public Trustee - and this is im portant, Sir - shall receive a copy of any application to di spose or deal with the property of an infant. The public trustee, in his capacity as the protector of the interests of childr en and estates, will then be able to ensure that di spositions or dealings proposed are in the best interests of the child.

If the public trustee should find it necessary to intervene, as he may well do in certain circums tances, then in court proceedings another new provision will give the courts the discretion to award the public trustee costs. That is, of course, not against the estate of the infant but with respect to those proposing to deal inappropriately with a child's estate. All other changes which this bill brings to the procedures already established and already existing under

Part 7 of The Child Welfare Act, consist of drafting changes, for example, to elimina te references to the Surrogate Court which no longer exists; and to drop some provisions which are obsolete now that we have amalgama ted the Surrogate Court, the County Court, and the Court of Queen's Bench. So with those words of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of the comments of the Attorney-General, I would be prepared to let this bill pass and go on to comm ittee, unle ss someone else wishes to speak to it. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 3 -AN ACT TO AMEND THE VITAL STATIS TICS ACT HON. M. SMITH presented, by leave, Bill No. 3,

An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les statistiques de l' etat civil, for second reading. 2533

Monday, 3 June, 1985 MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring to the attention of the members of the House a series of amendments and new inclusions we are proposing to The Vital Statistics Act. The amendments represent fine-tuning, if you will, of the act which was enacted in 1983. In some cases the changes will im pact on the public, but for the most part they're adminis trative in natur e and provide clarification for staff working in Vital Statistics.

In addition to the amendments, we have included three additions which will offer greater flexibility in the registering of events. I'd like to briefly outline for the Legislature what changes we are proposing. We have removed from the act any reference previously made to inspectors, as we have not had Vital Statistics inspectors for quite some time and reference to them is obsolete. We make reference to charging a prescribed fee for services. In all cases the fees already were being charged and their inclusion is merely a formal acknowledgement of their existence.

Two additional amendments relate to the release of information. One will provide the mechanism by which the Director of Vital Statistics will be able to release information on adoptions which occurred prior to September 1, 1924 to the Director of Child Welfare. The office of Vital Statistics maintains these records. Another amendment pertai ning to access and freedom of information will formalize the role of the Director of Vital Statistics to ensure files are available for bona tide research purpos es. Information would be released on a strictly confidential basis, safeguarding the public's right to privacy.

As I have mentioned there are three new inclusions. One is a provision allowing for the particulars of the father to be included for the purpose of registering the birth of a child, where there is a declaratory order. This requirement has come about largely because of changes to The Family Maint enance Act, which were passed after the revised Vital Statistics Act of 19 83. It guarantees the father's right to legal recognition, where the parents may not cohabitate, but where he is required to pay for the maintenance of the child. Another new

section deals with births resulting from artificial insemination. This

section was added at the request of physicians, hospitals and affected couples. Each year, in Manitoba, Vital Statistics records about 60 such bir ths. The new

section of the act will acknowledge both the mother and her husband as the natural parents when the child is registered. Another inclusion we have made will allow for the registration of a hyphenated or combined surname of a child without both parents' consent, if there is proof that one parent is dead or mentally incapable. I believe this bill will assist our efficient provision of this im portant public service. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Fort Garry, that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 15 -AN ACT TO AMEND THE PLANNING ACT HON. A. ANSTETT presented, by leave, Bill No. 15 ,

An Act to amend The Planning Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Mu nicipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide honourable mem bers with a brief

summary of the amendments proposed for The Planning Act. I will, at the conclusion of my remarks, distri bute a 36-page

summary of the amendments in full detail, providing both the existing

section and the proposed change as well as explanatory comments. I trust this will assist members in debating the bill, both at second read ing, in terms of an underst anding of the princip les; and also at comm ittee stage. Sir, the amend ments deal primarily with

Part 6 of The Planning Act, which is the subdi vision approval process. After nine years of experience with the new Planning Act passed in 1976, the department and most munic ipalities and planning di stricts have come to realize the need to clarify some of the processes set out in the subd ivision approval system. We have altered our review process in order to respond as efficiently and fairly as possible to applicants and to ensure that provincial resources are adequately protected . However there are still some provisions in

Part 6 which should be amended to better achieve these objectives. Many of the revisions are of a minor nature, such as the reordering of sections or rewording of clauses, to clarify the intent. Some of the revisions are more significant. To sum marize, the signific ant changes are as follows. Firstly; there's a new provision which permits the Min ister to delegate subdivision approving authority only to more than one munic ipali ty. In other words only where a planning district has been formed.

The provision which previously allowed subdivision approval authority to be delegated to a single municip ality is being removed. Districts will still be able to approve subd ivisions, only if they have been first approved by council in the local munic ipal ity. The second sign ificant revision provides a

section which will permit a municipal council to add, alter or cancel any conditions included in a previous resolution approving a subd ivision application. This provision will allo w councils to make reaso nable changes to subd ivision proposals. Provision will also be made to allow applicants to appeal those conditions to the mun icipal board in order to protect the applicant from unreasonable conditions.

The third major change is in reference to a amendment to the act four years ago which permitted regulations to be made to require a mun icipality to give notice of a subd ivision application to neighbouring land owners. However, to date no such regulations have been made either under the previous adminis tration or under our admin istration. The department and I are of the opinion that this type of provision is very fundamental to the subdivision 2534

Monday, 3 June, 1985 process and should be in clude d in the statute. Therefore, notice requirement provisions are outlined in the new amending bill rather than just regulatory authority to provide for same. This provision, of course, would apply only to munic ipalit ies which do not have an approved plan. The fourth major change is a new provision which wi ll authorize the approving authority to gr ant conditional approval for a subdivision. This ties in with the second proposal which allows the altering, adding or cancelling of conditions. This conditional approval would be valid for 24 months.

Once the applicant fulfills all the conditions of approval, the approving authority will be requi red to issue a certificate of approval for the subd ivision. This provision will clarify the current act's use of the tentative approval mechanism which is provided in the regulations. This will clearly define the scope of conditional approvals and clearly list all the types of conditions which can be attached. Currently, the various conditions are scattered through di fferent sections in the act and are not clearly evident to applicants.

The approving authority will now be able to apply only those types of conditions which are provided for in the act itself. A numb er of su bstantial provisions - and this is the final item, Mr. Speaker - currently included in the regulations which have been passed pursuant to the act at various times over the last nine years will be transferred directly into the act itself so that the general public and municipal officials making use of the act as a reference tool will have all of the rules and regulations there in the statute itself for easy reference.

The scope of the new regulations in the future will be limi ted primarily to proced ural matters and that will be really the range of the regulatory authority. All the other rules, statutory requirements, will be explicitly in the act so they're much easier to find and to follow. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that people applying to subdivide land will generally be more satisfied with the amende d legislation because it will set out the parameters and rules which must be followed more definitiv ely and in a more exact chronological fashion.

I believe that it will be of assistance to mun icipal councils and to planning di stricts as well. Some minor amendments to other parts of the act are also included but these are proposed solely to clean up some procedural matters. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that members will find the detailed synopsis of the bill helpful. I'll be pleased to answer any of the detailed questions with regard to that synopsis when we reach comm ittee stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Will the Honourable Min ister permit a question or two? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Can the Mini ster ind icate whether he or his department has submitted this proposal to the R.M. of Stanley and whether or not he has their approval for these changes? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have had an opportunity to dis cuss conceptually, and only conceptually because I respect the privilege of the Assembly, the proposal which is inherent in the bill to clarify and chronologically order the subdivision approval process with the two municipal associations.

I did that on several opportunities during the last year and ind icated to them it would be my intent to introduce this bill. I can't say, Sir, whether or not the Muni ci pal Association to which the R. M. to which the member refers belongs, has received their approval, but generally the proposals as expressed to the executives and members of the two associations received their approval and they gave me best wishes in proceeding with the legislation to make their job at the municipal level much clearer and much easier. Specifically, the one muni cipali ty - no, Sir.

