Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 69A (31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-69a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thur sday, 30 April, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Ru ssell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Rece iving Petitions ... Pre se nting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Minis terial Statements and Tabling of Reports .. . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery on my left where we have 85 students of Grade 5 standing from the Heritage School under the direction of Mr.

Waiter Shurraw. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. On behalf of all honourable mem bers, we welcome you here this afternoon. The Ho nou rable Min ister of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the question period when I was questioned about Kane Equipment I made the statement that we have been in touch.

Since that time I was contacted by a reporter from The Sun yesterday afternoon and he informed me that he had been in touch with the President of Kane and he had said that our department had not been in touch with him as the report says, Mr. Speaker. I said, well, I'll have to check that out. On checking it out, Mr. Speaker, I found that we certainly were not in touch with the President of Kane and it certainly appears that the re wasn't anybody in the depa rt ment, although we're checking with one other group that were in touch with Kane Equipment after the

article of February 3. So, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to leave the impression in the House that we were in touch if, in fact, we weren't. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEV (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier, the Mini ster responsible for Hydro.

In the letter which the Minister responsible for Hydro tabled in the House Thur sday of last week to the Manitoba Hydro dated April 16, 1981, which letter was addressed to Aikins MacAulay & Thorvaldson; since the letter contains a number of questions that remain unans wered and the letter which the same Min ister tabled in the House from Aikins MacAulay & Thorvaldson, which letter was dated April 21 st tabled by the Min ister in the House, a numb er of questions that were not answered amongst which was a question pertaining to whether or not there had been discussions held with the Board of Manitoba Hydro, any of its members or any member of the staff respecting either the jurisdiction 3177 of the Tritschler Comm ission or the commencement of court proceedings.

Sec ondly, a question pertai ning to the paper referred to as to the circumstances surrounding . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The ho nourable mem ber is asking a series of questions. Perhaps it should be in the order of a return or ask one question at a time. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to facilitate because it's not a series of questions; it's a number of points that were raised in the letter which fit into one general question. I'm prepared to answer then singly if it will accomm odate your concerns, Mr. Speaker.

Relating back then, the letter asked for information pertaining to discussions held with the then Board of Ma nitob a Hy dro, any of its memb ers or any memb ers of the staff respect ing eit her the jurisdiction of the Tritschler Comm ission or the commencement of court proceedings. Mr. Speaker, that question was not answered in the response from Aikins MacAulay. In view of the fact that the answer was not provided and in view of the advice in Aikins MacAulay that the question amongst other questions could only be answered by Mr.

Steward Martin, can the Minister advise whether or not Manitoba Hydro has now been in contact with Mr. Steward Martin since Mr. Steward Martin has now returned, as of April 28, for an answer to the question which they had forwarded to Aikins MacAulay? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer the last question first although it has been answered a num ber of times in the House. What arrangements Manitoba Hydro make with their solicitors is going to be their decision. Mr.

Speaker, if there's information coming from that the House will be advised of it. I don't have the letters in front of me but I do know that one of the earlier questions, as to whether or not the solicitor had met with the Board, I think that question was answered in the committee on about Day One of the committee hearings here. As far as the rest of the questions are concerned I don't have any further information. I can repeat to the mem ber I don't have those letters sitting on my desk. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, further to the Minister, a question related to discussions held with board mem bers, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister can show to me in Hansard where that information was provided then indeed we would not be asking this question. Can the Minister advise whether the Manitoba Hydro will be contacting Aikins, MacAulay in respect to the fact tha t the their question pertai ning to the circumstances pertaining to the paper referred to in the Manitoba Hydro letter of April 16th and earlier; that question was not answered by Aikins MacAulay? Can the Minister advise whether or not the Manitoba Hydro will be in contact with Steward Martin as

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 they've been invited to do so by Aikins MacAulay in regard to that matter? MR. CRAIK: I haven't any information that I can give the member on that question, Mr. Speaker. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, then further to the letter dated April 16th from Manitoba Hydro in which the question was posed as to with whom within Hydro, if anyone, it was discussed or presented to and whether the view expressed, the act ions proposed, represented the considered legal opinion at Aikins MacAulay; Mr.

Speaker, since that question was not responded to in the letter dated April 21 st from Aikins MacAulay and, in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that Aikins MacAulay invited Manitoba Hydro to commun icate directly with Mr. Steward Martin as a lawyer within the firm who had personal knowledge of the matters, can the Minister advise whether indeed Manitoba Hydro has now followed up the invitation of Aikins MacAulay to commun icate directly with Steward Martin in that regard , in respect to that particular question? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, when I get information of that nature from Manitoba Hydro I'll be pleased to pass it on to the member. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, the Min ister indicates when he receives that kind of inf ormation; the Min ister tabled these letters which were mo st incomplete.

Can the Minister advise whether or not he will be seeking from Manitoba Hydro a complete and full response to the questions which were raised in the letter of April 16th so that letter may be tabled in this House as a compliment to the letter of April 16, 1981, so that indeed members in this Cham ber will have complete and full information, as indeed, that information was sought by Manitoba Hydro itself in their letter of April 16th from Mr. Steward Martin?

Will the Minister request that information, that follow up from Manitoba Hydro so that we have some meaningful information pertaining to this matter in this Cham ber? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct when he says indeed it was requested by Manitoba Hydro and I said if and when the utility provides that information I'll be pleased to hand it on to the members of the Chamber. MR. PAWLEV: Mr.

Speaker, then further to the Minister responsible for Hydro, will the Min ister then ;ndeed - let us be very clear - that he will not be seeking any further information from Manitoba Hydro m order to clarify the points that were raised by members of the Opposition and pertaining to the questions which are left unans wered in the letter from Manitoba Hy dro to Aikins Ma cAu lay and Com pany April 16th? Will the Minister be undertaking no further effort to obtain any further information with respect to this matter? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I have said consistently throughout the course of the exchange that has gone on in this matter that the dealings between Manitoba Hydro and their solicitor are exactly that, they belong in that arena. They have not had instruction from myself in the selection of their solicitors or in their dealings with their solicitors, whoever they may be and I don't intend to become engaged in the process of advising them what they ought or ought not to do with their solicitors.

If the information that is referred to here, which has been volunteered by Hydro by way of provision of their letters, is received from them - and I presume that since they've asked for the information - that they will want to pursue a request to those answers, if that becomes available I'll be pleased to make it available to the House. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, since some two weeks ago the Minister indicated in the Chamber that he would end orse Manitoba Hydro in releasing Mr. Steward Ma rtin from solic itor confidential relationship, can the Minister now advise whether or not Manitoba Hydro has so released Mr.

Steward Martin from solicitor-client relationship? MR. CRAIK: Well, I'm pleased Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition has used the right word for a change. He used the "endorse" and not "force" and that I am pleased about. The latter part of his question I can't answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho no urable Leader of the Opposition with a further question. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to belabour this but it's inte res ting the Mi nis ter suggests that the Leader of the Opposition had used the word force, we have always used the word end orse. Mr .

Sp eaker, furthe r to the Mi nis ter responsible for Hydro, he indicates that he is not aware, can the Minister advise whether or not he will indeed follow up his recommendation or suggestion that he indeed endorsed the release of Mr. Steward Martin? Will he now, Mr. Speaker, follow that up by enquiring from Manitoba Hydro whether or not they are intending to release Steward Martin from solicitor-client relationship? Will he now follow up his statement of some 10 days, 2 weeks ago in that respect? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question before in this Ho use on a numb er of occasions. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it the Minister did give an undertaking after I asked certain questions that he would send copies of Hansard to Hydro for them to understand what it is that he was accepting as questions. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is now a change in his approach, that he is no longer going to enquire from them about the Hansards they send but rather just let it go, that's my point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

The answers that a Minister gives in this Chamber may not be the answers that people wish to hear but they do not constitute a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, in my absence yesterday the Leader of the 3178

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 Opposition asked if the Department of Labour had received appropriate notice as it related to the Waiter Woods operation - I suspect by appropriate notice he meant notice as per the legislation - and the answer to that is, yes, we have received the appropria te notice but in this particular case no notice was what we received because that was appropriate under the legislation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, two days ago I asked a question of the Min ister of Ec onomic Development which he referred on to the Minister of Energy, although I thought it should have been dealt with by the Finance Minister, but neither were here on that day. So I will ask either of the two of them who are able to answer the qu estion and the question was relating to what studies were undertaken by the Province of Manitoba to attempt to calculate the tax benefits that would derive for Alcan through their ownership, a part of Manitoba's hydro-electric power, as compared to there being a :>urchasing power in the normal way. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I have the question taken as notice by the Minister of Economic Development which was referred to me with regard to tax savings that would inure as they are quot ed here. lt's probably not going to be possible to answer that question for quite some time, perhaps not until a mean agreement is drawn. lt's expected that there is some possibility of course that capital cost allowance on the ownership part of the power structure would be available to Alcan with regard to inclusion in the calculation of their tax. lt's not possible at this point to indicate what it would be in the case of either the federal or the provincial position.

As I say it probably will not be possible to answer that either until some time towards the point where a final agreement would be reached. There was one further question that the member asked at the same time and it was with regard to whether or not the negotiations contempla te a water rate chargeable to Alcan which would be fixed and not flexible as the present water rates are in relation to Hydro and other users of water rates. Mr . Speaker, that too is currently under negotiation with the company.

As the member may recall there was reference in the Letter of Intent that was tabled to water rentals and other charges and those two items will not be finally spelled out until some point later on, probably at the time of a final agreement. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, my question was what studies have been made by the government to ascertain these calculations and the Minister is giving an answer saying that it's not likely that there will be information available. I'd lik e him to answer the question itself as to what studies have been made? MR. CRAIK: Internal studies, Mr.

Speaker, and sufficient to indicate that it will not be possible to do a finite calculation until the timing of the occurrence of the construction of different aspects are known. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr.

Sp eaker, internal studies would have some assumptions built into them in relation to the capital cost and expected capital costs and these other factors that the Minister refers to but I would like to ask him whether the studies, internal or otherwise, made by the government or Alcan itself which will be available to government, will be made available to the members of this Legislature before any final contract is entered into and before any commitment is made by this government so as to enable the people of Ma nitoba to have an oppor tunit y to assess the com parative benefits deriving to the customer and to the people of Manitoba, the suppliers of the energy.

