Manitoba Hansard — 17 May 1983 (Sitting 69A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-69a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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. 69A - 2:00, TUESDAY, 17 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) ANST ETT , Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah 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, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USK IW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minn edosa Rhi neland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bonif ace 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 ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 17 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 COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Commit tee of Su pply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for Wolseley, that the Report of the Comm ittee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMEN TS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the fis cal year 19 83-84, the Provinc e of Ma nitoba is financially assisting urban transit in the City of Winnipeg through two grant programs: The Urban Transit Operating Grant and the Urban Transit Capital Grant. Under the Urban Transit Operating Grant Program, the province will make grants equal to 50 percent of the city's audited contribution towards the 19 83 transit system deficit, up to a maximum provincial contribution of $15 . 1 million based on the recent modest fare increases adopted by City Council.

The 19 83 provincial contribution is estimated at $1 5,097,670, an increase of $1. 4 million or 10 .5 percent above the 1982 provincial grant advances. Under the Urban Transit Capital Grant Program, the province will pay 50 percent of the net cost of approved transit bus purchases and inno vative urban transit demonstration projects. During 19 83-84, the province will contribute up to $1. 6 million as its share of approved projects. Together, these two grant programs reflect the continued high priority which my government places on urban transit.

In addition, these grant programs support the transit-oriented containment option found in Plan Winn ipeg which has been end orsed by the province and the City of Winn ipeg Council. It is with respect to the Urban Transit Capital Grant Program that I wish to speak today, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to confirm the Provincial Government approval of two projects for fundin g under the Urban Transit Capita l Grants Program, the Automatic Passenger Information System and the Downtown Bus Stop Information Demonstration Project. The total cost of these two projects is just over $1. 3 million.

After exc luding $105, 000 in fi nance and admin istrative charges which are a city responsibility, the cost of the project amounts to $620,625 for each, the Province of Manitoba and the City of Winni peg. The Automatic Passenger Information System will enable Winn ipeg residents to telephone a number on their bus stop and receive comput er-assisted information on the arrival time of the next two buses at the stop, along with a status report on the particular route, or the total system as required.

The basic intent of the Winn ipeg Automatic Passenger Information System is to: Increase transit ridership, especially during the off peak hour s (and thereby in crease transit system revenues), and Reduce auto travel and thereby reduce the amount of gasoline consumed for urban transportation. Automatic Transit Passenger Information systems have been installed in Mis sissauga, Ottawa, Toronto and Kitch ener-Waterloo und er the trade name of Telerider.

Based on experience in those cities, it is antici pated that a signif icant in crease in off-peak ridership can be achieved at little or no increase in operating cost. The City of Winni peg projects that up to $950,000 in additio nal farebox revenues can be realized during the first 12 months of operation as a direct result of the in stallat ion of an Automatic Passenger Information System.

This increase in transit usage is projected to result in an annual saving of approximately 3.6 million litres of gasoline and the removal of approximately 2 million auto vehicle trips from the Winn ipeg street system each year. The in stallation of an Automatic Transit Passenger Information System in Winnipeg is projected to generate revenues in excess of its initial capital investment within a one to two year period. The Downtown Bus Information Demonstration Project is in tended as a comp lementary service providing detailed

schedule in formation at key downtown bus stops for passengers. If this initia l demonstration in the downtown area proves successful, the Bus Stop Information Demonstration Project could be expanded to other hig h-usage bus stops, such as those around regional shopping centres, major transfer points and points of concentrated employment. As stated earlier, Mr.

Speaker, my gov ernment continues to place a high priority on urban transit and we are pleased to fund such inno vativ e transit demonstration projects in co-operation with the City of Winnip eg which not only promote public transit use, but also offer the promise of covering their own costs through increased ridership. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, as one who has had the privilege of chairing the Works and Operations Comm ittee at city council for some four years, that 2821

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 comm ittee being responsible for the operation of the public transit system, I, and we on this side, welcome any steps that are taken to im prove public transit in the City of Winnipeg. However, Mr. Speaker, throughout the statement by the Min ister we note the heavy hand of the Provincial Government as page after page we see the word and hear the word "a pproved" -approved by the Provincial Government. I think, Mr.

Speaker, the government should recognize and appreciate that those people at the City of Winnip eg who operate and manage the public transit system in the City of Winn ipeg are well qualified in that particular field and know best how to operate and im prove the public transit system.

This government is continuing a format that they followed under the previous NDP go vernm ent whereby the Provi ncial Go vernment retained a right of veto, and approval of projects involving the public transit system, and I would urge the government to allow the City of Winnip eg officials and management people in the transit system to make the decisions with respect to the urban transit system because they know best, Mr. Speaker, how to operate the public transit system, not the provincial government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ...

INTRO DUCTION OF GUE STS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable mem bers to the gallery, where we have 28 students of Grades 5 and 6 standin g from the Victor Ma ger Sc ho ol. Th ese students are under the direction of Miss Romanetz, and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Riel. There are 18 students of Grade 11 standing from the Fort Richmond Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Hu ber. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert.

There are 40 students of Grades 3 to 8 standing from the Mariapolis School under the direction of Mrs. Pearson. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. On behalf of all of the members I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Care-A-Lot Day Care Centre MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: My question is to the Min ister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the imposition of a first contract by the Labour Board on the Care-A Lot Day Care Centre in the City of Winnipeg.

My question to the Min ister is this: How can she justify referring this matter to the Labour Board for imposition of a first contract which averages 16 percent on a non-profit volunteer Board of Directors day care centre, which has now resulted, Mr. Speaker, in a sign being placed on the premises advising that because of the impo sition of the 16 percent increase in wages, the day care centre will have to close as of this Friday? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. M. B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to have the opportunity to clarify one of the points that was made by the member opposite.

That is the really erroneous statement that 16-plus percent was the average in crease. In fact, the increase that he refers to only affected a couple of the workers who had not had an in crease in their wages, as was agreed to previously before the union was ever even certified there. The average increase is closer to 10 percent. In fact, the range of increase ran from 7 percent to the 16 .5 percent to which he refers.

The wages at the Care-A-Lot Day Care Centre under the first contract imposed by the Manitoba Labour Board, who I might add worked very hard to attempt to get the parties to settle this contract themselves using every provision under the law to do so, the unanimous decision brought down by the labour and management representatives of that group, plus the chairperson, included increases in wages from $4 an hour to $4.40 an hour up to $6 an hour. For the supervisors' position, from $6. 10 to, after several years service and additional training, $8.20 an hour.

A qui ck survey of other day care centres, who operate also in most cases with boards of directors such as was described for the Care-A-Lot Day Care Centre and who operate under the same ages as all of our day care centres, will show that whether they are unioni zed or not, salaries range from about the $6 level, $6.46, $6.43 to approximately $8.23 to $8 .61, still hi gher than the new wages imposed under this first contract. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that officials of the day care centre agree with the news report that the wage increases average 16 percent; in view of the fact that the parents of the children attending this day care centre, as most day care centres are all working people whether they're two-parent or single parent families; and in view of the fact that the children are subsid ized by the government, did the Mini ster expect, as the counsel for the union suggested, that the 16 percent increase in wages imposed by the Labour Board should be raised by the parents by having fund raising drives, socials and other activities?

HON. M. B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by staff that the budget subm itted by the day care centre ind icated that there may or may not be a deficit this year. Obviously, this year is not yet complete; but so far, I think it was even reported in the press that they are operating at a $200 surplus, which granted is not a lot, but they are not in a deficit position this year so far.

The inc rease in wages was really no different than any other day care, as I have referred to earlier, has in their wages and, in fact, the wages being paid out are not as substantial as those in most other day cares or in many of the other day cares, certainly in those that I have mentioned to you, and I have been careful to mention both union and non-union day care centres. 2822

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 The way in which a day care decides to suppl ement its budget for whatever purpose -sometimes they do it because they wish to have some renovations done; sometimes they wish to purchase new toys; sometimes they wish to add a program that they would not have decided to do earlier or they did not decide to do when they put together their budget; how they do this is their business.

The budget subm itted to the Labour Board for consideration in this case included some very high priced items that had to be taken into consideration, I suppose, by the board, and I would sugge st that the wages of their staff ought to be a primary consideration instead of the fees for lawyers to fight the imposition of a contract. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that this Minis ter of Labour referred this matter to the Labour Board for imposition of a first contract; and in view of the fact that day care centres used by working parents throughout the Province of Manitoba were little able to afford increases of this magnitude and size; and in view of the fact that the CUPE union will, in all likelihood, attempt to form unions in every day care centre in Manitoba as a result of this precedent, would the Min ister assure the House that she will not follow this precedent of referring each and every one of these cases to the Labour Board for imposition of a first contract and will she allow these matters to be settled by bargaining between the parties involved?

HON. M. B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the mem ber opposite is aware that referral for first cont ract occurs when negotiations break down. This union was certified 11 months ago, Jun e of 19 82. They had attempted to negoti ate a cont ract with mana gement; th ey had reached an impasse; there was an attempt to get a resolution before referral; there was an attempt to get a resolution after referral; there were continued attempts to resolve the situation; that was not possible. Mr.

Speaker, I have a grandson in a day care centre; I have a daughter who is a day care worker; and I might add she is a day care worker who is non-unionized. She earns a slightly high er rate of pay than these people would be earning under this impo sed first contract. Referral for a first contract, no matter what the indus try, no matter what the worker, occurs when negotiations break down, not before. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minis ter of Community Services.

In view of the fact that it is government action that has closed down this day care centre, what does the Minis ter intend to do to keep this day care centre open? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Community Services. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the honourable member that my staff is willing and able at any time to work with any of the 225 day care centres in the province. I am very pleased to observe, Mr. Speaker, that of the 225, by far the bulk of them, 99 percent, or whatever, do not have financial difficulties, seem to be able to manage with the program monies that we have provided.

Day care centres in rural Manitoba - relocations MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: I have a question to the Mini ster of Government Services. In view of the fact that the Department of Government Service has advised the Day Care Board in Swan River to vacate the government-owned facility there, as it is to be sold, will the Min ister agree to provide other faci lities or arrangements to ho use the day care operations in Swan River? MR. SPEAK ER: The Ho nour able Min ister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Mini ster of Community Services. Can he ind icate whether he has issued any letters of instruction to vacate day care centres in other parts of rural Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Community Services. HON. L EVANS: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, there is one facility in Southern Manitoba which, as I am advised, was ind icated by the Fire Commis sioner's Office as being unsafe and on that basis the staff recommended, unfortunately, that the centre be given notice to close down, but the safety of the childr en has to be paramount, obviou sly. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister perchance ind icate for how long that day care centre has operated with an un blemished record of child care and in perfect safety of those children, that is now causing them, all of a sudden, to have to vacate on rather short notic e, without having available their replacement staff, their replacement facility? HON. L. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are going to MR. D. ORCHARD: You don't want to shut down abortion clinics, but you shut down day care centres, Rolly. MR. H. ENNS: Rolly, this building is in violation of the fire regulations, this building right here. MR.

