Manitoba Hansard — 13 July 1987 (Sitting 88A, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-88a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 13 July, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Sp ecial Commit tees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Business Development and Tourism. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to present the Annual Report'85-86 of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDI NS: Madam Speaker, I'd like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Health Services Commission for the year '86-87. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to table the Provincial Tax Compar ison document, and also the Preliminary Financial Report for the year ended March 31, 19 87. MADAM SPEAKER: No tices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if I might have leave to revert to presenting reports from standing and special commi ttees.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, I'd like to present the Third Report of the Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs. MR. CLERK , W. Remnant: Your commit tee met on Tuesday, July 7, and Thursday, July 9, 19 87 in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Your commi ttee heard representations on bills as follows: Bill No. 26 - The Environment Act;

Loi sur !'environment Mr. Joe Eadie, The City of Winnipeg Mr. Brian Pannell, Manitoba Environmentalists Inc. Mr. Alan Scarth, Private Citizen Mr. Bud Ol iver, The Town of Selkirk Mr. Gordon Collis, The Canadian Manufacturers Association Mr. Jack Penner, The Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc. Ms. Anna-Lee Yassi, Manitoba Medical Association Mr. Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Dennis Muldrew, The Naturalists Society Mr. Bill Jarand, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association Mr. Grant Wichenko, Private Citizen Mr. Kenneth Emberley, Crossroads Resource Group and Manitoba Environment Council Mr. Ian Rollo, Manitoba Environmental Council Bill No. 39 -

An Act to amend The Cit y of Winnipeg Act (2); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg

(2) Ms. Susan Thompson, Downtown Business Improvement Zone Task Force Mr. Reeh Taylor, The Downtown Winnipeg Association Bill No. 67 - The Off-Road Vehicles Act;

Loi sur les vehicules a caractere non routier Mr. Al Delaine, Sno-Man of Manitoba Inc. Dr. Ken MacK enzie, Ma nitoba Medical Association Your commi ttee has also considered: Bill No. 26 - The Environment Act;

Loi sur I' environment Bill No. 39 -

An Act to amend The Cit y of Winnipeg Act (2); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg

(2) Bill No. 67 - The Off-Road Vehicles Act;

Loi sur les vehicles a caractere non routier And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. All of which is respectfully submit ted. MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for lnskster, that the report of the commi ttee be received. MOTION presented and carried. ORAL QUESTIONS Inter-City Gas - release of public opinion poll MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FIL MON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier. 3788

Monday, 13 July, 1987 Last Monda y, the Premier revealed that the government had done extensive public opinion polling prior to making its decision to take over the Inter-City Ga s Co mpany in Mani toba for the natural gas distribution throughout the province. At that time, the Premier indicated that he was prepared to make that public opinion polling public and I wonder if he's prepared to table that polling now. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I said in due course, and certainly we're not going to be releasing any information that is sensitive during the process of completing the negotiations. MR. G. FILMON: Mada m Speak er, the po int of sensitivit y is an interesting one. On Friday , the government tabled a third-party opinion of value that was conducted by Wood Gundy, one of Canada's national major brokerage firms, that essentially tells the people of Manitoba what the government believes the value of ICG is and tells their negotiating opposition what they believe it's worth. Nothing could be more sensitive than that.

MADAM SPEAKER: What is the honourable member's question? MR. G. FILMON: What in the public opinion polling is more sensitive than telling the other side what you believe the value of the company is and giving them your third-party opinion as to that value? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I dealt with the question last Monday and I don't intend to continue to debate the answer that I gave. The information will eventually be provided. MR. G. FILMON: So then, the Premier's admitting that there isn't anything sensitive in that. He just wants to keep it from the public.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: The Premier has indicated that the Public Utilities Board advocated that this government buy Inter-City Gas, and I'll quote from the report of the Public Utilities Board: "The Province of Manitoba should continue their discussions . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. HON. H. PAWLEY: On a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is attributing words to me which I've never uttered. I never suggested the Public Utilities Board had recommended that we buy Inter-City Gas.

MADAM SPEAKER: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. MR. G. FILMON: I'm glad that the Premier has now clarified that the Public Utilities Board decision didn't tell the government it ought to buy Inter-City Gas, contrary to the allusions he was making in the past, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Public Utilities Board says: "T he Provi nce of Manit oba should continue their discussions and negotiations with the Government of Alberta, federal agencies and other relevant bodies to remove the constraints identified in this report so that all consumers of natural gas in Manitoba can benefit from a competitive market for gas as a result of deregulation." Madam Speaker, as I indicated on Friday, that's where the government's efforts ought to be put, not in the takeover of the gas distribution of Manitoba. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

May I remind the Ho nourabl e Leader of the Opposition that question period is a time to seek information, not to supply it, and question period is � not the time for debate? Does the honourable member have a question? Inter-City Gas - government to cancel plans for takeover MR. G. FILMON: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker.

Will the Premier now set aside his ideological bias and, given the admonition and the recommendation of the Public Utilities Board, set his government's efforts where they belong to restructuring the Western Accord to dealing on a government-to-government basis and to ensuring that Manit obans get the benefits of deregulation, to get the benefits of lower natural gas prices at the wholesale level at the Alberta border, and set aside the ideological drive to take over Inter-City Gas and give the people of Manitoba the benefits they deserve without public ownership of the gas company? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first, I believe there are a number of misconceptions I would like to correct. The only ideological hangup is on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said that for a year and a half, while we were attempting to do precisely what he's now suggesting we do, and that is for the past year and a half we have attempted by way of discussions with the Government of Alberta, the Federal Government, the industry, to bring about a resolution of this area of conflict. There has been an inability to come to a resolution.

Now what we have, Madam Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition who has got the ideological hangup which, if the pioneers of this province had adopted the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, we wouldn't have a publicly owned Telephone System, a publicly owned Hydro system and, of course, I can recall back in 1970 when the Conservative Party opposed a publicly owned automobile insurance system in the province.

Madam Speaker, the ideological hangup is across the way, not a question in a year and a half about lower natural gas prices until their friends in Alberta had their toes stepped upon, until they are pressed by their 3789

Monday, 13 July, 1987 friends to oppose a government that is attempting to ensure lower prices for the consumers of the Province of Manitoba. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I quote from a letter that was published by one Herbert Schulz, the brother in-law of former . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G.

FILMON: ... the brother-in-law of former Premier Schreyer, well-known, I'm sure, to the Premier, an individual who has expressed the views, I think, of the vast majority of Manitobans when he decries the $27 million lost at MTX, the $58 million lost at MPIC, the $10 0 million that vanished in Flyer Bus, the $16 0 million that vanished in Manfor as a result of this government's efforts ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Is the Honourable Leader of the Opposition directly quoting from a letter? MR. G. FILMON: No. Those figures are on the public record , Madam Speak er.

All of them are losses attributable to the stewardship of this NOP Government under this Premier. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes.

My question is: Given that this government has so fouled up the operation of all of these Crown corpora tion s, will he now save the taxpayers of Manitoba from having one more major multimillion Crown corporation under his administration and set aside his endeavour to buy the gas company and let the people of Manitoba continue to benefit from private ownership of the gas distribution and get involved where he should be, at the wholesale gas level so that the benefits can go to the people of Manitoba without blowing more money in a Crown corporation? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I know that Ed Schreyer would not particularly want to be associated with the views just expressed now by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, I think he would be somewhat embarrassed by the diatribe we've just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in which he quotes apparently a letter from Herb Schulz as his authority on this issue - as his ultimate authority. There is no other authority but a letter that he reads in the Sunday column of the readers to the Editor of the Winnipeg Free Press.

That's the extent of the authority that the Leader of the Opposition depends upon for his opinions expressed in this House, Madam Speaker.

I am proud, my government is proud, I know the vast majority of Manitobans, except for those who are ideologically hung up, are proud with the record of the Manitoba Telephone System, amongst the lowest rates anywhere in No rth America, with the record of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, amongst the lowest rates of any automobile insurance corporation to be found anywhere in Canada and, Madam Speaker, certainly with the record of Manitoba Hydro, which for years and years has provided the people of the Province of Manitoba the lowest rates in Canada for hydro service in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and Herb Schulz may, if they wish, dump upon these public corporations in the Province of Manitoba. They may wish privatization, but not the New Democratic Party Government of the Province of Manitoba. Bill No. 47 - free vote in caucus re sexual orientation MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given the Premier's concern about the views of ordinary Manitobans during the past week, dozens of Manitobans and dozens of groups representing thousands of Manitobans have appeared before the committee on Bill No. 47 with respect to their concerns, their opposition to the inclusion of sexual orientation in The Human Rights Act.

Will the Premier listen to those people who have appeared before the committee and indeed allow his members a free vote, so that they can vote with their conscience and their religious and moral beliefs of their constituents and remove sexual orientation from The Human Rights Act? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, unlike honourable members across the way who carry with them blinkers that are adjusted and they only look in one particular direction, and not a very pragmatic bunch across the way, a group that is easily prone to whatever pressures come from day to day, they wave in the wind.

Madam Speaker, this particular government listens to all Manitobans, the views of all Manitobans. As a consequence of listening to the views of all Manitobans, we make our decisions based upon reason, on wisdom and an analysis of what the real legal issues are that are involved, and not on the basis of some myths. Manitoba Committee on Wife Abuse - funding of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services.

Can the Minister explain why the department is funding the Manitoba Comm ittee on Wife Abuse when she is not consulting with them about any decisions made affecting wife abuse in the province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, there are many, upwards of 700 or 800, agencies and groups in the community that the deparment funds. With regard to the Manitoba Comm ittee on Wife Abuse, they have been funded for specific functions. They have done a great deal to educate the public about wife abuse. There are many meetings held with them and dialogue occurs.

But they, as with any others, don't have any particular 3790

Monday, 13 July, 1987 right or in fact responsibility for being consulted in terms of government planning. I've personally been present at many meetings where the underlying assumptions, the general directions the government is going have been fully discussed with that committee. Manitoba Committee on Wife Abuse - additional funding MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementary question to the same Minister. Will the Minister tell the House why the Commit tee on Wife Abuse did not receive any additional funding this year or indeed for the last five years, and if that is going to be the pattern in the future? HON. M.

SMITH: Mada m Speaker, the Manitoba Comm ittee has performed a marvelous contribution in Manitoba in not only building public awareness of wife abuse and the programs needed, but has persuaded government very, very rapidly to move into a mode of provi ding the services across the provinc e - the preventive services, the crisis services, and the treatment services. Madam Spea ker, I think the committee sometimes has forgotten how successful it's been in persuading a public funding authority to deliver the very services that they've advocated for.

