ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlahed under the authority of The Honourable D. Jame• Welding Spe aker VOL. XXXI No. 46A - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 14 APRIL, 1983. Printed by the Office of the a.-t>s PnntM. Province ol Manitobll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G. W.. J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTt, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIY( Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Ve rendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West El lice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 14 April, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Spea ke r. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCT ION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 55,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act. (R ecommended by Her Honour the Ueutenant­ Governor). MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. Oh, he is not present. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Gallery where we have 30 students of Grade 9 standing from the John Henderson Junior High School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Warren Earl and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Finance . On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS Loss of packing house jobs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , I would like to ask a question of the First Minister. It has been reported that cattle are being shipped to other provinces for fattening, and Mr. Zimmer of the packing house unions is concerned because it is endangering our packing house industry and a possibility of losing more jobs; there have been lost jobs already. What is the Premier doing about that situation to protect our packing house industry and the jobs within that industry? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON.

H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , the Member for Sturgeon Creek, I supppose, is not aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, who is in attendance at Swan River today on the Crow hearings, has embarked very successfully on a Beef Stabilization Program stabilizing the price of beef cattle in the Province of Manitoba; stabilizing, indeed, an industry that, yes, is under considerable challenge, as it is in different parts of Canada, but the Beef Stabilization Program has been a major program insofar as strengthening the beef industry in Manitoba. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, according to the reports, Mr.

Zimmer doesn't agree that that program is assisting the beef industry in the Province of Manitoba. As a matter of fact, he believes it is harming the packing industry and creating a loss of jobs. The question is, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister was very concerned when Swift's closed and showed a concern over the packing industry then, does he show the same concern now? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is regrettable that a Beef Stabilization Program and a Hog Income Support Program had not been introduced earlier than what, indeed, had been the case.

Our support to a Beef Stabilization Program, the very fact that it has been extremely successful with a participation rate of, I believe, it's between 60 and 70 percent - I can stand to be corrected - contrary to projections from honourable members across the way of anything in the neighbourhood of 10 percent, in fact, demonstrates that program has been most successful.

The honourable member may not either be aware that there has been a successful continuation in respect to the Hog Income Support Program in the Province of Manitoba, in which there is a major input insofar as the province is concerned in ensuring a stabilization of the hog industry in the province . So, Mr. Speaker , in these two important areas there has been support to the livestock industry in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker , I don't pretend for a moment that there are not, and will not, continue to be serious problems her, as indeed has been the case elsewhere in Canada.

There have been closures, in fact, of packing plants in Charlottetown and in Toronto within the last year. We are vitally concerned throughout Manitoba in our industry and it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that we launched the program that we did despite, I must say, some pretty strenuous opposition from some members across the way. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It appears as if, from the First Minister's answer, that he does not understand the problem. I might point out in my

preamble, Mr. Speaker , to my question, that it seems that the First Minister . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: I am not trying to muzzle anyone, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER : The Member for Pembina, congratulations on his haircut; it's not bad . The Member 1719

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 for Pembina started a speech, there's no suggestion - he should learn from the Member for St. Norbert who knows how to give a

preamble that is clearly a

preamble. I am just simply raising the question of the appropriate use of question period. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on the same point MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the members on this side are supposed to have an opportunity during question period to place questions to the Ministers on the government side concerning issues of the day. It happens to be a serious issue of the day that employment is threatened in the packing industry in Manitoba. My colleague had barely opportunity to get one sentence, by way of

preamble, to his question before he was interrupted by the Government House Leader, who then takes the opportunity to make personal remarks about members on this side. We don't need to be interrupted that way, Mr. Speak er. He's out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I hope that all members would acquaint thems elves with Beauchesne 's requirement that a

preamble should be able to be phrased within one sentence. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the First Minister in answering two questions put to him this afternoon, obviously does not understand the problem and is missing the point; and in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker , that the union head of the meat packing industry does indeed, recognize the problem in the meat packing industry and the threat to employment in that industry; and in view of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that already some 25 employees are laid off in Winnipeg, and employees in a packing plant in Brandon are working short hours; in view of that background, could the First Minister indicate whether any member of his government is demonstrating the same kind of concern today in government that they demonstrated so vocally when they were in opposition and the closing of Swift's occurred?

Has the First Minister or any member of his Treasury Bench undertaken to determine why cattle are leaving the Province of Manitoba and not being available to the packing industry of Manitoba for slaughter and processing, hence causing the loss of jobs in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , as I indicated to honourable members earlier , contrary to, indeed the case in the past, we do have a Beef Stabilization Program introduced by the Minister of Agriculture which has been extremely successful insofar as the beef producers are concerned in the Province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture who will be in attendance once the Crow meetings are concluded in Swan River and Dauphin, I believe it is, will be I'm sure, most anxious to deal in much more detail in pertaining to tlie involvement of his department insofar as the Beef Stabilization Program is concerned, stabilizing the beef industry as well as other areas of involvement on the part of the Department of Agriculture. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the First Minister for his non-answer. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr.

Zimmer, as head of the Meat Packing Workers' Union, says that he finds himself as a strange bedfellow with the feedlot operators in the Province of Manitoba and that the continued survivability of jobs in his industry is dependent on a vibrant feedlot industry and finishing industry in the Province of Manitoba, will the First Minister now include the feedlot operators of Manitoba as part and parcel of this Beef Income Assurance Plan that he is so proud of? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, I think it would be much more suitable and much better insofar as the honourable member is concerned that he await the Minister of Agriculture and I'm prepared to accept that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Honourable First Minister is indeed the leader, or supposedly the leader of this government, and in view of the fact that at the present time 60 percent of the cattle that are slaughtered in the packing houses in Manitoba have to be imported because of the failure of this government to support the feedlot industry, would the First Minister consider widening the Beef Income Assurance Plan to encompass the feedlot operators as well as the beef producers? He is the First Minister and maybe he should be showing some direction to the Minister of Agriculture. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I ask, was it the previous Conservative administration that introduced a Beef Stabilization Program into the Province of Manitoba at considerable cost to the Province of Manitoba, or was it this New Democratic Party Government that has introduced a Beef Stabilization Program that involves some 60 to 70 percent of beef producers in Manitoba despite projections that but 10 percent would be involved?

I ask that question because it appears by way of the question from the Member for Virden that he has lost sight of the chronology of events that have occurred over the last two or three years. Mr. Speaker, that question from the Member for Pembina, I'll take it as notice. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised it missed you, Sir, that when the First Minister stood, he said, "I have a question," and he proceeded to ask a question about who had introduced the plan into the province.

It's always been my impression that it was an opportunity for the opposition members of the House 1720

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 to ask questions of the government side. Is it now to be a back-and-forth question exchange, Mr. Speaker? HON. S. LYON: God knows they need the information, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm not sure whether it was the Honourable First Minister's intent to pose a question to members opposite. - (Interjection) - If that was the case, I'm sure he will make it clear. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to the point of order, certainly if you will review Hansard you will ascertain that the answer was expressed in a way which suggested that the Member for Virden ought to indeed be asking himself the question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the question posed by the First Minister, I would like to . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the honourable member have a question? MR. H. GRAHAM: Yes.

I would like to ask the First Minister, as a result of the answer to his question, since the problem has not appeared in Manitoba until the Beef Income Assurance Plan was put into effect, perhaps the First Minister would like to reconsider the answer that he has given to this House. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the honourable member to misunderstand the answer to the question. I indicated certainly that I'm taking this matter as a matter of notice.

I will discuss the question with the Minister of Agriculture upon his return, because we are concerned about the packing house industry in a very fundamental way in this province , and if indeed there are constructive proposals that make sense, that are viable, we will entertain those along with any other proposals and suggestions that might be undertaken, but only, Mr. Speaker, if those proposals are viable, not if they're reckless or foolish. MR. H. GRAHAM: A further supplementary question to the Honourable First Minister.

Since the Honourable Minister of Agriculture is away on his grand tour of Manitoba and since they have only had two briefs proposed to them from Swan River and only two from Dauphin, would the First Minister consider cancelling the road show that the Minister of Agriculture has embarked upon and bring him back here to attend to the business of this province in which he has some influence? The grandstand show that he has on the road is in a field that is beyond the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba and the business of this province is very important. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in response to the question from the Honourable Member for Virden, I am indeed puzzled. This was a committee of the Legislature that I thought was established by unanimous vote of this Legislature; not a divided vote in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find it somewhat reprehensible that a committee established by this Legislature, by an all-party vote, by all-party support, should now be described as a road show and to be grandstanding. I find that reprehensible, Mr. Speak er. Letter to Hazen Argue MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, some days ago the Member for La Ve rendrye asked me for a copy of a letter sent to Hazen Argue. I have that letter here for tabling. Loss of packing house jobs MR. SPEA KER : The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the inaction by the First Minister, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the statements by the union leader Bruno Zimmer whom, unfortunately, the government fired from the Workers Compensation Board, I believe, would the Minister of Labour for the first time meet with the union leader, Mr.

Zimmer, to enquire into his concerns about disturbing developments in this industry and his concerns about not wanting to risk closures or massive layoffs? Would she meet with him, discuss those concerns with him, and make some recommendation to the First Minister and the Minister of Agriculture in order to avoid these closures and massive layoffs? HON. M.B. DOLIN: First of all, I'd like to update some information that the members opposite apparently don't have. It's United Food and Commercial workers that is the union involved. The meat packers merged with other groups to form this union some time ago.

I meet with Mr. Zimmer fairly regularly through a liaison committee that we have. In fact, with the involvement of my department in various aspects of the meat-packing industry and the concern we have over the red meat industry in particular where you know, I'm sure, that there is a decline in the consumption of red meat, and this is another facet to that whole problem. We meet regularly to discuss this and we do meet, also, with the Minister of Agriculture, and the information is of course carried forward to my colleagues in Cabinet and to the First Minister.

