ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature Of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 44 A - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 24 APRIL, 1980 Printed by W. T.Matwichyna, 0Ufff1s Printer. Province of Manitoba

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 24 April, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle­ Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Prese nting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I rose before I saw that the Mi nister I wanted to addr ess is still not present.

Nevertheless, I could dir ect a question to the Mi nister of Fin ance to ask him whether he can inform us what the current interest rate would be on a borrowing by the province, in view of the various changes that have taken place. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur.able Mini ster of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, the member probably can get his best guidance by looking at either provinces or other institutions who have borrowed in the last couple of weeks or so, and that would perhaps give him a better indication.

I think he would find that the last public issue by Canada, by Ontario, was at about 13 percent for terms which varied but would be a medium term period of time. In the Government of Canada's case, I think it was 13, but with an option at the end of five years for extension. That, perhaps, is about as close as you can get to indicating what the current rate might be. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Sp eaker, I thank the Honourable Minister.

May I also ask him, in view of the fact that there was a recent Ontario Hydro borrowing, I think that's the one he referred to, at 13 and a fraction - it was over 13 percent - what does he consider to be the comparable rate; that is, to what extent wou ld Ma nitoba di ffer from an Ontario borrowing at a concurrent period? MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question is really somewhat hypothetic a l, ina smuch as the markets are fairly volatile and are moving from a day-to-day basis. So since we're not in the market, there's no point in making that kind of a prediction. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.

Johns with a final supplement ary. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, yes, it's not a supplementary to the question I asked, but it is a question of the Mi nister of Finance. On April 3rd, the Mi nister undertook to attempt to provide information dealing with allegations about a certain tax refund discounter having been inv estigated for excessive di scounts. I asked several questions which the Mi nister agreed to accept, in lieu of a formal Order for Return, April 3rd, Page 19 59 of Hansard. From the way he was react ing to my question, I am guessing he doesn't have an answer with him yet. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I'll check on that. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Could I have the indulgence of the House to bring to the honourable mem bers' attention, we have 85 students of Grade 9 standing from Isaac Newton School under the direction of Mr. Feren. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Burrows. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here today. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. STERLING R. LYON, Premier (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House, by leave, to revert to statements for a brief statement, and to table some material which I think members of the House would like to have. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minis ter have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a short statement to make on the Western Premiers' Conference in Lethbridge, which I will be happy to distribute. Mr.

Speaker, the Western Premiers' Conference in Lethbridge covered a wide range of agenda items, which resulted in a series of communiques which I am pleased to table now in the House. I think it is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that the communiques are tabl ed in both official lan guages, with the exception of two communiques which will be made available as soon as they are available in French. My general observation, Sir, would be that it was a successful meeting, which demonstrated again the growing cons ensus and solida rity among the governments represented on matters of regional and national concern.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the House to the communiques on the state of confederation, and the general economic review. It will be readily apparent that the west speaks with a united voice in favour of our fellow citizens from Quebec remaining within confederation. On the general economic scene, Sir, there was similarly a general consensus on the need for all governments to continue their adherence to the economic charter agreed upon by the eleven First Mi nisters in 19 78. 2859

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 Important topics, such as the grain handling and transporta tion, the Western Electric Grid, to mention only two, also received careful consideration and renewed support. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that after consideration of the communiques, members on all sides will find themselves able to support the general proposition set forth in that, thereby lending further strength to the growing unity of position which we, in Western Canada enjoy.The times we face, Mr. Speaker, are certainly fraught with difficulties and new challenges to our Conf ederati on.

The decisions and determina tions that will have to be made by governments will not often be easy. I have great faith, however, in the common sense, the fairness and the will of our people, and the people of Canada generally, to strengthen our country, rather than to see it break up. I we, as elected representatives of the people of Manitoba, can continue to manifest those qualities and to give leadership, as the Premier certai nly attempted to do in Lethbridge, then I am confident, sir, our future will be secure. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I first wish to thank the First Mini ster for giving us a brief report pertaining to the Western Premiers Conference. Secondly, I would certai nly like, at this opportunity, to associate the opposition with a precise and very clear position on our part that there can be no negotiation pertaining to sovereignty associat ion. The country must be kept united. And that does not mean, of course, Mr. Speaker, that there is not room for constitutional discussions and constitutional reform and we would like, Mr. Speaker, to be very much a part of that process in Ma ni toba.

Constitutional reform proposals are a matter that, I believe, should be as non-partisan as is possible. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have urged the First Mini ster to call into being an all party Legislative Committee so that we can develop a consensus, within Manitoba, as to what constitutional reforms ought to be imple mented in Canada insofar as Manitobans are conerned. Seco ndly, Mr.

Speaker, I believe tha t type of Legislative Commit tee review should involve the representations that would be made to it by all Manitobans so that all Manitobans can provide us with their views and their opinions as to that process. And thirdly, Mr. Speaker, Alberta, Saskatchewan, I believe Ontario just recently, have decided upon a period of days in order to discuss the entire issues involving sovereignty association, the constitutional changes.

And I would hope that the First Min ister still would ensure that we, in this Legislature, have that opportunity to participate in the fullest form of discussion during this session, as they have done in other provinces, so that there is the fullest airing of the different views that must be expressed pertaining to where we had, as Manitobans, within the total Canadian context. And we would urge the First Min ister to commit himself to ensuring that there is opportunity for that type of debate during this session. Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition, I must also commend the First Min ister on another change of heart.

We have seen a number of changes of heart this last month or two, since those days of '77 and '78, there are suddenly some changes of heart. And in the comm u niqu, which the First Mi ni ster has just provided us with, Communiqu No. 6, Item No. 2, it reads, and I gather a concensus by the Western Premiers, that action is requi red to reduce Canada's reliance on foreign capital. Among steps required are a variety of tax measures which influence both the outflow of Canadian savings and the inflow of foreign savings. Mr.

Speaker, this stands in sharp contrast to the speeches by the First Min ister in New York, in California over the past year or two, in sharp contrast to the position that has been taken by the Fi rst Mi ni ster in the past, and we welcome constructive steps throughout Canada in order to ensure less reliance in Canada upon foreign capital. I would hope, for example, Mr.

Speaker, that the First Mi nister would stand more fully in support of the actions by the foreign review agency in Ottawa, rather than as he has done in the past, attacked that agency when it has attempted to restrain the takeover of Canadian companies by American companies. And I would hope the First Mi nis ter might lead the way in Mani toba to suggest to Canada that they should, indeed, charge interest in respect to deferred taxes, some 15 billion in deferred taxes. These wou ld be cons tructive, con crete measures. So Mr.

Speaker, on our part, we welcome the change of heart on the part of the First Mi nister, and we await the First Min ister's efforts to ensure that we will be involved in the type of debate that is so necessary at this crucial time in Canadian history, a debate in this Chamber, a debate among Manitobans as to the Constitution that Manitobans, as Canadians, wish to be part of in the years that lie ahead. ORAL QUESTIONS (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Mini ster of Natural Resources. I would ask him if the Garrison Diversion was on the agenda for discussion when Mr. Vance was in Ottawa, I believe it was yesterday or the day before? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Kill arney): Mr .

Speaker, I am not party to the agenda for the discussions between the federal government and the federal government of the Uni ted States, but I certainly would hope that an issue as important as the Garrison Diversion would have been raised. MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, a supplement ary to the same Mi nister. I would ask him if he had been in touch with the federal government before Mr. Vance's visit to have the Garrison Diversion placed on the agenda? MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the federal government many times over the years and on a continuing basis, to make certain 2860

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 that the federal government appr eciates the position of Manitoba with respect to the Garrison Diversi on. The federal government has continued to take a firm stand with respect to that issue that we fully support, and I am certain that same position continues to be held by the federal government and will be put forward on every occasi on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose with a final upplementary. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Min ister would undertake to get in touch with the federal Mi nister responsible for the discussions with Mr.

Vance to ascertain whether or not this discussion did take place during Mr. Vance's visit? MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to make that enquiry, but I wish to make it very clear to the honourable member that the issue has been brought to the attention of our federal government and the Uni ted States federal government on many occasions. We continue to have the assurance of the federal government in the United States that they will not violate The Boundary Water Treaty Act; that the rec ommend ations of the Int ernational Joint Commission will be adhered to.

We have had the opportunity to make that point dir ectly to the Congress and the Senate, as well as to the executive level of the United States government through our federal government. I, personally, have had an opportunity to meet with the Ambassador from the United States to discuss that issue and I know that it is an issue that is well understood at all levels of government. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Rupert sland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, as a follow-up question on that issue, I would like to ask the Mi nister if he can ind icate to the House what is the most recent communication that his government has had with the federal government with respect to this matter, and I ask this in view of the Minis ter's rather vague answers to the House in response to my colleague from Ste. Rose. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Natural Resources. MR. RANSOM: I'm not entirely certain what is the most recent communication we have had, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to check with my staff to determine that, but we have had conta ct at the Mini sterial level on an ongoing basis several times during the course of time since October 19 77. MR. BOSTROM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister responsible for Hydro, and it's with respect to the hydro project at Great Falls, Manitoba. Reports I have received from the area indic ate that area residents are not being given a fair oppo rtunit y to obtain emplo yment on the site .

Apparently the contractor or contractors who were work ing for Ma nitoba Hydro in this regard are bringing their labour in, and some of it even allegedly being brought in from out of province and out of country. I wonder if the Min ister can investigate this situation if he is not aware of it and report to the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I think if the member wishes to obtain detailed information that again, perhaps the correct place to addr ess it would be during the hearings before the Public Uti lit ies Committee.

In general terms, I can make enquiries to determine whether there has been an overall policy established and it might be helpful if the member could give me more specific information that I may refer to the Utility for examination. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, as a follow-up question, I would like to ask the Minis ter to check, if he is not personally aware at this time, whether or not there is any clause in the contracts which the Manitoba Hydro facility signed with the general contractor, or contractors on site, respect ing the employment of people from the area or at least people from Manit oba with respect to that operati on? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it would be unusual if there was a clause restricting employment to the province of Manitoba. Generally that sort of clause is steered away from.

Whether or not there is a clause, though, to try and adapt local employment to a local regional area, I can take that question as notice and make enquiries. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Mi nister of Health.

