Manitoba Hansard — 15 July 1986 (Sitting 5, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 4 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petit ions Reading and Receiving Petitions ... Presentin g Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Employment Services . HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speaker, I have a statement for the House.

I would like to inform the House that in keeping with an election commitment of the Provincial Government, the level of benefits paid to Manitobans by 55-plus, a Man itoba income supplement , will increase effective April 1, 1987 . A year ago , the government indicated that it would enrich and expand this program, formerly called the Manitoba Supplement for Pensioners , by doubling the maximum benefits paid by removing a pension income eligi bility requirement and by annually indexing the benefits.

The first two objectives were achieved last July and the annual indexing is now being introduced with the beginning of a new program year on April 1. The programs's quarterly benefit payments will be increased by 4.5 percent in keeping with the change in the Consumer Price Index for Winnipeg. The maximum benefits paid will increase to $98 .20 per quarter for a single recipient and to $105 .50 per quarter for a married person.

Income levels determin ing program eligibility will also be rai sed as of April 1 to ensure that persons currently receiving benefit s will not become ineligible as a result of cost of living inc reases to their income. The Provincial G overnment's expansion and enrichment of this program has resulted in a total of approxi mately 28,000 Manitobans receiving benefits dur ing the 1986-87 program yea r. Madam Speaker, this is an increase of about 50 perce nt over the previous year under the previous programming. The program's annual budget has essentially tripled from about $3 million to $9 million .

It is expected that this year's indexing will increase the budget by a further $500,000.00. These extra resources are being received by Manitobans who most assuredly need this extra income to mainta in the ir qual ity of life. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND : Than k you , Madam Speaker, and I do thank the Minister for that sta tem ent. I'm sure that the peopl e who have been receiving this will be plea sed to hear this new s. It is a small 93 payment, but it is a help to people who really need it.

I have had , as I told the Minister last year, many calls from older women who were having a great deal of difficulty with financing and this sort of thing doe s help them. One problem , of course, that I do get phone calls about is the fact that people on soc ial assistance either cannot apply for this, or if they do, it's deducted, and that is a complaint, of course, that we've heard .

Also, while I'm on my feet, I should say that I've had complaints in my office, a considerable many of them, and I mentioned them in my Throne Speech yesterday , about the deductions of the Canada Pension payments from disabled persons. I will , of course, be tak ing that up with the Minister at a further time. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills .. ORAL QUESTIONS MTS - Jha, Bidhu MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Minister responsible for the Telephone System.

It follows upon the news of the requested and received resignation from the Board of MTS of Mr. Sidhu Jha , and this follows upon a series of questions that were asked on Tuesday, July 15, 1986 at the committee hearings for MTS in which my colleague , the Member for Pembina , asked whether or not this particular member of the board had any dealings , or rather, whether or not MTS had any dealings with this new board member's business in Winnipeg. At that time, the Minister responsible , the Member for St. James , said that there would be the usual disclosure made and an absenting from any decision making .

The general manager, Mr. Holland , said, "I would have to check specific information and provide that later," and the chairman of the board said, and I quote : "Nothing of that nature has come before the board since Mr. Jha 's appointment." My question to the Ministe r is: Did Mr. Jha ever make any disclosure of potential conflict of interest to the Minister or to the board? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, the matter of Mr. Jha 's business relationship was public knowledge. In fac t, Mr.

Jha has been written up in the Winnip eg Free Press in the business

section as quite a successful businessman with his enterprise, so it was clearly public knowledge.

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 The issue of many of the tenders or purchases that were made by the Telephone System with Mr. Jha were made prior to the date on which he was appointed a board member - which was January 1986. In my way of investigating this situation, there were no contracts that went to the Board of Directors that Mr. Jha would have to dis close as a conflict in terms of a decision that is made by the Board of Directors. However, Madam Speaker, and the record should show that the inquiries I've made indicate that Mr.

Jha's company sold approxi mately $50,000 worth of equipment the year prior to him being appointed to the Board of Directors and it sold approximately under $20,000 - I'm trying to get the exact number - after he was appoi nted to the Board of Directors, but I should point out there was a fire that took place during that year as well. The conflict-of-interest guidelines at the Manitoba Telephone System, there was a draft forwarded to the Board of Directors in'85.

In the last two months, I have reviewed the draft conflict-of-interest guidelines and recommended that the board immediately pass interim conflict-of-interest guidelines rather than just leave it in dra ft form, and they have done so at the last Board of Directors meeting in February of 1987. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , the question is not whether or not there were articles written about Mr.

Jha that disclosed what his business was, my question is to the Minis ter, did he ever dis close to either the Minis ter or his predecessor , as Minister, or the board that he had a potential conflict of interest with respect to equipment that he was supplying to the Telephone System under tender arrangements? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, as I say , it is common kno wledge and public knowledge, quite public knowledge, that Mr. Jha was in fact the president and major shareholder in the company indicated, and Mr.

Jha made me aware of it certainly the first time I met him when we dis cussed a number of issues including this relationship. So it was always disclosed to me, as Minister, on the basis of the first meeting I had, as is common knowledge in terms of the business holdings of many members in this House; it was common knowledge. I have asked whether there were any contracts dealing with any business that would go to the Board of Directors of the Manitoba Telephone System that would in fact be of potential or actual conflict of interest for Mr.

Jha's company and my initial information was that there was not, through the Board of Dir ectors, and that that was dealt with at a different level in the Telephone System. In saying that, Madam Speaker, I feel it is a very very awkward situation for an individual to be on a Board of Directors and have a commercial relationship with that Crown corporation. Mr. Jha agreed with me on that point and in fact we are in the process, and have altered it at the last board meeting, to indicate that a person who has a commercial relationship should not be on that Board of Dir ectors. MR. G.

FILMON: Well, Madam Speaker , assuming that this Minis ter thinks that it is a very, very awkward 94 rela tionship , why didn't the previ ous Mi nis ter responsible think that it was an awkward relationship. Was it because . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That question is not in order . MR. G. FILMON: I beg your pardon? MADAM SPEAKER: That question is not in order . The honourable member is seek ing an opinion as to why. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , obviously , his predecessor di dn't believe it to be an awkward relationship and this Minister now does.

My further question to the Minis ter is: Did the general manager ever prepare the report with the specific information that he promised on July 15 with respect to Mr. Jha's business relationship with MTS or MTX? HON. G. DOER: As the member oppositite knows, the former general manager is not work ing in the corpor ation any longer and I have not had any communication with the former general manager since his dismissal on November 21. The report that you have asked for has not been made available to me by the former general manager .

Notwithstanding that fact, I did ask specifically for information on the commercial dealings with the individual indicated, and I did initiate that inquiry with Mr. Robertson. As I have indic ated, in 1985, prior to his appointment to the Board of Dir ectors, there was approximately $50,000 worth of busi nesses with Mr. Jha's company. In 1986, there was under $20,000 with his company. I have not received any specific information that any one of those contracts went to the Board of Directors, as is a policy in the Telephone System.

However, Madam Speaker , I think it puts people in a very awkward situation to be on a Board of Directors and have a commercial relationship on that board . Mr. Jha agreed with me, and that's why we had a resignation from Mr. Jha so that not only would he not be in that awkward situation, but then as I proceeded to change the conflict-of-interest guidelines with the Board of Directors, commercial relationships would be clearly delin eated so people wouldn't be in that situation. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, with respect to this line of questioning about Mr.

Jha's relationship with the MTS in a business sense, the former Minister responsible for the Telephone System, the Member for St. Jame s, said "I would assume there would be the usual di sclosure made." Can the Minister indicate, since he seems to indicate there was no dis closure made, what was the usual dis closure that was req uired for members of the board for the Telephone System at that time? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker , it's the same kind of disclosure. In fact, it's pursuant to many of the provisions in The Legislative Assembly Act and many of the provisions of this Assembly.

You don't have to stand up, Madam Speaker, every minute and dis close everything you've got, but if there is a specific issue

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 that is dealing with a pecuniary interest that you may have, we in this Assembly and board members of the Telephone System must disclose that. There were no issues that came to the Board of Directors specifically that would require that kind of disclosure. However, it was well known that Mr. Jha was president, CEO, and a major shareholder of that corporation . ·1 believe - and I've discussed this with Mr.

Jha, and he did resign - that it doesn't make sense for an individual to be on a Crown corporati on dealing in a commercial relationship with that corporation and that's why he made the decision; and that's why, Madam Speaker, the conflict-of -interest guidelines that I had in draft form, which included disclosures similar to this Legislative Assembly, are going to be delineated further to deal with the specific issue of commercial rela tionship, period , on an omnibus basis rather than just have it on a disclosure basis when something comes to the Board of Directors.

I think that will be of more helpful conflict-of-interest guidelines for the Telephone System. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert . MR. G. MERCIER: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition's questions have been very direct and specific questions. In response to each one of these questions, the Minister has gone on at length ad nauseam well beyond the scope of the question. Madam Speaker, I would urge you to request the Ministers to answer the question briefly and simply, and this will encourage cooperation in the House.

If the Ministers don't, that will encourage a lot of non cooperation. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , certainly, the answers have provided full information and . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: ... here we have another example, one more time, perhaps one of the first times during this Session, but certainly a continuation of what the Opposition did quite often in previous Sessions of them asking a quest ion and then attempting to restrict the ability of the Minister to answer the question in a full and factual way.

If they don't want that full and factual information in answers to their questions, the people of Manitoba want that full and factual information . . . A MEMBER: No, they don't - not the facts - they're getting the same answers that we got on MTX . HON. J. COWAN: . . in answer to those questions, and that's what Ministers on this side will provide to them whenever it is required. So for them to suggest that there is anything . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 95 HON. J. COWAN: Let me be clear in what we are hearing members opposite say from their feet and from their seat.

The one member says they're getting too much information ; the other member says they're covering up . How like the Tories to try to be on both sides of the issue at the same time. However , I wish to provide you . . . A MEMBER: Sit down, Jay, and have a littl e respect. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I would like to hear the rest of the advice from the Honourable Government House Leader and then we'll deal with the point of order. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you.

I wish to assure you, Madam Speaker, that we believe that this House functions best with cooperation, but beyond that, it functions best with full and factual information; and those two things, we promise to you, as Speaker of the House, to members opposite and to the public, and we will not have the Opposition attempt to muzzle Ministers when they are trying to provide full information that is of the benefit not only to them, even if they don't recognize that, but more importantly of benefit to the people of Manitoba who want to understand the full issue.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order . MR. G. FILMON: No, on a question, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: One moment , please. Order please, order please. On the Honourable Opposition House Leader's alleged point of order. A MEMBER: Pardon me, an alleged point of order? MADAM SPEAKER: It's only an alleged point of order until we've decided as to whether it's a point of order , or not. Order please. First of all, the Opposition in Question Period ask the questions; they cannot dictate as to the content of the answers .

We have asked the Ministers, according to Beauchesne, Citation 358(2), on many occasions to keep their answers brief and not provoke debate. In my opinion, the Honourable Minister was not provoking debate but was supplying a full answer. If the Opposition is feeling that I should be intervening as Speaker to limit the amount of information that Ministers give , I will take that into consideration. In my opinion, in this particular time , the Minister's answer was totally within order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prem ier.

