Manitoba Hansard — 10 January 1990 (Sitting 100, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-100

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, January 10, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Sciences Centre Elevator Upgrade Funding Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Spe aker, my question is to the Min ister of Health (Mr . Orchard), and it concerns the det eriora ting conditions at the Health Scienc es Centre. The Min ister of Health said outside the House yesterday that if elevators at the Health Sciences Centre were a priority, all the hospit al had to do was apply for funding.

No wonder our health care system is in such a sad state when the Minister has no idea of what is going on within his own department. The Health Scienc es Centre has been asking for upgrading funding for elevators since 1982, for seven full years. Why is the Health Minister not aware of the Health Scienc es appl ica tion to the Manitoba Health Servic es Commis sion to upg rade its elevators? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, or, Mr. Speaker- Mr. Speaker: You have got that right. Mr. Orchard: In a moment of excitement, I reflected back to three years ago, Mr. Sp eaker.

My honourable friend comes often to the House, as Leader of the Opposition, with some information, but it is not always comp letely accu rate information. There is a $44 milli on capital budget, which was appro ved, and I know that there were no questions as to where it would go because that is appropria te, because that is a capital contingency fund, which health care fa cil ities across the province can access to undertake minor capital imp rovements as priorized by the institution.

I stand by the statement I made yesterday that if the Health Scienc es Centre considers the repair of those elevators to be their capital priority for that contingency fund of capital expenditures, it shall be done. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, that is like saying you have three problems, all of which need immed iate solutions, and you have to cho ose which one. Mr. Sp eaker, we are talking about life and death situations. We are talking about life and death situations. We are speak ing about trauma patients who have to move seven floors in an elevator that regula rly breaks down and the Minister of Labour (Mr s.

Hammond) who does not bother to have it investigated. Will the Health 4187 Minister (Mr. Orchard) tell this House why he has not given consideration to the applic ation of the Health Sciences Centre for the upgr ading necessary on these elevators? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, in this world of if and fantasy that Liberals live in, they believe all you do is back up the Brink's truck, give a blank cheque, and everything is resolved.

Management decisions are ma de every single day in every single aspect of every single funded organization within Government, and if -(int erjection) My honour able friend the Mem ber for St. Vital (Mr. Rose) just indicated that some of the decisions made by the institutions are not good decisions. Is that the Liberal Party policy on the Health Sciences Centre management? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion. Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the Health Sciences Centre did its job. It requested the upgrading and it was refused by the Manitoba Health Services Comm ission.

Mr. Speak er, this Minister, without any training as a physician, is prepared to state that the patient would have died anyway. This, despite the fact that the Medical Exam iner, who is a physi cian, is not prepared to rule out the fact that the patient died because of a 20- minute delay on the elevator. Mr. Speaker, to the Health Minister, will he now order a full public inquest into this death to include an exam ination of elevator facilities in all hospitals in our province so that no further deaths occur because of slopp y elevator practice? *

(1335) POINT OF ORDER Mr. Speaker: The Honour able Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): The matter raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr s. Carstai rs), the Leader of the Opposition should know is not a matter within the administrative capacity of the Minister of Heal th. The calling of inquests is not something that the Minister of Health do es. The Honour able Leader of the Opposition ought to know that. If she does not, she should maybe do her home work before she comes to this House. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable Government House Leader. The Honourable Leader kindly rephrase your question, please.

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Patient Death Inquest Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Oppositi on): Mr. Sp eaker, will the Minister of Health investigate this incident and take the request to an inquest to the Min ister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae), who can indeed order an inquest? Hon. Donald Orchar d (M inister of Health): Mr. Sp eaker , we now ha ve the Li beral Leader (Mr s. Carstairs) being so knowledgeable of ever y cir cums tance surro unding every single ind ividual patient 's circu mstanc es tha t she now is te lling Government that what she would do is order, without information, an inquest.

That is exactly what we have Dr. Ma rkesteyn for. Dr. Markesteyn is investigating the circumstances surrounding this death. He is yet to make a decision as to whether there will be the necessity of an inquiry. That position and that decision by Dr. Ma rkesteyn is his. It is not one to be gerrymandered at the political whim of the Liberal Leader or anybody else in this Ho use. That is the process of justice without the narrow political interference for partisan gains that a Li beral Leader of this House might wish to do. St. Boniface Hospital Elevator Upgrading Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Spe aker, the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard) went pu blic and already overruled the necessity, because he, a non-ph ysician , declared it unnecessary. Mr. Sp eaker, my question to the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is, the St. Boniface Hospital will be undertaking a major overhaul of its elevator system. Why is it accept able or why is it advantageous for one hospital that has indicated their elevators are a problem to undertake that overhaul, but not for our other most senior hospital in this province? Hon. Donald Orch ard (M inister of Health): Mr.

Sp eaker, I want to first off indicate to my honour able friend, the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) that she might be cautious in bringing individual Manitoban 's cases to the floor of this House, because th ere are cir cu mstances surro unding every incident tha t are sensitive to the bereaved mem bers of the fami ly. If my honourable friend wants those circums tances made pu blic because her criticism of the health care system is now relegated to individual circums tances, then let her make that decision. Mr. Speaker, in the decision at St.

Bonif ace Hospital, in the agreement to move with elevator renovation, obviously the management of St. Boniface Hospital has made their elevators a higher priority in an ongoing list of capital imp rovements. That is the reason, very simpl y a management decision of St. Boniface. Health Sciences Centre Elevator Inspection Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Sp eaker, I have a question to the Min ister of Labour (Mr s. Hammon d). The regulations governing elevator inspections were weakened in 1987, but they clearly gave the Mi nister comp lete discretion as to when elevators were to be inspected.

The permit to the Health Scienc es Centre in April of 1987 was granted for three years. Can the Minister explain why a three-year permit would be issued for a 25-ye ar-old ele vator used to transport multiple trauma patients when the regulations clearly say that she has discretion when age of the elevators is an issue? *

(1340) Hon. Gerr ie Hammond (M inister of Labour responsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr. Speaker , I met with the director of mech anical and engineering, and unfortunately I had not been aware that on Decem ber 30 when the incident hap pened, our people were called that the Dover elevator mechanic was called at 1415 of that day, and he arriv ed at app roximately 1445, that Wayne Andrews, Su pervisor of Inspectors with Mechanic al and Engineering, arrived � at 21 10, that they had the switch turned off at 2120, the doors were wired closed .

Wha t they are saying about this particula r elevator is that the operating procedures were probably not taken into consideration. When they inspected this elevator, and when the elevator mechanic went, the elevator was able to be started imm ediately. They tested that elevator for five hour s and they could not find any thing wrong with the elevator. The elevators were checked thoroug hly on Janua ry 2, and as far as they can see, there is nothing structurally wrong with the elevator.

How elevators are inspected is, they go from six months to three years, and it is linked as the Memb er had said to age, design and availabili ty of maintenance personnel. There are mai ntenance perso nnel at Health Sciences Centre, and when our department was called they were there imm ediately. St. Boniface Hospital Elevator Inspec tion Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Sp eaker, we are talking about inspections before a death occurs, not afterwards. Can the Minister explain why the elevators at St.

Boniface Hosp ital are given a check each and every year, but the elevators at the Health Scienc es Centre are still ordered only inspected once every three years? Hon. Gerr ie Hammond (M inister of Labour responsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) would just listen, she would understand that is how they do the inspections. Regulation was changed so that it is linked to age, design and availability of mai ntenance. If St. Boniface is required, because they feel that it needs a yearly inspection, it gets it.

Health Scienc es has not been deemed to be that. When it was put in 20 years or so ago, it was the state of the art, and they have people on staff. This is the way they do it and it makes common sense to do it that way. 4188

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Solvit Resources In c. Storage Capacity Statistics Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): We ha ve indic ated publi cly tha t although we can certainly supp ort the fact that the Fire Commis sioner was not able to find a conclusi ve cause at this point of the fire, that the report tab led by the Minister of Labour (Mr s. Hammond), the Department of Labour report, raises as many ques tions as it answers in terms of the major explosion and the potential for the safety of citizens in our province.

In fact there are a numb er of calls we have been receiving from citizens in the solvent disposal area that are asking a numb er of questions to us in this Cham ber and felt that tho�e issues were not dealt with in the report. My question to the Minister, yesterday we asked the Minister why the report did not include the volume of materials, the three times the volume of materials at � the site of the explosion in the last three months leading , up to the date of the explosion versus the three months prior to that. The Minister has yet to confirm those num bers.

Why were those num bers exclude d from the report, some 157,000 litres? Second ly, is the Minister satisfied that all the chem icals listed on page 3 of the report are accu rate in terms of the chem icals that were in fact at the site when the explosion took place? •

(1345) Hon. Gerr ie Hammond (Mi nister of Labour responsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr. Sp eaker, the volume on site of the explosion was unknown for the barrels. The underground tanks have a capacity of 115,000 litres, and the aboveground tanks had a capacity of 15,600 litr es, but storage and quantities at the time of the incident is unknown. This is the report received from the Fire Commission er. Prime Oils Ltd. Fire Code Complia nce Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Op position): I wou ld ask the Minister-and I tab led the amount of litres received at the site, the amount of litres returned at the site. It will tell you from the Department of Environment's own files it was some 157,000 litres deposited at the solvent site prior to the explosion , three times the volume of litres there prior to the explosi on. In other words, there was a massive buildup of materials, some thing not cited or reported on in the report for Man itobans to learn by.

My further question to the Minister is, on page 11 of the report, there are a num ber of conditions set out in the fire code for purpo ses of storage of these types of chem icals and solvents. One condition being piles not exceed ing 23 drums. Two, the minimum of six metres from the building property line and three, a maximum of 4, 700 litres. Is the Minister satisfied that the site that they have indicated as exempl ary, the Prime Oil site, which is adjacent to the Inter-City natural gas distribution point in St.

Boniface, that this new site is consistent with the fire code operating in a safe way within the fire code given there are 200 to 300 barrels of solvent and other material on the site today? Hon. Gerrie Hammond (M inister of Labour responsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Evidently, the Winnipeg Fire Department has placed an order with Prime Oil to remove those barrels, that they are not within the fire code and that they have been given an order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Sp eaker, there are some 200 to 300 barrels.

While the Minister was sitting on this report those barrels have been sitting there, and people who have called our office say there are literally thousands and thousands of potentially dangerous toxic chem icals again located to a natural gas site that have been left there in a potentially dangerous situation. Why has the Minis ter not instructed that those barrels be rem oved immediately while she was sitting on this report? Why are they still there this morning? Our people went down there this morning. They still remain there. Why can we not get an independent public inquiry to deal with all these issues?

