Manitoba Hansard — 17 June 1982 (Sitting 78, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-78

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Thursday, 17 June, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Prese nting Peti- tions Read ing and Re ceiving Pet itions Pr es enting Re ports by Sta nding and Spec ial Commit tees MINIS TER IAL STATEM ENTS AND TABLING OF RE PORT S MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Con sum er and Corporate Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with The Legis lative Libr ary Act, I have the honour to present the Annual Report of the Legis lativ e Libr ary and the Provincial Archives for the calendar year ending 19 81 .

MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, this is a statement on the Core Area In itiatives Home Rep air Progra m. Mr. Speaker, under the Core Area In itiatives Agr ee ment signed last September a comm itmen t was gi ven regard ing the nature of the prov ince's participation in a special program to sti mula te housing renovations in the core area of Winn ipeg. The details of the prog ram have now been fully worked out and the prog ram is set to commenc e.

Und er the program core area homeowners obtai n ing loans of up to $10,000 from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. under the Residential Rehabili tation Assistanc e Prog ram, the acronym is RR AP, will quali fy for provi ncial assistance to reduce their effec tive interest rates down to O percent in the case of households with income s below $16 ,500, graduating up to a po int per $1 .000 additional income to an effec tive 9.5 percent rate for households with income s at or above $26,000.00.

Rental property owner s, quali fying under the federal program, will also be eligib le for interest reduction grants sufficient to yield an effec tive 9.5 percent interest rate on loans of up to $7,500 to a maximum of 1 O percentage poi nts of assistance. Un der current RAP guidelin es, homeowners in the core area are eligib le for up to $1 0,0 00 in home repair loans at National Housing Act interest rates, a por tion of which may become earned forg iveness, that is, a grant over a five-year period depe nding on income .

Gr ant assistance of up to $5,000 is available for those with income s below $9,000, with decl ining grant amounts available to those with income s up to $16, 500 maximum . These homeowners are also eligible for the dif ference between their grant assistance and $10,000 in repayable loan. Ho meown ers with income s above the $1 6,5 00 level are eligib le for repayable loans of up to $1 0,000 so long as they are residents of the core area.

Rental property owners are eligible for up to $2,500 per unit in forg ivable loan or grant funding from Cen- tral Mo rtgage and Housing Corporat ion conditional upon their min imal investment of a matching $2,500.00. Addi tional loan funding beyond the CMHC assistance must be obtained privately at prevai ling bank interest rates. The purpose of the pro vincial assistance will be to lower effective interest rates on loans from current high levels and thus encourage greater investment in the renovation of core housing stock.

It is anticipated that over the five-year life of the Core Area Agr eement some $30 milli on in construc tion repair activity may be sti mula ted, with capital pro vide d from CMHC and the province and private lenders. The interest reduction grants payable by the prov ince are budgeted at $7.5 milli on over the life of the five-year prog ram. Funding from CMHC was comm itted and publ icly announced by the Honour able Paul Cosg rove last year prior to the signing of the Core Area Agreement last September.

Also under the agreement, mon ies were budgeted in the core area fund which is cost-shared by the three level of gov ernment as part of the overall prog ram. This program represents one of the finer example s of the type of co-operative federalism that is still pos sible when our government set out meaningfully to resolve a problem. The Federal Housing Min ister, Honourab le Paul Cosg rove, had in 19 81 comm itted an additional $1 .5 milli on annually above the historical levels of funding to the City of Winni peg under the Residential Rehabil itation Assistance Program.

It is estima ted that renovation of some 4,000 units will be facili tated under the program creating some 600-700 man years of work over the life of the Core Area Agr eement. The rental property owner compo nent of the program should serve to complement the pro visions of Manit oba's new Rental Regu lation Act under which units, undergoing extensive renovat ion, may be exempt from provincial rent controls.

In order to obtai n program assistance, landl ords will have to agree to CMHC rent controls which seek to ensure that the benefits provide d not only increase the habitabil ity of older rental units, but also result in appropr iately moder ate levels of rent increase. 3354 Hi storical ly the take-up of federal RRAP loan funds in the City of Winnipeg has usually fallen short of expecta ti ons, particul arly in the face of recent high interest rates.

It is our hope and expect ation that the spec ially modif ied program will sign ificantly contri b ute to the revital ization of housing stock in the Win nipeg core area. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. We on this side, Mr. Speaker, are pleased that the govern ment is proceed ing to im plement the Core Area I nitia tives Agr eement, which we signed last Septem ber with the City of Winni peg and with the Federal Government. I note. Mr.

Speaker, that the Mini ster does cite this as one of the fi ner example s of the type of co-operative federalism that is still possi ble. I must point out for the record, Mr . Speaker, that

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 -------- when members opposite critici ze the manner in which our governm ent dealt with the Federal Governm ent, I remind them that it was our government indeed who parti cipated in, negotia ted and signed, the Core Area In itiative Agr eement. The announcement today by the Min ister, Mr . Speaker, is a part of that agreeme nt, and a part of that plan, and a very important part of that plan, and we on this side look forward to the success ful imp leme ntation of this prog ram in rehabil itating and renovating homes in the Core Area In itiative, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is an excel lent prog ram for the central part of the City of Winnip eg, and we look forward to its successful imp lementat ion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion INTROD UCTI ON OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 63,

An Act to amend The Credit Uni ons and Caisses Populaires Act. INTROD UCTI ON OF GU ESTS MR. SPEAKER: May I di rect the attention of honour able members to the gall ery where we have 45 stu dents of Gr ades 5 and 6 standing from the Faraday School under the direction of Mr. Woroby. This school is located in the constituency of the Honour able Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affai rs. On behalf of all of the members, I welco me you here this afternoon. PROCEDUR AL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, have a short procedural statement to make to the House.

On Monday, Jun e 14 th, during Private Members' Hour, when the Honourable Member for Arthur was speak ing, the Ho nourable Mini ster of Agr iculture rose in hi s place to state that his pol icy was being mi sre presented and asked the Honour able Member for Ar thur to withdr aw the remarks. I took the matter under advise ment to review the actual words used. A Matter of Privi lege was addressed to the Chair by the Min ister deal ing with the same matter which I also took under adv isement. I have perused Ha nsard of Jun e 14 th, and the Esti mates debate Hansard where the issue origina ted.

The disp ute between Members is one of partisan pol iti cal difference. It is an emo tional issue and will no doubt continue to be a matter of contention in the future. Gi ven the devisiv e nature of the disagr eement, it would be preferable if the Chair were not involved and the matter resolved by partisan politic al debate. However, there remai ns the fact that a Matter of Privi lege has been raised, which is a serious matter and must be addressed.

It is therefore with considerable reluctance that I conclude that the Honourable Member for Arthur did misrepresent to the Hou se, words that had been used by the Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e to describ e his land-ow nership polic y. The Matter of Privi lege Motion thereby becomes redundant. I must therefore requir e the Honourable Member for Arthur to withdr aw the relevant remark. The Ho nourable Member for Arthur. The Ho nourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr .

Speaker, in perusing your rul ing, and I have a written copy in front of me, I must say that this raises some very sign ificant prob lems in terms of the conduct of the Hous e in that interp reta tions of what one member says, if they can be brought forward as misr ep resentation by another, then I believe, Sir, that we will end up with a continuous stream of charges where what a member has said has been misrepresented. There have been many occa sions, Sir , where that has happened and it has simply been ruled that a dif ference of opinio n did n't consti tute a matter of privi lege.

Sir , I must therefore respectfully challenge your ruling. MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. MOTION presented and carried. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the Members. Order please. The question before the Hous e is, shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld? A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: 3355 YEAS Messrs. Anstett, Ashton, Buck laschuk, Carroll, Cor rin, Desjardi ns, Mrs. Dodick, Messrs. Doern, Ms Dolin, Messrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox, Harapiak, Mrs. Hemp hill, Messrs. Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mack ling, Penner, Ms Phil lip s, Messrs.

Plohman, Santos, Schroeder, Scott, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Uruski, Uskiw. NAYS Messrs. Banma n, Brown, Downey, Enns, Film on, Gou rlay, Mrs. Hammo nd, Messrs. Hyde, Joh nston. Lyon, Manness, Mc Kenzie, Merci er, No rdman, Mrs. Oleson, Messrs. Orc hard, Ransom, Sherman, Steen. MR. ACTING CLERK, G. Mackintosh: Yeas, 26; Nays, 19 . MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair is accord ingly upheld. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, and I think the further review of the com ments made on that particular date, Mr.

Speaker, on the comme nts that I'd ma de following your comme nt here, Sir , with the greatest respect I do not feel tha t I should with draw comments.

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Honour able Member for Arthur to review what he has said and the state ment that has been put before him, and consider whether it wouldn 't be the best course of action for himself and for the Hous e and for the topic involved to withd raw those remarks as requested on the day that they were made and as requested by the Chair today. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr . Speaker, if I wasn't clear, again with the greatest of respect, Sir, I do not plan to with draw those remarks. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur has been in the Chamber long enough to know the desti nation which he will arrive at by his remarks. The Honourable Government Hous e Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Sorry, Mr . Speaker, I don't know how far you've proceeded MR. SPEAKER: I bel ieve I have asked the Honourable Member for Arthur twice to fol low the direction of the Chair, which is to withdr aw the remarks that he made that were objected to on Monday. If he does not intend to do so, then I must reluctantly name the Honour able Member for Arthur, Mr . Ja mes Dow ney, for def ying the order of the Chair.

The Honourable Government Ho use Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the rules, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Fina nce, that the Ho nourable Member for Arthur be suspende d from the sit ting of this Ho use for the balanc e of this day. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. ORAL QUESTI ONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposit ion. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Mini s ter of Fin ance as a member of the now defunct Alcan negotiating team, can the Min ister of Fi nance tell this House when the Government became aware of the announcement that was made public today that Alcan has purchased some 2,2 00 acres of land in the Prov ince of Quebec in antici pation of the construction at a later date, not yet named, of a 250,000 tonne smelter as a partial repl acement for the Arvida Smelter at the same time, or two days I should say, after Alcan had announced in Mani toba that it was gi ving up all options to purchase land and that all negotiations were suspende d indefin itely, keep ing in mind as wel l that Al can's announcement today, Sir , has said that Quebec Envir onm ent Council has appr oved of the location of the smelter at that site and that all of the other requisite appr ovals have been made by the Gov ernment of Quebec, unlike what has been done by this Government in Manitoba?

When did thi s government become aware of that? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Fi nance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for myse lf, I was aware as of Monday of this week that Alcan was intending to proceed with the purchase of that particular land. They had options on it. Al can officials ind icated to us -(I nterjection)- Mr . Speaker, the member asks a question which is impor tant to Manitobans, I would ask that the Member for Lakeside permit me to answer it.

Alcan has written to us and they indicated that - in fact they provided us with an excerpt from their 19 81 Annual Report to their emp loyees, and I quote, it's one brief paragraph: "Another internal development was the further clarific ation of our strategy for smelter expansion and rebuilding. In this area our priorit ies are now firmly established. The modern ization and revitaliz ation of our exis ting Canadian facil ities must proceed in an orderly ma nner over the rem aind er of this century. Expansion opportunities must be viewed in the context of this mod ernization commitme nt.

These modern ization and production expansion strategies predi cated on our ownersh ip of hydro electric power stations remain intact. However, the timing of sign ificant projects will have to be delayed as a result of current financial constraints." Now, the point is, Mr . Sp eaker, that the plant, which they are intending at some time in the future to replace, is one that was buil t in the 19 20's.