If it was, in the words of the Minister for the Telephone System, general knowledge of Mr. Jha's business relationship with MTS and, if it was as this Minister has said, an awkward relationship for him to be doing business and on the board, why did his Cabinet appoint Mr. Jha in the first place?

Wednesday, 4 March , 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I think the Min ister has very clearly responded to that question, and I must say very fully and very completely . There is no evidence of any conflict of interest at all.

I believe there has been no material presented by the members today - no more material than in fact the innuendo and the mucking around that some honourable members across the way did yesterday in attempting to muckrake with the Minister of Highways pertaining to his sister -in-law - that there ever was any evidence anywhere of any conflict of interest. There was a problem of perception, Madam Speaker . This Minister of Telephones properly moved to ensure that any perception would be removed . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that presumably the business relationship between Mr.

Jha and MTS was general knowledge and that it was indeed awkward, did that perception not exist at the time when he was appointed? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MTS. HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, the Board of Directors did not approve the day-to-day purchases of furniture that Mr. Jha was involved in. However - and the purchases had been going on not only with sales that he was making to Bell Canada, Manitoba Telephone System and major contracts to the Federal Government because of the quality of his work - quality of work, by the way, Madam Speaker, that was written up in the business

section of the Winnipeg Free Press - however, Madam Speaker , I feel it puts an individual in a very awkward situation to be in a commercial relationship. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Premier doesn't want to answer that question about perception and wants to leave his Minister out dangling , so I'll ask another question of the Minister . Are any other members of the board of MTS about to be asked to resign? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, the answer to the question is no.

There are board members who are involved in their own individual decisions and I respect their rights to make individual decisions, but the answer to the question is no. Perimeter highway - construction of northeast

section MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Highways. Can the Minister of Highways tell the people of northeast Winnipeg when they can expect actual construction to begin on the northeast

section of the Perimeter Highway? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation. 96 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker , it seems the Opposition members again are exemplifying their ignorance of a planning process, as they did yesterday , in that planning is for the long-term good and needs of development in various areas of the provin ce. Whether it be in the City of Winnipeg or in the Selkirk area or wherever it might be, it is necessary to have that planning for the future.

The fact is the Perimeter Highway was not completed in its entirety when it was constructed, Madam Speaker , and since the gaps will in the future have to be filled in, in the northeast quadrant of the Perimeter Highway , the province is doing the responsible thing, and that is having a planning process put in place to ensure that the route that will eventually be required to facilitate the development of this route that the land will be acquired and planned for so that proper and orderly development will take place in that area.

That is the objective , not the construction of that area at this time, Madam Speaker . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, a supplementary. Is it this government's priority to hire consultants and hold public meetings for a project they won 't build for several years, because they have squandered $28 million in the Premier 's bridge to nowhere, north of Selkirk? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker , we have seen a prime example here where one member of the Tory Opposition follows the errors of the other in quoting a figure that is a figment of their imagination.

It has no basis in fact and it has been admitted by the Member for Ste. Rose that the $28 million figure has no basis in fact. He's admitted that and he should apologize to this House for misinformation to this House . And now the member is following his misinformation in her questi on. I don 't accept that premise . Lagimodiere Blvd.- noise barrier - MRS . B.

MITCHELSON: My final supplementary to the Minister of Highways is: Where are this government's priorities when they spend $1 .2 million to build a noise barrier in the Minister of Environment's riding when completion of the Perimeter Highway would divert 75 percent of that truck traffic from Lagimodiere Blvd. and eliminate the noise problem? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The Member for River East seems to have some problems as to the facts in this particul ar instance, Madam Speaker.

I have said publicly that even if this route, the completion of the Perimeter Highway in that area, were expedited as fast as it could be done , it would not be usable for at least a six- or seven-year period . There's a planning process; there 's the detailed design; there 's the acquisition period and then there's the construction period with overpasses, Madam Speake r. That takes several years of planning before it actually can be built and constructed. That is not even an excuse for inaction by the City of Winnipeg with regard to the noise barrier, Madam Speaker.

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 Natural gas pricing - legislative action MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I dir ect a question to the First Minis ter. The First Minis ter has, on several occasions in the last few months, made some very strong statements with respect to natural gas pricing. He refers to it again in a very strong way in the Throne Speech by saying, "My government will not accept the situation in which the consumer is expected to pay more for gas than Amer icans or large industry .

My gov ernm ent will announce policies to protect Manitobans from excessive gas pricing." My question to the First Minister is: Among the options open to the government, could he indic ate to the House whether legislative action is being planned? Is there any legislation that this government may be bringing forward with respect to this announcement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the commitment that we have is to ensure that natural gas prices are lowered and, as a consequence of that, we will not abd icate any options that may be necessar y, legislative or non-legisla tive. MR. H. ENNS: Ju st a sup plementary, just so I understand it. It is possible that on this very important and major issue, this Leg islature could be asked to deal with it legisla tively. Is that confirmation? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I'v e indica ted that all options are available to us.

The principal concern that this New Democratic Party Government has is to ensur e that the prices to the consumer are kept low, that the consumer is not rip ped off by way of the price structure being proposed by In ter-City Gas. This government refuses to abando n any option; this government retains the option to use any alternative that may be necessary in order to achieve the objective of pr otecting the con sumers of the Provi nce of Manitoba. MR. H. ENNS: A further supplementary to the Minis ter on the same subject, Madam Speaker.

The Throne Speech further indicates, again, a very strong feeling on this subject. My government expresses concerns that the agreement placed the average gas consumer at the mercy of private utility monopolies. I remind the First Minister that it was his gover nment, this First Minis ter as a matter of fact, who renewed that long-term lease with that pri vate utility just some three years ago, I believe.

My direct question to the Minister is: Among the options that this Min ister and this gove rnment is consid ering, is it the breaking of that contractual obligation with Inter-City Gas that was signed by this government, by this Minister three years ago? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minis ter of Energy and Mines. HON. W.

PARASIUK: As the Minister who in fact brought forward the legislation renewing the franchise 97 for one utility out of many utilities in the province, I'm certainly pleased to deal with the questions raised by the member who has indicated on the radio, prior to the Session starting, that his approach would be to phase out long-term contracts which would, if one followed his approach, lead to Manitoba consumers paying $200 million to $300 million more for consumer gas than they would otherwise have to pay. Madam Speaker, we believe that all options have to be considered.

We certainly believe that it is possible to ensure that gas prices be brought down and we would look at all ways and means. I wouldn't preclude looking at anything, Madam Speaker, just to ensure that we do have the ways and means to bring the desirable objective about, of lowering gas prices. If one followed the Conser vative approach of cutting out options, Madam Speaker, we'd never have the opportunity of lowering gas prices and would be held captive to gas prices set totally outside this province, without our being able to bring about hundreds of billions of dollars in benefit to the people of Manitoba.

Wildlife feeding stations - slaughter at MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside with a final supplementary. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , just by explanation. That subject matter, no doubt, will be raised on numerous occasions. I have another question to the Minis ter of Natural Resources.

I'm sure, Madam Speaker, the Minister is as concerned as many Manitobans are concerned but, in particular, a group of enthusiastic wildlife activists in my constituency, in the area of lnwood, in and around surrounding Dennis Lake, who are, particularly at this time of year, doing their bit to help our deer through the winter by feeding them, and the amount of indiscrimi nate slaughter that is taking place at feeding stations at night time. What is his department doing to help that group out to at least what I call unjustifiable taking of wildlife under those circums tances?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker , I want to indicate to all members of this House and indeed to all people of Mani toba that we are conc erned about the indiscrimina te use of wildlife. We want to indicate, as well, our appreciation for the efforts of the Wildlife Association in its efforts to help wildlife through a difficult situation.

We recognize that throughout the provi nce, whether we are dealing with the white-tailed deer, as we are in this ins tance, or with other species, that there will be illegal take and perhaps indiscrimina te but legal take from time to time. In reviewing the material that is available in this particular instance, if we have a concern, it is perhaps that the responsibility for the indiscrimina te take is being targeted to a particular group. We want to recognize that there are people in society who have the legal right to take game at different times of the year. But I want

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 to make it clear that our enforcement people will be in the field working with the wildlife associa tions, asking for the support of people in the area by way of the TIP Program, to make us aware of who the offenders might be, and we will try to deal with it, but we want to indic ate clearly ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Will the Honourable Minis ter please keep his answers brief. Careerstart Program - policy changes MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

My question is to the Minister responsible for the Careerstart Program. The government has increased funding to the universities for the upcoming year, but at the same time this government is undermining the universities. For example, under the Careerstart Program, the government has recently restricted its funding to universities for summer employment of students, and for every three students the universities used to be able to hire, they will now only be able to hire one or perhaps none at all. My question is this: How does he explain the policy of giving with one hand and taking with the other?

In other words, can he explain the inconsistency of the action exemplified by these harmful changes to the Careerstart Program? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Employment Services and Economic Security. HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speaker , I don't accept the arithmetic of the Honourable Member for River Heights, and can tell her that it is the policy of the government to spread the monies available under Careerstart Program as widely as possible to create as many jobs as possible for our young people this summer.

The universities have been classified as institutions along with some other large organizations that have multi-million-dollar budgets. We feel that they're in a position to at least provide a little bit of money towards employment of young people as opposed to the very small non-profit groups such as day care centres, groups looking after the mentally retarded and some small busi ness people who have very very little money to hire people.

So we're suggesting that there should be some commitment by the universities to put a little bit of money on the table to help create some jobs for our young people, not to hurt them but to help spread the money around, so that we can maximize the number of jobs created this summer. MRS. S. CARS TAIRS: A supplementary to the same Minister. How can this government neglect a program like Careerstart, which provides long-term advanced training promotion programs; in turn, long-term stable employment, instead of concentrating on short-term low level employment? HON. L.

EVANS: Madam Speaker, I say without any equivocation whatsoever that Manitoba stands head 98 and shoulders over any province in Canada in terms of what we're doing, or any past Liberal Government, in what we're doing for young people in terms of jobs. The fact is, Madam Speaker, we have an array of programs. Careerstart is only one. I would like to remind the honourable member of our Training for Tomorrow Program, which provides permanent long-term jobs for young people, with preference being given to young people.

I think if you go out there in the community, the people of this province realize that we have about the lowest level of unemployment of young people in Canada, and I believe the policies of this government go a long way to contributing to that very favorable low level of unemployment. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary to the same Minister, Madam Speaker . Would the Minister tell us why when this government prides itself on its consulting with groups, why it did not even inform the universities of these cuts and they had to find out on their career jobs application form? HON. L.

EVANS: Madam Speaker , I reject the notion of not giving adequate advice. The fact of the matter is that the application forms, the information went out some weeks ago. This is the usual method of advising potential employers of the terms and conditions of the program. I think that it's wrong to say that there has been a cutback in terms of the monies available for the universities.

The fact is that they're being reclassified as institutions, along with hospitals and nursing homes and so on because, Madam Speaker, as I've said before, we feel that there's a greater need to channel some money to the small non-profits and to the small business entrepreneurs. Gypsumville Radar Base - Interlake Tribal Council MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question to the Minister responsible for Crown In vestments or Crown Lands.

