ISSN 0542-5492 Fifth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 30 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXIX No. 66A - 2:00 p.m., MONDA V, 27 APRIL, 1981 Office of the Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEG ISLATIVE ASSE MBL V Thirty - First Leg islature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A, R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOVCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COY/AN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Hon. Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTSURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Aiel St. Boniface Elm wood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Os borne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP Prog. PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC Prog. Prog. PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib lnd

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Monday, 27 April, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (B irtle­ Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receivin g Petition s ... Presenting Repo rts by Standing and Special Committees . . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . INTRODU CTION OF BILLS HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur) introduced Bill No. 58,

An Act to amend The Agricultural Lands Protection Act. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-K illarney) introduced Bill No. 59, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act (1 981) . (R ecommended by His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor) INTROD UCTION OF GUES TS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I should like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery where we have 30 students of Grades 5 and 6 standing from Van Belleghem School under the direction of Ms. Donna Wicks. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Emergy and Mines.

On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUES TIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address a question to the Honourable Attorney-General and ask him whether Manitoba was represented at the Supreme Court hearing of an appeal from the Supreme Court of British Columbia dealing with the jurisdiction of the Provincial Family Court on the question of custody, restraining order and sole occupancy of the matrimonial home. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W.J.

MERCIER (Osborne): Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHERNIACK: Would the Honourable Minister indicate whether in his opinion it was necessary and if indeed he has made any preparatory provision for taking care of the situation that may well arise if the decision of the Supreme Court is adverse to the jurisdiction of the Family Court? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have instructed my department to prepare a plan of action which could be undertaken in the event of an adverse decision to the Province of British Columbia which would have 3013 implications for this province and I believe all other provinces. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, to the Honourable Attorney-General. In view of the fact that he took the position, which I believe was the same position as that of the previous government of Manitoba, that the Federal Government should retain the jurisdiction on divorce and matrimonial causes, I believe the only province to do so as compared to all the others which wished the transfer to take place, whether under those circumstances assuming that transfer will not take place, assuming that the Supreme Court is opposed to the ... Mr. Speaker, ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK: If you let me finish I will take care of the assumption. I'm sure the Honourable Minister will recognize that when you prepare for certain actions one does make certain assumptions - and he's already indicated that - whether or not he would not consider the possibility that the ruling may come after the Legislature adjourns and whether therefore it would not be essential that either the Legislature will have to be called into session on such an important matter or whether it would not be possible now to be ready with legislation to be brought in before the end of this session? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in my review of this matter to date with the de partm ent on the assu mptio n that the Sup reme Cour t would rule against the position taken by the Province of British Columbia and other provinces including ourselves, the subject of a legislative change by this Assembly has not arisen to date. Up until now I'v e not seen demonstrated to me any suggestion that a legislative change would be necessary. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct a question to the Honourable Attorney­ General.

Has the Honourable Attorney-General had an opportunity of looking at that case in the Province of Alberta whereby it was held that compulsory seat legisla tion, in Alberta, passed by the Alb erta Legislature, was ruled invalid as being contrary to The Bill of Rights of the Province of Alberta? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'v e not seen the judgme nt itself, I' ve only perused the newspaper reports. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a further question to the Attorney-General.

If the Honourable Attorney-General would view that decision, would he also consider if a Charter of Rights such as is now being proposed - I should say a charter taking away rights - and being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, would that kind of Charter make seat belt and helmet legislation passed by any

Monday, 27 April, 1981 legislature in the provinces in Canada, ultra vires, as being contrary to the Charter of Rights? Would he consider that? MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is quite possible. I have had an opportunity to have reviewed by my department a report from the Province of Quebec, in which they hired a firm of solicitors to review very quickly the Statutes of the Province of Quebec. The lawyers' report indic ated that if the Charter of Rights were brought into force in Canada it would probably mean at least some 14 2 changes in the Statutes of the Province of Quebec.

We have reviewed that, not in depth because we simp ly haven't had time nor the staff to do that to date in Manitoba, but I suspect that we would be facing legislative changes in that order in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster with a final supplementary. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

If there were legislation reqUirmg compulsory seat belts and requirin g compuls ory helmets - which I happen to disagree with but which some people who advocate a Charter of Rights have been pursuing in this House - and it was held ultra vires by virtue of being contrary of a Charter of Rights which then came into existence, would it not then be necessary to get the Senate, the House of Commons and six provinces, including both Ontario and Quebec and some in these regions, to pass a constitutional amendment in order to make such legislation possible in a provincial Legislature? MR. MERCIER: The answer is yes, Mr.

Speaker, and what the Member for lnkster did not refer to - although I believe he is aware of it - the Charter of Rights would enable the court not only to declare that the Province of Manitoba, for example, did not have the authority to pass such a statute but also would give the court the power to impose a remedy upon the province and this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Economic Development and Tourism.

I ask the Minister if he can indicate what action his department will be taking in respect to the anticipated increases in tourism and visits by tourists to the community of Churchill in the next year? I would ask him specifically if he is prepared to put in place an employee of his department to reside and to work in Churchill on a full-time position at least during the tourist season so that they can have a more co­ ordinated approach to promoting that particular area for increased tourism busin ess in the future? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mi nister of Tourism. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr.

Speaker, the department has been working very well with the group in Churchill who put out this marvellous book on Churchill and we assisted them to do it last year. They had 4,000 visitors in Churchill in 1979; they had 6,664 actual I believe in 19 80 and the y're anticipating 10,0 00 this year, Mr. Speaker. We have an Assistant Deputy Mi nister on the Board of Directors of the VIA Rail Tourist Group who work with VIA Rail Tours to Churchill continually, Mr.

Speaker, and the gentleman with the Chamber of Commerce in Churchill who is in charge of their tourism promotion was in my office this morning talking to me about the very same thing. Instead of doing a lot of talking about it we are getting things done, Mr. Speaker. MR. COWAN: The Minister suggests that they are doing a number of things.

I ask him in specific, are they prepared to make a commitment to put in place an employee of the department in the community of Churchill in order to help promote tourism and in order to help the entrepreneurs in that community and the community at large who are wishing to promote that indus try in their own area? Is he prepared to make that commitment now rather than give us a bunch of talk which is about all he has done in the past in respect to promoting tourism in Northern Manitoba? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, the gentleman who was in my office this morning from Churchill didn't even make that request as definite as the Member for Churchill did. He had more common sense and said, could we discuss it and work together to see what we're going to do. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: I'm not privy to the conversations that the Minister has in his private office but I can assure him that the people of Churchill would like to see a commitment forthcoming from the Minister at this time in respect to that very simple request.

Is the Minister prepared to make a commitment to put in place an officer in that community that will in fact help the local community develop tourism . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The question is repetitive. The Honourable Minister. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to work with the people of Churchill who kriow what they're talking about, to do the best thing for tourism in Churchill and we will continue to work with them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURV: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Honourable Minister of Health.

I'd like to ask the Minister - Mr. Speaker, this refers to a statement from the Chairman of the Manitoba Medical Association's V.D. Committee in reaction to the provincial health department's annual report - what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that VD cases are not goin g un detected unnecessarily because of the staff shortage? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L.R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, last year we introduced a system under 3014

Monday, 27 April, 1981 which doctors are compensated in the amount of $4.00 for each case they report. Each indi vidual report of each individual case is chargeable to the Commission at a $4.00 fee and that has had a significant benefit in terms of the numbers of cases being reported. In addition to that, we do have an intensive watch maintained through the Venereal Disease Control Branch of our Public Health Division and considerable in put from the private medical sector, that is the medical profession outside the dep art ment. I think that it is producing some measurable results and sig nificant results, Mr.

Speaker, but it is always a difficult problem to get at. We never know whether we're much beyond the tip of the iceberg in that particular area. MS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister is having the de partment study the necessity, as described by some of the experts in the health field, to have the reporting of Herpes under The Public Health Act, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it can seriously affect new born babies and that it's been linked to cervical cancer in women. MR. SHERMAN: I can't confirm that is being pursued in a manner described by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, Mr.

Speaker, but there is great con cern in the pr ofession and in my depart ment over the prevalence of Herpes and certainly the Venereal Di sease Br anch of the department, the Epid emio logic al Branch of the department in the di vision of Public Health are maintaining a very careful surveillance and count of reported herpes cases. The medical profession has been very keenly ale rted to the expan ding preva lenc e of this particular dis ease in recent months, particularly in the last two or three years, and we are attempting to maintain a very close watch on it.

I can explore that question in the context in which it's been put by the Member for Fort Rouge further, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge with a final supplementary. MS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, the Director of the Manitoba Medical Association's VD Committee also referred to the difficulty in obtaining reports from rural areas and the fact that the cultures can only live for about 24 hours and cannot be frozen.

I wonder if the Minister will be able to report to the House quite shortly on whether better arrangements are being taken to allow these cultures to reach the laboratories in time for treatment to be effected in the rural areas, Mr. Speaker. MR. SHERMAN: The only thing we can do is what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, continue in consultation with the medical profession on this problem. There are difficulties in terms of follow through by doctors detecting cases.

There are often difficulties in having the cultur es and other evidence processed by labs and the communication between laboratories. it's an ongoing challenge that we face in the field. The only remedy we have for it is continual communication with the profession on the subject. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is dir ected to the Attorney-General. On April 16th, a young boy in the north part of Winni peg died as the tragic consequence of a homemade rocket exploding causing damages to him and then he di ed as a result of those inj uries.

Has the Attorney-General requested a report under The Fatalities Inqui ry Investigation Act or is he going to ask for an inquest into this death? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and enquire into whether or not there is a fatality inquest contemplated by the department in that matter. MR. PARASIUK: I have a supplementary to the Mi ni ster of Health on the same ques tion, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the Minis ter is, has his department been able to inform him of why it was that this young boy was first taken to the Seven Oaks Hospital and then had to be taken further to the Health Sciences Centre in the centre of Winnip eg? I've received a number of inquiries from people in the north end who are wondering whether in fact Seven Oaks Hospital is actually fully operational or whether in fact it's a hospital that is fully equipped but insufficiently staffed to handle emergency situations as the one that arose on April 16th. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR.

SHERMAN: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that it's not fully opera tional, nor will it be fully operational till April 1st, 1982. it's being phased in; there are a certain number of medical and surgical beds, psychiatric beds and others that have been phased in but the total complement of the hospital, which is 336 beds, has not by any means been attained or been reached yet. About one-third of the beds are in place, occupied and fully staffed. By April 1st, 1982 it is the intention to have the hospital fully operative at the 336-ped level.