Why do we have to raise them in this Legislature? Mrs. Hammond: Mr. Sp eaker, I understand that the Fire Comm issioner's Office was just informed about this particula r incident . Mr. Doer: The Fire Comm issioner's Office was informed because our people were phoning today. That is why we have called for an independent public inquiry. There are hundr eds of stories out like this. The Government is suppr essing informa tion and not allowing the public to come forward in an independent inquiry. Solvit Resources Inc. Public Inquiry Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): I would ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), why has his Government determined that the Fire Commis sioner's Report should not be used as part of an independent public inquiry so there can be a compr ehensive review of the disp osal of potentially dangerous goods, the storage of dangerous goods and the way in which we recycle dangerous goods so the publi c can be involved in this process and we can all learn and benefit from the experienc e of an inquiry and the cross-ex amination process that is necessary in that type of an inquiry? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Spe aker, firstly I assume that the Mem ber wants to ensure that an unfortu nate thing such as the explosion that occurred does not occur again, that we take every reasonable means to set up pr evention for that happen ing and that we em ploy in the analysis, in review of the situation, people who are best qualified to do that. The Min ister has referred the total matter to the Workpla ce Safety and Health Advisory Comm ittee, which is chai red by Wally Fox-Dec ent, which was the 4189

Wednesday, Jan uary 10, 1990 council that reviewed the matter of the regu lations tha t the Memb er raised earlier in the Session with respect to limits for exposure in air and all of those kinds of lim its, carcinogens and so on. The y ha ve rep resenta tives of the workers, of compan ies, that deal with these matters. They have of cou rse representation by staff, techn ical staff, from the dep artments, the relevant departments of Workpla ce Safety and Health, Labour , Environ ment and so on.

These are the people who will have to come up with a better plan and a better protocol for handling these situations to ensure that in future we do not allow it to happ en. This is the best body to do it. It is not -( interjection)- now the New Democrats are expressing no confidence in this group. This is the group that evaluated the regulations, that change d them to the way in which the New Democ rats say they ought to be. This is the trained group of all discipli nes who put together the kinds of regulations that they wanted. Now the New Dem ocrats say they are not good . *

(1350) Mr. Doer: Mr. Sp eaker, how can the Premier stand up in this House and talk about the credibility of the independent Health and Advisory Comm ittee, and talk about Wally Fox-Decent, when the one recommendation that he got in Cabi net that he chairs, he rejected. He went along with the busi ness advisers, he went against his own Health Advisory Council. He is a total hypocrite to raise that as a solution in this House, because he totally neglects following their advice when they gave him a recommendation. The Order-in- Council signed in May verifies that point. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Spe aker, I assume that excessive outbur st by the Mem ber by Concordia (Mr. Doer) is not in order. Regardless of whether it is order - (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Mr. Filmon: When the matter was brought to the attention of this Government, it was referred back to this same council, the Advisory Council, Workp lace Safety and Health. It was reviewed and has been confirmed now in the form that the New Demo crats have suggested that it ought to have been, and we have accepted their recommenda tion.

If the Mem ber has no confidence in this council to review this matter then why are you asking for a different inquiry if you have a council -(inter jection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I would rem ind Ho nou rable Mem bers tha t qu estions and answers should be put through the Chair. North Portage Development Corp. Legal Interve ntion Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Sp eaker , my quest ion is to the Min ister of Urb an Aff airs (Mr . Ducharme). The tale of the North Portage housing problem takes on new twists.

We have now learned that the North Portage Developm ent Corporation has three mortgages registered at the Land Titles Office totalling more than $4 million, not just one. We have also learned that all of the mortgages including those of CMHC and MHR C have all been guaranteed by a company num bered 72597 Manitoba Ltd. The search of the company's branch reveals that the Imp erial Group, which is the failed developer, and the num bered com pany ha ve some of the same directors. My question to the Minister is: does the North Portage Development Corporation plan to sue company numb er 72597? Hon.

Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Housing): First of all, I am glad the Mem ber brought to the attention that MHR C has a mortgage on the prope rty. MHR C does have a mortgage on the prope rty. They are secured. The taxpayers of Manitoba are secured to the point of $18.5 million. As I explai ned earlier this week, � the board will be reviewing the auction that has been , put forward from MHR C this following Monday.

I am in conta ct with my thr ee rep resentat ives and the chai rman of the board on a daily basis and after they have had their meeting I will have some other summa ry of whether they are to sue the num bered compa ny. I have no idea on that. All I know is that the $18.5 mil lion on MHR C is protected under the insurance agreement. Vacancy Rate Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, with a supple mentary question to the same Minister. We also have been told that the vacancy rate of the comp lex is some 20 percent.

Would the Minister be prepared to make the rent rolls public so we are assured that the monthl y shortfall of $30,0 00 or $40,000, which is now on the publi c record, is not converted magically into $60,000 or $70,000 or $80,000.00? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Housing): Ju st a fax the other day from the Chairman and the President • of the corpora tion, Mr. lssie Coop, who has suggested • that the rate right now is 20 percent. I am sure that when my representatives review that meeting next Monday they will bring any change in that vacancy rate. Documentation Request Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr.

Sp eaker, with a final supp lementary question. The board of directors of the North Portage Develop ment Corporation are mee ting Monda y night. Will the Min ister ask his rep resenta tives on tha t board to make pu blic agreements between the No rth Portage Corporation, the mortgage compan ies and the developer so that the public of Manitoba can see in full public view just what the details of these two agreements are? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Housing): To the Memb er across the way, he must realize that I am only a one- third partner in this particula r ve nture, or our Government is.

These agreements are drafted up. There 4190

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 could be reasons why we do not release the agreements. My fi rst concern is as Housing Minister, and that is to protect the $18.5 milli on for the taxpayers of Ma nitoba. *

(1355) Rape Assessments Rural Manitoba Mrs . Gwen Cha rles (S elkirk): Mr. Sp eak er, last October 11, I brought to the attention of this House the fact that women in the Interlake cannot receive, and do not receive, rape assessments done in the Interlake hospitals on a regular basis as required. The hospitals should be obl iged by law to give these rape assessments, and yet I will table in this House today a letter indicating that they are not always able to follow up on that procedure. Will the Min ister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) imm ediately look into the problems in rural Manitoba of why these services are not provided to the victims in need of this not only justice but medical treatment? Hon. Donald Orchard (M inister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the corresp ondence and will certa inl y attempt to pr ovide informa tion to my honour able friend on the se kinds of un for tuna te circums tances. Mrs. Charles: Mr. Speaker, three months ago I brought this matter to the attention of the Government. We, in the Opposition, should not have to do their paperw ork.

Wi ll the Minis ter im med iately look after his department and look into the rea sons why rape assessments are not always provided as needed in rural Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Sp eak er, as I indic ated to my honour able friend, with her fi rst question, I will provide her with an answer when I receive information to enable me to do so. Mrs. Charles: My supp lementary question is to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Despite the lack of services in the hospitals being able to be provided , even those women who have to go to Winnipeg to have that assessment done are denied that service willing ly.

There is no responsibility for the Interlake peo ple to do follow- ups on rape victims and give them counselling. This is due to freeze on funds by the Minister of Jus tice (Mr. Mccr ae). Will the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) look into the reason why freezes are put on counselling services for money that could be provided from the Victims Assistance Fund, but this Government is unwilling to suppor t victims of rape anywhere in Manitoba, especially in rural Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Spe aker, with as much patience as I can I have to reject outright the wild accusa tions by my honour able friend, because this Government, under the leadership of successive Cabinet Min isters, has introduced more assistance to women in areas of abuse, 4191 fam ily violence and other areas of concern to the women of Manitob a. I regret that my honourable friend, the ML A for Selkirk (Mr s. Charles), would fail to recognize that comm itment not only in consultation but in policy, in funding and in action by my col leagues in this Government. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh!

Northern Development Agreement Northern Education Fun din g Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Honourable Memb er for Flin Flon. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Since 1982, Mr. Speaker, literally hundreds of northern Manitobans have taken advantage of a series of post-seco ndary and adult continuing education programs under the Northern Devel opment Agreement. In 1987, a review and evaluation of those programs was conducted . In the main it was very positive and indicated a continuance of those programs was needed. My question is to ' the Minister of Educ ation (Mr. Derkach).

Since this program, which is funded under the No rthern Development Agreement which expired in Ma rch of 1989, since that time the Minister has given us assurances that the programs would continue and that the hundreds of students who are expec ting to enrol! in fall of 1990 would be accommoda ted. Can the Minister now indicate whether he is in a position to sign a new Northern Development Agreement with the federal Government? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Sp eaker, first of all, the agreement did expire and indeed it has been extended for a year so that those programs can continue. The agreement is presently being negotiated by the Minister responsible for No rthern Aff airs (Mr . Downey), and those negotiations as I understand it are proceed ing very well. Mr. Sp eaker: The Honourable Mem ber for Flin Flon, with a sup plementary question. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker , I recogn ize tha t the responsibili ty for signing the agreement is with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey).

However, the Department of Education delivers some nine programs, or a tremendous portion of the budget. Can the Minister, given his last statement, explain why directors of these educational programs have been told that there will be no new Northern Development Agreement, why an agreement that has served the North since 1982, trained hundreds of nurses and social workers and doctors, is bei ng elimina ted by this Government? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Sp eaker, I have no knowledge as to who gave that information to the directors of those prog rams.

Certainly that information and tha t directive did not come from me or indeed from my Deputy Minister.

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 *

(1400) Mr. Speaker : The Honourable Mem ber for Flin Flon , with his final suppl ementa ry question. Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Sp eaker, I have been told by staff that the directive was sent out two weeks ago, or it was conveyed to them two weeks ago, that there would be no new intakes in 1990, that the existing program would no longer exist, and the re would be no new No rthern Development Agreement.

Can the Mi nister give this House an assurance, and the literally thousands of people who expect to be able to access those prog rams in northern Ma nitoba, that the province will continue to fund those programs even in spite of the federal reneg ing of its responsibili ties? Can the Min ister give those people that assurance at thi s point? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Sp eaker, I guess I can only indicate to the Memb er for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) that this Go ver nment is inde ed comm itted to ensur e th at educa tional opportun ities are available to northern Ma nitobans.

We have done many things in northern Manitoba to ensure that in fact the programs are even expanded in many of the areas that are remote and difficult to get to. Mr. Sp eaker, I might indicate that we have already done some investigating in the possibili ty of being able to extend thr ough dis tance educa tion un iversity programs in northern Manitoba, so if the Mem ber for Flon Flon (Mr. Storie) has a concern, all he need to do is address it with myself or my Deputy Minister, and I would be happy to go through the list of programs that we have ongoing in northern Manitoba at this time.

Rape Coun selling Services Rural Manitoba Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): Mr. Spe aker, crisis services for women outside of the City of Winnipeg are almo st non existent. Women in the Interlake who may need rape counselling or who may need drug and alcohol abus e counselling have nowhere to turn. One of the reasons cited by the Selkirk Hospital for not providing medic al rape assessments was because there were no follow up counselling services anyway. My question to the Minister of Fam ily Services is: what does the Minister suggest to these women?

Wha t should these women do when they are faced with a crisis and require these essential counselling services? Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that service is not available when people need it. The Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has just indicated to the Mem ber's col league th at he will be look ing into the matter and the re will be referrals whenever possible. I am sur e that the referrals are made and so that service is provided . Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Mem ber for Ellic e, with her suppl ementary question. Ms.

Gray: I have a supp lementary question for the same Minister. For the Minister's clarifica tion, she is the Minister who is responsible for counselling services. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is responsible for medical assessments in regard to the hospitals. My supple mentary question to the Mi nister is: can the Min ister tell us what we, as Opp osition, shou ld be directing these people to do when they phone us and tell us that their wives and their daught ers do not have access to any rape counselling services in the Interlake area? Wha t do we tell them? Mrs. Oleson: Mr.

Speaker, I should remind the Mem ber that this Government has done considerable amount of work on services to women during the mandate of our Government. I should remind the Mem ber that 47 percent increase to wife abus e shelters is certainly a step in the right direction in helping women who are in crises. Rural Funding Mr. Sp eaker: The Honour able Mem ber for Ellice (Ms. Gray), with her final suppl ementa ry question. 4 Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): Can the Minister tell us what percentage of that 47 percent of dollars is actually reaching women in the Interlake area who require those counsel ling services? Hon.

Charlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services): I would remind the Mem ber that we are in Estimates. We could discuss it at that point. I would also remind the Mem ber that when I came into office the per diems for those shelters -a nd part of the per diem is used with counselling services, Mr. Speaker -tho se per diems were except ionally low and have been raised considerably since we took office, somewhere, at first from $13 to $35 and now to $45 .00. Pay Equity Health Care Profession Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister responsible for Labour and Status of Women (Mr s. Hammond).

Her colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), has in the past shown no interest in impl ementing pay equity in the health care sector. Now the Ma nitoba Labou r Board has just come out with a most disappointing decision which suppo rts the Government's position that health care workers are entitled to only 75 percent of pay equity and that it is okay to discriminate by 25 percent.- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns. Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis: My question to the Minis ter responsi ble for the Status of Women is: what steps is she taking now to see that this situation is dealt with once and for all so women get their rightful justice and so health care workers finally get pay equity? Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Sp eaker- 4192

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Sp eaker: Orde r. Order ple ase. I am sure Honourable Mem bers will want to give their cou rtesy to the Minister to respond. The Honourable Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Mrs . Hammond: Mr. Sp eaker , the Labour Board brought down a ruling based on the legislation, and that the former Government brought in, which capped at 1 percent per year. That was the Labour Board decision. That was part of the legislation, and it was a natural conclusion that they have come to because of the legislation. Mr.

Sp eaker: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns, with her suppl ementary question. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker , that is an excuse and a very weak excuse. It certainly does not do anything in terms of dealing with the wage gap in our � society today. The Minister knows the Act is about I' achieving full pay equity within a reasonable amount of time.

My question to her is, does this Min ister, since she is responsible for the Status of Women and talks about equality for women , does this Minister accept that pay equity is closing 100 percent of the gap or not, or is she going to let this dangerous precedent stay on the books and be appl ied in her own Government and by emplo yers across the board? * (14 10) Mn. Hammond: If this Mem ber had been so interested in pay equity, I do not imagine there would have been a cap of 1 percent put on that legislation, nor would there have been a chance to appeal to the Labour Board .

I would suggest that she migh t look to her own record . We are following the letter of the law. Certainly we want equality for women, and they can do that through their negotiations. Mr. Sp eaker: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns, with her final supp lementary question. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speak er, I am not going to get into that silly argument, because the Minister knows the spirit- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I have recognized the Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns for her final sup plementary question. Question, please. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Honourabl e Mem ber for St. Johns has the floor. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. Given that the Minister knows full well the spirit of the law is to bring in full pay equity in a reasonabl e amount of time, I simply want to know from her, what is she doing to ensure that women in the health care field are not treated as third class citizens and are able to get the gap closed, which averages 96 cents an hour after four years? Wha t is she doing to ensure that reasonable amount, that small amount of 96 cents an hour is ach ieved after four years? Mrs.

Hammond: The legislation was followed. There was a cap put on of 1 percent per year. The money is there, ready to be flowed, and the nurses will be paid. VI A Rail Cutbacks Manitoba Statistics Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Minister of Labour): I am wondering, Mr. Spe aker, while I am up, if I might answer a question that I took as notice to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr s. Carstairs). Mr. Sp eaker: The Honourable Min ister then, respond. Mrs. Hammond: Thank you . The Leader of the Opposition had aske<1 about VIA Rail layoffs.

VIA Rail, as of the 8th, the day that the Mem ber asked the question, there are up to 225 positions that will be lost in Manitoba in 1990. The actual numb er of individuals to lose positions is still unk nown at this time due to situations such as early retirement provisions within the collective agreement, such as the bumping process and filling of vacant positions with VIA empl oyees.

The labour adjustment unit in the province and the industrial adjustment service, which is federal, have been in ongoing contact with Al Cerilli, who is Regional Vice- Pre sident, Canad ian Br otherhood of Rai lway Transport and General Workers, representing the union, and Paul Newsome, Director of Hu man Resources. To date, both union and management have indicated a comm ittee is premature su bject to VIA's internal mechanism of adjustments, sup port and placement. VIA has commit ted to a comm ittee and it has been monitored biweekly since the fal l. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expi red.

SPEAKER'S RULING Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. On October 4, 1989, I took under advisement alleged contem pts· of the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Dev elopment as repor ted to the Ho use by th at comm ittee. I hope Honourable Mem bers will bear with me since this is a long ruling. As in my earlier ruling on this ma tter, exten sive research and consultation were required. I believe that this is a most serious matter and that Honourable Mem bers, therefore, would want it dealt with in a serious and careful manner.

As Mem bers will recall, these ch arges relate to the following events, which occu rred at a meeting of that comm ittee on May 1, 1989: the departure from the comm ittee meeting in the early morning of May 2 of the Honour able Minister 4193

Wednesday, Jan uary 10, 1990 of Finance (Mr. Manness) im mediately following the defeat of an ad journ ment motion which he had moved; the departure, at the same time as the Honourable Minis ter, of all other Honour able Go vernment Mem bers of the comm itte e excl uding the Cha irperson; and the subsequent departure, a short time later, of the Chai rperson, having recessed the comm ittee. I listened with care to the advice provided by Honour able Mem bers at the time the report was presented, and I thank them for their input.

I have reviewed the report of the Standing Comm ittee am:!' the advice given to me together with relevant precedents and references in the various parli amentary author ities to which we refer in such matters. Before dealing with the specific charges identified at the beginning of this ruling, I bel ieve it would be helpful to the Hou se if I were to define what constitutes contempt of a Leg islature or Parliament.

May's "Parliamentary Practice" provides the following information: "It may be stated generally that any act or omi ssion which ob structs or im pedes any Mem ber or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as contem pt. " Speaker Brand of the United Kingdom House of Commons defined it more sim ply in 1877 when he ruled that: "This House is perfectly well aware that any Mem ber willfully and persistently ob structing pu blic busine ss, without just and reasonable cause, is gui lty of a contempt of this House." Sir W.

R. Anson in "Law and Customs of the Constitution" includes interference with the procedures of the House in a sum mary of Acts constituting breaches of privilege. The terms "contempt" and "privilege" have been used by Honou rable Mem bers somewhat interchangeably in connection with this matter which may have caused confusion or misunderstanding.

Any such difficulty may be clarified by the following extract from Laundy and Wildi ngs "Enc yc lopedia of Parliament '': "Certain other offenses against the authority and dignity of Parliament, whi lst not breaches of specific privileges, are also punishable and are more correctly called contempts.

It has become the custom, however, to refer to all such offenses as breaches of privilege." A final important quote which may be of assistance in fully understanding this comp lex matter is found in Beauchesne's (4th edition) Citation 108( 1): "Anything which may be considered a contempt of Court by a tribunal, is a breach of privilege if perpetrated against Parliament, such as willful disobed ience to, or open disrespect of, the valid rules, orders or proc ess, or the dignity and authori ty of the House, whether by disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent langua ge, or behaviour , or other disturbing conduct, or by a mere failure to obey its orders." At the beginning of this ruling, I indicated that the charges contained in the comm ittee's report could be divided into three separate parts, those which relate to: (

a) the Min ister of Finance; {

b) the Government Mem bers of the comm ittee; and (

c) the Chairp erson of the comm ittee. I will now deal with each of these charges. The departure of the Honour able Minister of Finance from the meeting would not have resulted in the loss of a quorum and would not therefore have prevented � the comm ittee from continuing to meet. However, the Honour able Minister's absence from the comm ittee did make it impossi ble for comm ittee Mem bers to continue to obtain answers to their questions respecting the matters before it.

Con sequently , the Ho nourable Min ister's departure from the comm ittee meeting did inter fere with the comm itte e's abil ity to con tinu e consideration of the matter before it and did contribu te to preventing the com mittee from comple ting the task it was addressing. *

(1420) The depar tur e of the Ho nourable Go ver nment Mem bers of the comm ittee, other than the Honourable Min ister and the Chai rperson, from the meeting did not result in the loss of the quorum. The meeting could have been continued in their absence. Their departure did not, in my view, in any way interfere with or impede the comm ittee's abi lity to carry out its assigned task.

The report of the comm ittee advised this House that .4 the Chairp erson recessed the comm ittee and left. , Accord ing to the procedu res by which the comm ittees of this House operate, the presence of the Chairperson, where that position is not vacant, is necessary for a meeting to be properly constituted and for it to carry out its as signed business. Simila rly, an election of a Chai rperson may only be held when the position is vacant or the Chairp erson is prevented from carrying out his or her responsi bilities by, for exam ple, serious illness.

As Honourable Mem bers know, in this Assembly commit tee meetings are called by the Government House Leader and, when recessed, are reconvened by the Chairperson. The Chairperson recessed the meeting, remai ned in the position of Chai rperson, and did not reconvene the mee ting. Ba sed on the comm itte e procedu res and practices which I have just outlined, it appears that the actions of the Chai rperson imp eded the commit tee's efforts to comp lete its task and interfered with its abili ty to do so. In his remarks on October 4, the Honou rable Government Ho use Leader (Mr . Mc crae) raised a 4194

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 numb er of concerns about this matter. In doing so, he referred to a numb er of citations in Beauchesne's and to rulings of Sp eakers Jerome and Lamoureux of the House of Commons. I have had the se references reviewed to determine their applicabil ity in this case. The authorit ies cited primarily addressed matters of order rather than privilege. In a matter such as this, it is impor tant to distingu ish between order and privilege. Privilege can only be dealt with by the House. Comm ittees have no power to deal with it.

On the other hand, questions of order are settled in the comm ittee. Maingo t, on page 189, describes the correct process for dealing with an al leged matter of privilege or contempt arising in a commit tee as follows: "While the Sp eaker may find that a prima facie case of privilege exists and gives the matter precedence, it is the House alone that decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has occurred, for only the House has the power to commit or punish for contempt. "Accordingly, a comm ittee may not commit a person for contem pt or a breach of privilege.

Nevertheless it may report to the House that in its opinion a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred and ask the House to take action.

Therefore, while the Chairman cannot entertain questions of privilege in the sense that he is not com petent to rule on whether a prima facie case has occurred, as the Sp eaker ma y do, the Chairman of a comm ittee may entertain a motion tha t cer tain eve nts tha t occurred in the commit tee may constitute a breach of privilege or contempt and that the matter be reported to the House." The words of the report of the Standing Comm ittee indicated that the following motion was adopted by the comm ittee:

(1) THAT the events which occurred during, subsequent to, and related to the May 1, 1989, meeting of the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development be referred to the Sta nding Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections; and

(2) THAT this comm ittee strongly urge that the Sta nding Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections be instructed to meet within 10 days of the acceptance of this motion and as frequently thereafter as the comm ittee may decide, in order to review the matter and to report to the House as soon as possible. Because the is sues in this ma tter are so very important, I knew the Honourable Mem bers would want me to be certain of all the relevant facts. I therefore asked the Clerk to un der take a review of the proceedings of the comm ittee when this matter was considered before it.

That review indicated that in the commit tee a motion to report this matter to the Hous e was entertained and adopted. The comm ittee also prop osed to incorp orate in the report the following motion: 4195

(1) The events whic h occu rred during, subsequent to and related to the May 1, 1989 mee ting of the Sta nding Commi tte e of Economic Develop ment be referred to the Stand ing Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections.