Thi s is not some thing whic h will provide them with an additional plant in that it is a replacement to an old plant which they must replace. 3356 So, yes, we were informed of this; I was informed of it on Monday of this week. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, given that the para graph in question from Al can's 19 81 Ann ual Repor t to its emp loyees was read by me to this Ho use approxi mately a week or 1 O days ago, and the words that have just been read by the Min ister of Fi nance, "These mode rnization and production expansion strategies predicated on our ownersh ip of hydro-electric power stations rema in intact"; gi ven that those words were in the report of 19 81; gi ven that that is the pol icy of Al can; gi ven the fact that Alcan has now pulled up bag and baggage from Manitoba without taking up the options, without signing a hydro rate agreeme nt, without signing a Memor andum of Und erstanding with the government, will this government not now reconsider its ill-consider ed pol icy of saying to Alcan that it would under no circumstances sell part of a Hydr o Gener ating Plant to Alcan for the purpose of getting that industry in our province?

HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr . Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition forgets is that very statement says that their first prior ity is the rep lacem ent of existing plant. That is what they're going on with.

But even with that objective, the announcement by Al can says very specifi cally, "A decision on actual construction will be made at a later date." Even though they are req uired to replace an old plant, because of the recession, because of the fact that in the Un ited States pla nts are at about 45 percent of operating capacity, because of prices, they are not proceed ing with construction down there, but there is no question that they will have to replace that plant. They had already had these options on the land, as I understand it, for a couple of years.

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 They had to replace it; this had to be a priority for them above new expansion and that was their pol icy in 19 81; it is their pol icy now. They are not proceeding with other new plants. There is a partially buil t plant in Australia that they stopped construction on. So, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition to sug gest that somehow it is because of a failure on the part of this government. that the company is doing precisely what it was saying when that group was in office, wel l. that's just plain nonsense. HON. S. LYON: Mr . Speaker. gi ven the fact that the Alcan Aluminum have taken up the option to buy 2,200 acres of land in Quebec.

whereas 48 hours ago they announced they were giving up the option to buy some 4.000 acres in Manitoba; given the fact that in Quebec. Alcan has got approval from the Environ mental Council to proceed with the smelter location there at a time and date when they choose to do so; gi ven the fact that in Manit oba this government stopped the environm ental studie s that were under way - the socio economic studies that were under way - how can this Min ister stand in the Ho use, Mr. Speaker. and say that Manitoba is in no worse position today than it was six months ago? Who is he trying to kid, Mr. Speaker? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says we stopped studies of the envir onmental impacts of a proposed plant. That, of course, is inaccurate as is the rest of his statement which is not very similar to a question. Now suddenly we are asked to table the studies that are in place. We and Alcan - I don't have the statement here but they know full well - they met with Alcan on Mo nday or Tuesday morn ing.

They know full well that Al can is intending to continue with the studie s with the Manit oba Government over the next few months to comp letion of those studies, so that it will be in place for some time in the future beyond their current planning range when they may decid e to build another smelter, but until they decide to build a new capacity smelter, not a replacement for their Arvida plant, all they are going to do is complete the studies. To sugge st that the studie s were termi nated by us is simply incorrect; they are not bei ng terminated. HON. S. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, gi ven the fact again that our government, before it left office, had provided through public advertisements and through prepara tory work of some several months, arran gements for socioeconomic and environmental studies, public hearings on them to take place starting the 1 st of April, 19 82, can this Minis ter stand in his place in the Ho use and say that his government did not cancel those studies that were based upon the Bal moral site; can he stand in his place and say that his government was not asking Al can to review the site and that those did not contri bute to the fact that Alc an did not take up the options in Manitoba?

HON. V. SCHROEDER: I can, on the absol ute author ity of people from Alcan. The President of Alcan clearly told us that they're not proceeding had abso lutely nothing to do with the change in government, or the ma nner in which negotiations were carried on 3357 after December. 19 81 . For the Leader of the Opposition to sugge st - (I nterjection)- ah, the Member for Lakeside is say ing, what do you expe ct them to say? Is he calling the man a liar? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Oppos ition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, is the Min ister of Fi nance not able to confi rm to this Ho use what the world at large knows. namely, that the Mani toba Envir onment Commiss ion had been com missi oned to start public hearings on the Bal moral site; do an indepth environ mental and socioeconomic study starting on the 1 st of Apri l. 19 82; and that those plans were stopped by this government as it fooled around and tried to convince Alcan about other sites and about its ideas about Hydro ge neration and all sorts of tomfoolery that it brought to the negotiating table which, Sir , has resulted in the sad state of affairs that we find today?

Quebec's going to get somet hing sooner than Manitoba. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, last fall the now Leader of the Opposition was creating the kind of expectat ions tha t his former Min ister of Energy was creating last spring and I would remind the Ho use of last spring 's announcement. In May, when they were expec ting a spring election, when they were thinking of a spring election, they were telling us about the shaft being dug already by fall in McAule y and that sort of thing. In the fall, yes, they commiss ioned some hearings with respect to the Bal moral site.

We said, during the election cam paign, that we wanted to ensure that we had the best site. We wanted to ensure that all alternatives had been explor ed. There was concern expr essed by Manit o bans. Manit obans spoke on November 17 th. Man ito bans agreed with us that there should be studies, not only of the one site, but of alternatives that there might be. We followed through on that commitment.

Notwiths tanding our follo wing through on that commitment, Al can has made it very clear that it is not because of a change of government that they have made the announcement that they made, but rather because of the continued recession. The members of the Opposition, I'm sure, have seen the table s that Alcan presented.

One that I would especially commend to the Leader of the Oppo sition' s attention is the Chase Econometrics Predictions going back about two years, and every few months they'd make a new pred iction showi ng that the upturn in the market was just around the corner - we kept seei ng the check marks - and each time a few more months went by the predictions went down, the slide contin ued, and tha t is why they made the announceme nt that they made. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, gi ven the fact that in this Ho use with in the last two weeks the Fir st Mini ster of this provi nce and the Min ister of Mi nes and Energy who is, or was at that time, in charge of negotiations with Alcan, both said that negotiations were going well - going well indeed - and there were no prob lems with the Al can development, how can this Min ister

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 ------·· --- stand in his place today and say that the former gov ernment was raising false expectat ions? Mr. Speaker, will the Min ister not confir m that under the former governme nt, Alcan took out options to buy land; under this government, they gi ve up the options? Isn't that a sufficient contrast? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I recall the Pre mier of this pro vince with in the last few weeks ma king statements about the diff iculti es in the market. I recall the Min ister of Energy and Min es ma king statements about the diffi culties with respect to the market.

The sugge stion that they were sit ting here and saying that they expected a plant to grow up without those quali fications, then it may be that, taken out of context, the Leader of the Opp osition has some statement some where saying that negotia tions are going as well as might be expected. Surely that has to be taken in context with the statem ents that the Premier, and the Mini ster of Energy and Mi nes made in total to this Ho use, and to the Committees of this Ho use.

The Leader of the Oppos ition spent hours talking with the Premier and with the Min ister of Energy and Min es about the var ious sets of negotiations and with in those discussions there were a number of times when it was made very clear that the fact that market conditions are what they are pla ys on the decisions of corporat ions as to when they are going to start buil ding.

Again I point out to the Leader of the Opp osition the fact that this very same company; No. 1, is not giving a date for proce eding with reconstruction of an exis ting plant that's 60 years old or so in Quebec; and No. 2, has ceased construction on a plant in another country which was already under way because of market conditio ns. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, is the Min ister of Fi nance unable to apprec iate the fundamental dif ference between Mani toba's position today vis-a-vis an Alcan smelter and its posi tion six months ago? Is the Mini s ter of Fi nance standing in his place today, Mr.

Speaker, and tel ling us that Manit oba wou ld not have been better off if those options had been taken up, the land purch ased in antici pat ion of when the site could be built, the Hydro Ag reement and the Memo randum of Un derstanding signed? My questi on, Mr. Speaker, is why did his government not move ahead with those negoti ations, which were well down the road, and bring the m at least to that point of com ple tion so that when Alcan is able to build it would be building in Manitoba? Can he tell us that? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, if they already had an agreement why di dn't we have Al can commit ted to build it? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Min ister of Financ e this question which is some thing that I think should be with in his knowled ge.

The prospectus that his government issued, that he authorized on behalf of the Go vernment of Man itoba in March, wherein it said in the prospectus that Alcan was negotiating with the Province of Manitoba for the establi shment of a smel ter, is he now trying to say that the statement he made in the prospectus was a lie? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Oppos ition is back into that. Fir st of all - and I wish that he would take the time to read when he doesn't come to the various committee mee tings - that he would read what was said about prospe ctuses.

That prospectus was prepared some time in very early December, 19 81 . It was in New York - although it's dated I bel ieve the 15 th or 16 th of December or some thing lik e that - initially it was in New York and vetted between the time it was sig ned and that date.

Secondly, it was a shelf registration which was updated with a later prospect us, later on, at which tim e the Un derwriters were informed of the fact that there was an agreeme nt to agree - whic h I had indi cated previously did n't commit Alcan to building - an agreeme nt to agree whic h had expired; they were informed of that, they felt that was not a worthwhile enough, a signific ant enough event for a change in the prospectus for the prov ince. We certainly have no quarrel with the pos ition taken by the Un derwriters.

They didn 't see that as sign ifi cant as, for instance, a further decrease in the am ount of revenue that we were going to be receiving from Hydro, because those were facts. This was some thing that is maybe some tim e in the future. Thi s was some thing th at was maybe in the future. -(l nterjection) Well, the Member for Lakeside, if he has some ques tions, maybe he would like to stand up and put them on the record instead of sitting there and talking from his seat. 3358 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr .

Speaker, I want to ask the Honour able Min ister of Fi nance if he really thinks he's fooling anybody in Balm oral today? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Mini s ter of Fi nance if I heard him right when I heard him say that he was putting some question upon the words that were plac ed in the prospectus of the Provinc e of Manitoba by him and his government, and that pros pe ctus was dated, as he said, the 15 th of December, 19 81 when, in fact, on the supplement to the prospec tus from whic h we've been reading lo these many weeks, the date of this prospectus supplement is March 8, 19 82?

Now is he trying to tell the Ho use and tryi ng to tell the people of Manit oba that on March 8th, 19 82, he still thought that the Alcan thing was just a bunch of election promises? If so, why did he on March 8, 19 82, tell the people who loaned the Provinc e of Manitoba $200 million, that t his governm ent was still pursuing a Memoran dum of Un derstan ding with Al can, if he thought in the words of his cheap shot today, that it really wasn't happening and that the previous government was just raising expectat ions?

Is he trying to pe ddle that kind of nonsense to the House, to the people of Manitoba, to the investors,

and indeed to Alcan? Is he trying to say, that repres ents integrit y in negotia ting? Mr. Speaker. I want him to answer about the integrity of this government and the abil ity of this government to be trusted with any negotiation. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker. I should, just to put it on the record for today from page 7 of the prospect us: "Und er a Letter of Intent between th<J Aluminu m Company of Canada Limited, Alcan, and the provin ce, Alcan has commenced a feasi bil ity study for the construction of a $500 million prim ary alumi num production and processing plant in the provinc e.

Alcan has announced the select ion of a site appr ox imately 25 mile s. northwest of Winn ip eg and is conducting envir onmental and socioeconomic stu dies." That's what we've had. There was a feasi bil ity study. The feasi bil ity study was surely still going on and was going on until a week ago. I regret. just like all other Manitobans do, the decision that Alcan had to take. The decision that Alcan had to take was because of market conditions. Alcan said that to the pub lic of Manitoba. It is not difficult to understand why they are taking that posi tion when you look at market conditions in the world.

