ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Leglslatlve Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 338 - 8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 24 MARCH, 1983. Printed by Ille Offlce Of Ille o-s Prinlef. Province of Menilobll

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

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verend rye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Bon iface 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 Cha rleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Da uphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 24 March, 1983. TIME - 8:00 p.m. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE CAP ITAL SUPPL Y MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Commit tee come to orde r. We are considering the Capital Supply Motion; 1983 Capital Auth ority req uirements for non- budgetary programs. The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The debate has been rather interesting, to date, on this motion. I suspect it could get a little more interesting. What would make it a little more interesting is the Minister of Natural Resources.

You know, here we have a Minister that last year moved into his Estima te process unaware that his department had sent out a letter to certain municipalities in the Red River Valley, requiring them to contribute Capital funds to the construction of dikes - some thing that hadn't happ ened before un der the Lyon admini stration, under the Schreyer admin istration or any admi nistration before that. We have, in the Minister of Natural Resources, one who postures a great deal about how he, through his efforts, is going to save the Province of Manitoba from adverse effects of the Garrison Project.

This is the Minis ter of Natu ral Resources who has seen the government not deliver on a permanent office to lobby against Garrison in Washington as was prom ised in the 3lection. This is a Minister who, last year didn't tell us that the Americans had made some rather generous offers on the whole Garrison issue, namely, office space in North or South Dakota - I forget the details - and a number of other fairly important concessions and agreements between the two countries on Garrison.

In the last few months, this Minister has probably done more to assure that Manitobans are deluged with the worst effects of Garrison than any other Minister in any admi nistration that's had to deal with the Garrison issue. He's done it, Sir, by flying over North Dakota to a meeting of a comm ittee to save the Red River Valley, the membership of which we don't know too much detail of. All we know is that we had two Cabinet Ministers, I believe it was, from the Province of Manitoba there, a few American citizens and a whole lot of press.

Although I understand they were invited, there were no elected representatives from the State of North Dakota, Minnesota or South Dakota. Yet this Minister saw it to be important enough to go down there and whilst he's flying over North Dakota to Crookston, Minnesota, he observes from his airplane that. hey, these Americans aren't good farmers. Therefore, me in my infinite wisdom, I am going to have to deliver a mes:>age to them on proper cultural practices. He goes down there as an invited guest to Crookston, Minnesota, and proceeds to chastise the American farmers for their cultural practices. MR. A.

BROWN: Manitoba expert. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, that may be acceptable if he knew what he was talking about and if he had factual information, but when we questioned him, he didn't have any. His obs ervat ions were not based on a previously documented study that he had read and made himself knowledgeable on so he could properly critique their farmering methods, no. His observations were made from 15 ,000 or 10,000 feet in the air as he's flying over it 250 miles an hour, and that kind of an incredible intrusion into the affairs of another country on a matter he has: No.

I, no knowledge on; No. 2, no authority to go down there and chastise them; and No. 3, wasn't the purpose of his visit in my estimation, and this is the Minister that is supposed to be favourably negotiating a halt to the Garrison Project on behalf of Manitobans. I wonder what some of the elected representatives in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota think of some elected individual from Manitoba flying over their farmland and then delivering a critical statement on how they are mismanaging their resource. I hardly think, Mr.

Chairman, that would give too much credibility to that Minister when he goes down to Washington to try to stop Garrison. They're going to say that's the same ill-informed individual that criticized our farming practices. Last night, Mr. Chairman, had to be the ultimate slap in the face to the concerned Americans who want to co-operate with this province and this countr y in bringing Garrison under control. The ultima te slap in the face is a smiling Minister of Natural Resou rces par adin g at a demons trat ion in front of the U.S. Consulate, which I understand, Mr.

Chairman, you in your expatriot capacity were there as well along with a number of your colleagues, but here's the smiling Minister of Natural Resources gleefully participating in a demonstration in front of the U.S. Consulate at which the American flag is burnt. When the organizer is asked by the news media as to what pur pose they had in being there and protest ing Nicaragua he openly admits, well, no we can't talk about American involvement, we have no proof of that, there's no evidence of that, but we're just here because it's a good place to be, we could have demonstrated in front of Eatons, he said.

Here is our Min ister of Na tural Resources at a demonstration . . . A MEMBER: Is he the only Minister? MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . where an American flag is burned, and next week or the week after he's going to be going down to that same country that he's demonstrating in front of and try to persuade thos e people that Garrison will have adverse effects on this pr ovince, and hope to es tablish a sem bl ance of cred ibility with the elected people down there. A MEMBr:R: They should be ashamed of themselves. 1074

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: The Minister got up and he said, well, I was simply there as an individual, a concerned individual. Mr.

Chairman, that may help to clear his rather fuzzy conscience on the matter, but I think I can speak with relative assurance that should a Congressman from North Dakota go to a demonstration parade in protest against the import of seed grain from Manitoba, and at that protest where seed grain is taking sales away from North Dakota farmers that Congressman in shown on television as a private individual, and some of the radicals in that group burned a Canadian flag and a Manitoba flag in protest of the importation of seed from Manitoba to North Dakota, I can assure that the first one on his hind legs howling would be the Minister of Natural Resources crying foul, that the American Legislators are interfering with the free trade of our farmers with North Dakota.

He comes to this House today, clears his conscience saying, oh, I was at that flag burning demonstration, but certainly I was there only as an individual, not as a member of the Government of Manitoba, not as a Minister, and not as part of the Manitoba Government. Mr. Chairman, that simply will not wash. We tend to believe, in Manitoba, that Cabi net Ministers should be responsible people and undertake responsible activities.

Being at a demonstration where an American flag is burned, which has no correlation to the U.S. involvement in Nicaragua, which the organizer says they can't prove, is hardly a responsible position for a Cabi net Minister in this government to be undertaking. This Minister did it and this same Minister is going to come back, stand on his hind legs in this Legislature, and howl about how the Americans are not co-operating with him on his efforts to stop Garrison.

He is going to have to search his soul sometime in the next three years and ask himself if some of his very foolish, ill-considered and stupid activities, such as marching in a demonstration in front of the U.S.

Consulate, may have jeop ardiz ed all of the work of the Schreyer admin istration and the Ly on administration in co­ operation with both sides of the House, with the Federal Government and with the American Congressmen if he hasn't jeopardized that by that very foolish action last night and the equally foolish action the other day when he flew to Crookston, Minnesota and delivered a damning speech against the farmers in North Dakota.

This Minister is about to destroy all the previous efforts made on Garrison because of his very very narrow and silly and ill-considered actions last night in marching in front of the U.S. Consulate. Mr. Chairman, this will be known as Black Wednesday in Manitoba when Garrison waters start coming down the sewers and the Red River, thanks to the present Minister of Natural Resources and the Member for St. James. MR. CHAI RMAN: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, I thought there might be somebody on the government side of the House who might want to respond - and I'd be happy to make way for them - but they seem to be struck mute by the odour of what is coming back to them of the kind of dama ge that they have done collectively and individually to the public interest of the people of Manitoba because of the unwavering loyalty that a number on that side of the House seem to have to any interest that is contrary to the national interest of this country; contrary to the interest of the United States which is our foremost ally and any interest which seems to be sycophantic to that of the Soviet Union of Cuba and of any of the other Iron Curtain countries.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that you're laughing. You are hardly in a position to laugh, if I may say so, giv en your background. Now, Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to talk tonight about remarks that were made this afternoon by the Opposition House Leader with respect to the kind of mismanagement of House affairs that we have been observing over the last 14 months, since the beginning of the tenure of this New Democratic Party come-whatever government, but the provocation that was given during the course of the ill-considered remarks. I notice the honourable member for CUPE is leaving.

The provocation that was given by the House Leader in response to what the Member for Turtle Mountain said, causes all of us in this House, I think, to make some comment upon the state of degradation into which the order of business and the running of this House has fallen since the present government came to office. In a word, Sir, the order of business in this House is a shambles. The job of government is to govern, and a government that can't govern should get out of office and make way for those that can.

I say to you, Sir, that those in government across the way at the present time - they've been there some 14 or 15 months - they should be capable of knowing the House's rules and the House's habits and the House's traditions but, Mr. Chairman, they pay no attention to those whatsoever. Do I hear some croaking voice from Ste. Rose that is soon to be extinguished in the next by-election or election? Because his association with the people opposite is going to be well known in the Town of Neepawa, the Town of Ste.

Rose du Lac, the Town of Mccreary, and others, where they know where their loyalties lie, even if the member doesn't. Maybe he'd like to go back and get out his branding iron again. He'd be more at home there, out on the pasture. - (Interjection) - Yes, it's a great profession when you're doing your own animals. Mr. Chairm an, those in gov ernment capable of knowing the House's rules and habits and traditions should take second place, have second place, or no voice at all in this House, given the actions of the present House Leader, the Attorney-General.

The House Leader, the Attorney-General, is a new member to this House and there's nothing with that. All of us, at one time or another, were a new member in this House. Most of us, fortunately enough, had enough humility to realize for the first year or so that we had to learn a bit about the House, about its traditions, about its habits, and about its moods before we stood up on our hind legs and started declaiming, as did the Member for Fort Rouge when he was unfortunately appointed to this position. I must say, Mr.

Chairman, that we have tried in this House, and we have certainly tried privately as well, to impress upon members on the opposite side that 1075

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 the House is not being well served by one whose arrogance, whose flippancy, whose unawareness of the traditions of the House and whose apparent inability to learn the traditions of this House are apparent . . MR. G. LECUYER: I sure didn' t learn it from you. HON. S. LYON: I need no Member for Radisson ever to tell me about the parliamentary system, particularly the present mem ber. Th e present mem ber, Mr . Chairman, is fortunate to be included in a parliamentary democracy. He should count himself lucky to be here. Mr.

Chairman, the House Leader , and I can speak with some knowledge of this because I was House Leader for the government side for some three years back in the '60s long before the present Acting House Leader and many others were here. One of the jobs of the House Leader is to have a genuine ability to meet and to discuss frankly and honestly - and may I doubly underline the word honestly because that's a word, Mr. Chairman, that is not in common parlance across the way - with the other side of the House and to come to agreements which can be abided by. House Leaders have to be able to take one another's word.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that is a quality that is not too well known on the other side of the House as well. I repeat what the House Leader of our side said today that when he, on behalf of our caucus, gives his word, gives his undertaking that we will for instance pass Bill 29 on the 28th day of March, then you can take that word, given publicly or given privately. Would that we could feel the same way, Mr. Chairman, about the word given by the House Leader, the Deputy House Leader and others on that side of the House. There are some in this House I know, Mr.

Chairman, and I would not want to make and could not make, in fairness, a blanket condemnation and say that all NDP ers are incapable of giving their word. I look at the Member for Lac du Bonnet, the Minister of Transportation. If he gave me his word I would accept it without question because he's a person of honour and he's been in the House and he knows what the Rules of the House are. All we're saying on this side of the House, Sir, is that there should be others among the ranks over there.