MR. CRAIK: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, some general information will be avai lable. Ho w specific the information will be by that time only time will tell because, as I said, there may be some aspects of the total development that may still not be entirely known, particularly in terms of timing at the time of a final agreement, but certai nly general information should be available by that time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns with a further question. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to ask the honourable, the Minister, whether legislation will be required in order to approve of this new departure of granting ownership to privatge industry, if legislation will be required, and if not, will the government undertake to ensure that the matter is brought to the Legislature for consideration and approval before any commitment is made by the government? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it has already been indicated publicly at the time of the announcement that legislation will be required. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Me mber for Crescentwood. MR. WARREN STEEN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy and Mines and ask him if as a result of the discussions in Thompson in the Premiers' meeting recently, if he can report any progress in relation to the Western Power Grid. MR. SPEAkER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I can indicate to the House that at least as much as has been indicated by the official press release from the Premiers of the th ree provi nces involved tha t the Min isters responsible and myself as Chairman of the Three Min isterial Commi tee have been ins tructed to proceed with the conclusion of the negotiations as a matter of high priority and to bring the matter to a conclusion at the earliest possible date. A time frame was not spelled out specifically in the press release. I would hope that it will probably be at some sort of conclusion by about the middle of the summer of 1981. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. 3179

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I asked the Min ister reporting for Manitoba Hydro a question which he took as notice. In fact there were two questions having to do with the current operating budget for Hydro. I wonder if the Min ister now has an answer to the question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the question. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, if I may repeat the question.

The Minister took as notice a question from me last Thur sday referr ing to the current operating budget of Manitoba Hydro. I wonder if he has the answer to the questions now. MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. WALDING: Another question for the Minister reporting for Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Premier of Saskatchewan is reported in today's newspaper as saying that all of the studies for a Western interconnection are not yet completed, I wonder if the Minister can confirm that fact in view of the impression that is being given that both Manitoba and Alberta are prepared at this time to sign an agreement. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I ha ve not heard reference, I have not seen any direct comment by the Premier of Saskatchewan but I have to presume that he is referring to internal studies rather than a three-province type external studies.

The Ministerial Comm ittee was not authorized to proceed with any further external studies. 1t is recognized at this point in time that all of the external studies required in both the technical and overall economic feasibility matters with regard to the grid have been completed and any studie s tha t are req uir ed are internal studies, very li kely shared amongs t the th ree provinces but referring in particular to the matters surrounding pricing. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital with a final suppleme ntary. MR. WALDING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister.

Could the Minister give us an undertaking that prior to the expenditure of the estimated $3 billion for such a project that he would make all the studies available to the Opposition so that we would be in a position to evaluate them and discuss them in a rational manner? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to do that. I would trust that after the first foundation is poured we can have a big bonfire and we can all jointly watch them burn. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Honourable Minister of Labour.

I wonder if the Minister has any intention of changing the legislation which only allows six months back pay for statutory holidays as opposed to 22 months back pay for vacation pay for people who have been working for some considerable time and for one reason or another have termi nated employment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of introducing legislation in that regard in this particular

section and this particular session but I will review the points raised by the member and I will get an answer back to her as to why we feel it acceptable at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development. Does the Minister have any figures on the housing starts for the first quarter of 1981 and if so could he maybe indicate how Manitoba's placing is in there? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mini ster of Economic Development. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the Province of Mani toba is second in the country and has an increase of 154 percent the first quarter this year over the first quarter last year. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Memb er for Emerson with a supple mentary. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. Could the Minister indicate what the national percentage is? MR. JOHNSTON: No, Mr.

Speaker, I don't have the national percentage here but I can indicate to the mem bers of the House - it would certainly be interesting seeing it's about housing - that March '81 over March 1980 we had nine last year; we have 11 7 this year with a 1, 200 percent increase, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Wellington. -(I nterjection)- Order please. Order please. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: I'm trying not to enJOin the debate that's going across the floor, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Mini ster responsible for Energy and I would ask him if he can advise why the government has given Alcan what amounts to an option to use this province's water resources for all time without charging a proper fee for such option rights. Can he advise us of that, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, there's an inaccurate assumption contained in that statement and that isthe Member has stated they have been given a right for all time? Mr.

Speaker, the announcement indicated that the water licence period was for 35 years which is something short of all time, Mr. 3180

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 Speaker. I think that probably the member apprised of that kind of information may wish to readdress the question. MR. CORRIN: I'll do that, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Honourable Min ister if he can advise what the government will do if another major hydro-electric user approaches them with a better offer for this valuable provincial resource? I would ask him why the government has foreclosed other options without obtaining any remu neration from this particular perspective developer? MR. CRAIK: Again, Mr.

Speaker, the member has made an incorrect assumption and included it in his statement, that options have been foreclosed. No options have been foreclosed. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Memb er for Wellington with a final supplem entary. MR. CORRIN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question to the Minister is to ask him whether or not the reason that no option charge has been imposed is because the Letter of Intent provides no real assurance of future development? Is it not true, Mr.

Speaker, that there is no commitment on the part of either party to proceed with this and the so called Letter of Intent and perspective feasibil ity study is therefore wholly worthless? Is that not true? MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker, that's not true. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Me mber for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister of Urban Affairs.

I wonder if the Attorney-General has been made aware of the practice that is now adapted by the City of Winnipeg Planning Branch whereby they will not give a file copy of their Surveyor's Certificate to a prospective pur cha ser of a home because th e Sur veyo r's Association has asked them not to. This means that what a purchaser could buy for possibly a penny and-a-half for the copying cost he now has to pay a surveyor $18 0.00 to do what is repeating what was done before. Is he aware of that practice? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-GeneraL HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): No I'm not aware, Mr.

Speaker, of that practice. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Attorney-General, again in his capacity as Minister of Urban Affairs, would examine the legal implications which are being pursued by the Manitoba Surveyors Association, which has unnecessarily put on new purchasers of homes a $18 0.00 charge for something that can be copied for about a penny and-a-half. MR. MERCIER: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, do I take it that the Minister will make himself aware of that position. (Agreed) Mr.

Sp eaker, would the Min ister also, if he determines that what I am saying is accurate, and I 3181 got this information from the Planning Branch today, see whether any laws are necessary to undo what is presently happening which amounts to a complete waste of money for something that has already been done? MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Memb er for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Min ister responsible for Natural Resources.

I'd ask the Minister if he can provide us with a status report as to the development and im pleme ntation of regulations for the Chur ch ill Wildl ife Management Area. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that those regulations were promised by the previous Min ister of Natural Resources several years ago and have not been forthcoming and we are embarking or coming very close to embarking upon another tourist season in the area and those regulations would probably be quite beneficial in respect to making certain that we don't lose that wildlife management area's use because of improper use at this time. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to provide those regulations for the Honourable Member for Chur chill. I have to check with the department to make sure that we have them in place. lt was this government that established the Wildl ife Management Area to which he refers, previous action by the far-sighted former Minister of Resources. We will of course undertake to provide the information that the Ho nourable Member for Churchill requires. MR. COWAN: I'm somewhat confus ed by the Mi nister's answer and I think justifiably so, Mr.

Speaker. He says he will provide those regulations to me and at the same time he indicates that he has to check to see if the regulations are in fact in place.

I'd ask the Min ister a question that is suppleme ntary to that and that is what action is he going to take in respect to the departure of the Adminis trative Secretary at the Churchill Natural Resources office in the commun ity of Churchill, which now leaves that office totally unstaffed which means, over the past couple of years, that office has lost a biologist, two technicians and now an administrative secretary; which means that there is no possible way in which a gov ernment can maintain a proper monitoring system on what's happening in that area and, therefore, in fact does have a negative impact on what the Minister says is the far-sighted actions of the Minister previous to him.

So what is he going to do to undo the damage that he has done over the past term of his position in that office in respect to making certain that wildlife area is protected? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Churchill can rest assured that I won't let them do that to me. Once I find out what they are doing I will put an immediate stop to that because it's one thing I won't stand for is the way they always undermine the efforts of this department. I am

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 concerned about the wildli fe interests in th at particular management area and I'll make sure I'll stop them from doing any of what he suggests in his question may be happening. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I notice tha t the members opposite find a great deal of humour in the gr atuitous remarks of the Minister for Natural Resources but I can assure them that the people of Churchill do not share their humour in respect to what's happening in that commun ity. I think the Minis ter's answer is as ill ustrative as it is enlightening.

I would ask the Minister quite frankly what he is going to do now that he has been informed of that action in this House because I can assure you that he has not been answering mail from the residents of Churchill in respect to questions they are forwarding to him about the continuation and the implementation of regulations in the area? Is the Minister now prepared to act very quickly, because the tourism season is fast approaching, in respect to putting in place regulations which will in fact protect that wildlife management area?

Further to that is the Minister prepared to put back in place the four staff person years that previously worked out of the office in Churchill? MR. ENNS: The devel opment of ma nagement schemes for any wildlife management area takes a consi derable amount of time to develop in consultation with local people. My understanding is that the department has drafted the regulations, have held numerous meetings within the area at Churchill and surrounding area that takes in this very large wildlife management area - it is a very large one, Mr.

Speaker, the largest one in the province. it's my understanding that the kind of concern that the honourable member speaks about are being dealt with, are being met with through this consultative purpose. We don't assume to have all the answers within the department. We have sketched out or we have laid out the kind of regulations that we believe ought to apply to that area. They are now being circu lated throughout the area for consideration for adoption as to a proper management technique for that area. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct this question to the Min ister of Agriculture and ask him since he's made his announcement several weeks ago of assistance to hog producers, could the Minister indicate what level of funding will be made available to producers under the program that he's announced? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the time of the announcement of the hog program that a committee would be established to work out the details of the levels and the other matters of concern to the hog industry. I will be very shortly, Mr.

Speaker, making that committee known to the public and making the final appointment so they can get on with that work and will report back to the House as soon as possible. 3182 MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that Manitobans produce approxima tely one million hogs annually and that $2.2 million can mean roughly $2.00 per hog - if there is going to be assistance on a hog - when other provinces ha ve been assisting their producers for the last two years or more to the tune of $10 .00 or more per hog, how does the Minister of Agriculture of this province feel that now this will be an adequate program in terms of a large number of producers who have now gone bankrupt or ceased their operations?

Can he tell the producers what is the nature of the program that he is intending to put in or is he intending to put in further dollars into this program? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to comment to the member that when he refers to other provinces he should lay all the facts on the table. One tha t is imme di ately west of us in Saskatchewan I believe they don 't produce that many less hogs and there is a very small percentage of the producers that participated in their program; less than $5 mi llion has been paid out in that program.

In fact I think it was $2.8 million over a period of five years is all that was paid out. So we look at those kinds of numbers, Mr.

Speaker, when we establish programs; plus the fact that we would anticipate a recovery in the marketplace for hogs and would expect that towards the latter part of this year there wouldn't be any need to pay out funds; plus the fact that there is a federal program that will be paying money out to the hog producers which, by the way, has to be taken into account in figuring out what levels we established because it was the last gov ernment that brought in The Ma nitoba Agricultural Stabilization Act that could in fact limit the amount of money that is put into the hog industry by this government.