Out of 201 I have not had an opportunity to consult with all of them. MR. H. GRAHAM: A supplementary question to the Minis ter. Would the Min ister give serious consideration to delaying referral of this matter to comm ittee until after the various regional meetings of the municip al di stricts of Manitoba are held in the next two weeks time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Muni cipal Affairs. Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, the district mee tings are the last two weeks of June.

The appropriate mechanism for consultation with mun icipalities is the Min isterial Advisory Commit tee at which the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs meets with the representatives of the two associations. That consultation has taken place. Sir, if the legisla tive process here and the timing of such, places this legislation before a commi ttee or certainly still in second reading while the regional meetings place, I would be happy to hear the views of municip al officials at that time. I can't predict when the Session will end.

In many ways, that's as much in the control or more in the control of members opposite than it is of the government. I would not be my intention to unduly delay the completion of the Session because of a piece of what is primarily technical and admin istrative legislation. I bel ieve there has been consultation with the two associations and I believe, Sir, that the legislation has their blessing in principle, in not in explicit detail.

They have been mailed copies of the legislation after it was distri buted in the House, and I expect that if there are any detailed concerns, we will hear about that at commit tee stage. I'll certainly be open to further comments and suggestions at the dis trict meet ings and if the bill has not yet been passed, then certainly the opportunity for further changes will be there.

If it has been, Sir, this government has always been approachable and has always dealt with mun icipalities on the basis of seeking their input and we certainly would not be at all reluctant to incorporate those suggestions in a future amending bill if there are those kinds of suggestions. 2535

Monday, 3 June, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Spe aker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Concordia, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Sir, I believe the House is continuing consideration of Agriculture Estimates here in the Chamber and Government Services Estimates in Comm ittee Room 255. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hear the words from my colleagues, "go get 'em" and there isn't enough time left in the day or years to count up all of the problems that this government has created in this province. Mr.

Speaker, there are some specific ones though that are very serious and that is the complete lack of knowledge of small business in this provinc e; the complete lack of relationship to their concerns in this province and also the situation of tourism within the province; but also, Mr. Speaker, the situation that has been mentioned today in the House and I've mentioned it before, and it was in the Free Press today, the handling, the complete ineptness and dis graceful way that this government handled the situation regarding the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant in Lac du Bonnet.

They have not only lost the people's money because of - I guess you would have to say - their stupid ity, in handling this type of a situation. They have created hardship on families, one family in particula r, and other families within the district and they have created hardships on the other busi nesses within the District of Lac du Bonnet. Mr. Speaker, it isn't as if the government didn't know that the problems existed a long time ago, but they continued to not investigate them, they continued to ignore them. In fact, the Min ister at the time received a letter that was add ressed to Mr.

Don Mcivor of the Manitoba Metis Federation in April 1984, and the letter outlined some very definite problems with one of the owners and the situation with one of the owners; but the letter, in outlining that situation, also ind icated some very serious problems with the operation in Lac du Bonnet. Mr. Speaker, the Minister, the Honourable Jerry Storie, at the time, received a copy of this letter and to my kno wledge and to the kn owledge of the lawyer concerned that wrote the letter there has never been any answer given to Mr. Knoedler's lawyer. There's never been any answer given to Mr.

Knoedler from the government. There have been di scussions with him by the Manager of CEDF. but certainly, Sir, the situation was allo wed from that point on to conti nue to deteriorate because of complete ignorance of the way busi ness should be operated and the comp lete ineptness of the department and the government to put this thing into a proper operating situation. Instead, it operated into a situation where we all are very disappointed that we're losing a lot of money. Mr.

Speaker, I brought up the fact today that in comm ittee I asked the simple question that would the Government of Manitoba be responsible for any of the funds that were advanced by ARDA because the ARDA Agreement specifically read - and I read it into the record, Sir - the ARDA Agreement specifically said that if you fail to operate the whole licensed family restaurant for at least three years, starting on the day you open for business, you must pay back the proportioned portion of any money that you have been paid under this offer.

Now I asked the question, would CEDF be responsible for paying back any of the monies? The answer I received, Mr. Speaker, was "I suggest Mr. Johnston know,"- this is from Mr. Jones, the Manager of CEDF - "frankly we have not even gone into that issue." Can you imagine? Can you imagine, you haven't even looked into an issue that was in the agreement? I would be supremely surprised if that were the case. That is a standard clause in the federal ARDA grant offers.

The reality is that every case where there's an ARDA grant, there has been a reliance upon a lending institution and usually it's CEDF which is that institution because of the areas and the people with whom we deal. Later on he says that we have not examined, Mr. Johnston, the implic ations of that clause, in terms of our experiencing the hypothecation of rights, but I would be very surpris ed because the ownership did not change; the shares were not exchanged or transferred. Mr. Speaker, that is a complete lack of duty for not even investigating the clause that was in the ARDA Agreement. Mr.

Speaker, we've received those answers in commi ttee. We were informed that the Receiver was in the process of handling everything. I have with me the Receiver's presentation to the judge in the Queen's Bench where he lists all of the items that would have to be paid by the government or paid out by the Receiver before the government received their funding, and in no place does it say that the government has to pay back any proportion to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I tabled today a letter in this House from a Mr. H.

Schulz, Manager of Urban Development of Special ARDA Program, a letter stating in the second paragraph it says, "To date, contributions under special ARDA Program have amounted to $19 4,651 .00." - I've already tabled it, I tabled it earlier. "A condition of our letter of offer a.(6) requir es that the facility be operated for the three-year control period or a prorated portion of contribution must be repaid. The facility commenced operation on November 22 and your security was exercised in February, 1985.

It is, therefore, established that the facility operated for less than a three-year period and is required by the letter of officer. Would 2536

Monday, 3 June, 1985 you, therefore, ensure that upon settlement of prior claims that the refund due this department be made." Mr. Speaker, I received the answer in comm ittee that, frankly, we have not even gone into that issue. We would be frankly surpris ed if the Federal Government would. Then it says, "We haven't examined that issue." Mr.

Speaker, that is one item in this situation that has shown that this government and the Min isters of this government have compl etely ign ored problems that existed with this situation where the people of Manitoba are now in the process of losing about $300,000, possibly more. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've referred to this whole situation. During the terms of the loan or after the agreement and the terms of the loan with ARDA and with CDF, Commu nity Economics Development Fund, in July of 1982 I quoted from a letter in commi ttee.

It says, "Before we proceed anywhere at all, is the receipt of the firm stipul ated price of the contract and a clear evidence of injection of the equity described and the agreement to the commitment letter issued?" Mr. Speaker, the manager, Mr. Jones, was writing to the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant to the people that were owners of the restaurant and he was explaining to them that un less they had specific prices, etc., satisfaction that the prices on the qu otations for the restaurants were all there and proper and that all monies of equity were put in by Mr. Knoedler and Mr.

Holm, that they couldn't proceed any further unless that was done, Sir. Well, Mr. Speaker, on October 15 , I refer to a letter from Mrs. Kowalchuk of the fund. It says, "You will recall that earlier this year when the contract price was presented to us we requested and obtai ned a breakdown of construction costs which made up the price of $253 ,000 by MMP Cons u ltan ts. In the meantime, assessed the construction according to the blueprints you provided us." MMP came up with a value of $1 83,000 based on those blueprints. Mr. Speaker, that's almost 65,000 or so di fference.

Since that time, major changes have altered the blueprints. MMP cannot adjust this figur e un less they are suppl ied with information necessary regarding the blueprints and the prices. I state, Mr. Speaker, that's written almost five or six months after Mr. Jones insi sted that they have this information. Mr. Speaker, we still have the restaurant opening in November 22 and in October they still had not received, at that point, anything from the restaurants regarding the overrun of the contract, Sir. On November 26, Mr.

