Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 63 (34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-63

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday , November 2, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Indust ry, Trade and Tourism): I have a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker. Last night I had the pleasure of presenting Manitoba Export Awards to five outsta nding Manitoba firms who have exhib ited the ini tiative, perseverance, and entr eprene ur ial flair , which are esse ntia l in the international marketpla ce. Well over 200 senior Manitoba business executives were in attendance to help honour and recognize these � companies for their efforts.

Consistent with Manitoba's broad ind ustrial make-up, the award winners included a high fashion sportswear designer and man ufacturer called Trace Des ign; a man ufacturer of ready-to ass emble furnitur e, Fournier Stands; a small man ufacturer of a un ique floor cov ering cutting machinery, E-Z Cut/Vidir Machine Works; a poultry process ing co-operative, Gran ny's Pou ltry; and a consulting engineering company, Wardrop Engineering. These five div erse companie s have one thing in common, a belief that exports are crucial to the survival and growth of their firm.

My department chooses to publicly recognize such firms through the Manitoba Export Awards Program believing it will be inspirational to other Manitoba industrial interests who may be considering expansion into new markets. The program has been in operation for six years now and, from a modest beginning, the awards have become a much sought after reflection of a company's export initiative. Previous winners have used the award logo in their literature, sales presentations, and as a promotional tool in entering new markets.

Eighteen companies applied for the five award categories this year which made the job of selecting recipients a very difficult task. The selection committee is composed of prominent Manitoba businessmen who devote their time freely to assess the applications received. The Manitoba Export Awards Program reflects the Government's conviction that trade opportunities are crucial to Manitoba, and we must expand our trade and investment promotion efforts to ensure Manitoba takes full advantage of these opportunities. The recently announced enhanced trade initiatives of my department reaffirm this conviction.

I wish to congratula te the award winners again, and all thos e other Mani toba com panies involved in exporting. Thank you. Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to join with Minister in congratulating the firms who were the recipients and indeed to all those firms who made application for these awards, which have been functioning now for some six years in recognition of the need for Manitoba companies to provide incentives to those who would export our goods outside of the Province of Manitoba, that each and every one of these firms, judging by the notes that I received earlier today from the Minister, are indeed worthy of being so designated by this Export Award Program.

I hope it will encourage others to broaden their program in export initiative and that the logo, which many have used in the past, will continue to be used in order to continue the growth and diversity in our economic community. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Ernst) in congratulating these firms who have received these awards and indeed others who are trying their best to inc rease exports out of the Province of Manitoba. *

(1335) The fact is of course, Mr. Speaker, that awards have been presented for many years to Manitoba companies for various kinds of performance, including export awards. I have had the pleasure of doing that myself many years ago as Minister of Industry. Unfortuna tely, there is no data which shows whether we are increasing exports out of the Province of Manitoba. As a matter of fact, I am concerned that the exports out of Manitoba are going to decline particularly from the manufacturing sector.

I say that because we have had a consistent industrial erosion the past year and a half or ever since the Free Trade Agreement was signed. The fact is, we have lost Toro engines from Steinbach, Marr's Leisure Products from Brandon, Campbell Soup is going to Ontario, Molson's is folding, and so forth. So there is industrial erosion and there will be fewer companies to export. This is regrettable, and I am sad to see this industrial erosion that is occurring. An Honourable Member: You are a sad case, Brandon East. Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, the Premier is a sad case too. He, from his seat, said I am a sad case.

Well, if he want to insult me I can insult him back as well, Mr. Speaker. I think that is totally inappropriate. The Premier of this province should be setting an example not making demeaning remarks from his seat. So as I said I would congratulate these companies. We are pleased that they have won these awards. We wish them well, but we are a bit concerned about the future. 2468

Thursday , November 2, 1989 INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill NO. 81- THE !ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT ACT Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 81, The Environment Amend ment Act; Loi mo di fiant la

Loi sur l'environnement. Bill NO. 82- THIE DANGEROUS GOODS HANDLING AND TRANSPO RTATION AMENDMENT ACT Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 82, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises dange reuses. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Hono urable Memb ers' at tention to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us this afternoon His Excellency Mr. James Hump hreys, who is the High Commi ssioner of Australia. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon we have, from the Ethelbert School, twenty-three Grade 11 students, and they are under the direction of Mr. Kushner.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Grace Hospital Asbestos levels Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns the health and safety of patients and staff at the Grace Hospital. Dur ing construction at the Grace Ho spital, Mr. Speaker, asbestos was used as it was in that era of construction on the ceilings, ductwork, beams and was used to insulate pipes.

Recently, we have had reports that insulation has been found on the floor of the third floor as well as on countertops in the lab. I know the Minister is well aware of the health link between asbestos fibres and cancer. Can the Minister tell the House today what action is being taken to ensure the health and safety of patients and staff at the Grace Hospital? * (13 40) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Sp eak er, when issues like that come before Government, they are dealt with in the short term to provide whatever short term remedy, and if removal is easily achievable that is the option taken.

The second option taken is, if those areas of the facilities are outda ted in terms of the modern health care system and are scheduled for capital reconstruction, the complete revamping of the facility is then scheduled. I will have to beg the indulgence of my honourable friend and her patience, and her Party's patience, as we approach the tabling of the Capital Estimates to determine whether in fact the latter will be the preferred mode. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, this morning we received a laboratory report on a sample of asbestos from the hospital that we submitted for analysis.

This report states that the sample contains 15 percent to 20 percent serpentine asbestos, which puts it in a range where much further evaluation of the situation is appropriate. Can the Minister tell us if he and the Minister responsible for Workplace Safety and Health (Mrs. Hammond) have had consultations with respect to the safety conditions and health conditions, in that the Minister has in fact had samples sent to her some months ago? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I realize that my honourable friend is desperately trying to create alarm and fear in the health care system, as she did on Monday by maligning every single personal care home in the Province of Manitoba with unattributable remarks, et cetera, et cetera. Always, when we are faced with issues of safety in terms of patients and staff working in public facilities, we move as quickly as we can to remedy those situations. We do not shirk our duties in that regard.

I told my honourable friend I could not answer the specific remedial course of action today on that situation at Grace Hospital as to whether intermediate steps will be taken to remove the asbestos, which has been there for a number of years, because that was the mode of construction at one point in time, or whether in fact that is part of a hospital redevelopment scheme which Grace has had before Government for some years. Asbestos levels Investigation Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear.

There are unsafe conditions existing at that particular hospital which need further evaluation. Will this Minister take it upon himself today to ensure that further evaluation takes place beginning today, in that further and earlier samples giv en to this Go vernment have resulted in no investigation? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Naturally I am un able to confirm my honour able fri end's allegations about no action being taken.

My honourable friend consistently comes to this House with allegations not designed to raise anything but fears falsely before the people of Manitoba and their health care system. My honourable friend ought to be somewhat patient 2469

Thursday , November 2, 1989 because the capital budget in the Province of Manitoba from time-to-time addresses these issues in terms of a complete reconstruction of those areas. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell my honourable friend what the proposed remedial action to be taken at Grace Hospital is, but let not my honourable friend again try to raise unnecessary fears throughout the province with -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Asbestos Handling Training Program Mrs.

Sharon Carsiairs (Leader of the Opposition): It is very difficult working with a Minister who does not trust his own inspector's reports achieved through access to information. He obviously does not test and believe in test results which come from an independent lab. It is very difficult to convince him that the health � care needs of Manitobans are being ignored by his , minis try. Can the Minister tell this House if he knows that staff at the hospital are being appropriately trained in using asbestos and dealing with asbestos in that a consultant hired by the hospital laid out a training program? * (13 45) Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Spea ker, seeing as how my honourable friend laid out her usual unsubstantiated, unconfirmed accusations on the personal care homes, like she did on Monday, I want to deal with that issue first. My honourable friend did not identify one facility in her attack on Mon day. She did not ask and she knows thos e circu mstances have been remed ied .

My honourable friend refused to put that information on the record because she wants to raise the fears of Manitobans in a very, very desperate fashion to save her flagging leadership as evidenced in the editorial page of the Winn ipeg Sun today. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Asbestos Removal Policy Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): have a suppleme ntary question to the Minister.

Can the Minister tell this House if there is a policy initia ted by his Government to deal with asbestos in health care institutions in the province, and when will those fibres be removed from health care institutions? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, repetition is the epitome of the learn ing process, and I would like to tell my honourable friend that there will be one of two courses of action taken. There can be a remedial removal of asbestos when it is causing a problem in a facility, or the facility.

If its time has expi red and is in need of capital replacement, that is done. 2470 I cannot tell my honourable friend which process will be done at Grace Hospital. I asked my honourable friend for her patience in that we could have that given to her in the Capital Estimates of the Manitoba Health Services Commission, which we may well debate in the near future. Asbestos Levels Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Effective learning only takes place when you get an effective response to a question.

Can the Minister tell this House if we can expect the same prompt action as we received from the questions we raised with the Concordia lab, if we will get the same prompt reaction with regard to the health and safety conditions caused by this asbestos blowing in the air at the Grace Hospital? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I cannot confirm again my honourable friend's allegations and the statements she has just made.

I am quite willing and wish the opportunity to tell my honourable friend that her press release was absolutely false wherein she said she raised the question one day, and it was dealt with before Question Period the next day. That issue has been before the commi ssion at Concordia Hospital for a number of months. A regularly scheduled meeting scheduled for some several weeks prior to my honourable friend learning of the issue. The meeting was scheduled in Health, at which time the whole issue of the redevelopment of the lab was decided upon.

It was not because of my honourable friend's raising the issue in the House; the issue was before Government for at least three to four months and in the planning stages for a resolution. Hydro Development Ontario Sale Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): In October of 1987 the previous Government signed a 200 megawatt power sale deal with Ontario Hydro.

Part of the terms of that agreement were extended discussions and negotiations with respect to a further 1,000 megawatt sale. * (13 50) I have learned that Ontario Hydro has approved the purchase of 1,000 megawatts over a 20-year period with Manitoba Hydro, and I wonder whether the Minister of Energy and Mi nes (M r.

Neufeld), the Mi nister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, can ind icate today whether the Government has formally changed its power with respect to hydro development more in line with the New Democratic Party policy, and whether the Minister can indicate to the House and the people of Manitoba when this impor tant hydro development project will be formally announced by the Government? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): I would like to inform the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) that we have one basic difference with the former NDP Government with respect to hydro sale.