So we have a multitude of things, Mr. Speaker, to look at and we are progressing in a responsible manner. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact I'm advised that the Province of Saskatchewan now insu res approxima tely 65 percent of the hog production in that province and that the programs to the east and to the west of us range at least four and five years in duration, can the Minister indicate - now that it appears many producers have gone out of business - that this program will end in two years' time and how does he expect producers to get out of the problems that they have had up until now after he's encou raged th em to go into hog production?

How does he expect this program to pull them out in a short two-year period, Mr. Speaker? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, let me say that we as a government are very concerned about the state of our agricult ural ind ustry and feel th at the marketplace where the produc ers sell their hogs should be the point at which they receive adequate returns for that production.

If that is not adequate on nationally produced commodities we believe that it's a Federal Government program that is required to in fact remove the anomalies between the different provincial jurisdictions and we can in fact have a program that does not have one Provincial Treasury compete against the other. I think that's important, Mr. Speaker, so important that at the Premiers' Conference it was one of the

Thur sday, 30 April, 1981 major concerns that they were talking about and suggesting that we as Agriculture Ministers should re-meet to try and work out any differences in programs and I think it's important that we do that, plus the fact that we have to further continue to work with the hog producers in the establishment of their program.

I think it's important that it's a producer control type of organ izat ion and not allowing gov ern ments to conti nua lly dir ect the kinds of agriculture production that are going to take place; that the more natural competitive or com parative advantage we retain for our producers, Mr. Speaker, the better off the Manitoba producers of pork will be. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Housing.

I would ask him, the Portage Graphic reported that there were only five building permits issued in 19 80 for the City of Portage la Prairie for housing. I wonder since the Minister has the housing statistics at his fingertips this morning, if he could advise us if in fact that statistic is correct that there were only five permits issued last year for Portage la Prairie. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. GARY FILMON (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I can't confirm that statistic but I can confirm that CMHCs current figures indicate an expectation for the entire year of 1981 an increase of housing unit construction in Ma nitoba of appr oxi mately 15 0 percent, to the level of about 4,000 new housing units projected for this year for the entire province. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired we will proceed with Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DA V MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to speak on a grievance because of the manner in which the Minister reporting for Hydro has waffled today in regard to his response to the questions that were asked him regarding the letters that went back and forth between Hydro, and Aikins MacAulay & Thorvaldson. Mr. Speaker, I was certainly not planning to speak on this matter or on this grievance.

I would ask the 3183 Honourable - well, I'll just ignore him - I guess the best way to deal with the Mini ster of Economic Affairs is to ignore him. Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Hydro had first made various representations in Comm ittee and in this House that he really knew nothing about the recommendations by Mr. Steward Martin dealing with the activities of the Tritschler Comm ission and the recom mendation tha t Mr . Steward Martin had made that a letter been sent to the Tritschler Commission informing the commission of his concerns about the manner of handling it.

Well, the Minister for Hydro made it appear as if he didn't really know about that letter. lt took some time before he admitted that amongst other things the Acting Chairman dis cussed Mr . Mar tin's concerns but it took a great deal of pressure from our side to get the Minister to agree to approach Hydro and inform Hydro about the concerns in a formal way because, when we asked him to take certain steps, he finally said I will send copies of Hansard to them. But, Mr. Speaker, he did say that he would endorse the decision of Hydro to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

There are a number of private conversations being carried on. lt makes it very difficult to hear the words of the Honourable Member for St. Johns. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister stated that when we were discussing the approach to Mr. Steward Martin to ascertain from him the facts as to his position, his attitudes on the activities of the Tritschler Commission, were such that we said they needed clarification. We said would you release Mr. Martin, or would you have Hydro release Mr.

Ma rtin, from the solicitor-client confidentiality and the Minister, as I say, he waffled, he swung one way and the other making it appear as if he had nothing to do with that but he finally agreed and made the statement, something to the effect that if Mr. Martin requested to be released he would concur with the decision to release him. But after further pressure from this side of the House he then stated - I dropped my Hansard so I don't have it read ily available at hand - but he stated something to the effect that if they, of their own initiative, at Hydro would release Mr.

Martin from that confidentiality that is expected of lawyers acting for clients, he would endorse it, he would accept it, whatever specific word he used ; I think it was endorsed. Well, he made it then appear as if, why he was quite prepared for the truth to come out and indeed it wasn't until he produced - well he was given a draft of a letter addressed to the commission, which he called a half-hoax, which his First Minister called a fabrication and then tried to withdraw that word; which the First Minister said was trumped up which he did not withdraw.

After all of that and whilst the Minister for Hydro took the time to study the gong show, to watch it and to decide whether or not it was worth his while to read that draft letter and he finally did, he would still not, on questioning, and it's in Hansard, I was just looking at it a moment ago, he would not confirm that the sense of the letter which he then read, that seven-page letter, was such as would support the statements that were made to him by the chairman. He never admitted having the read

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 the letter, nor denied having read the letter, but what he did do, finally, after a great deal of personal embarrassment, I believe, did finally produce a letter from Manitoba Hydro sett ing out a nu mber of questions add ressed to Aikins, Ma cAuley, Thorvaldson and, Mr. Speaker, he in this House stated that he would ask Hydro if they would address thems elves to their coun sel and ma ke these enquiries. And now we find and my leader today tried to bring it out during the question period that there were a number of questions asked.

The question was whether Hydro had ever received a legal opinion from its solicitors to the effect that the Tritschler Comm ission exceeded its jurisdication and that court proceedings should be taken? They asked that they wished to know all the facts involving this matter and would appreciate receiving a full and complete report respecting any opinion given, or discussions held with the then Board of Manitoba Hydro and any of its members or any members of staff, respect ing either the ju risdiction of the Tritschler Comm ission or the commencement of court proceedings.

And they asked, in regard to the paper, the draft letter, if it was in fact prepared "by you", which means by the firm of Aikins, MacAuley and, if so, the circum stances surrounding it, with whom within Hydro, if anyone, it was discussed or presented to, and whether the view expressed or the course of action proposed represented the consi dered legal opinion of Aikins, Ma cAuley, Thorvaldson? Mr. Speaker, this letter signed by, Mr. Kristjanson, Chairman of Hydro, asked very specific questions on behalf of Man itoba Hydro and as Chairman of Manitoba Hydro.

The Minister then produces a letter from Aikins, MacAuley, Thor valdson add ressed to Mr . Kristjanson, the Chairman, and, Mr. Speaker, this letter is wanting in a number of respects. I make only passing mention but specific mention has been made on previous occasions that this letter has on it print ed at the top of the letterhead the ph rase "Pl ease Refer To" and it is blank thereafter. Normally it gives the name of the member of the firm who has conduct of this letter. lt then says in print "File No." and normally it would have the firm's file no. for this matter and this is left blank.

And as has been pointed out the letter is signed in a very unusual manner by the name of the law firm, Aikins, MacAulay and Thorvaldson, without indication, which again is the usual thing, where one finds at the bottom left hand corner of most letters that were dictated, the name of the person dictating them and the person who has typed it. Having practised law for some 40 years I can tell you that's rather important in a law firm, even as small as the firms with which I have been associated. But, Mr.

Speaker, I've never been associated with a firm that has as many as 40, approxima tely 40 solicitors, and here this firm of some 40, approxima tely, members of the firm or solicitors, setting aside clerks and staff of any other kind, does not even bother to make a record on the letter as to who di ctated the letter, who is responsible for it.

I just mention to you that when Manitoba Hydro's Chairman wrote a letter he not only signed it, not only did his name and designation appear beneath his signature but on the left hand corner of that letter, at the bottom the initials "KK" appear with an oblique stroke and "im". I can only 318 4 assume from past practice that "im" are the initials of the person who typed the letter and "KK", of course, are the initials of Kris Kristjanson. Another interesting comment, Mr. Speaker, about this letter sent by Mr. Kristjanson is that it is addressed to Messrs.

Aikins Ma cAula y & Thorvaldson and that copies were sent to R.G. Smellie, Q.C. and to W. S. Martin, Q.C. 1t is of interest only that he has written to the firm but maybe because there are 40 members of the firm he wanted to make sure that copies were received by the two counsels, the senior counsel and then his successor who appe ared before the Tritschler Commission. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to make comment about a letter obviously dictated by someone, obviously authored by someone in that firm, a person who is not described at all and point out to you that the reply is not a reply to the letter from Manitoba Hydro to the extent requested by their own client. I'm critical of it although it's not for me to criticize it, it's up to Manitoba Hydro to criticize them and say we wrote a letter to our lawyers; we got a reply from our lawyers which we have now made public and the reply does not answer the questions to the extent that they were asked.

Since the Minister for Hydro took it upon his responsibility to file both letters and the attach ment which served to ju stify the statements we've been making all along that we believe that the draft letter to the Commissioner was indeed authored by Mr. Steward Martin. They then responded by actually giving us a copy of the letter adding the final page - Page 8 which we did not have in our possession - and in effect supported everything that had been said on this side of the House.

Now the letter from Aikins MacAulay acknowledges receipt of a letter addressed to our firm conce rning the recent appearances and mentions the receipt of a 7-page document - and they then refer to the fact that theirs is an 8-page document - and nowhere do I think does it say specifically tha t the first seven pages of their document is identical with the seven pages - which the Minister for Hydro didn't bother reading until after he had finished with the Gong Show but it was identi cal - and they say this document was prepared by Mr. W.S.

Martin of this forum whose recollection is that it was prepared shortly before the Tritschler Commission. Now we find, Mr. Speaker, that whoever dictated that letter must have been in touch with Mr. Martin in order to ascertain that his recollection is that it was prepared shor tly before the Tritschler Comm ission resumed its hearings in January 1979. I believe that statement is true, Mr. Speaker, because when I read the minutes of Hansard, the Minute Book, there was a meeting held - and I'm speaking from memory I think it was December 19 - where the board said they'd like to meet with Mr.

Martin and instructed the secretary to get in touch with Mr. Mar tin. The secretary repo rted and it's in the minutes that Mr. Martin's counsel would meet with the board at 2:00 or 2:30 that afternoon and the concluding line of those minutes is - that the board adjourned at 12:30 or 12:45. I am certain that meeting was held. I don't know why minutes were not kept. I assume the Minister reporting for Hydro doesn't know why those minutes

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 were not kept but if I were Minister for Hydro I would be interested in knowing how it was that they held a meeting and didn't record any minutes. But we can assume that there was that meeting held; I'm certain it was held; I'm certain that Mr. Martin expressed concerns; and I'm certain subsequently that Mr. Martin drafted the letter. My timing is supported by the fact as I recall it that the Minister for Hydro didn't fire Mr. Bateman until the end of December, about the 28th or 29th of December - -(Int erjection)- gave him a Merry Christmas as suggested by the Member for Winnipeg Centre.

