Manitoba Hansard — 9 August 1983 (Sitting 142, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-142

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 142 - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 9 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thomp$On La Verendrye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin -Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burr ows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flan Interlake Lac du Bonne t St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC ND P IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC ND P NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC ND P NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC ND P NDP NDP NDP ND P PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOB A Tuesday, 9 August, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. MR. ASSI STANT CLERK, G. Mackintosh: It is my duty to inform the House that Mr. Speaker is unavoidably absent. I would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair in accordance with the statutes. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TAB LING OF REPORTS MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHM AN: Mr .

Sp eaker , I have a brie f statement. Mr. Deputy speaker, I would like to provide the members and the people of Manitoba with an update on the health emergency Aerial Spraying Program. Aerial spraying was conducted this morning over the commun ities of Ste. Rose and Grandvie w. Based on recommendations received this morning from the Health Emergency Central Task Team an aerial appli cation will be applie d to the communi ties of Killarney and Boissevain. Weather permitting, this will be done tonight between 6:30 and 9:30 p.m.

Municipal and agriculture officials in Killarney and Bois sevain have already been no tified of today's decision. Monitoring of viral activity and mosquito numbers is continuing in Winnipeg, Souris, Rivers, Carberry, Selkirk, Brandon and Dauphin. I would like to take this opportunity to restate that the government is very aware of the concerns and demands for aerial spraying being expressed by smaller commun ities. While recognizing these concerns, we must also recognize that the aerial spraying resources are limited.

Although it has been said many times, since the health emergency began, it cannot be emphasized enough that all Manitobans are at risk and the best means of protection against Western Equine Encephalitis in the sprayed and unsp rayed areas is personal protection. In conclusion, I can report the Emergency Information Centre has now handled over 9,000 telephone calls since bec omin g operational July 20th. The centre operates from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, and concerns or questions about Western Equine Encephalitis or the Aerial Spraying Program are welcome. MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER: Notic es of Mo tion . . .

Introduction of Bills . . . ORAL QUESTIONS Headingley Jail - riot MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Corrections, and ask that Minister whether it can be confirmed that there was a fairly extensive riot in Headingley Jail on Sunday night of this week that has not been revealed in detail, as a consequenc e of actions taken by officials of the institution to keep the story relatively quiet. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the information that I have received as Acting Min ister has been available. The press ha ve been asking for th at information, and I have been passing it on. The damage estimate has been put at under $1 5,000.00. The type of damage is light bulbs and windows and some water damage. That is the gist of the report. I have asked for a more detailed report and when that becomes available, I will make it available to anyone who wants to know. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, just for clarification, can we take it then that reports of a relatively extensive, relatively major riot on Sunday night at Headingley jail with damage es tima ted in the neighbour ho od of $1 00,000, media reports I might say, are inaccurate? Is that what the Minister is saying, that they are widely exaggerated. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the estimate of damage, my latest information is that higher figure is a gross exaggeration. I have had a second evaluation that puts the damage at under $1 5,000.00. As to the extensiveness of the riot, there was a lot of disturbance.

There was extra staff retained, and there was a ring of police surrounding the institution in case there should be any attempts at escape. In fact, there were none, and the police never did get called into the institution itself. The cause was tied to the fact that there had been an attemped escape Saturday, a double escape on Sunday, and as is usual in a minimum security institution, there was a penalty of withdrawing visiting privileges applied to the total prison population.

It was the resentment of that move that led to the prisoners at the lock up time Sun day night around 11 :00 p.m., starting to damage the light bulbs and the windows. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr . Sp eaker , a further supplementary to the Minis ter. Would the Minister deny the reported statement of two guards who were on duty at the time, who apparently said that corrections officials mishandled the whole affair and now are trying to hide the extent of the damage because they don't want to draw public attention to it, or to the jail's poor security procedures? 5130

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 HON. M. SMITH: Well Mr. Deputy Speaker, that does not mesh with the information I have to date. I have already indicated that I have asked for a more detailed report and if there is any further material that should be shared in this House, I will undertake to do so. Headingley Jail - study re conditions MR. L. SHERMAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, at least I hope it's a final supplementary on this subject. Can the Acting Minister advise when the report of the task force into conditions at Headingley Jail will be available to this Legislature? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'll take that as notice. Ducks Unlimited arrangement MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the First Min ister. In view of the fact that several weeks ago the First Minister received a petition from the busine ss people of The Pas wanting to meet with him, vis-a-vis the Saskeram area and the signing of the Ducks Unlimited lease; in view of The Pas District Farmers Assoc iation protes ting the gov ernment's intentions of signing the lease with Ducks Unlimited, and numerous other concerned citizens putting their views forward, Mr.

Speaker, will the First Min ister reconsider his position and his gover nment's position to proceed with the proposed signing of that Saskeram lease? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has been aware of the fact, as I'v e indicated in answers to questions both from members of the opposition and also, I believe, the Member for The Pas, that we have for some many months been under very intensive work in respect to reviewing the options, in respect to the request by Ducks Unlimited to continue a lease in the Saskeram area.

We have had extensive meetings with interested parties, including The Pas Farmers Association that the honourable member refers to, The Pas Indian Band, the Wildlife Organization in The Pas, Trappers Association and Ducks Unlimited. We have, after very extensive meetings, brought forward some reco mmenda tions, and a relea se of th at information will be made in the very near future. MR. J. DOWNEY: Directly to the First Min ister, why would he not meet with the business people of The Pas to discuss his position and put it forward to the people of The Pas, rather than doing it in the way in which he has?

Why wouldn't the First Min ister meet with the residents of The Pas community? MR. DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Fir st Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: It's not a question of refusing to meet, but I have a Min ister who is handling this matter 5131 in a very responsible fashion and has met with the busi ness people inv olved hims elf, di rectly and personal ly. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the people of The Pas requested of the First Minister to meet with him, not an in comp etent person who goes to the flag demonstrations or burning of flags at U.S. Consulates.

The First Minister was requested to meet with those citizens. Is that the way in which he is going to continue to govern, not to meet with the citizens of this province when 54 businesses, I believe it was, out of 55 wanted a meeting? He has totally neglected them; is that the way in which he is going to continue to be the Premier? Bill 88 -calling of MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Government House Leader, could he confirm that he has not called Bill 88 since it was reported to the House from the Industrial Relations Committee? MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKt:R: The Honourable Attorney General. HON. R. PENNER: I'm sorry. Would the Member please repeat that question? MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, could the Government House Leader confirm that he has not called Bill No. 88 since it was passed by the Industrial Relations Committee? HON. R. PENNER: If the member would indicate where it's standing on the Order Paper I could better answer that question. With respect to Bill 88, I spoke this morning to the Opposition House Leader, and indicated to him our desire to have that bill proceeded with.

He indicated co-operation, we just haven't worked out the details of that. I'll speak to him later this afternoon, and see whether we can proceed with 88, and I think there was one other bill on third reading that we thought important to proceed with. That would be the one in Committee of the Whole, Bill 109,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act. I spoke to him about both of those, and I'll speak to him about it later this afternoon. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government House Leader has not called Bill No. 88,

An Act to amend the Workers Compensation Board, which includes increases in pensions to recipients of compensation in this province; and in view of the fact that I have been advised by a citizen of this province that staff at the Workers Compensation Board informed this cit izen tha t the bill is being held up by the Progressive Conservative Opposition, would he request the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation board to instruct their staff not to make such partisan comments, particularly in view of the fact that the bill is not being called by the government? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General.

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: I, of course, will take that as notice for the Min ister concerned, but I can say I'm sure with his concu rrence, that that statement ought not to have been made. I'm happy to place on the record here and now that the proceedings with respect to bills standing for report stage and thir d read ing have been by concu rrence as between the opposition and th e government, and that it is true that the government has not called 88. It is equally true that I did indicate to the Opposition Hous e Leader our desire to call 88 as soon as possible. Premier's Conference MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Min ister.

The Acting First Min ister this morning took notice of this question which was to the effect that if the Government of Manitoba, through the First Min ister, is to be making positions known on behalf of the government at the Premiers' Conference which begins tonight, could the opposition and the press have the courtesy which has been extended in the past, of having any formal statements made by the First Minister or any of the Ministers who accompany him on topics on the agenda made available to the House and to the press here in Winnip eg concurrently with their release in Toronto? MR .

DEPUT Y SPEAKER: The Hono urable Firs t Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is my intention. Child abuse investigation MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speak er, I have a couple of ques tions to the Hon ourable Acting Mini ster of Community Services.

In respect to the serious child abuse case that has recently come to light and has been the su bject of some attention, I would ask the Min ister whether the inv estigation into GAS Eastern's handling of that case to which she referred yesterday was the same investigation as that which was conducted by the Executive Director of the agency, Mr. David Waters, had apparently completed yesterday? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speak er, I'd have to take that as notice. My und erstanding is that a full report would not be available until the end of the week. MR. L.

SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Min ister for that hopeful reassurance that there is a further kind of investigation going on. Mr. Deputy Speak er, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Mr. Waters' investigation clears his social worker of any criticism and endorses that social worker's actions in the case in question, a report, Sir, that we are quite willing to accept, can the Minister advise the Hous e that the investigation to which she referred yesterday will be aimed at determining the manner in which the administration of GAS Eastern at that time, particularly under the supervi sor, Mrs.

Aleda Turnbull, handled the case? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, any investigation of such an incident would stem all the way from the individual case through the various stages up to and through the administrative level, and I think I can certainly give that assurance to the member opposite. MR. L. SHERMAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister reassure us that she and her officials in that particular ministry and in the government have accepted the clearance and the endorsement given that particular social worker by Mr.

David Waters, and have decided that they should not leave that particular social worker twisting in the wind, and that they now will zero in on the admin istra tion and the conduc t of the administration at that particular time, in that particular episode? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it's premature to make such a judgment. I think that any investigation of such a case requires that we look at it from several angles and request the judgment and request information from a variety of perso ns to increase the probability of us getting an accurate report. Sherrin Gordon Mines -NEED Program MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I took as notice a question from the Member for Turtle Mountain last week regard ing a Sherritt-Gordon applic ation for NEED Program assistance. I informed him that I would look into the matter, and report back to the House.

Last winter, Sherritt had applied for a $2 million Agassiz program of expl ora tion and development through the NEED Program which called for the Federal and Provincial Governments to contri bute 37.5 percent each, or $766,275 each of the costs, with Sherritt putting up the remaining 25 percent, or $51 0,850.00. This proposal was rejected by both federal and provincial officials since it did not meet the criterion guidelines established under the NEED Program.