SPEAKER : Order please, order please. The Honourable Minis ter. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we always wish to be gui ded by the advice of the experts and if the Fire Comm issioner's Office ind icates that there's some uns afe condition, or that the re's a hazard, we're certainly be very foolish if we ignored particular advice. 2823

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the matter has been under advisement for some time. It's not as though all of a sudden there's quick notice. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Min ister of Labour , who's respo nsi ble for the Fire Commissio ner's Office may have something to add to the answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. M. B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add some information to this discussion, since I just spoke to the Fire Comm issioner before entering this House this afternoon.

He was on his way to Morden for a meeting with the staff of the day care centre, along with staff from the Honourable Min ister of Community Services office. The problem with the day care there, of course, is that it is situated over a cannery and has only one exit. In case of any accident, the children would be in peril because one exit would be closed off.

The situation though is being dealt with in, I think, a very humane manner, in that the Fire Commissioner has a resolution for opening a second exit that will allow the day care centre to operate temporarily in that same facility with two exits, while they negotiate the construction of a free-standing day care centre this next year. Hodgson-Fish er Branch area re hopper cars MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I asked the Min ister of Agriculture whether or not he could be of some assistance in getting some grain cars up to the Fisher Branch-Hodgson area.

Has the Mi niser undertaken to speak to the Wheat Board or the railways about that matter? MR. J. DO WNEY: He hasn't done a thing. MR. SP EAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, we did contact all parties, including the Wheat Board, Manitoba Pool Elevators, both at Fisher Branch and in Winnip eg, and the railway involved. The CNR, which has the line to Fisher Branch was, in fact, investigating whether or not they could put a train on there. At that time they had sent a crew out to see whether the spring thaw would allow the shipment of cars into that area.

I have to say that line has been a difficulty for myself and I'm sure for the honourable member, because it goes through both our ridings in the past, and the CNR had that line designa ted as a snow line where they would not send the railway trains up there in wintertime. This winter there was no snow and there was very limited service as well, but they've ind icated that as soon as the line stabilizes, as of the spring thaw, that they will have service into the commun ity. Crow rate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Min ister.

In view of the fact that for some weeks now, we have been hearing action take place in the House of Commons dealing with the Crow rate change in Canada and the fact that we, as members of the Legislature, spent taxpayers' money proceeding throughout Manitoba to get a feeling from the farm community and farm leaders on how they felt about proposed changes, and now the Prime Mi nister is touring Western Canada, will the First Min ister in the Province of Manitoba instruct his Mi nister of Hig hways to reconvene the Agricultural Commit tee so we can put our thoughts forward, Mr.

Speaker, in the Canadian picture, as they're dealing with the change of Crow rate? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure our Min ister of Transportation requires no instruction, particularly from honourable members across the way that have been certainly less than enthusia stic about developing a clear position, to say the least, about the issue of the Crow. I would refer the remainder of the question to the Min ister of Transportation to deal with the question of the timing of the recall of the commit tee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of High ways. HON. S.

USKI W: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Arthur is surely aware that the comm ittee will be reporting to the Assem bly. The commi ttee meetin g will be called fairly soon. I believe the members are aware that we too are anxiously waiting for developments at the federal level. We, as a few days ago, have come to know what the apparent near final package is going to be and are making some assessment of that, and we will be making recommendations to the commit tee for their consideration, based on the latest information flowing out of Ottawa. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the House of Commons, as I un derstand it, the Li beral Government in Ottawa have placed closure on the bill -the Crow Rate change bill -and in view of the fact that the Prime Mi nister was in Winnip eg yesterda y and th at the Leader of Man itoba's Go vern ment, the ND P Premier , did not take the opportunity to put any thoughts forward on the Crow rate, does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of Manitoba is now aligned with the Prime Min ister of Canada and fully supporting what he's doing to the farm community? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Honourable Member for Arthur mustn't be following the proceedings very well in the House of Commons. If he was following the proceedings in the House of Commons, then he'd be quite conscious of the fact that it is his party in the House of Commons that appeared to have some slight difficulty in developing 2824

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 their own position with respect to the Crow. Mr. Speaker, I could be indeed excused for thinking that the federal Conservatives in the House of Commons are not quite sure whether to support the Prime Min ister or not in the Federal House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, there is no uncertainty in sofar as the position of the New Democratic Party either in Manitoba or in Canada on this issue -unlike the Con servative Party. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, the First Mini ster may or may not be aware that it has been the Conservative Party that has done more for the development of transportation in Western Canada without changing the Crow rate or the statutory rate. Mr.

Speaker, is the First Min ister aware of the fact that this morning the Conservative Party in the House of Commons have, in fact, made their position very clear to the Li beral Government in Ottawa as to how they feel about the Crow rate change, and would he update himself on what is happening with the House of Commons and the Prime Minis ter of Canada, who he had a cha nce to meet with here in Win ni peg yesterday, and let the feeling of the Government of Manitoba be known? Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, he abrogated his responsibility. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, let me just say that I am pleased in deed if the Conservative Party in the House of Commons this morning has finally made clear its position in respect to the Crow. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate honourable members across the way for being mem bers of a party that this very morning at long last has made its position clear in respect to the Crow. Abortion clinic - Dr. Morgentaler MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General.

In view of the evidence presented to the Attorney-General on behalf of the League for Life in Manitoba to the effect that abortions are being performed at Dr. Morgentaler's Clinic, and their request to obtain the consent of the Attorney-General to an application or a civil action to obtain an injunction against Dr. Morgentaler, would the Attorney-General reconsider the position that he has taken on this matter in view of the evidence that is being supplied to him? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Well, th ere may have been "evidence" supplied to the Member for St.

Norbert, but there certainly has been no evidence supplied to me by the League for Life, the Member for St. Norbert or, indeed, by anyone. If there is evidence it would, one would think, be presented in the first instance to the police who are in fact investigating the facility as they said they would and as I said they would. If, in fact, the League for Life has evidence and they have not subm itted it to the police, then one wonders about their position. If they have such evidence, then I say submit it to the police.

The police, indeed, know what to do with evidence, but let me make it clear, that if what is being suggested, if it is suggested by the former Attorney-General or anyone that a hearsay statement - because that's what Dr. Morgentaler's statement is -is evidence which can be used in a court of law to convict some do ctor who allegedly is performing abortions, then they know less about the law than I thought they kn ew.

With respect to the second part of his question; namely, my refusal to grant what is called the Attorney General's fiat or permission for a relater action, I think I can do no better than saying that there is a certain element of irony here. I've been pressed, as this House well kn ows and the people of Manitoba, by Dr. Morgentaler and his supporters effectively to stay proceedings. I have consistently refused. I have said, the law will take it's course, as indeed it will.

The criminal law will speak, and it will speak in the courts where all procedural safeguards to which anyone who is accused is entitled, will be available. I've had hun dreds of letters from supporters for the League for Life asking me to maintain that stand; that I should not stay proceedings.

Now, the League for Life asks me to do the same thing; to effectively stay proceedings, to deny the rights which an accused has under the criminal law, to sidestep the criminal law and to permit an esoteric civil proceeding to stand between anyone accused of a crime and the right of that person to defend hi mself or herself as the case may be. I am going to continue as I should, right down the middle. I will not stay proceedings; I will not grant immuni ty; nor will I allow the criminal law to be subverted by civil proceedings. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe there has been any suggestion by the League for Life that criminal proceedings not be proceeded with. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General, in his response to the solicitor for the League for Life, has ind icated that if a criminal action is com menced -and I note the word "if," Mr.

Speaker -would he assure this House that he did not really mean to use the word "if"; he meant to use the word "when ," particularly when he was in receipt, not of hearsay evidence but a copy of an affidavit by the head nu rse for the Morgentaler Clinic, who swore on oath that she had made appointments for seven women to attend at the clinic for the purposes of abortions on Saturday, May 7th. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker , I have ju st had confirmed what I suggested I suspected a moment ago; namely, that the former Attorney-General knows very very little about the law.

I don't know if he ever practised criminal law; it is apparent that he didn' t. Let me just in a moment -and I think it's important that people should know what must happen in order for there to be a successful prosecution under the abortion law. There must be an Information that swears on reasonable and probable grounds that on a certain day, a doctor who would be named, or some other med ic al practitioner, did on that day procure the abortion of a named female person. All of these elements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a prosecution to succeed. An 2825

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 affidavit by a nurse that appointments were made is not that kind of evidence. The fact that an appointment was made does not yet prove that an abortion was committed. It may be the case; I don't know; the member for St. Norbert doesn't kno w; the police do not know that appointm ents were made and abortions refused. We don't know that. The police are questioning people. In due course they have said they will execute a search warrant. I suspect that they will. They will obtain - (Interjection) Keep quite for awhile, it won't hurt you. They will obtain medical records.

On the basis of those medical records, they will call upon persons who allegedly had such operations performed. They will interview them. If they succe ed, as they might well, in obtai ning statements, then there would be a prima facie case to put before a Crown Prosecutor; but if under the hectoring and political posturing of members of the opposition, the police were to rush in like a political police force, which you want to turn them into - I won't -if the police were to rush in prematurely, they could blow any possible case and, indeed, leave them selves open for a prosecution, for a malicious prosecution.

The police know their business. They don't need ins truction from me; they don't need instruction from the Member from St. Norbert. Above all, they don't need instruction from that legal illiterate in the back row. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General can make all of the sleazy, whining comments he wants to make. But I know what it means to uphold the law, Mr. Speaker; something that he doesn't kn ow. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the statement by the Attorney General that the Chief Justice of this province, Mr. Justice Monnin, should disq ualify hi mself from hearing any case relating to this abortion because he allegedly signed a petition; in view of the personal viewpoint of the Attorney-General, which he has stated on many occasions, that he personally does not support the provisions of the existing Criminal Code, would he drop this double standard and disq ualify hims elf from any in volvement in this? HON. R. PENNER: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I had begun to suspect that the Member for St.