Due to the Mi nister of Health's statement yesterday that due to a happy set of circumstanc es he was in a position to shift four school divisions from the services of dental nurses to that of the MDA, and further due to the fact he admitted that he had not canvassed dental nurses as to their availability to serve in those four school divisions, my question to the Mi nister of Health, has he, since yesterday's revelation, instructed the staff of his department to undertake a thorough canvass of unempl oyed dental nurses in the province of Manitoba, or those that are not employed in dental nursing, to ascertain their avail abili ty to serve in dental nursing in the various school divisions in the province of Manitoba that still operate under the government Dental Nursing Program?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): No, Mr. Sp eaker, not sinc e yesterday, but we have canvassed and mon itored the list of dental nurse graduates who are avai lable for employement, and as I said yesterday, the turnover to dentists in those divisions or in any other divisions will require that they hire dental nurses in their practices. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to dental nurses working in government programs. That 2861

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 which they do in dental offices, under dentists, may be entirely di fferent from that which they were trained for. Can the Min ister advise whether he has any intention of attempting to canvass the dental nurses in the province of Manitoba to ascertain whether in the future they will be available for work in school divisions operating under the government program? If he has not since yesterday, does he intend to in the next days and weeks and months to do. so? MR. SHERMAN: I certai nly can formulate that intention if, as and when it becomes necessary, Mr. Speaker.

At the moment it isn't necessary. We are reviewing the two programs, conclusions will be drawn from those two programs, answers to the questions in the mind of the Honourable Leader of Opposition will be determined at that time. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eaker, a furt her supp lementary to the Min ister. Is the Min ister at all concerned about the fact that by the time he has completed his reviews and further reviews, that many of those dental nurses wi ll have already left the province of Manitoba and will not be available for further work under their careers within the province? MR.

SHERMAN: I am concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, but I remind the Honourable Leader of the Op position that they were the ones, when in government, who created the concept, who dangled the carrot, and who were not in any position to compromise a future government as to the direction of childrens dental health services in this province. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I wonder if we are wisely using our question period when there are questions that are being asked and repeated in estimates, which would occur probably in twenty minutes, half an hour's time? The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS.

JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Honourable Min ister of Health is in a position to respond to my question of the 10th of April, which I repeated on the 16 th of April, relative to the report of deterioration in the quality of milk in plastic bags under fluorescent lights? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: I am, and I'm not, Mr. Speaker. That is, the question has been referred to my colleague, the Min ister of Agricult ure, who was developing an answer to it.

But at the same time, I would just remind the honourable member for Fort Rouge that professional comment has already been carried in the media dispelling any doubts or fears that anyone may have that packaged milk is damaged by fluorescent light. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, to the Mi nister, my understanding is that the report that was carried in the media refers to Vitamin C content, not to the Riboflavin and Vitamin A content which was also in the original report, and I will continue to await a response from one of the Min isters to this question. -(I nterjection)- Don't hold my breath, the Member for St.

Bon iface . . . May I ask another question of another Min ister, Mr. Speaker? This also refers to a question that I raised on the 16 th of April, addressed to the Honourable Min ister of Finance, which he also took as notice. I asked if he could advise what is happening regard ing the Winnip eg area airport study and any proposed further development of the Winnip eg International Airport. He took that as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi ni ster of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): If I may, Mr. Speaker, I could answer that question.

The airport study has been presented, as we all know. At the present time the Manitoba go vernment is encouraging the federal government to go ahead with Phase 1 of the airport study, which would be to extend the two runways that were proposed to being extended, and that in itself, Sir, would take away the noise that is presently over the area close to the airport and would also make a great step to the use of the western side of the airport by airlines in general. The Min ister of Transportation and I met with Mr. Pepin.

We expressed our concern that this was not being done because we believe it's the first step that should be done and we have also talked with Mr. Bockstael about the matter and he has personally made a tour of the airport, personally made representation for us in Ottawa, and we are awaiting the results of those actions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the absence of both the Min ister for Municipal Affairs and the Attorney-General, the Mi nister for Urban Affairs, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Honourable First Mi nister, who no doubt would want to take it as notice because I assume he would not be aware of the background to these questions.

I would like to point out to him that there appears to be a contradiction in policy or procedure, which I would inv ite him to inv estigate and report on, between the Mini ster for Muni cipal Affairs, who suspended two municipally -elected officials because of an allegation of impropriety as compared with the Min ister for Urban Affairs, the Attorney-General, who was not prepared to inv estigate alleged infractions of an elected city of Winnip eg official unless it were to be complained on.

That's one contradiction which I would appreciate his looking into, and the other one is the apparent contradiction by the Mi nister of Municipal Affairs, who suspended two elected municipal officials based on their alleged improper actions, and what I believe he said yesterday and that is that there have been allegations against members of his own staff but he is not suspending them, pending the investigation. I wonder if the Honourable First Min ister would agree to accept these questions as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mini ster. 2862

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has properly said, I am not aware of the incidents that he mentions.

I'll be happy to take them as notice on behalf of the Mi nisters in question, but I would suggest to him, merely on the basis of what he has said in phrasing his question, that he of course is first of all dealing with two or three different sets of legislation with respect to municipal officials; one presumably would be The City of Winnipeg Act, the other presumably would be The Municipal Act and/or The Local Government Districts Act, which may or may not have different provisions and I'm forbidden by the rules of the House, Sir, as is the Attorney­ General or the Min ister of Urban Affairs, from giving legal opinions.

On the second matter, that sounds more like an admin istrative matter, which I am sure the Attorney­ General would be happy to respond to when he gets back. I believe he's in Ottawa. MR. CHERNIAK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the willingn ess of the First Minister to accept these as notice. The question was really dir ected to him because, as he says, there may be some difference in jurisdictional powers, although just to clarify, the Honourable Attorney-General said that he would not investigate unless there was a complaint. So there is that difference that the First Mini ster mentioned that may be there.

The other is; of cou rse, an adminis trative matter which was that of the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs, not the Attorney-General. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addr essed to the Mi nister of Health. Ha s he seen a report by a comm ittee of the Manitoba Medical Association which concludes that there are a great number of therapeutic abortions being performed outside Manitoba and in back alleys tha t are not medically controlled and tha t the Manitoba Medical Association as a result, is very concerned about this matter?

Has he looked at that report? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I received today, at noon today, a report conta ining some recom menda tions from the Commi ttee on Therapeutic Abortion of the

section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Manitoba Medical Association so that as of now my answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. MR.

PARASIUK: A supp lementary question to the Mi nis ter: Does the Min ister concur with the recommendation of the MM A Committee that a private profit-making clinic or hospital should be built to deal with the deficiency in public facilities, or will he ensure that public facilities are sufficient and adequate to provide for or to enable people who are eligible for therapeutic medically -p rescribed abortions to have them in Manitoba, without having to resort to going out of the province or to going to the back alley butchershops? Will he insure that the public facilities are adequate to meet their needs? MR.

SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not subscribe to, nor do my colleagues, nor does this government subscribe to any recommendations that equate to abortion on demand, nor do I think did the previous government of this province. We will make every effort at the Women's Centre of the Health Sciences Centre in the redevelopment program under way now to accomodate the legitimate needs and volumes of Manitoba citizens in the area of therapeutic abortion. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Transcona with a final supp lementary. MR.

PARASIUK: Yes, I would like to point out to the Mini ster that he did not answer the question I asked him regarding . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. May I point out to the honourable member that there is no obligation on the part of any Mi nister to answer a que stion that has been asked of him. The Honourable Member for Transcona with another question. MR.

PARASIUK: I'd like to rephrase my question because it was obvious from the answer of the Health Mini ster that he did not unde rstand my question as to whether in fact health facilities were adequate in Manitoba to enable people who require, accord ing to a medical panel, a therapeutic abortion. Does he feel that there are adequate facilities in Manitoba to meet the needs of these people who pass panels which are, in fact, com posed of medical people; are the facilities adequate and why, then, are there so many therapeutic abortions taking place outside Manitoba? MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I think the facilities are not adequate at the present time, but the renovat ions that are under way for interim upgrading of the Women's Centre, plus the long-term redevelopment which will be completed by 19 83, will, we believe, provide us with sufficient capability and capacity to meet the legitimate volumes in that area, such as I've suggested. As to the second part of the honourable member's question, he raises a question with deep social, religious and ethical implications and I'm not either wise enough, nor am I prepared, to comment in question period on that subject. HON.

DON ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Memb er for Elmwood phrased a question to me as to whether I, as Minis ter of Transportati on, would consider compuls ory legislation to require all bicycles in the province to have lighting and I replied that was not part of any legislativ e proposals that I would put forward; but I did not want to leave the impression with the House, Mr. Speaker, that we are without legislation in The High way Traffic Act to deal with the lighting of bicycles when they are in use between the hours of dusk and dawn. I would like to refer the Honourable Member for Elmwood to

Section 140, of the Hig hway Traffic Act, Subsections 1, 2 and 3, which is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I thank to the honourable minis ter for the information. 2863

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the First Mi nister. My question relates to the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Churchill and, in view of the distubing information we've been getting through the press in recent weeks, I'm wondering if the First Mi nister could ind icate, and briefly to the members of this House and to the people of Manitoba, as to what took place and what kind of a message that they had conv eyed to the federal government in regard to these two important matters. MR. LYON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I welcome the interest, at least on this side of the House, in matters of that concern to the basic industry in Manitoba. And it's a concern that I may say, Mr. Speaker, is shared by all four of the elected governments in Western Canada. There is deep concern, as expressed in the communiqu and, as more fervently expressed when Premier Lougheed and Premier Bennett were speaking to this topic only yesterday, about the apparent reneging by the Trudeau Liberal government on the signed agreement to proceed with the in stallations at Princ e Ru pert.

The communiqu has called upon the federal government to do a very simple, but a very necessary thing, and that is to honour its obligations; to honour its obligations to the people of Canada and particularly to the people of Western Canada with respect to the developments at Prince Rupert, which were entered into in go od faith by the consor tium with the provinces in volv ed supplying - tha t is British Columbia, in particular - supplying infrastructure, moneys and so on. And so I would hope, Mr.

Speaker, that again, on all sides of the House, we would find support for the proposition that the fundamental obligations entered into by the government of Canada and by the consortium, just a matter of months ago, will be carried out by the new Trudeau government and that their apparent preoccupation with other events in Canada will permit them to see that there are matters of press ing prio rity conc ern for the continuing development of the western economy that must have priority in their consideration at this time. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Speaker, have a suppl ementary question and I wonder if the First Min ister could gi ve us any information in regard to the dual line running rates going to Churchill? MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I would have hoped that there would be interest on all sides of the House about further development of the Port of Chur chill. Mr. Speaker, there was un animous agreement, Mr.

Speaker, at the Western Premiers Conference that the atte ntion of the federal government, again, must be redirected to, not only to Rupert, about which I spoke just a moment ago, but about the fundamental imp ortance as well of the Port of Vancouver, of Roberts Bank, of the Port of Chur chill, in terms of in creased faci lities and installations for the Port of Churchill, as well as for upgrading of the rail line, of the Herscel Division, into Churchill, in order that we can maximize the benefit of the Port of Chur chi ll, particularly for gr ain shipments from northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta which are used, as we all know, Mr.