(2) The Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections be instructed to meet within 10 days of the acceptance of this motion and as frequently thereafter as the comm ittee may decide in order to review the matter and report to the House as soon as possible. A subs equent amendment in the commi ttee inserted, at the beginning of

Part 2, the words "this comm ittee strongly urge that" after which the motion to report the matter was adopted. The objective of the comm ittee clearly was to have this matter referred by the House to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections. The very broad mandate, which the report proposed be given to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections does concern me. This mandate could permit the comm ittee to review any matters, which it felt were in any way related, no,ma tter how remotely, to the May 1 meeting of the Standing Comm ittee.

To my knowledge, there have been no previous cases in Manitoba of matters of privilege in a commit tee being dealt with by the House on receipt of a report Consequently, House of Commons practice was reviewed with respect to the type of mandates given to their Privileges and Elections Commit tee. This research indicated that a simila rly broad mandate usually has been given to the comm ittee to which such matters have been referred.

The information placed before the House has failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt with respect to the activities of the Honour able Go vern ment Mem bers attending the May 1 meeting of the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development excluding the Honourable Minister of Finance and the comm ittee Chai rperson. With respect to the behaviour of these Honourable Mem bers, the House may have just grounds for complaint, but the conditions of contempt have not been satisfied. With respect to the actions of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) and the former Chairperson of the commit tee, the Honour able Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshamme r), the information provided has established, on the basis of the

definitions of contempt cited earlier in this ruling, a prima facie case of contempt or privilege. I am therefore ruling that the matter is in order as a matter of privilege with respect to the actions of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the former Chairperson of the Standing Comm ittee, the Honour able Mem ber for Minnedosa.

Having said that, I must emp hasize to the House and to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections, in the event that the matter is referred to that comm ittee that I have been satisfied that a prima facie case exists only with respect to the actions of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Honourable Mem ber for Min nedosa (Mr . Gillesh ammer ), and therefore debate in this House and in the commit tee should be restricted to consideration of the actions of those Honourable Mem bers.

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 A word about the process is also necessary at this time. The function of the Stand ing Commit tee on Privileges and Elections, if the House refers the matter to it, will be to exam ine the events which occurr ed at the May 1 meeting of the Sta nding Comm ittee on Eco nomic Development to the extent that they concern the alleged contempt by the Honour able Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gillesham mer).

Having exami ned these events the comm ittee would report to the House whether or no t in its opinion a contempt of the comm ittee did occur. The comm ittee's report may include such recom mendations as it considers appropr iate. Before concl uding I wish to urge very strongly that in fut ur e any Hono ur able Mem bers preparing to introduce complex or unusual matters into the House seek the advice of the Clerk and other Table officers.

As I stated earlier, we have no Manitoba precedents to guide us in this exact situation, and therefore I will follow House of Commons practice and will accept a motion without notice, duly seconded, stating: THAT the all eged matter of contempt reported to this House on October 4 by the Standing Commit tee on Ec onomic Devel opment be referred to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report. The Honour able Mem ber for Wolseley. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Sp eaker, I would move, seconded by the Mem ber for St. Nor bert (Mr.

Angus ), that the alleged matter of contempt reported to this House on October 4 by the Stand ing Comm ittee on Economic Development be referred to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report. I would like to speak to that motion. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. It has been moved by the Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor), seconded by the Honour able Mem ber for St. Norb ert (Mr.

Angus), that the alleged matter of contempt reported to this House on October 4, 1989, by the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Develop ment be referred to the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report. The Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley. Mr. Taylor: It has taken us many months to arrive at this point where the Cham ber is dealing with a matter of privilege as outli ned by your response to our report on October 4.

It is unfortunate this precedent has to be set in the House, because as you mentioned in your ruling there is not a precedent yet in Ma nitoba on a matter of this nature. As a result the research by yourself and the Clerk's staff depended upon, to a large extent, the precedents and the experienc es of the Canadian House of Commons. *

(1430) The matter of privilege is one of the most serious matters that can be brought before a House and a Sp eaker, because it affects how Mem bers are able to conduct them selves in the work that they were elected to do. We have, with what took place on May 1, the meeting of the Ec onomic Devel opment Comm ittee, an unfortunate situation which saw Government Mem bers leave their benche s . We saw a pr eced ent set, unheralded in the annals of the parliamentary system in the Common wealth. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) by his leaving the commit tee effectively shackled that comm ittee and perm itted it to carry out no further work. His presence was absolut ely required in order to carry out the work of that commit tee, the work of that commi ttee being the questioning of the Minister on matters very important to this province. That is not saying that there was not some work that was done that was fruitful that evening; there was.

It was only last evening that I mentioned the same to the Minister of Finance in private conversation with him. � The consulting engineer who was brought in from Vancouver to deal with us and to explain processes that might be expected in that meeting I think were very beneficial. It is un fortunate, Mr. Sp eaker, that there is a series of catcalls that have come from a numb er of the Ministers of the Government on this ma tter. It shows again their lack of concern on this sort of thing and their lack of respect when a matter of this nature comes forward to the Legislature.

I hope we will not have any more of that this afternoon, because should there be I intend to put their names into the record. The matter of the Mi nister not being flexible in offering alternative times and the Min ister not being prepared to sit later that ev ening to continue the questioning, which was the offer, both those options were offered to the Minister and to his colleagues at the comm ittee. That was not accept able.

Instead, what we were going to do, we were going to see the Government Mem bers walk out, th ereb y hams tringing the work of th at � comm ittee. � The comm ittee was dealing with, or attempting to deal with I should say, probably the most significant business deal that this provi nce has seen and is li kely to see for some time to come. I am talking about the sale of the Crown-owned Manfor Corporation located in The Pas to Repap of Montreal. There is real potential for benefit out of this deal.

There is real potential for problems from a business viewpoint, and there is potential for real problems of cou rse in the environment as well. This deal went on to become the subject of environmental hearings by the Clean Environment Comm ission, unfor tuna te hearings that were of a split or separated and non compr ehensive nature. Mem bers oppo site, particula rly those on the front bench, have mentioned how they are prepared to sit evenings to deal with this matter or that and in particular the matter of the new Mu nicipal Assessment Act before the Legislature right now, Bill No. 79. 4196

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 That same resolve was quite obviously not there on the night of May 1 when this so very imp ortant matter needed to be aired and which there was the opportun ity, and I might say the first opportun ity in some month and a half last spring to be able to deal with it. We also have the very interesting circu mstance, Mr. Sp eaker, where other Government Mem bers, including front bench Mem bers, walked out as well, and the appearance was that unfortu nately of a bunch of silly school bo ys off to do some pr ank.

That is the ap pearance tha t it gave, and tha t is unfor tuna te, because when dealing with serious matters of concern of this province, we should not be giving that sort of an appearance, but that is exactly what it looked like when the little troop walked out. Then unfortunately some minutes later so did the Chai rperson. Now the Sp eaker poi nts out in his ruling today that by the Minister walking out he did not contribute to the loss of the quorum. What the Minister did though was cont emptuous, because he walked out and m. therefore the comm ittee could not continue its work. , That is very significant.

He then goes on to say that the other Government Mem bers that walked out also in themselves did not contribute to the loss of quorum. That is quite correct. But we did lose their presence and we did lose their contribution. I think that is sorry. I think there is reason for there to be certain num bers of Mem bers on a comm ittee, and in this province the committee structure is normally 11 Mem bers. I think anytime there is a walkout by any Party, it weakens the capability of any comm ittee. Certainly when we see three other Mem bers walk out following the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), the comm ittee is weakened and the quality of its work is not likely to be better. I think the 11 are put there for good reason, and we need to keep the numb ers up as much as possible. The most significant point though brought out by the Speaker in his finding tod ay, is the role of the � Chairp erson, the Honour able Memb er for Minnedosa , (Mr. Gilleshammer). The role played by that Memb er on the evening of May 1 and in the subs equent days is one I tell you that was nothing short of convoluted and hidden and lack ing in candor and lack ing in com mun ication and denial of real fact.

The problem was, I think the Memb er was comple tely unnerved by the walkout that did occur of his own Party Mem bers. The hour was late and people were tired, and maybe he did not respond the best as could be expected bearing those facts in mind. The fact of the matter is that points were brought to the Mem ber for Min ned osa by the remaining Mem bers of the comm ittee as to their views of what had just transpired and their views on how it migh t be dealt with.

Ma ny suggestions were put forward such as getting in additional clerical staff to help in evaluating how to respond to the matter, in dealing with the fact that we really did need the presence of the Honourable Mem ber for Morris (Mr. Manness) to be able to ask the questions. How were we to get him back successfu lly so that we might continue for a few more hours and properly deal with the matter at hand, a matter that was about to be dealt with within days. I am referring to the inking of the contract between the Province of Manitoba and Repap. This was a deal about to happen .

New information had been brought for ward through sou rces in the Un ited States, specifically the American Securities Comm ission located in Washington D.C. Those matters we were getting into, and we were getting some information, albeit reluctantly, very, very reluctantly . At ti mes, the Minis ter of Fina nce (Mr . Manness) would say, well, I cannot really give you this informa tion.

Of cou rse, then we would bring out information that we had, which was a publi c document in the Ame rican ju risdiction but of course could not be shared with the people of Manitoba or their ML As because they were not capable of handling this confidential material. What they were going to do with it that was going to be so dastardly or so wrong, I am not sure, but that was the message that was quite distinct that evening. That was a very unf ortunate message.

It says, we will comply with Americ an regu lations because there is an Amer ican ownership aspect of the Repap firm, and we will of cou rse di sclose to the Am erican authorit ies that which is required by them for their processing, but we will not share that same information that is in the public domain in the United States in their capital, but it will not be shared in Manitoba's capital. I guess the Opposition Mem bers in that comm ittee had a lot of trouble in dealing with that. At times, the questioning was intense. It did get hot. Tempers flared at times.

It led to fatigue, no doubt, but it did not lead to the excuse that was given as: I am tired, these questions are not producing anything, the questions I deem all to be repetitive and having been asked before, and you have as much information as I am prepared to give you. Good evening. That walkout, Mr. Sp eaker, was repetitive of things that had come up earlier before other commi ttees in the preceding two months in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) had to be formally requested to attend meetings of commit tee, to the emba rrassment of the Minister of Industry (Mr.

Ernst) who could not seem to get his colleague to come to the meetings. Finally by motion the commit tee requested the Minister of Finance to appear at earlier meetings. The walkout on May 1 was a third exam ple of the same thing in a two- month period . It is unfortunate that sort of thing had to go on the first time, let alone cause the upset and the very bad precedent that it did on May 1. That was the culmi nation; that is how it came to. When annual reports of Manfor were brought forward by the Memb er for Charleswood (Mr.

Ernst), it was appropria te that we deal with those matters as it related to previous years and deal with what was about to hap pen as well. Why could the Minister of Finance not lend himself to be at those mee tings and create an 4197

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 atmosph ere of candour, of confidence and certainly one not of arrogance? That was not to be; it was the latter impr ession and image that was created. I think that is a sad day for this Leg islature and certainly for that comm ittee. I think we can expect more from that Mem ber. I have always thought we could. *

(1440) HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James McC rae (Government House Leader): Mr. Sp eaker, I rise on a matter of House busi ness very briefly. I do not like to interrupt the Honourable Mem ber, but I think it needs to be done in this case. With the leave of the House, I would announce tha t the Standing Comm ittee on Mun icipal Affairs will sit this afternoon at 3: 15 p.m. in Room 255 to continue consideration of Bill 79. Mr. Speaker: Is th ere leave? Mr. Mccr ae: If there are any commit tee cha nges required, I would urge the Whip s at this point to make those changes. COMMIT TEE CHANG E Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr.