Norbert was sadly a legal illiterate. I am now findin g that he is functiona lly illiterate altogether because nowhere have I said, nor am I quoted as saying anywhere, that the Chief Justice of Manitoba should disqua lify hims elf. I never made such a state ment. I can say th at categorically, and having said that categorically, I can again say categorically that apparently the Member for St. Norbert can't read.

What I said in fact, which was supportive of the Chief Justice, was that I believed that judges once appointed do not become political eunuchs and are entitled at their risk in the sense of what might happen down the road to make statements on policy issues if they wish. I supported the Chief Justice of Manitoba in that respect.

What I did say was that it may be the case, indeed as it may, that when a case involving this particular issue comes before the Court of Appeal that there would be an argument presented to him, if he should be sitting on that day, that he should disq ualify hims elf, and I said that will be for him to decide. You know, it's one thing, Mr. Speaker, to have questions put on the basis of valid premises, but to be faced with the erroneous statements and heated intemperate conclusions drawn from them is to suffer too much at the hands of someone who should read a little more law and a little more carefully the papers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Health. I would ask him whether a Dr. Robert Scott of Alexandria, Ontario, has in fact performed the first abortions at the Morgentaler Clinic? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I think that it looks a bit like a trap. I think that it has not been determined that there has been an abortion in Manitoba, so it would be very difficult for me to answer. I read the newspaper. I get the same information as my honourable friend has.

I can tell my honourable friend that the College of Physicians and Surgeons are investigating the situation and I think that if and when, I think they're going to the doctor di rectly. Then we might know if, in fact, there has been an abortion performed in Manitoba when we get this information, and I unde rstand that the City Police also are investigating. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Mini ster for that information.

Knowing of his concern for this question and kn owing that he would have read about it in the media, I ask him whether he has through his office or through the Man itoba He alth Servi ces Commission caused an investigation of that reported statement by Dr. Mo rgentaler? If that is not the case, if no such investigation has been undertaken by the Commission, has there been any communi cation with the Commission vis-a-vis payment and reimbursement and insu rance for such medical procedures at the Morgentaler Clinic? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately or fortunately, not like the Mamber for St.

Norbert or the Attorney-General, I'm not a lawyer and as you know, I'm quite independent and very neutral in this question so I have no problem - (Interjection) - yes, very neutral. I have no problem with the statement and the position of the Attorney-General. As the Mini ster of Health, I am responsible for standards. The Cabinet as such has recognized that we would not grant the hospital status to the clinic. That is the case. I think the important thing, no matter who starts, who init iates any action, I think the im portant thing is 2826 I

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 to make sure that there has been an abortion. This is what I heard the Attorney-General say. I think it could be quite em barrassing if we start anything and if the government, through the Attorney-General, should start anything and it was proven that there has not been any abortion at all. So the thing is that we will, as far as -we each do our job -the Attorney-General is responsible to maintain the law and I'm sati sfied with his an swer.

I am responsible, as the Mi nister of Health, to make sure that there is no illegal abortion being performed in a -well, that says it all - in a facility that has not been recognized or accredited, and also that any licence with the College of Physicians of Surgeons, that any doctors that are licensed to perform as a doctor here should not practise illegally. That, I am told, I've met with the College of Physicians and Surgeons -not with the special purpose of discussing that - we meet every month of so as my honourable friend knows, and that information was given that they are looking into it.

I also have received a copy of a complaint by a citizen who sent his complaint to the police, and the police, I understand, are investigating it. But my role as Mini ster of Health is to make sure of these standards, and no illegal abortion without the proper backup should be done. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the Min ister for his information. I concede his responsibility with respect to standards, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons has a responsiblity with respect to ethics of practice.

I would ask the Min ister whether the College of Physicians and Surgeons' licensing of a practitioner, of Dr. Scott or of any practitioner in Manitoba, extends to medical procedures which are not recognized by the law, which are outside the law, which are in fact illegal, or whether I am correct in my assumption that College of Physicians and Surgeons licensing extends only to medical practitioners performing practices that are legal within the laws of the province and the nation? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, my information is, of course, that they license any recognized doctor, qualified doctors to perform anything that is legal, not illegal. As I stated - I thought I did -the College of Physicians and Surgeons informed me that they are looking into the situation. They have been trying to get in touch with Dr. Scott to ask him a few point ed questions. I guess when they have further information, I could inform the House. MR. L. SHERMAN: Would the Minis ter, in a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, then concede that the College of Physicians and Su rgeons obviously places much greater potential credence in Dr.

Morgentaler's remarks than the Attorney-General does? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I can categorically say no to that question. They feel exactly -in fact, they felt that maybe Dr. Morgentaler was trying to play games and get people all on the wrong track, so they're certainly not sure that anything, any abortion . . . A MEMBER: And he certainly succeeded across the way. Loan Guarantee Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I took as notice a question from the Honourable Member for Pembina dealing with the review panel that the province has set up.

I can advise him that we've had 23 inquir ies of staff conce rning financial difficulties and we've had, of those, 12 financial reviews completed. One of those 23 problems have been settled without going to a review panel and the farmers' problems were able to be worked out. There are eight others where there are discussions with creditors and staff. Two panels were completed.

There's actually been two panels completed and there is one panel that is being scheduled, I believe, for next week and there are several that are being held at the request of farmers where they're negotiating and staff are working with them. I might add for the honourable member that the review process follows very well as a follow-up to our assistance and counselling that we have provided farmers under the Interest Rate Relief Program and certainly is an added measure to assist farmers in dealing with the financial crisis therein. As well, Mr.

Speaker, I wish to advise the honourable member that under the Loan Gu arantee Program, I received a report this morning. As of the end of last week there were 187 applications totalling $1 1.2 million. Ten have been declined for the same amount as I gave earlier. Approvals of 16 6, $9.9 million; 11 pending for $7 10,000, and there have been nu merous others that have come in. The turnaround time presently is three days for the applications. Manitoba Crop Ins urance Corporation MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister also provide the ans wer to the question he took as notice as to whether inco rporated family farms, whose principal shareholders choose not to sign a personal guarantee to the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation, will be refused crop insurance coverage either this year or next year? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will remember that I answered the question and I'm having that whole matter reviewed.

The answer that I gave him, and I looked at my notes that I read from the in formation that was provided to me by the corporation: "The Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation's solicitor states the reason that we request the personal guarantee is that the corporation insures the individual producer rather than the corporation. Therefore, we want the individual producer's personal guarantee.

The person giving the personal guarantee for a corporate debt is in the insured's file and will never be used un less the corporation goes into receivership or is placed in receivership." We have had a few corporations go into receivership and that did not have the corporate debt form or prior to having a corporate debt form signed as an officer of the corporation. Therefore, the corporation only received settlement in accordance with the funds available. 2827

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 The honourable member is also aware that this procedure was instituted, I believe, in August of 19 80. I want to review this whole matter to see whether or not the corporation is going beyond normal practices in terms of having its premiums guaranteed for payment but I still have not received further response to this and we will be reviewing this whole matter. Port of Churchill - upgrad ing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. A. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, last week the Min ister of Agriculture ind icated that he would be contacting the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Commit tee and the Canadian Wheat Board to encourage them to change their decision on the accepting of some $50 million to upgrade the Port of Churchill and the line to Churchill. Has he contacted the Canadian Wheat Board and what was their response, Mr. Speaker? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, we did contact the Wheat Board and we also received advice.

My colleague received advice from the Min ister responsible indicating that the press reports dealing with the alleged $50 million were, in fact, mere discussions, and discussions at the formative stage in Ottawa. There has been no formal commitment made vis-a-vis the press statements that we have encountered. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you please call adjou rned debates on second reading in the following order: Bill 60, Bill 55, Bill 4, Bill 12, Bill 50.

And then, Sir, time permitting, I propose to call the second reading on Bill 20. ADJOURNED DE BATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 60 - THE HIGH WAY TRAFFIC ACT MR. SPEAK ER: On the propo sed motion of the Hon ourable Mini ster of Hig hways Bill No. 60, standing in the name of the Hon ourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sp eak er. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this impo rtant and cont roversial pi ece of pro posed legislation, Bill 60. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I say that my current position with respect to this Act is one of difficulty.

I recognize the valuable medical and physical advantages to be achieved from some of the measures proposed in the legislation with respect to safety restraints and safety devices for persons driving in, and riding in, automob iles and operating moto rcycles. But I have difficulty, Sir, with the compulsory aspect and nature of the legislation with the fact that the government apparently finds it desirable, if not indeed necessary, to mandate the compu lsory use of these protective devices and with the fact that the government obviously finds it necessary to tie the three key components of this bill together. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the current Mi nister of Hig hways has similar difficulties with the nature of the bill and way that it has been constructed although far be it from me to impute im proper

interpretations of a piece of legislation by one member or another in this Chamber. I may hear from him in challenge to that suggestion. But I do suggest, Sir, knowing the Mi nister of Highways, knowing him to be a fair and a reasonable man and an extremely broadly experienced legislator in this province, I do believe that he probably has difficulties somewhat similar to mine.

If they are not as intense in degree, they certainly, I suggest, may well be quite simi lar to mine in that the bill itself avoids taking the courageous approach to some protective safety measures that are desirable in our society and hides them; in fact, sugar coats them and attempts to convey their imposition into society hidden inside other arguments and other constraints. I refer to the

section of the bill that would require srnall children to be protected by child restraints in motor vehicles. The government apparently finds it im possible to add ress th at measure head-on, separately and ind epende ntly, and give it the individual support and the indi vidual im petus that in my view it deserves.

They want to invade certain areas of individu al choice in the affairs of Man itobans; they want to be able to cont rol and regulate the conduc t of society in certain areas of vehicular traffic; and they want to deliver on, I think, what some of them perhaps feel is a pledge or a partial promise at least to some of their constituencies by in troduci ng mandator y seat belt legislation and mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation.

They do not believe they can get seat belt legislation and motorcycle helmet legislation through this Legislature or past the people of Manitoba by themselves, and in order to win that argument, in order to provide the mandatory measures having to do with automobile seat belts and motorcycle helmets, they have carefully constructed a piece of legislation that enables them to smuggle those measures in, Sir, with a very desirable piece of social protection, that component of the bill that provides for child restraints. That's my difficulty with this legislation.

