ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 149 - 2:00 p.m., FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La Vuendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Robli n-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NOP NOP PC PC PC NDP IND NOP NOP NO P NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NDP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 12 August, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER , Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills.

Before oral questions, I am pleased to read a letter I have received from Buckingham Palace by way of Rideau Hall which says: "I am commanded by The Queen to thank you for your letter conveying the congratulations and best wishes of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to Her Majesty on the occasion of the 30th Anniversary of her Coronation. "The Queen greatly appr eciated this message and sends her warm thanks to all concerned for their greetings." And it is over the signature of a Robert Fellowes, who is the Assistant Private Secretary to the Queen. ORAL QUESTIONS Jobs Fund - advertising MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Jobs Fund. Can the Acting Minister advise the House whether or not there is any requirement upon private individuals or corporations participating in Jobs Fund projects to di sp lay Jobs Fund pro paga nda on behalf of the government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, all I can do is take this as notice, and try to sort it out and see that you get the answer sometime, somewhere. Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR. B.

RANSOM: Mr. Sp eaker, a further question to the Acting Minister, we have been asking for some days now to find out how much money has been committed under the Jobs Fund, both on the budgetary side and on the non-budgetary side. Would the Acting Minister undertake to see if he can get that information for the House? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Sp eaker, I want it und erstood that I am not the Acting Minister responsible for Jobs Fund at all . I am the Acting Acting First Minister.

All I can do is commit myself to bring this to the attention of the First Minister, who is the Chairman of the committee, and the Minister of Finance as soon as they return, which should be some time today or tomorrow. They'll endeavour to give the information to the House as soon as possible. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speak er, I realize the Minister isn't responsible directly, but my request to him simply was: would he undertake to use his influence in the caucus and in the Cabi net to assure that information is tabled in this House at an early opportun ity, because I believe it is beginning to become an embarrassment to the government, to other members of caucus and Cabinet, that that information has not been made available, since it has been requested for the last two weeks at least. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speak er, I just had a meeting with my colleagues in the front bench and they agree that I will promise that we'll get this accomplished. A MEMBER: They all agree. Gypsumville Wildlife Game Farm MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Sp eaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Fifty-one animals died at the wild game farm in the Gypsumville area in the past month-and-a-half due to flies, mosquitoes, deerflies and horseflies. Could the Minister indicate whether this situation with the flies and mosquitoes has had any effect on the wildlife in Manitoba? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Sp eaker, because I would want to discuss that with the biolog ists in the wildlife section. I would point out, though, that I know on previous instances I have met with people who have been involved in game farm operations. This was some time prior to this recent incident. They indicated to me their concerns in respect to certain areas of the province where there is a high incidence of biting flies. It can vary from area to area.

This much I unde rstand from having spoken to people, that in certain areas there seems to be more intense activity of biting flies, and their effect on animals, therefore, is much more pronounc ed in some areas of the province. Wildlife - monitoring re insects MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister, Mr. Speak er. Has the de par tment done any monitori ng at all throughout the province as to what effect possibly the extreme insect situation has done to the wildlife? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Spea ker, I don't know the extent that monitoring does take place in connection 5269

Friday, 12 August, 1983 with the effect of biting insects, including flies and mosquitoes, on wildlife. I know that, historically, we've had wild animals that have entered the city and entered urban areas, because of their problem with insects during the worst of the seasons. It's not something that is entirely new at all for wildlife to be severely affected by insects, and also domestic animals. I assume that there may be some monitoring of this, and I will advise the member when I have heard from the department. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the same Minister then, if you're checking into it, can the Minister possibly make some kind of annou ncement as to what effect this is going to be having on the wildlife situation, in view of the fact that all hunting licences and regulations have been issued, and if there is any change in the wildlife popu lation or statistics then people will kn ow beforehand, before they make major plans? HON. A. MACKLING: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker . Bilingualism - referendums MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is to the Honourable Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. I wonder if he could confirm to the House that the Rural Mun icipality of Ochre River will be holding a referendum on the bilingual referendum? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: I can't confirm that, Mr. Speak er. I don't expect that any municipality that wanted to hold a referendum on any question would be contacting the Minister to advise him on that question. I haven't received any indication from any municipality that they intend to go ahead with any referendums. MR. D. BLAKE: A supplementary, Mr.

Speak er, it is my un derstan ding there are quite a numb er of municipalities. Maybe the Minister could elab orate on what process is required when he mentioned contacting the Minister to advise them. He might advise us what process has to be gone through to hold a referendum. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker , there is an amendment before the Assembly at the present time that hasn't received third reading, which would allow municipalities to hold referendums and not be held responsible if anybody challenged that, but that hasn't passed at this particular time.

However, there is nothing to prevent them from holding a referendum, if they so desire, at the present time. MR. D. BLAKE: A final supplemen tary, I wonder if the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs might be able to advise the House at what date he expects that bill to receive third reading. MR. H. ENNS: Are you considering withdrawing it? 5270 HON. A. ADAM: I will enquire from the House Leader to see just when that bill will be dealt with. Also, it'll be a matter to be dealt with with our House Leader and the House Leader for the Opposition. Waskada oil fields - destruction of bridge MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Highways. I ask the Minister of Highways if he is aware of, or has been informed of a major bridge being destroyed or taken out on 83 Highway, north of Melita, which transports or carries the oil trucks that go out of the Waskada oil fields to the Cromer dump? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: No, Mr. Speak er, I've not been made aware of that. Highway repair re oil industry MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speak er, to the same Minister.

In view of the fact that during the Estimates I pleaded with the Mi nister of Highw ays to put funds into upgrading of roads in the area that carries the oil out of the oil fields, and with the expanded tonnage going onto that road, Mr. Speaker, will the Min ister of Highways now reconsider his decision and reallocate monies, so that they can be put into the strengthening of the roads and bridges in that area, which are unable to carry the increased tonnages that are being carried over those highways, so that people will not have accidents by falling into bridges that have been wrecked and that type of thing?

Will he reconsider his decision and put funds into that highway program? HON. S. USK IW: Well, Mr. Speak er, the member would appreciate that I've not been made aware of it up until this point in time, so when I do have a report, I'll be able to advise him accordingly. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr.

Speak er, when the Minister is getting a report on the condition of the bridge and the problems that are there, I would also ask the Minister to take a look at all the highways and problems that have been created, because of the expanded tonnage on those roads, and move immediately to put funds into it and upgrade that whole system, because as has been proven by this bridge going out, the roads will not carry the traffic that is there and I would expect an immediate action by this government. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, the member is aware that we have not included work in that area in this year's program.

If there is a problem that has arisen at the moment, then we will have to deal with it, but I certainly can't give him any statement on that until I've had a report from the department. Conflict of interest legislation MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. Can the Minister of

Friday, 12 August, 1983 Muni cipal Affairs confirm that he's continuing to receive letters of protest against The Conflict of Interest Act, which will be applied to municipal councillors; that he's still getting letters and res olutions from di fferent municipalities requesting him not to impose that kind of legislation on those people? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speak er, I can't confirm that we're receiving further letters.

I bel ieve I have received appr oximately 10 letters up to this point in time, which is not a great number considering the municipalities that we have out there, Mr. Speaker . MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Speaker , can the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs confirm that the main theme or the main request of the letters that he is receiving are saying that those individuals, who have been running as council lors and been looking after civic affairs in municipalties, will no longer run, or will deter those good people from running that would wish to get into that kind of activity.

That is the main request, that they don't want to have people prohibited by government legislation from running or looking after local concerns. HON. A. ADAM: No, Mr. Speak er, I can't confirm that either. There are some who have asked for information. There have been very few who have . . . A MEMBER: You said you explained that at the regional meetings. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON. A. ADAM: There have been very few letters that have op posed the legislation entirely.

The majority of the letters we have received would like to see some amendments, and we are looking at amendments at the present time. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Spea ker, will the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs table all the letters and resolutions that he has received on that bill? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Spea ker, I am not in the habit of tabling letters received from individuals or councils that have been addressed to the Minister. I'm sure that those municipalities or councill ors . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A.

