Manitoba Hansard — 10 March 1983 (Sitting 23A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-23a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature .. .... Leglslatlve Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlahed under the authority of The Honourable D. Ja,,,.• Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 23A -2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 10 MARCH, 1983. Printed by the Office of Ille Queens Printer. Province Of Manilobll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTE TT , Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARRO LL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEM PHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Ho n. Eugene KOV NATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 10 March, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committes . MIN IS TERI AL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speak er, I'd like to table the Annual Report of the Department of Health for the calendar year 1982. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the Hou se.

I have copies here for distribution. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement on the provincial and municipal tax-sharing payments, which to the municipalities will amount to $29.8 million in 1983. These payments are made through the allocation to local governments of 2. 2 points of personal income tax and one percentage point of taxable corporate income. The amount estimated to be available for distribution this year represents an increase of 4. 2 percent over the total amount distributed in 1982.

Payments will be made on the basis of $25.45 per capita to all organized municipalities and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on behalf of unorganized territory. In addition, there will be an urban services supplement, payable to cities, towns, villages and urban local government districts, amounting to $3. 75 per capita for centres up to 5,000 population and $5.25 per capita for centres of more than 5,000 population. In addition, there will be transitional adjustments, payments made to four municipalities, to insure that their 1983 entitlements will not be less than the amount which they received last year.

It is anticipated that transitional adjustment payments will be made to a number of northern communities and Indian bands as well. I am pleased to be able to make the announcement at this time when municipalities are preparing their 1983 budgets. My department staff will be advising municipalities of the entitlements which they may expect in 1983. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of 638 Municipal Affairs for making this announcement.

Normally, we would expect this announcement to be made before the end of December. I believe, last year, the Minister was somewhat late in making this announcement. The municipalities, most of them, would have their budgets drawn up by this time and I'm sure that they are going to be somewhat disappointed in the 4.2 percentage increase over last year, in view of the fact that the municipalities had urged the government to retain their spending at least within the 6 percent guidelines. We all know what has happened with this year's Budget where spending is up some 17. 2 percent.

Wage settlements are up much more than the 4.2 percent, as we see here that municipalities will be receiving, but I'm sure the municipalities will be grateful at knowing how much they are going to be receiving at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I would like to table the Annual Report for the Civil Service Commission for the year ending December 31 st, 1982; and the Annual Report for the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee for the year ending December 31, 1982. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker , I ask leave to table the Manitoba Annual Report for the Department of Education for 1982; and also the University of Winnipeg Auditors' Report and Financial Report for the year ending March 31, 1982. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the Annual Report of the Mineral Resources Division of the Department of Energy and Mines for the fiscal year ending 1981-82. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

I would like to table the Annual Report of the Co operative Loans and Loans Guarantee Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982. I would also table the Annual Report of the Co-operative Promotion Board for the year ended March 31, 1982; and I'd like to table the 11 th Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending October 31 , 1982. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd lik e to make a statement to the House - I have copies.

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 Mr. Speaker , I'd like to inform the House that this afternoon the Manitoba Government will be formally signing an agreement with the Honourable John Roberts, Federal Minister of Environment, for a joint scientific study on mercury levels in the waters of the Churchill River Diversion System. This Federal Provincial Research Program will continue through 1986. It will cost $760,000 and will be shared, 50 percent each, by the two levels of government.

This study is primarily designed to improve knowledge of mercury problems in the Churchill River Diversion System and the ability of the two governments to respond to these problems. For example, the study will determine the degree to which mercury is present in the river system and identify the probable sources. There will also be a study of pathways and mechanisms by which mercury moves from water to fish and wildlife through the food chain.

The joint study will also involve monitoring the concentrations of mercury in aquatic plants and comparing it with available data on the presence of mercury in people living along the shores of the Churchill River System. The study will also hopefully suggest practical remedies to local mercury problems and develop a means of predicting future occurences of mercury contamination. This agreement has been the result of detailed negotiations between our government and the Federal Government.

As most members of this House are well aware, this agreement arose out of the residence and our government's concern over increased levels of mercury in fish, along the Churchill River system and the diversion route. It should also be noted that the arbitrator under the Northern Flood Agreement recommended this further examination of the mercury problem along the Churchill River Diversion System. Mr. Speaker, it's an honour to announce that the agreement is being signed this afternoon at 3:30 p. m. in Room 254 with Mr. Roberts, and that the study is now proceeding. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Minister of Environment, in co-operation with his Federal colleague, is going to be able to undertake this study.

There have been studies into this perplexing problem for a number of years now, and the preliminary studies which were undertaken were not providing the answers that people had hoped they would, and it has now become evident that this sort of study was necessary, and indeed, we would join with the Minister in hoping that they will find the answers to the problem and that there may be, as he says, practical solutions to that problem. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills .. . 639 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 18 students of Grades 7 and 8 standing from the Churchill Junior High School under the direction of Mr. Storoschuk. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Economic Development. There are 34 students of Grade 9 standing from the Joseph Wolinski Collegiate. These students are under the direction of Ms. Bernice Mayne and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. Also in the gallery is a former Sergeant-at-Arms of this Assembly, Mr.

Ragner Gislason. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, before Oral Questions, I wish to rise on a Matter of House Privilege. This being the first opportunity, Sir, to raise this matter, which pertains to statements made by the Attorney-General, and having only received Friday's Hansard yesterday, this is the first opportunity .

I intend to demonstrate, Sir, that a prima facie case exists to show that the Attorney-General has misled this House and that my statement will be followed by a substantive motion. On Friday, December 10th, my leader rose in the House and asked the following question. I quote, "I have a question for the First Minister. Did the First Minister, Mr. Speaker, any member of his caucus, or any third party, for or on behalf of the First Minister or members of the government, make any contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr.

Speaker on December 9th relative to his rulings during the speech given by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry on the afternoon of December 9th." The First Minister responded to that question with the following answer, and I quote again, "I called upon Mr.

Speaker personally at 5:35 p.m. yesterday in order to advise the Speaker that I wanted a copy of the transcript pertaining to the proceedings in the latter part of the afternoon and indicated to the Speaker that I felt that some unparliamentary language had been utilized, particularly in respect to some references by the Member for Fort Garry in relationship to myself, and that I expected, upon perusal of the transcript, to raise a Matter of Privilege at 8 o'clock." The Honourable Attorney-General, the Government House Leader, also rose and said, and I quote, "Mr.

Speak er, first of all, further in response to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, at approximately 7:50 p.m. yesterday evening, I called at your office to pick up a copy of the transcript which had been requested by the First Minister and picked up that transcript, and shortly after left your office. That will complete the record on that as far as I'm aware." Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Monday, December 13th, the First Minister made much of the right of people

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 to go to your office to get a transcript and there is a considerable amount of comment made by the First Minister on Page 181 with respect to obtaining transcripts from your office, Sir. Later on, in that same debate that day, the Attorney-General, the Government House Leader, rose again and this is on Page 186 of Hansard and said, and I quote, "On a point of personal privilege, the record speaks for itself.

On Page 149, I stated that I called upon you," and it's in quotations here as well, 'to pick up a copy of the transcript which had been requested by the First Minister and picked up that transcript and, shortly after, left your office.' That quote ends and then the Attorney-General said, "The record is clear." Sir, on Friday last, the Attorney-General rose in the House - this is on Page 51 9 of Hansard - and said, I quote again, "On the same point of order, let the record show and the Leader of the Opposition denied me the opportunity to state that at the time, that on the time in question, when I, at five minutes to eight on the evening in question, went to see you, there were several people in your office and you had already made and were dictating your decision.

I was not, at that time, party to the previous proceeding and simply went to see you on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making. Let the record show that," said the Attorney-General.

Sir, these two statements by the Attorney-General are very clear evidence that the Chief Law Officer of this province has misled the House by, on the one hand, saying that he only went to pick up the transcript; and on the other hand, on March 4th finally saying - " ... and simply went to see you on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making." That coming, Sir, after the First Minister having been to see you at 5:35 p.m. Mr. Speaker, in view of these two conflicting and misleading statements by the Attorney-General, I move, seconded by the Member for St.

Norbert, that this House do censure the Attorney-General for misleading its members with respect to the purpose of his visit to Mr. Speaker's quarters on December 9th, 1982. I have copies of the three most relevant passages from Hansard for your immediate reference. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. When a Matter of Privilege is moved in this House there are, as the member noted, two facts to be satisfied; one of them being that it's the first available opportuni ty, and it clearly is since there was some slight delay with Hansard over the last few days.

Second ly, where there is a prima facie case which has been made the two later remarks appear to be at odds with each other. I would then rule the motion in order. It is moved by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain and seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert that this House do censure the Attorney General for misleading its members with respect to the purpose of his visit to Mr. Speaker's quarters on December 9, 1982. The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker , I have no hesitation or difficulty whatsoever in dealing with this motion, nor 640 would I care to have it resolved on technical matters such as whether or not it was the first opportunity and accordingly I welcome your ruling in that respect.

However, I'm bound to say in circumstances when one is accused, as I have been, wrongly, as I will show in a moment, of the kind of an offence which is sL:ggested in the motion that one is entitled to something more accurate in terms of particulars, and a statement of the bill than appears in this motion because if it is suggested that I misled the House, then the Opposition House Leader might have indicated, since he seems to have some notion about it, which one, if either, of the statements he thought was misleading.

In fact, they are, neither of them, misleading nor inconsistent because, as the record will show in the last instance when I rose, that is the one on March 4th, when I rose to deal with the issue I was interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition and did not complete my statement. I have no hesitation, let me say here, in now completing my statement because I am making it, Sir, not only in the presence of yourself who cannot intervene, nor do I expect you to intervene in this debate, but in the presence of the Clerk of the House, who was at that time Acting Clerk of the House, who was there at all material times.

So my words stand to be contradicted at any occasion should I be wrong, and so I will very carefully, but very briefly, and very gratef ully , because I haven't been provided the opportunity before, put on record precisely what transpired. Apparently back in December, in the late afternoon of the day in question, something occured in the House, two things in fact, and note should be taken of that. One had to do with a point of order that had been raised, I believe, by the Minister for Natural Resources, on which you may or may not have ruled.

