Manitoba Hansard — 24 January 1990 (Sitting 110, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-110

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba ATES and PR EEDINGS {HANSARD) 38 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. xxxvm No. 11 0 - 1:30 p.m., WEDNES DAY, JANUA RY 24, 1990. ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

NAME ALCOCK, Reg ANGUS, John ASHTON, Steve BURRELL, Parker CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CHARLES, Gwen CHEEMA, Guizar CHORNOPYSKI, William CONNERY, Edward, Hon. COWAN, Jay CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DRIEDGER, Herold L. DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Laurie E. EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold GRAY, Avis HAMMOND, Gerrie, Hon. HARAPIAK, Harry HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R. HEMPHILL, Maureen KOZAK, Richard J. LAMOUREUX, Kevin M.

MALOWAY, Jim MANDRAKE, Ed MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. McCRAE, James, Hon. MINENKO, Mark MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fourth legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation CONSTITUENCY Osborne St. Norbert Thompson Swan River Fort Rouge River Heights Selkirk Kildonan Burrows Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose du Lac Roblin-Russell Concordia Arthur Emerson Niakwa Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Fort Garry Brandon East Tuxedo Virden St.

Boniface Minnedosa Ellice Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Gimli Logan Transcona lnkster Elmwood Assiniboia Morris Brandon West Seven Oaks MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. Rossmere OLESON, Charlotte, Hon. Gladstone ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. Pembina PANKRATZ, Helmut La Verendrye PATTERSON, Allan Radisson PENNER, Jack, Hon. Rhineland PLOHMAN, John Dauphin PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Turtle Mountain ROCH, Gilles Springfield ROSE, Bob St. Vital STORIE, Jerry Flin Flon TAYLOR, Harold Wolseley URUSKI, Bill Interlake WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy SL Johns YEO, J.

Iva Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBERAL NOP PC LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL PC NOP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC NOP NDP PC NOP LIBERAL LIBERAL NOP LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL LIBERAL NOP LIBERAL NOP NDP LIBERAL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, January 24, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PRO CEEDINGS TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I table the Annual Report for the Energy and Mines Department. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Honourable Members' attention to the gallery where we have, from the Ryerson School, fifty-eight Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Gail Marlow and Leona Wiens.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St Norbert (Mr. Angus). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUES TION PERIOD Out-Migration Statistics Government St rategy Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a question to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Cummings). For months in this House we have been pointing out to the Government that this province is losing people at an ever increasing rate. Month after month the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) has stood up in this House and pooh-poohed that concern and suggested that it is not a serious problem. Well, the City of Winnipeg has just released the report of its Task Force on Economic Development. It underlines and confirms the concern. In the last five years 12 4,000 people, young Manitobans, have left this province. Three out of four of them have been under the age of 34. Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Premier today admit that we have a problem and tell us what they are doing to correct this outflow? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Deputy Premier): The Member makes a correct assumption when he talks about over the last five years. We certainly appreciate the fact that we have inherited a considerable number of economic woes from the previous administration. Mr. Speaker, this Government has chosen to build a st rong foundation upon which the economics of this province can grow, and thereby the people of this province can be assured of long-term employment and strength of that employment for their families.

We have done that by making sure that there is more take-home money in the pockets of the taxpayers of this province by reducing the taxes. We are approaching that by removing the onerous payroll tax as rapidly as we can afford to do it. Mr. Speaker, we are attracting investments to this province and embarking upon a new era of growth for this province. That is how we will repair it. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the increase in take-home pay amounts to 50 cents. Out-migration has increased in this last 18 months at a rate unprecedented in the last 10 years. Free Trade Agreement Impact Labo ur Mr.

Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to indicate serious concerns about the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on this province, another question that we have raised over and over in this House only to have the Government deny that it even is a problem. * (13 35) Mr. Speaker, the de Grandpre Study called for a labour adjustment strategy to affect areas that were negatively impacted by free trade. Can the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) tell us where that strategy is, and when we are going to see it tabl�d in this House? Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Minister of labour): Mr.

Speaker, the de Grandpre Report also said that you could not pinpoint any areas that were applicable to free trade, that it was not an area that could be related to free trade. When there are work stoppages, work lo sses, our department go es in with the labour adjustment unit and does everything they can to make sure that those workers have a chance to get new jobs. Free Trade Agreement Labour Adjustment Strate gy Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this Government is very quick to act after the jobs have been lost. This report says that they want evidence.

Their prospective candidate is the chairman of this study. Our rail and truck transport industries will be affected by free trade, not maybe, will be affected. Potential opportunities may be limited in this province. Will the Minister tell us not what she is going to do after, but what they are going to do before we feel the full impact of this? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I might indicate that indeed the trucking industry is one that we have identified, as a Government, where there needs to be a lot of attention paid to training people for truck driving, because there is a shortage of qualified truck drivers in this province, and that shortage is about 200. 4646

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 We in this province have moved to ensure that there is going to be qualified truck drivers in this province to make up for the needs that are out there. Indeed we are doing that in every field that we can, and we have a Skills Training Advisory Committee that is going to be reporting at the end of February, which will indeed tell us how we should address many of the skill development areas that there are in this province. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, we have lost thousands, thousands of full-time jobs in this province.

The trucking indus try has been recognized as a target for rationalization all during this past year, and this report confirms that. We have to do a lot more than train a few truck drivers. We have to help th ose truck drivers get adjustments so they can move into other transit employment, because their jobs are going out as fast as everybody else's. Bankruptcy Rate Job Loss Sta tistics Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, with a new question, each month we see evide nce of this Government's comp lete lack of vision. Today the Su perin tendent of Bankru ptcy has released its December report.

Business bankruptcies are up 45 percent. A total of 392 Manitoba bus inesses went bankrupt this year, leaving $10 5 million in liabilities. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond). Perhaps she will answer this question. Can the Minister tell us how many Manitoba jobs have been lost in this province as a result of these 392 bankruptcies? Hon. Glen Cummings (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, no one ever wants to see pr ivate or company bankruptcies. There are, unfortunately, from time to time a number of those.

We, as I said a few minutes ago, are working to turn around the economy and improve the underpinnings economically within this province. That is why we are forecast to have one of the strongest rates of capital investment in this country. Mr. Speaker, that will help us turn the tide that was left in the wake of the previous administration. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, if I can quote the City of Winnipeg study: only the misinformed could believe that the city will continue to gro w. The Scotiabank predicts Manitoba as the only province in western Canada to show a decline in the size of its labour force.

Will the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) tell us, will this pro-active business-oriented Government tell us how many Manitoba jobs will be lost as a result of these bankruptcies? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt to deny the fact that we are displeased to see anyone have to go out of busin ess or declare personal bankruptcy, but we have to make sure that the economic growth of this province is assured for the future months.

There is the Opposition that referred to Limestone as "Lemonstone." There is the Opposition that has been tearing at the heels of Repap over a billio n dollars worth of investment in this province. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Cum mings: Mr. Sp eaker, there have been significant steps taken to make sure that jobs and the economic growth in this province start to turn around and give us the jobs that the people in this province are expecting us to deliver.

We are dedicated to that, and we will not get it by the naysayers from across the way. * (13 40) Labour Adjustment St rategy Government Initiatives Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, there sits the Minister of Mining and Energy (Mr. Neufeld), who said we will see no impact from Conawapa until 19 93. If the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) will not answer the question perhaps the Minister res ponsible for Training (Mr. Derkach), who seems eager to get to his feet, will tell us what new initiatives he has initiated to help retrain Manitobans and give them an alternative to moving out of the province? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker I am glad to get to my feet to correct the Member for Osbor ne (Mr. Alcock) who just said a minute ago that in fact truck drivers are leaving the province because there are no jobs. That is the kind of misinformation that they keep putting on the record time and time and time again. Mr. Speaker, in this province right now we have a shortage of at least 200 long distance truck drivers. We have moved to ensure that there is adequate training for people to get into that industry.

The trucking industry has come to our support in ensuring that they are a partner in this training endeavour as well. Mr. Speaker, the Skills Training Advisory Committee that has been meeting over several months has indeed put their minds to ensure that we move in the proper direction when we announce training programs in the future. I am anxious to hear the report, because I think we indeed will have opportunities for Manitobans that will be long lasting and will have job entries at the end of those training programs. Racist Lape l Pins Le gal Intervention Ms.

Maureen Hemphill (Logan): Many groups and organizations have been outraged over the racist propaganda that was printed on lapel buttons by a Calgary citizen. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) received a letter from the Congress of Black Women of Canada asking 4647

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 that he bring an injunction to stop the sale and distribution of these in Manitoba. The Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) has ruled out an application under the Criminal Code and we are wondering if he will tell us what the basis of ruling out the application or applying for an injunction is. Will he reconsider this on the basis that this is not only a legal issue but a political issue, and it is important that the Government take a very strong position and give a very clear message about racist propaganda like this? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I certainly appreciate the concern that prompts the Honourable Member's question. There are times I suppose when being an Attorney General is not the time to be also a politician in the case of what I think are offensive and distasteful lapel pins proposed to be distributed -(interjection)-I am having a little trouble hearing, Mr. Speaker, because the Honourable Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) wants to get involved in the Question Period from his seat. The Honourable Member for Logan (Ms.

Hemphill) asks me to put a political decision ahead of one that would be a proper legal decision to be made by an Attorney General. As much as I feel strongly about the issue, believe as strongly as the Honourable Member does, there are times when the law has a role to play, and this is one of those times. Unfortunately I do not at all want to see this type of material being distributed throughout our province.

I suggest to the Honourable Member that she join me recommending to others that they not buy that pin, but that perhaps they would make a positive move and make a positive statement about this whole issue by endorsing the lapel pin being put out by the B'nai B'rith Soc iety. Human Rights Code Violation Ms. Maureen Hemphill (Logan): I would like to table a letter that I am sending to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and my question to the Minister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae), as was the question placed in this House on January 8, is: will he support the position that we are taking in this letter to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission requesting that under

Section 55 of the Code, looking at both

Section 4 and the statement in the

preamble, which we believe justifies legal action under the Human Rights Code, will he look at those sections and will he support the request that we are making that the Manitoba Human Rights Commission apply for the injunction to stop the distribution of these pins? Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I have no hesitation in suppo rting the sentiments being expressed by the Honourable Member and others in opposition to these particular lapel pins. The legal advice that I received from my department is good legal advice.