We will not enter into a construction program for a new hydro-

Thursday, November 2, 1989 electric dam until such a time as we have made this sale, not build the dam and then go and look for customers to make a sale. Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question, and he does not have his history right. The Northern States Power deal was signed before construction began, and that is the reason construction at Limestone began. I do not understand the reluctance of the Minister to go ahead with this other than the general reluctance to develop our hydro resources.

I asked the Minister whether he could indicate to the people of Mani toba when we migh t expect an annou ncement of the beginning of construction of Conawapa. Nelson-Burntwood Agreement Northern Manitoba Employment Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): My second question to the Minister is: can the Minister indicate why this Government has proceeded to re-sign the Nelson Burntwood Agreement which provided for preferences to northern Natives, to northern residents, why he has gone ahead and signed a new agreement which does not improve the access of Northerners to jobs and employment and training in northern Manitoba?

Why has that been done prior to the signing of the formal announcement that the Minister is withholding against the interests of northern Manitobans? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): When we have signed an agreement with Ontario Hydro for the sale of 1,000 megawatts worth of electricity, as indicated by the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), for a 20-year period we will make that announcement in the House. We have not signed any agreement at this point in time, and we will not make an announcement on the construction of the Conawapa project on the Nelson River. Mr.

Storie: I want to know, and I believe other Members of the House want to know, whether this Government is serious on ensuring that any new construction on the Nelson River system will benefit Northerners, will benefit Natives in northern Manitoba, will provide training and employment opportunities. I want this Government and I want this Minister today to ind icate whether he is prepared to commit to making improvements and ensuring that Northerners have the predominance of emplo yment opportunities at the Nelson site, any Nelson site, the next generating station. Mr.

Neufeld: We have always been committed to the North. This Government has always said that when the time comes that we will build another power project on the Nelson River, and the time will come when we will have to because there will be need in Manitoba, we will continue to employ the people from the North as has been done in the past, and we hope to improve the conditions of those people and the employment conditions of the people that have been employed in the past. Manitoba Hydro French Services Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.

Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I bring the House an answer to a question I took as notice from the Honour able Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) regarding an energy conservation promotion program by Manitoba Hydro. The promotional pamphlet in question and the specific sentence in question deals with the promotion of automatic timers for interior and exterior car warmers. There are four of these timers that are available in the city today.

Of the four, three of them had the instructions in French on one side and English on the other side, the fourth had the instructions in English first and French below it on one side and French first and English below it on the other side. Contrary to company policy the coupon was printed and the people were asked to take the side with English � only. That was an error for which we apologize. The pamphlets have been withdrawn. They were only sent to the emplo yees of the company and to some dealers in the city. It was done in order to-it was well intended.

The person who sent them out thought if they sent them out and did not make specific instructions, people could send in both sides and get double the refund of $5 each. * (13 55) I have been assured that controls have been put into place making the recurrence of such an error unli kely. Addition al ly, the president of Manitoba Hydro and the chair man of Manitoba Hydr o deeply regret any inconvenie nce and apologize for it and ask the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) to take that apology into his constituen cy. Limestone Employment Training Centre Re-implementation Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr.

Speaker, my final question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld). Given the fact that the Nelson-Bu rntwood collective agreement has already been re-signed with no improvements, furthermore with no consultation with any Nati ve group- not the Native groups th at participated in the Limestone hydro-electric project, not with any northern group-gi ven that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Education and Training (Mr.

Derkach), have closed the Limestone Training and Emplo yment Agency, will the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, no w ens ure tha t the Li mestone Training and Em ployment Agency will be reins tated, that the consultation that is due to the Native groups across northern Manitoba, with respect to training, will take place? Can he assure us- 2471

Thursday, November 2, 1989 ***** Hc:mourable Member: Mr. Speaker, point of order. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Education, on a point of order? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Flin Flon (Storie) has just put on the record that this Government has closed the Northern Training Employment Agency. That is false information that the Member for Flin Flon is bringing to the House this afternoon.- (int erjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order , ple ase; ord er, pl ease. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order.

It is a dispute over the facts. ***** Mr. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to this House, there is nothing we will do that will change the advantages that the northern people now hold in obtaining jobs at any new project on the Nelson River. Grace Hospital Asbestos levels Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speak er, - (int erjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Honourable Member for St. James.- (interjection)- Order, please. The Honourable Member for Flin Flon has had an opportunity to get his questions on.- (int erjection) Order, please. The Honour able Member for St. James. Mr.

Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Workplace Safety and Health (Mrs. Hammond) did receive a sample of asbestos material from Grace Hospital many months ago. We also know that this morning she received a report confirming the level of asbestos in the materials and that it was loosely bound asbestos materials which were in fact ending up in the air circulation at Grace Hospital.

I wonder if the Minister of Workplace Safety and Health might explain to this House just exactly what she did with the sample she received many months ago, and why we were able to get a confirmed report from an independent lab within two days? She does not appear to have done that with her sample and ind eed not done anything to deter the health hazard at Grace Hospital.- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The question has been put. The Honourable Minister of Workplace Safety and Health. Hon.

Gerrie Hammond (Min ister of Labour responsible for Workplace Safety and Health): I have been in touch with staff today, and I am expecting a report and I will bring it to the House. Mr. Edwards: Could the Minister please explain what in fact happened with the sample that was given to her many months ago, and why it has taken an independent sample, gotten by the Opposition Party, to get this Minister to do something about this very, very serious problem? Mrs. Hammond: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the Member for St. James would want me to be the one to handle the sample.

So, if the sample is in the department as they said, they will be the ones, the experts in the field, to handle it as one would expect and hope. *

(1400) Mr. Edwards: That is a bizarre answer. Of course this Minister is responsible for a department. She is in this House to take responsibili ty for her department. Workplace Safety and Health Standard Reduction Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Minister.

When will this Minister be bringing into legislation the higher standards which were in place prior to her becoming Minister, and which she has committed to restoring with respect to carcinogens in the workplace, given the unanimous report of the advisory committee which unanim ously recommended that this Minister had made a mistake when she lowered the standards? It took her a month to lower the standards, and it has now taken her over two months, and she has not raised them yet. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The question has been put. The Honourable Minister of Workplace Safety and Health. Hon.

Gerrie Hammond (Minister of Labour responsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and defend the actions to the Honourable Member across. We have accepted the unanimous recommendations which were not there before. We have accepted that from the Advisory Council. The new regulations are being worked on, but we are waiting for the further report to come out at the end of November so that we can do all the regulations at once. Repap Manitoba Inc. Sale Agreement Security Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speak er, understand that, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the very startling and revealing declaration by Repap Corporation to really evaluate with the possible intentions of renegotiati ng the opportunities with The Pas Forestry Complex. The question to the Minister of Finance is: can you share with us any discussions that you have had with the Repap Corp ora tion in relation to this pronouncement they are making, and is the Minister prepared to sacrifice Manitoba's envir on mental concerns to this type of corporate blackmail before the environment al report is released? 2472

Thursday, November 2, 1989 Hon. Clayton ManneH (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I could spend a half an hour on rejecting most of the

preamble to the question. It is obvious that the Liberals have always been against Repap coming into Manitoba. So no doubt if they sensed the project was going to fail, they would be standing and applauding today. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, and it came to light this morning when I understand there was an

article in the Financial Post which sort of embellished quite strongly some of the sentiments of Repap at this time. I have an opportunity to be in discussion with senior executives of that company, and they assure me that the agreement that we have entered into is sound and it will be proceeded with. Repap Manitoba Inc. American Environmental Study Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment: why is it necessary to utilize an American agency to evaluate the effluent standards of the project in The Pas, which is even a more startling revelation from the same newspaper article?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honour able Minister of the Environment. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have a fair bit of personal regard for the Member opposite, but I have to tell you that this is one of the most biz arre lines of questioning that I could have imagined that would have come forward today.

On the specifics of his question, the Department of Environment has always said that the work in which they do within environmental licensing requires that they have access to the best possible information and the state of the art knowledge when providing the backup to the licences which they issue. They issue a number of them, literally hundreds of them, through the department during the course of a year.

For him to somehow suggest that we are relying in some way on some foreign agency to do the work for which we are responsible not only ind icates that he does not understand the technical expertise that is required. He does not understand the ability of the department and their willingne ss to make sure they have all the information. Mr. Angus: Mr. Speaker, the unmitiga ted arrogance of this Government is overwhelming. This is a Swedish process. It is not utili zed in the United States anywhere, it is util ized in Canada.

There are no universities; there is no sustainable development institution; no paper and pulp institute in Canada has done it. Is the Minister now denying that he is using the United States environmental agencies to examine and evaluate the effluent discharge at The Pas? Mr. Cummings: It is obvious that the Mem bers opposite wish that somehow they could stand up and say this Government has abandoned the environment or it has abandoned Repap.

Unfortunately, they cannot say either one, so they are threatening up here creating the illusion that somehow we are doing something improper in obtaining world class information for the eventual issuing of a licence to this corporation. It is absolutely indicative of the nay sayers and the desperate politics on that side to try and get something out of this issue. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. LynnGold Resources Inc. Negotiations Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

In yesterday's letter, November 2, from the Deputy Minister of Energy Mines to Mr. Gordon Bub, vice-president of DCC Equities, the Deputy Minister quoted, and I quote from the letter: our position has not changed in the past several weeks. It was reiterated in our discussion with Peter Goodwin on October 30, 1989, and in our letter of the same date, and it will not change in the future. You may wish to reconsider your position and advise. That rather chilling letter was in response to a counter proposal by LynnGold to help keep their mine and mill operation in the commu nity alive.

Can the Premier indicate that his Government would be prepared to be a bit more flexible in the negotiations than is stated in that particular letter so that we could see the continuation of the community through the continuation of the mining and milling operations there, and is he prepared to get all of the parties together to sit down face to face in the same room to reach a successful conclusion to these negotiations? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will give the same response that I gave to the same question to Mr.

Don White, the head of the steelworkers in Lynn Lake, who asked the question on behalf of the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) when he phoned me. I am 1 certain because I know that this is the kind of political gamesmanship that the Member for Churchill wants to play with people's lives. * (1410 ) I will repeat what I said. We have gone to the extent that no other Government in this country would go to try and achieve an agreement with LynnGold to keep the mining operation alive. What we want is lon g-term assurance that those jobs will be protected for the benefit of the workers in LynnGold.

We do not want a short-term quick fix. We do not want to simply be pouring tens of millions of dollars into corporate pockets because of the difficult situation. There has to be a long- term assurance that that mine will keep operating and that those people in Lynn Lake will have their jobs. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a package in the range of over $20 million. The New Democrats put $2 million on the table in 1985. That was the extent of 2473

Thursday, November 2, 1989 their commitment. We are now talking 10 times that figure. We have said that this is as far as we can go. Regrettably we would like to do, but we cannot prop up the world price of gold with Manitoba's treasury. We can only go so far as is economically sound to try and save those jobs. We have gone as far as we can go, Mr. Speaker, and that is the bottom line. Premier's Intervention Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Don White, the President of Local Steelworkers 5757 in Lynn Lake was speaking on behalf of the residents of the commu nity and the members he represents.

