Manitoba Hansard — 9 March 1977 (Sitting 15, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-15

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

TIME: 2:30 p.m. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Wednesday, March 9, 1977 OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Honourab le Peter Fox (Kildonan): Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gal lery where we have 64 students of Gr ade 5 standing of the St. Andrews School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Siddle. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Selkirk, the Honour able the AttorneyGeneral. On behalf of all the honourable member s we welcome you here this afternoon.

Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees; Min isterial Statements. TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General HONOURABLE HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, ! would like to take leave of the House to file The 49th Annual Report of Chief Inspector, Liquor Control Commission and The Report of Court of Queen's Bench as required and The Financial Report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the period April 1s t 19 75 to March 31, 19 76. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs.

HONOURABLE RONALD McBRYDE (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I' d like to table The Annual Report for Minago Contractors Limited for the year ended March 31 st, 19 76. MR. SPEAKER: Any other Reports or Ministerial Statements? Notices of Motion. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HONOURABLE SAMUEL USKIW (Lac du Bonnet) introduced Bill (No. 3), The Farm Income Assurance Plans Act. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Heal th. HONOURABLE LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface) introduced Bill (No. 20),

An Act to amend the Social Allowances Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Gener al. HONOURABLE HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk) introduced Bill (No. 21),

An Act to amend The Real Property Act, and Bill (No. 22),

An Act to amend The Personal Property Security Act and certain other Acts relating to Personal Property. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Radisson. MR. HARRY SHAFRANSKY introduced Bill (No. 24),

An Act to provide for The Amalgamation of La Centrale des Caisses Populaires du Manitoba Ltee and La Centrale des Calsses Populalres du Manitoba Credit Union Limited. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Fort Garry. MR. L.R. (BUD) SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honour able the First Min ister.

I' d like to ask him in view of the seriousness for some 140 workers whose jobs are at stake, whether the First Minister can advise the House whether a par ticular bias exists as charged by a government member in respect to the government's attitude toward the union involved in the Gr iffin Steel strike? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HONOURABLE EDWARD SCHREYER, Premier (Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, I, without asking my honourable friend to ask that question, welcome it because it affords me an opportun ity to, I belie ve, demonstrate to my honourable friend that we are greatly concerned, in fact, very greatly concerned. But that does not mean that there is any miraculous course of action that particularly man ifests itself to us. If there were, we would attempt to take it. And lest there be any suggestion that there is bia s, I point out that there is one other industrial dispute that has been going on for some considerable time. lt also greatly agitates and disturbs us.

There is nothing that can be effectively done under current industrial legislation. I haven't heard any brigh t suggestions from the other side, or anywhere, as to what substantially could be done differently. And in the case of that other industrial dispute there are men and women involved and, yes, children too and it involves another collective bar gainin g unit and we have been powerless to do anything there as well. We are equally concerned in both ca ses but let no one suggest that there is some facile answer. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, supple mentary to the Honourable the First Minister, I ask him whether he has investigated or will in vestigate to his satisfaction and the satisfaction of the government and the House that there is no par ticular intransigence on the part of any par ticular individuals that is impeding settlement in this dispute. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that with respect to those who are within my purview 515

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 to attempt to influence, namely my colleagues, that there has been no intransigence whatsoever. There has been, need I say it, objectivity. If my honourable friend is suggesting that he has reason to be lieve that there is some kind of undue and unusual attitude and position being struck by those who are more directly parties to the dispute, I would suggest to him that my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has been prepared in the past, is prepared now, and indeed I belie ve has conversed with my honourable friend the Member for Fort Ga rry to apprise him of all the details and the facts.

But lest there be any misunderstanding I say, once ag ain, that there is an eq ually disturbing and grave industrial dispute involving another company and a comp letely different collective bargai ning unit or union, which we have not been able to somehow miraculously solve. That being the case I think that effectively destroys any al legation that we are somehow manifesting a bia s because of particular company or particular union in this case. MR. SHERMAN: A further sup plementary, Mr.

Speaker, I'd ask the First Minister whether his legislative assistant was reflecting the views of the Ministrywhich he serves, in the public statements he made yesterday. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague, the Member for Thomp son, is human and that once in eight years he may well make the kind of mistake in judgement that my honourable friend makes every day. · MR. SHERMAN: A further sup plementary, Mr.

Speaker, in the area of mistakes in ju dgement, would this Minister consider that better ju stice could be served if he took a hand in terms of personal intervention in this dispute and personal contact with the negotiating committee. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Or der please. The honourable member is ask ing for an op inion. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you regard it within the rules to answer but I will simply say that I have colleagues who are among the most experienced in industrial labour relations in the country .. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River Heig hts. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.C.: Mr. Speaker, my question will be to either the First Minister or the Minister of Urban Affa irs. lt deals with the proposed defence research labor atory to be built by the Federal Gove rnment in Winnipeg. I wonder if the appr opr iate Minister or the First Minister is in a position to indicate whether there has been any protest by the Provincial Government to the Federal Government with respect to the location of the research laboratory. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Ur ban Affairs. HONOURABLE SAUL A. MILLER (Seven Oaks): Mr.

Speaker, the only information we have on it is what has surfaced in the newspapers. I don't belie ve any firm decision has been made by Canada on the subject. To my knowledge, Winnipeg has not as yet either indicated any position one way or the other. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps in the interests of further elabora tion, I could indicate to the Honourable Member for River Heig hts that there has been some discussion with the Minister without Po rtfolio in the Cabi net of Canada and my colleague, the Minister of In dustry and Commerce, has, in fact, been in written communication with the Honourable Barney Danson - I leave it with him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River Heights. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker, then maybe I cou Id address my question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

I wonder if he can indicate whether in fact the question of the location has been discussed and an alternative location as the result of the protests that have occurred with respect to the proposal as it was advanced before and which appears now to be moving towards comple tion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Ind ustry and Com merce. HONOURABLE LEONARD S. EVANS (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I can advise thattherewas no discussion on location.

Of course we are concerned that there is an adequa te location but our main concern is that the Federal Government do not reverse their position in this matter because we are very concerned with obtai ning this type activity which I belie ve the honourable member will agree, will be very important in terms of commercial activity in the province. MR.

SPIVAK: I wonder if the Minister, possibly the Minister of Urban Affa irs as the other Minister, could confirm that the City of Winnipeg has not in any way made an appr oach to the Provincial Government for assistance in trying to relocate the proposed research facil ity from the location that was first annou nced, basically in the Charle swood-Tuxedo area. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Ur ban Affairs. MR. MILLER: 1 answered that the first time, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, and I don't recollect the City of Winnipeg making an official representation to the province through Urban Affairs. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I direct a question to the Honou rable 516

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 the Minister of Renewable Resources and ask him whether or not the Minister is considering taking any initiatives in discussing with the appropr iate federal authorities the growing number of proble ms that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corpora tion is seeminly encountering? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Renewable Resources. HONOURABLE HARVEY BOSTROM Rupertsland): Mr.

Speaker , I reported to the House before that we have had a numb er of contacts with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the Minister responsibl e for that corpora tion, the Honou rable Romeo Le Blanc, all to no avail. I might add that the suggestions that we have made and the proposals that we have ma de for improvements have largely gone ignored. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , a suppleme ntary question to the Min ister.

Would he then, in view of reliable repo rts that our fishermen, ma rketing our fish, pickerel in par ticular, from Lakes Winnipeg and Man itoba, through the aegis of the glorious Marke ting Board, are receiving something in the neighb ourhood of 65 cents a pound

whereas northern Ontario fisherme n in the Kenora area are bringing the same fish into Winnipeg and receiving $1 .15 a pound; would he consider checking with the authorities as to whether or not in some instances we should not be withdrawing from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corpo ration, that aspect of our fisheries that would provide our primary producers with that kind of a price advantage? MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the case which the honourable memb er is presenting.

We have been discussing price with the Freshwater Fish Marke ting Corpora tion to the extent that we can ma ke sugge stions to them but, as my honourable friend knows, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is in charge of establishing the prices and it is not within the purview of this government to make that kind of decision. The idea of whether or not the province should pull out of the corporation is not being considered seriously at this time. MR. ENNS: Mr . Speaker , I ask the Minister a final supp lementary question.

Would the Min ister not consider, in view of the general plight and difficulty that fisherme n have and traditionally have had in their industry, that a 50 to 55 cent price ma rgin difference in favo ur of off-board ma rketing, is not a serious question for the Minister to consider in the interests of his fishermen? . MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker , I will take the question as notice. I would hope that the honourable member could suppl y me with the accu rate informa tion and the source of his information in this case. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. DAVID BLAKE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Hounour able Minister responsible for Renewable Resources. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister if leases on the fire-fighting ai rcraft have been arranged in view of the severe fire conditions existing and he indicated that they were going to be renewed. I wonder if the Minister could now inf orm the House if the leases on the aircraft from the Alberta Fighting Firemen have been in fact renewed. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker , I bel ieve we have in fact exercised our option to renew those aircraft leases but I will take the question as notice and ma ke sure of that fact forthe honourable gentleman. MR. BLAKE: Another question to the same Minister. In light of the reports of the overpopu lation of moose on Hecla Isla nd, 1 wonder if the Minister is contemp lating a special moose hunting season in that par ticular area or will the department continue or depopula te the mo ose by themselves? MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, the decision on whether or not to hold a moose hunting season within a provincial park is in the ju risdiction of the Honourable Min ister in charge of parks. My staff are in a position to advise on that aspect and we are in a constant mon itoring position in that case as well as in other cases. MR.

BLAKE: I direct a supplementary question then to the Minister responsible for provincial parks. 1 n view of the report that some 11 0 moose are wintering in the north end of Hecla Island in the area of the golf course, I wonder if he is aware of the condition of the greens on that particu lar golf course at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker , in the absence of the Minister responsible we will take the question as notice. it's just as well in as much as it's a ma tter of detail involving moose biology. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR.

ROBERT G. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Would the Min ister confirm that of the 184 housing units at Aspen Park that appr oximately less than a hundred are occupied and rented? Would you know the exact numb er? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Public Works. HON. RUSSELL DOERN (Eimwood): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. MR. WILSON: Then 1 have a supplementary.

I was wondering in light of the desperate housing shortage for welfare families recently burnt out by fires, would the Minister ma ke these vacancies avai lable to these needy families? . MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , I'm not sure that would be a convenient arrange me nt but it could be considered. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. 517

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Transcona): Mr. Spea ker, I wonder if I co uld have consent to file two more reports. MR. SPEAKER: Is it ag reed? (Agreed.) TABLING OF REPORTS MR. PAULLEV: One is a Report under The Controverted Elections Act from the Court of Queen's Bench , and the second is the Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Annual Report for the year 19 76. ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , I direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister.