There was some question about that but it was thought that you had ruled. And also, during the course of the last few words which were spoken on that occasion something had been said from across the House relative to my Leader, the Premier. Over the supper hour, the Premier and I both attended a meeting, I think it was with the Catholic Womens' League in the private dining room, the Premier said, I think there is a problem that I want to raise, relative to myself. Will you see if you can get a transcript?

I think he had asked for a transcript - will you pick up the transcript with respect to statements made about myself and I'll see whether I am going to raise a Matter of Personal Privilege. And I believe the Minister of Health was present at the same time, attending the same dinner.

At the conclusion of the dinner I was also advised that there had been a question raised about a ruling and when I came to your office at 7:55, 7:56 whenever it was, you Sir, were in consultati on with the then Acting Clerk having decided on some ruling and indeed there was support staff at the typewriter prepared to type out that ruling. That did not concern me.

The Speaker then advised me, with respect to the point with respect to which I called, namely the transcript, and I advised him that it was the wish of the Premier should he find on reading the transcript that indeed there was a question to, at the opening of the Session that evening, raise a question of privilege relating to himself.

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 You then advised me that you would be making a ruling - and I hadn't any background about that - that you would be making a ruling and you intended to make your ruling first and then if the Premier wished to raise his point he could raise his point. That is exactly, completely and precisely what happened. So let me just now, having stated that in the presence of two people who can at any suitable occasion call me a liar if they will, and they won't because I speak the truth as I always have, let them do that, I am clear and free in my conscience.

Let others across the House say as much if they can. And I at no time, either in or out of the House, have in the slightest degree sought to influence the Speak er. The notion that I have is bizarre, it is ludicrous, it is demeaning, and it is absolutely shameful done on such slender evidence. I would have hoped that we've got to the point now where we stop raking over the coals the December incident. It was not a good incident, we'll readily admit it here as will others in the House, in many ways, and get on with the business of the House.

But with respect to myself, both of those statements are absolutely right. I went to get a transcript at the request of the Premier and at the same time I was advised by you that you would be making a ruling. If, because my statement on March 4th was interrupted, it is less than complete, then I apologize for it being less than complete but I wasn't the one who interrupted myself on that occasion. I have now had an opportunity to make a full statement and I'm glad of the opportunity to do so. There is absolutely no ground for that motion.

To call upon me to be censured for that kind of thing indicates a certain continuing vindictiveness which augers ill for the business of this House. I hope it doesn't last. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that it is necessary to deal with this type of a motion, particularly with respect to the holder of the office of the Attorney-General in this province. Mr.

Speaker, we've heard from the Attorney-General and he, I believe in his comments, contradicts the statement he made on Friday, March 4th in this House which ended by his statement, that I simply went to see you on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making, which is contrary to what he has indicated now, in that he went to get a copy of the transcript and you indicated that you had made a ruling. He clearly indicated on March 4th that he went to see you on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making. Now, Mr.

Speaker , in that statement on March 4th, the Attorney-General indicates that the Leader of the Opposition denied me the opportunity to state what he had done previously. Mr. Speaker, in Hansard which you have before you of Friday December 10, 1982, Page 149, there is no indication whatsoever that the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else denied him the opportunity to state anything he wanted to state. The Opposition House Leader read the first paragraph of his statement on Page 149. He went on at length in a second paragraph, 641 Mr.

Spea ker, and the Attorney-General went on at length in a speech which the Opposition House Leader has also referred to. So, Mr. Speaker , he had every opportunity at any time he wished to complete the record before this House and I can only say I regret that his comments today contradict again his comments of Friday, March 4th. They clearly contradict the statement that he went to see you on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, would like to express my concern at having this kind of motion before us and having to speak in support of the motion. After all, we are dealing with the chief law officer of the Province of Manitoba . . . HON. R. PENNER: Shame on you, Harry. MR. H. ENNS: . . . who, not only as such by appointment by the Premier and by this government, but also is by his own personal background while trained in law and knows the purport of words and what their meanings are.

He said a few days later on the 13th that the record is clear and the record is complete, again playing on words that he now leads us to believe that it is only now, today, that he has had the first opportunity to clarify and complete that record. Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason why this is, of course, so important is what this whole past disturbance has been all about, has been of course precisely that issue of the First Minister and indeed the Government House Leader, the chief law maker, the Attorney-General visiting your offices at a time when a critical decision was being made. Mr.

Speaker , it behooves us to remember what that decision was all about. At 5:20, or thereabouts, on December 9th you, Sir, ruled in favour of the Member for Fort Garry on a particular issue at a point in his debate. At 8:00 o'clock, you, Sir, ruled against the Member for Fort Garry and subsequently asked him to leave this Chamber by naming him. Mr.

Spea ker, I can't express it anymore clearly because obviously there is some difficulty even among astute and experienced observers of the scene in the Legislature or in the public gallery or members of the Fourth Estate to fail to understand the significance of what this whole problem has been about that has troubled, and as the Attorney-General quite rightly says, cast a certain amount of acrimony in the discussions in this Chamber. It's not different to use a more common analogy, Mr.

Speaker, than to have had at a hockey game at the closing minutes of the second period a referee call a particular penalty against the home team or the opposing team, it doesn't matter, and then during the 10-minute break between the second and third period with the opposing coach seen visiting with the referee, have that referee come back on the ice and reverse that call, and that is what happened, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, in the legalese terms that the Attorney-General wants me to suggest in this Chamber exactly what kind of influence,

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 whether or not, to what degree of influence, or whether in fact any influencing of the Speaker took place. HON. R. PENNER: Now you've got it. MR. H. ENNS: But, Mr.

Speaker, will he at least not acknowledge that we in the opposition have every right when a decision that was made in favour of our colleague is reversed after a supper hour meeting with the Government House Leader and the First Minister being seen in the corridors of the Speaker, then, Sir, we have no other choice but to do what we have been doing the last several weeks in expressing our non confidence, Sir, in the equitable, the fairness, the way in which the Speaker's Rulings are made in this Chamber.

That is what all this is about and I, Sir, am very happy - and it only happened yesterday by careful perusal of the Hansard and by the Attorney-General's own doings because he has a problem of speaking himself or talking himself into trouble from time to time - that we have this clear evidence before us now that it was the concern of a ruling that you were about to make, Mr. Speaker , that the visitation to your office was made. It doesn't matter any further degrees of whether or not influence was in effect exercised or not.

But, Sir, that was not what you purported to us on the days in question immediately after the incident of December 9th, or December 13th, or December 16th, and, Mr. Speak er, I welcome, as do honourable members of the opposition welcome, this opportunity now provided us out of the mouth out of the words uttered by the Attorney-General himself to have this further debate on this issue, because it is not an issue of counting who asks a number of questions on either side of the House.

You know if we wanted to play that game I could suggest that we could check back in the records when my colleague, the Member for Virden, was the Speaker and no doubt in any given Session the opposition then had 450 questions to ask as compared to 10 or 15 for the government members of that day. That's not at issue.

The issue dates back to the central problem that was created on December 9th when a decision of the Speaker was changed and it was changed only after, Sir, the Attorney-General, the Chief Law Officer of this province, and the Premier, had made specific requests to deal with you, Sir, on this delicate matter. So, Mr.

Speaker, I support the motion; I think it needs to be stated in the strongest terms, that particularly in a system the way we operate, where we have a politically partisan Speak er, perhaps we could avoid it if we had a permanent Speaker, and the Speaker was not chosen from one of us whose roots are and whose background is obviously political. It makes it that much more important under our system, therefore.

When we have to choose a Speaker from among our own ranks and, of course, it's the governing party that chooses the Speaker, that those who deal with the Speaker , particularly senior officers of the government deal with the Speaker, do so with a great deal of caution. Mr.

Speak er, the First Minister, I recall making those remarks, the Attorney-General making those remarks, back in the days of December 9th and 13th, made a great to-do about the right of every member to prevail 642 upon you to seek your guidance and advice from time to time, to visit you, to ask for transcripts, well of course that's always been the case, Mr. Speaker. There's been no question of that. But Sir, the Government House Leader, at a time when there's a dispute on in the House and a ruling is about to be made, does not go and see the Speaker.

And if that is hard to understand by honourable members opposite, by members of the media, by members in the public galleries, then we have a great deal of educating to do in this House with respect to how this House can operate. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I support the motion that's before you, placed there by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker , I'm not misled. I have to accept what the Attorney-General has said. Perhaps - well, he shouldn't be censured.

He should perhaps be chastised for breaking one of the rules that even the youngest law student knows, that once an issue is settled you keep your mouth shut. Perhaps the Attorney General should have done that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise to comment about this resolution, this motion before the House. I regret it very much, Mr. Speaker, because here we have another instance where the integrity of an individual is called into question.

During the course of the debate in this House, I expect to be faced with tough decisions about government policy and programs, but I see in the efforts of the opposition an attempt to frustrate, an attempt to block, an attempt to assassinate by innuendo and suggestion, unfounded on fact. The night in question, I rose, because in my opinion the Rules of the House were being abused. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye says the Speaker made a ruling, and that is why I heard from the Honourable Member for Lakeside. And, Mr. Speaker, I returned to my seat unsatisfied because you, Mr.

Speaker , had made no ruling, and that was one of the problems of the sitting in December, with all respect, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting qualifying the integrity of the Speaker. There was indecision as to whether or not you had made a ruling. Certainly I didn't find in your conduct that you had made a ruling. And if the record is examined, when you returned to the Chamber, you indicated in the evening that you had, in effect, not made it clear what your decision was. I haven't got Hansard in front of me, but that's what your decision indicates.

And so for the Honourable Member for Lakeside to say that a decision of the Speaker had been changed is to suggest an untruth. Let the record show that. That's the kind of innuendo that has pervaded in this House from the opposition. That is a disgrace, Mr. Speak er, and I am ashamed of the fact that we have to indulge in this House in dealing with a motion like that. I have every confidence in our Attorney-General.

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 What he says is the truth and I will certainly be proud to stand and put down this motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to just speak briefly in support of this motion. Not being a lawyer, but an individual who basically believed that the Chief Law Officer of the Province of Manitoba was an individual, or the office of an individual that worked from that basic premise, that it didn't have to be taught in law school, but it was just a general part of good common sense and honest upbringing, that in fact we have seen evidence today, Mr.

