Manitoba Hansard — 23 April 1982 (Sitting 40, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-40

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 23 April, 1982 Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): Presenting Petitions .. . Reading and Receiving Petitions ... PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. JERRY T. STORIE (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted certain resolu tions, directs me to report same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gimli that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make and I have copies. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rising today to announce a major change in school tax assistance for pensioner homeowners. I am announcing the change at this time in advance of the 1982 Budget, to ensure that the improved benefits will be available to pen sioner homeowners with respect to this year's school taxes.

As members are aware, our government has already provided some $14.4 million in supplemental and special grants to school divisions, over and above the Education Support Program. These grants were intended to enable school divi sions to provide the needed quality of education for children throughout the province without undue reliance on the local special levy school tax. Members may also be aware that overall, the sup plemental and special grants are equivalent to about 4.5 mills of property taxation.

As a result and looking at the province as a whole, school taxes will average about 4.5 mills lower than they otherwise would have been. Despite the success of these grants the government recognizes the necessity of providing further help to pensioner homeowners and more particularly to those on low and moderate incomes, generally those who reside in more moderately assessed homes. Accordingly I am pleased to announce that for 1982 school taxes over $162.50 will qualify for school tax assistance. Last year the extra provincial help was available only on school taxes over $325.00.

The max imum level of assistance will remain at $175.00. This change is expected to broaden assistance by extend- 1796 ing eligibility to an additional 17,000 pensioner homeowners for the first time, and by increasing the assistance already available to another 12,000 pen sioner homeowners. It is important to note that all these homeowners reside in more modest homes and in general have lower than average incomes. Pensioners eligible for assistance include all those age 65 and over, and those between the ages of 55 and 65 who rely on pension income as their main source of support.

As an example of the assistance provided under this change a pensioner residing in a home assessed at $5,000 in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 faces total school taxes of $399 this year, an increase of $63.00. Last year such a homeowner qualified for $11.00 in pensioner school tax assistance. With this change such a homeowner will qualify for $175 in pensioner school tax assistance, an increase of $164 and benefit from an actual net school tax reduction of $101.00.

More generally in the Winnipeg School Division all pensioner homeowners eligible for assistance under the expanded program with assessments under $6,250 will experience actual reductions in their net school taxes this year. Additional examples are included in the table distributed with the text of these remarks. In our view the change deals directly with the par ticular problems, lower income pension er home owners face in meeting their school taxes. Pensioner homeowners who received the maximum $175 assis tance last year will continue to receive that $175.00.

They will also benefit along with all school property taxpayers from the tax effects of the announced sup plemental and special grants to school divisions. I should add as well that the lowering of the eligibil- · ity threshold to $162.50 will also ensure complete parity between the propery tax assistance benefits available to homeowners and those available to tenants. The current program for tenants uses 10 per cent of the rent as the proxy for school taxes and provides school tax assistance on the school tax proxy amount over a threshold level of $162.50. In

summary, then the change will: 1. Provide assistance for the first time to a large number of low-income pensioner homeowners facing school taxes under $325.00. 2. Provide increased health to pensioner home owners with school taxes between $325 and $500.00. 3. Provide the same maximum benefits as last year. 4. Provide low-income pensioner homeo wners with fair and equitable treatment on the same basis as tenants. The change will require supplementary spending authority of $2.9 million which will be included in the Budget later this Session. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR.

GARY FILMON (Tuxedo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House, of course, welcome any assistance that the government is put ting forward to pensioners with respect to their school and general property taxes. I think it's a continuation of the kind of thing that we did in our term of office

Friday, 23 April, 19 82 where pension ers under our government paid less in school property taxes in 19 81 than they had in 1977 because of a series of moves tha t we had made, a series of measu res tha t we had taken in order to assist them in co ping with the ever rising property tax burden. Obviously, we would like to see the details of the program. We'd like to see exac tly how it's going to take effect and have some time to study it.

But in general terms, we know tha t the program tha t we've brought forward in terms of assistance both to homeowners and tenants was a good one and it's obvious that this government in response to the move tha t it has made in add ing 4.2 mills to the education support levy ac ross the board throughout the pro vince, is having to take acc ount of the nega tive effect tha t's having on all property tax owners and particu larly the pension ers who can ill afford it.

So, I'm glad to see tha t they recog nize at least tha t portion of it, and they are at least hoping to assist the homeowners who are pensioners and on fixed income, in dealing with the unfortuna te problems created by their Educa tion Financing Program that they ann ounc ed this year.

We note tha t they ha ven't increased the maximum benefits because, of course, they're recognizing tha t the many increases tha t we've brought forward were very helpful to pension ers and we recog nize that the government is moving very cautiously and prudently, and the additional as sistance tha t they are providing will no doubt be welcome and we certainly join therri in supporting this program. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR.

DON SCOTT (lnkster) introduced Bill No. 24,

An Act to Grant Additional Powers to F.G . Holdings Ltd. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS M R. SPEAKER: Before we reach Or al Quest ions may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery on my left where we have 80 students of the Fargo High School under the direc tion of Mr. Ra y Schellen berg. On behalf of all the honourable members I welcome you here this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. HON. STERLING LYON (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister cou ld ans wer this ques tion, could he confirm, Sir, the state ment that he apparently made to the press yesterday tha t he still hopes that the government won't ha ve to lift the freeze on Hydro rates? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, we not only hope, but we ha ve not intention at this stage of inc reasing Hydro rates. MR. LYO N: Mr. Speaker, I didn' t ca tch the last part of the First Minister's comm ent. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, what was indicated is tha t we have no intention at this time of increasing Hydro rates. MR. LYON: Well, tha t being the case, Mr. Speaker, I take it then that the First Minister is confi rming what the press reports, tha t his government intends to keep in place the Hydro rate freeze. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, what, indeed, was said is tha t we ha ve no intention to increase Hydro rates, tha t at the present time, if, indeed, the situation pertaining to Man itoba Hydro deficit wise, which we were made aware of yesterday as to it's deficit deteriorated greatly, tha t might very well demand a change in cir cums tance. I do not foresee tha t at this point. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, do we take it then that the First Minister is sa ying tha t he intends to keep the hydro rate freeze in place? MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have to turn to you to ask you if that last question is not indeed repetitious -(I nterjec tion)- MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the hydro rate freeze, Sir, as you will recall, is a stat utory rate freeze. Does the First Minister intend to keep tha t stat utory rate freeze in place? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. WILSON PARASIUK (Transco na): Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised tha t the former Premier of the Province of Manit oba isn' t aware of what he in fact brought in. Wha t was brought in was a statutory provision of exchange financing but, Mr.

Speaker, there was no stat ute bringing in a hydro rate freeze. In fact there was never even a formal com mun ic ation to the Hydro Board, informing them tha t they should bring in a hydro rate freeze. That was done, Mr. Speaker, by Hydro but there was no stat utory requirement of tha t, with respect to the rate freeze and, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised tha t the Leader of the Opposition now is suffering from what I term his selective am nesia. 17 97 MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, using the terminology of the Honourable Minister of Mines and Energy, cou ld I direct ano ther question to the First Minister?

This may perhaps be thought to ha ve to do with selec tive am nesia. I'm referring to the First Minister's comment when he was Leader of the Op position, on the 9th of April, 1981 when he said, and this is Report from the Legisla ture No. 12 , signed by Howard Pawley. "The Tory freeze on Hydro cons truct ion has hurt the Man itoba

Friday, 23 April, 1982 economy. Time has shown that the phoney Hydro rate freeze is needlessly hurting Manitoba taxpayers." Mr. Speaker, is that an example of selective amne sia on the part of the First Minister, or has he turned about 180 degrees, now that he's in office? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing on the part of the Leader of the Opposition is selective reading of a news release which was issued on the date in question. Mr.

Speaker, what was the situation as of the date of April, 1981, was a situation by which it was quite clear, from the profits that Hydro had enjoyed up to that stage, that a rate freeze was not anymore than but a phoney exercise - a phoney exercise, Mr. Speaker. If the government had wished of the day they could have very well not increased hydro rates; the Hydro Board need not have increased hydro rates, because Hydro was enjoying, at that par ticular stage, adequate surplus, in order to stabilize Hydro rates. It was a phoney exercise. Mr.

Speaker, what we have seen since then, is a change in respect to circumstance. We have wit nessed an increase by way of interest rates. We have witnessed less sales than that which had been earlier anticipated. The situation of Hydro is different than it was during the first two years, two years of the so called phony exercise that the previous government had gone through.

What we are now dealing with and what the Leader of the Opposition is, indeed, suggesting is that regardless of what Manitoba taxpayers should be required to subsidize to any major extent whether it be $50 million or $75 million in the future in respect to Manitoba Hydro; Mr. Speaker, I trust that will not be the case but it is clear that circumstances now are different than they were in '81. Again to repeat, we have no intent, no desire to shift, change the hydro rates in the Province of Manitoba but in saying that, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to be as totally irresponsi ble as members across the way might be, to say that come what may by way of cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba we will not at any point in time make any change. MR. LYON: Now, Mr. Speaker, having witnessed the peregrinations and the perambulations of the First Minister walking all over the lot will he get back to the question that was asked him. Why did he describe the hydro rate freeze in April of 1981 as a phony rate freeze and yet say yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to the press that he intended to keep that phony rate freeze in place? MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I do have to turn to you but I can continue to draw pictures for the Leader of the Opposition. I would prefer not to because I believe this would be the third time that I will be dealing with the same question, and I'm intending to continue to give the same answer to the same questions, so I have to turn to you for advice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and 1798 Mines.

In view of the fact that AI can is now looking at another site in British Columbia, and in view of the fact that if that company was to locate in Manitoba it would mean the expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars, the creation of thousands of jobs in the economy at a time that they are greatly needed, can the Minister update the House as to the state of his negotiations with Alcan? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, Alcan Aluminum has always been looking at other sites in Canada.

They've been looking at sites in Quebec; they've been looking at site near Kitimat, B.C., and now apparently they are looking at a site in northern B.C., Mr. Speaker, so the news that AI can is looking at different sites in Canada, is not particularly new. It may, in fact, be new to members opposite, who probably didn't do enough homework when they sat down and started negotiat ing with Alcan in the first instance, Mr. Speaker. The negotiations with Alcan are proceeding very well.

The joint review is well under way; we are look ing at the whole range of questions relating to alumi num smelting in the middle of the country, Mr. Speaker; how it might relate to the markets in the midwest. Everything is proceeding very well in a very good technical documented manner, Mr. Speaker, and a manner that wasn't ever done before. No homework was every done before, Mr. Speaker. These people tended to do their development deal ings on the back of an envelope, Mr. Speaker. That's not the approach of this government. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, since negotiations are proceeding very well in a documented fashion, would the Minister of Energy and Mines care to advise the House as to what

schedule he's working on; what documentation he has, and make the status of the negotiations known to this House and to the people of the province. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I think we are involved in a negotiation in good faith with Alcan. We don't want to jeopardize those negotiations in any way. It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Conserva tive Party, being a bunch of sore losers would do anything, Mr. Speaker, to try and undermine those negotiations. It's not ou·r intent to negotiate at this stage in public. We think that is irresponsible. We will in fact file documents at the appro priate time.

We have made those commitments in the past, Mr. Speaker; it is our intention to live up to those com mitments, and ali i can say is that we are proceeding very well in our discussions and negotiations and review with Alcan. I don't hear AI can complaining, Mr. Speaker. I have the lost Conservative Party complain ing, Mr. Speaker, that's who I hear complaining, but not Alcan, only them. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we have one more example of how this party has changed its position from Opposition to Government. When they were in Opposition they called for public disclosure of the negotiations.