The federal government annou nced a few days ago a major repai r program involving some $275,000 on a wharf at Gimli . My question to the First Minister in his capacity speaking for Manitoba Hydro is that can he assure me that a limitation or demarca tion line prohibiting building under a certain level, which I belie ve has been set by Man itoba Hydro at 722 feet, will in no way interfere with the repair work announced by the federal government on the Gimli wharf? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I can, even without the benefit of notesor technical material before me, indicate to my honourable friend that there is no practical problem with respect to the construction of a wharf at Gimli in as much as coming from the point of view of Man itoba Hydro and the regulation of Lake Winnipeg , inasmuch as the hydraulic regu lation management of Lake Winnipeg is such as to put it in layman's terms, take two feet off the top of the extreme and to add a couple of feet to the trough of the natural extreme at the low extreme, so that there is no practical problem.

Any reference to 722, of course would be a reserve line which I don't think would have a bearing on it. I'll check. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT: Mr. Speak er, I directaq uestion tothe Minister in charge of the Ma nitoba Telephone System, whatever Minister is responsi ble. My question is: is it correct that female appl icants for positions with the Manitoba Telephone System are asked to submit to a test by Man itoba Telephone System doctors for pregnanc y? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Consumer and Corpor ate Affa irs. HONOURABLE RENE TOUPIN (Springfield): Mr.

Speaker, not to my knowledge unless the honourable member has names. I'll investigate same, otherwise I wouldn't want to leave it on the record as being a fact. Certai nly not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker , I refer the honour able member to the ... MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR. WATT: The question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister then, is it possible that the Government of Man itoba ask for the same test by their doctors for appl icants for the Civil Service? MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr. Speaker , being respons ible for two departments of government, I know I don't. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Min ister of -Highways, and I see he's not at his desk, so I'll ask the question of the Acting Minister of Hig hways. A MEMBER: I see he's coming in now. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member finish his question. --MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker , in light of the announcement this week of auto insurance reductions in British Columbia and Wawanesa Insur ance Company up to as high as 10 percent, I wonder if the Minister can advise the House if Autopac is considering reductions in rates similar to Wawanesa and the Insurance Corporation of British Colum bia. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Minista r of Highways. HONOURABLE PETER BURTNIAK (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I' d be glad to answer that question.

I'm also glad to hear that insurance rates in Br itish Columbia are coming down, but our rates are not going to go down because our rates are going to be the same as last year, but our rates were lower long before that, and we're enjoying the lowest rates anywhere in Canada. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder would the Minister or the government consider taking the two cents a gal lon gas tax off the automobile drivers in the province? - MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heig hts. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the AttorneyGeneral. Yesterday there was a question I asked with respect . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. SPIVAK: Yesterday the question was asked with respect to Dr. Kasser as to whether the 518

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 government was proceed ing. I wonder if the Attorney-General is in a position to inform the House whether the province is proceed ing with respect to the civil action with Arthur D. Little. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-Gener al . MR. PAWLEY: Yes we are, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the Attorney-G eneral is in a position to indicate when the civil action was commenced and where it stands at the present time, that is the proceed ing. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HONOURABLE SIDNEY GREEN, Q.C. (lnkster): Well, Mr.

Speaker , when it commenced would be on the record in the Cour t of Queen's Bench, but to facilitate my honourable friend not having to look at it, we'll get that information tor him and I will give him the present status of the action. MR. SPIVAK: Yes. I wonder then it the Minister would then determine whether a Statement of Claim has been issued and whether a Statement of Defense has been filed at this time. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, there was a State ment of Claim issued. I be lieve that there was an amended Statement of Claim issued.

I belie ve that there are several proceed ings on the record, and if my honourable friend is going to persist I offered to facil itate him, but I'm not required to. That material is all on file at the Court of Queen's Bench. MR. SPIVAK: Mr . Speaker , then to the Minister.

I wonder if he can inform the House whether the procedures that have taken pla ce with respect to this matter, have been the subject of discussion between the government and the solicitors as to the manner in which the proceedings should take pla ce as a result of the amended Statement of Claim and the other proce edings that he's al ready referred to. In other words, were there alterna te instructions given to the solicitors by the government with respect to this matter? MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker , I have no intention of discussing the instructions as between counsel and the government.

I'm indicating to my honourable friend that proceedings are being taken agai nst Arthur D. Little. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker , my question is directed to the Honour able Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, a Crown Corpora tion.

I have in my hand an advertising piece by the Man itoba Telephone System in the form of a small lighter that is made in France and I wonder if the Minister - he might want to take the question as notice - to find if these particular items might be manufactured in Canada and it not what price was paid tor these particular advertising items and how many were ordered. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs. Order please. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker , I can only assume that the item that the honourable member is holding and possibly making use of went out tor bids. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Memb er tor Wolseley. MR. WILSON: I have another question for the Minister of Public Works. Would the Minister care to advise the House if the William Tell Restaurant is now being run as a provincial taxpayers' restaurant and is it succeeding? Is information available , it seems very secretive? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Public Works. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , although I have some association with provincial restaurants, I have no association with the William Tell other than to eat there once a month with the representatives of the City of Winnipeg . MR.

WILSON: A supple mentary then. Could any of the member s op posite or the Acting Minister of Tourism advise if the William Tell Restaurant is now a provincial restaurant? Is it be ing run by provincial people? MR. DOERN: I can take that question as notice for the Minister of Tourism. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. EDWARD McGILL: Mr. Speaker , my question is directed to the Honour able the Minister of Health and Social Development who has a further responsibil ity in the area of fitness and amat eur sport.

My question relates to the meeting bei ng held today in Ottawa in connection with the award ing of the 19 79 Canada Winter Games and the siting of those games. My question, Mr. Speaker , would be to the Minister, is his department represented at that meeting today with other members representing Brandon and the Federal Government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Health. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , no the department of the Provincial Government is not represented. I think that the reason for this trip to Ottawa is to make sure that they can still retain the games.

This is not something that is decided by the Province of Man itoba, but by the Games Co mmittee and the Federal Government. Our responsibil ity, our interest is to look at their budget &nd to see to what extent we're ready to fund them for the games if they are held here in Brandon. MR. McGILL: Mr . Speaker, a supplemen tary question. Can the Minister then advise the House if, 519

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 to his knowledge' that budget that has been presented by the Winter Games Comm ittee in Bran don, has that budget been accepted by the Federal Government? MR. DESJARDINS: The news report stated that it had been. The last time I was talking to the Federal Minister, she told me that that was a misunderstanding and had not been appr oved at that time. But I must say that that was approxima tely a week ago and I expect to hear from her or her staff sometime, by this weekend. MR. McGILL: A further supple mentary then, Mr. Speaker, to the Min ister.

Is there a difficulty in respect to the provincial share of the budget as it now set up and presented to you? MR. DESJARDINS: I stated yesterday I bel ieve, Mr. Speaker, that we received the information that we wanted a few days after the deadline and that information was next to useless - the first batch that we received. lt was one or two pages with just certain facilities, so much money, no square feet, no further information there, there was no way that we were going to base ourself on that kind of information to decide to what extent we would fina nce the games.

I' ve written to the games committee in Brandon and, as I stated yesterday or two days ago, they did send me the information. This is being considered now and as soon as possible we will let them know and of course we are discussing this with the Federal Government. The intent is, in principle at least, to have the same formula, the same sharing of the capital budget with the Federal Government and the City, the three levels of government, of an appr oved budget.

Now this is something that has to be done and once we appr ove the budge t, of course it goes without saying that we will annou nce it and they will be guar anteed the funding providing the games are held in Brandon. MR. McGILL: A final supple mentary, Mr. Speaker. Then could the Minister give some indication of when he expects some resolution of these budgetary difficulties, as a result of this meeting. Does he have any indication at this stage of when this final decision will be confirmed as to the siting of the games. MR. DESJARDINS: Well as I stat ed, Mr.

Speaker, this is not the responsibility of the Provincial Government. The Federal Government and the games ... I understand that there's difficulties that have to be ironed out in Brandon as per the skiing as a sport.

There is a possibility, I am told, that this might be moved even out of the province and of course if that is the case there certainly won't be any contribution from Man itoba for that part of it, for that capital cost, and there is also a possibil ity, there is some leeway that that sport will be cancelled from the games These are some of the information that we must have and this is, as I say, a decision that will have to be made by the games committee and when they give us this information, and after analysing the information that we have now, we will be able to move and give a decision as per the funding. MR.

McGILL: Mr. Speaker, just by way of clarification. When the Min ister spoke of skiing events he meant, I bel ieve, alpine skiing. There is no question about the Nordic skiing part of it taking place in Brandon. MR. DESJARDINS: I noted your statement and I accept you statement of two days ago and I hope that you will register for the games. I' d like you to carry Manitoba to victory in that. MR. McGILL: Thank you. I'm in training. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heig hts. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Some time ago the Hono urable James Richardson, then Minister of Defence, resigned from the Federal Cabi net on the basis of the proposal that he considered the Prime Min ister ... Well this is a

preamble to the question, Mr. Speaker. He resigned on the basis of proposals of the repa triation of the Constitution, the amendment formula of the Constitution ... MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR. SPIVAK: ... including the veto of one province. I wonder if the First Minister could indicate whether there has been any co mmunication between the province, himself, and Mr. Richardson, in suppor t or against his position. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, that sub ject matter doesn't lend itself to any brief reply but may I make two points, Sir.

The first is that indeed there has been communication, in the form of long personal discussions. The second point is that it is quite incorrect to sugge st that there is a single province veto proposed. MR. SPIVAK: Mr . Speaker, I wonder then if the First Minister can indicate whether the communication was verbal or written and was it after he was Minister, as well. MR. SCHREYER: Well both, Mr. Speaker. There was communication while he was Minister.

There was even more commun ication after, since he had more time to communicate, but surely the point here is that there ought to be no lingering basic misconceptions about theories of single-province veto. What was proposed in the fi rst instance has to do with veto accru ing to a province or any combination of provinces that have a certain given populat ion. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the First Ministerwould be in a position to indicate whether in the communication he communicated the official position of the province with respect to the proposals that Mr.

Richardson discussed and the position he took. Was it an official position on 520

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 behalf of the province? MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker , agai n I would suggest that the Honourable James Richardson was aware of the position taken by all the provinces with respect to the negotiations that took place . in 1970 -71 and again in 1975-76. And those positions of the provinces was really put on the public record, more than once, and reported on quite pervas ively. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker , my question is to the Honourable the First Minister and relates to the sub ject that I asked him questions on earlier this afternoon, Sir, but I, as you'll appr eciate, used up my sequence of questions at that time. I' d like to ask him another question and it arises out of his answer to one of my questions and his reference to a mistake in judgement on the part of his legisla tive assistant. I would like to ask the First Minister if he would tell the House what that mistake in ju dgeme nt was. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker , I've already indicated to my honourable fr iend that, from whatever source, any suggestion that there is some kind of bias of prei nclination here is simply without foundation in fact. And I offer it as one very obvious and telling reputation of such a theory or al legation the fact that, in another part of the City, involving another company and another union, there has been a long drawn-out industrial dispute which has bothered us a great deal as well and we have not been able to bring to bear any effective or miraculous solution.