It should not be a diminishing number, among whom a Ho use Leader, a decent Ho use Leader could be appointed, who could deal in an honest, an ethical and an aboveboard way with the official opposition in order that the Business of the House, in the interests of the people of Manitoba, might be moved forward . Mr. Chairman, this House was called on the 24th of February of 1983 after a brief Session in December which dealt with the Throne Speech and the introduction of some bills.

Since the House met on the 24th of February not one Standing Committee of the House has been called to meet, not one, and one must question seriously, Mr. Chairman, the intent of this government opposite, which always pretends of course to be a government that is open, which wants to give all of the information it can, one must question the motives of the government opposite when it sees fit not to call, for instance, the Public Accounts Committee, which is one of the most important comrnitrees of parliament, before the 17 th of May, Mr. Chairman. That's after the House has been in Session for one month.

This is a group which presumes to call itself a government! Mr. Chairman, when we came into office, one of the first things we had to do was to regularize and to make accountable the rep orting system for fina nce in Mani toba because of the aby smal record of the Schreyer NOP Government in keeping from the people of Manitoba the true state of their fiscal affairs.

One of tne other undertakings that we gave was this as a government, and we tried to carry it out, that we would get the public accounts of the Province of Manitoba out to the members as soon as they were printed and available to us from the Provincial Auditor, and that as soon as reasonable thereafter, we would call the Public Accounts Comm ittee because it is a standing committee of the House, whether the House was sitting or not, in order that that very important committee of the House could get on with the examination as close to the fiscal year end as possible of the fiscal affairs of the Province of Manitoba.

Mr. Chairman, we were not a perfect government. God knows. Well, the Member for Wolseley laughs because she wouldn't know a perfect government if she saw one. She is ill-equipped in many respects, Mr. Chairman, to understand the workings of parliament or for that matter many other reasonable things. But, Mr.

Chairman, I can merely say to her for her edification, that one of the things we had to do was to bring fiscal accountability to the fore because of the abysmal state in which the Schreyer NOP had left this province, prophesied $25 million deficits in September of 1977, which in the hiatus period between the takeover of our government in October of 19 77 was prophesied to be $225 million if we had not applied Draconian measures. Yes, Draconian measures to stop the hemorrhage of public funds which the predecessor of this government was trying to conceal from the people of Manitoba. That's only one small example.

Funny, I don't hear the Mem ber for Wolseley laughing anymore. Mr. Chairman, the House was called together on February 24th after this government made much of the fact that it wanted to have a Session in December so that it could advance the business of the people of Manitoba; instead of calling the House back around the 1s t of February or the end of January, which most reasonable people would have thought proper. After all, they had been in office for a year. Surely, they could have gotten their act together by that time. No! They called it together on the 24th of February and we objected at that moment.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, during the course of the December Session, I stood in my place in the House and asked that the Public Utilities Comm ittee be called during the December meeting of the House, and all the mornings were free during the December meeting, staff was here, everyth ing could have been accomplished because the then president of Manitoba Hydro, whose contract was not being renewed by the NOP, was going to be gone from the province.

Would it not be in the public interest to have that man make a report before he left the province and to give this House some idea as to why his contract was being terminated by this new Socialist Government that had come in? Well, Mr. Chairman, we were given short shrift about that. We were told: (

a) not only would the Public Utilities·C:immittee oot be called in December; but (

b) that when the Public Utlilites Comm ittee was cafied, said the Mini ster of Mi nes and Ener gy, the most 1076

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 discredited Minister on that side of the House next only to the Minister of Finance, when that committee was called, he would give no undertaking that president would be summoned as a witness before the committee. - (Interjection) - Yes, well, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance in his mumbling way wants to make some comment later on, if he can get his act together long enough to make a credible connected speech, we will be happy to hear him. We'll be happy to hear him especially if he can stick to the truth, which he hasn't found very easy to do in his course in the House thus far.

I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, it's because of his own incompetence, allied to that of the House Leader , that we are here tonight, because he hasn't got his act together. So, Mr. Chairman, no committees were called; Public Utilities Comm ittee not called, not about to be called until some time in April. Or is it May as well? Probably April for it. Mr. Chairman, Public Utilities, Public Accounts, two of the most important committees of the House, being just left to dangle in the wind by this group of incompetents across the way.

They remind me, you know, of the first labour government that came into office in 1945 after the war under Mr. Attlee, and they had their group of radicals, of people who were not too concerned about the nation, the public interest of the country, but more concerned about advancing their particular doctrinaire philosophy. That was the group that said one day in the Legislature, in the House of Commons and the Mother of Parliaments, one of their front bench was heard to say, and you can hear it echoed every day in this House by someone on that side. Do you know what those words were?

Those words that were born in envy and cupidity out of their philosophical belief - "We are the masters now." Mr. Chairman, by implication or otherwise, everyday we hear these words spoken by somebody on the other side, because that is their view of life, that they are temporarily in office and, boy, are they going to be the masters for a while. Ordinari ly, and as we've seen in the last 14 months, Mr. Chairman, either individually or collectively they couldn't run a peanut stand. Mr.

Chairman, we have seen nothing to indicate that there's been any improvement in their administrative talents since this particular government has been in office. None whatsoever, and yet they are the masters now. The only action that they haven't followed that the labour party carried through in 1945 in Britain was to stand up and to sing the lnternationale. Well, they don't do that in the Legislature of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman. They just sponsor and pay for, with taxpayers' money, Marxist symposiums and go to them. They just engage in walk-a-thons in front of the U.S.

Consulate and participate in group actions where burnings of the American flag take place. They don't have to sing the lnternationale. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. They act it out everyday. Lest there be any misunderstanding among the people of Manitoba as to just what kind of a government we have in place, these recent actions of this government committing taxpayers' dollars and, albeit, it's a small amount, $7,200.00, not a large amount, to a Marxist symposium at the University of Manitoba does not meet with the majority interest of the people of Manitoba. I tell you that. No. 2, Mr .

Chairman, and the chairman of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce said this in the face of the Premier the other day: This government is creating an image for the Province of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba, which is contrary to and prejudicial to the best interests of our province in terms of business investment, in terms of getting new jobs for our people, in terms of the real reasons why we are here. We are not here to wave some red flag with a hammer and sickle, although members opposite, and a good number of them, not all of them, but a good number of them, Mr.

Chairman, may feel that that is their ded icated purpose in life. Let me remind those members, particularly those who are on the front bench of this government, that there was nothing about that in the oath that they either swore to or affirmed to. There was an oath of loyalty there to Her Majesty, the Queen, first of all, to the head of government of this country. Implicit in that oath is an oath of loyalty and support to the people of Canada and to this great nation which we are proud to call our home. Implicit in that oath as well, Mr.

Chairman, is an understanding that agreements and treaties and bargains arrived at with your friends and allies will be maintained. Later on tonight, Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak a little bit about loyalty, because loyalty is what is at issue, not any of the red herrings that my honourable friends have tried to drag into the debate to save themselves, to distract attention from the kind of nefarious activities in which they get themselves involved because of their peculiar political philosophy.

What's involved here more and more is a growing question of loyalty of a Provincial Government to the policy that is enunciated by the National Government of this country and to its allies and to those who, through their defence and armament make it possible for us in this country to live as free people against the ever present threat of those in the USSR, those beyond the Iron Curtain, those in Cuba, the Sandinistas and all of the other outposts of communism and Marxism in the world, which would try to deprive individual Manitobans and individual Canadians of their freedom. So let's make it clear, Mr.

Chairman, that a good number of Manitobans, including us on this side of the House, understand what the real world is all about. We understand that there is a question of loyalty to one's allies, to one's neighbours, to one's friends. There is a question about knowing who one's enemies are and who one's friends are. I say to the Honourable Father Malinowski, the Member for St. Johns, who has been a foremost defender of Solidarnosc in Poland - and what is he asking for? MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Still I am. HON. S.

LYON: He's asking for freedom for the Polish people, freedom and solidarity - from what? - from the same communist menace that members of the NDP walked in support of, Mr. Chairman, last evening in front of the United States Consulate. So, Mr. Chairman, the member, Father Malinowski, knows when I speak of freedom that it is freedom not from the United States; the people of Poland aren't being oppressed by the people of the United States; the people of Canada aren't being oppressed by the people of the United States; the people of Nicaragua aren't oppressed by the people of the United States.

But the people of Poland and all 1077

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 of the count ries behind the Iron Curtain are being oppressed by that kind of rotten, putrid Marxism, totalitarian Marxism, which some of his colleagues on that side of the House apparently support. So, I ask him, Mr. Chairman, to consider his position as he sits among that group who walk with their signs, Mr. Chairman, saying . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. S. LYON: ... talking about freedom in Nicaragua. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. D. MALIN OWSKI: Yes, Mr .

Chairman, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is accusing me of something - I don 't know what he wants from me. I would like to put for the record, Mr. Chairman, I love freedom. For me it doesn't make any dif ference what colour oppression has; it might be blue, yellow or green or red, I am for freedom. I fought for freedom and I will do so regardless who - it might be Poland, it might be Nic aragua, whatever. I'm against any aggressor so don't you try to switch my point of view on it . MR. L. SHERMAN: The Americans are your best friends. Why don't you stand with them? They stand with you.

A MEMBER: Ins tead of burning their flags. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, the Member for St. Johns has the most telling word of the even ing along with the Memb er for Springfield. The Memb er for Springfield knew this afternoon when he made his apologia to the House that that was a bad bunch with which to be associated , and he made his apologia, his apology, this afternoon. The Member for St. Johns, from his seat tonight said, I wasn't there. And we know you weren't there because if you are a true believer of freedom you wouldn't have been there. You wouldn't have been there. Now, Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister of Finance, let it be heard, is talking about Somoza. Obviously he knows more about Somo za than he does the fiscal affairs of the province because they're in a dreadful state under his guidanc e. I'm about, Mr. Chairman, to make a few comments that might even attract the attention of the member for wherever, the temporary Min ister of Financ e who is doing his best to denig rate the reputation of this province throughout the whole of the western world. Well, Mr.

Chairman, we know somet hing about the honourable members opposite and their ability to run anything because the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain spoke about that eloquently this afternoon and, may I say, that he was totally unr ebutted. We have an incompetent House Leader and we 'v e got to get rid of an incomp etent Government House Leader and the sooner the mem bers opposite realize that, the sooner we'll get more business done in this House. That's not a thr eat in any way at all.

We've tried to co-operate with him; we can't co-operate with him; nobody can co-operate with him because he's too arrogant and too sill y. He doe sn't understand parliament. How could he be expected to under stand parliament? Mr. Chairman, since the 19 60s, our society has taken on some of the less sensible practices and public di splays that we have seen on radio and seen on TV, particularly from Europe and from the Uni ted States. As r']cently as 1977 when we came into office, we saw organized demonstrations on the front steps of the Legisla tiv e Building in rapid order.

