Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 80B (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-80b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Monday, 21 June, 19 82 Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. SPEA KER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honour able Government Hous e Leader. COMMIT TEE CHANGES HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I put the question on the motion to go into Su pply, if I might make a coup le of annou ncem ents with respect to Committee chang es. I ju st might, incidental ly, announc e that the Member for Con cord ia will be away for a couple of weeks. He's finally had the call on his elective su rgery for his ear.

I'm proposing to su bsti tute the Member for ln kster for the Member for Con cord ia on Privileges and Electio ns, and the Me mber for I nks ter for the Mem ber for Concordia on Statutory Regu lations and Orders. With respect to Law Amend ments for tomorrow, the Member for Rup ertsland sub stituting for the Minis ter of Educa tion; the Me mber for Tho mpson su bstituting for the Me mber for Bu rrows; and the Member for Spri ngfield su bstituting for the Member for Gimli. MR.

SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) The motion before the Hous e is the motion proposed by the Hon our able Attorney -Gener al and se conde d by the Hon our able Min ister of Mun icipal Aff airs that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the Hous e resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Su pply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to con sider of the Su pply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honour able Member for Flin Flon in the Ch air. COM MITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO. 59 - SU PPLEMEN TARY SUP PLY MR.

CHAIRMAN, J. Storie: The committee will come to order. We are here to consider the Sup plementar y Estimates and Exp endi ture for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983. The first appropriation numb er is No. 10, the Income Insuranc e Fund for Agricultur e in the su m of $17,500,000.00. RE S. NO. 10 - INCOME INSURANCE FUND MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ho nour able Memb er for Pembina. MR. D. ORC HARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the Min ister of Agricultur e, could he prov ide us with an estimate of how much of the $17.5 million he would expect to cash flow this year? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e.

HON. B. URU SKI: Mr . Chairman, that will depend on the sign-up in the program and the final details that the Committee is now wor king on in terms of all aspects of the program. MR. D. ORCHARD: Which, of cou rse, brings the next ques tion, Mr. Chairman. When will we see the pro gram in its final form annou nced so that the beef produ cers in the province can make their choice as to whe ther they want to sign up? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, when the Commit tee has its details formal ized to prese nt to government in the process that they are now un dergoing, then the honour able member and so will all producers of the provinc e, be aware of the details of the program. MR. D. ORCHARD: That is the normal answer we get from the Minis ter of Agricultur e when something happens. I might remind him that his First Min ister, as Leader of the Opposi tion, said that a program would be broug ht in without del ay. It wo uldn 't be a matter of weeks or months; it wou ld be brought in immediately. Ther e was to be a pay out this sp ring.

Thi s is no w the first day of summer and we're eight hour s into sum mer in 1982 and we still are hearing from the Min ister that, whe n he receives a report. Has the Min ister put a de ad lin e to his Comm ittee, the Committee he appointed, and told them that he wants a report by a given date so that the beef prod uc ers in the Province of Ma nitoba will not have to wait all sum mer for some action by this Min ister, particularly whe n his Leader has promised immediate action seven months ago? HON. B. URU SKI: Mr . Chairman, the member talks of dead line s.

I recall very vividly last spring, when the honour able member speaks of deadli nes. when the government of the day annou nced a Hog Assurance Program in the month of Apri l, th ere was an announc ement made in this Legislature that there was a $10 million program dealin g with an income stabili zation plan on hog s. It was not un til September of that year that the program came into place. Mr . Chairman, I shou ld tell the honour able member that the parameters and the principles of the program were an nou nced.

Ther e was an intent on the govern ment in my annou ncement tha t ther e wou ld be a pay out on the basis of people enro lling in the plan. The prod ucer group that has been appo inted has made recom mendations or at least su ggested to us that there may be alternative ways that they would prefer as produ cers that money be utilized. 3425 I am waiting for their recommend ations in this respect and when tho se recommendations come in gover nment, of cou rse, will make a decision on the recommenda tions tha t come in and the program will be annou nc ed.

But, I should tell the honour able member that in terms of whether there be a pay out prior to any progra m, the Committee itself was sp lit and, if the honour able member remembers correctly, tha t question he raised maybe six weeks ago, on that very issue. I met with the Committee and I wou ld say qu ite candi dly, the Committee was spl it pretty wel l down the middle in terms of whe ther an advance pay ment with no strings attached be made or the money utilized to better improve the ability of producers to

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 make chang es in the program or join up . Tho se su ggestions were made to me and we are awaiting the recommendations of the Committee. It's my hope that by the early part of July that we will have some reco mmendations from the Committee and make a decisi on shortly thereafter. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then I assume from the Min ister's ans wer that. within two to three weeks, we might ha ve some detail of his much awaited hog program.

The Minis ter will excuse myself and my colle agues, as members of the Opposition, for being so highly critical of the Min ister because he made reference to a hog program which was an nou nced in April or May of 1981 and the final details of which were put together in September. I can recall clearly that individual who is now Minis ter of Agricultur e sitting in the second row over here daily criticizing our Minis ter of Agricultur e for dragging his heels, for not getting any thin g done. Now, iron ically, Mr.

Chairman, he has respons ibility for a beef program that his Leader promised to the beef prod ucers on very short order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Th e Honour able Min ister on a point of order. HON. B. URU SKI: Mr .

Chairman, the privilege is that dur ing the election campaign - and I have read to the honour able member the press statements that the Leader of the Opposition, dur ing the election period, when he spoke on the issue of beef stabilization and beef income assuranc e in terms of assistance to the beef produc ers of the pro vince - no wh ere in the statements does the Minis ter say that within two months there will be a program.

He indicated to the beef produ cers that the governmen t, if we were elected. wo uld immediately sit down with the produc ers to discus s ways and means of implementing a program, not wha t the honour able member is alludin g to, Mr. Chai rman. and I ask him to correct his statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Member for Turtle Moun tain on the same point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: On the al leged point of privilege, Mr .

Chairman, I would ask you to rule whether or not the member has a point of privilege, especially in view of the fact that his al leged point of privilege was not conclud ed with a su bstantive motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Th at is qu ite correct. The Honour able Min ister, by way of explana tion to cl arify his position, ha s made a statement but does not consti tute a point of order nor a point of privilege. The Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORC HARD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

To get back to my remarks, the Min ister of Agricultur e now, when he was in Oppos ition, was highly critical of our Minis ter of Agricul ture, my bench mate, for not bring ing a hog income stabilization program to the produc ers of the pro vince any more quickly than was being done . I find it. as I say, indeed iron ical that this same member of the Legislatu re, no w in a different role, has fo und himself having to live with statments made by 3426 his First Minis ter that there wou ld be immediate action, not months but weeks.

The immediate action that the Minis ter of Agricul ture took was to dismis s the board or the group that were stud ying the Beef In come Program as appoi nted by my col league, the Min ister of Agricultur e of the day, and replace them with ano ther board who have, with few excep tions, not met with the beef produ cers of the Pro vince of Man itoba. We've tried to find out from this Minis ter of Ag ricultur e if he required them to meet with the beef produc ers in public meetings to get the views of the beef produc ers of the province.

We have received no answer other than tha t we kno w no meetings have taken place in rural Mani toba with the beef produc ers and we can un derstand from that onl y, that this Mini ster is afraid to ha ve his appoint ees go to the beef prod ucers and tell them what he wants to do, establish a compu lsory marketing system and a 6- year program.

The Minis ter of Agricultur e now is sitting here and we are - wha t? - seven months into this new govern ment? -(Int erjec tion)- yes, and I'm reminded that the payo ut was to be this spring and we're still, with the first day of su mmer, two to th ree weeks away from a program, if I un derstand him.

No w he may want to correct that because he may jus t have been getting a report on whic h he will fo un d a program in two to th ree weeks time, so that the program may well be September, October, November before it receives Cabinet approval from a rather difficult Min ister, not being able to get thin gs through Cabinet as qu ickly as he may think he can.

So the beef produc ers, con trary to the expectations that were raised during the election and immediately after the election by statements made by his First Min ister, are going to in all likelihood wait clo se to a year for action from this Minis ter, the very Minis ter whils t he was in Opposition was so highly critical of our progress on a Hog Inc ome Stabil ization Progra m. So we are waiting patiently and would expect th at the Minis ter would have a deadline set for his Commit tee to report to him; obvious ly he hasn't.

He's let them wait through the spring seed ing when most prod ucers are una vailable for direct cont act. He's let that period of time go by with no report from his Committee and we want to kno w ho w qu ickl y he's going to come out with the program. Is the Min ister sayi ng that in two to three weeks, in that first part of Jul y, that his program will be annou nced, or is that merely whe n his Commit tee is going to report on their recommendations ? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Chairman, that will be deter mined when the Committee is ready to report its reco mmendations to govern ment.

I am hopeful th at, as I've ind icated, that there will be a program by that time. -(I nterjection)- well, Mr. Chairman, the basic parameters of the program have been annou nced; the member may want to forget that. The principl es of the program were annou nced in this House. Mr . Chair man. The Committee is work ing on putting those principle s into action in terms of the details of the progra m. He may not like the principl es of the pro gram.

The y were annou nced in this Ass embly and when they are through their consult ations and their meetings with producer group s and produc ers throughout the provinc e, they will be coming back to

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 ----------------- ------ -·---·· myself and to the governme nt with their su ggestions and recom mendations. Then we will see whe re we go from there. MR. D.

OR CHARD: Then, the Minis ter is causing some confusion because it was my clear un derstand ing tha t when the Minis ter struck this Committee and he received such adverse reaction from the beef pro duc ers of this province to the two aspects of that program, na mely, the compu lsor y marketing and to a lesser degree but nevertheless opposition to the 6- year sign up terms, the Min ister left every impress ion on qu estionin g in this House that he was prepared to accept recommend ations which wou ld vary from the compu lsor y marketing aspect that he insisted upon.

Now he's saying, I believe, that there is no negotia tion on the compu lsor y marketing aspect; that will be part and parcel of the program. So, why has he got a Committee jus t listening to the beef producers because every single beef producer that I have talked to and that has co ntacted me on this prog ram, cal l it a farce? The Min ister asks how many I've talked to.

I wo uld say it's been about a dozen or 15- because there aren't that many beef produc ers in Pembina constituenc y until you get up in to the western corner of it- but every single one of them that have talked to me have asked, they ha ve questioned whether the Min ister really kn ows wha t he is setting up and whether he really wants to put a program in place that's meaningful help to the prod uc ers; or whether he's simp ly sliding back to the 19 77 glorious days of his colle ague, the Minis ter of Agricultur e, in bringing in compu lsor y marketing through the back door.

To a man, the beef producers that I've talked to will not sign up in a program that involves compu lsor y marketing. Now the Min ister is saying that that's not part of the negotiation; that even if 90 percent of the beef produc ers say there shouldn't be any compul sory marketing, he is going to forge ahead and make that a prerequisite to the program. Is that wha t the Minister is telling us tonigh t? HON. B. URU SKI: Mr. Cha irman, the ho nour able member obviously, hi mself, may be conf used in his own mind when he talks about someth ing happening without the consent of produ cers. Mr.

Chairman, the honour able member should recall tha t one of the basic recommend ations that were made to us by the MCPA in their brief to govern ment - the honour able member, if he wants me to produc e the brief, I will read it once again as I have done in the past to him - that in terms of ha ving an income assu rance program on beef - and they have picked three sectors, Mr . Chair man - and the th ree sectors they pick ed were the cow-calf indus try, the stocker ind ustry and the fin isher industry.

The premiums at whatever level you picked varied from, say, a cow-calf insur anc e plan - and I take this from memory, Mr. Chairman, at about $1 .10 a pound - the premium payable by the producer was appr oxi mately 16 percent of the sel ling price of ttie calf at the time for an insur ance of $1.1 O a pound. When you took th at to the finishing end, wh ere the fin ished cattle at 85 cents a pound - and I'm going from memory again - the premium would be so me wh ere, I believe, around the 8 percent of sel ling price to ensur e one self at th at level. Th ere were ranges going in between in all categories.