It's dealing with the Federal Government's offer to sell to the Province of Manitoba the assets of the Gypsumville radar base, which is being phased out, for the Interlake Tribal Council. Has the Provincial Government accepted that offer of $1. 00 from the Federal Government? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: The prop erty we are speaking of at the Gypsumville base is on lease to the Federal Government; the lease expires on the 1s t of August of this year.

They have advised us that they will be wanting to terminate the lease and the condition of the lease was that they would return it to its original state, that option is there. We have been approached by parties who are interested in undertaking training programs to have the property available to them for that particular purpose. It's the Interlake Tribal Council that has been pursuing that particular interest. What we want to be

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 sure of as a province is that the liability for the ongoing maintenance and eventual restoration of the site is clearly identified and when that decision is made and we know where that responsibility rests, we will then give our advice to the Federal Government. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, to the Minis ter of Natural Resources.

In view of the fact that the Federal Government is offering all the buildings and the assets on that Crown land which is owned by the province, to the province for $1 for the use by the Interlake Tribal Council, as he has indicated, for training programs and positive actions for their organization, Madam Speaker, and in view of the fact that the option to buy those assets ends on the 14th of March, some 10 days from now, will the Minister proceed to take immediate action to work in the best interests of the Interlake Tribal Council and final ize the deal? HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Clearly, Madam Speaker, our first preference would have been for the Federal Government to maintain its presence at the Gypsumville base. But given that there is an option being explored for the use of the property by the Interlake Tribal Council, a submission has been made to us for our consideration, and clear ly, wha t we want to do is have an understanding of what the long-term commitments are. The members opposite suggest that for the price of $1 we should proceed without any kinds of other considerations. We want to be fully aware of what our future com mitments are.

When we have a clear understanding through the submission that is presently before us for our consideration, we will then advise all parties of our decision. MR. J. DOWNEY: Now that the Minister has the dollar, my colleagues have indicated, the final supplementary question to the Minister is this: In view of the fact that the option which has been offered to the government, by the Federal Go vernment ends the 14th of March, the In terlake Tribal Council are quite prepared to take over and to carry out some programs that are positive for their people, why is the government dragging their feet?

Will the government have their decision made? Will the Minister have his decision made by the deadline of March 14th? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Spea ker, let the record clearly show that the dollar that was delivered to this side of the House will be returned. On the other hand, had the members opposite forwarded to this side an amount which more adequa tely rep resents what the cost will be for restora tion, which has been estimated anywhere from $4 to $8 million, then perhaps I could have an answer for him.

Madam Speaker , I want the record to show clearly, we are fully behind the efforts of the Interlake Tribal Council to put in place meaningful training programs for the people of the Interlake area. We recognize fully that there is need for that support, given that in other sectors support from the Federal Government for Native people is being withdrawn.

We will not withdraw our support to Native people, but on the other hand we will not proceed blindly in absence of any kind of consideration of the long-term costs. 99 Canadian Wheat Board - reduced payments to farmers MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

In view of the announcement this morning of a possible 20 percent cut in initial price to farmers by the Canadian Wheat Board, could the First Minis ter tell us if he has taken any action or if he plans to take any action in regard to conveying to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board the tragedy and the chaos that such a cut would mean to western farmers? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , it is a good question and, in confidence, let me tell this House that I had fully anticipated the Leader of the Opposition would have led off his questioning today in respect to this threat to hundreds of Manitoba farmers rather than dealing in the muckraking that he was participating in a little earlier. Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with is a very crit ical situation.

The recom mendation from the Canadian Wheat Board to the Conservatives in Ottawa to reduce the initial price of wheat will, as indicated by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, create hundreds and hundreds of potential dis asters at the local farm level in the Province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker , the responsibility to ensure that this does not take place rests fully with the Federal Go vernment.

It is a responsibility of the Federal Government not to tie the price of grains to market price, but to follow the lead, whether or not we like it, of the European co mmunity and the American community of ensuring that there is a minimum price. As a consequence, Madam Speaker, I am in the process of forwarding a telex to the Prime Minis ter to urge the Prime Minis ter to take immediate steps in order to reassure the farmers facing drought this year. MADAM SP EAK ER: I would remind Honou rable Ministers once more to keep answers brief and not provoke debate. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C.

BAKER: A supplementary question to the First Minis ter. Wo uld he meet with the Leader of the Opposition and find out whether or not they feel the same way as you and they could send a resolution as well to the Minis ter responsible for the Wheat Board? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speake r, I think it would be ideal for this Chamber to pass a resolution by all honourable members in this Chamber.

That would reflect the intent of this telex to ensure there's a clear message to the Prime Minis ter in Ottawa, Prime Minister Brian Mulrone y, that the recommendation of the Canadian Wheat Board ought to be immed iately rejected by the government in Ottawa. And, Madam Speaker, we could, in fact, have a resolution supported by all members of this Chamber. I think that the suggestion by the Member for Lac du Bonnet would indeed be an excellent one.

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 Durwood Machine Works - incentive payment MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rab le Member for Portage la Prairie . MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker , to the Minister of Business Development: Can she explain why Durwood Machine Works received almost two-thirds of the small business incentive payment for 1984-85, $60,000 out of $94 ,000 in total? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker , I'll be glad to take that question as notice . MR. E.

CONNERY: I think while she's doing that, Madam Speaker, if she could also determine whether because department staff fudged the project that Durwood Machine Works had going with other businesses, then that money was paid to Mr. Rose as a compassionate settlement for their messing up the job? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the editorial comments , I'll be glad to report to the member when I have the information. MPIC - Carman Agri Services MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speake r, my question is for the Minister responsible for Autopac. Could the Minister explain why Autopac is currently appealing the $2. 7 million Saskatchewan court award against Carman Agri? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure I heard that question correctly. Would the member remind repeating it? MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , I want to ascertain from the Minister why it is that MPIC is in the process of appealing the $2.7 million award from the Saskatchewan courts against Carman Agri.

Is it because they believe they can have the award reduced in the courts? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, yes, it is incredible . The Member for Pembina is very aware of what this claim is all about. It involves his constituent. It is fairly obvious that when MPIC is appealing a claim , it is trying to reduce the magnitude of the award. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, given that they are appealing it, they are very confident that they will 100 have the award reduced.

Will the Minister now follow the suggestion I made to him and have MPIC provide the letter of credit to the Saskatchewan court s for the $700,000 that Carman Agri is on the hook for because of mismanagement at MPIC , thereby removing the possibility that Carman Agri will be forced into receivership by that court action? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speak er, as the member is aware, the coverage provided by MPIC to Carman Agri was in the amount of $2.0 million . The court award is $2.7 million . It is clear that Carman Agri has a liability of $700,000 on its hands.

I want to assu re the member that MPIC and its solicitors will do whatever they can to reduce the award through the appeal process, but in no way is MPIC responsible for that amount in excess of the policy coverag e. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet . MR. C. BAKER: I was wondering , Madam Speaker , if I could get permission of the House to make a non political statement. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (leave) MR. C.

BAKER: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Elmwood and myself , I would like to read to you an

article wherein the two Manitoba bands receiving special awards on the weekend, at the close of the 12th Annual International Band Festival, sponsored by Assiniboia Optimist Club at the Winnipeg Convention Centre , the Lac du Bonnet Senior School Band, one of 172 bands and 51 states bands that took

part in the six-day event was given a commendation award . The Chairman's award went to the Elmwood High School Band . I'm sure, Madam Speaker, that all of us in this Hou se would want to say to those two bands, "Thank you for work well done." SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HANSARD CLARIFICATION MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Spe aker. May I make a small correction in the Hansard of Tuesday, the 3rd of March, Page 82, right-hand column , and on the ninth line it should read "I" instead of "they." " They talked," it said; I would prefer it to read "I talked, " because I'm sure that's what I said. Thank you .

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Ho nourable Me mber for Lac du Bonnet, and the amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I would, first of all, ask if you would give me a five-minute warning prior to the end of my speech. I have a few things I would like to make sure that I get in and I have a lengthy add ress to give and want to make sure that I get it on the record.

I want to start today, Madam Speaker, by saying not only am I pleased to be a member of the Legislative Assembly when our new Lieutenant-Governor, Dr. George Johnson, was appointed, but as well feel very good about the appointment of the former Premier of the Province to the high court of the Court of Appeal, Sterling Lyon, to that high office in Manitoba. Madam Speaker , I would like to refer to the Throne Speech - and I know it's improper and I would ask tolerance of the House - but I would say it's more like a Howard in Wo nderland fairytale.

One would wonder just where he is living at this particular time in his tenure as Premi er. I believe he represents somewhat of a rural riding and he makes a lot of huffery and puffery about the problems of the farm community. I really wonder if he understands it; and yes, Madam Speaker , I am extemely upset and concerned today of the news we have received this morning that there's another proposal to reduce the initial grain prices by some 20 percent for the farmers of Western Canada. (Mr. Deputy Speak er, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) That makes a total of a 40 percent reduction in their income over the last two years and I would ask, of anyone else in our socie ty, who would be prepared to take such a blow to the chin? Not many, if any, Mr. Deputy Speaker , would in fact be prepared to accept or tolerate it. I call it a national crisis, Mr. Deputy Speak er, a national crisis which has to be addr essed and add ressed immedia tely.

I want to make a brief comment to the Mover of the Throne Speech because I think he must feel somewhat frustrated, coming from the riding which he comes from, standing in his place indicating that he no longer has a machine dealer left in the whole of that fine agriculture community. That is no disgrace to the Conservative Party in Ottawa or to the Conservative Party in the Legislative Building here.

It is, I would think, somewhat of a major letdown for him of his New Democratic Party who have been in office some of the last 15 years in this pr ovince, and that he continues to see degradation of the support services for his farm community. It is an admission of failure of a massive amount, and I think that he would want to do something about it. The Seconder to the Throne Speech, again, we have heard some of his lightweight recommendations that the Fort Garry Hotel be turned into a massiv e day care centre. I don't think that our society can stand that kind of a huge economic blow.

Yes, the day care centres are needed, I'm sure, in the province, and could be provided through the pri vate sector with government 101 regulations, but to come out with such a lightweight idea I think is a true demonstration of some of the thoughtfulness that's coming from the backbench of that particular government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to, as well, compliment my Leader who made an excellent base for us to speak to on such a little bit of information. He laid out a good, sound attack on a government that is incompetent. I want to compliment my other colleagues as well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , who truly feel the depression that is in the farm community. It is not every day that we can get the message to the people of the City of Winnipeg or the cities of this country and it has finally hit home to the city. It's been demonstrated, and I as well compliment the media who are carrying that message forward. I believe that it is uppermost in the minds of people and, particularly today, when we see a further recommendation to lower grain prices. I want to touch on the Throne Speech briefly, Madam Speaker . I' ll apolog ize, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It's easy to get in the habit, and when one is busy and speak ing, it's not always easy to hit the right mark and I apologiz e if I refer to you as the Speaker once in awhile. But in the Throne Speech, on Page 2, he talks about generations of Manitobans have upheld a leg acy, sharing a vision in common with those pioneers of land of rich abundance and of boundless opportunity for their children and their children's children.