And because that is the context in that case, it is of al most identical context in the other case to sugge st that we have a bias in the latter case only is to fly in the face of this living proof. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker , may I ask the First Minister a suppleme ntary, whether what he is talking about is a mistake in fa ct, or a mistake in judge me nt. He referred to a mistake in judgeme nt by his legislative assistant. And my question was: what was that mistake in ju dgement? Was it going on television? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker , need it be said, there is free, but completely free, express ion of opinion.

When I was asked as towhatwas the mistake in judgement, it is my opinion that in light of the examp le, circumstances that I have just given, that in perceiv ing the fac t, it was a mistake, error in opinion, or judgeme nt, in interpretting the fa cts in such a way as to come to the conclusion that there is bia s when there is a perfectly analogous proble m that is preoccupying us in another case, involving a different union, and with an equally prob lema tic set of circumstances. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo r Arthur. MR. WATT: Mr . Speaker , I direct a question to the First Minister.

I wonder if the First Minister could inform the House, in view of the pe nding increase in the toll rates on the St. Lawrence Seaway. l wonder if the Government of Man itoba has taken any steps to assess what the impact will be on transportation of western grain, particularly Man itoba. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker , I bel ieve that there has been comm unication on this ma tter by the Minister of Industry and Commerce to the Federal authorities. If I recall correctly this took place several days ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member fo r Arthur. MR. WATT: Mr.

Speaker , if I could direct a question then to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. I wonder could he indicate to the House what impact this may have on transportation of grain in terms of dollars and cents as related to bushels. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of In dustry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker , I am sorry, I missed a portion of the previous question of the honourable member, so I wonder if he wouldn't mind elabora ting. MR. WATT: The question that I posed, Mr. Speaker , was: lnview of the pending increase in the toll rates that will be charged on grain shipped through the St.

Lawrence Seaway, what impact would it have on the movement of grain from Man itoba through the eastern seaboard? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , such an estimate is always a diff icult one to make. lt obviously could have some negative impact. I suspect, however, that the bulk of grain will continue to flow eastward as it has historically rather than westward. We did ma ke a very rough calcula tion and that is that at least a million and probably closer to a million and a half dollars per an num will have to be paid by Man itoba farme rs for the shipment of grain because of these increased tolls. I also indicated, Mr.

Speaker , the other day, that there could be a second negative effect and that is it might discourage other types of traffic through the St. Lawrence Seawa y, and that in turn ma y cause the tolls to'go up higher at some future date, which again would have a negative effect. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Or ders of the Day, the Honour able House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker , I wonder if we could proceed with the Or der Paper as it appears on 521

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 Page 2. There are some Order s for Return and then De bates on Second Reading. ORDERS FOR RETURN - ORDER No. 29. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brandon West, THAT an Or der of the House do issue for a return showing the following information with respect to the Man itoba Agricultural Credit Corporation's beef stacker program: 1. The total amount of loans appr oved and disbu rsed between the period of November 1, 1974 to April15, 19 75. 2.

The total amount of loans repaid free of interest by April 15, 1975. 3. The total amount of loans repaid with interest after due date. 4. The total amount of loans still outstanding. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATES- SECOND READING MR. SPEAKER: The Proposed Motion of the Honourable Minister of Mun icipal Affa irs, the Honourable Member for Gla dstone. MR. JAMES R. FERGUSON: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Proposed Motion of the Honou rable Minister of Public Works, Bill No. 4, the Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. WARREN STEEN: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Proposed Motion of the Honou rable Minister of Public Works, Bill No. 5, the Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. STEEN: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. The Honourable Min ister of Labo ur. HONOURABLE RUSSELL PAULLEY(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honou rable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the Ho use resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Thompson. MR. KEN DILLEN: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a matter of grievance, not so much about the matter that is before us with regard to the dispute at Gr iffin Steel, but more to outline the kind of inept, inefficient, inadequate, mismanaged opposition that we have in this province. I find it incredible that member s of the Opposition would rise in their place in the Question Period and ask such questions regard ing a dispute that centres around how many people were charged today, how many people were arrested, how many of those arrested were civil servants, how many of them were charged; and then the questions that came to us again today.

I suppose a better question that should be asked - and if you want me to provide you with some questions, I could certainly do that- the question of whether or not we are going to have to resort to civil war in order to prevent slavery from continuing in the province. -(l nterje ctions)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. DILLEN: I respect the positions that are presently being taken though the interview on television may have indicated otherwise. I respect the view of the Min ister of Labour on this issue. I respect the view of the Minister of Mines and I respect the view of the Prem ier of this province.

Unfortunately, we do not agree and that's not surprising. I am sure there are people on that side of the House who don't agree with people on this side of the House, unless you all think al ike which is unusual.

But to suggest for one minute that somehow the process of collective bar gaining is going to continue, that the process of collective bargai ning is going to solve the issue in this par ticular dispute or any other dispute of the same nature in this province, is to delude oneself that there is somehow a mag ic wand that is going to come down and brush everybody that's having a dispute, and somehow that dispute is going to go away. That will not go away on this issue and you cannot make a comparison between two separate disputes.

The dispute at Qual ity Bed is on an altogether different issue than the dispute that is presently occurring at Gr iffin Steel. The dispute at Gr iffin Steel is on the basis of whether or not the emp loyer is going to have the right to tell his workers to work as much as he wants them to work, for as many hour s as he wants them to work. That is the dispute that is in question. If anybody thinks, for exam ple, Mr. Speaker, that what this dispute is all about is that this company will be able to operate its plant by utilizing one worker at one and a half times a day. 522

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 Mr. Speaker , if we could have a little quiet on the Opposition side of the House, 1 am sure they will learn something here today, if it is possible to learn them anything. The dispute here, Mr . Speake r, is whether or not a company will have the right to determine that an employee will work one and a half times per day the number of hours that he is entitled to. In other words, for the same level of production, one and a half employees will be used, at the time when you are only using one emp loyee.

Now, that may seem strange but in what way one must exam ine - will this kind of continuation contrib ute to the unemp loyment situation in the province? If every industrial plant takes the position -a nd every industrial plant is watching what is happen ing in this dispute. Every industrial plant will be making a conscious decision at this point. If this company is al lowed to get one and a half times the amount of production from only one person then why shouldn't we all do it.

Why shouldn't every industrial plant in the province lay off 30 percent of its emp loyees immediately and say to the balance of the employees: "We are now going to work you one and a half times longer." But, of course, that is comple tely foreign, that concept, but I bel ieve it will be the case, and while there are efforts and pressures bei ng appl ied in the federal sector and in the provincial sector in order to create and develop and stimulate emp loyment in the province and elsewhere in Canada, we will see a reduction in the amount of industrial staff, mark my words, because everyone is watching.

We are watching a situation where an employer can simply lay down in front of a bargaining unit and say, "These are the requirements; this is what we re quire from you and if you don't accept it, go on strike."-(l nterjection)- Go on strike. Then every other employer in the province and thro ughout Canada is watching this situation and they are sa ying, "If ... " Mr. Spea ker, if I could just get some order from this side of the House, from the opposition side of the House, maybe the people there would learn something. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. MR. DILLEN: You see, they don't want to learn anything, Mr .

Speaker, because they are simply an extension of that same system that exists in the province that is determined to keepthe workers deep down in the province. You see, Mr. Speake r -(I nterjection)- no, we were led to bel ieve that there was going to be twenty days work. I'm sorry, twenty hours per month was the latest proposal put forward by the Company. -(I nterjection)- Well, you see - the Mem ber for Minnedosa says, "Read the aqr eement ag ain." A MEMBER: Don't li sten to them. MR.

DILLEN: There has been an agr eement in existence at Griffin Steel for some 15 or 16 years, and in all of those years there have been no provisions in the collective agr eement for compulsory overtime, not one mention of the word "compu lsory" in the agr eement.

But the question is now that they want to retain the right to insist that a person will work more than their re quired eight hours a day, and nobody wants to look or talk or think about work ing conditions; nobody wants to look at the issue of extreme heat in the plant in which they ar e working; work ing with molten metal, it is bound to increase the heat in the plant.

Nobody wants to talk about fatigue; nobody wants to talk about heat stress; nobody wants to talk about dehydration, but you will be compelled to work. lt doesn't matter if you've got a wife in the hospital that you want to visit; it doesn't matter if you've got children that have to go to a dental ap pointment or see a doctor, we'll set al l of that aside, or if you jus t want to sit home in front of your television and rest. That's beside the point. If you are required to work, you will work. And that's slavery. That is slavery. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. A MEMBER: Don't listen to that. MR.

SPEAKER: Orde r please. A MEMBER: Don't listen to them, Ken. Just go on. MR. DILLEN: And not only that, Mr. Speake r, not only is it slavery, but these are the kinds of things that were fought ag ainst for the last hundre d years and, Mr. Speake r, I am work ing, I am trying to put forward here what has been an issue that has been discussed many many times in this province. As a matter of fact, it is party policy that I'm talking about as a result of a resolution that was passed at our last provincial conference.

A resolution was passed requesting that the government exam ine the feasabil ity of estab lishing a forty-hour week will voluntary overtime. A similar res olution was put forward and passed by the Man itoba Federa tion of Labou r . The provincial council of our party also passed a resolution and subm itted it to this governm ent reque sting that the use of strikebreakers be disal lowed. But, of course' the opposition wouldn't understand that. A MEMBER: The present Minister of Labou r wouldn't understand that. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. Orde r please. MR.

DILLEN: I want to continue by indicating what the recent proposal is from this company. I belie ve that . . . · MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. MR. DILLEN: You know there was a questionaire and it sort of outlines the company position, and 523

Wednesday, March 9, 1917 let me ask every person in this House, every member of the Opposit ion, every government member and the Liberal Party as well, the question goes like this: Does the co mpany still insist on 14 production Saturdays per year which is contrary to the open letter that was sent to the citizens of Man itoba. The ans wer is, We "Yes. You will be compelled." have a group of people, Mr'. Speaker, ru nning around the province telling everybody that they are freedom fighters; that they are fighting for freedom; that they are fighting for the freedom of choice; the freedom to choose.

Well, joi n me in a fight to give the workers at Griffin Steel the freedom , the freedom to choose whether or not they will work after their regula r eight-hour day. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. DILLEN: Not only that �(lnterjection) Yes, the answer to the question of 14 production Saturda ys, Sir, is yes. There will be two per month between the months of September to April and a total of two Saturdays during the months of Ma y to August.

Now what other months that are there that a person , a fam ily, can enjoy some of the pleasures of the outdoors in Man itoba that's not being denied to anybody else in the province except the workers at Gr iffin. How can they go out and enjoy the outdoors with their fa milies? MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. DILLEN: Now if that isn't bad enough, Mr . Speaker , the question is: Are production Saturdays considered part of the required 20-hours-per-month of compu lsory overtime? The answer is no! (I nterjections)- The answer is no. Production Saturdays are extra overtime.

