ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 74 - 2:00 p.m ., WED NESDAY, 25 MAY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 25 May, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMM ITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for Radisson, that the report of the comm ittee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to table the Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Manitoba Civil Service Superannuation Fund for the year ending December 31, 19 82. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODU CT ION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 50 students of Grade 11 standing from the Sisler High School. They are under the direction of Mr. Brown and Miss Thompson.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for lnkster. There are 30 students of Grade 11 standing from the Joseph Wolinsky Collegiate under the direction of Miss Connor . This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Brandon -Souris by-election MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Minister.

In view of the good news for Canada that emanated out of southwest Manitoba last evening; in view of the resounding repud iation tha t was administered to the Trudeau Liberal Government and to the Pawley New Democratic Party Government in that election; will this Government of Manitoba now begin to get the message and start to change its financial, its economic, its social and its administrative policies to accord with what the people of Manitoba want, num ber one, or failing that, will it stand aside, call an election so that a government of common sense can be restored to this province? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to change policies. This government is providing policies and programs in relationship to its responsibility and of Manitobans, in the expectation of Manitobans. The Leader of the Opposition may wish to delight himself all that he wishes and beat his breast about the results in Brandon-Sourls.

The outcome is no surpise to the Leader of the Opposition that the Liberal Party would have dropped from second position to third position in Brandon-Souris, and for the New Democratic Party to move from third position to second position in Brandon-So uris. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I should add and I trust a little bit more, that in jest, if the same trend took place throughout Canada, the Liberal Party would end up being the third party in Canada. A MEMBER: You're the third party in the country, Howard. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, a further question to the First Minister, arriving out of his response, thereby giving corroboration to my statement that his government needs to change course financially because it doesn't understand figures, does the First Minister and his party take solace from the fact that it ran second in Brandon­ Souris last night, but lost 5 percent of the popular vote in so doing? Does it take solace in that fact that it's now reduced to about 20 percent of the support in Brandon-Souris Constit uency,

whereas in the last federal election it had 25 percent? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, not at all. Insofar as the results are concerned in Brandon-Souris, they don't particularly come as a surprise to anyone that's been following the Gallup polls across Canada. Probably because the Conservative Party is leaderless these days, probably because it has no leader federally, it may very well be that the Conservative Party is enjoying some upl ift. I th ink after Ju ne 10, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party may be in some deep trouble.

The only people that are going to rescue the Conservative Party in Canada after June 10th when they elect their new leader will be the Liberal Government in Ottawa, 3067

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 that has been doing a pretty inept job of managing the affairs of Canadians. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to make any suggestion that would cause unrest amongst the First Minister and his doughty band of followers. Given his concern about the leadersh ip of the National Conservative Party, would he not agree that if the fortunes of the National Conservative Party have improved without a leader, would there not be room for that kind of consideration in his own party before it plum mets out of sight in Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, that reminds me of a quotation by Mark Twain. When Mark Twain read an obituary of his death when he remarked, "It seems to me th at reports of my death are extremely premature." I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition might want to await the results of the next federal election. I do want to undertake a serious message at this time.

New Democrats are patient and will continue to attempt their job of communicating with Manitobans and with Canadians; that the back-and-forth routine from left foot to back foot, right foot to left foot and back again; that from the Liberal Party to the Conservative Party, to one party that continues to support the high interest rate, tight money kind of policies at the federal level that we've had, resulting in its defeat - Clar k; the re-election of a Liberal Go vernment which continued those same kind of policies. Mr.

Speaker, the choice between tweedledee and tweedledum at the federal level is pretty well an irrelevant matter. I hope at some point, Mr. Speaker, Canadians - I believe that point will be arriving - will decisively ind icate tha t the y want a change from tweedledee and tweedledum, and from a left leg and a right leg, but want a real positive alternative in dealing with the problems of Canadian affairs. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a further query to the First Minister.

In view of the fact that he was reported as making a speech to the Ukrainian Professional Business Federation on Saturda y, the effect of which, Sir, was to sing the song "Ha ppy Days are Here Again," would he now confess, Sir, that the results in Brandon-Souris are one example, one augury of those happy days; and No. 2, would he now begin to understand that the policies which lead him to say happy days are here again are the very ones that he, and his party, said would not work in Canada without the Conservatives or anybody else defending them. Is he now taking the same position, Mr.

Speaker, that all socialists tend to take, that you can spend, spend, spend, spend you way out of problems, and that interest rates won't reflect that kind of profligate government because, if he does, then Manitoba is in even worse shape, I suggest to him, than it is? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, you would be thinking that we were talking about a by-election in Winnipeg, North Centre, Winni peg North, th at it's one Conservative. It seems to me that honourable members across the way, Conservative members, are grasping at some straw.

Here is Brandon-S ouris, a constituency represented by the Conservative Party of Canada for some 31 years, the former member winning percentage majorities of anywhere from 50 percent to 60 percent. Mr. Speaker, dealing with the context of the Leader of the Opposition's question, pertaining to the economic situation, as same affects Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, there are positive factors insofar as the Manitoba economic cli mate are concerned. Manitoba, comp aratively speaking to other parts of Canada, is making headway again, Mr. Speaker.

There are numerous such factors that Conservative members across the way might be interested in analyzing and digesting, and I am sure it will cause them some pleasure to know that there is some degree of improvement. But, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend, and I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is interpreting those remarks to indicate that Liberal Party policies in Ottawa have now succeeded. Mr.

Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition indeed has done, unwittingly, is acknowledge freely and openly in this Chamber that Conservative policies are Liberal policies; and Liberal policies are Conservative policies, although there are 2 million unemployed in Canada as a whole. Unemployment Rate HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, would the First Minister then mind synthesizing and reducing to a common denominator that all of us in this House, and all of the people of Manitoba can understand, but particularly the 52,000 unemployed people in Manitoba today, when he tries to buffalo the people of Manitoba and give us the bogus hope that under his government things are going to get any better at all? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to spread his cloud of doom and gloom throughout the province; I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue thinking in negative terms rather than positive terms, in respect to those hard-working Manitobans that have combined together to turn around the economic affairs of the Province of Manitoba . Mr. Spea ker, the statistics demonstrate for themselves, Manitoba has moved from the third lowest unemployment rate in the country to the second lowest unemployment rate.

Manitoba has the second best retention rate insofar as job retention in Canada of all provinces, bested only by the Province of Saskatchewan and insofar as population growth, Mr. Speaker, for the first time - well, the best record in some 10 years by way of population growth. Mr. Speaker, this is - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order p'ease, order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is, and we have indicated ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEA KER: Order please, order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, this is cold consolation insofar as the 52,000 Manitobans are concerned that 3068

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 are unemployed. We acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why there is a need for a change insofar as the sli pping back and forth of tweedledee and tweedledum insofar as the policies that have influenced Federal Governments over the last 10 years in Canada. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, because of the First Minister's fixation with the terms tweedledee and tweedledum, trying to suggest that an NOP Government in Canada would really help things, would he not agree that moving from tweedledum to tweedle-dumber really wouldn't help any of the unemployed in Canada?

A MEMBER: That's why you're trying to get rid of Joe Clark. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I didn't know the Leader of the Opposition was seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party. I thank the Leader of the Opp ositio n for making the announcement in this Cham ber. Manitoba-manufactured products - sale of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism.

I wonder if the Minister can confirm that shipments of Manitoba-manufactured products are down 6.6 percent this year and manufacturing investment predicted by Statistics Canada is to be down 39.5 percent this year. I wonder if the Minister of Economic Development can tell us what kind of happy days those are in the Province of Manitoba and when those happy days are going to be here again when there was manufacturing investment in this province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I can of course confirm those statistics and they're certainly not ones from which we take comfort. Right across the country the manufacturing industries are only operating at 60 percent of their capacity. The recession that has, not only hit Canada, but the entire world, has had a tremendous impact on people's ability to purchase manufactured goods, and it's only going to be with the return to better liquidity and increased trade in the global level that our manufacturing industry is going to be able to move up.

There's also a change in the type of manufacturing that's going to be able to survive in Canada and in the United States with the shift of a great deal of that sector of the economy to developing countries, and it's with that in mind that we've taken on the initiatives of putting in increased assistance to people to convert to the better technologies, to train people so they are ready for the new emerging industries, and to start moving on things like Venture Capital and Buy Manitoba so that, in fact, we can build the newer type of industry that is going to provide the jobs of the future. Western Power Grid MR.

F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it's refreshing to have a Minister stand up in this House and give the facts as they are. The Minister admitted that the statistics are down and they are correct; that's more than the First Minister has ever done. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism is the report tha t was released in Edmonton regarding the Western Power Grid stated, "The Western Power Grid would have significantly boosted investment and job creation in Manitoba." Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what she is doing to impress upon the rest of her caucus, the Minister of Energy, the First Minister, to do something to replace that investment that we would have had in Manitoba which would have helped create other investment. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's very tempting to think that the existence of a hydro-electric project would pr ovide the kind of job s and long-term sounder economic structure that we in this province desire. It would, Mr.

Speaker, no doubt have given a temporary impetus to jobs in the province and, in fact, when we entered into negotiations with the Western provinces, we were very willing to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement; but not, Mr. Speaker, at any price, because you have to look at the agreements that we enter into and sales development of our hydro-electricity for the long-run. It wouldn't be much of an achievement to get a short-term sale, Mr. Speaker, and to suffer long­ term disadvantage when we might find, 20 years down the road, that the very terms we had agreed to were putting us at a disadvantage. Mr.

Speaker, it's important, if we're going to build a sound economy here, that we also have a sense of our own needs and our own long-term needs. The areas in which the jobs of the future are going to occur are goin g to be increasingly in the higher technology manufacturing areas and in the emerging service-sector industries.

Along with that, improving the productivity of our basic primary sector and improving the capacity of our Crown corporations not only to function well within the province, but to export their services and their materials, I think is a general, sound approach that the Province of Manitoba is adopting at this very difficult economic time. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, my last question to the Minister is this: It's very surprising that the Minister would suggest that the Power Grid would not be long­ term jobs, when the report that was issued states emphatically that there would be 50,200 man years of work in Manitoba if the Power Grid were gone ahead with, and $1. 17 billion of investment would be in the Province of Manitoba, or income would be available to the Province of Manitoba. Is the Minister really saying to this House that expansion of our great Hydro heritage in this province is not long-term jobs which are desirable for the Province of Manitoba's benefit?