Sp eaker, I move, seco nded by the Mem ber for Min ned osa (Mr . Gil leshammer), that the composition of the Standing Commit tee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Connery for Manness. An Honourable Member: Is there leave? Mr. Speaker: There was leave. Agreed? (Ag reed) The Mem ber for Wolseley. ***** Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker, I will continue. I mentioned a moment ago about the unfortunate performa nce by the Honour able Memb er for Minnedosa (Mr. Gillesham mer).

He was at the head of the comm ittee room, and all the Mem bers were there remaining, the two Mem bers from the New Democra tic Party and the four from the Liberal Party, and - (interjection)- Mr. Sp eaker, I am going to ask that you request the Memb er for Pem bina , the Min ister of Health (Mr . Orchard), to kindly keep his asides to hims elf. Th is is a serious matter, and if he does not ch oose to listen properly, and he continues to make asides, I am going to start making those comments into the record. It is outrageous, the sort of thing tha t is going on over here.

I am aware the Speaker cannot hear those comments, but I am making note to him now formally that there is a problem. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honour able Mem ber for Wolseley. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Sp eaker, the Minister of Health refers to Disneyland. Well, I do not know if maybe he is living in Fantasyland, but you know, we are showing the true char acter of the front bench here, and this is really unfortunate. This is the true character of the front bench, and it is un fortu nate the Member for Tuxedo, the First Min ister (Mr.

Filmon), does not rein in his people better and teach them a little decorum. POINT OF ORDER Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norb ert, on a point of order. Mr. John Angus (St . Norbert): The Attorney General (Mr. McC rae) from his seat has pointed his finger at me, named me and mentioned-I am sure that Hansard pick ed it up- that this is a burning Li beral issue. I wish to bring to your attention, Sir, that this is your reciting of the facts that hap pened . We are simply standing up using the due cou rse that is available to us to bring to the attention of the Government Mem bers your issues, your

interpretation of the facts of those days. � Mr. Sp eaker, would you please ask these individua ls to pay attention to your instructions? Mr. Sp eaker: Ord er, ple ase. Th e Honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. James McCr ae (Government House Leader): The Honourable Mem ber refers to he and his colleagues simpl y putting their case, and that is the key word. The key word is "simp ly" which sets out very clearly the whole platform of the Liberal Party which is a very simple one indeed. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

On the point of order raised by the Honourable Mem ber for St. Nor bert (Mr. Angus), he is quite correct, and I have asked in the ruling that Honour able Mem bers keep their comments relevant to the act ions of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer). The Honour able Mem ber for St. Vital, I would ask you to withd raw you r com ments. Th e Honou rable Mem ber for St. Vital. Mr. Bob Rose (St . Vital): Thank you , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: I have recog nized the Honour able Memb er for St. Vital to withd raw his remarks. Mr. Rose: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker . I will make an unqualified withd rawal of any remarks I made. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honour able Mem ber for St. Vital. ***** (Mr. Neil Gaud ry, Acting Speaker , in the Chair) Mr. Taylor: Maybe we can get on now with this discussion. We are talking here about whether Mem bers 4198

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 have respect for this House and the traditions upon which it is built and how it is expected to ope rate or not. The discou rse off the Government benches will indicate their true feelings and beliefs on that matter and they will speak for thems elves. Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I wish to further address the matters of the conduct of the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) as Chairp erson of the Commit tee on Economic Development.

The Sp eaker has found that the Member's performance was not acceptable and there is a prima facie case for reference of that conduct to the Commit tee on Elections and Privileges. I think we on this side of the House feel vindicated by tha t finding after very, very thorough researc h. I complim ent the Sp eaker for having conduc ted it as tho roughly and sincerely as he has done. The Chair of any Standing Comm ittee of this Cham ber is a key element.

The comm ittee, unless there is some extremely exceptional circumstances, such as, death, very serious illness, et cetera, has to assume that Chair is still filled when there has not been a resignation and there has been no substitution done by the House Leader. What we have here is we have a comm ittee Chai rperson who refused to carry out, whether on his own cognizance or whether others led him to, those acts, subs equently, I do not know. I am sure that will be one of the matters for discussion when this does ap pear before the Commit tee on Elec tions and Privileges. *

(1450) My hope would be that will be as soon as possi ble, that the Mem ber for Brandon West, the Government House Leader (Mr.

Mcc rae), will call together that Comm ittee on Elections and Privi leges as soon as practically possible so that it might deal with, yes, what is a very, very serious matter, contrary to what certain Mem bers of the front bench opposite ha ve sa id, because the Mem ber for Min nedosa, as Chair, left the room, did not seek further advice as we said he should and as the normal practice of Chairs of Standing Commit tees of this House when they recess, and he chose in fact, not only chose but refused to come back and Chair that comm ittee.

He totally hams trung the commit tee and in so doing was in contempt of this Legislature, and in so doing offended the privileges of the Mem bers of this Legislature in that they were not able to carry out their duly elected duties. That is no laughing matter. That is not a matter to be referred to as a "Disneyland issue" by the Health Minister (Mr. Orchard) and echoed by the Government House Leader, our own Justice Minister (Mr. Mc c rae). That is a matter that is very serious. That is a matter that is so germane it talks about what are Leg islatures in a parliamentary democracy for. Wha t were they set up for?

To carry out the democr atic will of the people of this province and of whatever ju risdiction they happen to be in. I do not take this matter ligh tly. Neither did the Mem ber for Selkirk (M rs. Char les), the Mem ber for St. Norbert (Mr . Angus), the Mem ber for St. Vital (Mr. Rose), the Mem ber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I believe it was the Mem ber for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) who was the other Mem ber. Those six Mem bers took this matter very seriously. Quite frankly, we did not know what to do in a context like that. Not surprisingl y it ha s never hap pened before in this Leg islature.

In fact, it would appear it ha s never hap pened before in the British Comm onwealth. The very unfortunate precedent that was set cannot be left to lie without challenge and without remedy, and that is what my motion, seconded by the Member for St. Norb ert (Mr. Angus), is all about this afternoon. This was brought forward I migh t mention in spring, not too long after this unfortunate event, by the Member for St. Norb ert. His motion however was not accepted because of the way it was presented. Our Speaker said: that not withstanding the techn ical problem and how the Mem ber for St.

Nor bert presented his material, and it unf ortuna tely was techn ical ly una ccep table the manner in which he presented it, the matter was very serious. The Speaker said: and this does not preclude it being brought up again in another fashion. We took him at his word and he was as good as his word. We brought it up at the next sitting as the first item of business when finally the Government House Leader (Mr .

McC rae) allo wed the Com mit tee on Economic Development to sit again after the House was called together this fall and that report of that commit tee, which was its first item of business, was presented on the 4th of October. It was at that time that I put my initial motion, the motion that was contained in the report from that comm ittee, sayi ng tha t this ma tter was one tha t contained matters of contempt and breach of privilege and therefore should be referred to the Com mittee on Elections and Privile ges as soon as possible.

It had other provisos about when the comm ittee should be called and how it should be responded to, et cetera. The motion today does not contain those expectations. Our sincere hope is, however, that we will see it dealt with in an exped itious, thorough and sincere fashion. I am sure the Mem bers from all three Parties who will be selected, Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, to sit on that Comm ittee of Elections and Privileges, a comm ittee I might add that rarely sits in this Legislature, rarely has to sit, will as well take the matter as seriously as we do on this side of the House and will delve into this matter and look for the reasons why this took place and look for ways that this might be avoided in the futu re, and what remedies are in order, given what has taken place. The interesting situation was that we had a comm ittee that still had quorum. Six out of 11 is a quorum; we had six.

We also had the situation, however, that the main person that we wanted to speak to, also a Mem ber of the comm ittee, would not make hims elf available. Therefore the real work of the commit tee could not take place. I refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Man ness). Then we had the situation where the commi ttee, having recessed for a very short time, the comment made to the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) just before he left the commit tee room was, if you do 4199

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 not think you can get your answer in the next short while from the Clerk's staff on how to deal with this, then the last resort is that we will reconvene the following morning. The comm ittee room was prepared , the Opposition Mem bers were there, the press was there, and the Clerk 's staff was ready, but lo and behold, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, we did not have a Chai rperson. Not because a Chai rperson could not have been available; that was because he would not make himself available, or he was told not to make himself available. I do not know what the truth is.

We hop e the truth will come out of the findings of the Comm ittee on Elections and Privileges, and that will be out on the table. We expect to see the statement there as to why there was a deliberate choosing not to attend a duly constituted commit tee em powered by this Cham ber. That I think is going to make for an interesting telling and an interesting reading in the newspapers across this province and potentially elsewhere in Canada as well. I do not think we ever want to see the situation again where Government shack les the operations of any Leg islature, and tha t is exactly what happ ened.

That is the reason why this is so deadly serious, because if Go ve rnment is allo wed to do walkouts and to contemptuously impo se its will on duly constituted em powered comm ittees of any Leg islature, then what has hap pened to the democratic process? It is not there anymore. It ceases to exist, because a small cadre of irresponsible people early in the morning can say, we are wal king out, it will not function anymore, it will not function again until we see fit to come back, if we see fit to come back . That is exactly what happened on May 1.

I for one I know that my col leagues on this side and I assume my colle agues in the next Party say that we will not let that happen. It is not going to happen and it is not going to be dealt with by lying over and playing dead. We are going to make one heck of a lot of noise about it, because it is grossly contem ptuous of this Cham ber and of the people of Manitoba who elected the Mem bers to it. We had this situation go on for days. It was not Disneyland, as was suggested by a couple of Mem bers oppo site. It was a little more like Alice Through the Look ing Glass.

The unreality of the situation where we have a Government House Leader who many allege instructed the Chair of that com mittee not to appear. If that was the case, then I would sugge st that is also going to be meat for the Comm ittee on Elections and Privileges. I think if that is the case that would be nothing short of despicable. *

(1500) We will find out what the motivation was by the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gil leshammer) in choosing not to carry out his role. I think it quite frankly has a bearing on his abil ity to later conduct other meetings as Chair, and I am sure that also will be considered by the commit tee. I have said a numb er of times in this Cham ber and other commi ttee meetings in public and in private that I have a lot of probl ems with the comm ittee structure of this House because it is old and antiquated, and it is.

It has not been reformed for 30 or 40 years, contrary to the experience in other parliamen tary Legislatures around the world including our own Parliament. I do not think modern society can be properly governed without a modern comm ittee system in its Leg islature, and that we do not have. We do not have that in Manitoba, but thank goodness we at least had a comm ittee of referral to deal with an awkward, difficult, compl ex issue like the May 1 walkout. The Comm ittee on Elections and Privileges functions on a fairly frequent basis in Ottawa and deals with many matters, but it also has a much larger House.

It also has a mandate on what it is it will deal with. Our comm ittee is rarely called. I do not know if that says that we rarely have problems. I hope that is the case, but I am sure we are all going to do some learning when this matter comes before it. I know many of other comm ittees are not called often, but then again, mo st of them do not have any mandates even stated. It was not a happ y experience to go through the 4 turmoil and the confusion and very much the frustration of that first week of May. It was not -(inter jection)- I hope you are paying attention, Mr. Downey.