Again, is the maximum production Saturda ys, two per month as stated? The answer is yes except when an emergency ar ises and extra Saturdays are requ ired in the month but the extra Saturda ys are counted as part of the required fourteen Saturda ys. Are non-production Saturdays voluntari ly accepted counted as part of the fourteen require d Saturdays? In other words, if the foreman came to me and said, "Will you work this Saturday? And I said, "Yes," then it is not one of the required fourteen Saturdays. -(I nterjections)- Well, I wa nt to get to that. I want to get to that, see?

If I refuse compulsory overtime, can I be fired? The answer is yes. -(lnte rjections) MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. MR. DILLEN: But you know, there is another in here. If you receive more than two warn ing slips within a one-year period for refusal of compu lsory overtime, you can also be fired. Will I be penal ized for time off for the first two warning slips? The answer is no.

If you refuse to work overtime, you will simply be given a slip because in some plants where this requirement is in effect, if a person wanted a day off and he had no warn ing slips in that twelve-month period and it was an important thing, he would say to his fore man if he was reque sted to work, he would say, "I'm sorry, I can't work" and the foreman would then say, "Well, the penalty for not work ing is a day off." (I nterjections)- So you could accept a day off? But only warn ing slips are issued.

If you receive two warn ing slips in any twelve-month period, the third time that you refuse to work overtime, the third time that you refuse, you are fired. And this at a time when we are supposed to be developing freedom ? What kind of freedom is that? If 1 accept overtime voluntarily, in other words if there was a provision in the col lective agreement that provided that I would work 20 hours, that insists that I work overtime for 20 hours, and I accept overtime voluntarily, overtime which I am not compelled to accept, then that is not part of the compulsory 20 hours.

You know there are other things in this country more important than a nice pay cheque There is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as comfort. There is such a thing as spending time with your family. You know it's ironic, Mr. Speake r, at a time when an American company ope ra ting in Canada says to its emp loyees, "We are going to compel you to work overtime; we are goin{;j to corn pel you to be in this plant as long as we want you here." That the President of the United States is saying to his senior emp loyees, "Stay home; spend more time with your fam ilies.

Don' t run the risk of family upheaval, of fam ily breakdown; spend more time with your fam ilies." That's what he is saying to the senior people in the United States within the govern ment itself. 1 notice that there is a great deal of chuckling and laug hing from the opposi tion.- (lnterjection) They think it's a great joke, that's right. They think it's a great joke when people are trying to protect their jobs on a picket line, you know.

And you know that I can make an arg ument and I'm sure that other people in this government and in this Ho use can make a re asonable and logical arg ument as to why the conditions are continuing on the picket line as they are. But you know that reason and logic will not get you through a Safeway check-outwith your groceries. Reason and logic will not pay your rent or your mortgage. You see? -(ln terject ions)- MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. Those people who are fighting for recognition -(l nterjections) MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. I'm going to once and for all req uest the members to contain themselves.

They all have an equal opportunity to speak on a grievance and if they are so desirous of saying something, will they do it proper ly with decorum and not interject so the honourable member can't be heard? I' m requesting that of all the members of this House. The Honour able Mem ber for Thompson. 524

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 MR. DILLEN: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. See, that's the kind of attitude that's so preva lent with respect to lab our disputes, as though it's some kind of a lark, that it's a joke, that people have to stand side by side in order to protect the position that they're in. There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, that will in my view resolve this issue short of accepti ng what is the principle of the resolution that was passed at the recent New Democratic Party convention that calls for a 40-hour week and voluntary overtime. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. This is a grievance; it isn't a deba te. lt's not a debate. - (In terjection)- All right. The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Can the Honourable Mem ber for Thompson indicate what solution the Conservative administration had to people who went on strike, to workers who went on strike? (lnterjections)- MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The question isn't related to what was spoken of by the Member for Thompson. The question before the House is the House to go into Comm ittee of Supply. Is it agreed? The Honourable Member for Fort Garry on the grievance. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would perhaps not have used my grievance opportun ity at this ju ncture had the Member for Thompson not just spoken and had the Minister of Labour not left the House in the midst of a critical exam ination of a very critical problem. But since the Member for Thompson has spoken, I would like to enter the debate at thisstage and I feel that I would be happy to devote my grievance opportun ity to this particular problem because I view it as likely to be the most important one that some of us will be confronted with during this session.

I think it's been a remarkable performance on the part of the Member for Thompson during the past two days, the past 24 hours. First a publi c interview on television in which he revealed one of the truthful aspects, in my view, of the current situation where the Gr iffin Steel is concerned , and, secondly, his remarks just concluded in this House in which he attempted, at least in the beginning of his remarks, to affix the blame and the responsibility for the difficulties existing in this field at the present time on the opposition in this Lesislature.

Not on the government, not on the people who were elected to govern , not on the people with whom he is in dispute and in public dispute, not on the people who defend him in Question Period in this House agains t the positions that he has put himself into and his colleagues in cl ud i ng the Minister of Lab our have studiously put themselves into over the past few months, indeed years, in this province, but, Sir, on the opposi tion. And I sugge st to you that that is one of the most ludicrous developm ents in the life of this Leg islature, indeed I would say probably in the life of this province.

All the ba cking and filling and protestations of the Member for Thompson betray only one truth and that is his ignorance of the parliame ntary system and the system in which we are opera ting here. He obviously doesn't understand that unfortunately he belongs to a group that has the greater number in this House and by virtue of that has the right to govern, has the right to make laws, has the right to intervene where intervention is necessary or to say we won't intervene because we bel ieve intervention is not necessary.

All the opposition can do, and if the Member for Thompson needs a lesson in basic parlia mentary procedure, is do what we're doing and that is attempt to get this government to assume the role which it has abd icated and that is the role of leadership in this province. This government, Mr. Speaker, is finished. This government does no longer lead, initiate, displa y any kind of courage, displa y any kind of innovation right wing or left wing or centre, of any particular philosophy or pol itical persua sion.

At least when they came into office, and heaven knows I had a good many fights with them and my colleague s have had a good many fights with them over the directions they've been taking, but at least they came into office with some imagination and with some ambition and with some inclination to innovate, but, Sir, this government is finished and dead.

They no longer lead, they no longer have the unan imity and the loyalty and the col lective determination to be able to come up w.ith a policy or to be able to determine a position that doesn't fracture them from within, and they no longer have the courage to demonstrate that they have the interest of the province, whatever segment of that province, at heart as elected representatives of the people. They're asking for leadership and the Memb er for Thompson has jus t finished as king for leadership from the Con servative Party.

Sir, we are the only ones who have been giving any leadership in this dispute up to this point. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. SHERMAN: Sir, we have repeated ly made representa tions to this government that we do not bel ieve in government intervention in the free collective bargai ning process, all things be ing equal. We don't want to see government intervention in that process. And I'll say one thing for the Minister of Mines and Environmental Management, he has consistently taken that position too.

But what our position in this particular situation is is that an impasse and a deadlock has been reached in this situation as a consequence of immovable positions having been adopted by certain individuals involved from both parties, both the management side or the government cum management side and 525

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 the union side, and there are 140 jobs going down the drain. And the people who are out there on the picket lin e, having put in eighteen, nineteen, twenty years' work at Griffin and with that kind of seniority, are prisoners of a situation from which they can't escape at the mornent. They are captives of a situation which was not of their own making and they are being sacr ificed in a dispute between some strong-headed, in fact I would say bull-headed , principals on the two sides here. And when you reach an impasse of that kind, Mr.

Speaker, I would put it to the Minister of Mi nes and Environmental Management and others in this House including the Member for Thompson, when you reach an impasse of that kind where those jobs and livelihoods ar e at stake, there is a role, not for government settlement of the dispute, I'm not asking that the government move in and settle the dispute, I'm asking that the government take some leaders hip in getting the two sides back around the table. There is nothing happening around the table.

There is no hope of any settlement or any solution unless there is some comprom ises made on al l sides in this dispute, Mr. Speaker. And one of the comprom ises has got to be a corn promise on the part of this government and those members who share the view of the Minister of Mines and Environ mental Management that they were elected to lead and that they're therefore going to have to lead, because I can tell you, Sir, on the basis of the situation as it stands at this moment, there is a deadlock and an impasse that is insoluble.

I recognize the Minister of Labour's position with re spect to that problem because atthe moment, it is insoluble. And it is insoluble because one side is out to break the other and the other side is out to break the first side. And what the Mem ber for Thompson said on television last night, and the First Minister can evade and duck all the questions he wants, there is no way that I can pin him down in Question Period, there's no way that any member of this House can pin him down in Que stion Period.

All we can do is ask the type of questions that we ask and get the kind of evasive, and I would suggest, in some instances, offensive answers that we get from him. The fact of the matter, Sir, is that I can tell you from first-hand personal experience, and I am sure that the Minister of Labour , if he cared to, would be able to tell you the same thing, that there is a very great deal of truth in what the Member for Thompson said. And I didn't need him to goon television to tell me that; I know that that's the case.

I know that there is a fight to the death between three or four principals in this par ticular strike at Griffin Steel. I didn't need the Membe r for Thompson to tell me that. I was glad he did because the govern ment won't take it from me or won't take it from anybody on this side of the House. In fact, the public probably wouldn't take it either, so it was very helpful and very constructive that the Mem ber for Thompson should do what he did ..

The only thing is now they won't take it from him either because that caucus is split right down the middle on this issue and has not got the courage to whip themselves into line to demonstrate some leadership. Now the Member for Thompson, in my view Sir, in addition to betra ying an abysmal ignoranc e of the par liame ntary system also misses the whole point in the dispute. He treated us to an exam ination of the specific issue in terms of co mpulsory overtime and the specific conditions and factors that have gone into the different offers and counter offers and rejec tions.

And that's beside the point at the moment. I say to my honourable friend from Thomp son, that is beside the point at the moment. Nobody is going to settle that problem at the moment. The problem at the moment is 140 people whose jobs are going down the drain. That is the problem. Those jobs have got to be saved for those people. That pa rticular 140 group livelihood has got to be preserved and then we'll worry about whether this government has the courage to br ing in legislation limiting or prohibiting or outlawing compulsory overtime or not.

But first of all, for heaven's sake, , if the Minister of Labour can't do it or won't do it; if the Deputy Minister of Labou r can't do it or is incapable of doing it; if the parties on the other side representing Griffin Steel can't do it or won't do it; then somebody of goodwill and conscience who is as good as the word that this party has always professed to follow and has the interests of people at he art, whether that be the Minister of Mines and Environmental Management or the Member for Thorn pson or the First Minister, somebody, Sir, has to intervene to take theout oft he arena; to elimin ate the personal animosities and antagonisms that are cluttering up the whole situation at the present time; to re move the intransigents to which I referred this afternoon and to al low the negotiating committee of the union and people of goodwill in the government if there are any left, to work out a situation that will call for a compromise on all three sides; a compromise by the union, a compromise by the company and a compromise by the immovable members of the government so that the 140 employees at Griffin can go back to work; that work can resume, and that the contract to be negotiated and to be developed to exist in the plant over the next year or two whatever the life of it is so the contract can then be the subject of negotiations going forward from that date.

