Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 72A (31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-72a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fifth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 30 Elizabeth 11 Published under· the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXIX No. 72A - 2:00p.m., TUESDAY, 5 MAY, 1981 Office of the Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty - First legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON,Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Hon. Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY,Hon .D oug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER,Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vie SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Aiel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Os borne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP Prog. PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC PC Prog. Prog. PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP Lib lnd ·

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Presenting Petitions. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. PETER FOX: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a Matter of Privilege of the House. The Votes and Proceeding Number 71 and Numb er 70, both have pages which are num bered 219 and I think that is not possible. -(I nterjection)- Well, it shouldn't be. Therefore, there should be a correction in the Votes and Proceedings of Numb ers 71 and 70. MR.

SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for bringing it to our attention and ther e will be corrections made. The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr . Speaker, I wish to raise a Matter of Privilege. Mr. Speaker, in this House yesterday, we saw the Leader of the Opposition rise and present a Matter of Privilege to the House. He presented it on the basis th at he had an advance copy of the day before's sit ting, tr ans cripts and used tho se transcripts to mount a Matter of Privilege in this House. Mr.

Speaker, under the Rules of the House, of course, the Leader of the Opposition was able to follow thr ough on getting his point across and presented a motion which was not accepted in the House. In the question period following, I said that my recollection of the matter was that the question which he had raised had been placed by the Member for ln kster, which would address the question that he was addr essing as a Matter of Privilege. Tha t information, Mr. Speaker, now that I have had a chance to look at it, verifies the fact that was the case.

The Mem ber for lnkster on the same day, namely last Friday, asked a question that was being addressed as a Matter of Privilege. In answer to the Member of lnkster's question, I took his question as notice, Mr. Speaker, giving the indication that I would provide information back to the House. Mr. Speaker, that undertaking negated any Matter of Privilege that could possibly have been raised from the comments that were made last Friday and which are contained in the Hansard and are very clear. The Leader of the Opposition flaunted the rules of this House.

He delib erately took out of context remarks that were made in last Friday, delib erately avoided the question that was placed by the Member for lnkster and the answer that I gave him. Mr . Speaker, the entire case was put very clearly by the Member for lnkster and I gave an undertaking to get an answer back to him. The Matter of Privilege, I think these events have gone on now a numb er of Matters of Privilege have been brought up, principally because, Mr .

Speaker, th ere has been an openness and a willing ness on the part of either the Hydro Board members or their staff to be as co-operative and as helpful as possi ble in pro viding all pos sible informa tion . Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall any time in the history of this Legislature, in which I have been here, in which such prompt answers have been given by the Utilities in question. Mr. Speaker, I can never recall a time in history when min utes of the Utility were made available.

We can, of course, recall the times in the years of the former government where minu tes were not made available and they were attempted to be seen by a member of this Legislature and were denied. They were denied by the Utility and they were denied by the Government, Mr. Speaker. That is not the case now. The events that have been occurring have been occurring primarily because there has been a complete openness on the part of the Utility to provide, numb er one, information, Mr.

Speaker, albeit in the honesty of their efforts not in a sequence always that pleased everybody, but nevertheless followed thr ough and provided their information. There was an openness on their part to set a policy to make the minut es available under specific and certain conditions that have been helpful to the pecuniary interests, as it turns out, of some members of the opposition but, nevertheless, Mr . Speaker, available to the Members of the Legislature and the public. (lnterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If the honourable member cares to raise his point of order at the completion of the point of privilege, I will listen to him then. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Min es. (I nterjection)- Order please. Order please. I have recognized the Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I return to my specific Matter of Privilege, Mr. Speaker. The specific ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will recognize the Honourable Member for Kildonan after I'v e heard the point of privilege and dealt with it. The Honourable Mini ster of Energy and Mines. Order, please.

There has to be some decorum in the Chamber. I ask the honourable member to wait until I'v e heard the point of privilege at which point I will listen to the honourable member's point of order. I recognize the Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Min es. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I refer specifically to the Matter of Privilege which I raised. In the Hansards which are now available, Mr. Speaker, you will find on Page 3255, the complete vindication or the point that I'm attempting to make, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

Yesterday, I recommended the reading of the rules to all Members of the Chamber. lt was brought to my attention by the Honourable Member tor Winn ipeg 3347

Tuesday,SMay, 1981 Centre that the Chair was in deed in error in recognizing points of order while a point of privilege was in progress. I now recognize the Honourable Min ister of Energy and Min es on hi s poin t of privilege. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I refer specifically to Page 3255 of the Legislative record, the Hansard, and it's very clear that the members point of privilege was non-existent, Mr. Speaker. He flaunted the Rules of this House in raising it; he was deli berately less than hon est in do in g so, Mr .

Speaker, and dealt with only part of the question period that had taken part on Friday. The question that was asked by the Member for lnkster is still under consideration and it is my intent to reply to it when the information if available. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hono urable Member for Kild onan on a point of order. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would first of all like to indicate that this House is goin g to operate chaotically if we do not have a point of order which is our procedure and which should come first.

If a person is speaking on a matter of privilege and it may be a difference of opinion and not necessarily a matter of privilege, a member should have the right to raise a point of order and indicate that to you if you have not heard it and I think that's the reason why a point of order takes precedence over a matter of privilege. A matter of privilege is a debating issue. A point of order is also a debating issue but a point of order is the procedures of this House and if we do not have correct procedures we have chaos. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for raising his point of order.

The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mi nes raised a point of privilege. He did not accompany it with a substantive motion, therefore I would have to rule the point of privilege as being out of order. Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions ... PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Radisson. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions; dir ects me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Virden, Report of Comm ittee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. MORRIS McGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fifth Report of the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development. MR. CLERK, Jack Reeves: The Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development begs leave to present the following as their Fifth Report. 3348 Your Commit tee met on Tuesday, May 5, 1981, to consider the Annual Report of Manitoba Min eral Resources Ltd., for the period from April 1, 19 79 to March 31, 19 80. Having received all information requested by any member from Mr. Albert A. Koffman, President of the Board, Mr. C.

Malcolm Wright, Vice-Pr esident of the Board and Mr. Robert Bray, Consulting Engin eer for Manitoba Min eral Resources Ltd., the report, as presented, was adopted by the Commi ttee, all of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. McGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Dauphin that the Report of the Comm ittee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr .

Speaker, I wish to table the Rep ort of the Admin istrator of The Fatality Inquir ies Act, under

Section 29. 1; and I also wish to table the Report on Conflict of Interest and Mun icipal Councillors from the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to in troduc e to the ho nourable mem bers some distinguished visitors from Jefferson City, Missouri, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Brauner. Mrs. Brauner is a elected municipal official in the State of Missouri. On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR.

HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, to the Min ister responsible for Hydro. Who ordered the destruction of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, 28th Annual Report, terminating March 31s t, 19 79, to the extent of some 4,000 copies? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Government House Leader on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, while the Hono urable Leader of the Opposition was referring to an original report, I asked him to table that original report, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe he has done so yet, and I think you admonished him that he should. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House'Leader. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition did not

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 quote from that report. He did not use it for direct quotations. MR. PAWLEV: The Min ister responsible for Hydro may have missed the question in view of the House Leader's intervention. Who ordered the destruction of approximately 4,000 first printing of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, 28th Annual Report for the year ending March 31st, 19 79? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Min es. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I will, as I indicated in my statement earlier today, that I would undertake to provide as much information as I could in answer to the question raised by the Member for lnkster and if that sort of information is available, to the Leader of the Opposition, I will provide it. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Sin ce that question was not posed by the Member for lnkster, I'm assuming that the Min ister has indi cated th at he will accept this question just posed as one of notice as he did a question from the Memb er for lnkster this past Friday.

Further to the Min ister, how many of the copies were destroyed? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the information that I will provide will be the information that is available. If the information that he's asking for is available, I will provide it to him. I can't give him the undertaking that it is available but I will provide as much information as possible that may be available. MR. PAWLEY: A further supplementary. How many of the said original copies are still in the files of Manitoba Hydro, if any? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I will provide as much information as is possible and available at this late date. MR.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, further to the Mi nister responsible for Hydro. Could the Min ister also accept as notice, if he cannot already provide us with the information, as to how the copies were destroyed? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, that I would have absolutely no idea what the answer might be to that question but I can tell him further that if he hadn't been so childish and walked out of the Public Utili ties Comm it tee meetings, he may have had all these answers . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

May I suggest to all honourable members that questions and answers sometimes provoke and incite reaction from members in the Chamber and I would ask all honourable members, when they are either asking questions or answering questions, that they conduct themselves in a parliamentary manner. The Honourabler Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEV: Mr . Speaker, further, by way of supplementary to the Min ister responsible for Hydro.

Would the Minister now, on this day, after some three or four weeks of effort on the part of the 3349 offi cial Opposition to obtain the truth of the se matters, in order to assist him to refresh his memory, now agree to the convening of a commit tee of this Legislatur e so tha t we can call all appropria te witnesses and documents to that comm ittee so that the Min ister at least may be able to refresh his memory so that we can get to the truth of the matters which we have been dealing with for the past three or four weeks? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, to repeat; if the Leader of the Opposition and his group had had sufficien t responsibili ty, they perhaps could have looked after all of these items at the table in Pub lic Utilities Commi ttee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add ress a question to the Mi nister of Natu ral Resources relating to parks.

I wonder if the Minister can offer those people of modest income who were lured into build ing and working very hard on having second homes in the Whiteshell Park, whether the Min ister can offer these people any assurance that the operating rates with regard to those cottages will not force them to sell them to people who have large incomes and who will be the only ones who can afford to maintain their cottages in the park if such a program is instituted? Mr .

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can offer any assurances to people in the Whiteshell Park area, who were lured under a very good Conservative program into working very hard to build and im prove cottages in that area on the basis that there would be a very modest annual rental required, that these people will not be forced, by virtue of a large increase in ren tal, to be requi red to sell their cottages to the only people who can afford them , namely, wealthy people who didn't work and put them up there in the first place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. HENRY J.

ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my preoccupation in not hearing the honourable member's question in the first instance. Mr. Speaker, I can most assuredly assure all those Manitoba residents that in fact will not be the case, that there will not be any kind of imp ose in terms of rent or other charges that would bring about the situation that the honourable member suggests. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, could the Minister then indicate that it is not his intention to follow the recommendations which were contained in the report that was tabled in this House which could indeed have that effect on many Whit eshell cottage owners? I want to indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that I am an owner, that I will not be affected in the way in which I am talking because I will be able to maintain my cottage, hopefully, but there are many people who built and who are of modest income who will have done all the work with somebody else getting a prize if the rentals are so increased as to make it impossible for them to afford the maintenance. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to have the opportunity that the question gives me to indicate to

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 you and to those people dir ectly concerned that, unlike the Federal Government that, without warning or without any consultation, imposed very substantial increases for similar cottage lots in the national park at Clear Lake, we have chosen, obviously in a very public way, to discuss with cottage owners and the general public the possibility of arriving at what is indeed a reasonable return or a reasonable payment for some of the services that they receive in the park. Mr.

Speaker, let me hasten to add that in my contact with many of these cottage owners, as well as the spo kesmen or representatives of the association of the cottage owners of the Whiteshell, they indicate to me their willin gness to do precisely that, to pay indeed a fair amount for the services required. That's a great di fference though from attempting to use that taxation method as a source of revenue for the Department of Natural Resources; and to that extent I would certainly not be prepared to entertain those recommendations. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster with a final supplementary. MR.

GREEN: Mr. Speaker, would the Honourable Minister agree that the kind of increases that he is talking about, although they would be weighty for each individual cottage owner, would not provide any substantial revenues to the provincial governmen t but would rather force people to turn over the work, in some cases of 20 years , to some body else because th ey couldn't afford to make the maintenance and would provide virtually no effect on the provincial revenue? MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I fin d no basic disagr eemen t with the ho nourable memb er's supp osition but let me again indic ate to the honourable member that these recommendations, this draft

summary, is a serious worthwhile attempt to work out developmental plans for that park. They are not recom mendations that have been made to me as Min ister and certainly do not in any way represent government policy at this time. This was the format that was laid out by my predecessor, and correctly so, to engage in an in-depth study with respect to what kind of development ought to take place in the Whiteshell. We are pursuin g that cour se and I am satisfied that the final results, the final recommendations that will be presented to me and that I'll be presenting to the people of Manitoba, will be acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I was asked a question by the Member for Fort Rouge if I would be prepared to do something to change the legislation that allows only six month's back pay for vacation pay. There were other references to other sorts of pay in the question. I took the question as notice and said I'd get back because I wasn't aware of the six-month term that the member was referring to. I would like to now assur e the memb er tha t th ere is no legislation relating to six months. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister in charge of Hydro. A newscast today quoted a Hydro public relations staff person as stating that several thous and copies of the 19 79 Hydro Report were destroyed because they con tain ed some statis t ical in accuracies. I am wonderin g whether the Mi nister could tell us specifically what those statistical inaccuracies were. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, again, I will provide as much information as is available when I reply to the question that I took as notice. MR. SCHROEDER: I have a further question to the Min ister. If it wasn't the Minister who ordered the destruction of those reports, could he advise as to why whoever it was who did order them did not in stead follow the usual course, if th ere were statistical inaccuracies, of adding an erratum, which would have cost something like $1 0.00, instead of something like $4,000.00. MR. CRAIK: Again, Mr.

Speaker, I will provide as much information as is dir ectly available when I reply to the question that was taken as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Rossmere with a final supplementary. MR. SCHROEDER: We are awaiting anxiously the report to indicate exactly what statistical inaccuracies there were but could the Minister advise as to who it was who paid for the cost of this extravaganza? MR. CRAIK: I don't accept the member's

preamble, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to di rect this question to the Min ister of Agriculture. My question relates to that portion of the metric system which affects the livestock indus try in this country, perpetrated on th ose people by the federal government. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if the Min iter of Agricu ltur e could give some information to this House, to the people of Manitoba, and particularly to the farmers of Manitoba, as to what the attitude of the public market system in Manitoba is toward this aspect of the metric system being enforced in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Mi nister of Agricultur e. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the question and I also don't mind telling the people of Manitoba, particula rly the farm commun ity, what I as the Minister think about the metric system that has been forced upon the people of this cou ntry. Mr. Speaker, I may indicate to the member that the mem bers or the President of the Wi nnipeg Livestock or the Union Stockyards has indi cated to the Federal Government, that they would like to 3350

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 delay or not have the implementation of the metric system in Canada until the United States of America proceeded to move in that dir ection so that they could in fact continue their exportation of livestock into the United States. MR. EINARSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Min ister of Agricultur e. I don't know whether he has information to this question or not but I wonder if the Min ister could elabor ate and inform the House as to what the effects of the metric system will have on goods, in small stores, probably bringing in goods from the United States? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, it is not unlike the extra taxes that are put on the gasoline by the Federal Go vernment to do certain things that are not in the best interests, Mr. Speaker, of the people of this country and the imposition of the metric system on the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is an added cost to the consumers of food in this nation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Honourable Minister of Labour and I'd first like to thank him for the information that we have. I'll be coming back to that on another day. Mr.

Speaker, at the time of his Estimates the Min ister advised that a broc hur e was bein g put together relative to sexual harassment and promised to let me have a copy. I wonder if that broch ure has been comp leted yet and if copies are available to members please, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: That brochur e is not complete, Mr. Speaker. MS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, this is on another matter. Do you want me to go on now? MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest there are several other members that wish to ask questions. The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D.

JAMES WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is di rected to the Minister reporting for Manitoba Hydro. In view of the Minister' s earlier remark this afternoon that the Opposition could have obtained the information had it not walked out of the Public Utilities Committee on April 9th, I wonder if the Minister could give the House an explanation of why a letter from the President of Manitoba Hydro, dated April 15 th, gave false information regarding the report of Manitoba Hydro for 19 79? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Min es and Energy. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the member will have to be more specific than that. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, if I'm entitled to give the Minister an explanation of the question, I'd be glad to do so. The President of Manitoba Hydro 3351 wrote a letter to me, dated April 15 th, in which he indicated that there were 4,020 copies of the 19 79 Report, for a total cost of $3,959.59. He wrote to me another letter some two weeks later dated April 27th asking to correct the figures, Mr. Speaker, and that the figures should read 4,040, for a total cost of $7,769.55. Incidentally, Mr.

Speaker, I note that copies of both letters ware sent to the Min ister. My question is, if the Min ister is suggesting to us that we could have obtain ed this information as of April 9th when the Public Utilities Comm ittee was sitting, can the Min ister explain why the president did not have that corrected information until the 27th of April and why he sent us false information as of April 15 th? MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is just no question ab out it, that th ose are the sorts of questions that should be raised at commi ttee. Mr. Speaker, if the ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

CRAIK: . . . if the members opposite can lose some of their restlessness, they would perhaps grasp the fact th at they had every opportunity to ask questions like that, at the comm ittee meeting and I want to point out that when they were asked, they were asked as rapidly as I've ever seen questions answered at the commi ttee. I understand this question that the memb er is referring to now was placed by way of a phone call to one of the emplo yees of Hydro and that the answer he got back came back immedi ately, as fast as he could, and presumably the second one was a corrective letter. Mr.

Speaker , you kn ow, what we'r e really experiencing here is an attempt by the Utility to be as open as possible about matters and you can see the kind of good it does to the type of people that are asking the questions. lt appears to serve no good purpose at all, except to have them to continue on with their gamesmanship. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital with a final supplementary. MR. WALDING: I believe it's a first supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the second one was an explanation for the benefit of the Min ister. A supplementary question to the same Minister.

In view of the fact that the correcting letter indica tes that there were slightly over 4,000 copies printed, I wonder if the Mi nister would be prepared to acknowledge that this figure is misleading, in that it does not indicate that there were in fact about twice that number of copies printed and that there was in fact a second printing and that some copies were destroyed? Would the Min ister be prepared to admit that this letter of correction from Hydro is in fact misleading to the House and to me? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, again the question is along the lin es of the general question that was placed which I indicated I would attempt to get information on and that will be provi ded. Whether it's specific enough for the member will remain to be seen. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital with a final supplementary.

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 MR. WAi.DING: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the delay that is being occasioned by us having to ask questions of the Minister and from him to get the information from Hydro and report back and

whereas we have seen, not in every case totally, accurately, would the Minister now be prepared to reconvene the comm ittee and let us ask the questions dir ectly and get at the truth? MR. c nAIK: Mr. Speaker, what the mem ber is asking for, is for someone to bail them out of a mistake they made of walking out on a commi ttee. They had every opportunity to continue on and ask the very questions that they are now attempting to ask. So, Mr. Speaker, what we -(In terjection)- Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. The Honourable Member for St. John s on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Min ister keeps alludin g to certain members of a comm ittee leaving the commi ttee before adjournment, but I was not a member of the Commi ttee. I was not present and the vast majority of members of this Legislature are not members of that comm ittee. I think it's time the Min ister realized that when new evidence comes before us that he can't go back on the previous occasion to say You had your chance. Many of us did not have any opp ortun ity at all and we' re suggesting that we should have it MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The matter raised by the Honourable Member for St.

Johns may have been a personal explanation but it was not a point of order. Will the Honourable Min ister complete his answer? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I note that other mem bers opposite who are not mem bers of the comm ittee attended that comm ittee, and you know, I could name at least one who not only attended but even moved a motion without being a member of the comm ittee. Mr. Speaker, I had a question ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest to the Honourable Min ister that matters that were internal to a committee should not be raised in the Chamber here at this time. MR. CRAIK: My mistake, Mr. Speaker.

Can I answer another quest ion that was placed fi rst by the Member for Fort Rouge some time ago, and was simi lar to a question placed yest erda y by the Member for Elmwood with regard to the processing of Bird River chromite deposits? The question placed by the Member for Fort Rouge was: "Can the Government tell us whether there was a meeting of officials inclUding officials of his departmeht or any other departm ent of this go vernment, the Government of Ontario and th e Mi nin g fndustry officials, held in Ottawa last month concerning this process?

And can the Mi nister confirm that the metallurgic procedure referred to is in advanced state of development?" Mr . Speaker, in answer to it I'm provided with the information that on March 13th, Dr. lan Haugh, who is the Assi stant Deputy Mi nister of Mi neral Resources, attended the Min eral Science Laboratory Semin ar at the Canada Centre for Min eral and Energy Technology, called CanMin, and it was given by Dr. Hans Brandstatter of the Ontario Research Foundation.

The subject of the Seminar, and I quote was, "Extract ion of chromium from low gr ade domestic deposits." And it was directed principally towards the possible processing of the Bird River deposits using processing technology, developed by Dr. Brandstatter at the Ontario Research Foundation. Dr. Haugh attended the meeting to monitor any new developments that might lead to the exploitation of the Bird Ri ver deposits.

