ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature ol lhe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publllhed under the autltorlty of The Honoureble D. Jame• Walding Spealrer VOL. XXXI No. 38A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 4 APRIL , 1983. Printed by the Office of the Oueens Printer. Pro vlnee ot Manitobll

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

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

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

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 4 April, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Reading Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPOR TS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with practice during the spring breakup, I have a further report from the department and since it's not overly long I will read it and will give the comprehensive information.

The Manitoba Water Resources Branch reports that spring run-off is well under way in the Red River Watershed and in the North Dakota portion of the Souris River Watershed. Spring run-off has barely begun in the Assiniboine River Watershed and run-off has not yet begun in the Interlake and Westlake regions and in areas further north. The Branch indicates that the flood potential on Manitoba 's rivers has changed little since the previous news release issued on March 23, 1983. Flooding is not expected on the Red River, but is expected on the Assiniboine River from Virden to Griswold.

On the Souris River, agricultural flooding has occurred since mid­ March and will likely continue throughout April. On the Red River, early peak stages were observed in mid-March due to rainfall and snowmelt in early March. A second peak, somewhat higher than the March peak, will occur next week as a result of a warm spell and rainfall which occurred at the end of March. Due to the very high soil moisture in the Red River Watershed, additional peaks are likely to occur after every significant rainfall during April and possibly into early May.

However, the Red River will remain within its banks unless precipitation is unusually heavy. The chances of a flood on the Red River equal to or greater than that of 1979 are less than 5 percent. On the Assiniboine River, the effects of the late March snowstorm will slightly increase the flood potential from that issued in the March 23, 1983 news release. With normal weather conditions, overbank flows are likely to occur in the Virden and Griswold areas. The Portage Diversion went into operation this morning to prevent ice-jamming between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg.

On the Souris River, agricultural flooding continues from the International Boundary to Hartney. This flooding is likely to continue throughout April and possibly into early May. No significant change is expected from the forecast issued on March 23, 1983. In the Interlake and Westlake regions and in areas further north, there are no significant changes from the forecast issued on March 23rd. The Water Resources Branch is keeping a close watch on run-off conditions and the flood potential. Further news releases will be issued if conditions or forecasts change significantly. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Honourable Minister for tabling this report this afternoon. As I indicated the other day, in requesting the information, I'd received several phone calls from people along the Souris River voicing their concerns. One of the things that I noticed somewhat different is I think there is reported flooding from Virden to Griswold and I think the prior report, if I can recollect, there was some spotty flooding to take place and it would appear as if there may be more water there than was initially reported. As well, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important to keep an update in these other watersheds, as there has not been the kind of protective mechanism put on the Souris and in the Assiniboine Valley as there has been recently put in the Red River Valley, and so the people should be made aware of the current conditions on a very regular basis. I thank the Minister for this report. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILL S MR. B. RANSOM introduced Bill No. 44,

An Act to amend The Fisheries Act; and Bill No. 45,

An Act to amend The Forest Act. HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 46, The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act. ORAL QUES TIONS Demonstration at U.S. Consulate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. Can the First Minister confirm that he and the Government of Manitoba have received from the Government of Canada a communication that was sent to the Government of Canada by the Government of the United States complaining about the activity of Members of the Executive Council of the Province of Manitoba in front of the U.S.

Consulate some 10 days ago? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive a communication from the Canadian Government to that effect. I received a copy of a note from the U.S. Consulate General in Winnipeg. 1326

Monday, 4 April, 1983 HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a two-barrelled question then, can the First Minister, first of all, let the House have a copy of the communication which he has received from the Government of the United States? No. 2, can the First Minister advise the House if he has been in contact with the Minister of External Affairs or other members of the Government of Canada with respect to this unprecedented action of the United States Government having to complain about the actions of a provincial government of Canada? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in reference to the first question. the correspondence is not one that rests within my protocol insofar as release of same. It's a copy of a document forwarded from the U.S. Embassy to the Canadian Government. In respect to the second part of the question, the answer is yes. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the rather bizarre circumstances in which the present Government of Manitoba finds itself as a result of actions taken by Members of the Executive Council, to say nothing of those actions being approved by the whole government caucus, can the First Minister not undertake immediately to make a copy of that communication from the United States Government available to the people of Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the proper area for releasing that kind of document would be the Federal Government which was the recipient of the document. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, if the First Minister has a copy of it, does he see anything wrong, in terms of protocol, with releasing it to the Legislature of Manitoba so that we may see for ourselves the amount of harm that this government is beginning to do with the United States of America? HON. H. PAWLEY: First, Mr. Speaker, insofar as the document is concerned, I do think it would be improper for me to release the document which is a document which was communicated from one party to another, not a document which was communicated directly to me.

I think that would be most improper and I'm rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition suggest that it would be in order for me to so release same. Mr. Speaker, insofar as the first part of the Leader of the Opposition's statement, I think the only area that has been bizarre up to this point is the extent to which the Leader of the Opposition has deliberately went about to magnify this issue out of all proportion to what actually took place. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister in his travail, and then the travail in which he has put the people of Manitoba, is entitled to take whatever cold comfort he can from the allegation that he has just made, but it was no one on this side of the House that paraded up and down in front of the American Consulate in Winnipeg and brought embarrassment and discredit to the people of Manitoba. Will he, Mr.

Speaker, undertake to tell this House and the people of Manitoba what kind of communication he has had with the Minister of External Affairs and whether or not he has responded to the note - a copy of which he has - but refused to divulge, whether he has responded on behalf of the Government of Manitoba to that note by contacting the Department of External Affairs? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the Opposition chooses to mislead and misrepresent. I did not refuse to divulge the contents of the note. HON. S. LYON: But you just won't produce it. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, it is not up to him. HON.

S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't mislead anyone. The First Minister has been asked to produce a copy of a note which is in his possession and he refuses to do so; that's his problem. Now, Mr. Speaker, he presumably made a . A MEMBER: What's the question? HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister presumably made a . . . HON. R. PENNER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. HON. S. LYON: Do we need marxist interventions? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: It's always the better part of wisdom to ignore the ignorant, Mr. Speaker. The point, Mr.

Speaker, is - and you've ruled again and again when we come to supplementary questions - all of these long-winded, self-serving rhetorical introductions are out of order. You can ask a supplementary question on a series of questions, but it doesn't need that kind of introduction. It's just an excuse for more drum beating and bellyaching. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: I'll carry on. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the First Minister make available to this House any communication that he has had with the Minister of External Affairs concerning this bizzare incident?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to simply comment first by way of response, I am saddened to the extent that the opposition party and the Leader of the Opposition appears to be waging a deliberate campaign of smear and red baiting in this province. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind after reading last Thursday's speeches in this House, which continued to a quarter to three Friday morning, that there is a deliberate McCarthyite approach that's 1327

Monday, 4 April, 1983 designed and framed by the Conservative Party in Manitoba and it is not going to wash. Mr. Speaker, in respect to the last part of the Leader of the Opposition's request, I see no objection to arranging to table that note from myself to the External Affairs Department. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, when can we expect to receive the communication from the First Minister to External Affairs and when can we expect to receive the concurrent communication that apparently came from the Government of the United States, which is a bit more concerned about this matter than the First Minister of this province. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered the first part of that question dealing with the note. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to place me in a position of doing something that would be improper, I don't intend to be placed in that position. HON. S.

LYON: You're already there. HON. H. PAWLEY: The Leader of the Opposition just muttered from his seat, "You're already there," Mr. Speaker. Insofar as the correspondence from myself to the Minister of External Affairs, I'll arrange to table that tomorrow. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, will the First Minister then, who is now so delicately concerned about communications from the Government of the United States, will he arrange at the same time to table the communication from the Government of the United States to the Government of Canada? A MEMBER: He has answered that. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up question to questions asked by my leader on this subject to the Honourable First Minister . In his reference to the importance attached to this regrettable incident by this side, by the Progressive Conservative Party, is the First Minister suggesting seriously to Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, that the event and the incident was not covered and carried into homes in the United States across the country by national television news networks and national wire services? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: If indeed this issue was carried through the national media in the United States, it was due to the magnification, the misrepresentation, Mr. Speaker, of this issue by my friends across the way. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, is the First Minister suggesting here that there is a conspiracy between the national news services and television networks in the United States and Progressive Conservative Party and other Manitobans who were highly shocked, hurt and humiliated by the government's action? Is he suggesting that there's a conspiracy in place? HON. H.

PAWLEY: The Member for Fort Garry can wander through his figments of imagination all he wishes and desires. Mr. Speaker, in pertaining to the original allegations that were made by honourable members across the way, they were false. There was a deliberate impression made that members of the government, officially endorsed by the government, engaged in a flag-burning ceremony in front of the U.S. Consulate General. Mr. Speaker, that did not take place. There was a flag burning by an unknown individual that was wearing a mask that came upon the scene after the demonstration, Mr.

Speaker, and left just as quickly as he had arrived at the scene, was not part of the flag-burning demonstration. Mr. Speaker, I saw the same TV film as the Leader of the Opposition claims to have seen, in which it confirms very clearly that it was the sequence of events. So if there is a magnification of these events, a distortion of these events and a misrepresentation of these events out of all proportion, that responsibility rests with honourable members across the way. HON. S. LYON: You're very touchy, aren't you, all of a sudden? MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister, who is normally a fair-minded person, not grant me the fair-minded acknowledgement that I, in my remarks on this subject and this incident - and I admit they have been considerable - have not placed very much emphasis, if any, on the flag burning; that my objection has been to the participation - (Interjection) - well, I ask my honourable friend from lnkster to reread the record and reread my remarks. My objection was to the participation and involvement - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, now from the key demonstrator, we're hearing interventions that are going to try to muzzle questions. To protect himself, the key demonstrator, the Minister of Natural Resources, is going to try to muzzle questions. HON. S. LYON: The fellow who helps us so much on Garrison. MR. L SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I initiated my question by saying, I ask the First Minister, in his capacity as normally a fair-minded person - I do not extend that necessarily to the Minister of Natural Resources - would the First Minister not concede that my objection has been very little focused on the flag-burning incident which, as the First Minister says, was a peripheral misfortune, but focused on the participation by Cabinet Ministers in a demonstration against a friend and ally? Participation in a demonstration. - (Interjection) - HON. H.