Now to do that this govern ment is going to have to go back on a pledge that it made to Gr iffin Steel and that's going to be very difficult because I know that this government has guaranteed Griffin Steel that it could deliver to them 20 hours a month compulsory overtime. lt could deliver that kind of legislation. And the fact of the matter is that that was the last offer made by the company to the union and the union turned it down, Sir, so that the govern ment cannot deliver that kind of legislation. But 526

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 the government said that Gr iffin Steel- and you know that Gr iffin Steel's first offer was pretty far out. They were talking in terms of 40 hours and additional days production days on the weekends. lt was pretty far out and no union could be expected to accept that.

So all of a sudden there was a tremendous refinement and modification of that offer because this government and this minister guaranteed Gr iffin Steel that they could get legislation through this House that would bring in and permit compu lsory overtime up to 20 hours a month and on that basis Gr iffin was to go back to work and go back into production. -(l nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. SHERMAN: Gr iffin ... -(I nterjection)- ... so what has happened, Sir? Sir, the Minister can say all he wants, I've talked to -(interjec tion)- Mr.

Speaker, the Minister can fuss and fume and practice evasive bomba sts from his side of the House. I happen to know these things, Sir. He hasn't been near this dispute for days. A MEMBER: Right. MR. SHERMAN: I' ve talked to all parties night and day for the last ten days in this dispute. Now I don't want to -(Int erjec tion)- Yes, I don't ... A MEMBER: No way, no way. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

SHERMAN: I don't wantto rake the Minister of Labou r-- if he would stay of this, if he would stay out of this, Sir, I wouldn't engage in this kind of personal debate with him, if he would stay out of it - but he keeps interje cting things from his seat. -(I nterjection)- Well, Mr . Speaker, if the Minister persists in that vain and he wants to get down to private conversations it's al l right with me. I'm fully prepared to do that.

But I say this to him, Sir, that he can practice all that kind of attack from his seat on that side of the House that he wants but the fact of the matter is he cannot deliver and I'm not suggesting he shou Id be crucified over that I'm trying to point out to him and to the House , what part of the impasse is. The Mem ber for Thompson relayed part of it on television last night and the Member for Thompson is right. There is a vendetta existence on the part of certain principals in this administration and the Canadian Association of Ind ustrial Mechanical and Allied Workers and its President.

Now that's fact number one.

Fact number two is that this government and this Minister could not deliver to Gr iffin Steel what they guaranteed them they could deliver so Gr iffin has gone back into production, had to go back into production and the Minister is hoisted on the spikes of his own making because the union is not going to accept that kind of legislation when it represents the precise final agreement that was proposed by the company which it, the union turned down so, Sir, all I'm saying is that faced with that impasse, faced with that deadlock, let us at least consider the desirab ility and the advisa bil ity of removing the principle antag onists from the arena.

Either the Minister of Labour should get into it or get out of it but to have toiled and labou red for resolution of this dispute which I know he did for many months, Mr. Speaker, to have worked hard to resolve this dispute - and the Minister of Labour did for many months attempted to resolve it and I think he probably expended a good deal of his health on that effort. I salute him for that and I thank him for that - but I say, Mr.

Speaker, that it then reached a point where everybody is only human and the old antagonisms and the old competitiveness crystal ized and polar ized and we got into a position, where in the opinion of the Minister of Lab our, there was nothing more that his intervention could do or could affect.

Now that being the case, Sir, if it's polar ized to that degree where he and the head of the union Pat McEvoy cannot affect anymore prog ress or the conciliation officer so appoi nted cannot affect anymore prog ress and whether the company and its representatives and I include its legal counsel cannot affect anymore prog ress then, Sir, it seems to me thatsince the livelihoods of these people are at stake and they're the prisoners of this situation -not of their own making- is there not some reasonable justification for suggesting that consideration should be given to removing those antagon ists from the arena and al lowing the men of goodwill that you can find, whether it be a new conciliation officer whether it be the First Minister, I don't know, but somebody who is prepared to go in there with a fresh viewpoint and with the initiative of goodwill and deal not with Mr.

Pat McEvoy because I think his position is polarized on this issue too but deal with some of the member s of the negotiating committee who, I'm given to understand, were a lot more mal leable and a lot more approachable and a lot less stubborn in some of the early negotiations than Mr. McEvoy was so who is being served in this situation? 140 people are caught. They are member s of a fraternity of which they justifiably should be proud. it's not easy for somebody who has worked as a rank and file union member all their lives to break with that kind of tradition and cross a picket line and defy his or her friends.

I haven't had that experience but I'm willing to learn from those who have that that is an extremely difficult if not impossible thing to demand of a human being, that after living in that fraternity and that community -I mean community in the broad sense of the lab our community and also the geog rap hical community- to be expected to defy those ties and those bonds and go back into work. I think it's ask ing too much of people. That's putting too big a bur den on them. So what's 527

� - - . - . . . . .. . -- . the alternative? They see their jobs going down the drain and I say lit that point, Sir, although I go &lgn !;l will1 the Minister of Mines and E;nvironme11tal Management that I don't like government intervention in the free collective bar ga,jning process, at that point, $ir, yo1,1're s�:�ving lives. You're re�:�l!y savin9 lives because you're saving livelihqods. And I put it to you, Sir, that with th� kinds of personal anta.gonisms thate�ist at the base and at the root of this issue that there is an impasse ancl a qea.dlock at the moment that can not be solved anY othE;lr wa.y.

I would say, Sir, that in general I think the labour rela,tions record of t his government of has been dismal, really dismal. I mean if one looks back to Bell Fmmdry and looks back to Flyer Ind ustries a11g lpok!? back to Metro Transit and looks back to the lnco stri ke.Nowwe loo!< at the shining jewel in that dul:lious crown, Griffin Steel. Thro ughout all, for the past four or five or six years, Sir, we have h�:�cl enormous unrest and antagonisms in the industrial community in this province. Part of it is because qf the Labour legislation introduced py this government which has got away on them.

Part of it is a result of amendments, for exarnple, of The Employment Standards Act. Par t of it is because they have created such a gap between what the rank and file union member h�,:�s been given in terms of rising expectations and what he or she can actually hope to achieve in an industrial and technical society and in a big union.

Part of it is because of that particular frustration and that particular shortcoming in the legislation itself so I say, Sir, that this government has reached a point in terms of lab our legislation where they have nothing to show at the moment for tt"leir recor d in industrial relations but a pretty dismal record, but a pretty clismal escutcheon. If they hope to do anything to retrieve thE)ir position - and fran kly I would like to see tt"lem lose their position but I don't wantto see this thing explo ited for political purposes -(I nterjection)- That's fine, Mr. Speake r, they can laugh. They can laugh.

You see the Memb er for Thompson made a remark, made a statement during his remarks about the fact that ther� was some ... One or two of the things he said - there was some laug hter and he said - "That's an attitude that's prevalent about lab our disputes", as though it's some kind of lark. Well, Sir, I say to you that that kind qf remark can cut both ways. I tell the doubting Thomases opposite and they can take it or leave it. 1 don't care. I tell them that I'm not interested in persuing this or expl oiting this for political reasons.

If I were - if we were - we could have the New Democratic smashed now in this province today because the labour union movernent generally is so disenchanted, so frustrated with a labour mini�try which is really only interested in big union leadership, not in the rank and file union members , tt"lat if we wanted to exploit it, Sir, they ain' t seen nothin' yet. If they want to see exploitation we have been extremely re served and careful arid moderate in our posture on this thing i.n this House.

I went for several days and I told the Minister befor ehand that I was going to go for several days without asking him any questions about it because I felt that some of the issues and the cause generally in this strike would not be served by having the of answers delivered day after day in this house that we get from this posturing labou r minister. Why should I ask any questions about the stri ke? We never get a straight answer. We get a pol itical speech. lf I ask him a question about the strike we get some kind of partisan political answer so there is nothing to be served . But if these peop le opposite, Mr.

Speaker, think that we have attempted to move into this area for political reasons, I say, well, there is the biggest political turncoat and cynic of them all, the Minister of Health. We don't have to ... -(l nterjectian)- MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Spea ker, the caucus of the New Democratic Party, comp letely surrounded by the Minister of Health, speaking agai n from his seat who attempts to get into this ... - (I nterjection)- Yes, I'll answer it when I've got my time. -(Interjec tion)- I will answer it but, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you, Sir, that if anybody in this House should talk about political purposes and political motives the one person who can't do it is the big gest opportunist in this House, the Minister of Health. The person who changed parties so that he could get a seat in the government, the Minister of Health. The person who supp orted and sustained this government, Mr. Speaker, when it didn't have enough numbers of its own, it got its supp ort and its sustenance from that member. So, Mr. Speaker, I sugge st that people who live in glass houses ... -(l nterjections)- MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR.

SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the people who ... -(I nterjection)- I hope you are taking this off my time, Mr. Speake r , because the Minister of .. . MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. I am going to suggest that we conduct ourselves in the parliame ntary way and I would hope that the honourable member who has the floor would not direct personal attacks, would conduct himself in a parlia mentary manner and then we would have no interruptions from the other members of this House. Order please. Or der please.

I don't need any defense, la m trying to take care of the rule s of this House and as long as members keep interr upting I don't get an opportunity to say what has to be said. I'll re peat ag ain, I would hope thatthe honourable member who has the floor would conduct himself in the fash ion which is par liame ntary and address his remarks to the Chair and not go on personal attacks. And I would hope that all the other members would contain themselves, we have plenty of time, they can all participate in the grievance as we ll. 528

Wednesdi�Y, March 9, 1977 The Honourable Membe r tor Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr . Speaker, I app re ciate your direction to al l members of the House and I simply point out to members op posite that this exchange started by my making the simple statement that we were not exploiting this situation and it could be exploited, politically. �( Interjection)� We are not.

What we are saying, and over and over ag ain the question comes up from the other side, in fact it was asked by the Honourable Member for Radisson of the Honourable Mem ber for Thompson, what are the Conservatives' solutions to this kind of a probl em?

Our solutions to this kind of a problem are to take care of the people whose jobs are going down the drain, that's what our solutions are, and then if this government bel ieves that there's something in the field of legislation that should be done then let them br ing it in, let them govern, let them br ing a bill in, but they can't get that bill through their caucus. I want to hasten to tell the Honourable Membe r for Thompson that we are not in disagr eement with him with respect to his position on compulsory overtime.

My own personal position in that respect is that overtime is something that should be negotiated in a collective agr eement on the work site. We don't favour the concept of compulsory overtime. I say that where there is good labou r rela tions you don't need compu lsory overtime. There are many industrie s that need overtime but they don't ' necessar ily need compu lsory overtime. Where there is good labour relations you don't have to have compulsory overtime, you can do it on voluntary overtime. But the dispute at Griffin has gone beyond that point.