The Member for Wolseley says she was in every one of them, she makes my point, Mr. Chairman, that they were rent-a-pickets. We kn ow that she's capable of being rented - (Inter jection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Mem ber for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, obviously the Leader of the Opposition is better at speaking than at liste ning. I did not say I was at every one, I said he scoffed at every one of them and he's still scoffing at legit ima te demo nstrations by the people of this province. A MEMBER: Not of ordina ry people - of Cabinet Minis ters.

A MEMBER: She said she was at every one she could HON. S. LYON: Well, I dare say she was because, Mr. Chairman, in 19 77 to 1981 the re were a lot of unemplo yed left- wi ngers in Ma nitoba who had previously been on the public payroll, and whether she was one of them or not, I don't kn ow. I don't know if the Chairman's indicating that he was one of the three, or whether there's three minutes left. I merely say to the Member for Wolseley that we understand that if she wasn't there in body, she was there in spirit. Mr.

Chairman, I remember one observer of these demon strations saying to me, you know, isn't it a funny thing that the same faces show up at all of these demonstrat ions. There were demonstrations against tuition fees; demonstrations against God kno ws what else. There were demonstrations against anything you can think of. The pair I can most often recall seeing - I'm sure they wouldn't min d their names being used becaus e they were there publicly all the time - was the former Min ister, a Mr. Turn bull and his wife Aleda. They were there for everyth ing; whether it was day care or tuition fees, McKenzie Seeds.

I dar esay that the Minis ter of Cultural Affairs was wandering there with a placard too, because he was in that business at the time, and a numb er of others who had nothing much else to do with their time, except a little propagandizing on behalf of the left. They were there all the time. If the Member for Wolseley said that I scoffed at them - I usually went out, Mr. Chairman, and spoke to them. Disregarding the full-time - I wouldn't use the word "paid" activitist - activists who were there, who would carry a stick and a card for anything, such as the Member for Wolseley, Mr.

Chairman, disregarding that kind, the; would always grab into the vortex of their group; some otherwise well-meaning citizens who were 1078

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 genuinely concerned - unlike the placard carriers - about some public issue in Manitoba, and who were there, really, to try to propagate some information. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said, since the Sixties, our society has taken on some of these less sensible public displays. The unfortunate

part is that in this province we can see tha t a good number of them are orchestrated; they are orchestrated by and large by the same people; they're orchestrated by people who are pretty well-known to the security services in Manitoba and in Canada. I daresay that some of the same people with whom the Minister of Resources walked so gaily - if I may use that term - (Interjection) - I use it in the best sense of that word - and that the Minister of Economic Dev elopment walked with, and the Chairman of the Comm ittee tonight walked with.

I da resay th at there were some of thos e orchestrators and propagandists of the left involved in that demonstration last evening, just as there have been in most of them; whether it's anti-tuition fee, day care, anti-nuclear - you name it - those denizens of the left will be out there with their ever-present placards. Mr. Chairman, all good Canadians should know that. I'm afraid that information, however, has been kept away from most Canadians because Canadians don't like to be manipulated. Manitobans don't like to be manipulated. They're only now just beginning to see, Mr.

Chairman, some of the manipulation that's been carried on by placard-carrying rent-a-pickets, who are available at the drop of any left-wing hat, to come out for any cause no matter how good or bad in order to rail against Reagan; rail against the United States; rail agai nst capitalism; rai l agai nst any of the other philosophical demons that they have in their narrow little minds, in order, Mr. Chairman - (Interjection) Is Radisson trying to say something, Mr. Chairman, is he trying to say something to us? Would he mind standing on his feet and saying it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. HON. S.

LYON: He'll have lots of opportunities. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The member has expended his time. HON. S. LYON: I'll be happy to resume, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: You've just invited a comment. just said, in face of all these injustices, you're just prepared to shrug your shoulders and shut your eyes. So why should you accuse the others of doin g something about them? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Member for Radisson for renewing my speech for another 30 minutes.

A MEMBER: Radisson tor House Leader. A MEMBER: That's called House Rules, fellas. Start to learn something. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. S. LYON: You know, Mr . Cha irman, - (Interjection) - Does the Minister of Finance want to get into the debate for a change? He usually tries to shy away from debates. He's not equipped mentally to take

part in too many of them. We know that. Mr. Chairman, amongst those of the professional pickets, we're happy to see that one of them has now been made an Assistant Deputy Minister of Community Services, Mrs. Turnbull, on what we're told was a really tough Civil Service competition. I'll bet that was a tough competition. What do they do, measure the length of the picket sticks or what? What did they do? Mr. Chairman, the technique is well-known to any observers of the left in this country.

You get a bunch of people together; you inform the press ahead of time that they're going to be there; you have some cause that is real or imagined; you have a bunch of signs painted up. There is support that comes from sources that are never mentioned, of course, at all. There are usually more good people than there are organizers there because the good are sucked into the apparent goodness of the cause by the propagandizers. Mr. Chairman, as a result, you get press cameras on it and you will have important meetings taking place, whether in Ottawa, Washington, Winnipeg, Grand Forks - you name it.

If there's a small left-wing dissident group out, it's guaranteed almost to get 30, 40 percent of the publicity for the gathering. That's the way the left works. Mr. Chairman, I don't entirely condemn it. I think that they've learned how to manipulate and to use the media quite well. It's only a shame in a way that our friends in the media hav en't learned that they'r e being manipulated and used quite well by the left but, Mr. Chairman, that's a problem that the media have.

Well, we heard last night and we saw repeated on television on CTV tonight at the 6 o'clock news, the pictures of the demonstration in front of the U.S. Consulate last evening, presumbly against American - I say this in quotation marks - "American intervention" in Nicaragua, or was it El Salvador, or where, God knows. In any case, it was a left-wing cause. Well, who was front and centre? As I watched my T.V. set tonight in disbelief, who was front and centre, Mr. Chairman?

The Minister of Natural Resources with a picket on his shoulder - (Interjection) - The Minister who's so interested in rules and order and co-operation and good will. Here he was out with some of the most hard-core leftists you can find this side of Moscow, walking around. The Minister of Education blanches when I say that. Does she not know the group she's among? Does she not know with whom she is associating? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. S. LYON: Look, I mean, all she has to do is look at her two seat mates - (Interjection) - A MEMBER: That's why she's wearing dark glasses. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Chairman, there was the Minister of Natural Resources carrying his little placard 1079

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 - maybe he'll tell us later in the debate what was on the placard - and he was smiling. Then behind him I saw you, Mr. Chairman, and then I saw some other faces that were familiar from the other side of the House, the Member for The Pas. I didn't see the Minister of Cultural Affairs but he was there in spirit, we all know, because there would be a good number of his his old union there; we all know that. The Member for St.

John, I can honestly say I didn' t see him there and, you know, I would have been surprised to have seen him there in any case because of the words that he spoke, I know, from his heart when his nomination was contested in St. Johns by the present Member for Fort Rouge and because of the words that he spoke from his heart about the danger of communism and how he won that nomination by making that speech in English and in Polish and he defeated the Member for Fort Rouge who was running in that seat by reminding the people of Manitoba and of St. Johns of the political antecedents of the Member for Fort Rouge.

Now isn't that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because everytime that somebody on this side of the House mentions that now, it's called red-baiting, but when the Member for St. Johns mentioned it at his nomination meeting that's how he won. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, we might be able to get the clipping of what the Member for St. Johns said at that meeting that night. - (Interjection) - Oh no, if the Member for St. Johns wants to start moving away from that, he's imperilling his position with Solidarnosc and other groups that understand him as a true believer of freedom. We remember, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for St.

Johns, amongst others on that side of the House, shares the concern that many people in this province and in this House have concerning the political antecedents of some of the colleagues with whom he must sit across the way, and we know that in due course his conscience will probably point the right way for him to move. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's why we know he wasn't there last night, because one who had spoken in the fervent terms that he had about the danger of Marxism, and so on, could never associate himself with that gang that were in front of the Consulate last evening. Mr.

Chairman, the NOP, if they were honest people, should make bold of the fact that they are a legitimate party of the left, that they are socialists. That's not a term necessarily of opprobrium. Well, the Member for St. James, the Minister of Resources, says he hopes not. He's been a pretty much up-front socialist since I've known him, since he was prating his nonsense at age 18 at United College as it then was. MR. l. SHERMAN: He wouldn't know opprobrium if he stepped in it. HON. S. LYON: When I look at the Min ister of Resou rces, Mr .

Chairman , I'm remi nded of that wonderful statement that's attributed to Ch urchill, although I'm sure it was spoken by others before him, that every person is a socialist at 20 and usually a Tory at 30; that is, if he has any brains. My honourable friend never quite got through the 20 barrier; that's his problem.

I've had the pleasure, and I say that in a genuine sense, of knowing him since he was a young student just as addicted as he is today to some of the nonsensical theories that he still espouses, which cause him to grab four-foot pieces of wood, and here he is a grown man, and parade around on the public street, blocking the Queen's Hig hway and so on from normal people who want to pass it. Now I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if you had moved beyond the Churchillian level at age 20, you know, normal people after they reach 30 don't walk around with sticks and signs on.

They find better things to do with their time. Mr. Chairman, in any event, there was the Minister of Resources up front and centre, carrying his stick with whatever sign on it. The NOP, being a party of the left which has str ayed - and I'm not a student of the CCF or of the Canadian Commonwealth Federation, the Regina Manifesto - I've read of it and so oil. I'm not a student of that early government but, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the old CCFers, people for whom I had a fair measure of respect, the M. J.

Coldwells, whom I had the pleasure to meet and to know and to have respect for, I don't think that the M. J. Coldwells of the CCF would have been in front of the American Consulate last night and participating in a demonstration where the United States flag was burned. No. If I know the tradition of the CCF, which is a tradition with a strong spiritual and Christian background to it, that tradition is foreign to the kind of Marxist tradition that we're seeing now gradually enveloping the NOP across the way.

The old CCF would have shunned the active kind of Soviet apologia that we hear now from people like the Minister of Agriculture who said only last year - and I'm glad he reminded me by speaking up; I wish others would do that so they would remind me of their transgressions - the Minister of Agriculture last year was the one who stood in the House and said that we were moving toward a Soviet system of land tenure in this country. He holds his head in despair and disgrace because that's what he said and those words will live to haunt him to his grave. We know, Mr .

Chairman, tha t the Min ister of Agriculture is anti-ownership; we know he's anti-private ownership. All you have to do is read the bill that's in the House under his name, to which he said today he was not bringing any substantive amendments. Well, Canadians can't own farmland in Manitoba and he tries to pretend that he's an inheritor of the old CCF Party in th is province. No, he's an inheritor of the mid­ European Marxism which is gradually taking over the NOP. Mr.

Chairman, those are not my words; those are the words of Sid Green who was an inheritor of the old CCF Party and who left the New Democratic Party that my honourable friends sit in opposite, because he said it was being taken over by the Manitoba Federation of Labour and was going to become a plaything of organized labour bosses in Manitoba, which it has become. Some of his candidates said as well that the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, the former chairman of the Liquor Control Commission, Mr.