ADAM: . . . who wanted the opposition to be aware of their concerns, they would have sent them a copy. I am not, at this point in time, prepared to table letters that have been directed to me personally and no one else. Manitoba Act -

Section 23 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: In the absence of the First Minister, I direct this question to the Minister of Municip al Affairs. Yesterday the First Minister indicated that a package of informational material, relative to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, would be sent to municipalities, as well as a correction with respect to a typographical error in defining

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. Would the Mi nis ter be pr epared to table that package of information in the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Spea ker, on behalf of the First Minister, I'll take that question as notice. North of Portage - development MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs, and ask him whether he suppo rts the plan to enclose Portage Avenue in glass like a greenhouse? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr.

Speak er. There were some questions yesterday regarding this same issue. The question is based on the premise that Portage Avenue would be enclosed like a greenhouse. The proposal that has been recommended to the three levels of government by the North Portage Administrative Task Force is not a recommendation to enclose Portage Avenue as a greenhouse. As I indicated yesterday, the report has just been received. It will be reviewed by each level of government and by the Provincial Government with my colleagues in Cabinet. We will be making our decisions in due cour se on that proposal. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Sp eaker, I would ask the Minister whether he would recognize that one of the attractions of Portage Avenue to Winnipeggers and tourists is the ability to drive down a wide street that's full of people and that the shopping outside, outdoors, is an attraction in itself compared to enclosed suburban shopping malls? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to ask for information and not an opinion? MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , I would ask the Minister whether the present attractiveness of Portage Avenue is being considered?

Is that one of the options leaving Portage Avenue alone in the sense of an outdoor shopping centre and a wide attractive street to drive on? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Yes, that certainly is one of the options. If the recommendations of the task force are not accepted by each level of government, then it would flow that Portage Avenue 5271

Friday, 12 August, 1983 and un fortunately, Mr. Speak er, the downtown area would remain as it is today. The member in his

preamble to his question suggests that there is a certain attractiveness to the present situation in downtown Winnipeg. I reject that position because the facts of the matter is that there has been serious deterioration in the downtown area of Winnipeg. There has been deterioration to the point that more than 50 percent of the former retail traffic has moved out of the downtown area, and if one would just take a walk down Portage Avenue, you would see what has happened insofar as the shift away from the downtown area.

I think that we should be doing what we can to revitalize the downtown area of Winnipeg, so I don't believe, Mr. Speak er, that a do-nothing option is one that would be in the best keeping of the interests of the City of Winnipeg and its residents. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , I'd ask the Minister whether he would not recognize that what has killed American cities in the evenings is that nobody is downtown? Mr.

Speaker , I ask the Minister whether he has studied, as part of this whole suppo sed plan to improve the downtown situation, the effect of the Portage and Main Concourse, which has eliminated people from that vibrant corner and my concern is as follows - and I ask him whether he wouldn't recognize this as a genuine concern - that if you remove pedestrians and shoppers from the street and you move cars away, that this may, in fact, kill the downtown area rather than make it a more viable operation? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Mr. Speak er, again the facts of the matter are that the downtown area of Winnipeg is dying.

There has been a massive shift in activity . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. E. KOSTYRA: It seems that some members of the opposition aren't concerned what happens to the downtown area of Winnipeg, Mr. Speak er, but I can assure them that most members on this side are concerned about the City of Winnipeg; in particu lar, the downtown area. The member suggested, Sir, that this would detract from the situation that presently exists or he alleges exists downtown.

The facts of the matter are: there has been a shift of people away from the downtown area; the downtown area of Winnipeg does not hold in place the role that it did 10 or 20 years ago in the City of Winnipeg. I think that the proposals that have been recommended by the task force are ones that are trying to come to grips with that problem. The member furthe r made reference to the development at Portage and Main. One of the overall recommendations of the task force is an attempt to move away from that kind of development.

As I see it, the problem with the development at Portage and Main was that it was an isolated development that did not integrate with the rest of the downtown area. The proposals under the North Portage Task Force attempt to combine and unify the various elements of the downtown area in a co-ordinated and not in an isolated way. Brandon Mental Health Centre MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speake r, I have a qu estion for the Honourable Minister of Health, and it follows on some questions I was asking yesterday about the situation at the Brandon Mental Health Centre.

Recent media reports, Mr. Speaker, indicated that a study of mental health services in the province was expected to be finished by a study committee, working under the aegis of the Department of Health, by the end of July . I would ask the Minister whether that study has been completed, and whether the report is now available to him and to the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker. This is not qu ite finished yet.

As I stated during the Estimates, I intend to make that �<!port public and will inform my honourable friends as soon as I have a chance to see the report. It hasn't been submitted to me as yet. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speak er, I would ask the Minister whether that study and that report embraces the whole field of mental health services in the province, or whether it is just looking at the two provincial mental health centres at Brandon and Selkirk. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: This report, which will be prepared with the reports, I guess, of approximately 11 different committees, covers the whole field of mental health here including beds, care, and so on in Manitoba. It's wide-ranging. MR. L. SHERMAN: Does it also cover the supply of profes sional personnel, including psychiatrists, Mr. Speaker?

In the same statement that the Minister made a year ago about $2.5 million worth of in itial capital redevelopment work at the Brandon Mental Health Centre, to which I referred yesterday, he admitted that there was a serious shortage of psychiatrists at the Brandon Mental Health Centre and, in fact, that shortage extended to about nine positions. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether that is still the case, and whether this study embraces that question of supply of professional psychiatric manpower? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr. Speak er. That will cover the manpower situation.

I might say that there is still difficulty in recru iting psychiatrists. We have improved the situation somewhat with the program that I have annou nced during the Estimates, a program that we've worked with the un iversity for training of G.P.'s for a number of towns. That could qualify them to, at least, take some of the positions that we have now. That is successfu l. MR. l. SHERMAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Spea ker, does the Minister expect to be able to reassure this 5272

Friday, 12 August, 1983 House or, if the House is not sitting at that time, reassure the people of Manitoba through some other means of announ cement that redevelopment of the Brandon Mental Health Centre and the Selkirk Mental Health Centre will be und ertaken in some significant form in this fiscal year? In other words, does he expect to be able to find the money to proceed with a program that he annou nced last year and on which he was travelling hopeful ly, but without much realistic legitimacy of expection?

Is there any realistic expectation this year that he can do anything about the Brandon Mental Health Centre? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , I refute that. I refute the allegation of my honourable friend. It was very realistic at the time. We went through the exercise of the Budget.

It was fully approved, and it was through my decision and the decision of our department that we felt, with all the concerns that we have had in this field, that it would be better, if we are going to have a study of mental illness, mental health, and the services, that it would be kind of ridiculous to go ahead and have a study and have all kinds of things done. Certainly, there is a reason for requesting this work and this research. It will help in the planning. Construction is very much planning. Now I can give this assurance.

Once we have received this report and this study, and we have decided to go in a certain direction, I will definitely not have any trouble in getting the funds to go ahead with the construction if that is the way we want to go. Nelson River-Cross lake bridge MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Rhineland. MR. A. BRO WN: Thank you , Mr. Sp eak er. Approximately two weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Highways and Transportation a question regarding a bridge, which was required to be built across the mainstream of the Nelson River at Cross Lake.

At the same time, I also asked him who would be paying for the bridge, and what the cost of that bridge would be. I wonder if the Minister could answer those questions at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, I did take the qu estion as notice. I don't have a complete report on it, but I believe the situation is one which involves the Manitoba Hydro Flood Agreement, involves Indian Affairs, and does not directly involve the Department of Highways, other than as a delivery agency, if there is going to be any construction under way at that location.

But it is not something that we can authorize one way or the other. I believe it's part of the negotiations having to do with Manitoba Hydro's effects in that area as a result of their public works. MR. A. BROWN: My question then would be to the Acting Minister of Energy and Mines.