In March of 1982, those feasi bil ity studies were con tinuing; there was certainly nothing incorrect about that statement. That they are not now con tinuing comp letely is regrettable, although even now Alcan is comple ting the studies, together with the govern ment, that were commenced - and they expe ct that it will take another couple of months - and Alcan has stated publ icly that it is its intention to conti nue liai son with the Government of Manitoba in order tha t any future developments may be mon itored by both Alcan and the government ol this province. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, it's the Min ister of Fi nance who has to choose his position. Either the Alcan plant was just an election promise, as he was alleging a few moments ago in this House, or the Alcan plant was some thing that was real and happen ing in Manitoba until this group of incompetent peo ple came into government. No w he's got a choice to make -(lnt erjection)- No w, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to be hooted down by the Attorney-General. He may find that tactic suit able having regard to his previous pol itical affi liations, but they don't work in here. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I have no intention of hooting down the Leader of the Oppos ition, he makes a fool of himself and a mockery of this Ho use by his own remarks. But I do call your attention to a ruling that you made in this Ho use with respect to the long ram bling

preambles that do not lead to a question, and the Leader of the Opposition is now proceed ing to do that. and I dir ect that you remind him of your ruling on this question, dated June 16, 1982. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable the Attorney Gene ral, and I'm sure that the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition will take note of those statements that 17 June, 1982 3359 were made as to the length of questions. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister of Fi nance then tell the Hous e, gi ven the fact that his government confirmed that there were real negotia tions going on as late as March 8, 1982 - if we can belie ve anything this government says now - will he tell the Hous e when he intends to have the Manitob a Envir onment Commis sion resume the discussions and resume the public hearings on the site at Bal moral, the hearings that were cancelle d by this government, what date are they going to start them up again? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Sp eaker, the Leader of the Opposition in the first half of the question seemed to assume that there is nothing in between, a firm agreement or nothing. I pointed out that there was no firm agreement in November of 1981 when we came to office. When we came to office there was an agree ment to possi bly agr ee in the future. We have worked along with that agreem ent.

It is true that after November of 1981, we suggested that we wanted the issue of location reopened to look at whether Bal moral was the only site, that is very true but certainly there was no agreement to build - if there had been I'm sure that Alcan would have started build ing - there was no such agreement, so what we did from that point on was negotiate in good faith pre cisely in accordance with the mandate which we received from the people of Manitoba, because we told the people of Manitoba before the election that we were not prepared to agree to a site without look ing at the ramific ations to the environment of the city and surrounding areas, and the farmlands surround ing it and they agr eed.

We were going to look at other sites in order that any hearing would not just confine itself to one site, but to determi ne which site was the best site. -(I nterjection)- Wel l, we have a blow-hard in the back seat there who says, you blew it. You know about blowing. We told the people of Mani toba what we were going to do and that is precisely what we went ahead and did. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, will the Min ister of Fi nance now confirm that in addition to tel ling the people of Man itoba during the electi on campa ign about their funny ideas about site location, they also saicl that the NOP would not, Mr.

Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, do we have to be hec tored by juvenile voices from the backbenche s? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Thompson know what's funny about their representa tive without my having to tell them. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, will the Minis ter of Fi nance not now confirm that his party in election also said that they would never sell a portion of a hydro-

electric plant to Alcan? Did they not say that during the election? Is he trying now to say that is not a contributing factor to the situation, the sad sad situa tion, we find today, wher e that company is buying land in the Provinc e of Quebec, and it's giving up options that it took a year ago in Manitoba, in this provi nce? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Wel l, again, just to correct the record. The options had been in place for some time in the Province of Quebec. It's not as though they were just jumping at them now as a result of an elec tion.

Also, the pol icy of Al can was in effect before the election, and again, the pol icy was; fir st, to renew its old plant and equi pm ent; secondly, to go into new sites. The question that our polic y, which is on the public record and is pol icy which the people of this provinc e agree with, our pol icy did not drive them out of this provinc e. They have said very clearly them selves that our policy was not the prob lem, the prob lem is world markets.

Surely the Leader of the Oppo si tion wouldn't sugge st that it's because of the Manitoba NDP that they shut down construction of a new site. -( Interjec tion)- Surely they aren't blami ng the Manitob a NDP for the fact that Alc an has shut down construction on an Australian site; or are they? I'm sure that if they had some way of hanging that on us, they would too. But in their statements they are ignoring the facts; they are ignoring what we have said and they are also ign oring what the President of Alcan has said. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, will the Min ister of Fina nce confirm that this statement was the polic y, and rema ins the pol icy, of the Ne w Democra tic Party and Government of Manitoba, a pol icy publ ished in " A Clear Choice for Manit obans," polic ies of the Mani toba New Democratic Party? This statement, and I quote dir ectly from their statement, "The NDP will not allow Alcan ownersh ip of a hydro-electric plant. " MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I remind honourable members this is question period; it is not a shouting ma tch. The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I read that one state ment of the Ne w Democratic Party and asked the Mini ster if that was the polic y and I read back to him the words that he read from his own mouth today on Al can's pol icy. "These moderniza tion ... " -( Inter jection)- Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. S. LYON: Gi ven the verbal contortions of the Min ister of Fina nce, he is li able to be able to read with his mouth because he doesn't do anything else with the regular organs. Mr.

Sp eaker, contrast that statement with this statement that he has just read, Al can's stateme nt, reading from their statement to their empl oyees, "These moderniza tion and production expansion strategies predi cated on our ownership of hydro electric power stations remain intact.

" Gi ven the NDP statement on the one hand that they won't allow them to buy in; Alcan' s statement on the other hand that they have to buy in; can the Min ister stand in this Ho use and ho nestly tell the people of Manitoba that the pol icies of the NDP have not contri buted to Al can's announcement the other day that they are postponing everything in Manitoba and we are back to s4uare one? At the same time, they are buying land in the Province of Quebec. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: The Leader of the Opposi tion, of course, is saying in effect that the leadership of Alcan is lyi ng when it says that it is not because of a change in government that they have decided to post pone any plans for a smelter ope ration in Manit oba -( Interject ion)- Mr. Speaker, the Member for Stur geon Creek, I caught a smi le on his face.

I take it that mea ns he's being sincere for a change with his speak ing from his seat, but he can't get away from the fact that Alcan said that it was not the Government of Man itoba or its polici es that made them decide what they decided the other day, no more than it was the Go vernment of Manitoba and its pol icies that made Al can decid e to stop construction of a plant in Austra lia. It is the economy that is causi ng that fact to occur. That is some thing that we hope, I'm sure members on that side and on our sid e, will turn around.

They are as wel l aware as we are that the alumi num produced will have to be exp orted in large part and we will have to receive the world pric e for it. As long as you have American smelters operating at 45 percent of capacity you won' t have a great number of compa nies jumping in to say, we want to build another smelter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Mini ster of Fi nance. Has the Min ister of Fi nance establi shed a special fund into whic h he will pl ace the revenues raised by the payroll tax, the fund for educa tion and health?

HON. V. SCHROEDER: It's going into a wel l establi shed fund, the Consolidated Fund. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr . Speaker, I would ask the Mi nis ter of Financ e then to confi rm that he has desig nated this payroll tax as a special education and health levy, but he is not planning to designa te those funds for health and education. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr . Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that as long as we are in govern ment we will be using those funds and many, many, many more dol lars for health and post-se condary education. 3360 MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Sp eaker, a further question to the Mini ster of Fin ance. In view of the rapidly declin ing Canadian dol lar and the burgeoning effect that is going to have on the debt-servicing costs of the prov ince and on the value of the outstanding debt, will the Min ister of Financ e be establishing a special fund to take care of the retirement of the increased debt which the province will suffer as a conseq uence to the dec lining dolla r?

HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker. when the Member for Pemb ina is fini shed -( Interjec tion)- just back to the previous question. I had wanted to point out to the member when I got up, I forgot, but I'm sure he has seen the Mcleod Young Weir Report on the Budg et and there is a quote on the second page of it, "The revenue measures displa y a sound sense of equit y and economic judgment. No particular seg ment of Manitoba society will be burdened by the higher consump tion, income or corporate taxes.

The new levy on employers' payro lls is a particu larly astute measure that will di rectly compensate for reduced federal transfers while at the same time per mit ting relatively low sales and sm all busi ness taxes to be left untouched." I thought that was an excel lent quote from an organization that ordinarily isn't a sup porter of the Ne w Democratic Party. We will do what we can to ensure that our debt is taken care of in an orderly fashion.

I would poi nt out to the member that, in terms of some of our foreign deb t, our doll ar has in fact, over the last short while , streng thened agai nst some currencies in which we also have some expos ure. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. The time for Oral Ques tions having exp ired, Orders of the Day. COMM ITTEE CHAN GES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government Ho use Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Speaker, may I announce some committee members hip changes?

With respect to Law Amendments, the Member for lnkster will be replacing the Min ister of Cons umer and Corporate Affa irs and the Member for Gimli will be replacing the Member for Concordia. MR. SPEAKER: Agr eed? (Agr eed) IN TRODU CTION OF GU ESTS MR. SPEAKER: May I direct the attention of honour able members to the gal lery on my left where Marshall Gomez. who was the former President of Portugal, is here. On behalf of all the members. I welco me you here this afternoon. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government Ho use Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call Second Read ings on Bill No. 50, follo wed by Bill No. 54. both standing in the name of the Mini ster of Agricultur e. SECOND RE ADING - GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL NO. 50 - THE CROWN LANDS ACT HON. B. URUSKI presented Bill No. 50,

An Act to amend The Crown Lands Act and The Municipal Assessment Act. for Second Reading. 17 June, 1982 3361 MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. The pur pose of these amendments in Bill No. 50 is to allow all types of agricultur al Crown land leases to be admin is tered in the same manner when it comes to colle cting and remit ting taxes to local mun icipalitie s. At present, with all of our leases. with the except ion of the cash rental leases, property taxes are added to the annual lease fee and col lected in advance before the summer season.

The taxes, so colle cted. are then turned over to the local taxing authority generally by June or Jul y of each year. By admi nisteri ng leases in this ma nner the department collects the taxes and refunds them to the local authorities. However, under the present legislation, the local munic ipal taxing authority is responsible for collec ting taxes on our cash rental leases. As a consequen ce, when these lands are in tax arrears the local municip ality has no way to realize on these arrears through tax sales since the lands belong to the Crown.

Some local taxing authoritie s are currently holding consi derable tax arrears and penaltie s on their books as a result of this system. The proposed amendments contai ned in Bill 50 would correct this situation and allow all cash rental leases to be admin istered in the same manner as the rest of the agricu ltural leases. In this way, all local governments would be assured that their taxes on all agricu ltural Crown lands in their areas would be kept in a current po sition and not allo wed to get in a posi tion of arrears. I should also lik e to point out, Mr.

Speaker. that although this bill states that all mon ies collected in lieu of taxes must be paid to the local taxing authority by December 31s t of each year, in actual fact, the department does admi nister these leases in such a way that this money is turned over to the local author ity much earlier in the year and I would li ke to assure members that this practice will be contin ued in the future. Mr. Speaker. basically that is, in essence. the pri n ciple of the bill and I recommend that this bill. through the members of the Ho use, can be proceeded with and handled in Committee. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Pembina that debate on this bill be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 54 - THE FARM LAN DS OWNERSHIP ACT HON. B. URUSKI presented Bill No. 54, The Farm Lands Owner ship Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister.

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that I'm certainly pleased to have the oppor tunity to present Bill 54, to enact The Farm Lands Ownership Act for Second Readi ng. This legislation is intended to support the develop ment of agriculture on rural commu nities by restrict ing absentee ownership of Manitoba's farmlands. Before outlining the main provisions of the bill, I intend to describe the obje ctives underlying this admi nistration's policies with respect to agricultu ral and rural devel opment. Mr.