I challenge the Premier to tell those childr en who are going to have to pay off the massive debts that he has incurred on their backs - some $3 billion in five years - that there are boundless opportunities for their children and their children's children. Some legacy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some legacy for the childr en of our province. I think it's a dis grace that he would put that kind of thing in here when he has given them the kind of economic di sastrous future that they have to face. As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder what kind of fairytale land the Premier is living in.

He talks about the earlier part of this decade where we had some massive reces sions, where he used massive government monies to try to correct the problem. Thirty-six percent of the people of Manitoba depend on agriculture for their incomes. A 40 percent reduction in those incomes over the past two years has a major impact on the economy of this province. We are not out of the depression in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker; we are still in a massive depressed situation.

I want him to tell those 850 people at Canada Packers that we have a great province to live in, that he has done every thing that will ensure them long-term job opportunities. I want him to tell those people who are going home, who do not have a job to look to tomorrow. It is so much and so blatant. It's obvious, again the Premier's trying to leave the perception with the people of Manitoba that he is doing quite well, that the province is doing quite well. He has spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money putting us in debt over the past five years. Now what is he doing when this recovery is here?

He's still spending $600 million more than he's taking in on an annual basis and he says the rece ssion is over. It doesn't square, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it just doesn't square. I am not sure that he truly knows where he is at. I don't think he or his Cabi net Ministers have a clear policy objective before them, other than to look after their own elective futures. That's what it appears to be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not the best interests of

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 Manitobans, not the best interests of the overall welfare of the provi nce, but the welfare in the future of the electability of he and his New Democratic Party; and that is an objective which is going to destroy this province. When we talk about 850 jobs at the Canada Packers plant that are being lost, let us talk about why that happened. The Minis ter of Agriculture put a beef program out some four years ago. Yes, he's bragging about the $40 million or $3 0 million that he has spent. I'll tell you how he got that money from Cabinet to start with.

He went to Cabinet and he said, "Not only will we maintain the beef herd in Manitoba, but we will maintain Canada Packers and all the massiv e packing house industry we have in the province." He has failed; he has used the taxpayers' money irresponsib ly. The cattle industry has failed; the packing house industry has failed; the Premier has failed and so has the Minister of Agriculture. Don't let him try to blame the Federal Government. It's this government that has caused the downfall of the major packing house industry in this province. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , let me put forward just how these people think, and they lip service again the farm community. Let us see how they think. We saw $3 0 million go into Manfor in the last 15 months; we've seen $10 0 million go into Flyer Ind ustries; we've seen $28 million go into Saudi Arabia and we've seen $1 3 million go into McKenzie Seeds that isn't earning us any money or any interest.

We have seen a bridge in the Premier's constituency, or next to the Premier's constituency, that is a boondoggle and an albatross around the Minister of Highways' neck, and it's at the expense of all the other services in Manitoba. Would you add those figures together and take it times 10 percent, the interest alone is more money on those boondoggl es than the $3 0 million that he's now going after the farmers for. He says that nobody else in society has to pay back the money, but the agreement we made with you, the farmers, you have to pay it back. Yes, I agree, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, it is a contractual obligation that the farmers have to live up to, but why? Why just the farmers who have had to receive 40 percent less or are expecting to take 40 percent less in two years are now the only people in our society asked to pay the Provincial Government money back? I think it is a sham, I think it is unfair, and I think there has to be some social justice and some economic justice brought in as a commo n-sense appr oach to this incompetent group of people.

I say the interest only, the interest only off of all these other boondogg les, is the amount the Premier is asking to come back from the beef industry. What they're doing, rather than paying some of this money back, are getting rid of the herds because the marketplace is paying a reasonable return, and they are selling into the marketplace and getting out of the business because they don't want to have to pay back the debt that a lot of other people don't have to pay back. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to deal with one particular area and I want to spend a few minutes on it.

I want the Attorney-General of this province to apologize to this Legislative Assembly and to the people of Arthur constituency for his mishandling of the safety and security of their lives and putting their properties at risk. 102 A year ago, my colleague, the critic for the Attorney General's Department, asked, in this Legislature, the Attorney-General if he will be closing any RCMP detachment offices. Do you know what the answer is? And I can go to Hansard but I won't take the time to do it, but it is in Hansard.

He said, "b efore anything is done, there will be a full explanation and discussions with those communities." Mr. Deputy Speaker, that did not take place. He misled this Chamber and the people of my constituency, and I will not forgive him for it. I can show you a file of letters from thousands of people from meetings that were held in protest of the irresponsible action that he recommended. I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the real reason for the First Minister cutting back the RCMP in Reston, Deloraine and Winnipeg Beach.

When we were in office, there was an agreement signed with the Federal Go vernment; an agreement that said that the contribution by the province from 1980 to 1982, our term of office, an agreement that our share as a province would come to 56 percent and the Federal Government would pick up the balance. This new Attorney- Gener al, the incom petent, irresponsible one that we have now, thought he was going to be so smart; and he's such a smart, clever individual that he signed an agreement with the Federal Government. Yes, he signed it in 1982-8 3 and he agreed then to immediately pick up 57 percent of the costs.

But by 1988, the province would have to pick up 64 percent. How dumb is he? Now he's saying to the people of my constituency, "I'm removing the RCMP offices because we can't afford to have them." Well, we can't afford to have him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and put at risk the lives and the safety and the property of people in the southwest corner of the province. The Premi er, I think, should have taken more dir ect action, and I'd call for the resignation of the Attorney-General if he's going to continue with those kind of irresponsible policies. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as well, I want to point out that he talks about the crime rate reducing in southwest Manitoba. When did it ever become that you have to have increased crimes to need the RCMP protection? Is not an ounce of prevention worth more than a pound of cure? It's just so ridiculous - his approach to the way in which he is going to balance the books of this province, take away from the safety of the people of the province, and do what? Scuttle it into a bunch of political supporters and political hacks to write press releases for him and try to make his irresponsible government look good.

The crime rate, in fact, has increased in some of the areas in which they're talking about. And here we have this government continually standing up saying that the Federal Government is passing on the expenditure responsibilities to the province. Well, you know the final option that they were left with in the southwest, in the constituency which I represent? They've said to those communities, to Pipestone Municipality, the towns of Reston and Deloraine, they said, well, we appreciate now that we have made a partial mistake but we'll keep one RCMP officer in those two towns.

The' town of Deloraine said that's fine. They had their own town police, so they said, well, we'll hire one, which other towns do. So that made two. But the Attorney General's office said, well, what we'll now do is we'll offer them

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 the option to hire locally, through the taxpayers' money, another officer. We ll, they are currently paying a half a mill into the general revenues of the province for RCMP protection. But now, because you live in Arthur, if you want the same protection that you've had, you have to pay an additional $50,000 per officer, or 10 mills, to keep the same level of support that you think is important. Now if that isn't double taxation and discrimination, I don't know what is. It's a passage of provincial responsibility onto the taxpayers of my constituency. I don't agree with it, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, and I will continue to put the heat on this Attorney-General and this Premier to in fact replace the services that they have irresponsibly removed. It isn't just those communities that have protested that reduction; it is the union and municipalities that represent the total provincial elected representatives of the municipal bodies throughout Manitoba that have protested. When will this government listen to other people who are elected to responsible positions?

Or is it a policy that after the agreement ends in 1988, to remove RCMP policing from rural Manitoba totally and go to a provincial police force? Those are some of the questions that I think it's incumbent upon this Premier and this Attorney-General to answer. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , we go to a portion of the Throne Speech where he indicates his strength, his so-called - well, just before I conclude the RCMP portion, I want the record to clearly state, and I'm not against the Native commun ities getting supp ort from this government, but there's an Order-in-Council passed in December using the RCMP money, the allocation - there's a $28,81 4,000 for RCMP funding - they used that appropriation. They took $20,000 out of it to send the First Nation's Confederacy to the Abo rigina l Conference in Ottawa that's being held in this next week or two.

I'm not opposed to them getting money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I'm opposed to them using the RCMP protection money for the constituency of southwest Manitoba. If he's short of money, why does he have it for this particular purpose? It's a false and phony argument. I want to go to the federal-provincial relations, Mr. Deputy Speaker , because he talks about needing a strong central government, needing federal-provincial cooperation and relations. Well, yes, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, he used for his own political advantage the MTX affair which none of us were very happy about, that we were extremely upset that it was awarded to Quebec over Manitoba. Yes, we were extremely upset about it. My concern is this Premier of the province - and I represent an area where there are people who feel very strongly about how Eastern Canada has advantages over Wes tern Canada - he has pushed those people to the verge of wanting to separate from Eastern Canada.

Is that a responsible position for the Premier of the province to take, to push people, to hype them up, to where they say we would be better off as a We stern Canadian country rather than a par t of Canada? That is irrespo nsible action by the Premier of the province. And now he says in his Throne Speech that we should have a strong central government and we should be cooperative. He's speaking out of both sides of his 103 mouth. It's very irresponsible. I can take him to people who are very, very upset and agitated that we haven't made a move in this country to separate.

That's what this Premier can have laid on his head for his activities and actions, particularly - and I say this - particularly when there wasn't one line in the Throne Speech complimenting the Federal Government in their support for a major farm machinery manufacturing plant in Winnipeg known as Versatile. They weren't even invited; they weren't even part of the negotiations. Do you know why? Because they'd have screwed it up. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we need is - yes, we need criticism of the severest kind - but we need positive criticism when it is due and when it is acceptable.

That's what Canada is about; that's not what socialists are about, but that's what fair Canadians are about. I would have thought there would have been one line in the Throne Speech, if he really meant what he said about this great central government and nationalism, that he would have put one line saying I would like to acknowledge the activities and work of the Federal Government supporting the Versatile Manufacturing Corporation maintaining those hundreds of jobs in Winnipeg, maintaining those hundreds of dealerships in Western Canada, and they are to be complimented for it.

But he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to be a man about it. He didn't have the intestinal fortitude or the courtesy to come back and tip his hat. No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the kind of people who are running our province and they are a dis grace to the people of this country. He is a disgrace and his Ministers are a disgrace. As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it was a positive move that they put money into the Neepawa plant.

I think it was a positive move that supported regional economic expansion and development in this country, and the province put money into it and they should have put money into it as well, and they should be proud of it. No, they are standing up, kicking the Federal Government because they helped the Neepawa plant and said it is why Canada Packers closed. That is so much hogwash and not hog kill it makes me sick. A phony, false argument.-(I nterjection)-That is right. Two faced. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as well when we talk about what he has in the Throne Speech and we talk about the activities of Crown corporations, I think that the people of Manitoba found little comfort in what they saw this First Minister doing with our Crown corporations. Why wasn 't there a line in the Throne Sp eech supporting his Minister who was responsible for the MTX and MTS affair, and his backbencher from lnkster who at their convention suggested they should be selling where possible Crown corporations?