Sims, said that the New Democratic Party - the former President of the New Democratic Party - under Howard Pawley it was being taken over by hard core communist elements in Manitoba. So, Mr. Chairman, I make no allegations because I don't knoll\ how hard core these people are. I can only judge their belief by their actions. I can only judge a 1080

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 government tha t would give $7 ,200 to a Ma rxist symposium at a time when it's cutting 4-H Programs in Manitoba; that's the only kind of judgment I can make. I can only judge a government that is alleged to have said to a Kinsmen Regional Convention in Manitoba, we won't give you any hospitality grant but we'll sure give one to the Marxist symposium when it comes to Manitoba; we can only judge a government on the basis of those actions of the government. And I wonder how comfortably the Member for St.

Johns, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Economic Dev elopment - and I'll come to her a little bit later - I wonder how comfortably they can feel among this group of growing left-wing radicals who are taking over the NDP in Manitoba, and who are causing these kinds of manifestations of support for the enemies of my country that I do not like to see, and that Canadians like to see, and that the vast majority of Manitobans do not like to see. Mr. Chairman, the NDP, under the old CCF, had a legitimate heritage of pacifism which came to it from the old Fabian Society. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Chairman, I don't the Member for Ste. Rose could even spell pacifism, let alone understand what it means. MR. H. ENNS: I'll tell you one thing, they didn' t desert their country in time of need. MR. L. SHERMAN: I'll tell you one thing, Pete, they got Main Street moving. HON. S. LYON: What some would call, Mr. Chairman, the fuddy-duddy Fabianists had quite an influence on the early CCF in Canada, and all Canadians, I think, hold in some degree of respect, the work that was done by J. S.

Woodsworth, the founder of the CCF Pa rty, who was animated by his Christian belief to do things on behalf of his fellow man and woman that he thought were right. I do not feel, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with his motivations in the sense that I think that what he wanted to accomplish for men and women in Canada could be better accomplished under a different system, but I grant him, certainly, the respect of the strong ethical belief that he had in the right ness of his cause.

He was animated, not by Marx, not by revolution. not by the kooky kind of left-wing nonsense that we saw demon strated yesterday in front of the American Consula te; he wouldn't have gone to a Ma rxist symposium at the University of Manitoba, not in a long shot, because he knew that he was a loyal Canadian and that those people, by and large, were animated by a philosophy which was meant to subvert freedom and democracy in this country; that's why he wouldn't be ther e, and I can presume to speak for J. S.

Woodsworth, but I do have more than a passing respect for that man and for what he did for the CCF and for our country. Mr. Chairman, he was animated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and would that all of us who adhere to that faith could be animated in the same way that he was. Mr . Chairman, Canad ians , ther efo re, could understand, with that strong streak of Fabianism and with that strong animation of the Gospel in him, that when it came time for Canada to declare war against the oppression of Nazi Germany J. S. Woodsworth was 1081 the, as I recall it, the lone Member of Parliament.

The Leader of the CCF, but the lone Member of Parliament who voted against Canada going into the Second World War against the oppression of Hitler. I say that, Mr. Chairman, not by way of indictment of the late J. S. Woodsworth because I think anyone who know how he was animated, and what animated him, would understand how overwhelming was that streak and strain of pacifism in his mind. Mr. Chairman, that doesn't mean that he was right; it means, however, that his vote against going into the war, the one man in the House of Commons in 1939, his belief was founded on principle.

Critics will say that that belief was silly and naive and unrealistic, and I believe all three. I believe it was a silly approach, I believe it was naive, I believe it was unrealistic because Canada had no alternative, but nobody would fault J. S. Woodsworth, Mr. Chairman, for the purity of principle which animated him into that vote. May I say , for the bravery that it took to stand up in the House of Comm ons, in the face of those experiences - and the Member for Kildonan is old enough to remember, as are a few of us here - of what the mood of the country was at that time.

That is the true heritage of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba and in Canada. The true heritage of principle and belief, and ethical belief, in something that, while we may not agree with it, is at the same time consonant with loyalty to this nation and to our beliefs in democracy and individual freedom, and not to be picking on our allies, not to be burning their flag, and not to be saying that any country is superior to the United States, and not to be taking the pro-Soviet view, when the pro-Soviet view is the un­ Canadian view. What we have at issue, Mr.

Chairman, is much greater than the incident that occurs in front of the American Consulate, it is the question of citizenship. It is a question of where this party, or at least some of this party, which temporarily has the honour to form the government in this province, where some of this party are drifting, where they have become wayward in that kind of integrity that they should be displaying toward loyalty to their own country and to that country's allies.

That is what is at the bottom of our concern about $7,200 grants to Marxist symposium and about Cabinet Ministers who are sworn to a special oath of loyalty parading up and down in front of the U. S. Consulate against the best interest of the greatest friend, and the greatest ally, and the greatest protector that the national interest of this country has; that's where our concern stems from. Mr. Chairman, the party of the NDP that we see today is a far cry from that party of ethical and principle belief founded on the Gospel ol Jesus Christ which animated the original CCF.

That's part of the tragedy of politics in this House and in this country today, that's part of the tragedy of politics. God knows that people on this side of the House are far from being perfect, we are not perfect, we do not live up, either in our individual deportment or in our deportment as a group, to all of those ideals and to all of those ethical precepts that we think are the best and I know that many members on the other side think are the best; we failed because all men are imperfect.

But I am truly concerned about the straying, the waywardness, and the straying away from belief in this country that I see manifested by such actions !'iS we

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 saw yesterd ay. Mr. Chairman, this par ty, in some respects, has come to degenera te into a hollow echo of the worst elements of the radical left as some, Sid Green and others, said it would. Mr. Chairman, how can this party be blind to the history of the Labour Party in Great Britain? Look at the transformation that is taking place in Britain today. A Labour party, a once noble party, under Ramsay MacDonald, under Clement Attlee, under Aneurin Bevan, men of great stature in the western world; gr eat patriots of their own country - Laborites, yes, but patriots first. Patriots first.

Let's get our priorities in place. What has happened to that party? Well, they let the left move in, they let the Marxian left from the labour movement move in. The Trotskyites, the Maoists, the Leninists and all of the other gatherations that we see nowadays whose main purpose in life to subvert decent, ordered , free, democratic government in the western world. They let them move in and they took over, the Tribune group and all of that.

And there was a history to be read and still to be read today - I've read it - of what can happen to a decent party of the left when it allows those forces of evil which repose in the far left to take command of the party. Mr. Chairman, one would have to be blind to history to be unaware of the dangers that can occur to a true social democratic party. Now, today, we find those people who still retain their fealty and loyalty to their country. Those people from the Labour Party are joining and making common cause with the people of the Liberal Party into what they've called a New Social Democratic Party.

That party is winning by-elections here and there from the Labour Party and God knows if they're going to be successful in displacing the Labour Party as Opposition in the next general election. They certainly won't become government. But, Mr. Chairman, you can see a transformation and a renewal taking place in Gr eat Britain today because of the evils that had overcome the old traditional Labour Party because of the infiltration and ultimate takeover by the hard left of that party in Great Britain. I ask the question, Mr.

Chairman, I do not make the indictment, but I ask the question: is not the modern New Democratic Party in Canada subject to the same kind of aggrand izement from the left that has taken place in Great Britain? I think that is a legitimate question that every member on the government side should be asking himself or herself.

To what extent is he or she becoming a manipulated tool of the hard­ core left in this country who do not care for Canada as a free country at all, but who care more for the new world order, for the revolution or all of the other buzz words and knee-jerk slogans that they pass around so blithely in order to bring to their ranks those who are looking for a better day. Well, Mr. Chairman, one would have to blind not to know that that is the danger that faces my honourable friends opposite. That is the danger that we saw manifested yesterday in front of the U.S.

Consulate; that is the danger that we see manifested by grants to the Marxist Symposium; that is the danger we see when we read an Order-in-Council that was passed by the Cabi net of this government only a week or two weeks ago giving, I think it was $4,000 - I am subject to correction on the figure, I can get the figure, members of the Cabinet will know because they passed it - a grant to the Salvadore Allende Society, presumably of Manitoba, which I presume is a group of displaced Chileans of the left who are in Manitoba - God knows why, but are in Manitoba at this time and who are soul mates, presumably, of the hard left in this province.

I wonder how many taxpayers in Manitoba want to see that kind of grant being made either to the Salvador Allende Society or to the Marxist Symposium, or want to see their Cabinet Ministers marching with plaques and plaquers in front of the U.S. Consulate denouncing our greatest friend and our greatest ally and our greatest pro tector. I wonder how many Mani tobans and Canadians really want to see their government doing that. A MEMBER: Not very many. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, I conclude by saying at the bottom of it all is the question of loyalty; loyalty to one's country; loyalty to one's beliefs; loyalty to ind ividual freed om; loyalty to huma n freed om everywhere. I pick up the theme, Mr. Chairman, that was mentioned, I believe, by the Member for Ste. Rose, when he said, and I think this is a feeling that is shared on all sides of the House.

"I know of no member in this House who is not opposed to the oppression of individual freedom wherever it occurs on the face of the earth, regardless of what kind of government or state apparatus is imposing it, whether it's of the right, or the centre, or the left." So, my hono urable friend has no monopoly on concern for individual oppression. But some of us, Mr. Chairman, have a keener understanding that those from the left who are causing this oppression are the ones who would do the same to us. Those in Poland would do the same to us, and the Member for St. Johns nods because he knows.

They would do the same to us because they believe that they should conquer the world and impose their belief upon the rest of the world. Somebody across the way mentioned Somoza. I don't even know, I can't recall quickly offhand which country Somoza was from. My recollection is he was a right wing dictator of some sort. All I know, Mr. Chairman, is that Somoza never represented in himself or in his ideology, any threat to the freedom of any Canadian. But, I know that Fidel Castro does; I know that General Jaruzelski does, and I know that Commisar Andropov does.

I know that all of these people behind the Iron Curtain would like to impose their kind of oppressive government, anti-individual freedom government upon us. But the Member for St. Johns and all other Canadians will not let them do it. That's true. That's why we can't be constantly taking the pro-Soviet side; the pro-Soviet side with respect to Nicaragua, with respect to Cuba, with respect to Chile or whatever. Mr. Chairman, we must be big ger, and my honourable friend from Radisson can correct me if I am wrong. What is the expression? - la gauche est n'a pas faux - the left is never wrong, eh.

My honourable friends, some of them, opposite, are addicted to that view; the left can't be wrong. If it's pro-Soviet, if it's pro-M arxist, it's got to be right. Those who marched in front of that Consulate last night, Mr. Chairman, demonstrated or manifested that they believe that. That's not a new theory; we see 1082

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 it all the time. There are those in American society, British society, Canadian society who can't see anything good about the United States; can't see anything good about Canada or Britain. Oh, but they can disregard the horrors of Russia; they can disregard the hor rors since 1917 of the USSR; they can disregard the invasion of Afghanistan because that of course was only be done to protect the flank of the USSR; they can di sregard the genocide tha t has taken place in Kumpachia, because that's being done by the left. But, Mr.

