Manitoba Hansard — 18 May 1983 (Sitting 70, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-70

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 70 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 18 MAY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 18 May, 1983. Ti m e - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Hono urable Member for Emerson. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Winnipeg Bible Col lege and Theological Seminary, praying for the passing of

An Act to amend

An Act to incorporate the Winnipeg Bible Col lege and Theological Seminary. MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Rec eiving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COM MITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker , the Com mittee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for Radisson that the report of the Comm ittee be received. MOTION presented and carried . MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. A. ADAM introduced Bill No. 47, The Municipal Council Confl ict of Interest Act;

Loi sur les conflits d'i nterets au sein des conseils municipaux. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of hon ourable members to the gallery. We have 45 students of Gr ade 6 standing from the Madison Elementary School in Fargo under the direction of Mrs. Thursto n. There are 38 students of Gr ade 6 standing from the MacGregor Elementary School under the direction of Miss Carman. This school is in the constituency of the Hon ourable Member for Gla dstone. There are also 27 students from the Garden Hill School under the direction of Mrs. Little.

They are from the cons tit uency of the Ho no urable Me mber for Rupertsland. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Bilodeau case negotiations MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Leader of the Oppos ition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Fi rst Min ister.

Can the Fi rst Min ister confirm the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada the night before last in Winnipeg, during - what I take it was - a Liberal Party rally, to the effect that Manitoba and Canada and, I presume, the Franco-Manitoban Society, have comple ted negotiations with respect to the forestalling of the Bilodeau case soon to be heard in the Supreme Court which will result in amendments either to The Manitoba Act or to The Constitution Act of Canada affecting bilingual matters in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, all that I can confirm at this point is that there has been agreement in principle, ratified by the Federal Cabinet and by the Provincial Cabinet, that is sufficient in order to obtain an adjournment of the case this forthcoming Tuesday, May 26th. The Attorney-General is not present this afternoon but is prepared to give a fuller statement in respect to the matter to the Ho use on Friday. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that these negotiations have been in the public domain now for some several months, can the First Minister indicate to us if it would be the intention of the government which I say, parenthetically, would be an entirely happy intention to submit this matter of principle before it is finally approved by the government, to submit it to the Legislature and, indeed, by way of Leg islative Comm ittee heari ngs to the people of Manitoba in order that they might voice their opinions on this change that is being proposed in the statute or The Constitution Act? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it is my understanding that legislation would be required to be approved by this Ho use, and we cert ainl y would take und er consideration the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition pertai ning to any public hearings. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that assurance by the First Minister. Would the Firs t Minis ter also giv e seri ous consideration to the Legislature seeing this matter by way of resolution, or by way of a draft bill before it is finally sanctified by the Executive Council of Mani toba.

In other words before the deal is made, in order that this Legislature and the people of Manitoba may be of whatever help they can to the gove rnment in completing a negotiation which is an important one for the people of Manitoba, and one that all parts of Manitoba society will wish to be familiar with before it finally approved. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take that under considera tion. I understand there has been 2878

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 consultation throughout between the Attorney-General and the critic from the opposition benches for the opposition, or at least there has been consultation in respect to this matter. I will certainly take the Leader of the Opposition's suggestions under consideration. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the First Minister for his agreement to take that suggestion under consideration. I can confirm for him that there was a commun ication from the Attorney-General to the Honour able Member for St. Norbert on the date of 17 December 19 82 on this matter.

I think it would be wrong to chara cterize that as ongoing negotiations, but there certainly has been commu nication between the two. In order that there be no misunderstanding, will the First Minister agree to conside r, if not to give the undertaking here today, that before any final ratification is given by Cabinet to this matter, that the matter be raised with the House.

It has been discussed at this stage pr ivately on ly with the Franco -Ma nitobaine Socie ty, and while we appreciate having had the original draft of what was being discussed last December, neither the opposition nor the people of Manitoba are aware of what is now presently in contemplation.

That being the case, can the First Minister give the assurance to the House that the opposition and the people of Manitoba will be able to see what is envisaged in this new agreement that is being contem plated between Canada and Manitoba, which is now being discussed with the Franco- Manitobaine Socie ty, but which I suggest with respect, needs to be discussed even more broadly before it is finally ratified. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , it's my understanding that there has been no substantial change.

I'm subject to correction by the Attorney-General if he was present, insofar as the material that was forwarded to the Member for St. Norb ert, December 17 th last year, no substantive change re those areas that were covered in the letter from the Attorney-General to the Member for St. Norbert. I would certainly be prepared to examine ways by which th ere could be fuller and mo re com plete consultation.

This is a matter certainly that we want to insure the fullest understanding by members in the Chamber and I will indeed take this matter up with the Attor ney-G ene ral as to conti nuing that pr ocess; needless to say at a point which would in all likelihood be during this Session, there would be legislation that would have to be introduced into the House for debate and I assume from that debate in the norma l process there would be public hearings. Constitution Act re education HON. S. LYON: A final question on this point, Mr. Speaker, to the First Minister.

In view of the fact that the previous Government of Manitoba, when it was negotiating the final draft of the Constitution Act, 1981 inserted in the draft - which was signed by the Honour able Member for St. Norbert on my behalf - inserted in the draft that the amendments in The Constitution Act relating to education in Manitoba would be approved by the Legislature of Manitoba, not just by Executive decree of the government. Would the First Minister not consi der, even though he waved that when he subsequently came to office, would he not consider that to be a suitable precedent to follow in this case? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take that matter as one of notice on behalf of the Attorney General. Canada Safeway employees' union MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, my question is to the First Minister.

On February 25th of this year the First Minister made a statement with respect to the Jobs Fund, and in discussing renegotiation of the MGEA Contr act he stated that other employers and unions may well be able to free up funds for job creation by working together through collective barga ining, and we will also meet with business and labour to see how the principle of shared responsibility can be applied in the private sector. My question to the First Ministc.r is, Mr. Speaker , has he met with representatives of Canada Safeway, and representatives of the uni on of Canada Safeway emplo yees? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, the answer is no. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the First Minister, in view of the concern that was expressed with respect to shared responsibility and job creation and freeing up money for job creation, could the First Minister offer a suggestion to Manitobans as to an appropria te wage level increase in 19 83? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, if the honourable member will reflect back to the anno uncement that was made at the time, it was a hope that indeed there would be recognition by employers and employees that the No. 1 issue confronting Canadians, and Manitobans was indeed, problems involved with unemployment. I would hope th at ind eed there would be some consideration - I so indicated at the time - by employers and employees.

We're not in a position to do more than what we have at the present time, and that is to encou rage the rep resentat ives of busine ss, the representatives of labour, to ensure that job creation is No. 1 in their considerations. Second ly, of course, Mr. Speak er, matters pertaining to each individual bargaining phase is a matter that relates to circumstances in that bargaining situation. Are we going to intervene in respect to particular bargaining situations that occur? No, Mr.

Speak er, but we will certainly, by way of encouragement, by way of example, indeed, tha t the Manitoba Government Employees Association provided, an example by which each Ma nitoba Government Em ployee Association member contribut ed from $600 to $800 per year back from what was a legally binding contract to a Jobs Fund. That is the kind of example we hoped would be greater picked up by the employer and the employee organizations in the province. 2879

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , I would ask the First Minister if he intends to meet with representatives of Canada Safeway and of the union, and does he consider that the wage increase for 19 83 that MGE A employees have received, or will receive, is an appropria te wage level increase to be applied in this situation? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the agreement that was arrived at by the MGE A by which - in fact they reduced the cost to government in regard to their negotia ted settlement to some 7.6 percent during the fiscal year '83-84 from wha t would ha ve been a settlement that had earlier been agreed to, some one year earlier which was very much in excess of that, was one th at was very approp ria te in tho se circumstances. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: Insofar as the Canada Safeway and the Safeway employees union, there would have to be a desire and a will on their part to meet and to discuss.

Honour able members may wish to intervene in respect to individual cases of barga ining, but we do not intend, as a government, to intervene in individual barga ining disputes. Guidelines re wage negotiations Crown corporations MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. My question is to the First Minister also. Can the First Minister advise the House what guidelines this government has issued to Crown corporations such as Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba Telephone System with respect to wage negotiations? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker , the general guideline is that prior to any offer being made, that that offer must first be approved by the Treasury Board. We have dis covered , Mr. Sp eaker , th at th ere has been a discrep ancy insofar as various Crown corporation settlements have been arrived at, some discrepancy that can be justified, but other discrepancies that are more difficult to justify. Secondl y, Mr. Speak er, we are conc erne d that settlements reflect the existing level of income.

Tha t's why, for instance, this year, insofar as out-of-scope employees that are non-MGEA members, those that are in the $40,000, $50,000, up to $60,000 wage bracket, a wage increase was restricted to $1 ,000, which comes to a 2 percent increase on a salary of $50,000.00.

That is a practice that we have expressed, is one that ought to be followed throughout the Crown corporations and agencies, and that settlements should reflect the earnings that are received by individual em ployees so that those at the lower income levels will receive high er percentage increases than those at the higher-income levels within our society. Mr. Speak er, during these difficult and tough times it's those of us, indeed, that receive the higher income levels in society that can best bear the substantial amount of the burden within our society during times of unemployment. MR. B.

RANSOM: A supplementary to the First Minister, Mr. Speak er. Has the Treasury Board given any specific guidelines to Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba Telephone System? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , the question in regard to specific guidelines outside of agreeing to various offers that might be made would be better answered by the Chairman of Treasury Boar d. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

The Treasury Board had informed all Crown corporations, I believe it was back on January 12, 19 83, that they were not to make any further offers to employee groups without having first obtained the appr oval of Treasury Board. One or two offers were indeed made subsequent to that without that prior approval, but in general that policy has been followed.

What has happened is that ind ivid ual subm issions ha ve been made to the Comp ensation Commit tee of Cabinet, which meets once every week; the compensation commit tee reviews the specific circu mstances, and then passes on a recommendation to Treasury Board, which meets on the very same day at a later time; and Treasury Board then passes back its recommendation to the staff of the compensation comm ittee, who then carry on with the Crown corporations, and different guidelines would of course apply to different situations. Careerstart Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Emerson. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Mr. Speaker , in view of the absence of the Minister of Labour, I'd like to address my question to the Acting Min ister of Labour . It deals with the Careerstart program.

I have in my hand a letter which is from a farm emplo yer who applied under the Careerstart Program, and the letter indicates: "We regret to inform you tha t due to the over whelming response to Careerstart, we are unable to approve your application for assistance." I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Labour to indicate how many applications have been received under the Careerstart Program and how many have been rejected. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker , I'm going to have to take that question as notice for the Minister of Labour.