Jones writes again, and by the way, the restaurant opened, all the money had been forwarded by CEDF to get this restaurant going and for six months they were saying we can't forward anymore money until we get this information. Here it says - this is November 26, the restaurant opened November 22 -"Before I can disbur se anymore funds for construction purposes, I require information that will explain the dif ferences of which 253,000 contract to MMP's $1 86,000 evaluation." He says, "I requir e an explanation of the differences before I can disbur se any money." And the busine ss that already opened.

You know these are busin ess people. I cannot empha size too strongly that you must be exceptionally careful on how you keep the cost of your minimum, especially as we all realize the months of January and April will probably be the slowest. He also refers to this letter that the equity from all partners must be put in because the monies have to be there before they can keep disbur sing their funds. On November 30, 1982, Mrs. Kowalchuk wrote Mr. Richmond, the contractor, saying they must have an explanation in the difference in the cost of the building. Mr.

Speaker, the only evidence that the government received as to the change in the costs of a building was a scribbled piece of paper like that which I have presented in committee. There was no body in commit tee told me that they had anything else. In the further correspondence, Sir, they refer to this piece of paper as not being satisfactory, yet all the money has been disbursed. That is the rundown of the funds that were the overage in the contract price versus MM P's consideration of the blueprints that gave their value of the building.

In comm ittee I received from the Manager of the Communi ties Ec onomic Development Fund, the assurance that the building was looked at and it was worth every cent that had been paid out. But, Mr. Speaker, it had been paid out before the government knew whether it was or it wasn't. The government exercised their rights under the contract to take over the restaurant in December, I believe, of 1983, and they chose to ask Mr. Knoed ler, one of the partners, to leave the business. They gave him an offer of $10, 000 of monies for leaving the business, because they had taken over the management of the business.

They placed Mr. Jones and another gentleman from CEDF on the board of dir ectors. Mr. Knoedler was a cook, who'd had experience in the restaurant business. The reason why the loan was granted from ARDA in the first place, and I follow up here, CEDF got involved because ARDA got involved, was because Mrs. Knoedler is Metis and there was to be Metis involvement. The approval came from Mrs. Gus of the Metis Federation in that area and the Knoedlers ran the busine ss. They did supply all of the reports and everything that this government requested by letter. It's all on file.

But when the partners had problems among thems elves and things wer en't going wel l, the government took over and they said, Mr. Knoedler, we're going to give you a severance of $10, 000, which, mind you, took him a long time to get. He was advised to get a lawyer by Mr. Jones, and the lawyer happened to be Mr. Jones' son-in-law, but we won't worry about that. Mr. Speaker, the situation that we have coming up is that Mr. Holm, the other partner, was made mana ger. I refer to what Mr.

Jones says in the paper today, "The judg ment the fund made at the time the loan was made was not particularly good," and he says that in hindsight. Our judgment of the business abil ity of the applicants, in hindsight, was not good, as good as it should have been. Mr. Speaker, in hindsight they say, their judgment was not as good as it should have been, and they put Mr. Holm in as manager of the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant. The other partner, was in charge of the financing at this point, and Mr. Holm has never run a restaurant in his life, Sir.

He's never cooked a steak; he's never poured a drink; he's never run a restaurant in his li fe, and after the manager of CEDF says, "Our judgment of the business ability of the applicants in hindsight was not as good as it should have been," they take 2537

Monday, 3 June, 1985 one of the partners, who has never been in the business in his life and they make him the manager of the busi ness. After doing that, it went nothing but down, down, down to the point where they have to put it in receivership. And, you know, this government was aware of what was happening. Now let me just say to you that it says here, if we asked the question, "CEDF requested ARDA for all the money. " They made a request to ARDA for all the money and ARDA said no, but they convinced them to give them the money in trust; and ARDA said no for a specific reason and remem ber, Mr.

Speaker, I had told you earlier that the CEDF were saying that we can't forward any more funds until the equity of all the partners was put in, and yet the building was built. And, Sir, on December 2, 1983, a year after the building is built and in operation, Mr. Johnston of the Government of Canada, Regional Economic Expansion, writes and he says, "Gentlemen ," to the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant, "The information reports available on the process of this project have been received.

It is noted that the required equity contribution has not been made, and in view of the financial situation it is critical that this requirement of our offer be com pleted with." A year later, our CEDF were forwarding money continually saying, "We can't forward any money until all the equity is in." A year lat er, the Federal Government, they knew it wasn't. Now the manager of CEDF, Sir, says that they received affidavits from a lawyer, and they had no reason to disbelie ve the lawyer.

But I see nothing and have heard nothing, and I see nothing in the Receiver's report to say that that lawyer should be charged , because the monies weren't there - obviously they weren't there. The Federal Government was capable of finding out it wasn't there, but our government wasn't. Mr. Speaker, let me say to you that I told you that the funds at that time were put in trust by ARDA. So in order to get those funds released, because they had to show ARDA all the equity was in, they sold Mr. Holm $30,000 worth of B-class shares in the business. Isn't that nice? So, according to Hansard - Mr.

Holm digs up two other people, Mr. Richmond, the contractor, who, it would appear, was greatly overpaid to begin with and he gets somebody else involved who has not been named, he wouldn't name that person in Hansard and that's up to him. But he said three people put up $30,000; and when the $30,000 was put up, that meant that's the 18 of the equity that was owing. So the Federal Government said that they wanted the 18 plus 12, so that there was more money put into the business before they released any more ARDA funds. That was done, Sir, but would you believe what the fund did when they put in, sold Mr.

Holm the $30,000 worth of B Class shares? This is a person, one of the people that has received all these monies to begin with and the place has gone broke and it's in receivership, but in order to get that $30,000 in so the ARDA federal people would release the $91 ,000 in trust, and they got $30,000, Sir, and I empha size that again, put in the busi ness - but you know what it says, it says on June 21, 1984, the company issued 30,000 Class B shares at the price of $1 per share for a total of $30,000.00.

Prior to the issue it was agreed that in the event of liqu idation or dissolution of the Beef 'N Reef Limited or in the event that CEDF take a demand on the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant, under the terms of the debenture, CEDF would purchase all outstanding Class B shares for the sum of $1 per share. A MEMBER: Oh, no, Frank. MR. F. JOHNSTON: In other words, they got somebody to invest another $30,000 in to get the Federal Government money released and then they turn around and in the agreement they say, if we take you over or exercise our agreement, we'll buy back your 30,000 shares for $1 a share.

That wasn't a bad deal for those people, was it? They didn't stand to lose anything. They didn't stand to lose a thing, and right here, Sir, in the rundown from the Receiver, we have placed before us all of the accounts owing and it says right in the accounts owing, $30,000 to be paid to Mr. Holm for the B Class shares that were issued. That didn't happen two years ago or in 1982 when this started. It all happened in 1984, they issued those shares.

This government and CEDF management watched this situation deteriorate to a point where the people kept losing money and losing money and they did absolutely nothing about it. Finally , when the pressure started to be put on by one, Mr. Naug ler, everybody started to scurry and everybody started to look at it. Mr. Knoedler basically came to the opposition in defence. He went to the papers; he went to the Metis Federation; he went to his lawyer; he went to Mr.

Jones; he went to ARDA; he went everywhere and nobody seemed to care one bit that there was a tremendous mess taking place and nobody was doing anything about it. The Min ister had ignored the copy of the letter that he'd received origin ally, so he had no reason to go back there, and he was talking to CEDF. Mr. Speaker, let me read to you one other thing. Mr. Knoedler has never been taken off as a shareholder by the Federal Government. The original agreement is still in force and this man is put out to pasture. He doesn't have a say on any more expansion from the bar that they did.