PAWLEY: My concern was heightened and possibly the Member for Fort Garry hasn't had an opportunity to read the speeches of last Thursday night until early Friday morning. If the Member for Fort Garry read those speeches, he would know of that which I speak. 1328 Mr. Speaker, in fact during the course of the last number of months, members on this side have

Monday, 4 April , 1983 participated and spoken at solidarity rallies. Members on this side, as recently as a week ago, attended at a rally sponsored by the Liberation of the Ukraine Group. Mr. Speaker, other members of this group have spoken out in regard to Central America and Cruise missiles, and I believe that the Honourable Member for Fort Garry participated in a major demonstration against Cruise missiles last year. - (Interjection) - No, he's shaking his head.

Well, then the honourable member will now have to clarify his position; I thought he was opposed to Cruise missiles in Canada when he marched with some 15,000 other Winnipeggers last year. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago from his seat, the Leader of the Opposition referred to me as a left-wing nut, and I do not intend to call the Leader of the Opposition a right-wing nut because that demonstrates the difference of approach that is taking place within this Chamber.

This side of the Chamber is prepared to speak out for freedom. prepared to speak out for non-intervention in the affairs of smaller countries from any source, Mr. Speaker. The honourable members across the way only are prepared to place this issue not in the basis of freedom, Mr. Speaker, but in the basis of whether you are a right­ wing ideologue or a left-wing ideologue. HON. S. LYON: The radicals have taken hold. Flood Forecast MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, following on the report from the Minister of Natural Resources dealing with tbe flood conditions, can the Minister of Natural Resources assure individuals who are living along the Souris River and the Assiniboine River that there are emergency pumps and equipment available to them in case the flooding were to exceed what this report is, and if there is equipment available, pumps and such, where could it be obtained from the government reserves? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I know that the areas adjacent to the Souris and the Assiniboine Rivers that have been referred to in the report have a history of periodic flooding during April and May, and I would expect that both municipal governments, Emergency Measures Organization and others have been called upon the past for services in respect to those flooding conditions. I will ensure that those same services are available and that we are in a state of readiness to help. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm still not clear on who an individual would call. For example, yesterday I received a call from the Town Council of Melita.

I, as well, talked to the head of Water Resources and it was indicated to me that Highways would have those pumps available. Maybe the Minister could give me a little more detailed information. Is the Highways Department now handling · all the emergency pumps, or where in fact could I make a call to get those services provided? HON. A. MACKL ING: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member has a good point. There's no question but that in the past services have been provided for specific objects by different parts of different departments of the government.

I will inquire into the arrangements that do exist and make sure that information is provided to the House. Kimberly-Clark - layoffs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the layoff of some 132 workers at the Kimberly-Clark plant, could the Minister of Labour advise if she established a committee to help the employees who have lost their jobs find alternative employment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there has been such a committee in place working with representation from my department on that committee and from other departments of the Provincial Government as well as the company and the workers involved. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister advise how many jobs has the Minister's committee found for the workers who have been laid off? HON. M. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, first - a correction - it was not my committee . Secondly, I will get the information for the member, I don't have it with me. law Enf orcement Review Act re amendments MR. G.

MERCIER: A supplementary question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Could the Attorney­ General advise, Mr. Speaker, how many groups, agencies and individuals he distributed the

summary of proposed amendments to The Law Enforcement Review Act to, and is there a possibility that as a result of representations by those individuals, groups, or associations that the proposed amendments that he's made available may change? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I will take the question as notice in terms of the exact number. I would estimate something like 20 groups, but I will in fact furnish the Member for St. Norbert with the exact number and indeed the names of the groups who have received a copy of the proposed amendments.

There have been no responses yet to those proposals and I would suspect that if there are responses, certainly have kept an open mind on the contents of the bill and will be listening to debate in this House and will equally regard the debate in this House with respect to possible amendments. It's my hope that by the time 1329

Monday, 4 April, 1983 we reach committee stage, we'll have had a very significant input. We already have. I hope we have significant input from the opposition members because we do want this bill to be as consensual as possible, given the fact that there's some basic opposition to the idea of the bill. United Transportation Union & CNR Agreement MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Highways.

In 1974, there was an agreement signed between the United Transportation Union and the CNR, an agreement which moves a terminal at Karnsack to Canara, Saskatchewan. Part of this agreement was a run-through agreement which equalized the miles between the terminals of The Pas and Canara. United Transportation has just recently received a letter from the Vice-President of the CNR, Doug Fletcher, which asks him to inform them that they're going to break the run-through agreement.

I'm wondering if the Minister of Highways, in his capacity as Transportation Minister for this province, would intervene in these talks that are going on and be sure that terminal of The Pas continues to receive the work that is corning to them. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as if there is a problem with respect to labour management relations. I do recall some discussion on this issue, but I can't be precise with respect to just what is all involved.

But it would seem to me it would be advisable to refer that kind of matter under the normal grievance procedures between labour and management for resolution. We're prepared to look at it from our point of view, Mr. Speaker, but I think if there is a breach of an agreement, then it should rest there. MR. H. HARAPIAK: A further question the Minister of Highways. Part of the problem they say they're breaking the agreement is because the deadheading is costing the CNR money.

When you are speaking to them I would suggest that they consider letting the enginernen run south of The Pas which has been eliminated at this point. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to know at this moment whether or not there is an untoward cost associated with respect to deadheading of freight cars.

To the extent that it is there, if it is, very much the same as it is a problem with respect to the trucking industry, I think it's difficult to argue that one ought not to remove unnecessary costing in the transportation system because that in itself in the long run defeats our competitive position. So I wouldn't want to be interpreted as being opposed to eliminating deadheading costs in any transportation system. The extent that it interferes with an agreement that's in place, I believe that can be resolved by discussion between the two parties. By-elections - federal MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Community Services, who is also the MLA for Brandon East, and ask if he can advise the House and the people of Manitoba if Mr. Bill Moore, General Manager of McKenzie Seeds in Brandon, a Manitoba Crown Corporation, is seeking the nomination in the federal by-election of Brandon-Souris constituency as an NOP candidate? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, that is not a question, it would seem to me that ought to be related to the Minister of Community Services. I also ask you whether that question is in order? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: On the same point of order, I assume the First Minister was rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Community Services, to my knowledge, is responsible for McKenzie Seeds and I believe that questions can be asked in the House with respect to Crown corporations falling within the jurisdiction of the Minist er. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, then the Member for Roblin-Russell should have directed his question to the Minister in his capacity as the Minister for the Crown corporation. HON. S. LYON: Are you a Minister now or are you speaking as just a socialist? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I could indicate, as has been reported in the newspapers, that the individual has indicated an interest in seeking the nomination for the upcoming federal by-election in Brandon-Souris. He's indicated an interest in seeking the nomination. The nominating meeting has not yet been held. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Honourable Minist er, in his capacity as the Minister in charge of McKenzie Seeds, what arrangements, if any, have been made by his office or the government for a leave of absence, likely without pay during this period, and who's going to fill his position? Can the Minister assure the House that Mr. Moore will not use his office or his position with McKenzie Seeds during the campaign? 1330

Monday, 4 April, 1983 HON. L. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the honourable member that I have been informed by the Chairman of the Board of McKenzie Seeds that the board has adopted a policy which is identical to that of the Government of Manitoba. That is, if a civil servant indicates an interest in seeking political office, and if he or she happens to get the nomination, and when an election is called that individual will take leave of absence without pay similar I believe to the Member for Swan River who was I believe a civil servant at one point - (Interjection) - or did he keep on working?

I trust he would have taken leave of absence without pay during that period. This is a very hypothetical question at this point, Mr. Speaker, but we should worry about it more after the nominating meeting. But I can assure the honourable member that the rules that apply for the government employees will be the same rules that will be applied by the Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds. I might indicate that at least one individual who has indicated an interest in running for the Conservatives also happens to be on the public payroll as well. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm only interested in the General Manager because as a Crown corporation - and this is the peak season for our seeds industry in this province - can I ask the Honourable Minister if he'd advise us, who is the gentleman in the wings prepared to take over at Mr. Moore's when he's on the campaign trails? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, this question is still of course hypothetical until such time <;s a nominating meeting is held and a candidate is selected. But I can assure the honourable member that McKenzie Seeds management and staff are very well organized and it's exceedingly well administered.

There are appropriate people in various positions that do work as a team to ensure that we're going to continue as the No. 1 seed company in Canada. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, am I to assume from the honourable Minister's remarks that Mr. Moore hasn't applied for leave of absence as of today? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is jumping the gun. The individual he's speaking about, there has not been a nominating yet, that person has not received the official nomination and until such time, there is no need to apply for a leave of absence. Rental Incr eases - Statistics MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the honourable Minister responsible for Housing. About two weeks ago I asked if he would provide me with information as to rental increases in the province, a

summary of these over the past while. There hasn't been a report made public, as I understand, since July of 1981 and I wonder when the Minister is going to provide that information for us. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. 1331 HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, that information will be available. I had indicated at that time when the member asked the question that the bureau was in the process of preparing reports that would be issued on a quarterly basis. I expect that those will be available soon and the member will certainly have a copy when it's available. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder then, Mr.

Speaker, in becoming more specific, if the Minister could explain how it can be under the government's system of so­ called rent controls, that where a rent regulation review officer has issued an order approving an increase of 19 percent on a particular suite and neither the tenant involved nor the landlord appeals that decision of an increase of 19 percent, a Rent Regulation Review Panel can then decide that the increase can be 41 percent in one year as a result of a hearing held because of appeals by other tenants in the block. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, I believe I know the situation that the member is referring to. It is a situation where there was a request on the part of a landlord to equalize the rents and the overall increase for that unit was 9.8 percent, I believe, and in some cases the rent increases were as low as 2, 3 and 4 percent.