With regard to their level of funding, Madam Speaker, we have undertaken an evaluation of what role they will play or what role the government is prepared to pay because, as we've ta ken over some of their functions, it would be foolish of us to duplicate the funding by raising their particular grant. Manitoba Committee on Wife Abuse - attendance of Minister at Board meeting MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a final supplementary question to the same Minister. Will the Minister attend the provincial board meeting on July 25 of the committee, as they have requested? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I received that invitation last week. I had undertaken a holiday trip with my family, and I told them that I'd be prepared to meet with them before or after, but that I had that particular day reserved. Careerstart - funding to Gay/ Lesbian Youth Organization MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to th e Minister responsibl e for the Careerstart Program.

Gi ven tha t this government ha s turned down countless applications under the Careerstart Program, applications asking the government for support for short-time help in support of community organizations, including Senior Ci tizens home s, arts councils, museums, recreations, tourist booths, can this Minister explain why the Careerstart Program saw fit to grant funds to one Stefan Fedorowich to act as Winnipeg coordinator of the Gay-Lesbian Youth Organizaton? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minster of Employment Services and Economic Security. HON. L.

EVANS: Madam Speaker, as I've said on many occa sions, I am very proud of the fact tha t the Careerstart multimillion dollar job creation program has put thousands and thousands of young Manitobans to work giving them jobs that they wouldn't have had otherwise. Madam Speaker, the department receives thousands of applications and processes them in due course. If they meet the requirements of the program, if it's a job that is seen to be in the -(I nterjection)- Madam Speaker, I don't know whether I can hear my own answer because of the interruptions on the other side. Madam Speaker, this . . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I presume that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain wants to hear the answer. The Honourable Minister of Economic Security. HON. L. EVANS: The point I'm ma king, Madam Speaker, is the department receives thousands of applications and approves thousands of applications in a routine matter, providing they fulfill the guidelines of the program. This would have been handled in a routine matter. I am not aware of this particular instance, but I'll take the honourable member's word if we did approve that particular application.

As I said, Madam Speaker, the intent of the program is to create jobs for thousands of young Manitobans, and indeed it's been very successful. Careerstart - criteria in funding re Stefan Fedorowich MR. D. ROCAN: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker, to the same Minister. I wonder if this Minister could tell us what criteria was used that allowed one Stefan Fedorowich to be hired under the Careerstart Program. HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speaker, I would imagine the same criteria was used for all the positions, for all the applications that we received.

Careerstart - number of positions to people advocating homosexual lifestyles MR. D. ROCAN: A fina l supplement ary, Mada m Speaker. How many other positions under Careerstart are being funded that involve support to people advocating homosexual lifestyles? HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speaker, obviously as Minister I don't have the details of the thousands of applications that we've approved. But I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the member refers to senior citizens' groups. Dozens of senior 3791 -

Monday, 13 July, 1987 citizens' groups are helped under this program by young people wo rking for them. Dozens of non-profit organizations have been assisted in this province, dozens of community groups, and indeed hundreds and hundreds of business organizations have been able to hire young people that they might not have been able to hire otherwise. So, Madam Speak er, we're very proud of this program. It's been a positive program. It's given jobs to hundreds, in fact thousands, of young Manitobans who wouldn't be working otherwise.

Bill No. 47 - Big Brothers to inquire if person is homosexual MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is for the Attorney-General. During the hearing process on Bill 47, the Big Brothers Association of Manitoba expressed deep concern that this inclusion of sexual orientation in The Human Rights Act would prevent them from screening homosexuals as potential Big Brothers.

In response to that very legitimate concern by the Big Brothers, the Attorney-General has indicated that the parents have the right to refuse a homosexual as a Big Brother for their child. Given that this is the Minister's response to a very legitimate concern by both parents and the Big Brothers Associa tion, could the Minister indicate whether government policy, with the passage of Bill 47, will allow the Big Brothers Association, in screening applicants as Big Brothers, to ask the direct question, are you a homosexual? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable, the Attorney General. HON. R.

PENNER: Madam Speaker, I met about two weeks ago with the Big Brothers Association and had a very thorough review of the legislation with them and had with me counsel from the department, and was able to assure them that in fact the essential function of the Big Brothers would not in any way be interfered with by the legislation. The basic requirements of allowing the parent to match, according to what the parent wanted, was not in any way interfered with by the legislation.

If a parent decided, for example, they wanted someone who was of the same religion that they could do so and not offend the provisions of the act with respect to religion. If they wanted someone of a particular belief, let's say a political belief, that the legislation would not interfere with the right to do that. I was also able to assure them that the provision of the act which dealt with services, which would be the critical

section of the act, because Big Brothers is not a form of emplo yment and it is not a form of accommodation, so one must look at what the act covers - and the only remaining one is services - the provision of services is to the parent and that the person volunteering to be a Big Brother is not someone to whom the service is provided. It accordingly follows that someone who applied to be a Big Brother and was turned down for whatever reason has no recourse under The Human Rights Act.

So my opinion given to them that indeed there's nothing in The Human Rights Act that impairs the functioning of the Big Brothers organization. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, it's obvious from the Attorney-General's answer that he did not hear the question. If a parent has the right to refuse a homosexual Big Brother for their child, that presumes that they have knowledge that Big Brother is a homosexual. My question directly to the Attorney-General is: Will it be government policy to allow the Big Brothers Association of Manitoba to ask potential Big Brothers, are you homosexual?

Will that be allowed so that the association can then communicate that a Big Brother is a homosexual to the parent to allow them to make the decision? Will that basic question be al lowed to be posed by Big Brothers? HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker , first of all, government does not dictate -(Interjection)-I will answer the question, if you will be polite enough to allow me to do so.- (Interjection)- He may wait a little longer now. Madam Speaker, government does not dictate policy. The act has to be applied according to its terms, No. 1.

No. 2, in light of the answer which I just gave, policy that would be set presumably by a Human Rights adjud icator and ultimtely the courts would not it seems to me, interfere with the basic function of the Big Brothers by ruling that such a question, if asked, was discriminatory. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure that the Attorney-General's answer is proper and, in fact, add resses the basic issue that's before him this afternoon. Can I ask a very simple question of the Attorney General?

Would the question posed by the Big Brothers Association of Manitoba to a potential Big Brother, are you a homosexual, contravene (

a) government policy, or (

b) any other law of the Province of Manitoba? Secondly, would the communication of the knowledge tha t a Big Brother is a homosexual to a parent contravene any act or law of this province, or government policy? HON. R. PENNER: Not in my view, Madam Speaker. First of all, government policy in this area is contained in the legislation. That's the point that I was trying to make, not to skirt the answer. I'm answering it very directly.

In the act is where you will find government policy and it's clear to me that, in fact, government policy is such that the kinds of ways in which the Big Brothers organization functions are not interfered with by the act. But in saying that - and I want to be absolutely honest - as an Attorney-General, I refrain from giving legal opinions. I cannot be the ultimate -(Interjection)- but I'm giving a legal opinion. I'm stating very carefully what I know to be in the act, and indeed this kind of 3792

Monday, 13 July, 1987 question has been litigated in Cana da and I am reasonably assured, not only of what is in the act which reflects government policy, but how the courts will decide it. I'm simply saying to you that how the courts might decide, with respect to any bill we pass, lies only ultimately in the minds of the court. That's true of any bill that we pass. But I am assured, both in terms of my own understanding of the bill and in terms of advice I've had from senior people in the department, that there is no problem for the functioning of Big Brothers. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, just one last question, hopefully, to clarify the government's position as stated today by the Attorney-General. With the passage of Bill 47, presumably, with its inclusion of sexual orientation, can the Big Brothers' Association of Manitoba ask the question of Big Brothers who are applying to become Big Brothers and part of the association, can they pose the question: "Are you a homosexual"? And having an affirmative answer to that question, can they then commun icate that individual "A" is a homosexual and tell the parent that is the fact?

Thirdly, can they, if they so desire, refuse to have that individual as a Big Brother if he is an admit ted homosexual? HON. R.

PENNER: For the reasons I have given in the previous three answers, the answer to that question is yes, the Big Brothers can - I think they're bound to by their national constitution - ask that question; and (b), it follows, from what their constitution says, if someone says, "Yes, I am," can refuse to accept that person as a Big Brother; and it would then follow that the third question doesn't arise because if, in fact, having asked that question and refusing, then there's no information of that kind to pass on to the prospective parent. So that answers all three questions. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I would appreciate . A MEMBER: We go according to our law in our jurisdiction as interpreted by our courts . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I would appreciate if Ministers only answered the questions that were posed by persons who have been recognized. Homosexuality - assurance no inclusion in school curriculum MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question this afternoon is to the Premier.

During comm ittee hearings on Bill 47, groups supporting the gay lobby in several instances have made reference to the fact that homosexuality should be made a lifestyle that is equal to the heterosexual lifestyle. Now, in several instances, Madam Speaker, reference was made to the fact that homosexuality should be taught in our public school system. My question to the Premier is: Would he assure this House and Manitobans that his government will not sanction the teaching of homosexuality in the public school system of this province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Madam Speaker, the Premier was not at commit tee hearings and he is asked to accept a premise which is incorrect, and that's why I am rising. A MEMBER: Why wasn 't he at both commi ttee hearings? HON. R. PENNER: Well, why wasn't your leader at the committee hearings? Madam Speaker, I have been at the commit tee hearings from the beginning. A MEMBER: No, you haven't. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I have.- (Interjection)-Well, not - that's true - I missed the first few hours, but I have listened to every brief, and I have listened to every brief with respect, incidentally.

There has been, at the most, five minutes when, for obvious reasons, I've been away from the comm ittee, and it is simply not true that those kinds of representations have been made. Even if it were the case that X or Y or Z came and said that, in his or her opinion, the act meant this or that, it doesn't mean that the act means this or that. I can say, for example, as a matter of already decided law in the Province of Manitoba, to deal with some assertions that have been made, that there is absolutely no substance to the notion that homosexuals can get married in the Province of Manitoba.

That is the law now, and it is not changed by the proposed code, and it will be the law after the proposed code is changed. There is simply no doubt about that whatsoever. All that has been said is that in the course of Family Life Education, if someone asks a question about homosexuality, then I suppose that there are two responses -(Interjection)- The Member for Lakeside should not preach morality in this House or anywhere else. A MEMBER: Neither should you. A MEMBER: You're trying to preach morality. HON. R. PENNER: No, I'm not preaching morality. I'm trying to tell you what the law is.