This would have some bearing, some effect on the size and volume of patient care which the emergency department is able to accommodate at the present time, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona with a final supplementary. MR.

PARASIUK: In view of the fact that ambulances are required by a government directive to take an emergency patient to the nearest hospital, and in view of the fact that that's the general action on the part of the citizens, will the Minister communicate to the ambulances in Win nipeg the fact that at present the Seven Oaks Hospital may not be fully operational and that as a result ambula nces possibly could consider taking people directly to a fully-functioning hospital in Winnip eg in the event of an emergency so that we don't have the possibility that a person's life may have been lost because a person was taken to a hospital which has been announced as open but as yet is not fully functioning, Mr.

Speaker? MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly investigate that The ambulance system works on a 3015

Monday, 27 April, 1981 central dispatch basis and on codes which interpret to them the nearest available emergency department capable of coping with the patient that they are transporting and I would think that in the case referred to by the Honourable Member for Transcona that there probably were extenuating circumstances which resulted in the cross transfer or the further transfer of that P!ilient, but I'll certainly explore the issue that he has raised in his question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Finance and refer him to the Throne Speech, a sentence of which reads, "My Mi ni sters will be monitoring the effects of high interest rates on the small business sector." In view of the fact that the Bank of Canada rate has now reached the highest ever, would the government take under consideration the advisability of stopping their monitoring? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that that was a serious question from the Member from St.

Johns because if he wants the government to ignore the impact that high interest rates are having on the business people, the farmers of Manitoba then so be it; that's not the position of the government. MR.

CHERNIACK: In view of the fact that the government has not done anythin g apparent in relation and as a result of its monitoring of high interest rates and the help that is desperately needed, especially by the small businessman and the agricultur al element in relation to these high est interest rates ever, is the government prepared to announce a program which will indeed cope, to the extent that a province can cope, with the question of high interest rates as they do affect the small busine ssman, the agric ultur al ind ustry, and the consumers? MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, we have taken action over the past three-and-a-half years to help the sectors of the economy that the member refers to, such as reducing the income tax rate on small business from 13, I believe, down to 11 percent. We have stopped intervening in the agricultural sector and have removed such taxes as succession duties and the mineral acreage tax. Those are the sorts of things, Mr. Speaker, that are within the power of the province to do something to help those sectors. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware of the impact that interest rates have, as I'm sure the members opposite are.

We have been attempting to engage the Federal Government in meaningful discussion for several months now; to have the Federal Minister of Finance sit down with all the Provincial Ministers of Finance to discuss the different sorts of impacts that those rates might have in different parts of the country and to see what might be done at the federal level. We have been unable to get the Federal Government to sit down and discuss those matters. I'm hopeful now, Mr.

Speaker, that perhaps there was an indication from the Prime Minister on television on Friday night, I believe it was, that he felt that it was necessary for the provinces and the Federal Government to sit down together at last to try and deal with some of these pressing questions that now face the country. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns with a final supplemf#'ll!i ry. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Spe<i!<er, in view of the fact that the government has reduced ability to pay taxes, progressive taxes, based on person's income and in view of the fact that these reductions in no way relate to the high increase in interest rates which are forcing bank ruptcie s and other difficulties of a financial nature amongst people of Manitoba, and in view of the fact that the monitoring "has done absolutely nothing to assist these people," is the government prepared at long last to consider and to bring in measu res of a natur e such as debt adjustment of subsidies or loans in relat ion to interest rates for those people who are suffering from the high interest rates, rather than complain about the lack of co-opera tion from the Federal Government?

MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Johns seems to have overlooked the nature of the corporate capital tax, for instance, which is certainly not a tax that is related to the ability of a business to pay. Mr. Speaker, they also have been critical, of course, of the grants that the Small Enterpr ise Development Corporation Program has been making to small businesses in Manitoba. We feel that the question of interest rates has to be addr essed prima rily by the level of government which has responsibility for interest rates.

We are prepared to assist industry and agriculture as we did assist the agricultural industry last year when drought struck. Drought was something that was beyond the control of government, beyond the influence of government. Under those circumstances it is the responsibility of a govern ment such as ours to step in and do something. The inte rest rate situation is no t analogous to the problem that we faced last year, Mr.

Speaker. lt is a problem of tremendous magnitude that is probably beyond the resources of any provincial gover nment to attemp t to swim against the grain of the forces that are working to raise high interest rates. The program, for instance, which is in place in Saskatchewan probably has virtually no measurable impact on small business and agriculture in that province. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono uable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, the Min ister makes reference to the program in Saskatchewan.

I would be interested if the Minister inde ed has stud ied and has received a report pertaining to that program . The question to the Mi nister: In view of the rather inde ed qui te ineffective program of the Minis ter of Economic Development pertaining to the Grant Forgiveness Program, which has been one of the most ineffective programs in the Province of Manitoba pertaining to the small busi ness community, can the Min ister advise if he's not satisfied with the Saskatchewan 3016

Monday, 27 April, 1981 program, if he indeed has informed himself on the Manitoba Enterprises Program, whether he would be prepared to examine some variation of the Saskatchewan program to meet the Manitoba need pertaining to the small business community in this province rather than to persistently indicate that he's simply monitoring - not prepared to swim against the tide, but is he prepared to provide some leadership in the Province of Manitoba pertaining to assisting the small business community? MR. RANSOM: it's reassuring to hear the concern that the members oppo site now have for small business, Mr.

Speaker, after the way they treated that sector of the economy during their eight years of government. Some months ago the Leader of the Opposition was advocating something simila r to the Saskatchewan program, Mr. Speaker. That program I believe gave something like up to $500 of assistance over a period of three years, Mr. Speaker. Most of the people in Saskatchewan have found tha t it wasn't worth the paper, it wasn't worth the effort that it took to fill out an application for that program. Now that may have some sort of benefit from the perspec tiv e or the perc eption of trying to do something but, Mr.

Speaker, I tell you it has not done anything significant. The significant place where action can be taken is at the level of the Federal Government and we will continue to press . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We can't have this continual interjection going on while mem bers are speaking. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I' ve become accustomed to the interjec tions by the Member for St. Boniface. We will continue, Mr.

Speaker, to try and get the Federal Government to sit down with all 10 provinc es to di scuss that question among many other serious economic questions that face the country and the provinces today. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, further to the Minister. The Minister made reference to analysis pertaining to al leged ine ffectiveness of the Sas katc hewan program. Mr. Speaker, I'm interested in whether or not the Minister has demonstrated the same sort of conscientious review of the rather useless program that's being promoted by the Minis ter of Economic Development pertaining to the Manitoba Enterprises Pr ogram.

Is the Min ister now pr epared to acknowledge that program? -(l nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I find it very difficult to hear with the constant interjections. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: ... indeed has created very few additional jobs; has contrib uted not one zilc h towards minimizing the impact of rising interest rates upon the Manitoba business community and indeed that pr ogram presently is under review by his government to bring about some revamp program that will provide some form of decisive direction pertai ning to the small business community in Manitoba? MR.

RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, all programs that are undertaken by this government are reviewed for their effectiveness from time to time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Several weeks ago I asked the Mini ster of Economic Devel opment whether he could advise if the Edson Manufacturing Company of Rivers, Manitoba, was going to indeed lay off 70 people in May in accordance with a report from that company. I raised it again last week and the Minister said he hoped to have an answer for us soon. I wonder therefore, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister could advise whether there will be a closure of this recreational vehicle industry in the Town of Rivers, or at the industrial base Oo-Za-We-Kwun near Rivers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi ni ster of Economic Development. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, Edson will be closing in Rivers - the company that presently owns them, Marr's Vehicles, they will be closing but at the present time, there's a group of people, one being the present manager of the organization, who are trying to put a group of people together, himself and some of the dealers who have been handling the product, to try and take over the business in Rivers and bring the business down to a size that it will operate efficiently while they are going through the problems of the recreational vehicle industry. Our department has been in very close contact with that group.

They have made applications to di fferent government assistanc e th at might be available to them and we're hoping that they will be able to take the business over and operate it on a smaller scale. MR. EVANS: I thank the Honourable Minis ter for that information, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if he could advise how many workers may be affected by this closure that he just told us of. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm not able to say how many workers would be affected by the closure.

If the arrangements that are trying to be made to take over and operate the plant on a smaller scale certainly there will be some more employees kept on; if the arrangements cannot be made, Mr. Speaker, the plant will close - I'm not sure of the number - if the member believes there's 72, the plant would close and there would be 72 people. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the House Leader.

I wonder in view of the fact that the last time we asked him how many more bills were to come he said about 10 or 12 - and we've had more than that now - whether he can indicate now how many we are still to receive. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Opp osition House Leader, my reference to 3017

Monday, 27 April, 1981 approximately 30 bills was to government bills, not to private members' bills. I will, Mr. Speaker, in order to be as accurate as possible, take the question as notice to find out the exact status of the number of bills at the printer's and addvise the Opposition House Leader tomorrow as to the exact number of bills that are forthcoming. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker. my other question is also to the Attorney-General.

In view of the fact that the Honourable Min ister of Agricul ture is taking two years to make a decision in respect to an Order for Return, I wonder if he could lend some of his staff as assistants to the Mi nister so he could make a decision and return that Order for Return, which was ordered by this House two years ago. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I appr eci ate the respect that the Opposition House Leader has for my influence in agricultural matters and I will undertake to speak to him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, the same type of question as from the Honourable Member for Kildonan, I wonder if the Attorn ey­ General will look up that Order for Return of mine - I think it's about seven years - and I'm still waiting for it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.

I would ask the Mini ster what action his department is taking in respect to the publication of a list of 89 chemicals which were tested by In du strial Bio- Test Laboratories; that laboratory was found later to have performed tests which were incomplete and which falsified results. The question specifically is what action will he be taking in respect to protecting Manitoba users of those chemicals which are on the suspected list? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi ni ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. GARV FILMON (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I can indicate that my predecessor as the Minister of Environ ment, communic ated with the Federal Min ister of Health and Welfare, the Honourable Monique Begin, on a number of occasions requesting the information from the International Bio-Test Labs to be provided to our government so that we could further investigate the nature of the tests that were done and try and establish the information that we might need to take our own perspective on the matter and we were refused that information by the Federal Minister.