Speaker, that it is contrary to that - I think pretty sound and documented evidence that there are two statements that have been made. There had been ample opportunity for clarification, Mr. Speaker, to put before this Legislature, but was not done so until the evidence was provided by the opposition. In the meantime, as has been very capably covered by my colleague from Lakeside and my other colleagues, we have seen the leader of our party, Mr. Speaker, undergo a very severe penalty, which was introduced by the Chief Law Officer of this province, who by doing such a thing tried to cover up for his own omissions.

That is why I stand here to support this motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also would like to participate in this debate, maybe not for the exact reason that we've heard so far, but I think they're important enough reasons. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I've been present in this House under six or seven different Speakers, and we've always had problems.

Once in awhile, the idea or thought of naming a permanent Speaker was considered by different sides of the House, different governments in office and members of the opposition, and for some reason - I don't want to comment, any reason - it has been decided to keep on the way we are going. So it is only natural that many times the members of the opposition feel that they have been wronged. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that I sat where the Member for Arthur is now presently sitting and where the Member for Roblin is sitting, there was Mrs. June Westbury. Look at my size, Mr. Speaker, and you know Mrs.

Westbury wasn't that big a lady, and I had to stand up constantly and the Speaker, I thought, had to look around me to try to find Mrs. Westbury to recognize her, and in fact it became a joke in the House with the members of all the House. To make that point, I even had to bring a little bell and ring the bell to show that I was here and I wanted to speak, Mr. Speaker. I accepted that as one of the things that couldn't be controlled, but the important thing, Sir, is not playing on technicalities or to try to see who is wrong.

The important thing is that today we're talking about the future of democracy and the parliamentary system. It is obvious, and even in this debate, the Member for Lakeside was out of order because he talked about something that was already decided. He's talked, mind you, about a referee. He said, if you make a decision 643 in the first period and you come back in the second period and reverse the decision, but there was no decision made. There was no decision and I challenge you to show me the Speaker said - (Interjection) - then, I'm wrong and I apologize.

The next Speaker could bring it, because I certainly was under the impression that there was no clearcut decision. That is why, I think, - it might have been ambiguous. The words of the Speaker might have led to that understanding and that is why I thought, at 8:00 o'clock, that the Speaker said in case there's any misunderstanding. But what could he do? And by the way, talking about reversing your stand; it's been done.

It's been done in many games and it's been done that maybe the Commissioner or somebody, even when there is no penalty called, will throw a game out, because there was something that wasn't according to Hoyle. But the main thing is, if you want to be consistent, if you want really fairness in this House, read the speech that was made at that time from the Member for Fort Garry and see if these words were truly parliamentary. I think that's the main thing. In is odd, Mr.

Speaker - and I think that the Member for Lakeside came pretty close in admitting it - that this was an occasion to try to use that to make a point again. How long will this harassment go on? We've had, not only do people leave, nobody can prove what has happened in there. I know that I was at the same meeting where we discussed, the three of us, coming back, walking the stairs, climbing the stairs from that meeting, where we talked about getting that document and finding out exactly what was said. We asked the Attorney-General to go and get it. That I know, because I was there.

I don't know what happened when he was there. I can only take his word, but I can't see any proofs of wrongdoing. You know, for somebody that is so touchy trying to influence people, the Leader of the Opposition when he was sitting in this seat did not take the trouble of going across but he waved his hand at the then Speaker, and if that wasn't influencing him, where the Speaker concerned called a halt to the proceedings and then came back and there was, just as easily understood on my part, a reversal of a decision that was made, and I am talking about the Wilson case.

So the appeal that I make - I think the members on the opposition know they're not going to get anywhere in this; that we certainly will not support them; that they haven't got enough information on that. I think that everybody will know, but the point is that we have had a Leader of the Opposition, who repeatedly has made it quite clear that he is going to get him, that he is going to get the Speaker, that the Speaker is finished. He has repeated that. I say to you, is that the way - can we conduct anything? It is going to be anarchy or complete chaos if we don't have rules.

If we don't like the rules, let's get together and change them and probably there is always something that could be improved, I imagine. But the thing is, that was decided; rightly or wrongly, that was decided; there was a vote; that's finished, that's gone, and I think that there is no point in continually keeping this attitude of bitterness between the two sides of the House. For what? To prove a point, and nobody's going to be the winner in this. Nobody is going to be the winner at all.

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 Let's look at the situation, if there is a possibility of a full-time permanent Speak er, but the whole system - especially the lawyers that I've spoken to - because the system is the same. Every judge is named by a government, the Government of the Day, and I haven't seen too many that are not strong, that have not been at one time or another strong militant active members of a party.

They become judges and we have to have a system and the Leader of the Opposition, himself, has shown in the past how much confidence he has in the system, how much confidence he has in the integrity of these people. If it's a sin to be a member of a political party and if you can't serve at another capacity with the experience that you have, well then it's a pretty sad world and democracy should be looked at. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no way that I could support this moti on.

I haven't got more knowledge except the matter that I stated, that the Attorney-General volunteered to get the information that both myself and mostly the Premier was seeking. That's all there is. There is nothing else. Very conveniently in the motion, and I thought it was a well prepared and documented motion until I realized, on Page 11 9 on Frid ay, it is quite clear - and the House Leader of the Conservative Party did not say this, but - it is quite clear that the Attorney-General was interrupted and on more than one occasion. I would like to quote, on Page 51 9, of Friday the 4th, Mr.

Lyon spoke and then the Honourable Attorney-General was recognized and this is what he said, "On the same point of order, let the record show and the Leader of the Opposition denied me the opportunity to state that at the time, that on the time in question, when I, at five minutes to 8:00 on the evening in question, went in to see you, there were several people in your office and you had already made and were dictating your decision ." That is not influencing anything if the decision is being dictated.

"I was not, at that time, party to the previous proceedings and simply went to see you, on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: Let the record show that . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: . . . and let that man stop his bullying ... " The interruption was there and I don't think that there is any, certainly not a case that would stand up in any court, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it better than anybody else, that there was undue or any influence at all on you, Mr. Speaker, to try to get you to change your position.

There is no doubt, I think, that we came the closest thing to it when the First Minister, himself, said quite truthfully that he wanted the information. He told the Speaker and he said that last year, that same day, that he was quite concerned with some of the words in that speech and he wanted the record to see if he should bring a complaint and ask for a ruling from the Speaker. I think we should let it go at that and start looking after the affairs of our province. 644 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I assure you, Sir, that I will not digress from the subject at hand, as the Minister for Resources did, to make accusations as to the reasons why this is before us today, nor will I digress, as the previous speaker has. I would just like to briefly point out, Mr. Speaker, that on Page 149 - and I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker. I'm just a member who has been here a long time - on Page 149, the Attorney-General says, "That will complete the record on that, as far as I'm aware. " There was no interruption on that day, Sir.

On Page 186 he said, "the record is clear." I won't read the whole paragraph, you have them before you, Sir. He says, "the record is clear. " On Page 51 9, Sir, he suggests an entirely different thing, that he went up, and makes the statement, "and simply went to see you, on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making .. . " And today in the House, Sir, when we all have a chance to peruse Hansard, I think the Attorney-General made a reference to you - said to him, you'd be making a ruling. He seems to be putting the reflection on you, Sir, that you made the suggestion.

Sir , the Attorney-General says right here, on whether or not you had the ruling that you would be making. He said that today, or that then, and later on today, he said, "I didn't go up to ask about a ruling. I went up to ask about transcripts of the House. " Under those circumstances we have approximately three different

interpretations of what the Attorney General was doing and there should be no doubt - no doubt in anybody's mind in this House - there should be no doubt in anybody's mind of the people of Manitoba, of what the Attorney-General is doing, and if we have that doubt, and I have, Sir, because of his statements - not any that anybody else made - because of his statements - we have that doubt, therefore I support the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not rising to defend the Honourable Attorney-General, he needs no defence.

His integrity, or the respect with which he is held, needs no defence in this Chamber, or outside of this Chamber. I rise in response to a question that was legitimately asked by the Honourable Member for Lakeside. His question was, "What is this all about? " I think for the record that it's important that we put on the record what this is indeed all about. We have had a particularly difficult Session and there have been a number of occasions when members opposite have been asked to leave the Chamber, have been asked to withdraw. I think. it's important to ask the question, why were they asked to withdraw?

The suggestion has been that there has been some kind of unfairness exhibited in this Chamber, and I think the record is clear that that is not the case. The suggestion has been that there has been an attempt, by this side, or somehow through this side, and through you, Sir, to muzzle the opposition and I think that is not the case, as well. If we look specifically at the examples, where members were expelled from this Chamber, it was for

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 a breach of the rules. That breach of the rules was for using, in most of the cases, unparliamentary language. There have been any number of times when members on this side had used unparliamentary language and I can remember a couple - the Honourable Minister of "Agriculture, the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources - and when they were brought to order on those point, they withdrew the remarks, which is the parliamentary thing to do and the correct thing to do. We have a system of rules in this House, we are obliged together to follow them.

Members opposite, for their own reasons, we might imply arrogance or some other motive, but we know that when they were challenged - not because of some substantial argument that they were making - but because of an infringement of a very minor rule, they refused to comply. They refused to comply. They refused to withdraw unparliamentary remarks. We're not talking about arguments of substance; we're not talking about major policy issues, which we were somehow muzzling the opposition from saying.

They were asked to withdraw and the courtesy of this House, the decorum of this House, demands that they withdraw those remarks. They refused. Their motives for refusal and their subsequent expulsion, why they let that occur, I suppose, is a question for them to ask. But let it be clear that's what it's about. It's about following the rules and clearly, for whatever reason, members opposite have chosen not even to foilow, not to be willing to follow, the most apparently innocuous of rules. Is there an explanation? I don't think that we have to look to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, to ask that question.

The question needs to be asked of members opposite. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I listened with a great deal of amusement, Sir, on a very serious matter. but the remarks of the honourable gentleman who just finished speaking, have to be amusing, if not regrettabl e. He talks about following the rules and one of the fundamental rules of Parliament, Mr. Speak er, is that members of the Assembly must accept any statement by a Minister of the Crown as being correct. Factual. And when that member says that it is complete, then we must accept it.