And the law is clear, Madam Speaker, that in such circumstances, if someone asks a question, presumably the teacher has some discussion as to whether or not to answer the question, but one should not forget that we deliberately put into The Human Rights Act, clause 141 1, which prohibits using a position of that kind to promote a belief. Don't forget that. MR. L. DERKACH: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the Attorney-General stood up and bafflegabbed but did not answer the question. 3793

Monday, 13 July, 1987 My question directly to the Premier is: Will his government assure Manitobans that they will not sanction the teaching of homosexuality in the public school system of this province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: There is nothing in this legislation that allo ws for anyth ing tha t would suggest the promotion of homosexuality in the schools of this province. The honourable member knows that. Headingley Correctional Institution - security at MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Community Services and Corrections. During the past weekend, serious charges have been laid by guards against dangerous conditions and lack of security at Heading ley. Ab solutely ridicu lous situations arise because of lack of maintenance of facilities at Headingley. Can this Minister tell this Assembly whether the security mesh through which a prisoner escaped on May 16 and two more prisoners escaped on June 27 has been repaired? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Community Services? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I presume the member is asking as a result of a newspaper

article that indicated a great many problems. Now, we've gone through each of those in detail and many of them are referring to situations that existed several years ago. Again, rather than taking up the time of the House, I'm prepared to sit with the critic and go through the individual issues. There was a difficulty with the particular repair of bars. There was a welding job that was done by a replacement person. It was not up to standards and that has been remedied. But, again, I think the allegation that things were in a mess is quite unfair.

The people at Headingley are doing a very difficult job under difficult circu mstances, and there is a very intense communic ation between the gua rds and th e management staff to ensure that their concerns are dealt with. Again, as I say, I prefer to talk about all the specifics with the critic and then, if there are any unresolved issues, perhaps he could raise the question again. MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. When will the Minis ter reinforce the bars at Headingley, bars which are so soft that within a matter of minutes they can be cut through with a guitar string.

When will this Min ister stren gthe n security at Headingley? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, that is an allegation. I, too, was rather fascinated with all the details put in about how to escape through the bars at Headingley. Quite frankly, the building is an old building, but it is also a medium- and minimum-security institution. It's our belief that it is much better to develop security of observation at this particular prison rather than to go for heavy security and reliance on bars. We do agree that when we are dealing with remand prisoners that we do require very heavy security there.

Correctional Institutes - numbers versus names as identification of guards MR. A. BROWN: Accusations are made by guards that they are harassed and receive threatening phone calls against themselves and their families by prisoners because their names appear on their uniforms. When will this Minister allow guards to have numbers only for identification? If in mates want to register complaints, they can do this by a number as well as by name. This will give the guards the protection that is absolutely necessary. HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, the issue of whether to use numbers or names on the tags is one that is under ongoing discussion with the Workplace Safety and Health Committee. A majority has persistently gone for - they preferred the name tag. It's an issue that's under ongoing review and, should the strong majority opinion shift to the other direction, we'd be prepared to go to the number. But at this point in time, for that particular type of provision, I think it's appropriate to go with the majority opinion of the guards. Headingley Correctional Institution - segregation to resolve racial tension MR. A.

BROWN: A final sup plementary, Madam Speaker. Racial tension between white and Native inmates at Headingley will certainly lead to a riot if attention is not paid to this situation. When will the Minister order the segregation of these inmates so that a real and dangerous problem may be avoided? I understand that near-riot, bat-swinging conditions have occurred during ball games and on other occasions. HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, there are tensions between Native and white inmates, and they tend to go up and down, depending on the particular mix of inmates and very much depending on the particular feuds that seem to be current on the street at the time. Staff are very sensitive to this particular issue and work very hard, when they're placing and programming, to take it into full account. Again, I think they're doing everything that is possible and will continue to work at resolving racial tensions when they occur, but a correctional institution cannot live detached from what is going on in the general community.

So I think, there again, all the efforts that we can take to build a more cooperative and understanding set of relationships among the groups in the community can only help at the correctional institution. 3794

Monday, 13 July, 1987 Manitoba Labour Education Centre - criminal charges and amount of loss MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The other day, the Honourable Member for Brandon West asked me questions in respect to the confirmation as to the extent of the amount involved in a theft at the Labour Education Centre. I have the amount. The amount that was involved in the charge, the criminal action, was $3,563.30. It was the value of a comput er that was later returned to the centre.

The Public Insurance Corporation, the insurer, was reimbursed, and that was the only item that apparently was involved in the theft. Farmers - illegal interest rates charged MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Attorney-General about interest overcharges.

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of this Session, I asked the Minister if the Allen Wilfred case in Ont ario set a precedent for farmers in Manitoba but, more specifically I asked the Minister of Agriculture and the Attorney-General if any farmers in Manitoba had been unjustly charged high interest rates prior to 1982. Madam Speaker, at that time, the Attorney-General said that his department was doing an investigation into this matter. I'd like to ask him if he has completed that investigation and what information he has obtained from it. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, in fact the office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did some analysis of material that was submi tted to them and subsequently turned it over to me, and that has been analyzed carefully and it appears likely that there are cases where, at least on the surface, there appears to be considerable interest overcharge. But these are clearly very complex matters and a decision cannot be made, indeed ought not to be made within a department of government as to whether or not, in fact, there was an interest overcharge.

If there were interest overcharges, these would be primarily a matter of a civil action by the person against the particular bank. We have cautiously perhaps, but I think necessarily, adopted the view that we cannot assume, on the basis of just some of the documentation received, that there was an unlawful interest charge. Certainly we cannot assume that, if there was an unlawful interest charged, it was criminal and therefore within the purview of the Department of the Attorney-General.

So, the advice we have been given is, yes, there may be something to the problems you encountered over a period of time - and remember some of these problems did cover a large period of time with monthly transactions and a shifting interest rate, but that you will have to get your own legal counsel to advise you further as to whether actions should be taken. That's the point that we've arrived at. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, I have some commi ttee changes.

Economic Development: Blake for Enns. Public Utilities and Natural Resources: Orchard for Birt; Filmon for Derkach. Privileges and Elections: McCrae for Johnston. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: I move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Standing Commi ttee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the Hon. L. Evans for the Hon. H. Harapiak; the Hon. A. Mackling for the Hon. V. Schroeder; the Hon. G. Lecuyer for the Hon. J. Storie; the Hon. L. Harapiak for J. Maloway.

I further move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Standing Commi ttee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the Hon. John Bucklaschuk for M. Dolin; the Hon. H. Harapiak for J. Maloway; S. Ashton for C. Santos. I further move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Standing Commi ttee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: The Hon. J. Storie for the Hon. J. Cowan. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: I was wondering, Madam Speaker, if I might have leave to make a non-political statement.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This past weekend, Thomp son held its annual National King Miner Contest as part of our annual Nickel Days Festival. The annual event, which is sponsored by the Steelworkers Local Number 616 6, drew more than 30 contestants from as far away as Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. I'm sure I speak for all members of this House in congratu lating this year's winner, Ed Chu krey, of Thompson; and runner-up, Al Meston, of Thompson.

I'm also sure I speak for all members in congratulating the Hono urary King Mi ner, Steve Ha rapiak, and Honour ary Dril ler, Bunnie Kane, who were also recognized during the Nickel Days Festival. Finally, I would like to congratulate the organizers of both the King Miner contest and Nickel Days itself for 3795

Monday, 13 July, 1987 what I thought was a fitting tribute to the continuing importance of the mining industry and, in particular, the continuing impor tance of the contribution of individual miners, and wish them all the best in the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker. HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business, I'd like to indicate that there seems to be agreement that we will forego Private Members' Hour this afternoon, by leave. MADAM SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) HON. J.

COWAN: I also want to remind members, Madam Speaker, that the Commit tee on Privileges and Elections will be meeting at 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and then, if required, from 7:00 p.m. on through until we, hopefully, complete clause by clause of the bill this evening after hearing the representations. Madam Speaker, would you please call debate on Second Readings in the following order: Bills No. 52, 65, 70, 59, 66, and 58?

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 52 - THE ENERGY RATE STABILIZATION ACT MADAM SPEAKER: Debate on Second Reading on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, Bill No. 52, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could make a few remarks on the bill. MADAM SPEAKER: And leave it standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris. (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker, this particular bill and its repeal conjures up a considerable bit of history with respect to energy pricing, energy costs, in the Province of Manitoba. I, of course, have the - you know, the pleasant thoughts about the bill were - and many Manitobans will of course remember - that for a period of four years consumers could rest easy that in one important area of services, namely, their hydro bill, it would remain constant. It would not be going up like everything else. That seems to be the case, particularly in the high inflation years.

But for that period of time, from '78, indeed, to'82, that, by the way, was the last time that Manitobans were blessed with a responsible government, the Progressive Conservative Government, that happy event took place. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 3796 MADAM SPEAKER: If honourable members want to have private conversations, could they do so elsewhere so we could cond uct the busi ness of the Hous e properly? The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for that reminder to my colleagues who, on occasions, can be somewhat unruly.

Madam Speaker, Manitobans will remember those good years. They remember those years, Madam Speaker, where hospital beds were built. New hospitals were being built, not closed down, as they are today. They will remember, Madam Speaker, that the taxes went down. Personal income taxes went down, and no hidden 2 percent taxes were hoisted onto Manitobans, on their net pay. A. MEMBER: More services, less taxes, those were the ... MR. H. ENNS: In essence, my colleague from Brandon says it all - more services and less taxes. Madam Speaker, that has to be said every once in awhile.

That has to be said once in awhile simply to remind people of that. It's very easy to forget that. Particularly, when you have a very clever Attorney-General who had taught and who was raised on the art of manipulation and the art of deceiving public opinion on so many issues, we have to remind Manitobans every once in awhile about what in fact took place during those years. And of course one of them, Madam Speaker, was the Energy Stabilization Bill which was put in place simply because of the heavy inordinate amount of borrowing that had preceded it during the Schreyer years.

Madam Speaker, a very thorough judicial report, the Tritschler Inquiry into Hydro, clearly says that during tha t period of time there had been substa ntial , significant overbuilding, accelerating of building on hydro projects, because it was good politics, but it had put Manitoba Hydro into a very serious borrowing situation. The government of that day recognized that and introduced a stabilization bill that was at least an acknowledgement of the kind of mismanagement that took place in the mid-Seventies of Manitoba Hydro. Madam Speaker, that is not just an Opposition politician saying that.

Chief Justice Tritschler, in a lengthy report, at great cost, I might add, to the public, but it was necessary to determine the millions of dollars that were squandered during that period of time, and the fact that Manitobans had their hydro rates increased by 140 percent in a short space of seven years, from '71 to '78 - 140 percent. Madam Speaker, we are still paying that 140 percent increase because it's never been rolled back. All they had was a brief respite of four years where rates did not increase at all, where they were frozen.

Then regrettably the people of Manitoba saw fit to re elect these bandits, these gangsters, as somebody else calls them from time to time, and up go our rates. Our rates have gone up 6 percent, 5 percent, 5 percent, 9 percent every year that you've been in power again. We have now added up another 40 percent to 50 percent of hydro rates - 40 percent to 50 percent, Madam Speaker.

Monday, 13 July, 1987 Madam Speaker, that measure that we are now dealing with was put in for good reason, and I certainly have never, will never apologize for it. It was done because political decisions were forced on an otherwise sound Crown corpor ati on, Manitoba Hydro, to overbuild. When they overbuilt, they had to overborrow, and they had to go to New York, they had to go to Tokyo, they had to go to Japan or wherever, and Europe - a lot of European dollars, a lot of Swiss francs were borrowed - to pay for the overbuilding that took place in the Seventies.