I can indicate it's estimated that for each of the chemicals that are under suggested concern it would cost something in the order of $15 million for us to run our own tests to attempt to verify that and multiply that by 89 pesticides that have been indicated, you can see the magnitude of the problem is well beyo nd the means of our Pr ovincial Government to run our own independent tests on. So we do need to have the information and we do need to have the co-operation of the Federal Government in the matter and unfortunately it was not forthcoming. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Churchill with a supplementary. MR. COWAN: The questiqn that follows obviously from the statement of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is what action is the Minister taking right now to put pressure on the Federal Government to ensure that they are in fact providing that type of information that is necessary? lt seems lud icrous that a Provincial Government can't deal with the Federal Government in respect to what is a very serious problem.

I ask the Minister specifically what action he is going to be taking in respect to one particular chemical, dinitromine, which is currently being sold in the Province of Manitoba, yet according to the list which was published in the Globe and Mail, is found to be an unsafe chemical? MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be looking into all matters to do with this and can assure the member that we will be following up wit h the Federal Government indicating the answer that we've been given is not satisfactory. We intend to have the matter pursued further. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, as a brief perusal - and very brief because I'm not privy to a list of all the pesticides and herbicides which are sold in the Province of Manitoba - but upon a look over one list I found that at least several of the chemicals which are on the list of chemicals under review are being sold in the Province of Manitoba. Specifically, I have found that the compound, cobex, which is in fact dinitromine and which in fact has been found unsafe as being sold in the Province of Manitoba.

The question to the Mini ster specifically then is what action is he going to take in respect to this particular chemical cobex which has in fact been found to be unsafe; which is on the published list of the 89 chemicals and which should come under provincial review imme diat ely as to the advis abilit y of continuing to allow that chemical to be sold in this province? MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the member's impression that all of these 89 chemicals are found to be unsafe.

The fact is that some of the tests that have been performed by the International Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories have been found to be not reliable but that refers to tests in general and not specific to particular compounds, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just a brief question to the Minister of Education whose Estimates will end probably today or tomorrow. May I ask him if he can, before we deal with his Salary or complete it, honour his undertaking made on April 13 3018

Monday, 27 April, 1981 to let me have a copy of the Manpower Needs Committee Report, Hansard 27 40? MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Mini ster of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I would hope to have that material before we finish my Estimates, perhaps either later today or tomorrow. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Mem ber for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a que stion for the Mini ster of Eco nomic Development. Could he advise as to whether the Bedson problem at Rivers is as a result of high financing costs and poor markets? MR.

SPEAKE R: The Honou rable Mini ster of Economic Development. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't presume to start to discuss the problems of that company or any other company. Unle ss they want to do that themselves, I don't intend to do that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired, we will proceed with Orders of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, firstly, let me indicate next week the Committee on Economic Development will meet on Tuesday to consider the Man itoba Mine ral Resources; and on Thursday, McKenzie Seeds; and on Friday afternoon, to complete either one of them if that's necessary. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKE R: The Hono urable Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, on Friday we were treated to the performance of the First Minister on the Budget concerning a couple of matters which I thought should be answered best in a grievance as soon as possible. In my judgment that was an int eresti ng speech to wat ch; it went on for a considerable period of time and, Mr. Speaker, I think one can only conclude by listening to the remarks of the First Minister that he's losing touch with reality; and by that I mean the reality of constitutional and economic developments in Canada which have taken place over the last couple of months. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that the Premier is reflecting the views of Manitobans in regard to the Constitution or the economy. Maybe he did at one time; maybe he didn't ; but at this point in time there is no question. As my colleague for Point Douglas says, he has never accurately reflected the views of Manitobans on these issues. 3019 MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Min ister of Government Services on a point of order. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Mo rris): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I ask you to check the rules to find out whether or not the honourable member is in order in talking on this particular subject at this time.

If I read the rules correctly in Beauchesne's 4th Edition, it suggests that on such a motion as proposed, that is in Citation 234, except on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Frida ys provided by Stand ing Order 56 and 58, "W hen such a motion is propos ed it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the Federal Parliament or ask them for a redress of any grievance provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the House during the current session".

What my honourable friend is doing is embarking on a continuation of the Budget Debate and the decision has been made on that subject. "Nor to any item of the Estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the Committee of Ways and Means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given on the Orde r Paper. My sugge sti on, Mr. Speaker, is that the honourable member is out of order in conti nuing a discussion on the Budget Debate, which was concluded last Friday. MR. SPEA KE R: Or der please. The honourable member on a point of order. MR.

DOERN: I'm dealing with the attitude of the Premier and his behaviour over the past few months. This is in regard to the position of the Manitoba government, etc., whether or not this was discussed in the Budget, whether or not there was a decision taken on the Budget is not relevant, Mr. Speaker. I'm dealing with the performance of the Premie r of Manitoba and I am in no way -(Int erjection)- I'm not finished, Mr. Speaker. In no way does this preclude me from speaking on a grievance which has the widest possible latitude.

I say to the Acting House Leader that he's trying to limit my remarks to some vote on the Budget. I'm talking about the First Minis ter and the way he has behaved in regard to his leadership over the past 12 months. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the honourable member said when he introduced his remarks. What the honourable member said was that his grievance was going to deal with the speech that was made by the First Minister during closing debate on the Budget. Now he's trying to shift grounds. Sir, I suggest here that the honourable member is out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I've listened to the points of order raised and I believe the point of order raised by the Honourable Minister of Government Services is a very valid point. I would ask the honourable member to refrain from referring to any matter that has already been dealt with by the House during this Session. The honourable member may continue. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I'm disappointed at the House Leader trying to cut off the debate for fear of criticism of his Leader. Mr. Speaker, .

Monday, 27 April, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Government Services on a point of order. MR. JORGENSON: Yes, Mr. Speake r. The honourable member has accused me of attempting to cut off debate; I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply asking that the rules of this Chamber be observed. My honourable friend knows the rules as well as I do and he knows that he is out of order in attempting to discuss the Budget, which was concluded last Friday. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Conservative Government is that events have passed them by.

I'm going to try to draw to their attention the facts of the matter in Manitoba today, which they don't seem to recognize. They still think, they still believe that the Constitution is their big ticket to a return to power, that they're going to use that issue to bludgeon the New Democratic Party during an election; that's their fondest hopes, that's their best card. Mr. Spe aker, the issue has al ready been decided. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Minister of Government Services on a point of order. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I raise that point of order again.

Now the honourable member is shifting ground again and he's trying to tell us he's going to talk on the Constitution. Now he's going to continue to shift subjects until he finds one that is suitable and, Sir, I suggest to you that is not possible under our rules. He must state what his griev,ance is at the outset of his remarks. He has said it was going to be di scussion of the Budget or the First Minister's speech on the Budget. When he finds out that is out of order then he goes to something else. Now he's changing to the third subject.

I think we have a right to know what my honourable friend's grievance is and he should state it clearly. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, for the Acting House Leader, my grievance is the attitude of the Premier of Manitoba in regard to the constitutional question and the manner in which he leads this province. Have you got it straight? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The constitutional question is on the Order Paper, it is proposed for discussion. I suggest the honourable member is anticipating debate. I would sugg est he withhold his remarks until that resolution comes up. The Honourable Member for St.

Boniface on a point of order. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: On a point of order. This is quite odd that you should make this suggestion when the First Minister did exactly the same thing in another speech in this House. We've been waiting for this constitutional matter to be brought in. it's been discussed and it has nothing to do with the Budget at all. If you allow that, Mr. Speaker, and it's just that - that's been there for a long time - it's passe now and I think this is exactly the place to bring in the complaint that we have, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Boniface is wrong because the Budget Debate is a wide -r anging de bate and any su bje ct can be discussed. The grievance motion is a very specific motion and only one subject can be debated on that motion. As you so correctly· ppint out, it cannot deal with any subject that has been given notice on the Order Paper. That's what my honourable friend is attempting to do now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface on a point of order. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, it is quite unusual to say that in certain speeches you can anticipate something that is in front of us. I've been waiting for a resolution on separatism that has been held back because of that, and if the First Minis ter can, whenever he wishes, bring the subject and nobody else can do it, this is ridiculous. The member knows very well that it's ridiculous. He has every right. This has been the whole thing of this First Minister and this is the time to criticize it, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Kildonan on a point of order. MR. FOX: Furthe r to the point of orde r, Mr.

Speaker, I believe a grievance matter is a personal thing. Each member under our rules when we have the motion to go into Supply is entitled to one grievance during a Session. Now the Member for Elmwood has indicated that he has a proble m in respect to what the First Minister's attitude is. That may encompass a number of things, they may not necessarily be antici patory of debating particular issues, but they will impinge on a number of issues, which may include some of the issues that have been raised in this House.

They may not necessarily be debated against or for those issues, but I do believe the member is entitled to discuss his grievance and to say why he is unhappy with the leadership of the First Min ister of this province. I think that is the whole issue. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood may continue. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is the attitude and the approach of the First Minister in regard to, first of all, his general performance and in particular his approach on the constitutional question.

I want to say that events have passed him by and he is leading the Province of Manitoba and is not reflecting the attitude of the people in the province. Mr. Speaker, I want to give you examples of what I mean by the First Minister being passed by events. We have had in Ottawa an agreement by the federal political parties including the Conservative party of Canada, we have had a general agreement. That is a new event or occurrence. The constitutional package is going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Supreme Court will approve or pass that particular package; then the package is going to go to Great Britain, and I 3020

Monday, 27 April, 1981 suggest to you that the Brit ish Parliament will approve that particular package: and then it will come back to Canada and be approved by the Canadian Parliament, and does the First Min ister recognize what is happening? Does he accept what is inevitable? No, he says that he is going to continue to oppose this package come what may, no matter what happens he is going to oppose it. Mr.

Speaker, I tell you that it is only a matter of time, it is only a matter of weeks before the Premier's alliance disintegrates and that the eight Premiers will become seven, and then six, and then five, and then four, and then finally it'll go down to a couple - Premiers Lyon and Levesque that will be the bottom line. That position is totally at odds with the position of the Federal Conservative Party. Mr.

Speaker, I say that the battle has been decided, the battle has been decided and it's all over but the cheering, but yet we see that the First Minister of Manitoba instead of recognizing this doesn't want to lose the battle and is now talking about continuing the battle.

