Manitoba Hansard — 14 June 1985 (Sitting 70, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-70

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 14 June, 1985. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Concordia, that the Report of the Committee be receiv ed. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... ORAL QUESTIONS Nebraska and Iowa - hog imports MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier . lt follows upon earlier discussions this week about his trip to Nebraska and Iowa with respect to the chloramphenicol ban. On what basis were those two states selected as being places to go to talk about the ban? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it was basically a matter of convenience on a mutual basis of being able to ensure appointments that would be required involving the govern or, the secretary of Agriculture and ourselves in each of those two states. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to have been able to have visited the Governor of the State of South Dakota, along with the Secretary of Agriculture in the State of South Dakota, because it is the No. 1 state insofar as hog imports are concerned from Canada, with Iowa being No. 2. But the Governor of the State of South Dakota was in Europe.

My office is making arrangements for a meeting with that governor just as soon as can be arranged upon his re turn. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Premier got any re commendation from the Manitoba Hog Producers' Marketing Board with respect to the states that he should visit in regard to this ban. HON. H. PAWLEY: What we had received by way of Mr. Vaags, the chairman of the Hog Ma rketing Commission, was a desire that we, as a Provincial Government, do in fact visit the governors of the different states. In fact, Mr.

Vaags made that comment last Thursday after it appeared that efforts at the federal level were not leading anywhere. Mr. Vaags is invited to be present with us. He was in Ottawa the particular day that we were able to arrange for meetings in Nebraska and in Iowa. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that, accord ing to my informa tion, Nebr aska has not im ported hogs from Manitoba or Canada for a considerable length of time, well beyond a year, was there any purpose in going to Nebraska at this time to talk about the ban with a state that hasn't been importing our hogs? HON. H.

PAWLEY: As I indicated last Thursday upon my return, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition may have missed my refe rence. The State of Nebraska imports a great deal of cattle. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, is chloramphenicol used in cattle? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , if the Member for Turtle Mountain were here, he could tell us what happened in respect to a shipment, I believe involving his brother , of cattle into the State of Nebraska some time before. But, Mr.

Speaker, the Nebraska ban is important; the governor has indicated that he is going to examine the prospect for lifting the prohibition in respect to livestock, I understand there are some hog imports into Nebraska, small compared to Iowa and South Dakota, but that can be further checked out. The important thing is that the State of Iowa is moving along, in fact, I received word yesterday that there was speedy progress being made in respect to the reso lution of the problem involving Iowa, subsequent to our visit, and I am very pleased indeed with the follow-up information that I received yesterd ay.

MTS - responsibility for from Minister of Labour MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my further question to the Premie r: do es he intend to remove th e responsibil ity for the Manitoba Te lephone System from the Minister of Labour?

In view of the fact that the Manitoba Te lephone System is in the midst of a work dispute with its staff that has the potential for strike action, and the Minister is both res ponsible for the management of the MTS, and for the labour relat ions in the province and, as such, would be the chief arbitrator and the decision-maker with respect to any arbitration, this appears to be a conflict of interest. Does he intend to remove the responsibil ity for MTS from the Minister of Labour? 2981

Frid41y, 14 June, 1985 HON. H. PAWLEY: I'm really puzzled by that question and I don't know whether it demons trates some unto ward research bei ng done in sofar as the honourable member's research caucus allows, maybe we should increase the caucus research allowance insofar as the opposition caucus is concerned. We might want to take that under considera tion. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Labour is a Minister of Labour tha t is res ponsible, not just for labour, he is responsible for the bringing together through the good offices of the Mi nistry of Labour, rela tionship, unders tandings that will minimize the potential of work stoppage in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to, in fact, commend not only this Minister of Labour, but the previous Minister of Labour, for ensuring that Manitoba has the second best strike record in all of Canada. MR. G. FILMON: So that the Premier understands, Mr.

Speaker, yes indeed, he is responsible for the balanced co-ordination of labour relations, both on behalf of labour and management in this province as Minister of Labour, but he is also responsible as as chief administrative person for the Manitoba Te lephone System. As a manager, does he not beli eve that he ought be taken away from this conflict-of-interest position in the midst of a labour dispute? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A question seek ing the approval or opinion is not an appropriate one. Perhaps the honourable mem ber would wish to rephrase his question. MR. G.

FILMON: To avoid the prospect of a conflict of interest with respect to his responsibilities for the Manitoba Te lephone System, will the Premier take away the responsibilities of MTS from the Minister of Labour during this labour dispute? HON. H.

PAWLEY: As I indicated yesterday, and it was in respect to the language issue of the last 18 months and the num ber of mis taken positions taken by honourable mem bers across the way, but if I could add up all the mistakes by honourable mem bers across the way and equal one mistake for one hog, and get each of those hogs across the border, repres enting all the mistakes that honourable members have made during the past two years, we'd have no problem in respect to ensuring that our hogs cross the border into the United States. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Status of Legislation MR.

SPEAKER: Order please , order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Government House Leader. I won't try to add up all the mistakes of this government, but on our Order Paper there are 31, 31 bills that this Legislature cannot deal with and proceed with, including such important bills that we have already passed, like Bill 2, dealing with extra billing; the pension bill , that this government and this Minister of Education had sent notice out to all teachers, encouraged them to take early retirement.

We can't deal with any o·f th ose bill s. I ask th e Government House Leader how he expects to conduct the future busine ss of this Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the opposition House Leader, and I hope other mem bers on his side of the Chamber recognize the seriousness of the Supreme Court decision as it applies to the operation of this House, and recognize SOME HONOURABLE MEMBE RS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

If mem bers wish to conduct a debate, would they kindly do so at another time. This is Oral Question Period. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The imperatives of the decision yesterday with respect to most items in the decision were referred to by the First Minister, but with regard to how it affects our House procedures and the status of legislation, I'm pleased to answer the questi on. Basically, the position of members opposite with regard to our legal liabilities were completely repudiated in that decision yesterday and the

interpretation we had as to our liabilities was completely vindicated. We had been follo wing a procedure adopted by th e Conse rvative admin istra tion in 19 80 which was supported in part by Bill 2 of 19 80,

An Act respect ing The Operation of

Section 23. We modi fied that procedure at the beginning of the 32nd Legislature, First Sessi on, in 19 82. The court ruled yesterday that those bills which were passed even in bilingual format by the previous administration were invalid and that the only laws that are valid in Manitoba today are the ones that were passed by this administration in this Legislature at the'82,'83,'84 and'85 Session. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that members opposite would purport to give us advice on how to pass legal legislation.

We will bring in revised bills during this Session, which will be in bilingual format, which will address the court decision. Mr. Spea ker, I'm surprised the mem bers opposite didn't even contemplate this could happen. I think they should read the decision and unde rstand that even the bills they passed in bilingual format were declared invalid, as well as their mechanism for doing so, Bill 2. I am not going to take advice from the Opposition House Leader on how to get properly constructed legislation through this House. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBE RS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside. 2982

Friday, 14 June, 1985 MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , the honourable members opposite really do not learn. If they want to begin the debate again, God bless them! But my question is: what are 57 legislators supposed to do when we cannot deal with the Order Paper? We have no busine ss before us, very little business before us, the most important business. That was my question; I was not attempting to - (Interjec tion) - regurgitate an old debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are two full pages of debate on second readings all of which could proceed to the end of second reading. I would expect that the opposit ion, to accommoda te the demands of the court decision, would expedite all legislation when it is reintrod uced in the court required format to the stage at which it had been in its unilingual format. I don't think anyone would suggest th e opposition would want to play games with that, but would expedite that.

Although I have discussed that in detail with the Opposition House Leader, I'm sure that I would get that assurance. He has always been rea sonable, Mr. Speaker , on matters respect ing House business at least. But, Mr. Speaker , all of those two pages of debate on second re adings are standing in the names of members opposite; a good number of them have been debated at some length. Mr. Speaker, we also have on the Order Paper some other items which have not been called for some time because they won't proceed, because they have been stalled in the House, such as the Rules Committee Report.

Is the Opposition House Leader sugges ting that we should call that report today and debate that and pass it because he is prepared to pass that today? Mr. Speaker , legislation is on the Order Paper so memb ers can debate it but, more importantly, Bills 12, 14, 16, 36, 37 can all be debated today, can all be passed. We could deb ate the others up to second read ing and then hold the bills at that point, then move them through to that second reading in minutes and call committee stage once the bills are in the format demanded by the court. So I don't see a problem.

The only difficulty, of course, will be the time required to translate and put into the new format. We don't know what that will be, and I will be advising the Opposition Ho use Leader and the Ho use after consultation with the Attorney-General with regard to what the options are in terms of time frame. But we have lots of work to do and, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of giving any members on this side or the other side a holiday until the work is done. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Government House Leader for that information. Wouldn't it simply have been easier just to give that information? lt was a question about how we deal with bills that I was after. lt was genuine House information that I was interested in, we didn't particularly need the lecture. If the Honourable House Leader would have provided us that information, and for my clarification ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . is the Government House Leader indicating to us that he is prepared and asking our co operation in debating bills that are unilingual to the point of committee stage? If that is a ques tion, I think that's a question that I have a legitima te right to ask. HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr. Speaker. The short answer is, no. The bottom line is that we do not yet know what all the implications are and what the time frame is. I expect that, if necessary, the House may recess for a period of time, but certainly we have enough work to do to finish Supply and debate all the bilingual bills before the House.

If translation takes a little longer than we would hope, maybe a recess will be necessa ry, or it may well be that the bilingual format bills can be introduced within the next couple of weeks, or that some can be and others will take more time. But certai nly there is no need to recess the Legislature today and give honourable members opposite a holiday. Once all the options have been reviewed , I'll be discussing them with the Opposition House Leader. I told him that privately yesterd ay, now it's on the record, but we've got lots of work to do.

There is no need to give members a long weekend or several weeks holidays and spoil our summer, we've got work to do. Import tariHs - Manitoba hogs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the First Minister. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that over 2,000 hog producers in the Province of Manitoba are innocent victims of the tariffs imposed on exports to the United States. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they were not participating in the stabilization program, and the reason for the tariff imposition was, In the words of the U.S.

Commerce Department, because of the stabilization programs in this country, will the First Minister, on behalf of those 2,000-and-some hog producers who are In extreme fina ncial difficu lty, will he waive the entrance req uirements for those producers to now join the Manitoba Hog Program back to the 1st of April so that they can receive the loan from the province under the Ho g Stabil izatlon Program? Will he waiv e the requirements for entry of the Manitoba Stablliz ation Program so they can participate in that program? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Sp eake r, I'm extremely disappointed in the question presented to me by the Member for Arthur. In fact, I'd have thought after the very articulate and clear response that the Member for 2983

Friday, 14 June, 1985 Arthur received just the other day from the Min ister of Agriculture that he would have had a better grip of the issues that are confronting us with respect to the issue of the duties being imposed in regard to hog importation to the Uni ted States. Mr. Speaker, it is not the position of the Federal Government in Ottawa, not the position of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Wise, nor of this government, that the duty that is being imposed is a legitim ate duty by the U.S. Commerce Department, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I have instructed my Min ister of Agriculture, and in fact I may very well attend with him to appear before the body which will be dealing with the question as to whether or not that duty be continued or not. Mr. Speaker, that duty has been imposed because of problems Introduced, and I received this message very clearly just the other day as a result of the differential and the American dollar as against the Canadian dollar. The precarious position that puts the mid-western producers in, insofar as competing with Canadian hog producers in Canada, Mr.