I have a petition from over 450 Lynn Lakers addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), which I will forward to him, asking him to become personally involved in the negotiations and to call the Parties together.

I would ask the First Minister: will he at least make that one final effort to get the parties in the same room so they can explore all avenues to see if there is not some way that this can be resolved, if he will use his good office, his ability as a statesperson and as a negotiator , to bring the parties together to try to find out if we cannot resolve this issue successfully, rather than rely upon some very chilling and I think - (int erjection)- well, some say arrogant- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honourable Member's question has been put. The Honourable First Minister. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Member in his facile way makes the assertion, or the assumption, that I have not been involved, that my Cabinet has not been involved, and that this issue just happened over the last three or four days. This matter has developed over three or four months. My Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) has spent months and months, and a great proportion of his time, over the past num ber of months on this. I have been there at Lynn Lake meeting with the people. I have been on the phone talking with senior officials including Mr.

Buchan, and we have gone and gone and gone and gone and gone along the way until we reached a point, which I communic ated directly to Mr. Buchan about two weeks ago, that this was as far as we can go. Now he stands up trying to milk the taxpayers of Manitoba for mor e mone y on behalf of a ma jor corporation based in eastern Canada. That is who he is arguing for, Mr. Speaker, to get more money out of the taxpayer of Mani toba for a ma jor eastern corporation- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honourable Member for Churchill. Mr. Cowan: Mr.

Speaker, the New Democratic Party, and myself as MLA, is where we have always been in this province and that is fighting for workers and their families, fighting for northern communit ies, fighting for the development of our North, and fighting for a more equitable society that does not treat workers like pawns- Mr. Spea ker: Order . Ord er, please. Does the Honourable Member have a question? The Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) will assume his chair.

I would like to remind the Honourable Member for Churchill that I had asked the Honourable Member to assume his seat because his remarks were getting on the record. The Honourable Member has not put his question yet. Would the Honourable Member for Churchill kindly put his question now, please? Mr. Cowan: Gi ven that no matter how long the Government has been involved in this, it is not over until it is over, and it is not over until November 6. Will the First Minister just do a very simple thing and call the parties together so that they can meet face to face?

I can assure him they are prepared to do that in order to try to resolve their differences in an amicable way and in the way in which classic negotiations are undertaken in this province. Mr. Filmon: This is the record of what the NOP did when they were in Government. NOP refuses to fund Sherritt jobs grant. That was for Lynn Lake, for this particular mine, the province may kill- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. I would like to remind the Honourable First Minister of Beauchesne's 501, where Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber.

The Honourable First Minister.- (interjection)- Order. Order, please. I would like to remind the Honourable First Minister to put your answers through the Chair. The Honourable First Minister. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this Government has gone further than any Government anywhere in the country would to save the jobs for the people of Lynn Lake. We are not into this for political expediency as the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) is. We are not into this to play games with the lives of people. We are trying to make a legitima te agreement. POINT OF ORDER Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The Honour able Member for Churchill, on a point of order. Order. Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): If it makes the First Minister feel better to suggest that people are involved in this for political expediency, let him at least recognize that as unparliamenta ry. He should withdraw, if he is an Honourable Member of this House. It is in violation of Citation 481 of Beauchesne's, and I would ask your assistance in having him withdraw the- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I regret the remarks of the Honourable First Minister.

It does absolutely nothing for the decorum of the Chamber, and I would ask the Honourable First Minister to withdraw those remarks. The Honourable First Minister. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) for questioning 2474

Thursday, November 2, 1989 his motivation in this. I do not appreciate the kinds of comments that he continues to make about the sincerity of this Government with respect to resolving the Lynn Lake issue. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We would like to thank the Honourable First Minister. Order. Now, order, please. The Pines Project Minister's Consultations Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, the controversial Pines Development has been given the nod by the outgoing City Council. In fact, only hours after the vote was recorded on October 19, a huge sign was erected advertising the particular project.

Developers Bob Akman and Roy Lev indicated at a communi ty committee meeting earlier this year that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) looked favourably at providing $5 million towards the development. Now we hear that his colleague, the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), has asked his federal counterpart to help block the project. My qu estion to the Minis ter of Hig hways and Transportation is this: can he tell the House what communication he has had previously with his colleague the Minister of Housing regarding this particular project in light of the strange change of events? *

(1420) Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): First of all, when I took the step that I did in writing to the federal Minister asking him to use the powers that he has in terms of stopping the Pines project, at that time I have to say I had not discussed it with my colleague, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme). However, I have since that time. However, the Minister has also indicated that there is no funding coming from his department for that project. Mr.

Speaker, in defense of my position that I took, my interest was based on protecting the Winnipeg International Airport here and the kind of economic spinoff that we have from there. We have developed a committee that is going to be looking at the protection of development in the area so that we can protect the economic interests of the people of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the Winnipeg International Airport. Mrs. Yeo: I am delighted that he is agreeing with us that the airport noise is a potential for problem with this particular dev elopment. Federal Intervention Mrs.

Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Will the Minister of Highways and Transportation share with us the steps that the federal Minister of Transportation will use in this request for intervention? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Well, first of all, I do not have a commitment from the federal Minister of Transportation that he will be taking any steps. I had asked in writing to look at the possibility of doing it. I have no assurance that this will happen.

However, I want to repeat again that we have a committee that we are establishing that will be looking at working jointly together with the Winnipeg Chamber, the St. James Chamber of Commerce, the City of Winnipeg, and all the groups involved in terms of seeing whether we can develop a strategy so that we can protect development in the area of the Winnipeg Airport for the future so we do not run into these kind of problems. Provincial/Municipal Consultations Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.

Albert Driedger) tell us if he and his colleague, the Minister for Housing (Mr. Ducharme), have had negotiations recently with the City of Winnipeg, and if not when can we expect them to resume, or will he be waiting for direction from Benoit Bouchard? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to ind icate that I have discussions with the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme), along with the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), on an ongoing daily basis regarding this issue as well as many other issues. Mr.

Speaker, we have just had a civic election, and I have not had the opportunity to speak with the mayor about this issue. I have spoken with him about the VIA Rail issues but not this issue. We are prepared to dialogue with them to see what kind of a position that they would take. Day Care Funding Parental Fee

Schedule Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, middle-income parents who now pay 70 percent of child care costs, which by the way is a higher proportion than parents who send their children to private schools like St. John's-Ravenscourt, are very worried that this Government will follow the advice of the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) who says she wants families making $36,000 a year, which is less than the average income in Manitoba, to pay more than $100 more per month per child. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Perhaps I should clarif y, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, the Honourable Member for St. Johns, put her question. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Thirty-six thousand dollars is less than the average family income in Manitoba. I want to ask the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) if it is her Government's policy that parents 2475

Thursday, November 2, 1989 must pay a higher proportion of child care costs than parents of students at St. John's-Ravenscourt School? Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I should remind the Member that there is a working committee which will be getting to work immediately on funding issues with regard to child care, and they will be looking at all the various methods. They will be looking at all the funding ramifications of child care, and that will be wha t is taking pl ace immed iately. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr.

Speaker, it is obvious the Minister has not ruled out this regressive proposal, and the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) is right in there with her. They are like two peas in a pod. Mr. Speaker: Is there a question here? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: My que stion is: why is this Government even considering the Liberal policy of Americanization of our day care system, which will result in a two-tier day care system, one for the rich, one for the poor, and once again hit midd le-income families the hardest because since families who earn say on average $36,000 and have two children would end up having to pay- Mr.

Speaker: Order ple ase; order pl ease. The Honourable Minister of Family Services. Mrs. Oleson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member should be aware that when you are going to discuss any particular problem, and we do say that this day care funding is a problem, we all I am sure in this House agree with that. That when you do set out to solve a problem, you look at every single way in which that problem might be solved. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Bill Nos. 34, 27, 31, 6, and the remainder as listed on the Order Paper? SPEAKER'S STATEMENT Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Before recognizing the Honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Uruski) to speak on Bill No. 34, I have a brief statement for the House. When this Bill was last before the House, I had some difficulty with the com men ts of some Ho nour able Members in terms of relevance to the subject matter of the Bill.

Therefore, I will take this opportunity to remind all Honourable Members of our Rule No. 30 which reads: "Speeches shall be directly relevant to the question under conside ration or to a motion or amendment that the Member speaking intends to move, or to a point of order." At second reading, it is a principle of the Bill before the House which is debatable. On this particular Bill, it is the amounts set out in the

schedule to the Bill, the purposes for which those amounts are being sought, the projects they will fund, and other facts relating to the projects affected by the Bill which are appropriate matters for debate. I would appreciate the co-operation of Honourable Members in complying with these principles of our Rule. Bill NO. 34-THE LOAN ACT, 1989 Mr. Speaker: On the proposed mo tion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill No. 34, The Loan Act, 1989; Loi d'emprunt de 1989, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Interl ake, who has 19 minutes remaining.

The Honourable Member for Interlake. Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, maybe some Members, on the Government side as usual, do not want to listen to me. That is their problem as to how they wish to conduct themselves. I wish to continue in my remarks with respect to Bill No. 34, and I see a great deal of sensitivity, on behalf of the Government, on one of the issues that I have touched upon, Mr. Speaker. That is dealing with the difficulty that many communities in this province face with respect to water supply.

I recognize that there is some sensitivity in that whole area, especially coming from the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner), the former Minister of Natural Resources and others. I say that because this issue that I have raised is essentially an issue of justice or lack of justice on behalf of a Government to its citizenry.

Here we have had the case of a Minister of the Crown, bound under The Water Rights Act, issuing licences to draw water from an aqu ifer in this province, a major aqu ifer, that covers some 1,500 square miles in the west central part of this province, on one hand while he was Minister of Natural Resources and on the other hand siding with the Minister of Environment to withhold a licence to withdraw water from the same aquifer for a commu ni ty that has been facing severe water shortages for many years and particularly so in the last two. (Mr. William Chornopyski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when one examines The Water Rights Act, where the Act itself points out to what is the prime source of water or the priorities in which we as a society have set up that being human consumption, when we see that more than half of the withdrawal of the present commitment out of that aquifer is for food production, the growing of potatoes in the Carberry area, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there is no way that the Government can convince myself or members of those communities who wish to receive water so desperately needed from this aquifer-f or them to say, oh, yes, we are giving you priorities, but yet we are issuing licences for withdrawal of the water, but for you we are holding things up. 2476

Thursday, November 2, 1989 *

(1430) We have now had the Government say that they are going to conduct a study. A study on what? They are going to call in new experts. New experts to do what? The data that is in place now has been data collected by the Department of Natural Resources, the Water Resources Branch, which has records dating back to probably several decades on this aquifer. Whatever experts that they call over the next number of months, all they can do is in fact examine the data that his own staff have put toget her. They can I guess examine the costing of the alternatives in terms of pumping water back from Lake Manitoba.

The Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummi ngs) himself indicated to me that he thought those figures were exaggerated, were too high. So those two areas they can in fact examine, but qu ite frank ly, Mr. Deputy Speak er, there is no information that they will be able to determine over the next short period of time that in fact will be able to provide them with new information to continue to issue the licence.

It may reconfirm, which has already been confirmed and reconfirmed by a number of other authorities, or it may someho w put into greater perspective the question of the costing of the Lake Manitoba alternative, which to me appears to be the Minister of Environment's I guess not priority, but his preference. If that is the preference of the Minister of Environment, why does he not come out publicly and say, yes I want a rethinking, a recost ing of the Lake Manitoba alternative, which quite frankly is staggering. Here is where it comes down. The preferred least cost option was capitalized at $8.3 million,

whereas the Lake Manitoba alterna tive was capital ized at $12.4 million more than a 50 percent increase in cost one over the other. If those communi ties are forced to attempt to come to the Municipal Board and borrow these funds, I doubt whether the Municipal Board will even allow them to borrow that money, first. Second, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the commu nity has told me that when they raised the question of who is going to pay for those additional costs, there were no statements from the Government that they would in fact cover those additional costs over and above the least cost option.

Those appeared to be for me, not having heard from the Government, the only two considerations now on the table. I refrain from that a bit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummin gs) the other day said he had some letters and he said there were concerns about the question of wells in the vicinity of Hummerston, and that there may be a drawing out of the water in those areas. Those questions were covered by the Department of Water Resources, PFRA, and the Water Services Board. Here are some of the questions that were in fact dealt with.

I want to deal with the question of deteriorating water supplies. Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , I am just going over the document. I had it outlined. It is a fairly lengthy public document that was presented about, here we go-if less than 20 percent of the aquifer is now being utilized, why are some wells going dry? That was the question that was raised by residents and is covered in the document tha t I am quoting from, the Westlake Proposal, Questions and Answers, and I quote: The sustainable yield of the aquifer was determined to be 72, 000 acre-feet annu ally from September '87 to September '88.

Human withdrawals, including irrigation, accounted for the use of 9,200 acre-feet, considerably less than the 13 ,000 acre-feet licensed for human use. Human withdrawals were therefore only a very small portion of the total discharge from the aquifer of 1,354,000 acre-feet. By far the largest discharges from the aquifer were for evapotranspiration at 1. 28 million acre-feet between September '87 and September '88. Wells go dry for various reasons, in clud ing the condition of the well, fluctuations in the water table, and no water being available in the aqu ifer.

Of the approximately 100 monitoring wells located strategically to monitor water level changes in the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer, seven have been in place for a period of 15 to 23 years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, not overnight between 15 and 23 years. Since these seven wells were in place prior to the major irr igation dev elopme nt, they provide useful information for comparing post-irrigation water levels with water levels prior to irrigation development.

Of these seven original monitoring wells, one well shows a water level at that specific location in the aquifer to be at an all-time low, some .10 metres lower than the previously recorded low, that is approximately four inches lower. The other six wells all record higher water levels than the recorded low in previous years by an amount varying from .2 metres to 0 metres to 1. 4 metres.

Given these facts, it is fair to say that wells in the main portion of the aquifer may be giving problems because of the condition of the well or fluctuations of the water table, but not because water is not available in the aquifer. *

(1440) Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Members of Government, I plead with them to reconsider their position in denying a communi ty in this province, and residents, some 700 farm families in this province, natural justice. I say to the Min ister of Environ ment (Mr. Cumm ings), the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to all three of them, please reconsider your position. Please call in the officials if need be again to reconfirm the data that has been put out by two provincial agencies and one federal agency. Has in fact, Mr.

Chairman, that data been qu estioned by an engine er at the Cl ean Environment Commission and basically confirmed their findings? So call them in if you have to, but do not hold up. Do not hold up this project. Do not place the lives of several thousand people -(interjection)- I say to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), I am not sure what he said, he said they have had the problem for years. They have had the problem for years, but there was money put forward for this project federally. No 24n

Thursday , November 2, 1989 other projects have received federal consideration up to this day. You have not been able to negotia te a federal-provincial agreement for water. Yet you hold back putting forward a project in which there is federal cost sharing and you tell other people in the province, the Teulons, the Arborgs, the other communi ties in the province that want to get cost sharing into sewer and water agreements, you tell them to wait. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Government really owes the people of this area an explanation, more than an explanation.

They owe them the least of which is having this project approved and instructing the Manitoba Water Services Board and asking PFRA to put forward the funding that originally was in place and allowing this project to go ahead. There is one other area that I want to raise today with respect to agriculture. That relates to today's ruling in the courts about overcharging of interest. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I ask the Government to review provincial options and legislation that would allow for farmers or any Mani toban who may be de ni ed information from any financial institution about the nature of promissory notes or short-term loans in which interest may have been changed. I say that not to paint any institution with a black brush as being negative, but in any case where an institution refuses to provide information to any of its clients on background of loans, they should be required.

If those laws do not exist in this province, because most of the cases that are now before the courts are only there because of the tenaciousness of the clients of those institutions to find out how those interest rates fluctuated when in fact an interest rate was set at the time of borrowing, and then it was increased unilaterally by the financial institution. Those laws should be re examined. If they are not, an injustice again will take place for the farm commun ity, who are in this case fighting on their behalf and on others who may be in that same position. Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, for an opportunity to speak to this Bill. Mr. Richard Kozak (Transcona): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in this debate on Bill 34, The Loan Act, 1989. The official Opposition does not dis pute the periodic need for the Government of Manitoba to raise monies by way of loan, but we do dispute the fiscal policies associated with this borrowing. Of central concern to us is the absence of the federal provincial co-ordination of fiscal policy that is required to maintain a healthy Manitoba economy. This is no small point, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because the operations of the Government of Canada are of such size and impact that they can dwarf and smother the strategies of the Government of Manitoba. This concern is not unique to my Party. On Monday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) rose in this very House and pointed out that there is a desperation within the federal House of Finance that we have to take very seriously. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the accumula ted debt of the Government of Canada has surpassed $320 billion, half of it piled on by the present Mulroney Government 2478 while it persisted in musing about purchasing a fleet of nuclear submarines. I am not by nature a pessimist, but when I consider the federal debt, the debt of the provinces, corporate debt, and consumer debt, I am forced to conclude that we have run out of leeway to make mistakes.

All three Parties represented in this House, regardless of differing philosophies, have an obligation to put on the table their best ideas for avoiding unacceptable economic outcomes in the near future. On Thursday, October 19, I stood in debate to grieve the inconsistency of federal and provincial fiscal polic ies and especially the federal Govern ment's adherence to two diametrically opposing theories, namely free trade and mercantilism. Today I would like to detail the problem with specific reference to the federal Government's latest mercantilist initi ative, the goods and services tax. My comments, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, are directly related to the Bill before us today in that this problem has grave implications for the fiscal position of the Province of Manitoba and for the security of its debt obligations in terms of Bill 34. I will not review at length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my remarks of October 19 in the grievance that I brought before this House. I would simply in general remind Ho nourable Memb ers that 18 months ago this Government came to office and the Premier promised us a great new era of federal-provincial co-operation, but today we are caught in a chaotic state of conflicting economic policies.

Our provincial Government's fiscal policy, whatever our legitima te criticisms, is at least rooted in the 20th Century, but as I believe the Minister of Finance of our province acknowledged in his remarks on Monday of this week, the province's economic co ordination with the federal Government has hit a new low. So much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) assurances of a great new era of economic co operation in fiscal policy matters between this province and the Government of Canada.

Instead of co-operating and reinforcing the generally mainstream Keynesian approach adopted by all three Parties in this House, the federal Government has, as I mentioned on October 19, departed into experiments with theories that are essentially from the 17th Century and the 19th Century that did not work terribly well even back then. I am of course referring to my remarks regarding the theories of free trade and mercantilism, both respectable theories in their time until the first was rejected and until the second was more violently rejected by the French Revolution in the late 18th Century.

Not only are these theories discredited theories from the past, but also they conflict directly with one another. *

(1450) Free trade is what it states to be. It is aimed at prompting open borders for the free exchange of imports and exports. On the other hand, mercantilism requires a bit more explanation. It is aimed at beggaring our neighbour, shutting our doors to imports while we promote our exports. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does not

Thursday, November 2, 1989 take advance degrees in economics to see the inherent contradiction in these two theories being followed by our federal Government. It does not take an advanced degree in economics to understand the conflict of both theories with the fiscal policies of our own Government of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remind the House of my remarks stated just a few moments ago. The economic clout of the federal Government is quite sufficient to smother the activities of Honourable Members of this House as expressed by the Government of the Day in their fiscal policies.

The contradiction between federal policy and provincial policy is at unprecedented levels. The internal contradictions in federal policy are also at unprecedented levels. With respect specifically to the goods and services tax, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to refresh the memory of my col leagues in this Ho use, my 56 colleagues. The goods and services tax will expect consumers to pay a 9 percent federal sales tax on everything from haircuts to new houses, in addition to the provincial 7 percent sales tax. A two-income family of four earning $45,000 will pay $629 more in tax.

The goods and services tax will cost $200 million annually to admin ister. The complexities of the tax have prompted many to call it a nightmare for small business. Federal Finance Minister Michael Wilson himself predicts the new tax will increase inflation by at least 2.25 percent. The goods and services tax will bring the federal Government $24 billion per year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, making it the largest tax grab arguably in Canadian history. We in the Province of Manitoba recognize that the GST will hurt our tourism industry.