Friday, 23 April, 19 82 In view of that call tha t the NOP Party made while they were in Opp osition, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister release some information at least, to the House, as to how negotiations are going. For instance, when did they last meet with Alcan ? With whom did they meet? And on the basis of the sta tements tha t they're nego tiating without pr e-conditions, can he advise the House whether tha t means tha t the government ha s, in fact, moved off the position that they would not allow Alc an an undivided mino rity interest in a power station? MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I have, in fact, dealt with these questions previously in the House. We have had discussio ns, and very sen ior level discus sions with Alcan at the end of last week, Mr. Speaker. Those negotiations are proceed ing; they're proceed ing extremely well. We don' t set artificial deadlines like the Cons ervative government did and as they approach the ar tificial deadlines tha t they then set, Mr. Speaker, I say for electoral purposes, they then weaken their bargaining position, when they reached those artificial dead lines and found that they hadn' t reach ed much progress. We don' t negotiate tha t way.

We believe tha t is negotiating from weakn ess, Mr. Speaker. We know the style of the Leader of the Op position, in terms of his negotiating style and his skills. We ha ve the whole CFI fiasco as his direct legacy to the people of Ma nitoba, Mr. Speaker. We have indeed learned from the mistakes of the Conservative government between 1966 and 19 69, even though the Leader of the Opp osition has n't learned from his own past mis takes, Mr. Speaker. We have learned from those mis takes; we will operate in a responsible mann er, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much the Conservative Party urges us to be irresponsible.

MA. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would hope tha t the Government would be acti ng in a responsi ble manner and no one is pressing them to act in an irresponsible manne r. · In a time when the eco nomy is suffering to the extent it is, with the numb er of clo sures and the layoffs, the unemployed people tha t there are in this province, surely a little hope could be offered by the government and a few positive state ments about how their negotiations are proce eding would be in order. That's all I'm ask ing the Minister of Energy and Mines, Mr. Speaker. Will he tell the people something?

When has he met; with whom has he met; has he any hope to offer with respect to the negotia tions , or is he simply going to sit back and say, "We' re documenti ng them very well; they're going very well, but we're not going to say any thing." MR. PARASIUK: The Memb er for Turtle Mountain keeps repeating the same questions. I said we met as late as last week, Mr. Speaker, at a senior level.

I said tha t without being argumenta tive and I find tha t I have these people jumping up and possibly they don' t hear, but I will repeat that in fact, we had meetings at a sen ior level; tha t the discus sions -(l nterje c tion) last week I said, did you hear? A MEMB ER: We weren't listen ing. 17 99 MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, we met a senior level. That is a sufficient detail, I believe, Mr. Speaker. We don't want to raise in the short run, a whole set of expecta tions with artificial deadlines using false gov ernment advertising which at tha t time, Mr. Speaker, was pat ently false.

We don' t want to do that; we believe that's irresponsible. We believe the people of Manitoba felt tha t was irresponsi ble, Mr. Speaker, because despite the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payers' money right before the election, Mr. Speaker, the people of Man itoba wouldn't believe tha t type of nonsense put forward by the Cons ervative Party and they threw them out of office. Mr. Speaker, we hope to proceed in a responsible man ner. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. W.J . (Jerry) ME RCIER (SI. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour.

In view of the allegations of the owner-president of Da wsteel Ltd. tha t the union succ eeded in bankrupt ing the com pany, does the Minister of Lab our have any information he can report to the House with respect to this matter and does he still intend to intro duce first contr act legislation at this Sess ion of the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. SCHROE DER: Mr. Speaker, tha t problem was in existence for some time during last year and this year he, I understand, he has blamed the Free Press; he's blamed the banks; he's blamed the receiver; he's blamed the unions.

I don' t know whether he's put an y of the blame on himself. We are certainly as concerned as people on that side about any closu re, but I think, as the member would recogn ize, it is not tha t easy to just apportion the blame to one specific act or individual. I should say as well, that particular comp any was char ged with an unfa ir labour practice and was found guilty of that particu lar practice by the Manitoba Lab our Board some months ago. I understand tha t was part of the concern tha t the owner had.

It is my understanding as well tha t the Department of Econ omic Development is looking to see wha t, if any thing, can be done by the provinc e in this particular instance. MR. ME RCIER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the election promise to pro vide job secu rity, could the Minister indicate whether he's taking any specific ac tion with respect to ass isting employees of Dawsteel - and hopefully it will not be the case but perhaps Victoria Leather - in finding employment? MR.

SCHR OEDER: My understanding is tha t the people at Vic toria Leather are working and one of the reasons that they're working is the immediate direct and very active involvement of the Department of Ec onomic Dev elopment as well as the federal department involved, it has been an activist approach. If you would want more details on it, I would sug gest tha t you ask the Minister of Econom ic Develop ment, but with respect to the people at Dawsteel as

Friday, 23 April, 19 82 the member is aware, tha t is a bankruptcy which fa lls under federal jurisdic tion. The people who are unem ployed would be entitled to Un employment Insurance and the benefits that cus tomarily come through tha t chan nel. MR . SPEAK ER: The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition. MR . LYON: Mr Speaker, a question to the Minister of Mines and Ener gy.

In view of his report to the House this morning tha t negotiations with Alc an are appar ently proceed ing so swimmingly - although he can't or won' t identify the people with whom he has met, from those meetings, were - can the Minister then tell us if the Environme ntal Studies, which were com miss ioned by the previous government, and the soci oec onomic studies which we understand ha d been put on hold by his government, ha ve they resume d now that, as he reports to us this morning, things are going so well in the Alcan negotiations? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. MR.

PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I find tha t the Leader of the Op position a nd in the cou rse of wha t he would as sume is a fac tual premise, sta rts off by exaggerat ing wha t I had said about the negotiations. I said tha t they were proceedi ng; I said tha t they were proceed ing well. I said tha t Alcan wasn't com plaining, tha t we have met at a senior level, Mr.

Speaker; tha t the government is reviewing at a techni cal level the environmental mat erial and soci oeco nomic material provided by, I'll say tha t now, tha t that's wha t they are doing with respect to the envir on mental and the soci oec onomic material being put forward by Alcan. · But, Mr. Speaker, somehow the Leader of the Opposition would like to lead us on with a set of false expecta tions. The aluminum market is very soft and in the April 8th edition of the Montreal Gazette, Mr.

Speaker, there is a state ment that Alc an has shelved its Australian expa nsion and it very clearly says the following: "Alcan Aluminum Ltd. of Mon treal suffering from recess ion fever has deci ded to halt a big expansion project at its aluminum sme lter at Kira Kira, Australia." Mr. Speaker, the aluminum outlook is tough, the company itself has had a decl ine in it's earnings and tha t was only reported yesterday, Mr. Speaker. That means tha t it makes it some wha t difficult to predic t the exact dates of expan sion but within tha t con text, Mr.

Speaker, we are negotiating in good faith with Alca n, we are proceed ing. I don' t want to set any false expecta tions as to when the negotiations might be com pleted because I don' t think it's wise to negotiate within artificial time limits. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, gradually as we are able to extract pieces of information from the Minister, they lead to other questions.

Wha t I asked about was not information being supp lied by Alcan with respect to the environ ment and socioeco nomic studies, I asked whether or not the studies tha t were under way when his government came into office by the Environ ment Com mission of Manitoba with respect to the environment and socio ec onomic con ditions affect ing the site in the Inter lake, whether they were back on track again and my honourable friend cho se apparently not to answer that. So I ask the quest ion again, and I ask the sup plementary: if they are back on track agai n, Mr.

Speaker, does tha t mean tha t the government has now approved the site in the Interlake? MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, what we asked the government to do, Mr. Speaker, at the staff level was to review all sites, all potential sites for aluminum smelting in Man itoba. We found tha t the previous Conservative Government didn't do that, Mr. Speaker. We found tha t they did not do tha t type of homework, Mr. Speaker. We found tha t the Cons ervative Gov ernment in it's day wasn't tha t pleased nec essarily with tha t site but they said the ultimate deci sion is Alcan.

We in fact, are reviewing alternative sites with Alcan. We believe tha t is the way a responsible gov ernment should act; that they should examine all the alternatives, not jus t to determine whether in fact there's a good com promise between what I cal l the Man itoba public interest with respect to environ men tal conc erns and Alc an's own spe cific interests. We think tha t should be the product of discussion and negotiation, Mr. Speaker. We find tha t the previous government didn' t do tha t and we believe tha t should be done, tha t's wha t we are doing right now.

We are sad dene d tha t the previous government didn't do that. We make no apologies tha t they critic ize us for doing it right now, Mr. Speaker, because we believe tha t tha t's the way responsible govern ment should handle it. MR. LYON: Well now, Mr. Speaker, we're getting to some sem blanc e of the truth. Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend is now saying to the House and I'm ask ing this question, is my honour able friend sa ying to the House tha t Alcan, which ha d chosen and selected a site before his government came into office is now being asked to review a whole myriad of sites, No. 1? 18 00 Is he sa ying No. 2, tha t an environ mental and soci o eco nomic study tha t were under way when his gov ernment came into office ha s now been suspende d because the site question is in the air? And is he sayin g, No. 3, Mr. Speaker, after all of tha t, tha t the negotiations are still going well? MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm ama zed tha t the Leader of the Opposit ion is trying to fa bricate some type of major issue. I said some time ago, Mr. Speaker, tha t the whole matter of aluminum sme lting in Mani toba was bei ng reviewed, that we were ta lking to a numb er of compan ies, tha t we were launched in a very deta iled joint review with Alcan without precon dition, Mr. Speaker, looking at all as pects of alumi num sme lting.

We want to get explanations from Alcan as to whether in fact it - because we know that the gov ernment didn't do it at tha t time - it has reviewed various sites to get a very good explanation from them as to why they have cho sen Balmoral? Did they look

Friday, 23 April, 19 82 at Thompson? Did they look at Church ill? What are the implica tions there, Mr. Speaker? Those are the questions tha t we want to ask in a very deta iled man ner, Mr. Speaker. That's what we are doing with them. I don't hear Alcan compla ining. The only peo ple I hear complai ning, Mr. Speaker, over and over again are the Con servative Party which lost the elec tion. I hope tha t they don' t want to con tinue to try and undermine negotiations tha t are proceeding in good fa ith. MR . LYON: Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend the Minister of Mines and Energy says he doesn't hear from Alc an . That's why I'm ask ing the questions beca use none of us is hearing from Alcan anymore, and he ha s the auda city to stand in this House and say tha t negotiations are proceed ing well. Let him tell us, let him tell us, Mr. S peaker, the last time he met with the President of Alcan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. MR. PENNER: Yes, tha t is not a question, tha t is an other one of the the Leader of the Opposi tion' s, bad-tempered declama tions and is nothing more.

That is not what question period is about. It's an abus e of the privilege of the House. MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker, on the alleged point of order which, of course, there was not a point of order, raised by the Honourable Attorney General. I don' t think tha t you, Sir, need any instruction from a four-month vete ran as to what an abuse of the rules is. MR . SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind honour able members tha t it is the Speaker who decide s whether or not there is a point of order raised. Members in ask ing questions, are allowed to put a

preamble, hopefully restricted to one sentence which honourable members ought to be able to do. The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. MR. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, which I repeat: in the light of all of the state ments tha t the Minister of Mines and Energy had made today about negotiations going so well, even though we've heard nothing from Alcan, there's been this funereal silence now for many, many weeks, will the Minister of Mines and Energy tell the House and the people of Man itoba the last time he had a top-level meeting with sen ior exec utives or the Pr esident of Alcan with respect to furthering this great industrial develop ment for the benefit of all of the people of Man itoba? MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I met with the Presi dent of Alca n over a month ago. We had established a process jointly and it was agreed to by both of us, Mr. Speaker, that we would have the technic al work done and tha t when the techn ical work had proceeded to a particular stage, we would ha ve meetings. We didn' t wanf to go through the process tha t the previous government had undertaken of having meetings without having done their ho mework so tha t they can never raise the proper intelligent questions tha t should ha ve been raised, Mr. Speaker. That's exact ly the way 1801 CFI was negotiated, Mr.

