Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 102B (32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-102b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-·-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 1028 - 8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 7 JULY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thomµson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolsele• Oauphir Turtle ;,1ountain Burrmvs Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP INO NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 7 July, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. Would the Acting Government House Leader kindly indicate the next item of business. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speak er, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on April 28, 1982; also a report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on February 24, 1983.

MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair, to consider of the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on April 28, 1982; and the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on February 24, 1983. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order. We are considering the first report of the Standing Committee on Rules of the House presented on Wednesday, April 28, 1982.

What is the will of the committee on how to proceed? Pass. We are considering the second report of the Standing Committee on Rules of the House presented on Thursday, February 24, 1983- pass. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. The Cha irman reported upon the committee's deliberations to Mr. Speaker. IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Johns, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Spea ke r.

I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, that this House concur in the reports of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on April 28 and December 3. 1982. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Ministu1 o\ Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Government Services, that this House concur in the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House received by the Assembly on February 24, 1983. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. THIRD READING HON. A. MACKLING presented Bill No. 35,

An Act to amend The Trustee Act, for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mi. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Lakeside, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 42 - THE JOBS FUND ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented Bill No. 42, The Jobs Fund Act,

Loi sur le fonds de soutien a l'emploi, for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill and the fund associated with it have been debated at some length in the House. The position of the opposition is well known. We feel that the Jobs Fund has, of course, some very serious weaknesses to it and it has indeed not been as presented. It is becoming evident day by day what flows from the Jobs Fund, such as the example that we had with the 18 people being laid off in the Department of Natural Resources this week. Mr.

Speaker, every time that this bill has been called, the opposition has moved it along with haste in order that the government could employ whatever means they have to try and get some of the 52,000 unemployed people in Manitoba back to work. We have no intention of holding up this bill; we would like to see the government get on with something meaningful and we hope that we will not encounter any more situations where people have lost jobs as a consequence of funds not being made available through the Jobs Fund, money that's been taken from one pocket and placed into another. Mr.

Speaker, we're prepared to see this bill pass. 4186

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHRO EDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to remind members and the public that the 18 workers of whom the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain speaks are working and will be working for the summer, but would not be working without the Jobs Fund. Let that be clear. Let it be clear that if we did nothing like the Tories did and are advocating, they and thousands of other workers would not be working.

Let us remember that this fund is part of the reason that we have 5, 000 more people working in Manitoba today than we had a year ago. In Conservative provinces in this country, there are fewer people working today than a year ago - (I nterjection) - you may be cranked up, the fellow there in the peanut gallery, but I want you to know that people in Manitoba are beginning to realize the nonsense that is being spouted by members of the opposition when those people say that nothing has happened.

Let us remember that those 18 workers are a perfect example of a case where there was an application; there was an expectation of approval; there was a deferral. During that deferral, somebody decided not to continue on with it. Let us remember, they would never have been working without the Jobs Fund, not for the government. They are working and they will be, and there are thousands of others who are. Manitoba taxpayers are becoming more and more happy about the fact that more people here are working, knowing that these are difficult times.

They are expecting us to do better than we're doing, and we're hoping that we can comply, because we still have far too many unemployed people. But doing nothing like the Tories would do would ensure that we would have far fewer people working, and we wouldn't be building up our resources. We would be creating a serious problem for our future. The Jobs Fund is at least a part of the answer to the very serious problem of jobs that faces Manitobans today. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Is the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources intending to speak to this bill? HON. A. MACKLING: Indeed I am, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would the Clerk please approach the Chair? SOME HONOURABLE MEM BERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources had already spoken to this debate, having introduced the bill. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: First I am, of course, disappointed that the Minister of Natural Resources isn't able to transmit his wisdom to honourable members across the way as I am sure it would be enlightening to members across the way to have an opportunity to have listened to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I don't intend to speak at any great length in regard to this particular bill. First, I am assuming that honourable members across the way are prepared to give this bill their total and complete support, and the Jobs Fund, and to clearly record that insofar as this Chamber is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I think that a few further words though ought to be said, because what we are concerned about is not really Conservative members in this Chamber across the way and their response. What we are concerned about in this country as a whole, Mr.

Speaker, and I do want to speak for a few moments about Canada as a whole, is that there is a theme which runs through unfortunately the thinking of too many of those that pursue the thinking of the old line political parties, the Liberals and Conservatives in this count ry, that unemployment is not the major challenge confronting Canadians today; that other targets such as inflation, for instance, are the main concern confronting Canadians. Mr.

Speaker, the reason that we indeed have the situation that we have today is because of a destructive tight money, high interest rate policy, a policy that was put into place by the Liberals in Ottawa and a policy that was pursued by t;,e Conservatives when they were in office in Ottawa. Mr.