The issue before us is that the Government chose not to govern, the Government chose not to participate, the Government cho se not to lead and the Government ch ose to be irresponsible and contemp tuous. I am certain this ma tter came up in the caucus of the Conservative Party. I am sure it came up in Cabi net deliberation that same week on the Wednesday morning when they normally meet. I know for a fact that it was the subject of numerous meetings by the Government House Leader, the Mem ber for Brandon West (Mr. McCr ae).

I will also have to say that on t his matter I am very, very disappoi nted in the lack of House leading that he gave on this ma tter at that time. Mr. Acting Speaker, it cannot be let that Chairpersons of Standing Comm ittees of this Cham ber are allowed to beh ave in that fashion. I think he did a disservice to this Cham ber, he did a disservice to democr acy and he certainly did not set himself as a fine exam ple to � the people of Minnedosa who elected him. Neither did the Min ister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), one of the most senior Mem bers of the Government's front bench, when he performed his little two-step and waltzed out of the room at two in the morning saying, I have had enough, and he contemptuously talked of the nature of the Mem bers of the comm ittee and their questions and the issue. I am saying that is not an acceptable way to beh ave. This Cham ber and the people of Manitoba demand something better. I look forward to seeing the results of the deliberations of the Commit tee on Elections and Privileges. I look forward to the bringing of its report back to this House.

I also look forward to par ticipating in that matter, because I and the other Mem bers who were on the comm ittee that night fully expect to be called to that comm ittee to testify as to what actually transpired. Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, for this opp ortunity to speak on such a serious matter. 4200

Wednesday, Jan uary 10, 1990 Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Speaker, I thank you very much for recognizing me. I want to indicate to Mem bers of the House I will not be speak ing from a prepared text. I did not, in any way, prejudge that there might be a motion com ing today, or indeed anytime, that may cause an opportunity for Mem bers of this House to be able to debate this matter in this way.

Firstly, let me indicate I regret withd rawing from the comm ittee at appro xima tely 2:15 a.m. on the morning of May 2, approxima tely six hour s before beginning final negotiations with respect to the Ma nfor sale purchase agreement. I will say more on this in a few moments. I regret that action. Nevertheless, I regret even mor e leaving all Mem bers of the comm ittee that particular evening. I will explain again in a few moments why. I particu larly regret leaving the Chair of the commi ttee, the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr.

Gilleshammer), in a most untenable position, comple tely innocent as he was at that particula r moment. In my view he was thrust into a situation in which there was no precedent. I guess I could say it could only happen in a mino rity Government. Nevertheless, my sincere apologies to him. In a sense I feel responsible for what has transpi red thereafter.

Nevertheless, I stand today to comp letely defend my actions and to lay out for those Mem bers, indeed for those who want to take interest in this whole issue, some of the circums tances surrounding that evening, because, of cou rse, although the Sp eaker and his staff have to rightfully judge on the information that is there they have to rightfully judge on the procedu res and the way each and every one of us conduc ted ourselves. There are other circums tances which have to be taken into account, and I will la y those on the record in defence of my actions that evening. Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, I have just heard one of the most sanctimonious presentations by a Mem ber of this House that I have heard for some period of time. The Mem ber for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) says that we were school boys as if we were off to do some serious prank. Then he talks about the arrogance of Mem bers op posite. Mr. Acting Spe aker, let me set for the record the scene tha t evening. Why was I there? Why was I in that comm ittee at 2:15 a.m.? Was that comm ittee there dealing with the divestiture of Ma nfor? It was not, because it has no power to deal with the divestiture of Manfor.

That comm ittee was there to deal with the Annual Report of Manfor -(in terjection)- 1987, I believe. That was the pu rpose of that meeting. Why was I, as the Minister of Finance, responsible for the negotiations around the divestiture of Manfor? Why was I in that comm ittee room at 2:15 a. m.? I was there because this Go vern ment made a conscious decision to sh are information surrou nding that divestiture with Mem bers of the Opposition. Never in the history of a corpor ate -(i nterjection)- * (15 10) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please. Mr.

Manness: -s ale purcha se ag reement, had a Go ve rnment laid before the pe ople, indeed as 4201 representatives, a sale purcha se agreement that had not even been finalized. Never had that been done. Yet, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I was there to do that, to try and provide greater detail surrou nding that agreement. Was that the first meeting that I was there? Well, as a matter of fact, it was not. I was · there March 23. I was also at that comm ittee Ma rch 28. That is part of the record.

People that want to go into the First Session of the Thi rty- Fourth Legislature, and go into a report on the Standing Commi ttees will see that. That is documented; that is part of history. What did I say at the 28th's meeting when the Memb er for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) chastised the presentation in some respects that was com ing forward particu larly from Mr. Brandson indeed from Mr. Rannard to some degree, because it was too techn ical?

I promis ed him and I promis ed all mem bers of that comm ittee that I wou ld un dertake to ha ve for them a layman 's presentation as to the new process, which was to be developed by Repap. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we turned to Mr. Ross Lewis, part of the Stothert Engineering group out of Vancouver, and we asked that individual to come in to that meeting. ' Who was responsible for calling that meeting on May 1? Who app roached the Leader of the Li berals (Mrs. Carstairs)? Who app roached the ML A for Flin Flon (Mr.

Storie) to try and desperately have this May 1 meeting before a final agreement was reached with Repap? Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I was that person, because I had remem bered the commi tment I had made to the committee, and because we wanted to honour that commitment. Now, I missed that meeting. I missed the month of April by one day. Nevertheless, it was held the day after. What hap pened that night, Mr. Acting Sp eaker?

That night started kind of differently right away at eight o'clock, because at that time it was obvious with the atmosph ere in the room, the electricity, and some of the new faces tha t ha d not been to economic development commit tees-a nd I am not talking about Mem bers of the Legislature, I am talking about citizens at large who were at that meeting- that something was up, that there was something big about to happen. The Oppo sition either individually or collectively had a scoop or something, and it did not take us long to find out.

As a matter of fact, it took about two or three minutes when the Mem ber for St. Norb ert (Mr. Angus) rushed in, to tell the world that the Government had in essence, and he did not use this word, I will use it, lied to Ma nitobans because all of a sudden this document which they could not make public was made public in the United States, before the Securities Exchange Comm ittee of the U.S., and therefore that then became the issue. Of course the Mem ber for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) was trying to develop for himself some notoriety. He was as if possessed, because in his view he had me.

POINT OF ORDER The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): On a point of order. Mr. Reg Alcock (Op position House Leader): I can app reciate the discomfort that the Minister of Finance

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 (Mr . Mannss) is feeling right now, but he knows that he should not be imp ugning motiv es to other Mem bers of the House. The Memb er for St. Nor bert (Mr. Angus ) did what he felt was in his manda te as a Mem ber of this House, and for the Minister of Finance to ascribe other rea sons for it is simpl y and clearly unp arliamentary, and I would ask tha t the Min ister withd raw. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): On the same point of order, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I wou ld say that was my opinion as I watched him perform that evening, I considered him possessed .

He may not have been, but that was my opinion. The Actin g Sp eaker (Mr. Gaudry): I thank the Mem bers for their comments and will take it under advisement and review Hansard. ***** An Honourable Member: Mr. Acting Sp eaker, what happ ened the first hour? Mr. Manness: The fi rst hour was in proce dural. As a matter of fact, Mr. Acting Spe aker, Pank ratz, in other words the ML A for La Verendrye, became so upset with the Mem ber for St. Norb ert (Mr. Angus) he alm ost phy sically removed him from the comm ittee room. Let me say, Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, for the first hour this important meeting was to be directed toward a layman's understanding and presentation as to some of the techn ical aspects of the process by which Repap was going to introduce the bleaching process into the Ma nfor plant. Well, let me indicate that the first hour was spent on a sup posed breach of good faith by the Government because of the filing of Repap, under the laws of the United States, of the agreement with the Securities Exchange Comm ittee. That is what started that evening off.

At around eleven o' clock that evening we finally moved-or 10:3 0-in to a presentation by Mr. Lewis. I had asked him to be present to provide evidence, to answer the questions. I think his presentation was well accepted . It was well accepted by the comm ittee and certainly was useful. Mr. Act ing Sp eak er, roughly before midni ght, it became apparent that the questioning was taking on a bizarre twist. The questions began to be simi lar and in many respects repetitive to what they had been on Ma rch 23 and Ma rch 28. Around 12:30 it seems to me, the Lib erals were noticeably running out of questions.

It was somewhat difficult for them to continue in their line of questioning, and then of cou rse the third Party started. The third Party again cantered in on lines of questioning tha t had been for the most

part covered earlier or indeed at earlier Sessions. At that time word came to me roughly around 1:30 in the morning, and I cannot rememb er who, that there was a good time in the Liberal Caucus room. Piz za and beer were being served and that there were good times happen ing there. They were now going to sit all night, that they were going fo someho w, by making this comm ittee sit all night and into the next morning and into the next day, prevent us from finalizing the Repap deal. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please. ***** The Acting Sp eaker (Mr.

Gaudry): The Honourable Mem ber for St. Nor bert -( interjection)- order, please. The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert, on a point of order. Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I do have a point of order. The Minister is-w ell, I am sure would not like to leave misi nformation on the record. In prude nce with good planning and good prepara tion, the Li beral Caucus pr epared some sustenance for thems elves, which did not include any alcoholic beverages of any kind. Once again he has if his facts wrong. � The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): A dispute over the facts is not a point of order.

On a point of order, the Honourable Mem ber for Wolseley. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): The Member oppo site in his speech has imputed motive as to the reasons why we wished to continue that meeting. His suggestion was we wished to interrupt him so that he would not be able to comp lete the Manfor deal. We did not have the informa tion that was what he was doing. For him to impu te motive is wrong, and I would like to ask him to withd raw that motion or to seek advisement of the Sp eaker on that. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. ***** Mr.

Manness: Wha t the Mem ber for St. Norbe rt (Mr. Angus ) has fully adm itted was that obviously they had called in food . Wha t they had to drink-I accept his indication that it was not alcoholic in mind. That is not important. I say to you , Mr. Acting Sp eaker, what was impo rtant. to me, as a Mem ber of Executive Council, a person who had to start negotiating the final portions of the deal roughly at 7:3 0 the next morning, which was evidenced to me at that particu lar time was that there was a move afoot to make that comm ittee sit all evening.

I had to make a decision right then and there in my view in the best interests of Ma nitoba. I made that decision on my own. I would be no part of this fac;:ade after I attemp ted to provide virtually all the detail associated with the Manfor-Repap share purchase agreement, all the information that I could at that particular point in time, over three sittings of the comm ittee. Again I reiterate, never in the history of a Government sale of a busi ness had there been such 4202

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 open disclosu re as to some of the basic princi ples and tenets contained within a deal. *

(1520) Mr. Acting Sp eaker, so let me say I will gladly supp ort this mo tion. Let the Comm ittee on Elec tions and Privileges decide my fate in this matter. My conscienc e is clear. I was not indulging in good times in my caucus room as indeed the Liberals were. I, as an Exec utive Councill or, had the future of the province to consider and I would not let the Opposition threaten the bright economic future of this province that cou ld manifest itself as a result in part of this divestiture of Manfor. Agai n, I reiterate what I said at the beginning.