However, what do you do in the parliamentary system when later you find out that he is incorrect; that he has misled the House; that he has misinformed the members by his own statements? What do you do then? You again use the parliamentary system, which we are using today. That is what has happened. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Natural Resources. and all others, can attempt to confuse the issue, divert the attention, do whatever they want, to evade the real issue that is here before us. And it reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of something that occurred when I was a young lad attending school.

We had to memorize certain passages from English literature, and there was one phrase that came back to mind today, and I believe it's from Shakespeare, but I'm not positive. It says, "Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive." And we are seeing evidence 645 of that today, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. We're seeing evidence of it again today. Ministers of this House, or any other House, should and must be truthful, in giving answers to questions that are asked of them. If those Ministers were truthful, all of this, all this hubbub, would never have occurred.

It's when we find they are untruthful, that we get into these problems and so, Mr. Speaker, you will note that this is a very parliamentary resolution. It's not dealing with any matter that the House has already dealt with. We are dealing purely with the unfactual remarks of the Attorney-General, the first law officer of this province, who, by his own record in Hansard, has proven that he has not told the House the truth. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members opposite have contributed to this censure motion in a manner not dealing with the motion that's before the House, but in attempting to divert the attention to other matters. That is not what we intend to do and that was not the intent of bringing the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General of this province responded to a question, and we can accept as has been said before that when he responds to a question that he is telling us the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God, in theory.

When the Attorney-General responded to a question on December 10th, he said, "That will complete the record on that as far as I'm aware. " That is in response to a question, Mr. Speaker. The two other occasions in which the Attorney General has made reference were not in response to questions, but information volunteered of his own volition. There was no interruption.

The Attorney General had every opportunity on both occasions, on the 13th of December and on the 10th of December, to provide us with all the information that he chose to do and all the Attorney-General did on those two occasions, once in response to a question, once on his own volition, was to indicate and he says, "The record is clear," that he was simply calling upon you to pick up a transcript of Hansard; only that and nothing more. That is what the Attorney-General volunteered to us and gave to us as a factual answer in response to a question. Mr.

Speaker, the problem occurred on Friday, last week, on March 4th, when once again the Attorney General was volunteering information, not in response to a question in which he is bound to tell the truth, but volunteering information. The information that he volunteered to us on March 4th, Mr. Speaker , was quite different from the information that he gave to us in response to an answer, in voluntary means, in which I will quote again, he said, "The record is clear." - on December 13th and, "That will complete the record on that as far as I'm aware." - on December 10th.

The information that is at odds, that is a misrepresentation, follows on March 4th where he clearly indicates that he had called to see you, Mr. Speaker , with no reference to picking up a transcript

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 of Hansard. None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker , in the answer he volunteered on March 4th, but rather on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making. The question, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be diverted from in this motion is whether indeed the Attorney General as the Chief Law Officer of this province gave us the complete information on two occasions, or whether in fact only now we are getting the complete information from the Attorney-General. There are two different stories spoken by the Attorney-General.

There are two different sets of facts given to this House by the Attorney-General. The first set of information given by the Attorney-General is then reversed and misrepresented in the second set of information. The question clearly, Mr.

Speaker, is, when can members of the opposition and indeed the public of Manitoba assume that when the Attorney-General says the record is clear after making a seemingly factual statement, that indeed it is, and that indeed the Attorney-General has told us all of the facts relevant to the question being posed and has not chosen to leave certain facts out and to misrepresent the situation as clearly these three quotations on three separate days indicate the Attorney-General has done? Mr.

Speaker, I have no option but to support the resolution censuring the Attorney-General for misrepresenting and misleading the House. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be closing debate on this motion. Mr. Speak er, this is not a question dealing with anything other than what this House has been told by the Attorney-General, and the contribution by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing were all irrelevant to the issue before the House today. HON. R.

PENNER: We're not that naive, Brian . MR. B. RANSOM: The Attorney-General says he's not that naive, he knows how to mislead, Mr. Speaker, and there is evidence of trying to divert the attention from the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General, Sir, as the Chief Law Officer in this province is learned in the law, he knows how to use words, he knows what words mean, he knows what statements are and he told this House last December that the only reason he had gone to your chambers was to pick up a transcript and he said, and I'd better use the exact words, he said, "That will complete the record on that as far as I am aware ." This is not some layman, Mr. Speak er, who is accustomed to putting his foot in his mouth.

This is a lawyer, a law professor, the Chief Law Officer of the province saying, "That will complete the record as far as I'm aware. " And for the Attorney-General to rise, and for his colleagues to rise in the House today, and tell us that he was somehow interrupted before he was able to clear the record. Let it go on the record once again that he said that was all there was to it as far as he was aware. Two 646 days later he said again, he quoted from his first statement and said, "The record is clear. " There is no indication at that time that he had been prevented from making a complete statement earlier on.

Not at all. He repeated it and said, "The record is clear. " We must all recall that in December the issue of the day was deflected by the Attorney-General and by the First Minister by saying that the purpose of the visit to your quarters, Sir, was simply to get a transcript, and for the First Minister to advise you about a point which he hoped to raise. On that basis the issue was deflected.

The House having been told by the first law officer of this province that he had put the whole story on the record, and we find out from an admission by the Attorney-General himself that was not the case, that he now says that he went to see you on whether or not you had a ruling that you would be making. What would the Attorney-General be going to the Speaker's quarters to ask about a ruling for anyway, Mr. Speaker?

That was the issue in December, and the Attorney General at the time told us that issue was never raised and that was the complete story as far as he was aware; and he said two days later, "Let the record be clear. " On both occasions, the First Minister has not seen fit to rise in this House and defend his Attorney-General. This is a very serious allegation against any Minister of the Crown, Mr. Speaker.

It is doubly so when it involves the Attorney-General and the First Minister of the House, having been challenged by my Leader in December to rise and clear the record, failed to do so, and he failed to do so again today. But, to his credit at least, he didn't rise and try and drag red herrings across the trail the way the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing did. He realizes that it was an indefensible act and that it's better to sit quiet and say nothing than to rise and try and defend the indefensible, Sir. Mr.

Speak er, this casts serious doubt on the word of the Attorney-General, and this is going to have an impact beyond the House and beyond this issue that the people of this province will be able to see on their own. They can read the record, Mr. Speaker. They can see what the Attorney-General has said and they will be able to judge whether or not the word of the Attorney-General can be accepted. We, Sir, do not believe that it can be accepted and that is why, regretfully , we have had to bring this resolution before the House today. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Filmon, Gourlay , Graham; Mrs. Hammond;

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 Messrs. Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, Manness, McKenzie, Merci er, Nordman, Orchard, Ransom, Sherman. NAYS Messrs. Adam, Ashton, Bucklaschuk, Carroll, Cowan, Desjardins; Mrs. Dodick; Mr. Doern; Ms. Dolin; Messrs. Fox, Harapiak, Harper; Ms. Hemphill; Messrs. Lecuyer, Mackling, Malinowski, Parasiuk, Pawl ey, Penner; Ms. Phillips; Messrs. Plohman, Santos, Schroeder, Scott; Mrs. Smith; Messrs. Storie, Uruski, Uskiw. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas 21 ; Nays 28. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly defeated. ORAL QUEST IONS Manitoba's Capital Project Proposals MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. Some few days ago, he passed around to members of the House, along with an announcement that he made at that time, a list called, "Manitoba's Capital Project Proposals to the Government of Canada," which said list, I understand, the Minister of Finance has now passed along with not too much success to his colleague, the Minister of Finance in Ottawa.

My first question, Sir, would be to ask the First Minister how many of the projects which are itemized in this list of what the government probably accurately calls its "Wish Proposal s, " how many of them, for which the province has constitutional authority for initiation for administation and finance, were either authorized by the previous Conservative administration, which I had the honour to lead, or last year authorized by his own administration? In other words, how many of them are just a repeat, a rehash, a retread of what was going to be done in any event? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON.

H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, the honourable member would recall, in regard to personal care homes, large sums of monies were authorized, but there was a freeze re the proceeding of personal care homes. So I'm not at all clear as to the honourable member's question as to in what way that would be relevant. Mr. Speaker, maybe the honourable member should be better informed as to the basic reason for the list of projects.

The Finance Minister Lalonde in December requested from each province a list of projects that Provincial Governments would be interested in seeing proceed if there was a federal initiative arising from the upcoming Federal Budget which we're expecting in late March or early April. It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker , that every province, with the exception of one, has submitted to the Federal Government the so-called "Wish List ," and that Manitoba has done likewise. 647 Mr. Speaker, there is a total number of projects cost wise would comprise approximately $1 billion.

It would be only anticipated that the Federal Government from that list would choose those projects that would be of greatest interest or priority to them. They are projects that, in return, the Provincial Government would be interested in seeing proceed. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker , either wilfully or otherwise, the First Minister seems to be avoiding my question. My question very simply, Sir , and I think even he could understand it, is how many of these projects about which he makes a list, which he then presents to the Minister of Finance, were not already in the books to be done or already under way?

I use by way of example, to refresh his memory, that the twinning of No. 75 Highway was announced, if my memory serves me, at least a year and one-half ago and that, indeed, the first part of the work on the twinning of 75 Highway took place over the last summer, that right-of-way was acquired, work was done. Now, if the purpose of submitting projects to the Government of Manitoba to seek federal cost-sharing is the only purpose of this, then fine and dandy.

If the Feds will come in and share on projects that are old, fine; but if the purpose is to tell the public of Manitoba that here is a wonderful new list of things that we intend to do, then the list, I must suggest , Sir, is a bit of a fraud. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, again, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition chooses knowingly or otherwise not to understand the basis of the list. Mr.

Speaker, it is a list, as I indicated, submitted to the Federal Government in the anticipation that the Federal Government, if it proceeds with its intentions as expressed last December, would choose items from that list, and any items chosen from that list would receive the full support and co-operation of the Government of Manitoba. Mr. Speake r, many projects are announced, and it is true that the previous government announced a number of projects but then did not proceed with those projects. Mr.