Madam Speaker, it was not fair to saddle thos e costs, th ose curr ency exchange fluctuations onto Manitoba Hydro, and the Government of the Day saw fit to introduce the legislation that we are now repealing. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply want to say that in repealing of thi s legislati on, Manitoba Hy dro consumers ought to be preparing themselves for a rate shock which could very likely come. Regrettably, it will likely also come with the full costs of the latest venture, the Limestone venture, coming on line as well. I hope that the two don't coincide.

I appreciate, of course, that this government, they're good at one thing; they're good at borrowing mon ey. They'r e very good at borrowing money. They can borrow it in bigger piles and bigger sackfuls than any other government in the history of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speak er, do you realize tha t thi s government, this Premier, these Cabinet Ministers have borrowed more money in their five years, six years of office than all other governments, all other Premiers put together? And that is the truth. When you consider right from the time this province was formed, 18 70, those 30 years, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, into the year 19 00; when you consider the years that we had building booms going on here in the Twenties; when you consider the 10 years of Duff Roblin when he was building $64 million ditches around the city to protect them from flooding; when he was building our schools, our universities, our hospitals; when you consider even the eight years of Mr. Premi er, Prem ier Ed Schr eyer and his New Democrats, lump all those together and they have not borrowed anywhere near as much money as thi s Premier and this particular group of Cabinet Ministers has. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that ought to frighten, that ought to concern Manitobans. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we are doing today - because unfortunately our voices are seldom heard from the Opposition. There is nobody from the media here to report, you know, these kinds of statements. We say them because it's our job. We have to do that. We're elected for that reason. But the action that we're doing today will show up on the hydro bills somewhere in the future. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Member for Lakeside, in sitting down, said to me on the side that I probably ruined your speech, meaning my speech. I can assure him he did not because, quite frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he provided a wonderful starting point on how to argue this bill, a very strong arguing point because there is some history to be brought to the debate. There has to be some history brought into this debate, so that members opposite and people withi n the publi c will fully understand what has happened here. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this act, in my view, provides a most curious stance, a curious decision by the NDP Government.

The 1987 Budget forewarned all, but the wording, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of that Budget disclosure revelation whereby the Minister of Finance that night indicated that this act was going to be repealed, it in itself seemed a little strange.

It said this, and I quote: "In 1979, the former Conservative Government imposed a rate freeze on Manitoba Hydro and it approved The Energy Rate Stabili zation Act, wh ich provided th at provincial taxpayers, rather than electricity users, would assume all foreign currency translation risks, gains or losses associated with foreign borrowing for Manitoba Hydro." A MEMBER: That's right. MR. C. MANNESS: It went on to say: "Thi s policy has had some very negative financial consequences." And it ended up by saying, ". . . the Energy Rate Stabilization program has also resulted in considerable cost.

Since its implementation, the net cash cost to the government has amou nted to some $203 million." Mr. Deputy Speaker, those words in the Budget would have Manitobans believe that the Conservatives passed

an act in 1979, called The Energy Rate Stabilization Act, that was unfair to the taxpayers of the province and therefore had to be acted upon with great dispatch by the members opposite. It had to be acted upon. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we're not at the beginning of the first term of the Pawley Government. We are into the sixth year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that act passed in 1979, which was such a cost to the taxpayers of this province, stayed on the statutory books for almost six years. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, members opposite, through the debate associated with Bill 52, are going to have to stand in their place and answer the question, why? Why in 1987 is this Bill repealed and why didn't it occur in 1982? Fully five years after they came the government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government decides to act on

an act that today they said cost the taxpayers of this province considerably. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government at least, in writing the Budget document, did one thing honourable. They did not confuse the hydro rate freeze with the act; because as I will point out, when they debated this in 1979, they criticized the act because it did not have written into it the hydro rate freeze. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was a matter of policy, policy by the Cabinet in power. It was a promise to Manitobans; it was a promise that was kept. Indeed, that very promise which was broken by the NOP government once they came to government in 1983, did not require any change in

an act - it was just the change in policy. But Mr. Deputy Speaker, what they're saying when the Minister of Finance indicated to Manitobans what he was going to change in the act, he didn't have the 3797

Monday, 13 July, 1987 cou rtesy or the candour to spell out to Manitobans that this act has been in place five years during the Pawley administration term. And I guess it makes me, as one who's reviewed some of the history associated with this entire act, ask the question, why? These questions beg answers, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my view, some of the answers as to why the government has taken so long to act on this are found in the debates in 1979. And I don't often do this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, review old debates, but I did in this case.

And what they demonstrated was incredible - there's no better word for it - because I will take the liberty to spend some time in reviewing some of the comments offered by members opposite when they were addressing this bill brought forward by my former colleague, Mr. Craik, in 1979. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what were things like then? Well, as my colleague, the Member for Lakeside said, hydro rates had increased 15 percent, 20 percent, 18 percent, and so on over a series of two or three years.

At that time, my colleague, the Member for Lakeside said this - and I never thought that I would quote the Member for Lakeside, something that he said eight years ago, but I think it bears repeating. He said this, and I quote: "B ut here in Manitoba we are saying firstly to all our citizens, to all our farmers, but also to those who need the energy to run our factories, to encourage those high-intensive energy users into the province, that you can at least, in a sea of uncertainty, be assured of a stable energy cost." Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was the reason that The Energy Rate Stabilization Act came into place.

After years of massive increases at a time when world oil prices had jump ed significantly, some provinces as a matter of policy were saying to people that were going to come here to create employment, were saying, let's have some stability. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were very much aware of the im pending losses associated with foreign exchange. We're aware of them today. At that time they were $370 million, and growing; that was eight years ago.

Today, in comm ittee, I'm going to ask the Minister of Finance - or when we go into Committee of the Whole on this bill, I'm going to ask specifically what the losses are today, associated with Manitoba Hydro. I would have to think that they are in the area of $600 million, associated with foreign exchange loss. Action was required to protect the ratepayer because the government of the time was totally captive to the NOP speculation on foreign currency. The NOP had a dilemma at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They believed in a hydro rate freeze.- (Interjection)-Well, the member says, no. Well, I'll quote Mr.

Green. Mr. Green, whom I believe was the spokesperson for their party on a whole host of issues, said on June 14 , 19 79, and I quo te: "But, Mr. Speak er, what we are saying and what my honourable friends should be aware of, is that we do not object to freezing hydro rates. As a matter of fact, we object to the government unfreezing hydro rate; we froze them for eight years. We did it out of consolidated revenue." And he went on to chastise us for being doctrinaire socialists at the time.

He went on further and said, "I can accept this subsidization of the ratepayer by the taxpayer," an official critic at that time of the NOP Party. (Mr. Acting Speaker, C. Baker, in the Chair.) MR. C. MANNESS: So, what does one believe? The NOP were not critical because the bill did not specifically mention the freezing of rates. They were critical because it dealt with only one item and tha t was foreign exchange.

And as I said earlier, the freezing of rates was a government policy, not enacted, something I dare say that was not put into statute - something like our bilingual policy under that day, too, which was not put into statute, Mr. Acting Speaker. It was a matter of policy. Well, what else did the NOP say? I know members will find this interesting. Mr. Green, in moving a reasoned amendment - some thing that I haven't had the experience of listening to since I've been in this House, Mr. Acting Speaker, he moved a reasoned amendment.

And he called it, on page 536, a "hoax" - as a matter of fact, that was part of the reasoned amendment. He called the fact that we've brought in, in 1979, this act, a "hoax." Mr. Doern, page 5416 , at that time, when he spoke on the bill, said, and I quote, "So I say, Mr. Speaker, this is really a speculator's act." We were accused at that time of speculating, and yet it was documented that the foreign exchange losses in 197 9 were of the order of $370 million. Mr.

Uruski, at that time, the present MLA for Interlake, he called it "Tory bookkeeping." He said that there were going to be major windfalls associated with the government stepping in, in support of Manitoba Hydro. He was inferring that the value of the Canadian dollar was go ing to incr ease. So he said it was "Tory bookkeeping" at work, that the government was going to be the big benefactor of all this money coming in because the Canadian dollar was going to appr eciate. Furthermore, he said and I quote, "It is a sham, Mr.

Speaker, it is a total sham." And yet, Sir, the NOP Government have kept it in place for almost six years. Well, what did the Premier, today's Premier, then - I don't know what he was a critic of then, but he had been the leader of the NOP then or thereabouts in 1979 - what did he say about this? Well, he called it, Mr. Acting Speaker, he said on page 5420 and I quote, "People, they are not easily fooled by gimmi ckry," and he want on to further call it, "a hoax perpetrated on the people of Manitoba." That's this bill that the NOP have kept in place for six years since they've been in government.

Well, then we move to one of the real major heavyweights of the time, Mr. Cherniack, and I'm sure members opposite would be happy to hear what he said about this bill. This is what he said, and he got it right, Mr. Acting Speaker. He said, and I quote, "What it does, Mr. Speaker, is take out of Hydro that portion of its speculative life and almost everything in Hydro is speculative, but takes away from Hydro that aspect which affects the foreign exchange rate fluctuation up or down, Mr. Speaker." That's right; that's what it did. Nothing more, nothing less, and he understood it.

But his concerns, and the reason that he went against it was this, and I'll use his words and I quote, "And I hope I'm correct in saying that the Member for lnkster," he was talking about Mr. Green, "said from his seat 3798

Monday, 13 July, 1987 that he too would do so and I think between the two of us . . . "Oh, he's talking about, and I interrupt myself, he was talking about including into the act, the freeze; he wanted that in the act.

And he said, "I hope I'm correct in saying that the Member for lnkster said from his seat that he too would do so, and I think between the two of us we might persuade other members of this House to give some substantial support to the government, that they could say that the people of the Legislature of Manitoba, representing all of the people of Manitoba, are prepared to guarantee that there will not be a rate increase." Mr. Acting Speaker, he was saying at that time that had the Provincial Government, under the leadership of Mr. Lyon, this bill brought forward by Mr.

Craik, had included in that act, in that bill, a commitment to freeze the hydro rates, that the NDP party of that day would have supported it. Mr. Aeling Speaker, yet it was the NDP Government in the Pawley term that removed the freeze and yet kept in place this act for six years. Again I ask the question: Why? Well, just about to the end, Mr. Acting Speaker, Mr. Miller, a stalwart of that party, looked up to by many of them, this is what he said about the bill.

He said, "I wonder what huckster dreamed this one up, because it certainly is a masterful, political ploy." Huck sterism, we were accused of then, and yet the Pawley Government keeps that hucksterism in place for six years. Mr. Acting Speaker, the NDP at that time thought the Canadian dollar had stabilized. At that time it was 85 cents as compared to the American dollar. In all their economic analysis, whatever they had at that time, and being naturally bullish, as they are, they thought that the Canadian dollar was once again going to rise.