Part and parcel of that program was that a minimum length of time that a producer should sign up in the program so that the program could be insur an ce sound. The minimum period of time, length of time, was six years. In fact, that was the minimum amount of time that was put forward by MCPA. The optimum length of time that they sugge sted in their proposal was not any thin g above six years, but it was 20 years, Mr. Chairman. The Honour able Member for Pembina should be wel l aware of that proposal, because it ranged anywher e from six years to 20 years.

The long er the prod ucer en rol led in the program, the more actuarily sound the program became because then the fluc tuations in the marketpl ace cou ld be spread out over a longer period of time. From their point of view, on the insur ance princi ple, a producer cou ld insur e himself over a lo nger period of time. So, Mr. Chairman, let not the Honour able Member for Pem bina try to lead someone astray to ind icate to this comm ittee and to the people of Man itoba that some how no one has made any proposals; no one has been consu lted with; no on e's views have been taken into account. 3427 Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the specific issue that he keeps chir ping about from his seat in terms of com puls ory marketing, the honour able member shoul d go back and read the Livestock Commission reports, the Royal Commissions on Livestock of the '60s and of the '70s which dealt with - and in fact, the produ cers have indicated that they wanted to see more equity in the marketplace between producer s, so that produc ers who are sel ling cattle of the same grade and the weight structur e and the like would be paid simila r prices for the cattle that the y market, instead of havi ng the fluc tuations from day-to-day sales that have been evidenc ed and, even today, have been evidenced.

People have contacted me and members have told me that livestock prod ucers - ju st recently, a story was related to me and I' ll relate it to the honour able member, wh ere the market price in Winnip eg was running at $82 to $83 a cwt, Mr. Chairman; the market price in Toronto was running at roughl y $96 a cwt, a great spread - the produ cer said to hi mself, wel l, look the freight differential is tha t great between Toront o and Winnip eg and, maybe, if I put my cattle on auction I will at least be able to make up the difference. Mr.

Chair man, he ended up selling his cattle, because he did not go to the packers and accept a deal of 82 cents, in the 70 cent range, losing hundr eds and hundr eds of doll ars on the market of a dozen animals, fin ished ani mals by the way. The MCPA when I met with them last, just a numb er of weeks ago, confir med that they also want to see more equity in the marketplace as between producers when they market their cattle of the same grade. Ther e is no doubt in my mind that there will be a difference of opinio n on how that equ ity can be best approached and best be realized.

But certainly, ther e is no opposi tion to the desi re to have more equ ity between pro duc ers in the marketplace so that they receive a fair return as can be eviden ced by the type and the grade of cattle that they market, so that there is no great fluc tuation as between what prod ucers receive, what price, because they may have some better ins or outs

with the purcha sers of those cattle. So, Mr. Chairman, that principle in terms of the Marke ting Commission obviously will be a volu ntary feature of the plan. Prod uc ers who join the plan will market their cattle through a central marketing agency, Mr. Chairman. -(I nterjection)- but, Mr. Chairman, the member shakes his head. History has a sort of a knack of repeating itself, Mr. Chairman. He is from the Cons ervative stripe in this Legislature. I presum e he doesn't want to recall whe f' his col leagues, who were in a Conservative Govern ment in Man itoba, brought in a Hog Commission, Mr. Chairman.

Prod ucers who marketed their hogs and decided to go through market and through a central marketing agenc y had to market them through the Hog Commission, Mr. Chairman. Tha t was brought in. By whom? By whom, Mr. Chair man? It wasn't a social ist, left-w ing, radical govern ment; it was a right-wing Cons ervative Governme nt that wanted to do some thing about the inequ ities that produ cers faced in the marketpla ce, Mr. Chair man, but the program was volu ntary; this program is vol untary.

Prod uc ers ha ve now an oppor tun ity of a lifetime to sit down and work out the details of the program lik e the y've never had, Mr. Chairman. Th ere are 24 pro du cers involved from all aspects of cattle prod uction in the Prov ince of Ma nitoba, from all regions who are involved in the consult ation and the dev elopme nt of this program, unlik e any thing that ha s ha ppened in this province, Mr. Chairman.

This group is sitting down, talkin g with indi vidual prod ucers in their ho mes as a group, becaus e there are 25 people work ing on it; there is not one individual or two individuals or th ree individuals. These people are from the grassroots of Man itoba, Mr. Chairman. They come from all facets of the ind ustry: from the cow/calf, some fin ished; some have small feedlots, even members of the MCPA. In fact, the MCPA's record -(I nterjection)- well, Mr. Chairman, he says, I hop e so. Th ey recommen ded two people to sit on the Committee, Mr. Chairman. Th ere are three peo ple on tha t Committee.

I have to tell you, Mr . Chairman, that I met with the executive members. I believe there are appro ximately 15 execu tive members of the MCPA - I may be out in my numb ers - and they told me personally th at they are very pleased tha t we have embarked on this consu lta tion program and have their input in wor king on this program. Ah, now the Honour able Member for Pe mbina says, it's - the problem with you, you don' t listen, Mr. Chairman. The honour able member has his hungup preconceived ideas of what he wants to see or not to see in a program, Mr. Chairman. Wha t he wanted, Mr.

Chairman, is to put the govern ment in a corner initially so that the govern ment could make its pay out initially, because that was the thrust of their argu ments, and then forget about the program. Th at's the thrust of the Opposition' s argument. That decision and that consu ltation was made by the Committee and I have to tell you, they were spl it, Mr . Chairman, because they were spli t in their dec ision, Mr. Chair man, as to how that money should be allocated.

We have said you utilize those funds in developing the program as best to assist produc ers in being able to meet the program that you put together. So, the honour able members reall y don' t like - you kn ow, they're not used to sitting do wn with produc ers - I may not lik e all that the produ cers ha ve to bring forward, all the recommendations but, Mr. Chairman, at least we have sat down. We will work toward wha t we have said we wo ul d.

We wou ld immediately sit down and work with produ cers to bring about a pro gram that, hop eful ly, the produ cers of Man itoba will want to participate in and will see some benefit in, Mr . Cha irman. It will be volunt ary and we will see wha t the prod ucers come up with.

I don't want to prej udge at this point in time wha t the prod uc ers recommend, so th at the Honour able Member for Pembina can stand up in this House and say, here you'v e already devised a program: you'v e al ready set the program in motion and that's all; you 've clo sed your mind, so you may as well forget about -(I nterjection)- no, Mr. Chairman. I told you that I annou nced the princi ples of the program. If you don' t lik e the princi ples, that's fine, Mr . Chairman. Ah, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is back here in the Ass embly and I'm pleased that he's here.

He of all people, in 19 77, said to the cattle produc ers, vote do wn the marketing plan that was being offered; that was being sh oved down produ cers' th roats when they were given a vote, Mr . Chairman. It was he who was on the hustings at the time and said that, "Look, it will be our government tha t will sit down with produc ers and bring about a workable plan." Four years of Tory Govern ment, fou r years of neg lect, good agricul tural Tory pol icy, this is the Tory pol icy, Mr. Chairman, absol utely do nothing. -(Int erjec tion)- I won't even deal with that; they' ll come up with more. Mr.

Chairman, they don't like the consu ltation that is going on with respect to this program and it is, I guess, driving them up a wa ll. It's driving them up a wal l that the produc ers of Manitoba have the opportu nity of a lifetime to be involved in developing a pro gram of long- term stability in their indus try. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Member for Tur tle Mountain. MR. B. RANSO M: Mr .

Chairman, I believe the princi ples that the Min ister referred to that were un derp in ning his program were the compu lsory marketing aspect and the fact that produc ers had to retain the owner ship of livestock right through from calves to slaug hter and that it was a 6-year plan. Can the Min is ter confirm then that these princi ples, and perhap s others, were never open to discussion in terms of the recommendations that the Advis ory Committee might make? MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Min ister. 3428 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, all the princi ples are open to discussion.

Ther e are ways of acc omplishing the same princi ples by deal ing with it in othe r ways. When the honour able member talks about not being open, all the items are being discussed by the pro du cer group in terms of how to achie ve and con tinue to ach ieve those princi ples th at were annou nc ed. It may very well be that it may not be necessary. Th ere may be other ways of ha ndlin g the 6-year aspect, as was propo sed to us by the MCPA. Ther e may be other

Mon day, 21 June, 19 82 ways of dealing with that. That, of cou rse, is being discussed by the prod ucers. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chair man, is the Minis ter pre pared to accept a recommendation from the Advisor y Committee that wo uld deal with such a thing as the central marketing? That if the Committee re com mended that it be volu ntary; that the produ cers have the option of using the central desk selling, tha t he wo uld entertain a recommendation to that effect? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I won't prejudge at this point in time what the Committee will do or will not do or what my reaction will be, because then the honou rable member can rightly stand up in this Cham ber. If the honour able members says that he does not accept the principl e of equ ity in the market place as between produ cers as being a principle that one wo uld want to achie ve, then I accept his position. But I believe, and I'll let the honour able member speak for hi mself, if he does n't accept that principle - (I nterjec tion)- pardon me? Yes, I believe that he can speak.

He probably doe sn' t accept that producers have not had equ ity in the marketpla ce with respect to the animals that they've marketed over the years. He maybe do esn't believe that has happ ened; that has occu rred; tha t ther e have been great equ ities in the marketplace. If he doesn't believe that, let him stand up and say so. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, my simple question to the Mini ster is th is; is the compu lsor y central mar keting aspect of the program a basic immutable part of the Minis ter's program or is he open to modifica tions on the basis of recomme ndations from producers? HON. B.

URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, all the principle s are being disc ussed by the produc er group. Whatever recommendations the y come up with, we will decide as to whether or not the government can live with tho se recommendations. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman. perhap s there is lit tle point in pursuing this fu rther. We seem to have received about four or five different answ ers to the same qu estion over the past few weeks, going from it, first of all, being immutable to being un der discussion and sub ject to reco mmendations.

No w the Min ister seems to be tellin g us, "W ell, maybe it's open to dis cussi on." I expect that what he is accomplishing is, that through dela y and contin ued pressu re he will eventually get the recommend ations that he wants. A couple of other questions to the Min ister then, Mr. Chairman. Will the ul timate date of implementation of this program then depend up on how long it takes for the Min ister to get the sort of recom mendations that he seeks? HON. B. URU SKI: Mr. Chairman, the producer group is meeting regul arly.

All the groups are meeting on a regula r basis and I've asked them to come up with their reco mmendations as qu ickly as possible. It was my hop e that all their discussions and the various points that the y raised at some of the first meetings, that they wo uld like to have some further input fro m the department, some fur ther information that they could analy ze and some of the requests the y ha ve made, that by about the beginning of July they wo ul d be in a position to make recommendations. At this point in time, I believe that the bulk of the work has been done.

There is further information that the department ha s to provide them with respect to alterna te programming to assist producers in deal ing with aspects of hol din g their ani mals for longer peri ods of time - financin g - tho se kin ds of questions. Ther e's more wo rk to be done ther e as we ll as aspects on marketing. Tho se discussions are und er way at the present time. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Ch airman, will the Regional Adv isory Committees be going back and holding pub lic meetings with the produc ers to talk about their final reco mmend ations to the Min ister or to talk about the ul timate program that the Min ister is prepared to recommend to his colle agues? HON . B. URUSKI: Mr . Chairman, it is my hope that the Regional Committees will be deal ing in a public way, with aspects of their recommendations and deci sions that they have made.

As to the timing of that, that is yet being discus sed with the producer groups as to when they - the y are now having discussions on some of the aspects from people they have con tacted in their own way. Some are holding local small meetings; some are meeting in ho mes dealing with aspects that they are now discus sing before they make their reco mmendations. It is my hope that when the final package is put together , they will go out and discuss it pub licly. MR. B.

RANSOM: Exactly, what do es the Min ister mean by "in a public way?" Secondly, do the produc ers now ha ve, or have they ha d, an equal oppor tun ity to have input to the Regional Committees or are the Committees simply going out and speaking to those people which they select for contact? 3429 HON. B. UR USKI: Mr. Chairman, I am not about to sit down and follow what each Committee is doing.