Consequent ly, Sherritt put forward a substantially revised application which proposed a $2. 7 million program in which Sherritt would contribute 42.2 percent or $1.1 million; the Federal Government, 37 .5 percent or $1 million; the Provincial Government, 20.3 percent or about $500,000.00. That proposal was sent on to the NE ED Committee. It was accepted in July. In response to the member's specific questions regarding the differences between Sherritt's first and second application, I would note, Mr.

Speaker, that the company's contribution has incr eased from about $500,000 to $1.1 million; the Federal Government's contribution has increased from $766,000 to $1 million, while the Provincial Government's contribution reflects a decrease from $766,275 to $500,000.00. 5132

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 Also the criteria for the.NEED Program were met in the second proposal. They were not met in the first proposal. Also negotiations are proceeding between Sherritt Gordon and MMR , Manitoba Mineral Resources Limited, regarding other exploration and development programs in the area, which was not the case when the first proposal was submitted by Sherritt Gordon. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, when the question arose in the House two or three months ago, the Minister of Ene rgy and Min es ind icated th at the provincial expenditure being requested, at that time, of some $766,000, would constitute a giveaway, in the words of the Min ister of Energy and Mines, and he said that the public would surely not want the government to enter into that kind of project. My specific question to the Min ister was: How does the present contribution, by the government which the Minister says is $500,000, how does that differ from the $766,000.00?

If the $766,000 was a giveaway, how is the $500,000 any different? HON. W. FARASIUK: Mr. Speak er, I' ve indicated that it was the preference of the Government of Manitoba to enter into joint ventures with Sherritt Gordon, with respect to possibly Agassiz or other developments in the Lynn Lake area, because it is known by all that a lot of devel opment is required there if indeed the commun ity of Lynn Lake is to have some continued life past the period when the Fox Lake mine closes down sometime in 19 85, or 19 86.

I said that it was our preference to proceed with joint venture development, as we have done with other mining companies in Northern Manitoba. Sherrill Gordon made an application under a NEED Program that did not meet the criteria for that program. The province was not prepared to bend or change those types of programs. They su bse qu ently propos ed another proposal which met the criteria of the NEED Program, and the NEED Pr ogram is a federal-provincial program to which the provi nce and the Federal Government contribute money for the purposes of interim job funding.

That is part of a two-year program that was announced, I believe, sometime in December of 1982. We believe that over the long run, Mr. Speaker, it is far better for the companies to either put up the money themselves or to seek joint ventures with the province, so that the taxpayers - if they put up money - do get a return on their investment for joint venture and that is a preferable appro ach to take, rather than having the company try and get grants on a continuing basis from the government.

We prefer the first approach rather than the second approach, although there is an interim NEED Program of a federal-provincial nature in place that we will keep our commitment to. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Min ister of Energy and Mines. Has this $500,000 grant been used as a lever to pressure She rritt Gordon into considering a joint venture operation with Manitoba Mineral Resources, which Sherrill Gordon would otherwise not have wished to entertain? HON. W. PARASIUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the NEED Program is one that was considered in its own right.

I believe at the same time that Sherritt Gordon is prepared, and has in fact, made some suggestions to MMR with respect to exploration and development activity in and around the Lynn Lake area. I believe that is a positive sign. I believe that it's important for Sherritt Gordon, for the Province of Manitoba, for other mining companies, and for the community and workers in Lynn Lake, to work together co-operatively, to do all that can be done to try and preserve the life of Lynn Lake. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, the specific question had to do with Sherritt Gordon, Manitoba Mineral, and the Agassiz gold deposit, not the general exploration that would take place in the area. Was the $500,000 grant to Sherritt Gordon used as a lever to get Sherritt Gordon to consider a joint venture operation with Manitoba Mine ral Resources, a joint venture operation which they would otherwise not have entertained? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, MMR is considering joint activity with Sherrill Gordon. The question of the NEED proposal was considered on its own merits.

Those discussions between MMR , and Sherritt Gordon are still taking place. As I said, I'm glad they're taking place. The NEED proposal was considered on its own merits because it did fall into the NEED criteria, as established by the program in its inception. MR. B. RANSOM: A further question to the Min ister of Energy and Mines, Mr. Speaker. During the committee review of Manitoba Mineral Resources, Mr.

Wright, the President of Manitoba Mineral Resources, indicated that on the basis of the assessment done by Manitoban Mineral Resources, they did no t see a viable op por tunit y for inv est ment associated with the Agassiz gold deposit, but they proceeded to put forward a proposition based on direction from the Min ister. Can the Minis ter give any indication at the moment as to how much additional funding the government might have to put up for that joint venture operation, over and above what Manitoba Mineral Resources would have seen as a good investment? HON. W.

PARASIUK: There is no joint venture proposal under consideration with respect to the Agassiz gold development. Bill No. 3 -agricultural land leases MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. Since I received the proposed amendments to Bill No. 3 this morning from the Minister, I would like to ask him a question: if he has any concerns about the leasing of agricultural land in Manitoba by international or foreign corpora tions rather than the outright ownership? MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. 5133

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that this matter was an additional matter that was raised during discussion with farm groups, amongst whom were the Farm Bureau, at which time they indicated they wished to pursue this area and would be providing some additional advice to us. In terms of the leasing arrangements, we have not had of late any major complaints or problems that are readily available. However that's not to say that that question, at some point in time, shouldn't be examined. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Since I am a practising farmer and the majority of agricultural farm leases are in the one, two, three, five, or seven-year lease type of deal, would the Min ister be concerned about long term, say 15 , 20, 30, 40, 50- year leases of agricultural land by international or foreign controlled corporations? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, part of the problem that was raised was in fact the length of leases that were being offered, both by owners whose residence, maybe through corporations was a Manitoba residence but the financing is difficult to ascertain. That's been part of the problem as to the longevity of leases.

As the member well knows, the Province of Manitoba is and has, since the mid '70s, been in a position to have lifetime leases, or leases up until the age of 65, on a long term basis and has advocated that for a security of tenure for lessees. As well, beyond that age for as long as the individual wished to continue farming, they would be extended. So we certainly have no difficulty in terms of promoting long-time leases, so that people could provide the necessary inputs and care and husbandry to the land, which would require for good sound management practices. MR. H. GRAHAM: A final supplementary, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. Since the policy of this government, and I believe it was the policy of the previous government before, was that agricultural land should be maintained for agricultural use, would the Min ister use his good offices with members of his Cabinet and, in particular, his colleague, the Min ister of Natural Resources, to resist any long-term arrangement to take hundr eds of thousands of acres of agricultural land and turn it over to an international corporation which is 93 percent foreign-financed, and maintain for agricultural use, agricultural land here in the Province of Manitoba? HON. B.

URUSKI: Mr . Sp eak er, the hono ur able member, I believe I know what he's alluding to, however should look at what the benefits are to both users, including Natural Resources and Agriculture, before one would finalize a determination on that kind of a position as to wha t the total bene fits are to the commun ity. Mr. Speak er, unlike agricultural leases, purely agricultural leases, where funds have flowed generally outside the province and have been of short term duration, the honourable member may not like the reply.

That's where the problem has been where, in fact, while investment did come to the province, the long-term effects were short-term leases, high grading of the land base, because of the shortness of the leases and revenue funds leaving the Province of Manitoba and, of course, having an impa ct on the rur al commun ities and farm families in the area. Snow and ice storm MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This morning I took as notice, a question with regard to television service in the southwestern part of the province.

I can report back to the Member for Arthur that I have been informed that television service, in particular, CKYB, CKX and CKND service in that area will be restored later this fall. I' ve been informed that construction on a replacement to the tower that was destroyed in the storms this past spring, will commence the beginning of next month, with cnmpletion scheduled by the beginning of November which would then provide at that time the full resumption of service. Seat belt legislation l\ll R. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Lakeside. l\ll R. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct a question to the Honourable Min ister of Education. In less than a month's time, Mr. Speaker, many thousands of school children will once again be boarding their buses to get to their various schools. It looks like about the same time we will have passed in this Chamber a law making it compulsory for all Manitobans, including children, to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Has the Minister of Education given any thought to the equipping of these buses with seat belts? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I have and it's one of the questions that I raised and it has been raised by other members in the caucus, perhaps on both sides of the House, and some members of the public. I was as surprised as probably others will be to find that they have examined this question very very carefully. They've done a lot of studies on it and that the decision is to not have seat belts in school buses - (I nterjection) - Now, just a moment, just a moment. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because I think this issue is one of very great public interest not only to the members opposite, but to members of the public, and in order to explain what the passive restraint system is and how the seats are designed in the school bus, which is a very very specific design and how that has helped Manitoba have one of the best accident rates in terms of having the least number of accidents in North America, I have been toying in the back of my mind - and perhaps this will bring it out to the front of my mind - with having a briefing session, having an orientation and a briefing session, whereby members are invited to come and hear a presentation to show how we are handling safety in school buses and why they have not gone the route of seat belts for safety, but they are going the passive restraint route and what that has done to our safety record, which is excellent 5134

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 in Manitoba. We'll set that up and invite members to attend. MR. H. ENNS: As a Min ister who was for mally responsible for the Motor Vehicle Branch in Manitoba, I can inform her and indeed all other members that Manitoba enjoys today one of the best safety records in the country, despite the act that we are one of the few jurisdictions without the man datory seat belt legislation, and that's true of all motorists. We are considerably better than Ontario, our neighbouring provinces, that have had seat belts for these last numb ers of years. Mr.

Speaker, my question is then, the Ministry of Education is not looking at seat belts or the refitting of present bus es. Does that also pertain to the purchases of any new buses that will be purchased during the time when the seat belt law does come into effect? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what I was trying to say is that school buses have been specially designed, and that special design meets the national safety requirements of the country and in the design, they are set up so that they not only do not need seat belts, but they are not supposed to have seat belts and there are a number of reasons for it.

One is the numbers of kids that sit on seats; the other is the different sizes of children; the other is that the safety is in the seats and it is built into the seats, so all of the buses that we order and those that have been designed with the change safety regulations, as of 1976, have these safety requirements built into them and they do not include seat belts. After he goes through the two-hour orientation and representation, he too, will understand why. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, one can't help but be impressed with that answer.

My question to the Minister of Hig hways and Transportation: if I should get hold of one of those specially designed seats that are in the school buses and put that in my farm truck or in my car, would I then have to wear the seat belt that his law is going to make compulso ry, Mr. Speaker? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Mi nister of Transpo rtation. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lakeside knows that the provisions in the proposed legislation are that one must not tamper with the manufacture and quality of the seats that are in the vehicles when they're purchased. Air conditioning - Brandon MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Brandon West. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister of Govern ment Services. In Brandon, we have a very very fine Government Services Building, and in fact we are probably just a bit ahead in Brandon of what we have in the Legislative Buildin g here. Brandon has air conditioning or, theoretically, it has air conditioning in its Government Services Building. I have been advised, however, that the air conditioning is turned off at 5:00 each night and turned off for the weekends.

