Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 43 (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-43

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. GARY FILMON (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Petition of the Winnipeg Humane Society praying for the passing of

An Act to Incorporate the Winnipeg Humane Society Foundation. MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions .. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Standing Com mittee on the Rules of the House. MR. CLERK, Jack Reeves: Your Standing Committee on Rules of the House beg leave to present the follow ing as their First Report: Your Committee met on April 20, 1982 and agreed that the quorum for all future meetings of the Commit tee be five (5) member s.

The Clerk of the House was authorized to reprint the Rules of the House and to make such corrections as were required. The Committee recommended that the Rules be amended, where necessary, to read (a) "the reigning monarch " instead of "Her Majesty the Queen," (b) "the Governor-General " instead of "His Excel lency the Governo r-General," and (c) "the Lieutenant-Governor " instead of "His Honour the Lieutenant-Governo r." The Committee also recommended the following further changes in the Rules: (

a) by striking out the existing sub-rule 93(

g) and substituting therefor the following sub-rule: "(

g) at the conclusion of each Session of the Legislature, cause the Votes and Proceedings to be indexed and bound and published as the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba." (

b) by striking out the existing sub-rule 11 0(7) and substituting therefor the following sub-rule: "

(7) Sub-rule (4) does not apply to those provi sions of The Corporations Act that, by virtue of that Act, are deemed to be included in any Private Act incorporating a company. (

c) by striking out Rule 122 in its entirety. Your Committee also agreed to defer consideration of the following until its next meeting: (

a) Rules 88( 14), 11 2, 11 3, 114 and 11 5. (

b) The question of precedence to be assigned to points of order and matters of privilege. The Clerk of the House was directed to meet with Legislative Counsel and attempt to redraft Rules 112, 113, 114 and 11 5 to reflect the proceedings on Private Bills. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. JERRY T. STORIE (Flin Flon): Mr . Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move seconded by the Honourable Member for lnkster that the report of the Committee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Energy that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion .. . Introduction of Bills .. . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 14 students of Grades 3 to 5 of , the Crestview School, under the direction of Mr . Jim Morgan. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. We also have 40 students of Grade 9 standing of the Ken Seaford Junior High School, under the direction of Miss Sawiack. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Kildonan. There are 80 students of Grade 9 standing of the Spring Valley Junior High School, under the direction of Mr. Richard.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. There should also be 25 students of Grade 9 stand ing of the John Pritchard School . These students are under the direction of Mr. Kroeker. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for River East. On behalf of all of the members I welcome you here today. 19 46 ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin-Russell): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minis-

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 ter of Health. Apparently the Grandview School has reopene d . I wonde r if the Minister can advise the House if the latest reports that he 's had from the area can assure the House and the students and the staff that all the safeguards of he alth are in place now that the school has reopen ed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Health. HON. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to share the information that I have with the membe rs of the House.

The Inter-Mountain School Division Board me t Tuesday afternoon, April 27th, 1982 , and made a decision to reopc;i the Grandview Eleme ntary School. Continuous monitoring of the air sinc e Monday, April 26th, by Environmental Servic es, has indicated that no carbon monoxide is present. Also, specialists have checked operations of the furnace, air condition ing system, gas line s and gas connections and all systems are functioning well. An old incinerator, 30 feet to 50 feet from the school, will be move d today in case it was the source of contamination.

Further blood samples from teachers who attended an in-servic e session in the Grandvie w School on Monday, April 26, 1982 , hav e be en tested for carbon monoxide and are normal. An environm ental specialist, Mr . Bernie Crisp from Dauphin, will be at the Grandvie w site for the balanc e of the week and will provide continuous air monitor ing until Friday morning, April 30, 1982 and periodic monitoring ne xt week. Dr. Eric Sigurdson, part-time Medical Officer of Health, from Dauphin will be carrying out a surveil lance of activities at the Grandvie w School and avail able if requir ed.

Also a Public Health Nurse is on site at the school. Executive and me mbe rs of the boards of the Inter Mountain School Division and school officials are to be comm ended on the manne r in which they have managed all the activities conce rning this incid ent and I'm referring to the Chairman, Mr. Joe Dykeman; the Secretary-Treasurer, Mr. Stan Pluwack; School Division Superintendent. Mr. Mel Graves and Grand view School Principal, Mr. Howard Smith. MR. McKENZIE: I thank the Honourable Minister, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the First Minister.

I wonde r if the First Minister could advise that corres pondence from Co-op Economic Development both indicated to me that they have no correspondence on file whatsoever pertaining to the 1,200,000 pounds of surplus cheese that lies in the war ehouses of Manco, I wonde r could the Premier advise the House if any, in fact, any Ministers of his governme nt have any solu tions or possible plans whatsoever to he lp dispose of this 1.200,000 pounds of surplus good food. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble First Minister. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Membe r for Roblin-Russell knows those matters pertain to the portfolio of the Minister of Co-operative Development. MR. SPEAKER: Th e Hono urabl e Mini ster of 19 47 Municipal Affairs. HON. A. R. (Pete) ADAM (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the honourable membe r has raised his question. It's a question that conc erns us greatly.

The decision was made by the Co-op people in discussion with their banke rs that in vie w of the soft market for ch eddar cheese at the present time, that it would be advisable for them to close two plants in order that they can control their inv entory. That is the reason why they have decided to close two plants in order to have a better control of the inve ntory that they have on hand. Th ey expect that by fall the sur plus of cheese will have reduced and there may be a possibility that if that happens, the plants may reopen again this fall. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, the people from MANCO have me t with the Mini ster of Agriculture and I understand that there has be en some change s on the board and that they have requested another mee ting, I believe, for Friday. So we expect to me et with them on Friday of this week. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, it is my und erstanding that MANCO 's plan to convert and expand their plant or spend .5 million and conve rt it to skim milk and powdered milk has be en set aside.

Is this Minister going to tell the dairy farm ers and those 50 workers at Rossburn that that's all the future that they have, that'll possibly open this fall or that there is no way of disposing of this chee se. I don't think that answe r is acceptable at all, Mr. Speaker. MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, a decision to expand a plant into powdered milk or other products is a decision that the board will have to make thems elves. It is not for the gov ernment to go in and dictate to the board what they should or should not do.

It is not ttie inten tion of this Minister or the Minister of Agriculture to go and take the responsibility of day-to-day operation of MANCO plants. That is a decision for the board them selves to decide. I have not me t with them myself up to this point in time, they have ne ver asked to me et with me and to discuss their problems but I will be me eting with them on Friday. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Minister finally, does he in his own conscience hone stly stand up and try and tell this House that a million pounds of cheese are sitting in a warehouse in the province and they can't be sold?

Surely there's got to be some other answer to it. MR. ADAM: Mr . Speaker, perhaps, the honourable membe r has more information than I have but I can not confirm that there is a million pounds of cheese or there's 500 pounds of cheese there.

I und erstand that they have an inve ntory problem and it's because of a weak mark et for chee se. because of the uncomp eti tive position that the mark et is in the east, and there is a 5-cents-a-pound freight rate to move the che ddar cheese from Manitoba to Ontario where the markets are and as a result of this being in an uncompetitive position, a further 3-cents-a-pound reduction in the price of ch eddar cheese because of the surpluses

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 here has created a difference of ab out 8-cents-a pound with the Ontari o ch eese production there. It's a difficult problem, we are going to meet with the MANC O to see wh at alternatives we can find to dis pose of this cheese. Mr. Speaker, I am writing to our own people here, the Department of Health, the Department of Com munity Services, to see if we cann ot use some of this surplus cheese in our own establishments in Mani toba; at least that we use Manitoba cheese. Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that we sh ould just tell our government facilities they must buy MA NCO cheese.

I am saying that we sho uld maybe look at seeing they use Manitoba cheese. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment. Could the Minister indicate whether he or his department has issued a directive canceling chemical spraying on Crown lands and road allowances? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of North ern Affairs. HON. JAY COWAN (Churchill): Yes, I can't at this point. indicate whether or not that directive has been issued.

If the member has mo re detailed information, I will certainly attempt to find an answer for him and report back to him at my earliest convenience. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. can the Minister indicate wh ether he is anticipating any changes in the program regarding chemical spraying on Crown lands? MR. COWAN: I have not been no tified at the present time of any changes which are being anticipated in the very near future. However, I will ch eck with my department to find out if, in fact, those ch anges are being anticipated and if they are, I'll report back to the member. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for La Verendrye. MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (la Verendrye): Mr. Speaker. my first question is to the Minister of Health. I wonder if he could inform the House whether the replacement of the existing Rest Haven Home in Steinbach will be 60 units or 80 units? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, all the honourable member has to do is look at the package or kit I gave him yesterday . I think that'll be spelled out in there. MR.

BAN MAN: So the Minister is confirming the per sonal care facility that will be replacing the existing one is 60 beds and not 80 as the community was led to believe. Okay, Mr. Speaker, I guess that's the case then. The facility has been wound down somewhat. My second question. Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister in charge of Mc Kenzie Seeds and I would ask the Minister of Community Services whether he could confirm that Mc Kenzie Seeds did show a profit last year and that the profit was accomplished after all debts were serviced without any interest-free loans, grants or gifts from the government? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Com munity Services. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asks a question of me information of whic h was provided in detail in the Committee yesterday morning. He was at the meeting and the information was provided and I think he's really wasting the time of the House by asking me for information which he has as well as I have, having heard the report of the corporation, having been given a presentation by the Chairman of the Board. MR.

BAN MAN: I thank the Minister for the affirmation that that question, the way I posed it, was indeed correct. I would like to ask a further supplementary to the Minister. Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that this profit was accomplished for the year ending October 31 st, 19 81, under the previous Conservative Government's term of office, and under the direction of a good solid Board of Directors, why did this Minister fire the Board of Directors of Mc Kenzie Seeds when it managed to show this type of a profit? MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, boards ch ange from time to time and I'm very pleased that we have now in place, an excellent dedicated young board of persons including, for a change, two women. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Stur geon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I wo uld like to follow up with the Memberfor Brandon East as well because he didn't answer my question in the board meeting yesterday.

Could the member tell us why they took the Industrial Commis sioner of Brandon who was on the board, on a board that was successful, and a successful businessman who was Industrial Commissioner of Brandon, would have continuity with the company, which would desirable in this case, why did they take Mr. Christian son off the board? 19 48 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Com munity Services. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I would advise the honour able member that when the individ ual he's talking about, this Industrial Commissioner that he's talking about. was appointed, he was not appointed as Indus trial Commissioner. He was not then holding the posi tion of Industrial Commissioner of the City of Brandon. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the only question I would ask, is Mr. Connie Christianson the Industrial Com missioner of Brandon or not and was he taken off the board of Mc Kenzie Seeds wh ile he was the Industrial

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 Commiss ioner of Brandon. Mr . Speaker? MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, as I told the memb er yes terday, and it's on the record, there's nothing mag ical about having any particular indiv idual on the board and my previous statem ent stands. We decided to change the board and we've got a very good board in place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Membe r for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr . Speaker. my question is for the Honourable Mini ster of Consume r and Corporate Affairs.