Th ey have had our desi res in terms of the way they wish to conduc t their affairs in terms of getting public input into some of their ideas, some of the ideas that they've put forward; some Committees have held public meet ings; some Committees have held what cou ld be cal led as "kitchen meetings." So ther e have been var ious approaches hand led by the Committees. It is my hop e that, when the plan is put together, there will be meetings to deal with the aspects of th e plan. Ho w they will be handl ed, tha t will be up to the Committee. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chai rman, I know tha t ther e is some reluctance among some of the members of the Committees to meet publi cly and perhaps some encour agement from the Min ister to have real public inpu t might be valuabl e. Has the Advis ory Committee requested that the Min ister increase the percentage contri bution from the govern ment? HON. B. UR USKI: That's some of the discussions that ha ve been going on.

21 June, 19 82 MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, has the Min ister advised the Committee tha t the 2 percent is all that he can get from his caucus ? HON . B. URU SKI: Mr. Cha irman, at this point in time, as I have indicated to the honour able member before, I will not start discussing all aspects of the program un til I see the recommen dations and I ha ve fur ther discussions with the produc ers, and I say that to the honour able member. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr . Chai rman, then is the Min ister confi rming that the question of contri bution by the govern ment is not yet clo sed? HON. B. UR USKI: Mr.

Chairman, all items are pres ently un der discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further comments. THEREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a further sum not exceed ing $1 7,500,000 for Agricult ure Income Insur ance Fund for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 83. QUES TION put, MOTION carried. RES . NO . 2 - LAW COURTS MR. CHAIRMAN: We are con tinuing with Reso lution No. 2, Law Cour ts, for the Attorney -General, $85,000.00. The Honour able Attorney-G eneral. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, ju st a word of expl anation, the $85,000, Mr.

Chairman, which appears in Item Law Cou rts under the Attorney-General, is matched a little later down you'll notice by $85,000 un der Co rrections and Probation Services. The !wo sums combined are the amount estimated to cover the first part-year's cost of the Fine Option Program which was in fact enacted by the previous govern ment and it will be proclaimed and proceeded with in this year. Actually, the sum may be somewha t less than tha t, but that was the estimate at the time the program was first designed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman. a qu estion to the Attorney -General. Some few weeks ago he and /or his department announc ed a grant of some $29,000 to the Man itoba Ass ociation of Righ ts and Liberties to which, I und erstand, the Attorney -Gen eral ha d made, in his terms, an eloquent speech some several weeks before. Has it been the practice of previous Govern ments of Manitoba to make grants to this associat ion? HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Chair perso n, I turn to you for general gu idan ce.

I have no hesitation in answ ering the question, but it's my un dersta nding that when consi dering Supp lementary Estimates, we are con sidering the items that are listed . I have no other item her e than the $85,000.00. I want to kn ow whether or not it will be open for any member op posite to ques tion me, as the spokesperson for my department, on any one of the items containe d in my Main Estimates? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur ther questions or comments? HON. S. LY ON: No, I jus t reiterate the question.

The practice of the House, to those who aren't familiar with it, including the Hous e Leader, is that on Su pplemen tary Sup ply it's wide open. You can ask any question. I asked a question about the Man itoba Assoc iation of Rights and Liberties; I'm waiting for an answer. HON. R. PENNER: My advice is that it's not the prac tice of the House that when we come in Ways and Means to the Main Sup ply, then that is a "cover the waterfront" type of oppo rtun ity for members of the Opposition who may have forgotten to raise certain questions or somethin g has arisen since to ask que s tions.

But, on Supplemen tary Supply, one is expected to deal item by item with th ose issue s wh ich are con tained within Supp lementary Su pply . I think we should have a ruling on that, not as I say because I ha ve any hesitation in ans wering the question when it's asked. When Main Supply comes into Ways and Means, I will be pleased to ans wer the question, but I think we shoul d have a general ruling her e so that we kno w where we're going with the rest of the items. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I think the gener al ruling would be that, in Committee of Sup ply, the comment s should be directed to the Item that we're consi dering. The only exce ption to that, to my under standing at least, is when we're discussing the Min ister's Sal ary. Seeing as none of the se items fall into that category, I would ask that the questions be directed to the Item that we're conside ring. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, there are at least 10 0 different pl aces wh ere I can ask the question.

If the Attorney-General, in the cou rse of Sup plementary Sup ply, doesn't cho ose to an swer, is avoiding the answer to the question at this place, I can assur e him I can ask it in a dozen different places. I can tell you, Sir, from my experie nc e in the House on Supp lementary Sup ply, the usual practice of the House has be en, notwiths tanding the bad advice from the Me mber for Spri ngfield whic h is usually bad because he never did un derstand the Hous e, has been to permit questions on the full gamut becaus e th ey're going to be asked at the end of Suppl y in any event.

My honour able friend can sl ither, wiggle or wha t ever he wants, but he 'll ans wer the question sooner or later. I'll guarantee that. 3430 MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no fur ther commen ts. THER EFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a fur ther sum not exceed ing $85,000 for Attorney-G eneral , Law Cour ts, for the fis cal year ending the 31s t day of Ma rch, 19 83. The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: I have a question that relates indi rectly to Law Cour ts. Ther e is a group in Man itoba kn own as the Ma nitoba Association of Rig hts and Liberties. Th e Attorney-General saw fit to convi nce his col leagues a few weeks ago that it should receive a grant of some $29,000 out of the taxpayers' money of Man itoba. I want to ask, because this matter relates to

Mond ay, 21 June, 19 82 ��--��- Law Cour ts and to the admin istration of ju stice in Man itoba, if there has been a precedent for that kin d of grant heretofore? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Again I turn to you, Mr. Chairman. You ha ve ruled on a poin t of order that I have raised, a point of explana tion of procedur e that I have raised. The Leader of the Opposition is too clever by half .

If he thinks that we're a bunch of dummie s, he can sl ide thi ngs thr ough the back door that he could n't get through the front door, I think he has been proven mistaken before and he should be proven mistaken again. I ha ve told him and I say again, that I have no hes ita tion in answ ering that question at the proper time and in the proper place. I, for on e, will not be bulli ed by him and this Hous e can not be bull ied by him. When he says you will obey orders, he ha s the right lang uage but the wrong place. It is for the Sp eaker or the Dep uty Speaker, as the case may be, to rule.

I, for one, will abide by that ruling. If the ruling is th at I should ans wer tha t question, I'll gladly ans wer it. If it is oth er wise, I will wait and I gave the ind ication I will an swer that question in Main Su pply when it's appropriate. HON. S. L VON: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of get ting the work of the Comm ittee done, will the Min ister answer the question, please? MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Reso lu tion pass? HON. S. L VON: No, Mr . Chairman. I asked the ques tion and I expect it to be answered. We're not yet in his kind of foru m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? HON. S.

L VON: Th ere's no question to be put, Mr. Chai rman. I asked a question. The traditional practice of the House has been for general infor mation to be availa ble on Sup plementary Supply . If we are now to ha ve a new soc ialist era whe re only the information that they cho ose to give will be given, then ·1et the world know. This is the govern ment that goes about the world and in Man itoba and says it believes in Freed om of Informa tion and accountabil ity to all. I'm ask ing a very simple question, Mr . Chairman, that can be answered here very quickly by the Attorney General.

If he ch ooses not to do so, he' ll pay the consequen ces. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Attorney -Ge neral on the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: I regret th at the Leader of the Opposition should feel it necessary to threaten in this Hous e. If he thinks th at he can th reaten me, you' ve pick ed the wrong target, Sir. You have made a rulin g with respect to the relevancy of questions pertaining to thin gs on the Supp lementary Su pply list and I will obey your ruling.

With respect to Freedom of Inf ormation, I have said and I will - the Leader of the Opposition can' t un der stand but the other members do - I will ans wer that question and I will answer it the first time it's asked in Main Supply when Main Supp ly comes into Ways and Means, the first time it's asked, gla dly. Th ere will be no holdin g back on that item. Indeed, that item was - as it should have been - a matter of public record, but I will not be bull ied by ihese kin d of threats. Th ere is a proced ure to be fol lowed. Ther e are Ru les of the Hous e. Ther e's a tradi tion in this House.

The Leader of the Opposition makes it up for hi mself as it su its hi mself, but he can not bully this House. Tha t ha s to be established or this House can no longer be run as a House. CHA I RMAN 'S RU LING MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

For the information of the Hous e. it clearly states in our Ru les on page 31 , 64(2) that "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House," which inclu des Committee of Su pply, "m ust be directly relevant to the item or clause under discussions." The Honour able Attorney-General has ind icated his willi ngness to answer the question un der the approp riate item when it comes up for discussion in Ways and Means. I would ask that we could proceed and conti nue with the busine ss before the Committee. HON. S. LYON: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have made my ruling. QUES TION put; MOTION carried. 3431 MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Mem ber for Niakwa. MR. A. KOV NATS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think the advice that was given to the Attorney General is erroneous. Inasmuch as I have sat in that Chair un der a previous ad ministration and far-r anging discussion was always allowed on this particula r item. Ther e ha s never been any discussion as to whe ther it was in order or out of order.

As a matter of fact the previous Min ister, un der Income Insu rance Fund, made some remarks about a ho g program that took place that has nothing to do with this program her e at all and it was al lowed to be disc ussed qu ite freely. I say to the Honour able - (I nterjec tion)- is there any discussion? Wait your bloody turn. You'll get a cha nce. An yway, I' m ju st telling you wha t was done before, was perfectly acceptable before, and I can' t see any reason why it isn't acceptable now and far-r anging discussio n and debate should be al lowed. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Res olution before us is that ther e be gran ted to Her Majesty a fur ther sum not exceed ing $85,000 for Attorney -General, Law Cour ts, Pro vincial Jud ges' Cour t, Item No. 2, Other Expendi tures, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 19 83-pass. HON. S. L VON: Ayes and Nays. MR. CHAIR MA N: Ayes and Nays. All those in favour signi fy so by saying aye. All those op posed, by nay. In

my opin ion. the ayes ha ve it and the motion is carried. RE S. NO. 3 - REHA BILITATIVE SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN: Continuing with Res ol ution No. 3, Rehabil itative Services. The Honour able Member for Fort Gar ry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Honour able Minister of Community Services and the Min ister of Financ e some questions about this partic ular item. The appropriation for Work Activity Projects in Main Sup ply, which is Appr opriation 34. (d)( 4), pro jects and asks for, Mr. Chairman, a bud getary figure of $3, 18 8,500 for Work Activity Projects for 19 82-83.

The comparable figur e for 19 81- 82, Sir, was $2,574,000.00. In other words, the request that is containe d in Main Su pply is a request for an incr ease of 23 percent in the Bu dget for Work Activity Projects in 82-83, over 81 -82. I ha ve no qua rrel with that requested increase of 23 percent. In fact, when we discussed and examined the Min ister's Estimates during the month of March, Mr. Chairman, you will recall and I'm sur e the Min ister will recall and the record will sho w, that neither I nor my colle agues objected to that increase.

It's a consid erable increase; 23 percent, but in view of the impor tance of Work Activity Projects and in view of the situation with respect to employment in the Prov ince of Man itoba and the difficultie s faced by unemp loyed emplo yable s, not onl y in Manit oba but everywhere in the world, I was qu ite willing and my colle agues were quite willing to appr ove that budge tary figur e for '82- 83 and we have done so. The Minis ter's Estimates are passed and that item passed and he encou ntered no un usual difficult y in getting it passed.

No w tonigh t, Sir, we face a request from the Minis ter for a Suppl ementary spending sum of al most $1 million - $91 0,400 - over and above that which he is requesting in Main Su pply. Th at figure, Sir, of Sup pleme ntary Sup ply that he's reques ting would boost the increase in the Bu dget for this government pro gram to 60 percent.

In other words, from a Main Sup ply debate in which the Opposition accepted and offered its approval of a one-year budge tary increase of 23 percent in this program - and tha t's not an insig nificant increase in any program , I think all members of the House would agree - we're now being asked tonight, Sir, to approve an increase in that program' s one -year budget of 60 perce nt. I wou ld begin my exa mination of the su bject, Mr. Chairman, by asking the Min ister for an explanation of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Min ister. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the member hi mself partly touc hed upon the reasons for requesting an additional amount and I do say, Mr . Chairman, tha t I welcome the members' supp ort dur ing our Estimates for that su bstantial increase and I agree with him that is a sub stantial increase. The fact is, the member touch ed up on the increasi ng level of unem ployment.