I would ask that particular Minister that since Cross Lake al ready has received a very expensive arena, they are getting substantial agreement or payment as far as loss to their fishing indu stry, and now it appears that they'll be getting a new bridge, also being paid by Hydro, my qu estion to the Minister is: when can we hope to see the completion of an agreement with Cross Lake as to how far Hydro will have to go to pay expenses in that community? Bilingualism in Manitoba - parking tickets MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speak er, I want to direct a question to the Attorney-General and ask him whether he can confirm that the Town of Dauphin, and possibly other municipal governments, have been asked to prepare parking tickets in French as well as English? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I answered that question yesterday and took as notice the details, and I will be providing the House with details on Monday. But last year, after The

Summary Conviction Act or the amendments to The

Summary Conviction Act were passed, the Registrar of Court Services recommended to some towns that they might consider some of their traffic notices, if in fact they became summons, being issued in a bilingual format, but there's not law that requires that, nor was there any directive that it must be done. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speak er, can the Attorney-General confirm that a letter was sent by a D. R. Cardwell, Manager and Registrar of Manitoba Justices of the Peace and Magistrates, July 12 th, to Dauphin Council asking that this preparation be made? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, that's what I said in July of 19 82, that's a year ago, more than a year ago. Following the passage of the amendments to The

Summary Conviction Act, the Registrar of Court Services, who was also the Director of J.P.s and so on, sent out a letter of the kind indicated, but I'm saying to the House that there is no legal requirement, nor was that sent out as a directive. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Sp eake r, I'm asking these questions because this was only discussed by Dauphin Council a week or so ago. I'm asking the Minister, as well, if he could indicate, if this is a requirement, whether the extra printing costs in French will be cost-shared or paid for by the province? HON. R. PENNER: As I said, it is not a requirement. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Spea ker, a final question - and again, I'm referring to a comment made by a councillor - is there a direct relationship between the prospect of bilingual tickets and the proposed constitutional amendment? HON. R. PENNER: I guess it would have to be a retrospective or a prospective relationship, but since the letter was sent out in July of 19 82, no, there is no relationship between that letter which was sent out in 5273

Friday, 12 August, 1983 July of 19 82 and the proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. As I said, and I now say it for the third time today, Mr. Speak er, that letter was sent out by Mr. Cardwell, consequent upon the passage of the amendments to The Sum mary Conviction Act, which had been proclaimed or given royal assent two weeks prior to the date of that letter. Drinking Age - raising of MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I direct a question to the Attorney-General and would ask him: in light of the alarming statistics about young people involved in vehicle accidents having alcohol as being one of the major contributing factors in the accident figu res, and in light of the growing concern by many people in Canada about the number of accidents that are alcohol-related, and in light of the fact that in the latest Gallup poll over 62 percent of the people polled in Canada wanted to see the drinking age raised, is the government contemplating raising the drinking age to either 19 or 21 in the near future to try and curb some of the problems of the drinking driver in this country?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: As the members know, I appointed an advisory committee on the whole difficult, complex, and too often tragic, problem of drinking and driving to a special committee headed by Jack Montgomery Q.C., the senior member of my department. That committee has provided me, and I've tabled in this House an interim report. Consequent upon that, I haven't had time to this point, but expect to establish a permanent committee of the Department and representatives from the community, as was the case in the first committee, to carry on that work.

One of the issues which it will have to address is one of the recommendations of the Mon tgomery Committee; namely, that the age not be changed, but that is not a recommendation of the department or of the government. We have not considered it, but we will in terms of the recommendations that will come forward from the continuing committee. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

In light of the realization by many states in the United States, as well as some of the provinces in Canada, that have now seen fit to raise the drinking a[le from 18 - some have raised it as high as to 21 - is the Minister saying that that is a possibility and that the government will be exploring that in possibly the next sitting of the Legislature? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it is a possibility that we will explore it. We're looking at all avenues indeed.

As has been suggested, not that I introduced it for that reason or agreed for that reason, the increase in the price of particularly spirits may do as much as anything to reduce the consumption of alcohol. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speake r, may I make an annou ncement with respect to the busi ness of the House? There will be no sitting of the House this evening or tomorrow, nor will there be any committees this evening or tomorrow. The Committee on Private Bills will meet Monday at 10:00 a.rn.

The House will meet Monday at 2:00 p.m. The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will meet Monda y even ing and I may have furthe r annou ncements later in the day. MR. $PEAKER: Would the Honourable Government Hous e Leader indicate the next item of busine ss? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er, would you please call the adjourned debates on second reading on the Order Paper as follows: Bills 3, 23, 24, 48, 7 4 and 11 4, and we'll see where we are at that time. ADJOU:!NED DEBATES SECOND READING - GOVf:RNM ENT BILLS Bill NO. 3 - THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP ACT MR.

SP EAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, the amendment thereto propo sed by the Honour able Member for Kirkfield Park, Bill No. 3, are you ready for the question? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to speak at any great length on this bill, having already done so, I hasten to add, at an earlier stage of the debate. I did however want to sum marize some of the arguments that we have been advancing on this side of the House.

I want to do that, Sir, because if the government majority prevails, this bill will then go to committee next week and after the government hears what I expect will be a corro boration and a re­ endorsation of those criticisms that we have been making over the last several week, after the government hears those criticisms from the Manitoba Farm Bureau, I expect, and from other organizations that will be appearing before the committee, then I would hope that the gove rnment would do as all prudent governments should do, and that is to take a long second look at what they have wrought here and ensure that this bill is not proceeded with this Session.

However, Sir, it will not be my intention to delay any of the votes on this matter this afternoon; instead to, brief, summarize some of the points that we have been making with respect to the bill. Nu mber one point, Mr. Speak er, has to be this. For any major rewriting of legislation, there has to be a justification. The Minister of Agriculture started off last year saying that he had some figur es which demonstrated the horrendous amount of foreign investment that had taken place in Manitoba.

When the figur es were revealed, it turns out that the figur es were six years old; it turns out that they were faulty; 5274

Friday, 12 August, 1983 it turns out that they were not accurate in many respects; and as a result of that failure on the part of the Minister to demonstrate any basis or foundation in the statistics for the need for restrictions of the Draconian type that are proposed in this legislation, restrictions against our fellow citizens in Canada buying farm land, restrictions agains t urban dwellers in Manitoba holding farm land, all of these petty kinds and mean, narrow, one might almost say knee-jerk, left-wing outlooks that have been crafted into legislation, all of this meanness that is in the legislation has no justification in fact at all.

It reflects rather the rather jaded and skewed philosophy of my honourable friends opposite, their failure to appr eciate the role that private ownership plays in the economic makeup of our coun try, their failure to appr eciate that economic freedom is one of the bases of democratic parliamentary freedom, and that if you attack the institution of private ownership, as they are wont to do on every occasion that comes to hand, then you are in effect attacking the basis and the fund amental un der pinning of freedom, of an economic kind, in our country. Mr.

Speak er, in the absence of any usable statistics from the government side, and in their complete failure to go after those statistics, to use any of the arms of government that are so full of people and of information that could have provided this information, what did we do? Mr. Speaker , we wrote letters to every rur al municipality and to every local government district in the Province of Manitoba and, Sir, we received a reply from 92 of those municipalities and local government districts.

Twenty-five of the local government districts or the rural municipalities either did not respond to our inquir y or the information that they provided to us was not capable of being interpreted in a fair sense to be applie d to these statistics. What did that

summary show? This was up-to-date, Mr. Speak er, this is speaking as of the winter and the spring of 1983 of the current year in which we find ou rselves. We found this, Mr. Speaker . That there were some 21,6 55,450 acres of area represented in those rural municipalities and local government districts that responded, and of that total rural municipality and local government district acreage, the amount that was deemed by those municipalities, and they know their own territory better than anyone else, the amount that was deemed to be arable farm land was 15,710 ,073 acres.

Then we asked them to show us or to tell us the total amount of that land that was owned by non­ resident foreigners; that is, by foreign owners who are not resident in Canada. Mr. Speak er, do you know what that figure was? It was 372,037 acres, representing 2.37 percent of the total farm land acreage of all of those municipalities, the vast majority who responded. Another figure, Mr.

Speak er, that was of interest was that the total of non-resident Manitobans, the total acreage owned by Canadians, but non-resident in Manitoba, was 337,737, or 2. 15 percent of the land was in the names of other Canadians who were not resident in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker , we found that, in total, of the vast majority of the municipalities and of the LGDs who responded, there was something in the area of 4.52 percent of the land totally, farm land in Manitoba, that is owned by non-resident foreigners - remember, those are the ones that we want to legislate against - and by non-resident Manitobans, and I suggest, Sir, those are the ones we don't want to legislate against. In the whole spate of this review, which is up-to-date, we found that 2.37 percent of the land was actually held by people that we wanted to prohibit from owning farm land in Man itoba.

