Manitoba Hansard — 9 July 1987 (Sitting 86, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-86

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 9 July, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Philli ps: Presenting Petitions . .. . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres entin g Reports by Stand ing and Sp ecial Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker , I have a brief statement. I have copies for distribution. Madam Speaker , I wou ld like to make a short min isterial statement today regarding the announcement of the HELP program.

HELP is an acronym for the Habita t Enha ncement Land-us e Prog ram, which was signed earl ier today by representatives of Wildlife Habitat Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Province of Manitoba. To mark this occasion in the Legislative Cham ber, a cap with the "HELP" logo was provided to each MLA prior to this afternoon's sitting. This program is one of the most progressive habitat and soil conservat ion initiatives in North America. HELP will provide incent ives for farmers to set aside land for wildlife and soil conservation.

This holistic eight-year program will com mence this year in the Rura 1 Mu nicip ality of Sho al Lake. Under this program, equipment and expertise will be provided to those wishing to undertake farming conservation measures such as rotational gr azing and zero tillage. The bulk of this program's funding will come from private sources. This $3 million undertaking over eight years will help to address the decline in waterfowl and other wildlife populatio ns resulting from intensiv e farming of wetlands, native prairie and woodlands in· Western Ma nitoba.

Wildlif e Habi tat Canada is contributing·5o percent of the funding, Ducks Unlimited, 25 percent, and Manitoba is providing 25 percent of the funding. HELP is an outstanding �xample of inter agency coopera tion. I am sure that it will set the stage for a province-wide integrated approach to soil, water and wildlife management into the next century . The Government of Manitoba is pleased to be involved in this innovative undertaking. I am sure that all members of the House will join me in wishing this program every success. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise and commend the Minister for making this statement, and thank him for allowing me to be part of the signing procedure this morning, Madam Speaker. I'd also like to thank the critic, the Member for Emerson, for allowing me the opportunity to respond to this announcement which affects my home municipality.

Madam Speaker , as an MLA, as a farmer , as a resident of the R.M., and as a wildlife enthusiast, I'm very, very pleased that this program is being initiated in Manitoba, in my R.M., and is going to be an opportunity to allow for further co-existence of wildlife and farming practices. We're very pleased that the way it's designed. It's certainly going to help to promote conservation farming, which I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture will support also.

And, Madam Speak er, I can assure you, from the standpoint of living in the R.M., that there will be strong support for the program and for the way the program is being set up, both from the R.M. council and from the farmers of the communi ty, because they all see it as a good method to further the attempt that is now under way to imp rove conservation farming.

I guess the unfortunate part of this announcement is that it did not occur 20 years ago, Madam Speaker , because even in good times and certainly in bad times, farmers, for economic reasons, have had to put into production lands that were very marginal, that were good wildlife hab itat, and some of that cannot be rever sed. This program is certainly intended to help to prevent further loss of wildlife habitat.

Madam Speaker , I'm glad the Minister identified that the majority of the funds for this are going to come from private sources and that 50 percent of the funding does come from Wildlife Habitat Canada, 25 percent from the province and 25 percent from Ducks Unlimited. Madam Speak er, all residents of Manitoba and Canada will benefit from this program as it expands, and I know that other R.M.'s and farmers are going to be asking the Minister to get on with the expansion of the program to their areas because it not only helps ' wildlife, it helps farming and it helps the economy of the area.

Madam Speak er, I said this morning and I'll say it again, I express thanks to the Minister and I will invite him to my farm as a kickoff for the program in the local R.M. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co op Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker , I have a ministerial statement to make.

Madam Speaker , five years ago, the Manitoba Government and the credit union and caisse populaire movements entered into a five-year agreement that called for financial assistance for the credit un ions and caisses populair es, and certain other actions designed to improve upon the overa ll health of the two systems. Since that time, we have seen excellent growth within both systems, and significant strengthening of the credit 3730

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 union and caisse populaire movements to the point where direct financial assistance is no longer required. In December of 19 82, ther e was a deficit of nearly $14 million in the credit union system. There is now a surplus of more than $14 .6 million. Credit unio n membership now exceeds 302,000 and deposits have increased to over $2 billion. Growth among the caisses populaires has been equally strong.

Whereas the overall movement experienced a deficit of just over $3 million as of December 19 82, there are now reserves of over $1. 3 million. Membership has grown to over 31, 000 and total assets exceed $200 million. These gains were not accomplished without hard work on the part of the leadership and employees of the movements, a strong and committed membership, and a government committed to working with the movement. That work has been successful.

New legislation, necessary mergers, performance improvement programs, the government examination program, new stabilization funds, and the will to build stronger credit unions and caisses popula ires have resulted in the progress we see today. But there is still more work that needs to be done to build upon those effort s. Today, I am announcing a new agreement between the government and the credit union and caisse populaire movement which continues that cooperative working relationship we first struck in 19 82.

It is significantly different than the 19 82 loan agreement in that there is no direct government assistance as was the case then, but it does provide for transitional assistance as the movements expand their self-help efforts.

These new agreements call for: - The province to guarantee a 10 -year loan to the Credit Union Stabilization Fund which, in turn, will borrow up to $25 million from within the credit union movement to help improve the reserve position within the credit union movement. - The province will provide a 10- year loan of $3.4 million to Le Fonds de Securite with all principal and interest to be repaid over the 10- year period. - The Credit Union Stabilization Fund will impose a special levy of one-eighth of 1 percent of deposits and outstanding borrowings of all credit uni ons.

Le Fonds de Securite will continue with a similar special levy which was introduced in the caisse populaire movement in 19 83. These levies, in addition to the one quarter of 1 percent currently being assessed, will be used by the Fund for operating costs, retirement of loans, and continuation of deposit insurance activities. - The government examination program, which was introduc ed in 19 82 to provide operational reviews of credit unions and caisses populaires, will continue.

Over an agreed-to phase-in period, both movements will absorb the full cost of the examination program which is currently funded 100 percent by the Provincial Government. When the 19 82 agreement was announced in this Chamber five years ago, all members joined in a commitment to work together to strengthen credit unions and caisses populair es throughout Manitoba.

At that time, the Deputy Premier expressed confidence that that agreement would "enable the systems to stabilize and expand their services to members and assure members that quality competitive services will be avai lable from their locally-controlled, locally-owned organiza tions." The Opposition critic of the day echoed those sentiments when he indicated that his party was "committed to the long-term viability of the movements" and would support that which would "strengthen the system of the membership to allow them to run their own credit unions in this province." I believe, over the past five years, we have gone a very long way towards those mutual goals.

This new agreement should take us the rest of the way. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In response to that statement, Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House do welcome the Minister's ' announcement tod ay. It is encouraging to see that credit un ions and caisses popula ires have been able to increase their assets and their overall reserves to a position whereby all they need basically is a provincial loan guarantee, with the exception of $3.4 million to the caisses populaires.

I also welcome the idea that the credit union society will be able to appoint two members to the Stabilization Board. I do believe there should be a limit as to how much each individual credit union or caisse populaire has to contribute towards the Fund. I believe there is still more important work that will have to be done in the future but, hopefully, as they get more control over their own destiny, this can be achieved. Thank you very much. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . . ORAL QUESTIONS Human Rights Legislation - free vote MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Given the concerns, in fact the disagreement, that has been expressed by at least two members of his government with the inclusion of sexual orientation in The Human Rights Act, Bill 47, will the government and this Premier now reconsider the position that they have taken and allow for a free vote so that members, all members, on their side of the House will be able to vote with their conscience and not have to set aside their religious and moral convictions in order to tow the party line? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON.

H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, it was quite interesting to observe yesterday the extent of what 3731

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 appeared to be - it's easy to have a free vote if you 've got unanimity , isn't it, on the opposite benches from our own? Madam Speaker , that is a matter of caucus deliberation and is not a matter that I am prepared to discuss in this House . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , that is regr ettable that the Premier won't allow for the free vote . MPIC - foreign auto parts MR. G. FILMON: My further questi on is to the Minister respon sible for MPIC.

In view of the dispute between MPIC and foreign auto dealers as to the pricing of foreign auto parts that is currently under way, is the government considering buying a couple of foreign auto dealerships as a solution to the problem? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Ministe r resp onsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should be aware that, for a number of years , MPIC has had a policy of paying only manufacturers ' list prices for parts . It's unfortunate that the dealers in foreign car parts have not lived up to that policy .

Discussions are taking place at the present time between the corporation and the representatives of the industry, and I would hope that there would be some resolution to the problem . In the meant ime, the corporation, in the interests of all motorists in Manitoba, is doing what it can to obtain parts for the se foreign cars at a reasonable price - that is, at the manu facturer 's listed price - and not paying 30 percent, 80 percent or, in one case, up to 123 percent over what the manufacturer suggested as a price . MPIC - purchase of foreign auto dealerships MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , my question to the Minister : Included in that mandate of doing what it can, is the corporation considering buying a couple of foreign auto dealerships? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, that is certai nly not the policy of the corporation, although they may well have been part of discussions that have taken place . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, so the Minister is indicating that is one of the options? Because the import car-dealer spokesma n, Jim Carey, is quoted today as saying : "Mr. Silver informed us Autopac was firm in its stand and the onus was on us.

It sounds ridiculous, but he said he'd buy a couple of dealerships if he had to." Is that the policy of MPIC, to buy a couple of foreign auto dealerships? MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member that quoting from newspaper articles and asking a Minister to conf irm or deny is not ... Order please , order please . Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposit ion please rephrase his question . MR. G. FILMON: I used the quot ation by way of

preamble. My question very clearly was: Is it now the policy of M PIG to buy a couple of foreign auto dealerships? MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member of the Citation that I was just quoting from, 362 , which says: "Reading . . . extracts from newspapers as an opening to an oral question is an abuse of the rules . . . " That particular Citation also goes on to say: " It is the Member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of Parliament ." The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a question . MR. G. FILMON: Given that it is not always necessary to have a

preamble before a question, as you've often admonished me, I'll just ask the question : Is it now the policy of the MPIC to buy a couple of foreign auto dealerships? HON . J. BUCKLASCHUK: As I indicated, as a responsible Minister responsible for MPIC , I cannot sanction , as perhaps members of the Opposition might , surcharges of 20 percent , 30 percent , 80 percent, 127 percent on foreign car parts . As an example , I know of one specific part that the manufactured list price was $327 , and the Ford dealers quoted prices of anywhere from $465 to $728 for that same part. We will not tolerate that.