I think he may have waited till after Christmas but made sure that it was done during the season and before the end of the year and the draft letter from Mr. Martin refers to the fact that Mr. Bateman had been fired. So now we get the timing and it supports what is stated here about Mr. Martin's recollection. it's amusing to me that the firm of Aikins and Company says in their letter on whose letterhead Mr. Martin appears at the top of the third column they refer to the fact that he has a recollection that it was prepared shortly before th e resu mp tion of the Tritschler Com mission hearings in January.

They state, "lt was Mr. Ma rti n's submis sion to be presented to the Commission if the Board of Hydro approved it", and I think that's very clear. He was appointed by the Board of Hydro as counsel for the purpose of representing it before the Comm ission - clearly that was his role to make recommendations. No w, Mr. Sp eaker, what I think is a foolish statement on the part of whoever dictated this letter and probably he's a friend of mine because I know quite a few members of that firm and have regard for them, the foolish thing is that he says the document itself is not a legal opinion. Mr.

Speaker, that's his answer to the question asked about whether or not they received any opinion given or discussions held with the board and they say it's not a legal opinion. Mr. Speaker, if I draft a document and let's say bring it to the Cabinet of the Province of Manitoba and say to Cabinet - I would like to send this letter. Would you agree that I send it. and in the letter it is addressed to Tritschler.

I would then not pretend that it's not my opinion that the letter be sent to the Tritschler Commission and when I say at the end and make a definite threat which as I recall that draft letter does that if the Tritschler Comm ission does not cease its hearings, that the legal counsel will apply to the court for a review of the matter in which it was conducted. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to try and find that letter because I would like to be able to refer to it in specific rather than according to my recollection.

So I do see at the bottom of Page 7 I believe it is, where the draft says: "I hererby request such a reference", and that is the reference under

Section 97- 1 of The Manitoba Evidence Act to the Court of Appeal and the

section is cited. The letter says, "I hereby request such a reference as a · person affected on the grounds that you have not adhered to the jur isdiction prescribed for your Commission under and pursuant of Order-in-Council 1328". For anyone, Mr. Speaker, and he doesn't have to be lawyer, for anyone to say that is not an opinion 3185 given by legal counsel to his client about procedures that he thinks ought to be taken then that person is igno rant. -(I nterjec tion)- I ju st received an assurance that I should use the words that first came to mind but I won't do that.

But certainly that person is ignorant of what is involved when a lawyer says to his client - I think I ought to write the following letter - and that letter has specific statements and warnings about proceedings that will be taken. To say that's not a legal opinion is what do they say - begging the fact, begging the answer. Then they say however - and listen, Mr. Speaker, please to how foolish it is - "H owever the legal conclusions expressed therein" - what is a legal conclusion? lt's not an opinion? lt's not a recommendation? lt is a conclusion according to them.

They admit in their letter in the very second sentence, that indeed there were legal conclusions; they were expressed in that document; that they did reflect the view of Mr. Martin, who was the person hired by Manitoba Hydro as has so often been stated; and who did advise the Board of members of his opinion. Which opinion, Mr. Speaker? His opinion, which deals with the legal conclusions he arrived at as expressed in that letter.

For the firm of Aikins and Company to demean itself by sort of standing aside and saying, "Well, it was Steward Ma rtin tha t ha d th ose opinions and therefore it's not a legal opinion" - they're not saying it's not their legal opinion - they're saying it's not a legal opinion and yet they are the ones who say that Mr. Martin was hired by Manitoba Hydro. lt wasn't the firm of Aikins and Company, it was Mr. Martin.

The y'r e now sugges ti ng tha t when the legal counsel hired by Manitoba Hydro drafts a letter, submits it to Hydro for approval to send - all of which they admit - that in doing so there are legal conclusions in that document, that they reflected his view and he advised the board of his opinion, that it is not a legal opinion is ludicrous. I blush for my colleagues in the professional firm of Aikins and Company; I blush for the Min ister for Hydro for quoting this as being valid; I blush for the Chairman and for the Chi ef Executive Officer of Hydro in pretending there was no legal opinion.

The only excuse I give to the memb ers of the Hydro, the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, is that they weren't there, they didn't know and in all generosity I would say they ignored the minutes or didn't see the minutes of the January meeting where Mr. Wedepohl reported that he had discussed the concerns of Mr. Martin with the Min ister and he arrived at a conclusion that they should not approve of this letter going forward. The Minister, according to Mr. Wedepohl, he and Mr. Wedepohl agreed that this should not be done. Then Mr.

Wedepohl relying on his memory maybe more than on his minutes said, "Why, this was my decisio n". That's nonsense, Mr. Sp eaker. The decision was shared with the Minister for Hydro who apparently didn't remember this enough the first time it was raised to come forward and say, yes, I was told about the opinion; I heard the opinion; I dis agreed with the opinion; I agreed with the chairman that we want the Commission to go ahead with full force, with full speed and therefore we did it. We disregarded, we rejected the opinion of counsel. That would have been not only the sensible way to

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 do it, not only the honourable way to do it but also the easiest way to get rid of an em barrassing situation but he didn't do that. He tried to hide behind the fact that information was not readily available and it wasn't at the time, to others. Now, Mr. Speaker, the letter from Aikins and Company goes on to say, "Other than Mr. Martin no member of this firm considered such legal aspects". I would really like to know, Mr.

Speaker, how many occasions there are when a letter is written with an opinion exp ressed on the stationery of Aikins MacAulay, how often they hold meetings with other members of the firm so they get expressions or consideration of these legal aspects from other members of the firm? The fact that they say it is again, Mr. Speaker, unnecessary and seems to me for them to say, we disassociated ourselves with one of the senior mem bers of our firm. He did not consult anybody else here. No other member of the firm considered such legal aspects. Then, Mr.

Speaker, the letter goes on to say, "The course of action indicated in the submission", which is what? Wh ich is the expression of Mr. Mar tin's "l egal conclusions" which are his opinion. Then although they said that no member of the firm considered such legal aspects they say, "The course of action indicated in the submission was disagreed with by Mr. Smellie". How did he know about it? If he came to the conclusion that he disagreed with him, he certainly had to have known about what they were and he must certainly have considered them in order to disagree with him. In any event he so advised board members.

I don't know when he did that, Mr. Speaker; it may be at that meeting they held which was not recorded, on which minutes were not kept - it may have been on that occasion - but there's no record in the minutes I saw or any record I found that would indicate he did give an opinion adverse to Mr. Martin's, or that - and I quote again from the Aikins letter - "His view was that regardless of legal technicalities it was in Hydro's overall interest to co operate". Note, Mr. Speaker, that apparently there are some legal technicalities that were raised. Mr.

Smellie did not disagree with them as legal technicalities but he said regardless of those legal technicalities, "it is in Hydro's overall in terest to cooperate with the Commission". Mr. Speaker, now we find that the legal counsel Mr. Smellie, is giving opinions to Hydro which are rio longer legal opinions but procedural or even political opinions because he thinks that it's in Hydro's overall interest to co-operate with the Commission and bring its proceedings to an early conclusion. Mr. Speaker, this phraseology is very simila r to that used by Mr.

Wedepohl when he reported on his and the Minister's conclusions as to how to deal with this letter because they wanted proceedings brought to an early conclusion. Now, Mr. Speaker, Aikins and Company by this anonymous dictator says, "Our firm continued to act for Hydro after Mr. Martin ceased to be involved as counsel and a course of action was followed that was contrary to that sugg ested by Mr. Martin in his submission". A further effort to separate the firm of Aikins and Com pany from one of their sen ior mem bers, Mr. Steward Martin. Then they say, "Mr .

Martin has personal knowledge of the matters raised in you r letter such as dis cussions held. He is presently out of the country and is expected back on April 28th ". Then what do they say, this firm of Aikins and Com pany? "We suggest that if you require further information you contact him directly". Again a further saying, just don't bother us, talk to Steward Martin. Well, his relations with his firm are his affair, Mr. Speaker.

But the relations of the Minister for Hydro with the people of Manitoba represented by the Legislature of Manitoba and the legislators, and the relation of the Minister of Hydro with Hydro itself, is indeed a matter of concern for all of us because, Mr. Speaker, the Minister instigated this letter going from Hydro to Aikins and Company. The reason it went to Aikins and Company is because he asked them to consider approaching their counsel to ask them to get answers to questions - and it's in Hansard that he said he would do so - as a matter of fact it's in Hansard that he said he did do so.

I would really like very much to have heard from the Minister actually to receive a copy of the letter which he said he sent to Hydro setting out what recommendations he gave them. I would really like to that now. I suppose we could ask him to table it but I doubt if he will do it because, Mr. Speaker, he has discovered that every time he dealt with this matter he dug the hole deeper and deeper into which he was falling. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the correspondency produced to us is a first step, it is not sufficient, it is obviously not a complete answer.

The questions asked by Hydro are not answered by Aikins and Company and they must know it and the Min ister must know. If he took the trouble to bring to us a letter from Hydro to Aikins and Company an inadequate response - and I think it's apparent on the face of it - that it is an inadequate response from Aikins to Hydro and they admit it because they say if you want anymore information get in touch with Mr. Martin.

So they're saying do that and I'm saying that the Min ister, who is the person who stands between and is the link between this Legislature and Ma nitoba Hydro, has a moral obligation to point out to Hydro that they did not indeed get the information they asked, which he asked them to get. He called out from his seat a moment ago, you want me to tell them what to do? Mr. Speaker, I don't know that any of us have said he should tell them what to do but we've constantly said he should make recommendations to them. Mr.

Speaker, do you know this is not out of order to remind you that the Min ister for Transportation report ing for Telephones in taking credit for the decentralization of the system and Manitoba Telephone System says, this is the policy of this government and Manitoba Telephones are carrying out our policy.

Well, the Minis ter for Transportat ion appa rently doe sn't hesitate to instruct the Telephone System as to what is the policy but the Minister for Hydro who fires a man like Bateman after 40 years of service in this province, who does it out of hand and does it in one of the ruthless ways that he learned from his own Premier and one of his other colleagues who have used that tech nique, using that technique he's prepared to do that because it was an Order-in Council appointment. So that's fine he does that. But to make further recommendations to Hydro he says you want me to tell them what to do? Yes, Mr. 3186

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 Speaker, I want him to point out to Hydro, people for whose appointment he is responsible, that they wrote a letter on a vexatious issue which has aroused a great deal of concern not only in this Chamber but outside of this Chamb er as was revealed by newspaper reports and by even editorials; that they wrote a letter at his request; that they did not get a reply; that the letter from Aikins and Company invited a further discussion with Mr. Martin; did indicate that Mr.