Th ose who seem to have the less training, the people who come from disad vantaged backgrounds, wha tever the y may be. are usually the first people out of work when ther e is a downturn in the economic cycle; they are usually the last people to get a job when the busi ness cycle swi ngs up ward. So we are recognizing here, Mr . Chairman, as I guess we recognized later on in the Estimates wh ere there's, I believe, some funding for an emplo yment creation program. I believe that's the last item of the Estimates.

It is part and parcel of the same th rust to hope fully put a few more people to work that may not be able to get employed otherwise. I would also remind the honour able member that there was a su bstantial cutback in the funding of the Work Activity Projects in Ma nitoba in the year 19 78- 79. In fact, the figu res went down drastically. Total costs in '78-79 were roug hly- I'll ju st round these off to the nearest 10 0,000 - $3.2 million. They were cut back su bstantially to - I stand corrected, $2.9 million. then they were cut back st.Jbstantially to $1. 8 million, almost a cut in half.

In '80- 81 , the increase was up to 1. 9 but that didn't keep pace with inflation. Th ere was a much better increase in '81 -82. What I' m sugg esting, Mr . Chai rman, I don't have the numb ers with me, but if we put the se in constan t doll ars, I'm not sur e even if we add the 900,000 to the increase we sug gested in the earl ier Estimates that we're back to wh ere we were in '78-79 in terms of constant doll ars.

In other words, we are recognizin g two things: on e, that the level of activity of the projects back in '78-79 was consid era bly high er than it was in '79-80, '80- 81 , '81 -82 and although we have added money in the regula r Esti mates of '82-83, that still wou ld not bring it back to the '78-79 level in real dol lars, so we are recognizing that. The other thing, as I said, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a great deal of un emplo yment. Un fortuna tely, there are some groups in our society who are hur t more by a downturn in a busi ness cycle than others. 3432 MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr .

Chairman, the Minis ter makes reference to the cu tbacks in terms of the overall budgets for Work Activity Projects during the late 19 70s, but the fact of the matter is that reduc tions in Work Activity program bud gets in the late 19 70s were directly related to two very practical consi derations. One of them was the fact that a numb er of Work Activity Projects in the spect rum at that time had been adj ud ged to be inefficient, redund ant and un neces sary and therefore, they were eliminated.

A second one is that there was an intensiv e examination of the Work Activity Project con cept from the point of view of whether they were meeting the terms of reference and the objectives that were contai ned in the origina l con cept for developing them or whether , in fact, they were becoming she ltered workshops; whether. in fact, they were becoming rotating-door operations for per sons who were not prepar ed to go out and seek employ ment after being trained to adjus t to the employment environ ment and whe ther, in fact, the y were being operated in many respects, as I say, as she ltered workshops.

Work Activity Projects are not supp osed to be shel tered workshops. The y were not conc eived as shel tered workshops; they were not designe d as shelt ered workshops; they are not intended as shelt ered work shop s. She ltered workshops are in place un der the Rehabil itation sec tion and Communi ty Me ntal Retar dation

section of the department's Estimates and the Minis ter is full y aware of that. Those are specific facili-

21 June, 19 82 ties that are designed to meet a need encount ered and experien ced by mentally handic apped people. Work Activity Projects are designed to take people who are socially handi capped, not mentally ha ndi capped and not ph ysically hand icapped, but socially hand icapped. I recogn ize that there are numb ers of socially handic apped perso ns in our society; we all do.

To take those people and to train them in employ ment environ ment skil ls, to train them in the atmos pher e and the envir onme nt of work and a work ing day and wor king for a living and meeting time clo cks and meeting responsibil ities and meeting orders and earn ing a living. Given that training over a 16 week or 20 week or 26 week period, the y are then gradua ted and moved out on their own into the work force, into the employmen t stream, to seek gainful emplo yment. In fact, Sir, the record has been very good.

Overall, it's my un dersta ndin g that across the spec trum of Work Activity Projects, some 30 percent of tho se who have been processed through our WAP Program in the past 10 years have ach ieved steady and gainful emplo yment. In the case of Westbran, in Brandon, wh ere a total of 1, 485 cl ients have gone through the program since its inception in 19 73-74, fully 600 are estimated to be no w full y emplo yed in regula r jo bs in the regul ar workp lace. That's wha t the Work Activity Projects are all about and I kn ow that the Min ister un derstands that.

In the mid- 1 970s, there was a tendency to use them as she ltered workshops and to use them as revolving door sanctua ries for perso ns who were not apparently motivated to take advantage of the trainin g th ey received and then go out into the work com mun ity and seek employment; who were incli ned rather to seek con tinuing and ongoing sanctu ary and protec tion in the Work Activity Projects. As a conseq uenc e, the pre vious govern ment and the department had a very intens ive look at the whole program.

Th ere was consi derable eval uation done and a numb er of spe cific, individual, geograp hic Work Activity Projects were elimi nated from the sp ectrum. They were adjud ged inefficien t, redund ant, and unsu ccessful and also adj ud ged in some cases to have reached a point wh ere they were being explo ited for the wrong reasons. As a conse quenc e, they were ph ased·out of operation. But a numb er of Work Activity Projects, approxi mately five or six in numb er, remained in place and have contin ued to this day to remain in place. Ther efore, the argu ment about bud getary cutbacks is not a reasonable one.

The budgetary cu tbacks were attached to th at evaluation that I have talked about, to that rationali zation of the whole program. No w, we are looking at five or six Work Activity Projects, as we were in 19 77, '78, '79, and the Minister is asking for a 60-percent increase in his budg et this year. I have yet to be persuaded that it's a ju stifiable request. Fur ther to that, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister makes reference to the fact that, in diff icul t economic times such as these, un employed emplo yable s are liable to constitut e that element of socie ty which suf fers the most.

But the fact of the matter is, that the figur es in terms of in take into Work Activity Projects in the last two or th ree years do not bear that argu ment out. They ind icate rather that, to a su bstantial degree, the Work Activity Projects Program of the department over the past 8 to 1 O years ha s been suc cessful in reducing the numb ers of unemp loyed employab les in our province, particula rly in the area of Brandon and Westbran, particularly with respect to the Westbran Project.

That, in fact, there are still un employed employab les in socie ty but as a percentage of soc iety, it is su bstan tially less than it was a few years ago. Whether this is because some of them have left the province and moved elsewh ere, I cannot say. But I susp ect that, in large part, it's because a great many of them have been reached by the program as demon strated by the figur es in Westbran and have been removed from the un employed emplo yable category and trained and equipp ed to go into the work force and get jo bs and have su cceeded in doing so.

So, if we're wor kin g on a smaller base of potential clien tele, once again, the argu ment for such a hu ge increase in the budget is unj ustified. Fur ther to that, Mr. Chai rman, the position tha t the Minis ter takes seems to be at varianc e with the posi tion he has taken in discussions on this su bject during the past three or four weeks during question period when I've asked him about the sum mary disp lacement of Mr. Doug Wark as Ma nager of the West bran Project and his replacement, in

an act of wha t was cle ar pol iti cal patrona ge, by Mr . Mick Bur ke. The Min ister, in respo nding to some of those questions, ha s attemp ted to make the case that the volu mes of clientele being dealt with by the Work Activity Projects and particu larly by Westbran ha ve been sub stantial ly down in numb er in recent years. If that's the case, what leads him to believe that those volu mes are going to be sub stantially up in numb er this year ju stifyin g an increase of $1.5 million in total, an increase of $1. 5 million in his bu dget?

It wou ld seem to me there is some inconsis tency in his latest statements about need ing that kind of money to deal with a potential vol ume of cl ientele when, in his respons es to my questions, he has argue d that the clie ntele is down from previous years. 3433 HON. L. EVANS: The member touches on a nu mber of important points and I welcome the oppo rtun ity to discuss this.

I would, firstly, agree with him that these are not meant to be she ltered workshop s but, at the same time, it's my view that-a nd by looking at some of the numb ers - there seems to be too much em phasis being put on life skills devel opment. I think this is one reason why they have become very very expensi ve. I looked at a figur e in one project and the average cost per participant, if you divide the total cost by the numb er of participants, comes to so mething in the order of $1 6,000- plus, whic h is a lot of money consid ering the fact that some of those par ticipants are not there all year round.

So, I sh are the member's con cern about the amount of costs that are involved in these projects, but I think if we put more empha sis on work experi enc e and somewha t less on life skills development, and bring in some other innovations, I think th at we can perhaps get greater efficiency than I was speaking of the other day; a greater productivity, if you will, although I'm somewha t hesitant in using that term. Ther e is no que stion that we have to increase the participant enrol ment and while the figur es sho w, and the member refers to them as being on the decline somewhe re.

I'd lik e to point out to him that many parts

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 of the province do not have any Work Activity Pro jects. Th ere are no Work Activity Projects in the north, sh ort of the one tha t's now been developed in the Pas. There's one th at's being developed in the Pas cur rently, but apart from that there are none of these projects anyw here in No rthern Man itoba. So the members should note that, that it's poss ible that we should look at those regions of the provinc e where there's indeed very high unem plo yment ratios and they certainly are in some of the com mun ities in Northern Man itoba.

The other point I would make and perhaps the member doesn't realize, or maybe he's forgotten, but the one project, we have one project in the Cit y of Winnip eg which has been referred to as WHI P, the Winnip eg Housing Initiatives Program, and it's very interesting that the Winnip eg project is only barely larger than the Brandon project. It's ju st very margi nally larger than the Brandon project whic h bring me to the conclusion, Mr.

Chairman, the largest city in Man itoba that ha s nearly 60 percent of the popu lation has but one project and the project is about the same size as the one in the Westbran area, says to me that there is a great demand, a great need in the Winnip eg area.

part icu larly the core area where ther e's a great deal, there are thou sands of persons that have migrated into the inn er core from No rthern Man itoba and rural Manitob a. We all recogn ize that and we are taking initiatives and I think both parties are cog nizant of the social problems involved in this kind of migration and there's cul tural disadvantages among other kinds of social disadvan tages. So, in my view, ther e is a long way we ha ve to go when you compa re wha t's been going on in Winnip eg with any of the othe r projects.

On a proportio nate basis Winnip eg should be about 20 times the size of the one in the Westbran area, and yet it's really, as I said, about the same size. So. Mr. Chairman, the $910,000 that we speak of, the member should realize th at those mon ies won' t necessarily be allocated proportiona tely to all the pro jects.

I can't give him a definitive ans wer as to what percentage goes where because we are in the process of an anal ysis of the projects but I wou ld suggest to him, and I think he would make the same decision if he looked at the figu res now, if he look ed at the problems now. that a great deal of that money should go into the City of Winnip eg. As I said, I think perhap s ther e's a case to be made for some other initiatives, in some other parts of the province where there are no projects. There are no projects in the eastern part of the province, for exam ple, Mr . Speaker.

We don't ha ve anything in Beau se jour or Lac du Bonne t. The one s that we have, the one in the Interlake is very very small, and mind you it's fairly new. So upon a loo k-see at wha t's going on, there is room, it seems to me, for some of these pro jects to be put in other parts of the province and certainly th ere's room for a great deal of expansion in the City of Winnip eg. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's all well and good but the Min ister keeps referring to $910,000; it's actually $1.5 million.

I kn ow the item we're discus sing is $910,000, but the increase in this line of the Estimates in total is now $1.5 million, if this $910,000 is approved. Tha t's an enormous amount to be applying 3434 on top of a bud getary figur e of $2.5 million. The $600,000 increase being requested in the Main Esti mates would seem to me, I sugge st, Mr. Chairman, to be a fairly useful sum of money to be applied in the manner in which the Min ister descri bes is necessary.

To go beyond tha t to $1.5 million is asking this Com mittee, or at least askin g this side of this Committee at this point to do somethin g that I regret to say we are not yet prepared to do. Certainl y we're not convi nced or persuaded that it is efficien t, prudent and positive application of hard-earned taxpayers' money. Mr . Chairman, the Min ister has referred to the Employment Creation expen diture and the request for $'10 million in this Supplem entary Sup ply measur e for that initiative.