HON. M. SM ITH: Well, Mr. Spea ker, there is a tremendous impact in the job side and the general impetus to the economy, under the construction phase of a hydro-electric installation, but in the longer run 3069

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 there has to be an adequate market for that power, and there has to be some attention paid to the long­ term energy interests of Manitoba. There are short­ term gains that when projected over a longer period do not necessarily bring a fair proportion of benefit to the province. It was that kind of calculation that led us to adopt the range of options within which it made sense for Manitoba to enter into that kind of agreement.

As the members opposite keep pointing out to members on this side, when you borrow to invest in a hydro-electric development in a Capital investment, it is not all impetus to the economy, there is a cost. Mr. Speaker, to go into a Capital investment prematurely is as foolish as not to go into it when the analysis is appropr iate. Grain shutdown - West coast MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that the Federal Government has backed away from their responsibility in intervening or appointment of a commissioner lo settle the grain handlers dispute at Vancouver and Prince Rupert, has the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the some 30,000 farmers in Manitoba who depend on an efficient grain transportation and handling system that is working day by day to generate the revenues in extremely difficult times, has the Minister of Agriculture communicated to the Federal Government telling him, on behalf of the farmers, that we cannot tolerate a grain shutdown at the west coast again, Mr. Speaker? MR.

SPEA KE R: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that in light of the prices that farmers are facing on the international market of grain, we would be very concerned that there would be a shutdown in any dispute, in the handling of grain. However, Mr. Speaker, as I am advised, negotiations are continuing. The reports are that bargaining is going on and we are hopeful that the two parties will reach an agreement.

The reports that we do have is that on one side, there will be no strike as reported in the media on behalf of the union, however, that's not to say that there may be a lockout on the other. Hopefully the two parties will get together and resolve the issue, so that grain movement can continue. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact th at the Minis ter of Agricultur e ha s not communicated with the Federal Government, and in view of the fact that the Federal Government have backed out of their responsibility of intervening with a commission or an arbitrator, why, Mr.

Speaker, is this Minister standing here today trying to bafflegab the farm commu nity, when in fact he has done nothing to resolve and help encourage the Federal Government to resolve grain handling disputes? Will he now after our ur ging, Mr. Speaker , communicate to the Federal Government that the economy of Western Canada, the farm community, cannot withstand a grain shutdown and will he take action to req uest tha t the dispute be resolved immediately? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker , I could tell the honourable member that, first of all, I don't want to cause a dispute that is not there.

There is bargaining going on. I've indicated that we would be very concerned if there would be a stoppage, Mr. Speaker. I am in Ottawa tomorrow and I intend to, amongst other matters, raise this matter with the Federal Minister of Agriculture so that the message can be taken to his counterparts. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is now confirming that he has done absolutely nothing to encourage the movement of grain which is badly needed for the western prairie grain economy. Will the Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Speaker, immediately contact the farmers' co-ops, the United Grain Growers, the Pools, to see if they are satisfied with the current situation? Can he confirm, Mr. Speaker, that one of the officials of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool said it was dropped on them like a bombshell, that this ir. fact was happening and the Federal Government were not working to resolve it? Is not part of that bombshell and would he not confirm that he's part of that bombshell that has been dropped on the farmers, and is in fact discouraging them, Mr.

Speaker, from the New Democratic Party helping to resolve what has been a long traditional problem and that is, labour disputes in the grain transportation issue? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that in Canada the disputes in the grains industry have not been - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, obviously the member has all the answers. We on this side, would want to see everything possible done to prevent any disput es, which means, Mr. Speaker, in the free and open collective bargaining system that two parties sit down and work out their dis agree ments. Mr.

Sp eaker, I can go by the - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, the members don't want an answer to the question because they keep piping up. Mr. Speaker, I intend, as I've indicated, to raise personally that issue in Ottawa tomorrow when I am there. I believe that the responsibility in the national sense lies with the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. We from the Province of Manitoba will do what we can in order to deal with the situation, although it is out of our hands. We certainly will make our views known. Main Street Manitoba Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.

GOURL AY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder if the Minister can advise the House today, whether or not he has been able to get Cabinet approval for the latest appl ication from the Town of Swan River under the Main Street Manitoba Program. 3070

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to make a formal announcement tomorrow morning. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: But it's always been my policy to give facts when questions have been posed to me. I can advise the honourable member that we have approved, in principle, two major projects, one for Swan River and one for Flin Flon. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON.

A. ADAM: I will be making, as I said just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I will be making formal announcements tomorrow and issuing a press release on the definition of the two programs. I've already phoned in advance, to the Mayors just to let them know. We will also be making announcements in Swan River and Flin Flon tomorrow as well. MR. D. GOUR LAY: I thank the Minister for his answer. He indicated that he has approved, in principle, the application from the Town of Swan Riv er. What other requirements would be required from the town in order for them to proceed with their project? HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I announced, just to the first qu estion, tha t I wou ld be making a formal announcement tomorrow but, while I am on my feet, I want to congratulate the Municipalities of Swan River and Flin Flon, and the business people who have co­ operated together to come up with what I think are two very fine projects. Winterkill - Alfalfa MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Based on the many calls that his department has received and the many calls that myself and my colleagues have received on the severe winterkill of alfalfa in the Province of Manitoba, could the Minister indicate whether his department is surveying the farmers to see exactly how dramatic is the situation regarding the winterkill of alfalfa? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that the department did anticipate that there might be some winterkill and that inspections should be going on.

There is no doubt that our staff are receivin g calls and are su rveying farmers 3071 independently to see that there is ample supplies of seed available within the province, and there is, because seed prices and quantity of grass seed have been low in the last year, and to make sure that there is ample seed available for the reseeding of such fields. To indicate whether a specific survey is being undertaken; no, Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe that there is an all out survey to survey the winterkill, but certainly, from the discussion that staff have had in the field, it has varied from area to area, but that was anticipated with the rains and the wetness and the freezing of the wetness last fall and through the winter. Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Due to the fact that grass seeds that would be planted this Spring, but not obviously the development time to give any hay crop at all, and based on my information that I believe there are thousands of acres that have been ploughed down of winterkilled alfalfa, is the Minister prepared to establish an emergency program to ensure feed supplies for the beef and dairy herds of Manitoba? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that Manitoba Crop Insurance has begun setting, on a federal-provincial basis, setting into motion an insurance program to deal with hay supplies and they're proceeding on a limited basis in that way. Once the extent of the losses are known we will be in a better posit ion to deal with the qu estion.

The honourable member should be aware that, in terms of the Support Program under Manitoba Plan for Beef, there is a cost calculation dealing with feed supplies and feed supplies would be covered as part of the stability in price for beef that farmers are receiving under that program. Studded tires - removal date MR. SPEAK ER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

At the present time the regulations governing The Highway Traffic Act require that studded tires be removed from all motor vehicles by April 30th; in view of the fact that there were a number of snowstorms earlier this month, particularly in the northern part of the province; and in view of the fact that such snowstorms are normal occurrences in the early part of May, I was wondering if the Minister would consi der changing the date requirement for the removal of such studded tires? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the problem that the member poses, of course, is one that there is no simple solution to, in that people travel from north to south and south to north and, therefore, it is awkward to have a date that is suitable for all climate regions within the province. I have to assume that the date that we have is the most adequate date, and obviously must

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 be a compromise date. Perhaps the member is arguing for a northern consideration. I don't know how that would be implemented, given the fact that people move in both directions on a year-round basis. MR. S. ASHTON: Well, in view of the fact that there is a distinct difference between the climate of the northern part of the province and the southern part, particularly at this time of the year, as evidenced by the fact that it was 20 degrees in Winnipeg last week and -1 in Thompson.

I was wondering if the Minister might, perhaps, consider making such an allo wance for the northern part of the province where the use of studded tires would be greatly appreciated for at least the first two weeks of May. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is asking a question most sincerely. I do raise the problem with enforcement. How would we know whether those vehicles are travelling south of the 53rd, if you like, at any given period during the period of exemption for the North. I don't know whether that is an enforceable suggestion, Mr. Sp eaker. Release of non-violent offenders MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, my question is to the Honourable First Minister. In light of the news report that the Solicitor General Robert Kaplan recently asked the Parole Board to release more non-violent offenders to cut prison costs and reduce overcrowding, can the Minister inform the House if persons jailed for rape are being released under this policy? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a question, of course, that involves federal jurisdiction and would be more appropriately asked within the federal jurisdiction. MRS.

G. HAMMOND: Well, Mr. Speaker, since the people being released will be on Manitoba streets and would involve Manitobans, I would like to ask the Minister then if he would assure the women of Manitoba and their families that he or the Attorney-General will make representation to the Solicitor General to make sure that rapists are not released under this early release program, that rape is

an act of violence. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, certainly if there is any legitimate concern, it will be brought to the attention of the Solicitor General by the Attorney-General. Again, I emphasize to the honourable member that this is a federal matter, a matter which appropriately falls within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General of Canada, and questions really should be raised in this respect in the Federal House.

If there is a particular problem, then the Attorney-General certainly would not be hesi tant if th ere are ma tters of concern to Manitobans in bringing those matters to the attention of the Solicitor General. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Speaker, again to the First Minister. Although this may be a federal matter, this affects all women and it certainly affects the women in Manitoba. My question is, will they bring this to the attention of the Solicitor General and make sure that this policy is being followed, that rape is

an act of violence, that they will not be released in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I th ink it is quite clear that the period of questions is to get some information and you're not requested to ask information about another government. There is a means to do exactly what the honourable member wants to do, it's to bring a private member's resolution and then that could be debated in the House, but not during the question period, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. B.