I do not warm enthusiastic ally to a government requirement that mandates the use of motorcycle helmets or for that matter that mand ates the use of seat belts in automobiles on a compulsory basis. I believe that that is an unwelcome and an unneccesary invasion of privacy and freedom of choice, and I regret very much the continuing drift in society and the continuing tendency by this government to reduce the range of individual choices available to men and women, to reduce the range of ind ividua l choic es and indi vidual decisions available to Manitobans, and to force society into a conformist mold.

I think for all the strong supporting arguments that can be offered in the seat belt debate and in the motorcycle helmet debate, and there certainly are strong supporting arguments that can be introduced, I think for all of those, there is the coun tervailing 2828 I

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 argument that education is better than compulsion and that any and all legislative init iatives which tend to dimi nish the rights of men and women to make individual choices about their lives and about the conduct of their affairs within legal reason, any and all in itiatives that tend to diminish that kind of freedom tends to threaten the ultimate survival of freedom and free choice itself. As a consequence, I find it extremely difficult to support, end orse and embrace measures of that kind.

I recognize the statistical arguments that have been mounted, the investigations that have been carried out and the docume ntation that has been provided from a great numb er of sources, professional, vocational and otherwise, which argue that mandatory seat belts save lives and protect people from serious injury, and that motorcycle helmets do likewise.

But, Sir, there is also the argument that has been raised by the advocates of the other side, who can testify to documented situations in which the wearing of such devices have in fact cost people their lives rather than save their lives, ha ve in fact cau sed acc idents rather than prevented accidents, and I think that it is unjud icious of the Legislature to move in such a way as to make those devices mandatory and compu lsory without very serious, deep and soul-searching examination of the subject and without considerably more attention being paid to all the investigation, all the exploratory work, all the arguments that are available on both sides of the question.

I have talked as recently as two weeks ago to drivers; in this case, a resident of a northern commun ity of this province in the most recent case, who said to me that he would not be there in his car driving with me on that particular highw ay if he had a year-and-a-half ago been wearing a seat belt. We all know of situations of that kind and incidents of that ki nd.

Now, that is not to say that arguments and statistics cannot be mounted in voluminous numb er from other jurisdictions which demonstrate that seat belts have saved lives and prevented accidents, but, Sir, what the two things say is that it's an open question, a continuing argument. There is no conclusive evidence as yet which would seem to justify this Legislature's moving in a compulsory way, moving in a way such as is proposed in this legislation, to mand ate the compu lsory use of such devices wit ho ut further intens ive exploration and examination of the subject.

That is the way I feel about the requirement to make the wearing of seat belts and motorcycle helmets mandatory as I study the legislation and work my way through it at this juncture. I am, Sir, however, prepared to listen to the arguments that support the legislation to consider the kinds of representations that will be made before Law Amendments Committee when this bill goes to committee, and to move very carefully in making my final free-choice decision with respect to this legislation, but that's the way I feel at the moment about seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

I believe that the motorcycle rider, motorycycle operator organization known as ABATE makes a very good argument and a very good case when it presses for much more extensive, much more sophis ticated , much more scientific rider education. I believe, in terms of safety on the road in general, that the biggest init iative that we could take would be an initiate in the area of ridding our roads and our streets and our highways of drinking drivers.

Initiatives in the area of reducing the incidents of drinking among drivers, reducing the level of alcohol influence on the roads and in vehicular traffic, are the most urgently required in itiatives in the area of life and safety on the road for Manitobans.

So that rider education in the motorcycle field, as promoted through AB ATE and inte nsive and , if necessa ry, expensive in itiativ es aimed at reducing the incidents of the use of alcohol by operators of vehicles, and particularly motor vehicles; initiatives aimed at driving the drinking driver off the road and keeping him and her off the road; in itiatives aimed at eliminating that scourge of alcohol on our streets and highw ays are the initiatives that I would like to see this Legislature directing its attention to with respect to measures having to do with The Highway Traffic Act.

It's there that I place my primary interest and ambition at the moment, Sir, rather than in the area of the compulsory mandating of the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets. But I do not have any argument with that component of the bill that deals with the mandatory use of child restraints in motor vehicles.

I believe, Sir, that is a measure that is entirely and unequivocally justified and overdue and I would wish that the government had had the moral courage to move on a piece of legislation that would mandate child restraints by themselves and of themselves, that would introduce that measure by itself and of itself, rather than confusing and obscuring the issue by bringing in the seat belt and motorcycle helmet requirements at the same time and in the same piece of proposed legislation. That's where the difficulty arises for me in addressing this legislation.

I suggest a similar difficulty arises for many other members of this Chamber, particularly on this side, and I would be surprised if that difficulty did not arise in the heart of the Minister of Highways. Mr.

Speaker, I repeat that I don't wish to draw red herrings across the trail of debate of this subject, but apart from the child restraint provisions in this bill, Sir, I do believe the interests of our society would be much better served if we were dealing here with an initia tive by government, such as I suggested a few moments ago, that is aimed not an infringing upon the freedom of choice by mandating the wearing of automobile seat belts and motorcycle helmets, but would be aimed at curtailing the carnage that is com mitted on our streets and our hig hways every year by the drinking driver.

If the legislation dealt with child restraints and if it, or an accompan ying piece of legislati on, dealt with curtailment of that carnage then, Sir, I would stand in my place and at this point, without having to give it further concern and further worry, wholeheartedly endorse the measure introduc ed by the Minister of Hig hways for consideration at this time.

I would hope, as we move through the consideration of this bill, towards committee stage, that the Minister and his colleagues would consider breaking out the individual key components of the bill -the three key components that I'd mentioned -and permitting us to deal with the child restraint proposal on its own merits. It deserves to be dealt with on its own merits. I have and I'm sure a great many members of the Legislature have received in-depth documentation from profess ional and other groups testifyi ng to the unarguable desirability of protecting small children in 2829

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 motor vehicles with child restraints. The statistical evidence is clear and unequ ivocal. I have in front of me submis sions from the Health Sciences Centre, from the Manitoba Medical Association, from the Task Force on Maternal and Child Health, that operated under the aegis of the Social Planning Council of Winnip eg; from specialists in this field, such as Dr.

Richard Stanwick, who is the assistant professor of pediatrics and social and preventative medicine at Children's Hospital, and who deals every day of his life, together with his colleagues, with children who have been smashed and otherwise injur ed in hig hway accidents and th eir conclusions are clear, unarguable and totally acceptable to me. I say that what they demonstrate and what they live with and what they have proven and what they are asking for is overdue; that is, protection for small children who do not have the maturity, do not have the opportunity to make the decisions for the mselves.

Small children are subjected to the decision-making powers of adults, of others, who control and run their lives for them. They do not have the freedom of choic e; they do not have the natural physical resistance; they do not have the natural protection, physiological, muscular, reactionary, that is available to an older person when they're being transported in a vehicle, for example, that is forced to come to a sudden stop, or that is struck from behind, or otherwise involved in an accident.

Therefore, they require and they deserve the decision to be made for them by adults, looking out for their best interests, that they shall be equ ipped with a device that protects them, i.e., child restraints, and I favour that, Sir, without argument. But what this government has said is that they want to make choices and decisions for people who otherwise should have the right to make those choic es and decisions for themselves.

In grey areas where there's argument pro and con; namely, the areas having to do with automobile seat belts for adults and motorcycle helmets, they want to mand ate the compu lsory use of those devices against the particular inclinations, the particular experiences, and the particular feelings and emotions of the person who would be affected. There are many people who are discomforted, Sir, by wearing automobile seat belts, who feel once strapped into an automobile by a seat belt that they will be trapped in an argument.

That does nothing to enhance the emotional manner and method in which they approach their driving responsibilities. There are many motorcylclists who argue passionately that under certain conditions the use of motorcycle helmets is restrictive and is highly bothersome, in terms of the kind of heat that it builds up and ger>erates; in terms of the difficulties it creates where hearing and vision are concerned; in terms of general discomfort again, the forced wearing of that kind of a device does nothing and will do nothing to reinforce and strengthen the alertness of the rider, of the operator of that vehicle.

It will do nothing to reinforce the emotional and intellectual capability of the operator of that vehicle to observe the danger signals and to operate his or her vehicle safely in traffic. What is at stake here, Sir, is the question of the maturity of indi vidual Manitobans.

I believe that deeply implicit in this kind of legislation is the view held by this government that Manitobans are not mature enough to make those decisions for themselves to seek out the kind of training and education that is necessary to make good drivers of themselves, or to be able to make the decisions on their own as to the conditions that make them better drivers, better operators, more alert drivers and more alert operators than would otherwise be the case. The government is saying to them, look, we know that you can't make that decision.

You don't know what the conditions are that create the hig hest level of alertness and responsiveness, the hig hest level of reaction abil ity for you when you're operating a motorcycle or driving a motor vehicle. We will make that decision for you. I think, Sir , that is a very dangerous and a very insidious conclusion for any government to come to.

So I want to explore the proposal having to do with manda tory seat belts and manda tory mo torcycle helmets contained in this legislation very carefully as we proceed through the study of this legislation before I make a decision as to which way I'm going to vote on this bill, but I tell you, Sir, and I tell members of this House at this juncture that I am uncomfortable with it.

At this point in time, I do not support it because of those two components and because of the attitude towards the people of Manitoba and their intelligence and their right to freedom of choice that is implicit in those two components that have been drafted by the government in this proposed legislation. But I will argue for and continue to support in every way that I can the concept of child restraints and the introduction of mandatory child restraints in vehicles.

If I can persuade the gover nment to provide an opportunity for us to intr oduce that kind of protective measure, that kind of safety measure by itself on its own merits, then I will be a happy and a gratified legislator indeed, Mr.

Speaker, for I believe that is one of the two things we need to make life safer, to make our streets and our roads and our highw ays safer, and to reinforce the welfare and the well-being of our society, old and your.g, those two measure being child vehicle restraints, and a very intensive and imaginative program aimed at getting the drinking driver off the road and keeping him and her off the road. I mean, keeping them off the road for a long, long period of time, if not indeed, Sir, for good.

I have very little patience with the mixture of alcohol and gasoline, very little patience with the kinds of things that we have permitted to happen in our society through the use of alcohol by operators of motor vehicles. The terrible personal and family tragedies that have been caused by drinkin g drivers just create despair in the heart of any reasonable person. The inno cence of the victims in most cases and the depth, therefore, of the tragedy, Sir, just breaks your heart. I think that we can and mu st seriously direct ourselves to tha t great problem.