I have no qua rrel with that in con cept, although we will want to kn ow wha t that Employment Creation Prog ram is all about, wha t it cons ists of, and how that $10 million is going to be appl ied. But it seems to me, Sir, that if we're looking ju st a few items down in this Suppl ementary Supply request at $10 million for Em ployment Creation, that the Min ister is asking the taxpayers of Man itoba, in a $353 million deficit year, for a very very great deal when he's asking for an additional $1 million on the Work Activity Projects sid e, over and above the $600,000 increase we've already given him.

Why, when his govern ment is asking $10 mill ion for Employment Creation, whic h after all is the most important eco nomic initiative that cou ld be taken by this or any government in this countr y today, does he find it necessary to ask the taxpayers to lay out an additional $1 million in the Work Activity Project field, when that field is going to get a $600,000 increase anyway? I have not ha d it ju stified to me that this additional request of $1 million for Work Activity Pro jects is acceptable in the ligh t of the request that'll be coming a few items from no w for $10 million in Empl oyment Creation.

Is it not sufficient to ask the taxpayers of this province for $10 million for Emplo y ment Creation without stretching it to $11 million? The Work Activity Projects have already been granted an impressive increase in Main Su pply and I can not un dersta nd why in the circu mstances of the day, eco nomically speaking, we're asking not $10 mill ion for Employment Creation. but in essence, $11 million additional spending for Emplo yment Creation. HON. L. EVANS: As I explai ned, Mr .

Chairman - I don't know whether the honour able member heard me or not - but in my view, there are parts of the province wh ere we don't have any Work Activity Pro ject Programs whatsoever. I mentioned Eastman - there's noth ing wha tsoever in the eastern part of the province. Al so, there are parts of the Interlak e yet to be served; there are parts of No rthern Man itoba - and this is nothing new, I suppo se - but the amou nts of un employment in some towns and centres in Nor th ern Man itoba is high er than you find anywher e in the south.

Th ere's no question that they are very, very high levels of unemplo yment in particular locales. But I go back again to the fact tha t the Winnip eg project obtained $1.2 million in 1978-79, that's about four years ago - $1 .2 million; in '79-80 it was cut back sharply to ju st over 700,000 ; in '80-81 it did n't even get an infla tionary increase, it went up to 786,000; in '81- 82 it went up to 921,000; it went up perhaps a wee bit

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 more than inflation. But the fact is, in '81 -82, it was still below the level four years previous, $1.2 million and in the meantime we were experie ncing, I wou ld gue ss, inflation running around 10 percent a year, so that the Winni peg Project should be clo ser to $2 million or over $2 million now, ju st to be kept at the '78-79 level. But, Mr .

Chairman, the main point is th at the member will only observe. that of the total expendi tures last year in the year '81 -82 on Work Activity Projects, the City of Winnip eg expen diture was well less than a th ird, wh ereas the City of Winni peg ha s about 60 percent of the population. It's ju st inc redible that the major city in Man itoba has one project.

It wou ld seem to me that either we should have a con siderab le expansion of the ex isting project un der the existing board, or else ther e should be more than one , perhaps two or thr ee or four in the City of Winni peg and I'm thinking of the core area in particula r. The re's a long way to go both in terms of loss of fund s through infla tion, as I said, plu s the fact that there is no qu estion that the level of programming in the City of Winnip eg is simply well un der par.

The level of programming is certainly now here near wha t it should be if you compare it with the other projects in the smaller towns and cities of the province. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister says there are areas in the province, ru ral areas, areas in Eastern Ma nitoba, areas in No rthern Ma nitoba, which have no Work Activity Pr ojects and wher e employme nt-generat ing oppor tunities are necessary and I don' t disput e that general perspective, that gen eral statement. But it's very difficul t to deal with this request for $91 0,000 additional for Work Activity Pro jects without knowing, Mr .

Chairman, what is entailed in the $10 million request for Empl oyment Creation Programs, because the obvious question one wo uld ask is, why can't the Min ister and his col leagues use some of tha t $10 million request for Emplo yment Creation to develop these op portun ities and initia tives that he says are needed in Eastern and Nor ther n Man itoba. HON. L. EVANS: I gu ess when we get into the $10 million item. we 'll get into some of the details there that the member asks about; I can' t give him the details of the breakdown of the $10 million.

But I would remind the honour able member that it's to the advantage of the Province of Manitoba to provide some emplo yment training and therefore eve ntual emplo yment oppor tun ity through these programs as much as poss ible. inasmuch as they are cost-shared with Ottawa; inasmuch as we get back 50 cents on every dollar spent - and the member is nod ding his head in agreement. So wha t we're doing here, I sup pose ideally, we should put as much money as we cou ld und er this particular item because it is ind eed cost-s har ed; this is not the case with the $10 million.

So I ju st want to ass ure the member that there are plenty of people out ther e who can be usefu lly put into these programs but as I said, we want to put more empha sis on work experi enc e for those peo ple and less on so- cal led life skills devel opment, so that we' ll bring down the cost per participant. I think that's an efficient way to go and I certainly look for sup port from the member in that respect.

I think tha t if we look carefully - and I gu ess perhap s I'm repeating myself - at parts of the province and indeed the core area of Winni peg, ther e's a lot of work that needs to be done to provide opportun ities and work experien ces and other employment development and training for the hundr eds and thousands of people that have come into the inn er core of Winni peg over the past several years. MR. L. SHERMAN: They may be 50-cent doll ars, Mr. Chairman, but we're still paying the 50 cents.

We still have to come up with the 50 cent piece in each case and I leave it with the Min ister and with his colle agues that I think a sub stantial case can be made for employ ing part of that $10 million that is being requested for Emplo yment Creation Program to develop employ ment oppor tun ities, even if it incl ud es emplo yment training, in those un derserviced areas to which the Min ister has referred and that kind of an initiative could offset the necessity of this requested additional expenditur e in the Work Activity Projects area. 3435 Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the Min ister where, in general, the requested $910,0 00 is going to be spent and I wo uld like to kno w how much of it is going to be spent on expan ding and devel oping the bureaucracy in creating jobs for additional personnel; whether they be political patronage jobs; whe ther they be friends of the Min ister; whe ther they be of anyone from any walk of life.

To wha t extent is that $910, 000 going to be spent to expand the bureaucracy and to wha t extent is it going to be spent to do what Work Activity Projects are intended to do and, that is, take the so cially disad vantaged man or woman off the street and train him or her how to work and turn them into the work place in 16, 20 or 26 weeks with a reasonable guar antee that he or she will get a job? HON. L.

EVANS: I welcome the mem ber's enqu iry because I can advise that I've told him that I've told the department categorically that I want to see funding go in such a way that ultimately it's the participants that get the major advantage. You kn ow, if he would have looke d back when he was Mini ster - or perhaps I guess it was Mr . Mina ker who was Min ister in the last couple of years - but if you look back at the last cou ple years at some of the projects, you'll find that the salar ies of the staff were in the $20,000 range on average and last year the participants were averag ing barely over $3,0 00.00.

No w in some cases they get Social Allo w anc e Su pplement; it depends on the category they'r e in and so on, it gets sort of complic ated. But in my view, if you take the one project, Westbran, I believe the average participant obtained $3,200 and that per son was onl y involv ed part of the year. You could take that person and subsidi ze him 10 0 percent at some minimum wage job, let's say at the new minimum wage level, whic h gives you roughly a little more tha : $8,000 per annum and you could have put several times the numb er of people to work; the participants wou ld have had more money.

I don't kn ow how much life skill s training they would have had, but ther e's no qu estion in my mind that we have to adj us t the pro gramming in order to bring down the overhead costs; we have to adjust the programming to ensur e that there is no unne cessary, unw arranted, un wanted expansion in the bureau cracy.

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 I shar e the member's con cern and I have expressed that in no un certain terms to my department, that these projects must be run for the benefit of the trai nees or the participants, not simply as a means of, you kn ow, add ing more staff and paying out more and more salaries. So I can assur e the member that will be the th rust. I noticed that - I guess he was the Minis ter involved at that time - there were some sub stantial staff cut backs, but mind you those were related to the overall budget cuts.

For instance at Westman, in the period of the cut from 19 78-79 to 19 79- 1 980, the staff level was cut from 19 staff to 13 staff; there was a cut of six and that was related to the overall budget cu tback. But I migh t add, Mr. Chairman, the one reason that it was easy to cut back, I would submi t, was because they were all on a contr act and I think it's fitting that the staff should stay on contracts; that is my view.

Ther e is press ure now from the MGE A to make persons in the projects members of the Civil Service; I would resist that becaus e I really think that we've got to take a very very ha rd look as we go along as to whether we want to conti nue them, as we will for this coming year, maybe in a mod ified form to get more efficienc y. But if after the se anal yses, that I spoke of earlier, are conduc ted and we take an other run at it, putting more emphasis on work experienc e and less on life skills development so that we can get more thr ough-put of the trainees and a lower cost per participant for the taxpayers.

If we can't do that, then maybe we' ll have to make some very drastic cha nges, you kn ow, in a year from now; maybe either a very drastic change in terms of, we ll, perhap s changing the whole thr ust of the pro gram. I want to conti nu e it as I'm sur e the honour able members opposite want to con tinu e to provide oppor tun ities for the disadvantaged to help them get into the work force, to help them get off welfare and so on, but there is a limit to how much money we can put into this type of programs.

I say when we're paying $16 ,000 per participant as we are in some of the projects, that is far too much -( Interjec tion) - very little. But the $1 6,000 per participant is ju st too high a figure, that was the average for one project last year. So I shar e the member's con cern and I want to ass ure him as much as I can that these funds are for the participants and we are hop efu l th at we will get a high er through-put and therefore the cost per partici pant, hope fully, will be reduced and that there will be more funding, more payment of fees or whatever the express ion is, allo wan ces.

I gue ss, to the participants themselv es. MR. L. SHERMA N: Mr. Chai rman, th ose so-ca lled staff cutbacks that the Min ister refers to were not staff cutbacks at all. Those were con tract positions that reached a point of conclusion and fu lfill ment of the cont ract and that was the end of that particu lar per son's association with this particular program. It was done, as I say, because the whole spectrum of pro jects was loo ked at and evalua ted from the point of view of their effectiveness and their efficie ncy and the degree to which, as I say, they had become she ltered workshops and sanc tuaries. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister is aware that there are six Work Activity Projects in the province at the pres ent time, actually five with one new one to come at The Pas. Th ere's one in Westbran in Brandon; there's one in Park lands; there's one combi ned for Eas tman in Interlake; there's one for the Central Region; there's one in Winnip eg; ther e's one coming in the Pas. So for six Work Activity Projects he's asking for $1. 5 million, which works out to approx imately $250,000 per pro ject if my arithmetic is correct.

No w to begin with, we kno w that it's been his intention up 'till very recently at any rate, to spend $30,000 of tha t on dupl icating the Mana ger's and Emplo yment Services Co-ord inator's jobs, in other words spl itting that dual func tion and creating another bureaucr atic position, the sal ary for which wou ld be approxi mately $30,000 .00. Is he say ing that the other $220,000 approx imate in each case is going to be spent on the nu ts and bolts of job trainin g and that none of it is going to be spent on an expand ed bureaucracy? HON. L. EVANS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, if we can get more participants through these projects, which is wha t we'd like to have, it is possible that you will have to add staff in some of the projects; there's no getting away from that. It will depend on the kind of work assignme nts, the various projects that are und ertaken as to how many for emen are required, how many peop le with skil led trades are requi red for sup ervision and so on, so it will vary. It is our hop e that we will have a greater level of activity in terms of participants, in terms of training, so the cost per trainee will come down.

Hopefu lly, the participants' al lowan ces can go up but it's poss ible that we may need more staff if we have a consid erable addition to the numb er of participants. The member talked about when he was Min ister that they did n't fire anybody wh ose contract was coming to an end, and so on. It is true, the six contr acts were not renewed but this was as a result of a direct gov ern ment cutback in the programs, not only Westbran, they cut right across the board, but the one in West bran, as I said, was cut from 19 staff to 13 .