The important figur e, Mr. Spea ker, is this: that 95 percent of the farm land in Manitoba is owned by Manitobans. That being the case, why are we faced with this kind of Draconian legislation, which is going to prohibit men and women who move from Manitoba from holding land in Manitoba merely because they are non-resident? Why are we facing this? There's nothing in these statistics to justify this kind of Draconian action. No, you have to go back to the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture and some of his left-wing cohorts on that side of House. They're against speculation. Mr.

Spea ker, this bill isn't known as the bill to prohibit speculation in farm land in Manitoba; it isn't that at all. The other thing they say is they're against corporate ownership. Mr. Speak er, if you're against corporations, abolish The Companies Act, abolish The Corporations Act. Make it unavailable for Manitobans to use to order their own affairs, whether they want to run busine ses, whether they want to have family farm corporations or whatever.

If the illogic of the socialist mind is such that they have this great hatred and contempt, largely arising from ignorance and lack of unde rstanding of corporate relationships or corpor ate set-ups, well, then let them abolish corporations. Then they would, at least, be attacking the devil that they want to attack, but to say that in the guise of farm land protection that they are going to put inhibitions upon farm corporations and upon other corporations that they don't put upon individual Canadian citizens or individual Manitoba citizens, is not only silly, it's nonsensical.

It's bad public policy and it should not be sup ported in any rational Legislature. Well, Mr.

Spea ker, the problem, as I have said before, with my honourable friends is that they appr oach a problem such as farm land ownership, and the desire of the vast majority of Manitobans to prevent non­ resident foreigners coming here and buying land and not living in the country - the vast majority want legislation to prohibit that so far as possible - but the problem with my honourable friends opposite is that with all of the baggage that they come to a Legislature with, with all of the skewed notions of life, with all of the envy and the hatred that motivates this particular political party, they have to strike out at all of the enemies they have.

They're going to strike away at corporations, they're going to strike a blow against investment, they're going to strike a blow, they say, for the family farm, and I've often been heard to say, Mr. Speak er, God save Canada from people who are out to help, from governments that say they want to help the family farm. The family farm gets along quite well without the intervention of the socialist government, in particular, because given the approach that socialists prefer, there would be no private citizens owning any land at all.

Indeed, this very Minister of Agriculture, in this House last year, and it's on the record in Hansard, said that we are moving towards the Soviet system of landholding. It is that man with that kind of a mindset 5275

Friday, 12 August, 1983 who brings in this kind of legislation. He is anti-private ownership. The bill is anti-private ownership and the bill will not do anything, Mr. Speaker, except prohibit and turn off investment in Manitoba from legitimate people, who want to make legitimate investments in this provinces.

I tell you another thing it will do, and my honourable friends whether they agree or disagree doesn't matter to me, it will confirm and reaffirm in the minds of other Canadia ns, governments, busi ness institutions and so on, that this is an anti-freedom government, that this is an anti-ownership government, that this is an anti­ business government in Manitoba. The same people who are putting in this kind of Draconian legislation are tinkering now wanting to fiddle into the life insurance business with the taxpayers dollars, of course. These are the same people, Mr.

Speaker, who don't care when letters are read by the Member for St. Norbert from pension administrators in Saskatchewan working for the co-operative movement, working for the Credit Union movement, when the vice-president of one of the largest insurance companies in Canada sitting across the street writes a letter and says your legislation is going to drive pension plans out of Manitoba. They don't care, because they say they're working to improve pensions. Well, that is balderdash! Save us, Mr. Speaker, from socialists who are working to improve anything. I have always said that a socialist government, Mr.

Speaker, that is doing nothing is acting in the public interest. because then it stops legislating its philosophy, it is automatically acting in the public interest. Well, Mr. Speak er, this is the mindset we have across the way. These tinkerers, these people of inconsequential opinion who don't und erstand our system, who temporarily from time-to-time manage to convince the public that they have something to do that is different with a nineteenth century doctrine that is bankrupt. These are the people that are trying now to help the family farm in Manitoba.

God save the family farm in Manitoba from this lot, or any people who think like them, who are anti-ownership, anti-freedom and who are doing irreparable harm. Every hour they are in office they are doing irreparable harm to this province, but they won't be in office, they're now on a declining slope, Mr. Speaker, and thank God they won't be in office much longer than another 18 months or even shorter, Mr.

Speaker, given the abysmal track record that they've put in, given the lies which were the basis of their election, and the understanding that the people of Manitoba now have about those lies and about that kind of misconception as to what their real pu rpose was. So, Mr. Speak er, there is no foundation, statistically, for what my honourable friends ar>J doing. It arises instead from the fever swamps of their left-wing thinking. It has nothing to do with the public interest in Manitoba at all. It will prohibit other Canadians from owning farm land in Manitoba and that is a bad thing. Fu rthermore, Mr.

Speaker, it will interfere, in a way that is not in the public interest, with ord ina ry arrangements that are made by Manitobans to order their affairs, fathers, mothers, sons, daugh ters, brothers, sisters, to order their own personal affairs according to the tax laws of this country. These people across the way, Mr.

Speak er, these tinkerers, these mediocrities across the way are presuming to tell thoughtful citizens in Manitoba that it doesn't matter how they order their own personal affairs, they know better, the socialists will know better, and they pass legislation which puts the family farm corporation in a subsidiary position, a bad position vis-a-vis the ownership of farm land and that is not tolerable. Mr.

Sp eaker, we have said before on one or two other pieces of legislation, as indeed we said on this initial piece of legislation when it was passed in '76 - '77, that we would either repeal certain portions of it, clean it up and bring it up-to-date, or we would work with the legitimate farm community to make sure that proper amendments were made. Mr. Speak er, we give that same undertaking to the legitimate farm commun ity, the vast majority of the farm community in Manitoba, who by the way don't adhere in any large number to the National Farmers Union.

We say to the legiti mate farming communi ty in Manitoba, we will make the corrections that the Farm Bur eau and other thoughtful farm organizations are advocating in this kind of legislation. I have said before and I say again, Mr. Speak er, if it comes to a choice between trying to make a piece of legislation airtight, a piece of penal legislation, and that's what this is, it's penal legislation. My honourable friends have turned the taps as far to the left as they can on this penal legislation. If it comes, Mr.

Speak er, to having a piece of legislation that is airtight or having, on the other hand, a piece of legislation that favours the funda mental of private ownership, but which may still have a few loopholes in it, we will opt everytime for the second choice. Because what is at stake here is private ownership, and any attack upon private ownersh ip , such as this senseless attack that is contained in this legislation, is an attack, Sir, on the basic freedom of our country. It is an attack on the family farms. It is an attack which should not be permitted. Mr.

Spea ker, the Manitoba Farm Bureau, which represents the vast majority of farmers in Manitoba, wrote to this government on the 1 ith of March, 1983, wrote to the Minister, told them in explicit terms - and I'm not going to read all of this correspondence into the record gave amendments that should be made to this legislation. In the page or two of amendments brought forward by the Minister the other day, I don't recall any one of these substantive amendments appeari ng. I don't see anything in his amendments that go to correct the funda mental cancers that appear in this legislation brought by the NDP.

The cancer still remains, and they have done nothing in their amendments that they have brought forward to reduce the very considerable harm that is going to be done to the public interest. The Farm Bur eau, again on the 3rd of Febru ary, 19 83 - and these letters have all been read into the record wrote to the Premier. They were getting no response from the Minister of Agriculture at all. Mr. Speaker, this letter was read into the record and I'm not going to take the time to read it again - a five-page letter to the Premier saying, your legislation is bad legislation and should be change d.

My honourable friends opposite with their minds set, with their knee-jerk response, their anti-corporate attitude, their anti-ownership attitude, their anti-freedmom 5276

Friday, 12 August, 1983 attitude, just plough straight ahead and say, in effect, to hell with the Manitoba Farm Bureau; to hell with the farmers in Manitoba; to hell, in fact, with Manitoba. We're in office for a short while, we socialists, and as they say in Br itain ju st before they sing the lnternationale, we are the masters now, we know best and we're going to pass this legislation come hell or high water. Mr.