Speaker, we, as a gove rnment, are com mitted to preserve the family farm as the basis of Manitoba's agricultu ral indus try. We are com mitted to incr ease and stabilize farmers' in comes. We are com mitted to provide an oppo rtunity for prod ucers, including younger and beg inning farmers, to enter agricul ture and to develop viable farm units. As well, we wish to provide an option for in dividuals to live and work in the region of their choice, to conserve the provin ce's land resource base and preserve the enviro nment, and we are commi tted, Mr.

Speaker, to maintain and build a strong viable rural com munity. I am confident that The Farm Lands Ownership Act will contrib ute to the achievement of these objectives. I share the concerns exp ressed about abse ntee ownership by organizations like the Manitoba Farm Bureau, the National Far mers Union and the Women's Institute. Research conducted at the University of Manitoba shows that in 19 77, approxima tely 1. 8 mil lion acres, or 1 O percent of the province's farml and, was owned by absentee landlords.

During the period of 19 78 to 19 81 , the years of the previous Conservative adm ini stration, absentee ownership expanded sub stantially. My staff advised that in this period about 250,000 acres of farmla nd were purchased by indi vid uals who were nonresidents of Manitoba, and an addi tional 200,000 acres were acq uired by investor corpo rations, ma ny of which are simply fronts for foreign investors.

I'm deeply concerned, Sir, about the problems and the costs associated with specul ation in farml and and these costs include the followi ng: land prices are incr eased thereby incr easing the operating costs of all farmer s; rising land prices inhib it smaller produc ers from expanding their operations and prevent you nger and begin ning farme rs from entering agricultu re.

Since leases between absentee landlords and tenants are typica lly very short-term or in definite in duration, they do not encourage sound farm planning or the use of effective soil conservation practices and, as well, absentee owners drain revenues from local farmers and com munities. These are the moni es that could otherwise be used to impr ove incomes of farm families and build strong rural commu nities.

As well, these costs include the consolidation of sm aller family farm units into large ones and we have exam ples whereby there have been purchases of farml and in - and I'll share one exam ple with the hon ourable mem bers - a total in excess of 6,0 00 acres in adjoining municipalities were purchased by a corpo ration and when they came to the board they freely admitted that their intent was to set up a large corpo rate operation and of course hire management and have corp orate ownership.

Really, in effect, Mr. ·---- · ·· ·-·- -------- .. - ----- Speaker, the mem bers of the Conservative Party who talked about state farms purely in the corporate sense, one could relate that very well. I think mem bers of the Conservative Party certainly wouldn't disag ree with that. Mr. Speaker, my expectation is that our legislatio n, liy restricting land speculation and absentee owner ship, will reduce these problems very substantially. It won't eliminate them, but it will reduce them.

The main provisions of The Farm Lands Ownership Act are: in dividual farmers, family farm corporation, and residents of Manitoba generally will be permitted, wi thout restrictio n, to purchase farml and in Manitoba. Nonresidents of Manitoba and nonfarm corporations will be allowed to acquire up to only 10 acres of farm land. Th e Farm Lands Ownership Board, established to admini ster the Act, will be authorized to exemp t certain individu als or groups of in dividuals on a case by-case basis. The legislation will take effect on the date of proc lama tion and thus will not be retroactive.

Nonresi dents of Manitoba and nonfarm corpor ations will not be required to divest exist ing holdings, however, they will not be allowed to expand them above the 10 -acre limit. Mr. Speaker, in my view this legislation is effective, reasonable and fair.

By elimina ting land purchases by nonresidents of Manitoba who have no intention of taking up residency here; and by elimina ti ng acq uisi tions by investor corporations, our legislation will effectively remove a major source of speculative pres sure from the farmland market. 3362 I should point out that Manitoba is followi ng the lead taken by the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan in allowi ng only provin cial residents to make unrestricted purchases of farm land.

With reference to corporations, my position is that only family farm corpor ations- and that is corpo rations which are effectively controlled by farmers in this province - should be per mitted unlimited purchases. The decision to restrict purchases made by investor corpor ations has been motivated in part by the con cerns expr essed by many in dividuals and by organiza tions such as the Manitoba Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union and the Women's In stitute.

It is gener ally recognized that in recent years the corporate entity has often been used as a device to conceal the identity of the actual purchasers of farml and and, more specifically, to circ umvent the existi ng Agricul tural Lands Protection Act. The organizations which I referred to, Mr. Sp eaker, advised the previous Mini ster of Agr icult ure, as they have advised me, to place restrictions on purchases by investor corporations. Unfortunately, the previous Mini ster did not heed their advice in this matter.

The consequence is that corporate acq uisitions have increased signi ficantly over the past four years; 24,000 acres were purchased by nonfarm corpor ations in 19 78. Appr oxim ately 50,000 acres were acq uired in 19 79 and 19 80, respecti vely, by these same corpor a tions. But in 19 81 , the year of the amend ments that we passed in this Assem bly, Mr. Speaker, 76, 000 acres were secured. Mr. Speaker, much of this land, I might add, is prime agricult ural land. While nonfarm corporations may

have enjoyed a heyday in recent years. let me assure you and all mem bers here that those days are over. This source of specu lative pressure on farmla nd will be removed. In addition to being effective, I believe that our legis lation is reasonable. As I have indicated, all Manito bans wi thout restriction will be able to purchase land in the province. The Farm Lands Owne rship Board will also be authorized to grant exemptions to various groups of prospective buyers. Hutterite colonies, for exam ple, will be exempted from any restrictions because they are a corporate entity in the way their structure goes.

Simi larly, nonresidents of Manitoba, including Canadians and nonCanadians, will be exempt on condition that they com mit thems elves to take up residency here. I wish to empha size that, as a gove rnment, we sup port and encourage indi vid uals from other provinces in Canada and from other countries, to take up resid ency in Ma nitoba and become part of our farm and rural commu nity. Those who plan to do so will have no difficulty with this legislatio n. Fin ally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill 54, a bill to enact The Farm Lands Owne rship Act is fair.

While nonfarm corporations and nonresidents of Manitoba will not be allowed in the future to in crease their aggr egate holdin gs above the 10 -acre limit, they will be permitted to retain their existing holdings. We are saying, in effect, that the rules governing land pur chases will be changed. Those who secured land in the past. through other rules and other laws which were in force, will not be penalized for taking advan tage of those rules and adhering to them.

Furtherm ore, it should be observed that a special exemption will be extended to retired farmers; that is, individ uals who have farmed in Manitoba for 10 years or more who take up residency elsewhere. My feeli ng is that these in dividu als have provided a valuable con tribution to agricul ture and to society in general. Thus, upon retiring from farm ing, they will be allowed to maintain their holdings even if they take up resid ency in another province or another country. As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to present this bill to mem bers of the Assem bly by restrictin g, Mr .

Speaker, absentee ownership of our most precious material resource, namely, farm land. I am confident that future price increases in land will be mo derated; that the position of the owner operator will be strengthened; that the outflow of ren tal payments from rural Manitoba will be substantially reduced. Mr. Sp eaker, as well, I'd like to point out to honour able mem bers, last year in May when we debated amendm ents to the previous Bill No. 58,

an Act with many proposed amen dm ents to The Agricultural Lands Protection Act, at that time I made a statement, recorded in Hans ard, that no matter how many amend ments the Mini ster would bring into this House, it wo uld never control foreign and nonresident ownerships. We have said that the only way to have effective legislation was to move to the basis of resi dent Manitoba ownership. We mentioned that many Canadian corpor ations were being set up legally to ci rcumv ent the present legislation.

We made the plea for strong farml ands protection legislation in Mani toba to decrease absentee ownership, particul arly from these investor corpor ations. We've had some opportunity to assess the actual situation from a review of the Agricultural Lands Protection Board records and with the advice of legal counsel. Mr . Speaker, the advice from legal counsel to us was that if we were to provide an effective piece of legislat ion. we should start all over again and rewrite the Act. That's what we have done. The first point to be covered was to have

an Act that would be constitutiona lly sound. Mr. Spe aker, in the opinion of many disting uished lawyers, the previous Statute, and coming from a Conservative Admi nistra tio n, would not likely have stood up to a constitutional challenge. It was unconstitutional, Mr . Speaker, in the eyes of ma ny legal people. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the honourable mem bers of this Chamb er on the advice that I have received - I' ve checked with legal counsel - provinces under The BNA Act have no authority to regulate rights of nonresidents of Can ada.

But under the BNA, matters relating to naturaliza tion and alie ns falls under federal jurisdiction. The Federal Gover nment have extended to provin ces the rig ht to restrict acq uisition of property by nonresidents under

Section 33 of The Citize nship Act. Sub-sections 33(2) and 33(6) were proclaimed in force in Manitoba on Janua ry 4th, 19 80. However, in contrast to Alberta legislat ion, the powers to regulate foreign acq uisitio ns were never incorp orated into The Agr icultural Lands Protection Act as regulations. I am advised that the Act would have had to be com pletely redrafted to accomm odate these regulations. In fact, Mr . Sp eaker, I want to point out to the hon ourable mem bers that in

Section 2 of the Alberta legi sation. they have followed that advice. contrary to the previous administration here. Here I quote

Section 2: "Subject to

Section 3, the Lieutenant-G overnor-in Council may make regulations within the Legis lative Authority of the province and complementary to any regulations that he makes pursuant to

Section 33 of The Citize nship Act, Canada, for the purpose of pro hibiting, annull ing, or in any man ner restricting or taking or acq uisition directly or in directly or any suc cession to any interest in controlled land." 3363 Mr. Speaker, had the previous administration fol lowed that advice and placed those amend ments in their legislat ion, that Act would have been and could have been constitutio nally sound. Mr. Sp eaker, they did not even pass a piece of legislation that would have withstood a constitutional test. Mr.

Speaker, I want to go on to our legislation which I said was mode led on the legislation of Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatc hewan. In fact, I want to quote to honourable mem bers a Supreme Court ruling of a 19 75 chall enge of the Prince Edward Island legislat ion, Morgan versus the Province of PEI . I will quote from, I believe it's Page 8 of the federal ruling, one paragraph that was written by the learned justices on this matter: "I do not agree with this char acterization and I do not think it is suppor table either in principle or under any case law.

No one is pre vented by Prince Edward Island legislation from enter ing the province and from taking up residence there. Ab sentee ownership of land in the province is a matter of legitimate provinci al concern. In the case of Prince Edward Island, history adds force to this aspect of its authority over its territory." That was the Supreme

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 Court ruling, Mr . Speaker. We have basically mo deled and followed our legislation on, not only the rulin gs of legislation, but in fact the policies which we advo cated and stood and proclaimed to the people of the Province of Manitoba. So, Mr . Speaker, my view then is that the legislative meas ures outlined in Bill No. 54 will contribut e sig nif icantly to the preservation and strengthening of the family farm, to the develo pm ent of the agricultu ral indus try and to the establi shm ent of strong viable rural commu nities. Mr . Speaker, I look forward to the debate on this bill.

Thank you. MR. ACTING DE PUTY SPEAKER, H. Harapiak: The Honourable Memb er for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able Memb er for Mo rris, that deba te be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. ACTING DEPU TY SPEAKER: The Govern ment House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you call the Adjou rned Debate, Second Reading, Bill No. 21? ADJOURNED DE BATES ON SECOND READI NG PUBLIC BILLS BILL NO. 21 - THE COMMUN ITY CHILD DAY CARE STAN DARDS ACT MR.

ACTING DE PUTY SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of Honou rable Mini ster of Commu nity Servi ces, Bill No. 21, The Commu nity Child Day Care Stan dards Act, standing in the name of The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. The Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My com ments will be relatively brief on this bill, Mr . Speaker.