Speaker, they are looking to Washington and the policies that are presently being pursued in Washington as being responsible for the situation that they're in. I would ask the Honourable Member for Arthur not to side with those who want to continue that duty, not to give comfort to those who want to impose duties upon the hogs from Canada into the United States, because what the honourable member is doing is unde rcutting the hog producers of this province as well as all across Canada. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I ask you, Sir, and you've many times told this House that you would reque st direct questions and get direct answers. I directly asked, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some 2,000- and-some hog producers who are not now participating in the provincial Hog Program, will he waive the entry requir ements for those producers to participate in the provincial Hog Program back to the 1st of April so that they can get, Mr. Speaker, fair treatment from the Province of Manitoba? Will he waive, Mr. Speaker, the entry requirements? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, two days ago, the Agriculture critic for the Conservative Party in this Legislature asked the Minister of Agriculture to abolish the board. Mr. Speaker, today the Honourable Member for Arthur would turn hog farmer against hog farmer in this province. Mr. Speaker, in an opportunistic drive on his part, and obviously he represents the opposition across the way in the Legislature, to under cut what I expect to be responsible repre sentations that would be made by the Federal Government through the auspices of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Wise, and our own Minister of Agriculture, and possibly myself, toward the end of this month in order to undo the duty that's been imposed for their own particular reasons, unrelated to those reasons being presented by the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, why will the First Minister not support the majority of hog producers in this province? Why has he been running around chasing straw bogeymen, dealing with chloramphenicol, which is not the real Issue, Mr. Speaker? Why is he trying to mislead this Assembly and the people of Manitoba, going to the wrong states, Mr.

Speaker, that don't even import our hogs? For his irresponsible action, I ask for an apology from him, Mr. Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member should not accuse another member of mislead ing. If the honourable member wishes information, would he ask for lt without making a speech out of a question? The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member made certain represen tations in the House that left implications that were quite untrue in this Chamber.

I would refer you to Page 2895, in fact, in which it was the honourable members across the way that first raised the issue of our making . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . asked, Mr. Speaker, that we do visit the governors in various states across the border. I responded to the Member for Lakeside that I thought that his proposal was a constructive proposal; I would carry through with that proposal. Secondly , Mr. Speaker, it was honourable mem bers across the way that first suggested that this government ban chloramphenicol.

We responded two weeks ahead of the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. What we are hearing from honourable members across the way is such opportunistic dribb le that it's unbelievable this morning. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That was not a point of order . Manitoba Hog Stabilization Program - waive of entry requirements MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a direct question to the First Minister, why will he not waive the entry requirements so that some 2,000 hog producers can participate in the benefits of this last quarter of the Hog Stabilization Program? HON.

H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, very very simply, we will not undercut the hog producers in this province or in Canada; we will not undercut the Hog Stabiliz ation Board in this province; we will now bow to the weakness being displayed by honourable members across the way by which they would capitulate to the actions on the part of the U.S. Government, rather than make 2984

Friday, 14 June, 1985 submissions which we will be doing agains t th e imposition of the duty, submissions also, I gather, that will be joined by their federal counterparts in Wash ington. Mr. Sp eaker , their weakness, their opportunism, we will not share. SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh! Enforcement of maintenance payments - change in policy MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Memb er for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Attorney-General. lt's dealing with the automatic enforcement of maintenance payments.

I have had two separate complaints that the enforcement is not happening. In the Family Law in Manitoba, 1985, it says: "Where there is a failure to make a payment under an Order of Maintenance, the designa ted officer will automatically take steps. " Could the Minister tell me if there has been a change in this enforcement policy? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Not at all, Mr.

Speaker, in fact, its effect iveness is increasing remarkably to the point where we were able, in the last fiscal year, to collect on behalf of spouses, mostly women, in receipt of or the beneficiaries of a maintenanc e order, several million dollars. Indeed, to have that system which we have in place more than pay for itself. If, in fact, the member has an instance where, in her view or the view of the person contacting her, the system is broken down, I would invite her to please let me have the details, rather than wait for them, so that we could immedia tely look into it and do something to remedy the problem.

The system continues in force as an automatic system, pursuant to which every order for maintenance is recorded in the computer. At the time that happens, if the payment isn't made into court, then the computer shows that and the enforcement officers contact the person obligated to pay.

If the person doesn't pay, then the province at its cost provides a Crown Attorney who will bring the person to court to get a court order to make sure that the maintenance payments are made. lt continues In force as the best system of its kind in Canada, in fact, it has been emulated by other provinces and has been praised by all provinces and by the Federal Government. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I thank the Attorney-General for that answer, Mr. Speaker. I cer tainly agree with him, it was our government that brought it in. MR. SPEAKER: Question. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: I will send one of the complaints to him, but the other does not want it brought forward to the Attorney -General. So my question is: would the Attorney-General unde rtake to check out to see that the system is working? Women are getting phone calls - one of these women was getting two phone calls, asking if they wanted to proceed and, of course, they did. So would the Minister undertake to check out and see that the system is actually working? HON. R. PENNER: The system is working very wel l, and I have had no calls whatsoever to my office that it wasn't.

I have had no official advise me that there was a problem or that the computer went to sleep for a day or anything like that. If the member wants action, she shall have action on that problem without doubt if she lets me know what the problem is. I can't deal with or try to effect a solution to a problem which exists only within the private knowledge of the member, that's ludicrous. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Attorney-General - I will give him one of the instances.

I'm asking him if he will check with the designated officers and make sure that they are not phoning women to see if they want to carry on with the maintenance enforcement, that they are doing it automatically; that is all I am asking of them. I don't think that is a big undertaking, so will the Attorney-General please find out? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General. HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, Mr. Speaker. Bilinqualism in Manitoba - translation costs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General and ask him whether he has had any meetings with his - (Interject ion) - counterparts . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: . .. Mr. Speak er, whether the Attorney-General has had any meeting with the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State in the new Federal Government concerni ng the Man itoba language question? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker , I am responding to that because there was a discussion that was held last night by the Prime Minister with myself by way of telephone in which the Prime Minister at that particular point had not had an opportunity to read the judgment. He indicated he would be read ing the judgment later that evening. I raised with him the continuing concern on our part that there be federal resources, and I received a sympathetic response from the Prime Minister that they would be looking at the entir e area of providing resources to the province. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speake r, in that regard, did the First Minister ask the Prime Minister for 100 percent cost of the translation costs? 2985

Friday, 14 June, 1985 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I only wish that a few months ago the honourable member had been as concerned as he is now appearing to be in respect to costs. If he had been as concerned as he appears to be this morning, that concern one year ago, he would not have been taking the position that he did in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. What we expect from the Federal Gover nment is a continuation of the commitment that was made some one year ago, year-a nd-a-half ago, that they would provide financing which would be equivalent to approximately one-half of the costs . A MEMBER: Eighty percent. HON.

H. PAWLEY: Eighty perce nt of the costs of translating the statutes. We expect that commitment to be continued even though the costs of translation now will obviously be much higher than what was anticipated a year ago. We expect, despite the additional costs, for that commitment to continue. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question back to the Attorney-General and ask him whether he has made any appeals to th e new Conservative administration to making a significant financial contribution to the ongoing costs up to this point in time of translation since 19 79-1980? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated yesterday there have, indeed, been approaches made. There has been favourable response insofar as assisting us in regard to this very large financial outlay that will take place. That, again, was confirmed by the Prime Minister in general terms of their recog nition that there is a fina ncial obl igation on the part of the Federal Government, although it is of course much higher than what would have been anticipated both federally or provincially. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney- General.

In 1983, when he tabled his proposed constitutional amendment in the Legislature, he indicated that to proceed with translation of all of the statutes and regulations I believe there was a difference of approximately $2.4 million in translating everyt hing compared to translating a limited number of those statutes. Is that estimate of costs still an accurate estimate of cost? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that there will be calculations that will be made insofar as the precise and actual costs of translation.

There are a numb er of factors tha t will be involv ed in undertaking that calculation, and all we can do at this point is accept any questions as notice in respect to costs of translation in order to ensure that we provide accurate information. There is a great deal of uncertainty as a result of the Supreme Court decision as to the extent of spent statutes, for instance, that we will have to translate. We have no idea, Mr. Speaker, whether that means several spent statutes or hundreds of spent statutes at this point.

So any answer at this point In respect to the costs of translation would be highly irrespo nsible. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my next question to the Premier is: a number of questions have been placed to the Attorney-General today who was very involved, directly involved, in the past constitutional language amendment proposed by the government and I was asking him a question with respect to Information tabled in the Legislature. Has the Premier prohibited the Attorney-General from speaking on this issue? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , the honour able member gives me a great deal of credit that I don't deserve.

I have never found myself in a very successful way of necessarily shutting up any particular mem ber of the Treasury Bench, Mr. Speaker, and I find it rather amusing, the Member for St. Norbert's suggest ion. This is a matter that relates to federal-provincial relat ions. The matter of the cost-sharing of translation, it is a matter that falls under my particular jurisdiction as Premier of the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General tabled on July 4, 19 83, Exhibit 4, as part of his constitutional language amendment proposal showing comparative costs and it showed with an agreement the total cost was $5.3 million minus a federal contribution of $2.3 million for a net cost of $2,950,000.00. Without the agreement, and that is translating every 1hlng, shows a cost of $5.4 million - a difference of approximately $2.45 million. Was that not an accurate estimate of costs that he tabled in the House and it indicates was prepared by Mr. Roger Turenne, senior advisor? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: The Premier has said that we will take all questions relating to the costs of translation as notice. The reason for that is, if one reads - and I appreciate that the member opposite may not have had a chance to read the decision of the Supreme Court - there are passages with respect to the statutes which require a great deal of thought In terms of the spent statutes.

Because where a statute of 1892 might have in fact been replaced by a subsequent statute - let's say a society was incorporated and then there is a successor society - we may still have to translate the 18 90 or '92 statute if it conferred any rights, because there is a passage in the judgment which indicates that all rights that have flowed from statutes are only temporarily protected until the appropriate statutes are tran slated.

That is why there is an element of uncertaint y, and that is why the Premier has said, in fairness to the House, we want to - and we've got our people working on it - be sure of the exact dimensions. Any other information would be incomple te and potential ly, although inadvertently mislea ding. 2986

Friday, 14 June, 1985 Growth in retail sales and housing starts MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I would like to ask a question of the Premier in regard to the latest statistics on retail sales and housing starts. I wonder if the First Minister could communicate some very encouraging developments in these two particular sectors to this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I am pleased to finally have received a bread and butter question, Mr.