He didn't have a say in anything, yet he has lost his house, lost all his money. He was stopped from making an agreement from Mr. Holm to sell out his share, which the Ombudsman is looking at, at the present time; so I'll comment no more on that, Sir. But on March 4th, 1985, we served notice on Baldur Home - this is the Receiver - telling them that they would be taking over the operation of the restaurant. Here it says that when we requested permission to review the company's accounting records, we were informed the records were held by the company's accountant.

However, no documents relating to the transactions since October 31s t, 1984 had been passed on to the accountant. As a result, the accounting records have not been properly upd ated since October 31s t, 1984, which is the last date a set of financial statements were prepared. Can you imagine that they've gone through Novem ber, December, January, February, March, before they put it into receivership and they didn't ask where the statements were; and, Sir, in the correspondence - and it's all available - there is a process that was laid out by the CEDF to the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant as to all 2538

Monday, 3 June, 1985 of the information that had to be presented to the government. As a matter of fact, they had to daily tell them how many steaks were sold, how many drinks were sold, just keep track according to everything because they were having problems. That was all laid out and they put in an accountant. They named the accountant and then after Mr. Holm took over, it gradually worked back to being Mr. Holm's accountant and after Mr. Holm's accountant took over, Mr. Holm didn't give them any reports on the operation of the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant after October 31 st, 1984. Now isn't that performance! Mr.

Speaker, I've heard it's a job for Sherlock Holmes, and I'll tell you, sorting it all out is some thing. As a matter of fact, Sir, I have every intention of requesting the Provincial Auditor to examine all circu mstances regarding this situation. When I said to you, Mr. Speaker, that people were hurt - do you know, when the government took over the management and the operation of this restaurant, and I know that this is standard, Sir, what I'm about to read right now, but this is also government.

This is govern ment looking at other bus i nessses in the community because they took over the operation, and I read this in commi ttee. It says, to Ernie's Bakery in Lac du Bonnet, and it's signed by Mr. Jones. It starts, "The fund, the Crown Corporation is a major secured creditor," etc., etc., and I won't read it all, but I'll table it if you want. It goes on about the funds and the grants from Canada, etc. "I have to advise you that the company's difficulties are such but we are attempting to introduce corrective measures to ensure its commun ity and eventual profitabil ity.

In light of the di fficulties now evident and under the rights given to us by share hypothecation agreement, we are writing to all unsecured creditors to ask them to consider accepting the following formula for payment of their accounts as full settlement, the formula being (a) 50 percent of the amount outstan ding as at October 1, 1983, and (b) 75 percent of the account accrued from November 1, 1983 to March 1, 1984." Now, this is the nice part; this is government: "If the above formula is accepted unanimou sly, the busi ness will continue to function and we would expect the company to continue to use your services henceforth on a cash basis.

You will und erstand, in a case of this kind, if any of the undersigned creditors are unable to accept this formula, the inevitable conclusion would appear to be bankruptcy." The go ver nm ent says, tha t's it fellows; that's government. I know it's a standard in most situations like that, but this was the government. The government took over the management and when they took it over they took it over from a group of people who had not mana ged it well and they put in all the money. - (Interjection) - Yes, that's a good idea. As my colleague suggests, maybe Sweeney could be called in to clear it up. Mr.

Speaker, that, I said, is a total mess. If the Ombudsman in his wisdom comes up with decisions of unfairness, this government has the responsibility to take care of those people that were treated badly because of their mismanagement. I shouldn't be asking the Provincial Audit or, the Min ister should be asking the Provincial Auditor to examine all circums tances surrounding this situation so that he is making it clear to the people that he's above board and wants everything that is wrong to come out, but I haven't seen that yet, Sir. Those are the situations of mismanagement that this government has come up with.

Sir, I bring forward, I mentioned Tourism and I told the Min ister all of the graphs were available to show everybody that Tourism has gone nothing but down since this government came into operation. Reports that come from the Department of Strategic Planning of Business, Development and Tourism, this says that travel from Minneapolis is down 1.2 percent,'84 over'83 - and had gone down previous to that. We have a highways survey that tells us, Sir, that we have a minus 1 percent increase in people coming in our province on No. 1 Highway from east and west. It's not down in the east, but it's down from the west.

The total overall is down. Do you know, Sir, that in 19 84 I used to say to the Min ister of Tourism at that time who was and is a fine gentleman, I'd say how lucky can you be to be the Min ister of Tourism and you have His Holi ness the Pope coming to Manitoba and Her Majesty the Queen coming all in one year. You're going to have the biggest increase in tourism of any Min ister ever had - it's down, Sir. People travelling up Highway 75 and all of these reports are dated January and February, 1985. They're very up to date as far as'84 is concerned and they were written by Mr.

Michael Bell, Strategic Planner of Devel opment Branch, Busine ss Development and Tourism, and this report says of Hig hway 75 and Highway 10 from the Unit ed States - down. Increase in tourist travel by road is down. The Minis ter will tell you overall tourism may have been up a little bit, but the travelling public and the overall tourism is up because Manitobans are travelling within Manitoba a bit more because of the dol lar.

You know, with all of the breaks the Americans have had because of the dollar during 1984, our transportation along Highways 10 and 75, of people bringing themselves to Manitoba are down. Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan's tourism ind ustry is booming. I wonder why? The Mi nister will say because they're putting a lot more money into it or advertising. Do you really believe that Saskatchewan has that many more attractions than Manitoba, that they could advertise in such a way· that would tell people that Manitoba doesn't have as many attractions or nice places to go as Saskatchewan does?

I assure you, Saskatchewan has stolen our busi ness. And why? We have a situation where the Mini ster decided to take a look at Minneapolis and he went down there and put on a big show, took the police pipe band down. I will be asking him the total expenses for the extravaganza in Minn eapolis by Order for Return because I have some und erstanding of the size of hotel rooms, one hotel room having a little swimming pool in it and these other things that happened. Now, maybe the rumours here are wrong but I can assure you we will be asking. Mr.

Speaker, he put on a reception in Mi nneapolis for all of the people to come in and talk about Manitoba. Did you know I am told - I say, I am told, but on good authority - there were more Manitobans in the room than there were people from Mi nnesota. The staff, the pipe band - oh yes - and all of the lodge owners and everybody were there. You know 2539

Monday, 3 June, 1985 Manitoba has been putting on this reception for years where we go down when the Sportsmen's Show is on and we invite all the people to come in and the people that write Holiday Tours in Minn eapolis to send them up here. We've been doing it for years. Now, all of a sudden, we have an extravaganza and I'm told that most of the people at it were Manitobans. We'll check on that. No wonder we're down and no wonder, Sir, busine ss in this province has no confidence in these people. I have a Minis ter who defends . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. F. JOHNSTON: . . . the payroll tax . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The member's time has expired. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Min ister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take up a lot of time on my one opportunity to lay some of my concerns and grie vances, if you will, on the record. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to make some comment on the remarks made by the Member for Sturgeon Creek is simply too attractive to pass up. Mr.

Speaker, we spent approximately three days going over the Estima tes of the Department of Busine ss Development and Tourism and throughout that time the member had his glasses with the dark clouds on and continued to see doom and gloom rather than sunshine. I supp ose that is his particular prerogative. Mr. Speaker, the member outlined some of the continuing, the ongoing problems that were experienced with the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant in Lac du Bonnet, and I don't think that I need to say that particular situation is unfortunate.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek didn't put on the record what the role of CEDF is, what capacity it acts in, what its purpose was. He didn't put on the record the fact that the previous government had equally di sappointing and unfortunate incidents during their manda te. Mr. Speaker, I could put on the record a number of enterpris es which were less than success ful, and perhaps one could, if one wanted to, detail, chronicle the problems that existed and the problems that were apparent from the beginning, we could certainly do that. Mr.