I might add they cut back on the participant levels as wel l, which therefore ultimately en ded up at a higher cost per participant. I note that at that time, the executiv e of the West bran Project was very conc erned about the budget cu ts, but thankful that the project was not comp letely cancelle d in its entirety; that goes back to Ma rch, 19 79. But I repeat, if you put more people through it, there is a possibility you may have to have some more staff but that we have to play by ear. 3436 MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, in pursuin g this objective of creating an additional adminis trative position in each of the Work Activity Projects, can the Min ister advis e the Committee of wha t process and proced ure is in pl ace to find and locate those addi tional administrative person nel with respect to all six Work Activity Projects, poss ibly with the exception of Winn ipeg wh ere there are different parameters and respon sibilities in place?

Is he proceed ing in an open, orderly, fair, competitive fashion looking for Project Mana gers in those sites which require Project Mana g ers - and no t all of them do by any means - and Employment Services Co-ordi nators in tho se sites that require Employment Services Co-ordi nators, or is he making these cho ices and decisions by himself, or with his Deput y Min ister within the confi nes of his

21 June, 19 82 own office? HON. l. EVANS: Mr . Chairman, I have no w ha d appr oved by Cabinet a set of general pol icy guideline s wh ich is in keeping with my intention of providing a high er level of activity in all these projects, so that we can get more participants, more trainees. What I plan to do, ho pefu lly, after the Sess ion is to meet with the staff in each project throughout the province to the best of my ability and we will be reviewing this.

The other thing I find is that some of the projects do not have active boards ; in fact, the one in Winnip eg I believe, never has a board ever appoi nted officially by the govern ment. To the best of my information the board is acting on a sort of month -to-month, year-to year basis. I don't believe ther e was ever any formali zation of the appoin tment of the Winnip eg Board and some of the other boards were supp osed to be reviewed each year and reappointed, or whatever, and I find that this didn't happen.

In some cases I would say the government really neglected the projects, neglected the boards and I' m propos ing to sit down with the boards as we ll, in these projects around the provinc e and to discuss in detail how we may go about ach ieving what we want to ach ieve and that is to make these projects more mean ingful and more effective than they've been today. I intend to give this a higher priority; it's somethin g that I think is very important and, ho pefu lly, with the co operation of local people and all the staff, we will do this. MR. L.

SHERM AN: Why is the Min ister even pur suin g this cou rse of action. Mr. Ch airman? Has he ever talked to his Employment Service Co-ord inators in his Work Activity Projects?

My information firsthand, from mouth to mouth, from personn el involved in the programs and in the depar tment, is th at it is not necessary to split that position and divide the two jobs and my own experienc e as Min ister indicated as much to me, that most Project Mana gers spend two days a week mana ging the project and that's all that is nec es sary and the other th ree days a week they spend as Emplo yment Services Co-ordi nators and that is su ffi cient fo r that job; that is the feeling of the personn el in the division; that is the feeling of the person nel in these jobs.

The y will tell the Mini ster if he asks them - and I doubt that he ever has - that they do their Employment Services work in three days and their Project Man agement in two. Why is the Minis ter creating new jobs? Why is the Min ister looking for ways to spend additional money in a $353 million deficit year and why is he asking us for an additional $91 0,000 to financ e that kin d of frivolous approach to what have been very efficient projects? HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, the member brings up qu estions that I've al ready ans wered but the - (I nterjection)- wel l, I have.

Some of the mem bers now talking fro m their seats ha ven't been her e throughout the entire discussion this evening. But the fact is, let me ans wer the Member for Fort Ga rry by answeri ng him with a rhetorical question. Why is it that we have a ful l-time Ma nager in Winni peg? MR. l. SHERMAN: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister is the Min ister after all but I'm very pleased to answer that question.

The reason why we have a ful l-time Project Ma nager in Winnip eg sepa rate fro m the Empl oyment Services Co-ord inator is because in the first place, you'r e looking at a vol ume of popu lation and potential clie ntele that is enormously greater than that which exists in the other Work Activity Projects areas; in the second place, because we ha ve a specific program in Winnip eg for trainin g Moth ers' Al lowance recipients to be equipped to go into the wo rkplace and that is a specific and an exclu sive project and pro gram; in the third place, because the decision was made some consid erable time ago that the Winnip eg lo cale would be served by adminis trative officers in two specific categories of work, a Work Activity Pro ject Ma na ger and an Emp loyment Services Co-ord inator;

whereas the other one s wou ld be served by one administrative officer serving in a dual function. HON. L. EVANS : As the member thi nks no w, Mr. Chairman, he' ll realize that if you have a project of any siz e you need a fu ll-time Manag er and the one in Winnip eg is barely, jus t fractionall y, marginally, barely larger than the one in Brandon, no matter which kind of statistic that you look at and yet it has a full -time Mana ger. I might add, too, tha t the one in Br andon really had an executiv e assistant to help the so- calle d part-time Man ager. So, Mr. Chairman, it's what you lik e to ach ieve.

If you want to achie ve more activity, if you want to achie ve more me aningful programs, then it's fitting that you should have fu ll-time Mana gers who are only con cerned with managing these projects as you have in Winnip eg, and I think certainl y the one in Brandon is about the same size. But I say again, it's not our intention to add su bstantially to staff; the intention is to put more participants through tho se programs. MR. L. SHERMA N: Mr .

Chairman, as I pointed out to the Min ister earlier in this Ses sion, the Min ister's own departmental audit reviewed the positions of Work Activity Projects Mana gers and Emplo yment Services Co-ord inators and concl uded that it should remain as a dual position but there should be some elevation in salary to compen sate for the dual role. It has always been clear that the Winnip eg situation was excl usive and different. The Min ister asked me, why is it different in Winnip eg?

I'm tellin g him why; because that determination was made some years ago because of the larger caseloads and now, because the Min ister himself and the Min ister of Labou r and Man power is work ing on a jo b-train ing program geared specifical ly to Mothers' Al lowance recipients, and ther e are a lot more Moth ers' Al low anc e recipients in Winnip eg than there are in other Work Activity Pro jects sites.

The Minis ter's own department con duc ted an audit within the past two months eval uating and reviewing those positions and confi rmed the duali ty of the role, the dual na ture of the role and for tha t reason, there was to be a sli ght elevation in category of the admin is trative officer concerned from a Category 4 to a Cate gory 5, I believe, which wo uld call for a $2,0 00 or $3,0 00 increase in salar y. No one would ha ve any argu ment with that; I certainly ha ve no argu ment with 3437

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 that. But the Min ister ha s flown in the face of that recommenda tion, gone out and deci ded to create another level of bureaucracy, on 50-cent dolla rs admittedly, but the other 50 cents is paid by Ottawa. I'm not so sur e that the Federal Government wo uld be entirely happy about throwi ng in a 50-ce nt piece for every one of those dolla rs necessary to sup port that ministerial whim. I repeat, Mr.

Chair man, that the Opposition in this Committee and I'm sur e the taxpayers of Ma nitoba wo ul d lik e to kn ow wha t the Minis ter's rationale is for proceed ing in this direction and wo uld lik e to have an ironclad guar antee from the Min ister that every sin gle dollar that we vote on this requested appropriation - and I'm not sur e that we're going to vote for one of those dol lars yet - is earmarke d for nuts and bolts job creation and not for creating another secretarial posi tion, another cle rk's position and certainl y not another administrator's position.

If you need that, you 've got it in the $600,000 increase you asked for in Main Su pply and received two months ago; you don't need another $91 0,000 to pay for that, so we wo uld like to kn ow where that $91 0,000 is going, Mr. Chair man. HON. L. EVAN: Mr. Chairman, I think we have dis cus sed this previously and I have indicated to the member tha t we should put emph asis on whe re there is the greatest need, and the greatest need in my opinion is right her e in the City of Winnip eg. The City of Winnip eg has a project that is barely larger than the one in Brandon.

I have told him that five times over and yet, the City of Winnip eg ha s nearly 600,000 souls living in it. It is a focal point for migration of people from all over this pr ovince and there is an increasing amount of un employment, an increas ing numb er of disadvantaged people. If he wants to ignore the disad vantaged people in the City of Winnip eg let him get up and say so; let him get up and say he doesn't really care about the increasing problem tha t we have in the core area of the city; let him say he do esn' t care about the disadvantaged people in Eastman or other parts of No rthern Man itoba.

That's what he's tell ing me. I'm telling him that there aren't any projects in these various areas or that they should be larger, but the members of the Opposition don't seem to want to recog nize that ther e is a need for that and, as I said, there is a long long way to go to meet the need that is out there. On the other hand I said, Mr. Chairman, tha t we are doing some additional anal yses and we want to provide new gu idelines so that we'll have a greater throughput of the participants. At the present time, it's jus t not satisfactory. We have to ha ve more work experienc e and less life skills trainin g.

I think it's as simpl e as that, to get a greater numb er of people through at a lower cost. MR. L. SHER MAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't accept the Minis ter's figu res and on the basis of figu res that he's provided the House al ready this Sess ion, I see no reason why I should accept them.

The Min ister ha s had a great deal to say about managerial efficiency, the qu al ity and effectiveness of management of these Work Activity Projects and particularly the one at Brandon, Westbran, particula rly the managerial quali fications of the Manager there who sum marily dum ped, dism issed, dis placed from his job, embarrassed and humil iated by being replaced by a political friend brought in for reasons of pol itical payoff. I don' t accept the Min ister's figures. The figures he's given me earlier in this Sess ion with respect to West bran are not correct and therefore, Mr.

Chairman, he asks a good deal of this Committee to accept his figur es with respect to the WHIP Project in Winnip eg. Th e figur es for Westbran clearly indicate that when the Min ister talks about a reduction or declin e in pro duc tivity, that in fact has not been an issue either for him, for his departmental personnel, for his Emplo y ment Services Division Director or for the ad ministra tion of the Westbran Project.

He now points to this mythical spectre of produc tiv ity decl ine as a jus tification apparently for the kinds of chang es he's trying to make in the overall Work Activ ity Project sph ere and for the additional funds whic h he is requesting, but in fact, Sir, that produ ctivity argu ment does not hold water and was not of concern to the Min ister to the degree that he discu ssed it with any of his officials un til very very recently. If he's discu ssed it with his officials recently, it's because he's has to create some kind of rational ization now for his request.

Bu t, in fact, the prod uctivity at Westbran has not been in sign ificant decline. Th ere have been peaks and valleys, there have been variations from year to year based on employment situations, based on the popu lation of un employed employables, based on the welfare roles. But there has not been sign ificant declin e and, in fact, when the Min istertries to su ggest that the cost of putting tho se cl ients through West bran or any other Work Activity Projects in this prov ince has risen astronomically in the past few years, as he's intende d to su ggest, he comp letely overlooks the fact, Mr.

Chair man. th at most of them have been adhering very clo sely to bud gets which not have expande d sign ificantly over the past eight years and have been maintained in the face of runa way inflation. 3438 Th erefore, to take the mathematics as he takes them and try to say that the cost of putting a client through West bran or any other project has gone from $4,000 to $8,000 or to $1 2,000, wh atever figur e he wants to use, ignores co mpletely, Sir, the fact that in that same time frame that he's talkin g about, the inflation rate in the province ha s doubled.

So there is no supp ort for the Minis ter's argu ment that he must make these Draco nian moves because of prod uctivity decline and inef ficient management. In fact the records out at Westbran clearly sho w, Sir, that project was expertly managed, efficiently man aged and very prudently man aged from the time of its inception in 19 73-74 right through to and including the last fiscal year 19 81- 82. The figur es are clearly her e in nine years of operation, Mr . Chairman, the Westbran Project operating budget has averaged $750,000 annu ally; that's been the average.

It's been as low, except for the initial year 19 73-7 4, which was a start-up year when the budget was $223,000.00. In the other eight years it has ranged between $649,000 and $927,000; it's averaged $750,000.00. The total approved budget over that period of time has been $6.5 millio n, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Doug Wark, the Ma nager of that project came in un der budget by a cumu lative total of $1.1 million. On a $6.5 million approved budget over eight years, he came in under budget by a

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 cumu lative total of $1.1 million. Can the Min ister na me me one other division of government, one other administrator in govern ment that can point to that kind of a record? In the period 19 73-74 to 19 81 -82, in those nine years, Mr . Chairman, the manager whom he dis placed, Mr. Doug Wark, was under budget every year except 19 76-77. In 19 76-77 he was over budget by $1 42.00.