The concern that has been raised in the paper will, of course, be a subject of discussion between us. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, in view of this very sincere concern by Mr. Zimmer with respect to layoffs, would the Minister of Labour advise us what recommendations she has made to the Minister of Agriculture to help solve the situation? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, there's not been a recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture. The 1721

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 Minister of Agriculture is involved in the discussions regarding the meat industry and the meat packing industry which, of course, relates to the beef industry as well as the hog industry and the chicken and turkey industry and so on. All of these industries are involved in the meat packing industry and, therefore, the jobs of the people involved in that industry; there are ongoing discussions. The likes and dislikes of the consumer are changing and that is having an impact on the industry as well as the concern raised in the paper today.

There is a very large area of concern over the entire mea t packing industry and the number of packing houses that exist, that perhaps are greater than the amount of meat to be processed; there are also some new ventures being embarked upon by some companies within this industry. All of these items are part of an ongoing discussion over the various facets of this industry and their impact on the work force and on the people of Manitoba.

The particular concern raised today - I think it has been said about seven or eight or ten times already - is under discussion, will continue to be under discussion and we will deal with the problem in the best way possible. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, despite these "ongoing discussions," there have been 25 people laid off in Winnipeg and they're working shorter hours in Brandon, and there is a concern about massive layoffs by the union leader , Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Labour made any recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture to resolve this situation so that these jobs are retained in Manitoba?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speak er, I think the record should be made straight for members opposite that the Minister of Agriculture has invited the feedlot operators, quite some time ago, to enter into discussions to come up with a program for the feedlot operators and it is my understanding that those discussions are now taking place with the Beef Commission and the feedlot operators. So it's not to allow the opposition to make comments and to leave the impression that nothing is being done; it is being done.

There are negotiations taking place at the present time and I think that I want to get that on the record. Fox lake Mine MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: My question is for the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Two days ago the First Minister said that he had, at some time previously, heard rumours about the possible closing of the Fox Lake Mine at Lynn Lake, and I asked the First Minister, at that time, what action he had taken on hearing those rumours, because obviously they would, if true, lead to the elimination of the economic base at Lynn Lake.

The First Minister took that question as notice. Could he now advise the House what action he took at that time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it would be of much more assistance to the honourable member to receive a full and detailed response to that question from the Minister of Energy and Mines who will be back tomorrow. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm interested in what action the First Minister took. Surely the future of the Town of Lynn Lake is something that should attract the interest of the First Minister. My question two days ago was to the First Minister.

What action did he take? Would he now advise the House if he did anything when he heard that the Fox Lake Mine might be closing and that would eliminate the economic base for Lynn Lake? Did the First Minister take any action at all? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I understand the disadvantage that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain is at as he was not present yesterday and this very same question was posed yesterday.

I gave a response to that question yesterday pertaining to different endeavours that the Province of Manitoba has been involved in, such as, the Aerial Survey Program that has been undertaken by the Minister of Energy and Mines. For further much more detailed information the Minister will further respond, but I would invite the honourable member to review the question and answer period yesterday in Hansard. I don't know whether it's been distributed yet; if not, he will find that this matter was dealt with at some length yesterday. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speak er, I have indeed reviewed Hansard from yesterday and this question was not dealt with. Am I to understand, from the answer of the First Minister, that when he heard the rumour of the Fox Lake Mine closing, he directed that there would be ae!rial surveys undertaken in the Lynn Lake area? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, the honourable member appears to - I don't know what he's attempting to suggest; only he knows I suppose.

There's the Aerial Survey Program; there's been other undertakings and efforts and the Minister of Energy and Mines will be present tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock and will deal with the questions that have been taken as notice. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister may find it unusual. We're simply trying to find out what action his government took when he learned that the mine at Lynn Lake would be closing. What he is referring to are ongoing studies that have been going on for years. A further question to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker.

When was the joint venture offer made by the government to Sherritt Gordon, with respect to continuing operation of the mine in the Lynn Lake area? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in case the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has not observed, we are fortunate in having a very capable Mines Minister, a Mines Minister that will be present tomorrow and will be quite prepared to answer these questions, and I will take these questions as notice on his behalf. 1722

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 Sherritt Gordon Mines - NEED Program MR. B. RANSOM: A question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Labour determined whether or not her department received a copy of a NEED application submitted by Sherritt Gordon on February 14th? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have a copy of that and I think the member opposite tabled such a copy in the House just the other day.

The meeting that took place in February gave an indication that the Department of Energy and Mines would be the lead department in this area since the NEED application did not fit the criteria for that program. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate receiving that answer from the Minister of Labour, because up until now, the First Minister has been refusing to acknowledge that his government had even received the application under the NEED Program. A further question, then, to the Minister of Labour, Mr.

Speaker, will be, what is the Minister of Labour doing to expedite a decision on this project which is of great urgency if there is to be some prospect for the continuation of a viable community at Lynn Lake? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member opposite does not understand the process for the NEED Program. An application does not come forward to myself or to the Federal Minister if it does not meet the criteria. It doesn't even go to the Advisory Board. The point of this program is to hire exhaustees. The exhaustees in the entire area around Lynn Lake amounted to about 14.

The program proposed by Sherritt Gordon . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Goodbye, Lynn Lake. HON. M.B. DOLIN: . . . required people with certain skills to do the work. The people with those skills were simply not there or certainly were not exhaustees. So, that was not the appropriate place to make application for wage subsidies. If they wish to have some kind of joint venture, if they wish to have some kind of assistance either from the Federal Government or from ourselves, then a different route would have to be chosen.

The NEED Program is for those on social assistance, and for those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance with some consideration being given to people on layoff from the employer making the application. This proposal simply did not fit, so it would not have been brought forward, even though it might have been submitted. Help for farmers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Honourable First Minister.

In light of the delegation of farmers that appeared here in the Legislature yesterday, can I ask the First Minister what pledges and promises he made to the hundred or more farmers who marched on this building yesterday, and what immediate action his government is prepared to take to ensure that the indebted farmers of this province will have enough money to seed their crops this spring? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for Russell for indeed asking - I don't want to slight on other questions that have been posed - but I think one of the most constructive questions that we've heard so far during this question period. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to receive the delegation indeed yesterday, from various parts of rural Manitoba; the farmers that are facing a very critical time pertaining to the cost-price squeeze that's indeed gripping the farmers of Western Canada.

The farmers that were present, outlined by way of letter, and by way of verbal submission, the pressures they're particularly feeling insofar as the lending institutions of the province are concerned, lending institutions being mainly the banks in the Province of Manitoba and difficulties that they've had given their tight squeeze in contending with the lending institutions with seeding fast approaching. Mr.

Speaker, we indicated, the Minister of Agriculture indicated the establishment of a panel that will consist of mainly farmers, that will mediate in disputes involving foreclosures on the part of lending institutions insofar as farmers are concerned; a panel which, Mr. Speaker, will deal with these matters in a fair and a balanced way in order to ensure that all parties' rights are properly respected, understanding indeed that there are leg itimate concerns on the part of both lending institutions and farmers. But, there are serious problems on the farm front.

I am pleased to note that the reception and the reaction of the farmers that were present in the main, Mr. Speaker, to that effort was positive. They were later meetings involving the Minister of Agriculture pertaining to details in the establishment of that panel, membersh ip, etc. I believe those meetings, as well, were successful, Mr. Speaker. Further progress is being made. I thank the honourable member for his question. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I can't understand the First Minister. We've been pounding him and his government for the last month here about these problems.

Finally they've recognized there's a problem out there, finally. Mr. Speaker, can I ask the First Minister, who is this board of reference, who are these people that you're putting on this board? What power are you and the First Minister granting them and what authority do they have to deal with the subject matter? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that was indeed the basis of discussions that involved the Minister of 1723

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 Agriculture and representatives of the farm groups yesterday. The Minister has also held meetings with the banking institutions pertaining to the establishment of a panel. He is receiving appropriate input, insofar as interested groups. The panel will mainly consist of farmers that will be able to evaluate the situation from an agricultural point of view. Insofar as powers, etc., the Minister is working that out in the closest of consultation with the interested parties, and certainly the Minister would be most anxious to provide that information fully at the appropriate time, Mr.

Speaker. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speak er, I regret that the First Minister didn't mention the credit unions in his answer, the fact that they're going to be involved. Can I ask the Honourable Minister, regarding the MACC Program which this government is proposing with a $100 million of guaranteed bank loans, is lhe government prepared to remove the 20 percent equity criteria, remove the upper ceiling, and take a look at the interest rates that MACC is asking these farmers, is that part of the parcel? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Again I thank the honourable member for that question pertaining to the 20 percent equ ity, pertaining to assets owned by a farmer , pertaining to applications for loan. The matter pertaining to same was raised by the farm representatives yesterday, and the Minister is quite sensitive to the concerns that were expressed, given the present . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PA WLEY : Despite the present difficul t situation, Mr. Speaker, it is quite understandable that that 20 percent equity ratio would create problems.

In view of the representations that had been made by the farmers and by other farm groups and leaders, Mr. Speak er, the Minister has undertaken to carefully examine the 20 percent figure. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I still can't understand why the First Minister wouldn't listen to us over here. If he'd have listened to the opposition, we could have that solved a month ago. Health care system restoration - election promise MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker , can I ask the First Minister, due to the election promises he made to the people of this province that they were going to, in fact, put the health delivery system in this province back on the rails again, can I ask him if he and his Health Minister will go to Gilbert Plains and meet with the people out there in response to the hundreds of letters and petitions that I'm getting about their decision to remove the x­ ray and the lab facilities from the proposed health facility that's supposed to be built in Gilbert Plains in '84?

I've had many many letters and many many petitions asking the First Minister and his Minister of Health to go out and listen to those people. Su rely , the government can listen to what the people are saying and provide at least some of their wishes. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I am again delighted that the honourable member has asked that question, but somewhat disappointed that the member's network isn't a little better than what I would have thought it to be.

Apparently, contrary to the honourable member's knowledge, the First Minister; namely myself, I've been in Gilbert Plains; I've met with all the community leaders in Gilbert Plains, including the representatives of the hospital. We had a very lengthy discussion, not only involving the particular matter raised by the honourable member, but other matters pertaining to the concerns of the people in Gilbert Plains. It was a good meeting, Mr. Speaker, in which they did indeed express to me their desires pertaining to the hospital. So, Mr. Speak er, yes.