Speaker, if the member wants an example we could talk about the $600,000 or $700,000 that went to Pi-Mi-Chi-Ka -Mac in Cross Lake, and the Member for Sturgeon Creek knows that that did not turn out to be as credible, as helpful, an enterprise as one might have hoped. But, Mr. Speaker, the member talks about his particular file and I'll tell you why there is such a file. Because CEDF's mandate, Mr. Speaker, is to go in and offer assitance in areas of the province where there is (

a) little access to financial services; (

b) little access to financial advice; where it is to serve those people, who because of their particular circu mstances, do not or will not have access to development funds, expertise through normal channels. Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for a corporation or a fund such as the CEDF to encounter difficulties. It is recognized and its manda te is to be a lender of last resort. Mr. Speaker, I do know that the staff and the manager of CEDF operated on, I suppose, untraditional methods, by virtue of the fact that they were not dealing with people with long-term busi ness experience. Mr.

Speaker, CEDF, by its very nature, has to remain flexible or else we have to abandon the hope that we can use CEDF as a vehicle for the establishment of enterpris es in ma ny parts of rural and Northern Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, CEDF has, and continues to have, I think a satisfactory record, given that it is a lender of last resort, which means it is accepting high risk ventures to begin with. It is accep ting the responsibility to finance, to assist some training - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek continues to yell from his seat. I gave him an opportunity to put his words on the record.

I would appreciate a similar courtesy. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek cannot have it both ways. We are going to act as a lender of last resort; we are going to remain flexible because we unde rstand, (

a) that those people have gone to other sources for assistance; and, (

b) that the risks that we are taking on are risks that we assume are legitima te and sustainable and justifiable; and we can either abandon that hope and say, well we'll leave the market forces to play as they will in terms of developing rural enterprise, or we can assume a role. If we assume a role, we're going to have to assume that there are going to be mist akes made, that we're going to have to work with these people to the best of our ability, to the best of their ability, to make the enterprises succeed. Mr. Speaker, we heard a litany of correspondence which I believe is extremely one-sided.

It does not, in any way, - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, the record, as portrayed by the Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek, in no way identifies the numb er of hours that were spent by staff in consultation, in meetings, in attempts to organize and make this particular enterprise successful. The fact that each response was not documented the way the Member for Sturgeon Creek would want it, does not mean at all that staff were not there recognizing the problems and attempting to deal with them. Mr.

Speaker, I know, as a matter of fact, that the staff of CEDF have been involved, attempted to deal with these problems from Day One, and there were considerable problems and no one is denying that. Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Jones put on the record the fact that in hindsight, CEDF probably should have made some di fferent decisions and perhaps shouldn't have been involved to begin with, but there were a set of circu mstances leading up to a decision to be involved, to provide the loan; and, of course, the availability of funding from the special ARDA program was a big part Of that. Mr.

Speaker, I have said before on a number of occasions that the special ARDA grants serve as an incent ive for many people to get involved in ventures that, on the surface, seem to be tenuous at best. I have a very grave concern that our involvement with special ARDA, in many circums tances, has proven to be more of a liability than a positive factor. But the fact is that we did get involved. The decision to provide support, through CEDF, was made a board of dir ectors that represent all areas of Manitoba, who 2540

Monday, 3 June, 1985 have a very broad and diverse background, from chartered accountants, to small business people, to representatives of various organizations. They operate through the general manager, who the Member for Sturgeon Creek has talked about, and, Mr. Speaker, they have to be given some freedom to manoeuvre, to negotiate with these individuals in the best interests of what they believe to be the best interests of the fund. Mr. Speaker, we can argue about whether one individual or another individual was responsible. I don't believe that there is any clear-cut single indi vidual that was responsible.

I certainly don't believe that anyone who was acting on behalf of CEDF operated out of anything but the best of in tentions. The best of int entions included, Mr. Speaker , salva ging the investment of the fund, salvaging the investment of the private individual, salvaging that operation so it could continue to provide employment in the communit y. Mr. Speaker, we can argue about whether CEDF should have put this particular firm in receivership; should have appointed a manager; should have pulled out and liqui dated sooner. We can argue about the dates that CEDF chose to do those things, but, Mr.

Speaker, there are other examples and the member knows full well that there are other examples of assistance that goes a little beyond what would normally be extended by a credit agency which has turned out to the betterment of the enterprise and the investors.

CEDF operates in very unique circu mstances and I suppose one could say that in hindsight this decision should have been reviewed, but I think that once the decision was made, it's up to the fund and up to staff to attempt, to the best of their abilit y, to salvage both the investment that was made on the taxpayers' behalf and the investment that was made by the people who were involved in the operation, and I think that was done. Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to comment on the allegations and the concerns that were raised by one indi vidual who was involved in this because there are obviously two side s to the story about who was responsible and who should have been left responsible and who should have remained in control and so forth. Those questions are not as easily answered as the Member for Sturgeon Creek would have us all believe.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek believes that all is black and white and I can tell him for certain that that is not the case; that his particular view of that matter does not reflect the circu mstances in their enti rety and we will simply leave it at that. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pembina asks how I can defend the indefensible. I am not defending the in defensible. Mr.

Speaker, I'm trying to elaborate on the circums tances of CEDF involvement and I want to put on the record that the Member for Sturgeon Creek did not acknowledge, in his opening remarks, the real role of CEDF, the fact that it is a lender of last resort, the fact that it has, out of habit and course of operation, dealt with individual businesses in unique ways because of its particular manda te, because of the clients that it is working with. By and large, it has been successful.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek knows that there were failures while his particular government was in power and there will continue to be failures. The overall success rate of CEDF 2541 continues to be approximately 80 percent, the number of jobs created in the hundreds. Mr. Speaker, we're not backing away from that because of mistakes that were made in good faith, to protect the taxpayers, to defend the people who made the investment in the first place and to create those jobs. That's their mandate and that's what we were trying to do.

Certainly, if there are things from this particular failure that we can learn, then obviously we should be learning; but that doesn't mean that we should back away from taking those risks which we believe are appropriate and that's what the fund did. So, Mr. Speaker, without wanting to get into the mug's game of placing the blame squa rely on the shoulders of one indi vidual or one particular agency, I think there were clearly a lot of mis takes made.

The results and the ramifications of those mistakes have been shared, as the membe r has acknowledged, by a num ber of individuals and by the taxpayers, unfortunately. Mr. Speaker, the issue of CEDF is not the only one which raises the question of what is the role of government, of government agencies in the development of rural and northern parts of this province. We could talk about the role of Crown corporations such as Channel Area Loggers or the Moose Lake Loggers.

We could talk about the role of government departments and government agencies in supporting training, supporting enterprise development in other parts of the province. It basically leads to the same question. At what point do you pull back and say, we're not prepared to look beyond the Perimeter Highway to assist development, to create jobs. Mr. Speaker, clearly we have a responsibility to look beyond those which are deemed to be commercially safe by the banking institutions.

We have a responsibility to look beyond the corporate interests, I suppose, or the institutional interests of banks - and that's what CEDF does. The role of CEDF, I suppose, will be and has been debated in the Estimates and in the standing committee and I don't believe that I heard the Member for Sturgeon Creek suggesting for a minute that the government should abandon its attempts.

I don't believe I heard the Member for Sturgeon Creek suggesting that CEDF does not have a legitima te role to play, and if that is the case, then there are·g oing to be enterprises that don't make it because of the nature of their mandate. I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek raised a numb er of other issues related to Tourism which I would like to deal with.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek, during the Estimates, quoted a number of statistics that he had gathered from Statistics Canada, Statistics Canada surveys, from surveys of traffic on No. 10 Highway and No. 75 Highway. Mr. Speaker, he indi cated that I would be saying that overall there had been an incr ease in over night traffic of approximately 1. 2 percent. The suggestion that the tourist traffic going to Saskatchewan had increased wild ly, I think, is also somewhat overstated.