Speaker; it may be only the second or third such bread and butter question this week in the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, we have received , in response to the Mem ber for Thompson's question, the figures per taining to March which show that Manitoba has led the nation by way of growth of retail sales. Mr. Speake r, honourable members might be pleased to receive these figures, because I think we ought to feel some sense of appreciation of the extent of growth in retail sales in Manitoba in comparison with other provinces.

In March, Manitoba 13.2 percent increase, ranked 1; Nova Scotia 11 .5, ranked 2; Ontario 10.6, ranked 3; Newf oundland 8.7, ranked 4; New Brunswick 8.5, ranked 5; Alberta 8.2, ranked 6; Quebec 8 percent increase, ranked 7; Saskatchewan, Conservative Government, 4. 7, third from the bottom, ranked 8; Bill Ben nett's British Columbia 4. 7, ranked 9; and Prince Edward Island, unfortunately, lost by way of negative retail growth, minus .3, ranked 10. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. IN TRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: May I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where there are 28 students of Grade 6 standing from the Winnipeg Beach School under the direction of Mr. Larry Moore. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Housing. And there are 30 students of Grade 5 standing from the Elmdale School under the direction of Mr. Waiter Kampen. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Mem ber for La Verendrye. On behalf of all of the memb ers, I welcome you here this morning. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, would you call the debate on second readings the following bills in this order, Nos. 12, 14 , 16, 36 and 37, please? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: On a matter of order to the Acting House Leader. I was given to unde rstand that the government may well wish to proceed with debate on principle at second readings with the bills as listed on the Order Paper. HON. R. PENNER: Not necessarily, you can call them in the order . . . MR. H.

ENNS: Okay, thilt'S fine, I just want to indicate there were two or three bills that we were prepared to speak on; on Bill 7 particularly, my rural members are here and I just want to indicate that we're ready to speak on it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Th e honour able mem bers can so ind icate when we reach those particular bills. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS MR. SPEAKER: On the propos ed motion of th e Honourable Minister of Community Services, Bill No. 12 -the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand.

On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Community Services, Bill No. 14 -the Honourable Mem ber for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Culture, Bill No. 16 -the Honourable Memb er for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Order please. On the proposed rhotion of the Honourable Attorney General, Bill No. 36 -the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. · MR. C. BIRT: Stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand.

On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education, Bill No. 37 -the Honourable Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. - (Interjecti on) - Order please. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, there is not much point in going through the list again and waste time, so I would like to move that Mr. Speaker now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majest y. 2987

Fridey, 14 June, 1185 MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise on a matter of grievance concerning the Provincial Gover nme nt's handling of the French language question over the past number of years, and again now, when we have a ruling from the Supr eme Court of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, we just listened to some remarks by the First Minister and we will be watching very carefully and closely in the next number of weeks, and particularly in the next 12 0 days, as to exactly what the proposals of the government are in terms of their response to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it was because I think of the ineptitude and the bungling of the government in the first place that the Bllodeau case went so far.

I think there are many people who argued in the first place that if that had gone to the courts and If, at the same time, the legislation pertinent to that case, The Highway Traffic Act and The

Summary Convictions Act, had been translated that that case would have been thrown out; Mr. Bilodeau would have paid his speeding ticket and the matter would be resolved. Just as right now, if that matter came to the court today, Mr. Bilodeau would lose his case and he could continue practising law in New Brunswick, to which he has fled. Mr. Speaker, I now detect, after all this time and after all the debate that has taken place, a reluctance on the part of the Provincial Government to go to the Federal Government and ask for and demand full costs of translating the statutes of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister just said to me a few min utes ago, well where were you when we were debating this particular matter and this being a major expense. I want to tell him, first of all, that his proposals would be far more expensive than what are faced with right now. They would be, not only more expensive in a monetary sense, but they would be more expensive in a multicultural sense and in terms of the harmony that exists in this province today. Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to put a price tag on some of the proposals that the Pawley adminis tration put forward.

But we know, for example, that official bilingualism, in itself, would have created a great deal of disharmony in this province, and we know that they were prepared to print and publish every thing that was produced by the government, every last pamphlet, every annual report, anything at all, by this sect ion in their proposals about the right to communicate. Therefore, the cost there alone would be in the many millions of dollars. Now, in addition to that, they were prepared to make the Civil Service bilingual - start small, start with 400 positions and then see what happens.

Gary Doer made an estimate at one time, when he looked at this legislation, that if it wasn't tightened up he suggested that 4,000 positions could be made and designated as bilingua l in the Manitoba Civil Service. Now try to estimate, Mr. Speaker, the cost of that. I saw yest erday the Leader of the Official Opposition give his estimate of just on 100 positions, by way of example, at $30,000 a year - if you're talking a 10 0 positions at $30,000 a year, you're talking $3 million a year ongoing, every single year. But we're not talking about 100 positions, we're talking about 400 positions.

So we're talking $12 million a year in perpe tuity and that's starters. We all know, we've all been around here long enough to kn ow tha t once a pr ogram is imple mented that it will expand. Then you'll have somebody with two employees, and then he'll need an assistant, and then they'll get another employee, and then they'll need a supervisor and we all know how the Civil Service works. We know the Peter Principle, we know the perils of bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker.

So, if you compare the Pawley Gov ernm ent 's proposals and put a dollar figure on them, you're talking significantly more than what has come out of the Supreme Court, plus - (Interject ion) - We ll the Mini ster of Health doesn't like it, he doesn't like it. And, Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested to hear his estimates. I would like him to give us his dollar figures, if he doesn't accept mine. But the biggest concern of official bilingualism, Mr.

Speaker, is the divisiveness that would go on forever, and would not be to the benefit of the Honourable Mini ster of Health and the very people that he likes and loves so much, the French speaking community of Manitoba. 1t wouldn't help them; it doe sn't benefit a person to gain financial reward and to lose his soul, or to lose his friends in the process. To get official bilingualism at the expense of causing a split and a rift in the province would be the worst of all possible worlds, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I want to focus on the costs of translation and the responsiblity of the Federal Government to pay for those translation costs, and I want to also say to members opposite and to the Minister of Health and to the Ministers on that side of the House, that I think that they have an obligation now to go forward and demand, on behalf of the people of Manitoba, the full costs of translation to be picke d up by the Federal Government. Because, Mr.

Speaker, they not only have to fight for the rights of minorities, which is some thing that they are very fond of talking about, they have to fight for the rights of all Manitobans. They don't have to just tell us about justic e for French-speaking Manitobans; they have to fight for the justice of all Manitobans. They have to make sure that tax burdens are not imposed on our citizenry and that ther e will not be a ... problem as a result.

Because what we'r e going to get now is we'r e going to get the translation of thousands of statutes, and we're going to do that for the benefit, the real benefit, of a handful of French speaking lawyers. There's a few people in St. Boniface who would find it convenient in the practice of law, and perhaps the odd chartered account ant, perhaps the general accountant, who would find it useful and helpful to be able to go to the statutes in French; the same person, I am sure, speaks perfect, fluent English, but it might be a prefer ence. lt will not help the people in St. Boniface and St.

Pierre and the French-speaking Manitobans wherever they live in this province. They will not benefit from the translation of laws; they will not benefit from Manitoba becoming officially bilingual either. But all taxpayers are now going to have to contribute, under the present system , Manitoba taxpayers, and pick up the tab for this particular exercise. 2988

Friday, 14 June, 1985 Mr. Speaker, the First Minister enjoys, delights, thrills with putting the boots to the feds, doesn't he? I mean this is his favourite pastime, coming into this House with his cheering

section and making a speech attacking Ottawa. You know, Mr. Speaker , one of these days the government's going to blow the ball game and the First Minister's going to lose his cheering sect ion, and it's going to be called , as they once said about Woodrow Wilson in a book, "after the cheering stopped", and he's going to be puzzled because when he speaks now he has this

section that automatically applauds or claps or approves of what he says. Mr. Speaker, that reminds me very much of a movie I saw years ago starring Bob Hope. lt began with Bob Hope sitting in a radio studio with a chat show, somet hing about talking to the public and playing records; that's what he was, he was a disc jockey, I suppose. He had with him a machine and there was one dial on that machine of applause and one dial on that machine of laughter. So he would tell a joke and then the laughter would go up, and then the applause would go on or vice versa, either way, and it sounded great.

If you didn't know what was happening it sounded like you had a successful and popular comedian. That's, of course, what the First Min ister thinks he is. He thinks he's a popular Premier, because he's not familiar with the outside world. He is only familiar with the sound of applause coming from behind him and all around him by his 31 boosters. So I'm saying to the Premier of this province, the First Minister of Manitoba, here's your chance. You like to put the boots to the Federal Government. I'm giving you an opportunity, I'll second the motion.

Take your delegation; get a delegation consisting of members of both sides of this Assembly , take the Conservatives along, I'm sure they'll join you, and go to Ottawa and ask the Mulroney Government to pick up the tab of translation. So I mean, why isn't the First Minis ter doing that now? There has been a little hint that they might get some assistance. Well we're not talking about freeing up a few federal translators here; we're talking about a massive task. We're talking about a task of getting available translators from across the country, and we're talking about a signif icantly expensive bill.

So I say to the First Minister, here's your chance to put the boots to Ottawa, why are you pussyfooting around? Mr. Speaker, I also want to say to the First Minister that, going back to 1980 in the month of April, when we were debating the Lyon administrat ion's legislation - which I think was good legislation - when that was being debated all of us in this House, I believe - I'm subject to correc tion, Mr. Speaker - I believe it was a unanimous vote.

Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was an overwhelming majority with a few dissenters but, in effect, the Conservative Government put the vote and the majority, or most, or all New Democrats supported the legislatio n. But, Mr. Speaker, some of us expressed concerns at that time, and I expressed concerns at that time in the month of April, and said at that point that the Federal Government should pay the full cost of translating the statutes and legislation into French. Now, Mr. Speak er, we see what has happened recently.

We see that the SFM, that sterling example of militant, French-speaking Manitobans, people who purport to speak for all French-speak ing Manitobans in Manitoba, what are they interested in? No sooner does the judgment come down than they say, well we really didn't want this anyhow, we really didn't want it. We were just kind of putting you on, but we're willing to trade what we really didn't want for what we really do want, which is, services and jobs and, in particular, positions for people like us and people who have been on the federal payroll for a long time; that's what they are interested in.

They want to trade, again. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, the answer to them is, no way. There is nobody in this House, nobody on this side who's going to start playing traders and negotiating with the SFM. We've already done that, there were negotiations with the SFM. They were playing in a poker game with the New Democratic administration, Serge Joyal, Mark MacGuigan, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the SFM, and they outman oeuvred and outsmarted these guys in a ganie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Did they ever! MR. R. DOERN: Did they ever, says my friend for Roblin Russell. Mr. Speaker, there was no contest.