In one instance, I believe, there was a suite, and because of circumstances that were foreseen by the legislation that was brought forward by my colleague, then responsible for the Bureau, where a rent was particularly low because of circumstances - perhaps it was to a longstanding tenant, or a longstanding senior tenant that this equalization has been made possible. If the member will provide me with further details, I will certainly be glad to provide him with a detailed explanation of how that occurs. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to provide the Minister with details of that information.

I'm asking the Minister if he feels that is the way that the legislation was intended to act, where the tenant and the landlord were prepared to accept a 19 percent increase, but a panel, appointed by this Minister, decided that 41 percent was more appropriate? I emphasize that the tenant and the landlord were prepared to accept 19 percent initially. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate further information. I will just say that the legislation clearly did provide for fairness on both sides.

When the landlord had requested that equalization take place, the panel, I presume, reviewed that request. The overall increase, as I indicated, was in the area of 9 percent, which is what the guideline had suggested and obviously what the landlord could justify, and the overall intent is to be fair. I believe that's what has occurred. MR. G. FILMON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the panel was sitting on a request not made by either the landlord or the tenant in this case, and in view of the fact that it resulted in a 41 percent increase for this tenant, who hadn't appealed it, does the Minister feel that it's reasonable that the arrears, which amount to over $600 in addition to the monthly rent, have to be paid in one month?

Monday, 4 April, 1983 HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the conditions that were imposed with respect to the payment, however, I will take that as notice and make a report to the House on that issue. By-elections - federal (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education in her responsibility as Minister for the Universities Grants Commission, following up on the question asked by the Member for Roblin­ Russell, can the Minister of Education confirm that one, Professor Lee Clark, Professor of History at the University of Brandon, is a candidate for the Progressive Conservative . . . HON. R. PENNER: An expert in the 19th Century, like all Tories. MR. A. ANSTETT: It's obvious, Mr.

Speaker, that members opposite are taking sides in the Brandon­ Souris nomination contest. Can the Minister confirm that Professor Clark is a candidate for the Progressive Conservative nomination in the upcoming Brandon-Souris by-election? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that the person mentioned is giving consideration to it. I cannot confirm whether he has decided to or not. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister then please confirm for the House, take as notice and confirm; (1) that the professor of history mentioned is seeking the nomination; and, (2) could she advise the House as of what date he will be required by the Board of Governors at the University of Brandon to take a leave of absence, if he is successful in obtaining the nomination? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: A question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

When did the Minister of Education first learn that Professor Lee Clark was seeking the Conservative nomination? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Honourable Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Education advise me and the people of Manitoba if in fact Mr. Clark was head of a Manitoba Crown Corporation or not? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the matter that was raised last Thursday afternoon.

The matter relates to statements by the Member for Emerson. I would like to advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that upon the attendance of the Member for Emerson, I will be raising a point of order with regard to those statements, but I'm taking this opportunity to advise the House at the earliest opportunity in view of the fact that we've just received Hansard. HON. S. LYON: The situation is normal, nothing is happening. MR. SP EAKER: Is the Honourable Member for Springfield telling us he intends to raise a point of order or a point of privilege? MR. A. ANSTETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. B.

RANSOM: Well, it has to be raised now. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. There is a requirement, I believe, that a point of order should be raised either at the point that it's committed or the earliest available time. The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern with regard to the raising of the point of order. I had raised a point of order, it was spoken to by members on both sides Thursday afternoon in the House, with respect to statements made by the Member for Emerson.

At that point, there was some suggestion, particularly from the Member for Emerson, that the matter could be decided once Hansard had been perused by members. It will be the substance of my point of order to ask the Member for Emerson to withdraw certain statements he made at that time, allegations made against the Minister of Agriculture, and I feel it would be inappropriate to discuss that further in his absence. HON. S. LYON: You're supposed to be a government. You're supposed to be a government. Some government! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

Beauchesne's Citation 237 says, "A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question is passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place." Is it the leave of the House to accept the Honourable Member for Springfield's remarks as notice that he will bring this up when the honourable member is here? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that by so doing, we would be lending some support to his allegations that he indeed has a point of order. 1332

Monday, 4 April, 1983 My suspicion is that he doesn't even have a point of order. It should be dealt with and you will, no doubt, have to rule on it, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I really think this is a situation where we should look at the substance of the issue. There was an allegation made that the Member for Emerson said something; he thought that he had not said that something, whatever it was. It now appears that there is some belief, after perusing Hansard, that indeed he did say that which he claimed that he did not say.

Surely, he should be in the House when the matter is discussed, because he can either deny or affirm, as the case may be, and the matter may be disposed of very easily. Why are we tripping over formalities? I think the Member for Springfield has done the correct thing, simply giving notice to the House that he intends to raise it. That certainly will be helpful to the Member for Emerson who, himself, can peruse the particular passage in Hansard and address the issue, perhaps, very prompty. It can be dealt with very peremptorily when he returns to the House. MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed?

The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I was wanting leave to make a non-political announcement this afternoon, if I could. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the past, I recall a situation where two years ago a point of privilege was raised by the then Member for Burrows having to do with statements that I had made in this House.

I didn't happen to be here at the time that the member raised the point of privilege, but he raised it at the earliest opportunity, which he was expected to do by the Rules. To depart from that practice can establish a precedent whereby all a member need do to prevent a point of order being raised and dealt with, is to not be in the House or to walk out of the House as it's being raised. The Rules have been developed over a lengthy period of time, Sir, to deal with these situations and I believe the Rule is quite straightforward. The member loses nothing by raising his point of order at this point.

If it requires a ruling by you, Sir, then you will simply have an opportunity to make your ruling and the Member for Emerson will subsequently be back in the House and will be bound by whatever ruling you make. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield to the same point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, particularly in ·view of the comments of the Member for Turtle Mountain, which I think make a great deal 1333 of sense and have merit, to proceed if that is your wish and the wish of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood to the same point of order. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, surely it is desirable that the first opportunity should include the presence of the member. There are two options here. First of all, as already mentioned by the House Leader, the member, himself, may voluntarily wish to withdraw his remarks, or secondly, he may be required by you to withdraw that statement. Surely, it is simply a bad procedure to have a discussion for the member to make his case in the absence of the member. When the member is present, that to me is the first opportunity at which the point should be raised. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I cannot judge on the substantive point of order until I have heard it. I'm not sure whether it's a point of order or a point of privilege that may be brought in by the Honourable Member for Springfield whenever he wishes to. As to his matter of principle in somehow giving notice of the point of order, that in itself is not a point of order. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply - (I nterjection) - ah, there was a non-political announcement.

I stop there before I come to the penultimate word. NON-POLITI CAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. Does he have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) MR. W. McKENZIE: Yes; with leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the people of Manitoba, and this House especially, that the Rossburn Cheese Factory opened a week ago. I recommend all the cheese lovers of Manitoba to go to Rossburn, the best cheese in Western Canada in Rossburn. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: They may have the best cheese in Rossburn, but sometimes I think we have the best cheese cutters in this House. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be

Monday, 4 April, 1983 granted to Her Majesty, seconded by the Minister of Finance. MOTION presented and ca rried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture, and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Government Services. CONCURRENT COMMITT EES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - GOVERNMENT SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We are presently considering Appropriation Item No. 4. (e)(1). Mr. Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, last day when we completed proceedings, the Honourable Member for Virden was asking about the inventory of land that has been acquired by Land Acquisition, but has not been required, and perhaps to be considered surplus by departments, and what we were doing with that land; whether we were disposing it, whether we has a program of disposal and so on. I just want to mention that in order to get a complete inventory of that, after Land Acquisition completes the acquisition of the land, then control reverts to the departments at that time to carry on with meeting their needs.

We now have to go back to those departments and ascertain exactly the status of the land acquired and whether there is land and how much of it there is, from the various departments, that hasn't been used for the purposes that it was acquired originally, or whether the departments intent to use it in the near future or a number of years down the road, or whatever the case may be, and to indicate to us whether it is surplus or not.

So we would have to get that from the departments, and we will be doing that, and getting information on the total inventory of that surplus land that has been acquired, where it exists, from the various departments. I just might provide a brief bit of advice, and that is that when the honourable member is considering Estimates in other departments, if he is interested in getting information faster on specific situations in that particular department, he may well wish to follow up with that department. We will endeavour to get that information and it will take some time to get it from all departments. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: A further question on that then. I would ask the Minister, if and when various departments no longer need the property that has been acquired, is the disposal of that done by the Government Services Branch or is it done by individual departments? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, yes, they would indicate to us that it is surplus, that they no longer require that land, and then we would carry out the transaction of disposal, if they indicate it. That is the previous or the existing practice. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Then I would like to ask the Minister , how much land that has been acquired, and is no longer needed, has been disposed of in the last two or three years? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I understand that it is only very small amounts, bits and pieces here and there from jobs where it was not required, excess amounts, small amounts that has been disposed of in the last few years. No major disposals have taken place to my understanding. I might also otter that the MHRC disposes of their own excess lands. The Land Acquisition Department does not dispose for MHRC. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Could the Minister indicate the method used in disposal? Is there public tender in every case or are there negotiated settlements? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the procedure is that the land is circulated first as to interest for government departments, then municipalities and school divisions as to their interest in acquiring the surplus land and after that, it goes out to public tender. MR. H. GRAHAM: There are no cases then where property has been disposed of by private treaty. In every case it has been by public tender. Is that correct? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, whenever it occurs, and it's very seldom that it does occur that it is situated in such a location that it would only be logical to be disposed of to one particular owner, then negotiations would take place with that individual owner; then it would have to be recommended to Cabinet for approval. I can't give the member the exact number of those kinds of transactions that have occurred in the last year or since I have been involved in this department, Mr. Chairman, but my understanding is, it's very few. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Would the Minister be prepared to give us details of every case in the last year where property has been disposed of, which was no longer needed by government, where the public tender system has not been used? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand that we could probably provide that information for the honourable member without too much problem. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. MR. CH AIRMAN: 4.(e)( 1)-p ass; 4. (e) (2) -pass; 4. (e)(3)-pass.