So they thought we were playing political games with the foreign exchange losses of Manitoba Hydro. Because, indeed, Mr. Miller said, and again I qu ote, "I say to you that in my opinion the Canadian dollar has bottomed out; it hasn't changed appreciably in the last few months. It's going to pretty well remain, if not improve, and they'll be in the foreign market, and they'll be paying interest rates in the foreign market which are preferable and better preferred rates than the Canadian market or the American market." Mr. Acting Speaker, that vvas the collective wisdom at that time.

But there's one other person I have to quote. Like I say, I don't do this often - go back into the journals - but the man we call the fixer, Mr. Acting Speaker, he spoke on this bill. I suppose that doesn't surprise many people, but this is what he had to say about this bill.

He said this, "This is political gimmi ckry." He said, "I have more faith in the people generally than to think, because I stand in my place and vote against this hope, that I am voting against my own political future." Because at the time, I think we accused the NDP, if they voted against this, they were voting against the people of Manitoba. Anyway, this is what he said - this is interesting. If my House Leader will give me a few minutes, I want to read this. He said, and I quote, "You know, I consider myself a bit of an amateur card magician.

You know, I do a few tricks here and there, pick a card, and when you do that, you talk a lot - it's called the con; it's called the sham; it's called the pattern. You develop a pattern. Go ahead, pick a card, any card. You know what that's for. That's to distract the attention of the person that you're playing a trick on. That's the purpose of that pattern." From there he went on to say, "that's really what we were doing." Mr. Acting Speaker, but he had more, and he said, "You know, this is a hognosed snake bill.

I don't know if you're aware of a hognosed snake, but what a hognosed snake does when confronted with a danger, it puffs up to look like a cobra. It puffs up to look like a cobra and it spits. It does it's own little pattern, has its own little routine and doing a card trick on you. It's doing a card trick on you. But if that fails, if that doesn't scare away the intruder or the enemy, then do you know what the hognosed snake does next? It rolls over and plays dead; it rolls over and plays dead." And he went on to complete - he said, Mr.

Acting Speaker, in referring to the bill, "I think it's chicanery, trickery, con, hustle, hype, all of that and more." And yet, Mr. Acting Speaker, the members in their place continued this bill for six years. They have had the chance on five other occasions to do away with this act, Mr. Acting Speaker, and they haven't. And I asked them why. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, you know why? Because in spite of their greatest wisdoms and to looking into the future, the Canadian dollar didn't go up from the level of 85 cents at which time it was. No, it dropped to 70 cents - 70 cents - in a very short time.

So what does this act save the ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro? Well, the Minister said, in introducing it, he said it saved them $203 million over its life - saved the ratepayers. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I don't know how much it saved Manitoba Hydro last year, fiscal year '86-87, but I've gone into the annual report and I know what it saved them in'85-86 because in the notes appended thereto, one comes across Note No. 1(b), Long-Term Debt, and it says this, "The Province of Manitoba also confirmed that the net cash outlay relating to the debt sustained by the province in the current year amounted to $80. 7 million." Mr. Acting Speaker, that is what was saved to the ratepayers of this province. Mr.

Acting Speaker, had that act not been in place -(Interjection)- Well, maybe I confused the words; I meant ratepayers. Mr. Acting Speaker, what that meant, when one looks at the revenues that are brought forward from domestic users in this province, had this act not been in place, hydro rates in that year would have been up by approximately 20 percent just to cover that one year's loss. Mr. Acting Speaker, what this bill is doing is talking about billions of dollars, much of it at risk. I don't have the detailed breakup of all the loans that Manitoba Hydr o ha s.

I' ve got the breakout for what they themselves have. I do not have the breakout for what the government now has taken out on behalf of the government and now is advancing to Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Acting Speaker, this act and its removal has potentially great impact upon the ratepayers within the province. As we go through, we are going to want to push the Minister of Finance or the Minister in charge of Manitoba Hydro to tell us what it means in rates in the year coming up and the year that we're in alone, because I have to think that the $80 million loss experienced in '86-87 is going to continue again.

I found one loan - not a large one - where the loss to Manitoba Hydro in itself was $35 million, which had to be met, more or less, at that point in time. 379$

Monday, 13 July, 1987 Mr. Acting Speaker, I think it's impo rtant that the Minister tell us, in closing debate, the impact that this bill is going to have upon the ratepayer of Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Acting Speaker, we gambled and we lost. We went into the foreign currency market and, in spite of everything else, the Minister of Finance and his Deputy will try and tell us we lost big by going into those markets.

I think that it's important that the Minister document for us all the specific lo ans that are outstanding today and take us through the exercise of showing how it is, when those loans come due in the next number of years, that the ratepayers of the province are going to be expected to pay up the foreign exchange losses associated with those loans. Mr. Acting Speaker, Manitoba Telephones last year - and this has been reported not by way of audited annual report - lost $2 million, thereabouts. They had $17 million profit before they had to refinance a loan - loan Tan Jay. On that issue, Mr.

Acting Speaker, they lost $19 million. When taken to the financial standing over the fiscal year of Manitoba Telephone System, it represented either a breakeven point or loss. I'm not talking about MTX, Mr. Acting Speaker. Just one loan wiped out because it became due, and the losses associated therewith wiped out all of Manitoba Telephones, all of their profits, in one year. Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I'm having a hard time determining from the Public Accounts which loans are still outstanding. It seems to me most of them are in American terms.

I can't see where a lot of the Hydro issues that are attributable directly to Hydro are in foreign currencies other than American dollars. Yet that portion of the Hydro debt load that has been advanced to them by the government, obviously there is a significant portion that has been borrowed in other currencies. I would ask, and I have requested of the Minister's office, to be provided with that detail and hopefully he'll be able to do so before we have an opportunity to finish debate on this bill. Mr. Acting Speaker, we lost. The NOP took us into these heavy markets and we lost. I dare say, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we lost damn big. We've lost an awful lot of money in that area. All of it, or virtually all of it, is now going to be thrown back to the ratepayer. I want to know, from the Ministers opposite, how it is that it's going to impact the rates of Manitoba Hydro, and can ii be segregated, separated, from the big shocks that are going to hit us associated with Limestone? Mr.

Acting Speaker, Bill 52 should be called, "L ei's Make the Deficit Look Better," or it should be called, "Manitoba Hydro - you are on your own now that we have taken all our political measures." That's what they're saying to the hydro-rate users: We've used you, and we'v e used you for five years. Mr. Aeling Speaker, after 1979, we said it was an abominable thing to do. We have said, "Members opposite want to know where we stand on this." In princi ple, Mr.

Acting Speaker, our party has indicated on several occasions that the time has come when the foreign exchange losses not be reflected in the budgetary deficit of the province. But, Mr. Acting Speaker, in saying that, that's in principle. Before we make the final commitment to this bill, we are going to want to see the impact on the ratepayer. I am doing a very, very rough analysis. I believe that the impact 3800 to the ratepayer could be as high as a 50-percent increase in the rates alone. I'm having trouble narrowing in and defining the time period. But, Mr.

Aeling Speaker, until I am provided with that information by the Minister of Finance, I believe some of the figures that we've come to are corr ect because the losses are so horrendous. Mr. Acting Speaker, what we will not allow this government to forget is that because they have taken the political measure associated with the building of our hydro plants, and they've taken so much political credit for ii, we will not let members opposite forget that they also put at risk not only the dollar borrowings but our hydro rates. They like to boast gleefully that they're amongst the lowest in the nation and, Mr.

Acting Speaker, in some respects they are, but the point is for how long? Because I dare say what Bill 52 will do - and I can only qualitatively make this statment at this time - is that it will have a most serious impact upon the ratepayers of this province. It seems to me that the members opposite also have to explain why it's taken five years to remove something tha t they considered to be a sham, to be a con, to be a hype, to be a hog-nosed snake when it came in in 1979. Five to six years to remove this terrible action. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I imagine there may be others on this side who will want to address this bill. I would hope, though, that the Minister of Finance, on being able to develop that information that I request, and being able to develop within his department, will see fit to speak to it during his wrapping up of the debate on this bill. Thank you. MR. ACTING SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Acting Speaker, if there are no other people on the Opposition side who want to speak on this, I would, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, propose to wrap up, and then the intention would be to get the material for the committee stage, if that's agreed.- (Interjection)-Okay. I wanted to speak on this to move it into commit tee stage, and I thank the Minister of Finance for, in a sense, giving me this position in that I was sitting in the House between 1977 and 1981 and I thought it would be appropriate to comment on it because I think we've had a lot of revisionist history put forward over the last 40 minutes.

We had the Member for Lakeside talk about the period 197 7-1981 as if that was the golden age of Manitoba when, in fact, it was the dark ages of Manitoba. The people of Manitoba recognize that for what it was, and for the first time in our history they kicked the Lyon administration out after only one term in office, the first time in history that that's ever happened.

If the Conservatives on the other side want to reflect upon tha t as being the height of their period in government, their golden age, the time when in their eighties and nineties they will nostalgically look back and say, yes, I was part of the government that froze health care spending, cut back on hospitals, cut back all over.

Monday, 13 July, 1987 The term "cutback" is synonymous with the Lyon administration and, in fact, what you had in the last election was a process whereby the opposition leadership, not necessarily all the members, but the leadership of the Conservatives wanted to somehow deflect public attention away from the possibility that if the Conservatives were elected in 1985, they would go back to the Lyon cutback style.

So they then tried to "out-Devine" Devine in Saskatchewan by coming up with promises worth $300 million, which they didn't have the courage to announce during the course of the campaign in a straightforward manner but, in a sense, they wanted to announce this to show that they were Progressive Conservatives - Red Tories - but they didn't want to be attacked by backlash elements within their own party , so they announced these ma jor expenditure increases on Sunday afternoons. Can you think of a worse time to try and announce your thrust to the public apart from a Sunday afternoon during a campaign?

But it showed how divided they were and how embarrassed they were during their regime in office from 1977 to 1981 and they did not want the public to reflect back on that period of government because it hurt Manitobans so badly. We went from a position of being No. 1 or No. 2 in terms of economic indicators to being No. 9 or No. 10. We're now back to No. 1 and No. 2 in terms of the economic indicators. So that's the general context of what took place between '77 and'81.

I didn't speak on this particular bill when I was sitting in the Legislature at that time, and I listened to the comments of the Member for Lakeside, the Member for Morris, when they indicated that the NOP at that time thought this was a crass political action, and in fact it was. They talked about outside political interference on the operations of Hydro. The most major outside interference was when you had a Conservative Government come along and say that they will impose a hydro rate freeze. That was not something that came up from Hydro.

It was something that was dictated as policy by the Conservative Government - the most major intervention in Hydro policy in its history. A MEMBER: What about 140-percent rate increase in five short years by your incompetent government? HON. W. PARASIUK: That wasn't good business sense as it turned out. It turned out that was not good business sense. What it did, you put a freeze, you had a drought, and you had losses incurred by that corporation. That was going to be the business ethic of the Conservative Government. They keep saying that the New Democrats couldn't run a peanut stand. Mr.