RANSOM: Yes, on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health should be aware, of course, that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is in the ha nds of the province, tha t the Provincial Government expresses concern aboi.it many items that fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government such as the Crow rate question, they're prepared to hold legislative hearings. In this case, the First Minister is not prepared to take some action, some relatively simple action being requested to protect the women of Manitoba from a program which might place them in jeopardy. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately, I guess because of the noise across the way which is quite persistent, in fact, it makes it quite difficult tor us on this side to sometimes hear the questio ns from honourable members across the way. The House Leader of the Conservative Party did not hear me make my reference to the fact that I will discuss this matter with the Attorney-General, and since a concern has been raised, to invite the Attorney-General to advise me as to whether or not the matter ought to be raised with the Solicitor General of Canada. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health raised a point of order and I was speaking to the point of order. Children's Aid Society - board members MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMA N: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Services and I would ask him whether the services of his office are being extended to the Childr en's Aid Society of Winnipeg or whether there has been any request from CAS Winnipeg for the services of his office to help the society deal with and cope with the current situation relative to Native membership within its ranks on its board. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. 3072

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the honourable member and members of the House that I had a very excellent meeting with the incoming president-appoint and the outgoing president, Mr. Vopnfjord, some days ago to discuss some of the concerns that we share mutually and I can also advise him my staff has worked very, very closely and are continuing to work. very, very closely with key officers of the CAS Board of Directors, CAS Winnipeg, and we are very cognizant of some of the problems that are facing the child and family delivery service in the Province of Manitoba. MR.

L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's information but perhaps I can be a little more blunt in my question and ask him whether, in fact, the Childr en's Aid Society of Winnipeg is in the process of being destroyed by elements who are determined to descredit it, to vacate it, to leave it looking bloodied and battered in the eyes of the community and therefore reduce its legitimacy as an agency for child caring. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows, as I do, the various problems that we've had, not just the past year but for some years.

There are various problems in the delivery system that have been present not only in Winnipeg, I might say, but in other areas of the province.

It is our hope and intention and I'm hoping that within not too many days, maybe a week or so, that we will be able to bring forward a plan of co-operation with the Childr en's Aid Society, with Indian organizations and with other organizations to evolve into a system that may be acceptable and may prove to be, I think, acceptable certainly to people who are now del ivering the service and, indeed, acceptable to those people who are now critical of the existing organization. MR. L. SHERMAN: A final supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, and it has to do with the children who are in the care of the Childr en's Aid Society of Winnipeg at the present time and their status, and whether the Minister's office is intervening to ensure that they're receiving the kind of attention and compassion and the care that they deserve or whether they're just being left to twist slowly in the wind - to use a ph rase that's been used in equally ugly situations in the past, not necessarily related to the Childr en's Aid Society - but are the children being looked after or are they suffering through this trauma that the Society is going through at the present time at the hands of a number of people who are perhaps unhappy with it, while many other people may be quite happy with it?

HON. L. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would trust that there are no children who are being hurt by the process. The staff are in place, the organization is in place and, as the member knows from his past experience as Minister, if there are any particular problems or special problems, those are dealt with by the Child Welfare Directorate. We do have a very excellent Child Welfare Directorate and they are very much on top of the situation with regard to Winnipeg or, indeed, with regard to any child and family service agency in the Province of Manitoba.

Nothing has been drawn to my attention of any extraordinary fashion in the last week or two. MR. SPEA KER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMI TTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: I have some committee changes, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Member for Burrows will replace the Member for The Pas. Economic Development, the Member for Osborne, the substitute will be the Member for Burrows for one day; and the Member for Elmwood will be substituting for the Member for Thompson. MR.

SPEAKER: The Acting Government House Leader. Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Member for Riel changed a member on the committee for one day. It's my understanding that when you make a committee change, you make a membership change and that stands until it's changed back again. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain is correct. The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call No. 55?

ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING Bill NO. 55 - THE LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Ho nourable Attorney -General, Bill No. 55, the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell has 37 minutes remaining. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spoke very briefly on this bill some few days ago and expressed certain concerns and anxieties about the legislation coming in at this time, when the province is in a deficit position and certainly in no position to go out and borrow money to pass these kinds of changes to The Legislative Assembly Act, Mr.

Speaker, because after all, the burden for the costs that are involved in this bill are to be borne by the taxpayers of this province. I don't see any great haste as a member that's been here for some years in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, for these kinds of changes at this time. In fact, I have never yet in my years in the Legislature, had my constituents or organizations coming to my desk or to my home and ask me to set up an office, of all things. I seem to be able to handle it quite well; I'm here Monday to Friday and I go home on the weekends and we get along quite well, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that I raised the other day, Mr. Speaker, I said I believe that, as the Member for Virden has said, let's put this thing on the election platform for the next election and let the people decide. Let the 3073

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 people decide if we need to spend these kinds of dollars and the NOP can put it on their programs that they're for these kind of changes, and we will put it on our election programs and say we don't feel that it's timely to have this kind of change, especially when the province is in a deficit position and has to borrow the money to implement these changes. So I offer that alternative to the Attorney-General or I offer him the ch ance to come out and talk to the people in my constituency to see if they feel these changes are needed, and I don't think they are, Mr. Speaker.

I think we've got a lot more jobs we can do in this province rather than bring this kind of legislation before the people at this time. We, first of all, should maybe deal with the 52,000 people who are unemployed and spend some bucks there and put some of those people to work, rather than bringing in this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Attorney-General has really gone out and pqlled the people in this province as to what they think about this kind of legislation. Or does he understand how popular politicians are in this country today?

I suspect that the politicians across this country today, on the popularity scale, are about the lowest of the low and the reasons are many. I don't have to stand here this afternoon and espouse the reasons, but this type of legislation, coming before the people at this time, in deep recession of this province, and asking for the taxpayers to put up more money to prop us guys up and give us constituency offices so we can have flashing lights out in front of our offices and big signs to get elected, I think is called for, untimely, ·and it doesn't deserve the attention of this House. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General very quietly if he'd put this Bill No. 55 on the shelf until the deficit position of the province has improved or until at least we can pay our bills, and then the Government of the Day maybe can take a look and ask the people, maybe we do deserve these changes. But, Mr. Speaker, I can't, for the life of me, see any reason or need. Do you mean to tell me we have to crank out this kind of garbage, propaganda, at the expense of the taxpayers as a result of this legislation? Absolute garbage.

"A Clear Choice for Manitobans", policies of the New Democratic Party, where they made all these promises and pledged almost everything under the sun. Here's the Firs t Minister's pictur e and his signatu re; it's absolutely worthless and yet to charge that back through this legislation, to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. Or some of the other stuff, Mr. Speaker.

Here's one that came out the other day from the NOP propaganda machine, now where they're out collecting money and it's a strange thing, this pledge for money, "Great People in the Future." It's printed, or it's mailed out of Scarborough, Ontario. Now why would their plea for money - I thought they were all Manitobans, these members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that were sitting across and out pledging or asking for the people of this province. It's got NOP, Broadway Avenue, Winnipeg up here but it was postal stamp is Scarborou gh, Ontario.

Are we to ask the taxpayers of this province to crank out more and more of that kind of shady, uncalled-for pleas for money? Why was it printed in Scarborough or why was it mailed in Scarborough? Have we got no post offices in Winnipeg or across rural Manitoba? But there it is, Scarborou gh, Ontario. Is that fair to ask the taxpayers, the people of this province, to help a political party go out and collect money using that kind of stuff, Mr. Speaker? I suspect not. Mr.

Sp eaker, we look at other things in this bill here, the matter of trips and I don't know if anybody's made more trips back and forth from my constituency to this Legislature than myself. I don't think the Member for Swan River has, because he hasn't been here as long as I have. Has the Attorney-General had any pleas from me Mr. Speaker, that I feel I shouldn't pay a few trips from out of my own pocket? Has the Attorney-General heard any quarrels from me what an honour it is to sit in this House and be able to have to spend some of my own dollars to represent the people of Roblin­ Russell Constituency? No, Mr.

Speaker, that's not what I'm here for. It's an honour and it's a privilege and one of the greatest things in life to be elected, to come here, and sit in this place and be part and parcel of the law-making process in this province. But for us to come back and milk the public on every issue - now we have offices, signs, secretaries, the whole caboodle. Mr. Speaker, I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it and I don't think the people in Roblin-Russell Constituency would buy it.

I would ask the Attorney-General to come and accompany me and I'll cross riy constituency with him and make him acquainted with most of the people I can, and I know nearly all of them, and ask him what they think of about it. I think the members opposite know the answer they'll get. I'm certain the Member for Lac du Bonnet knows the answer they'll get. They'll say, look, McKenzie, you and the Attorney-General go back to the Legislature and look after the province. Don't come out here begging us for more money for offices and more pencils and more trips and more dollars out of our pockets.

That's what they'll say and I don't think there's a member in this House that will disagree with me, Mr. Speaker. MR. A. ANSTETT: I'll disagree with you. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, the Member for Springfield says he will disagree. That's his luxury. I will take the Member for Springfield through my constituency and take this bill with him and see what they'll tell him.

They'll tell him the same thing that they are telling me and they will tell him or the Attorney-General, go back to the Legislature and look after the unemployed people in this province; look after the economy in this province; look after the deficit of this province and get this ship back on the rails again where it used to be, rather than bringing this kind of garbage in at this particular time. So, Mr . Speaker, I don't want any retroactive legislation such as this crossing my desk when this province is in deficit position such as it is in today.

I'm violently opposed to it; I will not support it; and I think it's absolutely untimely for this government, facing all the problems they're facing today, and their lack of dollars, their lack of initiative, their lack of programs to bring this in for us to go back and say to the taxpayers, give those politicians more money; give them more signs; give them more pencils; give them more mileage for their cars; put more bucks in their jobs they're doing a good time. Mr. Speaker, we are not doing a good job in this province; this government's not doing a good job in this province. I would suggest 3074

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 to the Attorney-General that he put this legislation back on the shelf until the province can afford this, and then maybe we should take a look at it. I think it's untimely; I think it's uncalled for and I hope that the Attorney­ General, before it gets to third reading, that he will pull this bill and set it aside till another time, till the province and the people can afford it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. A. ANSTETT: Would you permit a question? MR. W. McKENZIE: Sure. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Member for Roblin-Russell. The Member for Roblin­ Russell suggested that no changes should be made with respect to member's services while there's a deficit on the provincial books. I'm wondering if he can confirm for me that the salaries of Cabinet Ministers and MLAs were dr amatically inc reased in 19 80, under th e administration of which he was a member, while there was a deficit on the province's books? MR. W. McKENZIE: That was a commission that was set up, Mr. Speaker, to examine. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member can check.