I've noted in the debates that have taken place on this bill and com ments from the mem bers on the govern ment side that someho w there seemed to be a feeli ng that the concept of day care and the need for day care was not generally accepted by both parties, or by all mem bers of the Ho use. Mr. Spe aker, I should think that would have been well established by this time and, in deed, that the need for day care is no longer a debata ble issue.

That has been demons trated, of course, by the record of our government during the four years that we were in govern ment and the extent that funding was incr eased for day care during that period of time. So this is not an area that is sim ply in the purview of the New Demo cratic Party Government. In this day and age of greater participation of women in the work force, hence leading to working mothers, we fi nd that there is a requirement for day care that is growing at a rate even beyond that which the supply of day care space is being expanded.

I quote some information from the brief which was just prese nted by the Conference of Ma nitoba and Northwestern On tario, United Church of Canada where they said that in 19 75 there were 562,000 chil dren under the age of six with mot hers in the labour force; by 19 80, this numb er had risen to 760,000 child ren. During that same period of time, in 19 75, the difference between the spaces provided and the requirement was 492,000 and in 19 80, the difference was 650,000 -and-some.

So during that period of time, the requirement for day care has incr eased beyond the expa nsion of the numb er of places even though there have been sub stantially more funds go into this area. Clearly, the great need is to try and accommo date the real requirements that people have. To me, that would seem to be the first req uirement, Mr . Speaker, that we have to try and meet those demands. There is also though a need for some satisfactory standards to be met and, of course, that is what the govern ment is attempting to do by introducing this bill.

But as some of my colle agues have said, this bill really does not tell us very much about what their intentions are with respect to standards of day care. We had been led to believe, of course, that when the bill was introduced we would know then what the government's attitude was towards standards; exactly how they would imp lement the standards; what im pact they might have on existing day care operations and what the costs might be, tha t sort of thing. Mr.

Speaker, because that isn't in the bill now, all we have is a bill that is going to enable the government to go ahead and do things behi nd closed doors, if they wi sh. If they wish to do it openly, that option is open to them too, Mr. Sp eaker, but they can go ahead and do it behi nd closed doors.

There is no indication of what those regulations actually will be and my concern would be, what is going to happen to the existing organizations, the existing volunteers that are involved in providing day care now. 3364 There is a very real danger when we see the actions taken by this government op posite with respect to the provision of securiiy services, for instance, where the action of the government was to take people into the government, to hire civil servants to do it and thereby in crease the costs substanti ally. There was an Order for Return just filed in the past few days, Mr.

Speaker, which indi cates the tremendous incr ease in the cost to the governm ent as a conseq uence of hiring - (I nterjectio n)- yes, a cost, I said a cost to the govern ment, Mr. Speaker. Actually, of course, that's a cost to the people and not to the government, but that's an in dication of what we can ex pect from this government.

So I would be concerned, in the establis hment of their regulations and their standards, that they are going to move to create a huge bureaucracy; that they are going to take what is acknowledged to be an im portant area that has been handled to the extent that it's been handled very well by the existing people who have been invo lved. I can see that this govern ment will be mo vin g to turn this into essentially a Civil Service function and tha t they will be replaci ng, in some cases, volunteers with civil servants. Mr.

Speaker, I can only urge the Mini ster and the government that they resist that tem ptation, because we keep hearing com ments to the effect that day care is being provided on the backs of those people who t

Thursday, 17 June. 1982 are now working in day care; an in dication in some cases that standards will be such that they'll require hig hly educated people, perhap s even peopl e that would want to unionize and deal more effectively with their empl oyers in this way. No doubt, the costs will greatly increase as a consequence. At a time. Mr.

Speaker. that the demand appears to be outstripping the supply, it would seem to me to be prudent to concentrate on meeti ng the demand and not do anything that is going to cause excessive and unnecessary incr eases in the costs, because the gov ernment is then going to be faced, not only with meet ing the increasing demand, but they are going to have to meet higher costs at the same time. I know that the Minister of Com munity Services, despi te the stated intentions of his government, is going to have trouble getting funds for his department.

He is going to have trouble getting funds for this area specifically, even though there have been statements ma de that acknowledge the requirement for greater funding. Mr. Speaker, I think one other thing that I would like to stress to the Mini ster - and this is within his capacity to do, he can do it on his own; I don't think he would even need to consult with his collea gues - is that before he passes the regulatio ns which will be law, he should ma ke certain that the public has an opp ortu nity to have input into those regulatio ns, that there is an opp ortunity for widespread discussions. I hope, Mr .

Speaker, that when the Mini ster closes debate on this issue that he will give the assurance to the House that is what he will do; that he will not simply pass regulations on the basis of one or two closed-door discussions with some of his favorite advisory groups. but that he will have open discussion and a chance for the public to see what he's passing. Mr. Speaker, there is one other item that I would also like to mention here, is that the mem bers oppo site have had a great, I would go so far are to say, hangup about the provision of day care by the private sector.

This is something that I find rather curious that at the same time as they are talking about im plement ing standards with which I agree about the necessity for standards, even though we have raised some con cerns about how they're done. Standards should surely be the main concern, Mr. Speaker. What does it matter if the standards are being met whether the care is being provided by the private sector. by the state or by nonprofit voluntary organizations? The responsi bility of the Government shou ld be to deal with the standards and see that those standards are met wher ever the care is provided. So. Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that in approaching the issue the Government doesn't limit the availa bility of day care through injecting some sort of ideological concern that they have into the overall issue. Look at the requirement there is for day care; set the stan dards openly; provide the funding that is necessary and don't be concerned so much with where the care is provided. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. MR. ACTING DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Memb er for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER : Mr. Speaker, I move. seconded by the Mem ber for Pe mb ina, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

ACTING DE PUTY SPEAK ER: The Hono urable Acting Government House Leader. HON. S. USKIW : Yes, would you call Bill No. 27. please? MR. ACTING DE PUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion by the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 27.

An Act to amend The Summa ry Convictions Act. (Stand). The Acting Governm ent House Leader. HON. S. USKIW : Yes, would you call Bill No. 33, Mr . Speaker? BIL L NO. 33 -

AN ACT TO AMEND

AN ACT RE SPEC TING THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPER TY FOR TAXATION IN MUNIC IP ALITIES IN 19 81 AND 19 82 MR. ACTING DEP UTY SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Memb er for Ste. Ro se,

An Act to amend

an Act respecting the Assessment of Property for Taxation in Municip alities in 19 81 and 19 82. The Memb er for Swan River. MR. D. GOUR LAY: Thank you, Mr. Dep uty Sp eaker. I appreciate the oppor tunity to make a few com ments with respect to Bill No. 33 and, to say the least, I am concerned about this bill particularly in its main thrust, the in definite time frame for the extension of the assessment freeze. In my opinio n, the freeze should be no longer than absol utely necessary and no way should we be extending it beyond the end of 19 83.

This would be in keeping with the Assess ment Review Com mittee's recomm endations. 3365 I would just like to refer to page 81 of the "Fair Way to Share," a sum mary report of the Manitoba Assess ment Review Com mittee. The Assess ment Review Com mittee recomme nded two alternatives for the im plementation of their recommenda tions. Alterna tive No. 1 suggested that it would require a contin ua tion of the freeze until December 31, 19 87.

However, the Com mittee did not feel that they could recom mend or suggest that we proceed with alternative No. 1 and they recommended alternative No. 2. which would mean the freeze be extended to December 31 , 19 83. As everyone knows, I'm sure, the Assessment Review Com mittee was appointed in Ju ly of 19 77 and the Com mittee conduc ted very exten sive meet ings througho ut the province. They met with all of the municipalities on one or more occasions. They also met with many in dividuals and several organi zations that were interested in making presentations to the Assessment Review Com mittee.

The final report was presented to the Mini ster some three months ago. To say the least, I have been astonished at the lac kadaisi cal appr oach by the Minister in dealing with the report and its recommenda tio ns. I think it is fair to say that the Assessment Review Com mittee was appointed by the previous admi nistration and if the present Mi nister

is not happy with the recom mendations that Comm it tee has brought forth, the Minis ter should either scrap it or get on with whatever the government feels that it can live with or support. The Municip al Advis ory Comm ittee, which is made up of representatives from the Un ion of Manitoba Municip alities, representatives from the Manitoba Association of Ur ban Munici palities and also repres entation from the Muni cip al Secretary-Treasurers' Assoc iation, have offered the Min ister assistance in coming to some position with respect to imp lementa tion of the recommendations in the Comm ittee's report.

Person ally, I do not see anything wrong with the Minis ter's sugge stion that an all- party legislative commit tee be establi shed, but this should be done and this Commit tee should be ready to do their work as soon as the current Session is fini shed. The 19 80 leg islat ion or, as it was referred to, Bi ll No. 10 0, Freezing Municip al Assessments for the Year 19 81 and 19 82, was undertaken only after much con sideration.

I know that I had, as Minis ter of Munici pal Affairs at the time, gi ven very serious consideration to whether or not we could really have the assessment s frozen for this period of tim e. I know that there was much consid eration gi ven by caucus before the go ahead was gi ven to proceed with Bil l No. 10 0 back in 19 80. I think that we must not lose sigh t of the fact that the freeze is compou nding the ma ny ineq uities that exis t in proper ty assessments throughout the provi nce and also in the City of Winnip eg and every day adds to this problem.

The bill, as pri nted, could allow the Min ister to dillydally at his convenience like he has done today. We must not unduly delay the freeze already in place and by passing a bil l that freezes assessment indefi nitely at this point in ti me, in my opinion, is neither necessary nor acceptable. Mr. Speaker, the main thrust of the bill, of course, is to freeze the assessments in the province indef initely and, as I have mentioned, there's no way that I can accept this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Sp eaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Mem ber for Pe mbi na, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. S. USKIW : Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 42? BIL L NO. 42 - THE ED UCATI ON ADMINIS TRATI ON ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Hon ourable Min ister of Education, Bi ll No. 42, standing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for La Verendrye. The Honourable Memb er for La Verend rye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill affo rds me an opp ortunity to expr ess a few concerns that I have with this type of legi slation. I appreciate that this bill has been brought in for admin istrative convenience so that the colleges, universities and other instructional institutions can receive a payment directly from the government without the govern ment having to issue a c heq ue to the individ ual who is receiving a bursary. Ho wever, Mr.

Sp eaker, one of the problems that I believe we've had in socie ty over the last little while is these automatic sort of checkoffs where the indi vidual never gets to see the mon ies that he or she is receiv ing, or in many cases gi ving up. It has been exp ressed by my colleag ue, the Memb er for Lakes ide, on a numb er of occasions and I'd just like to repeat some of those concerns and that is when one takes a position like this, we really do take some of the responsi bil ity away from the indi vid ual to look after his or her finan cial affairs.

An area, which of course is close to all of us, is the automatic deductions that take place from the wage earner on a fix ed income when he or she receives the cheque at the end of the month or a bi-month ly cheque, the income tax is taken off, the unem ploy ment is taken off and the Canada Pe nsion is taken off, all the deductions are ma de, and the person then receives a cheq ue which represents the net figur e for his or her labou rs. The problem with that, Mr . Sp eaker, is that many people never bother to look at the kind of deductions that have been taken.

It has been suggested, and I think it mi ght be a very good sugg estion, for the government s at all levels to at one tim e say to the em ployers and to people who are on a fix ed salary, that what we're going to do for three months is we will not make any income tax ded uctions, or unem ploy ment deductions, or Canada Pension deductions, and we will after three months, bill you for those. I sug gest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that would heig hten the interest and heighten the concern by the average cit izen of where his or her tax dollar was being spent, because what it would really do is to drive home the point that unemp loyment was costi ng them some thing - the Unem ployment In surance - the Canada Pension was costing them some thing, and it would really drive the point home to what extent income tax was biting into their pockets.