We will review whatever options there may be in the interests of Manitoba motorists to prevent this unnecessary cost of perhaps up to $3 million a year by a small number of suppliers who cannot live by the rules of the game . MR. G. FILMON: Is the Minister now saying that one of those options then that is available and is being considered is to buy a couple of foreign auto dealerships? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , I indicated previously that management has undertaken discussions with the industry.

I, frankly, find it somewhat difficult to respond to questions when the Leader of the Opposition appears to be negotiating on behalf of the foreign car suppliers in the Legislative Assembly . Madam Speaker, I haven't . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my ques tio n to the Premier : Given that this is an outlandish proposal that the government buy a couple of foreign auto dealerships , would the Premier indicate whether indeed that is one of the options that the governmen t is considering?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . 3732

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , the message that really must be delivered very, very strongly to those who have charged excessive prices, as outlined by the Minister, is that, while the Opposition may be prepared to acquiesce and to tolerate ripping-off of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, this government does not intend to be ripped off. That does not mean, Madam Speaker , that we're looking at dealerships or anything of that nature.

But let me be clear to the Leader of Opposition, this government, this New Democratic Party Government, will not permit the motorists of this province, through their publicly operated automobile insurance system, to be ripped off in the way that has just been described by the Minister to the extent of hundr eds of thousands of dollars that belong to Manitobans. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I can tell you that I certainly wouldn't buy a used car from that Premier under those circumstances. Bill 28 - legal opinion on whether enforceable on Gov't of Canada or AECL MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Environment. I wonder if he could indicate whether or not he has sought a legal opinion as to whether or not Bill 28, The High-Level Radioactive Waste Act, is enforceable on the Government of Canada or its Crown agency, AECL? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As part of the drafting of any legislation, Madam Speaker, legislative counsel of course is consulted in terms of whether the bill that is in the process of being drafted is legal, and this applied to this bill as well as to any others. MR. G. FILMON: Well, what was the answer of the legislative counsel? Is Bill 28 enforceable on the Government of Canada or AECL? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member first asked a question as to whether a legal opinion was obtained. It's not correct to ask what the content of the legal opinion was. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Why not? MADAM SPEAKER: Citation 358(

c) says: "Such questions should not require an answer involving a legal opinion." The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister of the Environment can indicate whether it is the policy of the government that Bill 28 ought to be enforceable on the Government of Canada or AECL. HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speak er, Bill 28 is introduced in this House as a matter of policy that the government has annou nced in terms of its position in regard to the disposal of nuclear waste.

As far as legal opinions in terms of the province's ability to enforce that legislation, there are differing opinions, Madam Speaker, or opinions that differ not on the totality of this particular legislation, but as a matter of policy and principle. This government believes it is important to introduce this legislation. Bill 28 - tabling of differing opinions re MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, will the Minister table those differing opinions then, please? HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker, those are not opinions that I have in writing.- (Int erjection)- Yes, Madam Speaker, we did have more than one opinion.

I will see, Madam Speaker, if those are in writing. If indeed I have them in writing, I will table them in the House. I believe, Madam Speaker, these were opinions which were given to members of staff as a part of the consultation which took place prior to the drafting of this legislation. Eye specialists - assurance of no loss to other jurisdictions MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health.

Will the Minister of Health assure Manitobans who are in need of eye care that we will not lose our eye specialists, who are already in short supply, to other provinces or other jur isdictions as a result of cutbacks in eye services? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I wish to say that I was fortunate in attending a conference on health in Halifax the last few days. It was an excellent conference with over 400 people coming from Sweden, England, the United States and Canada.

It was obvious; everbody was unanimous in saying that we need some change in health and that we can improve the situation. Now I've also said on many occasions, Madam Speaker, that I think there should be as little as possible partisan politics on that because it is so important a subject. We have been assured that there would be cooperation. Now, obviously, the questions are exactly to try to do one thing, to give the wrong impression.

I can't dictate who should ask or what kind of question they ask, but I can certainly answer them in a way that I'm not going to make it more difficult, Madam Speaker, for any worthwhile need of change. I want to say again that, in the question of keeping the hospitals within their budgets, they were asked to make certain recommendations and suggestions how 3733

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 they would achieve this. This is at the commission. These are recommendations; nothing has been closed. No announcement was made by anybody . This is something that was presented to the commission. I will not try to defend or say what is going to happen. When a decision is made, we'll make it clear. In the meantime, I don't think it is proper to say as if a decision has already been achieved. Every decision and discussion with the hospital will be looked at very seriously. We will see what it is going to do and, when an announcement is going to be made, it will be made very clearly.

In the meantime, I think it is improper to every day ask the same question about something that somebody has made a suggestion is not policy. Eye surgery - user fees MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speak er, there wasn't much reassurance to Manitobans in that answer, but I'll ask my next question. Is it government policy to impose user fees on those who require essential eye surgery and will be rerouted from hospitals to clinics as a result of cutbacks in eye services? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There has been no change in policies. I certainly don't know of any user fees.

There are certain things that have never been covered, there are certain things that have never been insured, and there's been no change in that either. Eye care needs - long-term study MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker , another supplementary to the same Minister. Has the Minister requested a study to determine the long-range needs of Manitobans in need of eye care? And if so, will he table any study that his department has done? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Probably one of the biggest improvements has been there; it is dealing exactly with this subject.

There have been changes where this has been done in an ambu latory fashion in many ways and the waiting list has been reduced. Every effort will be made to increase and improve the situation. Yes, I could tell you what happens. I can get the information for you, what happened, where the improvement has been made, what they're doing, the percentage that is being done at the Health Sciences Centre, at Seven Oaks and at Selkirk, and so on. Yes, I'll gladly get that information. Eye surgery - cutbacks at St. Boniface, Minister not to consider approving MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker , with a final supplementary to the same Minister. Given the fact that the Health Sciences Centre has just recently cut back on the amount of eye surgery, and Seven Oaks has been asked to cut back on their number of cataract surgeries that are done, from 1, 300 to 1, 15 0, and given that Misericordia is operating at full capacity in their Eye Department, will the Minister consider not approving St. Boniface's proposal to cut back on eye care beds? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I have already answered this question. We will consider very seriously not approving.

We will also consider approving the request of the different hospitals. That's the name of the game; that's what we're doing right now. Selkirk 230 Corridor - Open House meetings MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Highways. Last Spring, the Premier committed himself to consultation with the people in the Selkirk area regarding the 230 Corrid or. A second Open House meeting was held without the presence of the local MLA.

I would like to know: Is it the policy of the Department of Highways to support the statement that was made by the representative of the department that this type of meeting was held to avoid people monopolizing microphones? Is this department now using that policy to protect the Premier? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Highways and Transport ation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speak er, this is an absurd statement by the Member for Ste. Rose. The fact is that what the Department of Highways has, in terms of a long-established procedure, is an effective way to deal with the concerns of the public.

The most effective way to deal with it is on an open house basis. In addition to all the meetings that are held with the municipalities and with the planning boards in the areas, they are also for the public to provide input - those who are directly affected - and others who are interested have an opportunity at an open house, on a one-to-one basis, with staff, to discuss their concerns, to fill out a questionnaire, to bring forward any suggestions they have. That is the traditional way that this is done.

It is found to be effective and, insofar as having a meeting where you have adversarial opinions, that is the most disruptive way to deal with an issue such as this. It is not an effective way. The most effect ive is the established way that is in place. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I imagine the system is quite effective because that same . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. CUMMIN GS: . . . representative of the department also made the comment that, when asked if the questionnair es filled in would have an effect on the final ...

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? 3734

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Selkirk 230 Corridor - public opinion questionnaires MR. G. CUMMINGS: My question, Madam Speaker, is: Do they support the statement of the member from the department who stated that, when asked if anyone filling out a questionnaire, and if all the questionnair es were similar - opposed to the proposal - "Would it have any effect on the final results?", the representative responded "no"? Will the department now change their approach to presenting to the communities these types of proposals for development? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, the Member for Ste.

Rose should not be putting words in the mouth of the staff of the department who are not here to defend themselves. The fact is that all opinions are considered. Nothing has been carved in stone, and certainly this whole issue has not been treated any differently than other major projects. This is a meaningful process in which meaningful consultation is taking place and, if the member looks at the results of it to date, he will see that this is a meaningful process because we are listening and providing alternatives and reviewing those alternativ es to ensure that the best decision is made.

It is being made on the basis of those representations. The member is not doing credit to himself to raise such innuendo in this House without first ascert aining the truth of those statements, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Ste. Rose has a final supplementary? MR. G. CU MMINGS: We ll, Ma dam Sp eaker , th e Minister has done nothing to dispel the fears that these types of meetings do nothing to impact upon the department. Highway signs - use of 24-hour clocks MR. G.

CUMMINGS: I have a supplementary question to the same Minister: Is it now the policy of the Department of Highways to use a 24-hour clock in advertising highway controls for turning and for hours of parking? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The member should clarify his question, Madam Speaker. All clocks are 24 hours. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I thought I was quite clear. The 24-hour clock is where you refer to 18 00 hours, 0200 hours. Would the Minister explain if it is the policy of his department to use that type of a clock on the signage rather than the 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. type of numb ering? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Now that the member has made clear his question, I can take that as notice and determine whether there has been any change in policy in that area. Madam Speaker, I should emphasize that as a result of the open houses and the consultation on the issue that the member raised previously, we do have, the department indicates, support from the municipalities in the area for the proposals that are being put forward as the preferred routes for the corridor between Selkirk and Winnipeg at the present time, Madam Speaker. That is something also that the member should be aware of when he raises the question here.

Prosecution decisions - length of time to settle MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-G eneral. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, I took as notice a question from the Member for Brandon West with respect to prosecutions arising from the events at SuperValu of about 10 days ago. I intimated at the time I thought that there was either something wrong with the story or something wrong with the information. I was right. In fact, in terms of the picke t line distu rbances, charges were laid immediately and have already been on the police docket or the court docket right from the very beginning.

The story or the information - it doesn't matter; it was in error - was referring to charges against Supervalu with respect to Sunday closing. Those are the ones that are handled by Murray Conklin, and those are the ones that are pending. They have nothing to do with the picket line disturbance. The matters relating to the picket line disturba nce went through the normal course, appeared on the court docket immediately, and are being processed in the normal way. Jobs Fund - amount of money to Manitoba Labour Education Centre MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister responsible for the Jobs Fund, and I thank the Attorney-General for the information that he has supplied to the House. The question to the Minister responsible for the Jobs Fund arises from questions asked during the Estimates. At that time, the Minister said he did not know the answer. I'l l ask him again tod ay. How many Jobs Fund dollars were made avai lable to the Manitoba Labour Education Centre in 19 85-86? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industr y, Trade and Technology. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker , my recollection is that there were no funds made avai lable other than anything that possibly might have come through the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security dealing with summer employment. I'm not aware as to whether or not any payments were made there. They would qual ify, like any other employer, like the University of Brandon, like McKenzie Seeds, like a thousand other emplo yers in the provi nce. (lnterjection)- I didn't bother, I didn't bother. They were 3735

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 entitled to apply like any other employer. Young men and women in Winnipeg were entitled to go to work there if they had made application for a grant. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, members of this Legislature are entitled to know this information and this Minister should not be keeping it from us. I'll ask him the same question dealing with 198 6-87. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, the member has been around the House for a little while.