In vie w of the rPr::ord numb er of bankruptcies be ing experience d in Man itoba at the present time and in view of the fact that people are losing substantial sums of mone y often in the thousands of dollars: this mone y having be en deposits placed on major pur chases such as furniture, autos and motorcycles, etc., as a result of bus ine sses go ing into recei versh ip, what does the Min ister intend to do to protect the interests of those many Man itobans who may be putting depos its 0n major purchases so that they wi ll not be faced wi th the loss of this property if their deposits are revoked as a result of busine ss failures?

MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Min ister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs. HON. EUG ENE KOSTYRA (Seven Oaks): Thank you, Mr . Speaker. as I ind icated in response to a qu estion some we eks ago from the Memb er for St. Norb ert, I have directed the staff to look at that particular prob lem. unl ike the previous gov ernment that had the opportunity of doing that for four years so we intend to look at that.

There is a problem wi th respect to people that do put deposits on goods and then the subsequent bankruptcy takes place and one area that we are explor ing at the present time is the setting up of trust accounts to deal wi th that particular situation so that those funds would be protected. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same Min ister in hi s capacity as Min ister of Urban Affairs.

I wonde r if he wi ll now admit that as a result of the freeze on bus fares that he has imposed upon the City of Winnipeg, the natural consequence of that freeze wh ich has the effect of limi ting the sources of incom e wh ich the Winn ipeg Trans it System has at its dispo sal, is now a reduction in services as a result of the cutting of bus routes that is now taking place for Winnipe g Trans it, as a direct consequence of hi s move of trying to impose provincial regulations by virtue of holding the purse strings on Winn ipeg Transit. MR. KOSTYRA: Mr.

Speaker, that statem ent by the Membe r for Tuxedo is simply not true. Th e City of Winn ipeg budgeted its expenditures for the Winnipe g Transit System wi th a budgeted deficit. Their approach to looking at the deficit was in part by increas ing transit fares to the citizens of the City of Winnipeg. Our approach to the City of Winn ipeg was that we would cost-share and pay half of that deficit through the Grant formula.

As far as I am informed that budget that was initially proposed by the City of Winn ipeg was the one that was approved by the City of Winn ipeg providing for what I would believe the same level of service for the citizens of Winni peg. So if there is any cutback in services it is the City of Winn ipeg that has taken that decis ion on its own, not by any actions of the provin cial governm ent. MR. FILMON: Well, Mr .

Speaker, any operations such as the public transit has only certain sources of incom e and if the Min ister has cut off on e of the potential sources of incom e, wi ll he now take the responsib ility for the fact that a bus route in the con stituency of the Honoura ble Min ister of Economic Development is bei ng cut off because he choose s to interfere wi th the affairs of the City of Winn ipeg Council? Will he take that responsibility? MR. KOSTYRA: Mr.

Speaker, I do not believe that the Min ister is he aring what I was saying, that the budget that was proposed by the City of Winni peg for transit fares prior to the announcement of the grants by the province to the City of Winni peg were the same, it was the same budget that was finally approved by the City of Winn ipeg. So any cutbacks in serv ice were not contemplated by the city prior to the agreem ent or to the grant that was awarded by the city. So the provin ce's actions wi th respect to the city did not result in any change in the city of Winnipe g Transit Budget.

So any cutbacks, you would have to ask the City of Win ni peg for that. 19 49 Mr. Speaker, the City of Winni peg is recei ving the hi ghest amount of assistance from the Province of Manitoba in the hi story of the City ol Winn ipeg. I would just want membe rs opposite to remembe r what happened when they first took office and he ld down the assistance to the City of Winni peg for a numb er of years. It was only in the last couple of years that they started increasing assistance. We didn't take that same approach, Mr. Speaker.

We took a responsible approach giving the City of Winn ipeg incr eases in excess of the cost of living index for the City of Winn ipeg of a level that I think is providing the city wi th som e me an ingful assistance. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Membe r for Arthur. MR. JAMES DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I have a qu estion for the Min ister of Co-op Development or Co-ops in the province.

I wonde r if he could advise the House and the cattle producers of western Man itoba whe ther a decis ion has be en reach ed by Man itoba Pool Elevators whe ther or not to rebu ild the livestock facilities that burne d some we ek-and-a-half ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Min ister of Mun ici pal Affairs. MR. ADAM: I don't have that information wh ether or not they have come to a decision. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the board has me t. Th ey did me et after the bi g disastrous fire that they had.

I me t wi th the manage r of the plant there, the Auction Mart on Thursday, I believe it was. the day after the fire and at that time I

• Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 did pose the question to him as to whether or not they might be reopening the Auction Mart and he could not give me a definite answer. He did remark that in view of the depressed prices of cattle they would still have to make a decision on those basis. He had also indicated that the Advisory Board had met or were going to meet and that they met on Thursday, I believe.

I again, went to the plant on Fri day and he indicated to me that the Advisory Board were in agreement to rebuild the plant but that the pool directors were meeting on the following Monday and that they would decide then whether or not a decision would be made. So I can't indicate to the member at this point in time whether a decision has yet been reached to reopen the plant. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. DOUG GO URLAY (Swan River): I have a ques tion to the Minister of Labour.

I believe two weeks or thereabouts the Minister introduced the Student Employment Program and the details of that program are sort of career-related, unlike the program that was in place a year ago. I'm wondering if the Minister will be reconsidering the program to cover the private sector in providing jobs to students. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): It sounds from the hammering out there that we've supplied one job that might be -( Interjection)- might be better done at a different time of day so that we could hear each other.

But I can assure the honourable member that the program that we have introduced does indeed apply to the private sector. MR. GOUR LAY: If, in fact, it does apply to the private sector but unless the applicant can fill into a career related type of job there is no job there for the youth.

I'm getting a number of calls right now that students are interested in jobs but not necessarily any kind of job, and the program that the Minister has announced doesn't help that many students; at least it doesn't look it's going to help the numbers of students that it helped under the old program that we had in place the last couple of years. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard of any students who don't want jobs that are career-related but if the honourable member can refer those people to the person in charge of that program, then certainly that's a matter we will take up. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, again with respect to the summer employment of students. The Minister has said that there are programs available for the private sector but are there programs available for private sector employees with more than 10 staff members? His news release refers to only those with 10 or fewer employees. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, that's correct. It refers spe cifically to small businesses and farmers and it also refers to municipalities and other institutions and yes, there is a limit to the size of the business which is eligible for the program. MR.

FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my impression was that last year there were many of the jobs that were created by employers of sizes that were greater than 10 employees. so can the Minister indicate what the rationale is for that exclusion when it seems to me that there will be hundreds of jobs eliminated for students as a result of that particular restriction? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker. we have allo cated approximately the same amount of funds to the program as there was last year.

If there is any diffi culty with respect to uptake then I can assure the honourable members that what we will do is change the rules in such a way to make sure that money is spent on employment for youth. We will not change the program in such a way that we will not be benefit ing the student and the small business community. We are concerned that it was, in the past, too often the large businesses, the large corporations that took advantage of a program which didn't necessarily pro vide any long-term benefits to the student other than the summer wages .

What we were doing here is very specifically providing to the student some benefits which will be career-oriented. I won't comment on the problems that the Member for Sturgeon Creek has right now, they are very obvious . MR. FIL MON: Mr. Speaker, I can't understand what the restriction between employers of 1 O or fewer staff members or greater than 1 O has to do with whether or not it's job-related, or whether it's meaningful employment, an experience for the students. That has nothing to do with the question I asked. Besides all of that, Mr.

Speaker, how can the Minister indicate that there will be any adjustments made that will take place in time to help students. They're looking for jobs now they're not waiting for the ... so can the Minis ter indicate when he'll give us the information? MR. SCHROEDER: Mr . Speaker, there's no evidence to date that we won't have the full uptake of this program. What we said when we introduced the pro gram was that we were concerned that small business get an advantage out of this. We, unlike the Opposi tion. believe that small business can, in fact, take advantage of this program.

The Opposition seems to believe that the only people who can take advantage of this program is the large corporation. We don't happen to share that pessimistic view of Manitoba, and I suppose that was one of the things that was involved during the last election campaign. We were talking about small business in this province while all they could think about was the mega projects. MR. FILM ON: Mr. Speaker, I can shed some light for the Minister. The reason that he's not getting any complaints is that the applications aren't yet availa ble.

So, when will the applications be available so that people can apply for legitimate assistance under the 19 50

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 program that he says is so helpful? MR. SCHROEDER: Soon, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker. in view of the fact that the province is facing such high unemployment rate at the moment, can the Minister of Labour advise the House whether there is any program of assistance that will apply to private sector, community organizations or to local govern ments that is not career-oriented? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR.

SCHROEDER: The member is aware of the pro grams that have been announced; if there are any further programs they will be announced in due course. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker. my question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Can the Minister of Economic Development confirm that a small busi ness is a business that employs 10 or fewer people? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Eco nomic Development. HON. MURIEL ANN SMITH (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the

definitions of small business vary from jurisdic tion to jurisdiction. We tend to use the smaller size in Manitoba than the Federal Government would. I hesi tate to give a precise definition because I'd have to identify the context within which we're talking, but 80 percent of the businesses in Manitoba do come under the criteria of the small business interest rate relief and the main criterion there is $350,000 net sales or turnover per year. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, before calling Orders of the Day I'd like to make an announcement of a Com mittee change. Tomorrow is the meeting of the Com mittee on Economic Development and the Member for The Pas will be substituting for the Minister of Transport on the Economic Development Committee. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call, Orders of the Day, the second reading of Bills No. 2 and 20 in that order, please. SECOND READING -PUBLIC BILLS BILL NO. 2 -THE RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT HON. EUGENE KOS TYRA (Seven Oaks) presented Bill No. 2.

The Residential Rent Regulation Act, Loi 19 51 sur le contr61e du layer des locaux d'habitation. for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs. MR. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A major campaign promise of the New Democratic Party in the November, 19 81 provincial election was a commit ment to reintroduce rent controls to the Province of Manitoba. -:-hat commitment was endorsed by the people of the Province of Manitoba.

On Monday past the government announced the contents of the rent control legislation and that a guideline or threshold for rent increases of 9 percent is to be set, retroactive to January 1 st. 1982. We believe that the need for rent control is even more paramount today than some six to eight months ago, Mr. Speaker. We anticipate adverse market con ditions which, if left uncontrolled, would result in rapidly rising rents. place tremendous pressures on individual and family budgets and give cause to a wide variety of social problems.

Rental accommoda tion vacancy rates are declining rapidly and rent increases are escalating. The situation has been compounded by the lack of new rental accommodation construction because of the Federal Government's monetary policy of extremely high interest rates. This has discouraged investments in apartment construction. Complicating matters further is the recent Federal Budget which removed any incentives to build new rental accom modation in Canada. In developing this legislation we have embodied the principle of being fair to both tenants and landlords.

The proposed program provides for flexibility and the opportunity for landlords to demonstrate their need for increases beyond the set guideline. At the same time, it removes the unfair onus on tenants to initiate protests against a rent increase.

The new Residential Rent Regulation Act provides for the setting of rent increase threshold levels by Cabinet regulation; establishing a mechanism for tenants to protest any increase from January 1 st whether above or below the guideline; replaces the system of voluntary and compulsory arbitration with a detailed study and recommendation on rent increases by rent regulation officer. Rent is charged for a given premises rather then rent paid by a given tenant; a central registry which will register all residential rent increases in the pro vince; a smoother administrative procedure.