I have met with the people in Gilbert Plains in their community, in their town hall. Insofar as the response from the Manitoba Health Services Commission, I would ask that the Minister of Health provide that additional information. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You might say that I've also met with the people of Gilbert Plains. At the time of the meeting, they made an accusation that the people of Grandview were not too interested in providing service. I thought that very very strange.

I proposed a meeting with the boards of the two hospitals, or any other people that wanted to come from the area, from Grandview and Gilbert Plains. They've requested a meeting. My answer has gone that as soon as you can arrange a meeting with the people of the area, I certainly will be pleased to meet with them. Again, I might say that this is not any removal; this was not approved in the new plans at any time. The approval under the former government for one thin!;; was never recommended by the commission.

I repeat again that in these days of people sitting in the back telling us about all the difficult times and the deficit, that it is not our intention, I repeat very categorically, to set up x-rays and a lab every five or six miles in this province. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; my final question. Regardless of when the First Minister was in Gilbert Plains, may I ask him again in response to the mail that he's got now and the letters that are in his office, will he and his Minister of Health go to Gilbert Plains and help these people resolve that problem now? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it's in the hands of the Minister of Health. Mr. Speak er, we have never refused to meet with the people from Gilbert Plains. In fact, as I mentioned to the honourable memb er, I made a special trip to Gilbert Plains to meet with the people in Gilbert Plains. It's now in the hands of the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Health is dealing with this concern in a very responsible manner. Study of Dr. Barber MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. 1724

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 MR. B. RANSOM: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. The question to the Minister of Finance is: Has Professor Barber from the university completed his study with respect to the presentation of operating and capital Estimates of government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The study has been completed. I do have an initial draft report, but I don't believe I've received the final report yet. I'm not exactly sure when it might be in. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, since the Minister's Estimates will likely be under consideration during the next few days, would the Minister agree to provide a copy of that preliminary report to the opposition? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I would want first to check with Professor Barber. I don't have any personal objections to releasing the report. I'll just check and get back to the honourable member later on this afternoon. Criteria for appointments to boards MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Minister.

I have on several occasions risen in the House to ask the First Minister when we can expect an answer to the written question placed on the order paper over a year ago concerning the criteria used by the government in the appointment of people to boards and commissions. Since I have received assurance from the House Leader and the First Minster that question would indeed be answered, could the First Minister give some indication of when we might expect that question to be answered? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I do apologize to the Member for Turtle Mountain for not having tabled this document earlier . I fear that at times we fall into the habits of opposition when they were in government. I'm going to attempt to ensure that it's tabled either tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. Wildlife Report MR. B. RANSOM: A question to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker. A perusal of my files and a check with the Deputy Clerk indicates that perhaps the Wildlife Report due under The Wildlife Act on a yearly basis has not been tabled. I might be mistaken on that, Mr.

Speaker, but could the Minister of Natural Resources indicate whether or not that report has been tabled? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKUNG: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. Interest Rate Relief Program re farmers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that as a result of yesterd ay's meeting with the farm groups who are experiencing financial difficulty and that the First Minister has indicated the government is now aware of a problem with the 20 percent equity position and has that under review for further recommendation, can the First Minister also indicate whether, as a result of yesterday 's meeting with that same group of farmers and as a result of their recommending an increase to the gross income limit for qualification under the Interest Rate Relief Program - something I might add that we've been advocating for a year - has the First Minister also got that under consideration to see if the limit to the Interest Rate Relief Program will be raised so that more farmers in financial difficulty might be able to qualify under that program?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWL EY: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little surprised that the honourable member says that's something that we've been advocating for a year from that side, because I recall the sarcastic and critical remarks pertaining to the Interest Rate Relief Program insofar as farmers are concerned in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the farmers in the Province of Manitoba have been having difficulty for a number of years and it was this government, not the previous administration, that established a program of interest rate relief insofar as Manitobans are concerned.

It is a program that is constantly under review and certainly the constructive sugge stions that were made yesterday by the members of the Farm Survival group and the National Farmers Union will be given very serious consideration by the Minister of Agriculture. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Could the First Minister advise us as to how quickly his Minister of Agriculture might report on the change on the 20 percent equity limit and on raising the limit of qualification for the Interest Rate Relief Program? I pose that question, Mr.

Speaker, because the First Minister must obviously know that seeding time is fast approaching, any more dilly-dallying by his Minister of Agriculture will leave farmers in need of assistance that they have come to expect from press announcements by his Minister of Agriculture, will not receive that assistance if the First Minister and his Minister of Ariculture dilly-dally and study the plans much longer. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it's kind of strange words coming from the mouth of the Member for Pembina who was a member of a Treasury Bench that for four years didn't even dilly-dally, they did nothing insofar as basic farm programs were concerned in the Province of Manitoba. Rather strange words, Mr. Speaker. 1725 HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, you were too busy increasing the interest rate.

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the concerns are very real out there, insofar as the Manitoba farm community are concerned. The basic problem relates to an issue that involves price stabilization and, Mr. Speaker , ensuring that there is a control in respect to the costs of farmers insofar as the Minister of Agriculture . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could answer the question, I'd appreciate having that opportunity. Mr.

Speak er, the Minister of Agriculture is a very responsible Minister and he will be making a report very shortly in respect to the requests that have been made by the farm organizations and I must say, Mr. Speaker, I found to be very enlightened and very informed and very responsible in their position that they made yesterday. MR. SPE AKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. MOTIONS OF CONDOLENCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speake r, before we proceed into Orders of the Day I would like to proceed at this point to Motions of Condolence.

I have had opportunity to provide notice of same to the Leader of the Opposition. I would first move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia, THAT this House convey, to the family of the late Ernest Richard Draffin, who served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service; and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, the member whose memory we wish to honour is Ernest Richard Draffin, who served as a CCF Member of this Chamber from October 15, 1945 to November 10, 1949, representing the constituency of Assiniboia. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than a third of a Century since Mr. Draffin served in the Legislature and no members present had the opportunity of serving with him. We do know that it was his interest, his dedication, his faithful work for his constituents and for Manitobans, generally, that were of the first order. Mr. Draffin's interests were wideranging.

Within the Legislature he fought for the lowering of the voting age to 18. He worked for strong increases in social services; he worked for tourist development; he was one of the leaders in the long and regretfully unsuccessful fight to retain Trans-Canada Airlines operating headquarters in Manitoba. When that was lost the maintenance base followed. He was particularly interested in matters of fitness and of health, his battles over conditions in some of Manitoba's mental hospitals were, indeed, vigorous; it paid off as new developments followed.

At that time, in assessing the activities of MLAs, the Winnipeg Free Press described Mr. Draffin as the most athletic. The paper was not wrong for his athletic activities extended far beyond this Chamber. Only two years ago he was inducted into the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame for his accomplishments as a builder of soccer in Manitoba, a sport in which he was an active participant, a builder , a promoter. His main interest was serving people, serving his community. He began his political career early in his life, served as a Councillor for the Village of Brooklands, as well as a member of this Chamber.

He helped organize a Volunteer Firefighters Association of Brooklands; he was a member of Riverview United Church, the Sons of Scotland, was an honourary member of the Manitoba Sports Federation. Up to the time of his death last December 19th he was a member of the Princess Elizabeth Hospital Guild. Mr. Speaker , in all of his activities, athletic, political, community, he was a man of the people, committed to helping his fellow citizens and determined to build a more just, a more decent society. Manitoba is, indeed, the poorer for his passing.

We do pay tribute to him today, and it is my honour to vote, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, that this House convey to the family of the late Ernest Richard Draffin, who served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement, sincere appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of the community and public service; and that, Mr. Speaker , be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family. MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr.

Speaker , I am pleased to second the motion that has been presented before us. I knew Ernie Draffin very briefly. My association with him was actually through our mutual affiliation through soccer. This was a great love of his; and as Mr. Premier has said, he was installed into Manitoba's Sports Hall of Fame in 1981, in recognition of his work not only as a player but as a founder, a builder, in soccer for Manitoba. I really wasn't aware of his political activities until making my maiden speech in the House.

I was doing some background work on Assiniboia and this is when I found the name of Ernest Draffin as being the representative for my constituency. He served in that capacity, as the MLA for Assiniboia for some four years. Prior to that, he had been very active in political work. He was a councillor for the Village of Brooklands, he stood for election on three other occassions. In 1949 he was defeated as the CCF candidate. He was in opposition to coalition. I imagine that that is possibly what brought about his defeat. Again in June of 1953, he stood for election in the electoral division of St.

Anclrews, but was defeated there as well. Again in 1958, he stood for electon, representing the CCF Party in Fort Rouge. So, his interest and his concern for the parliamentary procedure is well shown throughout his life. 1726

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 I personally would like to add my condolences and regards of our party on this side to his wife and family. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to support the First Minister's Motion of Condolence and to pay tribute to the late Ernie Draffin, who made his home in Riel. Ernie was born in 1909, in Weston, Manitoba. He received his early education at the Red School in Brooklands area.

In 1925 he took a position as a telegrapher with the C.N., a post which he held until his election to the Manitoba Legislature in 1945 as a CCF memb er. Upon leaving the Legislature, Ernie returned to the C.N., where he was employed until his retirement. In most cases, in which this House pays tribute to past members, Mr. Speaker, we are told of the their involvement in the ongoing debate and their various Legislature achievements and of their contributions made in the service of the people of Manitoba.

In the case of Ernie Draffin, however, such a review is not really possible for his period in this Assembly was brief and it was less than a term. He received his seat in a by-election in 1945 until a subsequent general election. However Ernie's personal legacy as an elected member may be slight, the legacy of the movement of which he was devoted had an everlasting impact on this province. Born in 1909, Ernie Draffin lived through the worst disasters of this century.

In the years when he was formulating his social and political ideas, Ernie experienced the full brunt of the First World War, the Great Depression and the Second World War. These events, which have shaped, to an immeasurable degree, the very nature of the world in which we live today, had a profound influence on Ernie. Observing the utter horrors of the world war and the brutal deprivation of the depression years, he came to realize that the only hope of man's future lies in the collective pursuit of freedom, equality and self-improvement.