I am advised that the result is that on Mondays the air conditioning isn't working to any effect at all, and that it takes almost to mid-week until the building is suitably cooled. On inqu iries being made, we are told that this is on instructions from Winni peg. My question is: Is this govern ment policy or, Mr. Min ister, are you turning off our air conditioners at 5:00 every night in Brandon? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, no, I have not turned those air conditioners off myself.

With Speed up on here and a number of other responsibilities that I have, I just haven't been able to get around to that, but I understand there has been someone doing that. The Member for Brandon West has indicated to me that he was going to ask me this question, and I did attempt to get the answer for him. I indicated a few moments ago I didn't have it yet, but he still asked the question. So I will provide that answer to the honourable member 2s soon as I receive information as to whether it is being shut off for weekends and so on. Actually when you think about it, it's to save energy.

If that is what's being done, I guess there's a good point there. On the other hand, with the unseasonably hot and humid weather we have been experiencing, perhaps there could be some leniency and some relaxation of those rules. We'll look into that. Road restrictions MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Member for Pembina raised a matter concerning some information or misinformation that was given at the Morden meeting which the Premier attended dealing with municipalities. Mr.

Speaker, in response to the question, a municipality may, as was indicated at the meeting, designate highways under The Highway Traffic Act under

Section 63(6) to classify any highway with respect to which it is the traffic authority as being Class A, B, or C. The enforcement of the weight restrictions that was the issue at the meeting, it was indicated to the municipality that they should discuss this with the RCM P to see whether or not they could, along with their other enf orcem ent of overwe ight res trictions on other pro vincial hi g hways, en force those overw eight restrictions as well. They would have to negotiate and discuss that with the RCMP. The source of the information was that this is not a possi bilit y.

Ind eed the munic ipalit y would have to negotiate with the RCMP for that. As I understand, the major overall provincial contract with the RCMP does exclude municipal policing. However, that is not to say the RCMP, in discussions with the municipal council after the roads would be declared under The Highway Traffic Act, would not during the course of their duties if they were able to perform such enforcement as they could. 5135

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 Economic Development - advisory committees llll R. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. llll R. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Economic Development.

In view of the fact that the department used to have advisory committees on aerospace, electronics, food, beverage, health, light machinery, transportation and fashion industry, and also another three advisory committees for the technology centres and the rural small enterprise program; and in view of the fact that all of these industries moved ahead in volume and in sales during the time this system was being practised, I wonder if the Min ister could tell the House if this system of advisory board is still in effect within the Department of Economic Development. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the advisory board connected with the Enterprise Manitoba activities are in place. The fashion industry and the aerospace industry groups are active. The others are, at the moment, less active. Again, I think they, over the years, have contributed a great deal to the advance of these sectors, but I do remind the member opposite that good advice and perspective on the development of an industry are not the only factors required in order to have growth and advance in those industries. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, my further question, in view of the fact that there were approximately, I'm told, 75 names here of gentlemen that - well, I'm looking at one, president of aerospace industry business - 75 prominent busi nessmen in this province who gave their time for nothing, maybe the odd breakf ast or odd din ner; in vie w of the fact th at these promi nent busi nessmen gave their time for nothing to advise the Min ister and liaison with her regarding the industry board that they were on, how can you justify paying somebody $85,000 a year plus expenses and a car to do the same job that a group of prominent businessmen were doing for nothing and doing it gladly?

HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speak er, there is a great deal tha t volunt eers contribu te to gov ernment and to agencies throughout our society, but I don't think anyone who has ever worked as a volu nteer or with volunteers would, for one minute, suggest that they replace paid staff support who are available throughout the day every day of the week and can carry on a lot of the organizing and support work without which the work of volunteers is less effective. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. SPEAKER'S RULING MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before proceeding, I have a Speaker's Ruling to report. On Tuesday, August 2nd, at approximately 10:30 a.m., the Honourable Leader of the Opposition from his place raised a point of order regarding the requirement for the unanimous consent of the House to begin its morning sitting at that time. Since I can find no guidance from the usual authorities, it is necessary to examine the merits of the situation.

When the House passed the recent Speed-up Motion, it gave itself permission to sit within the prescribed hours with the mandatory adjournment times of 12 :30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., provided that a division was not in progress at the time. Whether or not the Hous e sits for a normal two-and-a-half hours in the morning or a committee is convened, it is at the call of the Government House Leader who may choose to consult with the Opposition Ho us e Lead er.

Thus, if the Government House Leader may call the Hous e into Session for all of the morning or none of the morning, it follows logically that he may call the Hous e into Session for part of the morning. There is no question as to whether the House turned the clock back to 10 :00 a.m., since the House was adjourned at its previous sitting until 10:00 a.m. or immediately following that as soon as possible. Any objection should have been raised at that time, there being ample opportunity to do so.

While it is possible to object to the Chair stating the time of the next sitting, the remarks of the Government House Leader prior to adjournment, show approval for a sitting at 10 :00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. I conclude, therefore, that unanimous consent was not required and that the Government House Leader clearly acquiesced in the intent to reconvene the House at a time later than 10 :00 a.m. HON. S. LYON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. HON. S.

LYON: No, with respect to the ruling that you have just given on this matter, Sir, because the facts do not support the ruling, we challenge the ruling. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. A MEMBER: On division. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On division. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government Hous e Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some announ cements to make with respect to House business and I would like to thank the Opposition House Leader for his co-operation. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the busine ss for today, again I would like to thank the opposition for their co-operation. I had previously announc ed that we would be dealing with Bill 3 this afternoon, but by 5136

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 co-operation, we're going to call Bill 88 at report stage in a few moments and hopefully, by leave, be able to move from report stage to third reading. With respect to other Hous e busine ss.

I would like to announ ce that the Stan ding Commit tee on Regulations and Orders will meet on Thursday morning at 10 :00 a.m. to consider Bill 60; that the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will meet Thursday morning at 10 :00 a.m. to consider Bills 2 and 49; that the House will not sit at the time that these committees are sitting; that on Thursday evening at 8:00 p.m. the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet to consider all bills referred, except Bills 95, 77 and 10 7.

That with respect to Bills 95, 77 and 10 7, by leave, I move that those bills be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments and transferred to the Standing Committee as follows: Bills 95 and 77 to Indus trial Relations to follow the consideration of Bill 2, that's Law Enforcement Review, and Bill 10 7 to the Standing Comm ittee on Regulations and Orders to follow Bill 60. I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines, by leave, that those referrals be made.

I comple te my announ cement by saying, in accordance with practice, the House will not meet on Thursday evening while Law Amendments is in progress. MOTION presented and carried. REPORT STAGE Bill NO. 88 - THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 88. Shall the report of the committee on Bill No. 88,

An Act to amend The Workers Compensation Act, be concurred in? The Honourable Min ister of the Environment. HON. J. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that

Section 6 of Bill 88 be struck out and Sections 7 to 24 ther eof, be renum bered as Sec tions 6 to 23 respectively , seconded by the Min ister of Housing. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any debate on that? MOTION presented. MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER: The Mini ster of the Environment. HON. J. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, this amendment follows the committee deliberations and is as a result of recommendations that were made to us primarily by industry representatives, who had specific concerns about the removal of a 30-day time limit for the reporting of acc idents by way of amendm ent, whic h was suggested in the earlier bill.

They felt that this may create difficulties for industries and for business people in the province. I consulted with the Workers Compensation Board and with others on the matter, and they indicate to me that to put that

section back in the bill, as it was before Bill No. 88 was first presented to you, would not create a difficulty and would most likely in fact allay the specific concerns about what would have happened under the previous wording in the bill. 5137 I have to indicate to you, I was not of the opinion that such would be the case, however, I am convinced by the concerns of the busine ss people that there was a potential in their own minds there and that the intent of the act and the present procedures would not be altered by addressing that concern, by taking that particular

section out of Bill No. 88. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, just briefly, we can support the amendment that the Min ister has proposed, based on the representations that were made to the Indus trial Relations Committee when we were considering this bill. QUESTION put, MOTION on amendment carried. THIRD READING Bill 88 -THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 88,

An Act to amend The Workers Compe nsation Act for thir d reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of the Environment. HON. J. COWAN: I notice that the Member for St. Norbert wants to speak also, but I would like to table with him, before he does speak a list of Workers Com pensation Board hiri ngs and terminations , resignations, retirements and dismissals for the period of, I believe, July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983. This is the information that he had requested of us previously. As well, in the question period today, the Member for St.

Norbert advised us of a report that he had had that an employee of the Workers Compensation Board - (I nterjection) - I'm sorry, I indicated I was going to table them, what I should have said was I was sending it over to the Member for St. Norbert. My apologies, that was my mistake. The Member for St. Norbert indicated to me that he had received a report that an employee of the Workers Compensation Board had told a citizen, inquiring about the status of the pension increases, that he would not receive his pension increase as the bill had not passed the Hous e because it was being held up by the Conservatives.

I have since checked with the board and they indicate to me that their direction to those individuals inquiring about the status of the bill was to tell those individuals that the bill was not yet law and that it was at report stage in the Legislature and nothing more. Unfortunately they indicate to me as well that one employee, through a mistake on their part, did reference to the fact that it was being held up by the Conservatives. That employee has been reprimanded; that employee has been told not to indicate that in the future.

Other employees have been warned as to the inapprop riateness of that situation and I certainly want to apologiz e to the opposition on behalf of th at

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 empl oyee for th at ac tion. I don't bel ieve it was appropria te and I'll state that it wasn't appropriate, and I believe we have taken remedial actions to ensure it will not happen again, as well as that individual having suffered a reprimand for it. Having said that, Mr. Speak er, I'll be brief on my comments to the bill. It has been through second reading and we have heard from the opposition on that.

We 've also had it go through the Hous e committees, the Committee on Industrial Relations, and we have heard comments from the public in that respect; and I believe we have made some changes to accommodate some concerns, although as with any piece of legislation, there are still outstanding concerns which the members opposite may wish to address in their remarks. I do want to quickly reference that this bill will provide for access to medical records. This bill will provide for incr eases to pensions and those are the prima ry functions of the bill.