Sub seque ntly, it was reported in the Northern Miner on April 2nd, 19 81 , and in the Free Press on April 15 th, that Dynamic Minin g Explorations would fund additional research by the Ontario Research Foundation to test whether the process technology could be applied on a larger scale. We also under stand that Phase 1 of this program ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest to the Minister that if he has a lengthy answer that perhaps it might be better that he provide it for the member in written form. MR.

CRAIK: I believe this portion of the answer is more specific to the question asked by the Member for Elmwood. The first one was more specific to the Member for Fort Rouge. We understand that Phase 1 of the program is estima ted to take ab out six mo nths and cost appr oxima tely $1 07,000.00. If this ph ase is considered to be successfu l, the program will continue into Phase 2 which will be concerned with the preparation of trial quantities of ferrochromium or detailed performance evaluation initially at Ontario Research Foun dation and later at customer locations.

No time period has been set for the Phase 2 program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John s. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr . Speaker.

I'd like to address a question to the Minister reporting for Hydro who has protested today that Hydro wishes to be open and complete with its answers, to request him to reconcile the statement which he made on April 30th, on Page 3178 of Hansard, to the effect that, and I quote from his statement from Hansard, "I presume that sin ce th ey've asked for the information, that is, the information contained in the letter to Aikin s Thorvaldson, that they will want to pursue a request to those answers If that becomes available, I'll be pleased to make it available to the House," to reconcile the statement that they will want to pursue their request with the announced intention of the Chairman of Hydro, that he has no in tention of askin g for a meetin g or further information from Mr.

Martin as suggested by the Aikin s MacAuley letter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was asked that question yesterday and I indicated that I hadn't been 3352

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 given that information by the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro. MR. CHERNIACK: Would the Min ister then undertake when he is searching for the answers to the various questions which he has taken as notice, will he undertake to commun icate with the Chairman of Hydro and confirm with him that he indeed does intend to proceed to obtain answers to the questions which he asked in his letter to Aikin s MacAuley and which they responded would be in the knowledge of Mr.

Steward Martin who was due back in the City, I think on April 27th, and therefore must be back by now, will he undertake to ascertain and confirm that they are doing that and obtain the answers for us? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, this is a slightly different matter than the one we were talking about earlier. I gave the House the undert akin g that when the information became available from Hydro on this matter that I would relay it to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. John s with a final supplementary. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Min ister whether he will answer the question I just asked; and that is whether he is prepared to ascertain from the Chairman of Hydro what his in ten tion s are in ob tainin g the answers to the questions which he di rected to Aikin s MacAuley and Company and which they said he could readily obtain from Mr. Steward Martin who, from their letter, should be back now? MR. CRAIK: Mr .

Speaker, I have said repeatedly that the rel ation ship, nego tiation s, di scussion s between Hydro and their legal coun sel are carried on on the basis that th ey are the cl ient and the couns ellor, and when that information becomes available, if it becomes available, I will provide it. There has been already, as the mem ber knows, information that has been made available from Ma nitoba Hydro on the se matters. If fur ther information becomes availabl e, it will be made available. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr .

Speaker, last Friday, I in effect took as notice a question from the Honourable Member for lnkster as to whether I could confirm reports in that day's Winn ipeg Free Press that surgery was being cut back in Winn ipeg Hospitals due to a shor tage of . anesthesiologists. In the interim I have had the opportunity to examine the situation, as I assured the member I would, and I cannot confirm that the situation is as the Free Press portrayed it on Friday, Mr . Speaker.

The Health Services Commission does not confirm to me that hospitals are in that difficulty; they in fact advised me that hospitals have not conveyed that type of difficulty to them. This does not suggest for a mome nt that th ere is not a shor tage of anest hesiologis ts in Ma nitoba or that some anest hesiologis ts are some wha t un happy and probably legitimately so. Those are problems that we're addressing, Mr. Speaker, and I'm responding to the honourable member's question about impact on surgery. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to di rect a question to the Min ister of Min es concerning his answer about a poten tial chromite minin g development I'm not quite sure I understood his answer but I would like to reiterate what I asked the other day; have there been any di scussions between the government and representatives of the Dynamic Min ing Corporation about this mine? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Min es. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as notice. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, the other question I asked, which I believe was not answered as well, was whether the government is interested or has been approached to invest or participate in this particular venture. MR. CRAIK: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health if he can elaborate on the response he gave to the Member for St.

Boniface yesterday with respect to the question of how the government is assuring the safety and well-being of patrons of radiologists who were unable to afford the pre-payment of radiological fees at those offices that have opted out of Medicare? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I can't really, Mr. Speaker. The question, as I recall it yesterday and I haven't checked Hansard, was whether I could assure the Honourable Memb er for St.

Boniface th at no Manitoban would suffer as a consequence of the fact that approximately 50 percent of the radiologists in the province are at this moment in time opted out of Medicare. I did give that assurance but I don't care at this juncture to elaborate on that, Mr. Speaker. We are in the midst of negotiations with the MM A at the present time but I would repeat that assurance. MR.

CORRIN: Yes, I would like to ask the Min ister a supplementary to that, what the government is doing to assure that indi gent persons or persons of modest means will not be deprived of medical health services as a result of not being able to afford to prepay these particular physicians fees, Mr. Speaker? MR. SHERMAN: Well, we are concerned about it and I have asked the Health Services Commission and my offi cials to look at that hypothetical possibility. Perhaps it is not so hypothetical but at the moment it is and we are lookin g at it, Mr. Speaker, to ensure, as I said, that no one suffers. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Me m ber for Wellington with a final supplementary. 3353

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 MR. CORRIN: Yes, I would like to ask the Min ister to respond to the obse rvat ion I make that on television news several days ago there was a lady who complain ed that she was unable to make the pre-payment to her physician in this respect and therefore might have to suffer the loss of assistance in this regard. MR. SHERMAN: Well, all I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is that there are radiologists and there are groups of radiologists and ther e are hospital radiologists all over the city and all over the province who are still in Medicare and certainly arrangements can be made to protect persons who find thems elves in the circum stances described. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I dir ect this question to the Min ister of Agricultur e and ask the Minister, in view of the fact that hearings are now under way by the Milk Producers' Marketing Board concerning going back from the one-pool quota system, milk pricing system, to the two-pool system, I wonder if the Min ister can indicate what the impact will be and whether new producers who will be coming into the production of milk will be afforded equal opportunity to have a share in both quotas? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mi nister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I can't indic ate to the member ·what the impact might be of reverting back to a two-pool system, however, there is a request by the Chairman of the Producers' Marketing Board to meet with me at a convenient time to discuss the proposal. Until that is done, Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to explain or to understand the details of what their proposal is. However, Mr.

Speaker, if it is in the best interests of the dairy producers of the Province of Manitoba that it would facilitate or put them in a healthier state so they could provide the consumers of milk in the province with a top quality product at a price which is affordable, th en we would have to gi ve consideration to it, Mr. Speaker. MR. URUSKI: I ask th e Mi nister of Agriculture whether he can assure me that new producers who will go into the milk industry will not be forced to produce strictly industrial milk; that their returns will be a blend price of the two prices as is the case now. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Sp eaker, the ho nourable member, to be specific, again it would be difficult to answer that and I think that the people of Manitoba and the member opposite should be well aware of the fact that it is difficult for any new producers to get into the production of supply-man a.gemen t products if, in fact, there isn't any quota to make available to them for the prod uction of milk , production of turk eys, produc tion of eggs, production of broiler chickens; that there is a very li mi ted amount of people that can get into the production ·of those commodities.

So there is more to the issue than just what the member brings to the attention of the House. MR. URUSKI: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can ind icate whether or not he will assure the processors of industrial milk, the cheese processors, that there will be an adequate supply of industrial milk when this two-quota system, two-pool system comes into effect. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that assurance that there will be enough product for the dairy processors; there are a lot of other things that will have to be taken into consi deration.

As I indicated, I am prepared to meet with the chairman of the Milk Producers' Marketing Board to discuss what their proposals are and I think we have to be fully able to look at what alternatives are available to the producers and if there are opportunities for new entrants into the industry. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honourable Mi nister of Government Services.

During the appearance of the Autopac Board before committ ee we were assured that, as soon as their estimates were concluded, they would again be available for radio programs and interviews on open-line programs. Can the Min ister now tell the House why these interviews are still being refused by those senior officials of Autopac? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, if the member is suggesting that I have instructed the Autopac officials not to appear on by line shows or any other show, then I can advise her that I have issued no such instructions, as a matter of fact I have encouraged them to do so. Whether they do or not, of course, is up to them but they have no prohibit ions from my office. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, time for question period having expired we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DA V MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr .

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of the Attor ney-General; and the Honourable Member for Virden in the Chair for the Depart men ts of Legislation; Canad a-Ma nitoba Enabl ing Vote; Flood Control and Em 'erge ncy Expenditures. 3354

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPL V SUPPLY - LEGISLATION MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the Comm ittee to order. We are on Legislation. The Honourable Min ister without Portfolio. HON. EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr . Chairman, if I could just remind the members that under Legislation the first three appropriations have Statutory Authority and don't require an actual vote from our comm ittee but it would be an opportunity for the members to ask any questions on those thr ee items. So perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could deal with them in order in case there are questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: (I tems 1 to 4 were read and passed.)

Be it resolved that there be gr anted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 ,033,900 for Legislation - pass. 5.(a) - pass; 5.(b) - pass.

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 ,701,400 for Legislation - pass. 6.(a) - pass; 6.(b) - pass.

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 98,000 for Legislation pass. 7.(a) - pass - the Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: I would like to ask the Min ister without Portfolio if he sees extensive use being made of this

section this spring? MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, this appropriation for Salaries is considerably in excess of the previous appropriation and the reason for that, of course, is that under the new Elections Act it was possible to set up a separate office for the purposes of running elections and of carrying out the provisions of The Electoral Finances Act so that this office is now established. lt has a staff complement of five SMYs and has provision for four mem bers and the Chairman of the Election Finances Commission.

As to when the operations of that office will go into overdrive I have no information for the member. MR. McBRYDE: Under this section, I'm not quite clear then, how much of the procedure of the. whole election machin ery, once an election is called, is included under this

section and how much isn't. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to that would be that all of the procedures relevant to the carrying out of elections and those which were combin ed with other functions previously will now be separate and established in the new office. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(a) - pass; 7.(b) - pass.