He embraced whole-heartedly these principles which guided the Co­ Operative Commonwealth Federation. Ernie became active in the CCF in its earliest phases. Throughout his life, he remained committed to improving the lot of his fellow man, through the pursuit of democratic socialism. He recognized the fundamental truth that men must joint together, and through the vehicle of government, strive for social, political, and economic equality and improvements. Only through Democratic Socialism, Ernie felt, could man achieve his full potential.

For those of us who have not lived through, or have been so deeply affected by the events which shaped the lives of individuals such as the early founders of the CCF, we must look to the teachings of these individuals and to their examples for our guidance. In my own political development, I have had the great fortune of receiving the guidance of a mentor such as Ernie Draffin. When I first came to St. Vital and became active in the local NOP organization, Ernie was an active and a vital party member.

But even more importantly, he was a man who had developed early in his life, a very deep compassion for his fellow man, and who had applied the compassion throughout his life through his involvements in the CCF and in the NOP. In my association with him, I was greatly inspired by his undeviating commitment to democratic socialism, by his unceasing pursuit of social justice and for his kindness and infinite capacity to give of himself for the good of others. With the passing of Ernie Draffin, Mr.

Speaker, this Assembly has lost a man devoted to the democratic and collective principles of which self government is based. His party has lost a member committed to the values and the ideas which guides its every action. His fellow Manitobans have lost a very dear friend dedicated to the maintainance and improvement of their own well­ being. It is therefore with a deep sense of gratitude for the contributions that he has made to this province and with a profound sense of respect for the principles to which he adhered, and with fond memories, Mr.

Speak er, that I offer my deepest sympathy to the Ernie Draffin family and mourn his passing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in tribute of colleagues in this House to the late Ernest Draffin. Ernie, as we all knew him, was a very combative, enthusiastic person. He showed that combative spirit, he loved sports, he was very active in soccer, he showed that same enthusiasm for the life of this province. He was a committed democratic socialist, one that believed that government can assist people to a better way of life.

I was privileged in 1945 to have been associated with Ernie's first election victory in 1945. I was proud to be a young CCFer then as I am proud to still be associated with the same movement with which Ernie has worked and fought for so many years. Ernie was not recognized as a gifted orator in this House, but he was a dedicated individual. He was a product of the days of J.S. Wordsworth. I know that he knew J.S. personally. He was one of those people, who like many others in Manitoba, were inspired and continue to live by the inspiration of the social gospel of J.S. Wordsworth. Mr.

Speake r, I am proud to be associated with the eloquent tributes that are being paid to Ernie this afternoon and join in the condolences to his family. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to associate my name with the condolence motion of Mr. Ernie Draffin.

It was some 10 years ago that a committee was struck in the City of Winnipeg between the Winnipeg Enterprises and the City of Winnipeg and the Red River Exhibition Board and the Kinsmen Club of Winnipeg and the Alexander Park soccer people, and that committee's goal was to hopefully put artificial turf into the Winnipeg Stadium and have the Alexander Soccer Park property turned over to the Red River Exhibition Board so that they would have permanent grounds associated with the stadium. 1727

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 Ernie Draffin was the representative of the soccer people and the Alexander Park Board of Directors, and the First Minister made mention of the fact that Ernie Draffin was a fighter. I'll tell you that I have never been in a board room with a person that was a greater scrapper than Ernie Draffin when it came to defending his game, which was soccer, and the facility that soccer enjoyed, which was the Alexander Park. History will tell us that 10 years has passed and that artificial turf does not exist in the Winnipeg Stadium and the soccer people still have Alexander Park.

I think one of the reasons why Alexander Park is still there in its present form is because of the scrappiness of Ernie Draffin and his dedication to soccer. So, Mr. Speak er, I, too, would like to associate with this motion. MR. SPEAKER: Would all members rise for a moment's silence as an indication of their agreement with the motion? (A moment of silence was observed.) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PA WLEY : Mr. Spea ker , I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for River Heights, THAT this House convey to the family of the late William B.

Scarth, Q.C., who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service; and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the second motion that I wish to present to the Chamber today recalls the memory of another servant of this Chamber, William Blakeman Scarth, Q.C., who served as a Progressive Conservative member of this Chamber from June 16, 1958, to December 14, 1962, representing the River Heights Constituency. In this case, Mr. Speaker, we have sitting members of this Chamber who served with the late Mr. Scarth. Two names that come immediately to mind are my colleague, the Minister of Health and the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

I know they can attest with more direct knowledge than I can to the sincerity, the hard work, the dedication of a member who made an important contribution to the democratic process through which we serve our province. Mr. Scarth served in many ways; as a member of the Legislature, as a church and as a community leader , and as a serviceman in both World Wars. During World War I, he served with the 8th London Regiment and was awarded the Military Cross for gallantry. During World War II, he served in the Judge .Advocate-General Branch of the RCAF. Mr.

Scarth was born on May 24, 1895, raised in Virden, Manitoba, and practiced law in Dauphin, The Pas, and Flin Flon between the two wars. After the last war, he settled in Winnipeg and was a lawyer here from 1945 until 1968 when he moved to White Rock, British Columbia. He had been called to the British Columbia Bar the previous year and practiced as a lawyer in White Rock, where he died on the 9th of March of this year in his 87th year. In his service to this Legislature, Mr. Scarth was active in matters of municipal concern and economic development. This House, this province, indeed benefited from his wisdom. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a privilege for me to second this motion of condolence in memory of William Scarth. Mr. Scarth was the first member ever to represent the Constituency of River Heights, because it was in 1958 that the inner city area of Winnipeg went into individual constituencies to elect one member rather than the previous system that the inner area of Winnipeg had, which was to elect four members from three large wards. So Mr. Scarth was the first member ever to represent this constituency which is my privilege to represent as of now.

I, Mr. Speaker , met Mr. Scarth on one or two occasions. In the fall of 1962, I joined the Minister of Agriculture as an Executive Assistant and met Mr. Scarlh on a few occassions just prior to the 1962 election. My mother was a member of the Winnipeg South Progressive Conservative Women's Association executive for many many years and served with Mrs. Scarth; and in those days, the executive meetings were held back and forth between various members in their homes; and my mother was telling me today at noon hour that she was in Mrs. Scarth's home for meetings on numerous occasions and Mrs.

Scarth was over to our family home on a number of occasions for meeting s. As the First Minister said, Mr. Scarth served in this Chamber from 1958 and was re-elected in 1959 and then retired in December of 1962, and practiced law for a few years in Winnipeg and then retired, or semi­ retired, perhaps one might be better to say, to White Rock, B.C., where he practiced law with his son who, I understand, is still practicing law in B.C. So, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me, as the Member for River Heights, to second this Condolence motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S.

LYON: Mr. Speaker , I should like to associate myself and the Official Opposition with the words that have been spoken by the First Minister, and the Member for River Heights, with respect to a man who was a friend to me, who was elected with me, at the same time in 1958, and who served for two terms. He was elected in '58 and then again in '59 and served through a full term until '62 when he decided not to seek re­ election again in the election in December of that year. William Blakeman Scarth was, first and foremost, a gentleman to all. He not only deported himself as a gentlemen, he looked like a gentleman.

He was always 1728

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 sartorially extremely well turned out. About two months from now you would find Bill Scarth coming into his seat, in the second row on the government side of the House, always well turned out and always with a fresh pansy in his lapel button; fresh every morning as he left his well-tended garden at home and he brought that bit of brightness and freshness into the House with him. He was a very courtly man, and he was, not only trained in the law, he was a good practicing lawyer.

He came from a pioneer family, the Scarth family, who originally settled in the Virden area, indeed, their name is still emblazoned on communities or hamlets that have disappeared from that area now. His nephew still carries on the practice of law in the City of Winnipeg and, indeed, his son, William, as my colleague has mentioned, carries on the practice of law in British Columbia. Bill Scarth was, as the Member for River Heights has said, the first individual member elected from that constituency and reflected the view and viewpoints of that constituency in a very able way in the House.

He was not, as I'm sure the Minister of Health will recall, an outspoken member of the House, but he had strong beliefs and he expressed those beliefs in a firm way, but always with that kind of decorum that he attached to the House. He was proud of his service to his country in two World Wars and he carried through with that service through carrying on in the Fort Rouge Legion, and with other veteran associations, where he was well and favourably known. He was an avid golfer; he loved to get out on the golf course and to keep in shape.

I think that helps to testify to his longevity because he enjoyed good health in his later years and, indeed, did keep up the practice of law for a number of years after he left Manitoba. He served this province in a very distinguished way in many capacities; he was always a pleasure to work with in caucus and in government councils; and he was missed when he left the Legislature in 1962. So, Mr. Speaker , I join with the expressions of condolence to Mrs. Scarth and to his son in the loss of a friend; in the loss of a man who made an outstanding contribution to the public life of our community. MR.

SPEAKER: Would all members rise for a moment's silence as an indication of their agreement with the motion? (A moment of silence was observed) ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker , would you please call second reading on Bill No. 12, The Water Rights Act. SECOND READING - GOV ERNMENT BILLS Bill NO. 12 - THE WATER RIGHTS ACT HON. A. MACKUNG presented Bill No. 12, The Water Rights Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr.

Speak er, in introducing this bill I would like first of all to indicate some general statements in respect to the importance that I attach as Minister of Natural Resources to the subject matter of this act. Mr. Speaker , at this time of our calendar year, as I have indicated in reports to this House, all too frequently we are concerned about the negative effects of water in this province. In the spring we have the benefit of the flushing action of the rivers and streams swollen from the melted winter snows rushing their way to the sea.

That has a beneficial effect on our rivers and streams, but all too often, as is the case this year, there is an excess of water in some of our rivers and streams and it finds its way into areas where it creates a problem. Such has been the case over the course of the history of this province and I'm sure that it will continue, despite the best efforts that we have to try and control and regulate what is a marvellous resources, but at times can produce devastating damage to people in the province. I guess, Mr.