I would ask the Min ister of Hig hways to consider those two primary concerns of mine, and I would hope that as our study of this legislation proceeds that there will be an opportunity for me to vote in support of measures of that kind without being forced to tie my strong feeling s on th ose two su bjects in to my discomfitur e with legislation that would make seat belts and motorcycle helmets compulsory. So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks with an appeal to the Min ister of Highways to consider what 2830

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 he is doing here. He is, of course, asking a little child to lead him. The government is asking a little child to lead them. The government is saying that we can't get seat belt legislation and motorcycle helmet legislation through, so we'll sugar-coat it with the child restraints and that will win the day. That is a cowardly approach to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, in my view. That is cowardly thinking and it produces coercive legislation that, in effect, is really specious legislation. It is a bill that is not what it seems to be.

Give us legislation that reduces the carnage on the roads where drinkin g drivers are concerned and give us legislation that mandates child vehicle restraints and protects small children, and you will find, Sir, a great deal of support, I'm sure, on this side of the Chamber, certainly a great deal of support from me.

Continue to distort and disguise those kinds of measures and use them as a cover for an invasion of privacy, for a further erosion of freedom, for a reduction of the opportunity of free choice among our citizen ry, and you will continue to arouse suspicions and opposition among legislators such as me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to speak on this bill. I am just rising to - I believe that you were going to call Bill No. 55 next - (Interjection) MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Bill 60 is before the House.

Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, you were about to call Bill 55 and I wonder, there is one of our members that were intending to speak not present at the moment. Would you revert to Bill No. 4, and then we'll call Bill No. 55 later on? Bill NO. 55 -THE LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 55, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House for two or three days last week; I must have contacted the flu bug or something. My voice is not back to its original, so I don't kno w whether I will be able to maintain my voice through the comments that I want to make on this bill. So perhaps I should start at the end and tell you what I intend to say, and if I don't get it all done, at least you know where I stand on them. I will start by telling you, Mr.

Speaker, that I am opposed to the proposals put forward in Bill No. 55, and I am quite strongly opposed to it, and I'm opposed to it for numerous reasons. I think it's only fair that I should tell mem bers of the House the reasons why I am opposed to it. Mr. Speaker, when I look at the bill, and I see the very first

section that they're talking about, in this proposed amendment to The Legislative Assembly Act, it's dealing with an amendment that was put forward last year, I believe, in this very House by this Assembly, and we passed it unanimously. It affected your office, Mr. Speaker, so I find I have a little bit of difficulty talking about it, but I realize that it's im possible for you to talk about it, so I am going to talk about this issue, even though it reflects on the office of the Speaker. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is not a personal thing I'm talking about. It is about the office of the Speaker.

So, I want to make that clear before I go on any further. Mr. Speaker, it was a year ago that we increased the additional indemnity for the Speaker from $6,000 to $12, 000 which everybody in this House agreed to at that particular time. We agreed to it, but I notice now that they are repealing another

section of the Act which affected your office, and at the same time they are putting in restrictions on the in crease that they gave you, because they are saying now for that services performed when the House is not in Session, there is a maximum of $3,500 and such expenses not exceeding $3,000 as may be approved by the provincial audit or. Well, the $3,000 was the same as was there before, but they've put a $3,500 thing on there, and I want to know why. The Speaker is the spokesman for every member of this Assembly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want him to be able to act for me when this House is not in Session.

Yet, members are putting restrictions on his activity, and they are saying that he can only do up to $3,500 worth when the House is not in Session, and I know because I held that office for four years, and I know that I was called in from time to time to look after things that were in the interests of other members of the Assem bly. I know that the Honourable Member for Concordia knows something about it too. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to know why the Attorney-General brought this change in, and he didn't tell us when he introduced the bill for second reading?

He had better tell us when it goes to comm ittee, because I want some answers. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know from experience that there were time s when the office of the Speaker is not an everyday occurrence, but there are time s when it is needed, and I think a lot depends on the actions of the Executive Council, too. I know on many occasions, the Executive Council used to foist duties off on my office. When there were visiting digni taries they would ask the Speaker to look after them and entertain them, and the Executive Council was probably bus y. So, I did what I was asked to do.

I did it in the interests of the Legislature of Manitoba, and I'm sure that other Speakers before me have done the same, and I'm sure the present Speaker has done. 2831

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 Mr. Deputy Speaker - (Interjection) - I don't want to be detr acted by the Hono urable Member for Springfield, because let us talk about the facts that are in this particular bill. I want to kno w why they would put a $3,500 limit on the actions of the Speaker when the House is not in Session? I would think, Mr.

Speaker, that that is not in keeping with the best interests of the people of Manitoba, because we have already put in that legislation a safeguard so that the Speaker would not abuse any of those privileges because it says in there very specifically that it's expenses as approved by the provincial audi tor. As approved by the provincial auditor. So, I would think that when this bill goes to committee, we may want to ask some questions of the provincial auditor at that time, because there has to be some reason why the Attorney-General wants to put this kind of change in, and I want to know why?

He certainly didn't tell us when he gave it second reading. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we come to the next change that is being put forward, and I have to say that in looking at the changes that are put forward here, I think this type of change in legislation is consis tent with the phi losophy of the present gov ernment; and I would have to say that this government is extremely good in one particular field, and that is the field of social tinke ring. MR. C. MANNESS: I thought you were going to say deficit financing. MR. H.

GRAHAM: They love to tinker and make little subt le cha ng es that look to be of no parti cular consequence, but they feel that they must change something. Whether or not the change is for the good is secondary. They love to tinker and this bill is another example of trying to tinker with things. Whether or not it's in the interests of the people of Manitoba, they couldn't care less. They say if it's in their interest, we'll do it, but they love to tin ker. We see where they're putting forward changes that are going to increase the travel allowance for members from 26 trips a year to 40 times. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I've been in this House for quite a number of years; I've see qui te a few changes put forward to the Legislative Assembly Act from time to time, and in all the debates I've heard I think the one who was most consistent in any debate that he took

part in with respect to changes in the Legislative Assembly Act was the former Member for lnkster, Mr. Sid ney Green, who surprisingly in many cases when it was not opposed to the idea of changing the Act at all, but he said something that was very im portant because it struck home to me; he said, anytime you want to change legislation that affects your own personal pocketbook, you bring it forward so that it takes effect after the next election -after the next election. I happen to believe that to be a very good philosophy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. A.

ANSTETT: Where does this bill affect the members' personal pocketbooks. MR. H. GRAHAM: Okay, there's a social tin kerer talking, one of the best. He says, where does this affect his pocketbook? They love to tink er, they love to tin ker. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have told them that I am opposed to it. I don't believe that any member should get any increased travel allowance until after the next election.

If you want change in more travel allowance available, fine, bring it forward, but have the date it goes into effect take place after the next election, but don't have it retroactive as this bill is, where it says that Sections 2, 3, and 4 are retroactive. Retroactive, when it comes to the matter of human greed, that sounds good, Mr. Speaker, it sounds excellent. Mr.

Speaker, I'm opposed - I have been a member in this Assembly for many years, payment for 26 trips and I travel a lot further than the Member for Springfield, about the same distance as the Hono urable Member for The Pas, or the Member for Dauphin I mean, not as far as the Member for Thompson, but it's about half I guess, maybe not quit e.

I realized when I took the job, I realized when I ran for election in the area that I was representing, I knew the distance I was going to have to travel at that time, nothing has changed since and I was willing to serve at that time under those conditions, I'm still willing to serve at the same time. If you want to change it have the change take place after the next election. Now we get to the issue of a constituency allowance. This is an interesting one - a constituency allowance.

I believe, if I read the Act right, that the honou rable member would get a constituency allowance even though he gets a Cabinet . . . So when it comes to a constituency allowance, I know there is argument put forward from time to time. You need a constituency office. Well, some members would need three and a half-a-dozen secretaries; other members can seem to handle their whole constituency by them selves and do an excellent job. MR. G. FILMON: Andy is going to need a constituency after the next election. MR. H.

GRAHAM: It depends a lot on the ability of the member and how many people he needs to pick up after him. I can unde rstand why the Member for Springfield would want a constituency office and he'd want two or three people running around after him to clean up some of his problems. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. H. GRAHAM: That's und erstandable because, Mr. Speaker, I recall going to a meeting not too long ago, I believe it was an Agricultural Commit tee Meeting on the Crow at Anola, and I understand that the Member for Springfield was the chairman of that comm ittee.

One of the people that appeared before that commi ttee was his constituency president. I believe there was another member who tried his best to draw out from that member if there hadn't been some person, some elected representative in that area that had helped him in any way. Finally the man answered, yes there was. They asked him to identify him and he said it was Jake Epp. So I un derstand why the Member for Springfield would want to have a constituency office and have somebody out there doing some of his ho mework for him. However, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to carry on with the changes that are put forward in this bill, I think there's 2832

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 one thing that is rather sign ificant. I've heard many arguments in politics, especially in the last two or three years when we've been facing high unemployment, where there have been great demands made on the public purse. Especially in the Federal House, there has been a great deal of criticism on government for insufficient money being put forward for research and development. You'll hear that argument in the federal level; you'll hear it in every provincial House. There is insufficient money being put forward for research and development.

Here you find that the very small amount that had been in this Legislative Assembly Act for research and development is cut in half. It's being cut in half. Instead of being doubled, it is being cut in half. So I would think that you are seeing another example of social tinke ring. This government is always trying to do anything that, I think, would enhance their own position and do whatever it could to increase their own chances of re-election. If you can cut the research of the opposition in half, they say, that may make it a little easier.

So they will cut the research funds that were allocated in The Legislative Assembly Act, cut it in half and it might help, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it won't. It will not, because members, if they cannot get it here, will put it up out of their own pocket for research and development because research and development is necessary. It is a must in politics, and you compare the research offices of this provincial Assem bly to any other provincial Assem bly or the House of Commons in Ottawa and what we run here is a peanut gallery. Mr.

Speaker, the changes that are being proposed by the Attorney-General in this bill are changes that certainly do not impress me at all. I told you from the start that I am opposed to them. I have given you some of the reasons why I am opposed to them. They are certainly not the only reasons. There are other reasons but, because of the time that we have - I notice one of the changes, they want an extra printing privilege, a second mailing privilege. That doesn't really bother me that much.

I don't mind how much material they mail out, what cost, printing privileges, it doesn't bother me how much they send out in printed material. I found one thing in politics that has helped me an awful lot over many years, and that is that if you get the weekend off from this place and you have the opportun ity of spending the weekend in you r constituenc y, talking to your people, it doesn't really matter how much money you spend in printed materials. It's the personal contact that counts the most.