Speaker, without the proper home work being done. We are proceeding in a very straightforward way of having meetings between myself and the President; of having techn ical work done; then we meet agai n to review tha t at particu lar stages if difficu lties arise. No difficu lties in the tech ni cal review have arisen to date, Mr. Speaker, so tha t's why we are proceed ing on the way we are. That we think is the responsible way of negotiating -not the way tha t they negotiate on the back of an envelope without doing their homework supposedly at a high level giving away things tha t they know nothing about, Mr.

Speaker. I would ask the people of Man itoba to go up to the Pas; take a look at huge buildings tha t have very little equipment in them; take a look at 11 -acre buildings which now we find -(I nterjec tion)- they say we built them. They signed the agreement, Mr. Speaker; they made a lousy job of it then; we do not want to repeat their mistakes. That's why we are reviewing their material in great depth. We learned from their mis takes even though they haven't. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. Or der please. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: If I may interrupt the Or al Ques tion period for a moment to indic ate some visitors in the gallery to my right. There are 33 students from the Thompson Public School of Thompson, North Dakota, under the directi on of Mr. Olson. On behalf of all the members I welcome you this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

In view of his promise to provide inter est rate relief and an econom ic cli mate to ensure tha t small business stays in business, and in view of the comple te lack of results evidenced by the fact tha t no small business has yet received any assista nce des pite the fact tha t he said this should be an emergency program and the government has already been in office for some five months; in view of the fact that bankruptcies ha ve increased in this province by some 13 8 percent in the first th ree months of this year com pared to last; in view of the fact tha t last night the Minister of Ec onomic Development and members of tha t side refused to allow us, because of our interest in the adverse affects of any increase in the sales tax refused us to ask her whether or not she would oppose any increase in the sales tax because of its adverse effect on smal l business; would the First Min ister, Mr.

Speaker, find someo ne who is interested in small business to oc cupy that post if, indeed, there is anyone interested in small business on that side? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to ha ve the

- - - - Friday, 23 April, 1982 opportun ity to speak. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. Would the members give the Honourable First Minister the cou rtesy of answ ering the question? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to respond to the question by the Honourable Member for St. Nor bert.

I ha ve had opportunity to sit in on some of the discussions pertaining to the Estimates of the Minis ter responsible for Eco nomic Development, and I must say, and I say this without a moment's hesita tion, the Minister of Ec onomic Development is provid ing leadership tha t we have not seen in the province for the past five years. Mr. Speaker, wha t is disturbing the Member for St. Norbert and his seat mate, the former Minister of Ec onomic Development, is tha t finally in this pro vinc e, Mr.

Speaker, there is a Minister tha t's providing leadership; there is a Minister tha t in the space of five months ha s done more in her department to assist the small business clima te, under very, very difficult cir cums tan ces brought about by Conservative mone tary policy, than indeed was the case under the pre vious four years of stewardship by the former Premier of this province, the present Leader of the Oppo sition and the former Minister of Ec onomic Development, the present Member for Sturgeon Creek. Mr.

Speaker, I am not surprised tha t honourable members across the way are touchy; they're disturbed, Mr. Speaker; they' re poor losers; they haven't still recovered from their defeat on November 17 th. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tha t I have a Minister such as the Minister of Ec onomic Development, tha t day by day is demons trating the superiority of the ec onomic development policies of this Government in contr ast to the comp lete void tha t exists across the way, by a party which is bankrupt of ideas; by a Gov ernment tha t was totally discredited by the people of the Province of Man itoba. MR. MERC IER: Mr.

Speaker, with tha t kind of leader ship, would the First Minister indic ate how many more bankruptcie s will occur in this province, under that kind of leadership? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, as I said during the Budget De bate of 1981 , which I made referenc e to some months ago, I indicated tha t the dama ge tha t had been done 19 77 to 19 81 in this province was extensive. I indic ated tha t Federal Government mone tary policy had inflicted damage upon this provinc e.

The policies of Governor Bouey of the Ba nk of Can ada had inflic ted dama ge upon this provinc e, as well as other parts of Canada, as other parts of this cou n try, and I indic ated, Mr. Speaker, tha t we would require the su pport of Man itobans in general, in order to bring about the appropriate, positive and progres sive policies tha t cou ld undo the dama ge. Mr. Speaker, I indic ated it would take some time, because of the extensive damage tha t ha d been inflic ted upon this provinc e. I am pleased to state, Mr.

Speaker, tha t, indeed -in fact, I find it to be the case -more and mo re Man itobans are reflect ing and com paring favourably, the work by this government in five months, in order to undo the damage of the past four years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gimli. MR. JOHN M. BUCKLASCHUK {Gim li): Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Minister. Yesterday the First Minister add ressed a resolution on the Crow debate.

I'm just wondering, in view of today's coverage in the Winnip eg Free Press, whether the Minister has chan ged his position in the last 18 hours, or whether the hea dline is a gross ly misleading headline. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. The Honourable First Minister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, those tha t heard my speech know very well where the First Minister of this provinc e stands pertaining to the retention of the Crow rate. Mr.

Speaker, I wish, and I say this sincerely to members across the way, tha t rather than whispering in the ears of those tha t may listen to them in the corridors of this Legislature, rather than quietly express their opinions, they would come into this Cham ber, Mr. Speaker, members ac ross the way - they would come into this Cham ber and place their position on record. Mr. Speaker, my only sad ness is tha t rather than the whispering tha t takes place in the corridor, we have a void in this Chamb er as to the position that is taken by members ac ross the way.

I'm pleased to know tha t Jake Epp, the Member for Provencher, a member of the party across the way, ha s made his position cl ear. I only wish tha t members across the way would be as cou rageous as some of the Cons ervative members of this province that have already spoken out in the House of Commons, pertaining to the Crow. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Mem ber for Robin-Russell. MR. J. WALLY McKE NZIE {Robi n-Russ ell): Mr. Speaker, I used to be an actor in high school .

I wonder if you would mind me prac tising my ac ting skills here today, like the First Minister does -flex my muscle s and tear my hands out - which way to the camer a? Mr. Speaker .. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member ha ve a question? MR. McKEN ZIE: I have a question for the First Minis ter of this provinc e, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the First Minister, Mr.

Speaker, because of the fact yesterday I got a letter on the table tha t tells me his Minister of Ec onomic Development ha s no correspondenc e between Ross burn and Pilot Mound che ese plants, no correspon denc e of any plant; can he tell me now if tha t is the best ec onomic Minister tha t this province has ever seen? 18 02 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. LAURENT DESJAR DINS {St. Boni face): Now I'm co nvinc ed tha t he's been cont amina ted by the pigeon and I'll make sure that he .

Friday, 23 April, 19 82 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The time for question period ha ving expired, Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. HANSARD CLARIFICATIONS MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded as I was listening to the ans wers of the members opposite that there's an error on page 1707 of Hansard, where I had referred to the an swer being given by the Minister of Finance as "ba fflegab." Hans ard records it as "b at tlegab." I would ask tha t change be made, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The correct ion is noted.

The Hon ourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.M. (Doug) GOURLAY (Swan River): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to record another change in the Tuesday, 20th of April copy of the Hans ard. Page 16 7.9, change the name of Mr. Downe y in two places, to tha t of myself. MR. SPEAKER: So noted. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. DONALD ORCHARD (Pemblna): Mr. Speaker, I also have a correct ion in Hansard, stem ming from Monday, April 19 th, 19 82, page 1597 in which Hans ard has apparently missed a phrase that I used in metric, in the metric debate.

It is followed by th ree dots and a quest ion mark in two places. The phrase I used was "dick spraddle" and I'd like to have Ha nsard be co rrected, sa ying tha t, "I'd like him to tell me how many centi metres there are in a dick spraddle." MR. SPEAKER: So noted. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON CROW RESOLUTION MR. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adj ourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Transport with respect to the Crow rate. MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed Res olution of the Honourable Minister of Government Services, stand ing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Por tage la Prairie. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. LLOY D HYDE (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared at this time to speak on the issue. Mr. Speaker. I am willil'Jg and ready to listen to any further talks tha t may be brought forward on the floor of this House at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to let the matter sta nd.

If there is no one prepared to speak we are as king tha t the question be called. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. Order please. Is the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie prepared to proceed ? MR. HYDE: No. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. MR. LYON: I'm rising on a point of order and a ques tion to the House Leader. ls he sa ying for the first time that I know of tha t the government is not going to permit regular debate to take place on a resolution? MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. Or der please.

I'm trying to hear the Leader of the Opp osi tion's point of order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. LYON: I'm ask ing the question, is this the inten tion of the Government House Leader, that he will not allow a member to stand the debate today? That being the case, will he not permit the normal courtesy of a further adjournment of this debate? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Governm ent House Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, the rules are quite cl ear, that if there is no one prepared to speak on a motion the question is to be put -( Interje cti on)- tha t's not nonsense at all, tha t is a rule of the House and I'm speak ing to tha t point of order. Our position is quite cle ar, tha t under normal circums tan ces from time to time courtesies are extended, but if the honourable members want to debate this resolution in the hall and not in the House, we ha ve no choic e but to call it the question. MR. LYON: Now, Mr.

Speaker, are we ac tually hear ing from the alleged Leader of this Ho use, on the government side, tha t this government, this govern ment that subscri bes allegedly to free speech, and to open government, Mr. Speaker, is the House Leader sa ying tha t an adj ournment will not be permitted in normal circums tances? 18 03 MR. PENNER: The Honourable Member from Por tage la Prairie stood it yesterday and he seeks now to stand it today. That is an abus e of the debating proce dure in the House.

Any member -we do no t want to sto p debate -any member opposite may now rise, or any member on this side, may now rise, we would make no attempt to stop them. So, do not have them attribute motives when we're simply drawing atten tion to the rules of this House. We are saying if no one is prepared to speak, we're as king that the question be ca lled. Tha t is perfectly normal, tha t is perfectly correct. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm as king the House Leader whether it isn't his intention to deny an adjournment of the debate on this resolution today?

- - Friday, 23 April, 1982 MR. PENNER: There is no motion for adjournment. It's not up to me to either permit or deny an adj ourn ment. If someone there wants to move an adjou rn ment, then a motion for an adj ournment, I suppose, must be heard and voted upon, and tha t is not indeed what I said. I said if there is no one prepared to speak to the motion which is before the House -and there is no motion for an adjournment before the House -then the question is to be cal led. That's all that I've said. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. Order please.

It is a longstanding pract ice and tradition in this House tha t if a member is not prepared to speak on a particular motion tha t day, tha t the House allow the matter to stand over with another member eligible or entitled to speak on tha t particular item if he wishes to do so. When no one else wishes to speak the matter sta nds in the name of the member who ha s the adj ournment. However, it is the ent itlement of the House if they so wish to insist that the matter be dealt with and it come to a vote if there is no one willing to speak. Those are the rules; tha t is the pract ic e tha t we have contin ued.

Is th ere any other member to speak on the issue? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, back in approximately 19 73 or thereabouts, my col league -although I wasn' t a member of Her Maj esty's loyal Op position at tha t time -the MLA for Fort Garry made a reference to the muffled cadenc e of jack boots in the halls of the Legis lature, and today, Mr.

Speaker, we have heard the Attorney-General of this provinc e and the Govern ment House Leader onc e again drag out the jack boots and try to throttle the right of the Op position to debate responsibly an issue of major importance to all Man itobans. The muffled cadence of jack boots is alive and well in the mind and the previous political background and the pr esent Attorney-General. Any day in this Province of Man itoba, Mr. Speaker, any day in the Provinc e ... MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. I' m trying to hear the remarks of the Honourable Member for Pembina .