Speaker , one could draw an analogy between water and fire, the two great substances or resources that man has been able to utilize over his history - I say man and woman - over the history of life on this planet, both of which have fantastic benefits, but both of which can create havoc and create vast damage. Mr.

Speaker , we are very fortunate in this province being the recipients, not only, of snow and rain that accumulates on the surface of lands in Manitoba to give us the vitally refreshing base for agriculture and forestry in this province to nourish the plant life that we have here, but we also are the recipients of waters that flow from both the east, south and the west that produce, in our collected water system, a tremendous resource of very substantial value when it is utilized in the many forms in which we are able to use it both for recreation, for hydro-electric generation through our systems on rivers and streams.

Mr. Speaker , we treasure this resource, both opposition and government, succeeding administrations, and we are concerned to ensure that this resource remains in its best condition, not only for our present time but for generations ahead. So it is we are concerned with any matters that significantly affect the quality of our water. Mr. Speaker , in North America we have areas that, unlike Manitoba, have a very significant scarcity of this marvelous resource and I know I'm not overstating the importance of water.

I know that honourable members on both sides of the House recognize that throughout the world the availability of water has meant a continuation of prosperous civilization or a disaster. We know when we look around the world at areas where, for whatever reasons, there has been a denigration of the environment, trees have been removed, land has been cultivated that should not have been cultivated, and those areas have lost their water base, they have become deserts. This has happened and is happening; 1729

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 not only in places like Africa but it is actually happening on our continent and people everywhere are becoming concerned about the preservation and the conservation of a resource which we cannot live without. It's that important. Mr. Speaker , I would like to touch briefly on the history of water regulation in the province. In 1894 with the passage of The Northwest Irrigation Act, The Dominion Act established the basic concept that the right to the use of all water is vested in the Crown, which may then allocate water only to persons who obtain a licence from the government.

This principle varies from the riparian doctrine of water use in that it permits the allocation of water to lands not adjacent to the water course. That Act, therefore, permitted the development of irrigation districts in the arrid areas of the southern prairies. On the transfer of the resources to Manitoba in 1930, the present Water Rights Act was passed enshrining the same principle as The Dominion Act. Since 1930 The Water Rights Act has been amended on several occasions to endeavour to meet changing conditions in the water development programs in the province.

Up until the late 1950s there was a passive attitude to the administration enforcement of the Act. In the early 1960s, recognizing the need for better management of the resource, a licencing system was initiated and efforts were made to control the construction of unauthorized works. The Water Resources Branch raised several situations which appeared to be in contravention of the Act. However, the Attorney-General's Department had felt that the Act did not provide sufficient authority for the province to take action to have them removed. During 1966 and 1967 a completely new Act was prep ared.

However, it was not submitted to the Legislature. The increased demands for the use of this limited resource in southern Manitoba and the droughts of 1976, 1977 and 1980 highlighted the problems and the need for a new Act. The present proposal is essentially the one proposed in 1966-67 as it anticipated the problems and the controls on development which have been identified by the water users over the past 10 years.

It also includes the recommendations of the Manitoba Water Commission concerning management of ground water and as honourable members will recall, last year I indicated my concern for water resources in this province and referred, in terms that were perhaps as strongly generous as I could, to the findings of that commission. It was an excellent report and it highlighted the importance of action to preserve the quality of our water in this province. Mr. Speaker , water is probably the most difficult resource we have to manage.

As honourable members know, to the west of us we have conditions where we have a rapid run-off, the water leaving the escarpment to the west creates problems but once gone, the lack of water is a problem and there is concern for the amount of usable water that's available in some of our most fertile areas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the continuing growth or demand for water in this province. One of the difficulties we have with this resource is that once a demand has been met, that demand remains relatively constant, it's not something that you can, like a tap, merely shut off.

It is a demand that is based upon industrial or agricultural use and those demands have to be met over an extensive period of time. Mr. Speak er, I know that people who have developed a reliance on an available supply of water look with grave concern when anyone mentions any change in water supply or in any rights affecting water. Mr. Speaker, I think that we should look at what has happened in other parts of Canada in respect to water demand. The figures in the last

chapter of the Prairie Provinces Water Board demands study - indicates the trends that we have yet to experience in Manitoba. For example, in agricultural water use, especially irrigation, members may have noticed that while Manitoba's increase has been 57 percent over the period 1951-1978, Alberta's has been 129 percent, and Saskatchewan's 190 percent.

What is interesting to note, as well, based upon some recent work done by the Canada West Foundation, is that given the size of existing foothills and prairie rivers, existing natural flows, even with the additional on-stream and off-stream storage, we cannot meet future demand if that demand includes increasing irrigation acreages by four to eight times. Mr. Speaker, I mention only another concern of which we must be aware. Demand for ground water for irrigation has risen dramatically. Four licences were issued in 1979; 49 licences were issued in 1982. Mr.

Speaker , the reasons for this bill, I will now outline in some detail and indicate some of the specifics that are provided in the bill itself. I might say that amendments were made to the 1930 Act as alluded to, but it was felt that an entirely new Act should be brought forward. The principles of the new Act provide for the allocation of water in Manitoba, as it is in all four western provinces, by an administrative mechanism of licencing.

In the provisions of the bill, the use of water is priorized in this order of priority: Domestic use; municipal use; agricultural use; industrial use; irrigation; and any other use. Every licence must be reviewed in the light of both other demands upon the resource and the date of filing. Any person wishing to construct or establish works to divert water, must apply for a licence to do so. Licences have precedence according to the date on which the applications are filed. Priorities of purpose for water used. is specified as I indicated earlier.

On the transfer of an estate or interest in land, any licence in the name of the owner will expire unless the Minister transfers the licence to the new owner. Another provision is that the Minister may remove any unlicenced works. This also applies to those natural or problem areas of beaver dams and any natural obstructions that divert a flow of water.

I recall the other day, in an aside, or perhaps it was a serious concern, the Member for Arthur indicated that there has been an ongoing problem in respect to natural blockages in the Souris River, tree debris and things like that caused by periodic flooding in our watersheds. Mr. Speaker, the bill also provides that the Minister may require an applicant to submit plans and data relating to proposed works. It further provides that where a licencee fails to use water, as authorized by the licence for a continuous period, for a specified period, the Minister may then amend or cancel the licence.

The bill further provides that the Lieutenant­ Governor-in-Council may make regulations regarding 1730

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 the term of licences, the returns, reports and statements to be submitted by lic encees as a basis for the department to monitor the use of water to ensure compliance with the terms of the licence. The bill further provides that the Minister may order any non-licencee to cease using or diverting water. For the purpose of enforcing this order, the Minister or person authorized by him, may enter the licencee's land and take such steps as are necessary to prevent the use or diversion of water or remove the works.

The cost is chargeable to the person who is responsible for the works, or against whom the order was made. The bill further provides, that where appropriate, appeal procedures and compensation procedures are provided against orders by the Minister. Honourable members will probably, as I did when I reviewed the Act, look with some concern about what appears to be a significant toughness to the Act in respect to the powers of the Minister to deal with problems in respect to works or diversions of water.

However , members will hopefully recognize that the Act also provides a comprehensive appeal mechanism for people affected by orders made by the Minister in respect to enforcement provisions of the Act. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the measures contained in this bill will be accepted as fair and equitable and improve our administrative capacity to respond to future demand. However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tune our management water through changes to a single Act. I am confident that there will be the necessity for changes, alterations in the future to other pieces of legislation.

As honourable members know, we have conservation districts and we have concerns within those districts in respect to conservation of water and water control devices. Mr. Speaker , I would also like to make a plea to the public at large, to the manufacturers of equipment, to our researchers and to our prime users of water, to establish habits and methods to reduce consumption. We are, Mr. Speaker , a waste society.

I say that in not a derogatory term, we have been styled and used to discarding far too much and as a consequence, we use up a far greater portion of the world's resources on a per capita basis than do other areas of the world. This is certainly true also of our water use. Too often, we squander our water. We waste it and we are concerned, of course, in those charged with the husbandry of water, to ensure that water is not wasted, that where water is used for irrigation, then that irrigation is sensible and properly controlled. Mr. Speaker, these are some of my concerns in respect to this bill.

There is no question but, as I have indicated, the demands for water are increasing. We have ample reserves. We are concerned to protect those reserves from pollution, from over use and from any abuse. Mr. Speaker , I commend the provisions of this bill to the House. It has received consideration. It has, through my department, been brought to the attention of the spectrum, and hopefully a broad spectrum of the industry affected.

I am sure that there will be observations, submissions made to the committee and I will be happy to hear those submissions, but I am hopeful that the provisions in this bill are as I've indicated, recognized to be fair and reasonable by all those who will be affected by it. 1731 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would submit to a question of clarification. HON. A. MACKLING: Ye s, Mr. Speaker . MR. A.

DRIEDGER: It was my understanding in the Minister's remarks that in areas where a licence has been issued for the use of water, either for irrigation or for whatever use, that if a person passes away or sells his property, that licence is terminated then and goes back to the Minister's discretion as to whether a continuing licence would be issued. I was a little confused, in terms of his remarks, as to whether that licence could be transferred. For example, where an irrigation system has been set up and is in place and the individual sells that property, whether that licence could then be transferred or not? HON.

A. MACKLING: Ye s, Mr. Speaker , it can. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker , in rising to speak to this bill, first of all I think I would like to commend the Minister and the former Minister of Natural Resources, because a bill of this significance doesn't just pop up overnight.

It takes a considerable amount of work; it takes the encouragement of the Minister to proceed, and I know the efforts of the former Minister, as well as the efforts of this Minister, have finally produced a bill that is going to have significant impact on all of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker , I hope that impact is going to be beneficial because I do become alarmed from time to time when we pass laws; that we do from time to time allow Legislative Counsel, or various employees who are charged with the responsibility of protecting this and protecting that, to quite often write into legislation procedures and obstructions that do not, in my estimation at times, serve the interests of the public of Manitoba. So I think we have to be very careful when we're drafting legislation to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we are trying to do when we propose legislation.