It will discourage American tourists from visiting Manitoba, and it will encourage Manitobans to direct themselves toward American destinations. In addition, Mr. Deputy Sp eak er, an extremely reputable financial house, Wood Gundy, estimates that the goods and services tax will wipe out 75,000 jobs the length and breadth of our great country. This is a tax proposal that the federal Government is spending $800,000 of the taxpayers' money to promote even before it has become law, even before it has been approved by the House of Commons and the Crown. I am of course, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, concerned that Manitoba's Finance Minister (Mr. Manness) early on in his musings on the subject of the goods and services tax stated: "I agree with it wholeheartedly. There is the potential for inflation, but I feel that could be quite mini mal and short term." I recognize, of course, that the Minister of Finance of this province has made a most welcome flip-flop on this issue. I somewhat regret, however, that his initial remarks were not somewhat more to the point. We are bound to be frustrated in this debate on the goods and services debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The more arguments that Members of three Parties put up against this tax, the mor e arguments the federal Government advances for us to shoot down. The goods and services tax is something like the hydra of Greek mythology-cut off one head and two more re-emerge to take its place. I will not extend, unduly, these introductory remarks to my later comments, except to point out a few of the new arguments that come forward that we are today obliged to shoot down. The federal Government now argues, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the goods and services tax will lead to less relative price distortion, and therefore can lead to more efficient resource allocation. Nonsense. The goods and services tax operates within the environment of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The Free Trade Agreement is not a true free trade agreement but a simple customs union between Canada and the United States.

All of the distortions that existed prior to the Free Trade Agreement and that now exist prior to the goods and services tax continue in force and will continue in force because every country with which Canada trades, with the exception of the United States, is not covered by the Free Trade Agreement. Shoes from Portugal, goods from other countries, continue to be productive of distortion to our markets, because all of them are subject to different customs rates at our borders. The federal Government's argument on this matter can very simply therefore be refuted. * (15 00) Second, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we now hear the federal Government arguing that the removal of taxes on capital goods can reduce the cost of capital and contribute to an increase in capital stock and productivity gains. Once again, nonsense. I recently had the pleasure of an extremely enlightening conversation with a friend of Canada, Dr. Gerhard Feyferlik, the Deputy Trade Comm issioner of the Republic of Austria. Dr. Feyferlik acknowledged that we as Canadians must envy the investment ratios that apply in western Europe and the Far East.

In western Europe and the Far East the citi zenry benefit from investment ratios in the neighbourhood of 30 percent, while Canadians and Americans grind along, our economy grinds along, with an investment ratio of less than 20 percent. Obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the investment that drives any healthy economy is occurring at a much less rapid rate in North America than it is in western Europe and the Far East. Ho wever, Dr.

Feyferl ik, in our conversations, pointed out to me that the investment ratio of his country and of the other countries of western Europe and the Far East did not change upward following introduction of a goods and services tax. They in fact had been every bit as high prior to the tax. Dr.

Feyferlik asserted, and we must agree with him, that the investment ratio of a country is culturally based and that the economic culture of Canada is such as to produce an investment ratio below 20 percent, that we in fact cannot expect a much increased level of investment in our economy following introduction of the goods and services tax. This is particularly the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there are demand contraints in any particular economy. There is only so much demand within our domestic market for goods and services and investors respond to that level of demand. The goods and services 2479

Thursday, November 2, 1989 tax in itself is not sufficient cause for a great boon in investment in our country even though we would dearly love to be wrong in our assessment of the tax impact in this regard. Where am I leading, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am leading to the fact that this very month Canada and the United States will be embarking on the first round of trade su bsidy di scussions within the framework of the Canada -U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This is a very important round of talks. I was recently provided with information from a Member of the U.S.

House of Representativ es which indicated to me that if these talks are not successfully concluded by June 1991, Congress would be very hard pressed to pursue at full speed with the implem entation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement as it is expected to evolve between our two countries. Furthermore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are on the verge of the commencement of trade panels which will consider the matter of fair and unfair trade subsidies between the two countries.

Chapter 19 of the Free Trade Agreement, as we all recall, provides for review by binational panels of national countervailing and anti dumping final determinations in place of review by national courts.

Chapter 18 provides for binational panel review of disputes arising under provisions of the FTA other than reviews under

chapter 19 or reviews relating to financial services. The period of reckoning is arriving with regard to the success of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and I assert today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the federal proposal to introduce a goods and services tax will greatly disrupt the success of the crucial negotiations now taking place with regard to the Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement and that the goods and services tax will indeed bring upon us the spectre of much less harmonious trade relations with our major trading partner than we have had in the past.

I assert that our country's major trading partner will at least consider the view that the goods and services tax represents an unfair trade subsidy and therefore is inconsistent from the letter of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agree ment. Why would this occur to the Americans, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I suggest it would occur to them because every year since 1982, Canada has run a merchandise trade surplus with the United States in excess of $10 billion in any given year. In 1982 this surplus was $11 .025 billion, in 1985 the surplus peaked at $20.386 billion, in 1988 the surplus was still $13.635 billion.

I assert that the Americans are not unconscious of these numbers. I assert that they are deeply concerned about these numbers and I assert that they are intelligent enough to wish to protect their economy. I further assert that protecting their economy, given the terms of the goods and services tax, may mean the identification of unfair trade subsidies on the part of Canada and may mean countervailing duties levied against Canada.

Obviously this is highly relevant to The Loan Act, Bill 34, which stands before us today, in that the prosperity of our nation, the prosperity of our province, and our 2480 ability to service the debt obligations of this province is indeed dependent on harmonious and mutually profitable trade relations with our largest tra ding partner. The goods and services tax in itself, by the act of elim in at ing all federal Canadian taxat ion on the productive processes of our exporters, probably would not be sufficient cause to cry unfair trade subsidy.

However, in conjunction with certain other facts which I will put on the record this afternoon, the taxes stripping of all tax burden at the federal level from our exports does create grave cause for concern. I suggest to the Chair that the Americans are certainly intelligent enough to ident ify, as I identify, the kind of trade practice that the GST impli es. The first point I would like to raise in conjunction with this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is an argument that was recently advanced by the Fraser Institute. My friends opposite on the Government benches will recognize the Fraser Institute.

The Institute is a highly credible research organization which generally adopts views somewhat more in line with the thinking of the Conservative Party than with the thinking of the Liberal Party. At the same time as Canada is stripping all taxes off of the productive processes of our exporters, we continue, in the terms of the Fraser Institute, to subsidize our exports. The Fraser Institute contends, and they cite as support Dr.

Murray Smith of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, that total subsidies to exports amount to about 1 percent of export sales-not a large number in itself but these subsidies are not distributed evenly among our exports. In the case of some of our exporters these subsidies are much higher. Of course in the case of other exporters the subsidies are much lower. I assert, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that given the fact that all federal taxes are now being stripped from the productive processes of our exporters at a time when we continue to subsidize business in Canada, and specifically our exporters, is grave grounds for concern on the part of our American trad ing partners.

To cite another source in support of the Fraser Institute I would refer Honourable Members to the April May 1989 issue of International Economic Issues, a publication of the Institute for Research on Public Policy which makes it amply clear that Cana da's tr ade subsidies which are not duplicated by any form of policy in the United States will remain in force despite the introduction of goods and services tax.

I fear that the Americans, who we value as trading partners, will approach us with their grave concern about the fact that we continue to subsidize our exports through di rect subsidies to busine ss, through our Regional Economic Expansion Programs, through equali zation payments to have-not provinces, indeed by what they could argue is a depressed value for the Canadian dol lar. I believe that they would be foolish not to do so, although as a patriotic Canadian, if they do so I would fight them to my last breath. * (15 10) This concern about subsidies in light of the goods and services tax is not limited to me.

I would cite a

Thursday, November 2, 1989 speech del ivered on October 19, 1989, the same day as my grievance put forward by John Fraser, the pre sident and chief execu tiv e officer of Federal Indus tries Ltd. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully to the Honourable Member's speech. I find it very difficult to find any relevance of his remarks on the proposed federal goods and services tax. I would rem ind the Honour able Memb er of the Speaker's sentiments on this very Bill before he left the Chair. I would ask all Honourable Members that they try to speak to the matter under considera tion. Thank you. Mr.

Kozak: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your helpful comments. I am certainly cognizant of your concerns and those of His Honour the Speaker of this House. I do assert though, however, that my comments are directly related to the Bill before us in that the problems I am addressing have grave implic ations for the fiscal position of the Province of Manitoba and for the security of its debt obl iga tions which we are considering today within the framework of The Loan Act, 1989.

To continue with my remarks, Sir, I will continue to cite certain comments made on Thursday, October 19, by John Fraser, the president and chief executive officer of Federal Industries Ltd ., as he was addressing the Conf erence Board of Canada in its 17th Annual Business Outlook Conference. Mr. Fraser warned with regard to the su bsid ies which will continu e after introduction of the goods and services tax: "Ind ustrial subsidies and grants are ripe for review and on this point I have strong views. All subsid ies and grants to business should be phased out. I mean all of them, no exceptions.

As long as they are available we have to try and take advantage of them. If we don't and our competitors do, our shareholders are penalized. So the only answer is to cancel all of them. Then we can turn our full attent ion to reducing our costs, increasing productivity, and strengt hening our marketing skills to improve our world-wide competitive positions rather than spending our time grovelling in front of some Cabinet Minister for a handout." I rather like Mr. Fraser's turn of phrase, Mr. Deputy ' Speaker.

I am pleased to acknowledge that the concerns that I have raised with regard to business subsidies in our country as we approach the era of a goods and services tax are echoed, although in greatly different form, by one of the foremost business leaders of this city and of this province. I understand that time is a matter that is not in ample supply in this House. I will put only one more comment on the record. Here the federal Government is, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, elimina ting all taxation from the productive processes of our exporters at the same time as it continues to maintain business subsidies that Manitobans value dearly. We are highly supportive of regional economic expansion programs and other programs that help the economy of our province thrive, but also Canadian business benefits in another way that can be identified as of concern by our major trading partner.

In terms expressed by Patrick Grady of Glob al Economics Limited, a reputable Ottawa firm, both Canada and the United States have recently undertaken comprehensive reforms of their tax system. In the case of the corporate tax, the main thrust of the reforms has been to lower tax rates, broaden the tax base, and curtail or elimi nate incentives such as investment tax credits. Mr.

Grady asserts that the overall effect of tax reform in the two countries, given the real effective tax rates appropriately weighted for both investment in machinery and equipment, and investment in non-residential construction has been to slightly reduce Canada's tax advantage in the manufacturing sector. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Canada is running up massive trade surpluses with the United States. We are removing all federal taxation from the productive processes of our exporters. We continue in a way that is part of this country's culture and this province's culture to subsidize our exports.