Why did he not ack nowledge a policy which his own Cabinet colleague, his own back bencher, have agreed on and should be advanced? Should there not have been one line in there, whether it be a legislative committee or some White Paper on the sale of Crown corporations, to actively disp ose of them where it is in the best interests of the province, to take them off the backs of the taxpayers? Yes, it would have been an acknowledgement not only to the people of Manitoba that there was some corrective action being taken, but an acknowledgement to his own incom petent back benchers and his Cabi net

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 Ministers that, yes, they maybe did have an idea tha t should be further evaluated . What about McKenzie Seeds? I'll be talking about it as this Session goes on because I am seeing some of the most phony, phony perceptionism comi ng out of the profits of McKenzie Seeds.- (Interjection)- Profits, my eye. I can tell you there is a $13 million investment in there , at 10 percent interest is $1 .3 million the province isn't getting anything back on.

I can tell you the Member for Brandon East still isn't clear on some of his past activities with McKenzie Seeds and I will be disclosing some of those in the coming weeks as well. He thinks he may be sitting in a comfortable pew but he is not going to be too comfortable . I want to address for a few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the issue of the agricultural matters and surface rights. I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he has looked at the resolutions which he heard at the Surface Rights Association meeting in Virden recently.

If he hasn't , I want to table the resolutions that were presented by the Surface Rights Association asking for fair and just treatment of surface rights people . Because there have been some terrible, terrible settlements made; there have been some bureaucratic decisions made that have not eased the cost and expense of having oil wells on your land. The legislation was set up to assist and help farmers. Yes, it was to be a fair arbitrator between the oil companies and the farmers , but surface rights legislation is self-explanatory. It should be legislation to protect the farmers, but this is work in reverse .

This has been a problem for farmers because they have hired some incompetent bureaucrats to run it. And they have been nothing but a pain and I would hope that he would look at these resolutions which I am prepared to table for the best interests of the development of his new amendments to the legislation. We had the Minister of Mines and Energy stand up with a great petroleum support program . Well, it may have, it may have some positive effects. Hopefully it has. Nothing, nothing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that will have the impact that the taxation changes that were made during the Conservative years had, when it allowed Manitoba to compete with other provinces in the royalties in which we collected. They have at least made a move, but I'll tell you that there are some selfish motives as well by the government and the Minister . Do you know why? There hasn't been an oil well drilled in the last few month s; well, there might have been two or three . There might have been an oil well drilled, but do you know the main reason?

The pipeline in which this government just had to invest in has a trickle of oil in it. They have to get their pipeline full again because it will be an embarrassment to them if they don't get more oil recovery in the Waskada field. There are a lot of those wells that need an injection of recovery, waters to make them recover, and what is happening is that they are, I would hope -(lnterjection) that it is successful because the oil activity has helpe d and helped in a major way. The employment is being missed in the southwest corner .

But the Minister has the embarrassment of having to invest in a pipel ine because of his philosophical approach and now he has got to start to get some oil to put into it so he isn't totally embarrassed . 104 I would like to know the flows of the pipeline over the past few months so that he can stick it in my ear which he would like to do. You know , that's really what I would like, but I think he is going to be the embarrassment. But the other thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker , is that it is a direct opportunity to encourage more revenue for him to get his hands on.

Irresponsible spending is the reason the taxpayers are bent so badly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are bent badly not because we aren 't generating incomes in this province - the oil wasn 't generating money for the province - but they have irresponsibly spent it and they have got to look at both sides. I would hope that the program which the Minister has announced is successful. I can tell you that the employment opportunities that would go with it are extremely important. I think it 's important to touch briefly on the hydro .

Thank God, we have the lowest priced hydro in this particular time in our society in this country because it isn 't going to last long. It isn 't going to last long and I think the people who are using hydro better enjoy it. As was pointed out by my leader, that $45 million in hydro sales is all that has been made off an over $2 billion investment on behalf of the taxpayer s of Manitoba. I can tell you when you put 10 percent interest to those numbers, that 45 million comes a far cry from the $200-and-some million interest that is going to have to be carried by the taxpayers .

So I tell the people who are using hydro in Manitoba, enjoy it at the rate that it is today because it isn't going to last very long . It's going to run like their payroll taxes, their sales taxes, they are going to skyrocket. I can predict that and I can assure you as well that we don 't need a second heritage fund to look after the excess money that any Crown corporation that this government has ever run. The people in Saudi Arabia and other areas will look after that for the taxpayers and any surpluses. I want to talk a little bit on social justice and then I want to put some positive items forward.

I'll have to deal somewhat with agriculture and I'll do it at the same time . But social justice, as far as I'm conc erned, and you will see on the Order Paper the return or the request to support the House of Commons on capital punishment. I believe that it is the wishes of the majority of Canadians to have that happ en. I believe that it is the wishes of the people of Canada, the maj ority of Canadians , to have the return of capital punishm ent.

That 's what I am try ing to do and I thin k it is a responsible action to take, not very nice, but it is too bad our society has pressed that back on the mind s of the people of this country. But it is there and I can assure you that I stand foursquare with the majority of Canad ians who support it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the agricultur al front , I wan t to tou ch on the Keystone Agri cultural Pro ducers . They have been waiting for the Government of Manitoba , the New Dem ocratic Party, to implement enab ling legislation so that they can have their own chec koff for their own farm organization .

Not one word , not one word in the Throne Speech about checkoff for the Keystone Agricultural Producers . Not one word, and you know why, Mr. Deputy Speak er?

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 Because this Minister of Agriculture and his coherts took it upon themselves to destroy the cattle producers' checkoff program which was brought in by a Conservative Government. They are now faced with having to approve the same kind of legislation and don't have the courage to say they were wrong in what they 've done and introduce d the Keystone Agricultural Producers enabling legislation. Why not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because it's in the best interests of our agricultural community to proceed in a responsible way along that path, but they made a wrong decision .

They took some political action that they thought was in their best interests and now they can't move in a direction which the majority of the Manitoba farmers want. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) He talks about MACC . MACC is the biggest problem some of our farmers are having today. Try and get a loan approval through MACC; try and get a reasonable negotiated lease with MACC today , where a farmer who is in serious difficulty can go in and say, look, I can't pay you $12 ,000 for the lease of that piece of property. No, it' s not happening.

I have a constituent who is being held to the wall because he can't come up with the money . He'll be put off his farm by MACC because of their irresponsible action . That's exactly the truth. (lnterjection)- I am not defending the banks at all. I'll defend my constituents. Anyway, let me conclude that MACC is a big problem and has to be brought before the legislative committee , which has been called for by my colleague from Virden , to tell us prec isely what their policies are and how they are carry ing it out .

Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Member for Swan River, to the Minister of Natural Resources, what kind of a Minister would go to Cabinet with a Cabinet document , fully supportive of elk ranching from his department , go and sell it to his Cabinet , get Cabinet approval and then come out and read an

article in the paper and go to caucus and say, well, I'm scared of the policy which I believed so much in two days ago, but I don't believe in it anymore because it 's going to hurt me? I can tell you , that's a government for you. That's a government of conviction, I can tell you; they'll take you a long way. That's where we're going , right down a long way, becaus e that's how the whol e darned government worked . They haven 't got the conviction of their own beliefs .

I'm not going to get into issue whether elk ranching is right or wrong, but I am talking about an incompetent Minister who said one day he wanted it and the next day he yielded to something that scared him . He saw his shadow in the woods and away he ran. Well, I can tell you, he'll pay the price and I'll see that he does pay the pri ce .- (Interjection)- No, I have a Native Affairs Critic role to play and I think that the Minister of Native Affairs has had a year now to prove that he is more than a token to this government.

I believe that he has to bring forward some positive White Paper suggestions on how to improve the employment in Native communities , how to improve some of the social problems that they have . I would ask him to call a legislative committee, that we could travel throughout not only the North but the south to get the impressions of Manitobans , Natives 105 and non -Natives , as to how we could improv e and build together th is province to remov e the deficits off the backs of the people of this province and to make everybody's life just a little bit better .

Th at's the chal leng e I have for the Minist er of Native Aff airs and I believe it's a positive suggestion and would hope he would follow up on it. Madam Speaker , how much time do I have left in my ... MADAM SPEAKER : The honourable member has six minutes remaining. MR. J. DOWNEY : Six minut es. Isn't it som ething? How time goes fast when you're having the government on the ropes.

The Minister of Agriculture yesterday and I am again somewhat - I'm just amazed that a Cabinet Minister would stand when we have such a major crisis in our agricultural community and go back and say the great things that he has done. We have been telling him since 1981 that there is a crisis in agriculture , that the farmers are going broke left and right. What has he been doing? He talks about we're going to have a Family Farm Protection Act. That'll solve all. We're going to reintroduce and strengthen the foreign investment legislation. We're going to bring in an Interest Rate Relief Program.

Madam Speaker , he is still in his office as Minister of Agriculture and farmers are still going broke . My colleague from Pembina says he would listen if he had one original idea. He has not brought forward one positive idea, but I'm going to bring some ideas to the Legislature and to the people of Manitoba that there are some people who are thinking, who are concerned about some long-term policies and programs for this Minister of Agriculture and for the country of Canada.

I believe that it is time that this Legislature and the people of the province and all of Canada started to pay attention of two objectives which I think are there. I refer to it as the Family Farm Preservation Program and Manitoba Land Conservation Program which can be melded together , which can accomplish the support of our much needed family farm unit. Family farm units don 't only produce food, Madam Speaker, they produce people .

They produce people who I believe are some of the strongest and some of the best people of our country ; not about saying other people from other areas of society aren 't as good , but what I'm saying is they produce people. You, Madam Speaker , may appreciate some of the background that you had coming from rural Manitoba, as some of the other members .

So I believe that we have to preserve the family farm unit as the unit which produce food, but as well I think we have to redirect their energies and their abilities to things other than the production of the traditional grains and types of things that we are caught in, in the international trade war. I believe we can do that and we can do it in conjunction with a policy on conservation . There are many acres, thousands of acres in this province and in Canada that tried to maximize their production because of the tough economic pressures . I believe that a program should be developed ,

an act should be developed, that we could set a fund up,

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 that contributions could be made by Provincial and Federal Governments. The billion dollars that went in last year to produce more wheat I believe could have been redi rected to help farmers in another way. I think it could have been diversified into other things. I believe the Provincial Government, rather than con tinuing dumping millions and billions of dollars into money losing Crown corporations, should put a percentage of taxpayers' money into a family farm preservation and land conservation unit.

I say there are some successful farmers who have been given production rights under legislation would be prepared to pay a checkoff to put into. I say a voluntary checkoff to put into a fund to help their neighbours, because when barns burned down years ago, neighbours helped neighbours to rebuild those barns and I think we can do that. I think there is a voluntary checkoff needed from the non-essential food purchases.

I tip a waiter or a waitress who serves me a drink and doesn't spill a drink on me 10 or 15 percent, yet here's the poor farmer who's taking 40 percent reduction in his income, doesn't get a darn nickel of gratuity. I believe that a credit card should have a line on there sayi ng, "Family Farm Preservation and Cons erva tion" for persons to voluntarily contribute.

I believe there is nothing wrong with a dir ect tax on society that is earmarked to go into a special fund which is not administered particularly by government, because if you talk land bank as you talk land lease, it has connotations of state takeover and that doesn't wash with the farm community. It can be played cheaply, politically. We've done it, you've done it, but I believe there are some sincere people out there who want to help.