If we put too many roadblocks in front of the operation of the legislation then it's not going to be effective legislat ion. If we put too. many encumbrances on those that are intending to use it then it will not become effective legislation. So I say to the Minister that you have to have a delicate balance so that the bill can operate effectively and effici ently, so that one member of society can live in harmony with another and use this instrument for their mutual benefit without having too much red tape to go through to do what they want to do. That's pretty fundamental in society.

I think it's important for everyone concerned that there be an element of fairness and simplicity to the Act that makes it easy for all to understand. Today, Mr. Speaker , I want to deal with maybe four items in this that caused me some concern, and possibly

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 make some suggestions to the Minister which I think would be beneficial and might improve the legislation in such a way that it would make it more easy to operate and more in line with what people in Manitoba would appreciate. I would refer first, Mr. Speaker, to a

section which deals with the changing of title to land, and a matter that was raised by the Honourable Member for Emerson. The proposal that we're having put forward to us here is that on any change of property, regardless of what type of arrangements and negotiations and agreements have been made beforehand, that those cease to exist the minute that property changes.

The Minister can renew any existing agreements, but the Minister has the discretion whether or not he will renew them, and I would suggest to the Minister that this will cause a great deal of consternation because of the lack of certainty that would exist in many people's minds. I would suggest to him possibly what I consider to be a better way. Would it not be better, in a transfer of land, to ensure that all agreements that have previously been made are automatically transferred unless the Minister, if he wishes to, registers a caveat which cancels it.

I think you arrive at the same position, but you are assuring people that you have confidence in them, instead of having an antagonistic approach to it you then have a co-operative approach to it. So you're doing exactly the same thing but you're going at it from a different way. Instead of telling everybody that their agreements, that all agreements, automatically cease when you transfer land - and that causes alarm to everybody - you turn around and you say that all those agreements will continue to remain in place unless a caveat has been registered, and the Minister is doing exactly the same thing.

If he wants to terminate whatever agreement was there he can do it this way; if he wants to terminate it the way he is proposing he can do it by refusing to grant a new application, but it also eliminates a great deal of paper work.

Now maybe the Minister is interested in providing more jobs, more bureaucrats with more work to do, but I don't see any reason why a person transferring a piece of property, and where there's a reasonable assurance that whatever agreement existed before is going to continue to exist, why should he have to go through all of that procedure, the paper work, making the applications and sitting and waiting to see whether or not the Minister is going to grant it. So I would suggest the Minister take that into consideration when this bill goes to committee.

I think it's a point that is well worth considering and one that I suggest would meet with much greater approval from the citizenry at large. The second issue that I would like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is a matter that the Minister raised before, and that was the issue of beaver dams. In my area, in the fast water area of western Manitoba, perhaps we are more familiar with the problems that can occur with beaver than some other members in the other parts of Manitoba. But there is a

part in there where the Minister says that "the Minister or any person authorized by him may open up, remove or destroy, or cause to be opened up, removed or destroyed, (

a) any dam constructed by beaver; or (

b) any natural obstruction; a·nd for that purpose may enter upon or cross any lands; and neither the Minister nor the person so authorized by him for the purpose is liable for damage to land or persons arising out of anything done without negligence under this section." That causes a little bit of concern to me, Mr.

Speaker, because I have seen cases where people, with the best of intentions, in fact have been requested to do so in the general interests of society at large, where they have gone in and destroyed beaver dams and society generally benefited, but because of maybe the imprudent destruction of the dams at maybe the wrong time, they have caused irreparable harm to individuals immediately below the dam. The Minister is now stating that there is no, he's clearly outlining it, so that there can be no responsibility or any charges or any claims for damage laid as a result of the action of destroying beaver dams.

I have a tendency, Mr. Speaker, to agree with that provided that every avenue is explored before that beaver dam is destroyed. I know that doesn't always occur. I know that where beaver dams have been destroyed in the past, if they had just taken two hours to warn the farmers downstream, that there could have been a lot of feed and grain salvaged that was destroyed because the farmer downstream was not even made aware of what the Minister's agents were doing. So, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not entirely happy with the inclusion of this

section which removes any possibility of compensation for damage, because of the negligent attitude taken by someone acting on behalf of the Minister. I would hope the Minister would consider this quite seriously, because it comes to a point of whether or not negligence can be proved. In some cases it's not negligence, it's ignorance, and is that negligence? So I would ask him to look at that again, and in doing so, give us the benefit of his considered judgment, because we don't want to remove from the bill, the ability to remove beaver dams.

We must be able to remove beaver dams, but it must be done in the manner that doesn't prejudice the farming activities of those farming or any other activity of those living downstream.

The third point that I would like to ask of the Minister - I know he has power in here to enter into negotiations with the Federal Government - but I would like to ask the Minister what negotiations have gone on with the Federal Government with respect to the operation of Riding Mountain National Park and what are the probabilities of the province being able to enter into an agreement with the Federal Government giving them authority to go into the Riding Mountain National Park for the very express purpose of removing beaver dams.

I think that's very important to the people in western Manitoba on the southern escarpment and I'm sure also on the northern escarpment of the Riding Mountain, because the No. 1 problem that has occurred in the past is the vast impoundment of water within the Riding Mountain National Park by beaver dams and the inability of those below to have any course of action available to them to remove those dams.

So when the Minister is closing debate, I would hope that he would give us the benefit o.f his knowledge of what negotiations have occurred with the Federal Government and what are the probabilities of being able to enter a satisfactory agreement on that particular issue. The last point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is again in the realm of the Minister in his duties as Minister 1732

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 to enter into negotiations with other governments. In this case, I'm not referring to the Federal Government, I'm referring to the Province of Saskatchewan. I would assume that it might possibly occur with the Province of Ontario too, because we do have water coming in from Ontario. The problem we have with water coming in from the States, unfortunately, the Minister doesn't have the authority to enter into direct agreemen ts. That authority lies clearly with the Crown.

We do have a problem in western Manitoba along the boundary where there has been in the past rather indiscriminate drainage, land clearing, draining of sloughs and the resultant flooding of small streams that have become large streams as the result, and the impact it has on Manitoba once the water crosses the boundary and before it gets to the Assiniboine River.

There's a small strip of land in the Russell municipality; I'm sure there's some in Roblin municipality; Shellmouth municipality - I shouldn't say Roblin municipality; I should say Shellmouth and Shell River - where there is damage caused by probably Water Rights Acts that are passed in another jurisdiction that may be don't have the same teeth in it that ours have. The Province of Manitoba suffers for very short periods of time and the people involved can only rely on the Province of Manitoba to negotiate on their behalf for settlement of damages.

So that's a field that I would like the Minister to elaborate on when he is closing debate on this bill . I know there are problems out there and I would hope that the Minister would take those things into consideration and talk with the municipalities, especially the municipalities along the western side of the province where drainage and water rights types of problems are liable to exist. Those, Mr. Speaker , are the basic concerns that I have with this bill.

I think it's a good piece of legislation, I know it's been a long time in the works and I hope to see some changes made, probably when the bill goes to committee and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks when he closes debate . I know there are other members that probably want to speak on this and I would like to hear their remarks as well. I thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, S. Ashton: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Ye s, Mr. Speak er, I move, seconded by the Member for Portage la Prairie, that debate be adjourne d. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker , would you call the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 14, standing in the name of the Member for Kirkfield Park. ADJOURNED DEBATES SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS Bill NO. 14 - THE ELECTIONS ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, I have few concerns about Bill No. 14. I would like to first say that I agree with my colleagues who have talked about the

section on British subjects and I don't intend to deal with that myself. I would like to speak briefly about

Section 13, the withdrawal of candidates - and I see that in this

section they are suggesting that a candidate can withdraw up to 24 hours before election day. - (Interjection) - I realize, Mr. Speaker , that I can't talk section-by-section but I want to just generally deal with this subje ct. In the review by the Chief Electoral Officer, his basis for review was that the printing of the ballot paper is delayed at least 24 hours during the period for withdrawal and the time might be crucial for the holding of the advance poll and, I think, that's basically in conflict with one another.

Because when you have a name of a candidate on a ballot and people go out to vote and they vote for that person and then he withdraws after they voted in the advance poll, I think that this disenfranchises the number of voters and I would be extremely concerned, myself, if I had voted for someone and then they turned out to have withdrawn. I really do feel that that's a

section of concern and should be looked at in committee and I'm highly critical of that point. I don't think that we want to do things just to facilitate possibly the election part, I think what we're looking at it as making it as easy as possible for voters to vote. I believe that that is really in conflict, I think that it's open to abuse, the closer it gets to election day and someone withdraws and, I think it's practically impossible to have the electorate know about this in advance.

I don't think anyone would feel very kindly either to the person who's withdrawn but possibly to the people that are involved and to the returning officer in particular who usually has enough problems with irate voters for one reason or another. I think that's probably a problem that maybe had not been thought of in this concern and I would like certainly for that to be looked at during committee. The other concern I have is the continuous advance poll. I feel that when you have enough days, after nominations have closed, for advance poll I think everyone gets a chance to vote at the advance poll.

I find that the safeguards that are in the advance poll where we can have a scrutinee r, each pa. ty can have a scrutineer if they would like, I think this is a safeguard that you don't have at the returning office, I think that's another concern . Also I think they've added a time frame that is really too limiting. The times from 12:00 to 6:00 o'clock, certainly in the area I represent most people are not anywhere close to the constituency for noon hour and if it was extended to 8:00 o'clock would be a much more practical solution to that.

I think the continuous advance poll is open to abuse and what's the point of having an election day if everyone's going to run in and vote and certainly I think every party wants their confirmed voters to get in and vote ahead of time if they get a chance. I don't know that - I think it should be and I think there should be days the way we have had it and I felt at the last election 1733

Thursday, 14 April1, 1983 it worked particularly well. I think that to have things on a continuous basis, I don't see the necessity for that. The

section that I would be particularly concerned with and I think most members on this side of the House are, is, of course, the vouching. It is one of the areas that the Chief Electoral Officer states that they do not make a recommendation for change in this area because it is open to abuse and even further to having people vouch, I would personally see two pieces of identification. I don't think there's anything wrong with having people having to identify themselves if they're not on the rolls.