For 17 years they were on voluntary overtime as the Member for Thompson points out. Then a dispute largely re lated to a dispute over a cola agreement plus a couple of other factors, but larg ely over a cola agr eement, led to an ultimatum bei ng delivered among the union against overtime, and the confro ntation over overtime started at that point, subsequently went to the Labour Board, subsequently went to the courts, was resolved in favour of the union and astounded the company because they had always assumed they had the right to impose overtime at their volition.

There are about 90 grievances or 86 individual grievances still hanging out of that particular dispute alone, still unresolved. I simply say to the Mem ber tor Thompson, through you Mr. Speake r, that this is a point at which and to the Minister of Mines and Environmental Management, this is a point at which, I bel ieve, intervention is necessary. Let us not get bogged down in the philosoph ical argument over whether the union is right in holding out tor all voluntary overtime or whether the company is right in holding out tor compulsory overtime.

Surely that is something that will be re solved once legislation is introduced in this House, but if we wait for legislation to be introduced and to be piloted through this House and to be cleared through this House, those people's jobs will be gone forever.

There's no way that legislation can save their jobs for them at this juncture because obviously on the testimony of the Honourable Mem ber tor Thompson who may be somewhat uneducated in the parl iamentary system, but who I bel ieve is knowledgeable in many labour matters and certainly in this one, on his testimony there are eight or nine members of the gove rn ment caucus who are directly juxtaposed in position to the other members of the caucus on this question.

So how on God's green earth are we going to get legislation thro ugh that caucus and thro ugh this House in tiriletosave those 140 jobs when 6, 8, 10 new hires are going into Griffin Steel every day? lt can't be done, Sir. lt can only be done by reserving that aspect of the dispute and the deb ate tor settlement later on and moving now to intervene in such a way as to protect those jobs and to put people around the table ag ain. So, Mr .

Speake r, I said at the outset that one has a tendency to go into these situations in the House reserving one's gr ievance tor as long as possible because obviously there are unforeseen occasions down the ro ad when one would like to use his grievance. But I consider this one of the most important subjects or issues that many of us will face in this session, and I have no qualms about having used my grievance at this ju ncture.

If it does any good, if it's of any va lue in terms of injec ting some new ideas or some new concepts into the dispute that could lead to some kind of resolution of it, then my gr ievance will certainly have been put to good purpose. I certainly could not accept the answers of the First Minister this afternoon, or the half answers of the First Minister.

Many of the questions I asked him were not answered, and I could not accept the initial premise and some of the re marks of the Mem ber for Thompson who seems to feel that everything that's wrong in this province is the fault of the people who have not been elected to govern. The tact of the matter is that they have failed dismally in their obl igation to the people who elected them, and they're in deep deep trouble in this dispute and in this debate and in this strike and we know that.

But while they wrestle and wrangle with the problem of how to hold their tenuous coalition together 140 jobs are going down the drain, and if anybody's pla ying politics in this thing and this gets back to the remark which appa re ntly touched off such an outburst before so I hesitate to say it ag ain - but we are not the ones. If anybody's playing politics in this thing, Sir, it is the New Democra tic government of this province. They're not prepared to lead in a situation into which they were elected to lead because of the 529

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 philosophical cleavage in their caucus on this question. So that's the party that's playing pol itics. They're trying to be all things to all men and women in this situation. Well, the Member for St. Boniface, the Minister of Health reacts with one of his usual semi-literate grunts from his side, but I say to him to cast his mind back a half an hour, ort hree-quarters of an hour to the answers that the Fi rst Minister gave. -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, would you al low me to have order here so that I can continue my remarks.

The Minister of He alth has developed over the past few years a tactic and a strategy of ja mming. He believes that if he ju st keeps up that bombastic dribble from his seat he jam s everybody else out. Well, Sir, I suggest that that is unparl iamentary. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. SHERMAN: So the jamming machine, if he would ju st unwind for a minute, I'll be finished in about two minutes. But, Sir, I asked the Minister of Health and his colleagues about the questions that I putto the First Minister this afternoon and the answers that we did not get.

I asked him whether the Honour able Member for Thompson, his legislative assistant, was reflecting the pol icy of the Ministry which he serves, and what kind of an answer did we get from the First Minister? We got, I thought, a facetious and somewhat offensive non-answer that had no bearing on the question that was asked him, and I would like to know, and we would like to know does the Member for Thompson who is legisla tive assistant to the Minister reflect the views of that Minister? What about the other eight or nine in the caucus who stand in opposition to their position over there?

Well this is the difficulty and the qua ndry that those workers are caught in, Mr. Speaker, so there's not much point in looking to the gover nment for legislation to bail them out. They're not going to be bailed out that way. They're going to be bailed out by taking the antagonists out of there and by al lowing the dispute to be dealt with by people who don't have long simmering antagonisms and long simmering rivalries that obscu re the major issue and by permitting negotiations to resume around a table pe nding ultimate solution of the compu lsory overtime issue.

Sir, that is the lead and the initiative that the Prog ressive-Conse rvative Party is prepared to give to this government, and the public of this province in a situation of this kind, and has done in this situation. This is the way we have talked to the people on the picket line, to the people in the union, to the people in the company, all the way along the line since this dispute started. Now if this government has an idea or a better idea or a concept of any legislation - they are the government. We're waiting for them to bring it in and to show some leadership.

If that doesn't happen , then the only hope that these people have, Sir, is that there will be an opportun ity for others in this province, notably the members of the Progressive Con servative Party, to form a government in time, in time to make sure that their livelihoods are not sacrificed on a political gain, sacrificed as a political footb all while the Minister of Labour, his Deputy, the company, the President of the Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, and one or two other principals of that kind, fight out their long simmering battles, revive their old long-time feuds and refuse to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill with the interests of those workers at heart.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member sugge sts that leadership should be take n. I suggest to the honourable member that sometimes leadership is not resorting to pan ic action when other people would do so. If I may paraph rase it for my honourable friend: "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blam ing it on you, you are a man" - in thewordsof Kipling. l say, Mr. Speaker, that that appl ies sometimes when an army is moving or defending a position and some of the people in his group start retreating and running away.

That that's were leader ship counts, that that's were leadership is necessary to deal with the situation. And I suggest to you that the Honou rable Minister of Labour has been prepar ed to do at all times the kinds of things that my honourable friend is sugges ting. That if what we are talking about is providing a means for the parties to get together and discuss matters and to facilitate such discussions the Honou rable Minister of Labour can't be fau lted one step by the Member for Fort Gar ry.

But if the honourable member is suggesting, if the Honou rable Mem ber for Fort Garry is suggesting that there is always a way to protect every labou r dispute and that all that is necessary is for some government to do something then I suggest to the honourable memb er thatthere would be more lab our disputes and more problems in the province of Man itoba because various heads of government, and various heads of companies, and various heads of unions would be continuing to create that pan ic which is designed to bring in the Minister of Labou r and the Legislature to attemp t to solve those problems. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member says he didn'tsay that. lf he didn't say that, what did he say? Mr . Speaker, what did he say? He suggested that people's jobs are in danger, that people are going to be out on strike, that there is an impasse and that this impa sse must be solved by the government. Well, Mr . Speaker, I want to tell the honourable member that in 1967 or '68, I'm not sureof the year, there was an impasse. There was an impasse between intransigent management and intransigent 530

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 lab our and I'm not going to try to say who was right, in a dispute in Selkirk, Man itoba involving Brown's Bakery. And the Prog ressive-Conservative administration was in power. The bakery went out of business and all of the people lost their jobs and the Progressive- Conser vative administration and their type of leadership, with all the means at its disposal sitting in the seats of government, was not able to solve that dispute. Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a different law at that time. There was a different law.

What they did was to get an injunction agai nst people in Selkirk, walking down the streets, saying that they were screwed by their employer. We have got no injunction agains t workers standing in front of that plant saying that they want to go back to work or that they want voluntary overtime, or that they were screwed by the NDP. We got no such injunction. We have not stopped that type of activity. That type of activity was illegal under the Prog ressive-Conservative administration. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says that he believes in free collective bargai ning.

He belie ves that overtime should be a subje ct of tree collective barg aining. And the government? That is the law of the province of Man itoba today. And by and large, Mr. Speaker, I would say that 95, and I think I' m be ing light, 95 percent of the work force has been able to have voluntary arrangements, freely arrived at, between management and labour deal ing with overtime, in a tree society.

And the honourable member says that because there is one strike in one plant in one year in the province of Man itoba, and there will be suffering, I'll admit it- there will be problems and the people who are involved will have problems - that because of that problem one should undo what has found itself commendable to all of the employees and the employers in the province of Manitoba to deal with that one situation. Mr. Speaker, I don't have to reiterate my position. The fact is that when I was on that side of the House, I bel ieved in free collective bar gaining.

I bel ieved in undoing the laws ag ainst inj unction; I belie ved in undoing the laws which prevented men from striking or which required them to go back to work; I bel ieved in letting employees go wherever they want to, including those at Gr iffin Steel, trying to prevent or to use whatever economic power they had to to make their position ag ainst Gr iffin Steel. I suggest that the Con servative administration would not do that. Let there be no mistake about it. They would have laws which saw to it that that kind of freedom was not avai lable to the people of the province of Man itoba.

That's not hypothetical. -(I nterjection)- That was their position and that is their existing pla tform. That is the pla tform of the Leader of the Conservative party. So, Mr. Speaker, freedom has its price; it has its benefits and it has its responsibilities.

And one of the problems that emerge in a free society is that it doesn't solve all problems and that that is one of the prices that we have to pay for freedom. lt requires respo nsibility and the people engaged in that particular dispute, both on the management side and on the labour side - and they will both suffer one of the things that have been fought for to preserve tree collective bar gaining in our society for many many years.

You know, I don't have the time, but the honourable members know, not one of them will accuse me - not one of them will accuse me of what the Member for Thompson has accused me of - of handling this dispute in a different way than we have handled every other dispute.

Not one of them would say that because they know that I have beha ved the same way with the Steelworkers, that I have beha ved the same way with the Paperworkers, that I have beh aved the same way with the Bus Workers, and that the people who he said I'm oppo sed to because they picketed outside my house, that when my children looked out the windows and saw them picketing, I said that I am proud of myself because I gave them the right to do that. To suggest that I have animosity and would subject these people to the kind of thing that they are involved in because of some personal grievance, I say, Mr.

Speaker, that that suggestion which the Hono urable Member for Fort Ga rry now picks up and adopts, is absolutely without foundation, scandalous and scurrilous, as it appl ies to anybody on this side of the House. There is, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, even the Member for Thompson didn't say that, if he has become your spokesman. He said, "Eight people feel this way about corn pu lsory or voluntary overtime". He did not say, "Eight people on this side accuse the government of having a prejudic ial position vis-a-vis that particular union." Because, Mr.

Speaker, even the Member for Thompson would not make that kind of allegation. lt just is not true. -(l nterjection)- Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member tor Fort Garry says that he is not using this as a political issue. I do not know why pol itics suddenly comes into disrepute. Why is it wrong to use a situation in the province of Man itoba which you feel would commend itself to you if you exercised it properly and would bring down the government. Why should that be something that you do not want to do?