He knows that every now and then the Minister of Finance provides some fairly thick, blue-covered books, Book 1 and Book 2, Public Accounts of the Province of Manitoba. If he wishes to pull those out and take a look to see whether the Province of Manitoba paid any money to the Labour Education Centre, he's perfect ly capable of doing that. I think it's a waste of time. If he wants to go ahead and do it, let him go ahead and do it. Manitoba Labour Education Centre - cost to province MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the Manitoba Labour Educ ation Centre.

During the Estimates debate on the Jobs Fund, the Minister of Labour told us that he would let us know how much the taxpayers of Manitoba are out of money as a re sult of criminal charges being laid and a conviction being registered against the previous executive director of the Manitoba Labour Education Centre. Will the Minister make that figure avai lable to us now? How much are the people of Manitoba out as a result of this criminal activity at the Labour Edu cation Centre, funded totally by the Province of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour , if that's within his jurisdiction.

I'm not sure whether the question is within the Minister's jurisdiction. HON. A. MACKLING: I'm going to answer the question. MADAM SPEAKER: I recognize the Ho nourable Minister. A MEMBER: Yeah, we recognize him, too. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you. Ma dam Sp eaker, I'm glad that both you and honourable members oppo site do recognize me. I do want, for the edification, particularly, of the Member for Brandon West, to reca ll to him that he, subsequent to the meeting of the committee dealing with Estimates, asked me about that. I assured him that in due course I would have that information for him.

There are some problems in confirming the exactitude of the amounts involved because of the claims that were made in respect to insurance, and so I indicated the complexity of providing that information , but that I would get the information to him as quickly as I could. I haven't received the information yet. I have requested it. It will be furnished as soon as possible. MR. J. McCRAE: Will the Minister get in touch immediately with his friends, Wilf Hudson and John 3736 Pullen, and get that information immediately for this House?

MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member that an insistence on an answer is out of order. St. Boniface Hospital - equipment fee for outpatient services MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Speak er, in the announ cement by the St. Boniface Hospital that they were going to close the eye care unit, they indicated that the reasons why they felt they could do so was because alternative services were available on an outpatient basis.

But it is my understanding, Madam Speaker, that while patients do not pay any additional doctor's fee for such services, they can and indeed are charged an equipment fee. Is it the policy of this government that patients be asked to pay an equipment fee for service formerly provided in hospital care? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'd like to repeat again that no decision has been made on the suggestion of the St. Boniface Hospital. That will be all considered. I would also like to add that we have the same concern.

There were some places where it was cheaper to get an operation if you were admitted to the hospital, and we're looking at that to see if we can improve that because we want to increase, for instance, the ambula tory service as much as possible. So that is being looked at, at this time. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementary question to the same Minister, Madam Speaker. Is this government prepared to pay for equipment which will be placed in doctors' offices which will, in fact, provide service to patients so that they will not be charged an equipment fee? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speak er, I can only repeat what I said, that is being looked at, at this time. It's not that simple - are you going to pay or aren't you? There is some abuse in certain ways when that is paid and, what are you going to cover, should that be done at the doctor's office? Should it be more equipment in the doctor's office, or could that be done in a community clinic for instance and so on? The whole thing is being looked at. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, with a final supplementary to the same Minister.

The concern obviously is a dual care for our patients, those who can afford it and those who cannot. Will the government assure Manitobans that medical care for eye or for any other service will not be based in this province on an ability to pay?

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mada m Sp eaker , if any government has stated very clearly that they do not believe that there should be a dual system where there are two classes of citizens, I think that we have done that. That doesn't mean that everything in the system is perfect . I'm talking now about th e essential services.

Obviously, we can't pay for everything, and it might be that in some areas it will be co-insured, but the essential services, it is certainly my aim and my dream to make sure that all essential services are paid fully by the state and that there should not be any utilization or deterrent fees for those at all. So I have no hesitation in saying that's the policy that we want. We know that it is not perfect and we're trying to rectify that as much as we can. Farming operations - licences re environment legislation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Madam Speaker, on previous occasions, farmers of Manitoba, representatives of farm organizations and I have asked both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Environment to consider right-to-farm legislation in order to protect farmers of Manitoba in this province. Madam Speaker, Keystone Agricultural Produc ers and farmers in this province are afraid that the proposed Environment Act is going to allow Cabinet, in the future, to have the power to license various farming operations in this province, Madam Speaker .

I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he's prepared to change government policy with regard to this new Environment Act to assure farmers that in the future they will not have to obtain a licence in order to carry out nu merous of their farm ing operations, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Under the existing act, Madam Speaker, the farmers of Manitoba are covered by regulation.

With the new legislation, Madam Speaker, they will be covered in the same manner because those regulations will come under the new legislation. We have established, by clause, in the new legislation, that these regulations cannot be amended without consultation with them. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think that the farmers have nothing to fear in terms of their right to farm. Minister responsible for all impacts of agriculture on environment MR. G.

FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, given that we all know that regulations are subject to change, I would like to ask the Minister if he's prepared to make the Minister of Agriculture responsible for all imp acts of agriculture on the environment so that farmers can have a better assurance that they will be able to carry on sustainable development in the agricultural industr y. HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker , increasingly, all departments have to take a gr eater degree of respon sibility for the environmental impa ct of the decisions that are made by their departments.

That applies to agriculture as it applies to natural resources, as it applies to mining, as it applies to any other department of govern ment. In some cases, it's related to manufacturing decisions or decisions that impact the trade departments. Having said that, Madam Speaker, enforcement of the regulatory aspects of the environmental legislation should never be in the hands of all of these departments, Madam Speaker, because they could, so to speak, be in a conflict-of-interest situation.

I, for one, do not recommend that each one of the departments becomes the enforcer of environmental regulations or legislation. Environment legislation - deferral of MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, given that there are still very serious concerns in the farming community about the intent of this legislation, I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to delay passage of this bill until these concerns of the farming community are adequately dealt with. HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker, these concerns that the member refers to ha ve been add ressed adequa tely, as I' ve just indicated.

Awasis Agency - training of staff MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN : Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services. My question has two main thrusts, which are the delivery of child care for Native children, generally, and the training of child care workers. According to the Minister, there are problems with the Native agencies, that they are underfunded and that staff is not sufficiently trained. Now Community Services is responsible for the delivery system, including the training of staff for Native agencies which are involved in child care.

My qu estion is how much formal training or experience did the worker for the Awasis Agency have who has been accused of, and fired, for ignoring the allegations of a Native girl, called Amy, that she was being sexually abused? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the Native agencies are funded and mandated under a tripartite agreement under which the Federal Government funds, and the Provincial Government pr ovides the legislati ve framework. The preparation leading up to the mandating of the agency included training that was given and evaluated 3737

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 in terms of the readiness of the agency by external bodies. Social work department people were involved and they assessed that the agency was ready to open its doors. Along with every other agency, Madam Speaker, and cert ainly applicable to the Native people who in the past have had very little access to this kind of training and to the delivery of this type of service, there are ongoing training needs.

The official fina ncia l responsibility still rests with the Federal Government, but wherever we have, under the provincial Child and Family Service system, been able to include Nativ e personnel in the agencies, we have done so. We will continue looking at ways to assist them because they are willing to carry on in their development and, in their training, assist. But we will also keep the door very open for the main funder to play a more responsible role in supporting the development of these agencies. Child care social workers - qualifications of MR. A.

BROW N: My supplementary question is what qua lifications are needed to work in the deliv ery of services to any family through any of the agencies in the province of Manito ba? For example, are people who are taking training to receive a two-year certificate already carrying caseloads? HON. M. SMITH: There is a pattern of staffing that is what we call differentiated. There are senior people who would have degrees, and supervisory people, and then there are front-line workers, some of whom would have degrees and some of whom would have shorter term training such as two-year certificates.

The intention is that, where a person of lesser training is carrying a direct caseload, they would be under much closer supervision than someone who had a more advanced degree. That is the expectation of the agencies, that they will pursue that type of responsible staffing and supervision. MR. A. BROW N: My final supplementa ry. What proportion of casework supervisors in the Child Welfare Branch have professional qualifications such as a Bachelor of Social Work, or its equivalent, or a master's degree; and how does Manitoba compare with other provinces in Canada?

For instance, Alberta has 84. 7 percent of their caseworkers having either a Bachelor of Science or a Master of Science in Social Work. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the member has asked a very complicated question that would certainly take a great deal of time to compare that sort of compa rative statistic. I also just must leave a question in return on the record. I do query what the relevance of a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science would be to social work in Al berta. There must be something that I am missing.

Inter-City Gas - purchase amount for Greater Winnipeg Gas MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, a few days ago the Member for Lakeside was asking for information regarding ICG's purchase of Greater Winnipeg Gas, and I undertook to provide whatever information was public and available that we could get. I would indicate that he also left the impression that ICG - and I think he left the impression outside the Ho use - had bought No rthern and Central Gas Corporation from Noreen for something in the order of $77 million. That's quite incorrect.

Inter-City Gas bought the shares of Northern and Central Gas for a price of $240 million. The purchase was paid for with $16 3 million in cash and $77 million worth of ICG preferred shares. The pur chase price was for the shares only. In addition, ICG assumed a Northern and Central Gas debt which was, I un derstand, significantly higher than the cash price for the shares. Greater Winnipeg Gas was only part of those assets purcha sed by Inter-City Gas. There was no separate price quoted, and there is no separate price, as such, with respect to Greater Winnipeg Gas.

But one can see, Madam Speak er, that the order of magnitude is much more than $77 million. It's certainly $240 million for the shares, plus the assumption of equity, which is significantly more than that. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections be amended as follows: M. Dolin for the Hon. L. Desjardins; Hon. R. Penner for the Hon. A. Mackling; Hon. L. Harapiak for the Hon. B.