Certainly if the enumerator goes around they find them right in their home and if, for some reason, they're missed and they want to get on the list, I don't find a problem with someone being asked to produce identification. To just leave it open for someone to come and write a name down and sign an oath I think is really highly impractical. Certainly if someone doesn't know a person in the area they have no problem going to the candidate that they are choosing to give their vote to and asking them to have someone vouch for them.

I would be very secure in my mind asking anyone to vouch for someone if they had identification. But certainly, myself, I would be very hesitant to take someone to the polls that I either didn't know or they couldn't prove that they lived in the spot that they were in. I think that that particular

section is just really leaving things very open to abuse. I find that although we all want everyone to have the chance to vote, I don't think we want to leave anything open where we have challenges to voters. That doesn't help anyone. This is, of course, what parties would certainly have to start doing in many numbers. I think that the idea of vouching, of having someone to vouch, is a very safe way of doing it. I would add the pieces of identification. There have been areas where the elections have been controverted and we have had this sort of thing going on where we have people going from poll to poll.

It's not something that happens all the time, but I don't think we want to leave that area open to the kind of abuse that there might be. I hope that we will be able to deal with that in committee and I hope that the Attorney-General will take that into consideration when he's looking at it. The next area, and it was dealt by the Member for St. Norbert, is the area of the marked ballots. Now, I've never had any problem in an election accepting any kind of a mark other than an identification, initials on a ballot.

But when you start accepting two marks on a ballot and then, as it's said, without any apparent intention of identification, I believe were the words used by the Chief Electoral Officer - well, that's open to

interpretation right there. How do you know that there is not any apparent intention of identification? We don't know that. I think that the idea of one mark beside the name in any way is sufficient. I would like to see us take a good look at that because it's very easy to have a number of people say, well, look, I'll put an X and a check on my ballot, then you're going to know that I voted for you. I don't think we want to look at that sort of a thing. I think one mark on a ballot is sufficient.

It really doesn't concern me if it's a no, a tick or a dot or whatever it is, because you do want people that go to the polls to have their vote accepted, whatever party they choose to support. The idea certainly isn't to discount a ballot.

There are a few other things that I hope that we will deal with in committee, but I would hope that the Attorney-General would take a look at some of these concerns that we are expressing because it certainly has to concern all members in this House that they make it as easy as possible for people to vote, but at the same time don't have it in such a manner that we have to worry about people abusing the system. Although we like to believe that everyone is honest and will do the right thing, that isn't neces sarily also the case. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, will you please call the adjourned debate on Bill No. 16, standing in the name of the Member for Pembina. BILL NO. 16 - THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS TAX ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to speak briefly to Bill No. 16. Bill No. 16 is a very very small bill.

I'm just in the midst of my notes here, I have either folded it back in and have to search it out again. Bill No. 16, on the surface, Mr. Speaker, really doesn't do a great deal. It simply changes the year 1983 and replaces it with the year 1987 and provides retroactivity to that simple change of year. So the bill by itself is indeed to any observer, who may not appreciate the background to it, a relatively mundane sort of an amendment, and one would wonder why it would be before the House.

I guess therein lies an excellent lesson for many of the new members on the government side of the House, the Attorney­ General, our two lady friends that are now sitting in the second row there, and the Member for lnkster. Particularly, the Member for lnkster because if he were to read back a speech 11ade on a bill that goes back to 1979, I believe, by the then Member for lnkster, it would be a most interesting exercise for this Member for lnkster to read the current line of thought in the N.D. Party at the time. The N.D.

Party from time to time makes the position that any sort of change in taxation in the resource industries by a Conservative administration is a resource giveaway. That, Mr. Speaker , was even the theme they used in the last provincial election. The present Minister of Finance was one of the more vocal ones about resource giveaways, and :he other confusion that they put before the people of Manitoba in their election campaign. Resource giveaway was the N.D. Party's buzzword of the election and the clear connotation that they were trying to paint during the election campaign 1734

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 was that the Progressive Conservative Government was going to give away the resources of the province and that the people of Manitoba would not benefit from any resource development by any changes to taxation in the resource industry that the Progressive Conservatives might propose. It was the big giveaway scheme that they complained about. It received a lot of fanfare; it received a lot of attention. Mr. Speaker, you might be particularly interested in knowing because you come from a town, represent a community, that is very much resource based in the Province of Manitoba.

As a matter of fact, the entire communities of Northern Manitoba are very much resource based. The N.D. Party when they were opposition really took issue with some of the things we did and one of the things they took issue with was our changes that were made in 1979 to The Oil and Natural Gas Tax Act. They termed them in those days as resource giveaways. The First Minister is really a notable one in his comments about the oil industry and what the oil industry may or may not do in the Province of Manitoba. The NDP, during the Schreyer years, attempted a lot of exploration in oil.

They were successful to the tune of spending some $900,000, and in return for that $900,000 expenditure, they get an annual return of approximately $20,000 per year. I don't know what that would be in terms of a percentage return, but it's certainly less than 1 percent; it's more like a quarter of 1 percent or less. They held that out, as they are holding it out now with the bill to create the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation as their little window on the industry.

Well, their window on the industry in the past has been very very much a failure, and we have a number of concerns about their new-found election promise, one of the few ones they appear to be going to keep in establishing the Manitoba Oil and Gas Company. But it's interesting that back in 1977-78 we noticed a rather interesting development along the US-Manitoba border in the southwest corner of Manitoba.

There were a number of actively producing oil wells immediately south of the 49th Parallel and we thought that the oil must extend into Manitoba, we were pretty confident of that; couldn't understand why the oil wells were in North Dakota and not in Manitoba. The answer came back quite clearly that our rate of taxation, etc. was not competitive with neighbouring jurisdictions, therefore, exploration for oil and development of oil that no doubt was in Manitoba just wasn't happening.

So we took a very correct and a very reasoned step and we made our taxation scheme in Manitoba competitive and complementary with neighbouring jurisdictions. The now First Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, put on the record a statement that I know has been quoted and I think deserves quoting again. Mr.

Speaker, he said, and I quote, "If the Minister," and he was referring to my colleague, the MLA for Turtle Mountain, when he was Minister of Natural Resources and Mines of the province, he said, "If the Minister is of the view that by offering some tax concessions, which I believe the Minister himself has suggested will be modest in nature, that suddenly there is going to be a flood of oil company activity in this part of Manitoba, then indeed he is a foolhardy visionary here." That's what the First Minister said back in 1979. Now, as is often the case, the First Minister was half right.

This government and the then Minister was indeed visionary, but he was half wrong, as is normally the case, in that the government nor the Minister were foolhardy. Indeed, the proof in the pudding is demonstrating that the present First Minister was the one that was indeed foolhardy, and remains foolhardy today because, by changing those taxation regulations, we now have oil activity at a greater rate than we've ever experienced in some 25 years in this province, and it is continuing and it is going to continue because of this one-page amendment in Bill 16. HON. R. PENNER: Nothing to do with world oil at all. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the lesson that the ND Party has obviously learned is that they have to be, from time to time, competitive, and if they're not competitive then they can kill an industry in Manitoba; they can kill a resource industry; they can kill a mining town; they can kill a manufacturing industry if they're not competitive.

They've recognized that in Bill 16 and they are now eating some of the words they put on the record back in 1979, and I'm proud of them for admitting today that they were wrong in 1979, in that they are now continuing with the identical regulations that we put in place that they criticized; they are continuing with them because they know full well that the development of the oil field in southwest Manitoba would grind to a halt if they did not continue the program that we put in place, and I do indeed agree that it was a visionary program in 1979, that it was one of many things that the Lyon government did to stimulate the Manitoba economy.

It is one of the brighest spots in the resource sector that this government, this new ND Government, has to talk about - and I might say, Mr. Speaker, it is the only bright spot in the resource extraction industry that they have to talk about today. They have layoffs in mines; they have mine shutdowns; they have the prospects of whole towns folding up in Northern Manitoba. But in southwest Manitoba, because of a change in policy and philosophy achieved in 1979, they can boast of one bright spot in the Manitoba resource sector, and that being the oil industry development in southwest Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, I said earlier that there is a lesson that obviously the New Democrats have learned from the proposed passage of this Act, and that is, that they cannot isolate Manitoba and build a wall around Manitoba through taxation, or any other mc-asure which make Manitobans uncompetitive with the rest of Canadians, with the rest of North Americans, and with the rest of the world.

They realize that in the oil industry, by proposing to pass Bill No. 16 - and I congratulate them for coming to the realization that that had to be done if they were going to protect a very bright industry in Manitoba - but I hope that Bill No. 16 is followed by several other bills by this government, wherein they recognize that their taxation measures in the private sector, in the manufacturing sector, are going to make those businesses uncompetitive in Canada, in North America, and in the world, and that they come to the realization that what they do in taxation can very directly affect the number of jobs that Manitobans have.

I say that with the background of an election document signed by the now First Minister in which 1735

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 he made promises of jobs and not layoffs, of a revitalization of the Manitoba economy. All of those wonderful statements that were made in November of 1981, that the First Minister and his group in government have now had to eat and be ashamed that they ever said they were going to do such things, ashamed that they ever made such promises to the Manitoba people, because already , through their taxation measures, and the one most predominant one, Mr. Speak er, is the payroll tax.

Already the payroll tax has probably been the single most important new cause of unemployment in Manitoba that we have seen, because the ND Party insisted on taxing the creation of jobs and taxing employment in the Province of Manitoba, there have been individuals layoffs in the Province of Manitoba in the business community which can no longer afford to keep an additional man or woman on the payroll because of the payroll tax, the tax on employment, which is turning into the tax for unemployment.

You know, it's a hard lesson for the government to learn that their taxation policies are crippling the Manitoba economy. It's going to be an even harder lesson for them to learn that the recovery in Manitoba is going to be slower by a long shot than the rest of Canada because of those taxation policies. Mr.

Speaker , the real problem, and the real sorrow, and the real shame is that while this ill-advised group in government are finding out that their taxation problems are causing unemployment, are causing a slowing of the recovery in Manitoba, the people who are unemployed because of those taxation measures full well why they're unemployed. They could tell the government why they're unemployed. It's the unemployed people that could tell this government the devastation their taxation policies have caused them; the personal hardship that they have caused them. So that ... HON. R.