I do know, as I'm sure the member does, that we have approximately tripled the funds from what had originally been set aside, and we had within that already set a limit for non-profit groups in order that we could provide for more funding in the private sector where our money 2880

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 goes further, because we only pay $2 an hour as opposed to $4 an hour in the non-profit sector. That letter may have come out before the increase in funding was agreed to, in which case there may be another letter coming out. If not, then I would have to take the question as notice for the Minister. In terms of specific numbers, I just don't have them available here, but the response as indicated in that letter has indeed been overwh elming. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the same Minister then, I think the opposition at that time when the program was announced indicated that the money was not adequate. Further to that, I would like to indicate and ask the question: I have information to the fact that applications that were received later than this one were approved, and certain applications were rejected. The question that I have is: What is the criteria that the prog ram is using in terms of establishing who qual ifies or who does not qualify? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr.

Speak er, I'm surprised that the member comes to the House without any prior consultation with the Minister and expects an answer here in the House with respect to a specific case. The Minister was here yesterday; he could have gone to the Min iste r's office. He could have go tten the information from that area but, no, he chose to come to the House without giving us any prior information and, therefore, we can't give him an answer here. If he provides us with all the information, he will get an answer. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, to the same Minister.

I don't necessarily need a lecture on their efficiency and how they're running this program. They've been told time and time again, Mr. Speak er. The question that I have is: Will this Minister guarantee to let us know what the qual ifications are, how they establish the priority as to who will qualify and not qualify, before he starts lecturing the House here as to how to ask questions in this Hou se. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I'm sure all of those items can be provided to the member, and I would ask him to provide us with the details, as I'm sure he will. Sales tax on government purchases MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho no ur able Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My question is to the Honourable Minister of Finance. Could the Minister advise the House if the federal department pays the provincial sales tax on their purchases in Manitoba? HON. V. SCHROEDER: The agre ement I ha d announced, I believe it was two months ago , and I've tabled the agreement in the Ho use; as a result of that agreement, we are also requ ired to start payi ng provi ncial sales tax on Provincial Go vernment purchases as the Federal Government does on federal 2881 purchases.

We don't qu ite rec ognize why tha t is necessary, but we are following the terms of the agreement, which is identical to the agreement that the Federal Government has entered into with all the provinces to the east of us, I believe. MR. D. BLAKE: Well, I thank the Minister for that answer, Mr. Speaker, and it seems very odd because the federal departments now, when they're making purchases of goods in Manitoba, are quoting a number 3905160 and sayi ng tha t the y're exempt from all provincial sales tax; that applies to the Department of Public Works, the Federal Department of Indian Affairs, and the RCMP. MR.

SPEAKER: Question. MR. D. BLAKE: Will the Minister check into that and see if that's a special number to exempt them from the tax or .. . HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, that sounds like a very interesting number - 3905160. MR. D. BLAKE: 3905160. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, I can assure him that I am most interested in that and we'll check it out. I'm also sure that probably winds up coming into some central accou nting fund th at is trans ferred between the Provincial and Federal Governments. I hope that's what it is. If it isn't, then I'm sure the member has found another source of revenue for us. MR. D.

BLAKE: While the Minister's checking into that, I wonder if he could advise me so that I could advise the chap that informed me of how he gets around not paying his portion of the provincial sales tax, if he's unable to collect it from the Federal Government. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, I'm most interested in checking into the matter for both his benefit and mine. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you. A question along the same line to the same Minister.

I wonder if he could confirm that the province now is paying the federal portion on the gasoline tax and that the Provincial Government is now paying the manufacturing tax with regard to purchases like automobiles and other large purchases that they make. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have. I'm not sure why the member would ask that, because I had indicated earlier that I have tabled the agreement with the Legislature. Also, in the various documents that we have tabled with the Budget and Spending Estimates, etc., we've shown the costs to the province of that, and the benefits.

Of course, the net benefits of the agreement to the province are more than $4 million of revenue. That is, we get more than $4 million more from the Federal Government than what we pay them with respect to the agreement, and that's why we've entered into it.

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 French language instruction in schools MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker . My question is for the Honourable Minister of Education. In view of the fact that school divisions throughout the province are currently wrestling with problems to do with the presentation of second language training; in other words, they're having to make decisions as to whether or not milieu schools are preferable, or dual track, whether or not French Imme rsion or Core French has certain advantages or disadvantages.

These decisions involve rationalizations in many cases; they involve reorganizations, closures of existing facilities, and so on. I'm wondering if the Minister's department has any studies or information that presents preferred positions or options on these decisions for the public or for school divisions to assist in their decision making. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Speaker . I think that this was one of the items that came up during the Estimates. During that time.

I indicated that we had been gathering a fair amount of information through a number of projects and a number of studies of French language programs through the three-year Core French pilot project and some others, that we were now at the point of almost having comp leted that information, having received some very useful information from it. We are just on the verge of preparing this information for distribution and sharing with school divisions. MR. G.

FILMON: Because some serious decisions are in the course of being made at the moment, I am wondering how soon di visions can expe ct this information to be made public or shared with them to assist them in their decision-making process. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speak er, I think with some of the information that is available that will have an effect on the programming and organization plans for the coming year, I hope to have it out within the next couple of weeks. Care-a-lot Day Care Centre MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Yes, my question is to the Minister of Communi ty Services. In light of the fact that a government-appointed board imposed a first contract settlement on Care-a-Lot Day Care Centre. which may cause the closing of the centre, and in light of the fact that a spokesman for the union said the day care board could meet the cost of increased wages by staging fund-raising drives, socials and other activities, does this government agree with the union spokesman to have union employees' wages paid for by working mothers and single parents by holding bake sales? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , well, indeed many many day care centres made up of volunteers - the boards are volunteer people - do indeed raise monies from time to time in various ways, whether it be bake sales or raffle tickets being sold, bingos, or whatever; there are many many ways that have been done and continue to be done, and that is fine. Ho wever, Mr.

Speaker, I can advise that having spent 2 hours and 15 minutes, I guess, last night in meeting with the board of directors, employees and parents of the particular day care centre, I believe that there may be some solution. Our staff is working very hard today analyzing their financial situation and we are hoping that we can find a way out of it. I would mention again, Mr. Speaker, that the wage package still leaves the wage levels at this particular day centre well below the average of both unionized and non-unionized day care centres in the City of Winnipeg. So I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that with good will and some hard work, that mutually we can work out an arrangement somehow to attempt to keep this particular facility in operation. MRS. G. HAMMOND: A question to the same Minister or to the Minister of Labour. The same union spokesman added that the staff would be more than willing to help with such activities, such as socials and wh atever, and my question to the Minister is: When the government negotiated with CUPE, were the same suggestions made to government workers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, the government doesn't directly negotiate with CUPE as far as I am aware, but I'm not sure that there is anything wrong under the circumstances with the union coming forward with that kind of a proposal. We must recognize that in that particular day care centre, wages have now been set that are lower than in a number of non-union day care centres, and are certainly lower than in a number of union day care centres, because of some peculiar problems that have occurred in management in the past, not at the present time.

It seems to me that the proposal that the union makes is a very responsible one which I hope can be taken up. The alternative that the Honour able Member for Kirkfield Park forgets about to first contract legislation is a strike or a lockout and then the kids would be out with no place and no one to take care of them while their parents are attempting to earn a living. If that is what the honourable member wants, let her stand up and say so. MRS. G. HAMMOND: In light of the fact that the day care centre could conceivably close down, then the�e won't be any at all.

My next question is to the Acting Minister of Labour. In light of the Minister of Labour's statement that day care centres should be spending their money on salaries and not on lawyers, is the government telling the people of Manitoba that it's all right for unions to have high priced lawyers when they're going before the Labour Board, but that the average working person on these volunteer boards should not have the same privilege, that they should be at home baking? 2882

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I believe that the increase awarded by the Department of Communi ty Services this year to that specific day care centre was in the range of more than - (Interjection) - Well, the Leader of the Opposition may not be interested in the answer. I know he's very interested in the questions that he thinks will somehow emba rrass the government, but I think he should listen to this because that day care centre was given more than a 20 percent increase this year in its operating grant from the Provincial Government.

More than 80 percent of the costs of day care centres are salaries. And what was the offer that was made through that lawyer to the union? 1.5 percent.

A 1. 5 percent increase on people earning $4 an hour, and if she thinks that is fair, if she thinks that is acceptable, that that kind of a wage increase is good enough for people working in the day care sector; if that's what she thinks those people are worth, people whom the parents appreciate, people who are doing a very good job with the kids, I think that there is something seriously wrong when those kinds of offers are made by lawyers earning significant salaries. MRS. G. HAMMOND: A further question to the Minister of Labour .

In light of his past remarks, then where does he stand on the suggestion that the mothers on welfare would get $1 an hour? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the House, in case there is anybody watch ing this who thinks that there's any truth in that suggestion that people are receiving $1 an ho ur, I just want to assure people that that's nonsense. Indian Chiefs challenge Wildlife Report MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

It's reported that the Indian chiefs of Manitoba have asked the Minister of Na tural Resou rces to unde rtake an inde pendent scientific study into the status of our wildlife resources because the chiefs don't accept the 5-year report which the Minister tabled in the House some weeks ago. Can the Minister advise the House whether or not he intends to respond positively to that request from the Indian chiefs? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker , I have read with interest the observations made and certainly will give all suggestions due consideration.

I haven't had a chance to talk to my staff at the Wildlife Branch. I know that there are people who are unsatisfied with the statistics revealed in that report and are quite concerned and, naturally, I am going to be concerned to discuss those issues with staff. MR. B. RANSOM: A supplemen tary to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker . Can the Minister assure the House that he stands behind the report that has been prepared and tabled in this House? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Sp eaker , as I indicated when I presented the report, or when I commented on it during my Estimates, the report is, as I understand it, a statistical report indi cating facts as the branch deemed them to have occurred, and it's true that within the report there is a supposition of fact, a generalization of fact, because this is not an exact science. The count of animals, the estimation of the rationale, or the reasons why there have been losses, is not a comp lete science. It is subjective and, of course, it has to be looked upon in that manner.

But certainly, generally speak ing, it's an attempt to provide a factual analysis of wildlife in Manitoba. MR. B. RANSOM: A further supplementary to the Minister, Mr. Speaker. It was evident from ques tioning during the Minister's Estimates that he, himself, had read the report and indeed changes were made as a consequence of his reading the report prior to it being published. Can he therefore assure the House that he stands behind the statements made in that report? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, again, and I did put it on the record during Estimates, I was asked and the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain had been asking me over a course of weeks, when was I going to table the report, because the report was a long time in the work, it was the first five-year report that has ever been prepared by the department and it did take a considerable effort. I've indicated it cost somewhere in the neighbourho od of $29,000 to produce. During the course of que stioning before my Estimate's review, I indicated that I had read a draft of the report.