It's the personal contact that gives you the true relationship between the elected person and the constituency that he represents. So again this social tinkering that the mem bers are trying to bring forward to The Legislative Assembly Act, to me, is a waste of ti me. It's a waste of the taxpayer's dollar, and I would like to kno w some of the your people, it doesn't really matter how much money you spend in printed materials. It's the personal contact that counts the most. It's the personal contact that gives you the true relationship between the elected person and the constituenc y that he represents.

So again this social tinkering that the members are trying to bring forward to The Legislative Assembly Act, to me, is a waste of ti me. It's a waste of the taxpayer's dollar, and I would like to know some of the reasons why it is being brought forward at this time. If they want to put a rider on that this doesn't come into effect until after the next general election, I might be willing to buy it. But until I hear some argument put forward by that side of the House, if they're willing to talk in those terms, then maybe it's possible that we could arrive at some consensus in this House with respect to this bill.

At the present time, I have to indic ate, Mr. Speaker, that I am opposed to the bill, and I will not be voting in support of it un less there are some changes indicated before second reading is completed. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Minn edosa, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 4 -THE MANITOBA Oil AND GAS CORPORATION ACT MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 4, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Mini ster of Min es and Energy, standing in the name of the Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this bill to hold it for the Member for Arthur. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Sp eaker , I am pleased to participate in debate in this Chamber.

I am not so pleased to have to participate in the deb ate on legislation and a program of this government that I do not believe is very high on the priority list of any Manitobans, particularly tho se people in Manitoba that will be affected other than the paying for of this particular proposal that the government is bringing forward. Mr. Speaker, it is in deed a phi losophical approach to the development of one of the resources in the Province of Manitoba which again, we have to reiterate, is about the only bright spot in the provincial economy.

The proposal to enter into a Provincial Government or a state-owned oil company was one which I will refer to the document which has been referred to many times by many of my colleagues and by the members of the opposition which was presented to the public of Manitoba prior to the election of 198 1. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give the New Democratic Party any credit for the winning of the election and them any credit for the particular part that was telling the people of Manitoba that they were going to spend some $20 million in taxpayers' funds to develop a state-owned oil compa ny. Mr.

Speaker, as I ind icated, it is pretty much in my opinion, a straight philosophical debate; one in which we as a Progressive Conservative Party believe in the private sector developing our resources, whether they be our non -renewable resources such as the oils and gases of our province, or the development of our 2833

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 renewable resou rces in the de velopment of our agricultural industry. There can be a parallel drawn, Mr. Speaker, and one which, I think, is important to draw when we talk of the philosophic al approach to how the best system for developing our province can be introduced and achieved. That, Mr. Speaker, is not by laying a burden of additi onal taxation on the taxpayers of Manitoba to enter into a company that would be perceived to be doing what the private sector are now doing and doing very well.

And at the same time, the taxpayers of Manitoba have an ability to reap the rewards through the taxation policies, to reap the rewards through the development and the job opportunities that the private sector is presenting to the public. All those things, Mr. Speaker, are happening without ManOil, without a state owned oil company. Mr. Speaker, we nave condemned this government for breaking election promises. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is one election promis e that I think the majority of Manitobans would agree with them breaking.

If they would only take their head out of the sand and look at some of the facts that are now before them as presented by -and this is the first opportunity that any one of us have had to speak since the Quarterly Report had come out from the Department of Energy and Mine s, and I want to compliment them. I want to compliment the Department of Mi nes and Energy for putting out their Qua rterly Report on what is happening in the oil indu stry in Manitoba, but it's again back to the philosophi cal approach, Mr. Speaker.

We, in Manitoba, the majority of taxpayers, I do not believe want to have assessed onto them as taxpayers additiona l costs, whether it be through payroll taxes, whether it be through sales taxes, Mr. Speaker, whether it be through any other form of taxation, do they want additi onal costs so that this government, so that the New Democratic Party, can live up to what they believe in a philosoph ical approach as the best way to develop one of our valuable resources in Manitoba. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, as was pointed out not too long ago by my colleague for Turtle Mountain, that there has been the experience of a government owned-oil corporation in Saskatchewan, known as SaskOil, and how much money did it make? -not one dime. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it's a continued burden on the taxpayers of the people of Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, we have a state-owned oil company in Canada kn own as Petrocan, Mr. Speaker, and what has it done to the taxpayers of Canada . . . A MEMBER: Cost us mon ey. MR. J.

DOWNEY: ... other than given us a five-c.ent a-litre increase in the cost of our fuel when we drive up to the pumps? And not by choice by the Canadian public. I would challenge, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who believes that they want to be a participant or should feel they want to be a participant in the purchase of Petrocan that at each service station there be two pumps. There be one, Mr. Speaker, where you could drive up and buy your gas at five cents a litre less if you didn't want to participate in the purchase of Petrocan, a freedom of choice in the participation of state-owned oil company, Petrocan.

It would be very easy to do, and I would bet you, Mr. Speaker, that 99 percent of the people going to fill up with gas would make the decision not to participate in the purchase of Petrocan through the buying of gasoline at the pumps. If that's not true, I challenge any member to stand up opposite and try and tell me that it isn't and challenge the statement that I have just made. I would bet you that 99 percent of Canadians would go to the pump that didn't have the tax that we have to purchase Petrocan with. That, Mr.

Speaker, I believe, is freedom of choice and would tell the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba whether they want more state ownership in the gas and oil company in this country. Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't happen, and let the Provincial Government propose to set up their state oil company the same way and have a pump where they are going to charge. Well, it's going to work out, Mr. Speaker, the initia l $20 million that they're talking about, and this is the thin edge of the wedge, it's not $20 million we're going to be talking about.

It is a political tool because when I started my speech I ind icated it's a philosophic al approach to business, that they want to prove to the people of Manitoba that the socialist involvement in government, or government involvement in business, is their best way to develop Manito ba. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is no t the way in which Manitobans want to see their gas and oil develop. Mr.

Speaker, if in the presentation of this bill and the tax, if they were to set up a set of pumps where a Manitoban could drive up and pay for his gasoline with the taxation on that gasoline for the development of a ManOil corporation, as well as the Petrocan company, and leave the rest of Manitobans have the freedom of choice of participating in the purchase or the ownership of that oil com pany, then that is how they should do it. Because that, Mr. Speaker, would prove or not prove to this government whether or not the people of Manitoba wanted to invest in an oil company. Mr.

Speaker, I have to ask the question, why, today, when we have the high est taxes in all of Manitoba or all of Canada, we've got a payroll tax, we've got some of the heaviest tax burdens in every area, would we, as a priority in this Legislature be debating ManOil, particularly, when we have got recently a report from the Department of Mi nes and Energy?

What has happened in the oil ind ustry in the last year, but before I get into what has happened, let's go back to what they said earlier, what the purpose of ManOil would be in their introduction of their election promises: $20 million four-year drilling program; this oil and gas corporation would explore for oil and gas in Manitoba with the help of joint ventures with SaskOil, Petrocan , co-operatives and Canad ia n-owned companies, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, they can do that right now.

They can put $20 million into the road systems, into the development of the road systems, so that those people who are paying taxes, who are paying provincial taxes through hig hway licences on tractors, the oil trucks, through the taxes paid on the royalties, Mr. Speaker. They could reinvest that money and help in a joint way with the private companies, Mr. Speaker. That is how they could invest and be a part of the oil business. Mr. Speaker, we go onto the next great statement in the do cument. "Ma nOil, a New Democratic 2834

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 Government would establish ManOil," and I'm quoting from their great manifesto. "This oil and gas corporation would explore for oil and gas in Manitoba with the help of joint ventu res. The Ma nitoba NOP believes in resource development, not resource giveaways." Not resource giveaways -where, Mr. Speaker, can they prove that there have been resource giveaways? I'll tell you where the resource giveaways have been, Mr.

Speaker, the taxation of the people of the Province of Manitoba by the New Democratic Party, that's been the tax rip-offs and that's been the mis -allocation of resources by the people of Manitoba. Well Mr. Speaker, let us look at what happened in the First Quarterly Report, and I'm going to quote a little bit from it, Mr. Speaker, because I do think it's impo rtant that we recognize the kind of information that is available. "The drilling activity in the province got off to a booming start in 19 83." This, Mr. Speaker, didn't have anything to do with ManOil.

There wasn't one nickel of the taxpayers' money involved in the development of this. In fact, Mr. Speaker -and I'll get to it in a few minu tes -the taxpayers reap the benefits of that without spending a nickel. "The drilling activity in the province got off to a booming start in 19 83. Compared with the same period in 1982, drilling activity surpassed the 1982 level by 142 percent." A 142 percent incr ease; 46 wells in 19 83 vs. 19 wells in 1982.

Approximately 30 percent of the wells were classified as explor atory wells; so the private sector are developing and are exploring and bringing in new areas for oil production. The province doesn't have to do it, Mr. Speaker. Of the 40 wells that were drilled, 87 percent were comple ted as oil we lls, Mr. Speaker, revenue immed iately for the Province of Manitoba, without hiring additional staff, without hiring people to put on the public taxpayers' backs to work in the oil indus try. The private sector is doing all that, Mr. Speaker, and you are benefiting because there is a tax benefit to you.

Thirty-eight new wells were put on production in the first quarter of 19 83, 15 3 percent over the same period in 19 82, Mr. Sp eak er. The production -again, a tremendous increase. Twenty-seven percent increase over the - I wish, one request I have of the Department of Energy, that they wouldn't put this in metric, but they would use both metric and imperial measure, so that I can understand precisely barrels per day, or feet that are drilled - (Interjection) Well, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Financ e makes some kind of a smart remark.

It's an honest request, because I think the majority of Manitobans would still like to see the measurement in the imperial measure, and if people want to convert to the metric, than they should be allowed to read in both. I think it's as fair to have it in metric and imperial, as it is fair to have it in French and English in this country, equally as fair, so we can understand precisely what is going on. The increase in production was some 27 percent in Janu ary and February over the 19 82 period, that was the '83 over 1982. But note this, Mr.

Speaker, this is one of "the areas that I am continually pleading this government to upgrade the roads and pay attention to the development, but in the Waskada field, the production from this field has increased approximately 250 percent -250 percent increase in production in that one oil field, Mr. Speaker - a tremendous increase in a resource development. No t with ManOil, Mr. Speaker, but with the private sector, who are paying a lot of money into that communit y. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, if I remember correctly, the president of one company, one company only, told me that their dev elopment, their in vestment in the development of that Waskada oil field, in about a year and-a-half, was $16 million -in one year. Not $20 million over four years, they invested in one year some $16 million. That, Mr. Speaker, has a tremendous impact on the hotel business, on all the service indu stries, the housing units that had to be built in those communities are tremendous, and that all took place without ManOil.