Acting Speaker, their problem is they equate all business with running a peanut stand, and business is a bit more difficult than that. Their business ventures haven't been anything to write home to mother about, both inside the government and outside the government. Their former leader went off to sit on the board of the Canadian Commercial Bank - bankruptcy. Billions of dollars put into that; not a word said about that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: What a low blow. HON. W. PARASIUK: It's not a low blow. You people have sat here consistently and talked about the lack of busi ness expertise on thi s side,

whereas your business expertise goes haywire. They say that is a low blow when it is a historical fact. I'm astonished. They like to throw the stones but they can't live with getting the rebuttals - they can't live with the counterpunching. The height of their aspirations with respect to business and Crown corporations is putting it in the category of the peanut stand. I just heard the Member for Minnedosa say he was just put on the board.

What he fails to take account of is that board with that member on the board passed major increases in directors' salaries, major increases in dividends and major increases in corporate officers' salaries while the thing was going bankrupt, and he then wants to say, oh, yes, but he had nothing to do with that. Now what we had, we had a hydro rate freeze imposed, as if somehow this was going to be a good business practice. In retrospect, it was a bad business practice. In retrospect, did it help our Manitoba economy? No.

Our Manitoba economy in that period of time had the worst record of performance it's ever had on a comparative basis. Did we have any new business locate to Manitoba because of a temporary rate freeze? I checked with the Department of Industry and Commerce when I became a Minister. I asked them if they could document any instances of businesses being established in Manitoba because of our hydro rate freeze and they couldn't give one example where that took place. So it had no beneficial impact.

It did in fact put some extra power in the hands of the consumer with frozen rates, but it made vulnerable the corporation to drought, to change circumstances and it didn't give the corporation the flexibility required in terms of dealing with changed circumstances. We did lose as a corporation some $203 million. The Member for Morris asked, well, why didn't we change this sooner? It's easy to put a freeze on in a political sense; it's easy to put a subsidy on from a political sense. It's difficult to remove the freeze; it's difficult to remove the subsidy. We did our homework. We removed the freeze.

We've done our homework. We're moving this subsidy and, Mr. Acting Speaker, we will be able to handle this in the future, one major reason being that we, in fact, have contracted for long term firm power sales where the payments will be in American dollars. We are talking about debt which is primarily American. So there will be a way of handling that in the future in terms of dealing with the uncertainty of exchange rate fluctuations and dealing in foreign currency is difficult and hindsight is a lot better than foresight.

I think that from a position of hindsight, I don't know, we've done the calculations or technical people have done the calculations which have said that we're still ahead by having borrowed in foreign currencies and getting it at lower interest rates. That's a technical determination done by the technical people who do our foreign borrowing and have done it, by the way, for both New Democrat and Conservative Governments. The thing that the Member for Morris tries to put across, which I think is unfair, and I was hoping that I would have the chance to address this to him directly, 3801

Monday, 13 July, 1987 is that foreign borrowings have been pursued by both New Democrats and Conservative Governments. The interesting thing is that the foreign borrowings were done on the basis of the technical advice provided by the professionals in the Department of Finance, apart from the instance when the Conservatives came to office and they said, no, you can't borrow offshore, you must borrow in the United States. That was a political decision taken by the government that in retrospect turned out to be terribly wrong. Our exchange rate turned dramatically over a period of years vis-a-vis the United States.

For a number of years we were doing very well vis-a-vis the rest of the world because our exchange rate is tied to the American exchange rate. Over the last six or nine months, we have not done well on a relative basis vis-a-vis offshore borrowing, but we have done better in the past, and the political decision was taken by the Conservative Government. It was not a decision taken by the technical staff. They wanted to spread that risk out because there is risk in borrowing in markets outside the Canadian market. It was the Conservative Government that dictated you have to do it in the American market.

That was a major political interference that has never been done by the government on this side, and the Member for Morris keeps saying yes, but you people borrow a lot more money than we do.

What he forgets to tell the people of Manitoba is that we have gone through a very deep recession, we have gone through a situation where revenues have not kept pace with expenditures right across this country; and if you compare the record of the New Democratic Party government against the record of the Conservative Go vernment in Saskatchewan with respect to how their borrowings have increased over the last five or six years and you compare that with the Albertan government, which is Conservative, and compare it with the record of the go vernment in B.C., which is in all but name a Conservative Government, they have borrowed, on a proportional basis, far mor e than Manitoba has borrowed because that is the economic situation that we live in.

But it is this government that is getting a handle on its long-term deficit. It is this government that is bringing about a reduction in our deficit.

We have said that is part of our long-term policy of controlling the deficit and it's part of our policy of ensuring that, over the long run, hydro is provided with sufficient flexibility without artificial hydro rate freezes in order to carry out the business of providing Manitobans with the best service in North America at the lowest prices on a rate structure basis for this country and for the entire continent, because when all is said and done, we have had hydro rate increases.

But those hydro rate increases have been less, on a relative basis, than have been the electricity rate increases in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia, in Ontario and in Quebec. They act as if somehow Manitoba exists in a universe where time stands still and expenses never change and everything should stay according to 198 0 prices. But the world around us lives in a universe where time changes, where expenses go up and you do have these types of increases. So if one looks at it on a relative, comparative basis, we in this province have done exceedingly well in terms of our hydro rate increases.

We still have the lowest hydro rate structure in North America. It is the most competetive rate structure. We have businesses coming here telling us that they can make projections over the next 5, 10 , 15, 20 years. That gives them a comfort level. They admit that there are some instances where other provinces artificially, with subsidies, are offering very deep discounts for hydro, but they know that they can't have those hydro rates guaranteed beyond three or five years and they know that their investments will last far longer than three or five years.

They're looking at investments that will last 20, 25, 30 years. So in terms of our relations with the business community, and entrepreneurs thinking of investing in Manitoba, we feel confident that we have a very, very competitive product in terms of our hydro system. When we look at how we are going to manage our long-term debt, we are much more confident than any Conservative Government in this country as to how we will handle our long-term debt.

We have had a better performance in terms of dealing with our deficit than has the Federal Conservative Government and so, if one establishes those objective criteria, one can realize that this government has done an exceedingly good job. Now with respect to this act, I am pleased that the Conservatives on the other side have said that, in principle, they recognize that we have come to that time where we should remove those subsidies. We have made that similar type of decision ourselves.

A matter of timing is one that is made after one considers circums tances, thinking that circumstances might change on a year-to-year basis, but we think that this is the appropriate time. We welcome the support of members on the other side of the House in passing this bill, and we look forward to a speedy ultimate passage. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 65 - THE SURFACE RIGHTS ACT MR. ACTING SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill No. 65, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Virden. The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Mr.

Acting Speaker. I can just barely hear you, but I got the message. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to rise and, in a few minutes, put a few comments on the record about Bill 65, a bill brought forward by the Minister for Municipal Affairs. Mr. Acting Speaker, the southern end of my constituency has oil wells on it.

In the last two to three years, as I became interested in politics and started looking at running and then during the election and certainly after the election, I have had a lot of input given to my by people who were on the Surface Rights Association and farmers at large about their concerns with the way surface rights are handled in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Acting Speaker, when you look at the bill called Surface Rights Act, you naturally have to suspect that the intent of the act is to look after the land at the 3802

Monday, 13 July, 1987 surface, the land through which the oil company drills. The interest, Mr. Acting Speaker, you being a farmer, myself being a farmer, you would think that the interest is protecting the land now from irreversible damage and protecting the land for the future. When we're talking abou t future, we're talking about futur e generations, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that may well be many years down the road. But, Mr.

Acting Speaker, as I talked to farmers, it became apparent to me that maybe these objectives weren't being met because I was told many times that whenever an oil company decides they're going to drill at a specific point on a specific farmer's property, the farmer cannot say no. The oil company is going to come in there and drill and that's that. And the old Surface Rights Act, as I read it, I could see that most of the objectives of the act and the way the various sections were set up were to guarantee that shall be so, that the oil will be drilled for. There were laudable statements in the "Purposes"

section which would make you think that the landowner was protected. But, Mr. Acting Speaker, they're basically the same in this act that's presently before us, and I'd like to read them into the record. The purposes of the act - and I'm going to give you brief statements of them - (

a) to provide a comprehensive procedure for acquiring and utilizing surface rights; (

b) to provide for payment of just and equitable compensation; - and that's certainly one area that is not being fulfilled - (

c) to provide for the maintenance, preservation and restoration of the surface of land acquired; (

d) to provide for the resolution of disputes. Mr. Acting Speaker, the Surface Rights Association, on numerous occasions, has made representations to this Minister and previous Ministers who have been responsible before him about the way various parts of those purposes are not being adequately fulfilled. Mr. Acting Speaker, I will move on. I'll come back to some of those comments a little later. But I'd like to move on to

Part Ill, the "Right of Entry and Compensation." On 16 (1) it says: "no operator has a right to enter upon, use, occupy or take the surface of any land, until the operator has obtained a lease of the rights specified therein granted by the owner." As I said, Mr. Acting Speaker, the owner of the land sounds like he's protected there but, in actual fact, he cannot refuse entry at no time. Mr.

Acting Speaker, just to give you further ideas as to how the operator - this is the oil company - has the upper hand, I will read to you different sections here - 20(1) - which says: "The board may by order, subject to the payment of compensa tion as hereinafter provided, grant to the operator any one or more rights with respect to adjacent or other land" - in other words, not only the land on which they drill, but adjacent or other land; it may be that owned by another person - "as in the opinion of the board is necessary to permit operations to be carried on and to give the operator access to and egress from his operations." Mr.

Acting Speaker, again further power for a company to apply for and obtain access or use of lands, again with the operator having really no opportunity to refuse the company's request.

Further on, there are other articles that show that the operator has the upper hand and the farmer doesn't have a lot of say in preventing actions that he doesn't agree with: 27(1) "N otwithstanding anything in this Act," the board may grant an interim order for surface rights use; 27(2) "Upon receiving an application ... the board shall notify the owner or occupant, if any, and the owner or occupant, if any, may file an objection with the board provided the objection is filed within seven days." Mr. Acting Speaker, what if the farmer is away? Farmers can have holidays too.

But he's only got seven days to respond to the board if he has any objection to what is going on. 27(3), I'll just read the last part of it, " ... the presiding member for that purpose, has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and make a decision." In other words, one member of the board can make a decision on an application that is going to affect the farmer most directly. Mr. Acting Speaker, as I've talked with surface rights people, association members and farmers, what is said to me most often is the old act wasn't all that bad.

I'm sure the association is going to come forward and say the way the present act is written is not all that bad, provided it's carried out according to the way it's written. Mr. Acting Speaker, I have been told so many times I can almost - the words are ringing in my ears - there is a lack of regulations, there is a lack of guidelines. I would like the Minister to hear that one more time. He certainly heard it when he was talking with the board at their meeting last fall.