Some of the generalized language in the report - I had some concern with. I noted my concerns. I did not rewrite any

section of the report. I believe the report is an attempt to be very factual about wildlife in Manitoba. MR. B. RAUSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, can we take that as an assurance that the Minister stands behind the report? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, I think I signed the report; I tabled the report; I, as Minister, have to take responsibility for the report. But I have indicated, Mr. Speaker , that the report is not based on precise fact that one measures in a laboratory. It is based on subjective analysis of matters that are not absolutely certain.

There is a certain range of very educa ted guesswork involved in all of these things and, Mr. Speaker , I'm sure that there can be differing opinions as to those facts, or as to the conclusions drawn from the facts, and I appreciate that and expect that. Attorney-General - defamation settlement MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, I have a question tor the Minister of Finance. My question to him is this: In view of the fact that he has introduced a bill to amend The Financial Administration Act and

Section 44 of the Act, whereb y claims against Min ister s of the 2883

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 Government could now be settled by the Minister where they are under $5,000, and would not have to be approved by Order-in-Council as they are now required to be under The Financial Administration Act.

Could the Minister indicate how many more claims there are against the Attorney-General than other members of the Cabinet, particularly in view of the fact, that the government and the taxpayers already have to pay some $5,000 for a claim for defama tion against the Attorney-Gene ral; how many more claims are they attempting to hide by this amendment they're proposing to The Financial Admi nistration Act? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker , that was a cheap and inaccurate shot at what had happened and the member kno ws that.

He knows that if he was being ho nest tha t he would reph rase th at qu estion considera bly. What has happened with respect to that Financial Administration Act is that over a period of years some of the numbers with inflation are being raised , just as the previous government, for instance, I believe it was in 19 79, raised the limit on reporting for wages to $1 5,000.00. That is, any wages below that amount aren't shown in the accounts of the province and we don't object to that. Those things happen with the passage of time and inflation.

But what the honour able member is referring to here, as he well kno ws, is something that ought to be the subject for discussion at com mittee stage when that bill is in the House. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Sp eaker, in view of the fact that the Minister in introducing this bill, did not make any reference to this proposed change wha tsoever; and in view of the fact that the claim, which the Government of Manitoba and the taxpayers of Manitoba had to pay because of the Attorney-General's actions; in view of the fact that that was only uncovered because it had to be passed by Order-in-Counc il and the public is entitled to know that kind of information; would the Minister withdraw this part of his proposed bill in order that the public can be kept fully informed? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speak er, I would point out that at the present time, without that amendment, the individual Ministers can and could under the previous administration do the same thing at a reduced number and it's just a matter of the number involved. Because right now there's a provision for it, and I believe that the provision is for $1 ,000.00. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker , I would ask the Minister of Finance to reconsider his position, in view of the fact that there is no limitation on this type of settlement in the present Financial Administration Act, and there should be no change in the Act, in order that the pu blic can be fully informed. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Sp eaker, I don 't have the Act in front of me. I'll take another look at that, but I do want to correct a misimpression that the Attorney General was sued. That simply is not correct. MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITT EE CHANGES MR.

SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker , I have com mittee changes for Economic Development: The Member for Thompson substituting for the Member for The Pas, the Memb er for Rupertsland su bstit uting for the Member for lnkster, and the Member for Burrows is substituting for the Member for Osborne. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills No. 60, No. 3, No. 12 , No. 43, No. 51 and No. 18, in that order please? ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 60 -THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the propos ed mo tion of the Honour able Minister of Highways, Bill No. 60, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Sp eaker , in making my remarks to Bill No. 60, which is seat belt legislation, helmet legislation, child restraint legislation, I would like to clarify a few things before I get into the su bject matter. I would like to indicate that the Attorney-General the other day referred to myself as a legal illiterate.

I would just like to indicate to the House here that I'm standing in my place wi thin my given right as an elected representative and the comments that I will be making are the comments that the people in my constituency would want me to make, the major ity of them, which, Mr. Spea ker, is more than I can say for the arrogant, conceited, hairbrained, lord ass, our Attorney-General, who has put shame on that office by the comments that he's made in this House and the way he's been conducting himself and I feel very strongly about that.

I speak on behalf of my people, and that is something more that the Attorney-Gene ral can say, because his comments and his actions in this House have been something that I think I, personally, and many people in my area ha ve been ashamed of, and I think government should be ashamed of, and certainly the Premier should be ashamed of. Mr. Speaker, when I speak to this Bill No. 60, as I ind icated I want to give the com ments and the impressions that I get from my people and they are opposed to this kind of legislation. I want to just indicate some of the things from which I draw my conclusions.

We had a questionnaire that was quo ted in the Manitoba Co-operator some time ago, a couple of months ago, and various questions were put in the questionnaire at that time. One of the questions was: Sh ould the wearing of seat belts be compulsory? I would like to indicate why I speak out very strongly against this legislation is 2884

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 because over 70 percent of the peo ple spoke in opposition to comp ulsory seat-belt legislation. I would like to sort of build around that a little bit, some of the comments that I've heard. I've had many letters; I'v e had many reso lutions, reso lutions sent from councils, LG D councils and rural councils that are opposed to this kind of legislation. The biggest problem with this whole legislation is the compu lsory aspect of it because, Mr. Speaker, there's many people - (Interjection) - I'm talking about seat belt legislation and helmet legislation.

There's many people right now that are driving motor bikes, street bikes, and that's a very popular thing that is develo ping. The majority of them, Mr. Speak er, are using helmets, they are using helmets in most cases. What the people object to, especially in the rural area, is the compu lsory aspect of it, and I'd like to enlarge on that a little bit, for seat belts as well as helmet legislation. We've had demonstrations in front of this building here not that long ago. Thousands of young people were coming out.

Not just all young people, but people came out with their bikes and were indicating to the House and to the mem bers here that they oppose the compu lsory aspect of it. Mr. Speaker, most of the bikes that came up had a helmet hanging on the back. Most of these people believe in using a helmet, but they don't believe in the compulsory aspect of it. The same thing happens with drivers. I believe the Minister of Transportation indicated the other day that approxi mately 20 percent of the drivers in Manitoba are using their seat belts at the present time.

I think tha t the program of education has been working relatively well. It's slow but it's been working. But now we have a government that comes along and says, you shall use helmets, you shall use a seat belt, especially in the rural area. I think in the city there is an element that probably is a little bit more conduc ive to the using of seat belts, but I think that if you took a general survey of it that the majority of the people, as our surveys, indicate would be opposed to compulsory seat belt legislation and helmet legislation. Now why would the Minister of Highways bring in this kind of legislation?

You know we have all kinds of information from the im pression tha t the present government has given that they're always listening to people. They follow the wishes of the people. The Member for Elmwood there was speaking on it too. The thing that bothers me, how come you feel that you know best for all the people? If you think you know what is best for people, why don't you ask them at least? Statistics show that is not the case. Then they send out propoganda like I have in my hand here. Gr eat people, great future, Manitoba and the NOP. That was sent out in May.

It's a fund raiser, it's a fund raiser that has been sent out now. The things that they mention in there, Mr. Speaker - "What do you think of the performance of the Manitoba NOP Government since the provincial election of 1981?" And then they have all kinds of comments about the dramatic great things they've done, which is basically nothing, and they say "I want to know how do you feel about all this." Well, if they were really sincere about wanting to know what the people feel, why don't they do some surveys and find out regarding seat-belt legislation and helmet legislation?

The demons trations have indicated, my surveys have indicated that people are opposed to the com pulsory aspect of it. You know, it's interesting enough, when we were in government not that long ago we had two Ministers that were involved in the transportation portfolio. From time to time they sort of tried to float it into caucus a little bit, the discussion about compulsory seat-belt legislation and helmet legislation. Well, it never got past the door proper ly, because the feeling was generally it was not wanted. It was felt yes, it's a good thing to promote, those people that want to use it.

I don't argue the logistics of using it, but to make it comp ulsory - that's the thing that makes everybody nervious. Now why in a Session when we're going to be having over a hundred bills thrown at us, why would we want to bring in a bill of this nature? Who has been asking for it? This is the question that I have. It's been a very small element that has been pushing for the aspect of it. I find it very interesting why they should zero in on this kind of an approach and want to make this aspect compulsory.

I have many old people, the pensioners especially, and as we go through a transition period, and if we promote the education aspect of it, people will learn to use a seat belt. There's more of them using them all the time. When we look at the provinces that have made it comp ulsory, we find that 55 percent generally are the ones that use it and the others don't. The people in my area, they ask me, the pensioners and others, why? Why is the government making this compulsory? Many of them have never gotten used to wear ing seat belts.

They feel entrapped, they feel it's an entrenchment on their rights, and I think they are right. Why do they want to do this? Other questions that are raised are, you know, the fines are going to be from $20 to $10 0.00. Do they do this to raise funds or what is the object of it really? Because they feel conscientiously that they have not had to do it now. We have the same thing with the metric thing that the Federal Government slapped down everybody's throat. Nobody was asked, "Do you want it?" They just put it on, and that's what this government is doing with this.

I dare say it's going to come back to haunt you. The conc ern I have about the Min ister of Transportation that brought forward this bill - I have a lot of respect for him. I've had lots of activity with him over the many years when he was Minister of Agriculture and we had our feuds and fights and disagreements and difference of philosophy. I'll accept that. I think he's mellowed to some degree where he is among the group across there, he's already a right winger, you kno w.

We used to call him red, but with the group that's there right now, I think that, you know, the Minister of Transportation is already a real right winge r. What bothers me is when we went into the Estimates of Transportation the other day the Minister of Highw ays is sort of holding his hands and saying, well, economic conditions, th ey had a cut back on the road construction. When we raise the point that agriculture, highways, natural resources, all these departments were cut back. Well he says, you know, that's sort of the 2885

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 desire of the Government of the Day. He wasn't strong enough and influential enough at that stage of the game to make sure that he at least kept the Highways Estimates at the same level. No, you know, his Caucus obvi ously and his Cabinet voted him down. He had to take a reduction in this department. I'm sure he didn't do that willingly - I thought he did not do that willingly. But then we find he turns around and he cuts back on the safety aspect of it and this is the Highways Estimates. MR. D. ORCHARD: And who was whining and crying?

The Member tor Elmwood was whining and crying about it. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes, the Member for Elmwood has been trying to defend that position. The Minister of Hig hways has cut back on the safety end of it in his Estimates and then comes around and is trying to give us the sales pitch that the seat belt legislation and helmet legislation is for the safety of people genera lly. He is going to look after that aspect of it. I'm just tremendo usly concerned. That's why the question comes up with many people. You know, is this a revenue-r aising thing?