Speaker, we don't intend to permit honourable members across the way to weasel their way out of responsibility along with the Liberals in this country for those, indeed, that have held positions of responsibility in Canada and have caused the destructive situation that presently exists by way of some 1. 5 million to 2 million individuals that are unemployed in this country, the untold human and economic destruction that is caused by ultra conservative policies pursued by ultra-Conservative thinking. I don't care whether those ultra-thinking Conservatives wear a Liberal hat or a Conservative hat. It matters not.

It is the same thinking that we intend to fight, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's all right for honourable members to wish to nit-pick in respect to the Jobs Fund, but the fact is that there have been in a short period of time announcements in excess of $130 million in regard to the provincial Jobs Fund. That $130 million that has been announced have mainly involved projects that have added to the lasting value of Manitoba, that have been regionally distributed in order to benefit the North, benefit the rural, benefit the urban areas of the province.

They have been projects that have preserved jobs; they have been projects that have improved skills of young people and other individuals within our society. I am the first to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the Jobs Fund can't do it all alone and can only, indeed, play a part. But, Mr. Speaker, for any government to abdicate its responsibility to try to do its part would to fail in its duty and obligation to the people that represents. This New Democratic Party Government does not intend to abdicate its responsibility.

I felt a few words had to be uttered, because there was some nit-picking about the question that 18 public servants had supposedly lost their jobs re the Jobs Fund. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, the employees were not hired through the Jobs Fund in the first instance; in fact, it was the Jobs Fund that ensured their continued employment. I have noted and I want to sum up, Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate that honourable members rather 4187

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 than dealing with the substance of the Jobs Fund, rather than dealing with the substance of the economic reasons that we are in Canada in the situation we are today, that they have appeared to have been more anxious to deal with the peripheral, with side issues, with matters pertaining to the 18 employees, as we heard reference already earlier tonight - (I nterjection) - yes, and something about Mafeking I hear there too - rather than dealing with the substance. Mr. Speaker, obviously, as I mentioned before, the Jobs Fund is not going to cure the ills of Manitoba's economy.

Indeed, we still have 50-some-thousand unemployed. That is a sad situation, Mr. Speaker, but this government will not rest content until it has done all within its powers in co-operation with the Manitoba business community, in co-operation with labour, in co operation with the northerners of this province, in co operation with people everywhere within this province in order to combat unemployment. I want to put this clearly on the record, because much has been said arising from this conference that was held, this non conference the other day that was called by Mr.

Lalonde, of Finance Ministers and Labour Ministers in this country, Mr. Speaker. A deliberate public relations effort because the Honourable Mr. Lalonde at the federal level wishes to leave the impression that 615 is generated economic recovery throughout the country. He is hoping for economic recovery during the next year; he is hoping to link a lower inflation rate to the 6/5 formula that he announced some one year ago. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that the economy has been damaged.

It has been damaged severely by way of tight money, high interest rate policies pursued by Governor Bouey, followed by monetarist policies; and, Mr. Speaker, I would be sadly disappointed if a New Democratic Party Government in taking office in Ottawa did not, as its first Order-in-Council, ensure the removal ol Governor Bouey. That is something that neither the Liberal or Conservative Governments would be prepared to do, so that we could rid ourselves of the thinking of monetarism that has done so much destruction to the economies of the western countries in this world. Mr.

Speaker, what is required is to zero in on the unemployment in this count ry, to reduce the unemployment, to restore confidence amongst those that are already employed, that they're not about to be unemployed, so that people commence to buy again; and when people commence to buy and when consumers have confidence, then investors have confidence, then investors are able to expand their operations and their businesses. That is the only way, Mr.

Speaker, to restore the health of the economy, is to place purchasing power in the hands of Canadians; and this falling, this idiotic thinking that is pursued by too many of our economic and political thinkers, that some way or other we must deflate, some way or other we must keep 1.5 million people unemployed in this country in order to keep inflation down, is the height of lunacy in this country. So, Mr.

Speaker, honourable members can laugh all they wish, they can heckle all they wish, but we intend to continue to point out the differential between the policies of social democracy and the policies of conservatism as followed by both the Liberal and Conservative Parties in this country. 4188 QUESTION put, MOTION carried. HON. A. MACKLING: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House is the proposed third reading of Bill No. 42.

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Anstett, Ashton, Brown, Bucklaschuk, Corrin, Cowan, Dodick, Dolin, Enns, Evans, Eyler, Filmon, Fox, Gourlay, Hammond, Harapiak, Hyde, Johnston, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mackling, Malinowski, Manness, McKenzie, Nordman, Pawley, Phillips, Plohman, Ransom, Santos, Schroeder, Scott, Storie and Uruski. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 34; Nays, 0. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. Order please, order please. May I remind all members that divisions are to be taken in silence. BILL NO. 50 - THE MANITOBA INTERC ULTURAL COUNCIL ACT HON. A.