I say a board of trustees to administer this program should be established and I make recommendations: federal-p rovincial appoin tees from successful farm operations and conservation distri cts. I say the Dean of Agriculture could be one, the president of the Union of Munici palities, the presidents of Un ited Gr ain Growers, the president of the Women's Institute; those leaders. I don't care, I think we have to cover all bases to make sur e it's adminis tered prop erly, not by bureaucrats but by people who are farm sensitive and need to see some long-term policies.

I see the operations of this policy and this program is carried out where if a family farm is in serious trouble - or not so serious - maybe they just feel the pressures of lower grain prices and want to divert their attentions and their interests in other ways that they're able to. It's not unlike the United States Land Bank Program , where they say I have 1, 000 acres or 500 acres that I want to commit to conserva tion. I don't want it to produce wheat because all I'm going to do if I produce wheat is owe my banker another $200,000 in five years.

I want that farmer to sit on that land, I want him to be a part of that community, I want him to manage that land, and I want him to not produce wheat. I want him to have $25, or $30, or $40 an acre a year so that he can get paid a reaso nable return - or she can get paid a reasonable return - for living and managing that project. I believe that conservationists should support it. The environmentalists, why would they be against it? And, yes, those farmers out there who are still going to be - --- 106 producing wheat will support it because it will make their products worth more.

It will make their products worth more. And I think, Madam Speaker, that we, and my colleague from Virden recommended the Agriculture Committee be called, that they be given a special mandate to look at some long-term objectives. Yes, we've got to deal with the short term, and society has to put some money into the short-term relief of those farmers who are facing such high costs and low returns; and yes, we need a review, we need an investigation into the costs of chemicals and fertilizers.

We don't need to fight between provincial and federal, it has to be done, so take the lead and do it at the provincial level. Madam Speaker , I thank you for your endurance and if I had leave I could have finished my speech, but I thank .. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) Indefini te leave? MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I am about to conclude my remarks and I do thank members of this Assembly to provide me with the leave which will allow me to conclude my remarks, and it will be very short, but it is a very serious problem, as I have said, it's a national crisis that is facing us. The farm community do not want to see or to hear that there aren't any options, and that we want to have to continue to go before debt review panels, for what purpose?

To tell us that, yes, we'll write off some of the debt this year, and you go back and do the same thing over and over again for the next two or three years and come back again to a debt review panel and we'll do the same thing over again.

Wha t socie ty, what we have to do, what the Legislatures and the House of Commons, I believe, have to do is work jointly with the clear objective - it's not going to solve everyone's problems - but the clear objective of redirecting some of the energies and the abilities of our family farm producers into alternative production methods and types of product, because we are told that Russia - and we know that Mr. Go rbachev was the former Mi nister of Agriculture, and that he is going to implement programs that - yes, are going to produce more food. They are going to produce more food.

The communisms will never be self-sufficient, but they are going to produce more. We know that China, we know that India are now exporters of grain, of wheat, traditional markets for the farmers of Western Canada. Un ited States and European Economic Community are in a trade war and neither one of them in the near future are going to back down. The United States have the power of the United States Treasury behind them; that's who those farmers have behind them.

The European Economic Comm unity have the taxpayers of the Europe an Economic Community on the direct check-off on every item they purchase and they went hungry during the war and they're not going to go hungry again. There are going to be massive productions of foods in these areas. I say, Madam Speaker, we have to take serious action now to di rect our farm people and to cons erve our - -

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 land and to preserve our family farmers, and it can be done either by legislative action in this Assembly or by some other form at the House of Commons level. I thank the members for allowing me to conclude my remarks. It is the future of the people of the rural areas of Canada, and the future of the people of the cities of this country who depend on farmers to feed them that's at stake, not any political future of any individual. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Madam Speaker , it is for me an honour to join in this de bate on the Throne Speech. I want to beg in by offering my congratulations to the Lieutenant-Governor on his new appointment. Congratulations to all of the members of this House and I hope that we will, during this Session, Madam Speaker, be able to achieve many good things for the people of Manitoba. I enjoyed listening to the previous speaker who has the ability to speak rather easily and I know he could have gone on for a lot longer had we allowed him.

But I did enjoy his remarks and found that he had indeed some interesting things to say about one of the very critical areas that concerns us all, and that is indeed the field of agriculture. I'm sure some of my colleagues will want to make remarks in this de bate on that particular issue as well. As for myself, Madam Speaker , the Throne Speech has talked about things that have to do with economic benefits for the people of Manitoba and the quality of life.

I will choose to speak on the latter, especially two areas that relate to my department, and I will do firstly in French and then the second half of my remarks will be in English. Madame la presidente, durant les dernieres annees, le public manitobain en est arrive a comprendre que les croyances tradition nelles au sujet de l'environnement ne sont plus vraies. No us avons l'habitude de croire que notre isolement par rapport aux sou rces de po llution nous gara ntis sait un environnement sain. Ce n'est plus vrai.

Le desastre de Chernobyl a distribue une contamination rad io-active sur l'entierete de !'hemisphere Nord. De nombreux lacs et forets de !'Ontario et du Quebec sont ravages par les pluies acides, resultant naturellement en

partie de sources polluantes situees a des centaines de milles aux Etats-Unis. Dans le passe, nous croyions que les reg ions seulement mod erement indus trialis ees pouvaient echapper aux dangers de pollution. Ce n'est plus vrai. Au Manitoba, nous avons deja eu dans le passe a com battre certains deverse ments imp ortants de produits chimiques. A certains endroits nous avons decele deja de hauts niveaux de mercure dans les poissons. Done, nous ne sommes pas a l'epreuve ou a l'abri de la pollution.

Nous sommes aussi toujours pr eoccupes de la qualite a long terme de notre source d' approvisionnement d'eau pour la Ville de Winnipeg, de Selkirk et bien 107 d' autres communautes de la province. Nous avions aussi da ns le passe l'habitude de croire que le developp ement ec onomique et la protection de l'environnement etaient incompatibles. Ce n'est pas vrai, et bien au contraire. II doit exister un lien entre ces deux, c'est a dire l'economie et l'environnement, car c'est notre prosperite future qui en depend. Un emploi sur dix au Manitoba est relie au secteur forestier.

Et l'industrie touristique genere des milliards de dollars en revenu. L'avenir long terme de notre economie depend d'un environnement sain. Notre agriculture en depend aussi. Nos connais sances environnementales recentes nous revelent un message clair. C'e st a dire, meme si nous som mes relativement exempt des plus graves probl emes environnementaux que conn aissent certaines autres juridictions, nous ne pouvons nous permettre le luxe d'a ttendre que les pro blemes apparaissent. Nous devons agir maintenant pour prevenir les problemes.

Plusieurs actions concr etes figurent a notre agenda - et sont parmi nos priorites. Madame la presidente, ii est important que les membres de la chambre soient bien informes des bases solides que nous avons posees durant les cinq dernieres annees. Ces bases nous permettrons de franchir des etapes importantes dans les annees a venir. L'etape la plus fondamentale parmi toutes sera !'introduction d'une nouvelle

loi sur l'environnement. La loi actuelle, en vigueur depuis pres de vingt ans, servait bien sOr la plupart des communautes et industries de la province de fac;;on adequate lorsqu'elle etait introduite ii y a deja pres de vingt ans. Et a l'epoque, la province ne possedait meme pas les mesures rudimentaires pour contr61er la pollution. Depuis, nous avons sensiblement rehausse nos capacites pour faire face aux accidents environnementaux. Nous avons augments les penalites et nous avons accumule les donnes qui serviront au maintien d'un environnement sain. Et a travers les annees, certains amendements ont ete apportes a la loi a

titre d' amelioration. Cependant, les princi pes et les procedures de base sont les memes, ou a peu pres, depuis 1958. Dans !'interval, enormement de chose ont change et, en particulier, nos connaissances et nos valeurs environnementales. Les pressions sur l'environnement ont change. Ces pr essions sont a la fois plus nombreuses et plus complexes et certaines d'entre elles ont leur origine a l'exterieur de notre province. Le dossier des connaissances environnementales s'est beaucoup ameliore. Aujourd'hui, ii ne peut y avoir de doute.

L'e nvironnement ne doit plus servir d'egout pour les dechets chimiques et autres contaminants toxiques. Nous savons que certaines de nos actions peuvent avoir un effet negatif sur l'environnement meme si elles ne causent aucun contaminant. Nous savons que les problemes environnementaux sont complexes et en consequence ii sont plus faciles et moins coOteux, a long terme, a prevenir qu'a guerir. Si exemple ii nous en faut, nous n'avons qu'a nous referer, par exemple,

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 ac e que nous savons maintenant du depotoir de Hooker ou Occidental sur la riviere Niagara ou les incidents qui se sont produits dans les Grands Lacs pour realiser qu'il en coiitera des centaines de millions de dollars pour corriger les problemes que conna issent ces regions. Alors, encore la je dis ii vaut mieux prevenir que guerir. De plus, les attentes environnementales de la societe ont change. Les gens ne sont plus prets a accepter quelques dollars de plus dans leur poche contre la pollution de !'air et des cours d'e au.

Au contraire, les gens veulent que le developpement economique soit cree mais plus au de pens de la degradation de l'environnement. Madame la presidente, durant cette session nous allons introduire une nouvelle loi pour la protection de l'environnement, comme je le disais. Ce projet de loi revet plusieurs aspects. Tout d' abord cette loi elargit l'ampleur de la protection de l'environnement pour y inclure toutes les incid ences environnementales resultant d'emi ssions de polluant, ou tout autre impacte resultant d'un projet quelconque.

Elle renforcie aussi cette loi la portee reglementaire tout en apportant des incitatifs importants en vue d'une meilleure plani fication avant qu'un pr ojet de developpement soit entame. Elle introduit un nouveau mecanisme qui aura pour fonction d'a viser le minis tre et permettra une meilleure participation du public. Elle est aussi flexible et permettra l'essai de nouvelles appr oches environnementales telle la mediation. Evidemment cette loi, sous tous ses aspects ne plaira pas a tous - meme si nous avons largement consulte avec le public manitobain.

Le projet de loi qui sera introduit, plus tard dans la presente session, refletera un grand nombre des preoccupations soulevees durant la periode de consultation. II y aura bien sur ceux qui croiront que cette loi ne va pas assez loin, qu'elle n'est pas assez exigeante. D'autres croiront que cette loi est trop severe et enfin d'a utres seront en desaccord avec certaines clauses de la loi.

Chose certaine, Madame la presidente, je peux affirmer sans hesitation qu'a !ravers la periode de consultation et dans les nombreux brefs que nous avons recus, nous avons obtenu un appui sans reserve sur les princip es fondamentaux de la loi. La question des dechets nucleaire figure aussi de facon importante a noire agenda pour la presente session. Cette question etait deja critique lorsque le Chef de !'opposition etait ministre de l'environnement. Et j'ai bien !'impression que ce sera encore une question cruciale lorsque nous tous ici aurons quitte la scene de la politique provinciale.