The executive director, in his day-to-day operations, seems to be able to make decisions that are not necessarily in the farmer's best interest. The farmers, by and large, feel that they're in the oil companies best interest. There have been numerous times when the various farmers have been very upset with the make-up of the board in terms of the members on the board. They don't believe there are enough people who are competent to make decisions from a landowner's point of view. There are two lawyers, a mayor and a housewife on there, and I believe one more.

But as a farmer myself, and certainly the farmers in the area would like to see a much stronger representation of farm people, people who understand the impact on surface when oil drilling occurs, salt water spills can occur and so on. I would just remind you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the Minister responsible for this one had taken action to remove three members from the board, three members who were very responsible knowledgeable people in the area about surface rights and how oil companies operate and how the oil business has functioned in the Virden area.

They were all removed, they believe, because they came forward and asked for regulations and guidelines and, in fact, had drawn them up. The government did not seem to want that to happen, so those three people were removed from the board. Mr. Acting Speaker, I will just read into the record the letter that Surface Rights Association has sent. The Member for Arthur has read various other parts of this presentation earlier, but I will read a couple of areas that he didn't touch on when he addressed this bill in Second Reading. Mr.

Acting Speaker, to use their words, "The areas of greatest concern which still cause problems in the matters of surface rights are as follows: the annual compensation rates for well sites were developed prior 3803

Monday, 13 July, 1987 to the coming into force of The Surface Rights Act, in most cases, do not equal compensation paid for similar sites developed subsequent to The Surface Rights Act." Mr. Acting Speaker, I will just use as an example a letter that was sent to the Minister on May 28 of this year by a constituent of mine, and he was sending in a copy of the lease form that the company had sent to him and asked him to sign or else.

I will just read his comment to the Minister: "I object to them sending this," - "them" meaning the oil company - "I object to them sending a form letter to me informing me that they have set a price for annual surface compensation. I own the land. I should be setting the price. Not only this; they only gave me 30 days to accept this or else." Mr.

Acting Speaker, the Minister replied to him and asked him if he was prepared to bring his comments forward to the Surface Rights Board and his reply back to the Minister on June 27, 1987: "Why should I be paid as little as $1 ,080 for this well site, when normal compensation for new wells in the area is around $2,000.00." Mr. Acting Speaker, I just commented earlier that their first concern is that old wells are getting $1 ,000 or less, new wells are getting $2,000 or more as a general average.

This constituent carries on and says: "Because the Surface Rights Board tias been biased in their judgments, I will not" - and he underlines "will not" - "bring any matter before the board. The board was intended to bring harmony between the oil industry and the farmers, and they have failed." And that sums up in a nutshell, Mr. Acting Speaker, what a lot of farmers feel about the way the board has operated.

Other concerns that the association is going to mention when they come to the committee hearings, some companies consistently offer compensations at levels far below what is generally accepted as reasonable levels of compensation; and (3), hearings are too long, too complicated, too intimidating and too expensive for landowners. Mr.

Acting Speaker, the Minister does not have it in the bill that he tabled, but in his comments at Second Reading he did address the cost side of it and said that an amendment will be brought forward so that there will be something in the bill to allow farmers to be compensated for costs when they appear before the board. That is certainly a help, and I'm sure the association will be happy with it. The fourth thing that they bring to my attention is that awards are generally inconsistent and, as I said earlier, far below negotiated settlements. Mr.

Acting Speaker, again in the Minister's comments in Second Reading, he says that the board will be able to now use comparables paid by operators and, in freely negotiated leases, to help to arrive at decisions in disputes brought before them. Again, the use of comparables is something that the Surface Rights Association and farmers who have had experience with the board want to see brought into place. For that again, I congratulate the Minister and thank him for addressing those two areas. But it's strange, Mr.

Acting Sp eak er, that they weren't addressed when the Minister had the bill drafted, and it seems a belated attempt, on his part, to try and appease the Surface Rights Association in two very basic areas. Another area I want to talk on, very briefly, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I'm certainly using all the time that I had alloted to me, is abandonment.

Again, it's another area that hasn't been of a tremendous concern up to this point in time, but landowners are starting to become aware that once that well is drilled, it doesn't produce forever and a day, and battery sites and so on can eventually be terminated and the company can leave. It certainly will be a problem if companies are allowed to leave areas in a state of affairs where the land cannot be productive for agriculture. Mr.

Acting Speaker, last year, during the first Session of this government, I brought to the Ministers of Agriculture's and Environment's attention that there were areas out there that farmers weren't happy with the way the companies were trying to bring them back into production. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Environment both assured me that they were working cooperatively with Municipal Affairs and with the Minister of Energy and Mines to try and have procedures that would be acceptable and workable.

Certainly, I think both Agriculture and Environment need to be a little more involved to assure that the kind of reclamation procedures used by the oil companies are acceptable and workable. I know, when I went to the hearing last August, the Oil and Natural Gas Board - I believe that's the right board - had a hearing on 20-acre spacings, and somebody from the Agriculture Department who had been out that day and the day before, looking at some of the areas where there had been spills or where there had been abandoned sites, he said, "I didn't realize that things were in this state.

Why weren't we here 20 years ago to get a better handle on the state of land when the oil companies leave?" So, certain ly, there is an understanding in th e Agriculture Department by some of the scientists there that some sort of work on their behalf is needed and I wish the Minister of Agriculture would act in that direction. Mr. Acting Speaker, in this bill, the company that wants to abandon the site, for whatever reason, has to apply for a certificate under The Mines Act. That means that The Surface Rights Act doesn't have first responsi bi lity for establishing the conditions for abandonment.

The Mines Act has vested interest in the oil company coming and drilling, and then if they want to leave, I don't think that The Mines Act is the right area to determine what the condi tions for abandonment should be. The way it's set up is that if the farmer is not satisfied with what the company does in terms of cleaning up and reclaiming the area, the onus falls on the farmer to appeal to the Surface Rights Board to act. I think that's the onus in the wrong direction.

It was the oil company that came and whoever owned the rights profited from tha t drilling, and it should be th e company's responsibility to clean that area up, and the landowner shouldn't have to appeal and to go legal costs to assure that his land is cleaned up. It wasn't him that caused the problem in the first place. The other question that comes up: What if the company that is in the process of abandonment goes broke or maybe is abandoning because they do go broke? Who's going to pay for the clean-up? If the oil company is gone, is it then going to fall on the shoulders of the landowner?

We believe there should be some degree of performance bond or something in that area 3804

Monday, 13 July, 1987 to protect the landowner from companies that will go broke, because that does happen. I will admit that the oil companies are a little more responsible now than they were 10 and 15 years ago and their reclamation procedures in use are somewhat better, but there's still tha t concern amongst the landowners that The Sur face Rights Act does not give them sufficient protection to assure that the oil companies will in fact follow through and do the kind of reclamation that is good for the land in the near future and the far future. Mr.

Acting Speaker, one other statement from the Surface Rights Association I would like to put on the record is that they had five resolutions at their meeting last fall. The Minister was present at the meeting and had considerable spirited debate with various members of the association. The five they asked for were:

(1) Comparable settlements to be used as primary evidence in determining just and equitable levels of compensation. That, the Mini ster is prepared to act on by amendment.

(2) Costs to be awarded to landowners. Again, the Minister has said he'll act on it by amendment.

(3) Fines to be assessed on operators who fail to report spills. There is no action by the Minister on that.

(4) The return of the board office to the Southwestern Manitoba area. Mr. Acting Speaker, it used to be located in Virden, and the Minister before this one removed it from Virden and brought it to Winnipeg, and the landowners would like to have the office back in Virden or some other part of Southwestern Manitoba where there's a much better access for them than what Winnipeg is. Again, the Minister has not acted on that one. They also want an investigation of surface rights matters.

Again, it's because they believe that the Surface Rights Board and the staff act in the interests of the oil company rather than in the interests of the farmer in their general operation. Mr. Acting Speaker, just to conclude my comments, I would like to remind the Minister that the act, as set up, is basically not all that bad. The old act wasn't all that bad either. The problem comes from the make up of the board, the attitude of the staff, and the guidelines that the board uses are not in place. There is inconsistency, the farmers feel, in the way matters are addressed by the board.

As a constituent said in his letter, he will not go before the board because of their biased attitude and because of the cost and time it takes, and they know what the results are going to be before they go. They know that the oil company will be well looked after. Mr. Acting Speaker, most of all, it's the attitude of the board toward landowners that's got to be changed if this act and that board is to serve the purpose for which it was set up and intended. With that, Mr. Acting Sp eaker, I conclude my comments and I believe the will is to let this bill go to comm ittee. MR.

ACTING SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCK LASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. I have perhaps a few comments before we move on to other business. Admittedly, the new act is not that much different from the old act but it certainly has been restructured to make the act a little more easy to understand. I certainly think that is one of the problems that many of the surface rights owners have been experiencing.

The question has been raised by both the Members for Arthur and Virden as to a lack of regulations at the present time ... - (inaudi ble)- be my hope that regulations will be established in time, but there was little purpose in establishing regulations when we knew that the act was on the verge of being revised during the past year. Once the act has been proclaimed, in use for some time, then regulations will certainly follow, but I think it would be beneficial to see what regulations specifically are required. I'm not so sure that we all want to see pages and pages and pages of regulations, but ... MR. J.

DOWNEY: One would be enough probably. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: How many? MR. J. DOWNEY: Probably one or two. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: One or two. Well, they will be there in time. With respect to the comments about the consistency or lack of consistency with the board, I should let the members know that I read through every board decision I think there was in 19 85 and 1986, and the one thing tha t surpr ised me was the consis tency in the compensation of awards.

As a matter of fact, one could almost -(Interjection)-They were consistent in that the board - and I've spoken to board members - I think, tried to stretch the criteria as much as possible. The problem was within

section 26 where the criteria were clearly enunciated or laid out and the board had to follow them and nothing else. I know that the surface rights owners have been asking the board to consider the compensation that's been achieved through freely negotiated agreements. The board was precluded from doing so by virtue of

section 26(1). There was no reference to comparables as being a criterion and therefore they were unable to use that. I would hope, with the new legislation, that the levels of compensation for those matters that go before the board will approach those that are freely negotiated. I know the Member for Arthur made some remark, and I don't think he meant that. He commented upon the level of compensation. The fact is about 90 percent of the agreements in Manitoba are freely negotiated, and while they ma y be lower tha n Al berta or Saskatchewan, one has to keep in mind that these are freely negotiated.