Resolution No. 85 - RESOLVE that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,6 16,000 for Government Services for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984-pass. We are now considering Item No. 5.(a )-pass ; 5.(b)­ pass; 5. (c)-pass. 1334

Monday, 4 April , 1983 Resolution No. 86 - RESOLVE that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $85,200 for Government Services for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1984-pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 6.(a) - the Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the Minister that I hope he will give serious consideration to a long overdue requirement in this building, namely, air-conditioning, or climate control, or whatever you want to call it.

I simply say to him I assume that the new Law Courts Building that is going up is going to have that provision, just as the Norquay Building and the Woodsworth Building and all kinds of other government buildings; just as probably all our leased space is properly air­ conditioned; just as all the downtown office space that is available for people in the private sector is air­ conditioned, and simply say to the Minister that I think this project is long overdue.

The building was, I guess, constructed 60-plus years ago and modern times have arrived, but the climate control in this building is far behind and it's quite intolerable in the summertime for the employees. There are several hundred employees working in this building and I don't see why they should be second-class citizens in comparison to their counterparts in other government departments and their counterparts in the private sector. So I would hope that the Minister would study this question and recommend the implementation, over a period of time, of proper air-conditioning or climate control in the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the concerns that the honourable member is raising. Certainly a number of individual Ministers and other MLA's have indicated problems and concerns that they have had with the heating as well as the cooling system in this building at various times.

I can say with the renovations that are going on, actually at the new construction at the Law Courts Building, the central powerhouse cooling capacity is being increased to meet the needs of the Law Courts Building and at the same time, would have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the Legislative Building. So that was a prerequisite that had to take place before the Legislative Building could even be considered and that will be taking place with this new construction.

Then a decision would have to be made, at some point after that, with the knowledge that we do have the capacity at that time, to actually implement it depending on the costs and so on and the ability to pay for it at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice under this particular item, there is approximately a $6 million drop in the amount for Capital Assets and I want to ask the Minister if there are any of the capital projects that are under the $200 million Job Creation Program that are included in the figures in this item? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the $18 million that is listed for Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets does not include figures from the Jobs Fund. It is made up of 12 million, nearly 13 million from continuing projects in this appropriation from last year, and an additional 5.5 million for new projects for this coming year under Acquisition/Construction. It does not include projects in this amount listed under the Jobs Fund. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Minister indicate the various projects that are there and the amount for each one? It's not a very large project, as the figures indicate.

Perhaps you would be prepared to give us the details of each project and the amount. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The major one, and the major figure in that appropriation is the continuing work on the Law Courts Building, in which $7,050,000 will be flowed in this year on that project, so that makes up more than a third of that appropriation in that one particular project. I can get details or I can tell you by department without specific projects, or if you want me to go into specific projects, then I'd have to take a little more time, Mr. Chairman.

Otherwise, I can give the amounts that are being spent in each particular department in that figure, for each particular department. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to wait for the information. If he would give it by specific project, I think it would be information that would be useful for all Manitobans. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, in Community Services there will be for fire and safety upgrading at Headingley at the main building, $300,000 there; $560,000 at the Courthouse and Correctional Institution in Dauphin for renovations; $643,600 in Seven Oaks Center, fire and safety upgrading in Winnipeg . MR. H. GRAHAM: Seven Oaks? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Seven Oaks Center. That's fire and safety upgrading. MR. H. GRAHAM: That's the Seven Oaks Hospital? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: No, I believe it's the Seven Oaks Youth Centre and Correctional Institution. $735,000 for the basic fire and safety renovations for the seven group residences at the Portage la Prairie Home, $735,000.00. So that's a total of $2.238 million for Community Services of that figure of $18 million that we talked about. I'm giving the major projects; there are a number of minor ones. The next department is Cultural Affairs MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to expedite things, if the Minister would give us a detailed printout later, I think it would move things along a little faster.

It's our intention not to delay the completion of these Estimates beyond this afternoon, hopefully. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we can provide the major projects and list them to the honourable member, 1335

Monday, 4 April, 1983 but if you would like us to list some of the highlights as requested, I was going to do that. The Archives Building, under Cultural Affairs, there's $2, 170,000 in that figure, Mr. Chairman, for renovations of the Archives Building. In the Department of Education, Winnipeg School for the Deaf, its third phase of upgrading that is taking place at that facility; $500,000 is being spent.

In the Department of Government Services, the Robert Fletcher Building, reconstruction of the exterior walls, is $1.4 million; and the Flin Flon Provincial Building, that has been a subject of some discussion lately, there's $1 00,000 for design work for that figure for '83-84. Mr. Chairman, that would be the major figures in that appropriation. There are many others with the fire and safety renovations and so on that make up a bulk of it as well, but they're a long list of minor projects. MR. H. GRAHAM : I thank the Mini ster for that information. Earlier, Mr.

Chairman, I had asked under the Estimates where I would raise the issue of the changes to the Legislative Assembly, the physical changes that have occurred there, and I was told at that time they would be under this appropriation. I would like to ask the Minister at this time for the authori ty, what authority was used for the changes that occurred in the physical features of the Legislative Assembly in the past 12 months? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I would assume that the honourable member is talking about the translation booth that has been constructed which has a minor impact on the physical change of the Assembly. However, the honourable member is referring to it as the physical changes and I would then discuss the translation booth, which is what I believe he is referring to.

Authority for that was obtained by Treasury Board on requests from Execut ive Cou ncil, the French Language Secretariat, which had budgeted some parts of the money for equipment in the previous fiscal year, during last year's Estimates was included - I believe 10,000 of the 30,000 in the Estimates for Executive Council, and on the request of Executive Council a Treasury Board submission was drawn up and submitted by the Department of Government Services. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, seeing as it is now completed, could the Minister give us the actual cost that occurred in that program? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Yes, the cost was $30, 101: sound system was $1 0,885, which came from the Executive Council appropriation, French Language Secretariat, and the construction and related costs was $1 9,2 16.00. MR. H. GRAHAM: Was there any of that money recoverable from the Federal Government? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, not from the construction

section of what we were responsible for. The amount that was budgeted through the French Language Secretariat could possibly have had some recoverable from the Federal Government, but that would have to be answered during the Estimates of the Executive Council. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of a copy of a letter that was sent to the Honourable Premier, the Head of the Executive Council, dated June 25, 1982, addressed to the "Honourable Howard Pawley, Premier, Room 204, Legislative Building.

"Dear Premier Pawley: "i have been informed that plans had been prepared to implement structural changes in the Legislative Chamber to accommodate translation services. "W hile the other provinces and the Ho use of Commons recognized the Speaker's jurisdiction over the Assembly Chamber, there is some uncertainty as to whether this situation prevails in Manitoba. Since the proposed change directly affects services to members and the physical environment of the Chamber, I must, as Speaker, insist that the principles and traditions of the House be upheld.

It is a longstanding tradition that the House should consider changes proposed to be made that would impinge upon the Legislature. "I would strongly urge that the Executive or the Treasury Board not proceed in a unilateral manner and that the House express its opinion directly or by reference to the Board of Internal Economy or a committee of the House. "If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Yours sincerely , D. James Walding, Speaker." Could the Minister indicate whether or not any communication was held with the Speaker following upon the letter sent by the Speaker on the 25th of June?

HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there were return letters that went back to the Speaker at that time, following that. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Minister provide us with copies of that correspondence? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, yes, I could. The honourable member has just read a letter into the record and I could do the same thing with the reply.

The reply to the Honourable Speaker from the Premier was to this effect: "Further to our discussion of yesterday and your letter of June 25th, I would like to review for you the sequence of events leadin g to the init iation of construction work to install a window for a simultaneous

interpretation booth in the Legislative Chamber. "At the time new microphones and communicaton equipment were installed in the Chamber, it was contemplated by the then government that simultaneous

interpretation might be provided at a later date, and a system compatible with this requirement was installed. "In December 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the validity of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act which stipulates that the French and English languages have equality of status in the Legislature and the Courts of the Province. Since that time, a number of MLA's have complained in the debates of the Assembly that the absence of

interpretation facilities has rendered this equality of status meaningless. Those who wish to use French in the Legislature cannot be 1336

Monday, 4 April, 1983 understood by their colleagues or the Speaker, in effect, limiting their right to use the language. "The system to be introduced in the next Session aims at a practical application of a Supreme Court decision, while keeping costs down to a minimum. Hence the decision to translate only from French to English, and to use existing Cultural Affairs staff to do the

interpretation when prior notice is given. "Cabinet decided to proceed in this fashion last February after a feasibility study, done by Government Services in consultation with the Office of the Clerk of the Assembly, indicated that costs would indeed by kept modest. I made an announcement to this effect last March, as part of a speech outlining the government's policy on French Language Services. This announcement received extensive media coverage. "Subsequent to that announcement, the Legislature approved the 1982/83 Estimates for Executive Council including funds for the French Language Services Secretariat.

I also would note that subsequent to the government's announcement, all members of the Legislative Assembly had several months to raise questions in the daily question period or to pursue this issue during Estimates deliberations. "The detailed proposal was approved by the Treasury Board in September. "In conclusion, I would not consider a viewing window to impinge upon the Legislature.

You are however correct in saying that what we are talking about is a service to members and I should be grateful for your co-operation in implementing a system for the next Session which will redress the longstanding inequality of our two official languages in the Assembly." That was the letter that the Premier replied to the Speaker, Mr. Chairman, and I should point out that while the Honourable Member for Virden was the Speaker, he presided over the installation of the Hallcraft Electronics System that was put in, the sound system, for $226,000 which had provision for translation purposes in it.