A resi dential rent regulation officer will not be required to hold hearings as was the case under the former Rent Stabilization Act. After hearing a particular case, an officer will make a recommendation to the parties involved and if that recommendation is not appealed, it will then become a decision. There's an incentive for landlords to rehabilitate rental premises and an exemption of four years for newly-constructed apartment units; the guideline figure which I indicated would be 9 percent for 1982. There will be two components with respect to increases.

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 An operating cost-pass-through and an economic adjustment. The operating cost-pass-through will be established on the basis of the average increases in operating cost which will be defined in the regula tions. If a landlord finds the provisions for increases to be inadequate to cover actual operating cost increases, he may apply for rent increases over and above the rent guideline figure. The economic adjustment will provide for an adjustment to an owner's income, or to cover in part, additional major interest costs whatever that cost may be.

Because of the economic adjustment factor, Mr. Speaker, the program will not approve rent increases due to a specific mortgage situation. This mechanism will provide for more equal rent increases among buildings regardless of an owner's financing strategy. These are the major elements of Manitoba's new rent control legislation. Since assuming office we have consulted regularly and frequently with developers, the Manitoba Land lords Association, the Manitoba Homebuilders Asso ciation and tenant groups to hear their concerns about rent control.

The process of consultation will continue as the legislation is debated in the House and once it's approved and in place. This consultation has been valuable to us. We have come to better understand the problems and concerns of both land lords and tenants with respect to rent controls. We have addressed them in our legislation and as a result we will have one of the best pieces of rent regulation legislation in the country. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to assure to the maximum degree possible that the Rent Regulation Program will be both fair to tenants and landlords, not only in law but in practice.

With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Bill to the members for their due consideration and speedy approval. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Virden that debate be adjourned on this Bill. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 20 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM ACT MR. KOSTYRA presented Bill No. 20,

An Act to amend The Condominium Act for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. POINT OF ORDER MR. RANSOM: On a Point of Order perhaps, here, I wonder if you in your capacity as Speaker, could intervene and direct that we might have the construc tion suspended while the House is sitting in order that we can hear the proceedings? MR. SPEAKER: For the information of the members, I have sent the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms to stop the hammering. The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs. MR. KOSTYRA: Mr.

Speaker, the members are aware of the introduction of The Residential Rent Regula tion Act. That Act replaces the mediation and arbitra tion process for rent increases which was incorpo rated into The Landlord and Tenant Act. The Condominium Act was amended to provide for mediation and arbitration of rent increases in rented condominium units under The Landlord and Tenant Act. Since that program is being discontinued, it's necessary that all references in The Condominium Act to the mediation and arbitration of rent increases under The Landlord and Tenant Act be eliminated.

The sole and only purpose of this Bill is to make the necessary deletions from The Condominium Act with respect to The Residential Rent Regulation Act. I commend this bill for consideration by the members. MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert that debate be adjourned on this bill. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Transport on the Crow rate? ADJOURNED DEBATES-CROW RATE MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed amendment resolu tion, the Honourable Minister of Government Servi ces, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. STEVE ASHTO N (Thompson): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that members of this House are perhaps wondering why a Northern member is so anxious to speak on this particular issue.

I can assure members of this House that there are many farmers in my constituency - and when I say farmers, I use that word deliberately because although they are presently not involved in the occupation of farming, they are from farm communities, from a farm background and many of them when they can afford to, hope to return to that occupation - and I refer not just to people who have formerly been involved in agriculture in Thompson, but to the many sons and daughters of farmers who hope one day to be able to turn to their original areas and resume in the occupa tion of farming.

So that is why I speak on this issue because, as mentioned, I do have a fair number of - and I use the word - farmers in my constituency. 19 52 I'm also speaking on it because I think it's an issue of provincial importance because in contrast perhaps to some of the comments the members opposite make about the North - some of the comments would show a complete ignorance of what has been happening in

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 the North - we in the North recognize the importance of agriculture to the Manitoba economy. We realize that without a healthy agricultural economy that the rest of the province will suffer. I would hope that the honourable members opposite would likewise show some understanding for the fact that so long as the economy of the North is not healthy, the rest of the province will suffer as well. I must say, Mr. Speaker, as a new member to this House that I found the contrast in the positions expressed on this debate rather interesting, particu larly the contrast shown by members opposite.

A number of speakers have seemed to indicate that they support the resolution; others have spoken for 40 minutes and seem to indicate they're on both sides of the resolution; others seem to indicate that perhaps when the political time is right they will be voting against that. My note in this regard perhaps is the fact that the Saskatchewan election has been completed, that it may be seen as a sign that the honourable members opposite can come out and state their true views which perhaps are not as solidly in favour of maintain ing the Crow rate as their counterparts in Saskatchewan. But we'll be waiting, Mr.

Speaker. on this side of the House in the next few days now that the election in Saskatchewan is over, to see the true views of those members opposite, views they have done their best to camouflage to date. The debate on this side of the House however, Mr. Speaker, is quite clear. We've indicated right from the start that we're concerned about federal proposals to abolish the statutory Crow rate and we've stated quite clearly we're opposed to these efforts. I really hope that members opposite will look closely at the reasons why we say this.

I think, thus far, their position has been dictated rather more by political interest than looking at the facts. Now our stand is clear as I said, Mr. Speaker. We feel the removal of the Crow would be harmful to Manitoba farmers and in particular we feel that estab lishing guarantees for the railways of Canada rather than guarantees for the farmers, would be a backward step. This is consistent, I think, in our view of what's happened historically with regard to the railroads.

If one looks at the original concessions made to the CPR going back to the 19th century when they con structed railroads across Canada, one can see that they've received much in the way of benefits from Canadians who built the rail roads. I would note in this regard a resolution introduced by the Honourable Member for Elmwood in regard to taxation in the City of Winnipeg - a resolution which will be discussed within the next few days in the House and he has indicated quite clearly in the resolution one of the areas of benefit which the CPR still has and that is, lower tax rates in the City of Winnipeg.

But that is really the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the situation across the country because the CPR has millions of acres of land, preferential tax rates. you name it, they got it for building the rail road.

Actually the situation is not really restricted to the CPR because if one looks at the history of the CNR which was nationalized by the then Conservative Government at the turn of the century, one finds that there too there was a great deal of benefit to the former owners of the CNR because they were bank rupt at the time and they received rather a good deal from the then Conservative Government. I suppose that is one policy of the Conservatives which is main tained. They seem to be good spenders of the public money when it comes to bailing out private business.

They seem to have a rather loose purse string in that particular area but as I said, Mr. Speaker, both the CPR and the CNR have received great benefits in the past for their construction and maintenance of rail road facilities in Canada. The Crow is an essential part of this. The Crow rate was one cost to railroads for the benefit of western farmers for their railroad-building activities in Can ada. We feel as I said, Mr.

Speaker, that it would be a backward step to replace one benefit that the people of Canada, the farmers of Canada receive with what is proposed by the Federal Government now and that being concessions for the railroads. So that is the context of which we look at the issue, Mr. Speaker. Our concerns however are more than simply academic. They're more than simply political. Our concern is for the significant costs that could be involved to farmers in any change in the statutory Crow rate. A lot of these potential costs were outlined in the Tyrchniewicz Report of 1979 which has been referred to in debate.

I would note the eminent group of people involved with this study in addition to Dr. Tyrchnie wicz, there was Dr. J.M. Cormack from the Manitoba Pool Elevators; Mr. R.J. Shep from C.P. Rail; Mr. E.A. Poyser at the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; Mr. R. De Pape, Branch Lines Association of Manitoba and of course, Dr. J.C. Gilson of the University of Manitoba. I know Dr. Gilson personally from my connection with him at the University of Manitoba and he has a great deal of respect, not only at the university, but in the agricultural community. We feel on this side it's perhaps unfortunate Dr.

Gil lson is now associating this great respect that he has with various people in Manitoba with an effort to really not give the farmers a best deal, but to negotiate the Federal Government out of the tricky political situa tion it's in when any attempt to change the Crow. We are perhaps sorry that Dr. Gilson has chosen to pro ceed in this way but we wish him well in his activities. 19 53 The Tyrchniewicz Report, Mr. Speaker, I think, out lined the basic concerns of the economic situation facing farmers with any increase in the Crow rate.

The government has recently put out a document which has been well distributed entitled "The Tyrchniewicz Study, Manitoba without the Crow Rate," and I would certainly recommend it to all members of this House as a fairly concise summation of the concerns expressed in the Tyrchniewicz Report. Basically, the findings of the report were that any change in the statutory Crow rate would have a rather harmful effect on Manitoba farmers.

In looking at the scenario in which farmers paid four times the Crow rate, the study found that Manitoba's annual agricultural production would fall by $61 million, a net farm income by $39.7 million. So that was one of the basic findings of the report. Now, of course, reference also been made to the Snavely Report; but even the Snavely Report indi-

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 cated some concern about the situation regarding grain farmers and particularly in regard to transporta tion of grain to the market. It quoted specifically and this is a direct quote, Mr.

Speaker, "The selling price of the export grain and grain products are not and will not be sufficient to maintain the financial integrity of all the participants of the total production and distri bution process (e.g., farmers, producers, railways, elevator and storage companies, etc.)." So even the Snavely Report indicated some concern about the whole economic infrastructure that has been devel oped for the sale of grain for export.

We, on this side, are concerned that those that will suffer are basically the farmers in this entire process and that is why we've introduced and spoken clearly in favour of this resolution. Now, the specific concerns beyond the general cost can be broken down into a number of areas. Of course, we're concerned, first off, of the abolition of a statutory rate in and as of itself because the existence of the statutory rate over the past number of years - I believe it's over 75 years now -has provided farmers with one thing they could count on.

One thing eco nomically which is always there and that being the statutory Crow rate for the transportation of grain. We go beyond that, Mr. Speaker, we're also con cerned about the principle of equal rates for equal distance. It's more than just once again an abstract concern; we feel that if this principle is changed, if variable rates are adopted, that this could adversely hurt branch lines in Manitoba. We feel that the basic network of Manitoba branch lines is one of the main things in the viability of many rural communities, many agricultural communities.

We feel that it could greatly hurt a number of communities in Manitoba and there are about 30 or 40 C.N. and C.P. points that have been indicated as being rather expendable if there is a change in the principle of equal rates for equal distance. -(lnterjection)- Well, the Honourable Member for Morris speaks well from his seat. I look forward to hearing his com ments on this particular issue in the near future. - (I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Morris seems to be one of the most active partici pants from his seat and I hope really that he'll be active in this debate.

Perhaps now that the Saskatch ewan election is over he can come out of the closet and state his true feelings on the Crow which I sus pect will be in favour of the Federal Government's proposal from the comments in his seat. But, Mr. Speaker, to get back to Manitoba's specific concerns. Our concern is also in regard to some of the component parts of the federal package which has been proposed. The Crow benefits or supposedly the Crow benefits package which is, I guess, the Federal Government's way of trying to buy off Canada's farmers.