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 60,400 for Legislation pass. Now we'll return to Page 7, Executive Council. The Honourable Minister. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I think, in order to accommodate the members of the opposition, we will deal with the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote and if we complete that, then we'll go on to the Flood Control appropriation, and then we'll return to the Executive Council, if that's satisfactory. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite certain from what Mr. McGill has indicated, whether or not he is suggesting that after the Flood Control

Section is dealt with and we return to Executive Council, that it is then his intention to process this particular item through comm ittee on behalf of the Premier. I want to indicate to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr. McGill, that we want the Premier present in order to deal with matters pertaining to the Executive Council. I think it's only right and fair that indeed the Premier himself be present to deal with that section. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I see no difficulty, if we complete other items, of the comm ittee rising and perhaps we can reconvene at eight o'clock.

I am not able to confirm that the Premier will be returned; he is out of provin ce today but I don't know the actual time of his return but we'll certainly be prepared to reconvene at eight o'clock, which is the normal practice, and if the comm ittee is prep ared to proceed, then we can decide at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDONS: Mr . Chairman, there is only the one thing.

We understand that the First Mi nister has respon sibili ties outside of the provin ce and that's fine and what you suggested is also fine, except the question of comin g back tonight and then finding that the Premier is not here. Could an effort be made to find out before 5:30 if he'll be here and then there won't be a committee if he is not here tonight. MR. McGILL: Well, I think perhaps by 5:30, we should be able to determin e that, yes. I was assuming that perhaps all mem bers would be here in any event because of the comm ittee in the House. However, I'll endeavour to get that information. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I'm not certain whether we're on a point of order or not but I think the record should be clear that the action that is being taken in respect to jugglin g the items which appear before us is not for the benefit of the opposition, as indicated by the Mi nister without Portfolio, but is in actuality for the benefit of the First Min ister who cannot be present and the action is necessitated by his act, by his absence from the provin ce today, on legiti mate busin ess of the provin ce and we have no quarrel with that, except that we do wish the record to be clear it is that reason for the juggl ing and not because we have made any special requests for di fferent items to come forward in a different way.

MR. McGILL: Well, Mr. Chairman, in response to the Member for Churchill, the original request for us to vary the order in which these appear in the 3355

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 Estimates Book was from the Member for The Pas who pointed out to me that your group would much prefer the Min ister to be here. it's entirely within the prerogative of the First Min ister to appoint someone to act in his absence. However, I'm quite prepared if specifically you wish to have the First Min ister present for these specific items, I think we can do that. But the request, I should poin t out for the record, was first made by the Member for The Pas, who wanted to proceed in an order other than the order which they normally and logically appear in the Estimates. MR.

COWAN: I thin k it's just going to be a matter of semantics then, Mr. Chairperson. If the record is going to be made clear, let us then make it clear that the request was necessitated because of the absence of the First Minister, notwithstanding from whom it originated. SUPPL V - CANADA-MANITOBA ENABLING VOTE MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 123, page 112, Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote. 1. the Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: I wonder if the Min ister, who's acting for the Premier, could jus t give us some overall description of why this is necessary and what it all means. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR.

McGILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can advise the member that for the past several years Canada Manitoba Enabling Vote has been authorized in the annual printed expenditure Estimates, as it is this year. The purpos e of this Vote is to faci lita te the management of the cash flows associated with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other federal agreements, particularly in their startup stages. This in effect, Mr.

Chai rman, provides a percentage of the amounts voted in respect to the Canada-Manitoba Developm ent Agreement, to be cash-flowed by the Department of Finance and so, if at any time they require some flexibility in the total amount of funds available as programs proceed they are able to accommodate them in this way. We have really dealt with these programs under the various line departments and what we're looking at here is a percentage of the total appropriation that is provided by the Department of Finance.

This year the Enablin g Vote totals some $14.2 million which is an increase of $4.3 milli on, or about 43 percent abov e the Vote for last year. This increase is primarily attributable to the proposed new No rthern Deve lop ment Agree men t and to the Win nipeg Inner-City Initiative, which is currently being negotiated with Canada. MR. McBRYDE: So my understanding of this then, Mr. Chairperson, is that a number of the items here are ongoing agreements and that these funds are reimb ursed to the departments as they carry out their part of those ongoing agreements.

There are two agreements in here that, I assume, are not new agreements. There is the Winn ipeg In ter-City Initiative, which is a brand new agreement, which is not signed yet. MR. McGILL: That's correct. MR. McBRYDE: And there is the Manitoba-Northern Development Agreement, the new agreement, which is not signed yet but there has been an extension of the old agreement because it was not signed yet. Is that .. ? MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, I am advised that there was an extension of the old agreement in the case of certain ongoing programs but that the new Northern Development Agreement is not yet complete; it has not yet been signed by both parties. MR. McBRYDE: I will have some more questions, Mr. Chai rperson, when we get to the Nor thern Development Agreement, but we could go to 1. (

a) now. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a) - pass - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to pursue the statement of the Min ister with respect to the items that we are going to be dealing with.

The Minister indicated that these items were indeed dealt with by the various departments and I believe that is true to a certain extent, although I believe not all of these items have been conclusively dealt with in the sense that th ere are certa in stages of development with respect to some of the packages and is it not then reasonable that we, at this point, determine or elicit from you, sir, just where we are at with respect to th ose agre emen ts? Do es the departm ent not have the capacity to inform the comm ittee just wher e we are at with th ese agreements at this time? MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chair man, I would thin k that might be a little difficult. I would certainly like to accommodate the member. I pointed out that in discus sion s and de bates with respect to the Estimates of the line departm ents involved, that certainly some considerable discussion has taken place.

What this Vote really provides is a 20 percent amount, in most cases, of the total amount involved in each of the programs, enabling the Department of Finance to facilitate cash flow where this is required. lt also provides some flexibility to the Department of Fin ance if one program is proceeding at a more accelerated rate than another program. The only amount included here which has not previously been dealt with is $1.4 million of proposed Manitoba Telephone System expenditures and these were not covered in the Main Estima tes th at have been presented to you. MR. USKIW: Mr .

Chairm an, perhaps we could puruse it this way: If you look at the first item, Item (

a) Value-Added Crops Production Agr eement, $673,700, yet in the Department of Agricultur e the total expenditure is shown as $1 .682 million, of which $1 .009 million is Recoverable from Canada. I am trying to relate those two figures and perhaps I am missing somethin g or some misun derstanding on my part as to why those figures vary. They 'are two different figur es. 3356

Tuesday, S May, 1981 MR. McGill: Mr. Chairman, I think the figure the Member for Lac du Bon net has picked out, the $1 .682, is represented as $1 .7 here in the Vote that we have in front of us. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I can fin d that figur e. In item (a} the total figure is $673,700, of which $404,200 is Recoverable from Canada. MR. McGill: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the $1 ,682,600 that the member is referring to is the total expenditure for that particular program and the recovery item of $1 ,099,600 is that which we will recover from Canada. MR.

USKIW: That's also for the current fiscal year, and so is the item on page 112 presumed to be for the current fiscal year, and yet there's a vast discrepancy in the numbers and I'm sure there's an explanation. I just don't know what it is. I am sure there is a logical explanation somewhere. We are goin g to spend $1 .682 million according to the Department of Agricultur e, yet in the Enabling Vote we show $673,000 of which $400,000 in round figur es, is recove rable. On the Agr icu ltur al Department we show $1 .682 million. Now this must be new money; this cannot be the same item.

Is that correct? lt cannot be the same item, because why would we vote for it twice? We have already voted $1 .682; I wouldn't think we would need to vote it again on the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote, so it must be new money for addit ional programming. Mr. Ch airman , on page 13, gi ves us the explanation, or does it? No, it doesn't; the figur es aren't the same. $420,00 is included in the Canada Manitoba Enablin g Vote. No, we don't have that figure here either. Mr. Chairman, if the staff needs some time to dig that up, I'd be willin g to proceed to other items if there is a need for time. MR. McGill: Mr.

Chairman, there seems to be a little di fficult y her e in respect to that amoun t contained under 1. (a} $673,700 and reconciling it with the footnote in the Estimates here. My support here has not yet really run that down. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is th ere leave, th en, by the comm ittee that we leave 1. (a} and return to it? (Agreed} 1. (b} - pass - the Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Just a min ute, Mr.

Chairman, because we have been looking at No. 1, and we're trying to accommodate you, now give us an opportunity to look at Tourism to see if we are not in the same situation that we are here in the Department of Agriculture. (In terjection}- No problem there; that's all right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan possibly still has a question. MR. JENKINS: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: I have a question with respect to just where that agreemen t is at the moment, if that 3357 information can be made available.

I gather the Destination Manitoba package was not complete and I'm not sure if it still is not complete. We're not quite sure what we're endin g up with in that program. Is the Minister in a position to give us some clarification as to where that agreement is at this stage in its development? MR. McGill: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the Tourism Development Agreement was signed April 1s t, 19 79, and it has until March 31st, 19 84, to run. MR. USKIW: Is the Min ister saying then that to elicit the detail as to a compon ent of that agreement, that this is not the place to do it? MR. McGill: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think probably that is correct, that it would proper to develop that debate in the line department. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (b} - pass; 1. (c} - pass; 1. (d} -p ass; MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, give us some time to go from one to another. MR. CHAIRMAN: Might slip it over you that way. 1. (d} and we'll just sit there until you signal to ... The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Those two items concur so I have no problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we're at 1. (d}. Was 1. (d} the member was referring to or was it above that? M�. USKIW: No, it was 1. (c}, Mr. Chairman, and we're satisfied with that. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Oka y, we'r e at 1. (d} - the Honourable Min ister. MR. McGill: Mr. Chairman, I think, for the Member for Lac du Bonnet, he must have hit on the one with the anomoly in the very first one. The others seem to correspond, but it could be as we now suspect, a typing error in that first one, but we'll run that down. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied as long as the information is brought back, whatever it is. lt doesn't have to be brought back to this comm ittee, but at some stage that we have the commi ttee. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (d} - pass; 1. (e} - pass; 1. (f} - the Member for The Pas. MR.

McBRYDE: Mr. Chairperson, on the Manitoba Northern Development Agreement, and I'm assuming that the figure that appears here is for the last year of the old agreement, in the first column and that the MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee, maybe then we should pass 1. (e} and get to 1. (f}. I think the member was referring to 1. (f}. 1. (e} - pass; 1. (f} - the Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Thank you. I'm assuming that the first column th ere is th e last year of the old

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 agreement, $5.9 million, and I wonder if the Min ister could give us some indication of the projected nature of the increase and what program areas will the incr ease be to get with the new agreement to $9.2 milli on. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that some of the matters relating to that increase are still in the negotiation stage and I know that it's available. I wonder if the Min ister of Northern Affairs would like to com ment on that request from the Member for The Pas. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister of Northern Affairs. HON.

DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Yes, I think that we covered this as fully as we possibly could dur ing the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs, in that the agreement at the present time is not sign ed . The proposals put forward by the province have not been acted upon by the federal people as yet. As I indicated in the comm ittee at the time, we have sent telexes and been in touch with the Federal Minister responsible. He has indicated that he would be back to us perhaps this week with respect to neg otiation s on the No rthern Devel opme nt Agreement.

However, we haven't heard from him yet this week to date and those moneys shown there are for tho se areas that are still to be finalized in negotiations. MR. McBRYDE: My understanding then would be, Mr. Chai rpHson, that the $9.2 mi llion is a very general ballpark figure in that there's no way to pin down with any accu racy the in crease in that particular item. Would that be a correct understanding? MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, my advice is that we do have specific proposals and funds provided for them but we have no information or confirmation tha t these have been approved by the Federal Government and that is our difficulty. We th ink that th ese appropriat ion s and the Enabling Vote is fairly close to what is required, however, it still remains for that agreement to be signed by both parties. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Chairperson, my understanding of this type of agreement and negotiation in this type of agreement, that often the proposal will go back and forth 10, 20, 30, 40 time s befor e there is agreement, so I guess my question then is, how far into the negotia tions are they? Is it a matter of there's been agreement at one level and waiting for a ministerial agreement in Ottawa, or is it a matter of where only the 12 th time it's gone back and forth and there will probably be another 20 yet for it to go, or what? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister of Northern Affairs. MR.

GOURLAY: Well, as I indica ted in the Estimates of the Depart men t of No rthern Affairs, the negotiations have been completed as far as we can go with the federal people here. The package has 3358 been sent to Ottawa for Federal Mi nisterial acceptance or rejection or for further negotiations and the Federal Minister has not responded one way or the other today. Perhaps there will be further negotiations on some of the areas but this is what we are waiting on at the present time. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Chairperson, the $9.2 million in the Nor the rn Manitoba Development Agreem ent which, of course, is an impo rtant part of the government's expenditu res for Northern Manitoba and if it's done right can begin to get some things going again in the north that haven't been under way or that have been cancelled or let lapse or been given up on in Northern Manitoba.

We began, of course, asking questions about this agreement and what was happening with this agreement last year. lt seemed to us tha t the Department of No rthern Affairs and the province didn't really get serious in terms of the new agreement until this past fall. I think that the people who have been in the provincial service for a while and those of us who were there before, are aware that th ese neg otiation s with Ottawa are a long drawn-out process and take some considerable time to complete, finalize, get them signed, sealed and collected.

In my mind, it's another problem of poor management, poor planning and poor preparation on the part of the Conservative Government and on the part of the Departments of Northern Affairs and Finance, who are supposed to be, at least the Min isters of those departments, that are supposed to be on top of these things and get things prepared.

When a nu mb er of departments came before comm ittee for their Estimates review, we asked questions of the Min isters involved, well, when is this item of Northlands going to become valid, where the item appeared in a Min ister's Estimates, and the Min ister of Labour, particularly, was hi s usual insulting self when he said, well, of course, we'll have it signed by the end of the fiscal year, that they would have it sign ed by March of this year.

Of course March has drifted by at this time and the provi nce isn't ready, hasn't com pleted their I negotiations in the back and forward exchange that's � necessary to get this kind of agreement in place.

We • as northern representatives are really afraid that $9.2 mil lion, which is critical for Northern Manitoba, part of which is part of ongoing programs and is built into departmental budgets that have been del iverin g those programs since the Northlands Agreement was first signed many years ago, and part of it appears to be some new programs and new fundings to overcome the lack of attention that this government has paid to Northern Manitoba hopefully, and to assist with the development of the north in hopefully some new and innovative way, because there hasn't been any new or innovative programming since 19 77 in No rthern Manitoba.

We are in danger of losing this $9.2 million as far as we can see because there's no assurance from the Federal Government that they will be signing. We are getting close to being two months late now in having that agreement signed and I think the reason for that is because there wasn't the preparation done and there wasn't the work done thoroughly in the first instance. One of the situations in terms of this k'ind of a Northern Development Agreement that relates to the

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 residents of Northern Manitoba and to the Indian and Metis populations in Northern Manitoba is to gi ve them some say and some input into th e programmi ng and into the deliberations and into the planning of thi s kind of agreement. Well, there's no way, Mr.

Chairperson, there's no way, when you start in the fall, when you start six months before an agreement is to be signed, that you'r e going to do the ki nd of spad ework necessary, the kin d of ho mework necessary, the ki nd of consultation necessary, the kind of negotiations necessary with the people of Northern Manitoba to prepare a new agreement.

There's not even ti me, the way thi s government has proceeded, to do the necessary negotiations with Ottawa because those negoti ations haven't been completed on time, let alone the kind of negotiations and di scussi ons that even thi s government made some prom ise of doing in the 19 77 election, that they would have full consultation with the people of Northern Manitoba and the native gr oups of Man it oba before they emba rked on programs and preparations that would affect them and benefit them, hopefully.

So we're in a situation now where we are very worried, very concerned, as northern representatives, that our part of the province is going to get shafted once again by the Conservative Government and by the lack of planning and preparation to proceed. So we would like thi s item to be passed because it 's an impor tant it em for us but we'r e very concerned that even if we pass thi s item here today, that an agreement won't be signed for some time.

The other question to the Mi nister who is reporting for thi s section, and maybe the staff can answer, what exactly happens to programs now that are in existence that are being fun ded out of thi s agreement? Are programs going to be halted until the agreement is signed? Will programs continue in the hope that the agreement will be signed?

If the agreement isn't signed until summer or next fall, then how much of this money will lapse, because we have seen when this government came into office, that a number of programs that were cut were cost-shared agreements, were programs that were cost-shared 60 percent by the Federal Government and when the province then saved 40 cents on a dol lar, and seriously hurt Northern Manitoba, they lost those 60- cent doll ars from the Federal Government.

We have seen that mo neys have gon e back un der thi s agreement in 19 77, 19 78, and 19 79, moneys that were available tor the province to spend on behalf of No rthern Manitobans to encourage the development of Northern Manitoba, funds that actually lapsed because of the actions of thi s government. Now we are in danger of losing a whole agreement and I would like to know what happens in the interim. If the agreemen t isn't signed until four months from now, what happens to programs that are ongoing and will there have to be then, a lapse of, if it's three months, of a quarter of the amount that's shown here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nister of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put on the record that we have had considerable consultation with the various people involved in the No rthern Development Agreement and we have also, as I indicated earlier, comp leted a package with the federal author ities here in Manitoba. That package has been sent on to Ottawa for concurrence, or for further negotiations. The Federal Mi nister has not responded to our request that because April 1 has now passed. that we could get some assurance that the programs would be retroactive.

We are still waiting to hear an assurance from the Mi nister on that. He has agreed to get back to us shortly but we still have not heard from him as far as I am aware; he has not contacted my department. Perhaps he'll be in touch with the Mi nister of Finance any day now, hopefully thi s week.

When the Member for The Pas mentions that we have not been prepared, the negotiations with the federal authorities have been going on for several months and the package was presented to the federal people some time prior to the end of the March and the fact that the federal people have now sat on it for several weeks and have not got back to us, we can't do anything further than that, if they wish to sit on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister without Portfolio. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to interject here.

We are falling into a bit of the problem that the Member for Lac du Bonnet asked about, and that is to rehash all of the debates on these programs. What we are really dealing with here is a percentage of the money involved in programs and I am hopi ng that the Member for The Pas has had an opportunity, when your Estimates went through, to br ing up his concerns about the delay in having this agreement approved and the possible affect it will have on the programs in that area. I don't thi nk that the· commi ttee at thi s stage should go through that debate a second ti me.

Now I' d appreciate your comme nts on it but I thi nk we might be in the pred icamen t of deba ti ng each of th ese shar ed programs over again which was not the intent. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the intent of the government was. I know that I am being asked as a legislator to approve thi s amount of money and I want to explore this amount of money and I want to make my com ments on this amount of money and I intend to proceed and do same.

When the Mi nister of No rther n Affairs indicates th at negotiations have been under way with the Federal Government for several months I think he hits the problem on the head because anyone that's been involved in Feder al-Pr ovincial negotiati ons knows that you don't negotiate thi s kind of a $9.2 million agreement in several months, sometimes it takes several years. And thi s is where the Provincial Go vernment has fallen flat on its face by not beginning these negotiations sooner and not doirig their preparation in terms of these negotiations.

I would like to specifically ask - the Mi nister of Northern Affairs said various people of the north have been involved in discussion and negotiations in regard to thi s item that's before us in regard to thi s agreement - I would like to know specifically from the Mi nister what gr oups were involved in di scu ssions and negotiations specifically on the Manitoba Northern Development Agreement. I would like to ask him what town councils were involved; I would like to ask him what commu nity councils were 3359

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 involved; I would like to ask him what band councils were ih ilolv ed ; I would like to ask him the involvement of the NorMan Regional Development Corporation; I would like to ask him the involvement of the Tribal Councils; I would like to ask him the involvement of the region al districts of the Manitoba Metis Feder ation; I would like to ask him the involvement of the Four Nations Confederacy and the Manitoba Metis Federation.

Were th ere specific negotiations with any of those groups, specifically about their input into this agreement and, if so, when did these negotiations take place and with whom? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I think that th e Min ister without Portfolio's comments, with respect to rehashing all the items, could have been more appropria tely di scussed un der No rthern Affairs estimates. I had staff available; all that information was available. I can't recall from memory all of the details with respect to the consultation process.

That information could have been made available recently when Northern Affairs was being di scussed and I think it is true that we can just get into a rehash of all the line departments here if we are not carefuL MR. McBRYDE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has indicated that various people have been involved. I am sure that the Minister would be aware if there was a meeting specifically on the Manitoba Northern Development Agreement, whether or not there was a meeting held with the Four Nations Confederacy.

I am sure that the Min ister would be even more aware if there were meetings held with the Manitoba Metis Federation because I am sure he is well aware of any meetings that he has with the Ma nitoba Metis Federation, in light of his relationship with th at organization, and I wonder if the Min ister could just give us a clue whether in fact there was really any discussion or involvement or whether there was zero. 1 suspect there was zero, so maybe the Minister could tell us whether there was zero or whether there was one day that they did discuss this matter with these organizations, with the people of northern Manitoba.

MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance on these issues. Do we want to get into detailed discussion on these types of issues? Why would they not have been brought up at the time of the Northern Affairs estimates? I can recall some of the details but I would like to have them more fully explained for the record 's sake and I don't have all that information at my fingertips but certainly I can answer a lot of the questions. But are we going to get into line department discussions at this time? MR. cHAI RMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, I thought that point had been raised and that there had been some agreement on it that we would deal only with the Enabling Vote on these matters and that we had already had an opportu nity to debate as we dealt with the line department estimates, the programs themselves, the cost-shared programs. So virhat we are really asking here is for the commi ttee to approve a percentage of the funds involved so that the Department of Finance can facil itate the programs thems elves and wher e programs proceed at varying speeds they will have some flexibili ty in funding them. I think, Mr.

Chairman, it would be a mistake for us to do again what could have been done under the estimates of each department. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to say to the committee I think it is well known my stand and reputation and I have said it many times, I would hope not to chair a comm itte e when we are continually repeating ourselves. The Member from The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr . Ch airman, some of the agre emen ts that are li sted he re are ongoi ng agreements and so it is a matter of the line by line dealing with it.

The agreement that we are talking about now, and going into some discussion on, is not an agreement yet. lt is not a signed agreement, it is not in effect yet, and I think the manner of dealing with that agreement, this is an appropriate place to do it. If we are to pass this item then we would like to get some information in terms of the Manitoba No rthern Development Agreement and the details of that particular agreement. So I would ask the Minister of Northern Affairs whether or not there was any discussions or any consultation with northern people, and northern groups specifically, on this agreement. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLA V: The answer is yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for ChurchilL MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairperson, I think the point has to be made in response to the Min ister without Por tfolio's com men ts th at th ere are several opportunities throughout the legislative session for Opposition members to examine different programs. the way the structure is set up now, where you have tviro committees operating concurrently necessitates from time to time usin g di fferent vehicles for questioning in order to get a clear picture.

I don't think that we should be denied an opportunity to go into some detail in respect to an item which is amounting to some $9.2 million and for which we have very little explanation on the potential use of that money. I would ask the Minister for Northern Affairs if he could indicate if any programs that would be funded by this advance mon ey have indeed been di scont inued as a res ult of the fail ur e of the Provincial Government to negotiate a new agreement with the Federal Government? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister of Northern Affairs. MR.

GOURLAY: Well, I th ink these items were discu ssed in the Northern Affairs Estimates. Some time was spent on these areas and I don't feel that this is the place to rehash those. The members can check in Hansard. Certainly the opportu nity was available to get into the consultation process, to ask 3360

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 questions in those areas and I don't believe that we had one question on that. MR. COWAN: Unfortunatel y I was not able to be at that commi ttee meeting last evening. However, I can recall asking the Mini ster questions about the Northlands Agreement dur ing the question period, which is another opportunity to pursue this line of questioning.

I may make suggestions to the Mi nister through othe r aven ues that are available to Opposition mem bers and ask quest ions of the Min ister by personal correspondence, by private conversation, by any numb er of alternative methods of seeking information, but I think this is a legitimate avenue of seeking information as well. I don't mean to put the Mi nister on the spot but I do think that we are talking about a sizable amount of money. There is some doubt as to whether or not that money is in fact going to be utilized.

There is a great deal of question as to how exactly that money would be utilized and the fact that there is no agreement right now and the Mini ster can't tell us when there will be an agreement. The Mi nister can't tell us further to that if there will be retroactivity included in that agreement. So I think the questions are legitimate and if he can't answer them now, then perhaps he can get back to us on them, but I don't think that his failure to be able to provide us with detailed information should in any way preclude us from asking the questions.

I would ask the Mi nister if he does know of any programs which are going to be discontinued as a result of the failure of the Provincial Government to negotia te a new Northlands Agreement or as it's entitled here, a Ne w No rthern Devel opment Agreement, with the Federal Govern ment? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I want to put on the record that these areas have been di scussed and if the mem bers oppo site who couldn't be in this commi ttee when No rth ern Affairs was being discussed can check Hansard for the discussion that took place at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, the Mi nister indicated that they were di scussed last night. I happened to have been here in the committee along with my colleague, the Member for Ste.

Rose, and when we tried to get answers from the Mini ster dealing with the types of programs that he would have liked to see in the new agre ement , what areas he was striving for, what areas were being discontinued, all the Min ister told us basically, and he can correct me if I am wrong, was that the moneys that are shown in his department and are shown in other departments as far as existing progr amming goes, that's about as much as he could reveal to us. With respect to negotiations, he said he wouldn't allow us.

We tried to get from him what types of progr amming , what new thrusts the department was heading on that the Mi nister wanted to expanded upon; we got no information from him. Surely, Mr. Chairman, members on this side who weren't here could certainly very well pursue that line of questioning with the Min ister since we basically got no information from him last night. 3361 MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Chairman, I think that, as I recall, there was some discussion with respect to the fact that the general program mi ng of the former No rthlands Agreement would be continued with some extr a th rust in the field of economic development and employment, but I couldn't be specific on the areas of activities that are being negotiated at the present time because of the fact that th ere are two partner s in volved in thi s agreement and one of the partners has not signed the agreement and it's normal confidentiality of such an agreement that we make joint announcements with respect to progr amming when the agreements are signed.

For those reasons, we can't be specific on the activities that are being negotiated. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask the Mini ster a couple of specific questions in relation to this specific agreement and the negotiation thereof. Has the Min ister or his staff held direct consultations on the Manitoba Northern Development Agreement and the proposals therein, on that item specifically, with the Norman Regional Development Corporation? MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Chairman, I can't rec all specifically whether di scussions were held with Norman, but certainly the Northern Association of Commun ity Councils were conta cted. The y did suppl y us with a fairly detai led brief of their recommendations on the new Northern Development Agreement. There were considerable ads placed in newspaper s, on rad io, request ing input from individuals throughout the north and response was received from this type of advertising. Other orga ni zat ions were conta cted for the consultation process. Some of those comm ittees or organizations did not choose to meet with the province. MR.

McBRYDE: I wonder if the Min ister could tell us what organizations were contacted by mail to ask for a meeting. Were the tribal councils, like the Swampy Creek Tribal Council and the Keewatin Tribal Council asked for their input in this letter-writing manner? Was the Manitoba Metis Federation and the regional dis tricts of that organiz ation written and asked specifically for their input?

I think that the Mini ster should probably have some clue in terms of Northern Manitoba, since that's supposed to be his portfolio, that communi cations within an organizat ion, within the council groups, it's not that easy if you write a letter to one organization that doesn't have any funds, to have consultation with its mem bers in terms of the project. So the No rth ern Asso ciation of Communi ty Councils may be able to get some input from its affiliates, the mem bers of that at the community level, and maybe, Mr.

Chairperson, the Four Nations Confederacy is able to get some response from their regional parts of their organizations, but one of the major organ izat ions in Nor th ern Manitoba that represents a good part of the population, the non treaty Indian population, or the Metis population of No rthern Manitoba, has zero funding. Their funding has been cut off from the province and I can see it as being almost impossible for them to have any

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 dis cussion or consultation with their regional and members of locals, because of that action by this Min ister in the province. So I would ask the Min ister if it was only a written letter? Was that a written letter, plus some ads on nort hern radio and papers tha t asked for submis sions, or were there formal meetings set up at the commun ity level at all, or was it entirely a matter of writing some letters and putting some ads in the paper? MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, now here we are being pressed for detailed information that requires staff and which should have been asked at the meeting on the Estima tes of the Department of No rthern Development. We are doing exactly what we decided, and I believe there was some general concurrence over there, that we would not again debate in detail the Estimates relating to these particular programs. What we are asking you to approve is an amount of 20 percent of the money which we propose to be used for these joint programs.

The opportunity for the de tai led in formation, which you are now requesting of the Minister of Northern Affairs, was given clearly when his staff were here last night when his Estimates were debated. Mr. Chairman, I think you'll really have to rule on this question because we're into a whole area here which could involve each of the amoun ts in this Enabling Vote. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Chairperson, my understanding from my coll eagues, when I stepped out for a moment, was that they didn't agree to any specific way of handling these and I think that the items that we're concerned about are items (

f) and (

g) which are new items and which are not ongoing items. Those are agreements that are presently under negotiation. So if we're not able to ask questions and we're just supposed to automatically approve $9.2 millio n, then I think that's asking quite a bit of a legislator to get some information, in terms of the preparation of this agreement and in terms of how it's proposed to carry out this agreement, if and when it's signed.

Asking us to approve $9.2 million without getting some very simple information from the Mi nister, information that he started to provide and could probably provide more if he were allowed to do that. We, on this side, I don't think can agree to just pass these items without some understan din g of the agreemen t itself and how the negotiations were carried out for that particular agreement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Commi ttee, as the Chair tried to think back, this system come in in about 19 74 and I don't recall, whether I was sitting there or here, really going into all of the detail of each line.

Now have we been wrong since the mi d-seventies, or indeed are we wrong this afternoon? I need some guid ance from the Commi ttee. I would think that if we go into the full depth of it well we might as well have not went through those other affairs earlier if that would be the feeling of the Chair at this moment. The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Yes, well, since you are seeking guida nce, Mr.

Chairperson, on the point of order, which I suspect was raised by the Minister without Portfolio, I would suggest that we were wrong in neither case and that we were perfectly right in both cases in that, from time to time, circu mstances change. I don't see the fact that we review in detail one particular time and we don't review in detail another particular time as being a mutually exclusive process.

I think that there are times when you want to go over an item; there are times when you want to delve into deeper detail on an item; there are times when you don't want to and, if I can use some other examples which are available to us, of course question period being one of them, where we may discuss items which are di scussed in Estimates, but as well, Supplementary Estimates. When we go into Interim Supply we have an opportunity to discuss all these items and I don't, at that time, hear a suggestion that we shouldn 't be talkin g about subs tantial expenditures without some review.

I can assure you that I, for one, and I can only speak for myself, do not intend to go into great detail on this particular item. I don't believe any of us have yet to go into great detail on this particular item. I think what we have tried to do is to examine the expenditure in light of the fact that there is no agr eement. I thin k that's very ge rman e to the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote. You see on most of those items that there are in fact agreements or have beeh agreements.