If honourable members do not wish to co-operate and listen to the honourable member, perhaps they would cont inue their caucus meetings outside somewhere. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR . PENNER: I'm rising on a point of privilege.

Doing my duty as Government House Leader, I drew the attention of the Speaker to a rule of the House and ask for a ruling, and for having done that, and the rules of the House are developed over long years as part of the parliamentary democratic tradition and for tha t member to talk to me, who fought in the last war overseas agains t fascism about ja ckboots , is a breach of privilege which I will not tolerate. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. MR. PENNER: Sir, I demand a withdrawal. I th ink he owes me the courtesy of a withdrawal. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

Because of the lack of decoru m in the House, I was unable to hear what the Honourable Member for Pembina was sa ying, I will review Hans ard when it come s out, to see. In the mean time I would ask the Honourable Member for Pembina to review what he has said and to take the necessar y ac tion. The Honourable Member for Pembina . The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, will you rule on whether or not the Attorney-General had a point of privilege on the basis of the fact tha t he did not conclude his point of privilege with a substa ntive motion. It is clearly out of order. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. PENNER: If the Honourable Mem ber for Pem bina after reviewing his rema rks is not prepared to withdraw, I will have a motion. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. There was not a matter of privilege since it was not followed by a substa ntive motion, but the matter was brought to the attention of the House and to the attention of the Chair. I will ask agai n tha t the Honourable Memb er for Pem bina review his rema rks and take the appropriate ac tion. The Honourable Member for Pembina . MR. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, when the government of this provinc e is represented in the House in this Chamb er by the House Leader, the present Attorney General, tries to muffle the opportun ity for debate by Her Majes ty's Loyal Opp osition, I think tha t is caus e for concern for all Manitobans. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, when the First Leader, the First Minister of this province aided and abetted by his Attorney-General are cha stising members of Her Maje sty's Loyal Opposition for daring to step outside of this Chamb er and speak to the press on an issue of importance to all rural Manit oba, tha t is an issue of concern to all Man itobans. Is the Attorney-General who ha s in the past spoke for the freedoms and the liberties and the rights of Manit obans, now denying Her Majesty's Loyal Opp o sition the right of freedom of speech to the mem bers of the press gallery? Is tha t wha t he's sa ying?

Is tha t wha t this First Minister is as king us to do, not to speak to the press? I think all Man itobans want to hear tha t kind of a stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minis ter of Health on a Point of Or der. MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr. Chairman , on a point of order, I would like to ask you to rule to see if the debate is ac tually on the motion that we ha ve in front of us. 1804 MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Honourable Memb er for Pem bina is making some introuduc tory remarks prior to dealing with the matter on the Or der Paper. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, did I hear you cor rect ly, and ruled tha t this was all right, tha t you can ha ve introduc tory remarks and cover the waterfront?

Friday, 23 April, 1982 Is that what you are sa ying? MR. SPEAKER: That was my intent from hearing the ho11ourable member. The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina to the Resolution. l\4R. QRC HAffQ: Thi mk you, Mr. Speaker. If I might have the kind attention from the Minister of Health, I might con tinue with my rema rks on the Res olution. Mr. Speaker, there have been a numb er of contribu tions to date on this Res olution.

The notable ones, I must say, tha t I ha ve heard are from my colleag ue the MLA for Lakeside and my col league, the Memb er for Roblin-Russell who contri buted to the debate on this Resolution consi derable thoug ht, considerable sup port and Mr. Speaker, I contr ast tha t sharply with the contri bution of some of the members of the govern ment of this province including yesterday, the First Minister's contri bution. The basic premise on wh ich members of the N.D. Party ha ve approached this Res olution is the tradi tional, socialis t harangue agai nst the CPR.

I want to paraphrase, I want to empha size tha t I have no partic ular love for the CPR but I also ha ve no particular hate for the CPR as is constantly demons trated by members of the N.D. Party. You know, th is Crow resolution and the Crow debate and the issue of the Crow freight rates stems all parties. It is being spoken to by all players in the rail-freight transportation issue. It is not only CPR tha t is sa ying to the Federal Government tha t the revenues are inadequate to haul grain, it is the CNR.

Now seldom do we hear mem bers of the govern ment mention CNR' s insistance tha t the freight rates are inadeq uate for ha uling grain today. Do you know why they don' t pick and cha stise the CNR? Because the CNR is the epitome of all its socialis ts tha t the Man itoba government stand for. It is a Crown Corpo ration. It is owned by the people and the people's railroad , the CNR of Canada wants to have more money to haul grain to export position. You would think from listening to their contribution tha t only the CPR wants more money to haul grain and tha t C.N. will conti nue to haul it at the Crow rate.

That's not the case. But we never hear the N.D. Party mention C.N .'s role in the Crow debate and their proposa ls to the Federal Government because once again, Mr. Speaker, I stress, that is a Crown Corpora tion, some thing that these people believe holds the future of Man itoba in its hand - Crown Corporations not private corporations - their criticism will always be directed towards private corporations. The Minister of Highways and Transportation, who I might say is absent today, whilst his Res olution is being debated and whilst his Attorney-General and Government House Leader are dema nding a vote on this.

His own Minister of Highways and Transporta tion is not tiere to cl ose oeQate iis WOL!ld be a normal prac tice when a Res olution is com ing to debate. Explain that to the people of Manti oba, Mr. Attorney General of the Province of Man itoba, and the inso lenc e tha t he dealt with this Ho use today in trying to force a vote without the person spons oring the Reso lution being here to cl ose debate is beyond compr e hension and it only sh ows the extreme ignorance tha t tha t man ha s of the method tha t this House is tradi tionally run on.

He can not have his jack boot way of railroading this Oppos ition to vote on an issue of importance to all Manit obans. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. Or der please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resou rces. HON. AL MA CKLING (St. James): Yes, Mr. Speaker, ea rlier the Minister of Health rose in his place and questioned as to whether or not rema rks by the Hon ourable Member for Pembina were to remain and relevant to the debate before the House and tho se were introduc tory remarks. Now the honou rable member, Mr.

Speaker, ha s been returning to remarks tha t have no relevance to the matter before the House, the motion before the House. I ask you to instruct the Honourable Member for Pembina to confine his remarks to the matter before the House. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Memb er for Pembina. 1805 MR. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I might get the Honourable Member for St. James' attention for a brief moment. He, along with the Attorney-General, should take a little lesson on how resolutions and bills are debated in this House. I might remind the Memb er for St.

James tha t tradi tion has been tha t he who introduces a Res olution traditionally cl oses debate. What I was pointing out is, why is the Government Hous e Leader now trying to force a vote on this deba te without the clo sing contri bution by his Minister who introduced it? If tha t isn't germane to the debate date then I suggest the Member for St. Ja mes go and take lessons on the Rules of th is House along with the Government House Leader so tha t they might better cond uct the operations of this House in a cohesiv e fashion. for the betterment of all Man itobans and for the information of all Man itobans.

That would be someth ing that the Member for St. Ja mes cou ld take a little lesson on. Now if it isn' t germane tha t the Minister of Transporta tion is not here to clo se debate, then I suggest the whole operation of this Ho use is in jeopardy. Now, Mr. Speaker, before I was so rudely inter rupted by the Member for St.

James, I would like to point out tha t the Minister of Highways and Transpor tation when he introduced tha t Res olution said, tha t it would not ha ve been his intention back in the 18 90s - if he were a member of the Federal Government of that da y - to proceed with the development of the rail road linking all of Canada in the manner in which the government of the day proceed ed, namely, to make land grants and money grants to a private com pany which later turned into CPR for the construction of tha t rail road. He said tha t he would ha ve preferred direct government involvement.

Well tha t flies in the face of wha t happened because the governme11t directly tried on four occa sions to build the railroad through direct government involvement and four times it fa iled, Mr. Speaker. The only time it suc ceeded was when they came up with a proposal to ama ss private capital to the building of railroad through land grants and through cash grants. That is why we have Canada as a nation today.

• Friday, 23 April, 1982 But the members of the N.D. Party ch oose tha t constantly to throw back and say tha t it has so me horrid implica tions for Canada. Well the horrid impli ca tions it had for Canada, basis 18 90 facts , is tha t Canada is a na tion from sea to sea today and not a fract ured group of provinc es tha t would ha ve later beco me part of the Un ited States of America in west ern Canada. Western Canada is now part of a nation from sea to sea because of tha t ac tion, an ac tion tha t the N.D. Party say they would not have done. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that ac tion fa iled, the action tha t they pro posed today failed on four occa ss ions to link this nation from sea to sea with a railroad. So some of the information tha t's been given on the Crow rate debate by the N.D. Party is very very questionable, it's very questionable, Mr. Speaker. Now yesterday the First Minister spoke to this Reso lution. He softened his position consider ably, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you know, he's trying to trump up a question today from the Member for Gimli so tha t he can now send Hans ard out to poor beleaguered Allan Blakeney in Saskatchewan who is in the process of losing an elec tion, sa ying, "Allan, I didn't soften my position on the Crow rate, please believe me," and this is what this First Minister abus es question period try ing to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, he wants a vote today. The Hon ourable First Minister of this provinc e wants a vote on this issue today. He wants to stifle the opportun ity of Her Maj esty's Loya l Opposition to contrib ute to this debate.

He wants to end it today. He wants a vote today. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the First Minister about four simple questions, and I'll make them very simple so he might be able to ans wer them. Why would the First Minister today want to vote on this Res olution when it is only starting next week that his own government is going to co mmun ities in rural Man itoba to present the Provincial Government's position?

Does he want a Resolution to pass in this House without the reflec tion of the collective thought of farmers and producers throughout the Provinc e of Manit oba which are going to be given to him in the meetings of next week? Does he want the Res olution to go without the wis dom of the farm co mmunity of Man itoba? If tha t is why he wants a vote then I think tha t's shame ful. It sh ows the total disregard tha t the N.D. Party has for rural Man itoba and the farm com munity. They don't care about the farm com munity in rural Man itoba.

I want to ask him, why he would pass this Resolu tion today without properly as similating farmer reac tion at his farm meetings? I want to know also, why this First Minister is so adamant about getting this Res olution passed today , when in about a week-and a-halfs time we're going to have a preliminary report from Dr. Clay Gilson who has collected the thoug hts of all producer groups and affected parties to the Crow rate resolution. Why does he want to vote toda y when tha t information is co ming up in 10 days time and may alter the direc tion of the Res olution?

Well I can't answer that, maybe the First Minister can. Well, why, Mr. Speaker, are we ask ing for a vote today? I suggest to you one reason and one reason only why we want a vote today and tha t is to try and give some gras p, some straw to save drowning Allan Blakeney from an election co ming up on Monday. He's hoping, he's hoping, Mr. Speaker, tha t he cou ld get some thing out of this Legislature to help his socialis t bedfellow in Saskatchewan get reelected when he's in extreme danger. I want to point out to him, that his soc ialist count erpart in Saskatc hewan, Mr.

Blakeney, cal led a provincial election hoping to fight it on the Crow rate and tha t elec tion issue disap peared on him and now, Mr. Blakeney is in trouble. His issue, his lack luster government has no other issue and he ha s called upon his soul mate in Mani toba, the First Minister of this provinc e to provide him with some straw to save him from drowning. Well I object, Mr.

Speaker, to the First Minister and the Lead er of the New Democra tic Party of Man itoba, using Manit oba farmers in such a callous way to pre vent them the opportun ity next week to have their opinions voiced to his travelling road show on the Crow rate and have it not reflected in a Res olution tha t he want s us to pass today. That callous disregard for rural Man itoba is why tha t government never has and never will represent rural Man itoba in this Legislature. That is a callous disregard and it's predicated simply, Mr. Speaker, on the political designs of the N.D. Party.