Then the suggestion I have if it is to raise revenue, let's catch all the guys after this thing becomes legisla tion, obviou sly, because the government is voting as a bloc. They don't have the freedom to vote as they please, because if they did, many of them would not support this kind of legislation, but the hammer is on, they'll have to vote for it, fine. We'll accept that. But this legislation is going to haunt you people, I can guarantee you. Mr.

Premier, this legislation is going to come back to haunt you, because many people, you're forcing something on them, but we've go tten used to that with this government. They say we have an open-door policy, but they don't listen to people. They just storm straight ahead. MR. R. DOERN: Onward and upward. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: An interesting point that I want to raise, in my first year in this Legislature in 19 77, I brought in a Private Mem bers' bill at that time, to raise the drinkin g age from 18 to 19, and at that time I illustrated all the aspects financia lly, because of accidents, the problems that were created by having the 18 year olds drinking in school, the accident factor, the deaths it caused. I had all that information from all the provinces and states across North America, and what happened is, - it was a free vote, fair enough, it was defeated. I could accept that.

But the Member for Elmwood stood up the other day in his place and he's chastising you and promoting this type of legislation - not chastising it, chastising anybody that speaks against it - he was the one that was voting against raising of the drinking age, and if safety and cost is the main concern of this legislation then turn aro und and look what you've done. It isn't consistent at all, but then we're used to that. With this government they are not consistent in many things. It's the dou ble-standard version, and we're used to that already by this time.

One of the things that people ask me nowadays when I get out in the hustings, they say how long, how long do we have to put up with these people? And what I tell them is, it's just started, we've just seen the tip of the iceberg. They got elected on false promises at that time, and they will hang in there for the full five years because they're power hungry, and they don't want to let go of it because they know when the next election comes, down the tubes they go. You know, it might even be that the Member for Elmwood and, certainly, the Member for St.

George will be going down the tubes this time, because the irresponsible actions as the Minister of Agriculture that he's had to date, illustrates that kind of thing. We have the same thing from the Minister of Transportation. I think he feels uncomfortable with what he's doing in that government. - (Interjection) - And the Mini ster of Ag ricul tur e says, who?

But he should feel uncomf ortable too, because those three departments that I mentioned before are the ones that have been reduced in their total spending, and they should be ashamed, but that shows and reflects the feeling of the people opposite, and that is why they bring in this kind of legislation. Basically, it would be my opinion, Mr. Speak er, that this kind of legislation was promo ted by a small handful. The bureaucracy is pushing for it, your bureaucracy is pushing for it, and how the Minister of Transportation fell for it, I can't for the life of me figure out.

You know, it bothers me, but it's actually in keeping, I suppose, with what we've gotten used to. Words, all kinds of words being spoken, no action, and they go in their arrogant conceited way of doing exactly what they want. They don' t listen to the people anymore. But, I'll tell you something. You have three years to play around, and then you will listen to the people of Manitoba - you will. And there are going to be many many removed from that side at that time. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speak er, I'm wondering how does this government view bringing in this kind of legislation?

What is the motivation behind it? What is the motivation behind this kind of legislation? Over a hundred bills are being thrown at us, all aspects of them, and they try and float a few cuties, but this open and brazen. As I indicated before, the majority of people don't object to the use of seat belts. Most of the moto rcycle people don't object to the use of helmets, and I think the aspect of child restraint, it's a reasonable approach. But what bothers me, Mr.

Speaker, anybody that has raised kids, let's say, raised a family and you travel two or three hours in a car and you're going to have your children restrained - I'm just raising this, I'm not saying, I'm opposed to child restraint - I'm just saying you want to be very careful the method in which you use child restraint in a car. Because having small tots, especially anywhere from three to seven years old, and you're going to restrain them for two or three hours in a car, or longer, depending how far you have to drive, you can just imagine the complications.

Anybody that's had three of them in the car at the same time, or four, as I've had occasion to do, you have a problem. You 2886

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 have a problem trying to restrain four of them for over an hour. You have a problem restraining four of them for ten minutes. Now, from the parental aspect of it, I sometimes feel the wife's pretty busy trying to keep everything under control when you don't have this, maybe that aspect of it would not be bad. It would be easier for me when I'm driving the car, and the wife doesn't have to fight with four kids in the back, you know, they're at each other all the time. Maybe child restraint would have a plus there, but there are complications with that.

I don't know, maybe my kids weren't quite normal, but to have four of them rest rained at them same time - (Interjection) - now, don't take that wrong, my kids are normal in every other respect, but they are not norma l when they are supposed to be restrained for two or three hours in the car when driving, and I think anybody that's got :<ids accepts that. So, it's the type of restraint that you have that would be very much concerned. The same thing with the aspect of the seat belt itself.

Let's talk about the rural people, who drive down the road, not that much traffic down the country road, they're supposed to have their seat belt on. They drive to town, half an hour, whatever the case may be, put the seat belt on, and I think the area of educati on, gradu ally, as we come through the system, our younger people are more receptive to it, but many of our senior people are very annoyed by it. They say, why do we have to have this?

In fact, I've had a few old-timers - I shouldn't refer to old-timers, but pensioners - came up and said, listen if I get fined, Driedger, you're going to pay the bill, because I refuse to pay that bill. I said, well, I'm not going to vote for it, they say, you're government. Actually we're tainted with the same brush as the government that is bringing it in, and it annoys me a little bit, because to many of them it isn't that important. We're all a big legislative body here. We pass bills, many bills, many stupid bills, and this is one of them as far as I'm concerned.

I think we should concentrate on the aspect of education as the previous Minister of Highways did, and it's gradua lly comi ng. It's coming gradually. Why do you want to force people? Every time we pass a bill in this House, we take away rights of people. We do every time, and this year we have over 100 of them and every time we restrict certain rights again. It's been apparent in many of the bills; the bill that the Minister of Natural Resources brought forward, The Water Rights Act.

There's good things in some of these things; there's things that should be considered, but why should we always make it a compu lsory aspect of it! I'm talking on a general scale. I don't want to go into the details, because when we had resolutions that we debated in this House off and on about seat belt legislation, and if I'm correct - I think I'm correct - I think the Member for Elmwood brought forward one of these resolutions on com pulsory seat belt legislation. We've had all the debates, the pros and cons.

I think the Minister, when he introduc ed the bill, indicated that ther e are circumstances where maybe a seat belt has been detrimental in terms of an accident where people drown. We refer always to the drowning end of it. There's other examples too, but we've debated them many times in this House, the pros and cons of it. Definitely, there is 2887 an advantage to using a seat belt. I think most people will accept that, but why should we take and make them do it.

We can take this further, and it's in keeping with the socialistic type of approach; make people do things for their own good, as I indicated before, but they're not consistent in that. As I referred to the Private Members' Bill that I brought in about raising the drinking age, that was for the good of the young people; it was going to save a lot of money; it was going to save a lot of lives, but to make it compulsory, to raise that - no, no, you're tak ing away certain rights. We are taking away the rights of people to make decisions now by bringing in this kind of legislation.

I have to say, and I have no problems with it, I am totally opposed to compulsory seat belt legislation and helmet legislation. I make no bones about it, and that is in keeping with the feeling of the people in my constituency. I would just like to ask members of the government: How many of you have gone out and checked what the feeling is of the people in your area? How many of you? The Member for lnkster, he doesn't even know where his people are really; pardon that little slight. MR. D. SCOTT: Talk for you rself . . . MR. A. DRIEDGER: He has not made contact with his people.

Many others have not made contact with the people in their area about how they feel about this legislation. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. A. DRIE DGER: That is a fact; that is a fact. Certai nly, the rural members must feel pressure about this thing. I wonder how the Minister of Agriculture feels about this legislation; about how his people feel about it. Mind you, as I indicated, he's so busy trying to run the Department of Agriculture, he probab ly hasn't got time to make contact with them. A MEMBE R: Did you ask them, Billy? MR. A.

DRIEDGER: I'm talking about making contact with the people in his area to find out how they feel about compu lsory seat belt legislation. Anyway, Mr. Speaker , I just wanted to put these things on record. It is expected from the people in my area that I oppose this thing. I think I would encourage the Premier that we should have a free and open vote on this thing. Mr. Speak er, I feel very confident if that was allowed to happen, that this bill would not pass because, in all sincerity, now they're all hiding behind the cloak that it is a government bill; I can't help but support it.

If the Premier would take the shackles off and let them vote as they please, this legislation would not pass. As I indicated, there's positive aspects to the thing, but the compulsion aspect of it is what annoys everybo dy. I think that the Minister - obviou sly, it has already been indicated by the Premier that it's not going to be an open vote, a prevote; it's a government bill and they'll hammer it through. With that, I just want to indicate that I am opposed to it and this is something that is going to come and haunt you people in the next election, which will be your last one for a long time. Thank you.

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Member for Roblin-Rus sell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Hon ourable Member for River Heights, that debate be adjourned. MOT ION presented and carried. BILL NO. 3 -THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed resolution of the Honour able Minister of Agriculture, Bill No. 3, standing in the name of the Hon ourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my privilege to say a few words regarding this important controversial legislation that has been introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced this legislation back on Thursda y, December 16, 19 82, at the time of the introduction he made some statements regarding his concerns. He mentioned th at he was concerned about the preservat ion and the stren gthening of the owner operator family farm.

Well, I don't think there's any member in this Chamber of the 57 mem bers who would disagree with that statement; that if we can have more farms in Manitoba that are owned by those that are working them, we would certainly have no objections to that. The members on this side of the House have always encouraged sons of farmers to continue into the field of agriculture and to, if possible, take over family farms. The Minister make s reference to the absentee ownership of farms in Manitoba and how they have played a great role in the escalation of farm prices in Manitoba. I would differ, Mr.

Speake r, with the Minister there in that I don't think the amount of absentee ownership has had that great a bearing on the prices that farms have sold for over the past 10 years. I would think that inflation and interest rates have had a far greater bearing on prices of farms over the last decade. His third point he made in the introduction is that he was concerned about the opportunities that exist for current farmers or future farmers in Manitoba.

I would say that all members on this side of the House - and we have a goodly number that are in the field of agriculture - would agree with him that certainly we're concerned about who is going to do the farming of the next decade and the one to follow that. The Minister went on to say at that time, Mr. Speaker , that he was introducing the bill for two reasons; one that he felt he believed in and that Manitobans should have strong legislation in this area, to prevent land speculators; and his second reaso ning was The Lands Protection Act that was introduced by a previous government was insufficient. Well, Mr.

Speak er, I hope to deal with some of those points that the Minister has made reference to during his introduction. There's two real reasons, Sir, that I would have difficulty supporting this bill. I don't believe th at governments should interfere with the lives of people any more than they have to. This is certainly restricting Canadians from another nine provinc es and two territories from becoming land owners here in the Province of Ma nitoba.