PENNER: It's a good thing you don't have to rely on evidence. Just hot air. MR. D. ORCHARD: ... well, you know the Attorney­ General is a great one to talk about, "You certainly don't have to rely on evidence." How much more evidence does the Attorney-General need than 'l 30,000 increase in unemployment in the Province of Manitoba since he has become Attorney-General? - (Interjection) - Does he need the numbers to go to 60,000 more unemployed, or 100,000 more unemployed? Where will the Attorney-General realize what they are doing?

How many more unemployed will it take for it to sink into his mind set that unemployment is being caused in Manitoba by their taxation measures? He obviously understands that the oil industry cannot continue to develop the oil deposits in Manitoba unless we remain competitive with other jurisdictions, because - I'm going to watch with a great deal of interest - but I believe the Attorney-General is going to vote in favour of Bill No. 16. We're certainly going to have a recorded vote on it to make sure that if he doesn't, we can tell people.

I think the Attorney-General recognizes that the oil industry must have a competitive enviro nmfmi in Manitoba to stay. He will over a period of time - I only hope for the unemployed of Manitoba that it does not take the Attorney-General too long - he will realize equally that he has made Manitoba an uncompetitive place to manufacture the goods and services in Manitoba. He will realize that, Mr. Speaker , at some point in time. As I say, for the sake of the unemployed in Manitoba, I hope he realizes it rather rapidly rather than rather slowly.

I will trust on the so-called wisdom of the Attorney­ General to come to that conclusion in the near future, and to sit around the Cabinet table and actively promote the removal of the payroll tax as a method of stimulating employment in Manitoba, not stimulating unemployment as the payroll tax is doing.

When a few more major industries in this province shut down, such as the Shell Refinery; such as Kimberly­ Clark, we just don't know what other major industry may be next in the Province of Manitoba. - (Interjection) - But I wonder how many more will have to shut down in the Province of Manitoba before the Attorney-General realizes what his government is doing to contribute to those shutdowns of major industries and the accompanying loss of employment in the Province of Manitoba?

He won't necessarily understand quickly, but I assure him the people who are unemployed, the people who are being laid off because buses cannot be sold, etc., etc., those people understand what the Provincial Government has done to them in the payroll tax. Those employees know that the payroll tax, if it hasn't cost them their job, it has cost them a portion of their next raise. They know that and they attribute it directly to the treasury bench of this government; that this government has taken an additional 1.5 percent out of their pay package, or has caused them to lose their job.

They know that; the unemployed know that. They have a great deal more wisdom than the Attorney­ General in that. When we factor in the other things that this government has done and is going to do over the next several months, they're removing the hydro rate freeze one year early. That is going to raise the costs to every Mani!oban and to Manitoba manufacturers. How many additional costs do you think the Manitoba manufacturing sector can bear as a result of increased taxation and cost imposed by your government, Mr. Attorney-General, before they are no longer competitive in the markets they must sell into.

The more you raise their costs, the more uncompetitive they become and the greater the likelihood that they will not be a part of the Manitoba employment sector. I hope the realization does not come too late to you. HON. R. PENNER: You sound as if you hope it will happHn. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, the Attorney-General says, "I sound like I hope it will happen ." HON. R. PENNER: That's right. MR. D. ORCHARD: I want to assure the Attorney­ General that no one on this side wants to see Manitobans without work; no one wants to see packing plants closed; Kimberly-Clark's closed; Shell Refinery 1736

Thursday, 14 April, 1983 closed.

The list goes on and on. - (Interjection) - The Attorney-General has the problem, because the Attorney-General is part of a government that promised there would be no layoffs; that the Manitoba economy would be turned around; that there would be jobs for Manitobans; that no Manitoban would lose his farm or his business or his home; it was the Attorney-General and his leader that made those promise, and it is now those people, because they have broken those promises, that have to justify to the 30,000 more unemployed in the Province of Manitoba what a great job they have done in keeping their promises of more jobs, no layoffs, etc., etc.

It has to be an em barrassing situation for even someone like the Attorney-General to have to live with that record in the first 15 to 16 months of government. HON. R. PENNER: I'm proud of this government, and so are the people of Manitoba. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ah, the Attorney-General says he is proud of this government that has given us 30,000 more layoffs; that has imposed an unemployment tax, the payroll tax; that has removed the hydro rate freeze one year earlier MR. S. ASHTON: What does this have to do with the bill? MR. D. ORCHARD: The Member for Thompson asks what this has to do with the bill.

This bill deals with taxation in the Province of Manitoba. HON. R. PENNER: But you're supporting the bill. MR. D. ORCHARD: Taxation is causing, the increase in taxation by this government is causing unemployment in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. The time being 4:30 and Private Mem bers' Hour, when this bill is next before the House, the honourable member will have 20 minutes remaining. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: First item on the agenda for Private Members' Hour on a Thursday is the adjourned debates on second reading.

Bill No. 36 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANIVIAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the indulgence of the House to stand that. The member wanted to speak to it, but he's in Swan River on the Agricultural Committee. ADJOURNED DEBATE SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS Bill NO. 39 - THE TOWN Of MELITA MR. SPE AKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Arthur, Bill No. 39, standing in the name of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we have perused this bill and the contents of it.

It comes as perhaps an unorthodox manner of passing a by-law, however, in reviewing the contents and hearing the comments from the Member for Arthur that it was an undertaking by the Town of Melita to extend water services to one of the parks there, the mobile home park I believe it was, and that they neglected to proceed and apply to the Municipal Board in order to receive approval for the project and the financing of the project.

Now after they proceeded with the project, putting in the water and sewers, and when they went to the Municipal Board, after the fact, the Municipal Board would not deal with it in a retroactive manner. They could not deal with it in that manner so approval was turned down. The Town of Melita has no alternative now but to come to the Legislative Assembly to apply for assistance to have the by-law approved. Mr.

Speaker, I don't intend to speak very long this bill, just to say that we recognize the problems that the Town of Melita are facing and this government is sympathetic to problems of our rural municipalities and the people of Manitoba. It is not very often that this kind of a situation arises but apparently, I understand, that there have been cases many years ago where this kind of legislation has been presented to the Legislative Assembly.

We haven't heard any opposition to the bill by any of the residents or ratepayers of Melita, so we feel that we should allow the bill to go to committee and any amendments, or people who have concerns, or individuals who have concerns in Melita, in regard to this proposal, may have their views heard at that particular time. With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to allow this bill to move to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS BILL NO. 44 - THE FISHERIES ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM presented Bill No. 44,

An Act to amend The Fisheries Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , I'd like to briefly explain the reasoning and purpose behind this bill. What the bill accomplishes, or will accomplish if passed, and I trust that it will receive the support of the members opposite, is to require the Fisheries Branch, to provide a report to the Legis lature every year on the activities within the branch, especially including a review of fisheries allocations. This year we placed an Order for Return to the Minister dealing with that subject and 1737

Thursday , 14 April, 1983 the Minister filed the Order lor Return and we have the information, so it's clearly not something that the government doesn't see in the public interest to be released because they released it in response to the Order for Return. In addition to that, of course, it requires a five-year reporting, that every five years the government has the oblig ation to report upon the status of fisheries resources in the province dealing with any species listed in the schedule, and any other species that the Minister may wish to deal with.

The bill calls for a five-year review of Fisheries Management Programs carried out by the government in the previous five years, and to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of those programs. It also calls upon the government to provide an analysis of trends and forecasts of demand for the use of the fisheries resource in the province, so that they have to look ahead for a period of five years and make a public statement about how they see the resource meeting the demands that are likely to be placed upon it over the next five years.

It is an almost exact replica of the provision included in The Wildlife Act three years ago and, if my recollection is accurate, Mr. Speaker, I believe that bill, in its entirety, was supported by the New Democratic Party when it was in opposition and it contained this provision. We now have before us the first report filed under that Act just recently tabled by the Minister in the Legislature. It has already received considerable attention and I expect that the Minister will get a lot of commendations on this report from the people who have an interest in the resource.

It has required the department to take a critical look at the resource, its capabilities, and how effective their programming has been. That same sort of thing would be expected to flow from this bill dealing with the Fisheries Act if it is passed. I believe that our natural resources should be managed in at least as careful a manner as the financial resources of the province and this, I believe, goes part way toward requiring an accounting by the Minister and the people responsible for the management of the resource. With that bit of background, Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that I would be able to count upon the support of all members of the House in passing what I believe would be a very worthwhile bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Johns, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 45 - the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. Bill NO. 45 - THE FOREST ACT MR. B. RANSOM presented Bill No. 45,

An Act to amend the Forest Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill simply requires the same reporting requirement that Bill 44 does with respect to The Fisheries Act, and The Wildlife Act does with respect to the management of fisheries. Any comments that have been made with respect to the previous bill also applies to this one. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Rupertsland, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. RES.

NO. 2 - AMENDMENT TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES TRANSFER AGREEMENT MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolutions, No. 2. The Resolution is moved by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, and the amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Radisson, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for The Pas, who has eight minutes remaining. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Member for The Pas, I would like to speak on this bill. MR. SPEAKER: Can anyone indicate whether the Member for The Pas is going to attend?

If not, he will lose his right to continue his remarks on this item. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate again, and I wish to thank those members opposite and members on this side of the House who have to this point participated in the debate and I expect will participate in it to a further extent. I would like to try and deal with what I think are some of the major objections to the resolution that have been raised by members opposite. Some of the points have been dealt with by one of the members opposite.

Some of the same points have been dealt with by more than one member. The first one, though, that I would like to comment on is the concern first expressed by the Member for Rupertsland; expressed also, I believe, by the Member for Radisson and the �Aember for The Pas; perhaps others, who have said that they object to the fact that this resolution singles out one group. The Member for Rupertsland, for instance, said and I quote, "First of all, I must object to the manner in which this resolution is presented. It is presented in a way targeting to one group which are the Indian people." Mr.

Speaker, the reason that this targets on one group of people, which are the Indian people, is because they are the only people who have this right. If there was another group of people who had the right to use any means whats