I can tell the honourable member if he wants further, the province wasn't in a deficit position in those days as it is today, where it's $579 million, Mr. Speaker. There was a committee set up to study the matter at that time. I have no quarrels with that committee; the House adopted it and I'll live by it. MR. A.

ANSTETT: Will the Member for Roblin -Russell then confirm that the report of the whole commission, to which he referred, was tabled in this House; was changed into legislation in the form of amendments to The Legislative Asse mbly Act; and that he voted for those amendments and those increases when he was a member of the previous government? MR. W. McKENZIE: The vote of the House on that occasion was unanimous, as I recall it. MR. SPEAKER: Are your ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking to this bill I must say that I'm somewhat disappointed that I have to follow the previous speaker. I found his remarks to be rambling and rather ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and I, therefore, won't be commenting on those. I will, however, attempt to comment on some of the comments made by the Member for Virden previously, and some of the general comments one, I'm sure, we'll hear from members opposite about this particular bill. First of all, to refute a number of the basic arguments as I see them which the members opposite have been putting up in regard to this bill. One of the arguments thus far, Mr.

Speaker, is that it is a bill that benefits members in terms of their own particular situation personally. Some members have described it as a greed bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not true; it is not true at all. If one looks at what the bill does, Mr. Speaker, one will find that it certainly does improve the ability of members of this House to service their constituents; there is no doubt about that. In terms of the impact on the situation of the individual member, Mr. Speaker, it will mean actually that individual member will have less take-home pay. One of the chang es, Mr.

Speaker , which requi res tha t futur e expend itures un der the constit uency al lowanc e provision be made accountable, rather than the present system where they are merely added to the member's paycheque. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that an argument could be made that members opposite are the ones who are being greedy; they don't want to lose that constituency allowance on their paycheque, Mr. Speaker. I could go further and say th at th ey're really concerned about the loss of that because they're not spending it in their constituencies, Mr.

Speaker; that they are pocketing that money and that it is, in effect, take-home pay. I could suggest that, Mr. Speaker, but I would think that would be somewhat lower than the level of debate that one would expect in this House. However, in suggesting one potential argument against what those members opposite are saying, I would hope that they would reconsider their statements about this being somehow a matter of personal gain to members of this House, because clearly that is not the case, Mr. Speaker; it is clearly not the case. It is similarly not the case, Mr.

Speaker, that this bill will result in a huge increase in cost to the province. A number of these measures, Mr. Speaker, will not necessarily result in a major increase, they may not result in any increase whatsoever. I just referred a minute ago to the constituency allowance. At the present time a $1 ,500 constituency allowance is paid to all members; it is not an accountable constituency allo wance. The change in the bill would make that an accountable $2,500 allowance. Now I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that before members suggest that there is going to be a cost increase from this change, that they look at the situation of members in this House. I would suggest that a significant number of members will not spend the entire $2,500.00. I will go further, Mr. Speaker, I will suggest that many members will not even spend the $1 ,500, which th ey are pres ently receiving, in their constituencies. Any dollar spent less than $1 ,500 by a member is going to be a saving which will balance out the additional expenditure for those members who do spend that money, Mr. Speaker.

If one looks at the basic reason for the bill I think that's only fair. If a member is pocketing that money right now, I'm not going to criticize that member because that is the way the system is set up, however, he or she is clearly not using that money for servicing his or her constituency, and that is the purpose of that allowance. By making it accountable it allows for it. It also allows for the fact that there are different levels of services, different levels of expenditures for those services in difference constituencies, Mr. Speaker, and this is a point that I will get to later.

That's one particular item. Members opposite I'm sure will say well there are other items which will definitely result in an incr ease in expenditures; the travel allowance for example. 3075

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 Are we really to accept that as being a consistent argument from those members opposite, Mr. Speaker? Are they really saying that they are concerned about the cost of this overall bill, that they are against any and all cost increases? No, Mr. Speaker, they're not saying that; they're quite happy getting up and saying, well, we think there should be more secretarial services. A number of members have, in this House, on the record said that, and others have supported that proposal, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, one of the impacts of this bill is it would do just that, it would increase the number of secretaries from three to four for the caucus of the members opposite. Is that not an expenditure? Is that not a cost increase? Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is. For members opposite to say that they're against any increase in costs and then to, on the other hand, say well, if it's the situation of secretarial allowance, it's different, that is clearly hypocritical, Mr. Speaker; it is not consistent.

For members to get up in this House, as a number have done already, and say we're against this bill because it results in increase in costs is clearly an invalid argument. I would suggest they think it through, Mr. Speaker, think through their own position on this bill. Well let's get to the facts about what this particular bill would accomplish, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of changes which would result from it; one which I feel is very important is the change in regard to the travel allo wance which would change the system that we have at the present time which allows for 26 trips a year, _during the Session of the Legislature, to 40 trips over the calendar year. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that is absolutely imperative if members of this House are to serve their constituents, and I say that as a member who has to tr avel perhaps the furthest - there are a number of my colleagues who also travel a considerable distance - but perhaps the furthers! of any members in this House. I can tell them, as a member, that I have many commitments in the city when the Legislature is out of Session. These are commitments, Mr. Speaker, which are not personal commitments. They are government commitments; attending government caucus meetings, taking care of government business on various occasions.

I'm doing what I was elected to do, Mr. Speaker. I'm representing my constituents when I do that. And is there any allowance for that under the existing legislation? Well, no, Mr. Speaker, there is no allowance for that. I can tell you how I made allo wance for it personal ly. I took the bus; 10 hours on the bus down and 10 hours on the bus back. Many times I took the overnight bus down here, I attended a meeting and I tnok the overnight bus back. Wha t was the reaction of my constituents to that? Many of them saw me on the bus; many of them who would never even go near the bus were amazed, Mr.

Speaker, at the fact that an elected representative would have to spend 10 hours on the bus there and 10 hours on the bus back. I said, Mr. Speaker, that is the way the system is set up at the present time. I don't really mind it that much, other than the fact that it's a considerable waste of time; that 20 hours on the return trip that I've spent on the bus I could ha ve spent doing some thin g els e in representing my constituents in some way, Mr. Speaker, either in Winnipeg or in Thompson. Their reaction, Mr. Speaker, was that system should be changed; it's ridiculous.

There was another reason why they said that too, Mr. Speaker, and that was because the previous member who was a member of cabinet, who had to attend a considerable number of gover nmen t meetings in Winnip eg over the same distance, didn't have that problem. That previous member cha rged it to his department. It was government business, Mr. Speaker. Whether he was attending the same kind of meeting as I was attending or attending some other kind of meetings, it was always government business; it was always charged to the government. There are members sitting in this House now who did the same thing, Mr. Speaker.

I note, for example, the Member for Swan River, the number of plane trips he took while Minister, a considerable number of which were to his constituency. I don't criticize him for that. I do no t critic ize the pr evious member for the constitue ncy of Thomp son for tha t, Mr. Speak er. However, I say that we have to look at the present system. We have to recognize that there are serious gaps, Mr. Speaker; that those gaps are a major problem for the members.

They affect that member's ability to service his or her constituency, and that we should look at a change such as this which makes it equal across the board, Mr. Speaker. It means that I have the same opportunity to attend a government meeting in Winnipeg as did the Member for Swan River when he was in government, as did his former colleague, the Member for Thompson, then the Minister of Labour when he was in government, and as do my colleagues in the Treasury Bench, Mr. Speaker, at the present time who have the same options available to them. That is one of the changes, Mr. Speaker.

The members opposite can call it greed if they want. They can say all they want about taking it back to their constituencies and saying what a bad bill this is, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm quite happy to go back to my constituency and say this bill would allow me to attend government business in Winnipeg more readily; it would allow me to spend that former 20 hours that I spent on the bus to service you in the constituency of Thompson; what do you th ink about it. I will accept their verdict, Mr. Speaker.

I will say, though, that in talking to many of them about a matter very similar to this, that they are quite pleased to see th at provision made, th at travel provi sion. They recogni ze tha t, particularly , when it come s to representatives from northern constituencies such as Thompson, that some allowance has to be made because that's really another root of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. It's very easy for the Member for Roblin­ Russell to get up and say how he's willing to come in at his own expense from Roblin-R ussell. Well, I've got news for the mem ber, Mr. Speaker. Thompson is no t Roblin -R ussel l.

Thompson is a considerable distance further away from Winnipeg than is Roblin-Russell. I've got news for the Member for Virden. It's a considerable distance further away from this House than is his constituency. I've got news for him, Mr. Speaker. It's 10 hours on the bus; that's the distance away. How many times do you have to drive 10 hours, I would ask the members opposite, and that is really the root cause of getting some equality, Mr. Speaker, not jus t between members but between 3076

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 constituencies. This change would allow me, as a representative from a northern constituency, at least some semblance of equality in terms of attendance at go ver nment meetings and representa tion of my constituents, and I think that is only fair. That is one feature, Mr. Speaker. Another feature of this bill is the change to the constituency all owance which I referred to previously. It would allow, Mr. Speaker, members on an accountable basis to expend money in service of their constituents in terms of printing, of hiring staff, constituency offices, whatever.

That flexibility is built in, Mr. Speaker, for a very deliberate reason; that being that what may be the best way of serving my constituents, a northern constituency, a one-community constituency, obviously would not necessarily be appropriate for the Member for Rupertsland or the Member for Roblin-Ru ssell or the Mem ber for Virden or any other members of this House. Each constituency is different; each constituency requires a different type of service, Mr. Speaker, and that flexibility is built in. I would also suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that there are different cost factors involved in terms of the servicing of that constituency which relates specifically to those differences, and that's another reason for having this flexibility built in; for allowing those that need to spend $2,500 and their constituency's ability to do that; and those that don't, to spend $1 ,000 or $500.00. Mr. Speaker, to those members who indicated they had a real concern about this particular measure, I would suggest that they demonstrate their concern by specifically doing that, by spending only $500 or by spending nothing.

If they are so concerned about the cost factor, they have a control over it in their own constituencies. They can spend zero if they want. I would suggest to them that they would not be making the right move; I would suggest to them that they would be better serving their constituents by using this particular allowance in various ways, but if they really want to be consistent to their arguments, which I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, but if they do want to be consistent, that is one way of doing it. As I have said previously, too, Mr.