Speaker , we dealt with the health care institutions the other night and the honourable member should recall very, very well his freezing of announcements that were made in 1977 by the former government headed by Premier Schreyer. Tenders had been issued and they were stopped, Mr. Speaker. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants to address the Chair . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . I request that he do so. In the meantime, I would like to respond to the question from the Leader of the Opposition. MR. L. SHERMAN: Don't say we dealt with it. You dealt with it.

I haven't dealt with it yet, and I'll deal with your speech ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fort Garry appears to be unduly excited because he knows

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 full well from his own experience in 1977 what he did by way of freezing projects from the Province of Manitoba. MR. L SHERMAN: Name one. Name one project we announced. HON. H. PAWLEY: Selkirk General Hospital, and I could list many others. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think somebody protests too much in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, a number of projects, indeed, have been announced.

I would hope that through federal and provincial coordination there could be an acceleration in regard to the development of those projects. Specific mention has been made to the twinning of Highway 75. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that the twinning of Highway 75 can proceed as quickly as we might otherwise wish it to proceed unless there is the kind of co-operative venture that I've made reference to. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we're beginning to get at a form of answer from the First Minister.

He mentions Selkirk Hospital for which I turned the sod. As the Premier of Manitoba, he was invited to be there as the member for the constituency in case he forgets that. The hospital, as I understand, is now completed and open. That was done; that was not a delayed project, Mr. Speaker. It was only on the books in the Schreyer Government and the First Minister didn't have enough pull with that government to get it done. We built it because it had to be done. Mr.

Speaker, getting on to matters for which the province has not the power of inititation constitutionally, or the power of initiation, I ask the First Minister if the Federal Government, according to his "Wish List" and according to his hope, were to advance money for this project under "D. Industrial - Upgrading of the Hudson Bay Rail Line from The Pas to Church ill ," is he suggest ing that the Province of Manitoba, the taxpayers of Manitoba, would put money into that project? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, what we have indicated to the Federal Government, and the honourable member ought to again know this full well, that the Province of Manitoba is interested in certain projects being examined by the Federal Government, by the Provincial Government. These are a list of projects. We wish from the Federal Government a response as to those projects they would be interested in proceeding with; just as indeed is the case with every other province in Canada which submitted a similar list with the exception of Alberta. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition does not appreciate this kind of initiative. He does not support a stimulative kind of approach; but what is necessary, Mr. Speaker, that each province do exactly as Manitoba has done - and every province indeed has with the exception of Alberta - and submit lists to the Federal Government so that those projects can be discussed and determination could be made as to which projects ought to proceed between the two levels of government. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish the honourable member's comments to go unresponded to pertaining to the Selkirk Hospital.

There were other hospitals such as Ashern. Ashern had already reached the tender stage when it was frozen but it was frozen by way of progress. Mr. Speaker , in the case of Selkirk - and I'm really surprised the Honourable Member for Fort Garry would not acknowledge this - approval had been given to functional plans. The late Jack Donner, architect, had already done thousands of dollars of work in the preparation of the architectural plans with the anticipation that hospital would proceed.

It was the former Minister of Health, the Member for Fort Garry, that prevented the proceeding with of that hospital, as well as many other similar institutions in the Province of Manitoba. MR. L. SHERMAN: . . . that is absolutely untrue. HON. H. PAWLEY: You wouldn't know the truth if you saw it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker , the First Minister seems to be rather . . . MR. L. SHERMAN: You didn't even have it on the books. It was hypothetical abstract talk and you know it. It was not an approved capital project under you and you know it. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. MR. l. SHERMAN: A bunch of abstract promises. Anybody can promise anything, but we built it. 648 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. l. SHERMAN: I'm tired of that nonsense about health care. Just tired of it. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I can understand why the First Minister is distraught, because he is beginning to find that every time untruths are spoken from his side of the House, they will be challenged in this House, and they'll be challenged daily, if necessary, and especially if he speaks them. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question, to get back to the original question, the question was this. One of the items suggested in the capital list, under (

d) Industrial,

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 was the upgrading of the Hudson Bay rail line from The Pas to Churchill. My question was, if the Federal Government was to accept that proposal, would the Government of Manitoba be putting provincial taxpayers' money into what is a federal matter? No. 2 - another "Wish" project that the government has submitted. A railroad rolling stock manufacturing facility for energy-efficient freight cars for Canadian and export markets to be located at Selkirk, Gimli, The Pas, or Thompson.

Would it be the expectation of the overburdened taxpayers of Manitoba, that they would be asked to put good tax dollars into that kind of a venture? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I would be tempted to

preamble my remarks, and I prefer not to, because I think it's best not to respond to threats from the Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Tell the truth and you won't have any problems. A MEMBER: Why don't you try it once in awhile? A MEMBER: Simmer down. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I would hope that at some point, this Chamber and Government and opposition members could get about to do the business of the Province of Manitoba, rather than uttering of threats; rather than uttering wild comments; as we so often, unfortunately , are hearing from across the way. Mr.

Speaker , insofar as - (Interjection) - The Leader of the Opposition, for the record, just yelled from his seat, "Tell the truth if you can", Mr. Speak er. HON. S. LYON: Right, right. HON. H. PAWLEY: Just for the record, I have never had any problem in telling the truth at any time. Just for the record. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, again - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker , if there's some return of decorum, I would like to respond to the question from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated earlier, a list has been submitted to the Federal Government of projects that this government supports in principle. If the Federal Government selects from that list, projects that they, too agree with in principle, we are interested in sitting down with the Federal Government, examining the viability of each and every project , and working out a joint system of co-operation, in order to initiate those projects. 649 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speak er, does that mean that the First Minister is prepared to put the money of the taxpayers of Manitoba into a project, to upgrade the Hudson Bay rail line, from The Pas to Churchill, which responsibility has been heretofore of the Canadian National Railway and/or the Government of Manitoba; and into building a railroad rolling stock manufacturing facility at Selkirk, Gimli, The Pas, or Thompson. Is he prepared to put the taxpayers' money into that kind of a project? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we are interested in bringing these projects to the attention of the Federal Government.

We're interested in obtaining their response and if the projects are indeed viable, after joint study, we will make an announcement. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speak er, very simply, will the First Minister commit taxpayers' money, from the taxpayers of Manitoba, into these projects? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I believe I've answered the Leader of the Opposition's question as clearly as I could. HON. S. LYON: No, you haven't. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I wish I could ask a question in return to the Leader of the Opposition, because I'm gaining the impression that the Leader of the Opposition opposes an upgrading of the rail line to the Port of Churchill. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speake r, all sides of the House are accorded the same privilege. No, I don't oppose it. I oppose the taxpayers of Manitoba being dragged in on some "Wish scheme" by crazy socialists, who are trying to cover up the fact that they have lost 30,000- odd jobs in Manitoba, or 19 ,000-odd jobs, and that 30,000 more people are unemployed, since they came into office.

They're trying to cover it up with fantasty programs about boxcars in Thompson, and so so. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I don't really want to - I shouldn't probably concern myself about the Leader of the Opposition's attack upon eight other provincial governments in the country, because as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speak er, I think they indeed have been honoured by the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in the last few moments. He said some "Wish list" of some silly socialist initiative or venture, Mr. Speak er, again the Leader of the Opposition hadn't heard clearly, I suppose.

A few moments ago, when I reported to this House that it's my understanding, from the Minister of Finance, that nine of the ten Provincial Governments in Canada have submitted to the Federal Government a so-called "Wish list" in response to what I submit, Mr. Speaker, was a responsible request from another non-socialist - that the Leader of the Opposition - I know he's always so concerned about colour - from the Liberal Minister of Finance in December to all Provincial Governments. Nine Provincial Governments

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 responded, and of those nine , six would be Conservative, one would be Social Credit, one would be New Demo crat, and I belie ve , even the Parti Quebecois Government in the Province of Quebec, indicated its interest in working together with the Federal Government in such an initiative across the country. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister - to go back - will the First Minister give us a list of the projects that were already announced, and under way, and provided for, in provincial Estimates , out of the list for which the province has responsibility - No. 1; and will he, No. 2, in compiling that list, for the purposes of the House and the people of Manitoba, tell the people of Manitoba which of those "Wish items, " and that term is his term, Sir, not mine - "Wish List" is his term - under the industrial category, two of which I have mentioned, tell the people of Manitoba, whether or not he is prepared to commit their tax dollars to those proje cts, if they be approved by the Federal Government.

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think we've already answered that question . . . HON. S. LYON: No , you haven't. That's why I'm asking it. HON. H. PAWLEY: We've indicated again, Mr. Speaker, that we are interested, if the Federal Government expresses an interest in respect to these projects , any one or other of these projects; we indicated a support in principle, the desire to sit down with the Federal Government, in regard to any project that they select from that list, to ascertain the viability, in order to initiate the commencement of such projects. Mr.

Speaker, we have no difficulty in supporting any of the projects listed in the document that the Honourable Leader is referring to, in supporting any one of those projects in principle. My only concern, Mr. Speaker, if I can confide concern, - (Interjection) - if I could confide my concern, Mr.

Speaker, that there is still in this land, unfortunately, too many in positions of power that unfortunately share the same philosophic bent as the Leader of the Opposition and will not really join in with an all out massive effort to attack unemployment or the initiation or projects such as this from one end of the country to the other. HON. S. LYON: All you had to do is get the Grid and Alcan , if you haven't let your incompetent Minister to lose the Grid and Alcan you'd have the jobs. You fumbled the ball. Don't cover up for him. Adoption Moratorium MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please.