The government thought they were playing cards with one person, but they were playing with ever ybody and they were playing against a stacked deck. So, all of a sudden, we hear the SFM saying, well having achieved this, we now want to immediately negoti ate. Mr. Speak e r, we will remember, and the people remem ber, that it was the Liberal Government, the Federal Liberals with their political arm in Manitoba, the SFM and the NDP which got us into a terrific mess in 1983 and 1984. So, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to listen to them anymore, assuming we listened to them in the first place.

I don't believe, I have never believed they speak for French-speaking Manitobans. I have always believed they speak for a small element in the community, and are really the militant wing. There are other more moderate voices in the community. So, Mr. Speaker, here we had a situation where they were pressing this government and this nation, pressing and crying and pleading on television, for all these services that they need, and want, and all this suffering that has gone on all of these years. Mr.

Spea ker, I do not accept that line of argument, the line of terrific suffering on the part of French-speaking Manitobans for the last 10 0 years. I think tha t's a pure myth. lt is one that is used as leverage, but it contains very little, if any, truth to it. They were going to provide us with hundreds of positions in the Civil Service. I made the statement once before that the result of that would be a bunch of people sitting around gathering dust and covered in cobwebs. So now that's out, and now they are going to get, as a result of the ruling, the translation of a bunch of dusty and musty statutes.

As Herb Schulz once said, some of them have probably been eaten up by the mice in the meantime. But that's what they want; that's what Bilodeau wanted; that's what Forest wanted; they got it. it's like Brer Rabbit, they didn't want to get thrown here, they got thrown into the briar patch; that's what they got. 2989

Frlde� 14 June, 1985 Mr. Speaker, there are going to be some interesting points, some interesting fall-out as a result of the Su preme Court decisio n, because one of the big questions is where are we going to get the money from to pay for the translations. If we are talking about $20 million, which isn't my figure but it's a figure that is gaining currency In the last 24, 48 hours - I don't know what the amount Is, but it's in the millions. If it's 20 million or 10 million or 5 million, where are we going to get that money from?

We ll, it's either going to come out of higher taxation; it's going to come out of a bigger deficit, the favourite pastime of the Minister of Finance; or it's going to come from reduced services in Health, or Education, or Highways, or Community Services, because you are going to have to decide, as a government, where that money is going to come from. But, Mr. Speaker, there are two other areas it could come from. One is to reduce some of the bilingual services that exist now; one is to cut out some of the money that is being spent on bilingualism at present and dedicate that to translation. The other, Mr.

Speaker , is, of course, to get it from the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I am also saying that we have to be alert in this province to backdoor bilingualism. lt is backdoor bilingualism that has been going on for quite a while as well. Continous extension of services, new positions being declared French preference, etc. A lot of money In education is being wasted on immersion and in French language courses, it is just ridiculous the amount of money and the attention being given, Mr. Speaker . I just want to say that the case is very stron g, very strong, for saying tha t the Federal Government should pay. Mr.

Speaker, let's just look at what the Federal Government did in the past couple of years in regard to Manitoba. Well, first of all, they funded the Forest case, didn't they? They decided that they would put up money so that Mr. Forest, an insurance salesman In the City of St. Boniface - (Interjec tion) - well, now my honourable friend is disagreeing with me and I hope that he gets into this deba te because I would like to see him get up and defend the govern ment. Then I would like to see him get up and make that same speech in his riding.

I'd like to see him tell the people of his riding who are of Polish descent, and Ukrainian descent, and German descent, and every other descent that this is great stuff and run on that platform. Mr. Speaker, Georges Forest went to court with federal mone y. Now that was a setup if ever I saw one. I forget the amount, was it $40,000 or $50,000 that he got? They gave him a little lump of mone y and he hir ed himself a lawyer and he went down and he fought the case. lt was great fun from the lower courts to the higher courts, public expense and, finally, he won his case, that the law of 1890 was Invalid. Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, we were now be ginning to cook. The temperature was starting to rise. That meant that ther e would have to be a react ion to that and the Lyon Government reacted and brought in its legislation. Mr. Speaker, that wasn't good enough so along came little Roger Bilodeau and Roger Bilodeau went to the Federal Government and they gave him, what? - $60,000 or $70,000 and he went around in the courts - it was good practice for a young lawyer - and finally made it to the Supreme Court of Canada and he won his case. His case, of course, was tha t he was challenging - well, I shouldn't say that, I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker , I'm getting ahead of myself. He was putting the case in Manitoba; he lost every case in Manitoba, and then when he got to the Supreme Court, of course, he was put on hold, put on hold, it's still on hold, and he was questioning the validity of English-only laws. Mr. Speaker, if anyone wants to know where to point the finger of blame In regard to the costs of translation, I know where to point it. You point it first at Mr. Forest, then you point it at Mr.

Bilodeau, and then you point it at the people who were behind them, aiding and abetting and pulling the strings and directing traffic - the Federal Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. That's where, that is where the finger goes, Mr. Speaker, The fickle finger of fate points at Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his brilliant policy of bilingualism for this whole count ry, and Serge Joyal, and some of their supporters - Richard Hatfield of New Brunswick, remember him? Bill Davis who was very supportive on this particular issue for the good of Ontario, and so on.

But the fact of the matter is that two local French speaking Manitobans, Forest and Bilodeau, challenged the validity of our laws, said that the English-only law was invalid and argued that the laws were invalid unless translated into French, so you go and tell them.

I will tell them and I'm telling them right now that they have cost this province a great deal in terms of millions of dollars required to meet what they have demanded that will do no good, no good at all, to the French speaking Manitoban. lt will be of completely no value to the average French-speaking Manitoban who lives in Winnipeg or in the rural areas, who pays his taxes, who likes his neighbor and who goes to work. The affect on him is going to be negative, rather than positive, or no affe ct, rather than a positive affect . Mr. Speaker, then the Federal Government wasn't satisfied.

They gave extra money to the SFM. The SFM now gets $627,000 a year-plus, they give them extra mone y for legal advice. They can hire the so-called best lawyers In Canada, although that is a bit of a laugh, if you ever saw Joseph Magnet in action, after his performance - and he has been hundreds of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Remember when Magnet came here, Joe Magnet?

We ll I saw Joe Magnet in the Supreme Court of Canada and, would you believe that he stood in front of the Chief Justice and the court and offered 10 reasons why full costs should be given to the SFM, because Joe was worried that he wasn't going to get his legal fees , and he made that case. I want to tell you that if you ever saw a dirty look coming from a judge, Chief Justice Brian Dickson, that was it.

He made this appeal and, as he was making it, I was sitting there saying, "What is he talking about?" He was giving 10 reasons why costs should be awarded and, all of a sudden, the Chief Justice looked over his glasses and said to Mr. Magnet: "Are you requesting costs?" Mr. Magnet said, "Yes, I am, m'Lord," and the Chief Justice just, you could see his brain almost jam, he didn't know what to say. He was going to give this guy a blast. All he said was: "That is a very strange reques t." Mr.

Speaker, you could see that not one penny would flow, not a penny would flow to the SFM for their legal costs; and how much were those costs? We ll the media - I'm talking about one year ago today, it was one year 2990

Fri day, 14 June, 1985 ago yesterday I was sitting in the Supreme Court, and after he made that request all the media ran up to Mr. Magnet, who bears a startling resem blance Incidenta lly to Jerry Calonna - Jerry Calonna who Bob Hope's sidekick. They went up to him and they said: "Mr. Magnet, how much money are we talking about, Sir?" Mr. Magnet said : "The legal fees of the SFM in the past year or two have been between $500,000 and $1 million." Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government was paying the SFM, who was paying Joe Magnet to do this.

Now there's a case across the street, which I won't get into, but that's part of that same continuing saga. Not only then did they fund Forest and Bilodeau and the SFM and give extra money to fight the plebiscite, there was money going into Manitoba 23, there was money going into this phon ey committee for a constitutional amen dment, etc. Mr.

Speaker, the Federal Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, funded this whole turmoil; funded the people who took these cases to Court, and then acted as an advisor and a partner and a puppeteer, in regard to the SFM to then make an out-of-court settlement. lt's like what they did in the Yukon and the Northwest Te rritories, threatened them with compulsory official bilingualism and then say, well let's not do this, let's talk out of court, we 'll give you a deal, we got an offer for you. So, Mr.

Speaker, if those are the facts of the matter - and I say that they are - then I say, that's fine; Ottawa brought us to this state of affairs, let Ottawa pay the bill. MR. Yt McKENZIE: Pay the piper. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, we have to have and, as my Honourable friend for Roblin- Russell says, pay the piper. And that's exactly what I say, Mr. Speaker, there's a reverse on the old saying there, and that is, if you want to call the tune, then pay the piper. That's how it works.

Don't call the tune and then ask some other guy to pay, because when he pays he wants to give directions to the kind of music that he wants the piper to play. Mr. Speaker, we want justice for eve rybody in this province. We don't want to whole focus of attention going on to the small so-called hard done-by French-speaking Manitoban, we want justice for the people who are of Ukrainian descent, and Polish descent, and German descent, and Icelandic descent; and the Phllllplno people who have just come here and the Vietn amese people who have just emigrated to our nation. We want it for everybody.

We want it, not just for a handful of malcontents or a handful of fanatics, we want justice for everyone. So when you're considering it for a small minority consider, as wel l, the ramifications upon everyone, on all the ethnic groups and on all the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker. I'm saying it's been very interesting to follow what has gone on; there have been some lessons learned. The CBC didn't learn any last night when they repeated their show "The Poisoned Chalice." You know, Mr. Speaker, I saw that program a year ago when they put it on and boy, if that wasn't propaganda, I don't know what was.

That was one of the worst shows ever 2991 done by the CBC, because it was completely biased. You had some old pri est on there, groaning and moaning, and talking about this and complaining about that. Mr. Speaker, if he drank from a poisoned chalice, it was probably because he bit his own lip, because the poison was coming from his own system. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said the other day, well you know, he thought that most Manitobans were nice. Now that was an improvement. He was talking last night, looking very worried. You know how he can look real worried in that sort of hang-dog fashion.

He looked very worried , like a blood hound. He said most Manitobans were nice - wel l, we all think that. But isn't that the same person, isn't that the same government that a year and two years ago, was saying that all these bigots, 78 percent bigots voted against their legislation. We ll, at least they've learned a few things, at least they say that they've learned a few things. Mr.

Speaker, when this matter came up just yesterday, the ruling and so on, I thought that what we should do, and I speak to both members of the Cham ber, is to give the Federal Government a chance to fully participate in what is going on, to give the Mulroney government a chance. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have some reservat ions about the Prime Mini ster because I know that the Prime Min ister is a keen sup porter of official bilingualism on a national basis and, Mr.