I regret ha vi ng walked out on the comm ittee, but more im portantly than that -( interjection)- well, Mr. Acting Speaker, he says you did not sound like it. If the Memb er wants to read Hansard of May 23, the next sitting of the commit tee, he will see those words, he will see it. Let me say that particularly I regret the pressure that was impo sed on the Chair of that particular comm ittee that evening who really was in an untenable position, and really from my point of view had no opportun ity to make a right decision that particula r evening. Mr.

Acting Speaker , I thank Mem bers opposite for listening to some of the circumstances that surrounded that whole evening and caused me to make the decision that I did. Thank you . Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): I have listened with interest to the comments of the Minister of Finance. I mus t say I thought initially the Minister had indicated his regret. I thought that there was going to be some recognition of the fact that what had happened was wrong, the fact that it was a bad precedent for this Leg islature, the fact that should not happ en again in this Legislature.

I am disappointed that the Minister chose to say he regretted the cir cu mstance s of wha t happ ened in walking out and then spent the next half hour attempting to justify what he did. I believe what he did is not justified. I do not believe a Minister that is before a comm ittee should be walking out of a comm ittee. I might add, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, the Minister and the Mem bers of the comm ittee did this after moving a motion of adj ournm ent which was defeated . The Minister did not include that in his recitation of what happ ened that evening. Mr.

Ac ting Sp eaker , let us look at what the cons equences of wha t happ ened were, the chain reaction. I will say I think it is unfortunate in a way that we are only dealing with the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) action and the Chair of the comm ittee's actions, because I do believe that the Mi nister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) who led the walkout should be the one that should be accou ntable for what happ ened. I also believe that the House Leader (Mr.

McC rae) has to be held accountable, as I assume that what the Mem bers of that comm ittee did was part of an overall strategy by the caucus directed by the House Leader. I assume that was the case, in which case the House Leader should accept ultima te responsibility for what happ ened. 4203 We are not dealing with that, Mr. Acting Sp eaker. We are dealing with the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr . Man ness) joi ned the other Mem bers of that comm ittee and left the comm ittee. They walked out of the commit tee after havi ng mov ed the motion of adjou rnment and having lost it. I will say, Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, that there should be in dealing with this matter-and it is a very serious matter, and I hope the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) would recognize this. If the Minister of Health would care to read the decision of the Speaker, the Sp eaker has said there is clear prima facie evidence of breach of privilege and contem pt. If the Minister of Health would contain himself for a moment, and if he would care to look at what we are dealing with in terms of this motion, this being a matter of privilege, this is a matter that should rarely come up in the House.

It should only come up in the most serious of matters. I believe that is why we are dealing with this today, because it was a serious matter. It would have set a very serious precedent for the Legislature of Manitoba if we had allowed what had happ ened to become a precedent, a procedure that could be followed by other Government- Mem bers, other Ministers and indeed other comm ittee Chairs in other circums tances in the future. Let us look at what hap pened. The Mem bers of the comm ittee on the Government side walked out, and the com mittee was paralyzed .

That is why this is clearly a prima facie case of breach of privilege, because privilege is funda mentally defined, Mr. Acting Speaker, as the whole abil ity of Mem bers of the Legislature and the Legislature as a whole to fulfi ll its obligations and its role. That is what was most fundamentally breached by what happ ened because what happ ened was, the Mem bers of the comm ittee, a quorum of the comm ittee was left in the position where it could not continue the deliberations of the comm ittee. They would not be able to continue the deliberations of the comm ittee.

How more funda mental -( interjection)- well, for the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), how more funda mental breach of a privilege can you have than to be sitting in a comm ittee with a quorum present and be unable to ask questions, first of all of the Minister, or even function because you are without a Chair? Not only that, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, as a Memb er of that comm ittee I ask the Government Members to put them selves in our shoes. We were not even able to elect a replacement because a recess was called.

We could not replace the Chair of the comm ittee because there had been no resignation. We were left in a situation where the commit tee was in limb o. It hap pened. I believe that if the Government had approached this matter proper ly, they could still have corrected the situation the next day. We gave notice that we would be willing to meet with the Chair of the comm ittee, reconstitute the comm ittee, and continue the questions that we had. We gave every opportun ity to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Man ness) to be in attendance.

We went, even as Mem bers of the comm ittee, down to meet with the Gov ernment House Leader (Mr. Mccr ae). The Li beral House Leader (Mr. Alcock) and myself app roached the Government House Leader and urged

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 him to bring that comm ittee back so that we wou ld not be in that situation, but that was not done, Mr. Acting Sp eaker. Wha t we ended up with was a situation where the Opposition Mem bers of the comm ittee felt they had no choic e, no other remedy, other than to report this matter from the comm ittee, which was done on October 4, 1989, and move that the matter be referred to the Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections.

If one reads through the ruling of the Speaker today and I will commend the Speaker for bringing in a ruling that is very detailed, I think it is one that has put a lot of thought into this particular matter-i t is clear that the Speaker has recognized that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege and of contempt. I realize those are very serious charges. I want to say that my concern in this is in terms of the precedent. I find it unfortunate that the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Man ness), who has been in this House as long as I have, was not more forthc oming in terms of his recognition of the error tha t he made. To regret and then attemp t to justify, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, is not an unq ual ified withd rawal in terms of what ha d happened that night. It was not an apology on the behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manne ss) and I think that would have probably gone a long way towards dealing with some of the concerns that the Opposition Members had; an apology from the Min ister of Finance for wha t happ ened. That did not happen.

That is most unfortunate because I think that would have contributed once again towards dealing with this matter. I stated on October 4, when this matter first came before the House in the form of a report from the comm ittee, that one of my concerns was for the precedent. The Minister of Finance walked out of that comm ittee. I believe, as a Mem ber who has been in this House for eight years, he should have known better. Mr. Acting Sp eaker, he should have known better as a Minister of the Crown there to answer questions from Mem bers of the Opposi tion, than to walk out.

That is what we are dealing with in this particular case, a very serious matter. *

(1530) I will say that in terms of the comm ittee Chair, who is a new Mem ber of this House, tha t I perhaps put less weight on what had hap pened. I believe that the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshamm er), if I were in his shoes, Mr. Ac ting Sp eaker , I wou ld cer tainly ha ve been confused about what the Government Mem bers were doing. I certainly would have had some questions to ask when the Minister himself walked out as to what was happ ening. I believe the Mem ber for Minnedosa made an error of judg ment, but I do not believe that he was malicious in intent.

I believe that will be one of the factors we will look at when we get into the Privileges and Elections Comm ittee. The fact that I believe the Mem ber for Minnedosa-1 believe it was an error on his part. Perhaps if he had the opportun ity to go through that commit tee heari ng again he would do so, but I do not believe it was malic ious. I do not seek, through supporting this motion or proposing it along with the Li beral Mem bers back in October, to in any way attempt to persecute, if you like and I use tha t word advis ed ly, the Mem ber for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) for his actions.

I hope that the Mem ber for Minnedosa, when he has the opportunity to participate in debate, will go perhaps further than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in indicating his regret. I would say that would be a very positive move on his part. Regardless of what position the Mem ber for Minnedosa will eventually take on this, I will say for the public record that I believe that in the circu mstances the Mem ber for Minnedosa was faced with that while I would not have done the same, and I do not think what he did was the appropria te thing to do, I do believe that it was in a different situation entirely.

As I said, it is unfortunate, because I would say that both the Min ister of Finance and the Mem ber for Minnedosa are less responsible than the Member that organized the walkout. For any Memb er who was at the commit tee, it was clearly the Minister of No rthern Affairs (Mr. Downey) who organized the walkout, whether it was with or without. He was the first one out of the comm ittee. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please; order, please. Mr. Ashton: They laugh and find great amusement at that, Mr. Acting Speaker. I think that is unfortunate.

It shows once again that they -( interjection)- Well, the Minister of No rthern Affairs (Mr. Downey) considers it a laughing matter. I do not. I believe the Minister of No rthern Affairs should not have organized a walkout from that comm ittee, which he clearly did. He may wear that as a badge of honour. We know that perhaps the Minister of Northern Affairs, despite his length of time in this House, does not alwa ys ha ve the gr eatest concern for the parliamen tary process.

I feel it is very unfortunate what hap pened, because his action, and it is compoun ded as I say now by the fact he laughs at this, I believe started the series of reactions, the chain reaction, lead to wha t hap pened in terms of the Minister of Finance and in terms of the Memb er for Minnedosa. The Speaker I think quite appropr iately indicated that he could not deal in terms of the actions of other Go vernment Mem bers who wal ked out of the comm ittee, that the real obl igation to the comm ittee in a functional sense was on the back of the Min ister and in terms of the Mem ber for Minnedosa. I recognize that.

There is nothing we can do in terms of the actions of other Mem bers. I did want to point that out, becaus e whether indeed what the Minister of Northern Affairs did was technically a breach of privilege, and I once again concur with the Sp eaker that we cannot deal with it as a matter of privilege, I believe it was nonetheless wrong. I believe that type of tactic, and you know it is rather a bizarre situation we are looking at, a Government Minister, a senior Government Min ister, leading a walkout, Mr. 4204

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Act ing Spe aker , by Go vern ment Mem bers from a comm ittee. I heard where there have been situations where Mem bers have left comm ittees, Opposition Mem bers in frustra tion. I think th at it is unpr ecedented in parliamentary history to have a Government walk out of a comm ittee. I bel ieve the arrogance of what happened was com pounded by the fact that they moved a motion of adjournment and then walked out. They moved a motion of adjourn ment and then walked out. The bottom line -(int erject ion) - We ll, for the Government House Leader (Mr.

McCrae), in terms of whether I want to or our Party wants to be associated with a matter of this type, I want to state for the public record that we would not be here today in Janu ary of 1990 deba ting this matter if the Government had not walked out of that comm ittee. If the Government the next day had brought that comm ittee back into force, if they had not been so arrogant in terms of dealing with this matter, we would not be here today. If there is any concern about whether we are debating this matter today, the responsibili ty rests entirely with the Government that precipita ted this matter.

I believe the Sp eaker of this Hous e did the appropria te thing in terms of bringing back this ruling, one that he gave a great amount of consideration, and the situation that we are dealing with now and that is referral to the Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections. So it is the Government that has to accept responsi bility for it. I exp ressed my concern at the time, on October 4, 1989, about one major thing, the precedent of what has happened. I will say to the Government House Leader (Mr.

Mccr ae) once again, if the Government Hous e Leader will recog niz e the real concern of Mem bers of the Oppo sition, certainly my own concern and the concern of my col leagues in the New Democra tic Party, our concern is with the precedent, Mr. Acting Speaker. Yet the Government House Leader and the Government have taken no initiative to try and deal with those concerns. Even today there has been no recognition on the part of Government Mem bers that what happ ened was wrong and was a dangerous pr ec edent for this Legislature. There has been no recognition of that and that is funda mentally unacceptable.

There has been no initiative taken on the part of the Government. We could be dealing with this matter, for example, in the Rules Comm ittee, but the Government has not called the Rules Comm ittee togeth er. We could be deal ing with amendments to our Rules to make sure that this would not happen again, and I want to sugge st a possible solution to the problems that may have been caused by this particu lar matter, Mr. Acting Sp eaker.