Obviously, I would think that he would agree that it was envisioned that it would be capable of handling simultaneous translation and certainly was contemplated at the time as part of the overall sound system changes that were made. So there was, under previous Speakers, discussion, and previous Assembly members had had opportunity to discuss the whole issue of simultaneous translation previously.

I can say as well that the staff of the Department of Government Services, when actually having the design for the booth, they consulted with the Speaker's staff, I believe the Clerk who has now departed, Jack Reeves, and also the Acting Clerk during that time, Mr. Mackintosh, so there were some discussions that went on with the Speaker's staff as to where the best location was for the simultaneous booth that was finally put in place. MR. H. GRAHAM: I want to thank the Minister for his remarks.

It is quite true that during my term of office as Speaker of this House there was a change in the sound system in the Legislature. I am not too sure if there is correspondence on record, but I can also assure the Minister that during my term as Speaker I was adamant in defending the right of the members to make their own decision about respecting the affairs of the Assembly. That was something that was very, very important.

We now find that we have the tyranny of the Executive Council imposing its will upon the Legislative Assembly without consultation with the Legislative Assembly in the realm which is clearly defined in this building as belonging to all members of the Assembly. That is the very purpose for which this building was constructed, to provide a forum for the 57 members or whatever number of members are duly elected to carry out the business of the province. Any changes that occur in the physical nature of that Chamber should be a subject that is dealt with by the membership of the House.

In this particular case, that was not done so. It was done by an Executive directive and without consultation with the members. I find that to be a rather strange action by an Executive Council which believes in the system of democracy, because it is democracy that put them where they are. If they aren't willing to discuss with other democratically elected members what is in the best interests of all of those members, then I have to say that I am very disappointed, to say the least, in the autocratic action taken by the Premier of this province in this particular matter.

I state that for the record, so that the record will show that there was no discussion with members of the House on this issue, and I object to the manner in which the Premier put forward changes to the Legislative Assembly Chamber as an Executive directive, rather than through the normal consultative process with the various members of the Assembly. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would feel that there certainly has been precedence in the past and without having been here to have experienced them personally, that there were changes made to systems that were going to be put in place.

The sound system, for example, was approved by the previous Speaker to the Honourable Member for Virden, The Honourable Member for Concordia, Mr. Fox, when he was Speaker, the sound system was approved. It was changed when the government changed and when the Honourable Member for Virden became Speaker, they did not put in place the same sound system that was there. I understand the sound speakers on the desk and the extensive switching system were changed after the government changed and I don't know if the members of the opposition then were consulted as to these changes. I'm advised that they were not, Mr.

Chairman. I think that is an example where the Honourable Member for Virden was the Speaker himself at the time when it was decided by either himself, or the caucus, or the Cabinet of the day, that those were the changes that they wanted in the sound system, which affected the members in that Chamber. Perhaps other members around this table could give other examples where all members when physical changes were made, even so minor as the translation booth with curtains over the top of it, even so minor as that, that it affected the physical nature of the Chamber itself.

I don't know then if this is the first time, Mr. Chairman, and as I said, I have not experienced this personally but I think that other members would be able to give examples of where they've experienced these changes personally. 1337

Monday, 4 April, 1983 MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are one or two things that the Honourable Minister has said which I don't believe are entirely correct and they may leave the wrong impression. I would like to refresh the Honourable Minister's mind with respect to the responsibility of the Speaker, it is the Speaker's responsibility to protect the rights of all members of the Assembly, that is his fundamental duty.

Here we find a case where the Speaker has raised a legitimate objection - and the Speaker is endeavouring to do his job of representing and protecting the rights of individual members - only to find that the Executive Council completely overruled him and sent them a letter explaining why they were doing it and that is the point that causes me a great deal of consternation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr.

Chairman, if I heard the Member for Virden correctly a while ago, he stated and he accepted the fact that when the speakers were changed in the Chamber, they were changed with the idea in mind, or with the provision, that somewhere down the road they would be of the type that would enable simultaneous translation and if that is the case, I have two questions that are not clear on my mind. If the members of the Assembly were consulted for this type of change, exactly what type of speakers were they consulted about?

Did that type of consultation go as far as determining the type of speakers that would be installed in the Chamber, with a view, for instance, of providing simultaneous translation down the road? If that were the case, then I would say that consultation was provided and I'm not sure that it was. Secondly, the speakers in themselves changed the physical appearance of the Chamber way more than a window on a wall does. So I don't know why we're talking about the changing of the physical appearance.

In effect, the change that's been made is not even within the Chamber but it is without in the sense that the translator's booth is not in the Chamber itself. The other point that comes to mind is, I don't know if the Speaker's Rule overrides that of a provision of the law, which is to provide services in both languages in the Chamber. Those are the two questions I want to raise for the time being. MR. CHAIRMAN, The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I just simply say that the Member for Virden is trying to make a point about the supremacy of the Assembly and this and that and the Speaker - and I simply say that I have been complaining to him and to other Speakers since that time for the fact that this new bright, spanky, shiny sound system doesn't work - I don't know why that particular point wasn't defended in the sense that if the former Speaker thought he was acting in the best interests of the MLA's, he wasn't consulting me, or he wasn't listening to what I have been saying for the past number of years, namely, that the system doesn't work.

It's not functional and it's not practical. Well, it may have been on display, Mr. Chairman, but I don't know whether the audio was on display in terms of how it sounded in the Chamber.

I think it's an interesting point but I think it's a fabricated point that the member is making, namely, that it was under his authority that the system was implemented and now there have been other improvements or embellishments and so on that have been made and I agree with my colleague, the Member fo.- Radisson that it is a requirement, a national requirement, a federal requirement, as part of a national body, as part of a country, that Manitoba should, in fact, have translation services available in both languages.

I assume that this is also true in the National Assembly in Quebec, I'm not certain, but I assume that is also the case there, that somebody can in fact get up and speak in English there and be understood and translated at the same time. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that members are trying to skate around the point that I was trying to make and that is to come to the defence of the Speaker who has to be protected by members of the Assembly and that has been the traditional case.

The members in this Chamber must protect their Speaker and here we find a case where the Speaker was being completely ignored and I am registering my protest at this particular time on behalf of the Speaker. I will defend the right of the Speaker to make decisions on behalf of members of the Assembly and I'm sure there are others that would do the same as well. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I understood that the honourable member was making the point that the members of the Assembly were not consulted and I thought that was his major concern. It seemed to me it was the point that he was emphasizing, Mr.

Chairman. MR. H. GRAHAM: The Speaker was ignored. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I would just throw out another example where a change in the physical characteristic, the communication's control panel in the back of the Chamber which affects the physical characteristics of the Chamber much more than the window covered by a curtain for the translation booth, and I wonder if the honourable members of the opposition at that time were consulted about the design and the placement of that control panel, when that was put in place while the honourable member was Speaker, during the previous government? MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'm glad that the Honourable Minister raised that particular point, because there was a control panel built, members did view it, did look at it, and rejected it. Government Services redesigned a second control panel and that is the one that's in there at the present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear the Member for Virden say that he's going to vigorously defend the Speaker, because that has not been the case in the Chamber.

I mean it's nice to defend the Speaker, nice for him to say he's going to stand up and defend the Speaker on physical things, like a new lamp or a chair, but I would far rather get up and defend 1338

Monday, 4 April, 1983 the Speaker when he's being subjected to vicious and unparliamentary attacks by his own leader, then I would applaud the member for standing up and defending the Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Well, I was just going to place on the record that I'm not sure that the Member for Virden is defending the Speaker here. The Member for Elmwood has made much of the comments I was going to make, because if he wants to defend the Speaker, he can do so in the House. Now he makes the comments that members viewed a particular panel and rejected it.

Well, I suppose that by the time they viewed the panel, the panel was already there and therefore for the panel to be there, I guess the Speaker made the decision, and I'm not sure therefore that there was any decision made by the Chamber. A MEMBER: Certainly there was. MR. G. LECUYER: That doesn't imply that for sure. I would go so far as to say that the Member for Virden perhaps should leave this subject before he gets himself in hot water, because I'm not sure that's what he's standing for when he is saying that he's defending the Speaker here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, you know the issue of defending the Speaker has been raised by members of the government and I can assure HON. J. PLOHMAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, Mr. Minist er. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Quite clearly the Honourable Member for Virden raised that point. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the Minister had a point of order, did he? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina has the floor. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, after the interruption of the Minist er, I believe the Member for Elmwood was talking about defending the Speaker and what my colleague, the Member for Virden, has done is raised a matter on behalf of the Speaker, by which he drew to the attention of the Premier and the Treasury Bench of this government where they were erring and rightfully so. I want to assure all members of1he House that when the Speaker is correct, we certainly will defend his rights.

There's absolutely no question that when the Speaker is making a· valid, legit imate point about the intransigence of the Cabinet, then we will certainly support the Speaker when he's drawing to the attention of the Premier and his Cabinet where they err; we will certainly support him there. Heaven knows, that we can't have a Cabinet running around doing things without the will of the House. They're inflicting enough punishment on the citizens of Manitoba without running their autocratic rule any further and defaming the Chamber itself, which we see from time to time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. D.

SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point at issue here is the putting in of a translation facility in the House. Well, quite frankly, I guess I think it's a little bit deeper than what the kind of consultation there is between the opposition and the establishment in the House of that facility. We had, last week, and let us remember that French is an official language of this country, it's an official language of this province.

We're one of only three provinces with the two languages as an official language, and what bothers me is that whenever something comes up towards facilitating the servicing of the Legislature, and therefore the people of Manitoba, in the two official languages, that we have delays wished to be thrown upon the implementation, delays trying to hold up the implementation of bilingual services to the members of the Legislature.

Just last Thursday night, we had the Member for Turtle Mountain making a reference, after the Member for Radisson had spoken very eloquently in French, and the Member for Turtle Mountain then says that previously we used to hear quite frequently from the Member for St. Boniface, that he wouldn't feel completey at home in the Chamber until he knew that he could - not only could in the language - doesn't really read very closely, but I'm just reading Hansard, but that he could not be understood in it as well. "I can understand," says Mr. Ransom, "why he would want to do that.