That took place through the private sector initia tive and it's called -it's the development through profit mot ivation. You know, that's someth ing, I guess -that again this government have a problem with, is the profit motivitation, or the word "profit" -they automatically turn cold and they think because the word profit is talked about, it's bad, it's bad. Well, Mr. Speaker, let them ask the people of that southw est commun ity, all of that communit y, whether they need ManOil, because those other companie s and everybody involved in the development of business out there is making a profit. Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you what the message will be, is stay out of it because you'll just screw up the good things that are happening in that south west area, because of the private int iative. That's the message they'll get if they take the time, Mr. Speaker, to ask them the question. Mr. Speaker, I referred to some of the returns that the province is getting, but the overall comparison in the months of January and February 1983, 1983 returns in the two months were some $20.94 million in oil produced in those two months, com pared to $13 .9 million in 1982. That's a 60 percent increase, Mr.

Speaker, in value of oil produced - a tremendous revenue, not only for the people in that area, or for the companies that are developing, but further to that, to the provincial taxpayers; without again investing in a company that's going to be run by a lot of bureaucrats who really don't care whether the thing works or not, becaus e th ey sign a no -cut cont ract with this government, with a 27.5 increase over three years, why do they have to worry about producing oil - a 30 month contract with 27.5 percent increase. They don't need to produce oil because they've got their job and they proved it, Mr.

Speaker, in their past performance in the development of oil in the southwest. All the records show how dismal a failure they were in the development of oil in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster of Finance is sitting there and he knows what these figures are. Why would he now want to spend money, when he could actually sit back and continue to collect it? Grown royalty and oil tax payments, due to the province for January of 1983, for one month were $1.7 million, pretty near $2 million for the Provincial Treasury in one month, and that was 37 percent increase over 1982. Well, Mr.

Speaker, with the continued development of that oil field and the continued increase in production, that figure will multiply in the hundreds of time s and what they said they were going to do with ManOil, can be done without ManOil. They said they were going to help develop schools and hospitals and pay for all those 2835

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 things that are grand and glorious and we all need. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is going to happen without ManOil and I plead with the government to abort that idea of bringing in a development of ManOil. Yes, Mr. Speaker, abort that idea. That's one place they will get support from the people of Manitoba on what they should be doing with ManOil. Mr.

Speaker, $1. 7 million for the month of Janu ary, as an increase of some 37 percent over 1982, the gross royalty payments to freehold mineral rights, to the owners, are estimated at $1. 2 million, as opposed to $7 million for January and that money went to all those people out there, not to one or two, but to the people who have their freehold propertie s and they pay tremendous taxes. They pay tremendous taxes, Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial and Federal Treasuries. That money does not sit in anyone's bank account. It is put back into the taxation system in this country and everyone is sharing it, Mr. Speaker.

So I plead, Mr. Speaker, with this government not to proceed with

an Act strictly on a philosophical approach to the development of our oil ind ustry and I would have to say if they are strong advocates, if they are such strong advocates of it, are they equally as strong an advocate of every mun icipality in Manitoba, getting into the development of our resources? Are they as anxious to see every munic ipality get into the development of the resources as they are? Are they going to allow that kind of thing to take place? If it's fair for the Provincial Government, Mr. Speaker, would it not be as equally fair for the mun icipalities? Well, I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, I know that the mun icipalities are satisified with the revenue that they're getting off the assessment of the oil wells that are on the properties now. Most of those municip alities, Mr. Speaker, are getting - (Interjection) Well, I have to say the Member for Dauphin is just the kind of parrot that I thought he was. He has to continue to try and repeat after someone else to try and distract them. Well, I'll tell you that he is not distracting me, because HON. J. PLOHMAN: Stick to your speech. You don't know what you're talking about. MR. J.

DOWNEY: ... he won't be distracting anyone in this House after the next election because he will be sitting back in Dauphin. That's where he'll be sitting, and we will see to that, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to make what I think are valid points. I will make valid points, because the report concludes by saying on Page 4 that "The Omega Hydrocarbons Limited, Waskada, Lower Amaranth Unit No. 1, was formed and a pilot water flood pressure maint enance project approved and put into operation in February.

If the Government of Manitoba has $20 million to get into the ManOil business, into a state-owned oil company, why wouldn't they reconsider that expenditure of money to help recover some of the oil in the old oil wells in the Virden, and the Kirkella, and all those fields? I think it is well-known and well-stated by the oil ind ustry that we are getting back out of the ground a very small percentage of the actual production capability of those wells. If they have money to spend, why not spend it in the development of research and some experimental projects, too, Mr.

Speaker, to recover more of the oil, so they and the oil companies can work together to get a better supply out of the holes that are already drilled? That, I think, is probably one of the biggest areas that a government could get involved with provincial tax money and expenditures. I think it would not only be for the good of the oil companies, I thin k it would be good for the total nation and the other provinces that are having the same problems with recoveries from their wells.

That, I believe, is where money could be spent, and that's in the research and development of recovery of oil from the old wells and chan ges from some of the traditional recovery mechanisms. I go back to the Quarterly Report, "The Oil and Na tural Ga s Conservat ion Board passed orders designating 10 oil fields and 54 oil pools in the province. The new designations will allow for more meaningful groups of production data and facilitate easier technical study of all reserves or reservoirs in the province." That is important.

It's important because it is information that people can use, you can count on, and you can budget on in the future. But if you start to get into the oil business and an oil com pany, you will have a desperate time controlling that company and keeping them interested in Manitoba. Why, Mr. Speaker, do we need an oil company that will do the same kinds of things that Petrocan are now doing with tax dollars? Who do they account to, Mr. Speaker? They don't account to you as a taxpayer who pulls up to a service station pump and buys gasoline. A MEMBER: Bryce Mack asey. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Bryce Mackasey is who they account to. Well, I think they don't have to say any more about that. But that's the kind of thing I don't want to see the provincial taxpayers put their money into, something that they cannot control, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer again to the continuation of the offering of Crown leases for sale. The record sales in the province have proven that we, as a province, have a tremendous potential in the oil business.

We have a multitude of companies, not many large companies I have to say, mostly small companies that are in large part pretty good citizens of the southwest, although there have been some difficulties of not respecting the landowner rights when it comes to getting the right of entry and the way in which they've done it. But that, Mr. Speaker, with Bill 5 and the way it is being worked out, I think, will prove that we have two indus tries that can work together. I go back again to the philosophical approach to the development of our resources or the providing of service.

You know, all the reasons in the world can be made and have been made why we should have a publ ic-owned hyd ro-electric corporation for the Province of Manitoba. All the reasons in the world have been made and I think credit should be given to those politicians and those people who have taken the lead and they've crossed many political lines. D.L. Campbell, who was well-known through rural Manitoba for the Rural Electrification Program, which each and everyone of us from rural Manitoba has to remember when the ligh ts came on as far as the Hydro system was 2836

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 concerned. The introduction of our rural telephone system, again, was a good ind ication of where the public sector had to get involved to provide the kind of service that is needed or was needed for a communi cation link. Thos e are go od exam ples of wher e it is a responsibility of the state to get involved and provide the kinds of essential services that each and everyone of us cou ldn't provide for ourselves. But, Mr.

Speaker, there isn't one stem of evidence that can substantiate or prove the need of a state owned oil company in the Province of Manitoba, other than the strictly philosophical approach of the NOP Party who have in some way thought that there are exorbitant profits in the oil busi ness. I, Mr. Speaker, challenge them, before they spend one red cent of the taxpayers' money to develop that kind of corporation - (Interjection) correct -to prove to us how much money Petrocan has made for the people of Canada. I'll bet you, Mr.

Speaker, that it has cost each and everyone of you thousands of dollars because of the need for the purchase of gasoline for the transportation that you do in your daily lives. It's cost you thousands of dollars. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you hadn't have had it, you would have been buying your gasoline and oils a lot cheaper today than you are.

At least, you would have been paying 5 cents a litre less because you wouldn't have had to pay for the purchase of Petrocan or Petrofina or all those other pets of the "pet government" in Ottawa, the Pierre Government in Ottawa, I should say, you wouldn't have to pay for their whims. That is what we are doing. We're not developing any more oil; we're not developing any more gas. We are not buying it cheaper; we're paying more money for it.

All I can see happening with the introducti o'l of a provincial state-owned oil company is the same thing, but I again go back and ask them -the Min ister of Hig hways is here -that if he wouldn't agree that if you are going to buy or participate in ManOil that you should have a pump that says pay 5 cents a litre more to buy ManOil, or buy your gas 5 cents a litre less and don't buy ManOil. Who would fill up at what pump? Give them the freedom of choice to participate in ManOil or not to participate in ManOil, and allow them to do it in that manne r, Mr. Speaker. That would be the proof of the pudding, Mr.

Speaker. Well, I want to make one more comparison, because I do think that it is impo rtant to the long-term development of Manitoba and to our country.

You know, I made reference in my opening remarks that a parallel or com parison could be drawn between th e development of our non-renewable resources or petro chemicals as to our agricultur al ind ustry and our renewable energy, because really what we are talking about is resource development, the taking of that resource, the recovery of the resource; one through the mechanical working of soils and the introductions of fertilizers and all those things, the rains and the things that make it grow, and the other one is to go to the mechanical systems of drilling into the ground and extracting a commodity or a resource which we use.

You know, the phi losophical approach that they're using, and has been always told to me why we needed a Petrocan, and if it's the same reason why we need a ManOil, is that because the state owning it gives us an assured supply; the state because they're taking all those great profits are going to do other things with it. Well, Mr. Speaker, how many state farm programs work? How many state farm programs work to provide food for the countries that have those kinds of systems? How long would a state agriculture program work in the Province of Manitoba or in Canada? How long would it work?

Well, it wouldn't be very long until we bureaucracized ourself right out of food. We would not have the kind of abunda nce of food supplies that we we're now enjoying. I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that the same kind of thing would take place if you had nothing but a state-owned oil company in this country, a state owned oil company would give you the same kind of long term benefits.

No oil, no food, a shortage of each, because you've taken out the one key ing redient that makes it all happen and that's the private initi ative, or the private motivation to develop, and the reward of profit that each one in their daily life strives for under the private enterprise system. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, in the long term of the Province of Manitoba that we are spending or that this government are going to be spending money that's in our best interest.