It will include an increase to recipients of pensions who have under a 10 percent disability, which is a new thrust. As well, we are expe cting the commit tee report on reh abil itation practices and procedures to be available to us in the fall. We may be bringing forward any appropr iate legislation in the next Session as a result of the recommendations of those committees that are felt to be appropriate by the government and of course, as I indicated to you earlier, once that committee has made its report and we've had time to analyze that, we will striking another

Section 10 0 Advisory Committee under the act to review the entire act and to make recommendations back to us which may cause for more amendments to be brought forward in a numb er of years. Those hearings have been and will continue to be public, and the reports will be public as well and available to all members of the opposition and the interested public. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of this bill which we on this side certainly do not object to.

We have ind icated on seco nd read ing and in commit tee particularly tha t th ose ch anges in compensation payments as a result of cost-of-living increases are supported on this side of the House. I have indicated in addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the changes in the legislation with respect to providing access to medical reports in fact were discussed by the Min ister and myself during consideration of his Estimates and can be supported by members on this side of the House. What does cause us concern, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is the overall administration of the board by the Mi ni ster re sponsible and by this government appointees to the Workers Compensation Board. There were concerns expressed when this bill was in committee that although the very large increases in assessments that were imposed in the last few months by the new board, even though there would be no increase in assessments for a six- or seven-year period and a large surplus had been built up when this government took over, and that surplus has been used up and there have no w been in cr eases in the assessment from some 9 to 20 percent.

The submission made to the Ind ustrial Rela tions Comm ittee was directed toward the future and the increases that will likely come about as a result of this board's action, since they have been in office, and the implications of the decision that they have made and expressed a very serious concern that we have not yet seen anything because the increases that are going to come in the future, as a result of the actions by this board, are considered to be very sign ificant. Mr.

Speaker, we have expressed concerns during Estimates about the administration by this board, how they have handled themselves, how the expenses of this board has arisen. Concerns have been expressed to the Industrial Relations Committee about the fear of very heavy assessment increases in the future and we simply leave that with the Minister for the time being. It would appear that the future will be the best judge of the actions of this board, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the increases that may or may not take place but which industry certainly worries very much about now. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill 3 on Pages 7 and 8, standing open for debate? ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SE COND READING Bill NO. 3 THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Mi ni ster of Agricultur e and the amendment proposed thereto, standing open - the Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to be speaking on Bill No. 3, The Farm Lands Ownership Act and the amendment, be it not now read a second time but be read this date six months hence. Mr. Speaker, I'm only going to speak a very very short time on this amendment because I don't want to be accused of filibustering. I have a great fear of being accused of filibustering even though I know that, whether the term is being used correctly or inc orrectly I'm not sure, but for what I know about filibustering goes back to when I remember seeing a picture with Jimmy Stewart, who was in the American House of Representatives - I think it was "Mr.

Smith goes to Washington," I'm not sure, I think that's the name. What I know, to be filibustering, is when you had the floor and you take a book and you read from that book from the beginning to the end, and when you finish that book you pick up another and you read it, just to keep whoever is going to be voting on a bill from voting on the bill, and that's not my intention, Mr. Speaker. I feel that I have some very very important facts to convey to the Min ister of Agriculture and these facts will be conveyed and assist him in making his decision 513 8

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 on whether he's going to support the heist or fight the heist. HON. R. PENNER: Hoist, not heist. MR. A. KOVNA TS: Ho ist, hoi st. I app reciate the correction from the Honourable Attorney-General, I really do because I know it's constructive criticism. I wasn't about to criticize the Honourable Attorney General when, I think, a little bit earlier today he used the term that he will be bringing in a fuller report and I think that the word "full" is about as full as you can get.

Fuller seems to be a little bit extra and not quite necessary, but I would like to point out to the Attorney General that he did use that terminology and I really didn't want to correct him, but I thought that we were both trying to help one another and I think that he would take it in the manner in which it was presented. To get back to the filibustering, Mr. Speaker, and again, as I say, I'm not going to speak that long on it but I'm here to represent my constituents and I will speak on their behalf. When I was first elected, Mr.

Speaker, I didn't realize the salary that I would be receiving as a Member of the Legislative Assembly; I knew approximately and I didn't realize the amount of work hours that I would have to put into the Legislature to do my job. All I remember is that I had promised my constituents that I would have a full-time job in the Legislature, and that would be representing them, and I think I'v e done a halt-decent job to that effect, Mr. Speaker. Not knowing what I was to expect, I didn't realize that we would have to work all summer, so I really don't feel badly about being here.

I think we are here to represent our constituents and if we have to stay here a little bit longer during the summer, I think our constituents are entitled to that sort of work from us. Mr. Speak er, I'm going to be speak ing on this amendment and I'm going to be bringing in a lot of things that contribute to the amendment. I'm going to be bringing in editorials that have been placed in the newspapers and some of the comments that have been made by people over the time that this bill has been presented.

I hope that we can offer the Minister of Agriculture the opportun ity of being able to withdraw his support from this bill at this time. I believe that by negotiations in business or in politics that you don't back anybody to the wall - that would be a wrong thing to do. Either the opposition to back the government to the wall, or the government to back the opposition to the wall. I think that negotiations are a part of this procedure of government.

You don't close the door, you don't leave a person with no alternative. - (Int erjection) - Well, there's been some things that the government has presented, and there's been some things that the opposition has presented, that are getting close to that. I would hope that the Honourable Mini ster still has a feeling, without any embarrassment, can walk with his head high and make the changes that we have requested concerning this Bill No. 3, The Farm Lands Ownership Act.

I guess the Honourable Minister will be able to read my remarks a little later because I know that he's very very busy with whatever he's doing and some of the remarks, I feel, might be of some interest because I'm doing everything I can, Mr. Speaker, to allow him to make the change s in the bill, of which we have suggested. Just as a

preamble, Mr. Speaker, before I get down to the nitty-gritty on why Canadians can't own Manitoba farm land and things of that nature. Some of the remarks that were made are considered to red nerrings and I'v e heard these remarks, and I guess I even heard them when we were government, ::.r.r"'"'''"" the opposition of some of the remarks being herrings; but really, there's no such a thing as a red herring. I've got to make reference again to my time as football referree, where we used to study all kinds of hairy situations that possibly could never happen, except that they used to happen, Mr.

Speaker, and I see where we make remarks concerning some of the bills that come through and we're accused of red herring. Mr. Speaker, one day if these things happen, I don't want somebody coming up and say, see I told you so. I just want to be in a position to have discussed it at the proper time.

I have been listening to the people and to the groups and to the farmers, and what I'm going to be presenting is not just my own feelings or the feelings of the opposition, it's the feeh11gs of the people who are directly affected, because we are talking about the assets of the province, which is the farm land of the province. This is the heritage on which we are going to be passing onto our children and children who have yet to be born; children whose parents are coming from other countries and they deserve the same considerations as our own children at this time. I don't believe in differentiating. Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to now get right down to the meat and potatoes of what has preceded. We are talking about Canadians and that's only one part of the general sector of people that will not be allowed to own Manitoba farm land. We're talking about Canadians who cannot own farm land in Manitoba, unless they are Manitobans and living in Manitoba. We don't realize the consequences of forcing an issue such as that, Mr. Speaker. I was at the opening of the Comm onwealth Conference at the Fort Garry Hotel on Sunday night and I was talking to a Member from Nanaimo. You know, Mr.

Speaker, on May 24 in 19 45 I marched down the streets in Nanaimo and I'v e got a plaque at home to remind me and I couldn't get the name out, but thank you very much for the assistance. This was an Honourable Member for Nanaimo, who happened to be a New Democrat, and we were talking and he says, Abe, you're not going to get me into a discussion because I might agree with you or might not, but we will discuss it and don't get me to say yes or no, whether I agree with the government and I said that's fair enough.

But he said there is a bill somewhat similar in Prince Edward Island, that they brought in a bill that was limiting ocean frontage, and there's lots of it in Prince Edward Island. In fact, I would think that almost all of Prince Edward Island is on the ocean, being a small island and growing potatoes, similar to the ones that I grow out at Menisino on Manitoba farm land. Mr. Speaker, they have a bill in Prince Edward Island that limits this ocean frontage to only people of Prince Edward Island background living in Prince Edward Island.

Americans and other Canadians cannot come in and purchase that property from what I am told, Mr. 5139

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 Speaker. That is one of the consequences that happens, if we don't stop the limiting of this farm land. Mr. Speak er, the conseque nces are our natu ral resources; the next step is going to be that we will be limiting the natural resources to only Manitobans. We have a great tourist industry and this tourist industry comes in and brings many many dollars into the province, because we have Americans, and I'm sure we have people from all other coun tries in the world that come to Canada, to take advantage of our natural resources, and particularly Manitoba.

I would see that this is the next step in eliminating these people from enjoying our natural resources. I think that hunting and fishing is such a great thing in the Province of Manitoba. I hope that again the consequences of this bill would be to not allow other people to come in and purchase property for hunting lodges and things of that nature, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to be limiting lake shore property to only Man itobans? Is that the next step, Mr. Speaker? I don't really want to dwell on it, Mr. Speaker, because I think enough has been said on it and it's not a hypothetical case.

It's something that could happen in the future. What I was saying, Mr. Speak er, is that it's not a red herring that I'm talking about. It could happen; it's a hairy situation that could happen somewhere in the future, and I'm trying to stop it now. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to quote something that appeared in the Parkland Report in the Roblin Review on June 1s t. It goes, "This new legislation will prohibit any more purchases by non-farm corpora tions." That's another aspect, those are the two aspects I'm going to be speaking on, is no n-farm corporations and Canadians having the right to own Manitoba property.

I'll repeat, "This new legislation will prohibit any more purchases by non-farm corporations and will effectively limit purchases by non-Manit obans. Those who have legally purchased farm lands in the past will be allowed to retain their holdings, as will retired farmers." That was quoted by - I don't know the gentleman's name, but his initials are - ML A for Dauphin. I can't say his name, Mr. Speaker, because I know it's against the rules, but it was the ML A for Dauphin who made those remarks. What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that it states here that retired farmers will be allowed to keep their holdings.

What are we doing? What type of plans have we got here? Retired farmers will be allowed to keep their holdings, they're allowed to keep what's theirs. This is a beautiful bill to say that I can keep what is mine. I heard the Honourable Member for Springfield a little earlier today, telling me that what I have is not mine. He was saying what's yours is the government's, and what is the government's is the government's. So I guess we really don't own a thing.

These retired farmers who are allowed to keep their holdings, on behalf of these retired farmers who are allowed to keep their holdings, I tell the government thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so generous. That's not what I really want to bring to the attention of this Legislature, Mr . Speak er. These retired farmers who have worked all of their lives to gain some financial security, and most of it has been just in their land holdings, are now limited to sell that property only to Manitobans.