MACKLING presented Bill No. 50, The Manitoba lntercultural Council Act, for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I am going to adjourn debate. If the Honourable Minister wishes to speak, that's fine. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be· adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 57 - THE CO-OPERATIVES ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented Bill No. 57,

An Act to amend The Cooperatives Act, for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 73 - THE SCHOOL CAPITAL FINANCING AUTHORITY ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented Bill No. 73,

An Act to repeal The School Capital Financing Authority Act; Loi

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 abrogeant ia loi connue sous le nom de School Capital Financing Authority Act, for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Tuxedo, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the debate on the motion moved by the Honourable Premier, the Constitutional Amendment re Aboriginal Rights, standing in the name of the Member for Emerson.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: ABORIGINAL RIGHTS MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed resolution of the Honourable First Minister appearing at the top of Page 7, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. (Stand) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the Member for Emerson continuing to have this matter stand in his name, but I would like the right to be able to speak on this, and I don't think that right should be blocked by a member who's not present. - (I nterjection) - Pardon me?

A MEMBER: Be my guest, be our guest now. Please, Al, go ahead. HON. A. MACKLING: Unless some other member of the opposition wants to speak, Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to yield the floor to them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources may have noted that we asked it to stand, but if he wishes to speak we have no objection. MR. SPEAKER: The resolution will stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to add a few words in respect to the debate on this resolution. I am very proud of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that within the caucuses of the New Democratic Party here in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan and in Northwest Territories, we have elected people of Indian ancestry. Mr. Speaker, the record of the dealing over the years, our historical relationships with Native people, is not one that anyone in this Chamber, anyone in Manitoba should be proud of. There is no question but the result of the settling of the west was designed to accomplish the needs of white people.

It certainly wasn't designed to take into consideration the interests of the Native j:eople of this country. Mr. Speaker, the arrangements that were made for Native people were nothing short . of despicable. We owe a great deal to our Native people. Despite the fact that we owe that great debt, we still have people within this country who are prepared to be extremely critical of Native people's rights.

This party has early gone on record as indicating its concern to redress the grievances, to redress the failures of succeeding governments not only in this province but throughout this land, to address the problems of Native people in a forthright manner. Mr. Speaker, Native people throughout this country are asking, nay they're demanding that they be given the right to have a greater say in the administration of their own affairs. Mr.

Speaker, instead of being critical of this demand, everyone else in Canada should be welcoming the concern of the Native people to have much more to say about the development of their own institutions, the administration of their own affairs. For too long have decisions been made on their behalf by people who did not understand and appreciate the concerns of Native people. I had the privilege not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, of travelling in Northern Manitoba and meeting Native people in their communities.

They are just as anxious as people every where to be able to attain full employment in activities where they can secure a decent standard of living. I know that from time to time I have felt pressured by Native people in my office, because they want to be able to get more satisfaction. They want to be able to get more out of the resources of Manitoba, resources that they feel are available to them to develop a better life for themselves and their families in the generations ahead.

We have seen Native people take up the opportunity that has been afforded wherever we have been able to do that in areas like Moose Lake, Moose Lake Loggers, a Crown corporation. I admit for some time a difficult situation to get that operation to produce, so that operation was not just social activity, not social work. But even in the years, Mr. Speaker, when they didn't hit the black ink, and there were a number of those years, the fact is that Native people were being employed, were proud of their employment, were earning money instead of receiving money from welfare.

It meant a significant infusion of money into communities like Moose Lake. Those people are just as �oncerned as any other people to be able to provide t' ,cJir families with the highest standard of living they <.an. I know in my vocation, or I should say, in my administration, the Department of Natural Resources, I have Native people that come to the office. They are fish ermen, and they're very good fish ermen, Mr. Speaker, and they want to be able to get larger quotas. They want to be able to harvest more fish so that they will be able to provide themselves and their families a better standard of living. 4189

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 _____________________ ...::_:_ __ _.:: .:._ ___ ··-··-·----·---···-·· ---- Mr. Speaker, that has reinforced my appreciation for the desire of Native people throughout this province to obtain higher standards of living; not only that, but to be able to continue their traditions. Mr. Speaker, the maintenance of traditions in this materialistic society is not easy. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that this government has been prepared to assist Native people in ensuring that they have an opportunity to continue their cultural organizations. Mr.

Speaker, in another sector of my department, that of wildlife and the area of trapping, there are pressures and demands within society, even within the international society, highly critical of our forms of trapping. But let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Native people are concerned and they have been involved and they have accepted our concerns in respect to development of more humane trapping techniques. But, Mr. Speaker, trapping has been a way of life in much of the North of Canada, certainly in much of North of Manitoba. It is not only a way of life; it's a part of their cultural base. Mr.

Speaker, I am concerned that the attacks that are made on the technique of trapping are such that there is a very real concern that the whole trapping industry could be undermined on an emotional basis. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain shakes his head and smiles. Well, I know that he knows . . . MR. B. RANSOM: I wonder if this amendment deals with it. HON. A. MACKLING: I beg - I'm sorry. MR. B. RANSOM: How does this amendment deal with it? HON. A. MACKLING: Well, I'm coming to that, Mr. Speaker.