Chairman, decent human beings, regardless of their being from the left or the right, can't disregard that kind oppression, that kind of genocide, that kind of murder and as Solzhenitsyn says, the terror which has afflicted Russia since 1917 is something that the world has never seen or known before. There is no fibre of my being - and I speak, Mr. Chairman, for myself and my party I know is associated with these feelings, but they can speak for thems elves - every fibre of my being is opposed to the ideology which actuates and animates the kind of oppression tha we see in Soviet Russia today. Mr.

Chairman, there are thousands, there are millions in this country who are prepared to stand and defend this country from them, from that kind of oppression. Mr. Chairman, that may not find favour with the Member for Wolseley. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. S. LYON: But she will be in a position to speak for herself. I've got two minutes to conclude. MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes. The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, I close by saying that the position of the majority of Canadians was not expressed by the Minister of Economic Dev elopment and by the Minister of Natural Resources and by their colleagues from this government caucus, who walked in front of the U.S. Consulate last evening. To all within sound of my voice, and particularly to the people of Manitoba and to the people of Canada and to the people of the United States, I want them to know that they represented a narrow, mean fringe of our society, and not the broad uplands of our thinking in this province or in this country at all. Mr.

Chairman, I was told today - there will be an opportunity to question this further tomorrow - that the participation of the Min ister of Economic Dev elopment and the other members of the caucus of the government of the NOP was caucused by them. I'm told, and the Minister is able to stand in her place and say it, whether it's true or not, that she was actually there representing the Premier of Manitoba. If that be the case, I want her to stand in her place tonight and say it because that's not what the Minister of Health said today, but that is what is reported to the press. Mr.

Chairman, this matter is not going to die overnight. This matter goes, as I've tried to indicate, much more deeply than any kind of temporary hooliganism that may be perpetrated on the street as a gesture of solidarity or whatever, with whatever group, against whatever country and against whatever movement. It's bigger than that. I merely wish to say, Mr.

Chairman, that those on this side of the House disassociate themselves with the actions of the members of the government caucus; that we, on behalf of this Legislature and the people of Manitoba, apologize to the Government of the United States for the actions that were taken by some of our colleagues yesterday. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I rise to add ress a few remarks, to follow what I consider to be a well­ delivered, but ill-tempered and very, very poorly thought out and illogical speech on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.

While in some portions of his speech he did indicate some understanding of the democratic socialist base, well-founded in the precepts of Jesus Christ, yet, he seemed to stray completely from an understanding of de mocratic socialist phi losophy. He does what Co nservatives in this country have done for a hundred years. They say that if you're against capitalism, you're communist; if you're against the worst evils of the capitalist system, then you're something dirty. You're something of the left, and you're something unclean.

It's that tunnel vision that Conservatives have as to democratic socialism that is hard to understand. The Leader of the Opposition's been around for just about the same time I have. He referred to his roots, early years in university. Maybe he has become more ultraconservative and almost more fanatic in his defense of capitalism because he used to call them red. They used to call the Honourable Member for Fort Garry red. I suppose he's reacted violently from that nickname. You know, Mr.

Chairman, at one time, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition was Attorney-General under the regime of Senator Duff Roblin, former Premier Roblin. That regime was recognized throughout Canada as being a reasonably prog ressive group because they replaced a Liberal Party government that really was conservative. So the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition developed a reputation for being a red Tory.

I suppose it's because of a reaction against that extreme attitude towards anything of the left, that he has become so ingrained, so twisted in his thinking about anyone who has anything critical to say about the capitalist system. They're all damned under his philosophy. Let me indicate, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Op position - the hooliganism on the street that he refers to - that's the kind of thing that in the Soviet Union, they put people in jail for. That's the kind of thinking that the honourable member has.

If someone stands up in free society and ind icates their ho stility to oppression, then that's hooliganism and you put people in jail for that in the Soviet Union. We have a free country here. We have a free country in the United States, an excellent country where young men and women and older men and women protested - yes, marched with placards; marched in front of the White House - against an oppressive attack in Vietnam. They had that war ended because they demonstrated in the streets. It wasn't the politicians in Washington that stopped the war.

It was the demonstrators, the American people that convinced that government that they had to stop that inhumane and unjust war. 1083

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 Now, Mr . Chairman, - (Interject ion) the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would try to suggest that our great neighbour to the south is blameless of any fault. You know, Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of public record within the United States itself that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States schemed and developed the insurrection in Chile, armed those people that overthrew a democratically elected government, assassinated its leader. That is not a figment of someone's imagination; that is testimony in the United States of America. They're ashamed of it.

The people of the United States are ashamed of that. Mr. Chairman, free men in the United States and in Canada are not afraid to express their opinion. They're not muzzled by the idea that if they speak out, they are hooligans and would be put in jail. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition says I was seen on television carrying a placard. I carried nothing, Mr. Chairman. Just like some honourable member is suggesting that I burnt a flag. That is a disg race. I would never do such a demeaning thing.

I believe that free men and women everywhere have a right to present their view free from intimidation that they're going to be thrown in jail if they protest. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition talks about the democratic socialist left in this province. Yes, it had its be ginnings in 1919 when hundreds and hundreds of people, citizens in Manitoba, armed servicemen who came back from the war, without jobs, oppressed, went out on general strike. Wh at ha ppened? J. S. Woodsworth was put in jail. A. E. Heaps was put in jail. For what? They were alleged to be Bolshevists, Mr. Chairman.

An armed ins urrection; there was no armed insurrection. Historians have proved without any shadow of a doubt that there was no conspiracy to overthrow legitimate government in Winnipeg or in Manitoba but that fanatic zeal to protect the status quo put decent, honourable men, men that believed in Jesus Christ, men that believed in the brotherhood of man, they put them in jail because they spoke out for reform. They spoke out against repression of the working man and, Mr. Chairman, people all over the world now are taking heart.

They realize that with the nuclear threat that exists in this world, we may not have long to see a development of the brotherhood of man and woman, not much time, Mr. Chairman. Should we not dare to save and improve the lot of citizens everywhere? There's no question. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition really didn't know who Somoza was. They don't know who Somoza was. Somoza was a vicious tyrant in Nicaragua. Those people, like the people of the United States of America who fought for their freedom, those people in Nicarauga fought for their freedom, died for their freedom.

Roman Catholic Priests stood up and fought Somoza. Yes, Roman Catholic Priests have been shot and killed in El Salvador because they are fighting for the little people, but what's happening? The Monroe Doctrine says that there shall be no change in governments in the North American hemisphere, any change that would weaken and destabilize the American system, so they send in their money and if their money doesn't help, the y send in advis ers and the y undermine democratically elected governments and destroy them.

That is what people in Canada are opposed to, that is what people in the United States of America are opposed to and they will continue to fight that kind of oppression. The honourable member talks about Russia. He talks about the Soviet Union. The honourable members are of that ilk who think the way you treat communism is you out-lie. That's what Co nservatives have said in Ottawa. That's what Conservatives said in this province. You know, democratic socialists have been fighting communism since the very beginning of political history and the record is clear, Mr. Chairman.

Where we have democratic socialist movements, whether it be in Australia, in New Zealand, in England, in Denmark, in Norway, in Sweden, wherever, democratic socialist governments have fought communist parties and won, because we're not the same. We're not the same, Mr. Chairman. We believe in the democratic tradition, and the honourable members over there refuse to accept that there can be people who are committed, committed to social and economic change and justice in this world, unless they are revolutionaries and they're prepared to kill people, that isn't the way, Mr. Chairman.

The democratic socialists have fought and worked for 100 years. Mr. Chairman, the Ho nourable Leader of th e Opposition makes it dirty to stand for peace, makes it dirty to stand out and protest oppression and the result of that kind of effort that the Honourable Member for Fort Garry is working on, is to condemn everyone who is critical about the capitalist system, to be a communist. That's the way it is. Anyone who stands up for peace is a communist in their thinking. Mr. Chairman, there was an era in the United States of America that the people of that country were called to their dismay and their chagrin.

That was a day when you couldn't be associated with anythin g of the democratic left or you were communist, there was a witch hunt. People were accused, condemned and humiliated because they stood for reform in society. They had to conform to the rule of the capitalist system then, unchanged. That was the kind of system but people in the United States of America protested. Yes, they carried placards, yes they fought that system and I think the United States of America is a marvellous tradition of democracy and we on this side respect that nation.

We respect those people just as we expect them to respect our right to indicate, as a good neighbour, when they do anything wrong. Mr. Chairman, the honourable members over there seem to think that good friends never suggest to one another that they have done anything wrong. That isn't the basis for friendship. Good friends, Mr. Chairman, will frankly tell one another when they have done something wrong and we as good friends of the United States are prepared - I know I am - to indicate when I disagree with them. I also am very happy to indicate when I do agree with them. Mr.

Chairman, honourable members opposite have engaged at the start of this Session, in the kind of obstructionism, the kind of negative attitude towards government and it's been planned. The attacks on the House Leader, sure he's a new House Leader, but these attacks are calculated, calculated to disrupt governm11nt. Why, Mr. Chairman? Why, because they haven't gJt alternative policies. On the one hand they criticize for our spending and on the other hand they 1084

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 want us to spend more. When we stand, during the course of the Budget Debate and say, "Where do you want us to cut?" What constructive advice have they given? Only the Member for Fort Garry says, "Well, bring in a new Budget." That's the kind of suggestion they had. They had no alternative policy. When we talk about the one problem in Manitoba, the most serious problem in Manitoba, jobs, they belittle our efforts with the Jobs Fund. What would they do, Mr. Chairman? They ignore the problem.

It's because their opposition is so hollow, so inept, that what they are doing tonight is characteristic of what they've done all Session, obstruct, argue, find fault on technical House procedure. That's the kind of thing. Now they laugh, Mr. Chairman. They're talking about moving forward into Comm ittees. They have - (Interjection) MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Mem ber for Pembina on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: No I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister a question. Would you permit a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I will allow the member to get up and ask a question if that gives me another 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition says that those who walked in front of the U.S. Consulate walked in support of communism. How niave, how inept. Anyone who stands out now stands up, in protest to inhumanity anywhere, apparently is a communist. That is a sick, confused, befudd led approach to protest in our society. - (Interjection) - Mr. Chairman, honourable members over there babble because they really haven't got anything constructive to say. Mr.

Chairman, we know that the honourable members have difficulty, they have difficulty because they don't understand democratic socialism. HON. S. LYON: We know the difference between right and wrong. HON. A. MA CKLIN G: They don' t understand the difference between communism and socialism, they don't care to understand. Mr. Chairman, we on this side, will continue to work and fight for peace and justice, not only for the people of Manitoba but we will be prepared to stand up and be counted and speak out against oppression. As the Honourable Member for St.

Johns indicated, oppression anywhere, whether it be in the Soviet Union, whether it be in Papa Doc Haiti, whether it be in Honduras, or El Salvador, we won't be afraid to stand up and criticize because we know we're standing up on the side of small people who have fought and are continuing to fight for liberty and justice in their own countries. The American people went through tha t, Mr. Chairman, they are a marvelous people. They fought for liberty; they attained that liberty. Unfortunately they had a fantastically difficult time during the Civil War when that country had a protracted period of anguish.