There are lots of Manitobans and I know the reason for it; I know the reason that it was brought ��- in. I'll get back to that part after, because it's a good reason, except that there's other ways of doing it. But these people who have worked all their lives to gain this financial security of having - if I could just interject. I found out what a signal is. I was watching Moses and I watch Moses so often, Mr. Speaker, and how Moses, up with his finger in the air and he's got it pointed up, but when he points it down, I know what it means.

It means that the Honourable Minister of Housing should sit down in his place, so that he could second a motion. I believe that's the reason for the signal, and saying that, we'll just leave that and I'll get back to this. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have got to allow these retired farmers with large land holdings to be able to sell their property to Manitobans and other than Manitobans. Canadians citizens have the same rights, Mr. Speaker, as Manitobans because we are all Canadian citizens, even if we are distinguished as being a Manitoban.

I believe that the other Canadian citizens should have the same right and I can't possibly see - and I've read the amendments - I can't see where the Min ister has given any consideration into allowing other Canadians to purchase Manitoba farm land. Now, what does this do, Mr. Speaker? It reduces the amount of people who can purchase that farm land, and in so doing, it's got to bring the price of that farm land down. Now, I know the reason and that's fair enough.

I think that the Honourable Min ister has got consideration for people who want to get into the business of being farmers; a busine ss that you can walk with your he ad up high, a very respected profession. But there are young people who do not have the facilities for getting into business, because they do not have the capital or the investment to get in. But you can't take it away from these people who are retiring and reduce the price of that land. We've got to maintain the price of that land. Can you advise me how much time, Mr. Speaker, I forgot when I first started. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, H.

Harapiak: You've got about 20 minutes. MR. A. KOVNATS: I'v e got 20 minutes? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just thought I was only going to speak for a few minutes when I first started, but it seems that the time just has gone by so quic kly. But these young people have got to have some sort of help in purchasing this farm land, not by reducing the price of the farm land by eliminating the buyers, but by giving them some government assistance. I'm not against that.

It might sound a little socialistic, but I'm not against helping these young people purchase farm land in Manitoba. There's nothing wrong with it. Let's give them a helping hand to get into the farming busine ss, this respected business that we've had, but don't limit the amount of buyers. I think that it should be on a competitive basis that all Canadians have the right to own Manitoba farm land. Mr. Speak er, I had another editorial here and it is from the Brandon Sun on June 1, 19 83 and it's under 5140

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 their editorial. It says, "Impact of Farm Lands Bill." I'm not going to go through the whole thing, because obviously I don't have time. I try to limit it to just the most important things like my football background and the Honourable Minister of Environment pointing for the Honourable Minis ter of Housing to sit down. So I do try to just limit it to the most important parts and again I don't want to be accused of filibustering, so I' II carry on and just try to cut it as short as I can and still try to impart the important part of it to you.

The editorial states, "The biggest objection of this bill would be to single out other Canadians and prevent them from owning farm lands in Manitoba." That's not what I just think and what I say, Mr. Speaker, this is an editorial in the Brandon Sun. "The Tories, as well as major farm groups, feel it is one of the things to block foreign ownership of Manitoba farm land." We are in agreement to block foreign owner ship of Manitoba farm land; there's got to be some other way of not just lumping it all together and say, no foreign ownership.

There's got to be some way that people who are not Canadians can come over, and I must apologize because I don't have an answer, but I think there must be an answer where people of foreign background can come over and start a new life in Manitoba and I don't think this bill eliminates that and I agree that they should have that right. It is quite another thing to block Canadians from owning that land. Mr. Speaker, again I repeat, we mustn't stop Canadians from owning Manitoba farm land; it's just not right.

The Manitoba Real Estate Association made a statement in their brief about human rights, and I'll just touch on that very lightly because I've got too many other things to speak on and, again, the time is fleeting.

"This legislation could conceivably violate human rights and may even be unconstitutional if amendments now being urged by the Ho nour able Mi nis ter are implemented." Government interference, and this is wha t we've always said, less gove rnment, mo re freedoms, even if government interference, as contained in Bill 3, would and could further aggravate the present precarious economic situation facing many farmers. Why aren't we helping them instead of hindering them?

I stated a little earlier about how the price of land should be maintained, rather than hindering them by trying to reduce the price of the farm land. The proposed Farm Lands Ownership Act restricts to 10 acres the amount of land that non-farming and non-residents of Manitoba could own, 10 acres. I guess, in Manitoba, that seems insign ificant. I don't know why we're limiting it to 10 acres, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be an insign ificant amount.

This is almost the amount that, when railroads pick up their lines and you have farm property on either side of those lines, and the government says you can have that farm land at a very reduced price. It's somewhere in the area, if you've got a

section of land , somewhere in the area of 10 acres, so it's almost insigni ficant, Mr. Speaker, but it's all got to be down in black and white and I guess they feel they've got to make these restrictions. This concept is ill-d irected, Mr. Speaker, because there is no clear proof of how this legislation will improve Manitoba's economy. No examples are given how this legislation will improve Manitoba's econo my, so why do it? 5141 I've got to press on.

There were so many other good points in this Manitoba Real Estate Associa tion submission, but I must press on because i have some other things I want to present and I think that 40 minutes isn't enough time when you've got so many good points that you want to bring out. The Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, Mr. Speaker, only one reference to that.

I think Abe Arnold will be mad at me because his brief is just excellent, and I'm going to read where it says on the introduction, "The proposed Farm Lands Ownership Act, Bill No. 3, brings into play the classic conflict between the rights of individuals and what is deemed to be in the best interest of the total community," Mr. Speaker, "to have limitation imposed upon the rights of persons to deal with their property by virtue of the nature. of that property, in this case, farm lands." Mr. Speaker, I'm going to repeat - what is to the best interest of the total community.

This is not to the best interest of the total community. Again, I'm not trying to condemn the Min ister, I'm pointing out some of the things that I consider to be wrong. I'm not trying to condemn the Minister because I know or I have a feeling or I guess that the Honourable Minister has made some commitments to somehody concerning this legislation and I don't want the Honourable Mini ster to have to break these commitments, if they were made. No accusations, I'm not inferring motives or anything like th at, Mr .

Speake r, but if there were some commitments made, and I think the Honour able Min ister, being an honest person, would have made some suggestions similar to what he has presented for some particular groups. It's a minority group, because the farm commu nity doesn't want it. The farm community at large doesn't want it, Mr. Speaker, it's just some individuals from the farm community that are supporting it Let me repeat what the Manitoba Association for Rights and Li berties has stated, "It is deemed to be in the best inte rest of the total community." It is not in the best interest of the total community, Mr.

Speaker, and I would hope that the Honourable Minister would have a nice feeling about it and consider the withdrawing of the bill. I think he can do it without too much problem, without getting himself into too much trouble with the people that have been suppor ters and th at he migh t have made commitments for before. Mr. Speaker, we've been accused of stalling this bill. I'm not going to go into the same procedure and make reference to filibustering because I guess filibustering and stalling are somewhat similar.

But I think the word "filibuster" keeps coming out because it's good when you get on, when you're a reporter and you're on a radio station and you're able to come up with a nice sounding word like "filibuster" and it comes over the air and all the people who are listening to their radio, or on television say, "Oh, goodness, filibustering." It sounds like such an important word, or in the newspaper, to even spell it correctly in the newspaper - filibuster - it's to the credit of the writers. I think that's part of the reason; they just want to show they do know what the word "filibuster" means.

It's being used in the wrong context. Stalling the bill is used in the wrong context. I'm entitled to speak on this bill and I certainly will speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is one other alternative and I have pleaded and I have pleaded with the government not

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 to use closure. I think it would be wrong and we've been accused of filibustering and we've been accused of delaying as a tactic. I think that we're being set up that maybe closure is going to be brought about and it would do such irreparable damage both to the government and to the opposition. It's not going to do anybody any good. We will probably try to take advantage of it and say, "Is this an open government that promotes closure? I'm doing everything that I can to see that closure is not imposed.

It's not in the best interests of the farmers, and it's not in the best interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. I had many things on stalling and filibustering, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to refer to it that much. Mr. Speaker, one point and I think I'm presenting this as a question to the Honourable Min ister of Agriculture, rather than condemning him. I don't know the answer. All of the things, the hairy situations are going through my mind - by hairy situations, things that could possibly happen which seem to be so outlandish, but could possibly happen.

What would happen if McKenzie Seed - I think everybody has to know that I'm a suppor ter of McKenzie Seed, being a business here in Province Manitoba. Let us say that through some instances that the ownership of McKenzie Seed changed hands and a corporation out of Toronto purchased the property - wherever, but not in Manitoba - purchased the property.

To bring McKenzie Seed into the age of today they decided that rather than just being a packaging company that they are going to develop different seed strains, they are going to grow their own rosebushes for resale and grow their own pumpkins so that they can have their own seeds and things of that nature and they have to use Manitoba farm land.

From what I read, and I hope that the Honourable Min ister will be able to give me an answer, they won't be able to do it.- (I nterjection) Well, fair enough, I'm not accusing, but these are the situations that are going through my mind because everything that I came up with, and I'm not asking the Honourable Min ister a question.

Please make a note and you can give me an answer on it later, but I just couldn't see how this bill would allow them to purchase that farm land even if it was for the furthering of their own, busine ss because they were a corporation out of the Province of Manitoba, unless you're making special concessions. If you are, and that's fair enough, I just want to be told about it. Mr.

Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce comes up with a little article, and it's only a short article, it says: "Farm Land Owner ship." This is what the report states: "The Chamber firmly believes that Canadians and lande d immi grants should have the right to own Manitoba farm land regardless of occupation." It seems so simple and yet we are fighting it all the way along the line, not allowing Canadians to purchase farm land in Manitoba.

"The Canadian Constitution stresses that our outlook should be national rather than parochial and, in fact, we recommend that Bill 3 be amended, removing the sections which restrict the ownership of Manitoba farm land to farming residents in Manitoba." It's just that point that I brought out before. The Chamber of Commerce is backing me up 10 0 percent, or maybe we'll put it in reverse, Mr. Speaker, I'm backing up the Chamber of Commerce.

The report goes on to say that: "Persons living in the province should not be penalized once they move out of the province." Should not be penalized for whatever reason and due to our mobile society, and we are a mobile society because we all seem to take so much credit when we have Manitobans returning from other provinces and the count of the Manitoba population goes up and we're so disturbed when people from Manitoba move to other provinces, because the count of the population of Manitoba goes down. It disturbs us, Mr. Speaker, but we're a very mobile society.