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain doesn't appreciate that a concern for rights involves a concern to maintain ways of life in which Native people have been involved long before the white man came. Mr. Speaker, those things and I heard someone speaking the other day about wild rice and saying wild rice really just started with the fur traders getting involved. Mr. Speaker, wild rice was harvested by Native people long before the white man came. Mr.

Speaker, the association of Native people with resources is one of long standing and so it's a concern of this government, it's a concern of my department, to involve Native people in the administration of our resources and afford to them greater responsibility, a growing responsibility in respect to husbanding those resources. Instead of taking confrontationist attitudes with Native people as some people in this province would have us do about their rights and the exercise of them.

We have adopted the role that we will assist the Native people in confirming their rights and assisting them to an exercise of those rights in harmony with the rest of the people of Manitoba and Canada. That is our goal, Mr. Speaker, not to be confrontationist but to assist in the co-operative development of our Native people in this province. Mr.

Speaker, we don't know how Native people are going to fashion the institutions for themselves, but we have confidence that they are people of good they are prepared to exercise their responsibility in country and work with us in working out arrangements that will ensure harmonious development of their institutions along with ours. Mr. Speaker, the Indian culture, the Indian way of life doesn't take away anything from our society. It enriches the fabric of our society.

I don't know how many members have travelled to Indian communities and enjoyed the hospitality, the good will, the complete openness of Native people. They're not selfish, they want to share, but they want to develop their institutions in a spirit of harmony with the rest of Manitoba, and the rest of Canada. So, Mr.

Speaker, when we address this resolution, we do so with a commitment to do everything they can to ensure that Native people will be able to enjoy the rights that they have enjoyed, that they will be able to develop institutions over which they will have control and they will be able to develop a fuller , more satisfactory way of life in a Manitoba that we all love, Native people and all the rest of the people in Manitoba. That is our commitment, Mr.

Speaker, and that is why we are very, very anxious to record our co-operation with the need for further meetings to develop the agreement that we know can be made in respect to the entrenchment, clarification, and codification of Native rights in Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to speak in debate on this particular resolution. In speaking to it, I hope to draw a bit on the background, Mr.

Speaker, of aboriginal rights in Canada, background of this specific resolution and what I hope will be the future direction of developments in this particular area, Mr. Speaker. I speak today as an MLA who has a fair number of Native people in his constituency. A constituency which is very well integrated into the overall social and economic fabric of the North, where of course a vast majority of Native people in Manitoba presently reside. It's an issue of concern, Mr.

Speaker, to many of my constituents because of this reason, and contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition would suggest, it is not considered to be, I believe he called it a secretarial amendment today in Question Period. It is considered to be a major step forward for Native people, Mr. Speaker. In fact I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps when he speaks on this particular resolution, will withdraw that remark because I consider it an insult to the many Native people who fought hard for years to have recognition of their rights, Mr. Speaker, in Canada's Constitution.

They have not fought for a secretarial amendment, Mr. Speak er, to that Constitution, they have fought for a very real and important process, first of all, which this resolution establishes, Mr. Speaker, and second of all, for the very real rights that they feel should be enshrined in Canada's Constitution. They feel it's only fair and just, Mr. Speaker, that they as Canada's aboriginal people should be recognized in that Constitution. I, for one, 4190

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 support that objective, and I for one consider the Leader of the Opposition's remarks to be totally inappropriate in regards to this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker. If one looks at the history of Native people, Mr. Speaker, and their relations with this country, I think, one can see why this resolution and the process that is being established by this resolution is so important to Native people, Mr. Speaker. If one goes back over history, one can see that in dealing with Canada's Native people that there was a general theme originally, M;-.

Speaker, of dealing in a legal way through treaties in many areas, which were signed over a considerable period of time, Mr. Speaker, but were done in a very legal and formalistic way. These are often taken to the sole representative of aboriginal rights by some, Mr. Speaker. But if one looks at the history of the law in regard to treaty rights, and aboriginal rights in general, one can find that those are often only a very small part of what is considered to be aboriginal rights. Mr. Speaker, over the years Native people found that the treaties were obviously not satisfactory.

Many cases, even though there were very clear commitments made in treaties with Canada's Native people, they found that those commitments were not kept, Mr. Speaker, and they attempted to rectify that through the courts of law, and in many cases were successful, Mr. Speaker. But beyond that, in the courts of law they attempted to establish a broader concept of aboriginal rights using the Proclamation of 17 63 as a basis and the overall principle of the rights that Native people have as Canada's aboriginal people, Mr. Speaker; hence the term "aboriginal rights." They attempted to establish that Mr. Speaker.

If one looks at the history of the law in that regards - I'm not going to quote specific cases - but if one looks at that history one can see that at first they often won what would be considered symbolic victories. Minority decisions in courts of appeal, Mr. Speaker, minority decisions which establish clear the aboriginal rights, but majority opinions which ruled against the Native people in their particular claims in that circumstance. What had happened, Mr.