Speaker, much more extensively by farmers in those areas than by the farmers of Manitoba. And so I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would again find support on all sides of the House for that proposition and when the various Minis ters are speaking to their Ottawa coun terparts, ab out Churchill, about Roberts Bank, about Rupert, we could feel there would be that kind of unanimity within the House that would indic ate that what is good for the west, in that respect, is equally good for Manitoba and that the kind of solidarity the west expresses on this matters to what is very often, Mr.

Speaker, a federal government that does not listen. That kind of solidarity would be manifested in this House as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that the First Mini ster is undertaking to undo some of the damage which was done to Churchill by his colleague, Jack Murta, from Lisgar, a few months ago. Long overdue, we on this side of the House, welcome that, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the First Min ister whether or not - because I know the First Min ister would not wish to leave a wrong impression, which some of his colleagues behind him were wishing to leave - would the First Mi nister wish to confirm that the policy which he is presently pursuing, pertaining to both Churchill and Prince Rupert is consistent, fully consistent, with the position which has been taken by the province of Manitoba, including the position that was taken by the former Premier of this province, Edward Sch reyer, in the early '70s and that his present position is not inconsistent, is not novel, and that, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, he has solidarity, not only with other western Premiers, but consistency with the position that was taken in previous years, under Ed Sch reyer and the former New Democratic Party government in the province of Manitoba. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, as usual, talks in circles. If he is asking me if this government is prepared to stand back because, Mr. Speaker, unlike his party, we don't have to look toward our political bedfellows in Ottawa, the Liberal Party, and hesitate in any criticism of them, I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that this government, unlike the previous government, unlike the previous government, is not afraid to demand of Ottawa the abs olute right for every cit izen of Ma nitoba, regardless of the political stripe of that government. Mr. Speaker, I can't recall too well with respect to the Port of Churchill, what my honourable friends did in terms of im proving the grain handling and transportation fac ilit ies up there because, Mr . Speaker, there seemed to be a lack of concern on the part of the NOP, manif ested even today, about agricultural in Ma ni toba. They wer en't terri bly concerned about it.

They did, Mr. Speaker, leave a white elephant in Churchill in the form of a 12 million or 14 million development, which the people of Manitoba are now paying for. I merely say, Mr. Speaker, that we would like to see further . 2864

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I would hope the honourable members, when they are phrasing their questions, would be willing to accept the answers and allow the person who is speaking the courtesy of having the undivided attention of the House. The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I conclude merely by saying this, that we wish to see . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. If the Honourable Member for St. Boniface wants the floor, I wish he would ind icate it in the normal manner. The Honourable First Mi nister. MR. DESJARDINS: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface on a point of order. MR. DESJARDINS: I would like to know what resolution we are debating at this time during the question period? MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Ho nourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, to conclude what I was saying about the Port of Churchill, I would hope that we would see a reawakening in the members of the opposition about conc ern for the fun damenta l facilities in the Port of Churchill, namely, the grain handling and transportation depot that we have there and a depot, Mr.

Speaker, and a port faci lity that is capable of transporting other commodities than grain. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends, if they will look beyond their dogma a bit, will realize that in this province now, thanks of the development policies that are going on here, we can now start to consider other commodities, such as potash, which never would have been developed under my honourable friends if they were in office. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I noted your request that we phrase our questions to draw appropr iate answers.

Unfortu nately, my question would have sought a simple yes or no, neither of which was answered re the damage done to Churchill by the First Min ister's colleague, Jack Murta, not answered, and whether or not the present government in Manitoba was pursuing a consistent policy with that of Ed Sch reyer's government in the early 19 70s, again not answered.

I would like the First Min ister to comment as to whether or not it was not the New Democratic Party Government in Manitoba that established the Port of Churchill Development Board, the Board to which his colleague, the Member for Roc k Lake, presently sits; whether it was not the New Democratic Party Government that established that Artie Re-Supply Service in Churchill . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

May I suggest that the honourable member may very well be debating rather than seeking information. - (I nterje ctions)- Ma y I sugg est the honourable member may very well be debating rather than seeking information. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, because I know you have a difficult task, but I would trust you would agree that your request to myself about not debating would equally apply to the First Mi nister of this province in answering questions from this side. Mr.

Speaker, in respect to getting into bed with his bedfellows, or our bedfellows as he suggests in Ottawa, I want to ask the First Min ister whether or not he is prepared to di vorce himself from his bedfel lows in Ottawa by taking clear action, consistent with the position which has been taken in Lethbridge about ret urning to Canada gr eater Canadian ownership and less reliance upon foreign ownership, to disassociate himself and to speak out against the tardy, lengthy policy on the part of the Trudeau Government, to take ten years to restore to Canadians at least 50 percent of Canadian interest and ownership in Canadian oil resources?

Is he prepared to undertake that type of leadership with the present Liberal Government in Ottawa? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition as usual, reads a half-a­ quote or a half-a-paragraph and draws an ideological conclusion from that which has no relationship to the facts whatsoever. Mr.

Speaker, if my honourable friend will take the time and if he will recall what I said in my, what I thought were really non -con troversial opening remarks, if he will take the time to read the commun iques - I can only ask for di vine intervention that he would understand them - but if he would take the time to read them, Mr.

Speaker, he would then find out that what we were talking about in the economic review was this - and I would like to hear during the course of the Budget Speech my honourable friend's comment on these topics - that we have an adverse trade balance in this country, that we have an extremely unacceptable deficit position by the federal government in this country brought about by policies that I am sure my honourable friends would agree with, and that to count eract and to offset the negative effect that those are having on every Canadian, by way of inflation, it is absolutely necessary that the balance of payments question be brought into a greater balance.

One of the factors for doing that, of course, Mr . Speaker, would be to encou rage gr eater Canadian inv estment in all aspects of Canadian ind ustry. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any party - (I nterjections)- Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friends want an answer, I am prepared to give it. If they want to howl like socialist dogs, that is their business. 2865

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Quite obviously we are havi ng some di fficulty in this particular question period. I think the nature of the questions that a members asks will quite often dictate the nature of the response that is required. If the question does require a lengthy answer, I hope the members have the courtesy to listen to it. The Honourable First Min ister. MR. l YON: Mr. Speaker, I will try to follow your injunction, which, of course, is absolutely right. I apologize to my honourable friends for the term socialist dogs.

I should have said if they wish to howl like dogs, because I hate to discriminate against dogs, I love all dogs. I regret the analogy. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, cannot read into these statements, as he is apparently attempting to do, support for The Foreign In vestment Review Act because at least two or three of the Premiers who met in Lethbridge have made it known on previous occasions to the federal government as to what we think of that particular instrumentality. Now what we are saying, Mr.

Speaker, is that there should be tax inc entives to encourage more Canadian investment in Canadian resource. So I think my honourable friend, in his qu iet moments, if he will read that, will see that he cannot elongate that kind of a statement into the kind of a quasi-endorsement of what I'm sure he agrees, and we agree, Mr. Speaker, is not a satisfactory agency for bringing about the de sired result of more Canadian inv estment in Canadian enterprise. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Order please. Order please.

I hope all members would give the courtesy to the person who wishes to ask a question. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that in that long discourse by the First Min ister, there really was no answer to the question which was presented to him. I would have hoped that you might have provided some comment pertai ning to that, Mr.

Speaker, because we are interested in knowing, just by what practical means the First Min ister is going to undertake a policy thrust which we commend him for, to ensure that there is less reliance upon foreign capital, greater Canadian inv estment and thrust, and if that be the case, then I believe it was a fair question to pose to the First Min ister, as to whether he was prepared to assume leadership in Canada, to make representations to the federal government in respect to a tardy, lacklustre, slow pace of approach on the part of the federal government to restore to Canadians a greater interest in the oil resources in Canada.

Ten years to obtain 50 percent, we say is too little, too late, that oil is a basic resource of Canada, and if the First Minis ter wants to really demonstrate that he is not simply relying upon verbosity in his statement, but wishes to undertake some precise and specific answers to that which he expresses concern about in his communique, then the First Min ister surely can indic ate whether he is prepared to undertake that sort of leadership on the part of Manitoba and Manitobans in general with Ottawa. MR. l YON: Mr.

Speaker, I believe it would be fair, and not unkind to say that the four premiers of western Canada meeting in Le thbridge over the last two days were trying to be inspir ed more by serving the public interest than any quaint ideology. And I would say this, Mr. Speaker, in furtherance of that, tha t if my honourable friend will read the communique, he will see this, that we asked the federal government, as the provinces themselves have been attempting to do, to stay to the economic charter that was devised and pounded out and agreed to by Mr.

Trudeau and the ten premiers in 1978, and all of the precepts of that charter, Mr. Spe aker, lowering gov ernment deficits, keeping government spending under control, keeping the size of the civil service under control, are all contained in there and they are precepts, Mr. Speaker, which I would be happy to hear my honourable friend stand in his place and say that he agrees with.

That's what we were getting at, because we said high interest rates and these other matters were symptoms of the fundamental dis ease which has been profligate spending by government, primarily, over the past ten years, to which my honourable friends contributed more than their fair share in their eight lacklustre years in office.

So I say to my honourable friend that he had better learn to distinguish between writing a trade balance, that is increasing the amount that Canada can export and the dollars that we can get in for those exports, rather than pursuing any one of his ideological grails, which is really secondary to serving the pub lic interest of the people of Canada. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I realize there is a great desire on the part of all members to carry on with this debate, but the time for question period has expired. Can we proceed with Orders of the Day? ORDERS OF THE DAY -COMMITTEE CHANGES MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I have some changes for the Public Utilities Committee. I would wish to substitute the Honourable Member for St. George for the Honourable Member for Elmwood; and also the Honourable Member for Selkirk for the Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. SPEAKER: Are those changes agreeable to the House? (Agreed) The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty. MOTIONpr esented and carried , and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Health and the Honourable 2866

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Environment. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris MacGregor (Virden): call the Committee to order. We are on Resolution No. 38, 5.(a)(1) -p ass. The Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. First I will have to inquir e as to the condition of the Mi nister's hand, and say that I hope that it was nothing serious.

He ind icated yesterday that there had been some problem and at that time I didn't have an opportunity, but just wanted to advise him of our sympathy and hope that it is indeed nothing of a permanent nor serious nature, although I see it is still a bit swollen. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON: Thank you, very much. I'm relieved to find that it's not broken and I should be able to handle a golf club within a couple of weeks. MR. COWAN: We too are pleased to hear that.