I do share the member's concern about abandonment of wells. I have a fear that within a decade or two we will see Southwestern Manitoba with a very serious problem with well abandonment, and that's certainly something that has to be dealt with, but it is really with another department as well as mine. I know that Agriculture, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Mines 3805

Monday, 13 July, 1987 and Energy will be continuing to review that situation with a view to finding some sort of resolution that will be satisfactory to the . . . MR. A. DRIEDGER: It will take a few years and then you won't have to worry about it then. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: What's that? MR. A. DRIEDGER: It takes a few years, and you won't have to worry about that. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Oh sure. A few decades, we'll continue worrying. So we have in the new bill addressed a number of concerns. The comparables issue, I think, is being add ressed.

Costs, while it may not be entirely satisfactory to all concerned, I want to assure the members that the industry itself is most unhappy with the proposal that operators be awarded costs on the basis of some sort of formula. They would prefer that it would apply equally to the industry. The one question about relocation of the branch, as members are aware, there were some considerable problems some two years ago. At tha t time, my predecessor made a decision to move the branch to Winnipeg where the staff could have some experience in learning how other boards of this type handle issues.

I would hope that once we have the act working better than it has been in the past, once staff have had more experience with dealing with appeals to the Serface Rights Board, once regulations are in place, guidelines and so on, and the thing is operating more smooth ly, that favourable consideration could be give to reloca ting the branch back somewhere in Southwestern Manitoba. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) I certainly am very supportive of branches being in the area of the farmers or landowners that we service. We are with Municipal Affairs.

Municipal Affairs is probably the most decentralized department in government. It makes sense for Municipal Affairs to decentralize. I would think that in time we would want to give some positive consideration to the branch being relocated in Southwestern Manitoba, closer to the oil wells. With those remarks, I would like to then move that this go to committee. I'll answer specific questions at that level. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL NO. 70 - THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education, Bill No. 70, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've had an opportunity to review the bill, and as the Minster indicated in his opening comments, this is to deal with the conflict of interest issue that arose last spring and over the past number of years with people providing service in the school division, yet those who work within, and what is and what is not a conflict of interest.

I believe there was a court case last spring revolving around a particular issue. The particular amendments are almost direct lists from the code that was put in for the municipal councillors. It has been in place for approximately three years. The only surprising thing to me is when the government was talking about conflict of interest several years ago, why they chose to put it in The Municipal Act and into The Legislative Assembly Act; yet they ignored the whole area of the school boards and education.

I believe the mass people have been calling for some sort of legislation to try and clarify this rather sensitive issue for a number of years, and more recently , as I indicated, there was the court matter last spring that sort of forced this matter to a head and introduced these requirements. I know that the Minister has had some discussions with the Manitoba Teachers' Society on this, and they would like a further clarification to make it absolutely certain that a spouse of a person who is in involved in the school division is not in a conflict-of-interest position.

I would just caution the Minister about introducing any suggested amendments. I would say, if this code of conduct is good for the Legislature and the municipal government level, it should be acceptable to the education level. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to any suggested amendment; I would just say that I think there is sufficient protection in here without having to go to the nth or ultimate degree that one might be concerned about.

I think if a problem does surface, and I find it difficult, given the type of wording that is here, that one could get into that type of a situation, but I am not a judge, nor am I sitting in judgment interpreting these particular sections. Of course, there is always the risk that one may get an unfavourable decision, but you would have thought that the legislation that's been in existence now, that this is copied from, would have produced such a concern. It hasn't. So, therefore, before we get into meddling with something that we haven't even really tested, I would suggest that we give this a chance.

Therefore, with those comments, Madam Speaker, I would recommend that this move on to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 59 - THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Health, Bill No. 59, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to just briefly add my comments to the proposed amendments to The Mental Health Act, Bill 59, and indicate that the legislation that's before us right now just appears to be a long overdue housekeeping bill to comply with the Charter of Rights.

It really has done absolutely nothing to address the issue here in Manitoba or the problem in our mental health system in Manitoba. 3806

Monday, 13 July, 1987 Community and home support services are a vital addition to the institutional care that is provided in Manitoba now, and I must say that the basic mental health care is institutional care. This bill does nothing at all to enhance community mental health or support services in the home for our mentally ill people in Manitoba. I guess it was in 1984 when the Pascoe Report on Mental Health was done. It was a fairly extensive study and that report at the time recommended closing both Brandon and Selkirk Mental Ho spitals by 19 90.

Obvious ly, this is another one of the reports that's been done and been shelved by the Minister of Health and his Department, because there's really been nothing done since 1984, and here it is almost 1990. You know, the Minister at that time endorsed in principle the recommendations of the Pascoe Report, so obviously the Minister of Health agreed with the Pascoe Report because he endorsed it. But he's done absolutely nothing, Madam Speaker, in the way of implementing any of the recommendations that were proposed at that time.

He did say that there might be a change in scope and there would be some addition of community services. But I certainly haven't seen any addition in community services. There have been some mental health beds closed. There really hasn't been the support in the commun ity, or the increased services in the community to allow for any closure of any mental health beds. So this Minister has not acted on that report, just as he hasn't done much acting on the Pascoe Report on health care in the Province of Manitoba.

He's had another quite lengthy and fairly costly report done on just the health care system in Manitoba, and to date he hasn't really implemented anything. He says, oh sure, we have to get away from the institutional health care and out into the community-based services, but he hasn't provided any money in health care and he hasn't provided any money in mental health care to implement services in the community so mental health beds could be closed. So, obviously, the Minister of Health has no desire or no will to change. He gives a lot of lip service to the recommendations but does nothing.

It's fine to study things, Madam Speaker, and to have recommendations made and agree in principle to those recommendations, but when the money can't be provided - well, in 1984 they proposed that additional money had to be provided to provide for the transition between institutional services and community services in the mental health field. To date, the Minister has put no extra money into mental health care; and now he's saying that we have to implement, in our general health care system, we have to provide extra funding to make the transition between institutional care and community care.

To this point, he hasn't provided any additional monies to do that. So, Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister does not have the concerns of the mentally ill in Manitoba as a No. 1 priority, and it's distressing, particularly when I asked questions here in the House last week on how many psychiatrists are going to be leaving Manitoba, and the Minister of Health says quite flipp antly, "Well, when they let me know, I'll tell you." Madam Speaker, he's the Minister of Health. Why do I know, Madam Speaker, that five of the top psychiatrists in the province are leaving the Province of Manitoba?

The head of the University Psychiatric Department is leaving; he's also head of the Health Sciences Centre. Madam Speak er, the head of the department at St. Boniface Hospital is leaving Manitoba and he's going off to Alberta, to the University of Calgary. Obvious ly, Madam Speaker, he's found a better opportun ity in Al berta than he has right here in Manitoba. The head of the University of Manitoba and the Health Sciences Centre is going down to the States. He's found better employment down there.

We have a doctor from forensic psychiatry who is leaving and going to B.C.; we have a doctor of child psychiatry from St. Boniface Hospital who is leaving and going to Toronto; we have a doctor who's interested in geriatric psychiatry who is leaving and going to B.C. So, Madam Speaker, obviously, things aren't terribly great here in Manitoba for all of these top psychiatrists to be leaving and going to other jurisdictions. There must be something lacking here in this province in the way of mental health care that these people would want to leave and go elsewhere.

Madam Speak er, we've had a great exodus just in the last little while of many other psychiatrists who have left for better opportunities. We graduate psychiatric students and they go on for further training to the United States. And do you know what happens, Madam Speaker? They don't come back; they don't come back to Manitoba. We graduate other psychiatrists who decide that Manitoba isn't the place for them to be and they go to other jurisdictions. We've had some recently that have just graduated, a husband and wife team, I understand, and have left to go to B.C.

So, Madam Speaker, the Minister, obviously, when he says - the questions that are asked - and he flippantly replies that he doesn't know why they're leaving and, we're looking at it, and he isn't aware of tho se psychiatrists who are leaving, I believe he doesn't have the best interests of mental health at heart because I would think that the Minister would want to know or would be aware, when it's common public knowledge, that these people are leaving, and he would want to do something constructively to address the situation here in Manitoba.

Madam Spea ker, the majority of psychiatrists here in Manitoba right now are not accepting new patients. They've got enough patients in their workload, Madam Speaker, that they will not even accept appointments from new patients. So, Madam Speaker, what is to happen to those who are in need of psychiatric services and can't get it, and have to be put on long waiting lists? There's a psychiatrist who I know of who has just gone into private practice here in the Province of Manitoba, Madam Speaker, just within the last month or two.

He's already got patients booked until the end of August, and he can't accept new patients before that. So, Madam Speaker, when I indicate that there are problems, there are definitely problems within our mental health system here in Manitoba. I would like to see the Minister address those issues and those problems, rather than just providing sort of housekeeping amendments to The Mental Health Act, and not really addressing the issues of what services are needed and what services are required here in the Province of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, the problems that we have here in Manitoba, if we could develop some commun ity 3807

Monday, 13 July, 1987 services, woul d be somewhat allevia ted . Ju st comparing, Madam Speaker, the Parklands Region here in Manitoba with a population of about 60,000, we have two half-day psychiatrists on consultation to serve that 60,000 population in Manitoba. Madam Speaker, in Yorkton, an area that's about one-and-a-half times the size, 90,000 population, they have five ful l-tim e psychiatrists to service the needs of those in the rural areas of Saskatchewan. Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister quite frankly: What is he doing to address mental health in the Province of Manitoba?

What steps forward is he going to take to assure Manitobans, especially in the rural areas, that they're going to have adequate services and they're going to have services that are provided in their communities, so they don't have to travel away from their families and be subjected to institutionalization rather than being provided for in th eir own communities? Madam Speaker, there are a few portions of the legislation that some experts in the psychiatric field have commented on and have questioned.

I hope the Minister will be addressing those comments and seeing if he can't amend the bill in some way to address the issues. The one portion of the legislation on involuntary admission does not really deal with the question of whether the individual is competent or not to make his own treatment decisions. I would ask the Minister to look at that portion of the legislation. Those who have some expertise are concerned, because they don't feel that it's acceptable that people who are not guilty of any crime and can make their own decisions for treatment should not be allowed to do that.

So I hope the Minister will look at that, and maybe propose some amendment or some additions or some rewording there in that portion of the legislation. Another area that they're very concerned about, and those are the medical officers who are in charge of providing psychiatric services, that they're going to be overbur dened, Madam Speak er, with additional responsibi lities.

With the numb er of decreasing psychiatrists in the Province of Manitoba, the additional responsibilities that they're going to have are going to either cut down on the amount of time that they're going to be able to spend with their psychiatric patients, or the hospitals are going to have to budget for more services and will have to provide more funding for professional time required to provide the extra energy and the extra paperwork that's going to be involved as a result of some of the amendments to the legislation.

So I hope the Minister will have a look at that and see whether he can provide or at least consult with and study the mental health situation in the Province of Manitoba, and make some concrete progressive decisions on what should be done and what direction we're heading in this province, because it seems to me we've gone nowhere since the study was done in 1984. The recommendations were made, and this government hasn't acted in any wa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-88a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 88a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	be7e91ad2ba60d7e0ac6c04b66e6a3f1f2f1e627

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