Speaker, there are other cha nge s involved which would increase the secretarial staff to the caucuses. This is a move that has been suggested by members opposite, as I have said previously, and for them now to get up and start talking about cost factor of other allowances and then to completely ignore the one thing which they really want and which really benefits them is very hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. They are saying, we don't mind spending money on servicing people in the way we want, but forget about these other things; that's costing money. I mean, that's very inconsistent to me, Mr.

Speaker, very, inconsistent. But beyond the specific arguments, I would suggest that there is a fundamental difference in approach that has been exhibited by members opposite, by members on this side, Mr. Speaker. - (Interjection) - Well, the Member for Emerson says that is true. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, many members opposite have a different conception of the role of an MLA than do members on this side. Most members on this side, Mr. Speaker, feel that the job of an MLA is a full-time job.

In some cases, our members may have some outside form of emp loyment, alt hough this would, I think, be the exception rather than the rule; but even in cases in which that is the case, Mr. Speaker, those members feel that the fact that they are an MLA should require them to be pro vidin g full-time service to their constituents. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest are not saying that.

Members opposite are saying basically, through their approach to this bill, that members of this Legislature should be part-time members, that they should come here for the sitting of the Legislature, perhaps attend some constituency functions, but then for the five or six or seven months that we are not in Session, that that should be considered a time when members go and have some other form of employment and basically wait for the next sitting of the Legislature before they really act as MLAs again, because how else can I read, Mr. Speaker, the fact that they are against expansion of the travel allowance.

Implicit in their whole argument, apart from the red herring about the cost, is the fact that they feel it is not needed. Well how can they feel it is not needed, Mr. Speaker? Only if they view their having little or no role in Winnipeg, in the seat of government, during the period in which the Legislature is not in Session. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, let's hear it; let's debate that. I disagree with that approach; I know most of my constituents would dis agree with that approach, but if that is really what they're saying, rather than these red herring arguments, let's hear it.

I feel it is; I feel they are saying that MLAs should be part-time; that they shouldn't have to attend government meetings during the out-of-session period and, if they do attend such meetings, Mr. Speaker, they should be someho w optional, there should be no allowance built in for any cost incurred for attendance at those meetings. They're saying the same thing, Mr. Speaker, I feel, in terms of the constituency allowance. They are saying that $2,500 is an extravagant figure.

Well perhaps they should compare the amount of constituency service that we can provide under existing legislation, and even under a proposed legislation, to the constituency service that can be provided by other elected representatives in Canada. I'm not just talking about the Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, who can have constituency offices, unlimited mail outs; who can have, I believe, four or five staff people. I am talking about MLAs in other provinces. If one looks at other provinces, Mr. Speaker, one will find that many of them do have an allo wance built in for constitue ncy offices.

We'r e surrounded on both our borders, with Saskatchewan and Ontario, just to start with, they both have provision for constituency officer and that provision, Mr. Speaker, stems from the recognition that MLAs have a role outside of this Chamber, or outside of their respective Cham bers. That provision stems from the recognition that Members of the Legislature have a significant role to play in helping their constituents with problems, and helping their constituents receive answers to enquiries, Mr. Speaker, about government programs, and helping them as their own local ombudsman, if you like.

That recognition is there in other provinces. Wh at this bill does, Mr. Speaker, I think is reinforce that recognition here in Manitoba. For that reason, I think it's a very welcomed move, Mr. Speaker. I think the fact that members opposite disagree with that is 3077

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 indication they do not feel that members should be out there servicing their constituents in-between elections. They do not feel that their members should be servicing constituents, even when they're in Session, because this provision would help them do that. I could continue with some of the other features, Mr. Speaker, but I believe on each and every case you will see a distinct difference when they approach members from this side of the House and members opposite. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I wish mem bers op posite would be a little more cour ageous in expressing that view.

I wish they would they would get up and say, yes, I feel that the position of an MLA should be a part-time job; that I should come here for the sitting of the Legislature then go to some other form of employment and that's it; I do not believe there should be constituency services, and I do not believe there should be constituency offices or any travel all owances in-between Legislative Sessions. I wish they would have the courage · to say that, Mr. Speaker. I know, however, that they won't, and there's a very good reason for that, Mr. Speaker.

That is, because if they do get up and say that they will get a very negative reaction, I think, not just from members on this side of the House, but from many of their constituents. A MEMBER: That's for sure. MR. S. ASHTON: I have found, Mr. Speaker, in talking to my constituents, that they, not only hope that their members will be full-time members of the Legislature, ·they expect it. I receive phone calls at home from 8 o'clo ck in the morning until 12 :30 at night, Mr. Speaker. Wh at does that stem from? Does that stem from the idea that I represent people here?

A MEMBER: That is only because they know you've got a baby, the rest of us get them all hours. MR. S. ASHTON: Does that stem, Mr. Speaker, from the fact that th ey feel that I should be their representative here and nowhere else; that I should come in here, after an election campaign, and represent them during the sittings of the Legislature, and that is it? Well, no, Mr. Speaker. When people phone me at home they phone me on constituency matters. They have a problem or they have a question they want answered. The expectation is that I will answer it, and I do.

I am sure that members opposite will find that is the situation in their constituency. Perhaps they haven't made themselves available enough to find that out, Mr. Speaker; perhaps they haven't been accessible enough. It's very easy, I know, if an elected representative starts sending out signals that he or she does not want to be disturbed at home, or does not wanted to be bothered with constituency business, he or she won't get it; he or she may get a nasty surprise in the next election, but for three or four years that MLA will hear very little from their constituents. That, I think, Mr.

Speaker, is why the members opposite do not have the courage to get up and say that. The fact is, over the last 20 or 30 years in this House, things have changed dramatically. Things have changed from the days when one did come here for a six-week sitting, or a two-month sitting; one did sit 3078 as an MLA, and one did receive a salary commensurate with a part-time position, and one did expect, as an MLA, to be a part-time MLA. Those were the days of 20 and 30 years ago, Mr. Speaker; that has been changing. There has been a recognition in terms of salaries, the fact that it is more of a full-time position.

That is why, I presume, the members opposite did increase salaries of both Cabinet Ministers and MLAs when they were in government It is because they felt, Mr. Speaker, that it was more of a full-time position and that the salaries should be commensurate with it. It has changed, not just in this House, Mr. Speaker, through particular matters as that, but it's changed in the province, as well. I find, in my constituency, that the expectation is that MLAs will be full-time MLAs. That that MLA will be visible, that MLA will be available, that MLA will do a number of things, Mr.

Speaker, outside of this House, including talking to people about their concerns, in terms of helping them out with any problems, in terms of answering any questions. For mem bers op posite to op pose this bill, Mr. Speaker, is basically out of tune with the changes that have taken place over the last 20 or 30 years. That is really what is involved, Mr. Speaker. I guess we should be glad on this side because it really exposes the mentality of members opposite. After all we know they are Conservatives; they like the past. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, on this bill there is no better evidence that they like living in the past. They believe that they're in the days of 20 and 30 years ago when MLAs did come here on a part-time basis and that was it. I would suggest to them, Mr.

Speaker, that has changed, not only in constituencies represented by members on this side of the House, but is changed in some of their constituencies, as well, and they better be careful because, if they're not providing that level of service, if they're opposing means such as Bill 55, which would allo w them to provide tha t service, really they'r e opposing the right of individual Manitobans to have a full-time MLA, to have a full-time local ombudsman, if you like. You can attach any kind of name you want to it, Mr.

Speaker, but I think I've gotten my message across clearly about the kind of role that I perceive an MLA as having, and a role I think my constituents perceive of us having. I would suggest that they look very carefully, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that they will find that there are a number of members on this side of the House who perhaps owe their election to the fact that the previous member was not a full-time MLA, was not servicing his or her constituency. MR. A. ANSTETT: Right on. llll R. S. ASHTON: The Member for Sprinfield says, right on.

I am sure there are other Members in this House who would feel the same way, Mr. Speaker. I might suggest that one of the reasons why it was a very close election result in Thomp son in the last election was that my predecessor did have some concern about servicing his constituency, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that, but I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that really this is the bottom line of this legislation; it is not expanding travel allowances strictly, although that is part of it; it is not expanding constituency all owances,

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 although that is part of it; it is not expanding secretarial service, Mr. Speaker, although that is part of it. The real bottom line of this issue is whether or not Members of this Assembly are in favour of, first of all, being full­ time MLAs, and second of all, of providing full-time service. I would suggest that if they are truthfully in favour of being full-time MLAs and providing full-time service that they have no option but to support this bill. I would really suggest that, Mr. Speaker.

I would also suggest that by the comments in debate thus far, by the fact that they are not in support of this bill, that they have indicated what they don't have the courage to say otherwise, and that is, the fact that they feel it is only a part-time position. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I will take this bill back to my constituency and I will justify it with my constituents. I will talk to them about it; I'm sure I'll have no problem with that. I will also take back the idea of full-time MLAs to my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure I'll have no problem with that either.

The members who have problems in this House, Mr. Speaker, are members opposite who are living in the past on this and I would suggest, on many other issues. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a fine bill; it's a step in the right direction and I think it's a bill that will receive sup port from the average Manitoban, support the members opposite were very surprised to see. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOUR LAY: Mr. Speaker, If no one else wants to speak at this time, I would move, seconded by the Member for Virden, that debate be adjourned . MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is moved by the Member for Swan River and seconded by the Member for Virden that debate on Bill 55 be adjourned. The Member for Springfield on a point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Virden has already spoken in this debate and therefore cannot second the motion for adjournment. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct. The Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOUR LAY: In that case, the Member for Kirkfield Park will second it. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Ho use Leader. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, would you now call Bill No. 60 please?

Bill NO. 60 - THE HIGHW AY TRAFFIC ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Minister of Transpor tation, Bill No. 60, standing in the name of the Member for Roblin- Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have the matter stand, but if any member would like to speak on it, I'm certainly in agreement. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We're dealing with an amendment to The Highway Traffic Act for the Province of Manitoba and I think perhaps it would be advisable that when we're looking at these particular amendments, we take a look at the Province of Manitoba as a whole and try and analyse the unique characteristics of Manitoba; characteristics that this province has that don't apply in any other jurisdictions that I'm aware of in the Dominion of Canada.