I would ask the Mi nister then, and I believe it would be advisable to begin the discourse on this portion of his estimates in just trying to, in a more general way, feel out the Min ister as to his philosophies in this regard, what he believes he brings to this min istry, because he is a new Min ister in this particular area, if he can ind icate why it was there was a change from where the previous department in which this ministry was housed - not the previous depa rtment, but the previ ous com plime ntary department to which this was ministry was housed - and wha t he sees as the function of the Department of the Environment, and how he intends to proceed with that function?

MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the transfer of this branch of the department to Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it was an effort to redistribute the workload amongst various Cabinet Minis ters. As my honourable friend is probably aware, the Minis ter of Natural Resources is also the chairman of the Treasury Board, which carrys with it a very heavy responsibility.

I believe the Premier felt that a transfer of the Environmental Branch to my department would relieve the Mini ster of Natural Resources of what I found out to be a fairly heavy responsibi lity, and I don't think that the Mini ster could have handled this department, the Natural Resources Department as well as the somewhat onerous responsibilities of Treasury Board. I suppose the short answer to his question is simply a lev elling out of the responsibilities carried by each of the Mi nisters of the Crown.

Insofar as the answer to the other questions are concerned, my honourable friend asked me what I bring to the department. In response to that question I tell him I bring a very keen interest in the whole question of environmental management and a desire to attempt to implement what I consider to be some of the problems, that if indeed are not upon us today, problems that most certai nly are to develop in the future and are with us, perhaps not to the extent that they pose crisis situations, but to the extent that they will create problems for the future.

If he wishes a couple of examples, the question of hazardous waste and sewage disposal is one example. I speak of water quality management, and a more effective way of disposing of sewage, in addition of course to the regular environmental problems that are upon us on a daily basis as a result of changes in technology. My honourable friend is aware of a good many of those; acid rain, the question of lead in the air, and a host of other difficulties that we are faced with on a day-to-day basis.

We are attem pting to come to grips with these problems, to elimi nate them where they can be elimi nated; to mitiga te them where they can be mitigated; and in many cases we have to live with a certain amount of them. But to the best extent possible we hope that we can provide for the people of this province an environment that is healthy and clean, and to that end we are dedicated. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The Mi nister's comments are certai nly acceptable to the members on this side, and we can only hope that in the future that he is able to deal with the situation that he has outlined to us.

I am fearful that he will not be able to, and that's no reflection on the Mini ster as a person, or as a Mi nister, because I believe that he has talents as a Mini ster of the Crown. I just believe that the Mini ster is in a somewhat awkward position being a Mi nister of a Progressive Conservative government, and we will talk about that later.

I also believe that the Mini ster is in the awkward position of being a Mi nister in this day and age, when these problems are coming to the forefront so quickly and so furiously, and with such an impa ct that even a Mi nister of his talents, no matter which political persuasion they were of, no matter which government they were a part of, would have difficulty in dealing with them on a complete basis and would find themselves, as the Mi nister has found himself, doing more firefighting on an ad hoe basis than the development of any long-term strategies and plans.

I am pleased to hear the Mini ster brings with this, he says, a very keen in terest in the area of environmental management. He brings that with him to the Min istry. And he mentioned a number of specific areas, which I don't believe the list to be all­ inclus ive, and I don't believe that the Mi nister ind icated it to be all-inclusive, but some of the areas bt least captured our attention over the past number of months.

Going back though, before we pursue that area, going back into the Mini ster's explanation for the transference of this department from the co­ relationship with the Department of the Mines - and I have to add, at this point, I don't believe that it was in a proper niche, to use an environmental term, it was in a proper niche there, either, and that was the niche to which our government put it in, and I had some reservations about that.

I don't believe that it is in a proper niche now, because I believe there is an inherent conflict of interest that the Mini ster will find himself captured up in as time goes on, and that 2867

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 is that the environmental problems that we are facing, by and large, for the most part today, are problems that are caused by the corporate sector. They are caused because, as the Min ister said, of new technologies.

Well, they are caused in many cases by old technologies, and that is the problem, in that those technologies have not kept pace with the requirements of society as a whole, because one of the reaso ns tha t environmental issues have captu red such concern in regard to pub lic impressions, is that we are now beginning to demand more by the way of environmental management than we have before.

So while, in fact, the environmental problems are probably the same in intensity that they were a number of years ago outside of a few isolated areas which we will have to talk about, and perhaps even in some instances, less, and one only need look at the quality of air today, as compared to the quality of air in 19 50, or even, indeed in 19 60, and you will see that there is an appreciable improvement in the quality of air, but the fact is - and that's in certain ins tances, I wou ldn't make tha t as a blan ket statement, but in certain instances, in the cities, for an example, you don't have, in Manitoba - again, I have to be careful of the way I phrase this, Manitoba has never really had the problems, say of London, or of New York city, or Los Angeles.

But the fact is, in London and in New York city and in Los Angeles now, you don't have the smog problem that you had a number of years ago. You still have some very major problems, but that is not one of them. You don't hear about the catast rophic effects of temperature inversions when you did have a high smog problem, where you would have thousands of people that could be negatively impa cted to the point of fatality in regard to the effects of those smog inversions. We are through that particular phase, I hope, for the most

part in the modern industrial world. The problems that we face today are more subtle, perhaps not any less dangerous, perhaps not any less im portant. As a matter of fact, not even perhaps, absolutely not any less important. But they are different problems and they aren't as prominent to the public as those problems were 10 and 20 years ago. So why do we have the public interest to the level that we do today? Well, we do so because the public is, No. 1, more knowledgeable, and No. 2, more demanding.

So the fact is that the problems that we do have today are problems that are created by industrial activity, and that this industrial activity is created by ind ustrialists, and that these industrialists, therefore, have a certain responsi bility to ensure that their activity does not impose, in a negative sense, on the general society at large.

And so that is where I see the conflict, that the Mi nister is in a position where he has to, in some respects, encourage that sort of development, and at the other side, he has to place some very stringent controls and confines on the way in which that development would take place. So I would just ask the Mini ster if he, in a philosophical and general sense, would care to comment as to how he is going to deal with that in his pursuance of proper environmental management for the province? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Mr. Albert Driedger (Emerson): The Honourable Mini ster. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Chairman, the problems that are outlined by my honourable friend are those that I'm very keenly aware of, and he's quite right when he suggests that perhaps in today's world they appear to be greater today than they were in the past, even though they were with us in the past, and to a large extent, that comes about as a result of an awareness on the part of the public, brought about by more pub licity on this subject, more activist groups that have been inv olved in pub licizing them, and the public thems elves now are keenly aware of the need to provide an environment that is not dangerous to their health.

But I think that one of the areas in which the public themselves have not fully grasped the sign ificance of, and that is their own role in bringing about the desirable changes that we feel are necessary. I am not sure just what my honourable friend means about a conflict of interest in that industry itself is a large part of the problem. I am very much aware of that, and I have no hestitation in suggesting that they have got to become part of the answer to the problems that they have created. They have to bear a part of the cost of removing the difficulties, along with the public in general.

I think it's going to have to be a co-operative effort on the part of, not only the public and the government, but ind ustry as well. I see some encouraging signs that ind ustry are now recognizing the extent to which they have created the problems and accepting, indeed, their share of that responsi bility. I think it's a question now of attempting to harness the combined resources of all sectors in an effort to eliminate the pollution of the atmosp here and our environment and arriving at a mutually satisfactory arrangement in the handling and dealing of these problems.

I, as one example, can see that the question of waste disposal is one that cannot be carried on simply by either industry or government or the public. It, of necessity, requires a combined contribution by all of them in order to succ essfu lly overcome this particular problem.

My honourable friend is, I think, as aware as I am of the difficulties in attempting to bring this about, but a start has to be made somewhere and sometime and it is my intention to attempt to bring about that kind of co-operation between ind ustry, the public, government, in order to provide, what I consider to be, a better environment for this province. MR. CHAIRMAN: (a)(1). The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Min ister said that the public is now demanding an environment that is healthy to itself, an environment in which they can feel comfortable and in which they can bring up their families to enjoy the benefits that living in this type of a society can provide us. So there's two issues at hand. I'd ask the Mi nister then, in his opinion, is the environment that we have today in the province, and of course we will confine our remarks to the pr ovince, if he believes tha t environment to be a healthy environment in the sense that it is pollution free and that there is very 2868

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 little contamination of that environment by outside sources. MR. JORGENSON: Of course there are exceptions. Wha t my honourable friend means by outside sources, I suppo se he means jurisdictions outside the province of Manitoba. My honourable friend himself is not only keenly aware of the problem of acid rain. We contribute to an extent to that, but I think to a larger extent the greatest contributors are sources other than our own jurisdiction.

With respect to the question of whether or not I believe we have the kind of environment that we consider ideal, I think it's perhaps far better than a lot of areas of the world and indeed this part of the continent, but nothing remains static, and with new technology, with new ind ustries, we contribute to more problems and it is an effort to attempt to ensure th at new developments do not bring with them an increase in the prob lem that we currently face.

In deed I'm hopeful that, not only can there be a maintenance of present environment, but a reduction in a lot of the areas of pollution that we currently experience. MR. COWAN: Yes, thank you. I'm certain the Mini ster, when he speaks of new technology, does not want to prec lude new technologies that are being every day, that are being developed in fact to reduce the effects of pollution on the environment, so that not all new technologies are in fact pollution sources, some of them may well indeed be intended to reduce the effects and also to reduce to pollutions.

One need only look to some of the activities that are going up in the mining industry today where new technologies are being brought onstream that are intended - and one has to wait to see whether they actually fulfil that promise or not - but are intended to reduce the negative emissions of the minin g industry, the smelters, etc. The Min ister said that nothing remains constant, or that in this case the environment does remai n const ant, does not maintain the same level of pollution from one period to another.

I would ask the Mi nister, if in his opinion or in his department's opinion, the quality of the environment in Manitoba toda y is im pr oving, or is the qu ality of the environment decrea sing? MR. JORGENSON: I would venture to suggest that there has been an improvement in the quality of the environment. If my honourable friend is going to ask me, which I believe will be his next question, to put my finger on any particular area, I will cite one that I think is going to be an advancement, and that is what I consider to be the new technology with respect to automotive power.

There are designs of motors on the market now that are emission free. That to me bodes well for environment, particularly in the more heavily conge sted areas such as the cities of this province. There may be other areas that just don't come to my mind at the moment, but there is no question that a new technology in smokestack emissions could bring about a considerable impa ct in environmental quality.