The people that we have working 4648 for our department are the best in this province, if not in this country, and I am bound by that type of advice. I think it would be a dangerous proposition for me to compromise the Office of the Attorney General by proceeding on matters on which I ought not to be proceeding. * (13 45) Ms. Hemphill: Might I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) why he is prepared to predetermine what the results of the application would be by listening to the advice of members in his department, instead of letting it go to the courts and having a judge decide?

We have received informal, albeit informal, legal advice that the Manitoba Human Rights Code does cover this and that there is a strong possibility that an injunction can be brought in under the Manitoba Human Rights Code. Why is the Minister not prepared to follow all legal avenues? Why will he not explore the Human Rights Code for the injunction? Mr. Mccrae: Mr. Speaker, I have, with my department, explored all legal avenues. As I say, I certainly agree with what the Honourable Member's intent is. I do not think it would be appropriate or responsible of me to use the law in such a way.

The logical extension of what the Honourable Member is suggesting is that there would never be a stay of proceedings. There would never be a reduced plea accepted in our criminal system. As the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) would know, that would totally bog down our total justice system. We would not have enough judges. We could have as many judges as we have lawyers presently in the province and we still would not have enough.

So that is the logical problem that we create for ourselves by doing that and going against appropriate legal advice that we are given by those who are in a position to make those- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Honourable Member for Logan. Ms. Hemphill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) has yet addressed the question of why he is not prepared to look at the regulations or the laws under the Human Rights Code. My question to him is: will he look at, as our legal advice suggests, the statement in the

preamble and

Section 4 which prohibits designs or symbols which incite, advocate or counsel discrimination? Will he look at th ose two sec tions and reconsid er, if not an application under the Criminal Code, an application under the Manitoba Human Rights Commission Code? In the absence of agreeing to that will he support our request to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that they apply for the injunction? Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I will go over my material and check to see that each of the sections enumerated by the Honourable Member were indeed reviewed by my staff. I have reason to think that they were. I will get back to the Honourable Member on that.

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 The Honourable Member should understand that when I made the decision I made based on the Criminal Code, that was based on the Criminal Code. The Honourable Member is raising the Manitoba Human Rights Code, and those options are available to others. I am telling you what the legal advice that I have been getting is what I have set out. Therefore, that is the position, unfortunately, the Government of Manitoba finds itself in having to take.

I would like to hasten to stress that in no way does that position on the part of the Government mean anything but what I have said, the narrow legal look at it. We have our views about the appropriateness of that type of material out amongst the population too. I believe most people in this province share my view about the strength of the diversity of our province and that the materials like that do not represent the public view- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. legal Opinion Request Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae).

The Minister has indicated an unwillingness to stop the importation and sale of these clearly racist pins in this province. He says he is bound by the recommendations of his legal advisers. Let me make clear that he is not bound. He has a choice, and he has made that choice. Mr. Speaker, the Minister indicates that he has received the advice and he has no options available to him. Yet

Section 319 of the Criminal Code says you cannot wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group in this country. * (1 350) Is the Minister saying, by his decision, that these pins are not an intentional attempt to promote hatred? If he is saying that, will he table the legal opinion upon which he is relying? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member helps make my point. We know that the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is a politician, but he is clearly not ready to be an Attorney General. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Mr. Mccrae: The Honourable Member says I have a choice, and that I am not bound. He is correct, I could make a political choice. I think that would-and the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) refers to a principle choice, and I am telling you the choice that I am making is a principled and legal choice. If th e Honour able Member for St. James (Mr .

Edwards) is suggesting that Attorney Generals across this country put aside legal principl es when they make decisions, with respect to the public conduc t of business, then I think that he would not last very long as an Attorney General if he ever did get to be one. Private Prosecut ion Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Let us just look at the choice that this Minister has made. He has not only made a choice not to prosecute it himself, he has barred any citizen in this province from prosec uting these people for this offence. That is the height of arrogance. Mr.

Speaker, why is he preventing all private citizens in this province from launching a prosecution under this

section by withholding his consent which, under this particular provision, he is entitled to do? Why is he doing it? Is he afraid that someone might prosecute this successfu lly- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Attorney General. Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The Honourable Member asks about

Section 319 , Subsection 7 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that no prosecution can go forward without the consent of the Attorney General. He has failed to look at the implications of such a move. He has not considered at all the precedent that might be setting, and then he asks me to be inconsistent, as we know he already is, in the daily conduct of his business as a politician. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it is very rare that a Minister actually has the power the Minister has in this case. By far and away, the majority of the times, private prosecutions are allowed.

This Minister has taken this step to stop them in this case. Order for Seizure Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Finally, for the Minister, why at the very least has this Minister not moved under

Section 320 of the Criminal Code to get an order to seize any of these pins in Manitoba? All he needs to get that is reasonable belief, reasonable grounds, to believe that these pins will incite hatred. That is all he needs, it is not the full criminal standard he needs to get an order for seizure of these pins. Why has he at least not taken that step and why is he backing away from this issue and leavi ng the door open? The promotion of race- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. The Honourable Attorney General. Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in my last answer, I cited

Section 319, Su bsect ion 7; that should have been 320, Subsection 7. I ask the Honourable Member, as a legal person, to ask himself why the Parliament of Canada put that subsection in the Criminal Code in the first place, and that leads one to examine the question and to examine the precedent one would be setting. The Honourable Member repeatedly in this House asks me to do things that Attorney Generals in this 4649

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 country ought not to do. His position with respect to the CSIS agreement is totally inconsistent with the position he takes today, which is one of many, many examples. The question is someone has- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mr. Mccrae: The point is someone has to take responsibility and someone has to be held accountable. I am quite happy to be held accountable in this instance although, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure. * (1 355) Substance Abuse Compulsory Educat ion Program Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach). In a recent survey conducted by Knowles Centre for the River East School Division, serious problems were evidenced among our young people in the area of substance abuse, both drug and alcohol. Among the evidence that came to light was that 24 percent of our eleme ntary school students had consumed alcohol. Mr. Speaker, elementary school students in this province are 12 years of age and under. The figures climb in junior high to 58 percent, 90 percent in senior high.

When will this Minister introduce a compulsory drug and alcohol education program at all levels, elementary, junior high and senior high? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, over the last year and a half we have moved sign ificantly to ensure that, in fact, programming for element ary, junior high and senior high school students is available on drug and alcohol abuse. There have been many programs that have been introduced into the school system over the last number of years.

Si nce I beca me Minister of Education we have authorized that the Lions' Quest Program be authorized as a school program that schools can tap into. We have, within the Family Life Program, sections on alcohol and drug abuse, which are units within that Family Life section, which indeed alludes to the fact that there is a problem with alcohol and substance abuse. Mr. Speaker, there are programs in the Grades 7 to 9 area as well, which cover the whole area of alcohol and drug abuse. There is no mandatory program in the high school.

Before we can move in that direction it is imp ortant that we consolidate the kind of progr amming so that we are not offering 10 di fferent programs to an area. We have been meeting with the Department of Family Services, Health, the Department of Justice in an attempt to co-ordinate a proper approach- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 4650 Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, these children are crying out for help. Seventy-four percent of them said they needed, wanted and were not getting programs, 74 percent, because this Minister refuses to make the program mandatory.

Why is he not accept ing his responsibility to the children of this province and making these programs elementary , junior high and senior high compulsory for each and every single student? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, over the last year and a half, we have moved very specifically on several fronts, and I would just like to point out that when I came to this office the AIDS Program, for example, was not a mandatory program in this province. It was one that was offered only for two hours in the high school area.

It has taken us some time to rewrite the program and make it mandatory for all schools to offer the prog ram and we have started that program right in Grade 5. So we have taken some positive action to ensure that those important programs are offered, but teachers have complained that their school day is only so long so that if we are going to put more demands on them we had better ensure that there is time in the day to allow for those programs.

So for the last while we have been getting together with other departments and with my department to ensure that any program we come up with will be such that it indeed is meaningful and can be incorporated into the school day that is short enough as it is, Mr. Speaker. Counselling Programs Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): The bottom line is he is not prepared to make them compulso ry, and yet the students-66 percent of them who reported their use of alcohol, 46 percent of that 66 said that they consumed five or more drinks in order to get drunk.

These children are well on their way to being addicted. What new counsel ling programs has this Minister introduced to ensure that they get help before they are alcoholics? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): One of the issues that the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) did not refer to was that when some of the students were questioned they said that their parents were aware of the fact that they were taking those drinks as well. That is why this Government has been moving towards ensuring that parents have a say in school programming so that parents become partners in education.

Before we introduce any kind of a haphazard program we will think it through. We will develop it in a way that it indeed is effective and that parents have a say in the type of progr amming. Education is a partnership of course. I am not saying that we will not make it compulsory for all school divisions to offer drug and alcohol abuse programs, but we are not going to go in there in a haphazard way, in a band-aid approach. It will be a thoughtful, meaningful program that will be introduced. * (14 00)

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 Racist Poster Ju stice Departm ent Review Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): My question is to the Attorney General (Mr. Mccrae). We all know that racism exists in this society. I am asking the Minister whether he is aware of a notice that was posted in a public pl ace in a commercial es tablishment in Thompson? This poster sickens me as an Indian person, the first citizens of this country.

I would like to table a copy of the poster and read what this part says, because it refers to hunting seasons: "H owever, in place of big game animals there will be open season on Indians, locally known as Ronches, Camanchys, Skumahotchys or Niches. These welfare recipients must be thinned out every 3 years." That is a copy of the letter. Will the Attorney General investigate the matter of how this came about? Will he take appropriate action against this propaganda that is targeted against the first citizens of this country? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The material the Honourable Member refers to is disgusting in the extreme. It is odious. It is hateful. It is awful. The moment I found out about that material last evening my office was in touch with the Thompson RCMP to ensure that it is properly being investigated. The material the Honourable Member is talking about points out what we were talking about a little while ago with relation to the lapel pins and the kinds of decisions that legal people in Manitoba are called upon to make. The decision in this case was not difficult at all. Mr. Harper: Mr.

Spe aker, the action or the propaganda that has been out is not tolerated by aboriginal people. I am sure that the rest of the citizens of Manitoba, including the politicians in this Chamber, will not tolerate the propaganda that has been posted. I would like to get assurance from the Attorney General (Mr. Mccrae) whether this matter will be dealt into and also the people responsible will be charged. Also, we have to have assurances that people are protected and not being discriminated against or prejudices and racism exist at all levels. Mr.

Mccrae: Having seen the material I can assure the Ho nour able Memb er tha t the department has stressed to the RCMP in Thompson the importance of ensuring th at no stone is left untur ned in the inves tig ation of the matter. Once the pol ice have completed their investigation my department will take an extremely active role if we are able to. Signature Investigation Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Yes, Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Attorney General. Will he also investigate the matter of how the Minister of Natural Resou rces' (Mr . Enns) signa tur e appears on the document outlining those comments?