I do not feel any better when I drive down a high way whether I see ManOil, or whether I see Petrocan, or whether I see anything doing tied to the state, it doesn't make me feel any better, that I'm more secure or that because I can buy gasoline at Petrocan at 48 cents a litre; Petrocan is .48 cents a litre, the other oil companies that are selling oil are basically the same. So if the oil companies are ripping me off, so is Petrocan. You know, it just doesn't wash, Mr.

Speaker, of why we are here today debating a ManOil bill where the state is going to get involved in the production of oil, the development of oil in Manitoba, when by their own figures, their own documentation, the incomes are coming in, there's no money to be spent, it's just to sit back and take the revenues of the developing oil business and let the economy excel. But there's one place that I do feel that they should spend some of their money -two places. I asked the Min ister of Hig hways yesterday and I hope he's taken action on it.

If we're going to see the continued flow of cash into the provincial coffers, if we're going to see the continued job opportunities that they're so anxious to see happen, and we all want to see employment opportunities increased, if they want to do that, then take their $20 million and put it back in the Highways Budg et so th at we can get that resource to the marketplace, get that oil to the marketplace, and get the revenues into the provincial coffers. Mr. Speaker, if we don't, then we will have - the Min ister of High ways ind icated yesterday, there is a possi bility of a pipeline system being built.

Well, I think that has great merit and great potential, but do you realize how long that would take to put in place? An oil collection system, a pipeline system from Waskada to Pearson to Lyleton, to the Coulter oil fields, some 60 miles I would estimate, across private landholdings, easements have to be made, across railroad tracks, across waterways, through the whole system of planning and design. Mr. Speaker, they can't even build a road in any part of the province, how are they going to be able to help build a pipeline? 2837

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is we have to deal with this issue not on a philosophical base, but on a practical base. That I plead with the government to do, get involved in the recovery of the oil out of the wells. If you have to use money to do that, then do it. But the No. I priority at this particular time is the upgrading of the infrastructure, the hig hways, the roads that carry the product across the roadways and make sure, Mr. Speaker, that isn't neglected any longer because as it's continu ed to be allowed to deplete - as I showed in pictures to the Min ister of High ways yesterday that on a

section of road north of No. 1 Highway from Sinclair to Cromer, there are 20 some places on that road that are almost impassable. In fact, there is one that is impassable and that's the one we took a picture of. How do we expect the continued development, the continued pumping of oil out of the ground that has to go through trucks, in trucks, over the roads if they can't get over them? Certainly they are diverting around other roadways, Mr. Speaker, I don't deny that, but do you know what is happening to those other roadways?

They are now going the same way, the same kind of weight has to be carried and those roads are going into the same kind of disrepair as the one in which I have point ed out to him. I know that the Min ister of Highways needs more money from his treasury. The Min ister of Financ e is sitting here, he's sitting here supporting a bill to spend money on the development of a state oil company, but he won't spend money to the development of a road to haul the oil over that he's now getting. I cannot figure out the economic reasoning behind what he's thinkin g about.

It's no t sound jud gment or sound us e of taxpayers' money. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to this Assembly, and to the constituents of my area, and put their thoughts on the record as well as mine that we do not need the state involvement in the oil in dustry in Manitoba, because the private sector through their own reports are proving they can do it and do it in a joint way through paying of taxation and paying of the kinds of inputs that the province can tax them on. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I won't go back and take a lot more credit for the government of which I was a member, but we do have to pay acknowledgment to my colleagues, who I was a part of, that we in fact made some fairly im portant changes in the taxation of the oil industry that helped get this all started. I agree that the increased prices of world oil as well were a part of it, but that goes back to the motivation of profit, or the people who were motivated to participate in the development of an oil ind ustry and get profit as reward. So I want to make it very clear in my position, Mr.

Speaker, that I cannot support taxpayers' money to get into the state-owned busi ness of oil development when, in fact, it is taking place better through the private sector. QUES TION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House is the proposed motion of the Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Mi nes and the second reading of Bill No. 4. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs.

Adam, Anstett, Ashton, Bucklaschuk, Carroll, Corrin, Cowan, Ms. Dolin, Messrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mackling, Malinowski, Pawley, Penner, Ms. Phillips, Messrs. Plohman, Santos, Schroeder, Scott, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Storie, Uruski, Usk iw. NAYS Messrs. Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Filmon, Gou rlay, Graham, Mrs. Hammond, Messrs. Hyde, John ston, Kovnats, Lyon, Mann ess, McKenzie, Nordman, Mrs. Oleson, Messrs. Orchard, Ransom, Sherman, Steen. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas, 26; Nays, 22. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Before moving to Private Members' Hour, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 19 students of Grade 5 standing from the Reston Elementary School. They are under the direction of Mrs. Mi lliken. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Arthur. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here afternoon. Order please. The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, the delay in the vote - I did want to move the Supply Motion so that you wouldn't have to come back this evening and by leave, I would like to do that. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Mi nister of Economic Development and Tourism that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources, and seconded by the Honourable Mini ster of Economic Development, by leave . The Hono urable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Speaker, are we in Private Members' Hour, or are we dealing with . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It is my understanding that, by leave, a motion was put to go into commit tee. If that motion is not by leave, then members will so indi cate. Order please, order please, leave has not been granted. 2838

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 PRIVATE MEMB ERS' HOUR ADJOURNED DEBA TE ON SECOND READING - PRIVATE BILLS MR. SPEAKER: We are in Private Mem bers' Hour, and the first item on Private Mem bers' Hour on Tuesday afternoon ... Order please. Adjourned Debate on Second Readings of Priv ate Bills on the propos ed motion of the Honourable Member for lnkster, Bill No. 38 . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Do the members wish to continue? The motion before the House is the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for lnkster, Bill No. 38, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W.

McKENZIE: I'd like the indu lgence of the House to have the matter stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Bill NO. 53 -STEIN BACH CURLING CLUB LTD. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, Bill No. 53, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Concordia. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Speaker, we have considered this bill. We're prepared to let it go to comm ittee where we'll ask some of the questions. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. ADJOURNED DEBA TE ON SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate for Second Reading on Public Bills, Bill No. 41, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that discussions have been held between the Min ister of Labour and the Memb er for St. Norbert. An agreement has been reached to have the content of this bill, referred to the Labour Law Review. So, I would like to keep it stand in my name. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

I am informed that technically the Honourable Member for Wolseley has spoken to the bill; therefore, it does not stand in her name. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Concordia. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Springfield, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Member for Brandon West, Bill No. 56, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Springfield. (Stand) PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS RES. NO. 12 - A PEACEMAKER ROLE FOR CANADA MR.

SPEAKER: On the matter of Private Mem bers' resolutions, Resolution No. 12 , the Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to move, seconded by the Member for Thompson, that WHE REAS Canada has historically played a lead role in peacekeeping; and WHERE AS Canadians from coast to coast have clearly stated their desire to strengthen our role as a peacemaker and a peace builder; and WHE REAS developing new weapon systems only serves to exacerbate the arms race when the world is already spending well in excess of one billion dollars per day on armaments; THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urges the Government of Canada not to permit the testing or the development of the Cruise missile or any other military hardware intended to be used in the deployment of nuclear weapons; and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED th at we urge the Government of Canada to strenuously promote peace and dialogue between Nations and that the Clerk of this Assembly forward this resolution to the Government of Canada.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not expect this resolution to be handled by the members of the opposition with the catcalls that they have already started with in calling the resolution a joke. Mr. Speaker, their absence this afternoon at the ceremony for the Un ited Nations Association Canada at the Pool of the Black Star is perhaps indic ative of their respect both for the United Nations or lack of respect for the Uni ted Nations.

I brought this resolution forward; I didn 't really know it was going to come today, that we would be able to have the introduction of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, on the very day that the Uni ted Nations Association of Canada and, in particular, co-ordinated by the R.B. Russell students from the R.B. Russell School and also the Stonewall Collegiate School, that they would have a presen tation with Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Man itoba in attendance and speaking on the role that Canada has to play in the world today; that also in attendance would be the 2839

Tuesday, 17 May, 1983 Mayor; the Premier; the Min ister of Cultural Affairs; and Canada's Ambassador to Disarmament. All those people, Mr. Speaker, spoke of the role Canada has to play in the world, both on our own and in particular within the United Nations. Canada's Ambassador to Disarmament spoke on the essential role that the Un ited Nations plays. He spoke, Mr.

Speaker, on the need for Canadians to stand up and speak out on the issue of disarmament for the role in the future of the world is very much at stake as we go on almost senselessly in this world in armaments buildups and, in particula r, in nu clear armaments buildup. In the past, Mr. Speaker, Canada developed a very strong role in the world, an incredibly strong role, a role that was respected, a role that we still carry over a good amount of respect for in Third World nations, in European natio11s and in nations, I might add, throughout the world both in east and west blocs. We were heard, Mr.

Speaker, during the years of the Suez crisis when our delegate to the United Nations, Lester Bowles Pearson, was a prime negotiator between France and Great Britain and, on the other side, Egypt. A bloody conflict, Mr. Speaker, I think was avoided in that, and that really became, more than any other single event, the start of an active foreign policy by Canada in peacekeeping. We established first off a peacekeeping force in Egypt, followed in Cyprus, also partici pated in U.N. peacekeeping missions in the Congo and an observer force in Lebanon.

We saw an era when Canadians were promoting dialogue between the east and the west; we saw it not only in the government efforts, but we saw efforts of individual Canadians and people tied to this country. We had the start of the Pugwash Conferences in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, sponsored by Cyrus Eaton, the great indu strialist.

In his role of having ccnfidence both and, in particular, in the Unit ed States and Canada, but also being able to go and talk to Soviet leaders, members of the Soviet Politburo, to academics and to scientists in the Soviet Union to try and bring together -and very successfully and the conferences are continuing to date, Mr. Speaker -people from the east and from the west. Instead of never having our twain shall meet, having them meet.

Beyond that, and still continuing with the Unit ed Nations Association of Canada, are the Couchiching Conferences, which once again are stressed towards recognizing Canada's role as a lead community in the world. We have a uniqu e opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in that the role that we have to play is because our nation, as one of the more indus trialized nations of the world, with one of the hig hest standards of living in the world, even though it's slipping, but probably more than any other nation except for s

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-69a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 69a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4e932fd973a111822bd326d3f52aff4b18b8b7ff

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