In the othe r eight years out of that nine-year span, he was un der budget every year and on one occasion he was un der budget by $200,000; on another occa sion he was under budget by $1 00,000; and in this last year 19 81 -82 he was un der budget by $88,000, Mr. Chairman. I want the Min ister to tell this Committee wha t his rationale is for sayin g that Westbran was poorly man aged and I want him to tell this Committee why he needs an additional $9 10 ,000 when Mr . Wark brought the project in last year $88,000 un der budget. HON. L. EVANS: No w, Mr.

Chairman, if the member really looks at the figu res carefu lly - becaus e I don' t think the mem bers oppos ite really want to hear this any way - but he'll see tha t ther e's been a sha rp red uc tion in the participants, those that have gone through the project, a very sh arp reduction, while the costs have begun to increase and therefore, the cost per participant has tended to increase. Fur the rmore, Mr. Chairman, as the member keeps on ask ing, wha t are we going to do with the $900,000.0 0?

I think we've gone around the mulb erry bush four, five, six or seven times on that one and I don't see why we should keep on repeating ou rselves. MR. CHAIRMAN: If ther e are no fur ther comme nts, the Honour able Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister makes referenc e to the fact that the cost of the cl ients has increased and at one point in time dur ing exchan ges in the House, the Min ister said to me and I quo te from Hans ard of Tuesday, May 25th, the 2:00 p.m. sitting, page 2676, "In the case of West bran we have decli ned to an average participant level of only 56." Well, in the first place that's incorrect, Mr. Chairman, and !· intend to elabor ate on tha t point. But the Minister went on to say: "As I ind icated, Mr . Speaker, that gives you an average cost of $1 2,000.0 0.

Tha t's not good enough and so mebody ha s to speak up for the taxpayers of this province to look after their interests. Ther efore it is our decision to separ ate the management in each and every case." Tha t was the Min ister, Mr. Chairman. Mr . Chairman, in the first full year of the operation of Westbran, which was 19 74-75, the Consumer Price Index for Winnip eg and for Manitoba measured against the base year of 10 0 in 19 71 -72, was 12 3.4; in 19 81 -82 it was 235.5.

In other words, in that eight-year span the Consumer Price Ind ex virtually dou bled in Man itoba; it went from 12 3.4 on the base of 10 0 set two years earlier, to 235.5. The budget for the Westbran Work Activity Project never sk yrocketed; it was between those parameters that I've descri bed earlier, always an average of $750,000 a year, so how can the Min ister sit there and say tha t the cost of cl ients went to $12 ,000.00?

He does n't take into acco un t the fact that there was eight years of galloping inflation th ere and yet the Ma nager of the Westbran Project was still putting tha t project through and on the rails consis tent with a bud get that had existed virtually si nce its outset and coming in und er budget every year, ranging up to as much as $200,000 one year, as I have said.

How can the Mini s :er argue that the cost of the cl ientele had gone to double or triple or wha tever it was he wanted to argue - the $1 2,0 00 or wha tever - when he takes no accoun t wha tsoever of the dimini she d value of th ose doll ars in that eight-year span? The cost of the clien ts going through in '81 -82 was probably not one dime more, Sir, than the cost of the cl ients going through in '74-75 because the dollar was onl y worth half as much at the end of that eight-year span. Mr .

Chairman, I wou ld ask for the Min ister's com ments on that, as I'm reminded by my col league, the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek, that when the Min ister was Minis ter of Economic De velopment he always used constant doll ars but I'm not using constant dollar s. I'm recognizing the fact here that they were devalued by virtually 50 percent over that eight-year span. So it is simp ly not fair, not accu rate and not ho nest to say to this House or this Committee that the price of the clie nts dou bled or tripled. MR. CHAI RMAN: Order please.

The hour being 10 :00 o'clock, I'm leaving the Chair to return at the call of the House. Call in the Speaker please. The House adjo urns at 10 :00, gentlemen. The Honour able Min ister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: I believe that the custom in Commit tee, there is no adjournment other than a motion to adjourn. MR. CHAIRMAN: I did not kn ow there was any formal agreement that the Committee was continu ing. I assume d that the Hous e adjourns at 10 :00 o'clock.

The House is sup posed to be ad jou rned at 10 :00 o'clock. 3439 With the un derstan ding that the House is still in Committee, the Honour able Member for Turtle Moun tain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: I think the reason, Mr. Chairman, tha t there is some misu nder standin g is tha t we ha ve basically not been fol lowing the rules previously and been allowing two motions to be on the floor at the same time, to go into Committee and to adjourn. No w, when we're faced with the correct Ru les of the House, we find that ther e's a misu nder standing.

I think you'll find, Sir, tha t when the Committee deci des that it wis hes to rise, the Committee will rise, and the Speaker will be cal led in, and the House will be adjo urned. HON. S. USKIW: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, if it's the wish of the Committee to rise, a motion can be made, but if it is not the wish, we can proceed with the Estimates. MR. B. RANSOM: Tha t's wha t I said, when the Com mittee decides to rise, it'll rise. MR. CHA I RMAN: Is it the will of the Committee to con tinue? (Agr eed)

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 The Honour able Min ister. HON. L. EVANS: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, inflation or no inflation, the cost per participant expan ded much greater than inflation. All you have to do is a bit of arithmetic and you divide the average participant level per year and divide it into the expen ditures and you 'll find that in '7 4-75, the average participant expen diture or the cost per participant was $1 ,427; in the last year, '81 -82, it averaged over $1 6,000.00. So that, in a period of seven years, is far more than inflation, way more than inflation to go from $1 ,400 to over $1 6,000.00.

That's far in excess of any amount of inflation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Th e Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. L. SHER MAN: Mr. Chairman, that is absol ute nons ense. The Min ister talks about the average partic ipant level. Never mind the average participant level, take the totals; the totals are here, they'r e in your records and they're in my records. If you want them from your records, I' ll get them for you. The totals are right here, Mr. Chairman.

The Min ister has said about four times in this Hous e, and I challe nged him on it in qu estion period a few days ago that last year, 19 80-81, we had an average participant level of 56 in Westbran. I tried to tell him then and I tell him again no w and chal lenge him to disput e it, that the figur e of 56 that he gives is the figure for the first four months of 19 82. The figu res for these projects are based on calendar years, not on fiscal years, alth ough the budgets are based on fiscal years.

The figu res are based on calendar years and the figur e of 56, which he refers to as this last year, is the figure of Jan ua ry, Febru ary, March and April in 19 82. That's one -third of the year. All thi ngs being equal, if you multiply that by three to give you the full year, you could project that we're work ing on a participant involvement in Westbran of 16 8 for 19 82 - th ree times 56. It may not turn out to be 16 8, but on the basis of the first four months, that is a reasonable project ion. The 56 was for the fir st four months of the year.

It was not the figur e for a full year at all in any way, sh ape or form. No w, admittedly, the figur e !or 19 81 was low com pared to some previous years that that figur e sho ws at 85. But in general over the past five or six years in that project, the figur e of cl ient participation has ranged around the 14 0-1 60 mark. In 19 77, it was 244; in 19 78, it was 16 2; in 19 79, it was 12 2; in 19 80, it was back up to 14 5; in 19 81 , as I say, it was 85; this year on the basis of 56 in the first fou r months, the proje ction is for 16 8, so there has not been that much deviation or that much difference.

If you take those numb ers and divide them into the budget for that year, which in all cases has averaged $750,000 and if you al low for t he fact that the CPI , as I say, ha s risen in the eight-year period almost by double, it is simply not accur ate, not ho nest and not acceptable for the Minister to argue that the cost per cl ient has dou bled or tripled. The cost per cl ient is very little chan ged.

The cost per client is relatively un cha nged when you consid er all the economic factors that have to be consid ered; that is, the total cons tant budg et, the inflation rate and the average numb er over the past five or six years who have par ticipated. The Min ister takes the figure 56, tries to pass it off as a full year's figure and divides it into an imaginary budget of some kind and comes up with his colo ssal cost figur e. That is disho nest mathematics, dish one st arithmetic, Mr. Chairman.

I did not accept it in question period, I do not accept it now and I recommend to the Hou se and the Com mittee that it does not accept it because it is not cor rect. The Min ister is tr ying to create a defen sible posi tion for hi mself out of the indef ensible. He's fiddling around with arithmetic and the figur es are very clearly there in the records for those projects.

I ask the Minis ter how he can argue that management efficiency has been lacking and that productivit y has been un der siege and that Drac onian chan ges are needed with respect to Westbran or any of these other Work Activ ity Projects when we have a very cle ar record of nine years of excellent, efficient management by a Man ager in the person of Mr. Douglas Wark, who brought that project in un der budget in eight out of those nine years and who, in fact, was $88,000 un der budge t in this last year, 19 81- 82?

Can the Min ister tell me how he can stand up in this Hous e and he's said it repeat edly on Tuesday, May 25th, in answer to my ques tions, that we need good management at Westbran and therefore we've got to get rid of this experienc ed Mana ger and replace him with a friend of the Min ister's. I quo te, Mr. Chairman, in responding to me the Minis ter said - it's on page 2676 of Hansa rd - "And I say it's time we got Mana gers of these projects who are busi ness -oriented, and had some experienc e in meeting a payroll, and kn ew somethi ng." Later on in the same page, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister said, "Mr .

Speaker, I am telling the member th at I have a respon sibil ity to the taxpayers of Man itoba. The figures are here; the figures are here; the costs have risen astro nom ically in Westbran." On page 2677, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister said, "If you have someone who 's compe tent, who's available and looks as though he can do a good job then you utilize the perso n's services." Mr . Chairman, on the same page the Min ister said, "The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I wou ld be very remiss if I did not address this particular problem of Cadillac opera tions.

I'm sorry to use that word but un der the previous govern ment this developed into a Cadillac operation." 3440 Mr. Chairman, again and again the Min ister brought un der criticism in this House the managerial qual ities of the lo ngstanding Ma nager of that project, Mr. Wark, and tried to make the case her e in this House that it was so poorly mana ged that he was going to have to repla ce him with an un employed friend of his from a pol itical campaign.

I say to the Min ister, how can you look at that eight and nine -year record in Westbran, look at the record of that Ma nager, look at his ability to bring that project in un der Bud get, look at his ability to operate in eight years of galloping inflation on what was essentially a by and large affixed budget and try to tell this House that there was inefficient manage ment there and that he had to move him out, trample on him, trample on his dignity and his feelings, and move in some coat-tailing friend of his? HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, as I've ind icated to the members before, it's my view that the project in Brandon can be much more meaningful, can have a much higher profile, can put more participants through the project than it has. No w the member keeps on referring to the average or he talks about the total, he

Monday, 21 June, 19 82 said never mind the average, talk about the total. The total numb ers are not that mean ingful, because if you ju st simp ly add up all the peo ple who come into the project or any of these projects dur ing the year, you'll find some stayed for six months, some stayed for six weeks, some stayed for two weeks, some stayed for four weeks.

You just can't add up the numb er of peo ple that come in, you have to take at best the better figu re; actually the better figur e wou ld be to actually compile the man days or the perso n days, but we don't have that, so the most real istic figure is the average monthly level of participation. No w the figur e of 56 was for the fiscal year '81 -82. The reason it's on tha t basis is that all the other figur es that were given to me are on a fiscal basis, so we might as well compare apple s with apple s. The figur e of 56, Mr.

Chairman, is inf lated because the staff didn 't take off ther e the people who left each month. Th ey ju st took those who were in the program at the beginning of the month, th ose who came in dur ing the month, but they didn' t take those who left dur ing the month. So the figur e 56 is too high; it shoul d be 42. I che cked this with my Deput y Mini ster last week and he agreed that 42 was the average numb er in Westbran. Tha t gives you a cost per participant of over $16, 000.00. In 19 80-81 , the cost per participant was $7,782; in 19 79- 80, the cost per participant was $3,959.00. The fact is, Mr.