That country is no stranger to difficult resolution of economic and political problems. So, Mr. Chairman, they should understand the agonies of the development of demo cracy in other parts of the wor ld. - (Interjection) - The Honourable Member for Fort Garry is babbling on to the point where I can hardly hear the words that I make, echo in this Cham ber, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Let the records show that the Member for Fort Garry in his usually intemperate way is now calling me an idiot. That, Mr.

Chairman, indicates the kind of temperament of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Hono urable Member for Lakeside on a point of order . MR. H. ENNS: On a point of order , Mr. Chairman. There was some disturbance in the House, I want to make it very clear that the record does show that the honourable member now speaking is an idiot. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I know what Beauchesne says about the use of that word but it will just indicate for the record how low and how inept and how naive and how childlike are the members opposite who use th ose wor ds. Mr .

Chairman, I had the opportunity . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. A. MA CKL ING: Mr . Chairman, I had the opportunity in 1975 to visit Cuba in the company of a couple, Mr. & Mrs. Frith, who lived in Onanole, Manitoba. They had been down th ere one year before the revolution when someone by the name of Batista controlled Cuba. Mr. Chairman, at the time that Mr. Batista was in power in Cuba the mafia controlled most of Cuba.

They operated brothels, large casinos, they were building on the Isle of Pines a mammoth casino and Cuba was being operated as playland for the gamblers and the wealthy from the United States. When the Friths walked the streets of Havana they indicated to me that they were overwhelmed by seeing the children all dressed with shoes on their feet. When they were there the year before the revolution the children had bare feet and were in rags begging, hundreds of them. Mr. Chairman, I don't approve of the communist system.

I don't approve of the regimentation, the limitation of freedom that the communist system brings in the society which it controls. But, Mr. Chairman, I do respect the fact that some people throughout the world look to that form of government organization because they find some relief from the oppression of poverty, nakedness and lack of shelter in society. I don't condemn them for reaching out to try and find help, Mr. Chairman. Athough I don't believe in that system I don't condemn people who have adopted. that either in a democratic way or have fought with their own weapons to attain that freedom. 1085

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 Mr. Chairman, the idiosyncrasy of the members opposite is, that while they hate communism, they like communist money. In China before the revolution, before 19 49, there was no unity of purpose. There were warlords, th ey fought over gr ain, but tod ay, Mr. Chairman, an organized government, one that I don't support, one tha t I don't want to see emulated anywhere, but at least a government there feeds its people. They buy their grain from Canada, we're happy to sell them grain.

If we took the attitude of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition we wouldn't have any dealings with China because we don't like their form of government. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have to learn is to be able to meet and talk with friends, friends we don't agree with. I don't agree with the politi cal philosophy of the member opposite but I will not call him names as some of his members have called me names tonight. I will not do that. I will always recognize in honourable members opposite the dignity of the human race and the hope, Mr.

Chairman, that with intelligent thinking they will share with me some of the concerns I have for a better society. It may be, Mr. Chairman, asking over-much but I continue to have faith in the human race and I even have faith that the honourable members opposite can have some understanding and sympathy for the causes of oppressed people everywhere, and they, themselves, would be prepared to speak out in opposition to it and, yes, demonstrate against it because that is the way that free men and free women throughout the world have indicated their protest to systems that are corrupt in society. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I just heard the words from the Honourable Minister of Resources that good friends won't tell one another when have done something wrong. Those were the words that he said during his speech. He said, good friends won't tell one another when they have done something wrong. llll R. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order . HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want the record to be correct. If the honourable member is going to quote me let him quote me correctly.

I said that good friends are prepared to tell one another when they had done something wrong. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll accept the Minister's statement and I'll accept his statement very well. I've just listened to a person that I have known as a good friend for a lot of my life but I don't understand him at the present time. In fact, he's a complete stranger. Mr. Chairman, I would say that when the honourable member and I were members of the St. James, and later the St.

James-Assiniboia, Council together, that the honourable member regarded the fact that he was a councillor as something that I would say the way I felt, that is something sacred and I make that point because I don't think that he seems to believe or realizes the fact that he's a Minister of the Crown in the Province of Manitoba as something as sacred as he did when he was an alderman. Mr. Chairman, I would have never believed in my life that the Member for St. James, while he was a councillor for St. James, and at one time was the Deputy Mayor of St.

James as I was, that he would have gone out and demonstrated as he did last night on the basis of what he spoke about just now. The Minister uses the excuse for demonstrating about oppression, etc. within the world today and that's his privilege. Mr. Chairman, if he was, as Deputy Mayor of the St. James-Assiniboia, walking down the street demonstrating then, when I knew him then, he would have realized that, as an alderman, he was representing the City of St. James-Assiniboia. Now, Mr.

Chairman, we have a situation where the member has taken an oath to be a Minister of the Crown of the Province of Manitoba, part of Treasury Bench, who stood out there in those halls and took an oath to be a Minister for the Crown, for the Province of Manitoba, the same oath that I took. Strangely enough we were both councillors and both Deputy Mayors at one time in the City of St. James-Assiniboia.

The Minister now believes, as he didn't believe then, that he can eliminate the fact that he took that oath, he can eliminate the fact that he's part of Treasury Bench, he can eliminate the fact that when a Minister goes out and speaks in this province that he does not speak for the government, he now speaks as an individualist. Mr . Chairman, I say to my friend tha t I don't understand anymore. I say to my friend that I don't understand anymore, why does he now take an attitude that he never had before? Mr.

Chairman, the Minister is a member of the Treasury Bench of this province just the same as the Minister of Economic Development is Treasury Bench in this province, and not just Treasury Bench, is the Deputy Premier of this province. When the Premier . . . MS. M. PHILLIPS: The finest one we've ever had. MR. F. JOHNSTON: . . . cannot make a meeting and the Deputy Premier attends, the Deputy Premier is representing the Province of Manitoba.

Now, how can members on the Treasury Bench of the other side truly justify the fact that they went out last night and demonstrated against the policy of our neighbours, the United States, and then stand up and say that we were doing it as individuals. Do you really believe that you can take the oath that you took out there on those front steps as members of Treasury Bench and now say that I am no longer a member, I disregard that oath, I am now an individual and I can speak for myself? That really doesn't happen. That really doesn't happen, Mr.

Chairman, because as an alderman or an ML A or an M.P. and I might say, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education, who was the chairman of a school board, represented the people that they were elected to represent and as the chairman of the school board was there because the elected members of the school board put them there. Now, all of a sudden, in this House the honourable members opposite say that the oath that I took for Treasury Board, it doesn'l mean anything anymore. Mr. Chairman, does it really mean anything when you go to the community 1086

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 clubs within your area, when you go to the churches within your area, when you visit anybody within you area? Do they walk up to you and they say, well, I have a problem, I have something to say to you about the government operation of this province and you say to them well, believe me, I have my own personal opinions but as an ML A I have another opinion? Do you ever find any of your constituency segregating you away from the fact that they elected you?

No, you don't have them segregate the fact you are representatives of the people of Manitoba and treasury bench is far more important because the Treasury Bench, the Cabinet, actually sits th ere and the y make the de cisions regarding the policy of this province. When a Minister, and when the Deputy Premier of this province walks out and stops and goes on a demons tration and the Deput y Premier takes a microphone and starts to talk in front of a group of 400 people, is that not regarded as the opinion of the Province of Manitoba?

If it is not the decision of the Province of Manitoba, the Minister of Resources and the Deputy Premier of this province should resign, because they accepted the positions that they're in at the present time. They accepted them and they stood up and were very proud to accept them.

Now, they can walk down the street; now, they can stand in front of another embassy, whatever embassy it may be, and actually expound a policy which I don't know is the policy of the present government in Manitoba, but when I hear it expounded, when I hear it put it forward by Min isters of the Cr own, I have to accept it as government policy. The Minister of Resources well knows through his experience of many, many years in public life, that is the fact.

If he is now about to disregard the honour that was placed upon him to represent the people of Manitoba and be part of Treasury Board by saying that I am speaking as an individual, then I say the Minister should resig n. There is no question in my mind that's the way the ball bounces unless, Mr. Chairman, you want to disregard the whole democratic system that we presently have. The Minister stands up and he started to refer to the Budget debat_e, which was mainly a way of getting off the su bject that we're on tonight.

He talked about this House by putting obstacles in front of this House so that the proper democratic system could not be taken care of. Mr. Chairman, I called the Minister yesterday a twerp. If he goes to the Webster Dictionary, it says, "silly and contemptible person." I have never known anybody that was more contemptible than he was yesterday from trying to muzzle speech in this House. Then, he turns around and walks down the street saying I am a Minister but I don't have to take that responsibility; I can throw the coat off my shoulders.

I don't have to have any regard of the oath that I took on those front steps and I can speak any way I like. The other members on the opposite side say you can't have it both ways, and I say to the Minister of Resources, you can't have it both ways. You never used to have it both ways when you were an alderman in St. James and when you were Deputy Mayor. You had more damned courtesy than you are presenting at the present time when I knew you.

So when we talk about good friends, I can say to you that this person that I knew has a completely different idea of what an elected member is at the present time, completely different in that he can say at any time that he can do what he likes. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of Treasury Board on the other side. We have an American Consul which is resident within this city. Would that you, as Treasury Board, the right thing to do would be to sit in Cabi net and say, Mr.

Premier, we don't really believe that what the United States is doing is the proper thing to do and we think that there should be some protest against it. As members of Treasury Board or in Cabinet, you should have said to your Premier, will you make representation to the American Consul in Manitoba? Will you tell him or her my concerns? Was that done? No! We had a group of Ministers. We had the Deputy Premier of this province walk out on a demonstration in front of the America Consulate in Manitoba and make a display of themselves which was dishonouring the position that they have been given in this province.

Mr. Chairman, how can the members on the other side justify what they did last night and what they want ' to continue to do? How can you justify the fact that, as Cabinet Ministers, you didn't say to your Premier tha t this is not some thing th at is the economic development of the Province of Manitoba; this is not some thing of education of Manitoba; this is not something of creating jobs in Manitoba; but we have a concern and say, Mr. Premier, would you make representation to the American Consul in the City of Winnipeg in the Province of Manitoba. Was that done?

Well, I would say it wasn't done, and I would say that's a disgrace that anybody that took the oath as a Cabinet Minister in this province, and if you really believe that the democratic system that the Member for St. James just expounded, if he really believes that he thinks that United States is a good neighbour, if he really believes that they have a democratic system that he respects, wouldn't he, as a member of Treasury Board or the Deputy Premier of this province, make representation through the Premier to the American Consul in Manitoba. So, Mr. Chairman, I just don't really understand.

The members on the other side get up and they talk about oppression, they talk about all of these things. The members on this side, we're aware, we know what's going on. Do you believe that the Treasury Board, Ministers that took an oath in this province, can now go out as individualists? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the members of Treasury Board have been influenced by the new Member for St. John. I would believe that they have been maybe influenced, and all due respect, by Mr.