In this particular item, iri the Winnipeg Inner City Init iative item, there is no existing agreement and I th ink for that reason alone we are obliga ted to review the situation in slightly more detail than we would do if, in fact, there was an agreement. I don't want to put the Minister on the spot because I see that he doesn't have a staff here and neither is there any reason for his staff to be here but I think there are some general concepts which certainly should be discussed.

I don't want to speak to those on the point of order but I just wanted to give you some advice, if possi ble, at least if not advic e my perception of the situation here, that we can be right by discussing in detail and we can be right by not di scussing it in detail and it depends entirely on the circu mstances and I don't think there's any set rule that says we have to or we do not have to. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rhin eland. MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've been following a rather unusual procedure her e where one Comm itte e mem ber is askin g question s of another Comm ittee member.

The normal practice, I believe, has always been that the questions were asked of the Min ister in charge of a particular department which, in this case, is the Minister without Portfolio, who is dealing with this matter on behalf of the Premier. I am sure that if the members were to make a list of the questions which they would like to have answered I am certain that the Min ister for Northern Affairs would accept these questions and try to get these answers back to them. But it's very obvious that the Minister cannot answer them today, at the present time. So, if that was acceptable, Mr.

Chairman, I would say then we should move on. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. 3362

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 MR. COWAN: In speaking to the comments by the Member for Rhin eland, I think if he will remember back to the initial question on this item, which was asked by my colleague, the Member for The Pas, he will recollect that the question was asked of the Minister without Portfolio; that the Member for The Pas's question was di rected specifically to the Min ister who is undertaking the responsibility for this particular item. lt was the Mi nister of No rthern Affai rs who interjected on behalf of his department.

We did not ask question s of the Min ister of Northern Affairs directly, to start off with, but it was the Minister of Northern Affairs who showed a willin gness to provide information which was being sought and, by way of accommodating him, I think what we did do was get into a pattern of di recting questions to the Min ister of Northern Affairs, through you, Mr. Chairperson, but that was only upon the initiation of the process by the Min ister hims elf.

So I think that the Member for Rhin eland should take that into consideration when he does form an opinion as to the advisability or the inadvisability of pursuin g the discussion of this item in the Estimates in this way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Mr . Chairman, do I hear that we shouldn 't be

part icipatin g in this Commit tee as representing various departments? I just throw that out, that to go in to detailed questions, that opportunity was provided by each department and, as I indicated, I don't have much staff here. I could have supply detailed information to all the questions that were asked of my departm ent yesterday or previous days. I can provide some parts of the information accurately but I can't remember all the details. As I mentioned earlier, I throw it out for your clarification, how much detail do we get into in this

section with respect to the line departments? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. McGILL: Well, Mr . Chairman, I accept some of the criticism di rected to me by the Member for Churchill. I was endeavouring to accommodate the mem bers opposite by calling on th e Mi nister of Northern Affairs who I know is dir ectly involved in the negotiations leading, we hope, to the conclusion successfully of this Development Agreement.

Now, if 1 had not done that, in order to assist with what I thought were general questions relating to when the agreement would be sign ed, I would certainly have not done so and I regret now that I have don e that because it is indicated that the questions are going from the general to the specific. Mr. Chairman, if we could retrace our steps then perhaps I'll attempt to deal with what questions you have to put further in respect to this Enablin g Vote. MR. COWAN: Well, if it will make your task simpler and the work of the comm ittee ea sier, Mr.

Chairperson, I can suggest that we do not intend - and 1 emphasize the word intend - to ask any specific questions in respect to this agreement but would like to ask some general questions as to why the negotiations are not being accomplished. We would like to ask the Min ister without Portfolio, or the Min ister of Northern Affairs if he would care to answer, why they believe the Federal Government is draggin g its feet on this issue.

I'm paraphrasing the Min ister; I'm not certain I'm usin g his exact statement, but those sorts of general questions, I think should be addressed before we pass an item which right now appears to have no use. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chair man, if I could just summarize, my advice is that these di scussions in respect to a new agreement began last summer and that they have continued and have been pursued by Manitoba since that time. A more recent move was that the Min ister of Finance attempted to arrange a meeting with the Federal Min ister and his advice was, very recently, that such a meeting he felt was not necessary.

I would interpret that to mean that probably we are gettin g reason ably close to conclusion on this agreement. You asked me if I could give you some idea of how it appeared to be, whether this agreement was going to proceed. MR. COWAN: Well, then, that begs a question, Mr. Chai rper son, of why is it that the Federal Government has taken so long to deal with this. I recall that dur ing the question period when we addressed this issue the Min ister of Finance said that they had sent a telegram to the Min ister responsible at the federal level.

I'm not certain whether he said they had not received an answer to that telegram but 1 think that was the case. Then he said that they had sent another telegram some three weeks later to the Min ister, again asking for some indication of where this agreement was in respect to approval by the Federal Governman d and, I think, at that time he in di cated that th ere was no answe r. Th en he responded finally to say that he was going to be contacting the Min ister again. This seems to be an unusual practice of the Federal Government; at least to me it would seem to be an unusual practice.

Or, if it is not an unusual practice, I can say it's a hell of a way to conduct nego tiati ons. lt certai nly predis poses tho se negotiaions to a lengthier tenure than is necessary. So I would ask the Minister if he can shed some light as to why it is the Federal Government seems to be dr aggin g its feet. Do th ey not want this agreement? Are they concerned with the way the provin ce has consulted with the different constituents who are affected by the agreement and therefore want mo re tim e so that th ere can be mo re consultation?

Are they acting upon the advice of any Manitoba groups which are affected by this particular agreement? There's a series of questions which certainly should be answered before approving this expensive sum under the item in the Estimates. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chairman, I can appreciate the concern of the Mem ber for Chu rchill on that particular topic. it would be idle of me to speculate on the reasons why the Federal Government is not proceeding as expeditiously as we would think they should in this matter. 1 can tell the member that it is within the last few days that a response has been received saying that, and I am paraphrasing, the Federal Min ister felt that it was unnecessary at this stage for a meeting to take place between our Min ister responsible and hi mself. 3363

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 Now the member can interpret that in his own way but it would, as an optimist in this situation, I would thin k rather that he feels such a meeting is not necessary because he feels that we are perhaps reasonably close to conclusion on it. That is a speculation. MR. COWAN: That is probably as accurate a speculation of the cryptic message that has been relayed to us as one could make.

However, if one were to be pessimistic, one could also view it from the perspective of the Min ister having decided to cut off negotiations, which is also a bargaining ploy, in respect to finding no room for manoeuvering. Now I'm not certain that's the case. I certainly hope it isn't the case because that would dr ag this whole process out longer than it has already been dragged out and I think that would be detrimen tal to the people of Northern Manitoba.

I certainly would want to make very strong represen tation to the Mi nister responsible, if that were the case, and perhaps I will make representation to the Min ister. As a matter of fact, I think I can make the commit ment to make very strong representation to the Federal Min ister, on the assumption that that may be the case and ask the Minister for further clarification, because I think that's important to get from the Federal Government.

My question to the Min ister without Portfolio, will the go vernment be compleme nt in g that strong re presen tation on behalf of one of the representatives of that area with correspondence of their own which would seek to clarify the situation and to encourage the government to come to a speedy resolution of the negotiations? MR. McGILL: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's safe to say that the Minister responsible is perhaps even more enthusiastic about reaching a

summary conclusion to this matter. He has made contact in two different Telex messages and he has received, to repeat, within the last few days a response from the Federal Minister indicatin g that he did not think at this stage that it was necessary for a meeting between the Mi nister s. We will certainly commu nicate your concerns to the Min ister responsible. MR. COWAN: I will be commun icating him as well and will suggest to the Minister responsible that I am informed by the government that they are anxious to have these negotiations culmin ated.

One final question to the Min ister, for the time being at least, and that is, what will happen to this sum of money, this $9.206 million if in fact they are unable to reach an agreemen t with the Federal Government on the Northern Development Program? MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this funding would not be requir ed im mediately and as negotiations are proceeding, these funds will be held in abeyance. They would be required when the negotiations are concluded. If any other use is made of these funds, it would only be done with Cabinet authority.

I am further remi nded that 80 percent of the funds are in the department's Estimates and not within this Enabling Vote. MR. McBRYDE: To make sure I clearly under stand this then, Mr. Chairperson, there are programs now that are listed line by line in the Department that 3364 have been ongoing since the new fiscal year began, since the old agreement expired. Has there been any of those programs that have been cut, reduced, or elimin ated because of the delay in the negotiations? MR. McGILL: am advised that it's our understanding that there has been no reduction in the ongoing programs up to this point. MR.

McBRYDE: How long can the province go on on a hope and prayer? How long will those programs continue if an agreement isn't signed, or does the Minister have any idea of that? MR. McGILL: Well, if some indication were given th at the neg otiation s were go in g to be unduly prolonged or that there was some indication that the Federal Government was not going to proceed then it would have to be a decision of Cabin et with respect to termination or otherwise of programs. MR.

McBRVDE: I wonder, not necessarily right now, but I wonder if the Min ister could get some of the staff people that are here to give us an indication . . . with the ongoing programs those moneys will be spent and hopefully the provi nce would be reimbur sed 60 percent of those funds. The

section of the No rthern Development Agreement that is new programs and since this is only a percentage of it, it would take a little bit of just some calculation to figure this out, that's why I am saying that the Min ister could have the staff answer it at a later date; how much a month is for new programs in the Northern Development Agreement?

That is, if there is a certain amount that's being expended right now, or was spent for the month of April which is past, but there are programs that were not started because the agreement wasn't signed, so funds were not expended in April that we have ap proved expenditur es for, and how much a month are we losing or saving, depending on how you look at it as long as the agreement isn't signed? I wonder if that inf ormation could be calcula ted roughly and comm unicated to us at a later time. MR.

McGILL: lt would be most inaccurate and difficult to obtain that kind of a figure now since some of these agreements are being negotiated and we are unable to say with any certainty that they'll be approved. So we would be skating around a bit there and I would th ink that once the Devel op ment Agreement is signed it would be a fairly accurate figure. We could produce a figure fairly accurately then. · MR.

McBRYDE: The Min ister without Portfolio is probably aware that the province could lower its huge deficit this year because not only is it the date that the agreement is signed, but if there is new programming it's going to take a number of months to put new programming in, so we are probably approving a 12 -month expenditure to this item and to the other items we have passed in the Estimates. We are probably approving a 12- month expenditure which could easily be only a 6-month expenditur e, or maybe there is some of the new programs proposed that won't even get off the ground in this fiscal year.