The department has been working very quietly, but nonetheless very effectively, with respect to the question of waste disposal, in arranging with the municip alities of this province, dispo sal or land-filled sites that are not as likely to contribute to problems in the futur e by elimina ting the land filling of hazardous waste material. We are now far more conscious of the whole question of water quality.

Indeed there are studies currently going on in the various water sheds in this province to attempt to get a handle on the water qua lity of those water sheds and to actively encourage the participation of the public in those areas so they have a better understanding of their contribution to lower water qualities, so that they have a better idea of the kind of standards that they would like to see for themselves in those areas and what their contribution to improving their standards convey.

I suppose there are several other areas that I could mention but I think my honourable friend will get some idea of the areas in which we feel we have been moving and in which we have achieved some reasonable degree of success. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Chairperson, the Mini ster's last statement does bring forth a thought, and I just have to precede that by saying that this is the second time that the Mini ster has clair voyantly determined what my next question will be, and I'd ask him if I'm becoming so typical in my questioning as to allow that to happen, or perhaps he is clairvoyant, because it certainly does put me at a disadvantage if he's going to answer my questions before I ask them, but I do appreciate the information anyway.

That's because he has been allowed to phrase a question in which he wants to answer it rather than I am allowed to phrase the question in which I want him to answer it. At any rate, I would ask him, because it is important, to be very specific in regard to some of these inno vat ions and inn ovative act ivit ies that he's mentioned, because it is one thing to develop new technology, to encourage the development of new technology, to even aid in the development of new technology, but it is another thing altogether to put that technology into place.

Now in dealing with the areas of water quality and the water sheds, the province has a bit of an easier row to hoe because they're dealing with themselves, in other words, they can impose upon themselves in many instances certain requirements, but when they have to impose upon ind ustry, which is a pollution source, either in the watershed or a pollution source in the air stack emissions, or when they have to impose upon the industry the manufacturing level in regards to car manufacturing in specific reference to new engines that are less polluting and new gases that are less polluting, and when they have to impose upon the ind ustrial concerns in regards to making certain that they put in place these new technologies in smoke stack emission control, then they have a far more difficult problem, because they doing it with very little leverage actually and they have to enforce, if they want to enforce properly, and if they want to make a successful job of their attempts to imp rove the environment, they have to enforce some pretty stringent - and sometimes to the ind ustry some onerous - conditions.

So I would ask the Mi nister if he can be very specific in regards to where they have been able to No. 1, put new technologies into place, that's very important, in that I'm speaking about the 2869

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 areas that he has talked about, the smoke stack emissions, automo tive technolo gy, watershed imp rovement, landfill sites. Again that's an internal matter, but he still has to negotia te with the municipalities in certain respects in regard to that. Where are these new landfill sites at, what sort of instructions are the municipalities being given in regard to how to proceed with these landfill sites and how to maintain them.

Those sorts of details, I believe, are importantto our better understanding of where the Min ister is taking the public in regard to some very serious environmental hazards. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if there is a difference in the approach that my honourable friend would take with respect to these problems, and the approach that I feel will be successful in the approach to these problems, it lies in our attitude towards how effective government alone can be, in enunciating new regulations, new laws and matters of that nature.

As an example, I draw my friend's attention to the host of regulations and restrictions that are imp osed upon the automobile industry in an effort to curb pollution, to very little avail. But when the source of energy became an obvious problem and the publi c were seized with the problem themselves, they had far gr eater im pact on the ind ustry than all the government regulations in the world.

They demanded autom obil es tha t were pollut ion- free, they demande d automobi les that consumed less fuel, less energy, and as a result the automobile industries today are in deep difficulty because they failed to recognize those signs earlier, in spite of the regulations that were imposed upon them.

So I say to my honourable friend that it is not so much - although that most certainly is a part of the answer to the problem - not so much the question of announcing new regulations on a daily basis as it is working with the people that are generating the pollutants, attempting to reach an understanding with them of the nature of the problem that they are crea ting, and then finding mutually satisfactory solutions.

I think that is of critical imp ortance that if you are to be successful in any effort, that the people who are going to be affected, and that is everyone in this province, understand the reasons why they are being asked to do certain things and why their co-operation is sought in doing certain things.

I come back to the question of the arrangements that we made with the municipalities, and it is not so much an arrangement, it's not so much direction provided, or I shouldn't say direction but so much reg ulation provided by the government as it is bringing to their attention the nature of the problem and then depending upon their own good judgement and their desire not to contribute to that problem.

Perhaps it is a longer route, perhaps it is not as dramatic but in the long run I think it is far more effective because once people understand and are given facts about a certain situation, there's a great deal more likelihood that you will have their whole­ hearted co-operation. It's on that basis we hope to be able to bring about what I consider to be, if not the ideal, at least the best we can do in the way of pollution control and an impr ove ment in the environment. MR. COWAN: We are at a di fference, Mr .

Chairperson, in philosophy and in also ways which we would seek to imp lement tha t philo sophy , although we do share some similar goals and I am certain the one goal that we share is that of a clean environment, and there's no doubt about that, and I for one would be the last to question the Min ister's desir e and his keen in terest, as he said, in attempting to bring that about.

But on the other hand we do perceive very different methods by which we can arrive at that clean environment and if I can be afforded the luxury of a prophecy - and I know that politicians shouldn't afford themselves that luxury, but I do so only because I am somewhat aware of the historical problem of pollution and the historical methods that have been devised to deal with that - and that is that the Min ister's method is not going to work.

That's an opinion, that's my opinion and I am certain it is di fferent from the Min ister's opinion just by the mere fact that he has put forth his idea of how to go about bringing about this cleaner environment. But the fact is tha t in the past this exact methodology has been attempted by di fferent jurisdictions from time to tim e and has always resulted in a worsening of the conditions rather than a bettering of the conditions. That is because there are many forces at play in the society at large, and many forces in play that will bring to bear pressures that cannot be dealt with strictly by education.

And I don't mean to demean the impact of education - and by this I mean public education - I don't mean to suggest that we should not whole-heartedly attempt to educate the public as to the problems we all face and some of the solutions that we perceive as being possible. The fact is I encourage that and I think the Mini ster should be doing far more with it because I don't belie ve that enough has been accomplished in that regard. But that alone will not bring about the type of changes we need. For that reason I am somewhat concerned.

Regulation is one way, legislation of course being the same way, to im pose upon - and let's look at what that regulation does - to impo se upon the polluter certain requirements in regards to their operation and how much of the emissions they are allowed to let loose into the air.

Because no regulation will bring about an entirely pollution-free operation if it is not tec hnically feasible and therefore most of your regul ations are written in such langu age as to suggest that as far as is reasonably practicable or as far as reasonably technical, or in regard to, I think, the best ava ilable technology, is the terminology that is used. The fact is that without those regulations the in dustry does not have a guideline by which to try to develop their industry.

The Mi nister can say that he is going to sit down and talk with them and try to develop ways and means of co-operating with them, but he's not going to be able to sit down and talk with every polluter, whether it be a priv ate individual or whether it be an ind ustr y, because private individuals also pollute. He is not going to be able to sit down and go through the long process of, in a co­ operative mann er, developing mutually accep table gui deline s unless he is willing to forsake many principles in developing those mutually accept able guidelin es and I don't believe he is. 2870

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 He is in a difficult bargaining position because the standard argument that has been used against government, when governments have attempted to impose regulations of this nature, is we will leave. We will leave your jurisdiction. We will get ourselves out from under your influence and therefore, don't push us because you will not be pushing us to clean up, you'll be pushing us out. Now the fact is that they very seldom do that.

The fact is that they very seldom leave because of regulation legislation, but that is their argument and that is a gamble that the Minister has to take at each meeting, that he is going to run up against that particular counter­ argument. So the fact is that when he goes into these meetings, in a co-operative way, to develop co­ operativ e means of cleaning up a certain pollution source, he is at an extreme disadvantage and that does not mean that he cannot work his way out of that disadvantage, it just means that it's a long time­ consuming process.

So that is why regulations have been developed - to impose guidelin es on ind ustry at large and say , if you don' t abide by these guidelines then we are going to bring action against you to make you abide by these guidelines, and that act ion has taken di fferent forms acc ording to different regulations and different legislation. But it is a very necessary part of the process of cleaning up the sources.

The sources, if you look at it from their perspective, are operating on a profit basis and they therefore have to make a profit and they have to make a certain amount of return; and that certain amount of return right now, I might add, is more than it was two or three years ago just because of the incr eases in the interest rate throughout the country.

In other words, if a company has a million dollars inv ested in their industry and they have a million dollars of capital, which they have to account for, then they're going to want to make more than 17 percent on it because they could, in a much easier fashion, put it in a bank and make that much if not more,

whereas a year ago the interest rate was not that high.

Now I bring that point in, not as an aside but as an integral part of the argument, because when we get into periods such as we do now - and this is what's making it more difficult for the Min ister to negotiate - when we get into periods such as we do now where we see our economy start to falter - and the high interest rates are a symptom of that, a symptom of a faltering economy - when we see that it is not as healthy an economy as it should be, then the companies have added leverage on a Mini ster like our Mini ster, who wishes very keenly to see the environment imp roved but has to also take into consideration the impact of his actions on the whole of the society, and that's the economic as well as the environmental society.

So what the companies are now saying is, look, things are bad all over and we're really ready to move. I mean, maybe we won't even move, maybe we'll just shut it down, and we see that happening in the western industrial world. We see a number of places being shut down, not because they're being forced to clean up but just because the economic conditions are such that they feel it is necessary to protect the interests of their shareholders to place that money in a more effective way, or to put that money more effectively to use to return interest on their capital, they shut down.

And Bob Sass, the director of Occupational Safety and Health for the province of Manitoba, puts it perhaps bluntly but quite succinctly nonetheless when he says, when ti mes get bad the workers eat crap.

What he is saying in that regard is when the economic times take a downturn the companies spend less money on improving the workp laces and they have the ability to do so because they always have, hanging over the heads of the workers, the fact that they can close down that operation, and if the workers see one or two other operations close down, they are more predispo sed to believe the company when they say they might close down that specific operation. So the workers become less militant. We see that sort of an effect ripple throughout all of the contra ct negotiations. You see settlements for lesser money.

You see settlements that have in fact sometimes reduced the power of the union. That is the same thin g that's happening to the Mi nister because the Mini ster is also negotiating with these companies. So when the economy takes a downturn you see the society at large eat crap because they are more willing to allow the ab uses of their environment if it means that a job is going to stay around, because jobs then become more valuable. The less jobs you have, the more people you have seeking jobs, the more valuable those jobs become.