Chairman; I would belie ve tha t they have been influenced by people maybe in the backbench; and several of them on Treasury Board to say we have to go out and we have to demo nstrate against our neighbour, which is the finest neighbour in the world, and all of a sudden we have Ministers in Manitoba who have a vehicle to do what they want to do in the proper procedures, decide that we're not Ministers anymore, at 5 o'clock tonight we're no longer Ministers, we'll go out and we will demonstrate.

The Deputy Premier of this province, with a speaker in front of her espousing her views, and as Deputy Premier of this province, has to be the policy of this province. Is the Premier, when he finally sits in his seat, going to say to his Ministers 1087

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 that I disagree with what you did? Are the Ministers of this province responsible to the Premier or are they responsible to themselves? Are they resp onsible to the people or aren't they? Because when you get up as Mi nisters, you are responsibl e, very resp onsi ble, because you took an oath as Ministers. And I say to the Member for St. James, I don't know him anymore because he would never - he might have done it before; as my leader said, he might have done it before when he was 18, I didn' t know him then - but I knew him as a councillor in St. James, as a Deputy Mayor in St.

James, and on no circumstances would he have done that at that time. Now he takes a far greater oath than he did as a councillor. He takes an oath to be a Minister of this province, a member of Treasury Board and, I might say, previously was an Attorney-General of this province, and decides that he can throw his coat off as many members of his caucus did and as many members of Treasury Board did and say it doesn't mean anything anymore. Mr.

Chairman, if we are dealing with a Cabinet that has decided they can throw their coat off one day and be one thing, put it back on the next day and be something else, or speak out of this House one way and speak in this House another way, we are dealing with a very serious situation in this province and we are dealing with something that is going to be a disaster for this province if our Treasury Board has that attitude. So, Mr. Chairman, I just say that I had a good friend MR. H. ENNS: He's now a stranger to you! MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's right, I don't know him when he does things like this.

I'm very surprised at the Deputy Premier of this province, and I would like any member of the Treasury Bench on the other side or any caucus member to stand up and say that the members of Cabi net that took an oath to be part of Cabinet, which is the group that decides the policy of this province, and say to me that I can throw that responsibility off anytime I want to, would they please stand up and tell me that. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, he's inviting me to stand up and say something. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Natural Resources had a point or a question. - (Interjection) - No, did you have a point or a question, because I don't want to preempt ... HON. A. MACKLING: Let the record show that I am prevented from answering . . . MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, let the record also show that four minutes after ten or thr ee minutes after ten that we were dealing with business here tonight that is keeping various members of the Comm ittee, and indeed the committee in general, in their places unnecessarily; that if in fact the business of the House had been handled properly by the Government House Leader, by the Minister of Finance, that this item of House business would have been dealt with and dispensed with last Friday, and that we would not be here debating at this hour of the night, not that any of us, I presume, has any objection to debating at this hour of the night; but if membe rs op pos ite are concerned in any way about the lateness of the hour and if the Member for Springfield is beginning to sag in his seat, let him just remind himself that it's due to the conduct of the affairs of the House by his House Leader and his Minister of Finance and his government that we are here at four minutes past ten debating the Loan Bill when it could have been cleaned up during the period we were dealing with Interim Supply.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that in my experience one of the great lines of English literature occurs in Joseph Conrad's novel, Lord Jim, in which near the end of the novel, the protagonist Lord Jim says, "I am come in sorrow." I believe that those words, which I studied in the context of study of a major English language novelist many years ago, elicit and evoke for me a profound observation on many aspects of life. I believe that those words are very fitting for participation in this debate tonight because, in my experience, I enter this debate in sorrow.

I would not have thought that it would have been necessary for a Manitoban, a Western Canadian, a Canadian of whatever political persuasion, Progressive Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Social Credit, of whatever political persuasion, to stand in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and redress on behalf of one's friends and one's allies the kind of insult and the kind of outrage that has been perpetrated by two members of the Treasury Bench of this province in the last 24 hours. Mr.

Chairman, I do come into this debate in sorrow, because I find it extremely embarrassing and humiliating that as a Manitoban one should have to defend one's provi nce, one's peo ple, one's Legislature, one's constituents, one's colleagues, against the foolish action of a couple of Cabinet Ministers who know not of their responsibilities and, obviously, have no concept of a sense of honour as it relates to Cabinet, its collective responsibility, its oath of allegiance to the Crown, its oath of allegiance by implication to the Crown's allies, to our friends, colleagues and allies in this world, and not only that, but to the sense of propriety and decency of the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Minister of Natural Resources understands the sense of outrage and disappointment that the majority of Manitobans will feel as a consequence of the action that took place in the last 24 hours involving him and his colleague, the Minister of Economic Dev elopment. And I am extemely sorry that the Minister of Economic Development was involved because I give her, in my own mind and my own heart, credit for much greater common sense than was manifested by her participation in that event.

I don't give the Minister of Natural Resources credit for that kind of common sense, obviously he is a highly emotional, high -strung person who reacts emotionally to difficult situations and often reacts irrationally, does not take into account his sense of responsibility as a Member of the Treasury Benches and as a sworn Minister of the Crown, but I had really expected more of the Miri ster of Economic Deve lopment and I am deeply dis,1ppointed. I can say that the Constituency of Fort Garry, for whom I have the honour and privilege 1088

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 to speak, would be, in large part, Sir, in large part - I don't claim to speak for everybody in Fort Garry, obviously there were many in Fort Garry who did not vote for me, but the majority did and I can speak for the majority in Fort Garry - and I can assure you, Sir, that they will be deeply disappointed in the actions of the Minister of Economic Development, and dismayed by, perhaps not surprised but dismayed by the actions of the Minister of Natural Resources.

I wish, Sir, to add my support to the plea, in fact the demand, of my leader earlier today, that the First Minister of our province, our First Minister, every Manitoban's First Minister, issue an official, formal and public apology to the President of the United States of America, not to the Consul General of the United States of America in Winnipeg, but to the President of the Uni ted States of Amer ica, for the foolish attendance and participation of two of his Cabinet Min ister on Wednesday even ing of this week in Winnipeg, at an anti-American demonstration in front of the U.S.

Consulate, a demonstration that had no support in terms of justification what soever , no justifiable rationale whatsoever, and even its organizers said so. I have to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, who apparently has found other pressing commitments to attend to at the present time . . . A MEMBER: No, he's hiding in the corner. MR. L. SHERMAN: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I apologiz e. The Min ister of Natural Resources is here in the Cham ber. I thought he, perhaps, had repaired to his office to attend to other matters of pressing ministerial business. A MEMBER: Write out his apology. MR. L.

SHERMAN: I have to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, what was he demonstrating against? Why was he there? Even the organizers of the demonstration don't know and are quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, March 24th, as saying they don't know. "It's a protest against the invasion of Nicaragua. We probably could have protested in front of Eaton's." Well, what does that say, Mr. Chairman, for a sworn Minister of the Crown, a representative not only of the great Constituency of St.

James, but a representative of the people of Manitoba who is serving in a ministerial capacity in the Executive Council of this Government. I see the Minister of Natural Resources is on his feet; I believe I have the floor, but I will defer to him if he has a question. For the moment I am not yielding the floor. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I took it that the honourable member was asking a question. A MEMBER: In his speech we ask a lot of questions. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, . . . A MEMBER: You'll have a chance to speak, again. HON. A.

MACKLING: If you like I will answer your question, or do you not wish an answer. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Natural Resources is perfectly correct. I am asking him a question, but I am asking him a rhetorical question. - (Interjection) - He's had 30 minutes in this debate; he'll have another 30. I'm asking him a rhetorical question, perhaps he'll take a mental note of it. I am asking him, what did he think he was demonstrating against, or for, and why in his capacity as a member of Treasury Bench, Executive Council, he would be out participating, in any event, in a demonstration of that kind?

Mr. Chairman, it boggles the mind that the organizer of that demonstration could say what he has said, what I've just read into the record from today's interview in the Free Press, and two of the Cabinet Ministers of this pr ovince could partici pate in that kind of a nonsensical, irrational, undirected, disorganized action, simply for the sake, I suppose, of showing that they don't think very much of the United States of America.

I presume that's the reason they were out there, otherwise why would they demonstrate when they knew not what they were demonstrating for or against, and why would they do it in front of the United States Consulate. I suppose it's fair game to pull the eagle's fea thers, and whe never you can tr y to cause embarrassment to the United States of America. So we have two of our Cabi net Ministers in this province participating in that kind of travesty, in that kind of totally unacceptable, dishonourable action. And the only term one can apply to it is dishonourable, Sir.

Now, I know that there were eight members of the government caucus who participated in the event, and I don't think very much credit can be directed toward any of the eight. I certainly don't think that any of the other six stand to receive much in the way of compliment or praise for participating in that kind of a foolish event, but at least the other six have the justification and the protection of being members of the government caucus in a lesser capacity than those whom I have mentioned earlier, namely, the Minis ter of Natural Resources and the Minister of Economic Dev elopment.

So I think one can say, with respect to the other six, Sir, Father forgive them for they know not what they do; and they knew not what they did. In any event, they were backbenchers, they are entitled to operate as individuals and I do not criticize their decision to express their opinions in an individual way.

I don't think that it casts any honour, or brings any praise, or brings any credit to the Government of Manitoba, and it certainly is a discredit to the people of Manitoba which that government is supposed to be representing, that they should be out there participating in tha t kind of di shonourable, disorganized, irrational, inexplicable action.

But, at least they are backbenchers; at least they did not take an oath of allegiance to the Crown; at least they can be forgiven, perhaps, on the grounds that they didn't know what they were doing; at least they can be entitled, I suppose, to operate, to a certain extent, as individuals. But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Economic Development, any other member of the Executive Council, any other member of the Treasury Benches cannot, under our system, 1089

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 operate as an individual unless he or she want to resign from the Cabinet. A MEMBER: Right. MR. L. SHERMAN: If those two ministers want to operate as individuals, let them quit the Cabinet or let the First Minister fire them from the Cabinet, and then let them go out and participate in all the willy-nilly nonsense that they want to, but today, as members of the Treasury Bench and mem bers of the Cabinet, they stand for and speak for and represent the people of Manitoba.

I want to tell those two Ministers that the vast majority of the people of Manitoba do not agree; in fact, are outraged by that kind of show of dishonour and unfriendliness and enmity and foolishness, nigh stupidity towards the gr eatest friends and allies that we have in the world. Not always right the Americans, but are we always right in Canada, but the greatest friends and allies that we have in this world and, in fact, the greatest friends and allies that free men and women everywhere on the face of this earth have.

The Minister of Natural Resou rces talked about Vietnam and the agony of Vietnam, and the fact that many Americans demonstrated against Vietnam, and the fact that there was a great outcry against American participation in Vietnam, as though he was informing us of something that we didn't know. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's very easy to sit back in the safety and the sanctity of St.