It is cer tainly true that Saskatchewan, like Manitoba, has experienced a growth in overnight traffic, but we have said that the experience of the last couple of years, particularly'82 and'83, in which we experienced a decrease in traffic to Manitoba, was not unique to Manitoba. In fact, Canada has a

Monday, 3 June, 1985 serious travel deficit in the billions of dollars and Manitoba, likewise, has a travel deficit. We believe there are two very clear-cut ways of eliminating that travel deficit. One of them is to target our advertising to make sure that we understand where our travel market is coming from and to make sure that advertising goes into those specific markets, and we're doing that.

We also know that to reduce the travel deficit, we have to encourage Manitobans to travel in Manitoba and that is one area where we are going to be expending a good deal of effort, targeting much or many of our Tourism adver tisin g dolla rs and encouraging the ind ustry within Manitoba to sharpen its focus. I suppose - and I said this in Estima tes - that we could wish that the Department of Busine ss Development and Tourism and the Tourism advertising budget could be doubled or quadrupled, but that is frankly not in the offing.

Although our budget for marketing increased approximately 11 percent this year, we certainly feel that further increases are warranted and that is an area that we will be revie wing as we begin the 1986-87 Estimates. We will also be continuing to fine tune our particular advertising strategy so that we can get what they call the biggest bang for the buck. Mr.

Speaker, not only did we see an increase in overnight traffic of approxima tely 1. 2 percent, and I point out that as opposed to simply day traffic, the overnight traffic is the traffic is likely to leave the most sign ificant amount of money in the province, rather than the quick shopping tours or visiting friends and relatives or whatever; so it is a significant increase and will decrease our travel deficit. Mr.

Speaker, it is also true that in Tourism or in convention or visitors, convention busi ness - we have seen a 66 percent increase this year in convention attendance, so we are seeing some increase in that. Mr. Speaker, the mem ber brought up the issue of the Min neapolis blitz. I don't know where the member's getting his information. I was there at the Festival Manitoba, the evening reception. There were, in my opinion, 200-250 people in attendance and I met many people who were not from Manitoba.

I also know that the Travel Trade Show that we attended with individual busi nesses from Manitoba was extremely success ful, was visited by hundreds and hundr eds of people from the Mi nneapolis area. The shows that they put on at the centre - I forget what the name of the centre was, it was an open square - was observed by thousands of people. By all reports, the indi vidual businesses which included some of the river boat companies and many hotels in the area, from their reports, the blitz was extremely successfu l.

The member may ask and has ind icated he's going to ask by Order for Return for the cost of that venture. I can tell the honourable member that it was a lot less than the costs to the taxpayers of Canada for the live performance that was put on at the Shamr ock Summit, Mr. Speaker. He will certainly get his information on that and I can tell him that the costs for this particula r, what he calls "extravaganza," will be not much out of line from the costs that were incu rred in other years but, in my opinion, did not have the same kind of impact. Mr.

Speaker, on top of that, we have the signing of a new federal-provincial agreement which commits some $30 million over the next five years to Tourism development in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, despite the pervading gloom that seems to emanate from the Member for Sturgeon Creek, the industry itself, those people who are involved in the hospitality part of it, tho se are people who are in volved in the accomm odations and the lodges and outfitters, remain extremely optimistic, not only about the coming year, but the prospects.

For the first time, we as a department have tabled with them a 1985-86 marketing plan. They know that the department has some clear-cut direction, and that's something that did not happen. The members of the ind ustry understand where we're going and, frankly, are working in a very co-operative way to see that we succeed and, of course, ultima tely if we succeed, they succeed. Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered most of the points raised by the member opposite in his grievance. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we could continue to argue about a specific case in CEDF.

I simply put on the record that it has a certain mandate. It is attempting to fulfill that manda te and to isolate an indi vidual case and present half of the record and then claim that that represents the whole picture does no great service to truth and to light. I put on the record that it has a substantially di fferent mandate from the one the member opposite seems to think it has and it continues to function to fulfill that manda te.

It continues to serve those communities and those indi viduals who by reason of geography or circu mstances do not have access to other forms of financial assistance, serves a useful purpose, as it has created hundr eds and hundr eds of jobs over the last dozen years in Manitoba, jobs that continue to this day.

The fact that there are failur es should in no way discourage us from looking to use that vehicle in support of other parts of the province and, as I indicated, if we have some thing to learn from our mis takes, obviously, we should learn them and try and incorporate that knowledge into other ventures that are supported through CEDF. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to request of you, Sir, that under Rule No. 46 it says "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech in which he may have been misquo ted or misun derstood, but he shall not then introduce any new matter and no debate shall be allowed upon the explanation." Mr. Speaker, I was misund erstood by the member and I would like to clear up that misun derstanding under this specific rule, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek and Rule 46. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I can introduce no new material.

The member when he was speaking said that I misund erstood the role and did not agree with the rot& of CEDF to create jobs in this province and do the work that they have done in this province for all of this time. I've produced material 2542

Monday, 3 June, 1985 while I was speaking to say that CEDF, a government corporation, had taken over and done their work with the Beef 'N Reef Restaurant and I didn't quote from anybody else, so you're misund erstanding it is this: I am saying that CEDF took over management of this company , of Beef 'N Reef Restaurant. The documentation shows that Mr. Jones and one other member of CEDF became chairman of the board and di rector and ran and operated that company while it went into receivership and lost money for this province and they ran it for more than a year.

Records were lost accord ing to this material which is not written by anybody else except CEDF and the Receiver who took over the receivership. So, Sir , I at no tim e said that I di sagreed or misun derstood the role of the CEDF. In fact, this side agrees with it. You will have, and you misun derstand the point that I said that you said that I don't realize that they will have failures. They will have failures. They'll have more now and they had some in the past and, Sir, they will continue to. Sir, I agree they will continue to but the failure in this case was owned or taken over an operated by the government.

They also put mone y into it. They also put money into the busin ess when they said they wouldn't be doing so. The mi su ndersta nding, Si r, is not tha t I don't unde rstand the role of CEDF. I und erstand the mism anagement of CEDF in this case . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The pur pose of our Rule 46 is to enable a mem ber who has been misun derstood to correct and explain the remarks. It is not intended for an argument to be repeated or for the member to make a new argument. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Min ister for Busi ness Development. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, under Rule 46 which we know and love so dearly in this Cham ber, I would like to point out to the Member for Sturgeon Creek that he has mis interpreted what he said about my misin terpreting his misi nterpretat ion. Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the staff of CEDF and their actions were to serve the interests of not only the taxpayers, but the people who had invested in that particular enterprise. They did that because the nature of their particular enterprise requires flexibil ity. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I thank both honourable mem bers for that explanation.

There should be no need of further explanation. QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Mem ber for River East in the Chair for Agriculture, and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for Government Services. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - GOVERNMENT SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Comm ittee, please come to order. We are considering Item No. 4.(a)

(1) Project Services, Executive Admini stration: Salaries; 4.(a)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: What is the basic minimum standard for civil servants, in terms of office space? I guess that's where I'll start. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The standard space is 100 square feet per civil servant. The exceptions to that are the dir ectors, I believe it's 150 square feet and the ADMs, 200 square feet; and for secretarial staff, I believe the standard is 50 square feet. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, then I want to draw to the attention of the Minis ter my own allocation, which is substandard.

I have an office on the main floor that is 64 square feet, full of equipment and filing cabinets, etc., and I share this with my secretary and it becomes imp ossible because, basically, what we do is we have one chair and desk and it only really accommoda tes one person. I was just wondering whether the Mini ster has any plans to revise or restructure the space within the building. It would seem to me that I should be entitled to at least a minimum, and given that I have a secretary who also shares that space, unlike the caucuses where the secretaries have their own space, that this space is in fact inadeq uate.

HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points to be made there. I guess when the MLAs' offices were set up there was no minimum standard set for them in terms of square footage, and the renovations took place to provide for these offices some years back so we were not involved directly in the design of the offices at that particular time. A number of MLAs have actually util ized that office before the Member for Elmwod was all ocated that particular office.