And if it looks like there is going to be an extreme downturn, then you are going to be faced even more so with that sort of a negotiating stance from the companies. So if the Mini ster goes in there with just his good will and his keen interest, he is going to find that he is in a position of extreme disadvantage and tha t is why he has to go in with some regulations backing him up. I would ask the Minister in that regard if any new regulations have been brought forward to complement the appr opriate environmental legislation in the province of Manitoba since his government came into power? MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Chairman, my honourable friend has asked if there are new regulations that have been brought in. At the moment none came to my mind, new regulations. I want to advise my honourable friend that the environmental assessment and review process has been stepped up in order to attempt to come to grips with the changes that are taking place, in order to attempt to determine what new thrust may be necessary in order to deal with pending problems, or problems that we might be able to foresee.

I don't disagree with my honourable friend that there are regulations that are unnecessary and there are standards that have been set; we are attem pting to apply them. We are attem pting to apply them with sufficient flexi bi lity as to ens ure tha t what my honourable friend speaks about, the loss of jobs does not come about. But I want to say also to my honourable friend, any difficulty that we may have with industries moving out because of a result of incr eased regulations, that it's becoming more difficult for ind ustries to use that argument.

Because more and more areas are stepping up and increasing their regulations, so that if they use that argument, then it's going to have to be accompanied with some evidence that they are able to go some other place, 2871

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 and that is not as easy as any attempt to make it appear. I am advised that there are several areas in which new reg ulations have been developed: nois e, pollution, air . . . -(I nterjection)- The objectives would be regulations in several areas such as noise, air and water, and Clean Environment Commission orders on water and sewage. The federal regulations dealing with mini ng, pulp mill effluence, pesticides, up grading of existing garbage sewage di sposal systems and inci nerators; these are the areas in which we have been active in the past. MR.

COWAN: Then perhaps the Mini ster can expand upon it. There have been regulations that have been developed in regard to noise, pollution, air pollution and water pollution, on a provincial basis. MR. JORGENSON: No, guideli nes and objectives in those areas. That doesn't involve strict regulations. - (Interjection) - As I said, those are the guideli nes and objectives tha t are used by the Clean Environment Commission in setting their standards. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Chairperson, I couldn't help but overhear, and I couldn't overhear as well as I would have liked to on some of the comments that were going on between the Deputy Mini ster and the Mi nister, but I thought I caught one that said, if they are appr oved by Cabi net. Have these guidelin es and objectives that we're talking about now been appr oved by Cabinet and are actually in effect? MR. JORGENSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. COWAN: Now I'd ask the Min ister if he could indicate what the difference is between a regulation and these guideli nes and objectives that we're talking about. MR.

JORGENSON: As the honourable member perhaps is aware, a regulation is an order that is passed by Order-in-Council and becomes effective as a regulation. A guideline or objective is precisely what it says; it's a guideline, it's an objective that you attempt to reach. Perhaps the way to describe it as an unofficial standard that the Clean Environment Commission is guided by. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Chairp erson, now I'm a bit concerned, because it looks as if the strategy of the government is not only to move away from regulation, but to impose in the place of regulation as it is moving away from guidelin es and obje ctives, and I, for the life of me just can't see the advantage from what the Min ister has told me to date, of a guideline and an objective over a regulation, because what the regulation would do would tend to give you some clout and we're back to talking about our negotiation problems again.

And the Min ister knows that if he doesn't have any clout when he goes in there, he's in trouble right off the bat. So I would ask the Minis ter if he can inform us as to why his government is attempting to replace regulation with what appears to be guidelines and objectives. MR. JORGENSON: That is not necessarily the case, Mr. Chairman. The di ffic ulty with a firm regulation is that it will have a tendency to work at a disadvantage in certain areas, and I think that it becomes necessary to exercise a certain degree of flexibility while you're working towards an objective.

If you feel that it is necessary then to apply it legally then a regulation can be imposed and eventually, a regulation will be adopted. But in order to ensure that hardships are not worked against certain areas as a result of the appli cation of a firm regulation, you apply a guideline so that they have some idea of the objective that you are attempting to reach, and once that objective has been reached, then you have in effect brought about that which you have been seeking.

As an experience that I had while chairman of the Land Use Committee, we found that firm regulations applied equally across the province would have been totally and comp letely unacceptable in certain areas of the province because of the di fference in the circumstances in that particular area, and it would have been quite appropriate in other areas. So by setting out guidelin es, you allow for the degree of flexibility that may be necessary in order to ensure that you work towards the objective without imposing hardships in certain areas of the provinc e. MR.

COWAN: I would just ask the Mini ster to clarify that, Mr. Chairperson, if he means without imp osing hard ships in certain areas or without imposing hardships on certain individua ls, and/or both perhaps, if that's the case. MR.

JORGENSON: There's a possibili ty that it could be both, but I think essentially it's the community in which the guideline is being applied; the degree to which you can expect them to accept a guidelin e without there being a reaction by the people in that area, and there are some times that guidelin es, no matter how well intentioned they are, if they are not understood or if they're not acceptable, you have difficulty in enforcing. So by working in this fas hion, by outlining objectives in the form of guideline s, eventually there is acceptance, and acceptance without creating difficulties. MR.

COWAN: I have to disagree with the Mini ster on this and I think we're going to get embroiled in a very firm di sagreement over this because what I sense and I have not seen one of these guidelines in objective statements, I would appr eciate if I could have an opportunity to see all three of them that we're talking about - in specific, the ones dealing with noise and air and water - before speaking too extensively on this subject. But if I understand the Mi nister correctly, and I believe I do, although I'm not certain without having the guidelin es before me, that I grasp the intent of them fully.

What they are, are not in fact - well, before I make that statement, let me make certain that I'm not misunderstanding the Min ister. We have a guideli ne, an objective - that's one statem ent I believe, guidel in es and objectiv es - that are put in pla ce to do what specifically? Let's take a look at the one on noise. What is that guideline and objective intended to acc omplish? MR. JORGENSON: The guidelin es, Mr. Chairman, are used in techni cal assessments and 2872

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 recommenda tio ns, to the Clean Environment Commission. They are used by the Clean Environment Commission in arriving at decisions with respect to water quality objectives, noise, etc., when hearings are held before the commission. MR. COWAN: So let us follow the process through then if we can, Mr . Cha ir person. A pollut er, advertently or inadvertently, is brought before the Clean Environment Commis sion and the Clean Environment Commission is using as its guide, these gu idelines and objectives. Is tha t the proper int erp retat ion? The Mi ni ster is nodding in the affirmative. MR.

JORGENSON: I'm advised that the department uses them in their recommendation to the Clean Environment Commission when dealing with orders. MR. COWAN: Well, I'm experiencing a bit of difficulty with the process now, Mr. Chairperson. We have a polluter, the polluter has been brought before the commission, what is the responsibility of the commission then and how do these guidelines fit in, these gui deline s and objectives fit in, with the commission exercising its responsibility? MR. JORGENSON: As my hoi:iourable friend is probably aware, it's the commission that issues the limits in the issuance of pollutants.

MR. COWAN: And then these gui deli nes and objectives are used by the commission to determine whether or not they will issue a variance , is that correct? MR. JORGENSON: Issue a variance or to, more precisely, establish a limit. MR. COWAN: What happens in the case of an ind ustry tha t is exceed ing the limits of these guidelin es and objectives? MR. JORGENSON: As my honourable friend is probably aware that if they are exceeding the orders, there normally is a prosecution against that polluter. MR. COWAN: I'd ask the Min ister how many prosecutions of this nature have taken place in the past year? MR.

JORGENSON: We will have to get a precise figure for my honourable friend on that, but I'm advised that ther e is appr oxima tely about two months. MR. COWAN: How are the ind ustries informed or the in di viduals in formed of the contents of a guideline and an objective? MR. JORGENSON: Through an order that is issued by the Clean Environment Commission, Mr . Chairman. MR. COWAN: So they are only informed of the requirements after the fact, in other words, once they have been in some way or manner directed to the Clean Environment Commission? MR.

JORGENSON: What my honourable friend says is true, except that we are developing an environmental assessment process and many of the industries that will be affected are coming to us now for pre-clearance, so that they will have some idea of the limits under which they will be operating. MR. COWAN: How many ind ustries have come to the Mi nister for pre-clearance in respect to individual numbers and also as a percentage of new industries starting up in the province? MR.

JORGENSON: I'm advised that there are a number of them, the Manitoba Hydro being a major one, the Canada Safeway with respect to the milk containe rs, the minin g compan ies, In ternational Nickel, Canadian Bronze, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Com pany, etc. Ther e are ongoing di scussions with these people in an effort to assist them to determine to what extent their guidelines will be levelled. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The pla ces that the Mi nister has mentioned, some of them at least, and I would think for the most part - and it's a very small list which he gave me, and I think that must be pointed out - are places that come under very strict reguations, either on a federal level or a provincial level as to emissions, as to their operations. Canadian Bronze comes under the latest regulation that Manitoba imposed and that was 140/ 77 on June 23 of 19 77, which was a regulation respe cting req uir ements for the operation of secondary lead smelters. So we find that one is under that particular regulation.

I know that there are regulations or legislation that would deal, or at least I would hope that would deal with the mining industry, because I know that they are in some respects one of the industrial sources that needs to be very closely watched and controlled. We know that there are in regards to the pulp and paper mills; in other words, there are a number of regulations that are in place that would not appear to necessitate objectives and guidelin es being imposed. So I would ask the Min ister if he could direct some comments to what seems to be an overlap or a dup lication or, perhaps, even an incon sistency.

MR. JORGENSON: Mr . Chairm an, as my honourable friend probably is aware, in some of those industries, there are new processes that are being developed and we hold consultations with them in an attempt to arrive at some defi nite guideli nes with respect to those new processes and how they may affect the environment. MR. COWAN: Then the se companie s will be coming forward to the department in respect to new sources of pollution, new types of pollution, or in respect to the same type of pollution.

Let's direct our attention to Canadian Bronze, because it's probably a company that the Min ister and I are both familiar with and the Mi nister did mention it, so I don't feel hesitant to discuss it in specific. Are they now developing a new process that would result in a 2873

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 different sort of pollution than was coming from that plant previously? MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, in the main the processes are an effort to reduce pollution. MR. COWAN: I'd just ask the Min ister, I'm not certain that I understood him correctly and I don't want to misi nterpret what he said. Did he say that these processes in the main are not being brought forward as a means of reducing pollution? MR. JORGENSON: No, on the contrary, they are brought forward as a means of reducting pollution. MR.