Speaker, as the result of these losses in many cases, was definitely a symbolic victory, because even though in many cases, as I said, they were on the negative side of the final decision, often they found that their case was lost, not on the broad principle of the law, Mr. Speaker, but in regards to some particular legal technicality, such as was the case, the very famous case in British Columbia in the early 1970s. What happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the Native people of this country gained a great deal '.lf momentum from that fight in the courts and they gained, not just legal momentum, Mr.

Speaker, but more importantly political momentum. I think if one looks back at the history of the late 1960s, and the early 1970s, and of course the early 1980s, one can see that Native people have become more organized than ever; more organized, Mr. Speaker, with their own organizations both provincially and nationally, but also more involved as well, Mr. Speaker, in traditional politics. I think the fact, as the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out, that there are a number of Native people in Canada's Legislature today.

For example, we have in the New Democratic Party three members and three separate Legislatures of Native ancestry is a testament to that, Mr. Speaker; a testament to the fact that Native people are becoming more and more involved in our traditional political process, and that is where the constitutional resolution before us today comes in, Mr. Speaker.

We all remember just a few years ago, when the patriation of the Constitution was being discussed, how Native people were very forceful in indicating their concern over that process because they felt at that time that that process would not fully account for their aboriginal rights. We al! remem ber, I'm sure, the progression from that point, Mr. Speaker, following the patriation, where in March of this year a First Ministers' Conference was held in conjunction with the Native people to discuss that very process. Of course, Mr. Speaker, some will say that not much came out of that conference.

Well, perhaps that is the case. We all know that there was no agreement in terms of the agenda even, of discussions in regard to aboriginal rights in the next few years, but what did result from that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I think is still significant if one lo0�s at the whole issue of Native aboriginal rights. What emerged from that meeting is, I think, the first step of the process, Mr. Speaker, of getting Native aboriginal rights entrenched in the Constitution; the first step which we are seeing debated here today, the resolution which has support from all provinces, Mr.

Speaker, which would do a number of things. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the resolutions which we are debating across the country do recognize a number of basic points. First of all, the equality of rights for Native women, and the repeal of those sections pertaining to the extension of provinces and to the territories, and to the creation of new provinces which has particular significance if one looks at the situation in the Northwest Territories. Beyond that, Mr.

Speaker, it provides a constitutional guarantee to treaty rights to include modern agreements similar to the treaties such as the ,lames Bay Agreement and not just historical treaties; that's important. It also ensures an ongoing process within the Constitution to renew and extend in time the mandate given to the First Ministers to define those aboriginal and treaty rights which are going to be entrenched in the Constitution. Specifically, Mr.

Speaker, it set forth the agreement that there would be at least two more constitutional conferences on aboriginal rights before 1987 and it further states that the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter do not take away from rights a;;quired by we have land claim settlements. That's i1 .1portan!, Mr. Speaker. It establishes a number of items hich are still to be discussed, Mr. Speaker, and some items which will not be limited, for example, as I just mentioned in terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also sets out a commitment by the provinces and the Federal Government to meet before 1987.

Now that may seem like a long time, Mr. Speaker, four more years, but if one looks at the length of time on which Native people in Canada have been fighting for their rights, Mr. Speaker, one can see that it's a very short period indeed. 4191

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 Now this resolution, I believe, has particular support here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, because I refer in the election campaign of 1981, this New Democratic Party stressed that it felt that Native aboriginal rights should be recognized in Canada's Constitution. We made that clear, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure members opposite do not claim anything different. We made it clear that we supported that entrenchment and that's important, Mr. Speaker, but even more important than that is the fact that once we were elected, we did not decide our own opinion in a vacuum.

We did not sit down and say, well, we know what Native people want and we're going to argue for that, Mr. Speaker. We involved the Native people directly. We had a very extensive consultation process involving the Attorney-General, the Member for Rupertsland, particularly, the Premier, the Minister of Northern Affairs and many other members of this government. A consultation process, Mr. Speaker, that attempted to not define as a government what we felt Native people want, but to talk directly to Native people. And I can indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there was a tremendous amount of interest out there.

I know in my constituency, whether it be in terms of people who are treaty Indians, Mr. Speaker, or non-treaty Indians, or Metis, the various organizations were very involved in discussions in regard to the Constitution. Beyond that, too, Mr. Speaker, individuals were very interested in this particular matter, and I had some rather interesting discussions with Native people in my constituency about what they felt should be recognized in terms of aboriginal rights. So it's important for us, Mr.

Speaker, in that we have taken a stand for government and we have taken a stand also for consultation, which is a very important point. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important in a broader perspective; il's important not just for Canada's Native people or for Manitoba's Native people, but for entire conception that we can build on in terms of Canada's Constitution. One of the constant conflicts in Canadian political history has been in terms of majority versus minority rights. That's a constant conflict, Mr.