Yet many Winn ipegers and persons from eastern Manitoba own land in Ontario primarily for recreational use, but the people of Ontario seem to welcome them into Ontario to be landowners, although it may be for recreation purposes. So I perso nally don't like seeing a barrier put up at the Ontario borderline or at the Saskatchewan borde r.

I recall, Sir, back in 19 80 when the Minister of Transportation was on the comm ittee that was holding public hearings regarding the constitution, and on a number of occasions, the then member, now the current Minister of Transportation, said that we should have written into the constitution resource-sharing proposals.

He made references at that time to the Province of Alberta with the oil resources that they had, the possible and potential oil resources for offshore drilling for the Province of Newf oundland, and so on, and that these matters should come under federal jurisdiction, where the Federal Government could perhaps share the earnings and the income from these resources on a proportional basis with other provinces in Canada.

Well, what's good in the constitution, that we should share with other Canadians, obvious ly doesn't appear to be good for the Minister of Agriculture, who doesn't want to permit other Canadians from becoming landowners and farmers in the Province of Manitoba.

A good example would be a relative of mine who is with the Federal Department of Agriculture in Regina, and if that person wishes to buy a farm in Manitoba, although makes his home in Regina, earns the largest portion of his earnings from his position with the Federal Government, it's my understanding that he wouldn't be perm itted to come back to Manitoba and farm on a part-time basis, although he would be retaining his home in the City of Regina. If I'm wrong, I would hope tha t the Min ister would ma ke such a correcti on.

Fortunately, in this particular person's case, he has been able to, over the last few years, purcha se a small farm and does come back to Manitoba on a regular basis on weekends and work it. But let's say he had wished to take advantage of this opportunity at some future time. It's my read ing and under sta nding of the legislation that he wouldn't be permitted to do so.

Then the other reason, Sir, that I disagree with the Minister of Agriculture is that I think he's interferring with the free ma rketp lace by putting on th ese restrictions and he talks about the out-of-province and non-Canadian - or as the term some people like to use - "foreign ownersh ip" having a great bearing on the prices of farms in Manitoba over the past decade. I, for one, don't believe that foreign ownership has had that great an impact on the farm prices in Manitoba, and only in a few exam ples am I aware of foreign ownersh ip in various municipa lities being a major concern.

Certai nly, the Minister refers in his opening remarks, in introducing this bill, to a Dr. Daryl Kraft from the University of Manitoba and some research work that was done by a group of students for that particular professor; but I would like to point out some statistics that we have been able to obtain from the secretary-treasurers of the various municipalities who have taken this information, Sir, from the tax rolls, and so I would hope that it is at least as accurate as the 2888

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 students who worked for Or. Kraft - their information - or even more so. I'm only going to cite a few examples, Sir, of municipalities that I'm familiar with or that I have had some background information with and I've had some dealings with. The RM. of De Salaberry out there near where St. Pierre is, I know that municipality very well, and it's got a lot of persons who commute from Winnipeg and back and forth. But do you know that the number of non-resident Canadians who own farm land in that municipality is one-quarter of 1 percent?

It has one of the highe st of foreign non-Canadian owners and that is, perhaps, becaus e the eastern area of th at municipality was virtually undeveloped and it is very close to the American border, so maybe Minnesotans own land in that municipality. As I've said, I know of foreign persons that have developed farm lands in that area and broken new land in the RM. of De Salaber ry, so there's 11 percent of the land in that area that is owned by forei gners. Tha t is one of the high est percentages in the total list.

The RM. of Dufferin, Sir - that happens to be a municipality that is very close to the Mem ber for Pembina -4.25 percent of the land in that area is owned by non-Canadians and zero percent owned by non farmers, although Canadians. Another municipality, the RM. of Franklin - this is the one that my in-laws farm at - within 9 percent of that area is owned by non-Canadians, and again that municipality almost runs down to the local government districts that border the Ontario border and much of that land in recent years has been broken in and put under cultivation.

It is new Canadians and potential new Canadians that are going into these areas to do their farming, and let's never put the brakes on having an increase in population and bringing in new Canadians tha t want to work and become taxpayers in this province, because without these people, I am sure that most of us wouldn't be here today, and without our forefathers having come to Manitoba, whether they came as merchants, or came as farmers, and so on. In the RM. of Franklin the number of non-residents is less than 1 percent.

A good farming community, the RM. of Gr ey, out near Elm Creek, 1 percent is owned by non-farming Canadians and only 8 percent is owned by non-Canadians. The RM. of Macdona ld on the edge of the City of Winnipeg, Sir, 3.5 percent of its property is owned by non-Canadians and only 3.5 percent by non-farming Canadians. The RM. of North Cypress, one in which my family opera tes a farm in and has a farm in, has only 2.7 percent of its total farm acreage owned by non Canadians and on ly 1 per cent by non- res ident Canadians.

I would imagine that my family fits into that 1 percent, because my father lives in Winnipeg and he has owned the farm out there since 19 22 and before that, his father and his grandfather have owned it and that farm was home steaded, Mr. Speaker - and I'm proud to say this - in 18 80. It was one of the first in western Manitoba to be homesteaded. It is still in the same family name and when my father, who is now 87, passes on, it's his intent that it will pass into my hands, and I someday will pass it on into my daughter's hands. So it is our wish, Mr. Speak er, to keep this family farm in the family.

I might point out, Sir, that the Minister talks about the short leases that are given by non-operator farmers. I might tell the Minister that when my father was at dental school in 19 22, he started to rent his farm out to the MacF arlane family, and that family continued to rent the farm for 50 consecutive years until he turned it over to a cousin of mine two years ago.

So I say, Sir, if that's an example of a non-farm operator leasing out his land and giving shor t-term leases - sure, they were yearly renewable leases - but in that particular case, the family stayed for 50 years and went through two generations. MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, but Warren, the NOP think that's bad. That's bad. MR. W. STEEN: Well, I see nothing wrong with that.

The Minister made reference about keep ing farmers on the farm and permitting sons of farmers to continue to invest in farming in Manitoba, and by bringing in such restrictive leg islat ion, he's going to make it somewhat easier for these young farmers to participate in agriculture, to buy farms, and to conduct a business of farming - and farming, Sir, is a business.

I say to the Minister that if he would take his Agricultural Credit Corporation and perhaps revamp it, and work with the chartered bank<> and make monies available at lower interest rates to young farmers, perhaps these people could buy these farms that he is so concerned about being in the hands of foreign persons and so on. I say that the non-Manitobans that are wishing to invest in farms are investors, Mr.

Speaker, and that they are not trying to purchase lands with the idea of a get-rich-quick proposition, because the prices that these people have been paying are far too high to be in on a get-rich-quick proposition. So the reason that these people are buying farm lands in Manitoba and in Canada is they eventually want to have a good, stable investment. Canada is a relatively good, stable country, and I would hope and I would expect, Mr.

Speake r, that many of these people will eventually be Canadian farmers and be over here practising the art of agriculture and working as agrologists. - (Interjection) - I would say, Sir, that absentee owners in my opinion are not doing any farm community any great harm. In talking to the Member for Emerson, I said to him that in reading a presentation that was given to the Minister by the Manitoba real estate agents, they make reference in their presentation to the numbers of acres that have been purchased in southeastern Manitoba.

The Member for Emerson says that, yes, they have poured a lot of capital into southeastern Manitoba which has been good, and that money has been spent in the region. These people have become good citizens, the ones that have moved in. The other ones who have purchased much of this land in many many cases, almost to a letter, Sir, have rented back to the person that they purchased it from and in most cases given a three year lease to them; therefore, a person has a lease to operate the farm again. They've got the money in their mitt from the sale of the farm.

The area has also seen great expansion in num bers of acres th at ha ve been cultivated. So the Member for Emerson tells me that in talking to municipal officials in the southeastern part of Manitoba that they have all expressed a desire to see more of this farm land - a lot of it is marginal farm 2889

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 land that has been bought by non-Mani tobans - being sold to these persons who are prepared and willing to come into this province, to cultivate, to put the acreage under cultivation and do their best at farming what might not be called triple A farm land. If they were speculators, Sir, I would propose that they would be buying this land at the lowest possible price and sitting on it with the intent to resell it.

Obviou sly, they can't be speculators, because that's the common cry you hear from persons that want to put all these restrictions on is that these people are paying ridiculously high prices. So therefore if they're paying ridiculously high prices, Sir, I would call them investors rather than speculators; they want the land and they want to continue it in ownership and so on. I would say, Sir, that the proposed legislation will deprive Manitobans who wish to retire. This, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is an important factor, and an area that I have had some personal knowledge in is the family persons operating the farm.

The youngsters, the children in the family, go off to university, they get into an urban area, and they don't wish to go back farm ing. So when it comes time for morn and dad to retire, and in many cases they have lived poor most of their lives, and the greatest days they're going to have and are going to be perhaps their days in retirement.

If we pass this bill that is going to put restrictions on who can buy farm lands in Manitoba, I think that we're going to deprive a number of persons that fit the example that I've just cited, where persons who migh t want to retire from the farm and re tir e perhaps before the no rma l retirement age of 65, because they've worked from a very early age, they've worked hard on acq uiring these assets, and they want to live off these assets in their days of retirement, and particularly if their health is with them. Not every boy or girl that grows up on the farm wants to remain in the farm communit y.

We have seen over the last 50 years the City of. Winnipeg grow imme nsely. It's mainly because many persons who have come in off the farms have come into the urban area. Another restriction that I don't like about the bill when he speaks of restricting non-Mani tobans from buying farm land. I would hope that all the city mem bers on the government side would realize for one moment that the Ch ristmas sales in our retail stores often are a result of a good crop or a poor crop.

If we have a bad harvest in the fall, many retailers in Winnipeg will tell you that Ch ristmas sales and retail sales over the wintertime will be poor. If the farmers have mone y in their pockets and they do well, they come into Winnipeg and they are consumers. They are into our city and buying goods and services from Winnipeg merchants, and the merchants in the larger villages and towns in their own area. So I would hope that we would not prevent other Canadians from buying farm land in Manitoba.

I think personally that the numbers of so called foreign persons buying land in Manitoba is not a serious problem today; I have seen the statistics from a number of the municipalities. In my opinion, it is not a higher num ber, and and that we in Manitoba should be looking for growth in Manitoba in both population, and as I have cited the example, in eastern Manitoba where a numb er of acres ha ve been put under cultivation in recent years and new farms have been established that each and everyone of these persons that ope rates th ese new farms are going to be consumers of goods and services.

The y're going to be corning into Winnipeg to buy shoes and clothes from the Winnipeg merchants or the merchants between here and the City of Winnip eg and their homes. The Minister made reference to the fact that the opportunities for farmers aren't there.