And let me talk about tha t for a moment, let me talk about tha t. The Crow rate issue is one of extreme importance to western Canada. It is of extreme impor tance to rural Manitobans. It is of extreme importance to the producers of grain, special crops and livestoc ks across the prairie provinces. Farmers want to have a rational debate on the issues of the Crow rate - and if the First Minister would quit ca ckling from his seat I might be able to tell him. Will you kindly give me the honour of listening? Thank you. Now, Mr.

Speaker, farmers want to undertake a logical reasone d debate based upon some fac tual information on the Crow rate, the implications of any change to the Crow rate on their industry and on their individual farm viability. Now, Mr. Speaker, tha t means tha t the debate should take place in as fac tual, in as non partisan basis as cou ld possibly happen but, Mr. Speaker, tha t isn't what is happen ing. The Federal N.D.

Party in perusing issues from which they can glean extra seats in the next federal elec tion, ha ve said tha t the issue in Western Canada is the Crow rate and if we can harness the politics of the Crow rate we will be able to glean th ree, four, five, maybe six new seats in Western Canada. Now farmers ha ve never asked for the Crow rate to be an issue by which soc ialist M.P .s will be elected to the Federal Parliament - never.

They ha ve wa nted the Crow rate to be debated and presented in a fac tual way, to know wha t may happen to it, to know wha t the Federal Government proposition is but tha t isn't wha t they're getting, Mr. Speaker. 1806 They are getting from the Federal NOP M. P.s in their mailouts from Ottawa a series of questionable facts and figures about the Crow rate and the y are harnes sing it as a political issue. The politics of the issue can be no cle arly identified than by the fact tha t in our neighboring provinc e of Saska tc hewa n, Pre mier Allan Blakene y of the N.D.

Party called an elec tion on the basis of fighting it on the Crow rate, noth ing more, nothing less. The N.D. Party in Western Canada is relegating the Crow rate debate to a one line slogan of "save the Crow, don' t kill the Crow," not

Friday, 23 April, 1982 to entertain logical, fac tual and rational debate on the issue amon gst the farm com munity, but simply to win electoral powers so they can carry on their programs of nat ionalizing fa rms, rail roads and all of the facilities of producti on. That's what they want to do. They don't want a logical debate on the Crow rate, it's merits, it's problems. They don' t want a rational debate on the downf alls and the shortco mings of the federal proposal. No. They want to confus e the issue with slogans for crass political gain and tha t's the problem.

Now, tha t's the problem in this issue, the farmers want to discuss it. They want to know the facts. Well, wha t have they got for facts? They've got an elec tion com ing up in Saskatchewan where we see some of the members in this House wearing the nice little stick-on buttons, printed by the New Democr atic Party of Saskatchewan which has a dead Crow. How is the Crow killed, Mr. Speaker? It's killed by an arrow which I think has some rac ist implica tions and over tones that the N.D. Party haven't consi dered. But, Mr.

Speaker, the head of the arrow ha s Progressive Con servative on it and the feat hers on the arrow ha ve the Lib.era! Party emblem on it. If tha t isn' t a crass political distortion of the Crow rate issue, I don't know wha t is. That is what is conf using the farmers in Saska tc he wan right now, they don' t believe the N.D. Party any more.

Now, this government in this province has cho sen, with the excep tion of the First Minister's speech yes terday in which he softened his position and he said yes, farmers are willing to pay more - he realizes tha t - he's softening his position from tha t trad itional national farmers union position tha t has always been part-and-parcel of any New Democr atic farm policy in the Provinc e of Man itoba. They, believe, Mr. Speaker, truly and honest ly, tha t all farmers are represented by the National Farmers Uni on.

They believe tha t the National Farmers Un ion policy is the one tha t the farm com munity agrees with. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the members of the New Democrat ic Party and I want to urge them to con tinue following the advice of the National Farmers Un ion, because the National Farmers Uni on is out of touch with 98 percent of the farmers in Man itoba. As long as they follow the advice of the NF U they will be a one-term government and rural Man itoba will con sistently vote Cons ervative as they ha ve in the past number of elections. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you exac tly wha t the NFU represents, those less than 300 members who are so adamant agai nst the Crow rate and the Pepin proposal and any discus sion on the Crow rate.

They represent in the majority less than 300 fa rmers, but in the majority tho se farmers are generally the ones that ha ve gone broke; they' re no longer part of the farming com mun ity; they're no longer actively enga ged in farming; they've gone broke in the syste m and havi ng g9ne broke, they're going to share the wisdom of their experience of going broke with the rest of the farmers in Manit oba who, thank you very much, are surviving and making money and living by the syste m, they want to sh are their sec ret of going broke so tha t all farmers in Man itoba can go broke. Unf ortuna tely the N.D .

Party adheres to the policy admonitions of the National Farmers Union. In other words, this government want s all farmers to go broke as better than half the members of the NFU ha ve to date. That's the policy development they want to go to. The big issue in the Crow rate accor ding to members opposite I've listened to, is the fact tha t they don't want farmers to pay more money. They want farmers to retain the rate tha t's there, farmers can not stand to spend more money. Mr. Speaker, tha t's fine, I don't want farmers to spend more money either.

I'd like to ha ve freight rates forever and a day at 15 cents a bushel for wheat. Ok ay but, wha t ha s the National Farmers Uni on told the N.D . Party to do about this little goody? We ha ve heard noth ing from the N.D . party on this annou nc e ment, "U.S. Canada Seaway Toll Hikes." In 198 2, this cu rrent fiscal year, seaway tolls on freight of grain in the Great Lakes System is going to go up 17 percent and it will go up 8 perce nt next year. Has the N.D. Party said any th ing about tha t?

Have they said to the Federal Government, farmers canno t afford to pay more on the seaway where 95 percent of Manit oba's grain goes, do they say anyth ing? No. They're dumb ly silent because there's no politics in cond emning sea way rates, but there is politics accor ding to them in condem ning the Crow rate change s. Have we seen the N.D. Party in this province last spring, when the grain hand lers were on strike in Thund er Bay, when the labour unions in Thund er Bay, the buddies of the N.D.

Party were on strike thwarting the delivery of grains from Man itoba farmers, killing the Manit oba farm ec onomy, losing sales, pre venting the payment of operating loans through the sale of grain by our Man itoba fa rmers because the union, their buddies were on strike? Was there one Man itoba New Democr at tha t said anyth ing about that? No. 1807 They didn' t say a word about the increase in wages tha t those union people took from Man itoba farmers in Man itoba because the elevator char ges went up to reflect higher wage costs of their union buddies in Thunder Bay. Did they say a word about tha t? No.

Dea thly silent, Mr. Speaker, beca use if they said a word against the labour unions, the labour unions might not walk arm in arm down the street in solidarity forever with the New Democr atic Party. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is increased cost to the farmer. Everytime a labour union goes on strike in Thunder Bay and pre vents the shipm ent of Man itoba grains to an export ma rket, it costs Man itoba farmers money. It's lost sales and when you lose a sale, you lose it forever.

But they're strangely silent about tha t because their union buddies wouldn't let them talk out about tho se kind of cost increases to the farmer. Not a word. So I let my case sta nd on tha t, Mr. Speaker, tha t this issue is strictly a political issue that the N.D. Party hopes to garner more seats in the next federal election. Now, Mr. Speaker, why are fa rmers in a state of some confusion over this issue of Crow rate right now? Well, I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because, trad itionally, farmers distrust the N.D. Party in Mani toba. They don' t vote for them.

They don' t believe in the princip les espous ed by the N.D. Party such as state ownership of land, such as marketing boards, production controls and the airy-fairy state ments tha t we heard in the Min ister of Economic Development's

Friday, 23 April, 1982 presentation of Estimates on Agriculture, and the way land should be held and the way land is being ruined and mined, etc. They don' t believe in tha t for one moment, Mr. Speaker, so anyth ing the N.D. Party says about agricultural polic y is taken with a great deal of distrust and viewed with a jaundic ed eye by farmers in Manitoba. The seco nd reason there's confu sion, Mr. Speaker, is because farmers in Man itoba abs olutely do not trust the Federal Liberal Government. Here we ha ve, Mr.

Speaker, a situation in the rural co mmun ities where the Federal Liberal Government is proposing a change. The Provincial NOP are sa ying tha t change is wrong. They ha ve advice on one side from a Federal Liberal Government they distrust, and they ha ve information on the other side com ing from an N.D . Party they distrust equally as much in rural Man itoba. Hence the confusi on. Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Highways and Transportation introduced this resolution, he said, "We want it to be a non-partisan debate." And wha t then did the Minister of Transportation promptly fol low up with?

Well, it's going to be a no n-partisan debate, he says and he followed up with a press release in which he says that farmers will be paying four times the Crow rate in about five years and nearly 1 O times the Crow rate in 19 90. He clai ms this informa tion to be developed in Man itoba. He claims this to be information developed by the Man itoba Department of Transportation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you where that information came from.

It came directly out of an elec tion broc hure from the Province of Sas katchewan put out by the Honourable Gordon McMur chy who is fighting the Pepin Plan tha t come s from - they don' t have page numb ers - but it's Table 1, Cost of Prairie Transport under the Pepin Plan. That's where the Minister of Transportation's infor mation came from in this press release. Now, do you understand, Mr. Speaker, why fa rmers in rural Mani toba are conf used about the so-called fac tual infor mation tha t is being presented by the N.D. Party?

It comes directly from New Democra tic Party elec tion campai gn material in the Province of Saska tche wan. It's imported by tha t veritable sta lwart of agricul tural polic y for Man itoba, Bill Jansen, who was imported from Saskatchewan by the Minister of Highways and Transportation at $5, 000 a month plus expen ses, to write a Crow-rate position, to write a beef-income position and to ruin the bloody farm eco nomy like he tried to do in the eight years of the Sch reyer ad ministration. Now you ask why fa rmers of Man itoba distrust this NOP Party over here? I'll tell you why they do.

It's because of tha t kind of recyc led, out-of-date thinking from Bill Jan sen and the Sas katchewan NOP. I want to tell you one other thing tha t makes the farmers of Man itoba terribly distrustful. It's the Ma rch 26th press release put out by the Minister of Highways and Transportation in which he us es the Turchenie wich Report. He says the Turcheniewich Report has identified tha t farmers are going to pay 3.4 times the Crow rate to move their grain.

Clearly in this press release and any information he has given out so far, he leaves the precise impression tha t the farmer, tomorrow, with the adoption of the Pepin proposal with pay 3.4 times the Crow rate. And, Mr. Speaker, in 1808 questioning him in his Estimates, he co uldn't back tha t up. I understa nd why he can't back it up because the Turchen iewich Report has no relevance to the Pepin proposal. The Turcheniewich Rep ort was done with the basic question being asked: what will happen if farmers have to pick up the entire comp ens atory freight rate? And tha t's when we pay 3.4 times.

The Pepin proposal says it will pick up the differential to 3.4 times the freight rate so tha t farmers this year will pay no additional cost, but clearly the impression from this press release by the Minister of Highways and Transportation is tha t farmers are immediately going to pay more. Now do you understand the confusi on in rural Man itoba? And this promised by a Minister of Trans portation who says he want s this to be a non -partisan debate. Now, further, do you understa nd, Mr.

Speaker, why we want not to vote on this today, but to con tinue debating this, particula rly in view of the fact tha t Min ister of Transportation is going to the people of Mani toba next week with five meetings throughout rural Man itoba to listen to the farmers? I want to hear the farmers' react ions to this kind of mislead ing state ment put out by the Minister of Highways and Transportation. But they don't want tha t kind of information and feedback to come from rural Man itoba.

They want to conti nue having their NFU buddies go to these meet ings and crowd the microphones with NFU members as king the question so tha t the legitimate farmers, the fa rmers tha t are still in business, canno t get up and ask an honest, forthright question of the speakers there. That has happened at every -(l nterje c tion) and the Minister of Health is sa ying, "Oh, tha t's not right." He ha sn't been to farm meetings like I have.