Martin had personal knowledge; did say that if you require further information contact him directly; that it is now the moral and I suppose ethical obligation not only of the Minister to point out to Hydro they did not get a sufficient reply. But for them themselves - and I believe that both Mr. Bla chford and Mr . Kris janson should be requested - and if they read the newspapers or read Hansard I think they should know that there are some people in this House who feel they have not received an adequate reply about something that went on before they were ever on the scene.

I think it's their oblig ation to do it and I'm gl ad the representative of this Legislature on the Board of Hydro is present and has heard what I've said and I tell him, Mr.

Speaker, it is my belief, where I cannot say to the Minister for Hydro, you must tell them, it is my belief that I can say to the Honourable Member for Rhineland that I think it is his duty and obligation to inform Hydro, the officers of Hydro and the Board of Hydro that a request is being made, has been made, is being made and will continue to be made in this Ho use, tha t they get the answers to the questions which remain unanswered. lt is in the front I believe not to give a full response to Hydro and it's a dereliction of duty, I believe, for Hydro not to get the answers to the questions they asked especially when Aikins and Company in their concluding paragraph say, "Mr.

Martin has personal kno wledge. We sugges t if you requir e further information you contact him". So I think it's their duty to do that. The Minister for Hydro seems to shrug it off as not being his responsibility.

I tell the Minister for Hydro I believe it is his responsibility but more than that the Member of the Board of Hydro, who sits on the Board as a representative from this Chamber and who is in the Chamber now, I think it is his duty on behalf of Hydro if not on behalf of the Legislature to make clear what criticisms are being launched on the board and on the management on this side of the House to see to it that they do that and further, Mr. Speaker, that's the point that we've being trying to make all along.

This matter has now become so much of a public kno wledge, no t the truth, the trut h is not yet available to us all but the whole matter, the circumstances, has become so much a matter of public knowledge that I can't conceive in my mind that there need be any continuing burden on Mr. Martin to honour the solicitor-client confidentiality. So much has come about. His name has been used so often in this House and in the Committee and in the press that he ought to be released; he ought to have the right to speak to anyone. I will assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that if the Board of Hydro which I believe should have nothing to hide and whose relations with Mr. Martin in regard to the Tritschler Commission which has completed its report, can no longer be a matter of confidentiality; that they ought to make sure if they're not prepared to bring the truth out for the people of Manitoba that they release Mr. Martin so that we on this side or the press or anyone else can go to Mr. Martin and say, Mr. Martin are you prepared to tell us the truth? Are you prepared to give us your opinion? Are you prepared to tell us just what you said to the members of the board?

There should be nothing to hide except embarrassment - and that has occurred, they have been embarrassed - and, Mr. Speaker, as I've said on some previous occasion, they are continuing to be embarrassed stupidly. When they could show that they've finally seen the necessity to make possible full co-operation with mem bers of the Legislature to arrive at the truth, whatever it is, then indeed they do so rather than talk about trum ped-up charges, ha lf-hoaxes, fabrications or anything else. If they are not prepared to do it and they are not, Mr.

Speaker, if Hydro is not prepared to do it and they are not so far, Mr. Speaker, then at least release Mr. Martin - he may not be prepared to do it - but at least let's have the opportunity to ask him and find out. I would sincerely, Mr. Speaker, attempt to do so. One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, is that I had a little correspondence with senior counsel to the Tritschler Comm ission before this matter took place; before Mr. Martin appeared before Hydro; before Mr.

Martin gave his opinion in writing in that draft letter and at that stage and before I appeared before the Tritchler Commission I told the counsel for the Commi ssion that I believed that he was going well beyond the authority and the terms of reference of the Tritschler Commission and that he was out on a fishing expedition - that's not my exact words - but that he was going beyond the authority granted to him; that I was beginning to doubt the impartiality I think is necessary for counsel to the Commission to have; he replied and said well, history will tell the story. Mr.

Speaker, history has told the story in the words of the special counsel of Manitoba Hydro, one of the highly respected counsel in this Province of Manitoba. That story has been told; I believe it has to be told; it will be told; they can hide behind their legislative defences as much as they like; it's got to come out and they'd be much better off on the government side to see to it that the questions are answered to the fullest extent. They ought to insist that they be answered; they ought to see Mr. Martin; and further I believe they ought to release Mr .

Martin so that we can approach him and get at the truth in that way if they're not prepared to do it in the legisla tive way we suggest ed, which was by legislative committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of the Attorney-General and the Member for Emerson in the Chair for the Department of Northern Affairs. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPL V SUPPL V - NORTHERN AFFAIRS MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Alb ert Driedger (Emerson): I call the Comm ittee to order. I'd like to 3187

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 refer members to Page 107, Resolution 11 2, Item 1.(b) - pass - the Member for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEV BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, I was making some general comments the last day before we completed the afternoon's discussion and I only had a couple of things to say in conclusion. The record will show that I indicated our feelings as far as the lack of attention of this government to many of the social and economic problems in the North.

I think the main point is that the government seems to be content to simply provide a minimum level of service which would be sufficient to offer contai nment to people so they will stay in the commu nities and not make very much noise basically to keep people at a level of depende ncy. I referred to an

article which I believe was in The Globe and Mail of this year and it relates to a story about one of the Northern communit ies. I think it is exem pla ry of what is happ ening in No rthern Manitoba and it indicates the lack of attention that both levels of government have directed at the north. In the

article it describes the experience of one of the missionaries from the Roman Catholic church who lived in a Northern com munit y and who indicated in his life's experience living and working in a Northern com mun ity he saw things happening which dis appoi nted him in the way in which governments relate to No rthern communit ies.

In his original days in the commun ity, in the early days he was working with the commun ity to assist them to develop themselves and to develop the commun ity by way of starting a small sawmill and encouraging people to grow their own gardens, potatoes and cabbages and so on and it was his intention as a missionary to assist the commu nity to become self sufficient. His lament is the coming of what he called "easy government assistance", in other words, a welfare society which government has tended to create in Northern commun ities. 1 think this is the thing which governments now have to try to overcome.

I think that's a mistake that was made by both Federal and Provi ncial Governments in the past and it's something that the governments have to direct themselves to solving. Welfare is not the answer and the Min ister and this government seems to be taking the position that no kind of make-work projects are the answer. They have rejected that com pletely in this Mi nister's comments and his predecessors comments and as I was explaining the other day, Mr.

Chairman, they have also had a sorry record on the other side of creating long-term jobs for northern people and they also have had no innovative programs developed to assist people to be trained and educ ated to move out of the commun ity and into urban society or the industrial and other towns and villages in Manitoba to have full-time employment. So, Mr. Chairman, it's necessary for government and 1 would say that the Provincial Government has to be put on the spot here because the Provincial Government is closest to the scene.

In the case of the Indian reserves, this government has just wiped their hands completely of any kind of relationship with the Indian people by saying, well, they are a federal responsibility, we just wash our hands of them completely, we're not even interested in Treaty Indian people; that's the attitude of the Progressive Conservative Government.

On the other hand, with 3188 the other commun ities, they have simply relied on their standard proc edur es of rela ting to the communit ies by way of muni cipal services and putting in the basic infrastructure and that's been very minimal to the point of simply allowing them to be dependent on gove rnment. I think that the government has to take some initiative here; it has to be innovative; it has to do something in terms of assisting the commun ity to develop their resources, whatever resources they have to develop.

They have to assist them to assess those resources and find out exactly what can be done in the area and they should be honest in doing that too so that the commun ities are not lead to believe that somehow there is going to be enough jobs through development of the resources for everybody in the area. Coupled with that and in tandem with that, Mr.

Chairman, the government has to I believe assist people in the com mun ities to beco me as self sufficient as possible with the resources that they have available and, at the same time, assist those that are interested and can be given the opportunity to be trained to be able to fit into society and to have jobs in society outside of the remote com mun itie s and tha t is someth ing which this government is not doing either. So on all those points this government has failed in their responsibility to northern commun ities, even to the point when work is to be done within remote com mun ities.

This gov ernment ha s, instead of negotiating with the local commun ity and coming up with a price for doing the work which would be reasonable to government and acceptable to the local people, they have instead relied on the old standby tendering process and they have, by and large, given that work out to people and construction companies outside the commun ity. Mr.

Chairman, that is not the answer; that is certainly not assisting the commun ities to either develop the expertise that they should be able to develop to take advantage of projects that are going on in their own communit y to offer employment opportunities for themselves.

On the other hand, we know from experience that the companies that come into the commun ities to do work normally have a skeleton crew, if not a full crew, of people that are employees of their company who they have a responsibility and feel a loyalty toward that they bring with them to do the work in the commun ity. lt may even be at the outset that they hire a few people and on the second or third day they find some excuse to let the local people go and their outside people are in there doing the work. We've seen that in the past on Hydro projects and various other activities. So, Mr.

Chairman, I think the government should be looking at this problem and they must look at this problem; otherwise we are just going to see a continuation of the problems that people are facing in the Northern commun ities and in fact an escalation of them - because I should point out to the Minister if he's not aware - the problems are definitely not going to go away. In fact they're going to get much worse. Approximately two-thirds of the people who live in most of the remote commun ities are chil dren or people who are un der 18 years of age. Mr.

Chairman, they are the ones that are coming on stream so to speak, that will be looking for work,

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 tha t will be looking for oppo rtuni ties and, Mr. Chairman, there is not enough opportunities for the labour force that's in the commun ity now. So what in the world is the government doing to gear up for to assist that majority group that will be coming into the picture in the immediate future and over the next 10 to 15 years? These people will be coming on the labour force and will be very frustrated and discontented people if there's no opportunities for them.

I must emp hasize that the welfare solution is certainly not the answer. it's only containing people; it's not giving them the opportunity to do anything. That is going to create bigger problems because as we've seen in many Northern commun ities welfare has led to other social problems in the commun ities with alcoholism and family breakdown and all the rest of it and social dislocation. it seems the further away the communities are the more isolated, like Shamattawa and others, the mor e difficult those problems become. So I would like to hear the Min ister's comments on this, Mr.

Chairman, and see if he has any thoughts on it, if the government is giving any attention to this. I know they seem to have a preoccupation with private enterprise preparing all the solutions for problems in society. I think this is one case where private enterprise has not provided the solutions to the problem. They have not moved into the communit ies in any significant way in order to allow the communities to be able to take advantage of enterprise development and the spinoff jobs that are associated with that devel opment.