I guess that's political to try and take advantage of it one way or the other, but we're a very mobile society and it says here: "Due to our mobile society, such moves should not be construed as disloyalty to the province." It should not be construed as disloyalty to the province and if a Manitoban leaves, for whatever reason - a transfer or he just feels he wants to take in the beautiful sunshine in British Columbia and the rain that goes with it and wants to get away from the snow and the sleet and the cold weather - should not be penalized because he was a Manitoban and he owns farm lands.

And this bill will be penalizing him, Mr. Speaker, it's a very punitive bill. The government is going to end up with a lot of land. They are going to be in the business of owning land. They were in it before and we did everything we could to get them out of that busi ness. They're going to end up with this land. Who are they going to sell the land to, Mr . Sp eaker?

Tha t land has to come back somewhere, and it's going to come back to the government because they're the only ones with money - well, they used to have money until they started spending it like, and I'm afraid to use the term drunken sailor because I . . HON. B. URUSKI: Look at Saskatchewan, look at Quebec. MR. A. KOVNATS: The Honourable Minister will have a chance, because I have given him a few things to speak on, and I hope he will give me an answer. Mr. Speaker, again, I'm starting to be afraid that I'm running out of time. Could you just give me a fast count - (I nterjection) - five minutes, thank you.

The government will be a very large land owner. If the government would only take into consideration that it's not going to be embarrassing to them to go with this six month review, and it would give them time to in troduc e changes to satisfy the opp ::isition, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy the farmers of the Province of Manitoba and the potential farmers in the Province of Manitoba. I would like to see this bill come in in a proper form. Mr. Speaker, private ownership of property is a fun damental freedom in our democratic soci ety.

Everyone - and I think you can transpose Canadians in to the word everyone - has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right no t to be dep rived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundame ntal justice. Again, I guess I'v e got to make reference to Moses.

It seems that Moses and I have become quite friendly since my term in the Legislature, and I've always had a wonderful feel ing about wha t ha s Mo ses ha s presented to us, The Ten Commandments, and I think that rather than admonishing anybody with his finger in the air, I think he's pointing and saying that there's 5142

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 an ele venth commandment. Tha t ele venth commandment is, "Thou shall not take away the rights of Canadians to own farm lands in Manitoba." Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to close before I get the word that I'v e overstepped my time, and I am speaking on the six month delay in the bill even though it might not sound like it, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to try and differentiate between what is substantially the same and substantially different. I just want to make reference to a friend of mine who has been kicking field goals for the Edmonton Eskimos for many many years.

I'd like to pay honour to him because he just set a record not too long ago in setting a record in most points scored in professional football. When he first started playing football, Mr. Speaker, and kicking field goals for the Edmonton Eskimos, he kicked the ball through the uprights in a manner in which was substantially the same as the way that he kicks field goals through the uprights now, but every time that he kicks a field goal through the uprights today, it is substantially different, it's not the same. He's setting a record every day. I only make reference to this, Mr.

Speaker, is because I feel good about it. I didn't enter into the points of order when they came up before, but I feel good about it, and I just want it to go on record because I missed my chance. I want to go on record that even though everything is substantially the same in which the House is run, it's substantially different also, Mr.

Speaker, because I had to sit here during the holiday long weekend, and again I didn't know what my hours of work were going to be or my salary, as I stated previous ly, but I did know that I didn't have to work on holidays to be punished for whatever reason that I was being punished, I sat on August 1st. I say that is substantially different, Mr. Speak er. In so making the remarks, I just want to say thank you very much. I didn't intend to speak at great length, it was just for a few minutes. I know that I have got to the full time; it was not my intention, but I speak from the heart.

It's not a filibuster, it's just that I feel that I'm representing my people and there are some people of farm background in my area. They would feel very remiss if I didn't get up and say these few words. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Are you ready for the question? The Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I too apprecia te the opportun ity to speak on this amended Bill No. 3, amended by my colleague, the Member for Kirkfield Park, to delay the reading of this bill some six months down the road.

Basically, in representing my constituency I want to reiterate to the Min ister of Agriculture, who brought in this bill, that I have not had one constituent that has come forward and asked me to support Bill 3. I know there are some indi vidua ls in the Swan Ri ver constituency that would support the Mini ster in his actions, but I have not had anyone come forward and tell me that. I have a numb er of people who are very concerned with the rest ric tions that this bill places before 5143 Manitobans that are temporarily living elsewhere in Canada.

The Swan River constituen cy, like other parts of Manitoba, have a number of their native sons and daughters that have moved to other parts of Canada for obvious reasons, to seek employment opportunities, but they have still an interest in the Swan River Valley, either perhaps in that they want to take over the family farm, or at some point in time they would like to be able to buy some land in the Swan River Valley and come back there and farm. Anyone that has ever been to the Swan Valley area will know that it's a very nice place to live, it's a very scenic part of the province.

The agricultural production is probably as good as there if not better than most parts of Western Canada. So anyone that has ever had some roots in that part of the country would like at some point in time to come back if there's a possibil ity. Certainly I speak for many many former residents of the area that have contacted me with respect to Bill 3.

Previous to that they had contacted me with I think it was called Bill 54 last year, the same kind of bill last year only it was worse this year, that it's come in with some amendments to it that makes it somewhat more palatable, but still it's not the bill that I can support. I'd just like to give a couple of examples of the situation where it restricts Manitobans, that as I say are temporarily out of Manitoba, maybe living in B.C., or they may be living in Alberta, or wherever, but not in Manitoba. A young chap that was from a big family, he took over his father's farm here, back about five years ago.

As well as farming he was in the gravel hauling busi ness, and his wife is a nurse and he had this other construction job to supplement the farm income and to help pay for the family farm that had been in the family name for many years. I believe it was in June of 1981, this young chap met with a very serious accident. He was in a gravel truck accident and he lost his life at a very young age of, I think, 26 or 27 years of age. Subsequ ently, his wife involved in the estate matters was not in a position to keep the farm land that she and her husband had been buying.

A brother of the deceased who has been working in Alberta came home to see what he could do about obtaining the land. He had contacted me with respect to Bill 3, because he was not in a position to come back to Manitoba to farm this land. He didn't have enough money to pay off the estate. As I say, this land had been in the family for a number of years. Here is a young fellow that is out trying to eke out a living in Alberta, but would like to come back to the Swan Valley and take over the family farm, because his brother had met with this very tragic accident.

When I discussed Bill 54 with him at that time, I said, well, it's going to be very difficult for you to hang onto this land, because you have no indication when you would be coming back to the province. Certainly it was a big undertaking to buy the farm, so subsequently he decided that he just couldn't swing it and he let the farm go. Here was a big disappointment not only to himself, but to other members of the family to see the land that they had worked on and were raised on over the years could not be retained by a family holding and subsequently was sold to other people.

That's only one of many calls that I've had with similar kind of stories.

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 Just a couple of days ago, a lady phoned me. She said, you remember my father? I said, yes, I remember him quite well. She says, well, there's still a quarter

section land there where the home buildings are located. I would like to purchase this land from my mother who is up in years now and she would like to sell it to me, but she says, I'm living in Toronto and I have no desire probably to come back, but I do have a family that might be interested at some time or they might not be, but that's beside the point. We would like to retain this quarter

section in our family name for years to come because of our association with the Swan River Valley, and this example can be used in any parts of Manitoba, I'm sure. I said, well, I think that you can purchase the land and perhaps you may be able to maintain it, but the way the bill reads right now it would be very difficult and it's supp osed to discourage absentee ownership. Unless you are prepared to be in Manitoba, you're not going to be able to hang onto this land. Now, I don't know just why the Mini ster is so insistent on restricting Canadians from owning land in Manitoba.

I think it's unfortunate that people can't choose to live and work in other parts of the province and yet maintain a land base here in Manitoba. Now, I agree with the concept that foreigners, people living in the U.S. or Europe or Saudi Arabia or wherever, I fully support that they should not be able to purchase land in Manitoba just to hang onto it for speculative purposes, but to absolutely restrict Canadians from owning land in Manitoba I strongly object to. The Min ister says what about Saskatchewan or what about Alberta or what about PEI?

Well, I'm not particularly interested in the situations in those parts of the country, but I again refer to the situation here in Manitoba where I don't support the concept that Canadians shou ldn't be able to own land in this province. As a matter of fact, I think the Canadians should own land anywhere in Canada as far as that goes. With respect to the situation in PEI, I can recogn ize those are very extenuating circumstances with respect to PEI because it is a very small province, all of the land is arable, it's a very attractive part of the country and because there are not many acres involved in PEI.

Again, I think there are some reasons for perhaps what the Province of PEI have in mind when they are restricting ownership. I don't think that same situation applies to Manitoba and I would suspect that a lot of the pressure is coming to the Min ister from a very narrow-minded group that support the NDP philosophy. I'm sure that is the case. I know that this resolution has come up in the NDP Conventions from time to time, that all the land in Manitoba should be owned by the state.

Now, this is right, I have seen the resolution myself; it was brought to my attention, I think it was at the '76 NDP Convention, where that was one of the resolutions on the floor, that all of the land in Manitoba should be owned by the state. Now, I brought this up the last time I spoke and the Member for Springfield jumps and he says can I ask you a question? I said, sure; and he said in reference to your comment about the fact that the NDP want all of the land in Manitoba to be owned by the state, he says, was that resolution passed?

I said I don't know whether it was passed or not, but I don't think it makes any difference. What I'm trying to point out is that there are a lot of NDP supporters in this province that feel that the state should own the land, and certainly we would never have that kind of a resolution come before our convention. I don't know of any P.C. supporters that would want the state to own all of the land in Manitoba.

Ag ain, the Ma ni toba Land Lease Program was brought in, in 19 70, and I must say that I was an emplo yee of the Department of Agricultur e and supported the concept of it because I worked with the province as an employee and I didn't really take time to study the full ramifications of that kind of a program.

It was brought in when the price of land was depressed, ag ricultu ral products weren't mov ing, the Federal Government brought in the LIFT Program, the Lower Inventory For Tomorrow situation where it encou raged farmers to get into summerfallow and it paid farmers to get into summerfallow rather than growing wheat. So it was several years after, but this is what really had started the Land Lease Program, as I recall, that a lot of farmers were reaching the age where they would like to retire and they couldn't sell their land.

This is where some of the foreign speculators started coming in and they were able to get hold of money, whether they were from Italy or from the U.S. or from Germany or wherever, and they were paying a pretty good price for some of this land. This is really where a lot of the concern sprung from with respect to foreign ownership in this country. Pretty soon, supposedly, to combat this foreign ownersh ip, that the Department of Agriculture would get into the land purchase and would not compete.