Uruski; J. Maloway for D. Scott; S. Ashton for the Hon. J. Storie. I further move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: the Hon. B. Ur uski for th e Hon. J. Buck lasc huk; the Hon. V. Schroeder for the Hon. H. Harapiak; D. Scott for C. Santos. MADAM SPEAKER: Agreed? (Agreed) ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speak er, I bel ieve the Member for Fort Garry, in the committee this morning, made a suggestion that perhaps it would expedite the business of the Privileges and Elections Committee if we were to amend our meeting times. They are now scheduled to meet at 8:00 p.m. tonight, at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow after noon, and at 8:00 p.m. tomor row evening, if required, to amend those to meet 3738

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. this evening and 1: 00 p.m. tomorrow aftern oon, and then I would suggest probably 7:00 p.m. tomorrow evening, if that's required, as well. I think that will allow us to hear more presentations earlier in the day and the evening and would expedite the business. I thank the Opposition members and the Opposition House Leader for their cooperation in that regard. Madam Speaker , I also want to remind members that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet at 8:00 p.m. this evening as had been scheduled.

Also, Madam Speaker, I understand that there is an inclination on the part of all members to forego Private Members' Hour , by leave. MADAM SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, will you please then call Second Reading on Bill No. 72, followed by Debate on Second Reading on Bill No. 58, as it appears on page 6 of the Order Paper; and then please call the bills listed under Debate on Second Readings, starting with Bill No. 25 on page 5 and continuing through to Bill No. 56, inclusive, on page 6, in the order in which they appear.

SECOND READING BILL NO. 72 - THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

(2) HON. M. SMITH presented Bill No. 72,

An Act to amend The Child and Family Services Act (2), for Second Read ing. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, as I indicated last week, the government is introducing a bill to amend

section 19 of The Child and Family Services Act. Our main goals in doing so are to protect children and reduce child abuse. The intent of the bill is to strengthen the provisions related to the investigation, repor ting and registra tion of child abus e cases, consistent with requirements under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Amendments to

section 19 have been under consideration for some time. The recent decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, striking down certain provisions under

section 19 , requir es immediate legislative review of the act. There is a need to include provisions setting out criteria for the registering of both victims and perpetrators of child abus e and for establishing procedures concerning due notice and appeal. Child abuse registries were established by provinces to assist agencies and departments in the protection of children. The Manitoba Registry was established in June, 19 71, and was intended to enhance the goal of protect ing children by requiring that agencies report all suspected cases of child abuse.

Over the years, the registry has been valuable in assisting agencies in identifying children at risk of abuse and families with a history of child abuse. It has also been useful in screening applicants wanting to work or provide services for agencies caring for children.

A recent report, submitted by the Provincial Advisory Committee on Child Abuse, in cooperation with the Ombudsman, and involving extensive consultation with various professionals and members of the public, recommended changes to the registry to the effect that the present registry be divided into two listings, one for child victims and the other for abusers; specific criteria be implemented for the listing of victims and abusers; access to the registry be broadened to include employers of those working in a position of trust with children; and provisions be made for the deleting of names, including processes for review and appeal.

On Frida y, June 19, 19 87 a Court of Queen's Bench decision determined that the Provincial Abuse Registry is in violation of

section 15 of the Ch arter, and subsections 19 .2 and 19 .4 of The Child and Family Services Act were struck down. This decision has serious implications for the protection of children. The existing registry cannot be used. Names of abusers or victims cannot be added, and existing names may not be shared with Child and Family Service Agencies. Child protection services will be seriously undermined if agencies cannot determine if a child may have been previously abused. Suspected abusers' names cannot be made avai lable to determine if there have been previous allegations about the abusive behaviour of an adult.

Potential employee checks, which are important, are also not possible as a final clearance for people who will be working directly with children, such as foster parents, homemakers and day care workers. The bill I am introducing today reflects many of the recommendations in the report on the registry, as well as legal advice on requ irements consistent with principles of natural justice and provisions in the Charter. The bill includes the establishment of agency child abuse committees to review cases of suspected abuse of children. Criteria for the . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please.

The Honourable Minister has the floor. If other members want to carry on private conversat ions, could they do so elsewhere, please? The Honourable Minister. HON. M. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Knowing the high seriousness and concern with which this issue has been dealt with during the Session, I really would appreciate the members' attent ion.

Criteria for the reporting of the names of child victims and of abusers to the di rector , including th e circumstance surrounding the abuse; procedures for receiving and registering agency reports by the director; provisions for notice being given by the director; the establishm ent of an inde pendent registry review committee, appoi nted by the Lieutenant-Gove rnor-In Council; provision for appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench; and provisions related to confidentiality and access. 3739

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Madam Speaker, due to the relative speed with which this set of amendments was developed, we did omit and do intend to add at committee stage two additional amendments with regard to the deletion of names. I will just give the gist of them at this time. With regard to the deletion of information regarding an abused child, we will be recommending that any identifying information on a child who is listed as an abused child shall be automatically deleted from the registry when that child reaches 18 years of age.

With regard to the deletion of information regarding a child abu ser, subject to 19 .2(8) of the bill, any identifying information on a person who is listed as having abused a child shall be automatically deleted from the registry on the later of (

a) a full 10 years after the date of the last registration or, (

b) on the day the child who was abused attains 18 years of age. Again, Madam Speaker, we believe that automatic deletion is preferred to discretionary deletion, as it is less open to Charter challenge and much less difficult to administer. We think that the recommendations we are making do give the system sufficient information to protect children.

We will also be looking at one other possible amendment as well, whether we will include the adm itted category of child abusers as one of the groups of names that will be accessible when employers such as schools or day care centres are asking the registry for information. I call on all members to consider the intent of the proposed amendments and to work toward the enactment of provisions that will strengthen and support child protection legislation in this province. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROW N: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Minister.

I wonder if the Minister would let me have a copy of her speaking notes so that I don't have to wait for Hansard for it to come out. HON. M. SMITH: Yes. � MR. A. BROW N: I move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 58 -

AN ACT RESPECTING THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF CROWN CORPORATIONS MADAM SPEAKER: Debate on Second Reading on the proposed motion of the Ho nourable Min ister respon sible for Crown Corporations, Bill No . 58, standing in the name of the Honourable Member tor Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speake r, I'm pleased to rise toda y to participate in the deba te on Bill 58. Madam Speaker, this bill on Crown corporation reform is nothing but a perceived commitment by this new Minister to gain some meaningful control over the mismanagement that is taking place in our Crown corporations.

For four years, Madam Speaker, we have seen a Department of Crown Investments which was charged and had a manda te to look over Crown corporat ions and to make them more accountable to the public and to the Legislature. We have see whereby, although we had a department that was responsible for this kind of process, nothing was accomplished. By its own admission, this government has failed in gaining the control over Crown corporations. Nothing in the four years has changed the accou ntability and the mismanagement that Crown corporations have incurred. As a matter of tact, the reverse has happened.

Although we have had a Minister in charge who has had a staff, who has had a mandate, Madam Speaker , Crown corporations increased year by year. So now we have a Minister who is proposing a new bill, a bill which he says is going to change all of this. We are going to now see some action in terms of Crown corporation accou ntability, legislative accountability and accountability to the people of this province. This bill, Madam Speaker, is a very clear example of how intellectually bankrupt this government really has become.

Since the last election, Madam Speaker, this government has become plagued with scandal, corruption and deceit. Misguided in its direction by a tired Premier, this gover nment's hallmark has been mismanagement and financial dishonesty. Just yesterd ay, Madam Speaker , we concluded second debate on Bill No. 47, and passed it into the committee stage. During the debate, Madam Speaker, we saw how difficult it was for memb ers on th e govern ment side to contain themselves and not to speak against this piece of legislation.

As the debate became more intense, we wit nessed the frustration of a Government House Leader who paced back and forth behind the benches, attempting to muzzle those who might want to be moved by their own conscience to speak on this bill, a bill that is immoral and an indecent piece of legislation, an example, Madam Speaker, of a government that is truly on the brink of disaster. This is not the only area in which this tired, cynical government has missed the mark.

The em battled Labour Minister, Madam Speaker , had his share of scars in his attempt to muscle through a labour bill, which not only enraged the anger of employers but also saw employees turn against a bill that was supposed to help them. Since the election, we have witnessed a deplorable and intolerable situation with regard to Crown corporations. At no time in the history of this province has there been such a disgraceful record of mismanagement and incom petence of our Crown corporations. But even more offensively deceitful is the cover-up that has taken place by Ministers of this Crown.

The losses to Manitoba taxpayers has been in the hundr eds of millions of dolla rs. Yet this government and this Premier shamelessly stand before this House and congratula tes itself on its record. Manito bans have recently become aware, and rightfully so, about the state of our health care system. 3740

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Closing large blocks of beds, complete departments and wards in hospitals are resulting in a lack of health care services to people in need in this province. We have not seen this kind of thing before in this province. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker , how useful the $120 million that was lost at Manfor might be today in providing a health care service for this province? How many Cat scans would this province have been able to afford to buy had we not lost $27 million in MTX, or the $60 million losses at MP IC?

If this government had not participated in the Flyer giveaway plan, can you imagine what kind of health care service this province would have, with the $65 million? The list goes on, Madam Speaker, and can you imagine where we would be today financially if we had not incurred losses in places like Workers Compensation, Venture Tours or ManOil?

When the former Minister responsible for Crown Investments was in charge of this particular department, in 19 84 he stood before this House in Estimates and he said: "We believe that the public has a right to be kept informed about important developments in the Crown corporations." He made that statement in his opening remarks. He also indicated that his department would be stream lining and improving the information flow that was essential to the decision-making process of Crown corporations.

He said that his department would be involved in assisting corporation officials to rectify problems which were plaguing Crown corporations. He said, in that particular year, his department would assist in ascerta ining the strategies which would permit Flyer Industries to make positive economic contributions to this province. Well, Madam Speaker, which one of those goals were achieved? Not a single one. And if we compare those goals, which are laudable in their purest sense, to the goals that this Minister has set in this particular bill, are they much different? I submit that they are not.

So it is not simply words and passage of a bill that will improve the performance of our Crown corporations, but rather it is the will of a government to do something constructive in terms of accou ntabili ty and the incompetence of people who manage the Crowns.

In 19 85, the Minister re sponsible for Crown Investments again stood before this House, and he said that the goals and objectives of his department were, No. 1., to assist the Government of Manitoba through the Economic and Resou rces In vestment Committee of Cabinet and the Ministers responsible to exercise more effect ive direction and control over Crown corporation sectors.

Madam Speaker , that seems familiar when we take a look at the remarks that were made by this new Minister with regard to this particular bill, when he said: "The keynote of the policy, Madam Speaker, is the accountability of the Crown corpora tions to the public and the Legislature." Well, that is not different than what we had in 19 85 or in 1984. Because of the relentless attack by members of the Opposition, members on this side of the House, at Crown corporation committee hearings, we have been able to uncover the kinds of mismanagement and inco mpetence that have existed in the Crown corporations.