He's going to participate in debate, it's reasonable to expect that one should be understood by those to which he's addressing his remarks." Close of quote from the Member for Turtle Mountain. I could not quite understand why he got up on this commentary. Hopefully, it is pushing the point forward, and I don't know if this was his intent - I suspect it wasn't - but I would hope that it was pushing the idea that translation should be available at all times when the House is sitting in the future, that we should be moving towards that for the true service of the House in both languages.

But when a member gets up and speaks in the language of his choice and is denied the translation of that language, especially when the language he's speaking in the House is French, and the other members of the House are denied the ability to be able to understand what that member is saying, then I think it's a step that we, as members, should be trying to promote - the translation in the House, rather than holding off and throwing up little issues, such has been raised here this afternoon questioning the decor of the House - decor, not as decorum, but decor as a decoration - of whether or not a translation facility was installed. 1339

Monday, 4 April, 1983 It really bothers me that members shouldn't have been just as happy as I was when I heard that the facility was being installed. When I went in at the first and inquired as to what was going on, what was being done in the building, it is something that should have been done a long time ago.

If it wasn't for an illegal Act passed by the Manitoba Legislature in, I believe, 189 1 - please correct me if the date is wrong - trying to do away with French as the official language of this province, we would probably have had the building constructed with translation facilities in it right from the very start.

The point that I'm raising, and I shall conclude in a minute, is that we should be moving towards translation in the House; that at all times, and that no member - as the Member for Turtle Mountain insinuates - no member should have any hestitation whatsoever in standing in our Legislature and speaking in the French language. The source of hesitation as expected of the Member for Radisson or other members, be it myself or other people who want to rise and speak in French in this House, should feel totally free to do so.

If there's anything that's holding that back, I would say it's the willingness of the members to pay for the service, so that there is constant translation available in the Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the members of the committee, that under Rule 64(2), discussions in the committee should be strictly relevant to the item under discussion. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe that the Member for lnkster was completely off topic and he seems to want to have a cause to march for.

Now, if this is going to be another one of his little causes, just leave us out of it. We were asking simple questions about the propriety of doing something, not whether it should be or whether it shouldn't be, and I resent someone imputing motives as they like to about what we think and whether it should be there. I think if the member wants a cause that he should get out and march up and down the aisles. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the committee with respect to Item 6.(a)? 6.(a)- pass; Item 6.(b) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairm an, under Vehicle Replacement, could the Minister give us how much in vehicle purchase comes under 3.(

b) Central Vehicle Branch, or does the entire amount for vehicle purchase come under this item? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairm an, none of the allocations for new vehicles comes under 3.(b). All the new vehicles are purchased from the Vehicle Replacement category that is listed and there is also some talk of vehicles that have been approved as well in the Acquisition/Construction. I believe there's 15, 205,000 in that total of $1 8,711 ,000 but the total new Vehicle Replacement is the $4 million. MR. H. GR AHAM: Mr.

Chai rman, is it a correct statement to say then that in the purchase of vehicles that the entire purchase price is in this Item 3.(b), but the recovery for trade-in would come under the other appropriation, Central Vehicle? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The recovery would go under General Revenue from that recovery section. If you're loo!<ing at 3.(b)

(3) Recoverable from Other Appropriations, any sale of vehicles, the portion for vehicle sales goes back into General Revenue. MR. H. GRAHAM: Can the Minister give me the rationale then for having recoveries listed in various other appropriations when we know that in the Vehicle Replacement

section there is a recovery for vehicles that are traded in. Why does he not show it as a recovery here, rather than hiding it someplace else? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The recoveries are from the government departments and therefore go back into this department. However, the sales to the public, such as the used vehicles that are sold, and then the money that comes back is classed as revenue and therefore has to go to General Revenue to Finance and then do not go back as a recovery to the department. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, you list all the recoveries from various appropriations in the rest of your Estimates, I just thought it would make good bookkeeping sense to be consistent and when you show that you're spending 4 million on vehicle replacement to show as another item the expected recovery from vehicles that are traded off and show it under this same item. It would make much cleaner bookkeeping and everyone would know exactly where you stand on it. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Cha irman, I think that suggestion could be referred to the Minister of Finance. We do not include any revenues in our recoveries.

Government revenues that are arrived at through the sale of goods to the public go back to the Minister of Finance. However, recoveries from other departments go back into our budget and are classified as recoveries versus revenues. Now, if that were to be changed, as I said, that suggestion could be made and I believe it's valid to make that suggestion to the Minister of Finance. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, to the suggestion made by the Member for Virden, the difficulty with what the Member for Virden proposes is that recoverables shown in the line-by-line Estimates in the traditional practice as approved by the Provincial Auditor and as shown in Public Accounts only show recoverables from other levels of government or recoverables from other appropriations because these can be exacted and in the Estimates can be predetermined for the next fiscal year.

To show a recoverable, whether that recoverable be from the private sector in terms of a corporation or from individual persons who might be buying land or buying used vehicles, to hypothecate those recoverables in advance in the Estimates would be irresponsible and I would oppose that practice. I would oppose the Minister of Finance adopting it because it 1340

Monday, 4 April, 1983 would then lead to charges by the opposition that we were overestimating revenues or playing games with the books. In effect, what the Minister is doing here, is presenting the t:Ostimates of his department fairly and accurately without any attempt to fudge or in any way fiddle, as the Member for Pembina would be wont to say, should he do this, any possible revenues that might accrue to the department. So I think the Minister is doing it properly and I think he should reject out of hand the suggestion by the Member for Virden. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 6.(b) - the Member for Kirkfield Park.

MRS. G. HAMMOND: I have a question to the Minister on historical buildings. Is there any money in this allocation going towards renovations of any of the historical sites? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe the honourable member is referring to the appropriation that was just passed, Acquisition/Construction, versus the one that were dealing with, Vehicle Replacement. However, I'll answer it. We have not allocated money tor renovations specifically of historical buildings this particular year.

There are a number of studies that are currently under way to determine the feasibility of renovating certain historical buildings, the Vaughan Street Detention Home is one; there is a site in The Pas. There is also a number in the downtown area. In the core area, we have set up a committee with Cultural Affairs and Government Services to review all historical buildings in the core area and to determine whether it's feasible for some of them to be used for government space and renovated at some time in the near future. However, there is no money allocated specifically for that purpose in this year's Estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 87 - RESOLVE that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $22,7 11 ,400 for Government Services for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1984- pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 1.(

a) Minister's Salary - the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to bring up to the public at this time the incompetence of the current Minister who is in charge of Emergency Measures in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, it has been unfortunate the Agriculture Estimates have been going on as well as the Government Services, but I do want to put on the record some of the things that his irresponsible actions, the actions that he didn't take, during the recent snow and ice storm in western and southern Manitoba. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Radisson does not want to hear. He said we spent an hour on it. I will be very brief and I'll put some more new facts on the record, if he's a little nervous about the incompetence of his Minister of Government Services and they truly are, Mr. Chairman, because there is the front page and I'll quote from the Minot Daily News of March 10 th: "Storm Disaster Proclaimed by the 1341 Governor of North Dakota," Mr. Chairman.

There is a fine line between the State of North Dakota and Manitoba; it's an imaginary line and the storm doesn't really see that when it hits our particular part of the country . I will just quote one or two things that happened, Mr. Chairman, so that this Minister knows how to act in a responsible manner if it happens again. I would hope the Premier would see fit to change him in case there was an emergency that developed, that people could depend on this government. I quote, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman: "Gov.

Allen Olson has declared a disaster emergency in seven counties and parts of 18 others as a result of the weekend ice and snow storm that cut electrical power to thousands of North Dakota consumers." Mr. Chairman, it truly was a big enough emergency in the United States, which was the same storm that we had in western and southern Manitoba, for the Governor of the State to declare an emergency area. Now let's go a little further, because I asked a question on the Monday of that following week, Mr. Chairman, of the Premier, why his emergency service hadn't been put into action to deal with the situation.

He didn't even know that it had stormed, Mr. Chairman, that there was any snow in the west. In fact the Governor of the State of North Dakota on Wednesday, flew over some of the areas hardest hit by the ice storm to see how serious the storm was. This government, this Minister, didn't even leave the City of Winnipeg. The Member for Dauphin, the Minister of Government Services, didn't even go outside to find out what was going on outside of his constituency. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we look at the immediate action of a jurisdiction straight south of us suffering the same kind of storm.

I quote again, "The long-term harm will be to trees in the area, but clearly there's a short-term problem. We saw devastation, and we understood the difficulties that many of the people were encountering and we're going to help wherever we can." That was the Governor of the State of North Dakota. I end that quote, Mr. Chairman. I go on again to say, and this is again from the Governor of the State, "We've been helping with getting feed to livestock and that type of thing. We will continue that; we'll help where we can." Again, that's a quote from the Governor of the State of North Dakota, Mr. Chairman.

He wanted to talk to his Emergency Measures people, and what did he direct them to do, Mr. Chairman? We'll go on. The Disaster Emergency Services of the State of North Dakota, " ... Ron Affeldt said 15 ,000 people . . . " were experiencing power shortages. Again, they set up " . . . emergency service co-ordinators have been designated to assist people suffering from hardship because of the storm," again a government agency, Mr. Chairman, not unlike the same system we have here, their responsibiity is within the State of North Dakota. "Some counties" and I quote, Mr.

Chairman, "have established canters where individuals may receive assistance with their storm-related difficulties," he said. "State agencies have been alerted to assist individuals accomplish a detailed damage assessment and stand by if needed." Mr. Chairman, there is evidence that immediately to the south of us, the United States people who are rural

Monday, 4 April, 1983 farm people and in a lot of cases unable to help themselves during heavy ice and snow storms, were helped by the state agency. In Manitoba, the Premier and his Minister of Emergency Measures didn't even know it was snowing or didn't even know what was going on in Manitoba and didn't take the time to find out. So I chastise this Minister of Government Services as being an incompetent, incapable Minister and should be replaced. Mr. Chairman, the Minister we have said he was going to report. Well, he never did bring a report to the Legislature because he was too ashamed to.