I am sure that the Attorney General would like to clarify the matter, and also the aboriginal people would like to have assurances from the Government that this will be cleared up. Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I have no hesitation in assuring the Honourable Member that whoever penned whatever it is at the bottom of that document certainly was not the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns). The authorship of that of course would be the subject of the investigation.

There is no one in the Government and indeed no one in this Hous e who would lend any scintilla of support to this kind of garbage. Substance Abuse Availability Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach), with regard to the Knowles Centre study on River East. One of the most disturbing issues in this survey is that 41 percent of the senior high academic students and 54 percent of the vocational students said they could have easy access to these drugs in the school building.

Will the Minister of Educ ation immediately call a meeting with police, parents, teachers and students to prepare strategies to get these drugs out of the schools and to prevent the continuing sale of those drugs within school buildings? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) indeed raises a good issue, but I have to tell her that this Government has been on top of that and has moved in that direction some months ago. We recognize the problem that we have in our school system with drugs and alcohol.

As a result of our recog nition of that some months ago a committee was struck between the Department of Justice, the Department of Healt h, the Department of Family Services and my department to investigate this matter, to come up with a program that is going to address this very important issue, and we indeed will be able to address it in a way in which will have support from the community, the school divisions and the parents. Mr.

Speaker, as soon as we can consolidate our findings and as soon as we can come up with a program I will be happy to announce it and make the Leader of the Opposition familiar with it. Mrs. Carstairs: Could I sugg est they put some students on those committees, because the students know how to get the drugs and the rest of us do not? Mr. Speaker, 28 percent of these students, 28 percent of them are indicating that they are using drugs and alcohol within the school. Twenty-five percent of them are saying they are using it before they go to class. Can the Minister of Education (Mr.

Derkach) tell this hous e how teachers are to provide appr opr iate education to students who are already under the influence of drugs and alcohol? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, at the present time in the Province of Manitoba there are at least five different types of programs that are available for school divisions 4651

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 and for teachers to choose from to deliver not only in the junior high, or the elementary areas, but also in the high school areas, as well. Mr. Speaker, those programs are available. We have had the co-operation of such organizations as CAPH ER, the Manitoba High School Athletic Association ; we have had the co-operation of such spo rts teams as the Winnipeg Jets, the Winn ipeg Blue Bombers , to ensure that we try to reduce the amount of drugs and the usage of drugs within our schoo l system and among the young people of this province . Mr.

Speaker , I do not think there is any Member in this House who would deny that we do have a problem within our school system in that regard and that it has to be addressed. The approach we use has to be carefully thought out, and that is why we have this committee of senior officials and Ministers who are dealing with this to come up with an approach that is indeed going to address the problem in an effective way. Compulsory Education Program Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the tragedy is that in this very study, parents and teachers do not recognize the seriousness of this issue, and neither does the Minister of Education . When is he going to get off his duff and act? Hon. Leona rd Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the only time the Leader of the Oppositio n gets off her duff is when she reads something in the newspaper . Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speake r: Ord er. Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Education and Training. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I would have to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs) that school boards, parents' groups, in fact students themselves , teachers, the police, the Winnipeg Blue Bombe rs, CAPHER , and the Manitoba Athletic Association have indeed all been aware of the kind of pro blem that exists with drug and alcohol abuse in our school system and in our society . This is not a new rev elation. Indeed, that is why this Government has struck a com mittee to work toward a program that will reduce the abuse of these products and, Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to ensure the protection of our youth in this province. Crow Benefit Method of Payment Mr.

Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner). Seeing that with the decline in incomes to farmers, many thousands of farmers who are in financial difficulty will be moved off the land. I am sure that the Ministe r of Rural Development (Mr. Penner) is concerned about thos e areas, and I am sure that he is also part of the ministerial committee dealing with the present process of soft selling the question of change in paying the Crow rate from transportation subsidy to a producer subsidy. Yesterday , the Minis ter of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay) indicated that the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) had his figures wrong, that there would be a $70 million dilution . The fact of the matter is the report, on page 17, indicates up to $75 million would be a dilution effect, and he chastised the Member for having wrong figures . *

(1410) Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister , in light of the Minister of Agriculture's (Mr. Findlay) statemen t yesterday that Members on this side want to politicize this issue, and we are denying potential opportunities to Manitoba farmers by this change, can this Ministe r, on behalf of the Government , tell us what potential opportunities exist for Manitoba farmers by making the change that they are now recommending through this process? Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member from the Interlake (Mr.

Uruski) raises a point that has been addressed by many farm organizations for many years. The method of payment of the Crow benefit to the agricultural community certainly has been a discussion item for many years right across this nation . When I was involved with the farm organization, it certainly was a discussion item at virtually every meeting that we had . It is our intention as a province to consult with all Manitobans as closely as we can to determine what in fact the views of the agriculture community in Manitoba are today.

Let them speak to the issue of the method of payment, how it should be paid and who in fact should receive payment for the transportation of grain in this province, as well as the rest of Canada . The question is a good one and hopefully by the time the hearings that are currently going on will have been held, we will have the answers for the Honourable Member from the people of Manitoba . Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Thursday at 10 a.m., to continue consideration of the Bills that were before it last evening. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order today. It is a fairly long list : 31, 74, 75, 8, 19, 69, 73, 70, 65, 84, 35, 81 , 59, 60, 6, and the remainder as listed on the Order Paper. 4652

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill NO. 31- THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDM ENT ACT Mr. Speaker: On the prop osed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans), who has 37 minutes remaining, the Honourable Member for Brandon East. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I welcome this opportunity to continue to debate on the very important piece of legislation. An important issue because as far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, as we said time and time again, it is in the interest of the working people of this province. It is in the interest of business.

It is in the interest of all Manitobans to allow FOS to stay on the statute books, so that we can carry on with this innovative approach to labour legislation. We would hope that after this debate is over that the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) in her wisdom will see fit to either let this die on the Order Paper, or to withdraw this particular pjece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the legislation bringing in FOS was introduced a number of years ago at the request of organized labour in the Province of Manitoba. The Manitoba Federation of Labour was fully supportive of this move by the NOP Government of the time.

It was a new technique, it was innovative. It was something that could promote gr eater harmony and could lessen work stoppages in the province. Mr. Sp eaker, regretta bly , the Liberals and the Conservative Members of this Legislature do not see fit to give this legislation an opportunity to work even though there is a growing number of Manitobans who want to see FOS remain on the books, all the way from the doctors on the one side right through the spectrum to various women's groups on the other. Mr. Speaker, final offer select ion is nothing new under the sun in the world of labour legislation.

There are experiences in other jurisdictions that we can look to to give us some insight into questions about its use and potential impacts. Indeed some of the criticisms that have been levied about FOS in this Legislature in this province have been heard in other jurisdictions when that particular legislation was introduced in those jurisdictions. Indeed there are many misconceptions about FOS. They have been expressed in these other jurisdictions and they have been dealt with. Now they are being brought in here.

They have been suggesting for instance that the final offer selection takes away the right to strike. Mr. Speaker, nothing is further from the truth. Nothing is further from the truth. It is a misconception -(interjection)-The Honourable Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) did not hear my opening remarks when I said that it would be in the public interest to allow final offer selection to remain on the statute books so that labour and management together can utilize this legislation to bring about further harmony, further peace on the labour management scene. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, as I will refer later there is evidence that FOS is working in this province. The Leader of the NOP, MLA for Concordia (Mr. Doer), yesterday referred to various statistics which indicated a rather positive effect of the final offer selec tion. Indeed there are other documents we could refer to, other pieces of information that we can refer to, decisions made by the Manitoba Labour Board which would indicate as well that final offer selection has been useful.

As a matter of fact, just at this point I could make a reference to an occurrence of a couple of years ago whereby final offer selection allowed Manitobans to enjoy some beer, a taste of beer in one long, dry, hot summer in 1988. It was stated by the representative of Manitoba Brewery Workers that the province could have been hit with a beer strike if it was not for the final offer selection legislation that was brought in by the NOP. He said at that time it provided an incentive to both parties to sit down and negotiate seriously. This is a representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

He said also that he was very disappointed that the Tory Government had decided to repeal this particular piece of legislation, because from his point of view it has already served a very useful purpose. He said labour and management did not get as far as submitting their final offers for selection, but the final offer selection put pressure on the three breweries and the Associated Beer Distributors to negotiate a settlement before the process was used. Anyway that is one example. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that it does not take away the right to strike. This is what I was going on to say.

It really very clearly places the decision as to whether or not to go to final offer selection or to go onto strike with the members of the bargaining unit who must ultimately bear the consequences of either action. That of course is where the decision should be made. It should be made by the members of the particular bargaining unit. * (14 20) Indeed thi s is wh ere the legislation allows the decision-making process to take place among the membership.

It does not take anything away from workers, but in fact it adds to their ability to bargain in good faith with their employer and hopefully to reach a fair settlement where possible. I am not suggesting for one minute that will be the end to strikes and lockouts, of course not. These will continue unfortunately. In an ideal world we would have no strikes, we would have no lockouts.

All labour management issues would be settled hopefully fairly and quickly, and we would not have to suffer the consequence of work stoppage s, but we believe that, while there will still be some stri kes and lockouts, nevertheless FOS will help to alleviate potential strikes and potential lockouts. I am not sug gest ing also th at all issues lend themselves to the final offer select ion process, for 4653

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 example, disput es involving or rev olving around seniority, for instance, or gri evance procedures, for example. These disputes do not lend themselves to any form of arbitration or third party intervention, and final offer selection may not be an option in many other instances. The fact remains, nevertheless, there will be situations where bargaining has broken down for any number of reasons, and arbitration or final offer selection can be used effectively to avoid strikes and lockouts.

Therefore, it will be up to the employees to decide whether those circu mstances warrant final offer selection or a strike. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, final offer selection offers the opportunity, as I said, to prevent Jabour-management strike. That is all it does, nothing more. lt does nothing more, it does nothing less, it does not take away anything, it does not add anything, it is simply one more opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement before an employer or employee feels compelled to either go on strike on the one hand or to have a lockout on the other. On the other hand, Mr.