Speaker , we tell them with the same degree of commitment that they're going to be out of office very shortly and that this bad piece of legislation, if it ever is passed by the Legislature, will be repealed, cleaned up, made wholesome again, so that the farm community of Manitoba will not be living under these kinds of strictures, where people, merely because of their place of residence, will be cause to div est themselves of ownership in farm land that may have been in their family for two, three, four, five generations. That is the tragedy of this bill. They're doing things, Mr.

Speak er, that they don't even realize they're doing, and they won't take advice, they won't listen, they are just proceeding ahead as though the head man of this government was Andropov. Well I tell you, if the head man of this government was And ropov, there would be a bit more political sense shown than is being shown by the present head man or head men, or whatever the group is, because the one hopeful sign of this government, Mr. Speaker , is that it has no sense of political survival. It doesn't listen to good advice and a government that doesn't listen to good advice is on its way out.

This government, right now, Mr. Speaker , if it had an election tomorrow, would be lucky to return with 18 seats, and I tell you by the time this year is through, by the time 1983 is through and they've finished with all of the other nonsense that they're involved in, including the Constitutional Amendment, they're going to be down to about 14 seats.

So they haven't even got a sense of political survival and that, by the way, is good for the people of Manitoba, because if you've got mediocre blockheads temporarily in government, then you can be sure that you're going to get rid of them and that's what we have in government at the present time. Mr. Speak er, I'm not going to take the time of the House debating this matter any further. The onus is on this government to prove: (

a) that the legislation is needed. They haven't done it. The onus is on this government; and (

b) to prove that what they've come up with is going to be any answer to foreign land ownership. They haven't done it because they can't do it. The onus, Mr. Speaker - it's an onus now of responsibil ity, it's an onus of honour that is on this government - is to withdraw this bad legislation, clean it up, pure it and then it may be fit to see the light of day in another year. In the meantime, if they take the advice of the Farm Bureau, if they take the advice of the vast majority of the people of Manitoba, they will not proceed with this legislation.

It is not in the public interest, it will be just another nail in the coffin that's already completed for their burial. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is the propo sed amendment by the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. Do you wish the amendment read? QUESTION put on the amendment and defeated. A MEMBER: On division. MR. SPEAKER: On division. Are you ready for the question on Bill 3? The Hono urable Min ister of Agriculture will be closing debate. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, it's certainly interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition now speaking about Bill 3 as to whether the government has the mandate or whether the legislation is needed. Mr.

Speaker, if ever a piece of legislation was needed - their own documenta tion, the documentation presented by his own administration, his own Minister of Agriculture, the Member for Arthur, to his own Cabinet in 19 81, after telling the people of Manitoba that the then Minister said the absence of prosecutions under the legislation doesn't mean the government lacks the courage of its convictions; rather he said that there's been no definite proof that non-Canadians are breaking the law.

I'v e certa inl y presented many cases to this Legislature, which were not challen ged by the honour able members, in sayi ng here's how the legislation is being circumvented. Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Agriculture, to his own col leagues said, and I quote again, "Problems started to arise when foreigners would form a Canadian corporation naming Canadian citizens as majority shareholders, often a lawyer, real estate agent or a secretary, with all financing supplied by foreigners, as well as effective control, through the instruments as power of attorney, options to purcha se by-laws, agreements, etc.

" Mr. Speaker , other prob lems ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of order. HON. L DESJAR DINS: Mr. Sp eaker, I'd like to apolog ize to my colleague and ask leave of the House to revert, for a minute, to Ministerial Statements as I have an urgent and important announc ement to share with the members of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker , un fortunately I have to annou nce confirmation of the first case of Western Equine Encephalitis in a human this afternoon. The individual is a male, a Winnipeg resident in his early thirties. On presentation to his doctor in early August with symptoms of fever, headache and fatigue, a blood sample was submitted to the Cadham Lab on 5277

Friday, 12 August, 1983 August Sth. Inasmuch as the blood test has to be repeated to confirm the presence of antibodies, the second blood test was completed on Augus t 12 and it was confirmed that the indi vidua l had, in fact, contacted Western Equine Encephalitis. The patient is not in hospital at the present time, however, his ph ysician is being notified of the confirmation of the blood test this afternoon, and I will endeavour to keep the members of the House posted as to any new development. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S.

LYON: We thank the Min ister for this announc ement and certainly concur with its importance to interrupt the debate this afternoon. Along with him, we of course regret very much that this is the first human case of Equine Encephalitis that has been diagnosed this year. That is a very dangerous disease. It is one against which all governments in previous times have used the spraying techni qu e, used whatever technique;; were available, and still this terrible affliction can hit our people.

If it is found necessary for further spraying to be un dertaken as a counteraction against the carrier on this, I'm sure there will be no objection at all from this side of the House. I thank the Minister !or breaking into the debate and giving us this news. ADJOURNED DEBATES SECOND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS Cont'd Bill NO. 3 - THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker , as I was indicating in my debate when I was quoting from the Cabinet document in Paragraph 4: "Other prob lems are encou ntered with individuals with landed immigrant status in Toronto, Vancouver or Ma nitoba, who pu rchased land in their name but financed entirely by foreigners, who are suspected to have effective control of the land. Often these purcha ses are made for speculative pur poses . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Arthur on a point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a document that was accredited to me having to sign.

Could I ask the Minister of Agriculture to table that document if he hasn't already, and if not, could he say whether or not I, as a former Minister of Agriculture, signed the document that he's referring to? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member did not have a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker , to that point, I have tabled that document earl ier.

This document is a compendium to a submission, and when one reads both documents in tandem, one cannot - even though this particular document I'm quoting from is not signed by the Minister - but when one reads the signed documents, Mr. Sp eaker, and this one is its compendium, one cannot escape the conclusion at all, as to what the prob lems are and in terms of the . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speak er, when one reads the document that was signed by the former Minister and one reads the appendix that i am quoting from, in terms of the proposals he put forward, one cannot escape the conclusion that this is how the amendments that he was proposing to his colleagues would deal with the probl ems that are outlined in this document. No other way, Mr.

Speaker, there is no other way and at a time when the administration said they had an opportunity to close all the loopholes, they brought in amendments into this Assembly, saying that we will place the onus on the farmers of Manitoba to prove that those pu rchases or those sales are legitimate to legitimate people. It took an opposition amendment, Mr. Speak er, in this House to change that provision. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, I want to go on to quote from that document.

"The Agricultural Lands Protection Board is aware of these methods to circumvent the intent of the act and have documented evidence that some land is foreign controlled, even though title is vested with Canadian corporations or individuals. "However they have been advised by the Attorney­ General's Department not to demand divestiture, since some private lawyers argue that only the Canadian Government has jurisdiction to deal with foreigners, and therefore The Manitoba Act is ultra vires." Mr.

Speak er, when one reads those three paragraphs and looks at the amendments that they proposed - "A non-agricultural corporation will be required to submit annual disclosure statements to determine if they are foreign controlled, and must also inform the board within 90 days of sale or transfer of shares, requiring that a landed immigrant must reside in Canada for at least 18 3 days; require residents, require persons, partnerships and corporations who may be eligible to hold land now, if they become ineligible, that any person will have to reduce their holdings. " All these amendments, Mr.

Speaker, in the signed document, relate directly to the statement of the former Mi nister of Agricultur e ind icating here's what the prob lems of the legislation are, and here's what we propose to try and curtail those kinds of infractions of the legislation, and here's how we propose to close those loopholes. Mr. Speak er, if he is now denying that he even presented such a document, he . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 5278

Friday, 12 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. May I remind all members that they have had ample opportunity to join in the debate. Would they please give the Minis ter the oppor tunity to complete his remarks? The Honourable Minister of Agricultur e. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, the major thrust of their criticism is that Bill No. 3 reflects the present government's opposition to private ownership of land. I mean that's what the Leader of the Opposition basically has been saying - that we're oppo sed to private ownership. Mr.