Speaker, I was there, as wel l, a year ago at the Holiday Inn, when the Prime Minister came in and made a very strong statement to the local Conservatives and other people, since the meeting was open, but it was largely a Conservative meeting, and in effect, used Manitoba to get applause in Quebec by standing up to Manitobans and telling them that he wasn't going to bend. I was also at the Quadra Club mee ting, which was a very mild and friendly affair, but some people were not overly thrilled at the Prime Minister speaking English and French.

If I were his advisor on that occasion, I would have suggested that he say a few words in Ukrainian or Polish or German or Dutch, that would have gone over a lot better, Mr. Speaker. So I say that the Prime Minister in Western Canada is a little suspect. His record in office . is just beginning to emerge; it Is not fully formed at this point in time. The suspicion is that he is an easterner and the suspicion is that he Is, of course, most concerned about the Province of Quebec.

So I say that we should give me a chance to demonstrate his concern for the people of Manitoba, and invite him to fully support the costs of translation that Manitobans are now being faced with. Mr. Speak er, having said that, I made that suggestion yes terday through questions to our First Min ister, Lloyd Axworthy. You remember Lloyd Axworthy, the last of the big-time spenders, the friend of Pierre Ell iott Trudeau and Serge Joyal, he suggested that the Federal Government should significantly participate in the translation costs.

These are not his words, I don't know his precise words, but he asked Eric Nielsen in the House of Comm ons whether the Con servative Government would participate, to what extent I don't know he meant, and Mr. Nielsen responded that they would participate. Now none of us know what was meant by that, whether he was thinking of sending translators; whether he was going to offer some limited assistance, Mr. Speaker, or what. But there is an opening, Mr.

Friday, 14 June, 1985 Nielsen appeared receptive. The Prime Minister is obviously interested and I think that what we should do, if there's going to be legislation brought in, is that there should also be a companion bill or request or re solution ask ing Ottawa to pay the full cost of translation, whether it's $5 million, or $10 million or $20 million. We don't have to have these transla tors come here; we can send them the legislation. We can put it in a crate and ship it down there Via Rail, or Air Canada, or if this would please my honourable friends, even CP Air, I'd even go that far.

Ship it down there, let the translators stay in Ottawa and they can work on this around the clock. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it's time, once again, for a bipartisan resolut ion, or a bipartisan delegation, to go to Ottawa to put the case to Ottawa that they fully fund the translation of our statutes. Even though the Mulroney Government is not to blame for the fiasco that occurred in Manitoba, it was its predecessor that was. So the full weight of blame goes on the shoulders of the Trudeau administration.

The appeal of Manitoba and of this Legislature and this government should be to the new Prime Minister to ask him to fully fund the costs of translation which are largely the result of the activities of its predecessor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. QUESTION put, Motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Education, and the Honourable Mem ber for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Energy and Mines. CONCURREN T COMMITT EES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ENERGY AND MINES MR.

CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. This sect ion of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Energy and Mi nes. We shall be dealing with the statement of the Honourable Minister re sponsible. Mr. Minister. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I welcome the opportunity to present my department's spending Estimates for the 19 85-86 fiscal year. I would like to provide a brief overview of our accomplishments over the past year, along with some insight into our plans for 19 85-86, first dealing with energy.

ENERGY The Province of Manitoba continues to be a leader in energy conservat ion initiatives. Although the Federal Government has terminated the federal-provincial cost shared Canada-Manitoba Conservat ion and Rene wable Energy Demonstration Agreement effect ive March 31, 1985, some joint federal-provincial initiativ es will continue and Manitoba will fund initiatives to develop and demons trate new technologies to exploit rene wable resources, conserve energy and use energy more efficient ly.

One of the initiatives for the new fiscal year will be the installation of central energy computer control systems for 10 school divisions in the western area of the province. lt is planned that this initiative will be jointly funded by the school divisions along with Canada and Manitoba and will reduce energy consumption for the divisions by some 30 perc ent. We shall also continue to fund demonstration of energy saving construction techniques for homes and institutions. Te sting methanol as an alternate vehicle fuel will also continue.

Manitoba for the past year has run the Manitoba Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Audit Program which replaced the federal-provincial National Energy Audit Program. This program identifies opportunities to reduce energy costs by Improving the efficiency of energy uti liza tion and encouraging conservation initiatives. During the past fiscal year, 262 audits were completed, and $3. 185 million in potential energy savings were identified. We shall continue to operate this highly valued program during this coming fiscal year.

A number of conservation programs were funded by the Manitoba Jobs Fund during the past fiscal year and will be continued in 1985-86. These programs not only aid in energy conserva tion, but also stimulate emplo yment in the retrofit and building trades industries. Under the Cut Home Energy Costs (CHE

C) low interest loan program, approximately 5,800 loans worth about $4.6 million to assist homeowners to make their dwellings more energy efficient were approved in 1984- 85. lt is projected that for the fiscal year 19 85-86, about 6,300 homeowners will borrow $5 million from CHEC to undertake energy conservat ion retrofits. The Ho me CH EC-UP Program whic h provides homeowners with imp artial advice on energy conservation retrofitting has been very well received by Manitobans.

During the past fiscal year, over 3, 700 energy audits were completed and it is projected that over 4,000 Manitobans will avail themselv es of this service during 19 85-86. The Business and Community Cut High Energy Costs (CHE

C) Programs provide matching grants up to $1 5,000 for materials and labour for qu ali fying businesses and community institutions which can show that their conserva tion initiatives will reduce energy use by at least 20 perce nt. During the past fiscal year, grants were approved for 165 applications totalling over $1.5 million. These programs, which help provide the needed cash flow for smaller businesses to undertake energy retrofits, will be continued in 1985-86.

The se and other Jobs Fund conservation initiatives with community group s such as the Age and Opportunity Centre, the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded and Native people, round out our energy conserva tion programs. We believe that energy conservation benefits the people of Manitoba not only by making their energy future more se cure, but also by increasing disposal income through energy dollars saved and by stimulating and sustaining emplo yment in the retrofit and building trades.

In the field of renewable en ergy, staff of the Department of Energy and Mines have been assist1ng the Manitoba Energy Author ity in explorin g opportunities for hydro-electric sales to utilities outside of Manitoba, as well as initiating discussions with aluminum interests about developing facilities in Manitoba. Of course, the activities of the Manitoba 2992

,, .. , 14 June; 1881 Energy Authority have been discussed fully in the Public Utilities Committee of the Legislature. The Manitoba Energy Council, the citizen advisory group, has been active in providing input into the development of energy conservation programs. I look forward to their continued interest in these matters during the new fiscal year. MINE RAL RESOURCES Turning to the Mineral Resource Sector, the mineral industry of the province continues its slow but definite recovery. The value of Manitoba's mineral production during 1984 increased 11 percent over 1983 and there were no production interruptions.

But perhaps a more significant indicator of renewed confidence by the industry is the level of mineral exploration. Expenditur es on mineral exploration in the province increased 66 percent to $27.6 million from $16 .6 million in 19 83. Results of this incr eased level of exploration are manifest In the announcement of a number of new mineral discoveries, including a nickel deposit by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting which the company feels offers the prospect for a new mine, this is at Namew Lake.

Encouraged by gradually improving metals prices and depleting inventories, Manitoba mining companies have, therefore, resumed mine development and stepped-up exploration. Inca continues development of the new Thompson Open Pit, which on completion is expected to cost approximately $87 million. Production from the new mine is expected to commence in early 19 86. During 1984, Inca's Manitoba Division began proce ssing nickel concent rates from an Ontario Division mine at Shebandowan. About 13 million pounds of nickel will be produced annually at Thompson from this source.

Further, during 19 84, equipment from the Port Col borne, Ontario refinery was relocated in Thompson for nickel "rounds" production. This has resulted In a significant change in product mix from this complex commencing in the fourth quarter of 1984. After 13 consecutive quarterly losses, the company announced a return to profitability in the fourth quarter of 19 84. Meanwhile, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting has stepped up exploration in the Flin FUn-Snow Lake region while maintaining continuous mining and processing operations during the year.

The company is planning to reopen its Centennial mine and is very optimistic about its new nickel discovery. The problem area in the mining industry of this province continues to be the Lynn Lake-Leaf Rapids mining belt. With Sherritt expecting to close the Fox Lake Mine permanently in the fall of this year, the community of Lynn Lake is facing a serious threat. The sustenance of that community at a reasonable level depends heavily on a production decision for the Agassiz gold mine, which is expected to go before Sherritt's board meeting sometime in June.

Since the closure of the Farley mine at Lynn Lake in 1976, the government has given top priority to programs in the Lynn Lake region to stimulate the search for new ore bodies there and will continue to do so. Both the Department of Energy and Mi nes and the Crown corporation Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd. have been concentrating their efforts in this area. In order to stimulate exploration for new orebodies in the re gion, the govern ment, through our department has embarked on an intensive mineral investigation prog ram in the re gion.

The results of these investigations have been incorporated into a large number of reports and maps which have been released to the industry and which have provided new insights and new approaches to exploration in the reg ion. In the 19 85-86 fiscal year, $600,000 will be spent by the two levels of government on continuing programs in the Lynn Lake region under the new Canada-Manitoba Mineral Deve lopment Agreement which extends from 1985 to 1989 and in which strong emphasis is given to Lynn Lake.

In addition, the Crown corpora tion, Manitoba Minerals, has spent $3 million in exploration activities in the region over the past three years. An additional 1. 5 million was spent over the same period by private exploration companies attracted by Manitoba Minerals in joint ventures in the 4'nn Lake region. Manitoba Minerals holds a number of properties in the area, and 1.5 million has been budgeted this year to continue active explora tion.

Between August, 19 83 and August, 1984, the province contribut ed over half-a-million dollars to the NEED Program with Sherritt and the Federal Government for exploration and eval uation of the Agassiz gold deposit near Lynn Lake. This program, and continuing work done by Sherritt, will hopefully lead to a production decision by the board of Sherritt which will go a long way to providing a continuing economic base for Lynn Lake when the Fox mine closes in the fall of this year.

Finally, a total of 1. 05 million has been spent from the Manitoba Mining Community Reserve Fund In Lynn Lake to offset shortfalls in municipal reve nue, in job creation projects, in sponsoring the Lynn Lake semin ar, and in hiring an Economic Dev elopment Officer, among other things. The government remains steadfastly committed to working closely with the people of Lynn Lake through this difficult period. The Ruttan Mine and the dependent community of Leaf Rapids have survived the worst period and seem set for some stable years ahead.

Assisted by a $10 million loan from the government, Sherritt is proceeding with development of the extension of the Ruttan orebody to the 860 metre lev el. This development, which is scheduled to be c:ompleted in the early fall of this year, will permit Sherritt to increase production and emplo yment, Improve ore grade and significantly reduce production costs.