In fact, where private enterprise is involved in a big way like the mining towns and in the mining ventures in Northern Manitoba, they have not traditionally followed any real concerted effort to bring in the Native people to become an important or significant part of the labour force. I think that's an area which should be looked at. I gave the example the other day, Mr.

Chairman, of AMOC in Saskatchewan and the way in which the Saskatchewan government is dealing with a mining company and laying down the stipulations right in a lease which compels the company to do certain things in order to ensure that their labour force, even at their head office in Saskatoon, is made up of Native people, people from the area where the mine is being located.

They're making a supreme effort there to do something about the unemplo yment problem. lt pays off, it pays off to the government because there'll be less problems in terms of social costs; there's going to be less welfare to pay out; it pays off for the people naturally because they're going to have a much better life; it pays off for the companies because they have a more stable work force than has traditionally been the case with the transient outside workers who, through our experience we've seen that they have a turnover rate of the outside workers of approximatley 100 percent.

Whereas the experience just in AMO C with the Native people has been a turnover rate of only 38 percent. If you look at the Native people in Northern Manitoba - the ones that are working in mining commun ities - you 'll see that is the experience there too, that the Native people are, by and large, the more stable part of the work force. The ones 3189 who are transient and turning over are the ones who are coming in for short stints of time to make a stake and go on to other things.

Some are southern people who are only going there for a short period out of their own intention to just make a short stake and get out, Mr. Chairman, and there are others who make this a part of their lifestyle. I note the Chairman is looking at me impatiently, I must be running out of time so I'll leave the Minister or someone else to make comments. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Mr . Chairman, we've heard considerable input from the Member for Rupertsland and many of the comments he ma kes are cert ainly of concern to this government.

I'm surprised that he would elaborate so long on so many of the points when in fact he was a mem ber of the previous gov ernment, I presume for eight years, when they were in power and I'm surpris ed tha t he exp resses so many concerns for the various people of the north, that they actually accomplished so little while they were in power, other than to create many make-work government types of programs. The statistics are quite clear that their record as far as developing emplo yment opp ortun ities in this pr ovince was absolutely a disaster.

He's talking about creating job opportunities with the Native people in the mining industry and northern commun ities and other types of industries. I'm sure that the record speaks for itself that they accomplished very little in their eight years in power.

Certainly as a government we have, even since I've become Minister I've had three meetings with the Four Nations Confederacy; I've attended a meeting in Thompson; we met with the executive in the Cabinet, with Cabinet members in the Legislature and just recently the Minister of Resources and myself met with the Four Nations All Chiefs Meeting held in The Pas just a week or 10 days ago. Although we've had some stormy discussions with the Indian people I would say that the atmosphe re has imp roved tremendously in the last year.

We have agreed to have ongoing meetings with the Native people not only in the North but the Native people throughout Manitoba to discuss many areas of concern, certainly employment and economic development and also the concern tha t even the Indi an people feel the responsibility for their welfare and help or assistance from the Federal Government has been on the decrease and there seems to be some push to rem ove the federal respon sibilit y and force the province into picking up traditionally the support that should come from the Federal Government.

We are not abandoning the Indian people; we want to work with them in every way we can. At the same time we don't want to undermine our role to the extent where the Federal people would back off and abandon their responsibilities; and the Indian people recognize this fact that they have to be careful too in that area.

With respect to the Commun ities Ec onomic Development Fund we have discussed this in the Standing Commit tee with respect to our guideli nes dealing with Indian people on reservations and it's clear to the Indian people we feel that the economic development on reserves is the responsibility of the Federal Government. They do have an Indian

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 Economic Fund established to help the Indian people in that regard. Sobeit, that fund I'm not sure it has much financial resources attached to it to help the Indian people. Certainly we will receive applications or honour applications, look at applic ations from Indian people who are Treaty Indians who have some project they want to com me nce with off India n reservations, we feel that becomes too complicated in legal matters to try and obtain any kind of security or colla teral where Indian people want to get into business on Indian reservations. (Interjection)- I'm not finished Mr.

Chairman. With respect to the development of employment opportunies in the province it has been stated many times that we have a reasonably good record as a government during the last three years, where we have established some 30,000 jobs of which 28,000 are in the private sector and approximately 2,000 in the public sector compared to the 10,000 jobs that were established in the last three years of the former admin istration, of which 7,000 were in the public field and only 3,000 in the private area. So, Mr.

Chairman, the members opposite can speak all they like about the Conservatives' poor record for devel oping employment but certainly the record stands that if our record is poor then for sure the previous administration just have a disastrous record to talk about. They were gaining more and more momentum in creating make-work programs which was just draining the provincial economy where it could not last forever.

Now, also the Member for Rupertsland spoke of - we were just maintai ning infrastructure types of programs in the Northern communities - and I would also like to put on the record that we have spent probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 mil lion or th ereabouts jus t ma intaining and cleaning up the mess that we acquired from the former ad min istrat ion in many of the No rthern communities.

The Wabowden Arena is one example; the Norway House Arena is another example; the Water and Sewer Programs that were hurriedly put in by social engi neers thr ough many of the communit ies in Northern Manitoba, that many of them were bad design; they were broken down much of the time; they were costly to maintain and in many cases had to be replaced because of just incompetent work that was bt;ling undertaken . We acquired those when we came into power and we had to fix them up. We had to spend mill ions of dol lars on arenas.

I mentioned the Norway House Arena, the Wabowden Arena and mor e recently the Camperville Arena which was poor design and it wasn't designed for an arena in the fi rst pl ace. lt should have been condem ned . it was never insp ected by the Department of Labour. That arena was put up I would say in 1973 or '74, inspectors came out this past year, they condemned the use of that arena and it had to be disposed of. There is also the water intake at Cross Lake.

The people working for the department at the time advised the Northern Affairs tha t it would not function properly because the water intake would be above the water levels within the Hydro licensing. lt was suggested that a well should be put in to lower the water int ake supply but no, the previous admin istration said that's too costly, we'll just stick a pipe out in the lake and what happens when you get a dry year? The pipe is sitting out of the water and it was a half-a-mile from water by the way last year and still the Hydro people were within the licence that was established back several years ago.

Another example - and there's been mu ch publicity about it - is South Indian Lake. Will you believe that it's going to cost $1 million last year and this year just to put new foundations under the houses in that community that were put in, in 1975 - $1 million - that could have been used for other projects in Northern Manitoba. I don't hear the mem bers speaking about that sort of thing; they must be proud of that.

So I say we are spending millions of dollars just to maintain what was established back a few years ago so obviously it doesn't look like we're doing anything in many of these communities but we're spending lots of money trying to clean up a mess - just one hell of a mess in many places. So when the members speak - we're ju st trying to maintain the infrastructure or facilities in the communities and not doing anything else that's maybe true but we're spending a lot of money that could have been used for worthwhile projects in Northern Manitoba.

The mem bers criticized me the last time we met with respect to the Road Program because I had mentioned in the paper roads were important and I couldn't remember where some of the roads were being built but I can tell you that the Department of Hig hways since late 1977 have spent $49 million on roads in No rthern Man itoba, $49 mil lion. The Department of Northern Affairs has spent $2 million on internal road facilities in the various commun ities in Northern Manitoba.

I would just throw out those figures they, I think, are very significant and we're not getting much credit from the Opposition for doing anything and I just want to put on the record that it's a very frustrating job to work with these commun ities to try and retain what was put in several years ago but never functioned properly in the first place and we have to go in there and try and clean up this to ma ke it some thing that's workable and can be useful to the local citizens. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Well, Mr.

Chairman the Minister in his opening comments tried to make the point the NDP while in government accomplished very little in Northern Manitoba but it's very significant I think when looking at the Estimates of this department and the Estimates of other departments that relate to Northern Manitoba that the only good programs that this government has that they can talk about are the ones that were introduced and put in place by the New Demo cratic party while the y were in gov ernment. Mr .

Chairman, if you look at the infrastructural involvement, this government has been working on some of the thi ngs that were introduced when the NDP were in government, sewer and water programs and so on. Naturally there are going to be problems when you are first introducing a system like that into northern communities where you are working under the most difficult conditions and you are working with engineers and architects that are trying to adapt themselves to that kind of a situation and I would think where ther e were problems it was pr oblems tha t were not the 3190

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 responsibility of elected officials of the government of the day but they were problems related to people like the architect that was involved with the Norway House School. I think that people like that, if the facts were known, and if you looked into the details of the situation, I mean, perhaps some kind of charges should have been laid against people that were designing these systems to show that they were not carried out properly. So, Mr. Chairman, these are things that should be looked at as far as the South Indian Lake homes are concerned.

I mean I think that there is a tragedy there in the way those homes were put in place but is that the fault of the government of the day. I mean, there were contractors hired to do a job and if the job wasn't done properly then the government should be following through at this point in time and ensuring that the proper action is taken to go after the people who are suppo sed to put in the infrastructure in the proper way. I understand they were expe rim enting with various forms of construction at the time and I know that there may have been problems there. But, Mr.

Chairman, if we look at this government's record in office as far as Northern Manitoba is concerned, as I mentioned, the only good programs are the ones they are carrying on which the NDP introduced. There is not one new innovative program which this government has intr oduced as far as assisting northern commun ities, not one. There is not one that this Minister can point to and say this is something that we brought in that we want to do to help people in northern communit ies.

If you look at their social and economic programs you see that they cancelled or restrained many good programs that were introduced to assist people in Northern Man itoba. If you look at the economic devel opment programs they are practically non existent. The only ones that are being carried on in any minim al way are the ones that were in place when this government took office. As far as the provincial job office is concerned there is no more provincial job office as far as I kn ow.

There is no mor e Cri tical Home Repair Program on reserves; they have cut that out even though the Indian people in Manitoba are probably the most poverty stricken or disadvantaged group in our society; this government has cut out this service to them. They have restricted the activities of the Commun ities Economic Development Fund to the point where the Indian people are no longer even eligible to be able to participate in that program.

The only pr ograms that are op erati ng in No rthern Man itoba as far as ec onomic devel opment is concerned, practically the only ones, there are some minor ones that this government is still operating but the major ones that are operating at the present time come from the Federal Government. There are programs that are operating through the Federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Federal Depar tment relating to Man power and Employment. They are the only programs that people are taking advantage of.

There are no programs introduced by this government which are creating any jobs in Northern Manitoba. There is no more Special Northern Employment Program even though the Premier, at his address to the first meeting of the Four Nations Confederacy had mentioned that the 3191 SNEP Program was something which the government was offering for the people of Northern Manitoba. The Indian people at that meeting were laughing at him because they knew that program is no longer in exi stence; they knew the Premier was trying to mislead them, or whoever wrote his speech was misleading them.