We're concerned because we're not sure from the way the proposal has been indicated thus far whether it will be much of a compensation at all. We have concern that with inflation the fixed annual payments that the Federal Government plans to pay will be worth less and less each year. We are con cerned about who they're planning to make these payments to. Who is it, Mr. Speaker, the railways, the grain companies or the farmers? We really feel that, as it is right now, the proposal is rather to amorphous to really tell who will benefit. We certainly feel it should be the farmers.

We would also like to know in terms of the general agricultural situation whether it will apply to just pro ducts moved under the Crow rate or to other agricul turnl products as well. So, these are a number of concerns that we have, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the principle of changing the Crow, in regards to the Federal Government's specific proposal to change the Crow. These are our concerns and this is why we've spoken so strongly in favour of this particular resolution. Now, the question we have been asking basically, Mr. Speaker, is why the change?

Is it the Federal Government's great concern for farmers of Canada, particularly the farmers of Western Canada? Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think so. The Federal Government under the present Prime Minister has the last 14 years succeeded in alienating pretty well everyone in the west and particularly western farmers. I really say it's stretching it to say that the Minister proposing this - the same Minister incidentally who introduced the metric system for those members opposite - he should now show some great concern for the farmers of the west. So, that is not the reason, Mr. Speaker. So, what is the reason?

Well, if one looks at projected estimates of the need to allocate new railway con struction, one sees that, well, they're not really talking about Manitoba so much. Figures have suggested that they're talking about $363 million between 1981 and 1990 in Manitoba; Saskatchewan, $725 million; in Alberta, $1 ,000 ,508,000; in B.C., $5, 127,000,00 0.00. Well, Mr. Speaker, how many grain farmers are there in B.C.? Well, not too many. So, if one looks at it, it appears in those figures that there's something more to it. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that there is indeed something more to it and that is that the Fed eral Government is seeking to make the farmers of the west pay for the construction of rail road facilities, not for farmers, but for coal producers because indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is the area where it is projected that more railway facilities will be needed in the next 10 years; that's in the area of sending coal for export market specifically to Japan. That is, Mr. Speaker, why so much construction is seen as being necessary in B.C., why a lesser but greater amount than Mani toba is seen as being necessary in Alberta.

That is why, because they want to construct more railway facilities for the export of coal. I say that's fine, Mr. Speaker, we should be encouraging exports of coal, of our natural resources. I say it's fine to construct the railroad facilities to do that. But I say it is wrong, I say it is totally wrong to make the farmers of Western Canada and particularly the farmers of Manitoba pay for that construction. That, Mr.

Speaker, is why I, as a northern member, concerned about the wellbeing of our agricultural community, why I as a northern member am concerned about the wellbeing of Mani·· toba as a whole, am speaking 100 percent in favour of this particular resolution, and that is why I would urge those members opposite when they do come out of the closet on this particular issue, when they do finally state clearly what their stand is, that they adopt the approach taken by the parties of Saskatchewan in the past election, taken by the Liberals, by the New Democrats and yes, Mr. Speaker, by the Conserva- 19 54

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 lives; the approach that the new Premier of Saskatch ewan has said that he takes and that is that he is opposed to the change in the Crow rate. I would urge them, Mr. Speaker, to stick to the historical stance of the Conservative Party as indi cated quite clearly by the Minister of Natural Resour ces in his contribution to the Crow rate; as stated by such well-respected Western Canadian figures as the late great Honourable John Diefenbaker and that was a position -( Interjection)- God rest his soul, the member says and I agree with it.

I was a great respec ter of John Diefenbaker and I wish, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite would respect his great concern for the farmers of Western Canada, respect that great concern shown on this particular issue when he stated clearly that he was opposed to any change in the Crow rate. There was a person with a real concern about Western Canada, Mr. Speaker. The parties of Saskatchewan have indicated that, they have taken a nonpartisan stand on that.

I know it's difficult in this particular Assembly to avoid excesses of partisan rhetoric; all parties are guilty at times of doing that, but on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, after the main political reason for hiding debate has been eliminated, now that the election of Saskatchewan is over, I would suggest very strongly that the members opposite join with us in telling the Federal Government that we're opposed to a change in the Crow rate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. DA VID R. (Da ve) BLAKE (Min nedosa): Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the member would submit to a question, he has time left. MR. ASHTO N: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to hear the honourable members opposite state their position on this particular issue. I would not want to take up the time of this House to ask a poor new member from the North these questions. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. BLAKE: So the record will show, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Thompson will not submit to a question. MR. SPEAKER: That is the indication I have received. Does the Member for Minndosa wish to debate the motion. MR. BLAKE: No I just want to let the record MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. CLAYTON MAN NESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to debate the resolution, but I'm hard pressed to decide on what accot:nt to debate it; whether on a political basis or whether on an economic basis or, indeed, on an emotional basis. Of course, we've heard all three, specifically the polit ical and the emotional approach from the members opposite in all the debates we've heard today.

When the Minister of Transportation rose here 19 55 some three weeks ago or so to present the resolution, he indicated that, in fact, he wanted it to be a nonpar tisan type debate and hopefully there would be a joint acceptance of the resolution.

I suppose I, as one, wanted to agree wholeheartedly with that intent, but I suppose when one reads the dogma and the emo tional writings of a particular political party, both fed erally and as we have seen in Saskatchewan and to a lesser degree in Manitoba, I'll give our government that credit, one realizes full well that this, indeed, is a political issue and to that I say, alas. It's a sad, sad documentary, I think, on our whole agricultural situation.

Of course, the members on our side, as the Member for Pembina has said the other day, we realized fully well why, in fact, the NOP, both federally and provin cially, wanted this to become a political issue. We know what they are after and what they hope the windfall and the net result would be of attempting to debate in only one way. So there's the political approach and then there's the decision as to whether one should argue it on an emotional high.

I listened to the Minister of Transportation on a television public affairs program some two or three weeks ago and, of course, if you listen closely he would have anybody convinced that we'd be looking at $2.00 transporta tion rates per bushel to move grain within ten years. I say that if that isn't an emotional outbreak, then cer tainly this has to be when you see a headline saying that the "Crow plan seen costing Saskatchewan $2 billion yearly." This came out of Saskatchewan and I think it was the former Agriculture Minister in Saskat chewan, one Gordon MacMurchy.

Of course, we hear members on the other side indi cating that, in fact, it's going to cost the Manitoba economy $10 0 million a year and we hear the CPR drag in all the history and all the hotels and minerals brought into the debate. If that isn't an emotional argument and one based on rhetoric, I don't know what is. Then, of course, your tempted and I think some people are hoping, at least those people that maybe aren't as political in nature are attempting to argue this on an economic viewpoint.

They're attempting to present the facts, not only by way of a Tyrchniewicz Report, but indeed the viewpoint from the farm com munity as to what the costs are of not moving grain; indeed the processing industry as to what happens when products have to move at a compensatory rate versus the Crow rate issue. Of course, people address the whole livestock area and to me these are the peo ple that should be receiving most of the attention in this whole discussion, those people that are trying at least to argue the whole issue on an economic footing.

I'd have to say that the most important aspect, at least, from where I stand as one member of our P.C. Party is that we wonder whether we should, in fact, debate at all or should we sit back like the nothing doing party across the way there and hope that this colossal issue of western transportation will go away. If we just say no, no, no, no, it will fade away and maybe we won't have to deal or wrestle with this problem for another 20 years. We know full well that even to debate issue allows others, those opposed to any review of this vital issue, allows those in question

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 to cast dou bts upon our concerns and upon the con cerns of rural Manitoba. But we are prepared to debate the issue as we have in the past and as we will continue to in the future. Mr. Speaker, let's place into certainty two facts. Num ber one, to review, we will debate the issue, and we have said and we've indicated on a num ber of occasions that we support attempts by all those with vested interests to reach a compr omise. We support the Gils on attempt to reach some neg otiated compromise.

Our second point is that we will no t subscribe at this point to the dogmatic do-nothing approach of the government opposite. And why are we prepared to see the Gilson approach go forward is because we choo se to support the attempts to compromise realiz ing that the mo st crucial political fact of this debate is that no body, no body, no body represents better the interests of Manitoba farmers than the group of peo ple you see sitting here, absolutely no body. That's been that way in the past, it's that way today and it will be that way in the future and that will never chang e . It will never change .

We will no t, and I say again, we will not be mo ved, and you can try any political ploy you so ch oose, but we will no t be mo ved from caring firstly, completely and forem ostly for the well-being of Manitoba' s farmers. Indeed, look at the makeup of this Cham ber. By my rough analysis, there are some 20 exclusively rural mem bers - I'm no t including the mem bers from Brandon and the mem bers from Th ompson - and how many of them, indeed, are farmers? How many of those areas are represented by the PC Party? 15 peo ple out of 20. Does that not say something? I think it does.

What ab out the farm production value? Is it 85 percent of the farmers that produce 85 percent of all the productive value is in the area represented by mem bers on this side? And does some body want to challenge me on that possi bly? Maybe the Mem ber for Th ompson wh o seems to be an agriculture expert. May be he wants to challenge me on that figure and I welcome him to it. So we're no t the government, but we'll not be mo ved from representing best, and I say we will not be mo ved from representing best, the feeling and the attitude of rural Manitoba in this issue no r, indeed, in any other .

So let's continue to debate the issue but let's be fully cognizant of the ground rules; namely that our party is the voice of rural Mani toba and secondly, that under no circumstances are we going to barter away our future well-being. Our rights are equally imp ortant, our future as the best grain producers in this world, and no way will we barter away that future. So I think, at least, we sh ould kno w where we stand.

I listened with much interest to the Minister's speech and I' ll say right off from the start that I, and I kno w many of my colleagues also, supported a large maj ority of the things he had to say and that may or may no t come as any surprise to the mem bers oppo site. I was waiting for and, no dou bt, I wasn't sur prised; I wanted to see how much of the speech was directed towards the CPR. I've been listening care fully to the other mem bers and their presentations to see, in fact, what percentage of their speech has been directed specifically to the CPR.

I detected that at least half of the Minister's speech was given to that railway and to its history and to the development of the Crowsnest Rate Agreement. I think the point that he and the other mem bers are trying to make is that the CPR has absconded with Western Canadian wealth and they have built all these large concerns within an extended corporate empire and that now is their time to help the grain shippers to maintain the Crow rate. As a farmer I'd say I' d love to accept it. I' d love to accept that logic and that reasoning. It makes sense .

I mean it makes real sense if I could say, well, I'll grow the grain; it won' t cost me anything to mo ve it, let the CPR worry about it and I' ll just grow the grain . But I have to appeal to an other source of logic. The Right Hono ura ble John Oiefen baker has been menti oned on many occasions but one thing has no t been menti oned at all in regard to his government and to his coming into power in '57, and the fact that he had some of the same concerns as we all do ab out the CPR.

Did they, in fact, have the right or did they owe it to Western Canada to continue to mo ve grain forever in lieu of the grants given to them at that rate? That' s why I find it extremely intriguing that in all the infor mation that has come out from this government, no t one reference is made to something called the Mac Pherson Royal Commissi on, no t one reference made to it. Because who set up that Commission with the very same concerns of the mem bers opposite and, indeed, some of us here also? One John Diefen baker set up that Commission. And what was, in fact, one of its main terms of reference?