I made reference to the Agriculture Credit Corporation and subsidizing young farmers' interest rates with the commercial banks in my opinion is a worthwhile concept to give serious consideration to, particularly, if his people from the Department of Agriculture, through the Agriculture Credit, look at the potential farmer to see if he's got the capabilities of being a farmer.

Then if the Agriculture Department of any one of the cha rtered banks has a look at that same opera tion, perhaps we won't have the problems that we all heard so much about in Portage la Prairie recently when a person who wasn't capable of farming got into a big farm operation. Farming is like any other profession, it's not made for everybody. There are skills and training that are needed in order to be in farming.

Sir, I think that it would be shameful in Manitoba if we are starting to deprive other Canadians from a chance to come to Manitoba and to go into the fa rming agri cultur e business in our province, if we shut the door to non Canadians from corning and joining and becoming future Canadians and corning to Manitoba and doing the farm work. If you talk to farmers, whoever requir e help on the farm in the way of hired help, they'll tell you that it's very very difficult to get second generation Manitobans and Canadians to go out and do farming work because farming work is difficult work .

Perhaps, maybe some of these new Canadians or prospective Canadian have the work ethics within them that they'll come over here and become excellent farmers and do the tough work that is involved in farming and particularly if they get into mixed farming. So I would say, Mr. Speak er, that I'm opposed to the bill because I don't like government getting in with a heavy hand and telling other Canadians who can come to Manitoba and who can't come to Manitoba.

I think the restrictive aspect of having non-C anadians corning to Manitoba is not requir ed at this time, because the statistics show in the municipalities around Winnipeg that the number of foreign-owned farms is a very small percentage. The example I cite in the two municipalities of Franklin and the R.M. of De Salaberry in the eastern area, it is well-known that a number of foreign persons have come and located in that area and bought farms. In many cases, when they have bought established farms, they have turned them back into leaseholds to the existing person who operated the farm.

But one step even further and better, Sir, is that in many cases they established new farms and broke land and started the cultivation. It's these people that are increasing the viability of southeastern Manitoba as an agricultural commun ity and, as I said, that we, who represent constituencies in the City of Winnipeg, and although my constituency is primarily a residential one, everyone Of those persons in the River Heights constituencies are employed somewhere, hope fully.

In many cases, they are em ployed downtown and in the various major shopping centres in Winnipeg, and when the farmers do well, the people of Winnipeg do well . Farmers are consumers as well as prod ucers, and I think that the Minister of Agriculture is taking a very 2890

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 narrow view when he wants to put restrictions on who can be in the farming business, because he's forgetting about the fact that they are consumers, and that they can assist Manitobans who are not in the farming communi ty in establishing their own livelihoods. I would suggest, Sir, to the Minister of Agriculture, that if his greatest concern is the young farmer's inability to get onto the farm because the prices are high, it's not a result mainly of foreign owner ship. It's the high interest rates; it's the inflationary period we've gone through in the past decade.

If he still feels that there are a goodly number of capable young men out there that want to be in the farming business, why doesn't he have a serious hard look at bringing in some legislation or making some changes in the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation and maybe trying to work with the credit unions, maybe trying to work with the chartered banks and trying to free up money so th at th ese young farmers can ge t th ems elves established?

If the farm has a value of X on it, why should should somebody be forced to take something less than X just because they want to help some young farmer from down the road? I think if persons want to sell their farms and retire, they are entitled to the best price they can get, and legislation shouldn't be introduced to deprive them of a retirement that I'm sure in many cases they deserve because they have worked long and hard in establishing a farm. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speak er, that I've known many farmers and they live rather poor ly and they often die rich.

The reason they die rich is that they have spent a lifetime trying to pay off their farm, and at the time they get to retirement age, many of them, if their health still is with them, they would like to retire a wee bit early and to enjoy a few years of life. The only way they can enjoy their retirement is get a reasonable amount of money because very few farmers, Sir, have pension plans and this government is always talking about pension plans and emp loyee and emp loyer relations.

I'm not really speaking on behalf of the corporate farmers, I'm talking about the average farmer that his only asset at the time he wants to retire is selling his farm and his equipment, and that is what will provide him with his years of retirement. So, Sir, I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture have a look at the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the way it's working and take off these restrictions; they aren't necessary.

The number of persons from foreign areas buying farm lands in Manitoba is not a significant number, so I would suggest what he should do again is do as he did last year, pull the bill and forget about it. I don't think it's needed. It's not needed and just plain forget about all these restrictions. I think he's been listening to the farm union perhaps a little too often and some of the other groups, and maybe if he got out talking to all the farm groups and the various individuals he would perhaps find that the bill is not needed.

So, therefore, Sir, if the bill is not needed, I would say that I'm certainly not going to support it, and I would ask the Minister if he would seriously reconsider the bill because I don't think it is needed. Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKL ING: Mr. Spea ker, I'm rather amused by the attitude of the honour able members opposite. They are concerned about the problem, but they really don't want to do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that the honour able members opposite have a fixation; they have a fixation about the open market.

But, Mr. Sp eaker , we have to face up to the realities of what's happening out there. We know, Mr. Speaker , that our land base and our agricultural base is not infinite; it is finite. We do not have an unending supply of arable land on this planet. Certai nly, we don't have an ever-expanding frontier of arable land in this country. The acquisition of arable land comes now at great expense: excessive dr aina ge, excessive costs of developing further arable land. We know that with these constraints - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker , I find it difficult even to hear my echo in the Chamber given the fact that the Honour able Member for Pembina seems to be involved in incessant chatter. Mr. Spea ker, given the limitation on arable land, we know that without any other factor, land values are going to continue to increase. Mr. Speaker, we know that despite the fact that from time to time there appear to be world food surpluses, there are no real food surpluses in the world, and we neod all of the arable land and we need it in production. Mr.

Spea ker, this bill does not inhibit the ownership of land for cultivation in the production of food, not at all. Mr. Sp eaker, the fact is that young farmers today trying to engage in farming face escalating land costs, making it almost prohibitive for a young man or a young woman to start out in farming. Now, Mr. Speaker , these are not idle theories; they are fact. The Honour able Member for Gladstone, the Honour able Member for Roblin-Russell, and the Honou rable Member for Niakwa know that in their constituencies they have farmers that farm land; they can't begin to own the land, it's too expensive.

They rent, and they are obliged to rent, and they are obliged to rent now, Mr. Speaker, from people who don't reside in Canada. They are now, Mr. Speak er, ever increasing tenants in their own land. Mr. Speak er, the Honourab le Member for Roblin Russell says, some guys want to rent land. Well, Mr. Speak er, we, on this side of the Cham ber, want people who rent land to be able to rent land from other Manitobans, to be able to make sure that the revenue that comes from that land is ci rculated here in this province and doesn't go to New York, doesn't go to Germany or doesn't go to Rome, Mr. Speak er, because MR.

D. ORCHARD: You're so far out on left field, you don't know what you're talking about. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speak er, the Honou rable Member for Pembina is talking about left field. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's not even factual. A MEMBER: What about our family owning land, Al? What about your family? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. 2891

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, in the constituency of Springfield - in the R.M. of Springfield - (Interjection) - Well, the Honourable Member for Pembina is hurling insults and leaving the Cham ber. May well he do so, because fact is a stranger to him, Mr. Speak er. He doesn't want to know the facts and deal with the issues on the basis of fact. Mr. Speaker , in the R.M . of Springfield, close to where I live, I have neighbours who are farm ing. Mr. Speaker , several years ago one of the large farmers in the area sold his land. He sold, as I recall it, six quarters. I tell you, Mr.

Sp eaker , that up until the time that sale took place, land was selling in the neighbourhood for $300 an acre, but he sold to a non-resident. I don't know the arrangements; I wasn't privy to them, but it became common knowledge in that farming community in a matter of days. The sale price, Mr. Speaker, wasn't $350 an acre; it was $500 an acre. And who was the purchaser? Well, it was a non-resident; someone that lived in Italy apparently, and that land is now being rented. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate a contrast. Well, Mr.

Spea ker, there is this incessant chatter over there demanding that non-residents control our farm land. I don't understand it, Mr. Speak er. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order . HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, let me contra st that situation with another one in the same rural municipality MR. F. JO HNSTON: One of these days you're going to hit your knees together and it'll hurt. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr.

Speak er, when the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek settles down so that I can hear myself speaki ng, you know - and he is going to turn purple if he keeps getting so agitated. Mr. Sp eak er, in that same rural municipality we have people who have come from overseas, have become landed immigrants and are farming, and they are welcome. That's the basis upon which this province was dev eloped ; people coming here to farm, but certainly agriculture won't be developed and enha nced by people coming here through lawyers and buying up our land and then renting it back to other people. Mr.

Spe aker, tha t isn't the basis for healthy agriculture. Mem bers on the oppo site side of the Chamber know that, but they refuse to admit that that is fact. Well, Mr. Speaker , they have this fixation about land. Let's look at the record of some of the sales. MR. F. JO HNSTON: We have a fixation about freedom; it's called freedom. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, let's look at the record of some of these speculative purchases in Manitoba. Mr. Sp eak er, th ese are case hi stories compiled by the Agricultural Lands Protection Board. I want to put these on the record, Mr. Speaker .

Case No. 1: In recent years, an eastern Canadian lawyer has acquired 8,928 acres of prime agricultural land valued at $5.2 million. To finance the land deals, this individual enters into an agreement with another eastern Canadian lawyer wilo puts up all the money through a mortgage agreement. The lawyer in turn secures funding from the deals from offshore sources. That's one technique ; that's 8,928 acres of prime land that no longer is under the control of Manitoba or Canadian farmers. Mr.

Speaker, Case No. 2: An eastern Canadian land dealer, who purcha ses in conjunction with offshore investors, has secured 7,031 acres of prime agricultural land valued at $7.3 million. Case No. 3: A former lawyer in British Columbia, who now resides full time in Europe, acquired 3,027 acres of prime agricultural land valued at $2.5 million through his Manitoba corporation. Sample Case No. 4: A Canadian land dealer, who has a Quebec address but resides most of the year in Europe, has purchased 5,060 acres of prime agricultural land valued at $3 .1 million through two corporations.

To fa cil ita te his tr ansa ctions, he ent ers into an agre ement with a resident of the province wh o negotiates with local farmers. In some cases, the local res ident, th rough his num bered Manitoba holding company, buys and registers the property and then resells it to the other corpora tion. Observe the profits and hence the inflation of land prices involved in these corporate rollovers. Mr.

Speaker , let me digress - honourable members know something about corpor ate rollovers; even the Co nser va tiv e Go vernment in Ontario ha d to do something about corporate rollovers involving real estate in Toronto recently - but just hear it going on with this sample case (a): 745.39 acres were purchased by the holding company for $375,000 and transferred to one of the two corporations for $409,964 - you see, there's some slight increase there, Mr. Speaker, an increase of $34,964, and you know how long it was, Mr.