COWAN: Okay, I now understand the Min ister correctly, but they are brought forward as a means of reducing pollution in respect to very specific regulations that are in place. So, what I want to know is how does the Mi nister's objective and guidelin es fit into this whole process, because that's what we were talking about. In other words, the companies are dealing with regulations and I know why they come forward when they're regulations.

They come forward because there are penalties inv olved with the regulations, some more severe than others, but the fact is that they know very specifically their parameters and their guidelin es because they're written into regulation or legislation, and that's why they come forward. But in the instance of the objectives and guidelines, they are not.

As a matter of fact, it's a rather secretive process from what the Min ister tells me in comparison to regulations and legislation, because regulations must be printed and legislation must be printed and it must be printed in such a manner as to be acce ssible to the inte rested public and, therefore, it is spread far and wide. That is what we would expect to be a positive step but it does not appear as if the objective and guidelin es follow that same process.

So the question I ask the Minis ter, which is a question I asked the Mi nister before, is how many corporations or how many new pollution, possible pollution sources, are coming forward to the department in respect to the se guidelin es and objectives for clarification on that? MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend was asking what new processes were being developed. In the case of mining companies, I am sure he is aware that they are working with our department on means of converting sulphur dioxide to acid.

That process in itself may create other problems that they want to discuss with us and so we are attempting to understand the new process and to offer them guidelines as to how to contain problems that may arise as a result of this and I'm not sure what those problems might be. But it's a process of substituting dispersion with containment. Maybe my honourable friend, who comes from a mining area, may be more aware of those problems than I am. But that's essentially what I said what we're discussing with these people various guidelin es and they're coming to us in order to discuss this.

This is one example of the kind of discussions that we are having. MR. COWAN: We talk about the - the reason I smile , I didn't mean to be rude, but when he mentioned containment versus dispersion, it brings to mind the two philosophies of dealing with an environmental contaminate. One is to dil ute and disperse and the other is to be capture and contain, and we'll talk about that in some length at another point. But that is the reason that I, at that point, did take particular notice. The fact is, and we could discuss this for a long time I'm certain and I don't want to.

I want to try to move thr ough these estimates as quickly as is possible, although there is going to be extended discussion on certain subjects which I feel is necessary, I feel responsibility to pursue.

But the fact is, that in this particular instance I think we've gone about as far as we can go in defining the difference that the Mini ster and I and others, both on his side and my side, share in regards to how you deal with point pollution sources in specific, and that is that the Mini ster seems to have put into place, and I can only believe that it is part of a strategy, because I don't belie ve the Min ister would put into place a process which is not in keeping with his entire thrust, his entire strategy in how to deal with pollution, so he has put in as a tactical manoeuvre, guideli nes and obje ctives, and has seemed over the past number of years to ignore regulation.

He talked about regulation, and he uses some key words when he talks about regulation. One is, he spoke several times to firm regulations, and that's exactly what regulations are, they're very specific and they're very firm. That does not mean that they cannot be written in such a way as to take into account the differences between communi ties and the di fference between pollution sources.

Tha t shouldn't be inter preted as being a failin g of regulations, regulations can be written very specifically for a certain area or they can be written very specifically so as to allow for variances, yet still impose a specific guideline and objective. And they do it in this manner: they set out those goals that the company should work towards, and they do it in a negative sense; they say if you do exceed these goals, then there are certain penalties that will be placed upon you for your excessive pollution.

By doing so, they point out very clearly, they provide a road map for industrial concerns as to exactly what limits they will have to operate under, and they are very specific and they are widespread. Anyone can come in and ask the Min ister for a copy of the regulation, the regulation must be printed in the Gazette; the legislation is a very public document and goes through a fair degree of debate in the House, and that would tend to publi cize the details in the intent of the legislation. The Min ister says that these firm regulations have a tendency to work at a disadvantage in certain areas.

Well I am telling the Mini ster, and the Mini ster is very aware, that if they believe in regulation, and the regulatory process that they can develop regulations that will take into account the possibility of that disadvantage being worked and to make allowances for it. But he says that the reason he has rejected regulations and accepted objectives and guidelines, is he believes that he has to be able to exercise a certain flexibility in working towards an objective. Well certainly one does have to exercise a certain 2874

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 amount of flexibility, and no one would suggest that the Min ister shouldn't do that, but the fact is that you can also write tha t flexi bi lity into your regulations. Now I will take an area that I am most familiar with and talk about it in some very specific terms, and that's the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the United States, which imposed upon workp laces some very stringent environmental, in this sense internal, controls as to how much pollution they would allow to exist within a workplace.

The argument of industry at every juncture, and that was at the very extensive public hearings that were held and also in the courts after the legislation had been proclai med and put in effect, was that they can't do it, it's impossible to achie ve tha t sort of te chn ology. And what the Operational Safety and Health Admini stration said, well then we would give you a timetable, by such and such a date you will have to achieve this technology, but such and such a date you will have to achieve the next technology; you can do so before, but you will have had to by a certain date.

And the ind ustry knew, and I think that was in many respects doing a service for the industry, because there was no fuzziness, there was no haziness about what was anticipated of them. It was very specific, they would have to do something by a certain time; if not, then they might as well shut it down. And they were probably stricter than most would .be; they were very firm about that.

The fact is, that in every instance, the majority of the ind ustries were able to acc omplish those regulations, given that timetable, even though they argued that they could not do so in the beginning, and were quoted publ icly as saying, We were quite surpr ised about how easy it was to do that - we just never tried to do it before. And if the Min ister put himself in a position of tryi ng to negotiate with those companies without any leverage, they in all good faith would have told the Mini ster that they couldn't do it.

They would have been honest unto the Mi nister and honest unto themselves, but the fact is that when put in the position of having to do it, they did do it, and that is where regulation can be of great benefit to the Mi nister because it gives him that power to go in there and to negotiate. You are going to create hardship if you want to achieve a certain environmental standard, a level; if you want to ensure that emissions are of such a specific nature, and you post a level at which you want those emissions to be by a certain date.

If you say they have to be that way in six months, or if you say they have to be that way in six years, you are going to impose a hardship on the company that has to achieve that. You're either going to spread it out over a longer period, or contain it in a shorter period, but the fact is they're still going to have to reach the permissible level, sooner or later.

It is up to the person dev eloping the regulations, and Cabinet approving the regulations, to ensure that they balance the hardship that is going to be created for a pollution source, a polluter, with the hardships that are going to be created by the society and the citizens of that society if that pollution is allowed to continue any longer than it should be. The Mi nister I am certain will agree that there is pollution that is oc curring today that should not be allowed to continue. That's just a symptom of our society.

So the fact is he needs these firm regulations, he needs specific legislation to deal with these sort of problems. What he is attempting to provide us with is unfirm objectives and guidelines; objectives and gui deli nes that don't enjoy the public ity tha t regulations and legislation do; objectives and guideli nes that are unofficial standards instead of official standards. In other words he's moving away - or I would sense him to be moving away from what he tells us to be his goal, and that is a cleaner environment. I don't believe he will acc omplish it by this.

I believe these objectives and guidelines, when compared to regulations and legislation, are licence to pollute. I believe they are a licence to pollute. That what he is telling the ind ustry is, sure we have a problem with the environment, but I'm on your side to the extent that I don't want to see any hardship created and therefore I'm going to be very flexible. Well that's a weak bargai ning position, and if he doesn't realize he's in some very high profile and some very intensive bargaining by now, he hasn't come in contact with the indu stry to any great extent, because that's what's going to happen.

I think that they have admitted it in the sense that after the MacGregor incident we see the Min ister standing up and saying that we are going to have to have some ways of dealing with this, we are going to have to talk about legislation, amendments to the Act and regulations. We see the Mi nister responsible for the Emergency Measure Organization coming to his senses also and saying, we're going to have to develop a better system because the system isn't there. That's not the Min ister's fault - well, not fully the Min ister's fault, because he's only been in this portfolio for a short period of time.

But the fact is that if he pursues these objectives and guidelines over regulations and legislation, it is going to be the Mi nister's responsi bility. And he has admitted that this co-operative trend is not working in the sense of the MacGregor incident. The Mi nister of Labour admitted it in Canadian Bronze. I remember talking, and talking and talking and telling the Mini ster, there is a problem at Canadian Bronze.

First there was denial, then there was acceptance of the fact there was a problem, and then the Mi nister said, Don't worry about it, because we'r e going to develop co-operative means of dealing with that problem. That's exactly what the Mini ster tried to do, I'll gi ve him credit. He sat down with the company, and he said, You are polluting your workers and you've got to stop, and the company said Okay I'll stop. But the company didn't stop, and what the Min ister finally had to do was shut the company down.

I give him credit for doing it, although had he attacked it from a different way, he might have been able to avoid that hardship on the workers. But the fact is, in the end, after all his talk about co-opera tion, let's sit down and bargain this out and let's be friends, the fact is that he had to do a very nasty thing at Canadian Bronze, he had to shut it down because it wasn't working the other way. Thank goodness there was in place legislation that enabled him to be able to shut it down, because that was his leverage, and he finally had to use it.

What the Min ister is saying now, that he doesn't want that sort of leverage. He wants to be able to go in and the same thing that the Min ister of Labour said, deal with this in a co-operative way and try 2875

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 through his good office and through his ability to convince, to deal with the problem. I believe the Mini ster does have a good office, and I believe the Min ister at times can be very convincing, but it's not going to work out.

He has every instance to back that up, that in the long run, whether it's Canadian Bronze or whether it's MacGregor, or whether it's a spill here in the city where the reporting mechanisms seem to have been breached by someone in regards to . the methanol spill, that in the long run they need the regulation, they need the legislation to back up their very convincing arguments, and if they don't have it they are at an extreme disadvantage.

So I can only call upon the Mini ster to reject this concept of being - how does one reject flexibility; I don't want you to reject flexibility - I want the Min ister to reject, that the only way he can deal with this matter is by being extremely flexible. He can deal with it much better through firm regulations, and he does a disservice to the corporations and to the polluters if he believes that by being flexible he is going to benefit them. -(I nterjection)- The Member from The Pas says, He can speak softly, only he has a big stick, and that's probably true, the bigger the stick, the softer you can speak.

There is a certain amount of truth to that philosophy, that if he wants to go in there and bargain then he'd better go in there with some clout, and he can do that if he's got the regulations, otherwise he is either going to be run over by the companies and the polluters and the individuals, because it is individuals that pollute also, or he's going to end up in the long run by being unfair to them by placing them in a co-operative stance and then having to clos e down their operations.