I think it would make them a li ttle more responsi ble to ensure that government mi smanage ment and governmen t waste was checked up on. 3366 Now, I realize that is a type of appr oach that woul d be virtually imp ossi ble to take because governments, of course, would run out of mo ney very quic kly, and I suggest that they would have an horrendous tim e trying to collect after people had already gone out and in very many instances spent that mo ney. But it would, Mr .

Speaker, drive home the point that nothing really in this society that govern ments do, is free and it would really make the point that we are all paying a very large share of our income to different govern ment services, govern ment agenc ies, and in many instances, as I have poi nted out, people don't realize to what extent it's really affecting th em because they never see the money, and it never passes through their hands. This is precisely my concern about this bill. I think I know why the Min ister is bringing it in. I

thin k, as I mentioned earlier, the instructional institu tions as well as the colleges and univer sities, are happy to see this, because if there is an indiv idual who does receive a bursary and he or she doesn't pay that im mediately to the university or to the institution, that will then mean that they will have to go after this person and try and collect it. I sug gest to you. Mr.

Speaker, that these indiv iduals who receive this mo ney, part of their education is learning how to handle funds and if at this early stage in their life they are having diff icul ties in reconciling the bursary which has been paid to them and the payment thereof to the person that they're supposed to pay it to or that institution they're supposed to pay it to, I sug gest that maybe this is the point in time where there should learn a lesson with regard to what is entailed when you don't pay your debts.

On the other side of it, it is also, I believe, an oppor tunity for them to really see physica lly, to actually see that cheque and realize what the Manitoba taxpayer is putti ng out for them. When it becomes a comput er transfer, it becomes so abstract that nobody really understands or really appreciates the amou nts that are involv ed. It just becomes a credit or a debit on your tuition or whatever.

So I say to the Minister I realize that it's sort of a housekeeping thing, and it's an adm ini strative thing, but I think we're sliding into that with too many things where we have automatic checkoffs where the in di vid ual really doesn't have control and the responsibil ity to look after ii. I don't think, in the final analysis, that helps strengthen the system at all. So, Mr . Speaker, having said those few words, I want to say that I'm glad the bill has afforded me the opp ortunity to make those few remarks and we' ll see what happens in Com mittee with regard to the bill. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour abl e Memb er for Roblin-R ussell. MR. W. McKENZI E: I move, seconded by the Hon ourable Memb er for Swan River, Mr. Speaker, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. S. USKIW : Bil l 43, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Mi nister of Education, Bil l No. 43, standing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Sturgeon Creek. (Stand) MR. SPEAKER: The Acting Go vern ment Hous e Leader. HON. S. USKIW : Mr. Speaker, would you call the adjourned debate on the resolution, page 6? MR.

SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate on the reso lution and the proposed amend ment thereto by the Leader of the Op position. The Hono urable Mini ster of Agri culture. 17 June, 1982 RESOLUTION - CROW RATE HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Sp eaker, I want to say I cer tainly have enjoyed taki ng

part in this debate. I have a numb er of points that I have not made with respect to the resolution that's been proposed by the Leader of the Op positio n. I've certainly made my points with respect to what I thought of the resolution and the Conservative Party's amen dment.

I wish to place on the record as well, a numb er of what I believe are myths, if one can put it that way, that exist with respect to the Crow rate in terms of the arguments that have been and are being made and I'm sure wi ll be made in the next numb er of weeks and months as the pressure contin ues to do away with the statutory provisio ns and pr otection for western farmers. Mr .

Sp eaker, I me ntioned to the honourable mem bers the other day, I was surprised in this resolu tion that the Wheat Board has already achieved and surpassed targets of transp orting grain to our sea ports and we did n't hear anythin g from the honour able mem bers oppo site.

The only thing that we've heard from honourable memb ers is when there is some dispute, so they can pit a producer against worker in terms of the negotiations at ports and the like, but they didn't commend the Wheat Board and the transportation system for already achieving the historical limit and pass the historical record of grain shipme nts to the ports. In fact we wi ll exceed that with approximately seven weeks to go, substantially. Mr.

Speaker, as well we haven't heard from the Op position - the group that was favouring em bargoes to the Soviet Union - and I want to say here today I am very pleased and I want to cong ratulate the Canadian Wheat Boar d and the Government of Canada for neg otiating what appears to be, I believe, one of the larg est grain sales in history to the USSR. I say on a personal side, I hope that the use of em bargoes doesn't stand in the way of those shipment s of grain as were advocated by mem bers on my rig ht side when ever they suppor ted their govern ment in Ottawa with respect to the em bargoes.

Farmers of Manitoba and farmers of Western Canada sorely need cash flow and in comes at reasonable prices, and these grain sales I hope wil l add and assist farmers in moving the grain that they've got. 3367 So, Mr. Speaker, while I haven't hit the point that I wanted to make with respect to the myths, we haven't heard from the Conservatives in this House at a time at least acknowledging that the system is capable of performin g, pr ovided the railways address themselves to the issue of movement, because they haven't.

We all know that they've held the farmers up to ransom over the last numb er of years - and I don't want to use that word and take away from the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain - but the fact of the matter is they've held the farmers of Western Canada with a gun to their head, Mr. Speaker, in effect. Mr. Speaker, we have as a public in Canada poured in hundreds of mil lions of dol lars in assist ance to the railw ays when it was their obliga tion to provide transportation, and it was their obli gation under the present statute to do so and they neglected to do so.

So now we want to say well, let's forget about the statute, let's go on, let's let the rail ways off the hook and let's change the Crow rate, let's

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 have the farmers pay mor e. Mr . Speaker. because basic ally that is the Tory resolution. It becomes so wishy-washy, Mr. Speaker; iha t is basically the Tory resolution. Mr. Sp eaker. what are the myths behind the Cr ow rate? That the Crow rate is an obstacle to increase main line capacity in the western rail system. That has been prima rily one of the keys of the Mini sters. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Memb er for Pem bi na on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr .

Speaker, I won der if the Hon ourable Mini ster could ident ify the document that he's quoting from and refer it to the Hous e as to who printed it and where it came from. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker. we have some of these on our own. but I will quote from the docum ent, and the memb er I'm sure has a copy of it. The docu ment was publis hed by the Go vernment of Saskat chewan. -( Interjecti on)- Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Wh ich Go vern ment of Saskatchewan? HON. B. URUSKI: Well, certainly not the new Gover ment of Saskatchewan.

The former Government of Saskatchewan was the Government of the Day on dealing with the Crow iss ue, Mr. Sp eaker, published by the authority of Gordon MacM urchy, the Mini ster of Agricultur e in the former NOP Go vernment of Sas katchewan; that's whose document MR. B. RANSOM: Has gone to its just reward. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Speaker, the Honou rable Memb er for Turtle Mountain. You know, I guess from time to time that will happen to all of us, whether it happens with the electoral process or by some other means. In fact. Mr .

Speaker, and I don't say this lightly, some of our memb ers today of course on a sad note are attending the funeral of one of our coll eague s and we all will eventually day by day reach that stage, as I said, whether it be through the electoral process because as days go by we all get older. We all get older every day of the year no matter how we address it. So, Mr . Sp eaker, I spoke about the Crow rate as being the obstacle to in crease main line capacity in the western rail system.

Primar ily the essence of the speech made by the Leader of the Op position when he moved the amendm ent because he wanted to talk. he talked about the totality of the system and basically that's what he was saying that look, in order for us to have a mor e expanded system, we've got to get rid of the Crow. We have to get rid of the Crow because we want to expand the system. even though the figures that are produced by the railways thems elves point out that increased capacity will be required to the West Coast, which virtually none of our grain with the exception of oil seeds, none of our Board grains, Mr.

Speaker, move to the West Coast, and virtually no benefits or very minut e benefits will accrue in terms of increased jobs and inc reased expa nsion of agricultu ral products or expans ion in agricult ure, very little will accrue to the peo ple of Manitoba. His statement say- ing that yes. get rid of the Crow in effect; that is how I interpr et his statements. Mr. Speaker. I have said that is, in my opinion. the essence of the Leader of the Oppo sition's thrust. -( Inte rjectio n)- Well of course. Mr . Speaker. when you say it. So, Mr .

Speaker. even though we know that the percentage of grain moved on the main line to the West Coast will be decreasing over the years - in fact, every year from now on until the turn of the century the percentage of grain as it relates to the total load haul will decrease, decrease and decrease. So the fallacy of the argument that the Crow is an obstacle to the increased main line capacity on our western rail system is really a myth, Mr. Speaker. That capacity woul d have to be there regardless of whether we ship ped an additional bushel of grain or not.

In fact, if the farmers of Western Canada did not ship any more grain to the West Coast, we would still have to build that increased capacity in the main line. Mr . Speaker, when would we have to build it? It depends on what priorities the railway system put on the comm odities that they haul. The fact of the matter is that's been the argu ment all along that they have refused to mo ve the grain; they have refused to upgrade boxcars; they have refused to upgrade branch lines; they have refused to buy locom otives unless there was mo ney poured in from the public treasury.

So we have poured in as a nation mo ney into branch lines. into hopper cars. into locom otives, Mr. Speaker. We have done all these things and the railways say that isn't enough, we want more. Mr. Speaker, what we have said is that if we are to put more mo ney into the railway capacity, we should take a share in that system based on the monies that we put in. -(In terjectio n)- Mr. Speaker, we really effectively don't own one, Mr.

Speaker, in the way that railway is being operated; but we have given in exchange to the private rail basically all that they own today and it has become the largest conglo merate in the Western Hemisphere. 3368 Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned and we have said this before, it is the responsibility of the railways to carry grain at the rates set by the Parlia ment of Canada. It is the responsibility of the Federal Govern ment to see that the railways live up to their obligation. They have not done that. Now we are pre pared to put it on the table and renegotiate it. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the Government of Can ada could tell them, you are not hauling the grain, give up your Charter. You are losing mo ney, give up your Charter. Ju st as sim ple as that, Mr . Speaker. - (I nterjection )- Then we do take charge of the mone y that we have put into those railways. fi nance them, do what is necessary and make them a true public utility for the peo ple of this cou ntry, Mr . Sp eaker. -(Int erjecti on)- No, you don't have to expropr iate them. They have not, Mr. Speaker. lived up to their obliga tio ns.

We have put in mo ney into the railways and we have not got anything out for it, Mr. Sp eaker. - (I nterjecti on)- Have we taken any equi ty in the railways for the mo nies we have put in? There was an obligation for the railways to mo ve our gr ain, Mr . Sp eaker. There was an obligation. We gave them grants; we gave them millions of acres of land; we gave them mill ions of dollars. Mr .

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 Speaker. -(l nterjection)- The Memb er for Pem bina says, aw, come on. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, that's been the argument - let's forget about that agreement - that's basically been the whole argument. Let's forget about history; let's forget about the agreements; let's start afresh; that is really what the Conservatives are, Mr . Speaker. They want to forget about everything and let's put a new system into place, Mr. Speaker. That is really where the Con servatives are. They want to subtly really put their friends, their voters and the voters of this provi nce on the line.

They are really putting them on the line, Mr. Speaker. They are putting them on the line because their resolution is about as wis hy-washy as one can put it, so that no one -( Interjec tion)- absol utely, Mr. Speaker. I intend to vote against the Tory resolution. I said that the fi rst tim e I got up to speak, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Op position asked me, am I going to vote agai nst it? I intend to vote agai nst this amend ment, Mr. Spe aker, absolutely. I do not intend, as a mem ber of this Assem bly, to put myself in a position of being as wis hy-washy and opposed , if I might say, Mr.