It was to determine and I quote, Mr. Speaker: "Whether and to what extent The Railway Act sh ould specify what assets and earnings of railway companies and businesses and investments other than railways sh ould be taken into account in estab lishing freight rates." The NOP argument was further expanded, and I' m continuing to quote: "The Commissi on reports that some have sug gested no nrail assets are at least in part the result of national grants made to the railway companies over the years and to enc ourage the building of the rail ways.

If this is so, it is claimed that it is only right that the profits sh ould be used to assist in the transport of goods in the nation or, at least, in that part of the nation where the grants were made. We can find no evidence that either the dono r or receiver contem plated such action. Grants were made to get the rail ways built. The tecnical superiority of the railway for land transport was so great that even relatively high rates were very attractive. Presumably, the grants were no greater than was required to get the job done.

Therefore, we do no t recommend that assets and earnings of railway companies and businesses and investments other than railways be taken into account in setting freight rates." Royal Commissi on, brought into being by who? The Right Hono ura ble John Die fen baker to address the very same concerns of the mem bers opposite, indeed, many of us also have today. How did it rule, that ruled that, in fact, those grants could n ot be taken into account? But, is that ever mentioned? Indeed, is that menti oned at all in the Minister's inf ormation that has been forwarded to the farmers of this province?

Never heard it. 19 56 Now, I'm saying it's not cast into stone but will the government include that inf ormation in its literature

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 mailed out to farmers? Will it, if it sends out some more? Well, I doubt it. Then we move on to the CPR; this hated corporate giant. Why does it exist? I' m not a lover of the CPR. The fact that the railway goes right by my door and it has done a credible job of moving our grain and represents our lifeline, I'm still no t a lover of the giant. But, why does it exist? I no tice also the info r mation that com es from the side opposite always begins con veniently in 1881.

No mention is made of the 10 years previous to that where this nation offered to many com panies the same incentives to build a railway. If I could quote again, it says: "In 18 71, when British Columbia joined Confederation there were only ab out 4.5 million Cana tiians, only 137,000 of them lived in the west, mostly concentrated in southern Manitoba and B.C's southern coast." Well, we kn ow all that. It's said ho wever to get British Columbia to the Confed eration - the govern ment of the day promised to build a railway to them within 10 years. and we know that.

But, by 1980. ho wever, the link still had not been built, although attempts had been made. First of all, the Federal Govern ment had offered Sir Hugh Allen $30. million and 50 million acres to do the job but this scheme failed in 18 73. A si milar offer was made in 18 74 but no interest was shown. After failing to get a private com pany interested the government started to build the railway in 1874.

Som e progress was made, although only a fraction of the 700 miles under con tract had been co mpleted by 1880. and that year a Royal Comm ission concluded harshly that govern ment appointees inv olved in the work "were not effi cient" and there was "much less regard to economy than when it happened under si milar circu mstances in private undertaking." Then in October . 18 80, the Prime Minister Mac Do nald signed a contract with a group of businessmen headed by George Steven, President of the Bank of Montreal; and the rest is history. So, why does CPR even exist?

It exists because 10 years previously other private concerns, indeed, the govern ment itself of the day could no t build that railway . So, I wonder if there's a lesson in it today? I think it says that the govern ment is inv olved in any effort guarantees absolutely no thing. It can't guarantee jobs everlasting no r can it guarantee service. I wonder if the me mbers opposite will accept that or no t? Mat ter of fact, I serve a challenge to the rest of the me mbers that are going to speak on this issue . I wonder if they can make a presentation without men tioning the CPR previous to 1960.

I wonder if they can do so? I' m betting that they can't . They'll no t be able to do it because their entire ca mpaign against the Crow review is based, no t upon future benefits but indeed upon the CPR history and the rhetoric. I don't want you to take this as a conclusi on that we 're in opposi tion to everything the govern ment has said on the issue ; that is no t true. Indeed, I support I would sup pose. as I mentioned before, some 75 percent of the statements made by the Minister.

When the Minister states and I quote: "If the Crow rate is ab olished and if the cost of hauling grain moves up sharply no t only farmers but the wh ole Manitoba econom y would suffer"; and he is correct, of course, he's correct. But. there are two com ments in that particular statement. He says the word "bolished." I know it's nice to say that the Crow rate is going to be ab olished and never again see the light of day.

I can say that if the majority of producers in this country believe that to be true there would have been more than five of them out at Portage the other day; there would have been more than 15 of them or so out at Winkler, if they believe that abolition of that particular statute in fact was com ing into existence at all. So, we differ on the views, on the words ab olished or the consideration of the future. I hear the Me mber for Radisson who thinks that farmers are what? Are igno rant bec ause they didn't show up en masse to these meetings. Well, maybe they are. Ign orance is bliss he may want to add to that.

The Minister states, as I said, do not worry ab out the future. political actions will force the grain to move. I say a vast major ity of farm people do no t support that view. They kn ow that the grain did not move in '78-79 and it cost the farmers of this nation $1 billion in lost grain sales. The kn ow that they carried as western Canadians, roughly $1 billion a year in unso ld and unwanted grain inven tory on their farms.

As I had the opportunity to show the Minister the other day- I did some rough analysis and these are carry-over figures of grain that exists on the farms, not in the system, because I move it to the pri mary elevator. I' m paid for it and I don't worry ab out it as much. But, grain that stays on my farm is uns old grain and it has a cost against it. That represents, by my analysis, every year some $1 .4 billion of uns old grain. Of course, no t all of it, there are good reasons why some part of it sh ould stay on the farm, naturally. I would say one third of it.

But what about the other $1 billion that sits in the bins which is not wanted. Wha t is the true cost of it and what are the benefits of a Crow rate if in fact that grain does not move? What are they? I'll lay this into record and I'll show it to anyb ody that so wishes to see it. Do the me mbers opposite no w understand why when cars were identified as the bo ttleneck in the grain handling and transportation system that the Canadian Wheat Board, on the farmers' behalf, took $10 0 million of the farmers' own money and bought ho pper cars. Do they understand why the Wheat Board did that?

Do they understand that the cost of building an additional bin to maintain inven tory is some 50 cents a bushel today? Do they understand that fact? If they do and if they can, they'll understand also why 1 O cents a bushel lost to the Canadian Wheat Board revenue; lost by revenue because in fact, it didn't com e out by way of a payment, it was withheld from us, but, it was directed instead into ho pper cars. But, that 10 cents a bushel was small value to pay when grain worth $5 a bushel in the world market was on my farm and could no t move because of an inade quate system.

I'm wondering if they can com e to grips with that paticular concept? That's the most disturb ing part ab out it, when they realize that 10 cents a bushel over all the bushels moves up to $10 0 million very quickly. But if we do no t sell half a crop we're not talking ab out $10 0 million, we're talking about billions of dollars. If they can understand that concept at all they'll then realize why a large, large nu mber of farmers are prepared to nego tiate and want to see resolved the Crow issue. They're not indicating that they will -producers I'm talking ab out -allow them- 19 57

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 selves to be held ransom to open-ended rates, indeed, many of them are playing their cards close to the vest, and are making no references to increasing their giv ings at all. Without doubt the vast maj ority are in support of the Gilson exercise and his attempts to reach a compromise . If the compromise has produc ers paying more, which undoubtedly it will, then the producers will react and, indeed, our party will react. We're constantly accused, why don't yo u debate it, well, let us see what Dr.

Gilson has to say and then we'll see who leads the debate and who has the farmer's concern closest to their hearts and who understands the iss ue. To me absolutely the most absurd item on this whole discussion has been the approach of the National Farm Union and the NOP on this issue. Surely the NOP opposite mu st ask them selves daily why did the Crow rate issue bomb in Saskatchewan and why did rural Saskatchewan lay such a political beating upon Blakeney and friends. What happened?

Are they saying, as the Member for Radisson does, that the farmers are ignorant they don't understand the issue or is it fact maybe the producers themselves understand more better. MR. SPE AKER: Order please . The Hono urable Member for Radisson on a Point of Order. MR. GERARD LECUYER (Radisson): The Member for Morris puts words that I haven't stated. The Member for Morris quotes that I have stated that the farmers are ignorant. I'll have the Member for Morris know that I haven't even spoken on the Crow rate yet.

Awhile ago he made a comment and I said the Member for Morris will want the farmers to remain ignorant, for them ignorance is bliss, that's what I said. MR. SPEAK ER: Order please. I thank the hono urable member for that clarification. MR. MANN ESS: Thank you, Mr . Speaker, the member has it on the record and that's fine with me, I'll leave the issue there. But, again, surely the NOP mu st ask themselves why the issue bombed in Saskatchewan and surely they mu st say that they, indeed, are out of touch completely with rural Saskatchewan, indeed, they're out of touch with rural Manitoba .

That is driven home even moreso when we're now discussing the new beef program and the Farm Interest Relief Pro gram and all the other new programs this government is trying to bring into being and how far out of touch they, indeed, are with the citizens of rural Manitoba . Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose the matter that has disturbed me the most though personally is the politi cal manner in which the government has chosen to interpret some of the material that is distributed freely to all concerned, primarily the Manitoba farmers.

I can accept the attack on the CPR and I can accept the attack upon Ottawa and Pepin for the manner in which this whole issue was introduced; I can even accept the attack upon, believe or not, the Conserva tive Party for not jumping to debate this Resolution, even though our desire for doing so was again to wait for Gilson's report; I can accept those criticisms.

However , I've found it diffic ult to, on one hand, listen to the Minster say, supposedly sincerely, I want this to be a non-political jointly supported Resolution and, on the other hand, the First Minister saying -and again I challenge anybody to say I'm wrong -gleefully rubbing his hands, ho ho, we'll see how you stand on the Crow rate, and how many times has he said that. Indeed, the Attorney-General last Friday attempt ing to limit debate on that particular .. so a non partisan debate, surely yo u don't believe that. What is even worse though is the

interpretation given to some of the facts as presented. For example, we hear the comment 2/3 of the grain goes east; 9/10 of Manito ba's goes east also. All I can say is, so what. What does that have to do with the issue. Because if you under stand the quota system -and the Member for River East is shaking his head,-he doesn't even understand the issue. Sure we're closer, sure we're located closer to Th under Bay, so what.

Do the members realize that if Saskatchewan wheat can't go west it comes east and it has as much right to the network and to the transportation system as a bushel of Manitoba wheat and the fact that we're located some 1500 miles closer has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Do they realize that? I don't think they do. Under the quota system do they realize that Alberta has as mu ch right, indeed, the very grain producer in the Peace River

section of Alberta and B.C. has as much right to Th under Bay capacity as a Manitoba farmer . Do yo u understand that. If west coast movement drops at all, if it can't handle the increased movement, who is affected, who suffers. We suffer, we suffer as mu ch as any farmer in Western Canada . Or should we disregard the Prairie Canadian Wheat Board concept, the quota system, which I know that party subscribes to so greatly. So that's a fallacy I think that should be put to rest, saying that 2/3 of our grain goes east and 9/1 O of Manitoba's grain goes east.

So let's divide ourselves from this Crow rate issue as Manitobans, let's not be concern ed. The next comment, only 4 percent is to be spent in Manitoba, just a few min utes ago, indeed, the Member for Thompson got up and said only $300 million is going to be spent in Manitoba and again I say, so what. What does it mean? Is it our fault that the moun tains aren't here? Why do yo u think $5 billion are projected to be spent in B.C? Because the cost of one of those 3-mile tunnels, or however long, is $1 billion, that's why .