If you tell him he lost he's going to say, let's make it two out of three and if he loses that he'll say, well how about three out of five, and how about four out of seven, and eventually we are going to get 1,501 out of 3,000; that's going to be the position of the First Minister, because he is not going to accept the events that are occurring in the country today and neither is his caucus. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, if the caucus follows the Premier on this issue it's going to be a disaster, and I tell you that I do not believe that they will, I believe that the First Minister is going to wind up all alone without the backing of the Conservative Party of Manitoba and eventually without the caucus. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has already bailed out; he's already floating down to earth in his parachute because he knows that it is a disastrous position to persist in the face of public oppinion and in the face of his Federal Leader and their particular approach. So, Mr .

Sp eaker, I'm telling you that in my judgment that the First Minis ter of Manitoba has blown the consti tutional deb ate, he's blown his opportunity to introduce a resolution which he still may or may not do. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. May I point out to the honourable member that he has been advised previously not to refer to matters that are on the Or der Paper; if he persists I would have no alternative but to rule the member out of order. The honourable member may continue. MR. DOERN: Mr .

Speaker, he has bl own the economy; he has blown the opportunity to get the economy out of the doldrums; they have blown their opportunity to bring in programs that would help stimulate things. Mr. Speaker, and as a result of this I tell you that the First Minister of Manitoba has blown his credibility. That is what is going to be the issue, that is going to be the issue. That is where there is a gap between public perception and public performance. I say, that as a result he is going to blow the election. Mr.

Speaker, I say that these are the events that have gone by and with the passing of those events the First Min ister doesn 't recognize or fails to reco gni ze what is taking place in the countr y, particularly on the national scene, and especially in 3021 the House of Commons.

I say that he says that he's going to fight this issue as long as he has a breath left within him, so that even 25 years from now or 30 years from now when the issue has long been decided and is safely written up in the history books of Canada; namely, that the Constitution came back to Canada, that it contained a Charter of Rights, that it contained an amending formula, the First Minister says he isn't going to accept that. You know, Mr.

Speaker, I can see him in the future as an elderly gentleman in his 80s or 90s sitting in a nursing home still muttering away about the Constitut ion, still saying that he's going to fight the Grits, that he's going to not yield to the aspi rations and the determination of the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Speaker, he's going to keep muttering away and mumbling away and talking about his position on the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of the story of the first senior citizens' streaker, I don't know if you're familiar with that.

There was an old lady in a senior citizen's home in the height of the streaking craze who said to her best friend, you know what, I'm going to be the first senior citizen streaker, and her girlfriend said to her, you've got to be kidding, I mean you are 85 and you're going to go out there and make a fool of yourself. She said, well look, I don't care it's a chance at history, I mean it's something for the Guinn ess Book of World Records and although her friend tried to discourage her she couldn't discourage her from doing this.

So one afternoon, on a nice summer afternoon, she put on her jogging shoes and that's all and went out into the courtyard of this home and jogged around the benches and so on. At one point she went by a bench where there were two old gentlemen sitting there and she jogged by and one of them said to the other about a moment later, "What was that?

The other old chap said, "I don't know, but it sure needs ironing." Well, now if that had been the First Minister, if that had been the First Minister, he would have said, we've got to stop the Constitution, we have got to do something about stopping the Grits from ramming the Constitution down the throats of Canadians. That's what he's going to be doing, right? That's what he's going to be doing in the future. He's going to go to London, when they lose this particular issue, and he's going to fight his case in London, Mr. Speaker.

People are going to be in London in a couple of months, we're going to pay for that trip, it's going to be charged to the taxpayers, like those other trip s over in London where there were speeches made to Brit ish groups and Brit ish parliamentarians, and the people are going to be there for the Royal Wedding, the biggest social event of the year. My colleague from Fort Rouge is going at her own expense, not sponsored by her party, she's going to the Royal Wedding and others. (Interjection)- You're going to be in the crowd, you didn't get an invitation, I see.

Well, at least one MLA will be there at her own expens e and ther e'll probably be the First Minister there in London and what 'll he be doing? People will be going and cheering Prince Charles and Lady Diana; the carriage will be going down the road; and Premier Lyon will be there, standing on the side of the road with a bunch of blue pamphlets, handing them out, "One

Monday, 27 April, 1981 for you . Would you mind reading this? This is a grievance that we have about the government of Ottawa, the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who refuses to recognize the position of the Conservative Party of Manitoba, and the Conservative Party of Canada". There will be the Premier with his blue pamphlets. passing them out, trying to persuade people of his position. Mr. Speaker. what do you think the British people will think?

What do you think the parliamentarians in Whitehall will think when the Resolution goes from the Canadian Parliament to the Supreme Court, to the House of Commons? Do you think for a moment that they will hold up that bill? Do you think for a moment they will listen to our Premier who will be there trying to dissuade them, trying to reverse an inevitable flow and a pattern that is swiftly passing him by, trying to go against the current? Mr.

Speaker, I shudder to think of some of the remarks that will be made by the British public and the British parliamentarians about an effort made at that late stage to reverse an inevitable process. Mr. Speaker, I say that is what the First Minister has said he will do. That is my grievance, that he says tht he doesn't care about what takes place in the national capital. He doesn't care what anybody else does. He doesn't care what anybody else thinks. He's going to fight to his last breath. He said that if it's legal, it' s not immoral, and that even if people think it's okay to be immoral, it isn't right.

Even if they think that's all right, he says it isn't fair. No matter what people say, no matter what the evidence is. he's not going to change his mind. Mr. Speaker, I tell you, he is a man possessed. I ask this question, is there an exorcist in the House? Because this should be disspelled, this sort of notion should be disspelled from the particular gentleman. The rest of us in Manitoba, I think, are beginning to get somewhat embarrassed by the performance of the First Min ister and his obsession with this particular issue. Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to be associated with this, and neither does anyone else in my particular party. I think that members opposite are beginnin g to feel somewhat uneasy, that the opportunity they once had to divert people's attention from the basic issue s of the Man itoba economy, name ly the Constitution, that opportunity has been blown, that opportunity has been lost, and now they cannot anymore raise the constitutional issue. I have to say to gentlemen opposite that it was never a winner in the first place.

There was no guarantee that issue would win an election. lt was tried in a similar way in 1969, when the Honourable Waiter Weir was Premier of Manitoba, and he was standing up to Ottawa, and he wasn't going to get pushed around, and he was the tough guy, and he was holding down taxes and keeping things at · a particular level. Mr. Speaker, it didn't work. The election was called on the basis of a strong leader, standing up to a recalcitrant Federal Government, and it failed. This was the policy, this was the attitude of our particular govern ment, and Mr.

Speaker. now I say that has gone by the boards, but the recognition, there's a gap, there's a time lag. The full meaning of what has happened has not yet hit the particular gentleman opposite, although I think it's beginning to sink in. So I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premiers' allia nce, which has been led by the Premier of Manitoba on this particular matter, will crack like a boiled egg dropped from a height of 50 feet, starting right now - soft-boiled egg. Mr.

Speaker, if you call a meeting today of the eight Premiers, it wouldn't surprise me a bit, not a bit, if a numper of them failed to show up, becau:>f! I think that what has happened down east, I tl")jnk the first thing you're going to see - and I mal<e my own predictions, I speak for myself - I think that the Premier of Saskatchewan will be one of the first to say there is no value in continuing this operati on. it is not produc ti ve. lt is nega tive, and it has been an arrangement - I wouldn't want to call it ad hoc - which is no longer useful in view of events that have taken place down east. We blew it.

Right after that, Mr. Speaker, will come Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and then after them will come British Columbia, who will finally bail out. They will bail out of this situation. So you're going to get left with four gentlemen, Premiers Lougheed, Peckford, Levesque and Lyon. We know that Premiers Lougheed and Peckford are mainly involved in this particular operation because of their interest in natural resources, and in revenues for their economy.

That's what they're for, they're capital ist businessmen. it's ironic isn' t it, that Newfoundland, which has been a have-not province for so many years, is suddenly trying to play in the big leagues? So when those gentlemen get an agreement on energy and off-shore oil and fish and all the rest of it, they're going to pull out. That's their interest, self-interest, they're interested in dollars. That's why they're involved as part of this team. That's going to leave Premier Levesque and Premier Lyon.

Premier Levesque's position, I think, accurately reflects the position of the people of Quebec, not the separatists, not the separatism, but the attitude that Quebec wants to be master in their own house, that they want to run their social and economic programs as much as possible. This is not new with Rene Levesque. I mean, I remember Daniel Johnson saying this. We rememb er Bou rassa sa ying this. We remember Jean Lesage, this was his position. I'm sure it was the position of Duplessis.

At least in the last 20 to 25 years, this has been the position of the Province of Quebec, but this has not been the hi storic position of the Province of Mani toba. Manitoba should be for equali zation; Mani toba should be for redistribution of wealth; Mani toba normally supports Federal initia tives over more parochial initia tives. I say to that extent the historic provincial position is not being reflected by the Premier.

My gr ievanc e is th at the Premier does not accurately reflect either the historic position of our people and our province, as manifested by predecessors in office and he cert ainl y doesn't represent the feelings of Manitobans today. I think Manitobans have had enough. They're sick and tired of listening to this constitutional debate and they want the First Minister and the government to get on with governing the province and with dealing with the economic issues that confront us. Mr. Speaker, I simply say that I am not satisfied with the manner in which the First Mini ster has been 3022

Monday, 27 April, 1981 dealing with thi s particular issue - posing for pictur es in the paper, holdin g his nose about provincia l . . . his attitude towards the federal posture on the Constitution. I want him to deal with the issues. I want him to tackle the economy because I'm concerned about people leaving. I don't accept the notion that's now being put forward by the Conservative Party that they're happy about the fact that there is a no-g rowth or slow gro wth situation in the province. We have been saying in the New Democratic Party for the past three years that we're worried about population losses.

A MEMBER: He got the province moving. MR. DOERN: Yes, he got us moving but he got us moving in the wrong direction, out instead of in. I don't believe that we should have a no-growth or a slow growth policy and then trum pet that as a desirable thing. I know what 's happening, Mr. Speaker. I know that the First Minister cannot break the cycle of out-migration, he cannot break it, and he has therefore accepted it. There are a lot of sayings aren't there? One is that "Necessity is the mother of invention." Another one is that "He's making a virtue out of a necessity".

So he's now beginning to talk as if well, this is really what the Tories always wanted anyway, the y were really very happ y about the situation of stagnation, that has now become the Conservative goal. Let him tell that to the people of Winnip eg and the people of Manitoba in the next election. I challenge him to say that his government's policy is no growth, slow growth or negative growth when it comes to population. Manitoba used to be, in 18 70, known as the postage stamp province.