Sp eaker, because really what you are doing is you are putting the farmers of Manitoba on the li ne by this. You really don't want to put your mo ney where your mouth is, Mr . Speaker. Why did n't you amend the resolution and say, let's put the Crow on the table, let's negoti ate it away, let the farmers pay more, but subtly you are saying that, Mr. Speaker, in this resolution. We don't know whether the $600 million that the Federal Government has put in subsidies now will remain. Is that what we call the historic benefit, Mr. Speaker? We don't know from the Leader of the Opp osition whether that is.

I me an, those words are so very nicely couched that they can be taken either way, depen ding on which side of the issue you want to be or which crowd you speak to, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Op position can get up in a crowd and say we said we want to protect the historical benefits; but, Mr . Speaker, that is the subtlety. What will happen, Mr. Speaker, to that historic benefit when we are going to be shipping grain and increasing the grain suppl ies to 30 milli on tonnes? Will that same benefit then be watered down among st all the prod ucers?

Will that benefit then go to all pro ducers in this country, Mr. Speaker? Will that benefit go to other than grain producers, Mr. Speaker, because the Memb er for Arthur certainly suppor ted that con cept at least, a former Minis ter of Agricultur e. I haven't heard the Leader of the Op position, what his position is there. He mayb e wants -( Interje ction )- Mr . Speaker, one of these days I will be back there. There is no doubt about it. The Leader of the Op position said to me, back to feed ing turkeys, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell him yes, I will be back there someday.

It may be sooner than I think, absolutely, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly won't be on this issue. It certainly will not be on this issue. -( Interjec tion)- Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Op position that I will be prepared to stand anywhere on this issue. Mr. Sp eaker, do the Conservatives bel ieve that the Crow rate is an unfair transportation subsidy, because we're not sure? I'm aski ng them. I want to know, Mr . Speaker, whether it's an unfair subsidy, because it's intima ted -(Int erject ion)- wel l, the Memb er for Pe mb ina keeps saying get serious. I am very seri ous.

The fact of the matter is this amendment is there only to try and get the Conservatives off the hook, Mr . Sp eaker; the chickens will come home to roost. The rates will not change overnigh t and the Conservatives at least want to be on record as at least saying wel l, we supported it. What they supported, you know, it's like mot her hood -( Interjec tion)- very unclear, very wi shy washy. Anyone could support, but no one would know what you stand for, Mr. Speaker. We all belie ve in mo therhood, but the Cons ervat iv es rea ll y -( Interjection)- Mr.

Speaker, we conti nually in this country and we have and will continually subsidi ze transpor tation in this country. We do it for airli nes, we do it for roads, we do it for railways in terms of pas sengers, even though we cut them out and r;lose off lines. We do it on the seaway, Mr. Speaker. We do in a whole host of areas; but now the one area that we are cutting back on and we want to say we ll, our new phi losophy is the user-pay princi ple, really the Con servative philo sophy. How can you argue?

How can the Conservatives stand here when philosophically it is and has been truly the Conservative position that the user-pay princi ple shall be the policy in transpor tation matters. Remem ber the bus fares, Mr. Speaker? What about the bus fares in the City of Winnip eg, Mr . Speaker? Is that the new Tory phi losophy? Let the rates go, forget about the benefits to this country in terms of the bil lions of dolla rs of revenue to this country based on the expor ts that the grain sales bring to this country, the balance of payments, Mr . Sp eaker, the job s in this country. Mr.

Speaker, the Conservative Party is really whet ted. They don't want to admi t it because it's very deli cate. In fact, their mem bers are spl it, maybe not here in the Ho use, but I venture to say that politically they have to be very careful. 3369 I have to say really whether the Conservatives would have been in power in Ottawa or the Li berals ma kes no difference at this point in tim e, makes abso lutely not one iota of difference in terms of what is happening with respect to the statutory rates on Crow, Mr . Speaker, not a bit.

In fact now the issue has warmed up that now we had the M.P for Li sgar ind icat ing, the Memb er for Arthur ind icating he's gla d that now that there's a revision and let's do - Mr.

Sp eaker, when the announcement was made that Gi lson was appoi nted, the same Gi lson who was the one-man advisor to the Conservative Party in terms of agricul tural pol icy, that's basically the "big ness is goodness" pol icy, the Mem ber for Ar thur was very pleased that now the Crow is on the table we could resolve some of the issues in terms of getting to his preferences with respect to sa ying let's -( Interject ion)- Wel l, Mr. Spe aker, that is his problem . The memb er isn't here to defend himself; that is his problem.

In fact, he rose in this House and said that I will consider withdr awing it after the Speaker takes it under advisement. That's what the Mem ber for Ar thur said, and then under consultation from your leader, he backed off that position. So, Mr . Speaker, the issue with respect to the Crow rate. that mem ber - the former Min ister of Agricultur e - is on record as bei ng very pleased that the revision is

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 being made because he wanted to and he has said that the benefits of the Crow should be distributed to the entire agricultu ral commu nity; he has said that, Mr. Speaker. What does that mean? That means the sub sidies that are there today. Well, Mr. Speaker, you check your mem ber's records in terms of the radio statements that he made in Brandon and the like. I heard him, Mr. Speaker. -{I nterjectio n)- Oh, I would assume that mem bers will rise in their place but, Mr . Speaker, basically the Conservative Party is and wants and in fact is very desirous that we get rid of the Crow rate.

They don't want to be on the side at least publicly; they want to make their position as fuzzy as they can and that is the essence of this amend ment, Mr. Speaker, to deal with ensuring that all Manitoba grain prod uced can be transported to mar ket. We did n't hear them plaudit the Wheat Board when they've already surpassed. No, all they do is criticize, Mr. Speaker. -(l nterjectio n)- Mr.

Speaker, the sales are there. the commi tme nts are there and if the railways dedicated thems elves to transporting the grain as they are required to, which they haven't performed in the past, the mem bers say pay them the mo ney and they will perform. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker; we have paid. We have paid through the nose to the railways and they haven't perfo rmed. That's really been the history of the rail ways in this country. Mr.

Speaker, the other area is and has been touted by mem bers oppo site, that if the Crow rate goes, we will have an expa nsion in livestock production and secondary processing and all ki nds of great produc tio n. Both th e Liberals and the Conservatives have said this. Mr. Speaker, that belies all the facts; that will not happen. The only time that incr eased production will occur is if there are adequate returns to producers in the marketplace, Mr. Spe aker, and no marketing boards. There we go, Mr . Speaker.

Let's throw the produc ers to the wolves as we have done so historically in the cattle indus try, in the hog ind ustry, in all the ind us tries. Who is suffering in terms of inco mes in agricul ture today? It is not the indus tries who have - {I nterjectio n)- Mr. Speaker, it is not the people who have their inco mes guaranteed on the basis of being able to supp ly the market that is there, not the fuzzy market that may or may not be. -(lnt erjectio n) -Well, Mr. Speaker, not the fuzzy market? What have we had in terms of historical conditio ns in terms of the lives tock indus try?

There has been a market, Mr . Speaker, at what price -(I nterjection )- at what price? So why will we say that there will be an in creased livestock indus try in this country on the basis of getting rid of the Crow rate? It has no basis, Mr . Speaker, and that will not occur. It will occur, Mr . Speaker. At least now, the mem bers of the Conservative Party are at the position that they admit that the market system doesn't work. Mr. Speaker, they at least now ad mit and they have to admit in the last numb er of years that it didn't work.

I mean, the former Mini ster of Agricult ure was forced into bringing in and propp ing up the ma rket for the hog indus try and they were going to be forced to do the same thing for the beef indus try. Maybe they would n't have, Mr. Spe aker, but certainly with respect to this resolutio n. they are putting the farm ers to the wolves. PRIVA TE MEM BERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time being 4:30 and Private Mem bers' Hour, when we next reach this resolutio n. it will stand in the name of the Honour able Minister. The Honourable Government House Leader. COMMIT TEE CHANGE HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today, I made an announcement about com mittee changes and as these things sometimes will, a previous change had not caught up with me or I had not caught up with it and we would end up with one extra mem ber on the com mittee. I announced the replacement of the Mini s ter of Consum er Affairs by the Mem ber for lnkster and that will no longer be necessary or wasn't necessary then because the Minister of Consum er Affairs is not a mem ber of Law Amend ments. I' m just correcting that on the record. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

On the adjourned debate on the prop osed motion of the Honourable Mem ber for River East, Bill No. 35, standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Niakwa. (Stand) SECO ND REA DING - PRI VATE BI LLS BIL L NO. 24 -

AN ACT TO GR ANT ADDITIO NAL POWERS TO F.G. HOLDINGS LTD. MR. D. SCOTT presented Bill No. 24,

An Act to Grant Additional Powers to F. G. Holdings Ltd., for Second Reading. MO TION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for lnkster. 3370 MR. D. SCOT T: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This matter was brought before my attention a couple of mo nths ago and I volu nteered to bring forward a bill to the Legislative Assembly to correct a problem or to en able the F.G.

Holdings Ltd ., which is the Fort Ga rry Curling Club located at 51 Main Street, to enable them to make changes to their Act which will assist them in providing the basic services that the corpo ration is designed to provide, in other words, run itself. What has happened since the corpor ation was first inc orporated in 19 27 with an authorization of 600 common shares at a par value of $25 each, there have been issued approxima tely 435 com mon shares. The problem facing the corporation today is that of the 435 common shares outstanding, there are more than 200 held by persons whose whereabouts are not known.

What we are attempting to do with this bill that is being brought before us today is to give them permission to amend their charter so that they will be able to meet their quo rum meas urements and therefore be able to hold meetings of the corporation. A numb er of shareholders have died and the admin istration of their estates has obvio usly made no

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 attempt to transfer the shares to the heirs of the deceased shareholders. The difficulties and expenses in tracing through the estates of the various deceased shareholders to find their shares would be tremend ous. The corpo ration has, over the years, made many efforts to try and locate the whereabouts of share holders that they have not been able to get in touch with and have just found this imp ossible. They are getting down to the limit now where they won't even be able to hold a quorum.

They won't even be able to dissolve them selves because of not being able to attract a sufficient numb er of mem bers or find an additional numb er of mem bers to their directors' meetings and their shareholders' meetings. Any further delay, Mr. Speaker, in us acti ng on this bill woul d only increase the problems faced by the corporation because, as time goes on, more memb ers move or more memb ers die and fewer people will then be eligible or available to come to the sha reholders' meeti ngs. -(I nterjectio n)- Primar ily because of age, I would say. Mr.

Speaker, wha t we are providing for within this bill is for the corpor ation to levy an assess ment against each of the issued shares in the corpora tion and to cancel any shares in respect of which the assessment is not paid. This would assist them in two purposes. First off, those who have died or who have moved and are not interested in keeping up with the corporation, the actual numb er of - one could say, I guess - livi ng shareholders or interested shareholders could be ident ifie d, their records therefore updated.

The amendmen ts to this Act basically are the same ones that have been given for three other golf and country clubs in the past: the Rossmere Golf and Country Clu b in 19 69, the Thistle Curli ng Club in 19 78, and in 19 80 the Charleswood Curlin g Club. So really we're just asking for a repetition of measures that have been taken in the past to get other com munity organiza tio ns, curling clu bs and golf clubs out of predica ments in which they now find themselves. There has been one

section added to this bill which did not come in the previous bills, but it gives the shareholders up to one year to come forward and identify that they do have an interest up to one year has passed, and if they may be reinstated as full shar eholders with payment of the required assessment. With those brief notes. Mr. Sp eaker, I woul d recommend to the Ho use that this bill now go forward into com mittee so that we can pass it before the end of the Sessio n. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour ab le Memb er for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDM AN: Mr.

Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able Mem ber for Rob li n-Russell, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 34 -

AN ACT TO IN CORP OR ATE THE MENNO SIMONS COLLEGE MR. R. DOERN presented Bi ll No. 34,

An Act to In corpor ate The Menna Simons College, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour ab le Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has the active support, backing and leadership of Dr. David Friesen, A.J . Thiessen, Dr. Ge rhard Lorenz and Henry Redekopp. The intention of the bill is to estab lish a Menn onite Liberal Arts College to be known as the Men na Simons College, probably in the City of Winnipeg and probab ly affiliated with the Uni versity of Manitoba or the University of Winnipeg. The objects of this new liberal arts college would be fourfold:

(1) To provide an institution for the education of students and the promo tion of knowledge according to the prin ciples of the Mennonite relig ion. The orien tation of the college would be relig ious in the Men no nite and Christian context.

(2) To provide a liberal arts education which would be o! superior quality. 3371

(3) To provide a focused and unifying curriculum including a variety of academic disciplines.

(4) To have the power to grant degrees inc luding honourary deg rees, diplomas, and certificates of standing in theology and divinity. Mr. Speaker, the two major Mennonite Conferences in Manitoba support and would be involved in the establish ment of a Men nonite Arts College and other Men nonite groups would be invited to participate with representation on the Board of Governors. Now a numb er of questions probably come to mind and I would like to provide some infor mation to mem bers of the House in that regard. As I said the location is still not decided.

This is a bill to enable the supp orters of this concept to go out and raise mo ney and make pla ns for the establis hment of this college. This will obvio usly take some time to bring about. So the precise location is yet to be determined. The start ing date would prob ably be about five years from now, but nevertheless the machiner y has to be put in motio n. Registration would have to be made and fund raising beg un in order to bring this about and, of course, would probab ly involve the construction of some new buildings and facilities. Mr.

Sp eaker, I asked a numb er of questions of the people involved in this project. They would , of course, have no hesitation in opening the doors to people of all faiths, although it wot.;ld be predomina ntly Men no nite in character. There is a great deal of inter est in terms of providi ng an education that would also fea ture a backgr ound and training in terms of interna tional develo pmen t. We now have a situation in Mani tob a where there are a numb er of Bible Colleges, but they predo mina ntly focus or concentrate on theology and music; this would be for the establi shment of a liberal arts college.

I think that the concept, rather than perhaps being com petitive or something to that effect, would likely be a unifying or synthesizing force in the Menno nite educatio,,a1 field. We all know that in Wi nnipeg there is a Canadian Mennonite Bible Col lege, I believe it's in Tuxedo or Charleswood, Shaftes bury Bo ulevard. There is in my own riding the Men no nite Brethren Bible College which is well known.

There is the Steinb ach Bi ble College and there is also the Winnip eg Bi ble College at Otterburne, Manitoba. So this would in effect be a fifth college that would have an affiliation with the other groups and migh t in the long run be the unifying force in terms of this particular association of colleges. Mr . Sp eaker, before I agreed to pilot the bill, which I was asked to do, I spoke to the Min ister of Finance, the Hono urable Vic Sch roeder.

I also spoke to the Min is ter of Education, the Hono urable Maureen Hem phill, who checked it out as the Min ister of Education would be required to determ ine its accept ability and she gave her approval. I know there are mem bers in the Conservative Party who are particul arly interested in this bill and are mem bers of the Mennoni te commun ity and I expect their wholehearted supp ort of the meas ure. Another point I suppose that mi ght be considered is whether it's necessary or desi rable to establish such a college.

I point out by way of comparison that Un ited College is affilia ted - well, I guess it's not Un ited Col lege any mo re, it was when I went there -(l nter jection)- that is a long tim e ago, but even longer than that it was Wesley College, and now it's the Un iversity of Winnip eg But Un ited College was, of course, closely affili ated with the Uni ted Church and I guess stil l is and still turns out theologians of, I suppo se, the stature of Stanley Knowles, who has been much affil iated with that college and university. St. John's is, of course, associated with the Anglican Church and St.

Paul's with the Roman Catholic. St. Andrews, I' m not as certain of, Greek Orthodox -( Interjec tion)- no, not Lutheran, but St. Andrews College, of course, is on the campus of the Un iversity of Mani toba as well. So there are a numb er of colleges affiliated with churches and affiliated with the Un iversity of Mani toba and the Un iversity of Winnip eg. Mr. Speaker, the supp orters of the Menno Sim ons College are pledged to meet all government standards and more than that, to surpass what is the basic requirement.

They are partic ularly interested in the field of international develo pment and relations because of the longs tanding histori cal interest of the Men nonite commu nity in doing mi ssiona ry work and in helping people who are underprivil edged in Third World countries. Thi s would be a pioneeri ng institu tion; it's not going to simp ly be engr aved in stone, it's going to be one that will develop and evolve according to th e needs of th e Men nonite communi ty and the changing conditions in the province, the nation and the world. Mr .

Sp eaker, I simp ly conclude by maki ng a few other poi nts, that it will be different than the other Mennon ite instit utions in the prov ince today, that it will not hinder or com pete with them, but wil l com plement the other organ izations, that it is suppor ted by the two main conferences. Mr. Spe aker, I have found it an honour and a privi lege to be asked to introduce this legislat ion. I have also found it a pleasant experience to work with Rob ert Fries en, who is in the gallery today, who is the young lawyer who is working on this project.

I sim ply say that I have had the pleasure of worki ng with the Mennon ite com muni ty before in 19 74, and prior to that I wo rked with Dr. Lorenz and other people to bring about the erection of a bronze plaq ue in this 17 June, 1982 particular build ing to com memor ate the 18 74 to 19 74 Centennial of the Mennon ite settlement in Manitoba. Mem bers migh t be interested in looking again at the plaq ue, which is at the south entrance of the building, which features a fam ily, a plow, a Bi ble and some wheat, which was put up by the Man itoba Mennon ite His tori cal Society.

The inscription on the plaq ue is: "We came, we toiled, God blessed ." I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, what sharp contrast that is to the words of Caesar, who said, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Mr . Sp eaker, it was a pleasure to work with the Mennon ite commun ity at that time, and I was later honoured by bei ng made an honourable life memb er of the Manit oba Mennon ite His torical Socie ty in the follow ing year. I rememb er well worki ng with the peo ple at that tim e, and Premier Schreyer, myself and others gathered around there to unveil that particular plaque. So, Mr.

Speaker, I recomm end and commend the bill, whic h is

An Act to incorporate the Menno Si mons College in Manitoba and recommend it to mem bers on all sides of the house. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Memb er for Lakes ide, that debate be adjourned. 3372 MOTION presented and carried. RES. NO. 8 - FEDERAL REPOR T ON WIFE BATTERING MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed resolution of the Honour able Mem ber for Kildonan, the Honou rable Memb er for Wolseley has 10 minutes remaining. MS M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I last addressed this resolution on Jun e 7th, I left off by talking about some myths and mis concept ions about battered women. In Canada there are 11 ,668,000 women. As we were saying when we last spoke on this resolution, one out of ten women find them selves bat tered in Canada every day, which means every day there are 1, 16 6,800 women battered. So, since the last tim e we disc ussed this 10 days ago, there have been 1 1, 668,000 beatings of women.

To me, those are stag ge ring numb ers and every day when you think that another mi ll ion-and-a-half women are bei ng beaten in this country, I think it is fit ting to talk about the mi s conceptions that we have about wife abuse. The first one that I mentioned at the end of the tim e last Ju ne 7th was that most women like bei ng beaten, or deserve it.

It's our understanding that women stay in abusive situations not because they like bei ng beaten, but because they see no eco nomi c alternative and that many battered women have no fi nancial resources or few of their own availa ble to allow them to leave, beyond their husband' s income. But the idea of wiv es deserv ing to be beaten is just another attempt to place the blame on the victim. The second myth is that battered women are pas sive and subm issive, that any woman with any guts or

Thursday, 17 June, 1982 a mind of her own would not stand idly by and allow this to happen to her. But the research shows that women who find thems elves in battering situations are no more passive or submi ssive than any other women . In fact, often, they are women who do try to assert thems elves in a situation where men seek to domina te. These men, feeli ng threatened by their wife's desertio n, respond then through violence. Over time, these women may convince thems elves that if they remain passive, these beati ngs will disco ntinue or stop.

The third myth, of course, is that the husband has the rig ht to beat his wife. Marriage does not make it rig ht for men to beat their wives. The law, religion and tradition may sug gest that husbands have this right. However, the right that men feel they have to beat their wives comes from the social acceptance of the idea that men have that kind of authority. The other myth is that the wife is to blame. Again, this is a "blaming the victim" strategy.

This interfam ily violence is said to occur when the victim verb ally torments the aggressor mercilessly, usually by nag ging which is a common phenomenon that we see in the cartoons about wives and that if a husband is torment ed this way, well, what can you really expect her poor husband to do? This myth focuses all the attention on indi vidual couples and their interaction patterns. When one considers that one in 1 O couples in Canada experience violence, it's necessary to look beyond in dividuals.

It is no longer a situation where it's just this poor in dividual who has been nagged to the point where he physical ly assaults his wife. In fact, a British study found that 77 percent of battered women inte rviewed reported that physical assaults were usually not preceded by verbal arguments at all. The other myth is that only certain ki nds of women get battered. The only thing certain about victims of wife- battering is that they are women. There is no such thing as a battered wife syndrome; there are no stereotypes, no typical cases.

To say that any particu lar ki nd of woman gets battered is again to place the blame on the victi m. The other excuse that is used is that wife beaters are mentally ill. Hardly. Wife beating is not a sickness, it's a crime; and to call it a sickness or excus e it as a sickness is to say that a man is not responsible for his violent behaviour. Wife beating is an inap propriate and unacceptable way of dealing with conflict.

Wife beating is assault and it is estimated that only 3 per cent - and I think the Mem ber for Kildonan referred to the fact that 3 percent of men who beat their wives had any kind of emo tional psychotic problems. The other one is that wife beating is a private family matter. Saying that wife beati ng is a private matter between husband and wife places the family outside the rules and laws that prohibit viol ence and protects its victims. Considering fami ly violence as a private matter gives police, courts, social service agencies the right to ign ore the problem. Violence against women is reality.

For centuries husbands have been beating their wives systemati cally in order to domina te, punish and control them. Husbands have used viole nce to coerce their wives into behaviours that they may have been unwill ing or unable to undertake, to punis h them for faili ng to live up to marital demands and ex pectatio ns, or simply as ·�� a prerog ative of the husband's superior positio n. Men have used violence in their attempt to control over their female possession, to retain personal authority, and to gain her personal services and dome stic labour .

This has not been done in isolation from the wider commu nity, nor in oppo sition to the general prin ciple of acceptable behaviour, qui te the contrary. Wife beat ing has always had strong ideological and institu tional support, both in its own right and relative to the patriarchal relatio ns within the fami ly and throughout society. Likewise, viole nce against women has been and continues to be supported by our culture, not only in its blatant form, but also as a fact of every day life, in mo vies, advertisi ng, popular music, pornography and televi sion.

If wife battering is ever to be significantly reduced, the structure, practices, traditions and belief which keeps women dependent and isolated within the fam ily and which keeps the family outside the legal and public censure, those traditions must be erased. Long range prevention requires three basic types of programs; education, research and economic inde pendence of women. Wife beating should no longer be defined as a woma n's private dil emma. Wife assault should be seen as a commu nity and public concern.

A helpful analogy is the way in which neig hbours rally to lower speed limits when a child is inj ured by a speeding car on a residential street. The injury is not seen as the child's private dil emma, nor as the private problem of the parents, but the concern of the entire com mu nity. 3373 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Memb er for Gladstone.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-78
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 78.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	05b897342b23357c2132f452206dab6254b7fb19

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