They made it quite clear that they wouldn't compete with other landowners or other people that might be interested in buying farm land in this province. So that sounded logical, that they wouldn't pay a high price, they would just pay market price for the land and that went along very well for a little while. Pretty soon there got to be a little competition for the price of this land - (I nterjection) - and the Min ister says, Doug, you know better than that. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I know of several examples where there was a real competition between the MA CC representative, who was representing the Province of Manitoba, competing with farmers in the Swan Valley area, and if you would like me to su bstantiate that I can. Certainly there were a number of cases where the farmers were certainly competing for the land. The MACC guy was right on the bit and he could match dollar for dollar, he could go a little higher and he was able to su ccessfully purchase a number of acres in the Swan Valley area.

I suspect that it's true of the rest of the province as well where there was some competition. I don't think that the Minister can deny that there was competition for the purchase of farm land in this province. So I get back to the question as to why is the Min ister now insisting that Bill 3 be passed in this House were it would not only restrict the foreign owners from land speculation, but it would restrict Canadians, period, from buying land in this province?

I have quoted a numb er of exampl es where I think it's ju st an unfortuna te situation where people that were raised in this province and for one reason or another would like to come back and farm this land, or even just hold the land base for maybe future considerations for some 5144

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 of their children or grandchildren, and this isn't possible to do it under Bill 3. So I think that it is suspect that the Min ister with pressure from some of his own supporters within this philosophical hangup that the state should own the land that are insisting that this bill will be brought forth. It has been indicated that speculators were pretty active in buying land in the mid '70s, and again it flared up in the early '80s, but not to the same extent, and I don't think we have a real problem today with foreign speculation.

I have not heard of foreign speculators really trying to buy up a lot of land in the Province of Manitoba, so I'm wondering why the Minister is so insistent in proceeding with Bill 3. As a matter of fact, the real estate people have made a presentation to the Min ister and I received a copy of their submission, and the real estate people are saying that they have a number of farms that are owned by foreigners; that they would like to sell this property and it's difficult to even move the land right now. The price has depressed somewhat but land is not changing hands to any extent.

The last time I spoke, I think it was back a couple of months ago, I quoted a number of examples, I believe it was the Fork River Farm Corporation, where they were selling out their farm equipment because they just couldn't make a go of it. They weren't making any money; they were losing money, so they were selling off the equipment; in some cases, they were also trying to dispose of the land. But one of the chaps that was operating one of these farms, a guy by the name of Schmidt said, "Family farms may be in a better position to survive.

The family may be able to choose to work for nothing but you can't tell employees there's no money tu pay them." So I think that's the simple situation, that in the last few years even the foreign speculators are finding the pinch, and in some cases they are trying to dispose of the land they have purchased in this country. What have we right now? The former Min ister of Agriculture was faced with the situation in the early 19 80s, where the foreign speculators were surfacing, and he tightened up the bill for some of the loopholes.

Recently the Manitoba Farm Bureau have made some suggestions, which I think are quite valid and certainly it gets around the Canadians. It provides the Canadians the opportunity to own land in Manitoba, but certainly it will restrict the foreigners from buying land. I would just like to quote from the Farm Bu reau where they say, "The system proposed by the Manitoba Farm Bureau relies primarily on a strong definition of resident un der the provincial leg isla tion.

The definition of resident, under both the current legislation and the proposed legislation, could be strengthened to require purcha sers to be residents for at least 18 3 days in each calendar year, if they wish to purchase or hold farm land in Manitoba. "Secondly, in order to catch someone who is simply a visitor or a sojourner in Canada for 18 3 days, the authority available under The Citizenship Act could be used to initially qualify land owners, by requiring them to be either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.

If a person meets this dual test of Canadian residency and Canadian citizenship or is a landed immigrant, he would then be eligible to acquire farm land. "However, should he subsequently cease to spend most of the year in Canada, he would no longer qualify under the provincial residency requirements, and the board could order divestiture for failure to continue meet in g the resid enc y test under the provincial legislation. This approach avoids entirely the possible weakness of The Citizenship Act," and this provision is already in the bill that the province now has.

The Farm Bureau goes on to say, "It is becoming increasingly disturbing to have representatives of the government refer to correspondence from Federal Government officials, which is pu rported to blow the sytem we have proposed out of the water, in terms of controlling foreign speculators, when no one is prepared to give us the alleged correspondence to show us where we are sup posed ly wr ong. I su spect the federal correspondence refers only to possible weaknesses in The Citizenship Act and does not deal at all with utilization of federal legislation passed by the province." Mr .

Speaker , again I app eal to the Mi nister of Agriculture to take a good look at what the Farm Bureau is proposing and it would be very little effort, on the part of the govern ment, to take advantage of what we have now legislated and make use of the residency situation, so that at least Canadians can own land in Manitoba and not restrict them from participating in owning land in this province. My colleague from Niakwa made reference to the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties.

They had presented a brief to the Min ister of Agriculture and we, on this side of the House, had received copies of their submisssions and I think that, rightly so, they have earmarked a number of concerns they feel violates the human rights. The MARL brief outlines a number of the group's specific concerns and I think they should be put on the record.

Certain clauses of the pact may be in conf lic t with gua rante ed mobil ity rights of Canadians, as specified under the Charter and I've given you a number of examples of situations in my own constituency where people, for one reason or another, are in various parts of Canada and would like to retain some landholdings in the Swan River area or in fact anywhere in Manitoba, but are restricted from doing so under Bill 3. As I mentioned before, a personal concern I have is our own family farm at Oak River, where my father came out here from Ontario at the turn of the century and homesteaded in that area.

Right now I have an older brother who is a bachelor who's farming that land, and as a matter of fact, I'm the only one in the family that has any sons that might be interested in taking over this land at some future time. My oldest son is now employed in Saskatchewan and another son is still at home but he expects to get into the RCMP some time in the near future, and it's hard to say where he's going to be located in Canada.

Certainly he's not going to be posted to Manitoba and so at some future time, in the not too distant future, my older brother, I'm sure, will be looking at retirement and I know that the whole family would like to see the family farm retained in my father's name. Certainly it would be a very severe disappointment to us if that farm would have to be disposed of because family members would not be able to purchase it because of a residency clause. I think this is really unfortunate.

Another concern that the MARL people bring out is the act discriminates against farm landowners, making them subject to greater infringements of privacy and 5145

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 breaches of confidentiality than non-farm people. This is really true. Anyone from Germany or Italy or wherever may come in here and buy apartments buildin gs or dr ive-in restaurants or what have you, hotels, and there are no restrictions on these people. But here, the poor farmer of this province is being severely handicapped, because he can't sell his farm to someone else that lives in Canada. The Min ister says well ... MR. F. JOHNSTON: Yes, you can. If you manage yourself right, you can. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speak er, how much time do I have left? About 10 minutes? MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has 15 minutes remaining. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you. The MARL people also go on to say, "The onus is on the in divid ual in contravention of the act to prove innocence." The Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties says, "This contravenes common law," which it certainly does.

Another point is, "There is no definition of reasonable grounds where the act specifies circumstances under which a search warrant may be issued." Their final point that they make, and I think it is a very good one, is that, "The Manitob a Association of Rights and Liberties objects in principle to the notion of a regula tory board which would decide what is or is not in the public interest. This is the job of elected legislators," the brief suggests.

Certainly this is where the Min ister of Agriculture - he wants to pass on who can own farm land or who can't own farm land to some appointed board made up of people that purport the kind of narrow-minded philosophy that I indicated earlier, where they would like to see the land in this province taken over by the state. So I don't think that I have always agreed with what the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties have purported, but I think that they have hit a lot of good points here that the Min ister of Agriculture should really take under consideration.

The Min ister has spent quite a bit of time in reference to absentee ownership of farm land in this province. We have seen the figures that he has quoted where, in parts of this province, some 25 percent or 26 percent or 27 percent of municipalities, the land is held by absentee owners, particul arly in the southern part of the province and in an area around Winnipeg. In my own area, in the Swan Valley area, foreign speculation has never been a problem at any time. There is some land held by one or two Americans and perhaps one or two from Europe but. percentage-wise , it's a very small percentage.

The foreign speculation in the southern part of the province, I guess, is a little more concentrated. But the figures that the Min ister uses in some of the municipalities around Winn ipeg where he's quoting 27 percent absentee ownership, and it has been spelled out here on a number of occasions by previous speakers that a lot of the absentee ownership that the Min ister refers to is land that's owned by farmers that have retired and are now living in Winnip eg or living in perhaps other parts of the province.

Their land is leased to sons and daughters or sons-in- law or what have you, and that land is being maintained in the family. But just because the landowner is living outside of that municipality, that land is shown as an absentee . . . MR. H. ENNS: If he lives in Stonewall, he could as well be living in Africa. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, that's right. So I think that the Min ister has been using these kinds of percentage figures which really don't reflect the true picture of the absentee ownersh ip.

These sons and daughters that - I know my colleague, the Member for Morris, he lives in that area where a lot of this situation is taking place where the land is still owned by the family, but the family may be living elsewhere other than in that municipality. So I think that it's a disaster situation that we are being faced with in Bill 3. I would hope that the Min ister of Agriculture could take a much closer look at it. Now, he has brought in some amendments that, in my opinion, do not address the problems that we have identified.

I would give him credit for one of the areas, where it mentions that the retroactivity part of it would be removed. Certainly that's a step in the right direction, but the amendments that he has brought forward certainly do not address the problems that we are really concerned about. It still doesn't supply Canadians with the opportunity of owning land in this province. Now this morning, I asked the Min ister of Natural Resources if his govern ment had made a decision on the signing of a long-term lease with Ducks Unlimited with respect to the Saskeram area.

The Min ister said that no decision had been final ized, I think he mentioned, but that there would be an announ cement very sho rtly on it. So I would su spect that the government has agreed to a long-term lease with Ducks Unlimited. Then later on today, my colleague, the Member for Virden, had questioned the Minister of Agriculture about ent ertai ning long -term leases in volving foreign corporations tying up farm land in the Province of Manitoba. I think that it's fair to say that this government does show a lot of incons istency where they are restricting Canadians from owning . . .

A MEMBER: That's being very kind and very gentle, Doug. MR. D. GOURLAY; They are restricting Canadians from owning land in this province.

Yet, we know that there is a vast area of the province in the Saskeram area that is very produc tive agricultural land: that if, in fact, a long-term lease has been signed with Ducks Unlimited, I would hope that part of the Saskeram area that lends itself to agricultural production would at least be left in its natural state so that at some point in the future, and before the term of this lease expires, there may be some provision where the agricultural commun ity of The Pas would be able to make additional use of this vast area of agricultu ral land.