Members of this House are aware that in 19 84 the Government of Canada and Manitoba signed a five year Canada -M anitoba Mi neral Development Agreement under which $24.7 million has been allocated for activities designed to strengthen and diversify Manitoba's mineral industry. I am pleased to advise members that a total of 85 projects were undertaken by the two levels of government during 1984, the res ults of which have, either been released as reports or communicated to industry at my department's annual open house, and at a number of national mining industry mee tings.

Activities duri ng this first year of th e agreement were mostly geoscience programs, strongly focused in the Lynn Lake reg ion. This year, 11 2 programs will be unde rtaken, including a number of mineral productivity and proce ssing impr ovement studies and mineral development and market analyses. The government continues to pursue vigorously the development of Manitoba's potash resources. These 2993

Friday, 14 June, 1985 efforts are directed to the high-grade deposit held by Canamax Resources in the Russeii-Bi nscarth area. A number of engineering and economic studies have been completed by both the province and Canamax under a Letter of Intent exte nding to June 30, 1985. These studies are very promising and Canamax is continuing its development programs through 1985 and into 1986. Intensiv e marketing activities are now being unde rtaken by both Canamax and Manitoba and additional partners are being sought for the project. Interest and activity in the petroleum sector continues at a high level.

Last year there were 246 wells drilled with 89 percent completed as potential oil producers. Oil produ ction in creased by 8 percent with approximately 5 million barrels produced, valued at about $17 0 million. Sales of Crown oil and natural gas leases set a new provincial record generating over $2.5 million in reven ue. A further $20 million was collected by the Crown thr ough royalties and taxes on oil production.

Two other significant developments were the construction of Manitoba's first ntural gas plant at Waskada, and the construction of a 90 kilometre oil pipeline connect ing the Waskada oil field to the interprovincial pipeline system southwest of Virden. Petroleum activity levels this year continue to look promising as evidenced by drilling to date and the recent sale of Crown oil leases on May 8th when $2.1 million was collected setting an new Manitoba record.

COMMUN ICATIONS AND COMM UNI TY RELATIONS BRANCH The Communi cations and Communi ty Relations Branch of the Department has been active in informing individuals, businesses, service and community groups about the programs and activities of the department. A main source of information is the Energy and Mines lnfo Centre which has dealt with 17, 300 enquiries in 1984. The branch has also prepared and distributed reports and manuals in connection with CREDA and other conservation programs, as well as, information relating to mining and pet roleum activities in the province.

In addition, branch personnel have prepared and staffed displays at exhibitions, schools and home shows. This brings to a close my introductory remarks. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the staff of the Department for their efforts during the past year and I look forward to a productive 1985-86. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The Chairperson now calls upon the lead ing critic of the opposition party to present his reply to the opening statement of the Minister. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I believe on a nice Friday morning we shall proceed right into the Estimates.

I ask the Minis ter, just prior to his formal statement, the most obvious item that immedia tely strikes you in looking at these estimates are the su bstantial reduction in the total cost set aside for the department from $1 3,748,100 to 11 ,373,800. I am given to understand that is as a result of the ending of a federal-provincial agreem ent. If the Minister simply wants to go over that and indicate that is the case, then we don't have to pursue too deeply where this Min ister and where this department is spending $2 million less mone y. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Before the Minister answers, I would like to cordially invite the members of the departmental staff to kindly take their respect ive places. Deferring the budget Item No. 1 relating to the Minister's Salary as the last item for consideration by this committee, we will begin our delibe ration right away on Item No. 1. (bX1) ; 1. (bX2) Administration and Finance; Executive Sup port: Salaries; 1. (b )

(2) Other Expenditur es. Mr. Minister. HON. W PARASIUK: Ye s, I'd like to deal with the general question raised by the member . The big reductions are in 2.( bX2), that's on your program side. Then your other reduction would be on 4., Expenditures Related to Capital, where again you've got the reduction from 2.3 to 1. 3. This is related to the federal-provincial program which generally has expired. There are a few carry-overs. We're having some discussions with them under our ERDA.

We're not quite sure, because what we are trying to determ ine from the new federal admin istration is the extent to which the Federal Government will, in a sense, continue to direct-deliver in provinces, or the extent to which they might do something jointly with provinces. As the member no doubt recalls from his time as a Minister, one of the ongoing deba tes with the Federal Government was how much should the Federal Government be direct-delivering, and how much should it be doing possibly through joint programs, especially with the province delivering since the province is the closer government to the people.

We are starting that discussion, and we'll see where it takes us over the course of the next year, but we certainly haven't budgeted for it. We knew that it would take about a year for the new administration to, in a sense, determine its position on these types of things. I would expect that, now that the Federal Min ister of Energy has reached an oil accord she may have more time to deal with matters of this nature. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, in dealing with this Resolution 59, it's obvious that there is not much change in the administrative level within the department, but perhaps the Minis ter would like to, however, take this opportunity to introduce members of his staff who are not all known to us, and indeed indicate at this time - and I'll pass this resolution if, in fact, there have been any other changes in the senior admin istration within the department. That's all I have to say. HON. W. PARASIUK: I don't have them all here, because I had a bigger cast the other even ing. Charles Kang is the Acting Deputy Minister of Mines.

Henry Mord arski is in the Admin istra tion sect ion. Dr. Sobhoram Singh is in the Mineral Policy sect ion. We have had some changes over the course of the last year. My former deputy was appointed Chairman of Manitoba Hydro and Chairman of the Manitoba Energy Authority and Executive Director and those are full-time duties. I had appointed Mr. Chenier as an Acting Deputy Minister in the department. Mr. Chenier then went through some reorganiza tion, and we made some adminis tr ative changes. Mr. Puttee, who was an 2994

FtldiJ, 14 June, 1185 Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy, has gone over to the Manitoba Energy Authority. Another Assistant Deputy Minister position on the mining side was declared redundant at the Civil Service staff level, and the incumbent in that position, Dr. Haugh, is on special assignment to me as Mi nister dealing with the question of single enterprise communities. and will be doing some work in relation to the matter of, in a sense, a review of legislation, because we've had various forms of legislation that, in a sense, have been put toget her, so that will be undertaken. Then Mr.

Chenier took ill and has, in fact. not come back Into the department, but is rather on a TAP assignment with the aegis of Executive Council. The government has appointed Mr. Kang as the Acting Deputy Minister within the department. So those are the executive changes that have taken place over the course of the last year. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (b)(1) -p ass; 1. (b)(2)- pass. 1. (c)

(1) Commu nications: Salaries, 1. (c)

(2) Other Expenditures. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, on Commun ications, Salaries, I note an obvious drop. lt would appear to me that this Minister may have given up one of his communicators within this level . Is that the case? Has he transferred that to the Premier's office? The Minister will note that subject matter has been causing some debate in the House, the number of communicators this government has hired. I'm refe rring especially to (c)

(1) Salaries. Last year, you had an item of $70,800, and this year it is $46,400.00. HON. W. PARASIUK: One position was just cut under that team project that the member is aware of, and that took place in Pinawa and Stonewa ll. So there has just been a cut. We certainly haven't trans ferred anything. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (c)(1)-p ass; 1. (c)(2)- pass. 1. (d)

(1) Financial and and Admin istrative Services: Salaries, 1. (d)

(2) Other Expenditur es. 1. (d)(1 )-pa ss; 1. (d)(2)- pass. There will be no re solution on this budget item because of our deferral of the Minister's Salary. Item No. 2(a)

(1) Ener gy, Policy Planning and Project Dev elopment: Salaries, 2.(a)

(2) Other Expen ditures - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, in the Mini ster's opening statement, he makes specific reference that, although the Federal Government has termin ated the federal provincial cost-shared Canada-Manitoba Conservation and Renewable Ene rgy Demonstration Agreement eff ective M arch 31, 1985 - my question is. we often hear the announcement of a new federal joint agreement of any kind. We don't always pursue the ending of these agreements. My general question to the Minister simply is: what, in the Minister's opinion, has the agreement achieved?

Can he give us some information with respect to the total amounts that were expended on that agreement that has now. in the Minister's words, come to more or less a conclusion, although I appreciate there might be some carrying-on activity that is taking place? But, inasmuch as the Minister made special note of its ending, what have we demons trated of value to the taxpayers of Manitoba and, indeed, Canada with this Energy Demonstration Program? HON. W. PARASIUK: I think that I've got a list here of projects. I just want to make sure I get my numbers correct.

This agreement was negotiated by the previous administration; we picked it up. One of the things about the agreement, if I could just give a general statement and then get into some of the specifics, is that it was an attempt to see what types of projects might be done. I would call it not disparaging ly, a shotgun approach. You say, well, we've got some money here. What does the community, what do different people in the commu nit y have In their minds as possible demonstration projects? With somet hing like this, it took a while to get the agreement under way. There's always a lag time.

There is always a lag problem with agreements that are of a tighter nature, say, like the Mineral Dev elopment Agreement where you've got an amount of money allocated; you've got a department in place; you've got a federal department in place, and you try to get some movement on it. There's always a type of lag. But when you're talking about the general public and how do they participate in demonstration projects, then there's a lag. So what was originally authori zed was something in the order of $8.3 million.

What was spent to date, and there are still some expenditures I think to come in, $6.6 million and - sorry, this is the provincial share. lt was $8.3 million that was authorized; $6.6 has been spent. In cumulative terms, this Is 50-50. What I have here is a list of projects and rather than read them I can just maybe give you a list of them that you could have for your records. But I'll just give you an interesting summation of the types of things that have happened. We 've been able to get groups. The approach was: how do you try and dis seminate information out there?

One approach would be to, In a sense, try and deal with what I would call· the more esoteric signs, research oriented type of actvlty at the university. A lot of knowledge is already known with respect to energy conservat ion. it struck us that the big challenge was how do you take that knowledge off the shelves or out of the university and actually get it applied by people and by groups? So we did 12 0 home retrofits. We have people apply, and we made sur e th at they were spread out geographically around the province.

They received grants for their retrofits, but as a condition of their grant they had to have open houses in their areas, and we would advertise that there would be an open house taking place. Just to give you an Idea of the interest that I found, I can recall - this was two years ago, and the member can cert ainly recall the heat of that summer when everyone was debating French language issues - this one in particular, because that was the first ev ening that we were going to have, after a long debate, hearings on that bill. lt was right in this room. After many long, hot days, that night there was a shower.

I went home for the supper break, and I was 2995

Friday, 14 June, 1985 told that there was a demo home or a demonstration home in my constituenc y, so I popped in to see who was there and who might come out. I didn't know if many people would show up because it was raining. I was there for about one hour, one-and-a-half hours, and I think that there might have been probably between 80 and 100 people, just as a rough judge - there were some people I knew and some people I didn't know - with only one little ad placed in the communit y newspaper , a little wee one. I then came to this committee meeting and I found that we had about 60 to 75 people.

The next day, the press was procla im ing how interested the general public was obviously in the hearings. What was unsung was the fact that in many of these home demonstrations, open houses, there were groups in the order of 50 to 80 to 100, 12 0 people showing up. So it shows that there is that interest on the part of the population in energy conservat ion, in a sense, in the do-it-yourself type of knowledge. I think that people felt that they got burnt with UFFI, and no one wants to leap into energy conservation unless they feel they're doing the right thing.