I was just looking at a map of that today which will be of interest to my friend from Rock Lake - that Pilot Mound and Crystal City were in the western extremity of the province in 18 70 and up to Gladstone and then across and then down somewhere east of Emerson 1 So it was just that patch of land, and it expanded in 1881 I think to the 53rd parallel. Then in 18 84 it went all the way up past Hudson Bay, etc., so that's how the province grew. Mr.

Speaker, the problem today is that given the posture of the government, their obsession with the Constitution to their dying death, and I find that very hard to beli eve. This is the direction that the Premier wants to take the party and he has spoken for his caucus and said till his last dying breath and the breath of his caucus. Mr. Speaker, that is a problem - whether the caucus is going to follow the leader. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. The honourable member has five minutes. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Tell them about Jonestown, Russ. MR.

DOERN: As some of my friends say, it sounds like the Jonestown massacre, which really I find one of the most sickening incidents in contem porary history, but the leader took the followers all together and they all died on the spot because of a fanatical leader who persuaded people that he had the right plan and he poisoned them all with his words and they picked up his reaction, took the poison and the whole group went by the boards. 3023 Mr. Speaker, I don't want a government and a leader that has an obsession with one issue. The Premier has to spend his time with a broad range of issues, economic and social.

The Constitution was only one of those issues. it's time to give it up. it's time to put that issue at rest. He lost that issue, he blew that issue, and it's time that he recognized that. Now it's time for him to turn his attention to the other issues, to the economy, to the population loss. I don't want a smaller province, I don't want a smaller population, I don't want a fortress mentality, I don't want Manitoba to shrink to the boundaries of 18 70 or to shrink to the south western part of Manitoba where the Conservative party is based. That's not what we want.

We want a government and a Premier that exercises some leadership. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that on the issue of the Constitution and on the attitude of the Premier and on the posture and the manner in which the Cons ervative Party has acted on this, I say, Mr. Speaker, that they have lost the issue and events have passed them by.

My grievance is that the Premier has become a man obsessed and he says that regardless of what happens in the courts, in the Parliament, in the attitudes of a people, whether it's immoral or right or fair or legal - he doesn't care, he's going to keep going on this particular issue. I say to him, Mr. Speaker, he should turn around, because as he keeps going eventually he's going to turn around and there'll be nobody following him.

MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Sup ply to be gra nted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Crescentwood in the Chair for the Department of Education and the Honourable Memb er for St. Matthews in the Chair for the Department of Municipal Affairs. CONCURREN T COM MITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - MUNIC IPAL AFFAIRS MR. DE PUT Y CHAIRMAN, Len Domino (S t. Matthews): I call the Committee to order. We are di scussing 1. (

b) Admin istrativ e Salaries - the Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the Minister explain what impact, if any, there will be on the department from the recent Budget which took some $24 million out of a special municipal loan fund? What was the purpose of that fund and where is the money going? HON. DOUG GOURL AY (S wan River): Mr . Chairman, I'm wondering whether this would better be discussed in another part of the Estimates. Are we going line by line or just what is the procedure now? MR. SCHROEDER: I thought we were still on the Minister's Salary in general.

We were asking general questions with respect to the department. MR. GOURLA V: The last day when we more or less started the Estimates, I gave my opening remarks and then we got into the wide-r anging area of questions and concerns that will be related to some ---

Monday, 27 April, 1981 of the sections that come up as we move along. I was just wondering whether we could deal with those specific issues. With respect to your question on the Reserve Fund, this was a labour intensive program that was handled under the Department of Labour and really had no impact or concerns directly related to the Department of Municipal Affairs, so it really has no direct impact as far as this department is concerned. MR. SCHROEDER: Was that not a loan fund which was created specifically to assist municipalities in time of need?

If there was some form of emergency requiring some kind of assistance, that fund could be used. Is that not what the purpose was? MR. GOURLAY: Certain programs such as water and sewer extensions and the like was handled under the funding, but was administered through the Department of Labour and Manpower. MR. SCHROEDER: But it was administered for the benefit of municipalities in Manitoba for whom you, Mr. Minister, are responsible.

This elimination - I'm just wondering what effect this will have if there are problems encountered in this particular year or in the future. which in the past were solved by utilization of this Fund, what will now be the effect of this? MR. GOURLAY: I understand that this particular program has not been used for a number of years now. MR SCHROEDER: How many years? MR. GOURLAY: It certainly hasn't been used since I came into the department, two or three years. MR. SCHROEDER: The particular fund was to provide loans to municipalities for specific projects in order that those projects could be accomplished.

Is that correct? MR. GOURLAY: That's true. MR. SCHROEDER: Without this loan fund, the municipalities of this province then now have lost an opportunity, one method of bettering their plant and facilities, sewer, water, whatever, which they had before this fund was transferred out of your department. Have you come up then with an alternative program which will put the municipalities back in the same position they would have been in had this fund not been transferred out of this particular area and into another area. Incidentally, I'm wondering where exactly it was transferred to. MR.

GOURLAY: The actual work was carried out through the Provincial Job Office under the Department of Labour, and the money was administered through the Department of Finance. MR. SCHROEDER: The money went to the Department of Finance from this special loan fund, is that correct? MR. GOURLAY: That's true. The funding was in the Department of Finance. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I'm not particularly concerned about whether it was the Department of 3024 Labour or any other department which administered the work.

The fact of the matter appears to be that up until several years ago, this fund was used for the purpose of assisting municipalities to upgrade their capital plant and assets. It has since a couple of years ago - two or three years ago, I believe - the answer was: "not been used for that purpose". Have you provided an alternative? MR. GOURLAY: At this time there is no provision as such unless a specific request is presented to the government, then the government would have to look at that as an overall government policy. MR.

SCHROEDER: Is it now the policy of the government that The Special Municipal Loan and General Emergency Fund Act is no longer one which will be utilized to assist municipalities in upgrading their capital plan? MR. GOURLAY: This could be - I guess, I'm not certain, but I presume - that this could be used at some later date as it was in the past. At the present time, it is not being utilized, and if a decision is made to provide funding for emergency situations to municipalities, it could be directed through that medium. MR.

SCHROEDER: So your present policy, I take it then, is that although you're not going to ask for the repeal of this Act, for right now the policy of your department is that although that Act is in place you have no funds set aside for any municipality which might wish to utilize it, nor would you accept an application from any municipality which wished to utilize it. Is that correct? MR. GOURLAY: Yes. The funding has been administered through the Department of Finance. We do not have any special programming available at this time to assist special requests from municipalities.

Your specific questioning I would think would best be answered through the Minister of Finance; I can't really give you any more enlightenment on it than that. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll try again. I understand that the actual funds, the $24 million, were not in the Department of Municipal Affairs, that is that they were controlled - it was a Fund designated for loans to municipalities and the Fund was within the Department of Finance. Further, I understand that it was the Department of Labour which actually administered the program, but the benefit of the program went to individual municipalities.

What I would just want you, sir, to confirm or deny is whether . . . Is it a fact that at this point in time it is a specific policy of this government that although you have that Act in place you have no funds available to allow any municipality which applies to you under that Act to do the work which that Act contemplates that it has the right to do? MR. GOURLAY: I would say that's true what you're saying. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a copy of the Budget Speech here, but I'd like

Monday, 27 April, 1981 to ask the Minister, I gather from his answers to the Member for Osborne that this Act will lie in place to be used if and when an emergency arises,

whereas my impression is that the Budget Speech stated that this Act will be repealed. Am I wrong about that? MR. GOURLAV: This could very well be. This Act could be repealed. it's being administered under the Department of Finance; it's not in the Department of Municipal Affairs. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I admit to being really confused. I listened to a very lengthy Budget Speech and I think that what was said is that it will be repealed. Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is a member of Cabinet, doesn't appear to be sure that it will be repealed. Was the decision not made?

Or do we rely on what the Budget Speech says or do I have to get a copy of it? MR. GOURLAV: I can take that as notice and clarify it if you wish. MR. CHERNIACK: must ex press some disappointment, maybe even concern , th at the Minister, who is obviously not responsible for the adminis tration of this Act, but yet is not only a member of Cabinet but charged with dealing with municipalit ies, that he's not aware as to whether or not this Act will be repealed.

Now, what bothers me is that he indicated to the Member for Rossburn that the Act will lie in place, the money may be gone but the Act will be here to be used if necessary, which I believe is a direct contradiction to my recollection of what the Budget Speech says. Well, there is no use dealing more with that, the Minister admits that he doesn't know and has taken it as notice. I would like to ask him -(l nterjection)­ Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a public apology to the constituents of Rossmere for having designated their member as being from Rossburn, rather than Rossmere.

That almost lost my train of thought, but not quite. Has the Minister in the time that he has been Minister for Municipal Affairs had any occasion to deal with any municipalities in relation to problems that municipalities might have in raising funds in a manner which would be considered applicable under this Act? MR.

GOURLAV: Well, a number of municipalities throughout Manitoba took advantage of the CSCP Program and util ized that program , which has subsequently been quashed by the federal people, it was financed by the federal department and since has been di scontinued, that municipalitie s were making use of that for emergency situations and different types of projects in the various municipalities. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I gather this program the Minister refers to is a federal program. CSC what? MR. GOURLAV: CSCP, it was a federal funded prog ram, but it was adminis tered under the Department of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHERNIACK: Wh en was it taken out or removed? MR. GOURLAY: Well, I'm sure if you were in the House this year you'd have heard quite a bit of discussion about it and I'm surprised you'd ask that question. lt was removed several months ago. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, should I tell the Minister that I don't have to take any reprimand from his as to whether or not I'm in the House and certainly now that he is aware that there is legislation that he was responsible for which is no longer in place, what has he done to replace that legislation? MR. GOURLAV: Are you referring to the federally funded CSCP Program?

MR. CHERNIACK: The CSCP, yes. MR. GOURLAV: We have had no further discussions with the Federal Minister. This was a program that was initiated by the federal people to be a long-term funding program available to the municipalit ies. There was an interim program put in place which expired this current year, the federal people have seen fit to discontinue it. We've asked for further discussions to see what might be replaced or put in place of this program. To date we have had no further discussions with the federal authorities. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, other than talking to the federal people, wha t program, what development is there within Manitoba to take care of the need which apparentl y did exist, which the Minister seems to indicate ought to continue to exist and what has the province done to fill that void? MR. GOURLAV: As I say, it was hoped that the federal people would intr oduce a new program .