So as far as the Conservative government's record in Northern Man itoba, it has been an absolute di saster. The people of Northern Manitoba have certainly exp ressed their feelings as far as this government is concerned as welL I mean the Minister should be fully aware of that if he is not already aware of it. In the election which fol lowed the Conservative government victory in Manitoba, the next federal election, resulted in the federal member in that area losing his seat.

Why did he lose his seat? lt was not because he was not a good member himself, it was a backlash of the northern people against the Progressive Conservative government in this province. They recognized the PC government for what it is; one that planned to restrain activities and practice restraints on the backs of the poorest people in Manitoba, those that are living in the remote and isolated commun ities and they did this because they felt tha t the people in those communit ies didn't have access to resources and they didn't have the opportunity to make their voice known in Manitoba.

As far as the people in Northern Manitoba are concerned they feel that they've been given the back of the hand of the Conservative government. When it came time for the second federal election the Min ister and the PC government in Manitoba should have taken another lesson from that because when the PC candida te ran in the next federal election, following his defeat the first time, he dropped down to third place in that election in Northern Manitoba.

In other words, from a very good first-place victory in 1974 he dropped down to third place in Northern Ma nitoba - and I mu st say I kn ow the ma n personally and it is no fault of his personally that happened - it was the fault of the Progressive Cons ervative Gov ernment in Man itoba. it's an example of what the Northern people think of the P.C. government.

In pointing out some of the problems that people feel in Northern Manitoba I think the Minister would be well advised to take some note of these problems and try to do something about them because as far as the people in Northern Manitoba are concerned right now, the only political solution to any of the problems they face is to get rid of the Conservative government and you will see, Mr. Chairman, in the next provincial election the Conservative candidates in the Northern constituencies are going to run a poor third, where there are remote communit ies.

The Li berals will pr obably run a second in mo st cons tituenc ies because the people in Northern Manitoba know that there's no way they can look to the Conservative government to be responsive to their needs and that's not saying very much for the Conservative government's first term in office. I think if this Minister thinks he has accomplished a lot of things, he's sadly mistaken. People are certainly not impressed with what little that has been done and they're certainly not impressed with the government's attitude. In fact, Mr. Chairman, they're

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 not impressed with the governments officials attitude either when it comes to dealing with their affairs. In the South Indian Lake a recent example is a good example of that. They're pretty upset with the way in which people have treated them very highhandedly and autocratica ll y; where there's been a centralization of the power; where the powers of councils have been taken out of their hands and they've been treated like poor cousins when it comes to being able to make decisions for themselves. So, Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister would be well advised to have some di scussions with the commun ity councils on his own and open his door and open his eyes and open his ears to what's happening in those com munit ies and allo w the commun ities to have access to him directly, because I don't think it's sufficient for a Mini ster to be isolated from his responsibilities and to be isolated from the group he's relating to as far as the client group is concerned. The people he represents as far as his department is concerned, should have access to him. They should be able to call his office.

They should be able to lay their complaints on his desk directly when they have problems like they were having with South Indian Lake. Obviously they don't feel any confidence in the Minister or they wouldn't have had to resort to resignations over an issue like this. This is something that's been building up and building up and it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of commun ities out there that are at the same point as the South Indian Lake Council but they haven't taken the final step of resignation yet.

But they're certainly very upset with the way in which the Northern Affairs Department is operating. So I think this Minister has a lot of cleaning up to do as far as his existing operation is concerned and as far as his operation in terms of the general government policy toward the Northern commun ities.

I think the government, if they have any thought of establishing any credibility at all, have to do more than what the Minister says he's doing, going to meetings, trying to pat people on the back to try and tell people they're doing something. trying to tell people that they're really concerned, because actions speak louder than words.

This government and this Minister has demonstrated by their actions they do not really care about Northern communities and are not prepared to assist them in developing; they're not prepared to give them a hand in developing themselves so they have some say in the way in which their commun ity is operated and the way in which their com munit y is devel oped. it's disappointing to me certainly and it's more than disappointing to the people who have to suffer from the lack of attention, the lack of concern and the lack of action on the part of this government. MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Chairman, earlier the Member for Rupertsland indicated with respect to their years in office and the very difficult task of putting in water and sewer into the Northern communit ies but really the main problem was poor design and workmanship, which doesn't matter if it's in the north or in the south. This is what happened for the most

part in the North. lt was just poor design, whether it was water, sewer or recreation buildings; insufficient fire exits; improperly constructed beams supporting second floor; no safety glass from viewing area; fire wall separations incomplete and roof supports, now that doe sn't necessarily mean it happened just because it was in the North. it was just because of the people sho were doing the job. They had all the different departments within the Northern Affairs because they felt they could do a better job than other people who were designed to do specific jobs. This didn't work out.

With their 500- and-some-odd employees in Northern Affairs trying to do jobs they weren't competent in doing, resulted in the disasters I refer to. When you speak about the dissatisfaction with the mayors and councils and you use the example of South Indian Lake, I can tell you I received a letter yesterday from the mayor and councils and indeed they have resigned. They said that the straw that broke the camel's back was with respect to the garbage contract. But I can tell you that we want to give more and more responsi bility to the various commun ity councils.

Many of the communit ies are accepting the responsibility on a fairly slow basis but I think that's the only way to go. Some areas are moving ahead a little faster than others. In the South Indian Lake community, the garbage contract and all of the comumunity councils are aware of the pol icy guidelin es with respect to tendering, they are required to take the lowest tender unless they know for sure that the lowest tender, the person or persons cannot adequately do the job or they don't have the equipment to carry out the job.

In the case of the garbage contract they had some seven tenders ranging all the way from $9,500 to $1 6,800 and the community council chose to take the contract that was $1 4,400, almost $5,000 more than the lowest contract, there was no indication that the lowest bidder couldn't perform the job. As a matter of fact, I think he probably could do the job quite adequately. The coordinator from the Department of Northern Affairs was in attendance at the meeting. They asked her opinion on the bids and she said, "Well, the bid for $1 4.4 was cert ainly above what was being budgeted in their account".

They didn't have the money to pay that. So what did the commu nity council do? They talked the bidder that had 14.4 down to 13.2, which was the amount specified in the budget, in spite of the advice from the coordinator. Although she didn't make the decision for them she said, "You know we don't have the money in the budget for that. You should really consider the lowest tender".

After it was found out they had discussed the bid with the second highest bidder to have him bring it down some $1 ,200 to $1 3,200 and when the co-ordinator, in consultation with the Area Manager in Thompson, found this information out it was phoned back to the Council that they would be required to take the lowest bid of $9,500.00. The co ordinator couldn't reach the Mayor by phone but she got a hold of one of the Council members to pass this message along and this phone call was followed up later and the Council member could not be reached and he did not return the call.

Subsequently a letter was received in the Thompson office that the Mayor and Council was resigning as of April 16. I got a letter dated April 16 which came to my desk yesterday morning indicating that they felt that they could not continue and were resigning with the garbage contract being the final reason. 3192

Thur sday, 30 April, 1981 But we have a responsi bili ty too. As the Department of Northern Affairs we are responsible to the people of Manitoba that fund almost 100 percent the money that goes into the South Indian Lake com muni ty to carry out their operations in that community. So if we were to disregard the tendering process, and that's the purpose of tendering in the first place, is to try and come up with the best possible price provided the people can perform adequately the functions that is expected of them.

So I don't think there was anything really harsh and out of place from the actions that were taken. The commu nities want more respo nsibil ity and we're prepared to give them more responsibility but they have to act in a responsible fashion. Just for example, South Indian Lake community is a relatively new commun ity and although the housing project that was established back in 1975 or '76 has turned out to be a disaster in most cases requiring $1 million, as I have said, in the last two years just to fix up the foundations but the community of South Indi an Lake have many good faci litie s in th at community.

They have a new school; a new store; they have a new laundromat; they have one of the most sophisticated water and sewer facilities in the town that you would have a tough time finding in other communities in Manitoba of that size. Since 1978 there's been extensive remedial work to the water system and landscaping involving some $1 44,000.00; extensive repairs to fire protection system at the school cost $1 0,000.00; major road upgrading and drainage under way and gravelling two years ago was $1 82,000.00, this past year was $56,000.00.

As a result of my visit last fall we were able to speed up the new sewage pick-up truck, $28,000 - that would have been coming in this year but we wanted to speed it up so it could be taken in on the winter roads this year; a new fire truck, $1 7, 000.00; a new water deliv ery truck for $25,000.00 - this is all since 1978. This is the same Council that have resigned just recently because of the heavy hand of the Provincial Gov ernment, the int erference of the Provincial Government. I thought they were a good council. I met with them, I had a good discussion with them.

I was able to get some of the things done right away that they requested. Now they say that there's been so much interference that they have quit because we interfered in the garbage contract. I've explained that here today. I think the actions that this government took were reasonable and something that should have been expected to have been done by any government under the circu mstances. I mentioned about the foundation repairs which is going to cost us $1 million at least.

There's the new detention centre, $21,000.00; there was a new sub-division last year and one mo re going in this year; we're up grading of docks and th ere's the pro posed projects for this year - drainage and gravel, sub division development, water and sewer to community buildings, a new garbage facility and additional landscap ing. Now that's just the example of South Indian Lake that the opposition members try to paint us as being real bad actors; we di sregard the no rthern commu nities; we are shafting the commu nity of South Indi an Lake.

In mo st of the community councils we do have problems arise from time to 3193 time. The problems are discussed with departmental officials. Sometimes I get involved and for the most part we are able to solve many of the problems. In some communiti es they choose to deal with the media rather than coming to the department and that's fine; if that's their alternative I don't mind that. This doesn't happen in many cases but obviously it happened in South Indian Lake because I read about it in the paper before I heard about it and before any of our staff certainly in the city here heard about it.

I'm sure it was in the media before it was heard in the Thompson office. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. the Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairperson, I'm pleased that the Minister brought up the example of South Indian Lake because I feel he has given only part of the story. Certainly one would not expect him to talk about the failures of the government in respect to that community but they are as numerous, if not more num erous, than what he suggests are the successes of the government in that community and that is why we have a community council resigning.

The Minister said that it's the opposition that is constantly saying tha t the Minis ter and the Conservative government are - and to use the Minister's words I quote - "real bad actors" and that they "disregard northern communities". The fact is it is not us who are saying it alone. Certainly we do say it because we believe it to be a fact but the commun ities themselves are expressing a great deal of frustration. lt was the community council and the Mayor who resigned in the community of South Indian Lake. That was not an action that was taken lightly.