This government has been forced to attempt to clean up its act with respect to Crown corporations. But what does it do as a result ? How does it propose to clean up its act? What kind of new creative ideas does it propose? This intel lect uall y bankrupt government, Madam Speaker, turns to a piece of legislation from Saskatchewan that was originated some 40 years ago. The Minister of Crown Investments has not referred to the current Saskatchewan model of Crown corporation management. Neither does he mention in his proposal legislative acc ountability through a select Standing Committee on Crown Management.

If he was truly inte rested in making Crown corporations accountable to the Legislature and to the people of this province, that would be one of the first things he should be including in this particular bill, a committee made up of all parties within the Legislature that would have the right to question, to bring forth staff, to pose questions and make sure that Crown corporations would have to divulge their activities over the ensuing year. But this Minister chooses to leave that particular aspect of the Saskatchewan model out.

He does no t mention present efforts by the Saskatchewan government to depoliticize Crowns. And, Madam Speaker, he says across the way, "Are you kidding?" I guess that is true. They will never depoliticize Crown corporations. But in the Saskatchewan model we have seen a major move in the depoliticization of Crowns by the appointment of private citizens as chairpersons of Crown corporations. It is not surprising that this Minister fails to mention the Crown Investments Review Committee. And what did the Crown In vestments Review Committee in Saskatchewan find?

Well, Madam Speaker, it found that Crown management under the Saskatchewan NDP was based largely on political control, rather than on financial and managerial corporate control. So, Madam Speaker, this Minister apparently has failed to recognize that the Saskatchewan model has come a long way since the 1940's, and that changes that have evolved are resulting in a more favo urable method of Crown corporation control. Instead this Minister takes his new ideas - and I say his new ideas - from a 19 40 CCF model on Crown corporation control.

In his remarks to this bill, the Minister cited four major areas of accountabil ity, and I must say that I cannot disagree with this concept. The concept is laudable. For far too long, Crown corporations have not been accountable enough to the people of this province who, through their hard-earned tax dollars, have invested heavily in many ventures. The first area of acc ountability cited by the Minister is that to the public.

And again, Madam Speaker, I go back to 19 84, and I've mentioned this before when the former Minister, the Minister now responsible for IT and T stood up in the House and said, we believe that the public has a right to be kept informed about important developments in Crown cor·porat ions. This is not new, Madam Speaker, this was a mandate of Crown Investments. Crown Investments had the power to do this and we see this reiterated in this particular bill. And the Minister presents this as a new idea of Crown corporation control. (Mr . Acting Deputy Speak er, M. Dolin, in the Chair.) 3741

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Mr . Deputy Speaker , this government's previous record of accountability leaves one very suspicious of the type of accou ntability this Minister is talking about. By this government's own record one can only assume, and quite accurately I must say, that this will only be window dressing. This government has become so untrus tworthy that it is indeed questionable as to how much truthful information will be allowed to be dispelled to the public. And then what about the timing of the information that is al lowed to flow to the public?

We have witnessed how, in several ministerial departments, information was purp osely withheld by this Premier and his Cabinet from the public for the purp oses of getting elected in an election. A MEMBER: Disgraceful. MR. L. DER KACH: And can we re ally trust this admin istration to do dif ferently from now on in? And I must give this new Minister credit, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , because I think he has some genuine interest in making sure that Crowns become more accountable and he would like to do credit to his position, but unfortunately he is not yet the Minister or the power in that particular Cabinet - oh and it's not the Premier either. He has to bow to the wishes of the House Leader on that particular side, Mr. Deputy Speaker . So we are left very suspicious as to what information will flow, what is meant by public accou ntability, how this Minister proposes - of course he says he has service committees that will do this.

They will go out and tell the people what these Crown corporations are doing. But who are these service committees controlled by? We have a board that's going to be in charge of a holding company . And who makes up this board? The board is made up of Cabine t mem bers, Cabi net Ministers, whose interests, of course, must be not only social and economic but have to be political.

Therefore, I am sure as I stand here that any information that is allowed - and this is based on past performance of this government - to flow to the public will have to be scrutinized by that powerful central committee, formerly the ERIC committee. The second area the Minister mentions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that of accountability to the Legislature. This is probably the most impo rtant area of accou ntability. This is where Crown corporations can be made to answer and account for their activities through qu estioning by mem bers of all parties.

Representing Manitobans throughout the province, Crown corporations can be made to attest for their activities. It is thi s process whereby members of comm ittees have been able to expose gross mismanagement act ivities and incom petence by departments and by Ministers. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker , recent developments have shown that this government plans to make a mockery of this process.

We have heard repeatedly and just in the past few months and weeks the commitment of this Premier, First Minister , of many of his Cabinet Ministers giving the people of this province the false impression that any information tha t the legislative committees will want will be for thcoming. All of this has been simply political rhetoric and political posturing. The Minister of Crown Investments has ind icated in response to questions that, yes, there will be greater accountability by our Crowns. He has admitted that mistakes have been made and correct ions are necessary. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, where was this Minister, this super Minister - and it is not a phrase that we on this side should take credit for, but it's rather a phrase that has been born out of the kinds of news releases that this Premier has made and the unrealistic expecta tions that he has of people like the Minister who is responsible for Crown Investments. This Premier has done that before, whether it was promising Manitobans great reductions in gasoline prices.

Last November, he made the great annou ncement that all of a sudden he has come to the realization that Crown corporations are not being accountable enough to this province and he unveiled a tremendous plan that was going to bring Crown corporations into line. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are still waiting for some glimmer of hope that there will be some greater accountability . I guess we'r e looking across the way at the Minister who so often has been referred to as the super Minister in this House. Where was this Minister who has responsibility over Crown corporations or Crown Investments?

Where was this Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when just a week or two ago members of the legislative committee on the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation asked staff to be brought forward to the table to answer important qu est ions on activities of tha t particular Crown corpora tion? Where was he? Because he made the statement in this House that he would ensur e that there would be greater accou ntability of Crown corporations. And how do we get acc ountability of Crown corporations if not through the legislative committees and through questioning?

So where was this Minister's commitment of greater accountability? You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to condemn this Minister at this point because he is new to the portfolio. He has perhaps some way to go in developing this particular portfolio. So we must give him an opportunity to do that. I pose a challenge to him. I think that this challenge will determine whether or not this Minister is going to do something with his department.

The challenge is this: Will this Minister allow or will he instruct his subordina te Minister that members or staff people be called to the table at the next MP IC hearings to answer important questions about activities in the Manitoba Public Ins ur ance Corpora tion? If this Min ister is committed to his goal of making Crown corporations more accountable, then I ask him to answer tha t challenge. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he is not prepared to do this, then what does this bill really mean in this House? Where is the accountability then?

I go back and I ask the Minister why he hasn't proposed that there be an all-party legislative committee, standing committee for Crown corporations. A MEMBER: They got rid of it in British Columbia in a year . MR. L. DERKACH: Oh, he says they got rid of it in British Columbia in a year. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 3742

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 they have not gotten rid of it in Saskatchewan. That's the model that he was using and that's where it is working. A MEMBER: They don't call Session either. MR. L. DERKACH: Oh, he says they don't call it. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speak er, it's on right now. As a matter of fact, the hearings are going on tod ay. So it is being called, and it is there for the purpose of establishing what the activities of Crown corpora tions are. Of course, it doesn 't matter what stand ing committee you have.

If you don't call the committee, if you don't allow it to be called, then you're not going to get any kind of accountabil ity. Is that what this bill is all about? Is it to hide from the public of this province, from the people who pay the tax through their taxes to support these Crown corporations? Is it the intent of this government to hide the truth so that people in this province will not know the kinds of monies that are squandered, the kinds of incompetencies that we have by the Ministers, the kind of mismanagement that go es on in our Crown corporations? So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am going to wait with anticipation to see whether or not this Minister will intervene and ask the Minister responsible for MP IC to allow staff to come forth and answer questions at the next MPIC hearings, which apparently are scheduled for next week. The third area of accountabil ity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is through the joint council process. When one takes a look at this, I suppose one can't argue with it if it is applied in its purest sense and if it is not gerrymandered by the political whims of the Minister or the particular individual in charge.

This is an area which can be very constructiv e to the morale, to the staff complement, to the workings of employees in a Crown corporation, to the productivity of employees within a Crown corpora tion. It allows some involvement by people who are producing the product, or people who are rendering the services and, therefore, there is some credibility in proposing a joint council, and it's not a new idea, again. The Minister outlines in the bill what the purpose of the joint council is.

First, he says it's to discuss ways and means of improving the delivery of services to the public, a worthwhile goal, and I commend him for doing that, because it is important that Crown corporations do deliver services properly to the public that has the responsibility of paying for them, to consider corporate policies as they affect employees. This has been going on in other corporat ions, in other sectors, qu ite effectively. Emp loyees should have an input into what the policies are that affect them. The third area is to consider methods to improve the operations of the corporation.

No one denies that this is an important way to help improve, because employees too have a view of how a corporation perhaps can be improved as it relates to them. So I have no specific argument with that particular part of this legislation. Because of this Minister's previous involvement in labour organizations, it is my hope that this process will evolve to be a positive process, a positive experience, especially for those people who are the backbone of these corporations - the employees. We go to the fourth area, and that is the area of a holding company, not a new idea again.

By his proposal, it is very evident though that this Minister's commitment to Crown corporate management is based on the NOP commitment of central planning. Cabine t control is the single most important policy and desire of this particular government. The establishment of the holding company in reality is the formation of a new Crown corporation, or perhaps we might say a new Cabinet Committee replacing ERIC. ERIC is emerging in a different form under a different name.

However, the ultimate intention is the same, that being to ensure that the policies and development projects und ertaken by Crown corporations are consistent tools or instruments of this government's social, economic and political policies. Thus, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we speak about Crown corpora tions' acc ountabil ity, in reali ty, Crown corporation accountability will be firstly to the Cabinet Committee, not to the people of this province. The rest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be simply window dressing and that is unfortunate.

But I say that because of the previous record that this government has built for itself. We have seen this through Crown investments; we have seen this through activities, whether they be the Manitoba Telephone System through MTX, whether it's MP IC, whether it's Workers Compensation, any of these. We see that this government cannot be trusted to do what it's been mandated to do. If there is any doubt about what the intention of this government is through the implementation of this bill, I would simply like to quote what the leader of the Saskatchewan N.D. Party said.