Nous sommes prets a mettre en place toutes les mesures possibles afin d'a ssurer aux generations futures le plus de protection possible et afin d' eviter qu'on choisi sse au Manitoba ou pres de nos frontieres un site pour l'enfouissement des dechets nucleaires. Notre politique durant les cinq dernier es annees a ete consequente et le demeurera. - 108 Nous continuerons a encourager la recherche pour dis poser des dechets nucleaires - recherche d'ailleurs, Madame la presidente, qui se fait deja au Manitoba.

Cependant, nous voulons employer tous les moyens possibles pour faire en sorte un site d'enfouis sement ne soit ni situe au Manitoba ni dans un bassin qui draine vers le Manitoba. Vous vous souviendrez de !'opposition vigoureuse que nous avons monte de concert avec les gens du Minnesota contre les sites potentiels envisages dans la vallee de la riviere Rouge du cote des Etats-Unis.

Nous croyons qu'il est maintenant necessaire d' apporter a la consideration de la Legislature un projet de loi qui affichera clairement la position du Manitoba vis-a-vis l'enfouissement des dechets nucleaires - de sorte a ce qu'on interprete dorenavant plus faussement nos intentions a cet egard. Ce projet de loi interdira l'etablissement de sites d'enfouissement de dechets nucleaires au Manitoba. Nous generons tres peu de dechets nucleaires, nous n'en retirons pas les benefices energetiques et ne voulons pas etre le depotoir des dechets nucleaires provenant de l'exterieur.

Nous produ isons autres types de matieres dangereuses dont nous sommes prets a prendre la res ponsa bil ite. En 19 81, nous avo ns initie un programme a trois volets qui aurait pour aboutissement l'etablissement d'un systeme visant le traitement de nos dechets dangereux. Nous poursuivons assidOment chaque etape en vue de l'aboutissement de ce programme. Deja nous avons en place les moyens necessaires pour implanter et reglementer ce systeme. La

Loi sur le transport et la manutention des matieres dangereuses fut ado ptee en 1984. Cette loi vise a proteger le public et l'environnement contre les effets nuisibles d'une multitude de matieres dangereuses transportees quotidiennement sur nos rues, nos routes et nos voies ferrees. A la session derniere, nous avons adopte la

Loi sur la Corporation manitobaine de gestion des dechets dangereux. Cette annee, nous adopterons certains reglements sous cette loi et aurons bient6t en place, l'executif de la Corporation. De plus, cette annee nous aurons a faire le choix de technologie et le choix d'un site pour la gestion des matieres dangereuses du Manitoba. A travers toute la strategie gouvernementale se retrouve un lien fondamental - celui entre l'economie et l'environnement. Cette relation est d'i mportance capitale car, comme je le disais tout a l'heure, c'est notre avenir qui en depend et c'est aussi l'avenir des generations futures.

Les gains monetaires a courte echeance et au detriment de l'environnement ne do ivent plus etre app eles "developpement ". Le mot developpement suggere le progres. Le gaspillage de notre capital environnemental irremplacable n'est pas le progres - et plus personne n'os erait appeler ce genre d'a ctivite du nom de "progres". J'ai l'honneur, Madame la presidente, de presider le travail sur l'environnement et l'economie auquel comite participent les gouvernements federal et provinciaux, - -

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 le secteur prive, et les groupes environnementaux. J'e spere que notre travail aboutira a un consensus national et multilateral sur des prin ci pes de developp ement fonde sur une economie et un environnement sain. En tant que gouvernement, nous avons deja ado pte une serie de prin cip es envi ronnementaux qui guideront dor enavant nos decisions. II n'est pas question d'a ttirer de nouvelles industries en relaxant les controles sur la pollution. Cette notion est de plus en plus inacce ptable a l'in dustrie et !'exportation de la pollution est aussi inacceptable. Les problemes causes par les pluies acides que conn aissent !'On tario et le Quebec proviennent en bonne

partie de sources situees aux Etats-Unis. Et meme si le Canada devait reduire ses emissions d'a nydride sulfureux, que j'appellerai S02 a zero, sans des reductions considerable du cote americain, alors l'est du pays demeure dans une situation problematique. Pourrons-nous bientot, entre voisins, resoudre ce probleme de pollution trans-frontiere? Je l'espere. Jusqu'a maintenant, les negociations n'ont pas porte fruit Meme si au Manitoba les pluies acides ne causent pas de probleme serieux, nous ne pouvons pas etre indif ferents.

L' Ontario connait des probleme s aujourd'hui parce qu'il est situe en aval des source importantes de S02. Dans l'avenir c'est peut-etre nous ici au Manitoba qui seront en aval de sources de polluants. II se peut aussi que les symptomes problematiques mettent quelques annees avant de faire surface et qu'il soit trop tard pour corriger la situation. Alors ii vaut mieux etre prudent et prevenir qu'avoir plus tard a guerir. La degradation de l'environnement n'importe ou dans notre pays est un probleme qui doit nous preoccuper tous.

A cet effet, le gouverne11 •ent manitobain a adopte la position que nous devions faire tout notre possible pour contribuer a resoudre le probleme des pluies acides. Voila pourquoi nous avons choisi de participer a la recherche, a la surveillance et aussi nous sommes compromis a reduire les emissions de S02 dans la province de 738 kilotonnes a 550 kilotonnes par annee avant 1994. Nous voulons ainsi contribuer a faciliter les negociations en vue de reductions semblables du cote americain. Mais c' est aussi par mesure de prudence en vue de la protection de notre propre territoire.

Madame la presidente, cette annee devrait nous permettre de finaliser les demarches necessaires, en reponse au depute de Emerson qui me demandait cette question ii y a un instant, je dis done cette annee devrait nous permettre de finaliser les demarches necessaires devant nous permettre d'a tteindre notre but du cote des emissions de S02. Bientot la Commission de l'environnement tiendra des audiences publiques sur un nouveau projet de reglements a cet egard.

Je sais que les membr es de !'Op position vont surveiller attentivement nos actions, et offriront des critiques, des critiqu es que j'e spere seront constructives, a certains moments. Person nellement, meme si les defis sont de taille, je croix qu'une annee 109 des plus interessantes se presente a nous et je suis confiant que nous serons a la hauteur de la tache. Mad ame la presidente, je voudrais maintenant consider er un autre domaine non moins important, c'est a dire celui de la securite et !'hygiene du travail.

Le discours du Throne enonc;:ait notre engagement envers: - une economie saine, - la qualite de la vie et - un environnement sain. Le maintien de la sante et la securite d'un demi million d'h ommes et de femmes qui constituent la main d'o euvre du Manitoba est crucial a l'atteinte de ces buts. Lorsqu'on considere les pertes qu'ils causent, les maladies occupationnelles et les accidents au travail ne rec;:oivent pas la consideration ou !'attention qu'ils meritent.

Encore le depute d' Emerson parle d'un autre sujet que je voudrais absolument toucher, c'est a dire celui de la Commission des accidents au travail si le temps me le permet a la fin de mes remarques. L'an dern ier, le terrorisme mondial a cause 2,200 pertes de vie et chaque jour les medias en font largement etat Par contre, on entend rarement parler des pertes de vie causees par les maladies occupationnelles ou les accidents au travail, alors qu'on estime les deces a 180,000 et les accidents a 11 0 millions annuellement.

Au Manitoba en 1986, plus de 50,000 travailleurs ont reclame aupres de la Commission des accidents au travail; ce chiffre represente un sur dix travailleurs. C'est une situation tout a fait inacceptable. Ces accidents en plus de representer douleurs et souffrances a des travailleurs et leurs families, portent aussi atteinte a la qualite de la vie des Manitobains - meme s'ils ne font pas les grands titres dans les nouvelles. C'est en 1977, sous le gouvernement Schre yer, que la

Loi sur la securite et !'hygiene du travail etait adoptee au Manitoba. C'etait un premier pas important en vue de miser les efforts sur les systemes plutot que sur les symptomes qui causent les maladies et les accidents occupationnels. Durant cette premiere decennie, le secteur de la securite et !'hygiene du travail a mis sur pied la base d'un systeme qui a pour but la reduction et !'elimination des risques relies a la securite et !'hygiene du travail. Je crois que nous sommes sur la bonne voie. II y a maintenant au Manitoba plus de 1,000 comites conjoints sur la securite et !'hygiene au travail.

Plusieurs centaines de milliers d'h eures ont ete consacrees a eduquer les travailleurs dans le domaine de la securite et !'hygiene du travail. Je suis confiant que ces efforts porteront bientot fruit Translation will appear in subsequent issue. Madam Speaker, tripartite appr oaches to problem solving have matured and government's knowledge

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 about standing problems has improved, it is time to set priorities, and to ensure that they are accomplished through carefully planned implementation strategies. Today I would also like to share with you an outline of those initiatives which I believe will allow us to begin a new

chapter as we enter the second decade of The Wo rkp lace Safety and Health Act.

These initiatives will first provide Manitoba workers and employers with a strong right to know, to prevent work-r elated accidents and illnesses ; secondly, develop management strategies that will focus on the problems of specific economic sectors; thirdly, provide committees with a means for identifying and controlling work-r elated health and safety hazards, in order to prevent work-r elated illness and injury; four, review enforcement and prosecution policies to ensure that they are tough and precise when this is req uired; five, ensure that technical and occupational health services are available to Manitoba employers and workers; and finally, six, addr ess the special needs of the small workpl aces.

The coming months will see the establishment in Manitoba of a system for preventing work-r elated illnesses, a system for identifying and controlling the silent killers that exist in our workpla ces. This system will be based upon the Wo rkplace Health Regulation referred to in the Speech from the Throne. The development of tripartite mechanisms, notably through The Wo rkplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee, has created a healthy environment for working cooperatively to solve specific problems.

While we reach for the stars in red ucing work-r elated accidents and injuries, we must have our feet firmly on the ground and build on the years of common experience and knowledge about common problems in specific industries. Recently I had the pleasure of attending a successful tripartite mining conference in Thompson, and was able to report that the major revisions of the mine, health and safety regulation had finally been completed and adopted. Cooperative approaches such as that, found in the mining sector, will be extended to other industries in Manitoba.

Prevention must be put on the agenda of health and safety committees and the imp lementation of the workplace health regulation will provide an opportunity for this approach. The information that is req uired for this regulation will be summarized in a prevention plan prepared for each workplace. This will serve as a

summary and guide for elimin ating hazardous conditions. The preparation of prevention plans will provide joint committees with an agenda that points to the future. It will allow workp laces to proceed, not only in reaction to accidents, but to work precisely towards eliminating these accidents, proceed ing again from the angle of prevention. To strengthen the priori ty se tting pr ocess, my department will be developing information systems to address the problem of occupational dis ease data collection.

While we are making strides in setting up systems to strengthen prevention through improved application of knowledge, we must not lose sight of the dictum that says, "You often get what you insp ect, not what you expect." Accordin gly, my department will be reviewing its enforcement and prosecution policies to ensure the 110 effectiveness of these measures in deterring non comp liance with occupational health and safety legislation and standards.