That would be to have a Rules change that would no t tie up a com mittee in the case where a Chair leaves the comm ittee, that would allow an existing quorum of a comm ittee at a duly constituted meeting of the comm ittee that has not adjou rned. Wha t happened on the evening in question was that the commit tee had recessed, that would allow them to elect either a replacement Chair, or at least an acting Chair. If that abil ity had been there on the part of the comm ittee, the comm ittee could have continued to 4205 function.

I believe if that had hap pened, we may still have dealt with a matter of privilege and contempt but in a far different context. It would have been strictly on the individual actions of the individuals involved in that walkout, and particularly the Minister and the Chair. The comm ittee would not have been hamstrung. It could have met, Mr. Acting Speaker. It would have been difficult of course to be meeting without a Minister. That would have been a bizarre situation, but clearly, if the Minister would not stay at the meeting, the comm ittee could still have met, could still have taken some form of ac tion.

It could have even perhaps have passed a motion indicating its own unhappi ness with what had happ ened on that particular occasion. Those type of avenues are available. I hope that we will not get to the point where we concentrate so strictly on the events of the evening in question that we will lose sight of the fact that the most important thing for us, as Mem bers of this Legislature, has to be in terms of the precedent of what happened that night. As I said, it is unprecedented and it is dangerous. I app roach this not strictly from a view that we should look at it just in terms of the Rules, Mr.

Acting Speaker. I think the public of Manitoba, listening in to this debate would probably have very little concern about our Rules. They are important. There are other Mem bers of the Legislature who someti mes attach far less imp ortance to our Rules than they should, but what is the concern? I think the real bottom line of this is common sense. If the one million people of Manitoba were aware of what had happ ened on that evening, I think the first thing the y would ha ve said is this: why did the Government Mem bers walk out right after they lost the vote? They would have said that is wrong.

They moved the motion, they lost, they did not like it, so they went out anyway. They would have said that is wrong. You moved a motion, you lost the vote, you should live by that vote, Mr. Acting Speaker. That is the first thing they would have said. *

(1540) The second thing they would have said is that it was wrong for the Minister to walk out when Mem bers of the Leg islature still had questions to ask on such an imp ortant matter, the divestiture of Manfor. They would have said it was wrong. They would have said in their own way that the Minister should have been accountable to that comm ittee, a duly constituted meeting of that comm ittee, as he has to be ac countabl e to this Legislature on a daily basis, as do all Mem bers of Executive Council have to be accou ntable in terms of Question Period and in terms of dealing with other matters in this House.

The third thing I think they would have said was it was wrong for the com mittee Chair to leave at that point in time, but I also believe in that regard that most people would not have attached the blame to the comm ittee Chair. The walkout of the commit tee Chair was really the third part of what happ ened that night in terms of the walkout. First, the Mem bers walked out, the Government Mem bers; second, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) walked out; and then finally the commit tee Chair walked out.

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 believe that the fact the Memb er for Minnedosa (Mr . Gilleshammer) is a new Mem ber of this House is probably a contri buting factor to that, because I do not believe the Mem ber for Min nedosa really had thought through the cons equenc es of what had happened . I state that again. I am not calling the Memb er for Minnedosa-1 am not putting the same amount of concern on his actions, although once again the comm ittee can deal with it.

I think the mem bers of the pub lic would have said in terms of common sense, the way you have a meeting and you have a democratic institution such as the Legislature, that fundamentally the first thing that should be followed is you follow the rules. The rules are that if you lose a vote you do not pack up your bags and leave, you stay in there and you respect the will of the democ ratic body that dealt with that particular motion. They lost on the motion, and yet they walked out in an attempt to frustrate the comm ittee. The people of this province would have said that is not common sense.

They would have said that was wrong, the same thing I think they would have said in terms of the precedent of this, because they could recognize the fact that we can get into that situation where a walkout by either a Mi nister or a com mittee Chair can paralyze a comm ittee. This Government could just walk away from virtually any commit tee it did not like the proceedings on. Any time it was really being called to account they walk out, the commit tee Chair walks out, the mee ting is paraly zed .

Even if the comm ittee Chair remains, if the Mem ber for Minnedosa had remained, I think we have to recognize one thing would have hap pened. Without a Minister there, the commit tee would have been able to sit but would have been frustrated nonetheless. I think the people of Manitoba who I believe have said to Mem bers of this Leg islature-and we may disagree to the extent we follow this-to try and ma ke the minority Government situation work .

It will be a judg ment call in terms of Mem bers of this Legislature as the length of which we continue to attempt to do tha t, because mino rity Government does produc e frictions, it clearly does in a situation.- (interjection)- The Minister of Northern Affa irs (Mr. Downey) talks about frictions in majority Governments, but the friction is usually more internalized. It is not evident in the Ho use to the same ex tent, because there is a Government that has a majority that essentially can do what it wants.

What you have in this current situation is, in terms of the people of this province, they are asking Mem bers of this Legislature to attemp t to ma ke the mino rity Go ve rnment situation work. In this particular case it is clear that it was the Government Mem bers who were not willing to live with the fact that they do not have an absolute majorit y in this House.

When I say on this particular issue their actions when they are a minority I say I really thank the people of Manitoba that they do not have a majority in this House, because if they were going to be so arrogant on this particular matter as a minor ity, what would they do if they had a majority to ram through their will in any level in terms of com m ittees? Wha t kind of opportun ity would the Opposition have had to ask questions? I would say, what would have happ ened is that instead of walking out at 2:30 in the morning, I doubt if that commit tee would have gone past ten o'clock.

It ma y not have even met at all, and that is because they would have used their power in the same arrogant way, but they would have had the power to ram through whatever they wished. There is no thing we can do, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, to stop tha t other than point to the fact tha t the Conservative Party in Manitoba has shown that kind of arrogance to the people of Manitoba, but the bottom line onc e again is tha t this is a very da ngerous precedent. For Mem bers of the Government to show as little respect for this particular debate and motion, I consider is compou nding what they have already done.

This whole unfortunate episode that could have been avoided, they are com pounding it here today. The Sp eaker brought in one of the most detailed rulings on a matter of privilege that I have seen in this Legislature. I believe it is a very well researched ruling. We are dealing with a very imp ortant situation, an � unprecede nted move that could set a very dangerous � pr ec edent for this Hous e. Tha t is why I will be suppor ting, and our caucus will be fully supporting this motion because we hope not that it will concentrate strictly on the events of the night in question.

I really think the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) spent half an hour in his speech going through those events, he spent a majority of it trying to justify what had hap pened , I would hope that he would get up and say that what happ ened was wrong and that it should not happen again. I think that is what we are looking for in terms of our own role, in terms of Mem bers of the Op position, some recog nition of why we are frustrated. I believe the onus should be on the Minister, I believe it should be on the Government House Leader (Mr.

Mccr ae) to say, that is wrong and that it will not happen again and that this Government will co-opera te with all Parties in this House to attemp t to come up with a way, whether it be a rules change or some other way of making sure that it does not happen again, because that is the bottom line concern. That is why we really should be dealing with this matter in the Commit tee of Privileges and Elections and perhaps also as I say dealing with it at a later point in time at the Rules Comm ittee. That is not our option as an Opposition Party, to call the Rules Comm ittee.

The Government House Leader can deal with that. He can take the initiative, and I would urge the Government Hous e Leader and other Mem bers of the Government Caucus to consider that. Perhaps there is some other way of resolving this than continuing this type of deba te, because I think that this debate could go on virtually indefinitely both here and in the comm ittee so long as the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and others attempt to justify what happ ened that night. This is not a discussion about pizzas, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, it is not a discussion about pizzas.

I hear them from their seats talking about Mem bers getting pizza that night as if that was the issue we are dealing with. Wha t we are dealing with in this case is a very serious breach of our parliamentary privileges as Mem bers of 4206

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 the Legislature. We are dealing with a very serious precedent. If we do not take action I will predict now that this will be taken as a precedent, it will be followed, if not by this Government again, although there is no indication they would not use that tactic again, it will be used by others. I would not want Manitoba to have set the precedent that says, that if you do not like a decision of a comm ittee you walk out and you paralyze it, because that would be a denial not only of our privileges as Mem bers of the Leg islature, there would be a denial of the very democratic process.

For the life of me, at a time when the world is sweeping toward democ racy, it seems that we as the inheritors of the British parli ament ary syste m, the original dem ocratic system , a system that is built on hundr eds of years of traditions, of recognition of the privileges not only of Mem bers of the Legislature, but of the public as a whole. Mr. Acting Sp eaker, as other count ries are trying out new-tested demo cracies we should be sending them a clear exam ple that we have a living, breathing example of democracy in this province, one that will not be frustrated by the Minister of No rthern Affairs (Mr.

Downey), one that will not be frustrated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or any individual Mem ber of this Legislature. Wha t we have before us as tempor ary Mem bers of this House, because indeed we are all tempor ary, even the most experienc ed Mem bers, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, are only here at the will of the electorate, once every whatever numb er of years. *

(1550) We are the inheritors of a system. Let us ma ke sure that when we leave this Legislature, whatever time we will leave this Leg islature, that we will not have on our record as Mem bers of the Legislature a serious breach, Mr. Acting Speak er, of the parli amentary process, a serious breach of our tra ditions of parliam enta ry democ racy. We can take the move today by sending this to the Comm ittee of Privileges and Elections, of ensuring that that does not happen . It is our choic e.

It is going to be our choic e, not only in voting on this resolution, but in terms of dealing with it in Privileges and Electi ons. I hope that when we get there we will recognize that that is exactly what is at stake, not strictly the events of one night, not strictly the personalities or the issues of what had hap pened in that night. Long after the comm ittee hearing meeting that we are dealing with, Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, long after we finished talking about the comm ittee hearing meeting on May 1, 1989, or even the divestiture of Manfor, I believe the people will be aski ng, what did the Legislature do when they had this precedent, this dangerous precedent set? That is how we will be judged. I say the only appropria te way to deal with this is to get this into the comm ittee and look at com ing up with a way that says this will never hap pen again in our Legislature and that the democratic rights and traditions of the parlia mentary system will be safeguarded by the Mem bers of this Legislature, Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, that it will be safeguarded by the Thirty-Fourth Leg islature of the Province of Manitoba and handed down to the Thirty-Fifth and the Thirty-S ixth and the Thi rty-Seve nth Leg islature intact. The only way to do that is to make sure that no Mem bers of the House, no Government can ever do again what was done by the Mem bers of this Government on May 1, 1989, at the Standing Comm ittee hearing meeting. Thank you, Mr. Acting Sp eaker. Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I am pleased to be able to enter into this debate.

I would like to start right off by agreeing with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in respect to the technical expertise that was provided at the comm ittee hearings that the information that was forthcoming by the people that he brought to the table was straightforward, honest and dir ect , and all of the things tha t legitima te comm ittee Mem bers would want. I also, Mr. Acting Speaker, agree with him in relation to the Ho nourable Member for Min nedosa (Mr . Gillesham mer). I am not going to make any remarks at all about his conduct, about the situation that he fou nd himself in.

I have a great deal of admiration for the Memb er's abil ity to represent his constituency. I have a great deal of respect for the Member's ability to represent the constituents that he represents, for his honesty and his sincerity in holding the post, and with the highest degree of integrity that he can muster take on the challeng es and the responsi bilities, the situations that are given to him by this House. However, I am not going to be snookered nor am I going to be sucked in by the George Washington attitude of the Minister of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-100
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 100.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	996088cf13c66be8841b7093d395dd0603429f0a

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