Speaker, there are some who have said that the final offer selection is too attractive a mechanism, therefore it will replace the strike, and consequently it will stop

partie s to a colle ctiv e agreement. An Honourable Member: What union said that? Mr. Leonard Evans: Just give me a moment. It was not a Member of a union, it was a former Member of this Legislature who hinted at this. They sug gest that the final offer selection will soon become the preferred option over good-faith bargaining. This is exactly the same argument the Conservative Members of this Legislature used to oppose first contract legislation in 1982. l can refer and in fact quote from the Member of the Day, the Member for St.

Norbert at that time, who in opposition to this legislation said that the FOS legislation would make it "too easy not to negotiate." An Honourable Memb er: That was the previous Government. Mr. Leonard Evans: Yes, the previous Government, the previous Member. The Member for St. Norbert at that time was a Conservative, and he was opposing the introduction of this legislation. I am just quoting here; l have a bit of a quote from Hansard.

He says, "It is too easy to negotiate, too easy to circumvent the bargaining process, and the entire concept of collective bargaining in this province may deteriorate or be destroyed." An Honourable Member: Did he get destroyed? Mr. Leo nard Evans: Well, that is another subject. Obviously, his concerns and those of those who opposed it a! that time, they failed to materialize; those concerns did not materialize. Their predictions of doom and gloom were unfounded and they were just wrong, they were simply wrong.

In fact, since'82, since this legislation has been in place, there have been a very small number of first agr eements decided under first cont ract legislation. I believe that if you look at the data on applications for FOS, you will find that there have not been an overwhelming number although there have been a fair number. I believe there have been 61 applications for FOS since the legislation was passed. Anyway, Mr. Sp eaker, final offer sele ction has encouraged good negotiating in other jurisdictions where it has been used. There is one reference I would like to make to a Mr. S. A. Bellam who has written an

article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal entitled Final Offer Selection: Two Canadian Case Studies and an American Digr ession. Quoting from his article, this is as I said in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, he says: both parties reported conside rable pressure was generated by the FOS deadline after mediation. Each preferred to reach agreement through negotiation rather than risk a complete loss in arbitration, unquote. So, quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the pressur e of final offer selection keeps go od negotiations at the bargaining table rather than forcing them or even enticing them away. In that article, Mr.

Bellam was examining Canadian examples of final offer selection which took place in the mid-'70s in Ontario. He drew eight conclusions from that review. Four of which, I might refer to, dealt with the concern about final offer selection discouraging good-faith bargaining. First conclusion, he said, No. 1, there was signif icant convergent pressure to appear reasonable in the eyes of the selection officer, so that was good.

Number two, he said both sides felt str ongly motivated to settle the agreement themselves for personal satisfaction and to avoid the risk of complete Joss at arbitration, and yet both felt that FOS gave the parties a larger measure of control than did conventional arbitration. Thirdly, he said both felt that the time frames set in advance prevented a stalemate from developing and kept talks prog ressing, albeit slowly at times.

Fourthly , he concluded that both parties felt compelled to justify their positions during negotiations by reference to concrete financial data in preparation for the FOS criterion of reasonableness. Indeed, both reported that the FOS deadline encouraged realistic bargaining throughout. Mr. Speaker, here is a conclusion of an expert in labour law who has offered a number of very positive conclusions based on his study of two cases in Canada and also a look at the United States or the American scene.

There is another misconception about final offer selection and that is that because the arbiter picks one full package over that of the other, there would be clear winners and losers when the final offer selection process is over. Again, the experiences in other areas such as the previous one that I referred to show that this is not the case. The American experience is the same as well as in Ontario. There was an

article prepared by Mr. James Stem for the annual meeting of the National Academy of Arbitration, who again is an expert in this field. He 4654

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 wrote, and I am quoting: "There is a good deal of misunderstanding about the process on the part of individuals who have not been involved with FOS. As for any damage wrought by the winner-take-all-aspects of the final offer arbitration awards, it has not caused either the winners or the losers to condemn the procedure on this grou nd." There you have it, Mr. Speaker, an American expert who says that it has not caused either the winners or the losers to condemn the procedure on this ground.

There was not this damage about win ner-take-all aspects of final offer selection that some people have referred to in criticizing FOS. * (14 30) Mr. Bellam, who wrote in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, is even more conclusive in his analysis that final offer selection does not cause winner and loser problems. He says, and I am quoting from his article: "F OS merely reflects the broad win-loss notion of the collective bargaining system, and in fact by generating conversion pressures the parties may be so close together that animosity is lessened at the end of their arbitration process.

Finally, by forcing the parties to compromise rather than risk everything at arbitration the result is likely more acceptable than if the arbitrator, himself, compromised the two positions to reach a settlement." He later states in that same

article that final offer selection "enhances the possibility of a settlement by the parties without recourse to arbitration and the results appear to be acceptable both in terms of the immediate dispute and the ongoing employer employee relationship." Mr. Speaker, history rejects the notion that FOS decisions create future prob lems. Thos e with the experience with the process, both in other parts of Canada and the United States and others who have studied it in work, report that in actuality the opposite is true. The parties are brought closer together. They are not torn apart.

They are brought cl oser together during the pr ocess, and there is oftentimes less animosity, less hostility, following the process than there would be under other circums tances. It is interesting that I can refer to an economist who lived at the early part of this century, a famous English economist by the name of Dr.

Stanley Jevons, who stated, "P eculiar as this procedure seems there are in reality distinct advantages in it, the most important being that any demand made by either side must be strictly reasonable and capable of being supported by good evidence so that it has at least a good chance of being accepted." As they said, what is very interesting about his comments on what we call a new and unique bargaining tool in Manitoba is that those comments were made in the year 1915 in Britain as part of a reference to the British labour scene, and there was a part of his book that he wrote on the British coal train. Mr.

Spe aker, this is not a new idea under the sun. As I said, it is in practice in some parts of the United States, in other parts of Canada and indeed it was tried in the early part of this century in Great Britain. Indeed it was used for several years settling wages for that particular industry, the coal industry, during the early 1900s. More recent examples, more recent history confirms the fact that FOS forces reasonableness and for that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, reduces hard feelings and does not result in the sugg ested win-lose mentality after the contract is settled.

There is another misconception about this legislation that we have heard criticizing FOS and that is that unions or indeed management could lose major gains such as seniori ty or the right to grie ve, or even management rights, if they were to submit to final offer selection, and either the union or the employer were to develop an extremely reasonable package with one exception on a major issue in the hope that the arbitrator would choose their package as the most reasonable one.

In other words, that both sides would come in and bring in extreme proposals, not reasonable proposals, but extreme proposals, on the thought that just as winning a lottery or winning a poker game that their side would win and they would have great gains. That has not been the case. His tory proves just the opposite. Mr. Bellam, who I referred to earlier in my remarks this afternoon, discusses this particular misconception, and I will quote from his article. He says: "Another criticism stresses the possibility that the arbitrator may be forced to choose between two patently and reasonable offers,

whereas arbit ral discretion could shape a reasonable compromise or collective bargaining force a test or strength. "Fi rstly, it is sug gested that the likelihood of such an occurrence is remote. Few unions or companies would wish to risk everything at arbitration rather than compromis e thems elves, and furthe r, even fewer negotiators would risk losing face so dramatically in front of both their superiors and their counterparts by backing a losing side. Consequently, it is argued that the bargainers themselves have a vested interest in closing the gap even if a colle ctive agreement could not be reached.

"Secondly, the result would likely be no better under conventional arbitration, which would probably impose a settlement unacceptable to either unreasonable party while colle ctive bargaining would merely have one side eventually knuckle under. "Finally, the criticism ignores the very real convergent pressures reported in the case studies, which are gene rated by FOS." As I stated, this is from an

article written by Mr. Bellam, B-E-L-L-A-M, in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, in his study of FOS as a techniqu e in labour management relations. The possibility of major gains being eroded or lost during final offer selection is very remote and I believe that has been proven by those who have studied this issue that this has not been a problem. The fact is that final offer selection has proven to be a valuable bargaining tool, which narrows the issues, not broadens them, but narrows the issues, and mitigates against one side trying to take advantage of 4655

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 the other for fear of appearing unreasonable and losing everything. I would like to deal with another criticism that we have often heard from both sides of this House, from the Conservative Members of this House and the Liberal Members of this House, and indeed from some members of the business community, and that is that final offer selection gives too much power to workers and to unions, that this legislation is biased in favour of the unions, in favour of the workers . What in fact it does, it equalizes the power among different parties involved in the negotiations.

Again I would refer to the expert in th is matter, Mr. Bellam , who suggests that final offer selection, "may be considered to afford some advantage to the weaker party." I would suggest that this weaker party in one instance may be a small union against the big business . That may happen . There may be other cases where it may be a small business against a large union. In that case it would be to the advantage perhaps of the small business to utilize FOS in its fight against the large trade union. In either of these cases, Mr.

Speaker, whether the union is small and weak or whether it is business that is small and weak, in either of these instances final offer selection will give some comfort to the weaker party. That is for sure. I guess what we are talking about is a levelling of the playing field in order to avoid a stronger party bullying a weaker party, whether it be business or whether it be labour, whichever, through an unnecessary strike or an unnecessary lockout.

I would hope that this is a point that I could drive home today to persuade Members of the House, Liberal and Conservative Caucuses that this is a legislation that therefore should be left on the statute books, that should not be removed as is being proposed by the Bill presented to us and the one that I am discussing today, by the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond). Mem bers who make thi s criticism, that is exactly what they are telling us when they are opposing giving workers in Manitoba the right to choose final offer select ion over a strike or a walkout .

That is what we might refer to as the law of the jungle style of collective bargaining. It impacts on our society in a way that is very negative. I think what we want to do is lessen jungle-style collective bargaining. I am not certai n how final offer selection would have affe cted the strikes that have occurred over the last couple of years. It certainly would help avoid violence . It would help avoid problems. We have seen in a couple of years past postal strikes where unfortunately postal pickets were arrested. There was one headline in the Free Press which read, Winnipeg postal pickets arrested.

Another Winnipeg Sun headline read , Violence flares as picketing started. Another one was , Tories stall while tempers rise. Maybe, just maybe, final offer selection could have helped in other situations similar to this . *

(1440) What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to bring more peace and more harmony into the labou r market and utilize as I said this particular piece of legislation as one more vehicle hopefully to improve or to enhance labour-management peace in this province. Another criticism that we have heard about the existing FOS legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that only employees have the ability to vote on whether or not a FOS process will be started.

I would therefore say it seems that the Conservative and Liberal Members of this Legislature seem to be opposed therefore to giving working people their right to control their own destiny. I would hope that they would not want to force working people to a strike situation or to subject them to a lockout by an employer , the situation by the way which is unilaterally proposed by an employer without any say in the matter of the workers. Where is the concern for fairness when the employers lock out their workers or hire replacement workers to steal jobs of workers who are on a legal strike?