Over the past several years there has been an increase in the number of prosecutions that have been conducted, from a total of four in the first six years of The Wo rkplace Safety and Health Act, to a total of 11 in 1986. Finally, the special problems of small workplaces will be addr essed. Approximately 98 percent of Manitoba work places have less than one hundred workers. Systems that make sense for the large corporation, with its sophisticated occupational health and safety program, do not neces sarily make sense in a five-person body shop.

We must ensure that the steps that are required to protect the health and safety of workers takes this in full account. My department is exploring programs to make compliance as straightforward as possible for small business. Procedures will be incorpora ted to avoid unnecessary paper burden and to ensure tha t assistance is available so that each shop will not have to reinvent the wheel. This then is a skeleton of the structure we are building. The foundation has been constructed over the past decade.

There are many problems that have emerged and will continue to emerge, such as smoking in the workpla ce and work-rela ted stress, tight building syndromes, etc. There will, unfortunately, still be circums tances that will alert us to problems that even the best planning cannot anticipate in a rapidly changing world. Our approach, as I stated earlier, must be to address syst ems and not merely symptoms. Preventing work-r elated illness and injury, in my mind, Madam Speaker, is a non-partisan affair. It is a thrust that unites employers and employees, or at least it should.

It is a thrust around which all members of this House can unite and, I hope, will unite as well. One payoff will lie in reducing the health care and social costs that threaten all of our programs by eliminating important sources of disability. The real payoff, however, will be an improved quality of life that will also make Manitoba an attractive environment for doing business today and tomorrow. The final point that I would like to share is that this government remains committed to taking an integrated approach to managing our workplace and natural environ ments.

We do not intend to prom ote the establishment of systems that control hazardous waste di sposal through our province at the expense of concentrating dangerous exposures for workers within these facilities. We do not intend to promote the development of ventilation systems, Madam Speaker, in workp laces to protect workers' health, only to see pollutants trans ferred into the general envi ronment. My department has, since its es tablishment, pursued ways of ensuring that problems do not get transferred from one compartment to the next.

This is unique in North America and something in which all Manitobans can take pride. Madam Speaker, could I ask for a little bit of order? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. If honour able members would like to have private conversa tions, I'm sure they can find some other place to have them.

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 HON. G. LECUYER: I just have a few seconds more to go, Madam Speaker, to conclude my remarks. Working within an integrated unit that addr esses the problems of natural and working environments, we in Manitoba are better equipped to handle the problems of the cradle -to-grave management of hazardous substances and avoid the problems of the Love Canals and the Bhopal type of incidents. This government remains committed to acc omplishing this goal in the only way that is possible, through the active participation of all Manitobans.

Manitobans are rightly proud of equality of life and an environ mental quality that is rivalled in very few places, if any. This government will ensure that this legacy will be enjoyed by future genera tions. How much time have I got, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has about eight minutes remaining. HON. G. LECUYER: That gives me time to address some of the remarks that were raised from the other side. Basically - and I hear this raised all the time by members of the Opposition - make it easier for small businesses and, indeed, we are trying to.

But I have given figures that speak loudly in terms of what has been happenin g in the workpla ces of Ma nitoba. Mem bers have to realize that when they say the compensation costs are too high, I have to remind them of wh at I' ve said many times before. We, as a government, are not responsible for the costs of these accidents and illnesses that have been appearing in the workp laces, and have been increasing over the years, in spite of all our efforts.

It will, indeed, require a commitment on the part of all - government, workplaces and workers to bring down those costs, the dir ect costs which we know in terms of comp ensation. There are many additional costs, the indir ect costs, in terms of damage to equipment, in terms of training time costs, in terms of trauma, in terms of lost morale in the workplace, which have to be added on to those di rect costs.

Therefore, the costs to the whole of the economy are much greater than the ones the members are used to referring to; but if we're talking about comp ensation costs, Madam Speaker, there is no reason why, in Manitoba, there should not be compensation services com mensurate or equal to those provided in other jurisdictions. Manitoba workers are entitled to equal compensation services. Madam Speaker, these costs are bound to rise because they are closely tied to the average pay of workers. They have to reflect the mounting costs of chiropr actic and medical care.

They have to reflect the mounting costs of indexing of pensions. They have to reflect the time loss. They have to reflect the costs of rehabilitation, many of these things which were not provided before, Madam Speaker. And I can argue that with any one of the Opposition with facts and figures, which should have been, but were not provided to injured workers of Manitoba prior to 1981. If there are additional costs to provide these services, there should be. It's unfortunate that the costs or the rates were kept artifically low . . . 111 MR. A. DRIEDGER: There was a surplus . . . HON. G.

LECUYER: Because the costs were kept artifically low. You were not paying - I hear the Member for Emerson saying, "The re was a surplus." A surplus which is only there because you were not paying for services that should have been paid. So as soon as you start paying for that, Madam Speaker, the surplus went, like that. No, it's not a value judgment. The Member for Morris says it's a value judgment. It's not a value judgment. The law says that these services should be paid for.

Contrary to what the members say that you should only raise the rates enough or you should pay out only in services whatever money you have coming in, based on whatever rate you decide it should be, that's not what the law says. The law says that you should calculate what the costs are going to be and establish rates in accordance with that.-(I nterjection)-The bank, Madam Speaker, is not broken. The fact is employers in Manitoba are not paying unduly high rates. They're paying rates that are third lowest in the country.

They have paid rates, Madam Speaker, that were lowest in the country for 10 years and those were the artificially low rates. In the Seventies, Madam Speaker, the rates were going down. I have to say that between now, 1986 and 1974, the rates have gone up 60 percent. The cost-of living index has gone up 12 0 percent, so they haven't gone up unduly, Madam Speaker. They haven't gone up as much as they have in other jurisdictions.

When the members are saying, yes but they've gone up 20 percent this year, they've gone up 20 percent last year, they've gone up 20 percent the year before that, but everybody knew that it was a question of going up, 72 percent in one year or going up at a lower rate level for a period of years. We discussed that with the employers, Madam Speaker, and that is the way they wanted it to be applied, over a period of years and that's the way we have done it.

So it is all fine and I can accept that the employer is not going to say he's happy when he has to pay higher rates, but by the same token -(Interjection)- that is not true, Madam Speaker. The Member for Portage is saying it's the second deterrent for business. If that were true, Madam Speaker, then that would be reflected on growth of business in Manitoba. As I' ve said, Madam Speaker, Manitoba's rates are the third lowest in the country, the third lowest in the country. So you can't have it all ways.

Business will say that at the time that the rates are raised, Madam Speaker , but when I meet with them, which I have when I was in charge of compensation, they understand and they agree that they would prefer - and so would I prefer the rates to stay where they are, but if we're going to provide a fair and equitable service to injured workers, then there is no reason why we have to do worse than other jurisdi ctions. We have to do the best we can and certainly, we have to be fair and equitable. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker . It's firie again, to once again rise and speak

Wednesday, 4 March, 1987 on the Throne Speech . Madam Speaker, this is my sixth opportunity of doing so and may I wish you and indeed all members of the House well over the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Legislature. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by spending just a few moments on some of the grim reality that does exist within my constituency, the rural riding just bounding the city to the southwest. Although we have been favoured over the last couple of years with some very good crops, let me tell you at this time there is a siege mentality coming into existence .

There is a hunkering down taking place and it's not one that is preparing for an onslaught of a weekend storm . It's one that's preparing for an economic siege of the worst magnitude that probably will have been seen in the history of this nation. Madam Speaker, to drive that point home , let me indicate to you, although I haven't done the calculations, that in terms of 1933 grain prices, what we are probably going to realize in equivalent purchasing power over the next crop yea r will represent something in the area of 15 to 20 cents a bushel.

That's the grim reality which faces rural Manitoba; indeed rural Canada , particularly rural Western Canada today and over the next few years . Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, we can say that the farm community sees what is coming and major portions of it are, I think, prepared to do battle with the grain economy over that period of time. Madam Speaker , it's good to return .

I've been away for five-and-a-half months ; indeed as have all members of this House and yet something struck me - as I'm sure struck other members of this House after they had been in attendance for two days - it felt like I hadn't been away for more than a week-and-a-half and some would say for a shorter period of time. The arguments are the same. Some of the asides are the same and of course that's good.

It's great to have people that don't change too drastically within a given year because indeed if people changed so suddenly, I think we would begin to wonder what strange disease they had maybe contacted over the last few months. Madam Speaker, however, over those five-and-a-half months, I've watched with interest over many of the political developments that took place . I couldn 't help but watch the Provincial Government -(lnterjection) well the members say the Federal Government, I'll mention something about that to "Halfway Bridge Plohman," I'm sorry, the Minister of Transportation.

I couldn 't help but notice, not only sitting in the committee that was dealing with affairs of MTX, but also as somebody that was at home, of course, watching the newscasts , how, in my view , the government was somewhat successful, in deftly and adroitly managing to sort of extricate their Cabinet from the responsibility that, in my view at least, should have been coming toward that Cabinet for the very serious financial losses associated within MTX. (Mr.

Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) How it was that the Premier was able to move the former Minister out of that role and replace him with the Minister of Urban Affairs and prevent, in some significant fashion, those of us on the committee from really directing specific questions to Ministers as to their culpability in this whole area, I thought the 112 government did sort of a masterful job in being able, at least at that time frame, to remove , deflect, the criticism that may be coming down to members or specific people within their Cabinet. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I would think members opposite would want me to comment on the CF-18 incident, and I have no difficulty doing so. I can tell you , as a Manitoban , I was abhorred and upset with that decision when it was rendered upon the people of Canada and, specifically, upon the people of Manitoba . In my own mind, quite frankly, I haven't found any way that I can justify it. I know I run into differences of opinion with people within my political party over that, but quite frankly, I cannot in any way justify the CF-18 incident. Yet, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the NDP reaction to that really struck me as purely political motivation from their part. You know, I can understand members, particularly, of the economic portfolios of the Cabinet , I can understand how they could be outraged; but to see the Premier of the province tripping up the steps in Ottawa and feigning indignation as to how mad he was with Mulroney over this case - I honestly say I could see some of the other Ministers, particularly the former Minister of Finance , I could read it on his lips and I could see the seething in his eyes - but , Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the Premier feigning this absolute abhorrence , total disgust and indignation with which that decision was made really was no credit to the attempted united outcry that should have been emanating from this province . Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I couldn't help but notice the government when the Second Quarter Report financial standing was released how the Minister of Finan ce attempted to justify the fact that there was a $100 million increase in deficit and how it was because, well , we had this problem, we had that problem ; and yet we' re finding today, we question today, we're sitting in here in anticipation of the Third Quarterly Report wondering yet if the forecasted deficit indeed will be beyond $600 million , bearing in mind that there are Special Warrants being passed. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I watched from some distance as the Second Quarterly Repor t was announced . Well, I couldn 't help ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Member for Morris has the floor. Can we have some order and stability in the House. The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I couldn 't help but notice the members, their response, when one Michael Deeter laid before the province the report that he had done on expe nditures and tax reform. (lnterjection)- Well, the Minister asks what I thought of it. I'll be addressing it on many occasions over the proceeding mont hs, Mr.

Deputy Speaker . But I'll say this on the surface: to me it was a comprehensive report and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd5d933df9e00d5711c847d01d5cc208d639a7a2

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