He said, and I quote: "I am inclined to view that much of our preoccu pation with the form of the corporation is illusory. If we grant that policy matters must be controllable by the political heads, and if we gr ant that polic y matters and administrative matters are merely two ends of the same stick, then it appears likely that the degree of policy and indeed of adminis trative independence is determined not so much by the corpora tion's structure as by the political considerations in the minds of the responsible Minister and his colleagues." In essence, Mr .

Deputy Speaker, Crown corporations' activities are determined by the political aspirations of the Cabinet. This Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has admitted that the Department of Crown Investments failed in its mandate. He excuses the failure, because he says, "Lack of staff resulted in an inability to deal with the situations at hand ." However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do have Ministers of each of the Crown corporations who are charged with the steward ship of the corporations. Where is the accou ntability of these Ministers? Who do they answer to? Do they not answer to Cabinet?

Do they not answer to the ERIC committee? Where was the Minister responsible for Crown Investments? Did he not have any questions for the Ministers when their individual corporations were losing millions of dollars? Did he ever take a look at what was going on in the various departments? Did these Ministers ever take a look at what was going on within their own departments? So you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we are talking not only about a holding company all of a sudden making 3743

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 things right; we are talking about Ministers who are incomp etent, Ministers who allow mismanagement, Ministers who are not really in control of the situation. In his remarks, this Minister has referred to a holding company model of the private corporation, and that being the Power Corporation. However, he didn't make any referenc e to the differen ces between the private and the public sector, and there are some differences, and some significant differences. In a public corporation, the ultimate power is with the Cabinet .

In a private corporation, that power lies within that holding company and its owner and ultimately the shareholders , of course. But would there be the kinds of losses tolerated that we have witnessed in this province in Crown corporations? I doubt it. That would be intolerable and it would not go on for any length of time. But yet, in the public sector in this provin ce, there seems to be no end to money. If a corporation loses $100 million , all you do is go back to the taxpayers, get some more, put it in, waste another $100 million. And it's been going on and on and on. In the final analysis, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter whether we have a Crown Investments Department or a holding company, whether we have an ERIC committee of Cabinet , or whether we have a committee of Cabinet in charge of a Crown holding company. If the government does not have the will to bring its corporations into line by replacing Min isters who are incompetent, who mismanage the corporations, then nothing will change. This new model will cost the taxpayers of this province an additional $2.5 million, as I understand it.

We have already witn essed one sample of the new model of accountability in the legislative committee hearings of MPIC. I hope, and I sincerely hope, that this is not the beginning of a track reco rd of this new holding company that shall be established . It would appear at this point that this government, through this new bill, will be able to bury incurred losses, mismanagement and incompetence by Ministers .

By its previous record, as I've indicated before, I would submit that the goal of this bill is to plan centrally and enforce Cabinet control over all Crown corporations, and the ultimate goal being to deceive the public of this province . In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I do not see any great change that will result in the accountability and performance of our Crown corporations by simply passing this piece of legislation. There has to be a genuine desire on the part of this government as a whole to bring the whole process under cont rol.

If this Premier continues to allow incompetent Ministers to remain in departments where they have bungled terribly, wher e they have created intolerable losses, the result will never improve . When a private corporation or even a hockey team or a football team continues a record of losses, then there is a replacement of senior management. This Premier and th is government has not displayed any will to do any of that and, until he does, the taxpayers of this province will continue to pay heavily through their tax dollars for corporations that have outlived their purpose as public corporations. Thank you very much.

MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker . It's a privilege to address the Chamber briefly on Bill 58, particularly following the excellent contribution made by my colleague from Roblin. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can't recall a government initiative that's been debunked and shot down in flames so quickly as this particular initiative that the Minister is trying to get the Chamber to pass and to foist on the people of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we all know why we're dealing with Bill No. 58.

We all know - I say with some regret, as a practising politician - that, in politics, perception is all too often far more important than reali ty. What is being perceived in the minds of the voting public is what's at issue here . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , several months ago , back last fall , early winter, when one Crown corporation after another Crown corporation was finding itself in ever increasing difficulty , this government , this First Minister , realized they had to do something politically so that the people of Manitoba whose taxpayer money was being lost in the millions of dollars by Crown corporations doing the kinds of things tha t they ought not to be doing , said, "We have to do something about this." He called his Cabinet in together, the ERIC Cabinet group together, that was supposed to look after these things , and they dreamed up Bill 58.

We'll find a bright, new young Minister to put in charge of it, the Minister with a pretty face, the Minister who hasn't had too much experience in public office, who hasn't gotten himself into trouble yet, and we will , in effect, make him a super Minister . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have too much respect for the Minister, the Member for Concordia, in his capabilities, that this Minster is going to find this assignment , the assignments that have been entrusted to him under the bill that he is now proposing to be passed in Chamber, a very frustrating experience . Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it does not matter who we are , what particular role we play in the overall design of government, but I am prepared to acknowledge that each and every one of us giving up our time to serve the public during our particular period of time that we are elected, given the fact that we all have other interests, family and private interests, but most of us like to do something and spend our time in a constructive and a meaningful way. It may be viewed differently by the people outside . It may be viewed differently and certainly often is by Opposition members .

That 's part of the democratic process, but I doubt very much whether this Minister will get any satisfaction out of just doing the kind of charade, practise the charade, that he is going to have to practise in carrying out the so-called responsibilities under this bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've already seen it. We've already seen it exhibited here in this House, and it was not meanness on our part that we've tested it out . We've asked the Minister very specific questions with respect to some of the responsibilities that he's going to assume for Crown corporations under this act.

But inevitably the Minister directly responsible has very quickly stood up in the House to defend his turf, not going to have any interference from this new super Minister, not going to have any interference from any kind of legislation that we pass . 3744

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you've watched that, you've heard me ask questions with respect to the Crown corporations, one of our largest Crown corporations that this Minister now is supposed to take a firm handle on and make accountable to the people and to the Cham ber. I've asked questions about Manitoba Hydro and - I was going to say, Mr. Parasiuk, but that's against the rules - the Minister of Energy and Mines very quickly got to his feet and took control with respect to any answers, any responses that were to be made in respect to that Crown corpora tion.

The same thing applies when we directed questions with respect to the Manitoba Pub lic In surance Corpora tion. Very qu ickly, the designated Minister, designated by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it can't be any other way. I'd have recognized that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's been my privilege over the periods of my time to have been responsible or to have been answerable for a number of Crown corporations in this Cham ber.

It was once my responsibility to be responsible for Manitoba Telephones, for the Manitoba Crop Insu rance Corporation, for the Agricultural Credit Corporation, for Autopac, for the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation. So there is a little bit of knowledge in the background of when I address the problems that I see in this bill. It seems to me, Mr .

Deputy Speaker , tha t it's regrettable that the gov ernment has chosen to essentially play the game of politics, recognizing that perception is all too often more important than reality, and they've presented us with Bill 58, presented us with a super Minister who will live no longer than such other efforts have survived, the most recent being Crown Investments, ERIC committee, other super committees of Cabi net that were held and directed to take specific respon sibility over the affairs of Crown corporations. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) Well, Madam Speaker, what kind of constructiv e criticism can I give to the Minister, to the government?

Madam Speaker, it's my contention that it's when Crown corporations fundamentally begin to stray from their original and individual acts that incorpor ated them to provide a particular service, carry out a specific function, when we examine some of our most recent disasters, that's when we get in trouble. So, Madam Speaker, I suggest that the Minister, this Minister and this government, would be far better off spending their time in re-exa mining the initial acts of incorporation of the various Crowns that we have operating in the province for different reasons.

There's always a good question, Madam Speaker , as to how many of these Crowns do we require, and that's another part of the problem. Madam Speaker, traditionally we looked upon Crown corporations as providing a kind of a public utility service, and that did not have an ideological bend to them. It didn't matter whether it was a Conservative Go vernment or a Liberal Go ver nment or a New Democratic Party Government. When collective wisdom prevailed that it's best to do certain things, provide certain services collectively on behalf of all of us, then indeed there was an occasion for a Crown corporation.

Certai nly, Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Telephone System, Manitoba Public Ins urance Corpora tion, Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation and Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation were all established on those bases. Madam Speaker, when we go right back to those corporations and then find out who, after all in the main, operated trou ble-free for many years and provided many years of the kind of service that the sharehold er, the Manitoba taxpayer, expected of them.

It's my submission, Madam Speaker , that it's when Crowns began to vary from their original mandate as laid down specifically in legislation that we invited difficulty and we invited trouble, or when Crowns deliberately and blatantly broke their own legislation that established them is when we got in trouble, as is the case with the Workers Compensation Board right now. Madam Speaker, the Workers Compensation Board has as its mandate and written right into its act that it cannot operate with a deficit. But that very specific mandate, that very specific

section of the act has, since these gentlemen came to power, ladies and gentlemen, been deliberately violated. Madam Speak er, if they wanted to change the operation of that particular institution, then have the political will to bring about those changes, bring those amendments to the act that allow that institution to operate within its legislative framework.

Madam Speaker, it's when Crown corporations or other governmental institutions operate outside of their legislative framework that we are held responsible, that we draft for them, just as we are drafting this right now, then that is when we are in difficulty, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I say this with considerable respect to the memory of the late J.O. Dutton who, I suppose, could be considered the father of the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation in Manitoba.

As I say, I want to make it very clear, I say it with the greatest respect to his memor y, but the special audit that has just been carried out with respect to that corporation reveals, Madam Speaker , that the entry into international reinsurance was done so without a clear mandate in its act that established it. The act tha t establ ished the Ma nitoba Public Insurance Corporation was to provide a specific service to Manitobans. We get involved in accidents with our vehicles, we pay premiums and our cars are repaired at the lowest possible cost, the same thing with respect to sick benefits.

But, Madam Speaker, the special audit clearly reveals that it was never presented to anybody in government including the New Democratic Minister who was then responsible, nor to myself when I was Min ister responsible, the entry into international reinsurance treaties that have now lost that corporation millions of dolla rs. You know, Mada m Speaker , what so many Manitobans are asking themselves as they read the newspaper stories about the troub les that Crowns have gotten themselves into, they simply don't under stand why we were doing that kind of business in the first place.

I mean, why did we have to reinsure that multinational American chemical plant that had that dreadful accident in Bhopal, India where 2,000 people died? And Manitobans are paying for the insurance claims for that case. That's not what we started Autopac for. 3745

/ ✓ Thursday, 9 July, 1987 -(Interjection)- Because a Crown was out of control, there was no reporting of that activity , and I believe the present Minister, there was no reporting of that activity until 1984. The special audit just carried out indicates that there was never a business plan presented to the board of Autopac, never a business plan presented to a Minister, never a bus iness plan , never a suggestion. Madam Speaker , I will tell you, I'll make that confession . I did not know we were in the business . I did not know we were in the business . A MEMBER: What about Bison? Tell us about Bison . MR. H.