The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My question is to the Honourable First Minister and I would ask him whether he can advise this House whether he has had brought to his attention statements made 650 publicly earlier today by Betty Schwartz, the Executive Director of The Winnipeg Childrens' Aid Society, to the effect that a number of children in the adoption stream now require psychiatric treatment because of the long delays in having their adoption procedures completed due to the moratorium that's been placed by this government on out-of-province adoptions? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister at the same time whether he will investigate and report to this House whether the backlog of children awaiting ad optio n, awaiting placement , has now reached a crisis point with respect to the welfare and well-being , and particularly the emotional health of many of those children in the stream? HON. H. PAWLEY: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, would the First Minister also investigate and report to the House as to whether it is possible for Native children to be adopted by white foster parents in Manitoba and yet not be placed with Native foster parents a few miles away in northwestern Ontario? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can respond to that question, the answer is no. That is not true. MR. L. SHERMAN: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the First Minister whether he can advise the House as to when the moratorium on out-of-town adoptions will be lifted? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the announcement that had been made , as I recall at the time of the appointment of the Kimmelman Commission, is that it would remain until such time as the Kimmelman Commission made its report. Filing of Report by Minister of Natural Resources MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney-General in his capacity as House Leader. There is a legislative requirement for a great many reports to be tabled in the Legislature ·within 15 days of the opening of the Session.

The Attorney-General , the House Leader, has placed the routine motion on the Order Paper extending the deadline to the 21s t of March for the filing of those reports. Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that he would not be filing a report , which was in fact due last October, that he would not be filing that report prior to the 21s t of March. My question to the Government House Leader is: in view of the statement by the Attorney-General , which

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 is contradictory and unacceptable, what action does the House Leader propose to take? - (Interjection) - Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources, that's correct. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: It's my understanding, having raised this question with the Minister of Natural Resources - I'm sorry he's not here to deal with it at this time - that the report which was asked for was the five-year report that was made available, I believe, in October.

It was the understanding of the Minister of Natural Resources that it was to be filed at any time, in terms of the legislation governing that report, during the subsequent Session, that is this Session, and I've asked him to check on that. He advises me that he is reviewing that report with the full intention, of course, that he will comply with the rule that indeed it will be tabled in the House during this Session. I would hope that when he is in the House he can add to that answer in terms of the governing legislation.

If the Opposition House Leader has some other views as to the governing legislation, I would be interested in hearing them so that I can take up this matter further with the Minister of Natural Resources. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed to have that response from the Attorney-General because it clearly shows that he does not understand the Legislature requirement. This report was due within six months of the close of fiscal 198 1-82, which was the 1st of October, 1982.

The issue was raised with the Minister of Natural Resources during December and he undertook to look into it and report, I believe, and at least to file it as soon as possible. We have not pressed the issue knowing that it is a difficult and a new requirement, but to find the Minister of Natural Resources simply saying he's not going to table it by this time is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that the Attorney-General tell us exactly when the report will be tabled in order that his motion may be dealt with in a relevant fashion and that we may have that report as soon as possible. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, I'll take that as notice, and hope to provide a reply to the House through the Opposition House Leader tomorrow or Monday at the latest. Lord's Day Act MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , during the constitutional discussions on the entrenched Charter of Rights, one of the favourite examples used by former Premier Allan Blakeney was the possibility of striking down Lord's Day Act legislation. The news reports yesterday indicate that the provincial Lords Day Act has indeed been struck down as being in contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights, Mr.

Speak er. 651 My question to the Attorney-General is, will he give consideration, Mr. Speaker, to using the override provisions allowed in the Canadian Charter of Rights in order to allow the provincial Lord's Day Act to remain in force in Manitoba? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er, the question is hypothetical. There is no challenge to The Lord's Day Act in the Province of Manitoba or to its functioning in the Province of Manitoba, if indeed the reference by the former Attorney-General is incomplete. There is some court case which has made a decision applying or purporting to apply the Charter.

I would of course be interested in seeing that. It, in any event like any other such decision, will have to go the appellant route before there is a decision which is in fact binding on the Province of Manitoba. There is no present intention on the part of this government to deal with that legislation in any way or with its application. I can only say this, with respect to the second part of the question having to do with the "notwithstanding" clause, I made statements both in and out of the House in terms of the position of this government; that is, that it would not use the "notwithstanding" clause.

I want to remind members of the House very briefly that the first

section of the Charter subjects major provisions of the Charter,

Section 2 and

Section 7 to 15, to such reasonable limits as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and that

section in effect says that if a limit is reasonable in terms of one of the fundamental freedoms or other parts of the Charter, then the particular limit will be upheld and I think that's a reasonable way to go. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, is the Attorney-General saying that if on appeal - and I appreciate, and I understand it from the news reports that the decision will be appealed - the trial court decision remains, Mr. Speaker, and The Lord's Day Act legislation is struck down, that is ultimately to affect our Lord's Day Act legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Attorney-General saying that he would not use the override provisions of the Charter in order to maintain the Lord's Day Act legislation? HON. R. PENNER: The question is hypothetical. Whether or not anything will have to be done in terms of the application of that legislation in the Province of Manitoba is purely hypothetical and I do not propose to deal with it any further than I have today. Snow and Ice Storm, Manit oba MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.

In view of the unprecedented sleet storm and the inestimable damage that was caused in my area - a good estimate would be something in excess of $1 million for repairing the damage - and the fact that area seems to be prone to sleet storms - whenever they occur, that area seems to get hit worse than any other areas - I wonder if the Minister would undertake

10 March, 1983 to look into the possibil ity, when the repairs are undertaken, to have the cables placed underground which would prevent any further occurrences such as power outages, which I understand in some of my area may be restored this morning, but it's been out since Sunday. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, I'll undertake to look at the costs and benefits of putting the wires underground. MR. D. BLAKE: A final question to the same Minister, Mr.

Speaker , I wonder if he would undertake to do that reasonably quickly, because when they do do the repairs and put all the new poles in place, it's going to be a considerable cost and, once that's done, it is unlikely that they would tear them out again and put the cables underground. So if the temporary repairs could remain in place and then permanent underground cables put in, it would save a considerable amount of money. HON. W. PARASIUK: I'll certainly take this matter up very shortly with Hydro, as was my intention. Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR.

B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if he or she would undertake to get the distribution of the capital authority, which is to be carried over from last year into the Jobs Fund, and to provide the distribution of the $83 million planned for in the Crown corporation spending, which is shown as an item in the Jobs Fund as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Finance. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Spea ker, I was rather hoping I would get a commitment to get that information because it has been promised for some time and we don't seem to be able to get it. Outstanding Borrowing Requirement MR. B. RANSOM: Another question then to the First Minister, can he advise the House how much of the 1982-83 borrowing requirement is still outstanding and how much of that borrowing is expected to be undertaken before the end of March. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Spea ker, I'll take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Finance. 652 Northern Union Insu rance Company MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , the other day, my colleague, the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, asked questions concerning the poli cyholders of the now defunct Northern Union Insurance Company and I note, in today's paper, an ad placed there by the liquidators, Dunwoody Limited, reminding policyholders that if they have not already cancelled their insurance coverage that they have to make special app lication for that cancellation to take place.

I am asking the Honourable Minister responsible for insurance whether or not - you know, is this a reaction from questions that we're asking on this side of the House or what steps are being taken by the now responsible party, the liquidator, in ensuring that the policyholders are advised that it is specifically necessary for them to write to cancel their insurance with this company. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the Member for Lakeside, I have to say that the notice that's in the paper today is certainly not in reaction to anything that the members of the op position may have said in this House. I have indicated, on previous occasions, that one of the first things the liquidator, Dunwoody Limited, did was to notify the agents that the licence for Northern Union had been cancelled. Letters have also gone out from the Superintendent of Insurance. A number of letters have gone out.

I don't have my file handy, but I have seen copies of various letters that have gone out informing agents that the company's licence has been cancelled. The liquidator will be informing each of the policyholders that the termination date will be set. But, in the meantime, until such a time as the termination date has been set, he is doing his utmost to advise policyholders and he is doing it in the form of newspaper ads. MR. H. ENNS: A supple mentary question, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding, and the Minister can correct me, that unless that specific request for cancellation is taken now, policyholders that perhaps have just purchased insurance coverage during the time of difficulty or several weeks ago are not eligible for any hope of any reclaim of the premium am'-unt paid. Is that kind of specific information getting out to the individual policyholders and should that information not be getting out to individual poli cyholders? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: With respect to policyholders, I think legislation iS quite clear.

Whatever assets are to be found within Northern Union, the liquidator has first claim against them to help recover his expenses of liquidating the firm. The second priority are those persons who have outstanding claims against Northern Union. Third priority are those persons who have policies and are eligible for some form of rebate. It is my understanding that letters have gone out from Northern Union to persons who have claims, informing them of the status of their claims. I am sure that when the letters go out to policyholders that

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 Dunwoody Limited will explain to them what the priorities are insofar as whatever assets remain within Northern Un!on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister because his response has clarified a point that I wrote to him about, about a week ago, foii::iwing up on a particular case as an example of what is happening to people who have outstanding claims and in a particular case of hardship where a family may not be able to live in their home until their claim is settled.

Given the fact that this process that he has detailed is likely to take several months, is there not any possible way that, through his department or through the Superintendent of Insurance, people might be given or advanced some reasonable portion of their claim, such as something in proportion to what they think the settlement might be on an interest-free basis? If the claim is valid and can be obviously assessed, could this not be done to help people in a case of hardship to be able to return to their home?

Is there no mechanism, in view of the fact that it was the action of this Minister that caused the firm to be put into receivership? Therefore, these people are placed in that jeopardy because of some action of the government. Could that not be done, Mr. Speaker? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: To the Member for Tuxedo, we are aware of a number of situations which I wish that we were able to do something about, but I gather what the Member for Tuxedo is asking us to do is to help bail out Northern Union.

We have no way of knowing at the present time what the assets of Northern Union are, so it wouldn't be possible to prorate any type of anticipated benefits. Until such time as we know that there are in fact any assets, Dunwoody Limited is not able to satisfy, either wholly or in part, any of the outstanding claims. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that, in fact, there may be no assets to the company? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That is certainly a possibility. At this present time, we do not know what the financial picture is with respect to Northern Union.

I h&ve, on a number of occasions, indicated that it was a fairly complex arrangement between Northern Union and its parent company and the agencies out in the field across Western Canada. The liquidator has, for the past month or so, been trying to put together a statement. Certainly a statement was presented to the courts when a request was made for the dissolution of Northern Union, but we, at the present time, do not have the entire picture as to the financial situation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member tor· St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, just one question to the Minister of Consumer Affairs.