We tax our manufacturers through the corporate tax system at a substantially lower rate than the United States. The question I put on the table today is: how can our major trading partner, the United States, not be deeply offended and consider an unfair trade subsidy the goods and services tax, which will remove all federal Canadian taxation from exports out of this country at a time when we are running up a massive trade surplus with the United States? To my way of thinking, we are looking at the very definition today of an unfair trade subsidy, and I urge Members of this Government, including the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), to approach the federal Gove rnment-both the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Finance to bring to their attention the disaster that is being courted and to suggest to them in the strongest possible terms that the federal Government of Canada should abandon its extremely dangerous project to introduce a mercantilist goods and services tax into this coun try. I am a loyal Manitoban. I do not want the Province of Manitoba to be unable to honour its obligation under The Loan Act 1989, Bill 34, which is before us tod ay. I perceive a threat.

I ask this Government to deal with it, with their federal colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the Member would submit to a question. Mr. Kozak: Glad ly. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have time remaining, I will always do anything that I can to accommodate the need for information of my friend the Member for Arthur. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member has four minutes remaining. The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. * (15 20) Mr. Downey: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I was following with interest the comments of the Member for Transcona 2481

Thursday, November 2, 1989 (Mr. Kozak) and having a difficult time coming to a conclusion as to whether or not he is fully suppor tive of the Free Trade Agreement and fully opposed to the goods and services tax, and I would wonder if he would answer that. The most specific question is, is he supportive of U.S.- Canada Free Trade Agreement? Is that what he is so worried about on the introduction of the goods and services tax? Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Transcona. Mr. Kozak: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my sincere thanks to my friend, the Member for Arthur (Mr.

Downey), for the opportunity to state for the record exactly what my position is on the Canada -U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I oppose the Canada -U.S. Free Trade Agreement, as does my Party. I oppose the proposed federal goods and services tax, as does my Party. However, I assure the Member for Arthur that as a loyal Canadian I recognize that our country and our province is, at this point in time, bound by the provisions of the Canada U .S. Free Trade Agreement which has been duly ratified by the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown.

I assert that we are under some oblig ation to honour the word, which has been given on behalf of the people of Canada and the Crown of Canada to our trading partner the United States, and indeed to honour, while it remains in force, the Can ada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement. My thanks, once again, to the Member for Arthur for allowing me to make that statement on the record. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I appreciate the appreciation of the Members for what I am sure they realize is going to be a major contribution on this debate. I notice that the Government House Leader is listening carefully to my remarks.

So he should, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is an important Bill. It deals with a considerable amount of money, it deals with loans that have been authorized or would be authorized with the passage of this Bill for a number of important areas, and I suspect that since we are in second reading that other Members may not have taken the time to look the details of the Bill. I suspect that by some of the contributions they may have perhaps been somewhat confused about what exactly we are debating at the present time.

I want to deal with that, not in specifics, because we are in the situation where we are dealing with second reading, which is the principle. A lot of people often neglect to look at some of the specifics of the Bill and appreciate the Member for Transcona's attempt to try and bring it all together after 30 min utes. I was very pleased to hear the reference to the Bill after a 30- minute speech because, quite frankly, at times I was wondering if I had missed my position, in terms of speaking on this Bill, that we perhaps had slipped into, for example, the Fiscal Stabil ization Fund or some other debate.

I was very pleased to hear him, after the 30 minutes, indicate that he was speaking to this Bill, because I was rather concerned at that point in time and I -(interjection)- Mr. Kozak: I wonder if my good friend, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), would permit me a brief question. An Honourable Member: Of course he would. Mr. Ashton: I would certainly welcome any clarification of my remarks, although I fully intend to make my remarks as clear as possible for the Member for Transcona (Mr. Kozak). so perhaps he will not even need to ask that question.

I would hope he would perhaps bear with me as I do refer to Bill No. 34, The Loan Act, 1989. Let us look at what we are dealing with in this particular Bill. We are dealing with some very important issues and I am glad the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) is listening intently because some of the portions of this loan Bill deal directly with areas he has responsibility for. I am very pleased to see that interest, and pleased to see the Minister responsible for Hydro here because this Bill deals, in very direct form, with-and in fact there are a num ber of things which I think need to be identified.

Let us look at this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Essentially, as outlined in

Schedule A, we are dealing with the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board; the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation; the Manitoba Telephone System; the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation; the University of Manitoba; the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation; the Vision Capital Fund; Ind ustrial Oppo rtunit ies Program ; and Manufacturing Adaptation Program, but that is listed as part of the business support that is dealt with in this Bill. In fact,

Schedule B also refers to expenditure that was authorized as at April 1, 1989, but not yet expended or abated, and refers to some of the more specific items that have been involved in the terms of loan Bills. Limestone is listed, for example. There is the Federal Provincial Water and Sewer Agreement. I note, for example, that the Member for the Interlake (Mr. Uruski) did make a num ber of references in that area as he did in terms of the Manitoba Water Services Board.

Also we are dealing with the loans towards the Manitoba Data Services, the Tourism Agreement, the Energy Conservation Loan Fund, and Venture Manitoba Tours, as well as the Co-operative Loans and Loans Guarantee Board. So I think it is important that we begin this debate on this Bill by making sure that we have a clear idea of exactly what we are dealing with, and that is loans in those very specific areas. (Mr. Neil Gaud ry, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) I think it is important in the debate to make sure that we do follow the ruling of Mr. Speaker earlier, and Mr.

Acting Speaker did a fine job in making sure that Members were obeying the ruling of the Speaker, and I commend him for that, making sure that the previous speaker did in fact talk to the Bill. I think that was very much appreciated by Members of this House, and I 2482

Thursday, November 2, 1989 think it is important as we get into this debate to look at some of the more specific issues that we are dealing with. I would like to begin with a very important area that was discussed today by our critic for Hydro, and that is in terms of hydro development. As I said, this Bill makes direct reference to the loan authority that had been authorized for the Limestone Hydro Dam and also the current, under

Schedule A, authorization for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board. The Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), our critic for Hydro today, pointed to the fact that the Ontario Hydro Board is currently dealing with a proposed sale to Manitoba, and that certainly is something that is not of any surprise to anybody who has been following the developments in terms of hydro sales in Manitoba over the last num ber of years. As was indicated in 1987, late 1987, there was authorization of a 200 megawatt sale to Ontario. I happened to be on the board at the time. I know the details of that very well.

I know also that one of the provisions of that was negotiations for a longer term sale that were in place in 1987 and, with the change in Government, have been continued. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Conservative Government is perhaps putting aside some of its previous policies in regard to Hydro, and is actively looking at a sale to Ontario Hydro that could, in fact, would trigger the construction of Conawapa, the next dam or certainly what would be the next dam in sequence after Limestone, with a sale of the magnitude that we are talking about. That is 1,000 megawatts.

The Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says, am I opposed to the construc tion of Cona wapa? Absolutely not. In fact, I am hoping that the Government will finalize the negotiations and actually announ ce the construction of Conawapa as soon as possible. I think he is perhaps referring his comments to the wrong person. If anybody should be asking whether a Party is in favour of hydro development or not, it should be to the Liberal Party. * (15 30) Of any Party in this Legislature, the Liberal Party has perhaps the clearest anti- dev elopment stand on Manitoba Hydro. They opposed Limestone categorically.

The Leader of the Liberal Party went thr oughout no rthern Mani toba and called Lime stone "Lemonstone." She suggested, Mr. Acting Speaker, that Limestone would cost upwards of $5 billion to construct. The original budget was $3 billion. Now, did the Limestone Dam come in with a price tag of $5 billion as the Leader of the Liberal Party suggested? No, it did not. It came in with a cost that was well under $2 billion. In fact, I believe the latest figures are around the $1. 7 billion range.

So the Leader of the Liberal Party, while her stand is quite clear, as it tends to be on issues-I give her credit in that sense, she is fairly clear where stands-but she was also clearly wrong on Limestone. I will be interested to see whether there is a flip-flop on the Canawapa Dam, because she is also on record as saying she does not feel the Canawapa Dam should be developed for decades, and that is a quote, that Canawapa should not be developed for decades. I do not know if there are other Mem bers, perhaps the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus), the Member for Transcona (Mr.

Kozak), perhaps they have questioned this policy in their caucus. I hope they have. I realize it may not affect their constituencies as directly as this will affect certainly those in my area, but I would like them to explain to Northerners and to Manitobans in general why, given the success of the Limestone Dam, they are opposed to not only the Limestone Dam that took place previously but also the Canawapa Dam.

I cannot understand anyone who has any knowledge of the facts and figures and the current situation with hydro development opposing out of hand, as the Liberals have, both the Limestone Dam and the Canawapa Dam. Now, I do not want to suggest for a moment that the Liberal Party was the only Party that opposed the NOP Government in its initia tive in terms of Limestone. The Conservatives did as well.

It was interesting to note what their policies were a number of years ago, and it will be interesting to compare as we deal with hydro development what their policies will be in this year, 1989, and the upcoming year, 1990. A number of years ago not only did the Conservative Party criticize the New Democratic Party for moving ahead in terms of the NSP power sale and also with the Limestone development, but they also suggested an alternative, and this came from the Member for Lakeside and from the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, the Member for Tuxedo.

It was suggested that instead of developing our own potential for hydro development right here in Manitoba, instead of looking at export sales, it was suggested you may not be aware of this-but they suggested we buy power from other jurisdictions, that instead of developing our own hydro potential, we buy power. I suppose that would be like people in Alberta suggesting they buy oil to deal with their energy needs. It had about as much logic as that, Mr. Acting Speaker. I am not saying it is not an alternative.

Surely it perhaps could be listed as an alternative, but the bottom line was the Conservative Party not only did not support the construction of Limestone, it had suggested -and I can show those comments right on the record-that we buy power from other jurisdictions. So we are in the interesting situation now, here in 1989, with a mi no rity Gove rnment. We have a Conservative Government that I believe should be closing this deal with Ontario Hydro, between Manitoba Hydro and Ontario Hydro. I do not see any reason why that will not take place, despite their previous criticisms of what took place with Limestone.

There is no logical reason why we cannot have that sale completed on good terms for Manitoba and good terms for Ontario Hydro. As I said, it is before the Ontario Hydro Board. I see no reason for that not to lead to the next step, which is the annou ncement of Canawapa. I feel that would be a very positive step for northern Manitoba. You know, it is interesting because in this mino rity situation, as a New Democrat, a question I am often 2483

Thursday , November 2, 1989 asked is my view on how the minority situation is out, what the prospects are. I will say that it in roles. When I was first elected in 1981 was elected to the Government side. It is Manitoba to have a minority Government The bottom line, though, is on one issue. It is quite clear that there is a clearer situation developing, and that is in terms of the Canawapa Dam.