Speaker, if anything, that allegation is nonsense, is total nonsense. Mr. Speak er, the proposed legislation is intended, if anything, to increase the rights and freedoms of Manitoba farmers, in particular to acquire, own and operate farm land in the Province of Manitoba. That is what is in the legislation. Mr. Speak er, the Leader of the Opp osition has observed that when the first piece of farm lands legislation was introduced in 19 77, and I quo te: "It was meant to do one thing and one thing alone; it was meant to prevent offshore, non-resident people from farm land in Manitoba." Mr.

Speak er, the Leader '"'"'""""'"' probably either didn't un derstand the issue or manufactured his own issue, and then decided to solve the probl em with his own issue. Mr. Speaker, he's dead wrong. The Farm Lands Protection Act was aimed at achieving the same goal as Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker, increasing the opportun ities for local farmers to acquire and own farm land in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, those restrictions then were imposed on the amount of land which could be held by non­ farming Canadians, non-residents of Canada and non­ farming corporations. Incidentally, Mr.

Speaker, the original legislation stipu lated that corporations, to qualify as farm corporations, had to be controlled by individuals whose principle occupation was farming. Mr. Speaker, the aims of Bill 3 then are clearly consistent with those of the original Farm Lands Protection Act. Mr. Sp eaker , the Leader of the Op position maintains that the alternativ e to the proposed bill is the enactment of legislation which would impose controls only on non-residents of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, if ever there was a position that one could best characterize as being wishy-washy at best, to maintain the appropriate window dressing, he assured this Legislature the legislation should restrict purcha ses of land by foreign investors. But throughout his speech, Mr. Speaker, he quali fied his position. Mr. Speak er, the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Arthur keep telling us that farmers are not interested in foreign ownership. Go and talk to the farmers, he says, they'll tell you they're not interested in farm land ownership by foreigners, Mr. Speaker.

He goes on to say that, "The right to own and enjoy farm land in Manitoba is more important than the prohibition of foreign land ownership, " Mr. Speaker . He notes further that, if the two come into conflict, we should forget about foreign ownership, Mr. Speaker . That is the position of the Leader of the Oppo sition, the retiring Leader of the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that no controls should be placed on foreign investors, because really that would interfere with their ability to enjoy their property; i.e. the profits derived from the ownership of Manitoba farm land. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says, we really now have a good law, slightly imperfect, but he prop oses to us that the opposition and legal counsel meet in order to draft a piece of legislation that will effectively control foreign land purcha ses in this province. Mr. Speak er, we have a slightly imperfect law. Mr.

Speaker, I jus t read out that his own Minister of Agriculture said that this law is ultra vires, because he had legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department that they could no longer enforce this law in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Sp eaker, that's the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker , this act, Bill No. 3, represents the fulfil lment of an elec tion pledge by this party - (Interjection) no, Mr. Speaker, by this party, the New Democratic Party Go vernment to the people of Manitoba. Throughout our years in office, many farmers including Conservative expressed alarm, Mr.

Speaker , at the refusal of those gentlemen opposite to enact meaningful legislation which would control speculation in farm land. Most farmers believe, like the NOP, Sir, that the owner-operated family farm provides the basis for a strong agricultural sector and for strong, viable, rural communities. Mr. Speak er, it is imperative then that we continue to develop programs and enact legislation which will help to strengthen and preserve the family farm. Mr.

Speak er, in spite of all the attempts by the members opp osite to misrepresent Bill 3, I want to emphasize that this legislation supports the principle of freedom and freedom choice. Mr. Speaker, it is a bill which will enhance the rights and freedoms of Manitoba farmers to acquir e, to own and operate Manitoba farm land. But the friends of the Conservatives, the specula tors, the absentee landlords and the .. . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. B. URIJSKI: . . . and the foreign investors may not like this legislation, Mr. Speaker .

They may not like it but, Sir, I am convinced that this bill will greatly benefit the farmers in this province. Mr. Speaker, over the years, we have consistently supp orted the owner-operated family f?rm, but the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly tried to lecture this Assembly by advising that Bill No. 3 is somehow a radical departure from the legislation which was introduced in '77. He tells us that The Farm Lands Protection Act was intended to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to restrict purcha ses of farm land by foreign investors, Mr. Speaker . My friend from Charleswood, Mr.

Speaker, is dead wrong. If he had done some homework, he would have realized what The Farm Lands Protection Act is. Mr. Speaker , as I said earlier, I've outlined enormous loopholes in the Tory legislation in the past, loopholes which were pu rposefully, I would say pu rposefully, pu! into place in order to allo w foreign-control led corporations to gobble up Manitoba's farm land. The members of the opposition are perfectly aware of them. When in office, Mr. Speaker, they had every opportunity to close those loophole s, but they created a few more 5279

Friday, 12 August, 1983 by allowing, and I say it again, their friends, the foreign specu la tors, to acq uire land through the use of mortgage agreements and options to pu rchase. Mr. Speaker, we know that farm groups, farmers and their own board advised them to plug the loopho les, but what was their response? He just said, Mr. Speaker - I say it again, the Tories knew that their act was being circumvented and contravened by foreign investors. They knew, Mr. Speaker, that land was being bought for speculative pur poses and to the detriment of Manitoba farmers. Mr.

Speaker, and they knew that Canadian corporations were being used as fronts by foreign speculators. Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Agriculture refused to take any action against those foreign speculators, because he had been advised that his act was unconstitutional. This admission, Sir, of cou rse, is in complete conflict with his assurances to the public that there was no evidence that the act was being contravened. To state it blunt ly, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister shamefully misled the public. Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 3 is a sensible and responsible piece of legislation. HON. S. LYON: For a red, yes.

HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Op position says, for a red . Mr. Sp eaker, are the Governments of Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan red governments by his term? HON. S. LYON: They were. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, he says, they were. The present Government of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, is now tightening up the land legislation in that province, so this is not a radical proposal at all in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speak er, they have tried to perpetuate all kinds of myths about this legislation, and they've hammered away, Mr.

Speak er, trying to use scare tactics and to whip up support for their positior.. Mr. Speaker, they allege that this bill will cause catastrophic declines in land prices, create untold hardships for farmers, result in goverment confiscation of the land. That's what has been coming out. We are land grabbing mongrels, Mr. Speaker. Remember that big ad that they put out in 19 77, Mr. Speaker. Those accusations are nonsense, Mr. Speaker. They are nonsense. They have an appeal for possibly a few people in society, Mr.

Speak er, who are gullible to belie ve such rubbi sh, but most rational people however reject these cheap, unfounded, what I would consider, redneck allegations. Let's look at some of the su bstantive concerns and issues relating to this bill. The opposition insists that specu lation doe sn't exist, Sir . The y tell us that speculation - the Member for Pembina, for example, tells us that farmers and not speculators are the source of the probl em - (Interjection) - Mr. Speak er, I have given the honourable members those details dealing with specula tion. But, Mr.

Speaker , I find it amazing that several members opposite, and in particular the House Leader of the Conservative Party who have repeatedly condoned and suppor ted speculation in Manitoba's farm land. The other day when he was debating, we were told that the speculators are the good gu ys, Mr. Speaker . The House Leader of the Conservative Party said, look, there is a need for speculation. They do set the market. There are all kinds of benefits created by speculation, Mr. Speaker. That's what he was saying to this Hous e, and it creates all kinds of benefits for our farmers, for rural communities. Mr.

Speak er, if ever there was a piece of nonsense, that was the remarks of the House Leader of the Conservative Party who, I assume, will be a leadership candidate espousing for support of rural Manitobans. It really is depressing to watch the opposition members scratch their heads, pick out the slivers, and ask the government why it has concerns about specula tion. Mr. Speak er, let's look at some of the problems. Absentee owners and land speculators drive up the price of land, and there is no doubt about this, Mr. Speaker . HON. S. LYON: The land is 25 percent lower in Manitoba than it was two years ago. HON. B.

URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, studies done at the University of Manitoba have shown that in areas where significant concentration of absentee ownership, land prices have been driven up by 12 percent to 25 percent over what they normally would have been, had their been no speculation. A MEMBER: Get off it! HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have released those examples to the House, made during the Tory years when they were in office. I also show, on a case-by­ case basis, how non-farm corporations have worked in concert to drive land prices out of sight. Mr.