So what would yo u suggest, that we move the mo untains here and that'll give us a greater share of the cost, is that what yo u're asking for? Steel, labour. specialized railway eq uipment is needed and can we provide that? I wish we co uld, we co uld probably provide some labour, the Lord knows that, we've got lots of unemployed labour here, 10 percent and rising. But do we have steel. do we have specialized railway eq uipment. no .

Indeed, I'm wond ering if they're going to use the same arg ument when they're negotiating the Alberta-Saskatchewan Manitoba Power Grid, are they going to allow Sas katchewan and Alberta to say, well, we don't want to be part of this because only 10 percent of the capital of costs is going to be spent in our provinces and yo u in Manitoba, yo u're going to be receiving 80 percent of it. Does the logic sound there? -(lnterjection) That's exactly it. It is the ostrich approach. The coal issue, I wonder if the Minister and the government realizes that if the coal movement does 19 58

Wednesday, 28 not materialize and it's a foregone conclusion, I know in their mind and indeed let's hope for this nation's sake that it does occur, that there is considerable doubt if it does not materialize. They, therefore, will claim that we will not need the expenditure, but do they also realize that we're projecting exports in this country of 35 million tons of grain alone in coming up, and that indeed half of that amount will be going west coast and right today the present system that we have in place could not handle it.

As a matter of fact, my sources tell me that we're within two or three trains a day of maximum capacity on the existing system. -(In terjection)-one, well, I've even heard one too. I tend to exaggerate, I'll exaggerate it to two. But indeed the system we have in place today couldn't even carry the increased grain traffic, so don't bring in coal as an extra issue, saying that in fact that if coal doesn't move that the grain will. But the worst, without doubt,

interpretation is that which is given to the Tyrchniewicz Report. I do not find fault with the report bearing in mind it is nothing more than a mathematical exercise following basic assumptions. I know all those members that the Member for Trans cona listed.

I know all the people that looked at that report and if he understands economic theory at all, he'll understand that you look at the assumptions and you say, yes, I can support the conclusions of the report as long as the methodology is in place and as long as you are cognizant of the fact to what the assumptions are, but nowhere in the inf ormation that is sent out to the producers of this province is the most basic assumption in all that report spelled out. What is it?

That all the grain will be moved and that's why and when I realized that this whole issue was becoming a political issue, when the Minister oppo site and the government of the day would not even give the farmers of Manitoba the understanding that what the basic assumption was of that report. What happens if that one assumption, just that one assumption is violated? The study has no validity, absolutely none. Everyone of you that have taken any economics or have a study at all know that fully well. Why don't you come clean? Why don't you be honest and say so? No validity at all, naturally.

Indeed, it's because so many farmers realize and know the true costs of carrying over inventory that they will not support the NOP approach of doing nothing. An increase in 1 O cents per bushel for rail cost moving, and I'm not advocating it, but an increase in 10 cents per bushel for the additional cost in moving the cost of grain is little in comparison to the interest cost in carrying over $5 0,000 of unsold, unwanted grain . Do they understand i\? I don't think they do.

That is why I think the mad , insane, unsound and crazy allegations that grain movement will cost grain farmers $2 a bushel in 10 years, for the Province of Manitoba $100 million a year , are creating tremendous anxiety amongst farmers because they know better. What's the second issue? The report also relies heavily upon an input-output model for 196 8, input output model.

We're given all these divisional or dis trict comments and I wonder if they will also tell you that any economists will tell you that an input-output model is the greatest theoretical toy that has no refer ence to the real world that was ever developed . By the time all the variables are measured, the relationships 19 59 19 82 between sectors and industries within the economy of change, then the results are meaningless. Why do you think the input-output model is based upon 196 8 data? Twelve years out of date, because in no way can the results be given with any degree of con fidence to prove a point.

As aside, I wonder why the NOP makes such an issue of the loss of 1, 200 jobs to the province in this Crow issue on the basis of this report and yet when the Restaurant Association indicates that 1 ,20 0 people will be thrown out of work immediately as a result of an increase in minimum wages, no comment is made. Why? What about the third issue?

When I become very suspicious of this report, of course, one aspect of the report that makes me very nervous is that, and if the members opposite will take their time to read it, it has Manitoba Grain Growers increasing the acreage of oats signi ficantly in order to support an increased livestock base. I tell you when that comes forward by way of report, that whole report is suspect. So, again, I know the authors personally.

I also understand the theory built in upon the assumptions and I also understand why the Progressive Conservative Gov ernment didn't release that, because they know that if they had taken that out to farmers with a basic assumption that all the grain moves, they would have been laughed at, but you don't understand that to the members opposite. Well, Mr . Speaker, these are some of my concerns as related to the so-called unbiased release of some of the in formation; other parts were, of course, accurate.

I'll say that here completely that there were many parts of the in formation release that were accurate, certainly, by my understanding. I'd like to quote though from a farm group brief given to the Gilson Commission as to their attitude. I think this sums up best what the attitude in the farm community is. I'm not saying this indeed is our feeling to it, but personally I think it sums up best the rural position on this whole Crow rate issue and I quo te: "As a producer organization we are aware of the risks to the producer in this exercise.

Producers are faced with a choice of living with the present rates and situation and the strong probability that the rail transportation system will become a serious han dicap. They're faced with that choice or looking somewhat optimistically to the future and agreeing to negotiate paying more in return for a better transpor taton system. Producers take the optimistic view." -(In terjection)- Well, I'll tell you who said that. Manitoba Pool Elevators said that and they speak for 18,000 producers in this province. Well, what are some specific views?

I think I should give some of my personal views and I want to disasso ciate them from my party. What can I or can I not accept? Well, I cannot accept a freight rate structure which will have an open-ended escalation clause that would result in increased freight charges automati cally resulting from increases in domestic inf lation. Never would we be party to a proposed solution that would in effect leave us at the mercy of compounding in flation rate which could see us paying 10 or even 13 times Crow in some 10 years.

(2) I believe that the railways should be adequately compensated for hauling grain , that is, given a fair rate for hauling grain. The railways are our lifeline and

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 if we can grow vast quantities of grain, but to no value to either ourselves or to this country, it does not move. Fair, in our estimation, does not mean 25 percent return on investment or invested capital. Cash costs must be covered . Ra ilways cannot be expected to be relieved entirely of their statutory obligations. With the NDP , we agree on this.

(3) The anomalies of freight rates between pro cessed and unprocessed products must be resolved, certainly in the area of canola or rapeseed process ing. The two major processing plants in Man itoba may well falter if an expedient settlement in this regard is not found. The Man itoba Government is obvious in their disregard for the entire industry. Again we ask, are they prepared to support rapeseed product movement as are the Governments of Sas katchewan and Alberta?

(4) I accept the whole process as political and, as such, the information released by all interests to the farm community is slanted. This is certainly true of the information released by the Provincial Government for the reasons I have presented earlier. In this regard we challenge the NDP in their incons istencies. They say they support the status quo and yet they say they support the Hall Commission Report also, and I wonder how many of them have even read that report because the Hall Commiss ion Report also recom mended the abandonment of countless hundreds of mi les of prairie rail. So what are they for, status quo or not?

(5) I cannot support the concept of var iable rates for equal distance. We fully acknowledge that such a system would have negative effects upon many of the smaller comm unities. We also realize, and I wonder if the members opposite, indeed, the First Min ister was cognizant of the fact that the number of primary eleva tors in the prair ies have dropped from 5, 145 in 1965 to 3, 133 in 19 81 even wi th the benefit of nonvariable Crow rates? Do they understand that? And what about some of the elevators predicted as headed for dem ise by the First Min ister?

(6) We have, as yet, an open mi nd as to who should receive any government payments, although in no circumstances should it be paid in a manner that appears to be a producer subsidy.

(7) That in return for increased payments to rail ways, that the ra ilways be requ ired to provide the facilities and equipment required to move the expected volumes of grain. And (8), my final comment, Mr. Speaker. The Fed eral Government must be prepared to support in a major continu ing manner, the whole upgrading of the western grain network. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. PHIL EYLER (Ri ver East): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Member for Morris would entertain a question? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member's time has expired.

If the member still wi shes to answer a question, it would have to be by leave of the House. Leave is not given. The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Rupertsland that we adjourn debate. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. DES JARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Min ister of Highways, Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee to cons ider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

May I inform you, Sir, that there's been an agree ment that we wi ll wa ive the Private Members' Hour and that Committee wi ll go till 5: 30. MO TION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee to cons ider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty wi th the Honour able Member for Flin Flon in the Chair for the Depart ment of Health and the Honourable Member for The Pas in the Chair for the Department of Labour and Manpower CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LABOUR AND MANPOWER MR. CHAIRMAN, Harry M. Harapiak, (The Pas): We call the comm ittee to order.

We are on Labour and Manpower, page 83 of our Estimates. The first is Gen eral Admin istration, 1.(

b) Admin istration. Mr. Min ister. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): I have a brief opening statement. The department has experienced some recent structural changes and now operates wi th four divisions reporting to the Deputy Min ister including Labour-Manpower Admin istration and a new division entitled "Industrial Relations." The Women's Bureau continues to report directly to me. 19 60 In addition, the Workplace Safety and Health Divi sion and the Workers Compensation Board have been transferred from our department to the Department of Northern Affairs and Env ironment.

Th is transfer is comb ined to closely related areas of the Env ironment and Workplace Safety and Health under common leadership and direction to ensure the maximum ben efits to the province. The Industrial Relations Division has been established under the direction of Maur ice Eyolfson and is composed of the Conc iliation Branch and the Employment Standards Branch wh ich were previously included in the Labour Division .

These branches have formed a functional unit that wi ll more effectively meet the challenge of increased demand which has been placed on industrial relations in Mani toba in the last number of years. In itiatives we are taking during the current year include increases to the Man itoba mi n imum wage wh ich has not kept pace wi th inflation. Also, we intend major reforms to the pension system wh ich wi ll ensure a secure and dign ified retirement for the work force and, in particular, our elderly whom we honour this year in the International Year of the Elderly.

The department also intends to enhance the staff resour-

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 ces of the Manitoba Labour Board so they may deal with their increasing responsibilities more adequately. Incr eased re sponsibilities will be given to the Labour Managem ent Review Committee so that ind ustrial relations may be impr oved. Our governme nt has also recognize d the weakene d economic conditions in the provinc e which have resulted in spiralling unem ployment levels and an unacceptable ne t provincial out-migration .

Thro ugh our Manp ower programming and related government programs, our department is committed to provide incre a sed training opportunities in those occupations that are experiencing shortages of skilled workers. Areas of conce ntration will incl ude appren ticeship training and, in particular, those trades expe ri encing critical shortages. Revitalized efforts will also be made to incre ase the accessi bility of training and employment to those Manitobans who have experi enc ed severe limitations in the past amo ng whom are incl uded, wom en, Natives, the handicapped and the elderly.