So I would hope they would go about the task now of developing some very firm regulations that will apply to pollution sources, that will be a matter of the pub lic record as the objectives and the guidelin es do not seem to have been, or at least will be publ icly distributed so that everyone knows the guidelin es. Because that's what regulations are - guidelin es with clout - everyone kno ws the guidelines under which they have to operate, and I believe the sooner he gives some official standing to his unofficial guidelin es and objectives the better off he will be.

I have a selfish interest, the better off he is the better we all are, because pollution is a problem. I don't believe that we are dealing with it adequately now, and I don't believe that it's getting better; I believe that in certain instances we have reached in a graph, a downturn, where we have been able to drop the environmental damage for a while, but it is now starting to go the other way. We need only look to some of the subjects which the Min ister mentioned, acid rain etc., to determine that is in fact the case. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief comment.

I appreciate my honourable friend's comments; I always listen very carefully to his suggestions. It doesn't necessarily mean that I follow them all, but I am pleased to have the benefit of his views. I think that one impression that was left was that, and I wouldn't want this session to close with that imp ression on the records, to the effect that we are backing away from regulations, that is not the case. I don't know of any single instance where we have reduced the reg ulation.

When I speak of guidelines, and perhaps it's a question of technique, gu idelines and objectives, in many cases it is perhaps a difference in the manner in which my honourable friend would approach a subject as opp osed to the way I would want to approach it. He says tha t we can im plement regulations with flexibility in the regulations.

One other way is to set the guidelin es as an objective, as a prelude, towards arriving at a regulation that can be applicable, one that will be effective and may be better and in my view it perhap s is a better way; that by the appl ication of the guideline for a period of time, you then have a better idea of how effective a regulation that you can bring in, or what legislation that may be necessary. I think in the final analysis you can reach the same objective. I'll keep in mind his suggestion that our method may be a failure and I'll give him credit if that happens to be the case. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr.

Chairperson. It is credit I'd rather not take. But the fact is that I do believe very strongly that that method is a failure or will result in a failure just from the historical sense. I'd ask the Minister then, when an objective becomes a regulation. Because he says that the end result of these objectives is that they become regulations and that the objective is just a trial and error method of learning how to cope with the industry and allowing ind ustry to learn how to cope with the government. MR.

JORGENSON: Well, the guideli nes, in many cases, will help for us to determine whether or not a certain regulation is enforceable. I think we weaken the regulation or the law if we attempt to pass laws or regulations that are indeed unenforceable. So it gives us that, if I may say, learning experience towards the development of a regulation that we feel can become a guideline. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour of 4:30 having arrived, I am leaving the Chair for Private Members' Hour and may return at 8:00 o'clock. SUPPLY - HEAL TH MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (St. Vital): This committee will come to order.

I would direct the honourable members' attention to Page 61 of the main estimates, Department of Health, Clause 3. Commu nit y Health Di rectorate, Item (

g) Dental Services, Item

(1) Salaries-pass - the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, we had a brief period dealing with this subject, but it was very illuminating, because in spite of the fact tha t we all believed we kne w the philosophy of the Conservative government and its relationship to the manner of delivery of service, such as the dental plan for children, it became most obvious yesterday, when the Mini ster of Hea lth, reiterating his conviction that it is best to have the Manitoba Dental Association run the program, went further, and spoke of, and I think he used the words, a happy circumstance, or in any event, about the happine ss he had in noting that three school 2876

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 divisions had lost the use of their dental nurses, and as a result he was able to turn these three school districts over to the dental association and what he had to say was that the dental nurses that were trained, that could be avai lable, would then be turned over to the dentists for them to - exploit is the word given to me, this is a word that did occur to me - for them to exploit. Because, Mr.

Chairman, I think it is amply evident that the dentists do not in their view of the delivery of the dental service consider the dental nurse to have the opportunity to do the job for which that dental nurse is trained but rather would be used by the dentist in some less skilled way. I think the Mi nister said yesterday that there was a possi bilit y tha t they would be encouraged to become dental hygienists; I think he said that, I didn't quite catch the manner in which he made the statement. Mr.

Chairman, there was a time, and some of the members opposite, especially the First Mi nister, is well aware of the fact that historically the dentists were doing all the work in the mouth dealing with dental problems and gradually started to employ paradental professionals, to do additional work which the dentist found he could have done by a less skilled person to do in such a way as to save the time of the dentist and enable the dentist to make better use of his time and, of course, obtain greater economic returns for that and . that is perfectly legitimate.

The dentists, as we were told, and I mention the First Minister because he and I, along with, I believe it was eight other members of the Legislature back in the middle Sixties, were part of a committee of the Legislature which was investigating the field of denturists, later known as dental mechanics.

And we learned then, from the dental pr ofessions across western Canada, including Ontario, that the dentists used to have a back room boy who used to work on the fabrication of the dentures which a dentist would apply and then we were told that because the work of that back room boy produc ed a great deal of unpleasant odor because they were working with rubber and hot rubber doesn't smell very good, and the dentist found it paid him to have this work done outside of his premises, so that no longer was the dental technician working right under the discipline of the dentist himself but was working outside.

Nevertheless, we know that as of today, we have dental technicians, we have dental hygienists, we have dental nurses, we have dental assistants, we have dental mechanics; all of whom contribute to the care of the mouth of Manitobans.

But the effort has always been on the part of the dental pr ofession to retain control over all the work that is being done related to the care of teeth, and the pr esent government and the . . . well, I think it was unanimous report of the committee that I referred to of the middle and late Sixties, I guess it was, the majority of whom were Conservatives, recognizing tha t dental mechanics could in deed work independently of dentists, not under their control and work directly with patients and work in the mouths of patients and I think the legislation itself was passed during the NOP government regime early in its years of service but nevertheless it was as a result of a study conduc ted by a legis lative com mittee appointed under the Conservative regime.

In this case that we are dealing with, this Dental Program, based on history, based in relation to, I think it's Australia, based on what is kn own in Saskatchewan which brought in the program much earlier than Manitoba did, it was felt that the best way to del iver the service is in the schools where the children are present, the cost could be reduced and although a dentist would have the responsibility of deciding what work had to be done, that there were people who could be trained to do a specific job of working with children, with the teeth of children, putting in fillings, doing preventative care of dental caries, and able to do it at a cost much less to the community in that the training cost of the dental nurses, as they came to be called, was much less than that of a dentist.

And we know, Mr. Chairman, how costly it is to train professionals especially in the health field. And if a professional can be taught to do a job as well as another professional at a much less cost, then that should be advantageous; it jus t makes sense. But the dentists fought that, Mr.

Chairman, because they were losing control, and control is not only control as to decisions of treatment, control also is economic control because the way the dentists had it, would have it, and now do have it, is that they would do the charging and ttrey would be using these other skills, these lesser skills, and paying the people who provide the skills, at a price which was negotiated by the dentist. The dentist would have economic control as well as control of the treatment.

Well the plan that was introduced a few years ago and which the Conservatives are bent on destroying - and I made that phrase clear and dragged it out a little to make it clear - I believe that the Conservatives are bent on destroying that plan, was a plan which required participation by the dentists. Not only did the work have to be prescribed by a dentist but certain parts of the work could only be done by dentists.

But the dental profession fought it vigorously, and I understand in their own economoc interest they were right so to do, and I suppo se they believe that since no one else can do work as well as they can or under their supervision, they expressed concerns on behalf of the standard of care and quality of service being given, and they say, well, we will supervise it. But, Mr.

Chairman, the dental mechanics have been allowed to work independently of dentists and work directly with patients for a number of years and you don't hear - at least I haven't heard and I don't believe that the Min ister of Health will have heard complaints about the standards of service that are being delivered by dental mechanics. There may be some concerns and I have concerns. I'm really surpris ed that we haven't heard about complaints but apparently they're doing an adequate job. Mr.

Chairman, if one reviews what was said last year and I note, I've glanced at some of Hansard on last year's debate, I note that the Memb er for St. Boniface referred to April 2, 19 79 as being a year which will be long remembered ... oh, he said, I quote, page 1828: We are ruining a program, and mark my words, Mr. Chairman, and remember this date, April 2, 19 79, when you read Hansard, and I say that in five or ten years if this program is there, it is going to very costly when all the dental nurses are chased out. That's what he said a year and a couple 2877

Thursday, 24 April, 1980 of weeks ago. And then, of course, the Mi nister of Health, at the same occa sion, then started to quote, and as is not unusual, misquote, and he said on page 1834, appearing to be quoting the Member for St. Boniface, he says, now the Honourable Member for St. Boniface accuses us of killing the program. He says; Mark my words, you will remember April 2, 1979, it will rank with May 8, 1945. I couldn't see any reference to May 8, 1945 in the Member for St. Boniface's speech, but maybe the Mi nister of Health heard it. And of course, the Member for St.

Boniface said, I didn't say that; those are your words, but the Mini ster of Health, in his enthusiastic flow of words continues, according to Hansard, It will rank with December 7, 19 41. You know what date that is, Mr. Chairman; the attack on Pearl Harbour. It will rank with Dieppe. This is going to go down in history as the day that you will rue, that we will remember on April 2, 19 79. He stood in the Legisla ture to pronou nce that this pr og ram was effectively destroyed by the present government. And the Member for St. Boniface -(I nterjection)- well, you know, Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister of Health said it was a pretty good speech. It was - the kin dest word I could use, that it was a deliberate distortion of what was said by the Member for St. Boniface; as a matter of fact, it wasn't true, Mr. Chairman. I read Hansard; I saw what the Member for St. Boniface said. It was the Mi nister of Health who started comparing it with Dieppe and started comparing it with the attack on Pearl Harbour, by the Japanese - those were his words, and he now commends himself by saying, that was a good speech. Mr. Chairman, I hope he is ashamed of his own self­ aggrandizement, as of today.

You see, Mr. Chairman, now that I read it back to him, he still likes what he said. And I'm reminded to mention to him that it was, when he was on this side of the House that he talked about Jack Boots - the sound of Jack Boots reverberating in the halls - that was a good speech too, but it was a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. I didn't want to be distracted; I wanted to keep on with this reference tha t he had , that the pr ogram was effectively destroyed by the present government. Mr. Chairman, the Member for St.

Boniface said, when he talked about April 2, 1979, he said, I say in five or ten years, if this program is there, it's going to be very costly when all the dental nurses are chased out. Five or ten years, Mr. Chairman; it's a year now and the Mini ster has admitted that happily, his word, happily, the circumstance has arisen in, I gather, three school districts where he was able to turn the program over to the dental association. Why was he able to do it, Mr. Chairman?

Because he effectively destroyed the education that would have made possible more dental nurses who would be able to do a job at a lesser expense and I believe more effectively, and he's happy about that. He admits that it is contr ary to his philosophy to permit it, but then he says and, Mr. Chairma