He said, we didn't realize the signific ance of the storm or we just respond if it's a major type of thing. That kind of comment was made, an irresponsible man carrying the position of Emergency Measures. I, Mr. Chairman, want the people of Manitoba to know precisely the kind of action that was taken place by a responsible government in a jurisdiction lying immediately south of us and that the people of our province were totally ignored by the Premier and by his Min ister of Emergency Measures.

I would hope that if ever such an emergency occurred again, that this Minister of Emergency Measures would see fit to make himself aware of it and to put his government into place so that they could assist the people who were going through power outages, shortage of heat and the devastation of the ice and snow. I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that the Manitoba Hydro went far above and beyond their call of duty in assisting rural Manitobans in getting power back to their facilities and their houses.

But this government has to be chastised to the maximum for their inability to deal with an emergency situation. Thank you. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, it's not true in terms of the quote that was made that I said I was going to give a report. I said that I was going to make a statement with regard to the activities of the Honourable Member for Pembina on the occasion of that ice storm. When I was answering a question I was told by the Speaker that it was getting lengthy so I could not finish my report or statement that I was making in answer to the question.

However, I was not allowed to finish answering the question at that time. I decided at that time, that perhaps I could make a Ministerial Statement on it and determined later that it was not appropriate for a Minis terial Statement, therefore did not, and I've answered all of the questions by the Honourable Member for Pembina during our discussions of our Estimates here. So it's not accurate to say that I was going to give a report and then did not because I was not satisfied with the performance of EMO during that particular situation.

I also want the honourable members to know that I was very aware of what was happening. I happen to know, personally, that there was a problem because my family was in Winnipeg that weekend and I stayed in Winnipeg that one particular weekend and they could not get out to Dauphin for two days, the Monday and the Tuesday of that week, because of the icy road conditions, so were actually, in an unusual way, stranded in Winnipeg. So we were quite aware of the situation at the time and I was getting reports from EMO as well.

I would just say in response to the honourable member, just because the great Americans do something, that it does not necessarily mean that we have to do exactly the same. Certainly, we have our own decision-making processes and our own people in this province. We have our own fine agencies and utilities that are able to handle situations in the best possible way, unequalled in North America. They certainly are experts; they're faced with it much more, so I believe that the Hydro and the Telephone System did an excellent job of responding, and the Highways Department did an excellent job of responding as well.

They certainly responded to the requests that were made to them in the best way that they could. I don't think that we can judge, because utilities in North Dakota or in the States were not able to react and to handle the situation, that therefore we couldn't handle them here. We had some difficulties, we acknowledged that, some individuals were inconvenienced certainly and there was no danger to loss of life.

I have no reports that there was loss of livestock because of that, so the definition of emergency that the honourable members are using is somewhat different than what Emergency Measures has utilized for the definition of an emergency. I certainly feel that the Emergency Measures Organization reacted and co-ordinated, where necessary, reacted to emergency situations when they were developing, however, there was not an emergency that would require them to take any other actions specifically to get involved at that particular time.

I think the other point that must be made, as well, is that because a storm hits in North Dakota or in the States and Manitoba, that it does not mean the severity of that storm is exactly the same throughout the whole area.

If they felt, in their judgment, that it was necessary to take some other action, that was certainly within their realm of responsibility and decision-making that they implored at that particular time, and it was their decision that was made, but you cannot compare when you receive it - it's just like when you have a snowstorm, it varies as well, from location to location and you cannot compare one with the other as to how anyone should have reacted. So I dismiss the comments made by the Member for Arthur , with regard to the conduct of this government, during that particular situation. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the Minister can wiggle and squirm and weasel around all he wants, and talk about how the storm can vary, the 49th Parallel is not something that will stop a storm and in a vast area of North Dakota, the Governor of North Dakota saw fit to proclaim a disaster emergency, to go so far as to request Federal assistance.

I point out in sharp contrast - as I tried to glean from the Minis ter what he thought was an emergency, and it could be a person going without power for seven days, it may, it may not be - this Minister doesn't know what an emergency is. Obviously, if the Minister was keeping informed and advised of the storm, he might put on his list of phone numbers of places to call to find out how bad a storm 1342

Monday, 4 April, 1983 is, he might put the Governor's Office of North Dakota on his phone list and take some very good advice from our American friends to the south as to how to handle an emergency, because the people in south, central and Western Manitoba considered that ice storm and snowstorm an emergency. What kind of a response did we get from this Minister in this government? Well, we had the First Minister stand up in the House and say, well, I don't know what everybody's complaining about, we had ice out in Selkirk. There was a foot of snow out in the Melita country and the Premier did not even know that.

He had no idea, no concept of the kind of hardships that the citizens of south-central Manitoba were going through, and I admit that this party has its priorities and this government has its priorities. They were singing and dancing around the socialist flag at their annual meeting and conference in Winnipeg, and they didn't care about the rest of Manitoba. That's why this government did nothing to react to that emergency, while immediately across the border a disaster emergency situation was proclaimed and suitable government agencies were mobilized to assist the residents of North Dakota.

It's a pity that in Manitoba we couldn't have had a Minister and a Premier and a Government that would likewise mobilize EMO to deal with an emergency, as it obviously was. It's unfortunate that we have to once again learn some methodology from immediately across the border. Maybe one of these days they're not going to share their knowledge with us as willingly as they have in the past, with incidents of recent type of demonstrations and marches that this government's been involved in. . Mr.

Chairman, I want to ask the Minister a question and he might want to give an explanation now, or he may have to do it after supper. It's my understanding that Room 200 in this Legislative Building is a room reserved for State functions. I would like to know how the Minister, who has responsibility for this building, could allow a political statement to be issued from Room 200 on behalf of a political party of Canada, not even the position of the Government of Manitoba, and I'll be specific.

The Minister allowed the federal New Democratic Leader, Ed Broadbent; the Federal transporation critic, Benjamin; the Leader of the Opposition in Saskatchewan, Blakeney; and the Premier of this province, to use Room 200, during the course of the NOP Convention in Winnipeg, to make a political announcement on their position on the Crow rate. That is a flagrant, misuse and abuse of this Legislative Assembly in the use of Room 200. This Minister had no authority to allow a political announcement to be made out of Room 200.

He is setting a very bad precedent, something that we've come accustomed to from this government. We have Ministers marching in parades; we have the Minister of Government Services allowing political announcements - not government announcements - but politicial announcements, political party announcements to be taking place in Room 200 of this Legislative Building. They are creating a sham of government in the Province of Manitoba.

If they were going to make a political announcement, they could have used a conference room in the Winnipeg Convention Centre, where their convention was going on, but no, not these people who don't understand what this building is about and what priorities and rules of proper conduct are. This government has to parade a political party into Room 200 and use it for partisan political purposes. That is not a proper use of Room 200 and the facilities provided in Room 200 of this building, and I want to know how the Minister can justify allowing that to happen.

Obviously, he knew it was happening because he is the Minister of Government Services. Obviously, he had his share in arranging the use of Room 200. Will the Minister chastise his First Minister for the use of Room 200 for blatant, partisan, political means? And if he will not do that, do we now assume that the next time the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, or of Canada, wishes to make an announcement of party policy and platform - not government policy but party policy - they will have access to Room 200 and its facilities at the expense of the taxpayers of Manitoba, because there is the other issue?

Here we have the New Democratic Party with Broadbent, Benjamin, Blakeney, and Pawley, using a room at taxpayers' expense, set up at taxpayers' expense, to announce a party policy position - not a government policy position, but a party policy position - and I trust the Minister will figure out the costs of that and bill the New Democratic Party in Ottawa and in Manitoba for the costs of using Room 200 for blatant, political, partisan use, and not the proper use that Room 200 has been used for the past 63 years in this province. MR.

CHAIRMAN: May I remind the members of the committee that we have about five minutes, if we are to finish the Estimates. Mr. Minis ter. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I think that the honourable member could cite many examples for use of this particular room and I could certainly get examples for him of where it has been used other than for, I believe, he described it, for State functions, said that's not what this building is all about and I should be chastising the First Minister for using the building for this purpose. Let's remember one thing, Mr. Chairman.

That announcement came with the Premier of this province there, if we're going to use the criteria used by this honourable member, the Premier of this province was present at the announcement, he's the Premier of the Government of Manitoba, which happens to be a New Democratic Government at this time, and certainly he was entitled to make an announcement from that particular room, which he did. So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you're now going to say who can come in and who can't come in with the Premier.

I just find this whole thing ridiculous and I can't believe that the honourable member is coming forward with that kind of a suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister now indicating that the position put forward by Ed Broadbent 1343

Monday, 4 April, 1983 and Allan Blakeney is the government position of the Province of Manitoba regarding the Crow rate? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that is in order at all. I said that the Premier was involved in an announcement; he made an announcement, he was the Premier of this province; he was present there. Now all of a sudden the honourable member is trying to say that he wasn't acting as Premier. I thought that Cabinet Minist ers always were acting on behalf of government, they can't act as individuals. So, the honourable member should draw his own

interpretation of what the Premier said. I'm not going to make it for him. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair believes that the Crow rate should be discussed in the appropriate department. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the use of Room 200, which is a room within the Legislature of Manitoba. Government Services happens to have control of the use of those rooms. What we want to know is, at what point in time do partisan political announcements be used and made from Room 200?

The Minister of Government Services just said that the Premier was there announcing government policy, and if that was government policy, Mr. Chairman, then why hasn't the resolution that we passed as government policy reflected the announcement that was made. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it wasn't government policy that was announced. Indeed it wasn't the Premier of this province that made the announcement. It was the Leader of the Federal New Democratic Party. That is a blatant abuse of the use of Room 200. This Minis ter, nor this government, can justify that kind of partisan use of Room 200.