Speaker, in any society, but because of our very many ethnic groups, our very many regional areas, our regional interests, it's been a particular conflict in Canada and this is where I think the principle ol enshrining the rights of a group in the Constitution plays a very important role. As the Attorney-General has pointed out on many occasions: A right is not a right without a remedy. One can say that one has a right but if that is subject to ihe whims of a government, Mr.

Speaker, then it's really not much of a right at all, because as soon as one attempts to force that right, if one has a minority, one may find that one first of all has the majority against one and that, second, one has the government against oneself as well. By enshrining rights in a Constitution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we eliminate that problem. By enshrining it, we ensure that people have not only that right, but they have that remedy as well. That's important when we are talking about Native people who have been struggling for the last several hundreds of years, Mr.

Speaker, to obtain even the most basic rights in Canadian society. I would point out in that regard, Mr. Speaker, that it was only very recently that Native people were granted the vote; only in the 1950s, I believe, were they granted the vote. It's very important, when one looks at Native people, and it's more important overall, Mr.

Speaker, because when one protects the rights of one minority, one protects the rights of all; other minorities, certainly, but all Canadians as well, because in a sense I suppose we're all minorities, even those of us who do not consider ourselves connected with some of the groups in society, Mr. Speaker, who are seeking protection in the Constitution at the present time. We are all affected by that, because as individuals, if one reads the new Charter of Rights, for example, one can find that we have many guarantees there, Mr.

Speaker, that could not be there unless they were entrenched in our system of constitutional laws. That's an important point, which brings me back to what the Leader of the Opposition said today. A "secretarial amendment," he called it, Mr. Speaker. Now, really, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I think that's an insult to the many Native people who have been fighting very hard to see aboriginal rights entrenched in the Constitution. But beyond that, I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening today, Mr. Speaker.

You know, it's interesting in this regard that he, for example, has argued in regard to the French services amendment, that that should not be entrenched in the Constitution. In regard to Native rights, he's been somewhat solid, but I would assume by the fact that he hasn't indicated any opposition to this resolution that he is not opposed to it. That's a somewhat inconsistent stance to begin with, Mr.

Speaker, but even trying to pull out from that inconsistent stance exactly where the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are coming from, I think one can find that the view he is expressing, if it is clearly understood by all Manitobans, is clearly a view that is not shared by all Manitobans. I think if you ask most people, Mr. Speaker, at the time when discussion over repatriation of the Constitution was being discussed, if you discussed it with them, Mr. Speaker, I think they had a general support for that concept. They did not agree with the rather unholy alliance of Mr. Lyon and Mr.

Levesque, the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Quebec. They did not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. They had differing views on what should be included in the Constitution and different views on the process, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think they agreed with the approach taken by those two individuals. I think if they see through the guise of the attempt to whip up all sorts of emotional feelings on these issues, Mr. Speaker, you'll see this same thing again, because what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that he does not believe in constitutions.

He does not believe in entrenching rights in constitutions. Now there is an argument, Mr. Speaker, which can be made by other people in much the same vein. It's basically an argument, I suppose, that in Canada we have a common law system. We do not have a constitutional law system, and that our rights are defined by the development of common laws from the Magna Carta on down for a thousand years. But what the Leader of the Opposition and people who put forward that view fail to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that system, that process still continues. Our laws continue to evolve. 4192

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 Our system of rights and freedoms continues to evolve, Mr. Speaker, but in a number of areas it hasn't been sufficient. In this area, it hasn't been sufficient. We have evolved a system, Mr. Speaker, which does protect individual liberties, I feel, quite well. If one looks at the British common law system as it is practised throughout the world, it does quite well in that area. But in terms of individuals and groups such as Canada's Native people, I would suggest that our system of laws has failed, Mr. Speaker.

One has only to look at the situation facing Native people today socially and economically to see how much it has failed. One has only to look at what legal rights they have, Mr. Speaker, in terms of aboriginal land claims, even where those claims were outlined in treaties. One will find, Mr. Speaker, that our system of common laws has failed. I realize that's difficult for a conservative in the small "c" sense such as the Leader of the Opposition to recognize. You know, conservatives can see no wrong in traditional systems, Mr.

Speaker, but I think most Canadians, while they respect that tradition, feel that it is necessary at times for such a move as we are taking today in terms of aboriginal rights and we will be taking in the next few years in a whole series of areas. Most Canadians, I think, are flexible enough to realize that it is possible to keep your basic principles, your basic tradition, Mr. Speaker, but add to it a constitutional guarantee which emphasizes the freedom of individuals which I think is fairly well protected but goes beyond that to emphasize rights of such groups as the Native people of Canada.

So in concluding, Mr. Speaker, when we look at this issue, I think we should look very carefully not just at the government's views, not just at the views of other provincial governments because they all support this as well as the Federal Government, but the clear and concise difference that one can see between members on this side and members opposite in terms of what is of fundamental importance to Manitoba society today. We on this side are willing to see constitutional change. We're willing to see constitutional reform.