James or Fort Garry or Sturgeon Creek or any other constituency in the Province of Manitoba, and pontificate about the responsibilities of the leaders of the free world and the responsibilities that the United States of American had in Vietnam, or had in Korea, or has in Central America, or Latin American, or has in Asia, or has in Eastern Eurupe, or has anywhere on the face of this earth, very easy to sit comfortably in St. James where the Minister of Natural Resources sits, or comfortably in Fort Garry where I happen to sit, and criticize people who carry an enormous burden of responsibility.

Nobody on this side of the House is suggesting for one moment that the United States of America, that Washington, is always right; nobody is suggesting that, but is the Minister of Natural Resources suggesting that if we carried that burden, if we had those problems and challenges and responsibilities that we would always be right, that we would always do the divine thing, that we sit on the right hand of God and know all the answers. Mr.

Chairman, the thing that has really embarrassed me as a Canadian for many years - and I don't mind saying so and my colleague the Honourable Member for Lakeside and I have talked about this in this House for 14 years - the thing that has embarrassed my colleague, the Honourable Member for Lakeside and me, as Canadians, for some considerable time has been the juvenile, adolescent posturing and pontificating of a number of pretentious Canadians about what the Americans should be doing, and what they shouldn't be doing, and how wrong the Americans are when, in most cases, many of us with a sense of honour in Canada are somewhat embarrassed about the fact that Canada itself has not met its international resp onsibili ties, has not lived up to some of the responsibilities that we have in terms of defending the freedoms of this world since World War II - since Korea, I might say, since Korea - I won't say since World War II because certainly Canada participated with vigor and commitment in Korea.

The Member for Lakeside and I have often talked about that in this House and I really think it is unseemly of people like the Minister of Natural Resources to sit over there and participate in demonstrations against the Americans, and criticize the Americans for things that they do or don't do or haven't done or failed to live up to when he is a member of a country, Canada, of which we're all proud, but towards which we must all look inwardly and intro spectively, and in self­ evaluation ask ourselves, are we meeting all our commitments, are we doing all that we can to ensure tha t the spark of freed om, which is constantly threatened around this globe, is properly preserved and defended?

Mr. Chairman, I think it ill behooves a member of the Treasury Benches, a sworn Minister of the Crown, and I keep coming back to that phrase because that's important, a sworn Minister of the Crown, whether it's the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Economic Dev elopment, to engage in that kind of picayune, embarrassing, irrational, unjustifiable, nit­ picking with the Crown's allies, with our country's gr eatest allies. If they've got something to say let them stand up and say it but, for heaven 's sake, Mr.

Chairman, let us not always be nit-picking at a country and at an ally that has one of the most difficult tasks in this world, to try to meet the balance between resp onsible arma ment, resp onsible defense, responsible security, and the widest possible operation of freedom and pursuit of peace. That is a very difficult mission to be about and for the Member of the Legislature from St.

James, or anywhere else, to treat it superficially and to think that it can be dealt with the same way that some issue relative to a community club in a neighbourhood of Winnipeg can be dealt with simply misses the entire point of responsibility and urgency and real politic in the world today. Mr. Chairman, I can't express a greater sense of outrage in words, other than those that I have used, insofar as the present incident is concerned.

I was completely appalled, completely outraged, when I heard that two Ministers of my province, two Cabinet Ministers of my province, had participated in that kind of a dishonourable activity where our greatest friends and allies are concerned. They have a responsibility. If they don't unders tand the difference between being a member of the opposition or being a backbencher or being a private citizen and being a Minister of the Crown then they shouldn't be Ministers of the Crown, then they shouldn't be on the Treasury Benches.

There is a distinct reponsibility, and surely the Minister of Natural Resources understands it, he was here before he was a Minister of the Crown in the 19 69- 1973 period under a for mer NOP Premie r, the Ho nourable Edward Schreyer. I am certain that any strong Premier, and I think that the Honourable Mr. Schreyer was one, would not have permitted, would not have tolerated for one moment the attendance and participation of two, or any of his Cabi net Mi nisters, at tha t rag-tag demonstration last night in front of the United States Embassy Mr.

Chuirman, I just don't think that the Minister of Natural Resources understands or grasps the question 1090

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 for one moment. He has stood in his place and he's talked about the right of individual Manitobans to express themselves; he's drawn every kind of red herring and blue herring and green herring across the path that he can. He talked about it in question period and he talked about it again tonight. He and his colleagues have said that that great party, the New Democratic Party, the New Democratic Government of this pr ovince, is unwilling to muzzle ind ividual expression, they are not going to stop individuals from speaking out. Mr. Chairman, what a sham. MR. A.

RANSOM: You would never have let this happen, Sam. MR. L. SHERMAN: I'll wait till the Member for Wolseley finishes with the Honourab le Mi nister of Natural Resources because I'm addressing the Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources, Mr . Ch airman. I'm addressing, through you, Sir, the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources and I don't wish to have the conversation diverted by somebody else. The Minister of Natural ... I'll wait until the Member for Wolseley finishes with the Minister of Natural Resources and I will hold the floor until she does. The Minister of Natural Resources, Mr.

Chairman, who has served in this House for some time and who was a colleague of mine and many of ours from 19 69 to 1973, has spoken about the rights of individual Manitobans to express themselves. No one - I'll wait, Mr. Chairman, I've got lots of time because I intend to go again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I've got - I am speaking to the Minister of Natural Resources directly as a colleague in this House, Mr. Chairman, through you. HON. A. MACKLING: I don't have to sit here and listen to you. MR. L. SHERMAN: You don't have to. I am asking you for your courtesy. I listened to you. I can wait.

Let the record show, Mr. Chairman, that I have some things that I would like the Minister of Natural Resources to pay some attention to. That as long as his attention is being diverted by conversation by the Member for Wolesley or anybody else, I will simply stand in my place and wait until he's prepared to listen. Now, the Minister of Natural Resources apparently is leaving his seat. I would ask him out of courtesy, whether he would listen to a point that I am trying to make to him. HON. A. MACKLING: Grow up. MR. L. SHERMAN: The Minister of Natural Resources, Mr.

Chairman, no one has to listen to me, but we have listened to the Minister of Natural Resources day after day in question period, we listened to the Minister of Natural Resou rces in his capacity as Deputy Government House Leader on his feet complaining about the abuse of the rules, complaining about

preambles to questions, complaining about the abuse and manipulation of the different procedures of the House. HON. A. MACKLING: You're the worst example. 1091 MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, firstly the Mini ster of Natural Resou rces seems to feel very strongly about that sort of a thing.

I want to say to him tha t the people of Mani toba are much less concerned about perhaps some extension, or some expansion of the rules or some twisting of the rules in question period, much less concerned about that than they are about honour, integrity and responsibility to the people of Manitoba, to the country that we live in and to our allies. They're much less concerned about a little sort of extension or expansion of the rules, a little exaggeration of the rules, perhaps even a little abuse of the rules.

When the opposition is trying to obtain answers, trying to get at the truth and trying to hold this government to some sense of accountability and honour and responsibility, I suggest that the people of Manitoba are much more concerned with that other issue than with the question of the rules. Mr. Chairman, the Minister has raised the point that he thinks that this government is a great champion and defender of individual expression, that individuals should be able to express themselves and nobody should muzzle them and that this government does not intend to muzzle them. There is no argument with that principle.

Nobody on this side has said that individual Mani tobans should not be able to go out and demons trate against the United States or against anybody else. Nobody has suggested that for one moment.

What we have said is that Members of the Treasury Bench, sworn Ministers of the Crown, who represent the government and therefore the people of the Province of Manitoba, should be conscience of the fact that when they do that, and their colleagues should be conscience of the fact, that when they do that they are not individuals, they are acting for, speaking for, and representing the people of the Province of Manitoba and they had better be prepared to answer for it. Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, if they want to act as individuals, the First Minister of the province has to address the question as to whether his Cabinet is a collection of individuals or whether in the parliamentary tradition, which we have inherited and which we have always observed, there is a sense of responsibility that extends across the Cabinet and meets the needs of the people of Manitoba in a sense of collective responsibility. Now, if the members opposite in their Cabinet positions, the two Cabinet Ministers in this case, cannot live with that and the First Minister cannot live with that, then they should resign.

They can be individuals. No one is saying that individuals can't go out and demonstrate against the United States, but the Minister of Natural Resources has no right to operate as an individual under our Parliamentary system as long as he's a Minister of the Crown. He cannot do that. That is the sense of honour and responsibility which the Minister of Natural Resources keeps trying to obscure. He raises questions about individual freedom. No one is challenging individual freedom. If he wants to be an individual, let him get out of politics.

He ran for public office and he took on the responsibility of representing people. He accepted an appointment to the Treasury Bench and he took an oath of office to the Crown. He accepted a collective responsibility in terms of addressing the needs of the Province of Manitoba and serving the people of Manitoba. He has

Thursday, 24 March, 1983 no right to operate as an individual unless he resigns that position and that is the challenge to the First Minister, if those two Cabi net Ministers, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Economic Dev elopment have not got the courage and intestinal fornitude to face that issue, than that is the challenge to the First Minister, that is what lay behind my question in question period today. Is the First Minister going to demand the resignations of those two Ministers? Well, Mr.

Chairman, what we are faced with here, wha t we are dealing with here is parli amentar y responsibility, honour, and the whole system which we have inherited and under which we live and that Minister does not have the right to go out tonight and just carry on in some sort of shenanigan down a back alley somewhere. He ha s to understand tha t he represents a government.

Whether he likes it or not, he represents a people, he represents a government, he represents a province and he represents a posture and he doesn't seem to understand that he brings dishonour and discredit to the people of Manitoba when he carries on that way, vis-a-vis our best friends and allies. That just brings discredit and dishonour on Manitobans and most Manitobans will be outraged at that kind of action. If he hasn't got that sense of understanding and knowledge and honour, no one can give it to him. But I intend in these few words, Mr.

Chairman, to let him know that we feel that way and most Manitobans feel that way and this issue is not over. This issue is not finished. We are very disappointed in both those Ministers for having done that, engaged in that kind of dishonourable, irresponsible conduct. If they want to do that, they're welcome to do it, but let them resign from the Cabinet. They cannot go out and represent me as a Manitoban and do it. I didn 't give them the right to do that. Nobody gave them the right to do that. The Americans are our friends and allies.

Let them stand up and speak to them honestly or let them stand up and speak to their Fi rst Mini ster ho nestly­ (lnterjection) - well, that's fine, but it takes a great deal of saying of it to get it through to the Minister of Natural Resources, obviously. So, Mr. Chairman, I conclude - (Interjection) - that I come into this debate in considerable sorrow. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. L. SHERMAN: We have heard every kind of rationalization and justification from that Mini ster opposite, both in question period and elsewhere, that could possibly be conceived.

At every turn he concocts some kind of rationalization and justification for his actions. It is a clear case, Sir, a clear case of trying to defend the indefensible, and Manitobans will give him his answer on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it kind of sad to be pressured in a way into rising to speak on this issue. Basically, the message that I would like to put across to the members of the Assembly is the reason that we, as individual members representing constituencies, individual members of the Legislature, went last night to participate in a demons