They have no prio ritie s as to what is proper. That has been demonstrated by the Minister of Natural Resources in his march at the demonstration in front of the United States Consulate, where he is an individual one moment, a Cabinet Minister the next. Are we to assume that the Premier really wasn't the Premier when he was there making that announcement and simply an individual member of the New Democratic Party federally? You know, there was no provincial government announcement made there; it was a Federal Party platform position.

The use of Room 200 was inappropriate and not something that this government should allow to happen, and if this Min ister of Government Services insists on using Room 200 for purely partisan positions, then this whole process of government in Manitoba has broken down dreadfully. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the committee with respect to Item 1.(a)? MR. D. ORCHARD: Let him answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister may answer if he wishes. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member went around full circle and contradicted his own argument, and that's all the comment I have to make. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 1. (a)-pass. That completes the Estimates for the Department of Government Services. As informally agreed upon we shall start consideration of the Departmental Estimates for the Department of Labour and Employment Services at 8:00 p.m. HON. A. MACKLING: Don't you have to read the resolution? MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 82 - RESOLVE that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,315, 100 for Government Services, for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March 1984-pass. Committee rise. SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order. Agriculture, Item 7.

Canada-Manitoba Value-Added Crops Production Agreement. The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a matter here which is not strictly within the confines of the subject under discussion but it was dealt with last Thursday.

It's the issue raised by the Minister of Finance at the time and although I find it somewhat distasteful to have to respond in this way, I would like to put on the record my understanding of the events leading to the fact that we are today sitting in the House and not taking time off - because the Minister of Finance made the point last Thursday morning that we on this side of the House had refused to take the day off in order that we could somehow further our own interests by having our $40.00 per diem continue over the weekend - I would like to put on the record my recollection of the exchange between the Government House Leader and myself, and the Government House Leader is present, and if my

interpretation of what took place is not correct then I'm sure that he will rise and correct me. As I, along with my colleague from Roblin-Russell, was proceeding down the hall on the main floor one evening last week, the Government House Leader approached me and said words to this effect, that some of our people would like to take Monday off as well as Friday; and my response was, we generally sit on Monday and have not taken Monday off. I said, it's really a question of sitting Monday or July 31st and the Government House Leader responded, July 31st is my birthday.

So I said perhaps that would indicate then that we would be better sitting on Easter Monday and the Government House Leader responded - and this is where if my

interpretation is incorrect I hope he'll rise - he responded, well, that's my feeling and that ended the exchange, Mr. Chairman. There was no question; there was no approach made; our caucus has decided we do not want to sit Monday; our caucus has decided we want to save money by not sitting Monday. The exchange that took place is 1344

Monday, 4 April, 1983 basically as I have described it, Mr. Chairman, and I think that it was entirely, I can hardly say, out of keeping for the Minister of Finance to raise the issue in the terms that he did. But that, for the record, Mr. Chairman, is the exchange that took place between the Government House Leader and myself. HON. R. PENNER: Well, very briefly, I don't think this is the appropriate time to have raised the matter, but it doesn't matter. I can't vouch for the verbatim account which the Member for Turtle Mountain gives. Substantially that is correct, that is, I approached him.

I didn't use the words, at least I don't think I used the words, that members of our caucus want the day off. I communicated to him the feeling from our caucus, they felt that the House should not meet on Monday and the response of the Member for Turtle Mountain was substantially as he has given it, something to the effect that better to work on that day than - and he threw out the date July 31 st, I remember that very distinctly. I responded in a jocular mood that, well I don't want to work July 31 st, it's my birthday. I don't want to work July 31 st, period, and I think no one does.

Then there was some response and something about well, it's better to work on Monday than July 31st and I said, that's my view. So that

part is correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify what I said the other day. We had a caucus meeting and we decided as a caucus that we did not want to sit on Easter Monday because nobody else was in this building. Everybody who comes in here gets paid double time-and-a-half. We don't have our services available to us here today that we ordinarily have, library and those sorts of things. Our research staff isn't here; the people in the offices, etc.

We were told by our House Leader after he went to see the House Leader for the Opposition that the Conservatives wanted to sit on Easter Monday - and it may be that I drew the assumption from that statement which I believe was a correct statement - that the Conservatives didn't want to sit on Easter Monday.

What was happening at the time that was raised was the Conservative spending for the 11 0th time, approximately, of a $7,000 grant - which was a $1 0- per-head grant for a conference that was held in Manitoba - the type of grant that was made by them frequently to various groups who come into the province of about the same amount and even more per head. There have been some conferences who have gotten more.

So because they were looking at spending this for the 100th time or 11 0th time, I was suggesting to them a way in which they could talk about a different sum of money that they could save later on in the future.

Now if it is the case that the opposition feels they were misrepresented then I would simply ask that for next year and completely on a non-partisan basis, if we get the same scenario in the same week - and I haven't discussed this with people on my side - I would hope first of all th(lt we change the date of our going to Brandon from Wednesday to Thursday and at least on the - (Interjection) - Well, the Member for Morris is referring to a janitor, I know nothing of a janitor taping on a Wednesday evening.

I do know that on Thursday when I was sitting here, I had no intention of speaking whatsoever on the Agriculture Estimates until I heard the Member for Arthur ranting and raving for the 100th time about that other grant and that was the basis on which I stood. If there was a misinterpretation of the Conservative position, then I've explained how I arrived at my

interpretation of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 7 - the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, on the Value-Added Crops Agreement, can the Minister indicate how many students will be employed in Manitoba under this particular program this year? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, we'll have to take that question as notice in terms of specifics, we don't have that information here. I've just asked. We will take that as notice and get the member information and I'll bring it forward to the House as soon as we've got it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR.

J. DOWNEY: The Minister is looking into that, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that he would as well give consideration to the 30 some student jobs that have been cut out of Plant Science at the university this year, as the funding is not sufficient to carry on with student employment out there, that he would direct some of the funds from the Canada-Manitoba Value-Added Crops Agreement to those particular areas that have been traditionally job opportunities for summer students. I have been informed, Mr.

Chairman, that there have been several cuts in student employment opportunities throughout the Department of Agriculture at the University of Manitoba. As I indicated the other day, because of this government's cutting of funds or not increasing of them, there is a major impact taking place, not only with the agricultural research within the province, but the traditional job opportunies that have been provided through that particular program. And I would hope the Minister would stand up for once to his Cabinet colleagues, Mr.

Chairman, and speak out and request more funds for the kinds of jobs, and the kind of research that are meaningful to the farm community. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the member should be aware that our level of funding for research on a combined basis, the annual research grant the university receives is, as I've indicated earlier, the same. Under this component, under the Agro- Man Agreement, we are increasing the project amount by just under $75,000 to a total this year projected flow of $720,500.00.

So we are increasing about 12 percent, in that range, 12 to 14 percent increase in terms of the level of funding dealing with the amount of monies towards plant science and the university in terms of Agro-Man contracts. 1345

Monday, 4 April, 1983 MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister still has not addressed and he could do it now, or he can' wait until his Estimates or his Salary to touch on the concern that the opposition have over the loss of jobs and funds for research at the university. He has not confirmed or denied the figures that I have laid on the record, whether they're correct or whether he disagrees or whether he doesn't.

There are some 30 jobs being cut out of plant science research at the university, and what I'm saying is that probably he could readjust the funds from the Agro-Man Agreement, or some other funds to provide those employment opportunities. Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is that when we've got record unemployment of students in the province, in fact, not only with students but the people under 25 are in the highest unemployed bracket, those students are, that he should be conscious of the fact. I have been made aware, Mr.

Chairman, that several jobs, particularly in one department, have been cut because of lack of funding. Now we have a government where the Premier introduced a bill in this House saying - jobs, jobs, jobs, that's their number one priority, $200 million. Yet where there has been traditional funding for agriculture research it has not kept up with the demands, in fact it caused a reduction in those student employment opportunities. How can he come to this Assembly, Mr. Chairman, with his Minister of Agriculture not providing the kinds of funds that have been traditional and in place?

But they've reduced the job opportunites for the students, Mr. Chairman, and I don't care what department the students are being educated in, whether it's Arts, or Sciences, there's room to work in the Department of Agriculture through the Agricultural Research Branch. Well, you know, how sincere are they, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Agriculture has cut jobs in agricultural researching at the University of Manitoba, and he's not prepared to redirect some of the Agro­ Man funds, the value-added crop funds, to these particular research projects? Now, Mr.

Chairman, I think the Minister should as well indicate to this Assembly what the guidelines of the new agreement that he's going to be working on with the Federal Government will be. I would hope that he is prepared to put long-term research opportunities, long-term research projects with job opportunities for, yes, students, Mr.

Chairman, who are graduating this year, next year and the year after, but to develop some long-term, meaningful research work for the farm community, but at the same time develop professional people in the agriculture research field because there is going to be a void of qualified people in the long run. Because traditionally what has been happening, or has been happening in the last few years, with the expansion of the agricultural industry and the specialization of it, there has been a movement of top qualified people into the private sector .

The job opportunities, the wages that have been paid by private­ sector agriculture people, have been encouraging people out of the research industry, or out of the reseach work or activities that take place at universities, into the private sector. As a result, Mr. Chairman, we are becoming short of qualified people to carry out long­ term research and provide the kinds of backup that this country has enjoyed through the tremendous grain sales and agricultural sales. I want to put this on the record, Mr.

Chairman, one of the reasons - and this is for the Minister and I hope he pays attention - that we have been such a noted exporter of agricultural commodities in Canada is because we have been able to demonstrate the ongoing capability to produce the volumes of high-quality wheats, and of the high-quality agricultural commodities that we have traditionally produced.

For example, when the Japanese come to purchase buckwheat or canola meal or rapeseed, when they come to purchase on a long-term basis, they look at the long-term development of that crop; they look at the research capability; they look at the whole backup of that country's ability to produce. That is what I'm trying to say to the Minister. I would hope that in negotiating a new agreement with the Federal Government that he is conscious of the fact that we need professional people in the research branch; that he could use funds today to encourage young people i