We are willing to see the rights of Canada's Native people entrenched in our Constitution. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, are somewhat reluctant in this area, and I would suggest in some cases, quite opposed to it. They prefer, Mr. Speaker, to conserve our present system of laws . That, I suppose, is consistent with their Conservative political philosophy. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our views are more in keeping with the mainstream of Manitoba society and Canadian society today. I would suggest too, Mr.

Speaker, that our views are really Canada's only hope in the upcoming years, because we are going to be dealing with increasing tension between our various regions and our various groups unless we do have some constitutional change, unless we do have some accommodation with the rights of those groups, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest in that regard that our approach is an approach that looks at the future. It is the members opposite, Mr.

Speaker, who, because of their connection with the past and with tradition, are failing this province at the present time and have been failing for the last number of years in terms of discussion of the Constitution. Really, Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, that is the issue. The issue is change, Mr. Speaker. The issue is the future of this country. I believe the approach taken by the New Democratic Party on this matter as well as the others is in the best interests of Canada in both those regards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C.

SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to share some of the thoughts that were bothering me all these years with respect to the economic, social, political situation of the Native people of Canada. Historically, if we will look backward, it cannot be denied that before the civilization of the white man had come into this North American continent, the Native peoples were already here as possessors of this continent and all its resources. Therefore, by mere right of occupation and possession, they have a prior right to all the resources of this North American continent.

But because of the impetus of colonization and commercial expansion of the more superior European civilization, the power of the sword and the power of the cross had been implanted in so many continents of the world including this North American continent. There is no denying that the European civilization is more superior than the Native aboriginal original civilization that has been found in North and South American continents. But it is also a fact that when this more superior civilization came, the less stronger civilization were pushed into the least desired locations in the North American continent.

The white colonizers had taken upon themselves the more important portion, the more fertile locations and geographical segments of North America and pushed the Natives to the less desirable wilderness. Even the very basis of their own civilization upon which they built their culture and their way of life such as the buffalo herd in North American had been destroyed by the acts of the new colonizers. It is also a matter of history that in the early days of this country and this continent, we tried to impose our own value system on these Native people. We wanted them to emulate our own way of life.

The Federal Government had always pursued a policy of being the patron of the welfare and destiny of the Native people. Because this European civilization had extended its own system of laws and its own system of administration along with all their notions of their civilization, we would like to think that it will be compatible and acceptable to the way of life and culture of the aboriginal and Native people of this country.

We have systematically created a situation of dependency through the policies of the Federal Government so that the Native people have always been dependent on the handouts of the Federal Government. What about the apposition of the resources that I had at the beginning stated had been a natural and moral right of the Native people? If it is the case that they are the first occupier of this North American continent, if there is any system of moral law or moral justice, can it be denied that they are the owners of all the minerals, mines, coals, gold, copper resources of all this North American continent? 4193

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 The only legal basis by which the European white civilization can claim ownership over this North American continent is by right of colonization by being the victor in total military occupation. Then we will say the basis then of the claim is that might makes right; the more stronger a civilization who conquers will absorb and will take all the resources of the conquered people. To give a semblance of legality to the acquisition by the European civilization of these Native resources, we have heard about the white colonizer buying Manhattan Island for $25 and a few bits of string.

If that is a contract and if $25 and a few bits of string is consideration for that contract, certainly it is an unconscionable contract; and if it is unconscionable, it's strictly speaking on the basis of moral law, it should not be a legal contract.

Also, there are so many treaties that we entered into purporting to be the legal basis of our claim to the resources of this North American continent, but all of those are a by-product of our own legal system, our own notion of justice, our own notion of legality to which the North American continent of aboriginal people have no affiliation or no understanding at all. It is true that we are the bearers of civilization; the white people of Europe are the bearers of education and enlightenment, that is true.

But then they have also utilized this civilization and enlightenment and rationalism in order to get a legal hold on all the resources of this North American continent and push these aboriginal people to the lowest possible level of socio-economic deprivation that they, in the biblical notion, have become the hewers of wood and drawers of waters for the white man in our North American society. If we have a fundamental notion of justice, it is the idea, I would call it that justice is the constant and perpetual wheel to give to every person his own due.

Justitia est constat et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuiqui tribuendi - Justice is the constant and unceasing disposition to render to every human being his or her due. If it is the case that the owners of all the resources of this North American continent are the Native people by virtue of their prior occupancy and prior possession before the coming of the white man, then illegal terminology as well as immoral framework of law, they are still the owners of the resources of this North American continent.

But because we have imposed our own notion of legal justice, our own notion of legal systems, our own notions of property and our notion of what is right and what is binding, we bind them to certain treaties that are in their own nature inequitable and unjust. We not only created rules of our modern society in North America, we also created all the positions of authority and all positions of power, but that enforces all these rules in our society.