So we are approving much more than is necessary because of the delay in the signing of the agreement,

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 and that's not necessarily a question, it is just a general comment, so that the Min ister is well aware of that, that there is more being asked for than will be spent now that the agreement is delayed. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I suppose there always is a danger that some of the new programming could suffer if the Federal Government are slower and continue to drag their feet in respect to completin g this Development Agreement. The ongoing programs, I would expect, and I'm advised, they probably will cont inue. The appr oval of the se funds was for dispersal within the fiscal year.

Now if in the unlikely event that the Development Agreement remained unsign ed for several months, we would be well into that fiscal program. We are hopeful that does not occur. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Chairperson, we have done it before, and I think that this particular agreement was underspent in 19 77 and 19 78 and I think probably 19 79, so that there were federal funds available that in fact lapsed because of program reductions.

The other commen t to the Min ister for hi s information is that there is the possibility that the lack of consultation which I was questioning the Mi nister of No rthern Affairs ab out has some relationship to the Federal Government delay. Now I don't know that but it is possible that these groups that wanted some more input because they weren't involved have commun icated with the Federal Government their dissatisfaction with the Provincial Government's lack of consultation, so that may be a factor. Realizing, Mr.

Chairperson, that we are probably approving more money than they are going to be able spend this year, we'd let this item - I think we'll let this item pass and ask a few questions on the next one. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (f) - pass; 1. (g) - pass; 1. (h) - the Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: On 1. (g), that item does appear in the Urban Affairs Estimates. What is the calculation in terms of this item?

Is that agreement quite close or is that one that is going to be a little while in the makin g still and will the same th ing apply th at probably this will be more than what is needed for this fiscal year or is this number based on a partial year program or a full year program? MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, the estimate was made and prepared in the amount funded in this way on the basis of a full year. Negotiations between the province is represented by the Attorney-General, the City of Winnipeg is represented by the Mayor, and the Federal Min ister, Mr. Axworthy, in this case, are proceeding.

They have not been signed yet. There is no firm and signed agreement but we are given to unde rstand that progr ess is being made and we think this is probably a reasonable Enablin g Vote in this case. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (g) - pass; 1. (

h) for The Pas. the Member MR. McBRYDE: A couple of quick questions on 1. (h). Was the full amoun t under this program expended last year, and secondly, when does this particular agreement expire? MR. McGILL: The answer to the second part of the question is March 31s t, 19 82, the agreement expires. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (h) - pass. MR. McBRYDE: You could pass those and they could tell me after. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. 1. (h) - pass. Now we'll return to 1. (

a) for - I need again gui dance. Do we have the answers for 1. (a)? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on that point I agreed that at some convenient point for the department, that they would bring back the information. lt doesn't have to be to this comm ittee. MR. McGILL: I think we have that information and we'll give it to you. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we are allowing 1. (

a) to pass, then I will pass the resolution.

Be it resolved that th ere be gr anted to Her Majesty a sum not exceedin g $1 4,236,600 for the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote - pass. lt is 4:30. What's the wish tonight now? Are we coming back to Flood Control? The Honourable Minister. SUPPL V - FLOOD CONTROL AND EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could deal with this Flood Control and Em ergency Expenditur es of $1 ,000,000.00. That would leave the Executive Council then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, 1. pass.

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exce edin g $1 ,000,000 for Flood Control and Emergency Expenditur es - pass. Commit tee Rise. SUPPL V - ATTORNEY -GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): I would dir ect the honourable members' attention to Page 18 of the Main Estimates, Department of the Attorney General. Resolution No. 24,

Section 9, Canada Manitoba Legal Aid, Item (

a) Salaries. Before I acknowledge the first speaker I would just like to announce that this is the 1s t day of the 3rd month that I have stopped smoking. The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend you for your efforts to resist the seductive effects of tobacco. I think that you'r e certainly an example of will power and fortitude and, hopefully, good health. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I wish on a matter of personal privilege to note a correction in the Hansard record of yesterd ay's proce ed ings, yesterday afternoon session. it's at Page 3306. The final portion of the debate, prior to the 4:30 Private 3365

Tuesday, SMay, 1981 Memb ers' Hour has been attributed to myself. Properly, Mr. Chairman, that should have been attributed to the Member for Churchill. This is like a rugger or football game, Mr . Chairman, I can barely see you behind this scrummer huddle that is forming to my imme di ate right. I thin k they're goin g to provide a flying wing through which we can . . . To go on, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with Legal Aid and I wish to make just but a very few brief general introductory remarks relative to the state of this program and service from the 1981 point of view.

I wish to indicate, firstly, that I wish to register, once again, my complain t at the unduly protracted length of time that was taken prior to the recent revi sion of the Legal Aid Lawyers Tariff. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you those fees were frozen from 19 73, as I recollect, to 1981. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the government would dare freeze Medicare rates paid to physicians for that du ration of time? I'd like to know, for that matter, Mr. Chairman, whether the government would dare freeze salaries paid to itself - and we, of course, know the answer to that, Mr.

Chairman - for anythin g near approaching that length of time. So while this government, Mr. Ch airm an, presumably using lawyers' taxes, too, was hastening to give itself and the Cabinet a raise last year; while it acted so ex ped itiously in that regar d , Mr. Chairman, it failed to consummate negotiations with respect to lawyers' salaries for some thr ee-and-one half years of office. And that was compounded, Mr . Chairman, by the fact th at ther e had been no increase in salaries since the beginning of the second term of the last Schreyer Government. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I'm not going to make a case for lawyer's poverty, it would be highly unseemly and inappropriate. I do not believe that there are many lawyers whose incomes are that modest that they qualify for that sort of support in the House but I do believe, Mr.

Chairman, that the approach taken is one of disrespect; I thin k that it is indicative of the rather low esteem that this governmen t has for lawyers who do litigation work. it's oft told among barristers, people who practice in the courts, that this government has been wholly insensitive to them as members of the legal profession; I believe that to be true.

We're not discussing Queen's Counsel but the nature of those who have been appointed over the past three years to that position are indicative of the government 's priorities and they seem to be corporate law, not litigation law, not crimin al law, not family law. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm standing today in my place to censure the government for its dilatory approach to this matter. For those, Mr .

Chairman, who believe - and I think it's appropriate because we so often hear about lawyers living so high on the hog - I did jus t a little arithe matical calculation to tr y and ascertain what a so-called fat-cat lawyer, who had a litigation practice dependent wholly on Legal Aid, would earn because I know that there are youthful members of the Bar, and perhaps not so youthful members of the Bar, who do a great deal of Legal Aid lit igation work, Family or Crimin al Law. Mr . Chairman, I extrapolated on the basis of the former rate which has pertained since 19 73, namely, $25 per hour. Mr.

Chairman, I reckon that a person working 40 hours a week, 16 0 hours a month at $25 an hour would gross some $4,000 per month income. I, th en, Mr. Chairman, reali stically took in to account what the average operating cost of a small practitioner's office, this is an office man perhaps with one secretary, not a particularly lavish office - I'm not talking about somethin g in the Richardson Buildin g or the Trizec complex.

I looked at that and I said that realistically we would have to ascribe at least $2,000 per month to the maintenance of that type of office facility, taking into account rents paid to the land lord; costs of thin gs such as zerox machinery, typewriting machin ery, telephone cost, other inciden tal ex penses in volv ed in the main tenance of the office, that would in clude stationery and those sorts of materials and so on and so forth.

I practice myself in what I would regard a relatively modest situation and I can tell you that my overhead is more than $2,000 per month now, and I' ve spoken to other lawyers who tell me that they think that a small office can't operate on less than $2,5 00.00. But, in any event, I' ve ascribed $2,000 per month, which leaves a net income of roughly in the order of $2,000 per month for a lawyer who is working at that tariff full-time, 40 hours per week, month in month out. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that $24,000 a year is a pri ncely salary.

I think that it's well within the expectation of most members of society and I might say tha t it do esn't have a patch on senior admin istrative salaries paid to Legal Aid officials, and certainly doesn't being to compare with the salary taken home by the Honourable Attorney-General. I would daresay it's well less than 50 percent, because there are no free cars thrown in and automobile expenses thrown in with that, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Chairman, I can say that there has been a dereliction of duty with respect to the practising litigation bar by this government and this Attorn ey General.

I think that he will find that this generally, it's for him to find, but has caused a deterioriation of relations between himself and the practising litigation bar. I think he will find that there is some strident opposition to th ings th at he would like to take priority. I think it was unnecessary; it was something that could have been dealt with exped itiously by th e government and in a business-like fashion, but for some peculiar reason, this government decided to accord it an unusually low priority and I might say that the increase of $1 0.00 per hour, Mr.

Chairman, accorded these practition ers after over eight years - after over eight years of government neglect - is not that generous either. lt's certainly better than not hi ng, but it does nothin g to make up, Mr. Chairm an, for the real losses sustain ed by practisin g members and, Mr. Chairman, when I say this I want to talk about the realities of working with Legal Aid, because I happen to do some Legal Aid work.

I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I haven't had a Legal Aid client in my office and I can tell you that the reality is, that those who practise legal aid work are often not getting $25.00 an hour and this is part of the mythology you know, that lawyers are actually paid the hourly rate. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if you do family law and there are many barristers in this provin ce who do a lot of family law through Legal Aid. There are all sorts of tariff ceilings : which prevent you from bill ing the $25.00 an hour. 3366

Tuesday, 5 May, 1981 The Attorney-General never did much litigation work when he was in practice, Mr. Chairman, and I think he'd be the first to acknowledge that but, Mr.

Chairman, I want to say that it is very difficult when you'r e dealing with operative tariffs, it is very difficult to provide the kind of service that most people deserve when you'r e told that you can only bill to a maximum in terms of preparation time, even though a particular case might be very, very complex, even though it might involve a lot acrimony between the parties and necessitate a lo t of con su ltativ e negotiation, you are restricted by these damnable tariff ceilings. So the effect is, Mr.

Chairman, that I have seen many lawyers who quite rightly argue that they are actually billin g out at the rate of about $15 .00 to $20.00 per hour, when the effect of the ceilings are taken into consideration. So what you do is, you put a restriction on the lawyer that is willing to put a little extra into a difficult case and you encourage the lawyer who doesn't want to do anythin g extra. Mr. Chairman, this government didn't put those ceilings into place and I'm anticipating the Attorn ey General rising and saying, well, that's the fault of the NDP.

Well, the New Democratic Government put that tariff in place, M

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-72a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 72a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fad4249d54a66583e949bd382c1c30a4a590801b

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