It would seem to me that we have to look though at how we treat independent MLAs in terms of space requirements, and we should look at that in conjunction with the review that the former deputy is doing with regard to the space allocation in this building. We could also look at the matter there.

I think the other area or the approach that the member should take is through the commission, Legislative Management Commission, to have his colle agues and peers consider his situation and perhaps make a rec om mendation to the Mi ni ster of Go vernment Services from that body to look for some revision of the space that's all ocated to him at the present time. That would seem to me the proper way to do it. That doesn't pre-empt us from looking at it independent ly, but I believe that that is the proper body to consider that. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'd only say in passing, it was clearly a politi cal decision, not a space decision, and I would like to have an opportunity to speak to the former deputy. I don't know if you're talking about ... HON. J. PLOHMAN: Brako. 2543

Monday, 3 June, 1985 MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Brako? Maybe when he's making his survey, he could speak to Mr. Carroll and myself. We'd be happy to talk to him. HON. J. PLOHMAN: We could have that. Thank you, we will take you up on that sugge stion. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, following along on that same thing, I don't know whether the Minis ter is aware, but I believe it is the policy of the management commi ssion to hold closed meetings. If that is the case, how would an independent mem ber who is not on that commi ssion make his request known?

The Mini ster of Government Services, if he has any infl uence at all to the Legislative Mana gement Commission, I would strongly urge him to make those meetings open, so that members who are not on that comm ission can go to that commis sion and make their represe ntations there. Because as it presently exists, I believe - I'm not positive on this - but I believe they operate on a closed comm ittee. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am on that commis sion and of course, by legislation, there are a certain nu mb er of mem bers designated to the commis sion from the caucuses and that is spelled out by legislation.

But that doesn't pre-empt an individual member from making representation to the commission on a matter that he or she consid ers important, and that would be as simple, I believe, as contacting the Clerk and asking to be put on the agenda. I don't think there are any roadblocks in place that would pre-empt an individual member from making representation to his colleagues on the commission and bringing forward his particular concern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, all I'm saying is that I think it's clear that we had a polit ical decision, not a decision based upon need or requirement and if the standard is 100 to 150 feet for an MLA and 50 feet for a secretary, then all I'm saying is that my secretary and I are both crammed into 64 square feet, which is clearly substandard. I would say to the Mini ster, if he had the will, I think he could find decent accommo dations. So I would like to speak to his space planner and if necessary, on another occasion, I will appear before the commi ttee to discuss this matter .

I discussed it with them about a year ago when the event took place, but it's clearly a question of will; it's not a question of space standards or availabilit y; it's a case of the government determined to punish somebody who stood up to them and that's about where it's been for the past year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour is now 4:30 p.m. We are interrupting the proceedings of this comm ittee for Private Members' Hour. Mem bers of the comm ittee shall return at 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the Estima tes of the Department of Agriculture, Item 6.

Policy and Economics Division (

a) Admin istration:

(1) Salaries - the Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions that I'd like to raise regarding the Manitoba Natural Products Marketing Council. Is the Mi nister prepared to deal with it at the opening of this

section here or under the specific section? I've been trying a few times to get on in this area and I want to make sure that I get on at the right time so that I can spend a little bit of time on that one. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minis ter. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, 6.(

d) would be the item. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Mini ster could ind icate whether there's any admin istrative changes in this

section at all. HON. B. URUSKI: In this section, no, Mr. Chairman, there is no change at all. There's two staff person years and there's no change from last year. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I' ll pursue this a little further. Is the Min ister contemplating establishing a new board under this

section here, dealing with the transfer of quota and the dairy ind ustry, for example? HON. B. URUSKI: Under 6.(

d) the Manitoba Natural Products Marketing Council. MR. C. MANNESS: Are you on 6.(a), Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)(1)- pass; 6.(a)(2)- pass. 6.(

b) Policy Development Branch:

(1) Salaries - the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, can the Mini ster tell us how the appropriation under this particular item ties in with some of the policy questions and the staff support under No. 1? Are there two polic y areas within his department and, if so, can he indic ate where the separation lies between them? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I guess the best way that I can put this matter to the honourable member is that the two divisions, the Policy Development Branch that we are on and the Economics Analysis Branch are basically intertwined. One provides policy alternatives and discussion and analysis and the other, the economic analysis, does the

interpretation of all the Statistics Canada and its own statistics in the various areas in which research is being done. They work, basically, hand-in-hand with one another and comple ment one another in the working up of policy development. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister specifically what items, what areas of policy have been considered by this particular branch, bearing in mind that obviously the Mi nister or the deputy would have dir ected, l'n certain, most of their polic y development thrusts to ti1is group. Is the Mini ster at liberty - and I 2544

Monday, 3 June, 1985 would hope he would be - to tell us specifically what areas of policy have been considered by this branch over the year? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I can relate to the honourable member a num ber of involvements or in itiatives that the branch has been involved in. First off, the honourable member or his caucus would have received a copy of our report on the changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Program.

The branch was instrumental in doing the background, the analytical and the presentation of these alternatives, which we presented to major grain companies, the Pools in Western Canada, the Western Provincial Governments and the Federal Government last Novemb er, as well as to mem bers of the opposition here in the province. We've had these proposals, we've had reactions and supp ort from all Western Provincial Mini sters of Agricultur e.

In fact, at the recent Western Premiers' Conference, there was unanimity from the western Premiers of support towards our proposals and the needed changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. We're currently waiting for the Federal Mi ni ster responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to establish a working group to refine the proposals and to develop the specific details for im plementation. This branch was also involved in the Hall Commit tee dealing with inquiry on the Crow benefit.

With the Department of Hig hways and Transportation and this branch, we prepared the Provinc ial Gover nment presentation and brief and presented it to the committee last November. The committee report has recently been issued and of course the honourable member knows, since I've given him a copy, what the Provincial Government position is on the matter and its expected negative imp act on the people of Manitoba. This branch, as well, was involved in chairing a federal-provincial task force. In fact, the Assistant Deputy Min ister, Mr.

Lee, chaired the federal-provincial task force on Agricultural Finance which prepared an excellent report on the action required to deal with the severe financial situation facing many farmers in this count ry. The member should be aware that report was presented to the Min isters at the National Conference on Finance last November in Toronto, the results of which, of course, the honourable member recalls that there was virtually no action taken by the Federal Government on any of the proposals that were presented for discussion there.

As well, the branch was involved in the whole area of taxation and tax issues in agriculture, dealing with agri bonds, specifically. The area of consideration was

Section 31 of The Income Tax Act and the changes required there, as well as in 31, how part time and beginning farmers are treated under The Income Tax Act and, of course, the taxation of Capital Gains in farmland were also referred to the comm ittee. Work in that whole area was done and I made a presentation to the Standing Comm ittee on Agriculture on behalf of the province on March 14th of 1985.

As well, the branch has been involved in work on an ongoing basis, providing advice and analysis and options to both myself and to the commit tees operating the Hog and Beef Stabili zation Plans, some of the 2545 needed work required of statistical analysis and policy alternatives, the branch provides as support to the Manitoba Beef Commission and to the commi ttee operating the hog plan - both plans operating very successful ly, I might say, Mr. Chairman.

As well, the branch has been involved in detailed work in planning and co-ordination of the Canadian response to the U.S. action on the countervai ling duty on hog and pork impo rts from this count ry. We were dir ectly involved in preparing a response to the U.S. Department of Commer ce questionnaire and continue to defend imformation supplied when U.S. verification team visited Manitoba.

Our staff assisted the U.S. team in clarifying and basic ally providing information to them which, I might say, some of the misinformation that the comm ittee had, we were able to clarify on our program and the extent of which the province is involved through the stabilization program in hogs and how the plan works. The branch is also involved in Federal-Provincial Comm ittee on International Trade Relations. Our staff are involved in that whole com mittee which was established last year.