I refer, of course, to the concentration of population in one particular part of the province, where over half of the population of the Province of Manitoba lives in one very small, congested area in this province - in the City of Winnipeg - and the rest of the province is rather sparsely settled and the Northern areas, in particular, are areas that are quite different in character, quite different in road conditions and quite different in driving conditions than applies in other parts of the province.

Yet here we are trying to pass uniform legislation that applies to all parts of the province and treats all parts of the province in the same way and but if we sit back and take a look, we realize that conditions are different in different parts of the province. I think it's important to recognize that when you start to take a look at accidents, the types of accidents and the cause of accidents, and you will see patterns develop that are distinct according to the geographical region that you're referring to.

Wh en you're talking about seat-belt legislation and safety, I have seen the proposals put forward by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and those people that are concerned about seat-belt legislation and automobile safety. In all of the presentations I have seen, they refer entirely to head-on and rear-end collisions. They made no pr esentation at all on automobile rollo vers or side collisions which occur in rural Manitoba on icy roads, maybe through the loss of control and a car will skid sideways, and conditions that are vastly different than the City of Winnipeg.

I'll admit that head-on and rear-end collisions occur to a far greater degree in the heavily concentrated urban area and the conditions in rural Manitoba are vastly different. But the Minister hasn't taken that into account in the bill that he has put forward here, because I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister had taken it into consideration he might have changed his rules as they apply to seat belts. I'm not talking about hel mets or child-r estraint systems; I'm talking about seat belts only.

I think the Minister knows rural Manitoba, rural driving habits and rural road conditions as well as any member on the opposite side of the House. He's been in this Assembly a long time; he's had a lot of experience. I respect his ability to analyze any given situation and I would suggest to the Minister that he might want to think twice about making seat-belt legislation mandatory in rural driving conditions, in a rural setting, because I would suggest 3079

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 that if he went back and did a study of the accident statistics, he would find that in rural Manitoba head­ on and rear-end collisions are not the major accidents. They're a minor portion of the accidents. In fact, the major cause of accidents in rural Manitoba is loss of control and that is driver error, and when you lose control on icy roads a car can roll, you can have a side collision and when you do have those, then any statistics that are available from professional people on side collisions and rollovers, do not substantiate the use of seat belts.

I received a letter from the Manitoba College of Physicia ns and Su rgeons on seat-belt leg isla tion. They're a group in society that are pressing for change and they have the right to write to every MLA, just as MONA has and any other group that wishes to, in society, and I received their correspondence and I replied to it. I asked them for information on rollovers and side collisions and after quite some time, I got a reply from a medical practitioner who thanked me for my concern.

He admitted that they had done no studies at all on side-impact collisions or on rollo vers and in his efforts to try and provide me with statistical information, the closest survey that he could refer me to on that particu lar su bject was a study that was do ne in Australia. The results of that study done in Australia - and this was dealing primarily with pelvic restraint seat belts, not the shoulder harness because, I believe, the study was done several years ago before the shoulder harness was in popular demand.

The results of that study were such that they found there was considerably greater danger of thoracic and pelvic injury from the wearing of seat belts in side-impact and rollover accidents. However, they felt that the possibility of cranial damage might be somewhat less, but they weren't sure but that study indicated there was greater danger of pelvic and thoracic injury from the wearing of seat belts than if seat belts had not been worn.

I can give the Minister some information and I'm sure every member in this Assembly can recall some incident that have occurred very close to either their own home or their own family or their own community, and I'm sure that they can find an instance that will support their own particular point of view. Wh at I want to tell the Minister is supporting my particular point of view and I'm sure that there may be other cases that would support another point of view. Three years ago in my little village, there were six people climbed into a car to go to a hockey match.

It had just started to rain a freezing rain and something happened to the car, the accelerator stuck. They were coming to the intersection of the road and realized they couldn't stop the car and a truck was approaching. At the last second, they pushed one person out of the car; four of the people got out; two of them did not get out of the car until after impact. That car went completely under the semi-trailer truck. The top of the car was completely sheared off and the car was rolled half-a-dozen times under that truck.

Now, if those people had not been able to get out of that car, chances are none of them would ever have lived. As it turned out because they were able to jump out, to bail out of that vehicle, they all survived with some scratches, but no broken bones. That's just one case that I bring to the Minister's attention.

It happens to enforce a particular argument that I am trying to put forward, that the wearing of seat belts in the heavy traffic in an urban area where there is a greater danger of head-on and rear-end collisions is probably more important than the wearing of seat belts in rural setting where there is not the heavy density of traffic and the change of head-on and rear-end collision is much diminished.

I would ask the Minister to seriously consider that particular point, because I think it's important to rural Manitoba, to the various factors that we who live in rural Manitoba must live with, the dangers that we do get from freezing rain in the winter, icy roads and the difficulties that do occur with side impact and rollovers. I know the medical evidence is not there for the advice of the Minister in dealing with seat-belt restraints in side-impact and rollovers.

I would ask the Minister to think carefully again about having a possibility of the wearing of seat belts in heavy traffic in an urban setting, as compared the light traffic that occurs on secondary rural roads. I don't know whether he has considered it. I think it's a matter that's worth the considering. I put forward the suggestion in all sincerity because I bel ieve it is of sufficient importance to be worthy of full consideration by the Minister. When it comes to the issue of child restraint, I look at the bill and there's a

section in here that causes me some concern, and it's dealing with regulation. It says, "The Lieutenant-Gover nor-in-Council may make regulations, (

a) prescribing the standards for child­ restraining devices and, (

b) providing for exemption from any provision of this

section in respect of any type or class of motor vehicle or any class of drivers or passengers in motor vehicles." Those reg ulatio ns ha ve to be dealt with in consideration with the particular sections in the bill that deal with the child restraints that the Minister is going to require. I'm not too sure if the Minister is insisting that supplementary equipment must be used for any child under five years, or whether or not a child under five years must have some kind of restraint, whether it be a seat belt or a child restraint system. As far as I'm able to ascertain from the bill that is somewhat unclear.

I would hope that when the Minister is giving his final summation in this bill, if he would take that matter and clarify it for members before this bill goes to committee because I think it's important. I can tell the Minister why. This past weekend - in fact it was Monday evening on coming back to the Legislature I brought my daughter-in-law with her two children into Winnipeg. One is a boy two, and one is a boy three.

The two-year-old was in a child-restraining approved-type seat in thA backseat, and the thre e­ year-old, because there was lack of room to put a child­ restraint seat in the front seat, the three-year-old sat in the front seat wearing a seat belt. He wasn't of the age of five, as the Minister is stating in here, and yet I can tell the Minister that the child sitting in the front seat with a seat belt was much more comfortable, much easier to manage, than the child that was only two and in a child-r estraint seat, even though his mother was sitting beside him.

I think it's important because I can tell the Minister that I was the driver of the car and, after you have 3080

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 been on the road for two or three hours, and a child is sitting in a restraint, a severe constriction on their activity, can become very restless, can express that restlessness in a rather vocal manner for a considerable length of time. I would suggest to the Minister that the action of that child made me an unsafe driver. I'm sure that if it affected me, personal ly, that way, it would affect other drivers the same way. I was very tempted to pull off to the side of the road and let the child out to exercise, however, it was raining and it was raining fairly hard.

That was the only thing tha t prevented me from stopping. We did arrive, fortunately, in Winnipeg without accident, but I know from my own personal experience that if a child-restraint device in the back seat causes problems to the child it can cause problems to the driver of the car. I don't know whether that would cause an accident or not, but I think it is of sufficient significance to be a concern to me and I hope would be a concern to others, as well.

So I'm not too sure whether the Minister wants to insist on a child-restraining seat for every child under five years of age, or whether he's going to give an option. I know that the th ree-year-old in a seat belt was restrained, but didn' t seem to mind it near as much as the two-year-old in the child-restraint seat. Those are personal observations of my own from my own particular family.

I refer it to the Minister purely for his consideration because I think it's important that we know what type of regulations he's going to be bringing forward, and I think it's important that we should know whether there's going to be an option of a seat belt or a child restraint, or whether that option is not going to be there. The third aspect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with motorcycle helmets. It's probably the

section that has been most visible around this Legislative Building. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that having talked to many of the motorcyclists; having a son who owns a motorcycle, and having once owned a motorcycle myself, that I have a great deal of empathy with their particular point of view. I know my own son on his motorcycle happens to wear a helmet most of the time, not all the time, but most of the time.

I have heard the arguments put forward about the restraint on vision and the restraint on hearing, and knowing something about Manitoba and the vagaries of the weather, I can visualize the heat problem that you could have on a particularly hot day wearing one of those things. So I think that argument is a very valid one, but I think the one that is probably as valid as any is the look at statistics. The statistics that I have seen is that Mani toba ha s the seco nd lowest per thousand registered motor vehicle accidents - I'm not too sure whether it's accidents or fatalities - of any province in Canada.

I think we are probably the only province in Canada that does not have helmets. So, whether or not we pass a helmet law, I think we have to look at statistics and, if Manitoba has had that type of statistic without forcing use of helmets, then I would suggest that the Minister think twice about making helmets mandatory. If something is working for us, don't fight it. If we have the second lowest fatality rate per thousand motor bikes of any pr ovi nce in Canada th ere mus t be something - (Interjection) - That's possible.

I know I have driven a motor bike and I have driven it in February, and I've driven it in February and I've driven it in November, and I haven't driven it in December or Januar y, but I'm the first one to admit that I only do it on a mild day in the wintertime, I don't do it in 30- below weather. No, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is important in Manitoba is the freedom of choice that has been an inherent part of our democracy in this country.

If the person has the freedom to choose, I would suggest that if there is a concern about the medical cost as the Minister has indicated, offer the motorist that freedom of choice and I would suggest to the Minister that if a person chooses not to wear his seat belt, then third-party liability on accidents under our compulsory insurance system could be reduced, could maybe even be negated, depending on what the Minister wants to do with it. So I'm saying that there are alternatives that are open and maintain a freedom of choice. A MEMBER: Which one do you recommend? MR. H.