The Manp ower program s will be actively involved to en sure that Manitobans will obtain maximum employment benefits from the vari ous ne w majo r projects and initiatives which are currently being ne gotiated with the Federal and Municipal Government s, with the private sector and those being undertaken by our own government. In order to mee t these ne w challenges and our stated commitm ents, my department has increase d its staff compleme nt for 19 82-83 to 735 staff years from 725 in 198 1-82.

We have also increase d our 19 82- 83 budget to $20,488,800 from $18 ,4 16,000 in 19 81-82, representing an 11.3 percent incr ease. These figures incl ude $3,276,400 of our ongoing no rthern programs which are incl uded in the Northlands Agreement and are currently under ne gotiation with the Government of Canada. Funding for these programs has been incl uded in an enabling account in the Department of Fina nce. I have provided you with a brief overview of the policy dir ection that the Department of Labour and Manp ower will be pursuing in 19 82-83.

I am con fident that the members present will have many ques tions relating to Budget detail of each branch and I wo uld request that the specific question s be rai sed by sub-appropriation as we proceed through the printed Estimates. Thank you. Mr . Chairman, if I might just introduce my Deputy to the membe rs. Mary Eady. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for St. Norb ert. MR. G.W .J. (G erry) MERCIER (St. Norbert): Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

Th e Honou rable Mini ster has referred to incre ases in staff man years and, perhaps, as we go through the vari ous departments, he could advise wh ere those staff man years are taking place. MR. SCHROEDER: I think I have a separate sheet here indicating individ ually where all the incre ases are. Th e incr ea ses co me , first of all, in the adminis tration MR. MER CIER: I wonde r if the Minister co uld under take to supply me with a copy of the sheet to expedite matters? 19 61 MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I'll provide the member with a printed listing of the ne w positions, certainly. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, before I make another comm ent to him, I wonder if the Mini ster could pro vide me with an organi zational chart. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I have one extra one he re. can pass it on to the me m ber. MR. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an . In his introductory remarks, the Mini ster has referred to some items c< legi slation and some specific items. We will, during the course of the Se ssion, be debating the legislation he brin gs forward and during the course of these Estimates, be debating some of the particular matters that he has referred to like reforms in pension.

But in responding to his introductory statement, Mr. Chairman, I do want to indicate that our majo r conce rn in Opposition is jobs and the levels of unem ployment in Manitoba. We were extreme ly di smayed to see the mos t recent unemploym ent statistics which show ed an incr ease in unemployed persons of 6,000 in March of 1982 compared to March of 1981 and the prediction s are gloomy, indee d , about the future unemployement levels. I do want to bring to the Mini s ter's attention, Mr . Chairman, that from 1977 to 19 81, the statistics show an increase of jo bs in Manitoba of some 35,000.

Comparing those years with the years 1974 to 1975, there were only 10,000 jobs created during those years. The last, the second term from 1974 to 1977, the second term of the previ ous NOP Government . In addition, during 1977 to 19 80 the vast majo rity, overwh elming maj ority, of the jo bs that were created were created in the private sector.

In fact there wa s a reduction of employment in the public sector so there wa s, indee d, progress made during the last nu mb er of years and we hope that trend will contin ue, but the economic situation in Mantoba with the incre ase in bankr uptcies does no t ho ld well for employm ent in Manitoba in the future under this governme nt, Mr. Chairman . We hope that the Mini ster will use hi s office as Minis ter of La bour in Cabinet to inf luence his governme nt to begin serious ne gotia tions of the large projects which have been scheduled to begin in Manitoba to provide more jo bs for Manito bans, Mr.

Chairman. There are specific election promi ses which the NOP made, Mr. Chairman, some of which have been referred to in the House during qu estion period and some of which I will raise during specific items under discussion in these Estimates. There was, Mr . Chair man, a promise in the Throne Speech to introduce first contract legislation and also to, I believe, intro duce legi slation on the conce pt of equal pay for work of equal value.

I wond er if the Mini ster could, under this section, indicate wh ether legi slation on either or both of those topics will be introduced in this Sessio n of the Legi slature. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, we do expect to introduce legi slation with respect to first contract, legi slation with respect to equal pay for work of equal value is being worked on. I don' t believe that it will be introduced in his Session.

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Cha irman, not having an y details, could the Min ister ind icate what changes he has made in the organ ization in this area of admin istration? MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Cha irman, there weren't any changes in the Admin istration Di vision. MR. MERCI ER: Is there any in crease in staff man years in this area? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, there is one staff year increase for an Executive Director for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

That position has not, as yet, been bu lletined for, and there is also a-half a staff year to provide part-time cler ical assistance to the Advisory Coun cil on the Status of Women. I mi ght add that we had , as the member probab ly knows , that advisory committee was set up, I be lieve, in 1980 and is now in a position where it is function ing and requ ires the assistance of some staff and it has been very strongly urged on us by that group that some assistance be provided. MR. MER CIER: Mr. Cha irman , how does the Min ister compare that position to the fir ing of Eveline Ho ltmann? MR.

SCHROEDER: Yes. that's a very good question. When I took office, I discovered that I was in charge of the Women's Bureau . There was also an Advisory Coun cil to the Min ister of Labour wi th respect to women's issues and fina lly, on the outside, there was a person reporting directly to the Min ister, a so-called special consultant who had been sort of tagged into the group on women's issues. In our review of what was happening out there, it was felt that there was no benefit to the department to ha ve this extra ind ividual in the department. I should say that indi vidual was not fired.

It was un like the tactics of the previous govern ment notwithstanding the fact that this particular emp loyee was obvi ously of a particular political bent. We didn't fire her . We very specifically took her out of that position and she is now work ing in the New Careers Bran ch as an instructor. That position was clearly redundant. It has not been replaced by any other ind ividual. MR. MER CIER: What will the responsib ilities of this exe cutive director be? MR.

SCHROEDER: The responsib ilities of the Exe c utive Dire ctor. if we fill it, and I should say to the members that there's some question as to whether we shou ld hav e an Exe cutive Director. It's listed as Exec utive Dire ctor but we're think ing about havi ng a full time cha irperson as the Cha irperson of the Advisory Coun cil rather than havi ng a full-time Executive Director. The purpose of that fun ction would be to provide assistance and direction to the Advisory Coun cil wh ich is bas ically a body of people from the outside who give advice to the Min ister. MR. MERCIE R: Mr.

Cha irman, the member has referred to Ms Ho ltmann's position as redundant when part of her responsib ilities were as an ex officio member of the Coun cil, wh ich office served as a research and resource ba ckup for the Coun cil, and from Ms Ho ltmann's office all the cler ical support was provided. The Min ister, havi ng mov ed Ms Ho ltmann, is now attempting to fill a position wi th the same responsib ilities wi th a person of hi s cho ice. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, this position is not in any wa y simi lar to the position of Ms Ho ltmann.

Just for example, I was at a meeting of the Advisory Coun cil some time ago and when they wanted to get into some serious discussions they asked her to leave . I would expect that they wouldn't do that if we had, for instance, a full-time chairperson that they wou ldn't ask their full-time chairperson to leave. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Cha irman , has the Advisory Coun cil on the Status of Women filed an ann ual report? My understanding is that part of the terms of reference were that an ann ual report would be filed by them. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes there is an annua l report; it's in the process.

It hasn't been printed yet, but it has been subm itted. I be lieve it was subm itted severa l weeks ago to my office. MR. MERCIER: Will that be tabled in the Legis lature, Mr. Cha irman? MR. SCHROEDER: As I understand it, it's not nec es sary to table it but I see no reason wh y we shou ldn't table it and I would hope to table it onc e it's printed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr.

Cha irman, I wonder if I could just establish at this point in time wi th the Min ister when I mi ght ask certain questions; one, being about the Student Summer Emp loyment Program and the second, be ing about legislation that has been talked about wi th respect to protection for people under the age of 16 who are emp loyed late hours and are per haps in some danger work ing in all-night gas bars or conven ience stores and so on . Under whic h sections should I address those questions to the Min ister? 19 62 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister. MR.

SCHROEDER: The employment program would come under Employment and Youth Services ; it's under Manpower. The question wi th respect to hours of work and that type of thing , protection of employees working on their own, would come under Emp loy ment Standards. MR. FILMON: Number please - that's 2.(d)? MR. SCHROEDER: (

d) yes. MR. FILMON: May I also ask for the question respect ing mi n imum wage, where would that come? And a question respecting first contract legislation, where wou ld that come? MR. SCHROEDER: Min imum wage would come on Employment Standards and first contract would also

Wednesday, 28 come , I wo uld presume, under either that or Lab our Board wo uld probably be the preferable point, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: This is on 2.(

e) on page 84. The Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Fine , Mr. Chairman, I' ll wait until we get to those points. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. MERCIER: Does the Minister then, Mr . Chair man, intend to contin ue with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which was recreated in 19 80? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Minister. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, it is my present intention to continue on with it and to strengthen it with the sup port services that we intend to provide to it. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, are there any matters that the Minister has referred to the Advisory Council for consideration? MR.

SCHROEDER: Yes, there were several items that had been re ferred to them dealing with domestic workers. I can check back, and I have had some dis cussions with the Acting Chair person about some items. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, have there been any changes in membershi p of the Advisory Council? MR. SCHROEDER: There have been some people who have resigned; there's one woman who left the country. There 's an other woman who is unable to act any longer because she is working full time.

Yes, I have a list here, Muriel Arpin is the Chair person; Ste phanie Hodgins left Manitoba; Leona Penner resigned; Elizabeth Legge left Manitoba; leaving Susan Shi neton, Patricia Graham, Kay Hamblin , Anne Moore , Beverley Goo dwin and Josie Klymkiw on the committee. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, has the Minister made any appointments or does he intend to make any appointments to fill those vacancies in the near future? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I intend to fill those vacan cies although I don't have any specific date on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr .

Chai rman, I wonder if this is the appropriate place to ask the Minister I think it is - what he sees as his role with res pect to the overall universe of labour, em ployment, management and society in Manitoba today? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Minister. MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr . Chairman , I feel a bit small to be answering that hu ge question . I think that 1963 19 82 in general MR. FILMON: I recognized that when I asked it. MR. SCHROEDER: . .. with respect to the area of the De partment of Lab our, I suppose it depends on where I am in the department.

If I'm in the Mechanical and Engineering Divisi on, I think it's very im portant to kee p the elevators running . If I'm in the department dealing with ind ustrial relations, then certainly I think it is my function and the function of my department to ens ure we do everything possible to develop a climate of trust and co-operation between labour and man agement in this province. I think we're working toward that.

I think I've menti oned to members before that one of the first delegations I saw in my office was a delegatio n made up of members of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, Manitoba Federation of Lab our and Win ni peg and District Labour Council with a united brie f making suggestions for im provements in some of our labour legislation. That was very gratifying and we 're certainly doing everything we can to enco urage that.

I' ve also met with members of both management and labour of what is kn own as the Mac lean Commit tee and certainly there's enth usiasm in that group in terms of what their role can be in preventing dis putes that come ab out beca use of mis understandings that can be solved ahead of time. That group has been effective in the past; we hope to make it mo re affective no w.

One of the few areas in the department where we're increasing staff is in the area of conciliation and we're hoping to get into some preventive conciliation to work with people before dis putes occur and we believe that is an area that can be of benefit to all of us. Of course, like members opposite, we're concerned ab out em ployment in the province. There are just a vast nu mber of areas that I'm concerned with in this department.