Chairman, the figur es sho w a sh arp decline over the years of participant levels and at the same time ther e was a big cut back when the member was the Min ister but the last few years the costs ha ve gone up. The costs ha ve gone up ; the participant levels have come down; therefore, the cost per partic ipant in the last two years has dou bled. I don' t care wha t figur es on the Consumer Price Index you want to use, the cost of living, the Consumer Price Index, has not dou bled between the years '80-81 and '81 -82. Yet the cost per participant here went from $7,782 to over $1 6,000.00.

So there's no way you can get away from that; th at is far in excess of the rate of inflation. Sur e, every eight years or so you may get a do ubling of the cost of living, but here we had more than double in a one -year period. I say ther efore, this has become a Cad illac operation. What we need is dyn amic leader ship in all the projects and we've got to try to get more participants through, more trainees through these programs, all of these programs. MR. L. SHER MAN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the Minis ter's figu res are simply not correct and, as I've said, the figures for the project are not based on the fiscal year anyway. The figur es are accumu lated on a calendar year basis. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I would lik e to ask the Min ister whether he expects that his new appoi ntee as Mana ger, Mr . Mick Bur ke, will bring the Westbran Project in un der budg et in eight out of nine years and, if so, whe ther he wou ld consid er that a good man agement jo b? UON. L. EV ANS : Mr .

Chai rman, the criteria to be us ed, as I've tried to ex plain to the member a numb er of times, is not whe ther you bring it un der budget. The criteria is the cost per participant, that's the criteria to use. How much val ue are you getting for your money? If you 're bringing it und er budget year after year, but ----··----------- the costs per participant are skyr ocke ting to the moon, that isn't efficie ncy no matter what way you cut the cake. I say, when the costs more than double in one year per parti cipant, that is not efficiency pure and simple.

Bringing it un der bud get is ju st a phony way of looking at it; it has no me anin g wha tsoever. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the other question, as we've ind icated before, the person's on a cont ract su bject to notice in two weeks. As the Min ister of Labour has ind icated, we're reviewing the position anyway. But what we want, whether we're talkin g about Westbran, or Portage la Prairie, or Dau phin, or Gimli , or Winnip eg, is a greater degree of participa tion.

We want more people in all these projects, and we want therefore to see more money go into the pockets of the participants, but at the same time the cost per participant to be sub stantially reduc ed. We hope we can do that. If we can't do that, then we have to ch ange the struc ture entirely, or maybe a year or two do wn the lin e to ph ase them out entirely. That's another alterna tive and maybe that might have to happen at some point if this is the best we can do. 3441 MR. DE PUTY CHAIRMAN, A. Anst ett: The Member for Fort Gar ry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, over the eight full years of Westbran's operation, 1, 485 cl ients have gone through the project; some 600 of those clients now are fully employed. Wou ld the Mini ster tell the Committee whe ther he consi ders that an efficient or an inefficient management operation? HON. L. EVANS: Th e factors affecting the employ ment of grad uates, if you will, of these projects depend on a numb er of thin gs. They depend on the various kind s of staff, the various kinds of techn icians you have work ing for you, carpenters, electricians, foremen and so on.

Th ey also depend upon the employment oppor tun ities in that locale . MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, wo uld the Minister confirm that an emplo yment su ccess rate of 600 out of somewha t less than 1, 500 which is 40 percent is sub stantially reass uring and su bstantially higher than the average percentage success rate that either he or his predecessor or I or, I sugge st, my predecessor ex pected to get out of the Work Activity Projects? HON. L. EVANS: Mr . Chairman, the member is in the realm of speculation and hy pothesis. MR. L. SHER MAN: Mr. Chairman, I am not in the realm of spe cula tion.

I believe that when provincial jur isdictions und ertake projects of this kind that the y view a 25- percent su ccess rate in terms of obtaining permanent emplo yment for their cl ients to be a credit able sho wing; a 30-percent rate is consi dered highly su ccess ful. With the Westbran Project, we're looking at some thing in excess of 40 percent, in fact, 600 out of 1, 485 is more than 40 percent and I ask the Min ister whether he does not consider that a reass uring verdict on the su ccess with which the Westbran Project ha s been managed, adminis tered and run by Mr. Doug Wark for nin e years.

HON. L. EVANS: Mr . Chair man, the mem ber is repeating hi mself and he's using numb ers that I haven't - and making compa risons that I don't kn ow whether I can accept as to wha t is a satisfactory su c cess ratio. I'd tell you wha t a succ essful ratio is - when 10 0 percent of those people can go out and get a job. But the fact is, it doesn't depend on the level or kind of training or work experienc e they have, ther e are other factors at work and one of them is the degree of emplo yment opportu nities at that particu lar time.

As the member kn ows and should ad mit, the levels 0f unemplo yment vary; they vary from year to year; they vary from month to month, from season to seaso n; they vary from week to week. So I wou ld say if we had a Work Activity Project in some parts of Nor thern Man itoba, the people who come out of those projects to go into the so- cal led ordi nary workforce would probably be smaller and that may not be a reflection on the kind of manage ment or the kind of staff they have; it's a reflection on the employment opportun ities.

So the member ju st can't make bland statements about suc cess ratios without taking into consi deration all of the factors that are involved in the employment of participants later. MR. L. SHER MAN: I wou ld say, Mr. Chai rman, that 600 out of 1, 485 representing the numb ers that ha ve moved su ccessfu lly into permanent employment from the Westbran Project is ha rdly a bland statement. I wo ul dn't think th at many persons conne cted with work projects or many taxpayers in Mani toba would consider it a bland statement either. Mr.

Chairman, the City of Brandon has always been very clo sely involv ed in the Westbran Project. In fact, the city's input ha s been extremely important to the su ccess of that project. The park devel opment, for exam ple, is central to the project and to the City of Brandon's involvement. I would ask the Min ister whe ther he consu lted with person nel or officials of the City of Brandon before making his sum mary change in the management of the project. HON. L. EVANS: The perso nn el in all the projects are contr act people with the depar tment, not with the city or municip ality involved.

I don't believe it has ever been the case that the City of Brandon per se has been consu lted in the hiring and firing of different staff. I don' t think the former Min ister consu lted with the City of Brandon when he laid off 6 out of 19 staff a few years ago. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I guess we can ass ume that the Minis ter did not show the City of Brandon the cou rtesy of discuss ing the situation with it, although it has been an integral and fund amental contributor to the Westbran Project since its inception and a tangible supp orter to the extent of $993,364.33 over that period of time, representing approximately one -sixth of the total budget of the Westbran Project over that period of time. Mr . Chairman, one of the most important aspects of the Work Projects is the variety of job experien ces that they offer.

It's always been deemed advisable that projects not be steered or directed in one specific line of job training or job experience. Ju st as an exa mple, the progra ms cater to a broad spec trum of unem- ployed and certainly seek to serve women as effec tively as men, and concentr ation on one specific type of job experienc e or emplo yment wo uld in many instanc es impede the opp ortu nities of one sex or another to find gainful employment.

An example would be construction trades training where there's less incli nation and orientation and perhaps even to some extent adaptability wh ere women are conc erned than tha t which is frequently exhi bited by men. There cou ld be similar examples on the other side of job experien ces that catered more to women's ambitions and women's orientation than to males. As a consequ en ce, it's been very important to main tain a broad variety of job experienc es in these pro jects and Westbran has been notable for that. The Riverside Park Devel opment is only one of the expe riences offered.

There is concern expr essed and legit imately so, because of the tampering with the project of which the Minis ter was guil ty some five years ago, when he was Minis ter of Economic Development in the Sch reyer admin istration, that und er his heavy hand the Westbran Project will move al most exclu sively into the area of low rent housing construction and the Committee wou ld lik e some comment from the Minis ter on that point and the assurance from the Minis ter that he will not seek to manipula te the project in such a way as to direct it exclusiv ely to low rental housing projects over wh ich he can exert pol itical control, but that he will permit it to continue to offer its services across a broad spectrum and a wid e variety of job experienc e.

MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Commun ity Services and Corrections. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I among all people, if I've had any criticisms of these projects over the years, it is that: (

a) they haven't given enough opportunity for women as compared to men; and (

b) the work experien ces tend to be of a very rudi mentary natur e with very little skill involved. 3442 When the project in Brandon began, a great deal of the work was simply going out with little hatc hets cutting down bush, cutting out trees. Th ere was a lot of discussion in the commun ity at the time that it wasn't good enough to pay people whatever amount, to hire people and to have people go out along the riverbank with little hatchets cutting the branche s eight hour s a day to get useful work experienc es. At any rate, Mr .

Chairman, I'm pleased that over the years the Board saw fit to put the se people into work such as housing because th ere are far more meanin g ful experien ces of a far wider range of occup ational experienc es. Fur thermor e, Mr. Chairman, if any thing, the projects tend to still be too much Pub lic Works oriented. It's far too Public Works oriented and we have to give more oppo rtunity for women in all of these projects. As I sugge sted earlier, it seems to me that it may be a very good idea to start subsidizing people to have work experience in private enterprise.

Th ere wou ld be a far wider range of experien ces av ailable, greater oppor tunities for women; so I can assure the members that I want to see a much broader area of mean ingful work experience - down with bushwha cking.

21 June, 19 82 MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Min ister has viewed with some greed and some envy for some considerable time the political potential of the Westbran Work Activity Project and he is kn own for that in Brandon. He is kn own for that in the Employment Services Division, he is kn own for that by the Opposition and he is known for th at among members of the meeting.

In the mid-1 970's, when he was Min ister of Eco nomic Devel opment, he attempted to infl uenc e the development of the Westbran Work Activity Project and to steer it entirely into the direction of low rental housin g construct ion, because it provided for him an easy captive political aud ience and that is a known fact in the Minis ter's back ground. The Min ister at that time was reprimande d by colle agues in the Go vern ment of the Day; Min isters of Health and Com muni ty Services in the Government of the Day who asked him to get his hands off the Westbran Project and stay out of it, so he backed off.

Of cou rse, during our four years of admin istration, he ha d no access to it, but no w as Minis ter of Community Services, he's got direct access to it. I raise the concerns, Mr . Chairman, of many Mani t obans associa ted with Emplo yment Services Division. The y are concerned that this Min ister will attempt to exploit and manipu late that Work Activity Project to his pol itical advant age.

I say to him that we are not voting one dollar of this $910,0 00 expansion until we have a gu arantee from him that he will not steer it exclus ively in the direction of th at kind of project; that he will pledge to preserve before this Comm ittee and before this House the very job experienc e spec trum that has been part and parcel of Westbran and should continue to be part and parcel of West bran, including Riverside Park devel opment and building construc tion, including City of Brandon Recreat ion Depar t ment projects, including Man itoba Housing and Ren ewal projects, including projects for the city at large such as the Winter Ga mes, the Br ier, Ducks Unlimi ted and service club s, including projects for the Consu mers' Assoc iation and the Centen nial Board, including internal programs such as life skil ls, job club s and driver educ ation, including park fixtu res for other Westman towns and including all kinds of·varied experien ces of that light, of similar description; that he will not attempt again in the futur e as he did in the past to steer it to the one limited na rrow exc lu sive sp here whic h gives him some sense of gratification and political satisfaction, but which da mages the objectives and the perspectives of the project itself.

HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I reall y though t a lot more of the Mem ber for For t Ga rry. I thought he cou ld do a better job than wha t I' m hearing from his mouth. Look, you never though t much of me at any time so you r views haven't chan ged really. How can they chan ge? But, Mr. Chairman, I ju st totally reject this sh eer un adult erated no nsens e - the words that we've ju st heard from the Me mber for Fort Garry - total nons ense. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Brandon Sun apparently doe sn't think so.

I wo uld remind the Hon our able Min ister that the Brandon Sun recently com pared him to Richar d Daly , Boss Daly of Chic ago, as an example of a pol itical patronage dispen ser. So the Min ister can protest all he wants to, but I am telling him that there are people who are interested in the su ccess of these projects who want that assurance from him, that he is no t going to us e it for pol itical patronage, or any of the other projects for political patronage, that he's going

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-80b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 80b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fd73bac73d44cfcdb366f6fbcd56713013056a4e

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