And so we become the gatekeeper of all positions of influence, and influence and power determines the fate and destiny of groups and individuals on the North American continent. To compound the problem of injustice that is suffered by the Native people, we have created a system of total dependancy on these people on the part of the handout and goodwill and the patrimony of the national government, the Federal Government of Canada. So we control not only their education; we control not only their system of health; we control not only their system of life; we even want to control their system of belief.

And we scoff and deny at t�1eir own folk arts and their own culture simply because it does not coincide with our own notion of what is a morally advane;ed idea of civilization and ethical notions. If it is the case that they have their own system of religion and they have their own system of culture, that is their own. It may not be exactly what our own Christian beliefs may profess, and yet it is also written that those who are outside the realm of Christianity must have their own system as valid as our own, presumptively. They may be a little bit different, but to be different does not mean to be inferior.

So we have created in our society a natural system of domination, subjugation type of relationship. - (Interjection) - All the laws of the white European colonizers are in force in the total political and economic system in North America. If that is not domination, I do not know what domination is. Why can we not recognize as well the system of customs, habits, cultures and religions of the Native people in their own realm, in their own community? Is it because that we so believe in our own system and regard everything as immoral, unethical, or wrong? There is no one absolute idea of what is right.

In our total context of society, the moral situation is always vague that every issue can be debated on both sides if you know how to present your arguments and how to organize your arguments. There is no one holder of the truth and all of us are merely approximizers trying to approximate as nearly as we can be to pursue what is the truth. So when Pontius Pilate asked the question, what is the truth, he received no answer, because it is a very difficult thing to define. The truth, in a moral sense, what is it? In an exact science like mathematics, they say that the truth simply means its logical consistency.

In an empirical science like economics or political science, the truth is merely the concurrence of our ideas and prepositional statement with the actual state of reality in the world. But the actual state of reality of the world is also a product of our own notion, our own perception of what reality is. To a person who is looking and perceiving reality as what he sees, reality is what he perceives, reality is what he hears, reality is what he approximates it is, but he can never totally and fully comprehend what reality is.

So if we believe that our European civilization is really superior, it is because we are biased in our own perception of what is superior and what is right, and we pretend to be the saviour of what you call pagan people who never knew and understood the true meaning of religion. I have always said that their religion is as valid as their own and should be be respected as such.

If there is a policy that we should adopt in relation to Native people, it is to give them a framework by which they can self-determine their own destiny and that is only by assuring in our Constitution the aboriginal rights of these people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: If there is no other member wishing to speak to this resolution, it will stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. 4194

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Tourism and Economic Affairs, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION prese nted and carried and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty , with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair. COM MITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN, P.

Eyler: ... (In audible} .. . the requirements for non-budgetary programs, specifically the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation Estimate of $6 million -p ass. We are also considering Capital Supply 1983-84 and Capital Authority Requirements for non-budgetary programs in the order of $36 1,924, 000- pass. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. The Chairman reported upon the committee's deliberations to Mr. Speaker. IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Radisson, that the report of the committee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS MR. CHAIRMAN, P.

Eyler: We are considering the Ways and Means for raising Capital Supply in the order of $36 1,924, 000-pass. Resolved that towards making good certain sums of money for capital purposes, the sum of $36 1,924, 000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund-pass. We are also considering Ways and Means for raising $6 million for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation-pass. Resolved that towards making good certain sums of money for capital purposes, the sum of $6 million be granted out of the Consolidated Fund-pass. We are also considering the Ways and Means for Main Supply in the order of $3,01 6,7 97,200-p ass.

Resolved that towards making good certain sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984, the sum of $3,01 6,7 97,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund-pass. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. The Ch airman reported upon the Committee's deliberations to Mr. Speaker. IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Radisson, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. V.

SCHR OEDER introduced Bill No. 31, The Appropriation Act, 1983, and Bill No. 30, The Loan Act, 1983, No. 2. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, on a point of order, it is customary to grant leave to have second reading if the bill is available for distribution. A MEMBER: It's coming, it will be here in a moment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to move both of these bills for second reading and the bills will be ready for distribution in a minute or so. MR.

SPEAKER: It is moved by the Honourable Minister of Finance and seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, by leave, that leave be given to introduce Bill No. 30,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of money for capital purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (2), The Loan Act 1983, No. 2, and that the same be now received and read a first time and ordered for second reading immediately. QUESTION put, MOTION carried MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, if we could just wait for one moment while the Clerk gets the bills distributed. 4195

Thursday, 7 July, 1983 SECOND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL NO. 31 - THE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1983 HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 31, The Appropriation Act, 1983, for second reading. MOTION presented MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOUR LAY: I move, seconded by the Member for Tuxedo, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 30 - THE LOAN ACT, 1983, NO. 2 HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 30, The Loan Act, 1983, No. 2, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. flLMON: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned on this bill. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn . MOTION presented and carried and the House accordingly adjourned and stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow (Friday). 4196

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-102b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 102b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7670efbb47fb64bb88a405fe0c223ec9709f5bc8

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