I can tell you that I talked to that community three years ago and they were talking about the many difficulties that th ey had and th ey were talking about resignation at that time but they stuck it out in the hope that some thing would change. They were optimi stic that they could perhaps convince the government of the wrongdoing which they were perpretrating upon the community of South Indian Lake. They tried; I know the Minister had meetings with them; I know they go to the media and quite frankly I don't blame them for going to the media.

They go to the media because they do not feel they are getting the proper response from the department nor from the Minister himself and that's the reason. They don't go to the media right off the bat; they don't resign right off the bat.

For three years now they have been living a tortu red existence as community councillors where they believe that their decisions have been overruled on a consistent basis; where they believe that they have had very little input into the way in which their community has been run and where they believe that the government, the Conservative gove rnment, has been acting in a wrong-headed manner and to the detriment of the community.

We need only talk about the laundromat situation again this year, if the Minister wants to talk about the way in which his government in fact operates in Northern Mani toba and we can go thr ough the details if the Minister wants to but we went through them last year. Perhaps it's important that they are on the record once again. The Min ister himself brought up this new laundromat that they put in the

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 commun ity but if the Minister reflects on last year's Estimates he will recall that we talked about the way in which that laund romat went into that communit y and that the commun ity council wanted to put it on a certain of land and that the department came in and said, no, it can't go on that piece of land. There was soil sampling which was done and there was a whole process which was undertaken which in fact delayed the construction of the laundromat. In the end it was put on the exact site where the communit y wanted it to go.

Then the communit y wanted to be active participants in the construction of that laund romat and the devel op ment of the design and th e construction but the department wouldn't allow them to do that. The result was that laundromat was put up while that Minis ter was government and torn down while that Minister was government and put back up again while that Minister was government.

Now if you want to talk about mismanagement, that is a classic example of mismanagement and all the time they were doing it they were ignoring the advice of the commun ity council; they were ignoring the advice of the people most affected by the construction of that laundromat and the people who wanted to become involved in the construction of that laundromat. And don't make it sound for one min ute lik e that laundromat is a gift from the government to the communit y of South Indian Lake; that laundromat was a negotiated settlement over the loss of the la un dr oma t which was in the communit y school before.

They were actually not in the commun ity school, next to the school and the school wanted to use that area as a library and the department came in and they negotiated a settlement and said, we will take over that space but the lau ndr om at mu st be mo ved. So when the Minister puts that on the table now as a gift from his government to the commun ity of South Indian Lake he is misrepresenting the case as it was.

That was a negotiated settlement and in fact it was a difficult torturous negotiation for the people of South Indian Lake because his government did not want to listen to them from the beginning to the end. The Minister talks about the detention centre going into South Indian Lake but I ask the Min ister who prepared the site for the detention centre which went into South Indian Lake? Can he provide us with that information now? MR. GOURLAY: Mr . Chairman, I think I should respond to the laund romat situation.

I don't deny that we, as a department, had some problems there but you mentioned that the site that was picked for the laundromat and the communit y was denied that site and then it ended up that the laundromat was put there. The reason that it was denied in the first instance was because it was below the severance line; it was in a flood plain area. I presume they wanted to still use that site so the severance line had to be changed artificially. A lot of fill had to be brought in to make it feasible to use that site.

But the commun ity acted in haste in the first place and ordered the laundromat building and they ordered the wrong type of building for a laundromat which made it difficult. Then, it's true, the department was responsible for hiring people to put this building in place and we got stuck with a bad contractor, I will admit that. Ho wever, the contractor tha t was obtained, he was obtained with references that were 3194 given to us that he was a competent individual.

Unfortunately, he wasn't competent and we did end up having to spend extra money, somewhere in the neigh bourhood of I believe $20,000 or $25,000 that little problem cost us. I don't deny that we do run in, from time to time, problems but we try to keep them to a minimum and we never ever tried to cover that situation up. The facts were given to the media at the time as to what happ ened and so we do acknowledge the fact that we do run into problems from time to time. The laundromat, I've been in it and it's functioning well.

Unfortunately it was the wrong type of building for that kind of use but it is being made do under the circumstances. Certainly the people use it to the fullest and I think that it's serving a very worthwhile purpose. I would put on the record that from time to time in the many communit ies we run into some minor problems, some maybe not so minor but we never ever tried to cover them up to my knowledge.

The staff usually, in all cases, if we do run into a problem I'm notified of it and usually there is reasonable explanation but certainly we haven't run into the millions of dollars of mistakes that we've acquired from the previous administration on many projects like the foundations, the arenas and the water and sewer design. As I mention again, the water and sewer designs were not necessarily because they were put into Northern Manitoba; they were just poor design and poor workmanship. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Member for Minn edosa - if it's just a question. The Member for Minnedosa. MR.

DAVID BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. lt was just on the same thing and I just wanted to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, a question to the Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: No, you can't ask him ... MR.

BLAKE: Through the Chairman, I'm just asking the member if during the period of the Minister's responsibility for that commun ity if he has attended in his office to discuss the problems that he is relating to us now for South Indian and discussed them with the Minister, other than through questions in the House or through the media or through the council at South Indian because I know when the Mem ber for Ru pertsland was in his min istry I attended his office on one or two occasions with problems that originated in my area and had them solved.

I just wondered if the Member for Churchill has attended at the Minister's office to discuss some of these problems and try and find some solution to them other tha n going to the people in the commun ity or to the media. MR. COWAN: Firstly, it has to be said, Mr. Chairperson, that this is a legitimate environment in which to ask these sorts of questions and try to put the pressure on the Minister to get things done. As well, it must be said that the media is a legitimate environment in which to try to apply pressure.

I can assure the Member for Minnedosa that pressure is necessary but he asked me, have I contacted the Minister? I think the Minister will agree that he is · a recipient of many of my letters on different issues

Thursday, 30 April, 1981 and that we have ongoing correspondence back and forth and that is the way in which I prefer to deal with these matters. Many of those letters are private correspondence that had not been made public and they are matters which I hop e I'm able to, by correspondence, convinc e the Min ister of the legitima cy of a request or the legiti macy of an argument. Some of them are letters which deal with matters such as this.

I cannot say in specific now what those letters are but I keep a file on them and certainly can come back with some of the letters I've written to the Minister if he wants to make those public at this time. I don't think it's necessary but I would just ask the Minister if he would not agree that perhaps he and I exchange as much correspondence as he and any other member of the Opposition on matters relating to Northern Manitoba. MR. GOURLAV: I would agree that correspond frequently with the Member for Churchill. MR.

COWAN: I just want to make the point that the Member for Minnedosa prefers to do it on a personal basis. I prefer to do it in writing and those two styles I think can be equally effective and I think that he has to agree to that. Now, having defended my position in respect to this I'm not certain whether I' ve written to the Minister in respect to the laundr omat. I may well have, I can check the files to see if that was the case but the Minister's comments a few moments ago do have to be addressed.

He says from time to time in any commun ity the gover nment runs into mi nor problems, sometimes not so minor problems. I'd ask him for clarification when he says not so minor problems, does he in fact mean major problems? MR. GOURLAV: I would say the mo st ma jor problem we've ha d is the South Indi an Lake laundromat, would as I mentioned run into some extra $25,000 worth of expense and I don't consider that serious when you take into account some of the disastrous fiascos that happened during the previous admin istration's term of office. MR.

COWAN: I don't believe the Minister is being fair when he says disastrous fiascos. I think there were mistakes made; I think the Mi nister makes mistakes; I think any government makes mistakes. I think if the New Democratic government were in power again there would be mi stakes made. Hopefully one learns from their mistakes in the past and fewer mistakes are made and one does not have to repay mistakes.

But if the Minister is saying that millions of dollars have not been wasted because they have not made the mistakes - and when I say they I mean the Conservative government not made mistakes - I can only suggest to him they have not done the type of construction; they have not done the type of innovative works which the previous government did and had they undertaken an agg ressive outreach program such as that they would be making the same mistakes - I don't wish it upon them because the residents of Northern commun ities ultimately pay for those mistakes - but had they been in the forefront of putting in place the structures which we were in the forefront in putting in place because they were necessary and long overdue after many many years of other governments in this province, then they would be making the same types of mistakes and those are honest mistakes.

There are several types of mistakes one can make and 1 think if one goes in and tries to develop an infrastructure in a commun ity and tries to develop communit y awareness of how to better govern themselves by allowing them some latitude in their self-governing then that's an honest mistake.

But I think if one does nothing or as little as one can possibly do to get by with - and I think that's what this government has done - and if one sits on the councils because they are so afraid of letting them learn by their mistakes then you will in fact find that, in my opinion, is not an honest mistake - not a di shone st mis take, I don't want to leave the implication that there is anything dishonest about it - but the mistake of omission is far worse than an honest mistake which is created by government wishing to do something and if we want to dwell upon the mistakes of the past we can do that.

We can dwell upon the mistakes of 10 years ago, of 100 years ago, of 150 years ago, of 20 years ago, of three months ago, of three years ago, we can talk about mistakes all you want. For every one you lay on the table another one can be laid on the table and it's a very nonprod uctive way to spend the time during these Estimates but we can do it. What I want to talk about is what is being done ? Ho w is this government reacting to the seriou s structural problems that are in Northern Manitoba? I don't think they are reacting very well to that.

I don't want to say and I didn't bring up the laund romat in the first instance, that the government because they messed up the construction of the laund romat is a bad gov ernment. I don't think they are a bad government because once in awhile things go awry. I think they were a bad government in the fact they really abus ed the commun ity council on the construction of that laundromat; they created a great deal of frustration in that com munit y over the construction of that laundromat.

I asked the Minister about the detention center - he hasn't answered me yet - but they've created a great deal of frustration about the detention centre; they've created a great deal of frustration about the other projects that are ongoing in that commun ity because the commun ity does not see those projects as benefiting them to the utmost. Certainly they're pleased to get the foundations improved; certainly they are pleased to get some of the other aspects of infrastructure which the Minister mentioned, there is no doubt about that.

The fact is they want to be a part of the construction; they want to be a part of developing that; they want to be a part of building a better commu nity; they have been denie d tha t opportunity by the government and that's why we have councils resigning, that's why we have a mayor resigning and that's why we have the situation in No rthern Man itoba we have today which is a situation which betrays the government's lip service to local control and local government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour of 4:30 having arrived, I move Committee rise for Private Members' Hour. Committee rise. SUPPLY - ATTORNEY-GENERAL MR.

CHAIR MAN, Abe Kovnats (Rad

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-69a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 69a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a587bd13c2f80a6d652b97776a0ebf827e05c444

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