From what 1 have learned in the past 8 years, you've wanted to do that every day while you are in opposition, and 1 would assume that you still want to do it. And you are nO\IV suggesting to us thatyou've got a way of throwing us out' but you won't use it because you are too kind. My honourable friend knows fu ll well that the reason, Mr. Speaker, the reason he will not exploit that issue in a way in which he says it would be explo ited is not because it would result to his political credit, it is because it would resultto 531

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 his political debit. And that's his problem . If it would result to his pol itical credit, he would be using it in that way, and Mr. Speaker, there would be nobody on this side of the House who would fault him for it. The fact is that the honourable member has not suggested anything, he has implied that a Prog ressive Conservative administration would have a way of deal ing with this problem, which we obviously have not used. He then says he bel ieves in free collective bar gaining. Mr. Speaker, I belie ve that the Conse rvatives would have a way of deal ing with this question.

I bel ieve that they would set up a system of rules such as existed in our province previously, that if a judge doesn't like the way you are walking down the street, he can issue an injunction preventing you from doing so. That if a judge doesn't like the fact that you are not at work, he can issue an injunction preventing you from not bei ng at work and that this would bring the men to the jobs and we would have industrial stabi lity in our province. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we had a Con servative administration and, you know, I' m not going to make a big issue out of every strike because there will be strikes in every province in every ju risdiction but was there industrial stabil ity when we had the Conservative administration? Or will we have one now?

When the civil service or the teachers - and I can't remember - publ ish a big ad in the Toronto Glo be and Mail saying that Bill Davis is a tight-wad and the teachers all then leave their jobs and refuse to go to work until the government of Ontario passes a law requiring them to work or go to jail, is that industrial stab ility? A MEMBER: The Con servatives think so. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the fall acy -(I nterjection)- pardon me? Well would the honourable member be satisfied if I gave him an example of Man itoba under a Con servative administration? -(Int erjec tion)- No, it's not there either. MR.

SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. $EEN: Mr. Speaker, what the honourable member is doing is repea ting what the Memb er for Lakeside said last year. Mr. Speaker, what he is doing is repeat ing what the Ho nourable Member said last year,Don't bring up anything we have done; don't bring up anything we are now doing in another province; and don't bring up, by all means, anything that we might do in the future, because to do so would be not to fight fa ir and we want to fight fair." Well, Mr .

Speaker, I am sorry I cannot proceed on that basis. l have to tell the honourable memb er that the Member for Fort Garry has come into this House; he has suggested that great words of truth emana ted from the Member for Thompson when he suggested a prejud ice by this government with respect to a par ticular union. I say to the honourable member that leader ship under those circumstances is not panicking, that one must and I repeat, you must keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blam ing it on you. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I refer to the Memb er for Fort Ga rry as well as anybody else and that is a stronger form of leadership given existing circumstances because it is exactly in line with what the labour movement applauded and said that they wanted when we were in opposition. They said they wanted free collective bargai ning; they said they wanted equal ity of rights; they said they wanted the right to withdraw their labour; they said they wanted the rightto disseminate their position anywhere in the same way that the Progr essive Conservative Party could or the New Democr atic Party could.

At that time, nobody suggested there be a law which prevents an employer from hiring somebody during the existence of a lawful strike. Is that what the Honour able Mem ber for Fort Garr y is suggesting because we have resisted properly and in accordance with straight lab our union principles passing any such laws and I hope that we would continue to resist it. And, Mr.

Speaker, we have also, it was also confirmed by the lab our movement that no one has the right to prevent the freedom of action of any other person and that if people bloc ked the street, then it is the obliga tion of the state to keep that street clear, just the same as if the company committed a criminal offence, it would be up to the government to prosecute that criminal. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are certain ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I rea lize the Honour able Member hasn't finished.

This is one of the areas where our rules aren't covered and I have a proposition to make to the Ho use if they're prepared to listen. The Honourable Member has not finished, completed his time. The motion on the floor is open, has not been resolved. Now we can proceed into Private Mem bers' Hour or we can, by leave, give the Honou rable Member extended time or we can tomorrow, when we've gone through and come to Order s of the Day, come to this par ticular question and the Honourable Member can then carry on. Now that are the options you have and I'm prepared to have a discussion on that at the present time.

The Honou rable Member for Birtle-Russell on a point of order. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I bel ieve that there is occa sion, if you check back through Hansar d , where we have taken up the entire time until 4:30 on a grievance on a Wednesday afternoon and it has ended at that point in time. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Aiel. On a point of order. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK: Yes, on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you would be setting a 532

Wednesday, March ,9, 1977 precedent that doesn't have too much parallel from the past procedures in this House if you extended into the Private Members' Hour so I suggest if the Minister wants to complete his time that it be done during the regular time tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I belie ve that that would be correct.

I bel ieve that 4:30 having arrived, it would be different if we were going into Supply but the motion will ag ain be open tomorrow. ltwill be the same motion; there will be that much time left on my remarks and I Will be able to comp lete them tomorrow. The motion has not been put; the question has not proceeded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR - RESOLUTION NO. 1 MR. SPEAKER: Very well, at this time we go into Private Members' Hour. The question before the House is Resolution No. I by the Honour able Member for Portage La Prairie. The Honour able Minister of Municipal Affairs had the debate adjourned in his name. NiR.

GREEN: I wonder if we can ju st hold it for a second, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Very well. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I think you had better call the question because the Minister is not here. MR. SPEAKER: Very well. The Resolution before the House is Resolution No. l by the Honour able Member for Portage La Prai rie. The Honour able Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I am takin!:J the floor on this resolution and in doing so I wanttb indicate that hearings are now being held in the Province of Man itoba and in North Da kota with regard to the Garrison diversion n unit.

As a matter of fact, I belie ve that the Lead er of the Opposition is presently speaking on this issue in Souris and I gather that the Leader of the Liberal Par ty will be presenting a brief. I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that that which is the case with other governments and in other areas as it refers to relations with another province, that one could adopt a co mmon front and that one would not be attempting to suggest that there isn't a position which the government of the other country could take as being the position of the province. lt is generally the rule, Mr.

Speaker, in external affa irs that except in extraordinary circumstances, one does not try to undermine the external relations of your own country in dealing with another country. Of course; if your own country was engaged in external relations which were demonstrably dama ging, I supp ose that that is something that a person would have to exercise a jud gement in in dealing with. Unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the Garrison diversion program, despite what I be lieve has been a continually correct position adopted by the government of Man itoba, concurred in by the government of Canada and pursued on the basis of consistent co-operation between the government of Canada and the government of Man itoba, there have been continuous attempts for people to suggest that one is not behaving as he should.

I think the Member for Fort Rouge said, "lt's not sufficient to be merely correct; one must get mad; one must make motions; one must, I suppose he could go push it forward, pour gasoline on one's head and light a match in order to demonstrate just how seriously -(Interjec tion)- Yes, I know that the member would think it's a good idea and I khow, Mr. Speaker, that he knows that there is no other way in which he could damage the sustenance of our position so he would sugge st anything like that is a good idea. Now, the Member for Fort Rouge reminds me, Mr.

Speaker, of Ham let when they were mourning over Ophel ia's grave and everyone was trying to out-mourn the other person and Hamlet said that he loved her more than anybody else. What would you do for Ophel ia? Wouldsteat a crocodile; wouldst do various other things and finally leaps into the grave, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of eating a crocodile; I have no intention of leap ing into the grave; I have intention of co nducting Manitoba's policy vis-a-vis the Garrison diversion in a sound and as a reasonable a manner as is possible. I bel ieve, Mr.

Speaker, that the parties who have made this an issue of antagonism and now see that the issue was conducted as reaso nably as possible and I have never guar anteed success nor would 1 have the temerity to do so because I don't know what will be the result. What I do know, Mr. Speaker, is that if you behaved in a certain way, you would achieve a certain result. If you behaved in an alternative way; you would achieve another result. What the government of Manitoba has tried to do is to beha ve as reasonably as possible while not in any way detracting from our position.

The position that we have taken is now referred to, Mr. Speaker, as a strong line and I'm sorry, the Member for Portage La Prairie in introducing this resolution said that he hopes that by him be ing militant that the government will ach ieve a strong line and that they will see to it that the government maintains a strong line with regards to the Garrison diversion. Well, Mr. Speaker, well exactly, I said that that's what they wou Id say. I said exactly that that's what they would say. lt's interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that in the Minot newspaper it says; "Man itoba does not retreat from its early position." This is in Minot. This is an objective source. "Many newspapers newspaper present interpreted Mr. Green's restatement of that stand and his reference to building a project within the Souris and Red Rivers to keep return flows from entering Canada as a very hard 533

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 line. He, himself, pointed out that it was the position he and the government of Premier Ed Schreyer had taken from the be ginning. Manitoba does not retreat from its early position." And ag ain, Mr . Speaker, in the same newspaper: "Actually it was the identical position the government of Man itoba has taken for some three years." This is by somebody named Jack Bone.

"During that period, the Premier and his Minister of the Environment have resisted great pressures by environmental zealots to communicate objections to the U.S. government and to get the project into court to stop the project." So, Mr. Speaker, what has been our difference of opinion on this question and I really don't know where there has been a difference of opinion except an attempt by some people to sugge st that we were not doing everything possible and the Member for Fort Rouge says that it was never his sugge stion that we go to court. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have his questions and answers in Hansard - to sue in court, yes. Mr. Speaker, I have his questions and answers in Ha nsard in which he says, "H ave you not taken the matter to an international court such as was done with the case involving Cu ba; have you not told Governor Link that you are going to take him to Court?" Well, Mr.

Speaker, yes, you know, that question, I suppose the honourable memb er says it's not a suggestion that you would go to court but he was making it when the Environmental Cou ncil was as king me to go to court, and he was grandstanding to the Environmental Counci l, "Why are you not taking this matter to court?" it's not a suggestion when the honourable member says, "Why are you not taking this matter to court?" - he is not suggesting that we take it to court.

I suggest that the honourable member in those years told the newspapers, told this House that we should be taking that matter to court, that that was what he was doing, and that he now sees that that was a distastrous kind of suggestion and therefore, Mr . Speaker, has disowned the Liberal party from having made that suggestion. Mr. Speaker, he has disowned the Lib eral party from having made that suggestion. Mr.

Speaker, if the honourable members are going to object to what this party has done, then I want to put what we have done in the form of a res olution, as an amendment to the Member for Portage la Prai rie's resolution, and I want him to vote against it. I want to say what we have done and I want them to vote agains t it. The Honourable Mem ber for Portage la Pr airie says that when we go down to the States all we do is get conned by the Governor of North Dakota. You know, the honourable member can't even remember his own complimentary remarks.

The first time I want to the States and spoke to the people of North Dakota, the next day the Member for Portage la Prairie got up and he said he wants to commend the Minister of Mines for the message he took to the people of North Dakota when he went there the other day. That's what he said. But apparently it wasn't good enough for the party lines, for the Member for Fort Rouge, so that has to be undone and ther e has to be some suggestion that what was acco mplished was accomplished by the Li beral Government in Ottawa and that Man itoba Government did nothing. Mr.