GRAHAM: I personally would prefer that you change the Autopac regulations, so that if a person did not wear his seat belt, his personal insurance was null and void, I would prefer that. Then the choice is up to the person. I realize there is a possibility of having difficulty in proving in the case of an accident whether or not that seat belt was done up but is that any worse than what the Minister is proposing now in that seat belts must be done up and it's an indictable offence not to have it done, not to have them. A MEMBER:

Summary conviction. MR. H. GRAHAM:

Summary conviction if you refuse to pay. Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this whole legislation is, is it enforceable? I would suggest that it probably is going to be very difficult to enf orce compulsory seat-belt legislation, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your seat belt was done up or was not done up when you were apprehended by an officer of the law. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it should not be the purpose of this Legislature to pass laws that are difficult to enforce.

I think it would be in the interest of the public that before we pass any laws, we check with all of the law enforcement people and society at large to see whether or not there would be any difficulty in the enforcement of the laws that we're proposing. Quite frankly, I would be happy in this Legislature if before we pass any laws that we repealed one before we pass the new one. I think we, in this Ass embly and in every jurisdiction in Canada are putting in place a prol iferation of legislation that is ensuring work for the legal profession for years and years to come.

I find that morally offensive and I would like to see a general policy that before we pass any new legislation that we get rid of one or two old Acts. I think if we did that we would be doing a great service to the people of Manitoba. A MEMBER: 18 70 legislation. MR. H. GRAHAM: We may have to go back that far, but at the same time, I think it's a good ph ilosophy 3081

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 and it's something that we should always be thinking about when we're bringing in new legislation. In that respect, I would ask the Minister why he would want to bring this in at this particular time when we know that it has been tried before, it's been proposed before and has been turned down. I would like to know what new information has come to the Minister's desk since those previous attempts at bringing in this type of legislation? Has it been the constant knocking on the Minister's door by the Member for Elmwood? That's a distinct possibility.

I know the position of the Member for Elmwood. But has there been any new information that has been available to us now that wasn't available to us the last time this bill was brought before the House? The Minister didn' t indicate anything of that nature when he introduced the legislation. I would hope that before this debate is over, that somebody bring forward new information that was not available to this Assembly the last time this bill was before the House.

I think 'it's important if we're going to bring it in now when we were unwilling to bring it in before, there has to be some reason unless, of course, it's a penchant that this government has for social tinkering. It's a possibility that this government is obsessed with the idea that they have to tinker with the laws just to let people know that they are the government and this is what they are going to do. That possibility is there.

At one time, and I have to say this to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, I had a high regard for his position in this Legislature and his position as the Minister of Agriculture, but I know from his own activities of the last year and a half and the tinkering that he has done with agriculture in this province, that I had a wrong impression of the Minister of Agricultur e because his activities of the last 18 months have proven me wrong.

Fortunately, the Minister of Transportation has done reasonably well and I'm sure that he will tell us, in closing debate, why he is bringing this forward now and tell us the new information that he has that would make this legislation necessary now when it was turned down by this Assembly a few years ago. So, Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks, I hope the Minister will give us the benefit of his knowledge when he closes debate on this bill. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In rising to take

part in this debate, I was pleased that I had the opportunity of listening to the Honourable Member for Virden in making his comments to this legislation. He did primarily throughout his speech, as I indicated from my seat, was at the high level of debate, which I felt that he was putting his points across, until he started lowering himself towards the end of his remarks and attributing motives to my colleague, the Minister of Transporta tion, about wanting to tinker with laws in bringing this matter forward.

As the member knows, safety legislation, and he alluded to it, was debated in this House a number of times. in fact, by member s of the Sch reyer administration. I believe it was brought in two or three times. measures were brought in, in the eight years, and did not pass or various aspects of them did not pass. That's not to say, Mr. Speaker, that the need and the desirability of such measures have been very clear in their effectiveness.

I mean, I think we can blame our automobile companies for doing a lot of things and making many mistakes, but certainly over the years in the manufacturing of automobiles and the testing of same, safety equipment was on the part of governments' minds as well as the manuf acturers' minds, and it's been borne out that those pieces of equipment do help to reduce injuries. They may not in many instances, if the collision is to sue' ··an extent, actually save a life, but it certainly has been borne out that they do reduce injuries. I know the issue, I have to say, is not the most popular issue.

In fact, I would say there is an awful lot of emotion on this issue.

Yet, in the letters and the comments that I do receive - and I'm sure the honourable member gets them as well - people say, "Yes, I agree that seat belts, that helmets. that child restraints are a safety measure and they do help and they're a good thing, but the key is don't make me wear it." That is really the crux of the matter; not that they disagree that the measures and the items are not good and that they do help and they lower the incidence of injuries, but the crux of the problem, Sir, is that we don't want to be told what to do and that's really the crux.

In all the letters opposing this and comments that I get, "You want to wear it, that's fine and I think they're good; don't make me wear it," and that is a difficult situation. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member talked about any new information that my colleague had brought out. I really think, in terms of the benefits of the use of the safety devices, it has proven itself over the years. The only thing that would be new, Sir, would be the experiences of other provinces that he has raised in terms of the statistical analysis, and it ends up as a numb ers qu estion if you're bringing forward new information.

So I'm not sure; there may be some new information that I'm not aware of, and I've certainly looked at and had a lot of information provided to me over the years. I've only brought a small portion of it with me this afternoon in making some comments. The question will be talked about of enforcement and it was raised by the honourable member, whether the law will be enforced. The member knows - and I'm sure he realizes -that most laws are brought into being, they will be enforced, and they're not 10 0 percent enforced.

I mean, you have many laws on the statutes that what comes out is the spirit and the intent of the law and tha t the majority of the public, because they are law-abiding citizens or whether it's the Province of Ontario or other provinces which have similar legislation, they will support the measure. Granted, there will always be people who will not support a measure. We have laws prohibiting the manuf acture of illicit spirits; the laws are on the books. The majority of the public support those laws.

There are a few in society who say, not withstanding the law, "I want to cook my own moonshine and I'm not going to support the law," and, Mr. Speaker, we do that. That is just but one example; maybe not such a good example, but it's typical of many laws. The law on farm lands ownership; the intent is what is put forward and the majority of our citizenry will support the measure and will not try to circumvent it through devious means. 3082 I

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raised an interesting point.

I'm not sure how he ended up and wha t his recom menda tion was, and th at was a suggestion that in a case of an accident if you are not utilizing your safety device, and that you are liable - I'm assuming that liability would have to be shown - that you would be liable in the accident or maybe not liable regardless of fault - maybe he's speaking of regardless of fault, that the increased injuries that you sustained in that accident as a result of not wearing the safety device, if that can be determined, should not be covered by your insurance policy.

It's an interesting suggestion, Sir, and I am sure it's been thought of by different Legislatures, but I can advise the honourable member that he recalls, and I'm sure we all are aware of private members' bills that have been brought into the Legislature trying to force insuranc e compan ies to red ress, either for some technical reason that they refuse to pay a claim, or for some other reason, because of the negligence of a lawyer, or some other technical or law reasons of a technical nature that the insurance company refused to pay a claim. I can foresee, Mr.

Speaker, if we went that route, that there would be bills of that nature brought before the Legislature to say, our insurance company is not prepared to pay this claim and there's enough evidence contrary to it, so we will have to pass a law and force the company to either allow this matter to proceed to court so at least a court could hear the evidence, because that's been the majority of the way the private members' bills have gone.

They have actually not adjud icated on the matter, but what they have allowed is the individual to take this matter further to a court to be heard, to see whether there is some validity to the claim. I could see many of those kinds of situations coming, if you went the route that the honourable member is suggesting. Mr. Sp eaker, I recommend to the honour able members, and they probably have received copies of the Manitoba Traffic Safety Committee's advice on various questions that are raised about seat belts or helmets or child-r estraint devices.

There's no doubt that if one was to put an argument on any matter, one could develop an argument that certainly could indicate or at least draw one's conclusion that the use of a safety device might jeopardize one's situation in terms of driving. It's really a matter of adjustment over many years as it is with children. Our children at home are grown up, are past the age of five in my family. I have to tell you, in terms of my own family, my wife is not that crazy about the use of seat belts. She does utilize them but she herself is not. I share that with honourable members; I'm not afraid to share that.

Our children do use them. It's a matter of education and continuous use. One gets used to the matter and to the device and uses it. I do, I would say 95 percent of the time; I am not 100 percent complete. One of our farm trucks is relatively old; there is no seat belt in there. There's no way of using it - (Interjection) - Pardon me? No. That was a tractor in a grain box. Taking aside the comments, Mr. Speaker, I'll leave that. Much of the commentary that is made is that, I don't want to use seat belts because I'm only taking a short distance, I'm only going a short way.

As I understand it, it's been established that three out of four fatal accidents are sustained within 25 miles of a person's home, so that the argument whether it be urbanwise or ruralwise really should not matter in terms of the seat belts. As the honourable member knows, fatal injuries to unbelted drivers and passengers have been inflicted at speeds as low as 12 miles an hour. No matter how careful you are as a driver, you probably cannot always avoid the high-speed crash inflicted by someone else. That's really where it all comes into play. Mr.

Speaker, I spoke on a resolution of the Honourable Member for Elmwood a number of years ago about some very close friends of mine just inside the Perimeter here on Metro Route 90, were coming into Winnipeg, two families with four children, a couple, and a wife and a child of another couple. They had four children of their own. It was a van. They were not belted in.

They met a stream of oncoming traffic and apparently the driver of a tractor - not a trailer; he just had the tractor and either was testing it out or whatever - and the vehicles skidded into their path and it was virtually - not quite head-on - a head­ on collision. There's no doubt that the driver and I would say the front seat passenger in the van, the likelihood of them surviving would not have been good regardless of whether they wore seat belts. It's the passengers in the back seats who were virtually - with the impact the doors were thrown open; they were thrown out of the vehicle, and they were crushed.

Children. In fact, three children lost their lives and all three parents lost their lives in that one single vehicle accident. I would venture to say after seeing the vehicle and knowing what happened in that collision, that those people in the back seats of that vehicle would have survived the collision - they would have been injured, there's no doubt about it - but they would have survived that impact because once the doors flew open - in fact one of the children was crushed by the door, because they were loose in the van.

There are some neighbours of mine who recently had occasion to be involved in a side collision. They went through a stop sign and they collided with another vehicle, not belted in. The driver of the vehicle will, I'm sure, not be well for the rest of his life because he had the bulk of his stomach torn, as a result of being thrown through the windshield, and he took part of the steering wheel with him as he was going through the windshield. Both parties were thrown out of the vehicle and he, who was involved - the collision wasn't at high speeds.