If you look at the department from the perspective of the Women's Bureau, then certainly my concern is that women be given the opportunity to partake fully in the workforce at wages that are similar to the wages that the men in the workforce get. I regret, at this point, that is no t something that is a fact. We know that women in our workforce are receiving somewhere in the area of 60 percent or so of the wages that men are receiving and that's ca using hard shi p for a great nu mber of women and children in the province. That's something that we wo uld like to improve on .

If you look at the immigrat ion and settlement sec tion of my department it is of great concern that we have people with good educational skills coming to Canada but being unable to come anywhere near working in the type of occupation that they are trained for beca use of language di fficulties, especially lan guage diffic ulties. I would like to see programs devel oped in the province that wo uld ensure that those people can get the lang uage training which wou ld permit them to get into the kinds of occupations that they're trained for.

I could go on and on with respect to each of the areas in the department, to talk about New Careers, for instance , and the pleasure I am sure it gave the previous government, the government before that and this government, when we train people for. as the

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 heading of the department states. New Careers. Peo ple who were no t able to obtain jobs because of lack of qualifications have come through that program , and are coming through that program and will come through that program , with new job skills that put them into the workforce. That's certainly only a small part of the department. As a former firefighter my self, I' m concerned ab out the role of the Fire Commissi on er's Office in fire prevention in the province and that in itself could be a one-hour speech.

We're all concerned ab out pensi ons, general employment standards in the province and the area of training of people, as I indicated in my opening state ment, I' m mo st concerned with how we are going to get along in terms of neg otiating a new adult occupa tional training agreement with the Federal Govern ment which will provide for as much training for Man itobans as we can possibly obtain. That's a start. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR.

FILM ON: Then, if the Minister might relate some of these concerns and philosophies that he has with respect to his role into some initial objectives that he enters the Ministry with, what are some of his sh ort term and long-term objectives on behalf of the Department of Lab our? MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, it would seem mo re appropriate to be doing this by departme nt. I understand the member wasn't here when I made my opening statement, ma ybe he could read Hansard and try again at the end. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Member for Tuxedo. MR.

FILMON: I' ll certainly be happy to do that, but based on the experience we've had with this Minister's responses to questions, I' m not optimistic that Hans ard will inf orm me as to the answers.

I wonder , then, if the Minister could indicate, as part of his objective towards creating a climate of trust and co-operation between business management and labour in the province, is there an y formal mechanism by which members of the government caucus meet on a regular basis with business or management in the province, assuming that they would like to keep the lines of communicatio n open with them as well as with labour in the province? MR. CHAIRMA N: Mr. Minister. MR. SCHROEDER: No, as far as I' m aware , there is no such mechanism and it might be a very good idea to put it into place.

I sh ould say that since I' ve taken office , I've met with the Winnipeg Chamber of Com merce on at least four occasions; I have met with various business organizations from the account executives to the Investment Dealers Association of Canada and tourism organizations, municipal offi cials , etc. and I am ma king it a point to get input from the different organizations; I' ve also met with the pro vincial Chamber of Commerce and specific members of the executive on a number of occasions.

I would agree with the member that it would be a good idea to have our caucus. as well, possibly meeting on a regu- lar basis with the business community. I don't see an y reason why we sh ouldn't set something like that up. MR. FILMON: Is the Minister a member of the com mittee of his caucus that is known as the MF L, MLA Liaiso n Committee? MR. SCHROEDER: I' m sorry, could you repeat that question? MR. FILMON: Is the Minister a member of his caucus committee which is the MFL , MLA Liaison Committee? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I am . MR.

FILMON: Would the Minister thin k that might prejudice his position in trying to deal in a fair and impartial way with both sides of the matrix of labour and manage ment in the province by, in effect, just being on one side of the relationship? MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman , I thin k I' ve met with Jac k Hignell as often as I' ve met with Dic k Martin since I took office and may be Dick might no t be too happy about that.

I just finished saying that I would have no objection to having a committee of MLA s from the NDP meeting on a regular basis, in fact, I think it would be a good idea if we met on a regular basis as a group in caucus with business and we could call that the NDP , ML As Liais on Committee with the Manitoba and Winnipeg Chambers of Commerce or whichever other group we might wish to liaise with. MR. FILMON: I have no further questions at the mo ment, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMA N: l.(b)( 1) Administration, Salaries pass: 1.(b)( 2) Other Expenditures-pass. l.(

c) Women's Bureau, (

I) Salaries - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister con firm, I thin k. as he indicated, the funding for Advisory Council is within the Women's Bureau or was it within the administration? MR. SCHROEDER: It's in administration, but if you want to go bac k to that there's no problem . MR. MERCIER : Is there any increase in staff man years for the Women's Bureau? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, there's 1.5 staff year incr ease. MR. MERCIER: Can the Minister indicate the type of work that will be done? MR. SCHROEDER : Yes, I sh ould probably have started off this

section with reading this. There are some introductory remarks prepared for me. The goal of the Women's Bureau is to provide a variety of services to and for working women or those wishing to enter or reenter the Provincial work force. Specific objectives of the Bureau are : 19 64 {

a) to provide career counselling to women individ ually and in groups;

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 (

b) to create public awareness of women's contri butions in the labour force as well as their concerns about conditions in the work place; (

c) to act as consultants and resource persons at sem inars, workshops, conferenc es and or ientation programs upon request; (

d) to provide a resource centre of current print and audio-visual materials for the use of the public at large; (

e) to participate in the plann ing, development and implementation of government programs such as Women in Apprenticeship Trades. Among the program hi ghl ights of the '81-82 fiscal year hav e been public sem inars entitled: Manager, Mother and Mentor, Budgeting Basics for Women and Career Cho ices for High School Girls. As well, a sur vey of women age 46-65 was in itiated in 1980 wi th follow-up interviews by two students in '81. Questions on the survey related primarily to financial planning and the availability of training and employment servi ces.

Personal interviews also elicited information about health services and the use of comm unity recreation facilities. A final report is expected this spring . With respect to other publications during '8 1-82, the Bureau's bro chure was re vised and reprinted and the Bureau was involved in the preparation and publi cation of print materials on current issues in co operation wi th other government agencies; for exam ple, the Man itoba Pension Commiss ion and its booklet, "S ister, Will You Have a Dime " and the Man itoba Human Rights Commission sexual harrassment bro chure for employees and employers.

With respect to staffing , last year there were 7 staff person years. We are requesting 8.5 staff person years for '82-83 and a .5 staff person year wi ll be added to the Bureau to provide services for women in Northern Man itoba on a part-time basis and 1 staff year is required to function as secretary to the Director and to provide office re ception ist services. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Cha irman, there doesn't appear to be any new activity in the coming year other than the additional 1.5 staff person year for the North.

Unless the Min ister can ind icate there is some new activity, I believe the Women 's Bureau during the past number of years had their staff in crease and continue their activities in the fields that the Min ister has referred to. I wonder if he could ind icate whether or not there are any other new directions or new plans under cons ideration for this year. MR. SCHROEDER: No, Mr . Cha irman, we 're just going along and we view the program as be ing a very good program and there are no present plans for chan ge . MR. MERCIER: I wond er , Mr .

Cha irman , whether the Dire ctor would continue me on the ma iling list for her department in spite of the result on No vember 17th . MR. SCHROEDER: I'm sure she wi ll do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's 1. (c)

(1) Salaries -pass; l.(c)

(2) Other Expend itures-pass. We go on to Labour Di vision . 2.(

a) Pens ion Com- 19 65 mi ssion, 2.(a)

(1) Salaries - Mr . Min ister. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I just have a br ief opening statement. The Pension Commission is charged wi th the responsibility of adm in istering and enfor cing The Pension Benefits Act of Man itoba.

The Act has three main objectives: (1) to reg ister new pension plans implemented in the province and to mon itor exi sting plans by review ing prescribed annual forms and any new amend ments made to the plan sinc e its initial registration; (2) to prc:note pension plans and retirement plan ni ng in general by in creasing public awareness of their importance; (3) to respond to the quer ies of many con cerned em ployees and plan members as to their rights and entitlements and, where ne cessary, to intercede so that any pension dispute is resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Staffing in 1981-82, the Pension Commission had a staff complement of seven staff person years and we are requesting seven staff years in '82-83; no change MR. MERCIER: I wonder if here I just mi ght ask the Min ister, who has referred to major reforms in the area of pensions, could he give some ind ication of what is be ing looked at. Who was in volved and the objectives? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Cha irman, as the member probably knows, there is the Voluntary Employee Pension Plan proposal wh ich had been set up by the previous government.

It hadn't taken effect and when we came into office, we decided that we wanted to take a complete new look at pension legislation and rather than going wi th that legislation at this time, we decided if we were going to take a new look, we would take the forum of havi ng the public involved as well. We're planning on ha ving some public hearings wi th respect to where to go on pension legislation. There won't be pension legislation at this Session. MR. MERCIER: I take it then, Mr. Cha irman, these publ ic hear ings wi ll be held by the Pens ion Comm ission? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, that would be the intent. MR.

MERCIER: When does he anticipate, Mr. Chair man, these public hearings to take place? I assume there would be some form of notice in advance be cause of pensions like that, I believe, are a pretty complex subject. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, they' re a very complex sub ject. That's why I didn' t want to press ahead. Quite frankly, I didn't know enough about the program being proposed and we do intend to give plenty of public notice wi th respect to the hearings and make sure that people are able to present their views to that Comm ission. MR.

MERCIER: Hav e there been any changes in the membership of the Pension Commiss ion, Mr. Cha irman ?

Wednesday, 28 April, 19 82 MR. SCHROEDER: Mr . Chairman, there were two resignati on s. I don't seem to have the name s here. One of the individuals who resigned wa s Ken Gaj dosik (phonetic) wh o left the province by the end of November or so, I believe, of 1981 and there wa s another resignation. MR. ME RCIER: Mr . Chairman, can the Minister indi cate when - I take it a notice will go out with respect to these public heari ng s? MR. SC HROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I don't expect that it would be before the fall of 1982. MR. MERC IER: When the notice will go out, or the hearings? MR.

SCHROEDER: I was thinking and this is just tentative, that the hearing s might be in September or October, if we can get things mo ving by then. MR. CHAIR MAN: 2.(a)

(1) Salaries -pass; 2.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures-pass; 2.(

b) Mechanical and Engineering,

(1) Salaries. The Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I wo nder if the Minister MR. CH AIRMAN: Mechanical and Engineering, 2.(b)(1 ). MR. FILMON: We're on Mechanical and Engineeri ng . You go ahead. MR. SCHROEDER: Than k you. The Mechanical and Engineering Branch is responsible for the admini stra tion of seven Acts and nine separate sets of regula tions all pertaining to general public safety through in spection of equipment and licen sing of tradespeo ple.

The various Acts and regulations cover design, constructi on, installati on and operation of certain mechanical, electrical and fuel-fired equipment and the examina tion and licen sing or certification of elec tricians, gas fitter s, oil burner installers, power engi neers and projectionists. In addition, the branch administers The Buildings and Mobile Hom

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-43
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 43.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d20ff017a4aaafce2731c2e29f2b806fa8d8e0db

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