Where is their sense of balance , where is the sense of fairness that we should have? Well, we have that concern and we have a concern that working people should be given the right to decide their own destiny. What we are doing here is enhancing the right of workers to decide on their own destiny. Really, Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, the fact is that final offer select ion would probably never be of much use to large unions and big business , they will not need to use it, and they probably will not want to use it. They are quite capable of bargaining.

They have both groups, large unions and large business have economic strength. They have research capacity, they have negotiating capacity. The fact is the bulk of the organized Manitoba labour force is made up of smaller unions, and it is the impact of final offer selection on the smaller, less powerful unions, and indee d on the smaller less powerful businesses in this province that I am concerned about. I think that is what all Members of this Legislature should be concerned about. How about small business, and how about small labour?

We indeed are assisting these weaker units in their fight perhaps with stronger economic units, whether they be labour or business , through this legis lation . I guess this is why the Manitoba Federation of Labour , which is the foremost labour organization in the province, fully supports the concept of final offer select ion . The Manitoba Federation of Labour is on record-in their 1985 convention, the final offer selection was debated at length and was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of more than 600 delegates who attended that particular convention .

I might add those 600 delegates represented nearly 350 union locals in almost every community of Manitoba , and they were indeed overwhelming, as I said, in their support for final offer selection. The support , the position of the Manitoba Federation of Labour has not changed since then . The MFL , the MF of L, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, continues in that position and, therefore, would be opposed to thi s amendment introduced by the Minister of Labou r (Mrs. Hammond). 4656

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 So there is no doubt about it, Mr. Spe aker, the final offer selection procedure is supported by the vast majority of Manitoba unions. Again, I would return to Mr. Bellam and offer his comments on FOS, and when he speaks of the benefits of final offer selec tion, he says: "A system which required the subjugation of the weaker party despite a more compelling argument for its offer on the grounds of a brute force standard is hardly attractive." Well, I hope Members of this House would not wish to promote a brute force standard, instead of a reasoned argument.

I would appeal to their sense of justice. I would appeal to their sense of fairness. Brute force and the survival of the fittest on the one hand, versus reason and logic. I am arguing for reason and logic that does prevail through the FOS legislation. I say, do not eliminate FOS legislation, as the Minister of Labour would have us do; let us not enhance or encourage brute force and the survival of the fittest. I think people of this province do not want to see labour-management confrontation.

They want to see labour-management peace in this province and as I said I would suspect, therefore, if an average citizen of Manitoba were to discuss this and understand what it has been doing, and what it can do in the future, that the average citizen of Manitoba would support the position of the New Democratic Party and the Manitoba Federation of Labour. We have to innovate. The world does not stand still, no matter how much some Members of the other Parties in this House might wish otherwise. Circumstances do change and those changed circu mstances require new ways.

They require innovative ways of doing things, and this is true of all areas of Government, but certainly it is true in labour legislation. It is true in labour legislation as it is in every other area, and every other area of conc ern , that this Legislature, this Government has. This is what FOS does, it is innovative here. It provides both employers and employees with the opportunity to reach a collective agreement without necessarily having to resort to strikes or to lockouts. That is what it was designed to do when it was drafted. That is what that legislation is designed to do. I think, Mr.

Speaker, there has been analysis by experts in Manitoba that would lead us to think that it has had some measure of success. I am referring particularly to a study done by a Professor Hugh Grant, an economics professor at the University of Winnipeg, who analyzed the experience of FOS for a period of 20 months. In that period, he referred to 42 FOS applications having been made to the Labour Board. He goes into a lot of detail as to the categories, the industries involved, how many were, what kind of union supplied, and so on. They were not all applications by labour, some of them were actually by the emplo yers.

The decisions were rendered one way or the other. In some cases, the emplo yers received a favourable decision. In other cases the emplo yees had a decision rendered in their favour. There are five examples that we could refer to. One was in the town of Springfield, the union-it was a matter of a wage offer, this was what was at stake. It was a matter of percentage increase in a two-year contract that was being asked for by the union. In this case, the selector, Mr. Jack Chapman, awarded in favour of the union. Ho wever , the sec ond example, referred to by Professor Hugh Grant, is the DOM Group.

This is one of the last two Dominion grocery stores in operation. There was an application by the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers with regard to severance pay and the decision was in favour of the employer, not in the union's favour, but it was in the favour of the employer. Another example, Vista Park Lodge, again the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, it was not dealing with the direct wage issue. It was a non-wage issue. It was dealing with pension plans, and this one was settled in favour of the union. * (14 50) Another example was Unicity Taxi, again settled in favour of the union.

This was regarding a wage increase, but the fifth example, the town of St. Clements, the selector came down on the side of the employer, rejected the union's position and favoured the employer, arguing in that particular example, this is the town of St. Clements, that the union requested shorter qualifying periods and more generous benefits well in excess of prevailing standards in surrounding jurisdictions. So the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that from this study, although the professor did not draw any definitive conclusions, he said there are some inferences that you can make just based on the limited research that he has done. He says first of all, the first inference is that FOS has proved to be flexible in permitting ongoing negotiations. I think that is great. It is noteworthy that it has been the employer that has appealed for FOS in four of the six instances where an application was made with a strike in process.

A second positive feature which he infers from his research is that FOS has indeed acted as a safety valve for small bargaining units wishing to avoid a long strike. He gives a number of examples and he gives a lot of detail here which I will not take the time of the House to go into. But his conclusion then, third, Mr.

Speaker, is that while the use of FOS has been largely restricted to a couple of trade unions, it could be argued that FOS in Manitoba has not interfered with the collective bargaining process, it has not led to any unreasonable wage gains, and at least in one instance has proved beneficial to a small bargaining unit facing an employer attempting to break the union. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks well of the success of FOS. As my leader yesterday indicated okay, I gather I am running out of time.

I did not realize I was so far in the time-but just let me conclude by again reminding Members that there is a growing number Manitobans who want !his legislation. the doctors on the one hand and a group of women, the Manitoba Women's Agenda, who speak for a large number of organizations, and they say there are 200,000 Manitoba women working in service industries that would be affected. 4657

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 So, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for listening patiently to my remarks. I trust the Members of the House will see fit to let this legislation die on the order books. Certainly it should not proceed. Thank you. Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. COMMI TTEE CHANGES Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, se conde d by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr .

Gill eshammer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Pankratz for Burrell; and Praznik for Penner. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? (Agreed) Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I would like to make a commi ttee change as wel l. I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended: Storie for Uruski. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? (Agreed) Bill NO. 74- THE HIGHWAY TRA FFIC AMEN DMENT ACT

(7) Mr. Speaker: On the pr oposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Hig hways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), Bill No. 74, The Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act (7); Loi no 7 modifiant le Code de la route, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Assi niboia (Mr. Mandrake), the Honourable Member lor Assiniboia. Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assinil>oia): I have had some considerable time, seeing that the Minister when he spoke to it on November 29, to review this Bill and appreciate his explanatory notes. It certainly made the effort that much easier.

I have some concerns about the manner in which the prop osed amendments have been placed on the agenda. I do not have any problems with the first one, that is the bic ycle- definition of a bicycle, et cetera, without any hesitation or any reservations about his program in that field. The one that I find rather startling is where the Minister now recogn izes that a driver of a vehicle that being for the pu rpose of plowing snow, as defined as a special mobile vehicle, that their licence should not be penalized if they get in an accident with this type of vehicle.

I applaud him for that action, but I am completely amazed that he would take this step. I would like to hear his opinion, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the police force. Has he been in consultation, let us say, for example, with the RCMP, the city police, and the rural town police with respect to their driver licences? Are they going to have that same type of a provision in their licence whereby if they are on duty that they would not be penalized unless-t hey will have a review board of course put into place that will judge whether or not the accident actually was in fact not connected with duty. I think, Mr.

Speaker, we could go a few steps further with respect to this type of legislation and include our fire department, and our ambulance people, because all of those people are prone to accidents. They are performing their duties, but if we are going to do that, we have to set in a review board of the peers within the organization, i.e., that being the fire department and of course the ambulance, so that if they do get in an accident they will be reviewing the accident, and say, okay, it certainly was with regard to negligen ce, or whatever the case would be, so that their licence is not going to be penalized.

I would cer tainly be very appr eciative if the Honourable Minister would take that suggestion into consideration. He has yet to take anything under consideration that I have ever offered, but maybe this one he will. The other article, and I refer to an

article that was placed in the January 12, 19 90, Winnipeg Free Press, whereby it indicates th at the snowplows are not adhering to the laws of the land, and that being your stop signs, your lights, et cetera. I would ask the Minister whether or not he has undertaken, because apparently the gentleman apparently had spoken to the Minister with regard to the problem that he has observed. I would certainly appreciate hearing from the Minister as to what he plans on doing with the serious problem that there is.

I know personally in my travels th roughout the Province of Manitoba that I have seen infractions of the law because of the people that operate this machinery. It is ironic that I am on this subject. I notice that here the other day I was going to Portage la Prairie, a constituent wanted to talk to me, and what was in front of me on Hig hway No. 1 but two front-end loaders, side by side, blocking the road. (Mrs.

Gwen Charles, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) The only way, Madam Acting Speaker, is I had to honk my horn out of sheer frustration, honk my horn and finally the driver of the other front-end loader slowed down and got behind the one on the right-hand side. * (1 500) That is the type of problem that we are having on the hig hways. I think, Madam Acting Speaker, that the Min ister could be a little bit more receptive to suggestions and realize it is a frustration. It is truly frustrating when you have two of this kind of vehicle blocking the hig hway and not allowing anybody to proceed in a normal manner.

The other one, Madam Acting Speaker, finally the Minister has taken the initiative and says now that we will not have any kind of front licence plate that is going to resemble what the rear plate is. I applaud him for 4658

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 that. I wrote down two of them and I will just give you an example of how ridiculous this is. This is totally, I just cannot comprehend it. I found one vehicle here in the City of Winnipeg, the front plate reads, 901 ACT, Manitoba plate. The rear plate is 717 HAB. Madam Acting Speaker, how are the law enforcement people to do their job when we have those types of plates? I just cannot understand how we have taken so long to address such an important issue as that.

Our law enforcement agencies are having enough of a problem with the rear licence plate where up to now we have allowed even a front Manitoba plate to be different from the rear plate. Another one, Madam Acting Speaker, an Alberta plate in front, this year's, and the rear plate is a Manitoba plate, 328 AHB. The guy gets into an accident or something like that, the police force of course will take down the front plate and away the vehicle goes. To try to locate the driver, he is no longer in Alberta, he is in Manitoba. It should have happened last year. At least he has addressed it. I am not complaining.