I have seen every farm meeting I have been to on a contr oversial issue, they're plugged with the NFU ad herants in this province and those people crowd to the microphones, ask all of the left-wing questions that favo ur the N.D . Party and the legitimate farmers are thwarted from getting to those mikes. And, Mr. Speaker, that's wha t will happen in Winkler; tha t's wha t will happen in Brandon, Dau phin and every other place tha t this government is taking their cam paign. The NF U will be there in force; the same peo ple, the same group as king the same questions at every meeting.

And they try to mislead the news peo ple tha t are there with the impress ion tha t represents legitimate farm questions. Well, noth ing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, ano ther little item tha t the farmers of Man itoba ha ve been su bjected to by the Min ister of Highways and Transportation, is the development of wha t the cost per holder of shipping grain by rail would be with a scenario of up to five times sta tutory rate. I questioned them on tha t. I said, "Wh en is this expected to happen?

When do you expect Manitoba farmers will be paying five times Crow rate?" And he says he doesn't know. Well then, wha t is the point of th is? And I submit, Mr. Speaker, the point of it is to scar e and mislead the farm com mun ity, not to present them with the facts as the Minister of Highways and Transportation had said would be part and parcel of this debate in rural Mani toba; no, but rather to raise the aura of fear out there in the rural com munities so tha t logical, rational debate

Friday, 23 April, 1982 canno t take place on the issue. Press release by Mr. Uskiw: "I ncr eased rail spending to benefit Man itoba least," and he uses tha t for a justifica tion to oppose any change in the Crow rate. Mr. Speaker, I respect fully submit tha t ha s no rele vance to the issue; it has no relevance whatsoever. In fact , the way it's presented by the Minister of High ways and Transportation it is, indeed, misleading and it is, indeed, telling the people of Man itoba inco rrect information because, Mr.

Speaker, it says tha t Mani toba shou ld not basicall y support increased rail investment in western Canada because only 4.7 per cent of tha t money will be spent in Man itoba; tha t Man itoba's system is operating quite well, thank you very much. There is a flaw to tha t argument, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Highways and Transportation knows there's a flaw to it but he still puts out tha t kind of misleading press releases. The flaw, quite simply, Mr.

Speaker, is tha t if the mon ey is not spent by who mever, to increase the capac ities through the moun tain region where most of the money is being spent, then grain shipments ca nno t use the limited capacity out there, so tha t the increase in grain movement can't go to the West Coast. Therefore, where will it go, Mr. Speaker? It will come through Thunder Bay and you know wha t the effect of that will be on Man itoba farmers, the producers that this government claims to protect?

Wha t will happen when increased move ments, because of lack of capacit y through the moun ta in region, throttles exports through the port of Van couver and Prince Rupert? Wha t will happen is shipments from Saska tchewan and even Alberta will clog the Man itoba syste m to Thund er Bay, and tha t will reduce the delivery opportun ities of Man itoba farmers; the very farmers tha t party claims to be pro tecti ng. This press release is false, Mr. Speaker, in the impress ion it leaves with the people of Man itoba, with the farmers of Man itoba.

Any improvement in capacity to the West Coast will benefit Man itoba farmers because ii will move increased amou nts of grain to the west coast to get a higher f.o.b. price out of Vancou ver which is pooled by all producers, including the producers in Man itoba so tha t our prices go up as more exports go through Vancouver. The Minister of Transportation knows tha t but he sure doesn't tell the story at this press release. So, now do you see why Man itoba farmers are concerned? Mr.

Speaker, I notice tha t you are giving me the five minute signal; I really regret tha t because there are many, many issues tha t are going to be discus sed on the Crow rate in this Chamb er over the next several weeks. I am only half way through the issues tha t I want to discus s today; l'm· only half way through. But, Mr. Speaker, I will accept tha t there's only five min utes left. But I want to jus t put one more point on the line.

There was one press release tha t was miss ing; the press release being an analy sis of what the positive impact would be on the Port of Churchill if the Federal Government succeeds in raising freight rates on grain in western Canada. The Port of Churchill will receive greater volumes of grain because it is the shor test distance tha t grain can travel to a salt-water port. Is there any mention of tha t benefit to Man itobans in the Port of Church ill? No, there's no mention of tha t. There's only the negative things on the Crow rate deba te as if there was only one way to go and tha t is negative. Mr.

Speaker, I'm conc erned about this insert to the Man itoba Co-operator because it was just put out and I ju st rece ived it this morning. This insert, by the Minister of Highways and Transportation of the Prov ince of Man itoba, contains a sum mary of the press releases which I ha ve said are so questionable in their fact ual presenta tion and this has gone out to every single farmer in rural Manit oba who is a sub scriber to the Man itoba Co-operator. That isn't the no n-partisan fac tual debate tha t the Minister of Highways and Transportation promised us in this House when he introduced this resolution. Mr.

Speaker, I want to basically cl ose by sa ying tha t we intend to deba te this resolution fully in this House. We don' t intend to be intimidated by the Attorney Gene ral, the Government House Leader, in attem pt ing to clo se the deba te on this very important issue to rural Man itobans. I am going to speak on this resolu tion again and I may speak on it a third time, and many of my members are going to do tha t and you know wha t we're going to reflect every single time we speak on this resolution, Mr. Speaker?

We are going to have the opportunity to com ment on the farm meetings tha t are going to take place next week; we are going to have the opportun ity to comment on the recommen dations of the Gilson Report, because I submit with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, tha t we are shoo ting at a moving target right now. On e can not be for or agai nst the Pepin proposal because we don' t know what the Gilson Report is going to recommend the change s, if any, and I stress, if any, should be to the farm income.

We don' t even know what kind of use the Federal Minister will make of the Gilson Report, if any, although I fully suspect he will make some use of it, but tha t does not affect the N.D. Party in this provinc e because their's is a political motive, not a motive to resolve an issue that has vast importance to the farm com munities of Man itoba. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the N.D. Party doesn' t care about the farm com mun ity in Man itoba. They car e about their political survival and lon gevity in western Canada and tha t is all.

They will use any means to gain that; they will enterta in lie campaigns; they will distort the truth, Mr. Speaker; they won't speak to the issue for the benefit of rural Man itoba. 1809 Mr.

Speaker, I firmly obj ect to any effort on the part of the N.D. government today to bring this issue to a vote and to thwart further discussion and contri bution by our side of the House, representing the farm com munity as we do, and when we want to reflect the feelings of the farm com munity as expressed at the meetings, the feelings of the farm com munity as pres ented to Gilson through the farm organizations whose memberships extend to the length and breadth of the farming co mmun ity in Man itoba, Saska tchewan and Alberta -(I nterjec tion) - the NFU was n't at the Gil sons Repor t; they boycotted it, so we are hearing from the legitimate farm groups, not the NFU, when we hear from the Gilson Report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want the opportunity to amend this resolution because we think there are areas this government has missed in present ing this

Friday, 23 April, 1982 resolution, so an amend ment will be forthc oming. When tha t amendme nt is forthc oming I will guarant ee you, Mr. Speaker, tha t I will speak agai n on this issue, but I will only be able to do it if the Attorney-General takes his ja ck boots off and allows the debate to con tinue in this Chamb er. That is the only time I'll be able to do it. The Minister for Ec onomic Development is sa ying "shame." Did she not hear the Attorney-General try ing to thwart debate on this issue today in the House?

Did she not hear tha t; does she agr ee with the jack boot tact ics of the Attorney-General? Mr. Speaker, I can 't believe tha t the Minister of Econ omic Develop ment would agree with tha t. Mr. Speaker, ha s my time expired? I jus t ha ve one more word. We want the opportun ity to critique any recommendation tha t comes out of the Gilson Report. We want the opportun ity to offer suggest ions in addendum to the Gilson Report as representatives of the farm com mun ity.

We do not want tha t opportun ity thwarted by a government tha t wants to stymie and silence the opposition who represent the rural Mani toba co mmunities. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resou rces. MR. MA CKLING: Mr. Chairman, I rise to partici pate on the debate on the Res olution tha t is before this House with some trepidation, and my trepidation, Mr. Speaker, is tha t I will cont ain the ju stifiable angerthat I feel within me at the way in which the official opposi tion in this Legislature has dealt with this Res olution. Mr.

Speaker, the vituperative outburst from the Member for Pembina underlines my concern. He said from his chair and he repeated again, the epithet of jack boot tact ics and , Mr. Speaker, tha t is foreign to this Legislature. That belongs ac ross the sea where the Honourable Attorney-General went to fight to protect his countr y and for the Honourable Member for Pembina to use tha t kind of slur is a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to the electo rs of Pembina. It's a shame. Mr.

Speaker, I ha ve difficu lty cons training my feel ings when the honourable members have obviously attempted to frustrate debate in this Legislature on this Res olution. The other day the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie adj ourned the de bate, he sought to adj ourn the debate today again and frustrate any further debate on it. The Attorney-General as House Leader made it clear tha t we want ed the Res olution debated.

For the Honourable Member for Pembina to suggest tha t urging debate in this House is muzzling debate is so far from logic tha t I can't understand how he could be elected to this House, to suggest muzzling debate. We have sought, Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. Does the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie have a point of order? MR. HYDE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member stated that I adjou rned the debate, I did. I also made it known this morning in this Legislature tha t the debate could conti nue. I did not adjourn the debate this morning.

The Honourable 1810 Minister is wrong in making tha t state ment. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A dispute about the facts between two members does not constitute a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Natural Res ources. MR. MAC KLING: Mr. Speaker, the gyrations, the movements, the unc ertainties of the official opposi tion confi rmed what I believed to be fact, they didn't know what they were going to do because they wanted to postpone debate in this House on this issue. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Because of an elec tion in our sister province. And wha t did they do, Mr. Speaker?

They carried on the most sleazy political maneuv ering on an issue tha t's important to the farmers of this coun try the likes of which we've never seen before. The Free Press edition of April 23 quotes, and the head line is so misleading: "P awley softening sta nd on Crow rate Conservatives sa y." I can ass ure you, Mr. Speaker, ju st as certain as I'm standing here tha t honourable members engineered a con versation with the press, gave them this so-called story, rushed tha t to their divine leader in Saskatc hewan and this is the worst, dirtiest kind of politics that this province has ever seen.

Let me quote from the article. Here's the Honour able Member -t he Honourable Member-f or Morris sa ying: "The Res olution is written loosely and gives the opportun ity to come away from the government's entrenched position, he said." Well, let's look at the Res olution. "THEREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED tha t this House express its strong disap proval of the unilateral and soc ially and ec onom ical ly unaccepta ble proposal of the Federal Government to remove the statutory rates on grain." How is that loosely worded, Mr. Speaker?

That's abso lute nonsense, tha t's mischie f, tha t's polit ical mischie f on the part of the Member for Morris. The fact tha t in their devious way they ha ve tried to slip and slide on this issue underlines their political unc er tainty in this provinc e, Mr. Speaker. The few speakers tha t have add ressed this issue from the opposition side have wobbled and waddled and st raddled each side of the question. They've shown their comple te political cowar dice on this question.