Speaker - two months later. (b) 320 acres purchased by the holding company for $131 ,000, and then transferred - not a year, not two years later - one month later to one of the two corporations for $1 74,900, an increase of $43,900 - $43,900 in one month, Mr. Speaker , and that's good pr ivate enterprise; tha t's the kind of thing th at honourable members opposite want to continue to fight and protect. A MEMBER: They paid for it. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, they paid for it and the honourable member would want to know where the money came from. - (Interjection) Yes, well, Mr.

Sp eaker , the Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell doesn't care where money comes from as long as people pay mo ney. Well, Mr. Speaker , we know his philosophy; all it takes is money, and money counts with the honourable member; not principle, just money. Mr. Speak er, Case (c): 244.2 1 acres purchased by the holding company for $84,000 and then transferred - how long, Mr. Speaker; take a guess - six days later to one of the two corporations for $13 4,000; an increase of $50,000 - $50,000 in six days. Mr. Speaker , these aren't imaginary examples.

These are cases taken from the Agricultural Lands Protection Board's files. 2892

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: That's $8,300 a day; that's more than Saul Chernia ck makes. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker , obvio usly, to the members oppo site, and I'll put this on the record, they are making light of these transactions. They think it's funny; they don't think it's a matter of concern. Well, Mr. Speak er, farmers in this province are concerned. I know that they're concerned; even Cons ervative farmers in this province are concerned about this, because it affects their livelihood. Let's deal with sample case No. 5.

A Manitoba lawyer has acquired and holds over 20,000 acres of farm land. The purchases have been made through a variety of numb ered Ma nitoba companies. Mo reover, several thousands of additional acres have been acquired and then transferred to landed immigrants - most of whom do not take up permanent residence in Manitoba. In many instances, prices paid for land by the numbered Manitoba companies exceed the going market prices in the local area. Mr. Speaker, it's a litany of inflation, of acquisition, without any intention to farm. Sam ple case No. 6 (Interjection) - Well, Mr.

Speaker , I'm going to put on the record that the Member for Roblin-Russell thinks the whole question of foreign owners hip of land in Manitoba is a joke. He derides me read ing into the record, the fact of acquisitions of foreign corpor ations. Mr. Sp eaker , you kno w the honoura ble member now seeks to rise on a point of order ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . but he has been continually indicating that this is a funny situation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Member for Roblin-Rus sell on a point of order. MR. W. Mc KENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I never said that this bill was a joke or the farming industry in this province. I ask the honour able member to withdraw those remarks. I never made such an allegation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, if I misinterpret the honou rable member's heckling, his laughing, his derision of my comments, as something other than I should have interpreted, than I apologize to him. Elut the honour able member has continued to laugh, to heckle, to ind icate tha t this has no mea ning, no significance to the people of Manitoba, and I, Mr.

Speaker , take that conduct, that attitude, as indicative of indifference on his part to this whole question. Mr. Speaker, let me take another case. A Canadian land dealer, who resides most of the year abroad, has purchased 6,809 acres of farm land, valued at $2.8 million, through a numbered Manitoba comp any. This individual buys land through her corporation, and in some cases, transfers this land to individuals who are successful in obtaining landed immigrant status, but who do not necessarily take up residence in Manitoba. Substantial profit, and hence, escalation of land values is involved in these transfers.

Sample case No. 7: Another land dealer who has landed immigrant status has purchased in whole, or in one-ha lf interest with the individual in sample case No. 6, 3,904 acres valued at $2.2 million. Purchases by the land dealer in case No. 7 have been made through three numbered Manitoba companies. He, in turn, sells off land to offshore investors, who succeed in securing landed immigrant status but do not necessarily reside here. Case No. 8: In 19 79, a locally-based corporation acquired a parcel of farm land for $462,000 or $3,000 per acre.

The land, over the next one-and -a-half years, was rolled over to related corporations in th ree successive transactions. The result is that that land escalated in value from $462,000 in mid-1 979 to $939,400 by early 19 81. Case No. 9: In 19 78, a

section of land was sold to a land speculator, who resided in Ontario for $600 an acre. It was sold to another corporation in 19 80 for $1 ,048 per acre and in 1981 was transferred to another corporation for $1, 12 5 per acre. In three years then, the land almost dou bled in value. It might be noted that the latter corporation is controlled by a landed immigrant who resides abroad. Mr. Speaker , these . . . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Why don't you do it on my house? Why don't you do it on my house? HON. A. MACKLING: Now the Member for Sturgeon Creek, Mr.

Spe aker, continues to try to heckle me, making again light of the facts that I'm endeavouring to pr esent to the Ho use. Now, Mr. Sp eak er, the Hono urable Member for Sturgeon Creek, if he is representative of the attitude of the Co nservative Caucus in Manitoba, makes light of a very serious situation. A situation that confronts Manitoba farmers who are faced with ever-escalat ing land costs - not by farmers, Mr. Speak er, but by speculators - people who are affecting the ability of young people, particularly in Manitoba, to be able to acquire land and farm.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek and others, who continu e to heckle, who continue to indicate a disinterest in this question, are putting themselves on record through me, becaus e I'm rec ording their attitudes, Mr. Speaker, and that kind of attitude will be made known to the farmers of Manitoba come another election. Mr. Speak er, that kind of attitude, not only by the heckling, but by the honourable members opposite who have spoken, and who will dare to speak. Mr. Speaker, you know, I looked at the remarks of the former Minister of Agriculture from the Cons ervative Government.

He spoke on this resolution on December 16, 19 82 and he ind icates on Page 298 about a constituent who was concerned about selling his land, and he ind icates that this constituent would have liked to have seen foreign buyers there, and he didn' t disagree with that. Obvio usly, he would have liked to have seen foreign buyers there too. Mr. Speaker , the Honour able Member for Arthur associates himself with land speculati0n and that's what his speech indicates. 2893

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 And then, Mr. Speak er, on page 299, not content with merely associating himself with land speculation, what does he say in the - let's see, it's the second paragraph. Then he takes a slap at civil servants. He says, ". . . but he is a typical person working for government. The more laws you have in legislation, the more regulations you have. The more you make the people come to you and sit before a board in judgment, the happier they are . . . " That's the attitude of the Honourable Member for Arthur, Mr. Speak er.

That's the attitude of that mem ber, and I think it's typical, indicative of the attitude of most of the members opposite. Mr. Speaker, they think that this legislation is designed to frustrate people. Mr. Speak er, this legislation is designed to protect the bona fide interests of agriculture in this province, and it's not unique legislation. It's not unique legislation.

We have similar legislation in other parts of Canada and why it's become necessary, even in provinces that have Co nservative Governments and maintain that legislation, is because they know and appreciate that agriculture is an important industry in Canada and it must not be su bject to the kind of interna tiona l speculation, the kind of international laundering of money, the shifting values in society, where people want to find security in land values in Western Canada. Mr. Speaker , that attitude on their part just isn't good enoug h. We have an obli gati on. We ha ve an obliga tion .

Cert ainly this government recogn izes that obligation. In the constituencies of all members, including the members opposite, to ensure that kind of speculation doesn't continue. But, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members opposite continue to argue for the retention of

an Act whic h ob viously has no t pr ovided any protection to Manitoba farmers. That kind of speculation has taken place. It's no t a figment of anyon e's imagination, but do any honourable members rise in their place over there and say, yes, there are some weaknesses in the Act, and yes, you are right in tightening it up, but make this slight change here, or make a little change there and we will agree with it? No, Mr. Speaker .

We haven't heard constructive criticism opposite; we've heard condemnation in total of any attempt to tighten up what is obviously a very loose Act and a very loose set of regulations, and so loose, Mr. Speaker , that Cons ervative-type organizations called upon the previous administration to do something about it - tighten up the legislation. Mr. Speaker, that advice, that concern, fell on deaf ears. Mr. Speaker , it continues. - (Interjection) - Well, Mr.

Speak er, now we have another mem ber, the Member for La Verendrye who obviou sly, because of the derisive remarks he's hurling across this Chamber at the present time, indicates a sympathy for land speculation in Manitoba which we do not share. A MEMBER: Do you like drilling oil wells, Al? Is that called speculation or not? MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye on a point of ord er. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speak er, I'd like the Minister to withdr aw those remarks. If he'll read my speech, I put my position clearly on the record with regard to foreign speculation. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, I indicated that the manner of his heckling, his attitude, while I'm speaking on this very impor tant qu estion, im portant to his constituents and all of the farmers in Manitoba, his attitude in this House indicates a derision of what I'm saying, indicates that he does not agree with my concerns about speculation. Now, he can say that he spoke in the House and said that he did not agree with speculation.

Well, if he doesn't, he would show some empa thy, some agreement, for the concerns that I'm making at this moment on that speculation. Now, actions, Mr. Speak er, his actions, speak louder than his words. On the formal record he says he's against speculation. I say, that the honourable member is indicating in his attitude that it's the reverse. I have to accept the honourable member's words, but, Mr. Speaker , his actions belie his words and I wish that - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker , I have not said the honourable member believes in speculation. I have indicated that his actions indicate a sympathy for that.

All right. MR. R. BANMAN: I will get elected in my riding with this and this will not help you at all. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speaker , the honourable member says that he is not troubled by his position. - (Interjection) Well, Mr. Speaker, here's another one of the te chni ques th at the mem bers of the opposition try to use. The y try to set themselves up as defenders of rural interest. Well, Mr. Speaker , we haven't heard any vigorous defence of the interests of farmers in Manitoba in representations to this House on this bill, far from it.

We've had the kind of representations by the former Minister of Agriculture, who in a backhanded kind of way indicates that he is all for a vigorous open market that involves speculation, involves foreign residence, being able to buy land, and that seems to typify the attitude of the Honourable Memb er for River Heigh ts who just spoke. - (Interjection) - Well, these are the facts, Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A.

Mack ling: Now, the Honour able Member for Pembina is so irritated by my exposing his weakness, his ineptness, in respect to his position on this bill that now he's hurling personal insults to me. That doesn't trouble me, Mr. Speaker, because he knows in his ow n conscience that there is a serious problem here, and he is not prepared to add ress it. We are, Mr. Speak er, prepared to limit the amount of land that a non-resident can own. We want people in Manitoba that own the land to farm it, or if they don't farm it, if they own the land in Manitoba, that they reside in Manitoba.

We've made provisions for exceptions, exceptions where there is an estate involved. We allow anyone to own 10 acres of land in Manitoba. 2894

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 MR. F. JOHNSTON: Isn't that nice. You'll allow me, isn't that lovely. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek . . . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Al. Thank you. MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . big brother has reserved the right to own 10 acres. SO ME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek in his ignorance of this Act says, well, Al, it's very generous of you, you'll let me own 10 acres. Mr.