I really believe, for example, that if we had let the Liberals have their way when they voted against the budget in spring, first of all I do not know why they voted against a budget that includes some sign ificant tax breaks for working men and women, but apart from that, if we had had that right now we would be in an election. We would be in an election or perhaps we would have been through the election and be in another political scenario, probably some greater uncertainty once again, but I know one thing. That would have put the negotiations in terms of the hydro sale and Conawapa on the back burner.

In fact if the Liberals were to have formed Government, that would have killed the prospects for Co nawapa and hydr o de vel opment in no rthern Manitoba. There is no doub t in my mind based on their own policies, their own stated policies of a year ago, of two years ago, and three years ago, and four years ago. When I say, Mr. Acting Speaker, as a Member of the New Democratic Party, and I tell my constituents this, I have been doing my best to try and make the minority Governments situation work in Manitoba. I think one thing I can point to and -(interjection)- I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Find lay) will listen on this, because I think it is im portant that he consider the situation. The bottom line, Mr. Acting Speaker, is I will point to the fact that there is some hope for example in terms of Conawapa, and that is a very significant, tangible benefit that will take place to Northerners if it continues. I will fully support the Conservative Government if it wants to fear up its previous policies and move towards what we had been doing in northern Manitoba as a Government. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I make no hesitation in saying that I am pleased to be fighting in this Legislature, fighting against the Liberals on this particular issue, well in fact on many other issues actual ly, but fighting against the Liberals and their anti-hydro development and perhaps watching and lobbying. The Conservatives perhaps do not have the history of supporting this type of policy, but have I think come around 180 degrees since they have become Government and seen the potential in terms of Conawapa. I can tell you my constituents were very concerned.

One of the first things they were concerned about after the election, Mr. Acting Speaker, was the fact that the Conservatives not only shut down Limestone but not continue with further hydro development, because let us not forget that much of the hydro development that took place in the North took place under the Schreyer years and then later under the Pawley years. I think that was an important consideration. There were also concerns I might say not oniy about whether there would be development but who would benefit from that.

I am quite concerned on this score that the Conservative Government, even if they have come around in terms of on Conawapa, have not come around in terms the needs of Northerners in terms of hydro development. Mr. Acting Speaker, I listen with interest to the questions from the Member for Flin Flan {Mr. Storie) in terms of the Nelson-Burn twood Agreement. did not detect from the Minister's answer a clear indication of whether it had been signed or was in the process of being signed, and perhaps the Minister was trying to deal with other aspects of the Member's questions.

I realize it was a multif aceted question, but if it has been signed or if it is anywhere close to being signed, I would urge the Min ister to make sure that the re is a consultation process with Northerners. In each and every one of the agreements in the last number of years there have been significant improvements in terms of northern and Native hiring preference in particular. What we saw take place was a significant improvement under the current agreement over previous agreements.

We saw the largest number of Northerners in history working on hydro construction, but I would be the first to say tha t even though ther e were signif icant improvements, there could be even more improvement. I think one of the things that this Government should be doing is it should be out there, as Conawapa appears to be imm inent, in a consu ltation process with Northerners assuring that the concerns are met, that the concerns that were expressed I know when we went around into virtually every northern community in 1985 as part of the working group in terms of Limestone, that those concerns are met now.

In the same vein I am very concerned about what has happened on the training side. I have raised this in Question Period in the Manitoba Legislature. Quite frankly, I do not agree what soever with the moves that the Minis ter of Education (Mr. Derkach) has made in dismantling the Northern Trainin g Autho rity, because what has happened is, as much as the Minister can talk that he has done, he has closed down the office in Thompson. What has happened is -(interjection)- Well, Mr.

Acting Speaker, the Minister says that is a lie, and I wish he would put that on the record because first of all that is totally inappropriate. It is also not true, Mr. Acting Sp eaker , because if he goes to Thompson he will find that the office has been closed down. What they have done is they have elimina ted the office in Winnipeg. There is only one of the staff that has quit in Thompson. He has demoted virtually every other one of the staff from the Northern Training Authority.

People are being put back 10 and 15 years ago in terms of where they were at and this Minister has done it without any consultation whatsoever with Northerners. The Limestone Training and Employment Agency was the result of extensive consultations by the working group in 1985. I was part of a lot of those meetings. People said, give us an autonomous training agency based in northern Manitoba that delivers training in communi ties, that delivers training that is going to be relevant to both Limestone and the community needs. The Minister may laugh, Mr.

Acting Speaker, but he should come up to Thompson and talk to people there. 2484

Thursday, November 2, 1989 A lot of people in my constituency who were involved in those programs have remarked that this Minister does not seem to have the interest to come and follow up on the consultation both with the staff involved and the commun ity. This Minister has made no moves whatsoever to consult with the communi ties affected. He has not made any moves. He has moved unilaterally. What he has done is he has put back the prospects for having proper training for Conawapa I think back five and 10 years, five and 10 years, Mr.

Acting Speaker. • (15 40) All the statements of the Minister and the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) knows this because he has been talking to people in the programs as Education Critic for the New Democratic Party. What this Government is doing is dismantling what is becoming a model for other provinces. The Minister may not be aware of this.

He is not aware of a lot of things to do with these programs, but Quebec Hydro has sent people, just this past several weeks they have scheduled people to come and see the Limestone training authority, the Northern Training Authority, to use it as a model for other provinces. We have had people from all over the North, from the Northwest Territories, from the Yukon.- (int erjection)- The Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) points out that another objective observer, Fred Cleverley, who writes for the Free Press, was very impressed when he came up to see the facility.

What this Government has done is without any consultation whatsoever, it has closed the office, it has basically absorbed everything under KCC. What they have done, Mr. Acting Speaker, is put at jeopardy a lot of the progress that has taken place with the Northern Training Authority. They have demoted or forced out many staff, many Native staff in particular who are very concerned. Perhaps the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) is not aware of this. He at least has been in Thompson, has been around the North on some occasions. I wish he would talk to the people though.

I wish he would talk to the people affected. They are very upset with this Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) and the unilateral way without consultation that he has moved in and started making major changes to educational programs, not just this one but other programs as well. What has happened is that the educational programs in northern Manitoba are in a state of disarray because of the way this Minister has dealt with a number of issues. I mentioned the Northern Training Authority. Mr.

Acting Speaker, we also have the Civil Technology Program which has had great difficulties in attracting staff because of the uncertainties of what is happening. They are unable to operate a full program. We see the same situation with a complete lack of information that has been given to other programs that are dependent on various different federal-provincial agreements. The bottom line is that this Government has not dealt with these concerns.

They have allowed the situation to go on unattended and they have not moved ahead with what was the major consensus in terms of northern education, the Northern Polytechnic. Sure it was proposed I know by a number of us in the leg islature from the New Democratic Party, and was supported, was agreed to by the previous Government, but you know there are a lot of people who are not New Democrats northern Manitoba who have been saying the same thing. The Minister for Education (Mr. Derkach), responsible for education, should be listening to those people and should be dealing with their concerns. As I said, Mr.

Acting Speaker, as we approach Conawapa I am very concerned that we are not going to have the appropriate Nelson-Bu rntwood Agreement in place and we are not going to have the appropriate training. We are not only not going to move ahead from Limestone which I would say was a major development for Northerners, we are going to be moving back five and 10 and 15 and 20 years in terms of Limestone, the various things that were done, and if the Member for Portage (Mr.

Conne ry) would care to take the time and come to northern Manitoba on a more frequent basis, he would find that people are very concerned about the clear lack of direction of this Government. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see some hope in terms of Cona wapa, but I am afraid tha t the Conservatives are going to bungle the whole question in terms of training and job opportunities. Unless they consult with Northerners that is what will happen.

They have refused to consult with Northerners, they have refused to deal with the training concerns that have been expressed, and they have refused to deal with the pressing need that we are dealing with one of the major developments here, Conawapa, that could be imminent, that should be imminent. Where are the training plans dealing with that now? It is a situation that I think is, as I said, encourag ing on one side, but we have seen in the past how basically job opportunities can be lost to Northerners. It is ironic, for example, Mr.

Speaker, that the evidence is clear in terms of what has worked in recent years and what has not worked. As I said, things could be improved, but instead of moving ahead the Government has torn up the book of the last number of years and is moving backwards in a number of key areas. That is going to have a very significant impact in terms of Northerners. I think it is important. Mr. Speaker, The Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) is very sensitive on this issue and so he should because the Min ister of Educ ation has not consulted with Northerners on this issue.

The Minister says he has a letter from someone in Thompson. The Minister should be out there dealing with the public in general and the people in those programs, both the trainees and the students and the inst ructors. He is not doing In fact I have heard that as a comment. They have seen the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). They have not had much chance to talk to him necessarily, but they have seen him at least. They are asking the question, the bottom line question is: will the Minister of Education make the commitment to come and consult with people before he makes 2485

Thursday , November 2, 1989 decisions that affect their lives and affect the future of the programs? to the record in terms of decisions that made thus far. They have not had any of any magnitude whatsoever. I do not Minister talks to, Mr. Speaker, but he the people in the programs, he to the people in the trainees, and been tal king to people in the We had, Mr. Speaker -(interjection)- Well, he says he has not talking to Thal is quite clear, he has had a general problem in talking to people from Thompson on these issues. it is easy to sit in Winni peg and make decisions that affect peoples lives.

It is easy to make those decisions. The Minister knows, he says we had the northern training right here in Winnipeg. The Minister knows the main office for northern training was right in Thompson, the vast majority of the staff. He knows that there were three people in the admin istrative

section of the program here, but what he has done, Mr. Speaker, he has gone and not only forced those people out of positions, he has been offering jobs to people, very generous of him, he has been offering jobs that are a clear d<,motion to many of the staff affected by the changeover. He is wondering why they are upset The Minister says, give examples. Just a minute ago he said he would not talk to me as the Member of the Legislature for Thompson, something I think is highly ridiculous for a Minister to state. Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister would take the time to talk to the staff himself he would know who is getting the demotions and he would not be asking me to provide him with that informa tion. If the Minis ter does no t know that information now then he has clearly bung led this situation. It is a clear case of incompetence and he should not expect me to bail him out right now and give him that type of information. I will give him a number of the training authority. All he has to do is talk to the staff and he will find out what the concerns are. It may be a first.

They may actually get a chance to have consultation with the Minister, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of Education who talks about not knowing what is going on, and yet has not even talked to people to find out their concerns. I have talked to the people. They are constituents of mine, they are friends of mine, they are neighbours of mine. I know their concerns. This Minister may laugh, and he is laughing once again, he finds it a matter of some amusement.