It's recognized that international trade is the responsibil ity of the Federal Government, but our ability to export can have a major im pact on the agricultural indu stry of other provinces. This commit tee enables the province to have an input into agricultural issues in international trade that are of concern to each province. And of course the U.S. count ervai ling duty action on hogs and pork and subsidization of beef exports from the European Economic Commun ity are exam ples of issues considered by the comm ittee.

This is but an overview of some of the issues that the Policy Branch has been involved in, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the honourable mem ber. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, does the Mini ster have thi s

part icular branch closely watch ing developments in the United States with respect to the President's farm bill and its progress through Congress, or does our government and his particular Mini stry receive most of the analysis with respect to that type of legislation, which could have a very long-lasting effect upon farmers of this province - do they receive most of the digestion associated with the President's bill from economic analysis in Ottawa? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to advise the honourable member that we get two Washington publ ications that deal extensively with this issue and we do have a perspective of our own in terms of analyzing what is happening in Washington, as well as utilizing Canadian information. We do not have anyone in Washington per se, following it closely, but we do monitor the situation by getting not onl y what information we get from External Affairs in Ottawa, but also publ ications that we get right from Washington. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(b)(1) -p ass; 6.(b)(2)- pass. 6.(

c) Economic Analysis Branch:

(1) Salaries - the Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Mi nister whether the list of study and research project that have

Monday, 3 June, 1985 been comple ted over the past year, whether there's any share of that that flows to this branch? He talked earlier about policy in economic sections really being one in the same, or is there a distinction that he'd like to draw to our attention at this time? HON. B. URUSKI: No, Mr. Chairman, basically there is no contrasting distinction. The analysis of the statistics and the numb ers are done by this branch and it's in a compleme ntary form to the Policy Branch and basically they work hand-in-hand. MR. C.

MANNESS: Can the Mi nister tell me how many economists are on staff at this time and who they might be? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that in the two branches there's a total of nine staff with economics background. MR. C. MANNESS: I ask the Minister if he could provide the names of those ind ividuals to us? Can he do so? HON. B. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as soon as they're written down for me, we'll provide the information. If the honourable information has any other questions, we can go on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The hour is 4:30, time for Private Mem bers' Hour.

I'm leaving the Chair and will return at 8:00 tonight. Call in the Speaker. IN SESS ION PRIVAT E MEMB ERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time being 4:30, Private Mem bers' Hour. Under proposed resolutions, Resolution No. 8. The Honourable Mem ber for Min nedosa has 16 minutes remaining. RES. NO. 8 -CABOOSEL ESS FREIGHT TRAINS MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution but I also have no hesitation in supporting the amendment that was proposed by my colleague, the Member for Fort Garry, wherein he urges the Canadian Transport Commission of the Government of Canada to conduct an independent test to verify the performance levels of safety of cabooseless freight trains being introd uced by the railways, and also to request the Government of Canada to ensure that the railway indus try be maintained and expanded in Manitoba, and the regional head office for Western Canada for CN remain in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, I think that is extremely important to the resolution as well as the resolution itself, urging the retention of cabooses on the trains until maybe some further testing and something a little more conclus ive than what we have now. Some of the tests, I feel, are somewhat inconcl usive, I'm finding as we approach the adoption of policies on the standardization throughout Canada on the transpo rtation of dangerous and hazardous goods.

This is very timely, I think, in having proper safety measures and proper detection devices in place with the railroads to ensure that we have no accidents that would be disastrous to not only empl oyees but to towns and villages where they have through-train traffic. The studies that have been done to date would indi cate that if there is not that human eye surveillance on the loaded freight trains, that shifting loads and things of that nature, fires along the right of way that are detected by the tail-end crew cannot be replaced entirely by electronic means even though some of them may be pretty sophisticated.

There is ample evidence of that in speaking with railroad people, and I have a number of friends in my own area who are long-time em ployees of the CPR who I think feel, to some degree, that if the company is bent on doing away with the caboose and the tail-end crew on the back of freight trains that this in time will probably happen.

They also in dicate to me that in the short while they've had the scanners and the electronic devices in place, that they can cite many instances where there's been a malfunction or failure in these devices which would equal the number of times where the scanner has picked up a problem with brakes that have failed to release properly and created heating wheels and things of that nature that have pinpointed the problem on the train exactly. It might be 39 axels back from the scanner or whatever and when they check it out they find that the thing has been extremely accurate.

There are a numb er of devices that are certainly going to be helpful. I think they can be used maybe in addition to the tail-end crew until such time as there's pretty conclus ive evidence that the train can operate without that rear-end surveillance. We know that with the size of trains now, they're getting 140- to 150-car trains. They're moving towards electronically operated units halfway back in the train that are all operated from the front end, but I think there are many, many instances that have cited in the number of hearings that were held where the crew at the back of the train detected shifting loads.

This is important, Mr. Speaker, when they're on a siding waiting for another train to pass, if a load has shifted some times, there's not all that much clearance and it could result in extremely serious accidents. Also with the size of the trai ns, it's becom ing increasingly difficult for the tail-end crew to do a complete walk up and back on the train with the num ber of minu tes that many of them are stopped. This comes from some of the older crew members who are getting close to retirement. Lugging a radio for commu nication back and forth becomes a fairly arduous task.

Mentioning the radio comm unications - many , many instances have been cited to me where the radio commun ication between the tail-end crew and the engin eer or the crew in the cab have been far more clear and audible than some of the electronically control led messages that are coming from the dispatcher's office or various other sections of the train crew. - (Interjection) - Albert, I'm speaking in scpport of the motion. How mimy railroaders have you got in your town, Albert? There is n , question, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, that the devices have been tested fairly thoroughly and 2546

Monday, 3 June, 1985 have produc ed some results that ind icate to an awful lot of the empl oyees that this is a move of the future.

Apparently it is operating down in the United States to some degree, but they also have evidence that they've stated in their briefs that were presented to the hearings that were held by the commission that would ind icate, in some cases, accidents could have been averted had there been a physical and eye-to-eye surveillance of shifting loads and of various other problems that arise with joints and hot boxes and things of that nature that many of them can only be detected if the train is stopped for some time and not passing scanners, or if they happen to pass inoperative scanners, these aren't going to be pi cked up but they'll be picked up by the tail end crew.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's imp ortant to see progress and I'm in no way supporting carrying that extra crew if it's not necessary to have them. Certainly, the emplo yees have to be protected. The railways have been talking to the unions about no loss of employment. There's a matter of attrition. There's a matter of retraining and reallocating the workload. It's been mentioned earlier about having the caboose as the only place that could support a stretcher with an injured person in the event of an accident.

There's really no other place on the train to accomm odate them, although we can find in, I think, most of the muni cipalities now have ambulance service and while that might not be a great inconvenience because ambula nces could be on the scene very, very quic kly with the methods of communic ation and transportation that we have to date. Mr. Speaker, I think for the good of not only the empl oyees but for the benefit of the towns that have the benefit of rail service running through them - I know in our particular area we have the steepest grade I think east of the Rocky Mountains.

It necessitates, on many occasions, seven locomotive units to get the freight train up the hill on the west side and out into a little more level ground where they can travel a little more freely. The trains now are getting so long that in the Town of Min nedosa you'll have engine crew or the tail-end crew, whichever way it's going, at one junction

section about a mile and a half east of town and the train will stretch right through town and be maybe a half a mile on the other side of town. With the steep grade coming into town, if something should happen, a brake failure or whatever, there's really not much the crew could do. The man in the caboose would probably be hanging on and doing a little praying if there was a ru naway train, I'll tell you.

But if those brakes should fail, there's not much the engi neer could do to stop that train from running right through the Town of Minn edosa, and should there be an accident at that time, it would be a very, very serious situation because it runs through - not a heavy residential area - but there are a num ber of resid

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-61a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 61a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8e9aa113bac12b733ba64e17da0966e49aa75aca

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