I would say, if I recall in discussing it with him, it was probably in the 30 to 40 mile an hour range that the collision occurred but, with the impact of the vehicle, there was no doubt that they both ended up through the windshield. The question, I guess, really in this whole issue is should the matter of safety be compulsory? I mean that's really a question. I don't think ho nour able members across the way or the majority of people in this province really have terrible objections, other than, of course, for medical reasons or other reasons, and those are understandable.

But, in the main stream of thinking, that the safety devices that are provided are, in fact, good pieces of equipment, should be used - I haven't heard that argument to say that none of them are any good. Even the helmet question, and I, like the 3083

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 Honourable Member for Virden, do ride a motorcycle and a trike and do wear a helmet, all the time. There is no doubt in the warm summer air you want to go and, as the commercials say, let the wind blow through your hair as you stream down the highway, that kind of macho performance, because we do have one of those dirt bikes that you can, as they say, do a pop­ a-wheelie in three gears - you can shift three times and have your front wheel standing up. A MEMBER: That's like the Dukes of Hazzard. That's Duke Uruski. HON. B. UFIUSKI: I may be a hazard, not a duke. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: What's the sheriff's name? MR. J. DOWNEY: It's Boss Hogg, that's you. HON. B. UFIUSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there is no doubt that everyone agrees that the safety measures - Mr. Speaker, I am sorry there's a bit of dialogue going on that has allowed the members - I hope that my comments haven't allowed the Legislature to start rolling in the aisles and the safety measures that we are discussing, Sir, will be appro ved of. Maybe the honourable members feel in such a mood today that they may wish to acknowledge the question that the safety devices are necessary.

It's not a matter, as has been suggested, somehow that because it's an NDP Government in Manitoba that .there are some of those kinds of statements appearing that now somehow you're rights are threatened. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the similar packages of legislation that have been adopted, they haven't been adopted by NDP Governments, Mr. Speaker; they have been adopted by basically Conservative Governments across this country.

To make such a suggestion that, if it's an NDP Government in this province somehow your rights are threatened, Sir, is flying in the face of reality, and I would ask honourable members to be honourable members and to desist from such kind of verbiage because they know, themselves, that it isn't factual because other provinces, of similar party stripe to the mselves in this Asse mbly, have put in such measures and certainly their experience, in the main, they're experience has borne out that these devices do assist and do help. Mr.

Speaker, the question of youngsters in safety devices, the Honourable Member for Virden raised the point saying that youngsters really can't get used and they can cause you just about as much problem in the car or in the seat as they can outside the seat if they're going to raise a ruckus. Mr. Speaker , he's ri!'.lht, notwithstanding where one sits, if one does not want to sit in a restraint mechanism, or in a seat belt, and wants to raise its ire, no matter what you do you will have the attention of the driver disturbed and that could be a problem.

But it will not be, I don't believe, the case as a result of the restraint measure. It will be a problem for those families whose children have not gotten used to it; I would have to admit that, that there will be a learning period for all of us who haven't had, or haven't used, the safety devices, it will take awhile to get used to them. I know my wife's cousin, they have a little boy, and in Ontario - they come from Ontario, they have recently moved to Manitoba - there it is mandatory that child restraint systems be put into place.

The child was in that unit since birth and, frankly, he is now a year-and­ a-half and there is no difficulty at all. In fact, the vision of the child sitting in the back seat in that restraint is great; they've raised the platform just to make sure that the window height in the car is perfect and the use of that restraint mechanism, the child has no difficulty with it.

Albeit, if one does fill the diaper, or be uncomfortable in one way or anoth er, the question of irritability and causing a disturbance for the driver will occur, as the honourable member has suggested, but the use of the units are certainly much needed; not only needed, but I would say families who have lived in Ontario and have used the law and have obeyed the law certainly see merit in it, at least coming from the people that I have been associated with. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that - (Interjection) - Oh, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Emerson asked the question, what percentage?

I don't have those figures here and I am sure that 10 0 percent of the people in Ontario do not use them, I am sure. The honourable member should read my remarks because I dealt with that question. There is no doubt that there isn't one law on the books that is, at any point in time, 10 0 percent either enforced or obeyed. There is always someone the moment that you bring in whatever kind of a law or a measure, there will be someone figuring out a way on either I don't like the law or I will find a way of how to get around it. So, Sir, there is no doubt. - (Interjection) - Except the income tax.

No, I believe even that may be one of the worst ones, so there's no doubt. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, there was once I did vote against tnis measure at one time but in the other, over the period of time, over speaking to many physicians, reading a lot of material, I have come to the conclusion and, of cou rse, having some responsibil ity in the insurance field, having seen what does happen around the province in the types of accidents and involvements, we are responsible for one another lest we say that the accident that I caused will only be my damage, Mr. Speaker, that's not the case.

The fact of the matter is, we will have to support one another whether it's through the insurance system through our premiums or whether it's through our social welfare system if we are unable to look after ourselves we are, we end up, being one another's keeper and we do and we will, regardless of what one might feel about one another, we certainly will have to support in terms of safety measures. Now there are can be other arguments on other issues, that why don't you go this far on other matters?

There's no doubt that the issue of impaired driving comes into play on this issue, that we should step up the enforcement against impaired drivers and tighten up our regulations in terms of those who persist coming back on the highway time and time and time again while impaired. But that, although people try and bring the two together, is really a matter of enforcement, a matter of timing and a matter of tightening up as best we can. But certainly the safety measures that we are putting in I hope that the honourable members, at least in the main, see the merits of them and will support them. 3084 I • •

Wednesday, 25 May, 19 83 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOUR LAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly agree that anyone that chooses to wear seat belts certainly reduces the risk of personal injury by doing so. However, I can point out that my oldest brother was killed an a truck accident at the junction of No. 1 and 10 just north of Brandon back in 19 60.

He lost his life because he wasn't wearing his seat belt But the vehicle he had at that time was not equipped with seat belts but had there been one and had he worn a seat belt he would have saved his life and probably would not have been seriously injured. The vehicle that he was in was just clipped on the front by a big stocker transport that was going through. He was trying to cross the highway and didn't see the transport obviously and the truck was not seriously damaged but my brother was thrown out onto the highway and was instantly killed. It didn' t even break the headlight on the truck.

However, the problem that I have is that there is a chance that if you are wearing a seat belt you could also lose your life. This has been proven in a number of accidents. I'm not sure that there is accurate statistics available to show the number of fatalities because a passenger in a vehicle was wearing a seat belt. But it does happen and for that reason I have difficulty in supporting a bill that would make it mandatory for an individual to buckle up, even though the chances of reducing risk are there.

Certainly I know of an accident that happened last summer in my constituency where there was a couple proceeding on Highway 83 and they were both wearing their seat belts. There was another individual coming across the highway, didn' t stop at the stop sign, he was not wearing a seat belt They had a very serious accident and the young fellow that was not wearing his seat belt, his truck rolled and caught on fire and the truck was completely demolished. He was thrown from the truck, was not seriously injured but the fact that he was not wearing a seat belt saved his life.

In the case of the other vehicle the two passengers who had their seat belts on were not injured and if they had not worn their seat belts they would have suffered very serious injury, they perhaps may have lost their lives in that accident. So it was a good example of when not to wear seat belts and when to wear seat belts. It is a very difficult position to be put in but certainly I just don't feel that I can support this type of legislation that makes it mandator y.

I have had a number of calls on the bill, primarily from people that are objecting to wearing seat belts and in most cases they quote examples of where they have been involved in accidents, or they know of someone that has been involved in traffic accidents whereby the people did not wear seat belts and saved their lives because they were thrown from the vehicle, but had they had the seat belts on they would likely have had serious injury. I respect the medical people, the doctors and the nurses and those people that are working with injured persons.

They see the results of numerous serious traffic accidents and I respect the promotion that they are currently doing to support this type of legislation. However, after having said that, I think really that they only see one side of the story and, as I say, they have good reason to promo te their cause. But again the statistics are not readily available to show the number of injuries or fatalities because of people that wore seat belts.

Now, the medical people will tell you that they are aware of some injuries resulting in the wearing of seat belts but in most cases the people that are in serious accidents with seat belts, they are fatalities and they don't get to the hospital for treatment. A recent survey that I did in my constituency in which I got 208 replies back, some 78 percent of those inquiries said that they would not support legislation; 22 percent said that they would be in favour of the proposed Bill No. 60. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We have a matter of procedure which is not covered by our rules.

The Honourable Member for Swan River, having spoken for five minutes, will presumably be able to complete his remaining 35 minutes when the bill is next called. The bill will stand also in the name of the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. The time being 4:30 - Private Members' Hour. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR RES. NO. 9 m RELEASE OF YURIY SHUKHEVYCH MR. SPEAKER: The first item on the agenda for today, Reso lution No. 9, the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell, the Honourable Member for The Pas has 20 minutes. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this resolution put forward by the Member for Roblin-Rus sell, as he put it in his opening remarks, he spoke of the contribution the Ukrainian people have made to the development of this province, and so it gives me great pleasure to speak especially because all of my grandparents were born in the Ukraine and emigr ated to Canada in the late 18 00s. The Ukr ainian Canadians ha ve made a gr eat contribution to the development of Canada, especially Western Canada, and th ey ha ve als o made a contribution to the arts.

Some of the singing and dancing troupes, which include the Shumk a Dancers of Edmonton and the Rusalka Dancers of Winnipeg, are enjoyed and appreciated as being some of the most colourful dancers in Canada. I have had the privilege of seeing both the Shumk a Dancers and the Rusalka Dancers perform at the Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin and I have witnessed the Rusalka Dancers on other occasions in Winnipeg, and I think they are a very colourful and talented group. When I mention the contribution Ukrainians have made in the field of arts, I am reminded of William Keruluk.

William Keruluk was born in Al berta about 50 miles from Edmonton. When he was approximately five years of age, his father went east, to the eastern part of the west; he moved to Stonewall, Manitoba, just outside of the City of Winnipeg, and the Keruluk family followed the year after. The Keruluk family was educated in the community of Stonewall where the family farmed 3085

Wednesday, 25 May, 1983 and, in later years, the boys moved to the north end of Winnipeg where they bought a house of their own, they lived together, and they attended the University of Manitoba