Speak er, if the hono urable member would take the time to talk to any of his colleagues that have read the bill, he will know that the Member for Sturgeon Creek can own all the land in the Province of Manitoba if he can afford to buy it, and that's the provisions of this bill we are making. We are going to allow the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek, or the Honour able Member for La Verendrye to acquire all the land. (Interjection) - Now, the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek has got a problem. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Would the honour able member permit a ques tion? HON. A. MACKLING: Certainly I will, Mr. Speak er. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the honour able member that if my wife and family and I formed a corporation in Manitoba and wanted to purchase farm land under the name of that corporation, could we buy it? HON. A. MACKLING: Yes. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speake r, if I were acting for the honour able member as a lawyer, I would advise him that pursuant to the Act, yes, he can establish a Manitoba corporation. MR. D.

ORCHARD: You'r e a damn poor lawyer then. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: But the provisions of the Act would have to be followed, and the majority of the shareholders would have to be involved in active farm ing. Now, Mr. Sp eaker , we could spend the rest of the time that I have - (Interjection) Mr. Sp eaker , the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek has but a passing interest in this legislation. He passed it over very quickly when it crossed his desk. The farmers in Manitoba have a very legitimate, a very concerned interest about foreign ownership of land in this province.

It is not a matter that will pass lightly, politically or otherwise through this House. Mr. Speaker , the intent of this legislation is not to inhibit the ownership of property, but what it's designed to do is ensure that arabl e farm land in this pr ovince is available to Manitobans to farm at the behest of Manitobans, not at the behest of residents of German y, or of New York, or of Rome, or whe rever. Mr. Sp eaker , those are our concerns.

They are legitimate concerns about the rights of Manitobans to be able to farm, not today but generations ahead, that the young men and young women in Manitoba will be able to own the land. They will not be tenants of foreign residents because that is the way it is going, Mr. Speaker . Organizations throughout Manitoba, not wild eyed radical organizations called upon government to do something about it. We're prepared to do something about it, Mr. Speaker . Honour able members oppo site apparently are not. MR. SP EAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Sturgeon Cr eek, th at debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried . MR. SP EAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Hono urable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill 12, standing in the name of the Hon ourable Member for Lakeside. (Stand) BILL NO. 43 -THE TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT MR. SP EAKER: On the Prop osed Motion of the Honour able Minister of Highw ays, Bill No. 43, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speak er, I want to address a few remarks to Bill 43 today.

I'd like to make some general comments on the intention of the legislation as indicated by the Minister of Transportation when he introduced it. This bill is part of a thrust initiated by the Federal Government in 19 80, I believe, with the passage of federal legislation in July of 19 80. The intent of this legislation as I understand it, and as was the planning process when we were government, was to adopt parallel legislation provincially, and parallel regulations provincially to the Federal Act to assure a uniformity in regulation of the transportation of dangerous goods across this country.

Now the Minister has indicated that in introducing the bill, that is exactly what is to be accomplished. Now, I have no major concerns with the bill, but I wish to put trree basic principles on the record so that 2895

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 the Minister might give us the assurance, when he closes debate, that these three major principles and concerns are addres sed by this legislation. No. 1, there must be uniformity of provision within this Act with the Federal Act; that includes, not only the Act itself, but indeed in terms of the regulations, as well. Secondl y, there must be uniformity of provision by this Act, and the accompanying regulations, between provincial jurisdictions.

That is particularly important with this bill because it does regulate the transportation of dangerous goods on our highway systems which are under provincial jurisdiction; therefore, this Act must parallel the Act in neighboring provincial jurisdictions, all across Canada, I migh t add. Thirdl y, this Act must ensure an equit able inspection framework across Canada.

The rules by which the inspectors involved in the search and inspection of the transportation and movement of dangerous goods must be the same between provinces, and indeed, they must be the same for a federal inspector as they are for a provincial inspector. The reason for that, Mr. Speake r, I think is quite obvious and simple.

You cannot develop a federal system of tr ansp or tation, a natio nal system of transportation, if you have different laws and regulations for the inspection of the movement of hazardous goods, or dangerous goods, between provincial jurisdictions within this country, so that uniformity is the key. Anything th at is do ne in Bill 43, and the acco mpanying regulations, must be uniform with other provinces and with the Federal Act and regulations.

You cannot have a system whereby , in moving a truckload of hydrochloric acid from Alberta to Ontario by truck, by rail, you cannot have a circumstance where each pr ovince ha s dif ferent reg ula tion, dif ferent inspection procedures, so that the carrier is put through several different types of regulations, and must meet several different types of req uirements. They must be uniform to ensure the economic al transport of those goods.

Now the Minister has indicated in the introduction of this bill that is the case; that, indeed, this legislation is to parallel federal legislation and the indication is implicit that it will also parallel provincial legislation. In perusing the

definitions I note, comp ared to the Federal Act, that there are some discrepancies in terms of

definitions of several of the terms included in the Provincial Act versus the same definition in the Federal Act. We will be asking the Minister for clarification and any variance of a significant nature between the two

definitions because, if there is a variation of significance, then the Minister has to explain why it's there and how it's going to meet with the broad goal of uniform and parallel legislation between federal and provincial jurisdictions. Now, as a general philosophy on this bill, I don't think there's anyone who argues with it. What we are seeing expressed in this bill is, I would say, a universal concern for the safe transportation of dangerous goods within Canada, and inde ed, hope fully, within the North American transportation system.

That is a motive that we all aspire to, that we agreed to as mem bers of the Council of Min isters responsible for hig hway transporation and safety over the course of the years 1978 through to 19 81. There is no dispute with that as a philosophical goal to be enshrined in legislation and in regulation. But we must bear in mind, Mr.

Speak er, that our modern srciety, with all of the benefits that it has conferred upon our people, the relative wealth, the status of well-being that our citizens enjoy in Canada, and in North America, and in the industrial areas of Canada are a result of the gr owth and develo pment of a qu ite re fine d indu stria l and comme rcial industry in Canada. That industrial and comme rcial activity and industry does requir e the transportation and mo vement of ha zard ous commo dities. Without them our industrial processes would grind to a hault and our standard of living would fall.

So that in reality what we've got here is a legislation that must gently walk the fine line between the ultimate effort of safety, which would mean no movement of any dangerous goods wh atsoever, balanced off against the need of an industrial economy to have those goods moved. This legislation has attempted to be a balancing act between that, to assure general public safety in providing for the transportation by air, rail, by barge or marine service, and by highway transportation, the movement of tho se goods balanced off against the safety of the general public.

As I say, you could have the safest possible provisions enshrined in legislation on the movement of dangerous goods. You could prevent all dangerous goods from moving, but the net result would be a wind down of our industrial economy and a decrease in our standard of living. So this legislation is like a lot of legislation, it's a delicate balancing act between two opposing desires with the overall health of the economy having to be necessarily considered in development of the regulations.

I'm particularly pleased that in this bill there is a provision towards the end of the Act - at least I interpreted it as a provision - whereby the provincial Act will have an override feature over any municipal by-laws which may be passed to control the movement of dangerous goods. Now that would mean, for instance, that in a municipality or indeed in a city in the Province of Manitoba, they could develop a by-law, Mr. Speak er, which would effectively prohibit the movement of a dangerous commod ity.

When we get into the definition, and when people see the list of dangerous commodities, I think it will possibly alarm many people, because the list will contain many many comm only used and available products from gasoline through to various cleaning detergents, etc., etc., that will be labelled as dangerous goods and subject to the regulations and the provisions of this legislation.

So I'm pleased that the override provision is there, because you could have a situation develop in a city whereby they have a dispute for wh atever reason with a major industrial concern who is manufacturing a give.n product which is classified as a dangerous good. They could develop regulations and by-laws to essentially shut down that industry and thereby blackmail them to meet other requirements that are not really part and parcel of the ongoing operation of that industry.

So the provincial override provides the check and balance of an abuse of establishing by-laws which could be detrimental for other reasons than simply the deemed necessity to safeguard citizens from the transportation of dangerous goods. 2896

Wednesday, 18 May, 1983 Mr. Sp eak er, on the overall ph ilosophy of the movement of dangerous goods, I think it's a topic that from time to time gets a lot of exposure. The derailment at Mississauga gave us lots of exposure. The derailment at MacGregor while we were in government was a matter of a great deal of concern; so was the derailment at Austin; so was the accident in the CPR rail yards last Dec emb er, I believe, where the propane car exploded ; th at always focu ses attention on the movement of dangerous goods.

It is interesting and it's a blessing indeed that in all of those incidents where dangerous goods were involved in those accidents, there was no injury and no loss of life. I think that speaks well for the present emergency response set up that we have in Canada. It can be improved, but certainly those four incidents indicate that indeed it is working quite well.

I think what we always have to bear in mind when we're talking about the movement of dangerous goods is that we do not overreact to some of the circumstances when they happen, because overrea ction can cause long-run problems for our industrial economy in the country of Canada; and that's something that we all have to be very careful of, that we don't react to possibly very vocal pressure groups who are alarmed at given circumstances and given accidents such as we've seen over the past number of years. To back that up, Mr.

Sp eaker , I want to put on the record some interesting analysis done by the Western Transportation Advisory Council. This is in the Janu ary March, 19 83 newsletter from Westac, and the headline or the title of the arti cle is, "Dangerous Goods Movement Calculated Risk." The

article says, "The movement of dangerous goods through populated areas continues to be a subject of popular concern in several Canadian cities and towns. All major centres in Western Canada need certain hazardous materials to maintain and expand their industrial bases. In each centre public debate may strongly influence where dangerous goods, processing, transportation, and handling facilities are cited and how they are operated." Westac cond ucted a study, Mr.

Speaker , in Calgary and they attempted to show in this study through a statistical analysis of the comparison of risk of the transportation of dangerous goods to other commonly held occupations. They have used as selected activities, for instance, coal mining, wherein an ind ividual und ertakes some 1, 600 hour s per year of work employed in the coal mining industry. The comparison of the risk is given in deaths per year, that being a 1 million person exposure, and the calculation is on the basis of a 1 million exposure in deaths per year. Coal mining has a 330 deaths per million per year.

The basic risk for an average Calgary resident, regardles3 of occupation, regardless of what he's doing at any particular time of the day or night, is 230 deaths per 1 million; motor vehicles: using those motor vehicles 300 hours per year, there is a risk of 220 fatalities per million exposure; fire is 31 deaths per million; drowning 28 per million; Canadian air travel, 20 trips on a major carrier per year involves 12 deaths per million. Here's the interesting note. Hazardous rail shipments, CP rail yards subdivision in Calga ry, the deaths per million on a yearly basis is 3.3; that's one one-hundredth of the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-70
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 70.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	88db96474f762ee825d7f2239f736ffc844dc2ed

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