Madam Acting Speaker, another one that certainly has been brought to my attention, that is the transit permits which are presently located in the right-hand corner of the windshield. Now I know in other jurisdictions that for the sake of policing these transit permits they are located on the left-hand corner of the rear window. Now if the RCMP or a city police drives by all they have to do is the constable in the right-hand side looks out the window, sees it and he knows it is a transit permit. Right now it is in the right-hand corner of the front window, very, very difficult to disting uish.

I know because I have seen it with my own eyes. You know what people are doing? Getting a piece of paper, putting a little bit of adhesive on the side, putting it in the front in the right-hand corner and they are delivering the vehicle to another location. An Honourable Member: That is incredible. Mr. Mandrake: That is a true fact. I have seen it with my own eyes. Madam Acting Speaker, how are our police force going to do their job when we are handicapping them?

If we are going to allow our police force to do a job let us at least do one common and decent thing, please, allow them to do their job with great expediency. This is not doing it. Madam Acting Speaker, I am referring to 31 (3) where the Honourable Minister is recog nizing people who are coming into Manitoba from various jurisdictions. The one thing that he has forgotten is we have a large contingent of armed forces personnel coming into Manitoba yearly. You know what, a good portion of them have international driver licences. That is not recogn ized in this.

How dare this Minister-when our people go and serve our country in Europe and he does not have the decency to recognize that they do come back with international driver licences. In other words what he is saying to them is, when you come back you are going to have to get re-examined again. Now, is that fair to our people who gave up four years or three years of their lives from being away from Canada, to penalize them like that? I do not think that is fair.

I would strongly sugge st to this Minister to address that issue, because when we go into committee I am going to ins ist that be placed in this legisla tion, particular ly in this particular cla use wher eby he eliminates the fact that our armed forces personnel do come back with international driver licences and he is not addressi ng it in this. I will fight with the last ounce of my blood to make sure that is included, Madam Acting Speaker. I was just informed here the other day that the Honourable Minister, through his department, has been circulating a proposed amendment.

I am not saying it is going to happen, but this is a proposed, possible amendment to 35( 15 ) of The Hig hway Traffic Act. I will read that to you, and I will give you an example of how this department is operating: Tow trucks shall be equipped with a lamp on top thereof, clearly visible from all directions under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 150 metres- The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Charles): Order, please; order, please. I would like to point out to the Member that you are to be addressing the general principle of the Bill and not referring to particular clauses. Thank you. Mr.

Mandrake: Madam Acting Speaker, I am referring to

Section 35(17 ) whereby we are discussing the lamps that have been flashing and also being of such candle size and candlepower. So that is what I am talking about. The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Charles): Order, please. The Minister of Northern Affairs. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Madam Acting Speaker, let the Member apolog ize. You just admonished him for making reference to specific parts of the legislation, and he has absolutely and intentionally ignored your ruling. I would think he should apologize for carrying on in the manner in which you corrected him for doing. Shame on him.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Charles): I thank the Minister for his recommendations. I am sure the Member was about to get on with his discussion of the Bill. Mr. Mandrake: Madam Acting Speaker, I would strongly again recommend that the Minister make sure that all towing vehicles, regardless of which ones they are, should display a name on the side of a tow truck because right now they are not required to do that. A lot of them that are out there on the streets do not have any name whatsoever. In the interest of public safety, in the interest of public awareness this should be a priority.

This has been told to me by the RCMP and also the City Police. They say that it is very difficult 4659

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 to be able to detect a tow truck that is legitimate and that is not legit imate because when they are out there picking up a car, they do not know whether it is supposed to be picked up or not supposed to be picked up. A lot of them just do not have any names so they cannot identify them. So I suggest to the Minister that he should take that under conside rati on. •

(1510) In regard to the signalling of bicycles, Madam Acting Speaker, I agree that is an admirable way of going at it and I agree with the Minister. The only question I would have on that particular subject, General rules 145(1), is that operating bicycles during the wintertime, and I am sure everybody has seen it, whereby you see a bicyclist in the wintertime in the right-hand path of a vehicle . Now with a two-wheeler of that nature all they need to do is slip , fall and they could be very, very seriously injured by a vehicle running over them or something like that.

Now I would strongly suggest that this Minister take into consideration that point that I am bringing up. He might consider maybe banning the use of bicycles when you have heavy snow or a lot of snow like, for example , today . Today I am coming down Academy and here is this gentleman-mind you he was fully clothed with a proper helmet-driving a bicycle in the right hand tracks. All you need is a slip and he would have caught curbs. Madam Acting Speaker, the Members from the Government think that is funny, but to me, I am sorry, I do not think it is funny at all.

The loss of one life can be prevented if we only use our common sense . I think that is something that this Government is really lacking, common sense . There is another

article here , and I am pleased . I cannot show my appreciation when I received this particu lar 147(3) when the Minister finally acknowledges that a child that is in the bicycle, particularly in the rear seat of a bicycle , should be wearing a helmet. Gran t you , they are not CSA approved yet, and he has acknowledged that. I am pleased that he has done that, because every child should be cared for with the greatest-I just cannot, for the love of me, express myself . Childr en are our most precious resource, our most precio us resource, and we should do ever ything in our power to protect them.

He has omitted one very impor tant thing, and that is why did he not go one step further and incorporate my resolution , whereby it called for a seat whereby the child, legs and body, were going to get strapped in? Why did he not go that one step further? An Honourable Member: I asked the same question. Mr. Mandrake: Madam Acting Speaker, again I am going to refer to a comment that this Minister made in this House with regard to my Bill No. 7 4 and whereby he stated that, and if you allow me, on November 14,'89 he refe rred to this .

This is what he said , I will quote: I want to refer to my colleague from Lakeside who very often has used the expression in th is House , if you cannot make good legislatio n, do not bring it forward. He calls it phony legislation. Well, that is exactly what I say about that bicycle amendm ent whereby he does not address the problems of our children . That is phony legislation . So why does he not adhere to his own words, or his own colleague from Lakeside , to not inco rporate legislation unless it is really meaningful, really meaningful?

Madam Acting Speaker, again I wish to bring the Minister's attention to my resolution whereby it prohibits the use of just the buckets for the children in the back, actually a proper type of seat where they have leg protectors. They could be done . All he has to do is go to the manufactu rers and work with them, in concert with a manufacturer , whereby we can design a seat for the rear of the bike for our little children. I am not saying two years old-three, four, five - whereby they can be secured and they would not get injured if that bike was ever to fall.

As I said , I would hope that this Minister not introduce phony legislation . That is exactly what this Minister is doing when he proposed that particular legislation, because he is not addressing the issue . The rest of the amendments here-I will not go to any kind of depth on them, because I think it is only fair that we take it into committee. Then we can discuss it there and on far more complex issues than what we can in this House , because I do not think it is fair to the Min ister. I am just giving him some suggestions that I feel are very, very important.

The young children of our society today, Madam Acting Speaker , are going to be our leaders of our society tomorrow . Let us give them a chance. The other one, and I find that most startling, is 182(5)- The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Charles): Order , please. I would just like to remind the Member that it is not appropriate to refer to the clause, that you will be speaking to the Bill in general terms. So if you would refrain from referring to the general clause , it would be appropriate. Mr.

Mandrake: Madam Acting Speaker, the Minister now is going to be restricting the use of plastic film or substance to a windshield or side window to prevent light coming in. We will be discussing that in committee as I am sure that the-I had asked him about this in Estimates and he provided me with a very wishy-washy answer . This time I am not going to let him get off the hook. I am going to make sure that he knows what he is talking about when it comes down to this particular piece of legislation. The others on this Bill , I will agree that they have merit. They do address the issues .

I would not wish to make any derogatory or impugn any kind of motives on the Minister with regard to the remaining portion of his Bill. Again , I urge the Government and I urge the Minister, before he brings in any kind of amendments to a highway traffic Act-again, I will refer to the statement of the Honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns): do not make this phony legislation. 4660

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 * (15 20) If you are going to present a legislation in this Chamber, Madam Acting Speaker, make sure it has some time type of teeth in it, wher eby our law enforcement people will have at least some respectable degree of clout, whereby they can go out there and do their job in the fashion in which they were asked to do. If we give them a legislation that is wishy-washy, how are they going to apply the regulation? They cannot apply that reg ulation.

Again, there are portions of that Bill that certainly warrant merit, no question about it, but there are certain parts of that Bill that I certainly will be addressing in Committee. With that, Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to thank you very much for your time and your indulgence, and Members of this House. Thank you very much. Mr. John Plohman {Dauphin): Madam Acting Speaker, we had to use that term routinely a few years ago, and I was very comfortable to say Madam Speaker, but now it seems a little unusual since we no longer have been utilizing the reference to the Speaker in that way.

Let me say first of all to the Minister of Hig hways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger) that I do appreciate the format of explanations. For the Member for Assiniboia's (Mr.

Mandrake) information, he might be inter ested in knowing that the explanatory sheets that were provided by the Minister was not a practice that had taken place in this province until just a few years ago when, during our Government, we had asked the departments to bring forw ard, whene ver they brought forward amendments, instead of just the techni cal sheets which make it very difficult to understand, spread sheets that would show the existing provision, the changes, and the explanations in a very clear way for everyone to understand.

We began the process at that time of providing that information to the Opposition Critics, not as routinely as the Minister is now doing, and I am pleased to see that it has evolved to that stage where it is done almost routinely. I do not know if all Ministers are doing it. The Department of Hig hways and Transportation is doing it because they had Ministers who understood the need for this in the past and put in place that kind of practice. Now this Minister, and I give him credit, has followed through and it is being done.

As a matter of fact, I have even the memo from the Deputy Minister saying for the Opposition Critics it is being provided, it is being done as a routine practice in the department. I appreciate that and I know that the Liberal Critic appreciates that. I think that is a practice that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), if he ever has any legislative changes to bring forward in this House, will in fact do and adopt for his department, because it will ensure that there is a clear understanding.

Especially in minority Government it is important that everyone works together in a constructive way to have amendments passed and impr ovements made in legislation. In fact, that is what happens. We saw that in The Municipal Act where we attempted to bring some sanity to the Government's proposals on The Municipal Assessment Act. What you see in this particular case is the Minister of High ways and Transp ortation bringing forward a number of amendments and sharing the explanations with the Members opposite, and of course that is a very positive step and certainly facilitates the process.