When peoples lives are affected and decisions are being made that affect them without any proper consultation whatsoever, I think there is something seriously wrong this Government. Mr. Speaker, this is symptomatic of the problems the Co nservatives have. They have always had these problems in dealing with Northerners. They have always had insensiti vity, this wall of arrogance that we see. We are seeing it to day. An Honourable Member: The university students right today are debating whether to censure this- 2486 Mr. Ashton: Well, the Member says that the Minister of Education (Mr.

Derkach) is going to be censured probably by university students. I would not doubt it, but I am talking right now in terms of Northerners. Look at even what happened tod ay. It relates to the North in terms of Lynn Lake. We saw the incredible spectacle of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province gett ing up and blaming the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) for the bungling and incompetence of this Government in dealing with the situation in Lynn Lake. The Premier made the incredible statement that every time the Member for Churchill gets involved in the negotiations, the price goes up. * (1 550) Well, Mr.

Speaker, if this Government had not bungled the negotiations we would not be in this situation today. I find it quit e frankly offensive when the Premier as he did today was suggesting that the Member for Churchill was getting people to ask questions or was asking questions without anything other than what is the bottom line motive of the Member for Churchill and that is to save the communi ty of Lynn Lake. In fact, if anybody should be beyond reproach on this issue it is clearly the Member for Churchill.

In case the First Minister has not realized what has happened in northern Manito ba, the El ectoral Bounda ries Commission has basically put us in the situation where the Churchill riding will disappear and the Member for Churchill will no longer be a Member of this Legislature. He will not be running in the election. So if anybody has motives beyond reproach, it is the Member for Churchill. What he is trying to do is save the commun ity. What we have said repeatedly these last few days is that we are not going to stand idly by while this Government and this Premie r turn Lynn Lake into anothe r Schefferville.

That is what will happen unle ss they start listening to people and start re cognizing who they are dealing with and what they dealing with. They are dealing with the residents of Lynn Lake, a commun ity that has been with us for many years, since the 1940s. They are talking about people's lives, the 200 and in fact more than 200 workers who are affected and their families. They are talking about a whole communit y. I know someone today sugg ested in question period to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that perhaps he might take it differently if it was Morris that was at stake.

Well, I hope it has not come to that. I hope it has not come to the point where the current Government will take the concerns of one community more seriously than another. I am not suggesting they are doing it in this case. What I am suggesting is that wall of arrogance that we have seen, that insensitivity is once again showing itself. The First Minister I think was classic today. Instead of dealing with the questions raised, instead of dealing with the concerns of the residents from Lynn Lake he launched into a personal attack on the Member for Churchill, I thought a rather unfortunate attack.

Perhaps I will just leave it at that. I could say something else, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is best left that way.

Thursday, November 2, 1989 The real issue is the survival of that community and the real problem is the attitude of this Government in terms of the fact that they refused to recognize what is happening in that communi ty. That is what I want to stress because as I said at the beginning of my remarks, in terms of Conawapa as we deal with this under The Loan Act in terms of the hydro-electric work, I believe there are some real prospects for some major developments in northern Manitoba. What we need, however, is a great deal more sensitivity to northern concerns on the part of this Govern ment.

I suppose in one sense I should not be unhappy about that, that they are insensitive to the North. I suppose in a shear political sense one of the reasons why the North has been represented and is represented today by the New Democratic Party, five seats out of five seats, is partly because we have spoken up for Northerners, but also because of the clear record of insensitiv ity of this Party, the Conservative Party, on northern issues. I suppose I could take some political pleasure in that, but I do not, Mr.

Speaker, because I would hope that we would get beyond the point where even if the Conservatives are generally insensitive to a lot of concerns that Northerners would feel the brunt of them. The unfortunate situation is time after time after time after time the bottom line is that when it comes to northern issues the Conservative Party just does not understand.

They do not understand, whether it be their federal counterparts with the northern tax allowance, whether it be the 9 percent sales tax that will hit Northerners harder than any other group of people in society or whether it be the provincial Government that right now has sat idly by as several mines are either closed or are in the process of closing. They have been totally insensitive in terms of training and education. They have been totally insensitive in terms of any kind of consultation in regard to the Conawapa dam.

Even when they do something that is right, in this case I would say the construction of Conawapa is right or at least I hope they are in the process of doing it. They still manage to do it in such a way that it is insensitive to the needs of Northerners. I want to stress that as we debate this, because yes we will be approving loans to Manitoba Hydro to deal with development of its resources and capabilities, but I want to make sure that it is clear on the record that we do so without any great enth us iasm for the pol icie s of the curr ent Government.

Yes, we have been tryi ng to make mi no rity Government work, yes, to the extent that we do get to Conawapa. I will be the first one to say there will be clear evidence if they do bring it in that minority Government has worked, but I want to say to this Gov ernment tha t they are growi ng inc rea singly insensitive to a lot of the concerns of Northerners, and I know the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) can corroborate that from his own extensive meetings with his constituents. Mr.

Sp eaker , people are growing inc rea singly frustrated with the insensitivity of the Government on some very basic issues, such as training and education in terms of economic development.- (interjection)- The Minister of Health likes, as he always does, to interject Perhaps he should spend a little bit more time he does come up north, I do give him credit for up, but if he could spend a little bit more time up and actually talk to the grass roots , the people in my constituency and other constituencies throughout !he North, he would know exactly what the problem is. It is with this insensitivi ty.

I think that is the absolute key problem on the part of this Government. It is echoed and we see it day-in day-out by the insensitive and arrogant responses of people in terms of that. That is very unfortunate. Now the bottom line with this Bill once again as it deals with a number of other areas, and one if I had time I would get into, Mr. Speaker, but I know my - (interjection)- Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) must know that I was going to refer to the situation with the Commu nity Economic Development Fund, which is also referenced in this particular Bill.

I just want to say to the Minister, and I do not want to pursue it much more than we did in committee when it was documented reluctantly-the Minister did not want to reveal this at first -tha t the loans dropped in the first year of the Conservative Government by 40 percent. I want to say to the Minister that I would hope that there would be a compensation this year. There should be an increase not only of the normal sort of magnitude, but I would expect to see 140 percent in terms of loans this year.

I would hope the Minister is out there because the number of people looking for loans, that are in the market for loans, will not change, Mr. Speaker. Over a period of time what has happened is because of the bad publicity that surrounded the announ cement of the audit and a number of other factors.- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker, the Minister said, who created the problem? The person that created the problem is sitting right here in this Chamber, sitting in the front benches on the Conservative side.

The Minister who created a completely erroneous sense that there were major problems with CDF when CDF has had a clear record- 80 percent success rate in terms of loans-this Minister created a cloud of suspicion that hung over CDF that ended up in a reduction in loans of 40 percent last year, 40 percent, and this Minister has only one person that he can try and attach responsibility to that for, and it is the Minister responsible, who was the Minister responsible? It is the Minister for Northern Affairs. He was responsible for operations of CDF from 1988 to '89, Mr.

Speaker, and he knows that one of the bottom line problems is that all throughout the time which the Auditor's Report was being released and was being conducted, one of the problems was instead of this Min ister sayi ng, yes we can deal with the recommendations of the Auditor and any problems they migh t have, he was going around slamming the operation of CDF when the facts were clear, 80 percent success rate under the New Democratic Party. We increased loans up to a factor of 250 percent, Mr. Speaker, 250 percent, from an average of $1 million 2487

Thursday, November 2, 1989 up to $2.5 million. That was in a period of only seven years, that is an average. That is not the final total. That is the average amount The bottom line is that is a record of success. The Minister should be out there people of northern Manitoba, he should for his irresponsible statements that CDF was no t being operated successfully. An 80 percent loan rate is the case.

If the Minister would truth when he is in the North he would tell people, he would say to them that he apolog izes for having !efl CDF the situation it is tod ay, with 40 reduction in loans in the fi rst year of operation unde r a Conserv ative Government 40 percent reduction. That is a clear indication of failure on the part of this Minister. (16 00) He likes to go at great length in terms of his rhetoric but he cannot escape from that fact. in fact, what I found particularly entertai ning in committee was when he went through the figures.

He took the report and he was going through and he was saying, well, this was a Conservative year, then he got to 1981 and then 1982, and he said, well, 1982, oh, that was actually really a carryover from the Conservative years. Now why did he say that? Because there a huge jump in that year in terms of loans, in the first year the New Democratic Party was in office. The Minister tried to slip that in on the record, suggesting that 1982 was a Conservative year. Mr. Speaker, November 17, 1981, the New Democratic Party was elected in this province. They took office in December.

Nineteen eighty two was a year in which the New Democratic Party was in power in Manitoba, and for the Minister to try and take credit-it is interesting, he tries to take credit for 1982, a New Democratic Party year-b ut when it comes to 1988 and 1989, the fiscal year for which this Minister was responsible for CEDF, he tries to pass that off to the previous Government It is incredible, the logic or lack thereof of this Minister. I think anybody who has been in this Chamber is not surprised.

I do not think anybody takes the Minister seriously when he gets into those flights of rhetorical fantasy that we see him take off. He likes flying, Mr. Speaker, and particularly flying into a rhetorical fantasy. He does that regularly in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, his flights into rhetoric fantasy match only his flights on the Citation Jet in terms of the ability lo go straight into the stratosphere at a record speed. Those of us who know the Minister well know that no one is to be fooled the statements of this Minister. all he does is from any credibility he have.

As I said, he has lost the respect of a of people in the North those sorts of things. Well, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, and the reason I want to speak on the loan Bill today, and why I talked about a couple the provisions of this Bill, specifically in terms of Manitoba Hydro and CEDF, that is to once again point to the fact that, yes, we will be supporting this and we will continue to make the minority Government situation work, but it is growing increasingly frustrating. 2488 It is growing increasingly frustrating to see the attitude of the Conservatives on some pretty basic issues.

I have outlined them today in terms of training and education, in particular in terms of the potential benefits of economic development from Conawapa. The bottom lin e is, yes, we are tryi ng to make the mino rity Government situation work, but we are not seeing anything from the Conservative Government that is making that effort worthwhile. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 27-THE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND ACT Mr.

Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill No. 27, The Fiscal Stabilization Fund Act;

Loi sur le Fonds de stabilisation des recettes, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). The Honourable Member for Osborne. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) for his uproarious applause as I begin to address this Bill at long last. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Member for Thompson for his instruction in relevance in debate and his assistance in my understanding of your earlier instructions. I certa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-63
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 63.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c6ba4d746961554ee5205c75cb1dec852e42fdd9

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