Also, some people have done some thin gs with energy conser vation. They've, for example, put a lot of insulation in their attics, and they're got leaking windows and leaking doors. They find it doesn't make that much impact, and they get a bit frustrated with that, so it's important that people do find out the best type of thing they can. So I think in that sense we have found a tremendous increa se in inquiries from communities out there and from individuals. We then wanted to deal with groups.

We got people working together on the recreat ion program that we talked a bit about yesterday in the Public Utilities Committee. Again, we had re creation associations apply. Not all of them got it, of course, but we made sure that there would be a recreation association from each one of the regions in Manitoba, again with the provision that they have a type of open house so that they share their information with their peers.

We're finding that's a good way of people sharing information. it's not, in a sense, coming down from on high, from a university milieu - not that the univeristy isn't important in energy conservation development, but not at that stage. We 've done that with the hospitals, and we've worked in conjunction with the Manit oba Health Services Commission. Again, the co-operation there has been very good. We 're working with the schools right now; we're working with the businesses. All of these groups are finding that they're trying to reduce their operating costs, and this is one way of doing it.

So I think we have developed a great deal of knowledge within our own department as to what works, what doesn 't work, what can be applied, what isn't applied that well, where people run into problems. This is being rein forced as well, through our CHEC experiences. I know that there are some evaluation pieces. There are evaluation reports on virtually every one of the projects that is put out. That was a requirement of the agreement. That was one of the reasons why we had a fair number of people actually inv olved who were disseminating these reports.

Every one of these has to be evaluated; every one of them has to be reported. We 're not at the stage yet where we've completed, I would call, the overall assessments, so I am only speaking really off the �op of my head when I give these types of assessments. But I think that in a sense going to the applied side was the good thing to do. I spoke at a conference at the University of Manitoba about nine months ago.

I guess one of the fellows who had been an advisor to the Federal Minister of Energy when this program was first developed came up to me afterwards and said that he had attended a number of these across the country. He had found that we had made a lot of progress, you know, right on the ground, because we had taken the approach of trying to deal with people at the ground level to get people to apply known knowledge, rather than trying to make new breakthroughs.

There is a bit of work being done at the university, and people are doing work on methanol, for example, and then work is being done on ethanol, and those things are being done. But we think that we can have a tremendous impact on energy conservation by trying to influence the mundane decisions that people make, but those decisions are so numerous. You've basically got 400,000 householders. If they can all make some decisions of a positive way, they will get a bigger bang for their energy buck, so that's the approach that we have taken. I think we've got a good base in this province as a result of it.

I think we've got a good base when we conduct our evaluation. I might be going back to my Cabinet colleagues next year and saying, now I think that these things work, we should be expanding some of it. Now that's all subject, of course, to the Estimates process as to whether we get enough mone y or not, but that's the approach that we will take. Within a year, I would expect that we will have a more format evaluation done because that evaluation is still in progress. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I would be interested , at another sitting of this committee perhaps, to have that information provided to projects undertaken as the Minister indicated, at the Minister's convenience. I also ask the Minister, just in the examination of Estimates, it could maybe be useful If we have latitude with the entire reso lution? HON. W PARASIUK: I have no problem. I like that. MR. H. ENNS: We can have it a little more of a cohesive discussion, rather than line -by-line. In that case, just so I understand. I notice, for instance, in the (

d) of this same res olution, the program, CHEC, is specifically isolated. What the Minister is talking about, is that not to be confused with the CHEC programs? Those are separate programs, or are they part of the program demonstrations that the Minister just described. HON. W. PARASIUK: No, CHE C act ually is an implementation. We had, for example, with the home retrofits, we had 120 home retrofits. That was under the Demonstration Program that was cost-shared. Under CHEC, we have a home CHEC-UP by a person. Then the person undertakes a $1 ,000 loan, 9.5 perce nt from Hydro and tries to make the best possible energy conservation investment for their re sidents. I indicated 2996

Frid•11 14 June, 11115 the numbers there. They were in the order of - last year, we had 5,800 loans worth about $4,600,000 million, which means that not all of them were for the maximum of $1 ,000.00. That is an ongoing program that is being run and administered. What we wanted to do with the Home CHEC-UP Program though was try and make it more efficient by ensuring that people do get a bigger bang for their energy bucks spent. That's why we have the Home CHEC-UP people going out there doing the audits.

I don't have my list of letters with me, but I have been very pleased at the response that I've been receiving from homeowners who have had the Home CHEC-UP program who sat down and talked to the audit person, talked about the option, the pros and cons, and under taken investment decisions which they have to repay with respect to home ene rgy. The response I've received from the general public on this has been excellent. What I think we have to consider , frankly, is whether in fact a $1 ,000 limit or a $1 ,000 cei ling is not becoming too low.

There is inflation, and I think this program started off years back within the Department of Finance, probably about 19 77. lt was switched over to the Department of Energy and Mines, I think, about 19 81 or 19 82. We have made the change of trying to make it more efficient by having the people do an audit before they make that investment decision. lt costs them $20.00. If they show some interest, if they make an investment decision with respect to energy conser vation, they get that refunded. But what we were trying to do is just make the program more efficient.

I think what we have to look at now is whether , in fact, we should be lifting the cei ling. A thousand dollars doesn't go as far today as it did in 19 77. MR. H. ENNS: The department is involved In installation of a central energy computer control system for school divisions in Western Manitoba, 10 school divisions, I under stand. Is that involvement financial, as well, or is it primarily information? HON. W. PARASIUK: lt's going to be both. lt is being done under the community CHEC Program, where community groups can app ly.

We thought this was a very good opportunity by having 10 working together , rather than some things happening in isolation. We're trying to have the ripple effect. One hopes that the concentric circles, if one drops a rock in the pond, will go out rather than sort of contracting. We're hoping that this will be a good lead for other school divisions to look at in the future. MR. H. ENNS: What does the installation of a central energy computer control system really entail? What kind of hardware are we buying? Who's making the purchasing decisions? Are the school divisions making the decisions?

Is the department providing the hardware for the system? HON. W. PARASIUK: I will have to take that question as notice because, as you can see, the people that are here aren't with that secti on. I, frankly, didn't ask all of the staff to come over here because I didn't think we'd be going through with such speed. When we went into the grievance or when grievance was called, I thought we might spend more of our time just on the first item.

But from my unde rstanding of wha t had been described to me with respect to the project, the school districts work in conjunction with the Department of Education and with us. lt's the schools that decide; it is the schools that undertake the investment decisions, but they do have the opportunity of receiving matching grants of up to $15 ,000 from this community CHEC UP Program.

But that decision is made by the schools after consultation with people that we have in the department who are expert at it and people within the Department of Education and, I think, with people in the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, and people who are in the busine ss of trying to, in a sense, work out a system whereby, by having these small types of computers, you can actually regulate your furnaces, regulate your fans and regulate your thermostat set tings through the course of a school year, because there's a lot of downtime or empty time in a school. That's the approach that they are taking.

That is, admittedly, a superficial description of it. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister has a number of fine vans that his energy auditors travel the countryside with. How many does he have, 20? I recall some ceremony at the front of the steps of the building here not so long ago. HON. W. PARASIUK: Right, I was waiting for that one. I must say, I inhe rited two vans from the previous administration which I'm thankful for. These are very finely outfitted vans. They're quite expensive; they have computers in them, and they go out and they do specific checks, and there's a stationwagon as well.

There was some debate, I think, with the Federal Government as to whose vans they were. We have decided that they're our vans. MR. J. DOWNEY: What did they decide? HON. W. PARASIUK: I think they have agreed that they're our vans as .we ll. I think they are a good long term investment. They go out and they do audits, and these are usually more complicated, sophisticated audits for larger either public institutions or private institutions. I know they have done the circuit of the province for some time now and they do it on an ongoing basis.

They try and arrange appointments so that if they go into a community they will have more than one audit to do, and tha t is done on an ongoing basis. There are also 24 cars, Home CHEC-UP cars, that our Home CHEC-UP officers are using. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. L. HYDE: I just would like to refer back to the Central Energy Computer Control System that you referred to, Mr. Minister. I gather from what you were indicating that you will select the communities or the school divisions or will they make the application to you? HON. W.

PARASIUK: The school divisions are making applications to us and a centralized computer system 2997

Friday, 14 June, 1985 for one is a fairly expensiv e proposition, but 10 went together. Te n went together and they are going to have one computer. They are hooked up via telephone radar and they can then get the economies of scales. So there are 10 school divisions in We stern Manitoba who have come together and we think it is a very interesting way to proceed. I would hope there will be other school divisions in the future that will be doing the same thing as this get knowledge of this.

Certain ly, since MAST is involved, that type of information will be dissem inated through the trustees and through the school divisions and I would expect that we will be rec eiving more applications in the future. MR. L. HYDE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)(1) - the Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I want to again address the entire re solution. I would have to say that in the main, because I do have some first-hand experience, particularly in the community of Stonewall, as one of the community projects that have quite succes sfully worked with the department in the area of energy conserva tion.

I don't doubt for a moment that in the depart ment's effort we have really just beg un to bring energy conservation to the people of Mani toba. I would encourage the Minister in this particular instance, particularly with some programs coming to an end, to press for the application of what the department has learned, that more and more people, businesses and community organizations, whether it is hospitals or schools, are learning to press on with the cause of energy conservation in this province. I am a conservative by politics and by nature.

I would not want to urge this Minister and this government to recklessly and irresponsibly expand their budgets, but I can't help but note that in this particular item there is virtually a stand-pat situation; the overall expenditure of the reso lution is virtually unchanged. In fact, there is a reduction from the 3.9 or virtually the $4 million to the 2.8 which the Minister has to some extent explained. I make the observat ion, partly from experience as well, that all too often the dollars are there with respect to resea rch, with respect to studying, with respect to staff costs.

Very often the staff costs are continuing, whether or not the dollars allocated to the department are eaten up in the staff and complementary costs, whether it is vans and cars, the assistance to the del ivery program. The Minister alluded to it by acknowledging that perhaps the $1 ,000 limit in the one area, the CHEC Program, ought to readjusted.

I am simply saying that if the Estimates stay as they appear to be staying, and if you are ref erring to the line-by-line, it would become very obvious that new mone y isn't being put into the program, nor is there money to even accoun t for the admittedly Mulroney inspired low rate of inflation that we currently enj oy. But I gather from the Minister that there is no diminution of staff, nor am I reco mmending it. The operat ion of the 22 vehicles involved in this particular area, those costs would of course rise with petroleum energy costs rising, etc. I think the Minister understands what I am saying.