Let me just make a few comments on this Bill, because it is certainly a wide-ranging Bill covering a number of different topics. I want to say for the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Mandrake), first of all in his comments dealing with the plate confusion, there is a

section in the legislation in The Hig hway Traffic Act at the present time that deals with this issue specifically. We reviewed that when we moved to a sing le-plate system in this pr ovinc e to save some $200 ,000 or $300,000 of expenditures per year. The single plate was adopted and at that time we said that it was clear. At least we thought it was clear in the legislation that a person could not put in a plate that would in anyway be confused with the official plate of the province, so it is not like it had not been addressed.

Since that time situations have arisen, we understand, where an individual manufacturer was actually going to try to reproduce the exact plate and sell it to people to put on the front of their cars. The reference was that it was illegal only to put in place a plate that resembled the existing plate, but had different numbers. This one had the same numbers and if the manufacturer had not voluntarily withdrawn that proposal, we would have had some confusion here.

So accepting the fact that there was greater clarity required, but for the Member for Ass iniboia not to think that this issue had not been dealt with in The Hig hway Traffic Act along the way because of the feeling tha t there could be a problem in this area. I want to mention a couple of other issues that I think are important for this House. I want to first of all join with the comments that were made by the Member for Assi niboia (Mr. Mandrake) dealing with bicycle safety. I do not think that the legislation is phony.

I just think that the comments made by the Minister are misleading and phony, because what he did in fact say is that this Bill also ensures that commercial vehicles are properly insured, and then he goes on: Provisions affecting bicycles are amended to ensure bicycle safety in the Province of Manitoba. If I have ever seen an overstatement there is one, because this Bill does not do anything of the kind to ensure bicycle safety in the Province of Manitoba. What the Bill does simply is change

definitions for bicycles to I think reflect the current configuration of various kinds of bicycles in the country. It also defines a bicycle facility such as a bicycle path. That is all it does. The actual action that could be taken to ensure bicycle safety would foll ow from this, perhap s by providing an extensive bicycle path system in the province or in the city for example. That is how it could ensure bicycle safety, but you certainly do not have this. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) says we have his full support for that kind of a program to ensure bicycle safety by having a bicycle path syste m. The fact is, this amendment does not do anything of the kind, and yet the Minister makes that statement 4661

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 in his opening remarks. That is unfortunate, because what it does, if it was ever quoted and explored by any reporter, would make him very vulnerable as to whether he is providing the facts to the Legislature. i have seen a lot of overstatements in this House, but this one is as blatant as any of them. I would ask the Minister to start to work on this issue. I mean, he has a couple of amendments here, and they are put in a Bill of housekeeping amendments. So really the y are not even highlig hted as bic ycle safety amendments, and properly so.

The Minister would have been really misrepresenting the issue had he highlig hted it as a package of bicycle safety amendments to ensure safety. There are some minor amendments here and it is a step in the right direction, but he can do a lot more and he should do a lot more and he must do a lot more. Bicycle safety is an issue that the organizations have been pushing in this province. They met with us when we were in Government to start the process of updating reg ulations and putting in place programs to improve bicycle safety in the province.

The Minister does not seem to have followed up on that organization's proposals. He does not seem to have implemented any of those proposals at all. I do not know if he has even considered them, if he has met with the groups and brought forward various proposals to his colle agues.-(interjection)-Well, you know, it is important to follow up on these kinds of initiatives when people bring them forward. It is an important area. The Minister has had nearly two years. He can say, well, I had four or five years, but the fact is we started to work on that particular initiative.

Everything comes due at a particular time in the political history of this province. In the Government history of the province different issues are dealt with. This one was beginning to evolve in 19 87-88, and now the Minister has had time, and he does not seem to have made any progr ess and certainly has not with !his Bill.

I would just indicate to him that I think it is an area that he should pay more attention to, and see whether he cannot in fact make some major steps forward in the next short, short while that he has as Minister of Highw ays and Transportation in this province. (1 530) Then we move on to another area that is very important. That deals with the issue of merits and recognizing safe driving habits of drivers from out of the province.

That is a positive step I think espe cially as made possible as a result of the hig hway safety code and initiatives that were undertaken over the last number of years prior to the Minister assuming his portfolio, and during the time he has been in that capacity. The rapid exchange information has now made it possible to share information on driver licences instantly across the province. Therefore it now makes it possible for jurisdictions to have all of the information at their disposal on a driver, and there is no reason to have 4662 separate systems.

Actually I think they should work toward a country-wide merit system of some kind for driver licences. It would be I think less confusing for people and a big step forward. There is another side of this that the Minister could well look at, and one that I believe I wrote to him some time ago about as I recall. That deals with the issue of demerits that are assessed against drivers when they are out of the country. Within the country of Canada I believe that there should be sharing of demerits and merits.

The negative sides of driving, the poor driving habits, should be reflected in driver licences across the country, and the merits should be reflected across the country, good driving habits, good driving practices. I have a little bit of concern with the alleged infractions that take place outside of the country, particularly in many states in the United States where quite often an individual on a vacation with his family, her family, with friends or whatever the case might be, will encounter a situation where they have a very marginal infraction, if one at all.

Perhaps going 56 miles an hour in a 55- mile zone or something like that. They are stopped or maybe they are even going 55-and the patrol person stops them and says, could I have your licence, you were speeding. Here is your summons. You can pay it wherever, here, or you can pay it down at the courthouse before you leave or whatever the case might be. The individual is in no position to fight that kind of thing if they get to court. They have to return perhaps and get a lawyer to handle the kind of situation. He pretty well has to accept that he has to plead guilty to it and pay it.

He pays it and it is marginal, very marginal, perhaps not even an infraction, and yet he gets two demerit points on his licence later on. The merit system is in the Bill. An Honourable Member: In the Bill? Mr. Plohman: It is in the Bill in fact because the Minister has failed to address it in this Bill. So because he did not address it, the fact is that it is an omission in this Bill. That is something, but the merit system is in the Bill. The merit system is in the Bill because the Minister is making amendments to allow for the recog nition of merits for out of province.

I am saying, since that issue is being addressed the Minister should have looked at the other side of it. He should have looked at removal of those demerits that happ en when people are travelling in the United States particularly, because I believe in many cases the merits that take place there are unfairly attributed to that driver because he really or she really has very little option but to plead guilty to infractions that perhaps did not even occur.

I do not think that is fair for the driving record, particularly now, because demerits and merits mean so much to drivers in this province in light of the insu rance system, particularly in light of that. A merit system can be worth a lot of dollars in this province now in terms of insurance and registration.-(interjection)- Well, the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) said he is responsible for bringing the merit system in. That was

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 a good sys tem, perhaps even though a few of us have never seen the luxury of merits and so cannot benefit perhaps from some of the insurance reductions. The fact is, over a 20-year period we in fact may end up with the high merit points that some people have. The fact is they mean a lot financially to people now. Therefore, it is even more important for this Minister to deal with this issue and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, Mr. Coyle, knows that I was concerned about it. I raised this with him about this possibility a few years ago. We did not do it formally. No action took place.

I believe I wrote to the Minister about this issue last year. It seems to me that I recall that it was raised by a constituent of mine that ran into a situation as I have described here. I believe it has a lot of merit, if you pardon the pun. I believe that you should look with some deg ree of urgency again keeping in mind the short time that he may or may not have in this portfolio. Therefore he will want to take action as quickly as possible on something this important. I hope he will consider that. There are a couple of other areas I wanted to address briefly here.

This issue of special mobile machines and the new definition for snowplows mounted on trucks is an important one both from the point of view of the drivers who in the past had to endure demerits on their licences perhaps if they got into situations where that big machine encoun tered some damage to some property in some way that could be termed the driver's fault and since it was a motor vehicle he could in fact have demerits placed on his licence. That is unfortunate. That has been cleared up with this amendment.

However, the other issue that the Minister deserves some credit for is in the area of snowplow safety, again an area that we had begun to work on. I notice now that the Minister is advertising on a safety campaign limited I believe, not too extensive, but limited to provide infor mation to the publi c about the dangers of snowplows in the wintertime, being encountered either coming up behind them or meeting them. I think that is an important area.

We had some situations in the past where accidents have occurred because of what could be viewed as improper or insufficient lighting on the snowplows to indicate how fast they are moving and so on. In some cases a snowplow travelling on the road results for a driver in absolutely no visibility for several hundred yards behind. It is a very difficult, very dangerous situation, particularly if it is already stormy or if there are other icy conditions, or other conditions that might contribute to an accident, heavy traffic.

I think it is im portant that the Minister continue to improve the markings and lighting of snowplows and also improving the awareness of the public to the dangers of snowplows in our province, in our cli mate and our weather conditions. I want to indicate to the Minister that I think these amendments are an improvement, but there is some more effort that he can make in this area of snowplow safety. He should continue to address this and have this reviewed with his staff.

Although they responded when an accident did occur near Mccr eary in about 19 86, I believe, and we all were very conc erned and moved forward with some improvements, it tends after four or five years perhaps not to receive the priority attention that it should. Therefore, the Minister would find it incumbent upon himself to lead that initiative back to the department to ensure that they are continuing to give it the kind of priority that is required.

There are other sections in this Bill that I will want to ask the Minister about in terms of the necessity of them and the need for them in addition to the information he has provided. We will do that during committee stage, and so I will reserve judgment on the position that we would take on them. However, we are prepared to see this Bill move forward to second reading to have it considered and have public input on these issues. Particularly, I believe the bicycle issue may be one that the public wants to provide some degree of advice to the Minister on.

Then we are prepared to debate it at that point in terms of the clause-by-clause consideration. With those remarks, Madam Acting Speaker, we are ready to move this forward. Thank you. * (15 40) Hon. Albert Driedger (Minis ter of Hig hways and Transportation): I would like to close the debate on Bill 7 4. I just wanted to indicate that I appreciate the comments made by both critics.

Both critics are aware that this is the normal housekeeping Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act which comes forward every year, what happens within the department when they run into difficulties with various regulations that they come forward each year with sort of a general package that tries to address some of these things. I would have to indicate to the Opposition Members that we are having some discussion about the possibil ity of rewriting the whole Hig hway Traffic Act. I think it has been mulled over a period of time. I think it is overdue.

It is a very complex Act and I just offered this forward, certainly it is not coming forward for this Session, but given time, whether it is myself, or whether it is a different Minister of Hig hways, somewhere in the future, I would expect that staff will be promoting the idea, and I certainly have no difficulty. I have to indicate once again that the comments that the Members have made will be noted and we will try and have replies when we go clause by clause and get into the committee. I will have my staff there at that time. We can address the specific concerns.