The Honourable Member for Pembina in his utter arroganc e, in his demeaning state ments in this House talks about conf using the farmers of Man itoba. What's conf using to the farmers of Manit oba who elected a good numb er of members ac ross the way, is the utter incom petenc e, the utter irresponsibility of the opposition in respect to this question. The silenc e of the honourable members, Mr. Speaker, on this question is deafening ... MR. SPEA KER: Or der please. The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, on page 10 7 of Beauc hesne, the Fifth Edition, "irresponsib le" is listed as an unparliamentary term and I would request tha t the Minister withdraw tha t ch arge. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Minis ter of

Friday, 23 April, 1982 Natural Resou rces. MR. MA CKLING: Mr. Speaker. if to call an honour able member · is irresponsib le, is unparliamentary, I regret tha t because I believe it should not be but if it is then, Mr. Speaker, it's very easy for me to substitute the phrase, tha t the honourable member is without responsibility. I ass ume that tha t will be accepta ble to the hono urable member. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, I simply am drawing the rule to your attention, Sir, because I know tha t it's your desire that we stick as clo sely as we can to the rules. MR. SPEAKER: On the sa me point of order, the Hon ourable Minister? MR. MA CKLING: No, I'm no t. I'm waiting. MR . SPEAKER: I'm referring to Beauchesne and the reference given to me by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. I find tha t "irresponsi ble" appears to be the title drawing the readers eye to the fact tha t the words "irresponsible members and irresponsi ble reply were deemed as unparliamentary" in the past in Ottawa.

I am a little unc ertain whether the use of the particular word in the phrase used by the Honourable Minister constitut ed the use of unparliamentary lan guage. Sinc e it's been drawn to the attention of the House and to the Minister, perhaps the Minister cou ld con tinue with his remarks. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resou rces. MR. MA CKLING: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the con cern of the Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mountain, he's concerned to interrupt my speech and he has done tha t but tha t ac tion does not conf use me or dissuade me from tel ling the truth in this House.

Something that I think hono urable mem bers some times are con cerned about ... MR. SPEAK ER: Or der please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. SPEAK ER: Or der please. The Honourable Member for Turtle-Mounta in on a point of order. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resou rces has imputed a motive to me tha t I raised the point of order because I wanted to interrupt his speec h. Sir, I believe that drawing the rules 1to the attention of the House is something tha t is entirely accepta ble especially on the part of the Opp osition House Leader.

I had no motive to interrupt the Minis ter of Natural Resou rces and I ask tha t he withdraw tha t char ge tha t I was in fact drawing the rules to your attention simply to interrupt him. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The rules make it clear tha t all members ha ve a duty to bring lapses of order to the Speaker's attention. We also ha ve a prac tice tha t members should not impute motives to other I members. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider his remarks in tha t regard. Does the Honourable Minister of Health wish to speak to the point of order? MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I heard you say tha t we ha ve.a duty to bring up if there's any breach of rules. So therefore following tha t advice I would like you to rule on a member cal ling somebody else a snake. This was done from the seat. If we're going to have the rules let's ha ve them for everybody and I would like to ha ve you rule, Sir, on people talking about jack boots, or cal ling people com munists, in tha t ac ross the rules, in front of children. Sir, if we're going to have the rules, if it is our duty to bring it to your attention, I'm doing so and I'm as king you to rule on it. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the sam e point of order. It is indeed the duty of members to draw the rules to the attention of the House and I believe, Sir, tha t it must be done at the time tha t the alleged infrac tion occur s. Tha t is why I raised the issue at the time the Minister of Natural Resou rces made his state ment. I think it's out of order for the Minister of Health to try and raise issues on points of order tha t took place sometime ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health on the same point of order. MR.

DESJARDINS: In the spirit of co-operation I'll agree with the House Leader from the Op position. But I might say to him tha t this gentleman here, if I can call him loosely a gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, I am add ress ing my remarks to you and I can point like it has been done so often here and the remarks were made when my honourable friend was standing and I got up immediately after and I'm sa ying, Sir, bring it to your attention tha t like he always does the Member for Pembina ha s been ca lling people snake, com mun ist from his seat and he thinks it's a very big joke.

I ask you, Sir, the same thing, to rule and we will try to obey and conform to the laws what we feel are the rules and regulations - the House Leader thinks it's a big joke now, the House Leader of the Opp osition - I say the rules are made for everyone, Sir. If you're going to rule I think you should rule for all the House and all the members. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Minister of Health for bringing tha t to my attention.

I would ask all members to consider whether remarks they make from their chair which do not appear in Hans ard actu ally contribute to the level of decorum in this House or whether they detract from it. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resou rces may con tinue. 1811 MR. MAC KLING: Mr. Speaker, the ac tions of the Members of the Opp osition and the words tha t they speak are abu ndant record for their position on this matter. Wha t they have indic ated in debate is tha t they -(I nterjec tion)-

Friday, 23 April, 1982 MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. RANSOM: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Nat ural Resou rces imputed a motive to me in drawing the point of order to your attention. I ask tha t he withdraw that state ment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resou rces. MR. MACKLI NG: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the suggestion that the honourable member rose on a point of order to interrupt my speec h. The effect of his rising was to do tha t.

Wha t his intent was we will not know, therefore, I am not in a position to impute the motive that a reasonable, rational, normal, common sense asse ssment might make of his ac tion. However, I canno t know his motive and therefore, I accept the fact tha t I canno t impute that motive to him. Mr.

Speaker, when I was speaking last on the motion I indic ated tha t the concerns tha t the Honour able Member for Pembina was raising about the con fusion tha t existed in the hearts and the minds of people most interested in this question was as a result of the inadequacy of debate in this House by the Members of the Opp osition because many farmers, Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Man itoba voted for members opposite but they have been awa iting a response from them in this House on this issue. Wha t have we heard?

Well, we've heard two or three of their members say well, it's a bit early for us to say anyth ing because we want to hear what Mr. Gilson has to say and there are problems with rail in Canada and the rates must change. We don't like the Federal Government but then again, we don' t dislike the railways either; poor railways and so on. They have not indic ated whether or not they ag ree with the cle ar-cut principle tha t's embodied in this Res olution. Why are they silent, Mr. Speaker? Why are they silent? Surely, it's proper for me to impute political motive to them. What ha ve they done?

They ha ve talked outside of the House, dis torted the debate in the House and for politic al pur poses in Saska tc hewan, tha t is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The docum ents speak for thems elves. But it's fortuna te tha t not all Tories carry on in the same way.

Just recently in the same newspaper one of their peers, tha t is, he is an M.P ., appeared in a public forum and he ha d the political fortitude to indic ate his position and he firmly endorsed the concern tha t is embodied in this Res olution - and tha t's the Honour able Member for Provenche r - he attended a meeting with the honourable member, the author of this Reso lution, the Minister of Transportation. The cap tion says, "That over 200 area farmers" - this is from the Free Press, April 21, 19 82, Mr.

Speaker - "Over 200 area farmers attend Man itoba Pool- • spons ored meeting on the Crow issue." They issued a resolution. "The resolution tha t was resolved at this meeting supports the position of the Manit oba Gov ernment and the M.P . for Provencher in their opposi tion to any change in the present sta tutory rates by a producer for transporting grain." The pool was wait ing. Some pool members were waiting to hear wha t honourable members opposite were going to say, Mr. Speaker, but they got tired of waiting. All they heard was a deafen ing silenc e. Why, Mr.

Speaker, did they want to con tinue with this cat and mouse game with their polic y, if any, on this issue? Because, Mr. Speaker, tha t it would have a divine influenc e west of us. Th at's the reason, Mr. Speaker. But wha t about the issues thems elves? The Hon ourable Member for Pem bina whom I can' t suggest is ... well, he suggested other things about other mem bers in this House including the author of this Resolution but I won't be as indecent as he. Let me say wha t he talked about in his concl uding remarks, Mr. Speaker.

He revealed some conc ern tha t there had been noth ing in these press releases tha t the Honour able Minister of Transportation had released tha t indic ated about the great benefit tha t might accrue to the Port of Church ill and questioned, in effect, why there should n't be more support for the princi ple involved in the Pepin proposal. Then, he indicated that there had to be some benefits and we should be looking at the benefits. Well, you know tha t indic ates the sym path ies of the Honourable Member for Pembina.

He's for chang e; he's for an increase, despite the fact tha t the farmers of Manit oba are facing an ec onomic crisis. Farmers, like small business men, are in great difficu lty in Mani toba but the honourable member says well, he's implying that some increases ju stify. We'll have to go along because the Tyrchn iewicz Report, a report authored, sponsored by the members opposite, which they suppressed for how many months. Talk about openne ss on issues. They had a report that they'd received and they put it under the table, Mr. Speaker. Why did they put it under the table?

Because they were sensitive about it, Mr. Speaker, they didn't like it being critical of the position tha t they had adopted, adopted in support of the railways and agai nst the interests of the farmers of Man itoba. That's the posi tion of the honourable members opposite. They're for the railways. -(I nterjec tion)- Well, the honourable member spo uts from his chair, balderdash. Tha t is how I would char acterize everything tha t I heard from the honourable member in his waffling on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

The honourable member wants to fudge the issue about the railways and our position in respect to them, Mr. Speaker. He says that we conti nue to focus on the CPR; and then he says what about the CNR and their role in this issue. Wha t about the CNR? You see, the honourable members opposite ha ve such dog matic political blinkers tha t they won't recognize the validity of what's happened in the history of Canada. Wha t about the CNR? The tax payers of this cou ntry have been paying for inc ompetent private enterprise from Day One.

The CNR was pick ed up by the tax pay ers of Canada to run because private enterprise had fa iled and the only way tha t private enterprise suc ceeds, under private enterprise-supporting govern ments opposite, is when they make extensive grant s of land and money and con tinual sub sidies to ma ke sure tha t the private shareholders succeed . Tha t's the way they operate, Mr. Speaker. They don' t believe that the taxpa yers can run enterprise in Canada; all they believe is the taxpayers can be milked by su bsi dies and land grants. 1812

Friday, 23 April, 1982 Mr. Speaker, you know honourable members think it's all past history and it's dead history but, wha t do we ha ve here? I ha ve something in my hand, a photo copy. It's Or der-in-Council No. 995 and it's from the Department of Mines and Natural Reso urces. It's a photo copy of an Or der-in-Council passed by the Government of Man itoba. Wha t's the date of the Order-in-Council? October 17 , 19 79, signed by the Honourable, apparently Mr. Craik, and sig ned by the Honourable, former Minister for Natural Resou rces, the Member for Turtle Mountai n. What does this do, Mr. Speaker?

It co nveys further land to the Canadian Pacific Rai lroad pursuant to agreements tha t were made back in the 18 00s. It con tinues, Mr. Speaker, it contin ues that we have as tax payers to conti nue to subsidize inefficient private enterprise. But, tha t's all right, tha t's politically accep table to them. So, when the honourable member accus es not being strong about the CNR, what is the CNR? The CNR is ban krupt private enterprise tha t the taxpa yers of Man itoba had to pick up and organize and rebuild again and tha t's being done. But they won't recognize the. CNR as any val id case. Mr.

Speaker, tha t's the kind of dogmatic, narrow, partisan, warped idealism tha t the members opposite use day after day in their address ing issues in this House and in this cou ntry. Mr. Speaker, wha t about the issue?. The honour able member says he tries to fudge the issue. He says wha t's going to happen is tha t the west coast ports are going to be clogge d and, therefore, the grain is going to have to move east. Clogged with wha t? Clogged with coal movement and tha t's what the resolution speaks to but the honourable member doesn't refer to tha t.

That's in the resolution; tha t's the cause of the west coast ports being plugged and the rail sys tem being jam med; it isn' t grain movement. So, why should the grain farmers in Western Cana da ha ve to pick up the costs to alleviate the plugging movement of coal movements to western ports. The honourable member doesn't add ress tha t issue; he ducks it. He just says well, there's going to be a problem with grain moving west and then that problem is going to be shifted to the grain movement east. Now, tha t's the kind of fudging of issues, Mr.

Speaker, that is deceit ful, tha t is deceitfu l of the farmers of Man itoba. It's improper and untrue. But, wha t about the position of a spokesman for farmers within this cou ntry . They're upset and they're concerned. They've spoken out on this issue, at least, some of them ha ve. But it's anno ying, it's frustrating. It's a confu sing, yes, even to people on this side of the House tha t people who are elected by farmers in this coun try are sitting there silent or fudging on this issue. For example, Wheat Board official, tha t's Mr.