I, in fact, encou rage the Minister to make sure that if additional funds are not available tha t to reasonably monitor as to how much from within the allocation that we are talking about; how much of the $2,880,600 can be applied directly to energy conserva tion programs tha t are covered in this department area of his responsibilities. And, if need be, particularly as some of th e demo nstrat ions, by the open-homes demonstrations, that the department has undertaken successful ly, one would assume that there are more people who are now knowledgeable about what is available.

One would hope that in the future the need for government staff to advise and to encourage conservation at the home level or at the arena or school level should decrease the demand to have some assistance, perhaps, and pro viding the energy conservation measures would increase. Those would be my comments with respect to this reso lution. HON. W. PARASIUK: I would just like to give a response - a short one - in that the member did indicate that what we are trying to do is change attitudes more than anything else. That can be a slow and difficult process and that does take people to do that.

I think that the attitude, that there are changing attitudes out in the general public. I think there is a response. I think the response out of bot h Stonewall and Pinawa, for example, indicated that people will look at this. That's the positive thing that is taking place with respect to energy conserva tion. I think we have to dete rmine whether in fact, say, the $1 ,000 is a constraint, and whether we shouldn't be upping it because we may have people unde rtaking - you just don't insulate half-a-house or half the attic. That may be a constraint in people actually undertaking more.

There has also been an elimination of the federal CHIP Program, and we are trying to determine what the fall-out from that will be, so this is that type of transitional year. We also have the end of the program, so it's a transitional year. I would rather move prudently in that sense and make the case based on solid substance and solid need. The one thing that's happening out there that is possibly making people hesitate a bit - we'll determine this over the course of the next year - is that in a sense energy prices are stabilizing.

People do tend to respond in part through sort of a purposeful decision that they want to make a good longer-term investment on their own part, and at the same time they tend to respond to what they think the future will be with respect to energy prices. Right now, they think that it has bubbled. I think ultimately, five years from now, that bubble will burst, esp ecially with respect to oil, but that is something that we cer tainly will take into account. I'd like to indicate that the province's share has not decreas ed; we've kept our share fully in there. The decrease is the federal share.

Certain ly, on our de fini tion of how good these programs are or our dete rmination of how good these programs are, our determination of what we think tha t need is - and we do go out and try and cultivate the need. We have advertised. We have put things out saying, look, we think it is important that you do these 2998

Prk11y, 14 Jun•, 198$ things. So I do admit that this is one program where we go out and actually try and drum up clients In a sense. I don't apologize for that; I think it's the right thing to do. We will determine next year whether we should be going for more in terms of Estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. A MEMBER: You've got to be fair, Mr. Chairman. You've got a member over here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for lnk ster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to, since we are on Conserva tion, add a few words and some personal experience as wel l, I guess.

I would like to commend the Min ister and his department. I think, In particular, the staff that he has, the En ergy Conservation Group, I have had an opportunity to meet and discuss with some of them.

I hope to undertake and get some projects undergoing in the not too distant future on a better energy analysis of how much energy and money we are saving over what we did a few years ago and future projections, so the public, when they have an opportunity to undertake some init iatives in energy conservati on, they realize both their contribution to the nation as far as the net reduction in energy consumed, as well as savings in their own pocketbooks.

As a personal example, in my little home present ly, I did some insulation work and put in just a regular furnace, replacing an old, very ine fficient oil furna ce back 10 years ago. Just this past year my heating bill has equated what it was in 1975. The furnace, I guess, was about $700 or $800, and I put $300 worth of insulation in my attic and, far more Importantly, in the basement, plus trying to insulate my old storm windows a little bit better.

So without spending that, say, $1 ,000 in 1975, it would have cost me probably close to $1 ,500 or $1 ,800 in additional heating expenditures in the period since then. I think as that sort of Information is getting out more to people and with the new technologies that are coming on - I am presently building a new home, and I expect my heating costs in my new home, which will be over twice the size of my present small home, wilt be two thirds approximately of what my small home is presently - in a new one that is over twice the size. So the technology has improved dramatically in the past 10 years.

In the CHEC Program that the department started up, one of the critical aspects of that program that should be extended to all conservation efforts is that before any work is done that it should be checked, the house should be ins pected or whatever other indus try or whatever, so that the people who are doing the work do the work that is most effe ctive. That has been the ultimate failure of the federal, I believe it Is, Canada Home Insulation Program - I believe its acronym was CHIP - in that most of the people who had work done, it was, quite frank ly, fraudu lently done. The people were robbed.

They had contractors come in and blow in some cellulo se fibre for a high price but, since the Government of Canada was paying for most of it, people didn't really care. So they did the most ineffective thing to reduce energy costs, and the government subsid ized it. The Government of Canada's monies could have been probably five to six times as effect ive had they had in place a program like the Min ister of Energy and his department brought into Manitoba, the CHEC Program, of a pre-audit before you start the work.

Following that, and I still get the odd complaint of people who have contractors coming in and doing inadequa te work, I think that both in home insulation side of things, industry and also in a Critical Home Repair , which is not your re sponsibil ity, that we need much better bonding of companies that are going out and doing the work, because a company can come in, basically take the money and run from the family under the auspices of a government program.

They think they are getting good work done and it ends up not being anywhere near as good, especially a year or two down the road when some of the cosmetics they may have done have exposed thems elves, I guess, and the work starts to fall apart. So I think we probably need even better bonding provisions and qualifications of who can apply to do the work. We now have the department also expanding in education programs to teach more contractors what kind of techniques have being developed, which ones are most appropriate for our climate, and which ones are the best. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The time being 12 :30 p.m., we are interrupting the proceed ings of the committee for Private Members' Hour. Committee rise. SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, please come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Education. Item 3.(

a) School Grants and Other Assistance - the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, the Minis ter in a news release dated November 13, 1984, Page 2, said and I quote: "To consider sources of funding to divisions, the Min ister said that a joint committee has been formed by Manitoba Educ ation and the Department of Municipal Affairs to co-ordinate the recommendations of the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee with recommendations from the Education Finance Review.

In addition, Manitoba Education, the Department of Finance, will study the Implications of limiting the universal portion of the property tax credits as was recommended in the report". Can the Minister tell me where that study is at the particular point in time and when it will be repor ting? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Ye s, Mr. Chairman, that study is presently under way and we expect it will be finished in early fall, perhaps by September. MR. C. MANNESS: We ll, I'd like to know a little bit more about the terms of refere nce of the study, Mr.

Chairman; is it just simply removing the universal aspect of property tax credits? Have there been certain hypotheses that have been directed into the study? 2999

Friday, 14 June, 1985 Could the Minis ter tell me more as to what it is that's being considered? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, the scope of the committee is to examine all of the things that were in the Nicholl Report, all of the recommendations related to th e raising of mon ey, no thing related to the expenditures or the giving of money, but the raising of money. So any of the recommendations of the report are under the purview of that committee. MR. C. MANNE SS: Mr .

Chairman, the Min ister ind icates it's more than just looking at the tax credit, then it's looking at the whole area of securing resources in one fashion or anot her. I would ask the specific question because that is highl ighted within the press release. Obviously, some major emphasis is being given to this whole area of property tax credits, and I'd like to know what dir ection has been given in the study. Is it just an attempt to see if various groups, or people in various types of income standing, have it removed, what specific di rections have been given with respect to the study of property tax credits?

HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, they'r e looking at, as I said, all of the recommendations related to raising of mon ey, all of the recommendations related to the assessment review and tax credit, and removing Education from property taxes. They're looking at all of those questions. MR. C. MANNE SS: If property tax credits were removed, can the Minister tell me how much additional tax revenue wou ld be raised in the Provi nce of Manitoba? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Approximately $70 million, Mr. Chairman. MR. C.

MANNESS: Does the Min ister of Education consider those tax credits in place, does she consider that as an offset against taxation associated with Education, municip al taxation, or does she care to draw distinction between the two? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, the reduction would be total prope rty tax, which includes Education, muni cipal and Education. MR. C. MANNESS: I realize that, but I'm just trying to get a feel as to whether the Mi ni ster toda y distinguis hes at all as to whether these property taxes really have been directed toward municipal service taxation or to Education.

I know it's just a net deduction from the property tax bill, but I'm wondering if the Min ister considers it more of a, because the credits are in place, a loss of revenue to Education, or does she distinguish at all? HON. M. HEMP HILL: Mr. Chairman, we don't distinguish in terms of having exact figur es. I do know that, over the years, there has been more money going to mu nicipalities and less to school divisions over the period of years. So it is becoming less and less a pure Education tax, but we're talking about both. MR. C.

MANNESS: If it were all removed, how much of that present $70 million or $80 million does the Mi nister feel should accrue as an extra source of revenue in support of Education? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, those are things that aren't being decided by me. We're waiting for the examination of the Review Commit tee to come forward with information and recommendation. So, until I see the information, until I see what they're coming up with, I have no preconceived ideas about what it should take. lt would then go into Consolidated Revenue, the total thing would go into Consolida ted Revenue.

The funds would come from Consolidated Revenue instead, and I'm waiting to see what the informa tion is from study. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd love to move into deeper discussion on some of the terms of reference provided to the study, but I suppose there isn't an awful lot of use. I ask the Min ister whether support for the Frontier School Division comes in this area. I take it, it does, Mr. Chairman, and we must have covered it last night - no, we didn't in detail. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, we did cover it.

When I gave the Other Support and I read through a fairly long list, I think Frontier, there were a couple of school divisions, Frontier and Gypsumville, were the two that I named with the dollar amount for the extra grant. lt's the Special Levy Reduction Grant that just those two school divisions received. I can find it in a minute. Yes, it was the Special Levy Reduction fig ure of $403,826, with $444,000 going to Frontier School Division. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the cost of running that division has to be greater than that. There's got to be something in addition to that. HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Yes, I didn't realize the member was asking for the total budget. Would that it were that one of the biggest school divisions in the province with a very large budget be run for $1 44,000.00. No, this is the Special Levy Reduction Special Grant and I thought you were perhaps asking about that. The rest of the money that goes to Frontier comes to them through the regular support program, through the program funding, and we're getting that informat ion. The total revenues for Frontier School Division from the government is $17 million.

I should give the whole thing perhaps: 17 mill ion from the Provincial Government; 9 million - these are rounded out - from the Federal Government; 2.5 million from opted-out Indian bands; private organizations and individuals, tuition fees, etc., would be 2 million. The Special Levy offset which is 35 mills is $460,000 .00. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr . Chairman, the Min ister ind icated in a release, October 19, 19 84, that she had offered an opportunity to communities in the Frontier School Division to increase local control over education.

I'm wondering then, is the Mi nister saying that those particular communi ties that wish to take advantage of the new program, will they now have total control to spend the resources that will be allocated in some 3000

Friday. 14 June, 1185 fashion to their community? Do they now have total control of spending the resources as they see fit? HON. M. HEMPHILL: They will, Mr. Chairman, when we finish the process. What's happening right now is that we have a resource team from the department that is available to go out to any communities that are interested in movi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-70
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 70.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c85dbc2504f1f8807ea8af889bbed9ddb2ab9efa

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