There was some ind ication that there would be something put in its place because this has been an ongoing program funded by the federal tax dollar for some years and all of a sudden it has been discontinued with some indication that there may be alternative programs in its place. Some discussions I understand have been held with the various Housing Mini sters but nothing definite has been proposed to the provinces that would replace this type of funding made available to municipalities. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, is it the intention of this government of Manitoba to provide the funds and the program which it feels is needed to replace the former federal program? Or is this government going to just sit back and blame the Feds for withdrawing the program and do nothing about the need which the Minister seems to indicate has to be filled? MR. GOURLAV: Mr. Chairman, it may very well be that the province will have to get into some special funding for municipalities whether it be on water and sewer or like programs.

We have not abandoned the hope that the federal people will provide funding through some other program to be na med or announced. At this time we do not have any special funding available for emergency programs. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, this is the time when we deal with the Minister as to what his plans are, what his programs are and now he says it may 3025

Monday, 27 April, 1981 well be that we may be bringing it in. May I ask the Minister under what authority and with what funds he will be able to bring it in once this session ends? MR. GOURLAV: Mr. Chairman, we do not have any program available at this time to introduce. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Your predecessor is insistent that we be recognized before we spea:k. That's why I've been dealing with it. Mr.

Chairman , the Mi nister has no program; I assume he has no money; therefore how does he suggest that it may well be that this program will be put in by the province unless he has legislation or funds? I gather now he has neither; so why say it may well be that it will be done. How could it possibly be done without funds or legislation? MR. GOURLAV: Mr. Chairman, as I indi cated earlier we are still having dialogue with the federal authorities. They haven't said definitely they've cut off all forms of financing future programs in this particular area.

They have announced that they are discontinuing the CSCP Program that was an interim program to give the provinces and the Federal Government time to work out a long-range program. We're still hopeful that there will be another program in its place and there is ongoing dialogue with the federal people to reach some decision on this matter. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the explanation tha t the Min ister is gi vi ng, which I understand, I have to ask him how he could have said just moments ago it may well b'e that we will have a program.

The fact is you won 't have a program; you're not planning to have a program, and you can 't have a program without legislation or funding, neither of which you seem to have, and therefore when you're talking about it "it may be that you'll have a program" you must be talking about another session or after the next election. MR. GOURLAV: This is some time in the future perhaps if the federal people don't come forward, and certainly I can't make it any more clearer than that. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I point out to the Mini ster that until he made it clear now, he left me with the impression that the government is thinking of some sort of a program to fill the void of the removed CSCP - Is it? The CSCP Program. but now it is clear. The government has no plans wha tsoever to fill the void left by the Federal Government. lt has hopes; he said we hope it will be done but the government is not planning to do it.

Meanwhile, coming back to The Special Municipal Loan and General Emergency Fund Act, he doesn't know whether or not that's going to be repealed and I'm not asking him to take my word, because I will not certify that it specifically says so in the Budget that I honestly believe it will. In any event, the funds are being removed and I'd like to know how the Minister is dealing with municipalities that may have problems with funding for their special needs such as he describes sewer, water - how is he dealing with them on that? Is he telling them to wait for the Feds?

Is he blaming the Feds for the financing of a muncipal program, which I think is completely within his own jurisdiction, or is he telling them that this Act may yet be used - I mean The Special Municipal Loan Act? What is he telling the municipalities about this? MR. GOURLAV: The CSCP Program has been well used, as I indicated, by aimost all, if not all, of the municipalities in the Provlhce of Manitoba.

As this program was suddenly discontinued there is however some indication that an alternative program will be announced or worked on by the federal people in the various provinces that have the respo nsibil ity of administering this former program. In the case of Manitoba, it was the Department of Municipal Affairs. In other provinces, it was perhaps other departments the Depart ment of Housing in some municipalities. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister did not ans wer my question, I would like him to.

I asked him how he was dealing with the municipalities that no longer have th at Fund, the federal fund, available? He's responsible for it; it has disappeared, he describes as if it's a worthwhile program and therefore knowing full well, as I assume he does, that there is

an Act in pla ce and until the Bu dget statement there was money to the credit of this Fund, how is he dealing with municipalities that come to him and say we want to take advantage of that CSCP Program but can't do it any more? How is he dealing with them or are they not coming to ask for any help? MR. GOURLAV: I should explain that although the CSCP ·Program was dis continue d, many of the municipalities had projects approved and they can continue to carry out work under that program until the end of March of 1982.

There are many programs that are going on ih this current year that were previously approved and funding approved for those projects will still be honoured until the end of March of next year. MR. CHERNIACK: Does that then mean that there are no municipalities in Manitoba who need funds at the present time and who can't get them from CSCP, that there are no municipalities in need now? MR. GOURL AV: There could very well be many municipaliti es in need and I suspect there are a number that do not have programming approved under the former program.

Howeve r, to my knowledge I don't recall municipalities specifically requesting that they have an emergency situation on their hands with respect to emergency programming or funding for their particular municipality; there could very well be some problem situations in the province. But at the present time, as I'v e indicated, the CSCP Program has expired except for those municipalities that have projects app roved and have not as yet completed the work. They'll be able to do that or complete it this coming year.

Other municipalities at the present time have no program for provincial or federal funding to cover any such emergencies. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, since this Minister is the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs and all 3026

Monday, 27 April, 1981 municipalities are creations of the province, I would think that he ought to be the person who knows the problems as they may exis t in all of the municipalities of Manitoba and to be able to assist municipalities with filling their need for loans if there are such. I'm wondering if he has drawn the attention to any municipality - any one municipality - the existence of The Special Municipal Loan and General Emergency Fund Act. Has he done that?

Has he suggested to them, knowing that he says maybe many are in need, has he suggested to any one of them that this may be a source from which they could seek assistance? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, the Municipal Loans Fund was discontinued some two or three years ago and no concerns were expressed by the various municipal bodies, including the organizations that represent them. MR. CHERNIACK: Would the Minister please clarify how the fund was discontinued? I know I was in the Legislature for the last few years. I'm not aware of how it was discontinued. Can he clarify that? MR.

GOURLA Y: Are you referring to the Special Loans Program? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister stated that the Mu nicipal Loan Fund was discontinued several years ago. I think that's what he said just a moment ago. MR. GOURLAY: Is this what you're referring to? MR. CHERNIACK: I wish he would tell me what he's referring to. What is he referring to as having been discontinued? MR. GOURLAY: The Special Municipal Loans Fund. That's what we've been talking about, isn't it? MR.

CHERNIACK: If he's talking about the fund under The Special Muni cipal Loan and Ge neral Emergency Fund Act, could he clarify how that was discontinued a few years ago, which is what he said? How was it discontinued? When was it discontinued? MR. GOURLA Y: No more loans were issued under that program, back some two or thr ee years ago. MR. CHERNIACK: Is the Mini ster saying it was discontinued, which is a positive act, or is he saying that no loans were made, which is probably a matter of fact? Is the Minister saying that a few years ago there was a decision made, that the loan fund would be discontinued? MR.

GOURLAY: I understand that some two or three years ago the actual loans were discontinued under this funding. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister take as notice and in due course let us have some announcement; some decision that was made public; some public statement or private statement that was made indicating that the fund was discontinued?

I ask that because my impression is that it's this Budget Speech that in itself annou nced that the mone ys were being taken and trans ferred into current revenues of the province - and that's really a discontinuance - it was taken out and put into current revenues to reduce the hig hest deficit in the history of Manitoba I believe and that's where it came from. I still say that the Budget Speech said th at the Act will be repe aled.

Under those circumstances I would like the Minister to accept as notice and undertake to provide us with a copy of whatever statement that was ever made indicating that this fund was discontinued, earlier than the Budget Speech itself. Will he undertake that? MR. GOURLAY: Yes, I'll do that. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Rouge. Did you have a question? MS. WESTBURY: Yes, I do. I have a couple of concerns which I've been asked to raise with the Minister, Mr. Chairperson. I wanted to bring it up here.

The problem that I'v e been asked to raise was concerning the fact - which doesn't seem to be alleviated under this government - that the level of govern ment which rais es the tax should be responsible for the spending of the money and the particular example given to me to show how this doesn't happen at the present time, was in the area of policing in municipalities, where the municipal govern ment pays the cost of policing, but the province does the negotiating with the police as to how much will be paid, and then the municipalities pay for it.

The municipalities have no say in how much they're going to be paid but they have to develop budgets, while at the same time having no control over certain expenditures of which policing is the example that was given to me, and the feeling is that the municipal governments should be more directly involved in this kind of negotiating that's directly going to result in their budgets being raised.

As the respo nsibil ity for such services being with the prop erty tax payer, the prop erty tax payer then blames their municipal government for the increases when in fact the municipal government has not been involved in the negotiations at all. I'm going to have another concern to raise, too. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, the item of policing really is an area that comes under the Department of the Attorney-General, not Municipal Affairs. MS. WESTBURY: I guess I should have realized that , Mr. Chairp ers on.

But in presen ting to the municipalities the Bill, whatever has been negotiated by the provincial government, does that not go through this department? MR. GOURLAY: No, it doesn't. MS. WESTBURY: Well, I'm sorry then that I bothered you with it. I know now, I'm glad Attorney­ General comes next, I'll be able to go back to them about it. There was another question that has to do with major capital projects, which are undertaken in municipalities and in some cases negotiated by the provinces or even placed in mun icipalities by the provinces, where the municipalities are in fact stuck 3027

Monday, 27 April, 1981 with the burden of additional payments, such as, for instance, if the proposed Alcan Smelter is placed in a municipality, will the Municipality then have to pay the full costs of, additiona l costs of roads and services to and around such a project, or would the province be taking full financial responsibility for such a project, Mr. Chairperson? MR. GOURLAV: Well, the projects, such as you speak, would be areas of negotiation with whoever the project might be initiated with.

Right now, in the case of Alcan, it's a hypothetical situation but that infrastructure cost and the like would be something that would have to be negotiated. MS. WESTBURV: Then the negotiation would be between the principal and with the Provincial Government and with the Municipal Government - the Municipal Government would be involved in such negotiation? MR. GOURLAV: I would think that they should be and I think this is true that they . . . MS. WESTBURV: They should be is the point I'm trying to make. MR.