ENNS: Yes, I'll tell you about Bison. A MEMBER: You knew about Bison . MR. H. ENNS: Well , of course I did; I directed it. Of course it was . And that saved the corporat ion at least $2.5 million in premiums - $2.5 million in premiums. The special audit on page 22 clearly indicates those savings. Madam Speaker , let me tell you another thing with respect to Manitoba Telephone System . Manitoba Telephone System, if you read the act - the act is fairly clear, very precise - is to provide a telephone communications service across the width and breadth of Manitoba. I will be acknowledged .

It started in Conservative times, Madam Speaker . Nowhere in the act of the Manitoba Telephone System does it say that it has to preserve and create jobs. They provide telephone services , so a sligh t deviation from their mandate. Because of technology , and we had a surplus of personnel , we accepted an offer from Bell Canada to par ticipate in a contract in Saudi Arabia. But the rationale for doing it on the part of Manitoba Telephone System was not to carry out the mandate of its act, but jus t to provide some work opportunities for employees who might otherwise have to be laid off.

Well, Madam Speaker, from that small deviation, all of a sudden, we end up doing business with some Arab sheik , signing promissory notes and losing $25 million , $27 million, $30 million of the taxpayers of Manitoba . You and I and every one of my constituents, including my senior citizen widows on fixed incomes, have their telephone rates jacked up by this government, and we've got a Saudi Arabian sheik running around with $20 million and driving cadillacs . HON. A. MACKLING: It's the same management that deceived you, Harry. MR. H. ENNS: That's right . That's right, Madam Speaker .

I'm not arguing with my honourable friend , the former Minister of Telephones , who , up until six months ago, described that business venture as going to be a great, profitable opportunity for all Manitobans , Madam Speaker. HON. A. MACKLING: I, like you, listened to that same management. MR. H. ENNS: I am offering some good advice as to what needs to be done with respect to bringing Crowns under control and accountable , and it needs to be done whether they're in power or whether we're in power . I'm just suggesting to the Ministe r that the piece of legislation that we're passing now will not do that.

I'm suggesting the time ought to be redirected to review and rewrite and rethink the orig inal acts of incorporation that set up thes e corporations bec ause, Madam Speaker , we are now in the latter 1980's. Times have changed , conditions have changed , government has intervened more often. Let me speak to you about another one, Madam Speaker , with respect to Manitoba Hydro. The Manitoba Hydro Act has a very clear

section that spells the mandate for Manitoba Hydro, the largest of all our Crown corporations. That is to produce energy, to boost electricity in the most economical manner , and provide it at cost , service at cost, to all Manitobans . Madam Speaker, that fundamental direction in its act was possibly first violated in 1969. In 1969, when it became - when Manitoba Hydro came in 1967-68 - when they developed their program for the utilization of our northern rivers , that would be the Churchill and the Nelson for hydro development , they were still operating under their mandate .

Their suggestion was for high -level diversion of the Churchill River to the Nelson. That was the cheapest , most economical way of utilizing the great water resources of our north. Madam Speake r, politicians intervened at that point in time. We deviated in a fairly major way from Manitoba Hydro 's statute requirement.

We said no, Manitoba Hydro has to take into consideration the ecological damage it's doing in the area, has to take and consider the human values in terms of the dislodgment, the inconvenience, cost, human and social factors with respect to the people living in that area or will be affected living in areas by waterways that are raised. Madam Speaker , there was nothing wrong with that , absolutely nothing wrong with that .

I would think that we evolve as we go along to change our attitudes from what initially was fairly black and white, in the case of Manitoba Hydro, to employ hopefully the best engineers to tell us how to build a dam to produce power. When that project starts to interfere with what we now accept as due and proper concern for our environment, then obviously there had to be a change written into The Manitoba Hydro Act. But, Madam Speaker, we didn't do that . We just started intervening more directly and more politically with the affairs of Manitoba Hydro and, to this day, we are doing it.

Nowhere in The Manitoba Hydro Act is there a mandate for it to build dams to sell power to the Americans. Nowhere is there in The Manitoba Hydro Act a

section of the act that says that Manitoba Hydro is there to make money. Manitoba Hydro is there to provide service at cost . Now, Madam Speaker, if this government or any other government wants Manitoba Hydro to become a money earner for us, as indeed this government wants - they've talked glowingly in the last Session, and they in fact established another bit of window-dressing legislation, Manitoba Energy Inheritance Fund .

To ride on the piggyback of the once very popular Alberta Heritage Fund, we passed legislation , Madam Speaker, that established a heritage fund where we were going to take all the profits from the money that we make for selling power to the Americans into that fund to go 3746

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 and help us build our roads, keep our hospital beds open, improve our schools, un iversities. Madam Speaker, we're now a year later, two years later. Is there a nickel in that heritage fund? Is there one red copper in that heritage fund? Of course not. Will there be one next year, or the year after, or in 19 90? Of course not, because you don't start selling power to the Americans till 1993, although we've already built the dam and are paying interest to the tune of $200 million a year. Percept ion, Madam Speaker , is what this government works on.

Percept ion, percept ion, perception, and ignore reality. So we're passing a bill, Bill 58, that's designed to fool the public of Manitoba, that this First Minister - getting a handle on runaway Crown corps. He had to do something because it was getting outr ageous. Every other month, another very serious financial scandal was breaking with respect to our Crown corporations. So he devised this whole scheme that we are now carrying out tod ay, this whole charade, appointed a super Minister.

He had to give the super Minister something to do so we'll pass a piece of legislation for him, Bill 58, and expect that something is going to happen. Well, I know one thing that will not happen is any more acc ountability or direct control over Crown corporations. I also predict, Madam Speaker , as I said earlier, a great deal of frustration on the part of this young and ambitious Minister, who will not be, quite frank ly, satisfied; who will not to lerate the position that this legislation and his First Minister has put him in.

I have too much respect for his talents that he will be satisfied to wheel away imagina ry decision-making processes at 10 different meetings, when in fact the decisions are being carried out in the board rooms, where they ought to be carried out, of Autopac, of Hydro, of the Telephones, or anywhere else. And a year from now or a year-and-a-half from now, this Minister will be wanting to shed himself of this responsibility which is largely illusory and designed to be so. That's the shame of it, Madam Speaker, it's designed to be so.

Really, when you consider the concerns, the problems that we have in this province, when you consider the real efforts that we should be applying our minds and our energies to resolving some of tho se problems - in the health field, in agriculture, in urban/ rural living problems, generally - then we shouldn't be wasting time on this kind of game of charades. Thank you, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Ft. Garr y. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to add just a few brief comments to the comments made by my colleague from Lakeside.

I endorse them wholeheartedly because I think we're dealing in an area of charade and misdeception - I would like to say it. It's not a correct word, but I think it's more accurate to it. The government has found itself over the last two years rocked by one continuous mismanagement problem after another and, with rising taxes and reduction of services, if there is anything more that the public is demanding of its elected leaders in office tod ay, it is good management of the tax dollars. And we haven't been getting it.

So this government rushed forward to try and solve the problem by giving a new bill saying that we'r e going to have acc ountability; we're going to have better accountabilit y. We're putting in structures that are going to give us accountability that's going to be so good that we now have a super Minister who is going to give us super accountability .

Now my colleague just pointed out the problems when civil servants, political appointees, deviate from the norm, when we have all over the world the large corporations that went on the building binge, the acquisition binge, found that they couldn't do the jobs well that they acq uired, are now shedding th e compan ies and going back to their basic core operations. That, in effect, is what we should be doing in Manitoba with our utilities. But we'r e not going to get super acc ountability un less we get polit ical accountability.

The one thing that has been sadly lacking in all of this, and even leading up to introduction of this particular Bill 58, is the political accountabil ity. The political accountability has not been there for any of these scandals. Yes, some civil servants' heads have rolled, but where has the political accountability been? As my leader said some time ago, what does it take to get a Minister fired from this government? And we know the fact is that this political party in power today believes in someone else's accou ntability for their mistakes, but we're above it.

So how can we have super accou ntabil ity if we don't have political accountability? Now, in Public Utilities Committee where I chaired a few meetings, I've listened to the Minister who is responsible for this act. I've listened to some of his comments also made in the House during debates. He would like to give political accountabil ity, and we heard it while my colleague was speaking from Lakeside about Project Ida and when he was Minister, or when another mem ber, my colleague, had been the Minister of Telephones, he should be accountable for the problems in Project Ida.

We also have heard, at least I have heard the comments made about, well tell us about Manfor. They don't accept political accountabil ity, but they want to lump all the disasters that have gone back for a number of years on the certain members on this side who have been Ministers. They want us to accept political accountabil ity, but they're not prepared to accept political accountabil ity. So again, when we're dealing with this whole world of perception, I can tell you that the public isn't buying the new bill that's going to wave its magic wand and get them out of there, the swamp that they're in.

So you can't have it both ways. You can't duck the ac countabil ity issue and you can 't lump th e accountability issue on someone else. For the Minister's information, he should look closely into the history of the Manfor project, because he keeps liking to dump it on to the previous Tory administrations. I would remind him that one Premier Schreyer advanced 90 percent to 95 percent of the funds to the company and said it was good, and then shortly there later he tur ned around and put it into receivership. So, if you want political acc ountability of Manfor, lump it on one of your own.

What we have are the same political people sitting around the Cabi net table, we have the same civil 3747

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 servants, we have the same political support staff, only wearing different hats. We're now going to have some superbody, and we'r e going to have some of those bodies sitting in meetings, at board meetings. We're going to have everyth ing flowing through a special group, and they're going to be accountable for it. Well, these are the same people who gave us these disastors. How can you expect something new if you're using the same old tired players?

I grant, the Minister was not involved in any of these and I, like my colleague from Lakeside, wish him well, but I think he's being guided like Napoleon was when he was going into Russia. He may wake up one day saying, what the hell am I doing here, and want to get out on a very orderly retreat . But he has been given a job, he'll attempt to carry it out. The one area that I would like to know is, if you are not accepting political accou ntability, yet we're going to get superacc ountability from this Minister and his staff, how are we going to get to the truth at committee hearings? Who do we ask?