Gibbings, Comm issioner Ch arles Gibbings, he had the intestinal fortitude to lay it on the line. Here's wha t he said in a release, he said he wouldn't go to the meeting -he's referring to going to a meeting with Pepin -"I wouldn't go beca use if you voluntarily go to be raped it's consent he told about 200 che ering farmers at the Whe at Board's first district meeting this winter." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, tha t the eloquent silence of members opposite indic ate consent and tha t is a legal maxim tha t ha s been used many, many times.

They are consen ting to a rape of the farm industry in Man itoba by their inact ion, by their silence. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to ano ther very elo quent, a real stat esman in the history of this countr y, and he's a Con servative. He's not a Progressive Con servative, I suppose, he's certainly not as soci ated with the honourable members opposite; a former Ch ief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, a man with real integrity, with real understanding and with real empathy with the farmers of Western Canada, and what has he said about this issue? I quote, Mr.

Speaker, from again the Free Press of Ma rch 2, 19 82. Here's wha t Justice Emmett Hall said, a real agrarian Conservative, one tha t believes in the farm people. He said, "Onc e the Crow rate goes, the next vic tim will be the Wheat Board," said Hall, legal advisor to the Sas katc hewan Government Grain Car Corporation and a former Supreme Court Justice.

Hall told 400 people at a Town Hall meeting yesterday in this farm centr e - tha t was southe ast Saskatchewan -60 kilometres north of Regina, he isn't happy with the move annou nced February 8th by Transport Minister Jean Luc Pepin, and he goes on, "I heard one of you say, let the negotiating process go on," Hall told the meeting sponsored by the Grain Car Corporation. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I want to digress for a minute, tha t's in effect wha t the honourable members opposite are sa ying. Let's hear from Gilson, let's see what kind of a deal we can make. That's wha t they're sa ying, Mr. Speaker.

But wha t does Hall say? "I think tha t once you place the fixed rate for transportation on the table it can be negotiated out of existence." And tha t's a Cons ervative tha t I respect, one tha t speaks out for principle, tha t doesn't waffle, tha t doesn't try to duck an issue. He's someone tha t west ern Canadian farmers can be proud of. I q uestion what Manit oba farmers ha ve to say about members opposite for their activity on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, wha t are the issues?

The issue is tha t we have private enterprise tha t's been subsized by tax payers for over a hundred years, extensive grant s of land and mone y and now they say tha t historic bargain is no longer valid, is no longer justified. They want to tear up the deal and they want farmers of Man itoba to take the burden; farmers in Saska tche wan and Alberta to take the burden. Why? Because they have more important products to ship like coal, like potas h, so the deal is off and the farmers have to pick up the costs.

The members opposite are tac itly, in their silent way, accep ting tha t the farmers of Mani toba should be paying more for grain. Is tha t reasona ble? Is tha t just? 1813 There was an historic agreement and the historic agreement was tha t we cou ld grow grain; we could develop a grain market provided we got decent freight rates. Freight rates tha t would make it possible, Mr. Speaker, for western Canad ian grain gr owers to com pete on world ma rkets. Now, some honourable members scof f about tha t. Tha t is the historic ag ree ment, and is it st ill important? Yes it is, Mr.

Speaker, beca use throughout the world grain farmers, farmers generally, need understandi ngs, need agreements with governments to fac ilitate their ability to com pete on the world market. Before we had strong govern ment intervention ass isting the marketing of grain, we had cha os. We have the Canadian Wheat Board but the Canad ian Whe at Board will be in jeopardy if the honourable members had their way.

Friday, 23 April, 1982 What we have seen is the development of world markets for Canad ian grain but that's predicated, Mr. Speaker, on the maintenance of reasonable transpor tation costs. Wha t will happen when we take the lid off? Where will these markets be? How will we com pete with countries in the world tha t do sub sidize extensively the transportation cost of grain? The honourable members are silent about that. They don' t know or they don' t care and tha t is the key to the whole question of our agricultural transportation.

Where are the markets, and at what cost will it be for farmers to get their grain to market? If th at cost is impossible, we'll not only lose our com petitive advan tage internationally but we'll be putting farmers out of business on a massive scale in Man itoba and through out the west. But the honourable members appear to be indifferent about tha t. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because by and large, you see, they represent the big farmer; the corporate farmer; the farmer tha t can arrange the big deal; the big arrangemen ts. They're not clo se to the man of the so il; they're not used to the small fa mily fa rmer.

Wha t they do is try to confuse and obfuscate the issues on something like this so tha t maybe they can ride both sides of the fence. They can stay cl ose to the big grain compan ies like Cargill and the rail ways and satisfy all of the interests and fudge their way through, but it won't work. Mr. Speaker, I ha ve the privilege of referring to ano ther noble -and I use the word noble with some respect, because this Cons ervative politican was someone who had widespread respect througho ut the length and br eadth of Canada -the Honourable, the late John Diefenbaker, and he had some con cerns, Mr.

Speaker; a great man -(l nterjec tion) well, the honourable members would do well to reflect on some of his thoug hts about grain transportation. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to a Throne Speech in 1960 and here's wha t the Throne Speech said. This is during the term of the Honourable, the late John Die fenbaker. "My Ministers have welcomed the appoint ment of the Royal Comm ission on Transportation to inquire into the problems relating to railway transpor tation and the inequities in the freight rates struc ture.

My government," - a Cons ervative government then -"favors retention of the Crowsnest Pass grain rates and is act ively opposing the request of the railways fo r any chan ges in this contr act, which for so many years had been a bulwark of prairie agriculture. My government will also oppose the Royal Comm ission new methods for removing inequities in the freight rate struc ture which adversely affect the well-being of industry and agriculture in Man itoba." Mr.

Speaker, there was a Cons ervative that had some understanding of the histo ric agreement in western Canada, some commitment to the farmers of western Canada, unlike the attitude and the position that is obvious with the members opposite because they do not care, Mr. Speaker. They are content to let a federally-appointed individual determine the basis on which freight rates are going to be re-structured because in agreeing to tha t they are comm itting thems elves to the erosion of tha t rate base. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. Or der please. The Honourable Minister. 1814 MR. MACKLI NG: Mr.

Speaker, what are the cons e quenc es? Wha t are the cons equenc es of removing the guarantee tha t western Canadian agriculture ha s relied upon, has built upon over the many many years? Wha t are the conse quenc es? The honourable members don't want to consider them and the Hon ourable Member for - I'm sorry, one of our spokes men on this issue indic ated, pardon me, it was the Honourable First Leader - asked honour able members opposite, what about their interest in the com munities they represent? Wha t about their inter ests?

They know tha t if the principle of equality of rates between points in Manit oba is changed, it'll be the death knell to many of those com munities. But wha t are they sa ying about it? They're not even sa ying, Mr. Speaker, well we'll wait and see what Gil son has to say on this issue, but one thing we won't accept is a change in the histo ric pattern of equality of rates between points. They haven't even said that, Mr. Speaker. They're silent on these issues and tha t should mean to all of the people in those little com mun ities tha t the members opposite don't care and tha t is the political fact.

They care enoug h, Mr. Speaker, about what's going on in Saskatchewan to ha ve conv ersations in cor ri dors, but they don't car e enough about the people they represent to speak out on this Res olution on this issue, in this Chamb er and tha t is a shock, Mr. Speaker. It's a shock to the farmers of Man itoba tha t should create political conf usion, the likes of which we've never seen in Canada, in Man itoba. The honourable member from his chair repeats "bal derdash," Mr. Speaker. That is about the extent of his voca bulary very often, Mr. Speaker, because wha t I hear from him cons titutes balderdas h.

It's utter and com plete no nsense because he tries to sh ift the responsi bility for his inadequacy of express ion on this Res olution by someho w attac king political philo sophy of members opposite. The Honourable Member for Pem bina epitomizes I think what some of us fear is the worst in parliamen tary debate. He uses the vilest words to attack the hone st representations of members on this side of the House. Again, Mr. Speaker, he gets clo se to talking about the issue of the Crow rate because he talks about grain han dling, but he doesn't talk about the importance of an efficien t transportation syste m.

What he does is use that as a base to attack legitimate trade unions in Canada and tha t's despicable. He jus t keeps attac king. Unless they're prepared to change the system - and for four years tha t they were in government they did noth ing - unless they're prepared to change the system, then certainly respect the syste m. Don' t attack it, facilitate it, give it cons tructive criticism, but don't damn trade unions in this countr y for their legit imate right to negotiate and when negotiations fail, to strike.

If tha t's his position, that he damns the right of legitimate trade unions to withdraw their services, then he should say so. But you know, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members opposite are anti-union, they're negative about the trade union movement in Cana da and when they are talking about grain hand ling, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain is not without excep tion in this. In this House he started to question the Hon-

Friday, 23 April, 1982 ourable Minister responsible for the Environment and Northern Affa irs the question about - I believe it was this honourable member - about negotiations at the Port of Churc hill. Pardon me, it was the Honourable Minister of Labour. -(I nterjec tion)- Oh, all right. Pardon me. I apologize to the Member for Turtle Mountain. It was the Honourable Member for Pem bina agai n. Well, that confirms the kind of assoc iation of thoughts in that honourable member's mind because he started to question whether or not there wasn't going to be a problem in grain handling in Churchill.

He was trying to suggest there was going to be an enormous problem there because tha t union was bargaining with its employer and tha t's the kind of sleazy quest ion the honourable member puts in this House. Troublemaking. Troublemaking in a legit imate enterprise between a grain-handling company and its union, suggesting there was going to be a problem. There was no problem, Mr. Speaker.

An ag reement has been settled and tha t mortifies the honourable member because now he can't complain about trade unionists interrupting the flow of grain in this coun try. �The problem tha t exists in this cou ntry in respect to grain transportation lies with the railways and the honourable members want to sh ift that. They want to sh ift tha t burden onto the backs of the farmers in Man itoba and in doing so they are a disgrace to their electo rate. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member suggested we were trying to clo se debate. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we finally smoked out one member of tha t leading front bench to say someth ing. We heard from the Honour able Member for Arthur and, Mr. Speaker, if you read wha t his remarks were in Hansard, he said nothing. He said absolutely noth ing about this Res olution. He had a sale of words. He did a lot of thumping and he sold a lot of words in this Chamb er, Mr. Speaker, but he never add ressed the issues in this Res olution. MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I don' t believe the Member for Arthur has spoken on this Res olution and I wouldn't want the record to show tha t he had and perhaps deny him the opportun ity to speak later. MR. SPEAKER: My record does not indicate tha t the Honourable Mem ber for Arth ur has spoken on the debate thus far. The Honourable Minister of Natural Res ources. MR. MACK LING: Mr. Speaker, if your records so indic ate, I withdraw the inference.

I'm sure though tha t the honourable member, in speak ing -(I nter je cti on)- well maybe he was speaking from his seat, but I know the honourable members in the front bench have been eloquent in their silenc e and tha t has been a shame. MR. SPEAK ER: Or der please. The Honour able Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. HAR RY ENNS (Lak eside) : Mr. Speaker, having made consid erable effort and contri butions to the debate on this Resolution, I resent the implica tion of the honourable member suggesting tha t I was very silent on this Resolution. MR. MA CKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I think any fair-minded reader of Hans ard looking at the honourable member's remarks would say tha t he was silent on this resolu tion. He spoke of many things but he didn't speak about this resolution, Mr. Speaker; he didn't tell us where he or his party stood on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the record is cle ar. Members opposite are waffling; the y want it both ways; they want to indic ate to the public outside tha t we are weak on this resolu tion. We are strong in this resolution; the words of this resolution are clear and decis ive as were the remarks of the Fi rst Minister on this resolution.

Stand ing, Mr. Speaker, in favo ur of defence of the farmers' i

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-40
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 40.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5e682b3bcf0c85dd273137703a3f53c81b9c4512

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