GOURLAV: Yes, it would be in the case of the company inv olved and the provi nce and the municipality in which the project might be located. MS. WESTBURV: That's fine, those were concerns that were expressed to me and I wanted to bring them to the Minister. Thank you. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the last few years we've had a number of program changes.

That is, we have talked about the demise of the CSCP Program, Commun ity Servi ces Contribution Program, which was a federal-provincial program funded by the Federal Government. lt was born in 1979 and died in 1981 or 1980, it was in there somewhere. I believe some programs that were started in 1980 are still being funded under that program. But prior to that we had the NIP Program, the Neighb orhood Improvement Program, and this other CSCP basically took over from there. Those programs are gone, they were federal-provincial, and in the last couple of years you have killed off this other program.

Now we are coming along with things like raising RCM P costs becaus e the Federal Government again is trying to get off the area of assisting in that type of policing and so there is a larger burden being put on the municipalities and it seems to me that it is time that with all of these things happening to the municipalities; some the fault of the Provincial Government, some the fault of the Federal Government, none the fault of Municipal Government, it is time that you took some of the restraints off municipalities in terms of where they get their funding from.

You just simply can't keep cutting back, you can't have senior levels of gover nment continually cutting back on the mun icipaliti es without having the Min ister of Municip al Affairs start ing to speak up for the municipalities, who are losing funding and who are 3028 not able to keep up with their services and who are saying in the newspapers, and you see it all over the place, that they are either going to have to cut programs or raise taxes. it's happening all over the place and it's going to get worse with the elimination of these programs and here we have absolutely nothing being done, either about providing funding from senior governments or giving some assistance to the Municipal Government in terms of its own ability to raise funding.

We heard, for instance, several weeks ago in the Leg isla tu re the Atto rney-G eneral say, I'm not prepared to give the municipalities the right to collect a sales tax. There has been no indication other than the 2 percent of provincial income tax, which the previous government institut ed for municipalit ies, that there has been any increase in that area for the municipalities. So, you've got them stuck out on a limb, you've got them haning out to dry with no where to turn, and then you have people coming along and saying, well, the government that spends the money should raise the money.

That's a very nice statement to make, that's a very nice statement to make, but if you don't give them the power to raise the money, and it has to be a sensible power; it can't be something that every municipality has to try to raise in its own way because administration becomes far too expensive. You can't have one municipality trying to raise income taxes and another raising liquor taxes and a third raising tobacco taxes as someone sugge sted recently. You have to have something that will allow them to raise funds. Now, you've cut off The Special Municipal Loan and General Emergency Fund Act.

You've, I guess, effectively killed it a couple of years ago, but now, you're making sure that that $24 million, which had remained in the Fund , is added against your deficit so it doesn't look so bad, and I would hope that the Minister would now come up with a program that will assist those municipalities he is out there attempting to help. After all, it was the Minister, I believe, who sent out a nine-page pamphlet a couple of weeks ago to a bunch of reeves and mayors throughout the province taking credit for the state of the economy of Manitoba, I was glad that he did that I might say.

Certainly we wouldn't want to take credit for the absolute dismal performance of the last several years. I think that if I were the Minister I would have been rather ashamed to note that I was presiding over a government at a time when we have a net population decr ease over the last four years, when we have bankru ptcies at their high est rate in recorded time.

You can go on and on and talk about the disasters that this government and its economic mismanagement has visited upon the province, but this Minister chose to send out a nine-page financial report and covering letter referring to the very positive achievements in Manitoba's economy in the last three years. lt was astounding.

People in my constituency are telling me that they have never seen the housing industry in the kind of low ebb that it was last year, it has slightly improved this year, but this year is nothing compared to any of the NDP years, ifs much worse than those years and here the Minister is taking credit for that type of thing. Of course, that has to be put into context with stifling the municipalities, we're saying to them, no, we're not going to give you any loans and sure the Federal

Monday, 27 April, 1981 Government is going to cut down the programs, but that's too bad, you'll just have to fend for yourselves, you'll have to figure out some other way of achieving your income, but no, we are not going to give you added taxing ability.

So the whole thing is one pictur e where the municipalities in this province are getting it in the ear and I would hope that the Minister would come up with a program to assist and not just blame the Federal Government. lt may well be that the Federal Government deserves a good healthy share of the blame, but certainly some of the blame has to rest with the Pr ovincial Go vern ment.

So, I would specifically ask the Minister to add ress himself to the question of growth taxes for the municipalit ies and other means or methods of municipalities obtaining funding in order that they can keep up with their community services, with their public buildings, with their sewer and water projects and that type of thing. What is he going to do about it? MR. GOURL AY: Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member mentions about the discontinuation of the CSCP Pr ogram and previ ous to that the neighbourhood improvement programs and I think there were a couple of other federally funded programs that have helped the municipalities. Those programs were rolled into what was known as the CSCP Program for the last couple of years. Subsequently that has been discontinued as well by the federal people.

As I indicated we have ongoing dialogue with the provincial authorities and hopefully that the federal people will inititate a new type of program, whether it's called CSCP Program or NIP Program or whatever, but at the present time we have no assurance from the federal people that moneys will be forthcoming. The honourable member asks what I plan on doing in the future to assist the municipalities. I can say to the member that I notice tha t he neg lected to mention the fact that we will be contributing some $70 mil lion to the various municipalit ies in the province this year to assist with education programs.

Certainly this will in most cases free up several mills in the various municipalities to assist them with other programs that they may not have been able to ini tiate becaus e of in crea sing educ ation costs. Certainly this $70 million will help to some degree most of the municipalit ies in Mani toba for this current year. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is no way th at we'd like to leave th at implication on the record the way the Member for Rossmere ind icated what the performance of this government has been over the last three years and how the municipalities raise their taxes, how can they keep up with it because there are no programs available. I'd just like to refresh his memory a little bit on the school program th at the Mi nist er of Educ ation introduced not that long ago, which drops the mill rate on the cost of education, which is something that a municipality levies and has no jurisdiction over.

Talking specifically of municipal taxes itself - 3029 if the member had taken some time and checked percentagewise the increase in property taxes and wha t has happened to them in the rural municipalities, I can indicate to him that I have a LGD, a Local Government District, where over 60 percent of the people don't pay even $1. 00 tax, not municipal or school education cost, because of the programs th at have been in itiated in by th is government.

So that leaving those imprints on the record that this government has done nothing - we've upped the School Tax Rebate Program plus a program that is in place right now. When I talk of 60 percent of the people that don't pay $1 .00 tax, is the member promoting that people should not pay any tax against services against real property? If that is how he feels he should put it on record, because I personally belie ve very strongly, having been involved in municipal affairs as Reeve for five years, that people should pay taxes for services against real property.

If the Member for Rossmere does not believe that, then he should put it on record. When you have 60 percent of people in some areas not paying $1 .00 taxes, how can he make any inference that the government is not performing? He makes reference to the housing boom under the NDP and what a dismal failure it was under the present government. I would also like to bring to his memory the fact that we had a 6 percent vacancy rate in the City of Winnip eg at that time, which is way, way above normal, and what we have done by rationale, we have finally levelled it out.

There has been some rough rides for the construction industry but it's coming back. In fact people in my area, a lot of them are working in the construction industry in the city, indicate right now they have more work li ned up than they can handle. They'r e already booked, where they're looking at working six days a week nine hours a day. So let's not try and leave that impression that everything has gone to rack and ruin.

If the member will check his figures and check with the municipal people themselves - I'm not talking of the urban municipalities I'm talking of the rural municipalitie s - and if he will go and check with them he'll find it's not as dramatic as he's trying to put it on the record. Thank you. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a response briefly to some of the comments of the Member for Emerson. I have been paying taxes on land in · a rural municipality over the years. I can assure him that those taxes have been going up year by year.

I can also assure him that when I speak to members of rural councils and rural towns that they are concerned about the basic drift - let them all hang out there and the !'m -looking-after-just-myself attitude of this government and the Federal Government is of concern to them. In terms of some people not paying any property taxes, might I say that I support the program which was initiated by the former New Democratic Party government of having property tax rebates up to a certain amount with the balance being based on income-related calculations.

I might say that I find the Member for Emerson's comments on that very inte rest ing because they'v e now been the

Monday, 27 April, 1981 government for three-and-a-half years. If they didn't ap prove of th at particular type of supp ort for municipal finance then they could very well have changed it. In fact that was one of the things that the current Minister of Mines and Natural Resources was saying back in the mid '70s, that if they got into government they would change that, they would do away with the property tax credits. I would say, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Member for Emerson that I would just for argument's sake, just before an election please do that, I'm not asking you to do it for four years because I don't want those people to be hurt, but just do it just before an election so that we can put a little bit of icing on the cake and add about ten seats. In terms of cons truction, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the figures speak for themselves. The fact that there may be a few people who are busy in the house construction field is something that makes me very happy. I would just hope that a lot more of them would get busy.

I would say that as long as we have a government that is starving the public sector and starving the municipalities, that it is going to be more rather than less difficult to get the construction boom going. Now the $70 million increase in aid to eduction is something that I think we should be addressing ourselves to as well. All you have to do is look at the figures to see what happened to education funding in this province when this government took over.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs wants to take credit for an extra increase in education financing in one year, then I would assume that he will also take the lumps for the manner in which education financing was just administered in such an abysmally, niggardly fashion from 19 77 through 19 79. The Chairman well knows what I speak of - the cut backs in educ ation financing in this province were things that reeked havoc on those that had less, on the poorer rural municipalit ies, on the city inner core and in the north. Those were areas that really were hit hard.

The lower-income community college students, the lower­ income university students, they were the ones that were hit by those types of programs and now in an election year it is true that there is additional funding which goes beyond the rate of inflation. We don't doubt that and we are happy to see that it's finally come, but to have the Tory tango performed for us in one more field, that is one step forward, a small step forward after three big steps backward during an election year is just not enough to keep us going.

I know that if the Tories are re-elected they would probably try the same thing; starve them again for three years, and then they will let it go. But along with that $70 million came some very interesting shifts and I think the Min ister should be very concerned about those shifts, which will become more manifest as the years go on. That is, first of all, the commercial rate on the Foundation Levy, as he well knows, doubled, while the farm and residential rate went up by something like seven times. Now in a year when you've added $70 million into the mix you come up with something that doesn't look too bad.