Who do we try to pin the tail of the don key on? The Minister has said that existing Crown corporat ions will still flow through to th e committee stage. We will still be able to ask questions but, when something is going wrong, such as the unfunded liability at MP IC, the Flyer problem, MTX, whatever else may be on the horizon or is now in the pressure cooker, who do we ask and who becomes accep table? Is it the new Minister and his staff or, if this mine field is blowing up, does it then fall on the Minister who is responsible for that Crown corporation and his staff? Who do we ask? Who do we go after?

Unless the Minister can clarify it, unless the Minister and his colleagues are prepared to give us political accou ntabili ty, this whole thing is a sham and I'm sorry to see him waste his time. I think the public is looking for leadership, the leadership to get back to the basic services that Manitobans have long wanted, did not want to get into a lot of adventures with, are now paying for tho se adventures. They will not buy this charade that the government is trying to play that they're trying to do something to get their house in order.

If they will not give us political accou ntabil ity, if they will not freely admit their mistakes - and I grant the Minister has made on the MTX matter. He said it was a disaster, we should never have gone into it, and I give him credit for that. But it's a good defensive ploy. When you've got nothing else going for you, admit you're wrong and let's carry it on, but it won't go under the carpet that quickly. So when the Minister and his colleagues are prepared to provide us with some political leadership and some political accou ntabilit y, then maybe the public will buy the need for Bill No. 58. Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. 3748 MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 25, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. (Stand) BILL NO. 28 - THE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of the Environment, Bill No. 28, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A.

KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Honourable Member for Emerson stood the bill for the Honourable Member for Niakwa. MADAM SPEAKER: Proceed. MR. A. KOVNATS: I am happy to rise today, finally, to speak on this Bill No. 28, The High-Level Radioactive Waste Act. In preparation to speaking to this bill, I took the opportunity of visiting the only location in Manitoba that I thought would give me an insight as to what happens with waste materials from radioactive sources. I did have the opportunity of visiting at Pinawa.

I had a fear of the unknown and, to allay that fear, I thought that it would be best to have a first-hand look at a site in which there was nuclear waste. I wanted to base my criticism or support on an understanding rather than a fear of what nuclear waste was all about, nuclear waste that was created through the use of fuel rods and material that does give us a waste material of high-level radioactive waste. Madam Speaker, The High-Level Radioactive Waste Act, Bill No. 28, is an effort to protect Manitobans from the dangers of storing and disposing of nuclear waste in Manitoba.

We have our own nuclear waste that comes from programs that are beneficial to Man itobans, such as medical treatment and some industry development. This waste is our responsibility, and we must accept this responsibility. We can, however, not accept the responsibility of disposing of nuclear waste from other jurisdictions. This bill states that by its prohibitions, and we support these prohibitions.

The development of the Atomic Energy of Canada at Pinawa should be encouraged, with its nuclear research and development and the underground research lab, to lead us into the 21s t Century in safety and responsibility. Let me, at the onset, state we are not supporting the development of nuclear weapons and, second, we are not supporting the disposal of waste from nuclear weapons. Madam Speaker, the Atomic Energy of Canada at Pinawa probably leads the world in development and research.

To my knowledge, they have over 1, 000 employees at Pinawa, about half of them doing research and half of them developing nuclear power. It is being monitored to see that the agreement between the Provincial Government and the Atomic Energy ot Canada will develop in an orderly and safe manner . I am pleased that the United States has contribu ted financially to allow them to gain the knowledge to store their nuclear waste in their own jurisdiction.

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 I have always stated that energy is and will be the future of Manitoba. That energy could be electrical energy through Manitoba Hydro. It could be hydrogen power through the development of electrical energy, nuclear power, or any other type of energy, Madam Speaker. But I believe that energy will be the salvation and the future of the Province of Manitoba. Ontario today develops half of its electricity from nuclear reactors and, by 19 92, that figure will be 60 percent.

Just as a matter of information, did you know that 10 carloads of coal, about 400 tonnes, is equivalent to one bundle of nuclear material, Madam .Speaker? Pinawa is producing a technology and developing knowledge that is incomplete as yet. We must make people aware of nuclear power and its waste. There has to be an educational process set up so that we have a clearer and better understanding of what it's all about, rather than an abnormal fear based on what we hear about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, great disasters. But we must be educated as to what happens with nuclear material.

We must make people aware of the dangers and the benefits of nuclear power and waste . Let us not close our eyes to the development of nuclear power for peace ful purposes. Now is not the time to deter the expanding of the nuclear industry, particularly in Manitoba. It could be our safe salvation for the future. Now is the time to develop this technology in cooperation with the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, and the people who are directly involved. I do have some criticism, Ma dam Speaker, wherein this bill only touches on part of the problems that we have with nuclear waste.

We are passing a bill that is not going to allow nuclear waste from other jurisdictions into Manitoba, but we've only looked at part of the problem. I know that this Minister is absolutely concerned about the other parts of it, but here we are rushing into passing a bill or trying to pass a bill that will only cover one small aspect of nuclear power and nuclear waste. I think that the whole problem should be examined more care fully. The Minister res ponsible for Workers Compensation, after the King Report, is going to take six months before he takes any action on any one part of it.

He's going to take action on the whole picture. I guess I'm caught in the middle where I criticize the government sometimes for moving too quickly and sometimes I criticize the government for not moving quickly enough. But there are many questions to be answered, Madam Speaker, and the Minister is going to have to answer these questions before I can fully support the bill. What do we do with the high level of waste that we now have stored at Pinawa? Is every province to look after their own waste? Is there a cooperation across Canada concerning nuclear waste?

Do we go through the NIMBY process - not in my back yard - or do we go through the process of not in anybody's back yard? How are we going to dispose of our own waste? Madam Speaker, I stood next to a concrete bunker that contained nuclear waste. I wanted to see what it was all about. My first-hand look when I was at Pinawa - it is being stored. Is this the site that has been chosen for the storage only, or are we going to dispose of nuclear waste in this site? Is the Minister prepared to advise the people of the Province of Manitoba where we will be disposing of nuclear waste?

I think the people deserve an answer, and I think that they deserve an answer when this bill is passed. Where is the medical waste that is going to be stored or disposed of in Manitoba, medical waste that comes from the good of the medical profession, wherein they have had to store some medical waste? How are we going to dispose of that waste and what is the Minister doing to plan to dispose of that waste? We can't just sit still and wait for that waste to accumulate to such a size that it will not be able to be disposed of.

While I was visiting Pinawa, I had the opportunity of going through the whole of the plant, and I noticed an activity there which the people advised me was what they call a slow-poke reactor. It's a small nuclear generating station that generates nuclear power that can service smaller locations. I started thinking about these locations that could be around Manitoba that would give some comfort to people because it does generate heating facilities for some smaller locations. I was thinking mostly of some of the Native reserves in the north. That would provide them with some comfort.

I was thinking of locations like Churchill, that would provide some comfort for the people up there with this slow-poke nuclear reactor. I was thinking that some of these nuclear reactors, these slow-poke reactors, will be going up into the Northwest Territories or into isolated locations. What's going to happen with the nuclear waste of these slow-poke reactors? I think, Madam Speaker, that the Minister has got to advise us when we come to this bill.

When he gives us his final speech on the bill as to what is going to happen, he's got to advise us about what's going to happen to the nuclear waste that comes from a slow poke reactor where it's generated or manufactured right here in Manitoba, shipped to another jurisdiction. Are we going to allow it to come back? These are all questions that have to be asked. Madam Speaker, to my knowledge, there is a danger to power nuclear waste. But also to my knowledge, I don't know of any deaths that have been attributed to nuclear power in Canada.

I can cite that some of the other forms of power that are generating electricity and comfort for the people of the Province of Manitoba have caused some deaths, and also some gas explosions, some electrical power problems. But I think that, before we make a final decision as to whether we are going to reject nuclear power or not support it out of fear, we do have to have an educational process. I would hope that, with this bill, ther e'll be an educational process so the people will understand exactly what we've got here in the Province of Manitoba.

With that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to say that I'm going to support the bill to the point where we will reject the storage of nu clear waste from other jurisdictions into our own province. We must accept the responsibility of our own nuclear waste here in this province, and I will be supporting that part of the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 3749

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 I, too, wish to comment on Bill 28, The High-Level Radioa ctive Waste Act. Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty in accepting the principle that we, as a province, should not be responsible for the treatment and disposal of nuclear waste which is not generated in Manitoba. If we receive none of the benefits, why should we accept responsibility for any potential risk or damage to our environment or our lifestyle? Similarly, if nucle ar waste is being stor ed, as a former Environment Minister, I would agree that you should store it above ground for easy retrieval and monitoring.

With respect to the overall issue of nuclear energy , Madam Speaker, a great deal of research is ongoing into the safe treatment and disposal of nuclear waste. Now though scientists and nuclear physicists continue to give assurances that nuclear material can be safely handled, every so often we get a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl to remind us that no system is foolproof. No means of handling can give absolute security. So it is with treatment and disposal. An absolute foolproof system or repository is yet to be found.

We have of course, as we're well aware, ongoing research in Manitoba at that underground nuclear research facility near Pinawa. It may yet produce definitive results and assurances. If it does, it will probably be applicable to all similar rock structures, meaning that we may find here in the Precambrian Shield in Manitoba that we can safely dispose of nuclear waste. But the Precambrian shield stretches from Qu ebec to Ontario and all the way thr ough to Saskatchewan, Northern Saskatchewan.

So that would give a numb er of options and whatever research produc es here in Manitoba would also apply, obvious ly, to other areas of similar rock structures, probably in the Precam brian Shield. But on the other hand, if the research concluded, Madam Speaker, that there was only one safe place in Canada to dispose of nuclear waste and that was right here in Manitoba, I wonder if the Minister and his colleagues would say no, we will have none of it here under any conditions.

We will condemn our brothers and our sisters in other provinces to the hazards and the consequences of poten tially unsafe disposal methods, rather than accepting them in Manitoba if it were proven to be the safest place in all of Canada. I would have difficulty. In fact, I'd probably have great difficulty with that attitude, saying you go and store it in an unsafe place or a less safe place somewhere else in this country because we who have the only safe place in the country won't let you store it here.

I'd have difficulty with that concept, and I think that most reasonable Manitobans would have difficulty with that concept, Madam Speaker. What about this bill, Bill 28? What does it really do for the protection and the benefit of Manitobans? The Minister said in his opening statement that the act does th ree things.

He said, firstly, this new act will make it a violation of provincial law to dispose of nuclear waste in Manitoba; secondly, it requir es that the waste be stored above ground to permit retrieval and provide for continuous monitoring; and thirdly, it prohibits the storage of waste not intended for research purp oses in Manitoba. The government has already said that's its policy. I

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-86
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 86.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ce2b3e6db88598182ce039d11abf7e245dd1884b

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