Speaker, I have not had one word of criticism of the Liberal Government in Ottawa. Does the member think that that's because I never had reason for criticizing because I tell the member and it will be proved on the record when the time comes, that I have taken that position, as I have told the newspaper s I have taken it - I bel ieve that it is not good for the Canad ian position for it to be undermined by local pol itics in this matter of external affa irs.

I am not going to say that I agree with everything that they have done, but what I do agree is that they should be doing it and that I should not be nit-picking. Now the honourable member does not follow that. The honourable memb er thinks that he can take the good position and also say that he "would eat a crocodile" or that he "would leap into the grave" and that we have not done enoug h. And I'm going to give the honourable member the opp ortunity to vote for his principles because I'm going to suggest, Mr.

Speaker, an ame ndment to this resolution which in every way indicates the steps that have been taken and which indicates the steps that have been resisted and which I think, Mr. Speaker, should be a good position for the Province of Man itoba, and which I think should not be undermined in juris dictions outside of this province. And the honourable member can then proceed to say that he wishes to show that the Government of Manitoba did nothing or didn't do the right thing. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable, the Minister of Corr ections, that the resolution be amended by deleting therefrom al l of the words following the word "Whereas" in the first paragraph thereof and sub stituting therefor the following:

WHEREAS pursuant to action initiated by the Province of Man itoba in Jan uary of 1970, the Government of Canada referred the issue of an al leged potential violation of the Boundary Waters Treaty by virtue of the Garrison Diversion Ir rigation unit in the United States to the International Joint Commission; and

WHEREAS the said al leged violation is presently pending before the International Joint Commission; and

WHEREAS it is desirable that there be no question as to the support of the Government of Man itoba in its presentation before the International Joint Comm ission and its action with respectto 534

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 the Garrison Diversion unit; TH EREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED I. That this government confirms and endorses those steps taken by the Government of Man itoba designed to place the province in the most favo urable positron before -the In ternational Joint Commission; namely (

a) In continued use of reasonable diploma tic means to deal with this problem and in obtaining progress through the use of such means; (

b) Accepting the validity of the undertakings given by the United States Government and the Government of North Dakota; (

c) In encourag ing the documentation of Man itoba's complaints by sources in the United States and in Canada; (

d) In the presentation of two briefs before the International Joint Co mmission; (

e) In maintaining solidarity with and in not undermining the Canadian Government in its external relations. 2. That this House endorses the action of the Man itoba Government in resisting the taking of such steps as would have jeopardiz ed the position of the province; namely (

a) By not considering the matter satisfactorily resolved upon receipt of the American undertaking and continuing to prepare ou rselves to deal with arguments which would be made over the use of the words "poll ution" and "injur y" as used in the Treaty. In this, Mr. Speaker, I'm just going beyond this - as soon as Mr . Mitchell Sharp, the Minister of State for External Affairs received the American undertaking, he said, "The matter is solved. They obey their undertakings and Canada has no more problems." We did not take that position. (

b) By refusing to adopt grandstand and fruitless advice to sue the United States Govern ment either in a United States court or a Canadian court; (

c) By refusing to involve the Govern ment of Man itoba in the internal politics of the Un ited States by opposing aspects of the Garrison Diversion which the Un ited States undertook would not involve the Red and Souris Rivers; (

d) By refusing the temptation of dema nding compensation as an appr op riate remedy for problems which would arise in Canada; - which the Lead er of the Liberal par ty did less than a month ago on television. (

e) By refusing to deem as acceptable the proceeding with the Diversion by the United States if full complia nce with the International Joint Commission Study Board Report Recommendations were guaranteed; - . which other people in our province have said would be acceptable. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable Min ister of Mines, seconded by the Hono urable Minister of Corr ections, the amendment as read. Do the members wish me to read the amendment or do they have copies? Are you ready for the . . . The Ho nourable Member for Lakes ide. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To sugge st that I am ready is real ly overstating the fact. The amendment just provided to this resolution of the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie likely would require a bit more time than the 3D seconds that I have had to address myself to it. But, Sir, l had some comments that I wanted to make generally on the subject matter to this resolution and will deliver them at this par ticular time. Coinc identally, Mr.

Speaker, they also happen to relate to the su bject matter that just was previously discussed, although far removed from the labour scene, but on the point that the Honourable House Leader was making just a few moments before 4:30 on the deba te that we spent most of the afternoon on - on the grievance matter raised by the Honourable Member from Thompson, the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and then entered into by the House Leader.

Sir, the Honourable House Leader has indicated in an earlier deba te thatthere was nothing wrong with being "super pol itical" and using the full influence of politics on all or every occa sion that it recommended itself to a political pa rty in furthering their interests.

I should indicate to the Honou rable House Leader that we on this side have, for reasons not political chosen, have chosen to act in what we know to be and what we hope will appear to be to most Man itobans, as a pretty responsible way, in the full position that this Minister and this government has taken with respect to the Garrison Project and its possible effects on Man itoba, and the kind of actions and activities that we should exhibit in strengthening our position to its maximum with such bodies as the Comm ittee, which is the International Comm ittee that is now studying the matter, and acting in any way that wouldn't weaken the position of our government in making its presentations before: (

a) the Canadian Gover nment, (

b) the American government; and (

c) in front of the International Committees charged with the par ticular responsibil ity of investigating and studying the matter. That, Sir, is not to say that we have been satisfied or are satisfied today with the output that he has solicited from his own department, from his own resources. We have on nu merous instances 535

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 indicated to him that we should be far more up-to-date in terms of what our assessment of possib le damages are; what acceptab ility to us means, spelled out in actual terms, in actual qual ity of water terms if you like, in actual flooding potentia Is, in actual biology damage to our lakes.

To suggest, Sir, that we have been satisfied with what the people, the resource people that this Minister has at his disposal in his department, that they have in fact done the kind of homework, done the kind of work that we think could immeasurably have strengthened our position, could have at least in many ways prevented some of the kind of alarmist discussion that we seem to enter into from time to time when environmental matters are at stake. We simply bel ieve that they haven't done their work and that this Minister hasn't done his work.

But we have desisted, we have desisted from making this an al l-out political issue in the Province of Man itoba because we do happen to bel ieve from time to time, issues do arise that ca ll for recognizing, that ca ll for a relatively non-partisan position in order to strengthen the position of the public and the people of Manitoba as a whole. Mr. Speaker, this situation was not always thus ... -(I nterjection)- was not always thus. lt was a very good po litical position, I suggestfor all parties of this House to have adopted on another major environmental question not that many years ago.

I would suggest that for all Manitobans today, we would be four or five, six hundred million ahead of t he game had that position been taken on a greater question some seven or eight years ag o. But that was not the position of our opposition at that time. Political hay was to be cut and to be mowed and to be hung up for publi c view and it was done, Sir, it was done by every opposition member that we faced with the possible exception of some who qual ified that position.

Oh, they enjoyed that position, they enjo yed milking the last of the politics out of it, to the extent that no flooding would take place on South Indian Lake, which was the official position of the Liberal party at that time; to the extent that most New Democ ratic Party members that ran for the election, who weren't perhaps members of the House, certainly used it prominently in al l their publ ic statements and all their public literature at that time; to the extent that the First Min ister indicated, in fact, that there would be no flooding at South Indian Lake - the present First Min ister so indicated.

There was, Mr. Speaker, some caution exhibited, some rational ization of the position taken officially by the New Democratic Party, then in opp osition in this House, that prevented them from being completely irresponsible, that prevented them from saying comple tely that the government of the day was wrong. But certainly, Sir, no hesitation to milk the pol itics of the situation to its full.

Sir, I suggest that if the present oppos ition, that is, Her Maj esty's Official Opposi tion, were to take that attitude with respect to the serious problems' the grave concern that we have for the potential damages that the Garrison Project can reek on Man itoba, then, Sir, that would be following the dictates of the House Leader who just a little while ago lectured the Member for Fort Garry that there was nothing wrong with taking politics into every and all situations at all times.

Well, Sir, I suggest to you, Sir, it was precisely that attitude that has cost Man itobans the most massive single waste of public funds and has frittered away one of our most precious heritages and that will have saddled our children, their children, and their grandch ildren with debts that we can never erase.

I do not want the Minister to bel ieve that the kind of acq uiesce position that we have taken with the Minister on Garrison indicates comp lete satisfaction with the manne r and way in which he has directed his own department and handled his own resources in arm ing ourselves as a province, the people of Manitoba, ag ainst the potential danger, the potential threat that Ga rrison may offer.

I suggest that it was a shock and a surprise to us when we, , as an Official Opp osition Party group visited Garrison some two years ago, and when we were asked by American officials what would be acceptable to us in terms of water qual ity, what is the present condition of our rivers and streams that are to be affected, namely the Souris, the Assinib oine or the Red, we didn't have the information, Sir.

I understand that some of that information is now bei ng gathered, is not being collated but Sir, in terms of and overall impact study based on our information, provided by our expects, not relying on experts of another country, not relying on experts that could be presumed to have a bias or a prej udice in favour of projects to their advantage. Mr. Speaker, this Min ister doesn't employ X number of hundreds of emp loyees, biologists, engineers, water hydraulics, everything else, simply to rely on other people's data, simply to pick up other people's

interpretation of what constitutes a hazard to us. So I'm suggesting that when the Member from Riel and others have suggested to him from time to time that we could have and should have, since the time, and perhaps even since the time previous to this Ministry's acceptance through this government's responsibility in this area. Because certainly the Garrison Project does date back to some time and I belie ve the reservoir was built in '64 - '65, the actual impoundment of water began at that time.

Certa inly at that time there was time to use the lead time- from then to now- and so if he wants me to I'll share four years of inactivity on the part of the Department of Mines and Natural Resources with him, as having been a Minister responsible for part of that time. But Sir, he has been Minister now for the last seven years and we haven't got Manitoba impact 536 e r

Wednesday, March 9, 1977 studies ava ilable to us. We have not-(l nterjection)- they are certainly not adequa te ones. Certa inly not adequa te ones, Sir. We have relied essentially and virtually totally on information suppl ied to us by the American sources in this instance. -(l nterjection)-We ll, Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the Min ister in the most graphic way that I can whether we have done the sufficient studies that I talk about? And I want to ask him whether we know and whether he can tell me definitively, for instance, can the gizzard shad survive in our northern waters? Yes or No?

Have they done those studies? Ha ve we done those studies? Have we taken a ... gizzard shad and put him into an isolated lake - one of the former Ministers of Highways he said he liked to boast about the 10 0,000 lakes that we have - and have we determined for ou rselves whether or not that particular species is a danger to our waters? Well, Sir, I suggest we have not. I sugge st we have not. While the Honour able Minister's position with respect to his understanding of the due process of how governments relate with each ot

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-15
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf 15.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9af877db4ab2124b09ba2d858b097a5ea1d41ecd

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