Speaker, in addition to those statistics, farmers will also tell you that the land dealers, the speculators and foreign investors have set the trend for land prices in many areas in this province. Maybe we haven't said that it's all over the province. We have said, it set the trend in many areas. Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe it, go talk to the farmers. Mr. Speak er, the problem, of cou rse, is that artificial inflation of land prices prevent many farmers, including beginning farmers, from acquiring, owning land.

In other words, it hur ts existing and potential owner-operators in the province, but the comments, Mr. Speaker, of the opposition members indicate they really don't care. Another problem, Mr. Speaker, speculators, by driving up land prices and mortgage valu es, have contributed to the financial crisis faced by many farmers. Every day, Mr. Speaker, this spring, we have heard opposition members saying, what are you going to do to help the farmers? The Member for Lakeside says, what are you going to do to help the farmers, and he even said, such as Don Hallgerson, Mr. Speak er, was one of his comments.

He said, why don't you help Don Hallgerson? The Member for Lakeside should go and speak to Don Hallgerson, Mr. Speaker, and we agree that we need to help farmers with real prob lems. But, Mr. Speaker, one way that we can do so is by passing this legislation. I said that the Member for Lakeside should talk to Mr. Hallg erson, Mr. Speak er, and they will find out why 5280

Friday, 12 August, 1983 farmers such as Mr. Hal!gerson, in his area, are victims of speculation. That is how he got into difficulty, Mr. Speak er. Foreign speculators and others have driven up, Mr. Speak er, the price of land in his area, helped to inflate mortgage values to exorbitant levels, and left farmers saddled with enormous debts to repay. Little wonder, Mr. Speak er, that many of those farmers face a financial crisis, but speculation is great. Speculation is great according to the Member for Tu rtle Mountain and his colleagues. Mr.

Sp eaker, another prob lem, leases offered by investors are often very short term in dur ation. The result is that local farmers are unable to plan properly or implement effective soil conservation practices. Mr. Speaker, another probl em, absentee landlords and speculators undermine the development and growth of rural communities. Sir, by definition, they don't live in the communities. They don't make pu rchases there. They don't send their children to local schools, and they don't supp ort lo cal communi ty-based organizations. Mr.

Speaker, a young farmer in the Altona area, who heads a young farmers' group, has expressed his support for this legislation. He has done so in part because he recognizes, and he is right, Sir, that rural communities cannot be developed when much of the surrounding land is owned and controlled by absentee landlords. Sir, he und erstands . . . HON. S. LYON: Why do you attack the Hutterites? HON. B. URUSKI: Nobody's attacking the Hutterites, Mr. Speaker. No, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, by somehow a twist of his logic, says, we are attacking the Hutterite colonies. Mr.

Sp eaker, if ever there was a family farm unit in the Province of Manitoba, it is the Hutterite colon ies, Sir. Mr. Sp eak er, he unde rstands something that members opposite can't seem to comprehend, and that is that the growth of rural communities is critically dependent on the survival and expansion of owner­ operated family farms in Manitoba. This bill, Sir, as we know it, supports very strongly the owner-operated farm, as I have said on other occasions. Let the Tories supp ort and condone and apolog ize for the specula tors, the land dealers.

On this side of the House, Sir, we're going to continue to defend the right, and promote the interests of farm operators in this province, Sir. That's where we stand. Let them stand with the probl ems and the speculators in this province. A MEMBER: Are we going to get into another filibuster on this thing? HON. 13. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the opposition tells us that the propo sed legislation discriminates against all kinds of Canadians who may wish to buy land here. I've said, Mr. Sp eaker, on many occasions, Canadians who plan to take up residence here will be allowed to buy land in Ma nitoba. Mr.

Sp eak er, only those Canadians who have no intention of farming or residing in the province, and that is absentee landlords, will have a difficulty with this legislation. Mr. Sp eak er, in the cour se of the deba te, the opposition members have referred to the results of a survey which they conducted in rural Manitoba. Mr. Speak er, the results sup posedly demonstrate that farmers app rove of non-residents buying land here. That's what they were saying, that farmers app rove of non-residents buying the land here. Sir, the prob lem with the su rvey is that it is not a survey, Mr. Speaker. It isn't a su rvey.

It is a pr op aganda document. Professionals in the field were asked to comment on the validity of the Tory questionnaire. Mr. Speaker, one such individual stated, and I quote, "It is obviously propaganda document, and I'm surp rised that the Conservatives would go to the expense when the questions are so badly phrased." Mr.

Speak er, another one stated, and I quo te - there was more than one, Sir - "S ometimes there's a fine line between a survey and a petition, and this is more like a petition." That's what people, who deal with questions of this kind of support and these kinds of questions have put forward on a suppo sed survey that they've done, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) - never mind, but the numbers came in. How would anyone respond other than what has happened, Mr. Speaker? If they had the guts, Mr.

Speak er, and the integrity to do so, the opposition members would have asked more sensible questions, and I think the - do you favour the continued acquisition of farm land by Eastern Canadian land dealers, Mr. Sp eaker, or by Canadian lawyers who serve as fronts for foreign investors? That's the kind of qu estion that you could ask in questionnaire. Mr. Speak er, do you favour continued acquisition of land by non-resident, absentee landlords, if that land might otherwise be worked by local farmers?

That's the kind of question you could ask, or you could ask, do you favour land pu rchases by non-resident investors even if that causes land prices to escalate, thereby depriving beginning farmers of the opportunity to buy and own land? Mr. Speak er, if the opposition would have posed these kinds of legitimate questions, the results from their so­ called su rvey would have been far, far different, and they know it. Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite and the Member for Sturgeon Creek somehow says that, look, this bill is something new, and it is coming into being after the Bill of Rights has been passed in the Parliament of Canada. This is something new, Mr. Speaker . He should remember that the law in Prince Edward Island, dealing with land owne;·ship in that province, was passed since the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights in the Province of Manitoba. A MEMBER: No. HON. B. URUSKI: Yes it was, Mr. Speak er. The new revised bill was passed in 19 82; the honourable members say no, but it was passed. Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that some of the members talked about this bill possibly being against the Canadian Constitution. Mr. Speaker, if this bill is against the Canadian Constitution, so are the bills in Saskatchewan, in Quebec and in Prince Edward Island against the Constitution. This bill will stand the List and we will see, but to say that this bill somehow goes against the Charter of Rights, the real key

section in that has never been alluded to by members opposite and that relates to

Section 1, the first

section of the 5281

Friday, 12 August, 1983 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I will read it to the honourable members. "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaran tees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subje ct only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Mr. Sp eaker , if ever, to say to the honour able members, it may be possible and I will admit there may be a challenge, whether it be in this province or in other provinces, that it may result.

But, let me say that it will result across this country in the elimination of legislation that is not new and is not somehow radical in the Province of Manitoba. It will be the fourth such pi ece of legisl ation, which now is even being strengthened by the "Red" - and I use the word advisedly by using the word from the Leader of the Opposition - the "Red" Conservative Government of Saskatchewan who are now, this Session, putting in amendments to the present Farm Lands Act, which was passed a number of years ago by the NDP Government there and tightening it up, Mr. Speak er. Mr.

Sp eaker, the Member for Turtle Mountain talked about this law being somehow opposed and not allowing the leasing of land in this legislation and using the lease documents, using leasing would prevent his corporation from - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker , the members of the opposition spoke on this amendment, spoke on this legislation now 40-some times, 40-some speakers and to say that in five minutes or 10 minutes, I should be allowed to close debate . . . A MEMBER: What about the statistics that we gave you? You haven't answered that argument. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Spea ker, let me finish my comments. Mr.

Sp eaker, the statistics that the honou rable members gave were answered by my colleagues. Does he want me to repeat that comment? I will gladly if he wants me to continue speaking. Those statistics did not point out who the beneficial owners of the land in those areas are, Sir. They may have been using their statistics, they may have been Manitoba corporations, and I showed the honourable member how thousands of acres of land are being held by Manitoba non-farming corporations, who are flaunting the present legislation, Mr. Sp eaker, in which we are closing the loopholes. Mr.