On the bicycle issue, most certainly I will take that back to staff and see if there is a way we can possib ly, based on the suggestions made, whether we can make it a little better, improve on it. I will have it reviewed and come back at committee at that time. I just want to indicate also that we will be bringing one further amendment forward in the committee, and I will be bringing the information to both critic s beforehand. This has to do with the request from the City of Winnipeg regarding clearing of snowplowing 4663

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 routes, the parking aspect of it. The mayor has written myself, and it was done just in fact in the last little while, and staff have looked at it. Staff do not feel it is really a problem. It is basically within the city jurisdiction, but it has to come through The Hig hway Traffic Act. I will supply both critics beforehand-it is a very brief thing and we would like to add that to The Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act as an amendment, with the con sent of course of both Memb ers of the Opposition.

I will try and have that information available to them beforehand so they can have a look at it and hopefully feel comfortable with that. As far as getting into the details of the merit sys tem, I want to indicate that we are doing a review on a broader basis than just what we are doing right now. These are very interim things that we are doing to correct some situations that are hard to enforce, some of the regulations where we have some difficulty, or the staff has difficulty, and that is basically what we are doing with this.

On a more larger scale, we are looking at reviewing the whole merit system because we have a system that is unique to Manitoba in terms of how we operate and the way it affects our ins urance, our drivers and all these things. We are going to have a look at that, but that is further down the line, somewhere along the line. Once we get into it in a serious matter, and depending on the time restraints as to who is where, we will be able to discuss that further with the Mem bers of the Opposition. Madam Acting Spe aker, I just want to indicate that we will note, as I said before, the comments that were made.

I know that I will have staff that when we get into the committee and go clause by clause and there are further questions or anything that we can jointly agree on in terms of further amendments, we will have a look at that thing, because this is not a Bill that will be considered a controversial Bill. It is something that is basically helping clean up some of the issues in The Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act. We are certainly open to suggestions in terms of how we can further improve that. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Members for their participation. Thank you.

QUESTION put, MOTION carried. Bill NO. 75- THE INSURANCE AMEND MENT ACT Mr. Speaker : On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corp orate Affairs (Mr. Conner y), Bill No. 75, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur Jes assurances, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Transcona, the Honourable Member for Transcona. Mr. Richard Kozak (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, on Dec emb er 15, 19 89 the Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corpor ate Affa irs (Mr . Con nery) 4664 presented Bill No. 75, The Insurance Amendment Act, and I am pleased today to stand to place a few comments on the record regarding this Bill. I am particularly pleased to note that Bill No. 75 is in fact the last Bill standing in my name in this House during the present Session.

I note that our deliberations in this Session have continued at this point for 11 0 days, and I personally feel under a responsibility to contribute in every way possible to the expeditious conclusion of the busi ness of !his House during the present Session. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, do take some pride in noting that I am today addressing in a timely fashion the last Bill that stands on the Order Paper in my name. Mr. Sp eaker, the Bill before us, The Insurance Amendment Act, is largely technical in nature and does not require lengthy debate in principle.

As the Minister indicated in his introductory remarks, the Bill does include some housekeeping matters. The changes to the Act do in fact involve inserting more appropriate wording into certain sect ions of The Insurance Act. For example, as the Minister pointed out, the use of the word "funds" in The Insurance Act at present does in fact have potential to be somewhat misleading in certain instances.

The Bill that we have before us today therefore takes the necessary step, a step which my colleagues have no difficulty whatever with, of changing references in certain sections of The In surance Act from the word "funds" to the word "plan." Mr. Speaker, nothing could be simpler.

The principle of clarity in the language of legislation passed by this House is a principle that I feel no Honourable Member has any difficulty whatever in defending and suppor ting, and I stand today with the intention in part of endorsing on behalf of the official Opposition the Minister's action via Bill No. 75 to update the language of The Insurance Act of this province. Mr. Speaker, there is however one matter covered by this Bill that does req uir e a slightly lengthier discussion of principle.

As the Minister indicated in presenting this Bill and as I confirmed in researching the Bill, the amendment does in fact allow for the accommodation of four separate insurance councils in the Provi nce of Manitoba. The councils will be responsible for regulating the educational qualifications and disciplinary actions for general insurance brokers, life insurance agents and insurance adjusters. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a Bill that pro motes the principl e of self-reg ul ation of professions.

This is not a principle that is without controversy, and I would like to address some of my remarks to the controversies surrounding the principle of self-regulation; however, I would first like to review the Bill in some more detail with specific reference to the principle of self-regulation. The insurance council concept is presently being used across Canada. I do not dispute it. Amendments to allow establishment of these councils will in fact bring Manitoba in line with councils established in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.

Despite comments that I have now and that my Party will state in considerably more detail during committee

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 consideration of specific provisions of this Bill, I have no difficulty with measures that bring Manitoba law into conformity with practice employed, and employed rather successfu lly, across this gr eat countr y throughout Canada. Also, Mr. Speaker, the amendments before us will leave the Government of the Province of Manitoba with direct inpu t into the councils pro posed by the amendments.

As the Minister pointed out in introducing this Bill, any action taken by the councils with respect to educational and other qualification standards will have to be appr oved by the Superintendent of Insurance. This does provide us with a signal that the Go vernment does not intend to abdic ate its responsibility to participate in a meaningful way in the regulation of the insurance industry. * (1 550) As well, all policies and procedures that are set in place by the council will require the approval of the superintendent. Once again, Mr.

Speaker, I comment that this particular thrust by the Minister does not provide evidence that the Go vernment intends to abdicate responsi bility for regulation of the insurance industry. Also, if a council rejects an application for a licence or where a licence is revoked or suspended, an agent or a broker will have the right to appeal the action under the conditions presently in place under The Insurance Act. Mr.

Spe aker, these particular intentions of the Minister as were reflected in Bill No. 75 do suggest to me that we do not have before us a Bill that proposes to relieve the Government of its long history of direct responsibility for due diligence regarding the insurance industry and indeed for its regulatory function.

The Minister, in introducing this particular Bill, did claim that allowing for the accommodation of the insurance councils will ensure increased provincial input into matters involving licensed agents and brokers, while at the same time ensuring a system of checks and balances for monitoring the insurance industry for the Superintendent of Insurance and the Insurance Appeal Board. Mr.

Speaker, despite the fact that I have just stated, that I do not feel that this Government proposes to abdicate totally its responsibility for regulation of the insurance industry, and despite my feeling that the Minister has certain plans to keep the Government active in the field of regulating the industry, I do have some concerns about the principle of self-regulation which I would like to put on the record at this time and which I strongly feel should be investigated and discussed fully by the Law Amendments Committee at the appropriate point if this Bill does in fact pass this House.

My Party is prepared to see this Bill pass second reading, Mr. Speaker, because we feel that committee consideration will be of sign ificant importance with regard to a meaningful exchange of views on the somewhat cont roversial concept known as self regulation. Commentators on self-regulation have been of two minds on the value of the concept. Self-regulation as a concept dates back to the guilds of medieval Europe whereby the various trades set standards for their members, standards for entry into the trades concerned.

The principle has been in constant use throughout the western world ever since the middle ages. I do not stand here to argue with almost a millennium of western civilization. In fact I do point out that there is strong justification down to the present day for a certain level of self-regulation within the framework of interest by the Government, which is ultimately responsible for the welfare of the public of this province and indeed jurisdictions throughout the western world. Quite recently, Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba's Director of Professional and Applied Ethics described Government participation in self-regu lation as being based on something of a social contract. He stated that society does not have the knowledge to enable it to control and police such professions as the dental or medical professions effectively. He indicates what society has done is reach a bargain with each professional group, something of a tradeoff. The professions are grant ed autonomy to self regulate in exchange for a commitment to blow the whistle on unscrupulous and dangerous practitioners. But, Mr.

Speaker, where I start to have difficulties with the functioning of the principle of self-regulation is when I realize that the critics who argue that self-regulatory professions have sometimes attached considerably more impo rtance to defending the inte rests of practitioners within those professions than they have had to defending the public interest in a general way. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it has been contended, and I have some sense that the contention is not entirely il l-founded, that the social con tract between Government and the self-regulatory bodies is not always observed.

It is not always the case that self-regulatory professions invariably, provably and openly defend the public interest as opposed to simply defending the practitioners within those professions behind closed doors. I am not speaking in isolation, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the official Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) has expressed a similar concern which I feel should be considered during committee debate on this Bill.

The Honourable Member for River Heights has pointed out very justly, I doubt that any Member of this House would dispute her point, that self-regulatory bodies with which we are familiar have a tendency not to be public in the sense that their meetings are not open to the public. * (16 00) A fundamental pri nciple of justic e in western civilization, Mr.

Speaker, is that openness, access to the judicial process, and we are talking about a quasi judicial process here, is absolutely fundamental to ensuring not only that fairness is the driving force behind the system, but also that the public can see that fairness is the driving force behind ihe system. The Member for River Heights (Mrs. Carsiairs) has expressed the opinion that complainants should have the right, as expect them to have the right under our western 4665

Wednesday, January 24, 1990 democracy, to attend closed discipli nary hearings in which they have a clear interest and to cross-examine professionals who are su bjected to quasi-judicial proceedings. The remarks of the Member for River Heights are in my view extremely insightful. I find them persuasive. My colleagues in the official Opposition find them persuasive. I suggest that Members in the Government and in the Second Opposition Party take to heart and address in an open-minded, serious way this line of reasoning when this Bill, and I assume will, proceeds to committee consideration. Mr.

Speaker, the official Opposition does not suggest that hearings should be open on a universal basis if such universal openness is of little importance. Open hearings in all likelihood, and we will address this further in committee, can arguably be restricted to major cases of misconduct and other cases that are already public such as the Dental Association's probe of a group called Quest. Further Government intervention into the affairs of the self-regulatory councils should be a last resort, Mr. Speaker.

Having stated those few brief remarks on the record I would like to proceed no further with my contribution to this debate at this time. The matter that I have raised as a matter of principle regarding Bill 75 is a serious matter and indeed indisputably a matter of principle. Ho wever, I feel that further discussion cannot productively proceed at second reading stage without getting very deeply into the details and the specific clauses of the Bill in question.

Out of my invariable respect for the rules of this House as stated by his Honour, the Speaker, I will defer further comment to committee consideration and sugge

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-110
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 110.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	88b52b29229e34f75c07be74d288a0b9f91b30ee

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