As I understand it, the Ducks Unlimited have already leased, and I know tha some of the agreements were signed during our term of office, in the Summerberry 5146

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 area of Manitoba. There's the old Tom Lamb Wildlife Management Area which is roughly a half-million acres of land and then to the west, in Saskatchewan, there are further agreements with that province and Ducks Unlimited. MR. H. ENNS: They'll lease a half-a-million acres to the Indian hunters, and a guy from Winnipeg can't buy 10 acres. MR. D.

GOURLAY: So, all I am saying is that I would hope that this government in the signing of this lease with the American- based Ducks Unlimited, that there would be provision whereby the agricultural commun ity in The Pas would be allowed to have some multi-use provision made with that area that is included in this new agreement, because the farm area in The Pas is fairly restricted. There are something like 100,000 acres in the Saskeram area that are being developed.

There are still some areas, Polder Ill, which can be developed where there are some 65,000 or 70,000 acres which can be brought into good agricultural production. I understood that this Polder Ill development would be proceeding in the very near future so that it could be included in the farmers' operations. In talking to the Farmers Association just recently they had indicated that further studies will have to be undertaken now by the Department of Natural Resources, an environmental study, to further assess whether this area can be brought into production. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I just want to reiterate to the Min ister of Agriculture that I have outlined my main concerns and objections to Bill 3 and especially the restrictions that it places on Canadians and I would hope that the Min ister would rework this, and perhaps either pull the bill or follow the recommendations that have been suggested to him. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker - (I nterjection) - keep the lights on for me then. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I can only reiterate what has been said here time and time again in connection with this bill, and I know that the Minister is going to start getting the message. We were encouraged, Mr. Speaker, I must say in regard to Bill 3 when some pr opo sed amendments landed on our desk on The Farm Lands Ownership Act, but on perusing these amendments, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid - to use a phrase of our leader - it is a lot of wind and rabbit tracks and they haven't really accomplished very much. Mr.

Speaker, we have said before when the bill was brought in that there was no demonstrated need for a bill restricting ownership of farm land to Manitobans. The Farm Bureau, which represents an extremely large segment of our agricultural community and speaks with a pretty strong voice, have said that there's not that much with the former bill. With a few amendments, if they felt it was necessary to plug some of the loopholes that they thought were there, this could have been accomplished with some changes in the previous bill.

I think that wouldn't have sat well with the present Minister, he wanted to have his own bill so they scrapped 5147 the one and redrafted Bill 3, which we are strongly opposing, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to strongly oppose. It's a mean bill, Mr. Speaker, to quote the Member for Lakeside, and I think the Minister has got the message that we have been preaching for the last number of speakers, I can't recall how many we've had on the bill. That is one of the reasons for giving it a hoist, so that we can stand back and take another look at this bill.

The Mi ni ster kn ows very well that the strong opposition on this side, Mr. Speaker, is our strong opposition to Canadian ownership. We don't feel that this bill should be restricted to Manitobans and may, in effect, be contravening the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights that we now have, Mr. Speaker. I urge the backbenchers on that side to speak with the Minister, and with that small change to allow Canadians, wherever they may live in this great country of ours, to hold a little parcel of farm land in Manitoba.

This bill would sail through, I'm sure, with very very little opposition and the Minister would have his bill replete with one little, wee, small change and that would be allow Canadians to own farm land in Manitoba. There are no strong objections to restricting foreign speculators, there's no problem with us on this side, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this particular issue. There never has been, but we've said it time and time again, Mr. Speaker, even with the threat of foreign ownership that, I think, was here a few years back, it is no longer with us with economic times such as have happened.

I know the Min ister has done some research on it - his figures don't always agree with ours, Mr. Speaker, and these have been quoted before - but 88, in some cases 100 - for Manitobans certainly 100 percent should be required to own it - but 88 and 98 percent and 82 percent for all Canadians. These are some of the results that we've been getting. The Min ister refutes some of the figures that we got from the municipalities, which showed, Mr.

Speaker, without any question that foreign ownership of lands in Manitoba was very very minimal and in the areas where it was reasonably high, those people would just love to get out of their obligation with the farm land they have in Manitoba. Those that have not moved here to farm here would just love to get out of it, but they can't sell the farm land. As one real estate fellow said to me the other day, "The only real estate moving in Manitoba right now is when you get a strong wind, because farm land is just not selling." It has gone down in value. That, the Min ister may be happy with.

But that's due to economic conditions, it's not due to foreign owner ship, that's brought that down. I have said before, Mr.

Speaker, and everyone in this House, I'm sure, wants to see young farmers get established on the farms and I've said it to the Min ister before that - as an example, in my own case, that if I wanted to sell my farm to a young farmer that was going to continue to farm that land and practise farming and it would enlarge his operation to make it a little more viable, if I could sell that land to him without the penalty of paying a capital gains tax, I would sell it to him probably $20,000 cheaper than the price I'm going to try and get for it, because I automatically give back 25 percent to the government with capital gains tax.

That has done as much to drive prices of farm land up more than any foreign ownership has, the capital

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 gains tax. - (Interjection) - Not in my case you won't rebate it. I'm talking about my case and that would do mo re, I think, to establis h young farmer s with a reasonably priced chunk of farm land, Mr. Speak er, than anything else you might do. Foreign owner ship was a concern a few years back but that disappeared with our economic times. We have a numb er of landed immigrants that have come into my area.

They are good farmers, but they came in and they bought land at a reasonably high price and the agricultural community and economic conditions, as the Min ister well knows, haven't been that profitable the last few years. There's a numb er of them, good farmers, but if they don't get a reasonably good crop this year with some fairly decent prices, I just don't know how they're going to hang on. That goes for an awful lot of resident Manitoba Canadian farmers too. They have come out here and contributed a great deal to our society. They brought in good farming methods and they're hard-working people.

It's a shame that conditions haven 't been a little more favourable for them, but those people have the ingenuity and the will and the desire to stick to it and I'm sure they're going to ride thr ough tough times because our farm commun ity have done it before and they will continue to do it. But there are a numb er that have come out here with landed immigrant status, I suppose, or with other means they had to get around the ownership problem, that have bought fairly large tracts of land. The Min ister knows this - the Blue Grass Ranch, I think, would be maybe one example that went into receivership awhile back.

I think it was money from France and they lost a terrible amount of money. Now whether it was the farming methods that were different out here or the economic times, I don't know, but there are dozens of examples where foreign owners have come over here and acqui red large tracts of land and they just haven't been able to. handle it.

It's a known fact that this land eventually returns to the people that are able to manage a certain numb er of acres, and manage it well and make a dollar at it; or at least, the farmers today say they're not making a dollar, it's just become a way of life and they'll just keep farming until their money is all gone. Those large tracts of land, Mr. Speak er, just didn't prove up. That land was divided up and has gone back to the people, in a lot of cases, gone back to the municipalities.

There's a case, I think it's the Mun icipality of La Br oq uerie, wher e the foreign owner ship is reasonably high and that land, Mr. Speake r, we find, has in most part, if not this year, it will be going back to the municipality for tax sale because those people are just - (I nterjection) - Yes, about 54 percent non resident Canadian acres is very high there, but that land, I understand by the end of this tax year, will all be going back to the mun ici pali ty.

Th ose people, whether it was Italian mone y, German mo ney or wherever, those people have lost their shirts out here and they're just happy to let that land go back for taxes and consider it a bad dream and a bad investment and forget about it, so I don't think there's the concern here now for foreign ownership that there was a number of years ago. MR. W. McKENZIE: With the prices of grain today? l\ll R. D. BLAKE: That's right. My colleague, the Member for Roblin-Russell, talks about the price of grain and , Mr.

Speaker, unless we have a better than average crop this year for those farmers that used fertilizer and chemicals, selling at market prices today, I don't think they can recover their cost. Those that have financed their operation, Mr.

Speaker, with interest rates the way they are today, there's no possible way they can survive; so rather than worry about a bit of foreign owner ship, I think if the Minister would direct his attention to the problem that we could be experiencing this year, because if we happen to have much more deterioration in our crop, I would say it may be a conservative estimate that 50 percent of our farmers are going to be in serious trouble this year.

I know the government can't save them all but there may be a great number, with some assistance, that may be able to survive and carry on for another year or another two years where busine ss and economic conditions may improve. That is going to be a very real problem this year, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and I think we have to direct our energies and our thoughts to providing some method of financing or refinancing at a reasonable rate of interest, whereby we can help these young men - a lot of them have taken over a family farm and those that have, I suppose, are maybe a little more fortunate because they might be able to lean on old dad a little bit and he may not be as tough as some of the financial institutions that have carried the mortgage to the point where there is no longer an ability of that farm to produce and produce enough revenue to service the debt load.

Those people may be a little more fortunate, but that is going to be the biggest problem facing the farm commun ity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the year facing us now, far more important than foreign owner ship, and with the hoist that we have moved on this bill, it will give us time to stand back and just see what this year produces and then maybe the Min ister might be able to try it again in the next Session. All we're saying, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to oppose the bill in its present form. The amendments that the Minister has given us are not sufficient to change our views to any great extent.

We can accept the amendments that are there but they should have gone further. The biggest move, as I said he could have made, would be to remove the restriction on Canadian ownership. In that way I think he could have seen a great deal of movement on this bill through the various stages of the House. Mr. Speaker, member after member on this side have just repeated the same theme and the government's position that it's there to strengthen the family farm and to ensure future liability of these farms isn't really relevant to restricting foreign ownership.

Those people that have farmed the land all their lives and have used that - they have enjoyed probably a lower standard of living than a great many of their city counterparts or those that have been on monthly wage or a steady wage. They have enjoyed a different type of life, true enough, but they've enjoyed probably a lower standard of living, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore, when they come to their retirement years, have looked forward to the sale of this farm land as their pension fund or their retirement nest egg. Restricting the land to the residents of this province are denying those people a 5148

Tuesday, 9 August, 1983 fair market value for their land, because there may be someone living in Toronto or elsewhere, that may be prepared to pay a little more for that land. The person that has been on that farm for 50 years is entitled to the best price he can get for it when he decides to retire. This is going to restrict him, to a large degree, on the price he can get for his farm land. He may not have any children to leave it to; he may not have any sons that want to farm, and therefore he's entitled to get the best buck that he can for his investment he's worked at for 50 years. This bill will not help him to any degree, Mr. Speaker. That's o

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-142
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 142.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	18c164c0ddef49068e63c83f0acec4ab96fe38fa

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