Most people in Manitoba in fact will pay less in education taxes than they did the year before; however, they've still got to pay the other $70 mil lion . That's got to come from somebody's pocke t too and there is only one taxpayer as the Tories were just so happy to remind us many years ago, there is only one taxpayer, so that $70 million still has to be taken care of. But for this we are going to pay the piper about three or four years down the road when inflation takes its course with the new system.

I suggest to you that what is going to happen is that the commercial rate is going to be decreased substantially as compared to the farm and residential rates. What we have seen is the beginning of a shift in property taxation away from com mercial and agains t the farm and residential taxpayer. The fact that the $70 million came into the mix is not something that is going to make people happy four years from now. it may be that it's very nice for this year; it may be that a lot of our taxpayers will be happy this year.

I might say that some of us won't be, because there is another little problem with that particular program, and that is for the first time in many years we are back to a situation where in the City of Winn ipeg we are above that Foundation Program being put in a position where, for a substantial portion of education taxes, municipalities will be again vying for industry in order that they can cut down on their educ ation taxes. You have, for ins tance, the Un iversity of Manitoba now paying taxes to Fort Garry to a much greater extent than they used to.

We used to have the Greater Winnip eg Education Levy, which al lowed those di stricts with lower industrial bases, Transcona, River East and others, to benefit from the industry that is part of this entire city. Therefore none of our communities in the 1970s had to fight with each other to determine where busi ness would locate, becaus e what we were looking for is where is the most sensible place and the taxes will be distributed fairly evenly among all of the citizens of Winnipeg. That is now changed. As you can see, the sharing - and we talk about sharing - it is now provincial sharing.

The sharing that Fort Garry does is less than it used to be under the old program. The sharing that Winnipeg 1 does is less than used to be under the old program, and so there are some serious problems with that new Education Finance Program. So, again, the Mem ber for Emerson and the Minister are referring to this new education financing program. Why we are talking about it in Municipal Affairs, I'm sure my seat mate, the Member for St. Johns, must be wonde ring abou t , but it was something that was raised by the government side and think it has to be answered.

We are not unhappy with the fact that $70 million extra was put in. We are unhappy with the particular formula, because we believe that in the long run it is going to be unfair. I want to put on the record that I don't think that Winnip eg 1 should have been left in the condition that it was in the past; that is, having extra specific problems that weren't being looked after and funded.

That was something that should have been put into a new mix, but what we have got now is comp letely inequi table as between farm and residential versus commercial and it is inequitable between some of the suburbs of Winnip eg and other suburbs of Winnipeg. So we're not happy with that either. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, we seem to be covering the whole waterfront here and I was just 3030

Monday, 27 April, 1981 wondering when we get into the line by line or the different branches of the department. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm only an interim Chairman so if the Committee wants to change the approach you will have to give me some guidance here. We are on 1. (

b) and the Member for St. Johns has indicated he'd like to ask a question. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the Minister is pretty soon, which is much more exact than most answers we get from government when they say soon, so I would say pretty soon. Mr. Chairman, I came in while you were discussing some $70 million that is supposed to aid municipal taxpayers who pay both municipal and educational tax. I'd say that $70 million comes in part from borrowing, because their deficit is bigger than it's ever been and therefore it's borrowed money. it's not money that's raised any other way.

The Member for Rossmere said that it was money which is helpful, but the fact is it's not coming out of any form of taxation. lt will eventually, plus the interest on it that will have to be paid, it's also coming from $24.8 million which I will now read from the Budget because the Mini ster was less aware of the Budget Speech than I was earlier this afternoon. On Page 61 of the Budget Speech - I'm not speaking about Hansard, I was speaking about the bound copy given to us - I quote, "A further improvement - note the word 'improvement', Mr.

Chairman - of $24.8 million in the province's General Revenues will be achieved through the transfer to the Consolidated Fund of the balance remaining in the Special Municipal Loan and General Emergency Fund". Aside from the phony wording as an improvement being achieved, the fact is that money is being taken away from a special fund and put into Consolidated Fund and the point is it's being shown as revenue as if somewhere or other the province went out and earned or ta xed or in somehow acquired an improvement of $24.8 million to General Revenues,

whereas all it did was to take away a special fund and throw it into revenues which is a one-time thing.

So you could say out of that $70 million that the government is so proud of, 24.8 is a one-time transfer from a special fund for special purposes, which we will yet have to deal with that deals with emergency situations, that's now being taken in a sort of a routine casual way into General Revenues, and which is depriving this government and this Minister of an opportunity to look for a special fund, which in part was set up for the purposes of lending to municipalities in case that they needed it for the works as described by the Minister earlier.

I must read the next sentence of this Budg et Speech which reads: "The Act will be repealed during this session of the Legislature". Mr. Chairman, my memory served me well. The Minister's memory, as both a Cabinet Minister who must have been inv olved in the dis cussions in Cabinet and a member of the Legislature who no doubt was there when this speech was read, didn't recall this and therefore said that the Act will be there if we ever need it. The fact is, Mr.

Chairman, the Act won't be there if they ever need it and I think that's consistent with their philosophy that they're not going to worry about thing s like that; they'd rather blame the Federal Go vernment for withd rawi ng its program for which they may be correct, but no substitute, just the blame passes on and on and that is typical again of this government. May I also point out that the Minister of Finance today took pride in reducing income taxation, which is clearly a progressive form of taxation, saying, look what we did for small busi ness.

The fact is a couple of years ago they reduced income taxation and this year they're saying, look how great we are.

We have provided $70 million more to relieve the municipal taxpayer, and indeed got it by transferring $24.8 mil lion out of a one -time fund and a one-time transfer; and secondly, putting the burden on the general taxpayer with interest by creating an even greater deficit than ever before. it's nothing that anybody should be proud of on the side of the Conservative government and one that we will have to keep reminding them about, since they seem to forget themselves, what their plans are and what their programs are. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 1. (b) - pass - the Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I had hoped to get an answer from the Mini ster with respect to any study he might be doing or anything he might be proposing to do in the future with respect to allowing municipalities to get involved in growth taxes. I'm just wondering whether he can respond to that. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, this has not been an area that has had any study or discussions since I have become Minister. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would certainly encourage the Minis ter to so become involved because it seems increasingly clear that the Federal Government is doing everything possible to get out of fundin g programs in favour of municipali ties, as he has seen, with the current Federal Minister getting out of the latest program. He's well aware of the manner in which the Federal Government is conducting its negotiations regarding the renewal of the RCMP contract. The writing is on the wall. lt appears anyway that for some period of time the municipalities are going to be stuck with greater expenses.

Now the Minister can do it I suppose in one of a number of ways. One way would be, if for instance we get a bad deal on the RCMP contr act by providing dir ect funding or paying a greater percentage as opposed to what they are prese ntly paying. But another approach would be to look at providing several points of income tax to the mun icipaliti es. Okay, if the Mini ster wants to respond. MR. GOURLAY: I appreciate very much your views on this.

Certainly the situation is upon us where we may very well have to look at the whole financial contributions to municip alities in view of recent developments, in federal financing, policing and th ose areas th at dir ect ly affect mun icip alities. Although I have not had the opportunity to sit down and discuss this in any detail, whether it be growth taxes or other forms of revenue to municipalities, it's 3031

Monday, 27 April, 1981 certainly an area that has to be examined I think in the very near future. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: it's 4:30. Committee rise for Priv ate Members' Hour. SUPPL V - EDUCA TION MR. DEPU TY CHAIRMAN, Warren Steen (C rescentwood): We are on Page 51 of the Estimate Book, on the Department of Education, Item 6, Un iversities Grants Commission $115 million­ plus - pass - the Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to discuss this item on which there has been previously some discussion and perhaps some light has been thrown on the subject and also some misunderst andings have arisen from the subject. I think that it should be emphasized, Mr. Chairman, on the people of the Provinc e of Manitoba and on the Min ister of Education that those people now receiving post­ secondary education of the academic type, which is dealt with by this Un iversities Grants Commission figure, have been receivi ng between 85 and 90 percent of the cost of their education from the public of the Province of Manitoba. I say this, Mr.

Speaker, because somehow there has been a fiction maintained throughout the province that people who are receiving university education are paying for it and because they are paying for it, it is somehow more worthwhile and that they are more deserving of receiving it. it indicates their desire to have the education - that is ind icated it is suggested and I suggest, wrongly suggested - by the fact that they are willing to pay for their education. The tuition fees which they pay, Mr.

Chairman, are now neighboring between $550 and a goal as high as $900, and I suppose the medic al faculty will even go high er than that, $900.00, and I have always considered that to be a fair bit of money, although in todays currency it apparently isn't that much, or the Minister would say that it's not that much. When I was a youngster I can recall that university tutition fees were in the neighbo rhood of $15 0 to $250.00 - I wouldn't be exact on that but I'm fairly certain that they would be betwen those two figures - and I can remember, Mr. Chairman, that my family was not a wealthy family.

I wouldn't say that we were poor - we were certainly not poor in those necessities of life that are required to maintain body and soul - but we certainly were of an income group where the entire surroundi ngs, the entire population considered the payment of $15 0 to $250 to continue education to be out of the question. If it was not a financial barrier, Mr.

Chairman, it was a psychological barrier. lt was the notion that people who have money can afford a university education and people who don't have money, they enter the work force in one way or another and start participating in either their own cost of living or more likely they were expected to contribute to the board and room that was at that time sustained by their parents. Mr. Chairman, I'm aware that times have changed.

I have five children of my own, four of them who are no longer resident with me, and I'm aware at the present time people once they reach what we call the 3032 adult level, very often do not live with their parents, very often find their way into the labour force earlier or with appropriate conditions can obtain student aid for the purpose of furthering their education; and we spend I see $6 million on student aid.

If you took that $6 million, if there wasn't such a thing as necessary student aid - and I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be - we would be perhaps $15 million away from the cost of paying all post-secondary educ ation at the vocat ional and academic level for those who are now taking it. I say that advisedly because I don't intend that that should be the conclusion of my submission. But what was the psych ologic al and cultur al feature of determining who takes post-secondary, and in particular academic education, has not really changed.

The fact is, although there are some homes and they are still the exceptions in the lower income groups where great stress is played upon people getting a higher education, there is a complete cultural gap in a broad part of our community which results in people just not feeling that post-secondary education is in the cards. I think that there was an editorial in the Winnip eg Free Press which said that you have to convince these people that they should want an education and that if they were convinced to want an education that the financial barrier would not be a problem. Well, Mr.

Chairman, we don't have to convince