Could he confirm or is it not correct, Mr. Speak er, that in order for a policyholder to properly claim a refund of premium, that it is necessary for him to send a letter by registered 653 mail to the company or the liquidator formally notifying the company of the cancellation of the policyholder's policy and claiming a refund of premiums? If he wishes to take that as notice and consult with the superintendent, that's fine, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: To the specific question about a policyholder sending a registered letter to the company, I don't know the answer to that. I'll take that as notice, but I do know in many circumstances the agents acted in a responsible manner as possible and replaced the existing policies with other companies and notified Northern Union of that particular transaction. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired, Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY HANSARD CLARIFICA TION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.

GOURLA Y: I would like to request a change in Tuesday, March 8, copy of Hansard, a correction. On Page 593, on the last column, I said, " ... it does provide an out for many non-whites . . . " I meant to say, non-Indians. ADDRESS FOR PAPERS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Virden, THAT an humble address be voted to Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor praying for copies of all of the following: 1.

Correspondence or written communication between the Minister of the Environment and/or the Minister of Urban Affairs and the Shoal Lake Indian Band No. 40 or the Government of Canada with respect to the solid waste or sewage disposal problems at Shoal Lake. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . We want to accept the request, subject to three minor conditions.

One is that we will return, in addition to the correspondence specifically requested as between the bands and the Government of Canada, relative correspondence from the City of Winnipeg, so that it forms a cohesive picture. Second ly, that in such situations where we accept an Address that might involve correspondence received in confidence, then we would have to, of course, if that were to be the case, respect the confidence. What would

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 be done would be to ask the other government, be it the Government of Canada or the municipal government, to release us from that confidence. Thirdly, although the grammar is not entirely clear - perhaps the member can clarify this - it would not, I take it, include Minister to Minister correspondence, because that would not be included in our Return; that is, Treasury Bench Minister to Treasury Bench Minister. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the Motion? The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I assume that the Government House Leader is just talking about correspondence between the two relevant Ministers of this Provincial Government, not a federal and provincial Minister. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader, HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Uskiw, beginning on Page 5, but continuing in substance over Page 6 and standing in the name of the Member for Arthur. ADJOU RNED DEBATE - CROW RATE MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak today on what has been, and I'm sure will continue to be, somewhat of a not only controversial, but a fairly major issue to not only all the prairie grain farmers, but to the people of the rest of Canada Mr.

Speaker, I have to start from the position that we, as a Progressive Conservative Party, since getting into office in 1977, have been basically and very much consistent in our position in what we have been wanting to accomplish in the development of the movement of western grain and, of course, following on that the development of the western Canadian economy, which in fact has a major impact on all of the economy of Canada. I start from a basis, Mr.

Speak er, somewhat different from the Honourable Minister of Transportation who, in his comments the other day, said that he was now prepared to compromise his head-in-the-sand position - he didn't say that, but basically he said that was the position that he had traditionally held but had moved somewhat from that, because the whole business of discussions on grain transportation and the movement of grain in Canada had moved somewhat from that particular position and that, in fact, they had, and by admission, been not being involved and by sitting back with that position, I think, have somewhat jeopardized the position of the Manitoba farm communi ty, not to a point where it couldn't be recovered, Mr.

Speak er, but to some degree have not really been fair. There was evidence of that, Mr. Speaker, in the resolution that was introduced last year which appeared 654 to give us some difficulty as an opposition to try and put on the record things that would embarrass us and try and say that we really didn't have a position. Mr.

Speaker, our position is, and I don't mind putting it on the record, because every time I've had a chance to speak and every member of this caucus, when they have that opportunity to speak, say that they - and I'll put it in the proper terms - have not had any difficulty with discussions on Crow rate, as long as the benefits of the present Crow rate were retained for the farmers of western Canada That, Mr.

Speaker, is a fairly straightforward position, and it's no secret that during our term of office and, in fact, I think it's important to put it on the record just what happened in those few years that we had the opportunity and our Premier of the day, Sterling Lyon, had the opportunity to play a leadership role in that whole field, where in fact, there were many positive developments taking place without, in fact, changing the Crow rate, without getting right into the discussions of it. But one of the things, Mr.

Speaker, that was in my mind the important thing was that there was a common thread, a common desire, to work together with the Federal Government of Canada, to work together with all the other Provincial Governments who were involved, and to work with the farm community, to work with the labour people, all those people who had an up-front and a major stake in current short-term situations and in the longer term situations and development of Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, hasn't changed.

That hasn't changed to this point. · There is that same common desire, by all my colleagues, to be a part of the development, and from what I heard the Minister of Transport say the other day, I think he has now come to that - not to the same position - but to a position of being so far out of tune with what is happening in the farm community and the rest of Canada, that he's now prepared to say, because what has been proposed by Pepin, and the urgency of the move that is now taking place, we all have to co-operate so that we can - yes, we can stop the present plan, Mr.

Speaker , is really what we want to get into, is the present Pepin plan that he's now saying that he is not happy with. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am not particularly happy with the present proposed Pepin plan. However, I'm not afraid, Mr. Speaker, to put clearly on the record, some of the reasons why I'm not quite so happy with it. One of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and I 'II commend Mr. Pepin for dealing with it in a straigh1-on manner.

As I say, I don't necessarily agree with him, but I think he's taken a position, a position in this country, that could be somewhat considered not in the best interests of his political future. I think he did so, partially because he felt a need to do so, partially because he had a personal goal within his own cabinet and within his own jurisdiction, and felt that it was a place for him to make his mark. We have the Prime Minister who took a different approach. He wanted to change Canada, so people could remember him.

We had the Minister - I think it was Chretien - who wanted to have his name go on the record books, as changing the constitution along with Trudeau, and Lalonde, of course, who has made his mark, and now, I think we have Pepin who sees the real opportunity to make his mark.

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 One of the main problems, Mr. Speak er, that I have with the present proposal is, somewhat how it was arrived at. You know we had, Mr. Speak er, a series of provincial and federal meetings that I think, when you look at the records that are now pointing out to us, and I refer to the accomplishments that are reported in the Grain Transportation Authority Annual Review, Mr. Speak er, where this last year 1981-82, we saw a record movement of some 27.2 million tons of the six major grain products moved out of western Canada.

That exceeded the target that was set by the Canadian Grain Industry by 1.2 million tons, Mr. Speaker. That, Mr. Speaker, is an increase from some 21 million tons the year before. Now, Mr. Speaker , that didn't all come about because people were sitting procrastinating over whether the Crow rate should be changed, or whether it shouldn't. That all came about, Mr. Speaker, because there was a co-operative movement made from all segments in the industry to get on with the job of working on the particular problems that were within each and every one of their realms. That, Mr.

Speak er, of course, is part of, what has been traditionally the Crow rate. How was the Crow rate changed in any way during those times? Mr. Speaker, you had the Saskatc hewan Government buying $1 00 million in hopper cars; you had Alberta buying $1 00 million in hopper cars; you had the Provincial Governments being involved in, what really has been a railroad and a Federal Government jurisdiction. And, Mr.

Speak er, the positive action that has been proven by the movement of grain, puts us to a position where there were projections made by the Gilson report, within about 3 million tons that we were supposed to achieve by 1985. So, Mr. Speaker, when you see a co-operative effort by everyone involved, getting involved with that objective in mind, then certain things can be accomplished. But what happened in the process, Mr. Speaker?

The Federal Minister, Jean-Luc Pepin said, look, we've had series of meetings under, when Downey was the Minister and when - and let's remember that there were several different political parties that were involved in these meetings. There was the Social Credit from B.C.; the Conservatives from Alberta; the New Democratic Party from Saskatchewan; and the Conservative Government from Manitoba; and the Federal Liberal Party, and yes, Mr.

Speak er, that was a mix of political backgrounds that were able to meet, probably on a six-month basis, or as often as they felt necessary to get together, to keep the political people involved, so that they could all justify to their own people, the people they represented, either in the farm communi ty, or wherever, there was a movement taking place. That I go back and give credit to our Leader, Mr.

Speaker, at that time, it started right here in this building in January of 1979-80, and that was really the spirit or the mood was set at that time and the record now is speaking for what came out of those initial starts. But where Mr. Pepin went wrong, Mr. Speaker, he forgot to continue to have the consultative process with the Provincial Governments. He said, I will now by pass those Provincial Governments and I will go directly to the farm communi ty. I'll take a very credible person, and last year when Dr.

Gilson was appointed, we complimented the appointment, because we felt that he was a credible individual and he is. 655 I have a couple of contentious points with his particular proposal, and of course, we're aware that Pepin did change that, when he introduced the package, which I would refer to in a few minutes, but the process of keeping the politicians of all political stripes working together to accomplish a goal was changed.

It was changed by leaving, I think - and I think the Minister of Transport in Manitoba would probably agree that, seeing some of the history of it, would probably say that if you keep the politicians working together and have the same objective in mind, that it keeps the kind of breakdown in communications and the kind of disruption that we're now seeing take place within not only the political scene but the politics of the farm community, where he indicated in his speech the other day, we have Manitoba Pool saying they want the particular problem solved this way with the funds that are available from the Federal Government; the cattle producers are saying they want it solved another way; the Farm Bureau is saying a different way.

The politicians are now saying, you know, we have to make a judgment on what really is the best, but we're doing it in an open arena, not sitting as a nucleus around the table where we can set our differences to rest or come from that meeting with the same common objective; but it's a lot of finger pointing again where we started back in the 1977-78 period, and there was a major breakdown in the whole political movement of what I think could have been handled a lot differently. Well, Mr. Speak er, the selection of Dr. Clay Gilson, I think was a proper choice.

However, I would have felt more comfortable, even though I don't believe in the same philosophical beliefs of the Minister of Transport, but even if the political structure that represented the Province of Manitoba were allowed to sit in on those farm organization meetings, the Gilson meetings and the farm industry, that they all were to sit together and put forward their proposals so that they could be boiled out in that, I think it would have been better in a public meeting. Mr. Speak er, what are some of the main difficulties that I would have with what the Dr. Gilson report would have put together?

Well, the inflationary costs, first of all, I don't believe are caused by the farm communi ty. I think that the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces have played a pretty major role in bringing about some of the high inflationary costs that each and everyone of us are faced with, and I don't believe that the farmer should have to pay 4.5 percent inflation. I don't believe that they should, after the period of five years, go to a 6 percent inflation. I don't think there should have been any inflationary charges placed on the farm community for the movement of grain.

That's a debatable point but, Mr. Speak er, what I'm saying is I think it's a proposal that at least could have been put forward and debated in that arena. The question of 31 million tonnes, Mr. Speaker , I again have to say is really telling the farm community what you have had for an unlimited commodity and a movement of product is now going to be capped at 31 million tonnes. I truly have difficulty with that, Mr.

Speak er, because I think it truly is taking away from what I think would have been a spirit of giving the farm community that feeling that they're not getting restricted in any way; what they have for over the long period of

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 time felt was almost limitless, but now realize there are changes that had to be made . I do have some problem with that. The other difficulty that I have, Mr. Speak er, and this is something that I haven't heard anybody mention in the whole process of negotiations on whether the farmer should pay more, shouldn't pay more, how it should be done, and the problem I have is that there is $1 00 million in hopper cars put into the system by the farm community already. I have to ask the questio n: Is that a donation to the railroads by the farm community?

Is it a donation from the Province of Saskatchewan that they put in $1 00 million or the Province of Alberta with their hopper cars? I haven't, Mr. Speak er, in all fairness, heard that addressed. You know, it's maybe not a lot of money in the total picture when you see that you're getting a commitment from the Federal Treasury of some $650 million annually, but it is a particular point that I think not only in a monetary sense, but again goes back and supports the point I made earlier that the provinces should have been sitting at the negotiation table because they did have money in it, Mr. Speaker.

They had dollars and cents in it, the farmers of Manitoba. Through the Wheat Board and, in fact, through the leasing of hopper cars, we were participa nts. The continuation of the Saskatchewan use of hopper cars, I think, gave need for the Saskatchewan Government to be a part of the negotiations that are going on as well as the Alberta Government. So, again, I want to use those examples to support why I think in the negotiations that everyone should have been a part of them.

You know, it's kind of interesting; I'll put it that way, because the Minister of Transport now comes in with this resolution which he brought from Saskatchewa n. If I didn't know him better, I'd think he'd be trying to say, you know, he's really going to try and embarrass the Conservative Party in Manitoba. Then he stands up and he says, well, the one problem I have with the report is that Gilson didn't really deal with Churchill. Well, I would have liked to have seen in the resolution something to deal with Churchill.

When he introduced it, he would have had the opportunity to put another clause in there and I think he would have probably had a little more justification for his actions in saying we want to speed it up. Again, if I were sitting negotiating on behalf of the farmers of Manitoba, negotiating with Mr. Gilson or in discussio ns with Mr.

Pepin, you know, there's something that has to be said and it has to be done in this coun try, and before you ask the farmers and anybody else in society to trade off or to negotiate a major part of what has been traditionally - whether it was necessary to change it is not the question - but you're asking them to trade off a long-term right given to them in statute, and the objective is to maintain and to have the best transportation system available. Well, you know, I have looked back at many records.

The grain transportation authority has indicated each year that they've put out a report that the problem - and I'm not taking a shot at them because I don't think it's fair; it's got to be an objective approach - that the labour disrupt ions have caused serious problems.

I think what has to be put in here, as was in our part of the resolution last year, that we have to certainly improve 656 our rail system, move the grain out of the country; but we have to put in there some place where that system is sitting there, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, by the farmers, and by all the individuals involved; then let us deal with that labour issue at the same time. Let us have a system that's in place. Let us have a system that's going to be worked without the disruption of a few people.

I think the farm community would feel a little bit more comfortable sitting down saying, if I'm paying for it then I know that there's not going to be anything that disrupts the movement of that grain . Mr. Speaker, I think that has to be as well put on the table. You know, I indicated the concerns that I think that I - and I have mentioned them briefly with regard to the recommendations that Dr. Gilson had. Now, the federal proposal, and I want to make one more reference, because we are really talking about federal-provincial co-operative activity; really we are.

It's a true example of how that kind of exercise can take place. You know, as I indicated there is a lot of trade-off taking place, and there are certainly certain people giving up things that they have felt have been traditionally theirs and really their right. But you know we see the Federal Government saying to the railroads, because we want you to invest large sums of capital we're going to give you the capital costs allowance extension for a number of years. And you know, that's what you call a tax incentive, and you know, I guess in general terms one wouldn't have a lot of difficulty with that.

You know, last year my colleague from Pembina and I supported it, and we've continually pressed for, as a farm community who produce that grain - I want to just refer back to my Throne Speech Debate - indicated at that time that the farm community were working, for the last four years they've seen a decline in their net income by some 7 to 8 percent a year over the last four years. So they are operating under extremely difficult circumstances. If I were sitting down with Mr. Pepin as a provincial representative or with Mr.

Gilson, and they said to me, we are going to give the railroads this tax incentive to upgrade the railroads, I would honestly have to say if you're going to do that then why don't you give the farm community a tax incentive or a tax relief on their farm fuels as we've been asking for, Mr. Speaker. Let's be fair in this negotiation because really that's what we're doing. We're talking about how are we going to maintain the benefits and trade-off the U1ings that we now have and move into a world of uncertainty at a time, Mr.

Speaker , as we ind icated when the announcement was made, at a time when farming or agriculture in this country is facing its worst economic time since the 1930s and that, Mr. Speaker , has to be taken into account. Mr. Speaker, I know that the present resolution deals pretty much with the issues and I will, I hope, have an opportunity to finish my comments at another time. I'd like to know how much time I have left in today's debate if you could give me an indication. -(Int erjection) - Mr. Speaker, that's fine I'll finish out my two minutes. I'll have some time again.

But the main point that I want to conclude my remarks with today is that we have had, and I'll sum it in this way, we have had a position as a Conservative Party

Thursday, 10 March, 1983 which has been consistent, it has been in the mood of co-operation and development. We don't want to see, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Minister, and I'm afraid this Provincial Minister of Transportation has been hoodwinked or snookered into hurrying up the process. You know that's what bothers me with some of the people who say if we don't go for this package that is being offered then all is going to be lost. That's not correct, Mr. Speaker. There has been a tremendous development in the last few years.

I think that because of the major implications of the proposal, because of some of the things that I have mentioned today, and some of the other things that I want to mention dealing with this particular issue, that it can't be hurried . And that somewhat supports the plea that the Minister of Highways suggested the other day, that legislation shouldn't be hurried and that's why maybe we shouldn't hurry this resolution. We should take a little bit more time on it and truly and thoroughly go over what the points are and make what is a positive recommendation. Mr.

Speaker, I will be suggesting that we will further be proposing an amendment to this resolution and will be speaking to that particular proposed amendment the next time I have an oppor tunity. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. The time being 4:30, Private Members Hour, when we next reach this resolution the honourable member will have 18 minutes remaining. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: The first item on Thursday is Second Readings of Public Bills. SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS BILL NO. 32 -AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNIC IPAL ASSESSM ENT ACT MR. G. MERCIER presented Bill No. 32,

An Act to amend The Municipal Assessment Act for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, this Bill No. 32 would be an amendment to

Section 2(5) of the Municipal Assessment Act, Mr. Speaker, and in general

Section 2(5) of the Municipal Assessment Act allows for, or provides for certain exemptions from taxation for school purposes. The exemptions in this legislation I imagine were drawn and were developed in the past, many, many years ago, Mr. Speaker, and they for example, provide for an exemption of taxation for school purposes for a charitable institution, on land used by that institution exclusively for the charitible purposes of relief for assistance of the aged, the indigent, or the sick. My purpose in introducing this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to allow a nursery school or day care centre for children operated by a non-profit corporation, to be exempt from taxation for school purposes. 657 There are, Mr. Spea ker, very few day care centres or nursery schools in the Province of Manitoba who actually own their own land and building. There are only two or three to the best of my knowledge. One of those is in my constitu ency, the St. Norbert Nursery School Inc. , Mr. Speaker. And just a few years ago a number of people in the community of St. Norbert got together and formed a non-profit corporation, and were able, Mr.

Speake r, by way of obtaining a grant of some $20,000 from the developer in Pare la Salle to purchase two pieces of propert y, side by side where they operate a day care and nursery school, at the present time for some 111 children in the community. Now, again they are one of the very few day care operations that own their own land and building and because of that, Mr. Spea ker, and because of our assessment procedures in Manitoba, they are classified as a commercial operation, not a residential operation.

Because of the definition of residential, they are excluded from being classified as residential and thus pay the high commercial classification rate. Mr. Speaker, they received notice of their assessment and they appealed their assessment through the Court of Revision of the City of Winnipeg and then to the Court of Queen's Bench and were unsuccessful because it was found that their operation did not come within the existing exemptions of The Municipal Assessment Act. They did not come within the exemption of

Section 2(5)(d), wherein a charitable institution that owns land and uses land and property exclusively for the charitable purposes of relief or assistance of the aged and the indigent or the sick. It was found that their property was not used exclusively for that, and they did not come within

Section 2(5)(h), buildings owned by a community association or other public body serving the community and that are occupied, used and operated not for profit as a community centre. It was found that they did not come within that exemption. So, Mr. Speaker, I am preposing this bill to the Legislature which would not only exempt them from school taxes, but would exempt any other non-profit corporation which operates a nursery school or day care centre for children to allow them to be exempt from payment of school taxes. In doing so, I remind members, Mr.

Speaker, that any such day care centre would be classified on a commercial basis and therefore paying the much higher rate over the residential rate . I think it is justified, Mr. Speaker. In Mr.

Weir's report of the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee on Page 152 they stated, when they talked about exemptions from school taxes, as follows: "The committee, in its consultation with municipal officials and the public at large, found that the majority of people believe that certain associations and organizations contribution to a community are sufficient to offset any loss in school tax revenue experienced by the community. The community agrees that the property owned by many of these organizations and associations should continue to be exempt from school taxes," Mr. Speaker.

And I think that they are certainly in a similar position, for example, as the YM CA and the YW CA who have a specific exemption from payment of school taxes, Mr. Speaker. The point - most of the operations, as the Member for Wolseley perhaps will

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-23a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 23a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ea4bed24be200dd033e9bb9f7f489b7677b19b7c

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