Speaker , the Member for Tu rtle Mountain argued that Bill 3 somehow will deprive him of his livelihood. He maintained that, "The major shareholders of Ransom Farms Ltd. do not spend a significant portion of their time working with that corporation, nor do we draw a significant portion of our income from that corporation. Hence, Ransom Farms Ltd. would not qualify as a family farm corpor ation." Mr.

Sp eaker, if the major shareholders of Ransom Farms are not actively engaged in farming, the corporation indeed would not qualify as a family farm corporation, and then, Sir, he is correct in observing that the corporation would not be able to acquire more land. They would not be stopped from farming; they would be prevented from acquiring more land. Mr. Sp eaker, he is incorrect when he sugge sts that this corporation cannot retain its existing interest in the land. The corporation, Mr. Speak er, may do so, as I've indicated by the amendments, that the land was acqui red before April 19 77.

There is no problem with the existing corporations. Mr. Speaker , the Member for Tu rtle Mountain says that farmers are relying increasingly on the use of rented land and he notes that it's absolutely an essential feature of farming in Manitoba, that there'd be a pool of land available for rent. Mr.

Speaker , I want to tell the honourable member it should be noted that in the provinces which have this kind of legislation, two provinces, P.E.I. and Saskatchew an, the amount of land for rent ha s increased significantly over the past decade, thus between 1971 and 1981 the amount of rented land increased in Prince Edward Island from 82 ,000 to 15 9, 000 acres. Mr. Sp eaker, in the Provi nce of Saskatchewan, from 18 .9 million acres to 20.8 million acres, and the comparable increase in Manitoba was from 4.9 million acres to 6.2 million acres.

To say that there will be no rented land available, I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker , I don't believe that that will occur. This piece of legislation, Sir, is a commitment, as I've said earlier, to the owner-operators of farm land in this province. We've had a lot of debate in this House dealing with the rights of corporations. Now, let's un derstand who we've been talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I don't deny that we should look and allo w the farming corpora tions - the farmer owned and operated corporations - unli mited rights and we have done so in this legislation.

There are roughly 28,000 farmers in the Province of Manitoba, Sir. There is approxi mately 1, 000 corporations registered as farming corporations in this province. Basically the whole thrust of the Co nservative argument, I venture to say, would affect I would say less than 200 corporations and I think that is probably less than 50 that we are talking about, as to who we are really speaking about, in terms of corporations. Because those family farm corporations will have no difficulty whatsoever.

There will be a few of those corporations that are not owned by owner-operators, that will have some difficulty under this legislation and it is acknowledged, Sir. But, this legislation is aimed to strengthen the family farms in the Province of Manitoba. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Call in the members. MR. SPEAKER, J. Walding: Order please. The question before the House is the propo sed second reading of Bill No. 3. Those in favour of the motion please rise.

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Adam, Ans tett, Buckla schuk, Corri n, Cowan, Desjard ins, Dodick, Eyler, Fox, Harapiak, Harp er, Hemphill, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mackling, Penner, Phillips, Plohman, Santos, Scott, Storie, Uruski. 5282

Friday, 12 August, 1983 NAYS Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Filmon, Gourla y, Graham, Hammond, Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Ly on, McKenzie, Mercier, Oleson, Sherman, Steen. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas, 22; Nays, 19. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. The Honourable Government House Leader. Order please. Order please. Order please. HON. R. PENNER: Just a minute. How was this vote recorded? Mr. Speaker , would you please called the adjourned debates on 23, 24, 48, 74 and 11 4? ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS Bill 23 - THE REAL PROPERTY ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Hono ur able Attorney-General, Bill No. 23, the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , on behalf of the Member for Turtle Mountain, we're prepared to allow this bill to proceed. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: On division? MR. G. MERCIER: On division. HON. R. PENNER: Same division. Bill 24 - THE REGISTRY ACT MR. SPEAKER : On the pr oposed motion of the Hono ur able Attorney- Gene ral, Bill No. 24, the Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Speaker, in spite of the fact that we do not agree with the principle of declaration in this bill, we are prepared to let this bill go to committee. MR. G. MERCIER: Same division. MR. SPEAKER: On division. BILL 48 - THE ELE CTIONS FINANCES ACT MR. SPEAKER : On the propo sed motion of the Hon ourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 48 and the amendment thereto propo sed by the Hon ourabl e Member for Kirkfield Park, the Honourable Member for lnkster has 10 minu tes remaining. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker , I finished my comments this morning and in order to expedite, I will not take the remaining 10 minu tes I have left.

MR. H. ENNS: That's one of the best speeches you made, lnkster. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. s. LYON: Mr.

Speak er, again it will not be my intention to speak at any length on this bill but rather to attempt to summarize some of the points that we have been making in opposition to the bill and to indicate and to reaffirm what we have said heretofore with respect to this legislation, that even if this bill does go to committee and emerges from committee and is given third reading and passed, nobody on the other side of the House, their party or any of their left-wing friends, will ever benefit from a nickel of this legislation because it will be repealed retroact ive ly, by our government when we come back into office.

If any money has been paid out under this bill to any political party, it will be recovered by the Treasury of Manitoba from that political party or from that individual. Mr. Sp eaker, that's not a political promise, that is an affirmation of our belief of the wrongness, the immorality of this bill and so, Mr. Speak er, we don't intend to take the money under this bill at all.

To recap some of the points that have been made heretofore un der this bill, my honour able friends opposite again have not given any demonstration of the need for the bill other than it being part, really, of their ideology, of their knee-jerk response that the public somehow or other should be required to pay for their ideology. Mr. Speak er, we do not subscribe to that.

We feel, as a Conservative Party, if there's a liberal Party in Manitoba, a New Democratic Party, that those parties should under the law be permitted to go to the public or to other portions of the economic strata in Manitoba and raise whatever money they need for their own party pu rposes. That has been done since time immemorial; it is not a perfect system, Mr.

Speaker, but no body in this House has demonstrated any imperfections in Manitoba that would require the public treasury to be plund ered by political parties in order to rid the province of some real or imagined sinfulness that my honourable friends have to conjure up by way of example from other jurisdictions, mostly in the United States. Mr. Sp eaker, the whole concept of the public being required, compulsori ly, to pay money over to a political party for which they may have no support whatsoever is again, Sir, to use that term, anti-democratic.

One thing that should be left to political parties and to the individual citizens and co-operatives and corporations and all other taxpayers in Manitoba is that there should not be a compu lsory checkoff of their taxes to support politi cal ideolo gi es, which they do not supp ort themselves. In other words, Sir, if a person is to make a political donation to a political party, he and he alone should make the determination as to how much should be given and to what political party he or she will support.

Under this legislation, my honourable friends are going to be able to lay back on the oars, and they're going to be able to say, we don't have to send our fund rai sers out to raise money from the 57 constituencies in Manitoba; we're going to plunder it 5283

Friday, 12 August, 1983 out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Manitoba and they will have no option. Because we have a temporary majority of socialists in the House, we will pass a law which picks the pocket of every taxpayer in Manitoba for our benefit and that's what this law says, Mr. Speaker . My honourable friends can try to rationalize it in any way they want, but it's a law for their own benefit. They're the modern day Jesse James of Manitoba. They're holding up the people of Manitoba to benefit themselves and we won't permit this to happen. We think it is wrong, we think it is immoral.

My honour able friends across the way can raise all of the specious arguments they wish because, to me and to the members of our party, they are specious. Some have been heard to say, well, if Conservatives in this province or that province take money from the public treasury under an Elections Finances Bill, why do you not want to take it in Manitoba? We say, two wrongs don't make a right. We've never seen the need for the public to be scalped, Mr. Speaker , the way this bill will scalp the public to pay for partisan, political activities. At the present time, Mr.

Speaker, there is an election deduction that is permitted or a tax credit that is permitted to all political parties who are capable of being registered under the present law and that, Mr. Speaker , as I have demons trated before and the argument has never been met, that is not public financing of political parties because if that money did not accrue to the benefit of a political party and a tax credit given, the donor could put that money in a tax credit of some other sort. He could give it to the Red Cross. He could give it to his church.

He could do whatever he wanted with it, because that has something to do with that one word, free dom. Ther e is no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that any tax receipts or credits that are given under the present voluntary donation system are deprivations of the Treasury of Manitoba at all, because there is no gua rantee that this govenment or any other government could tell every citizen in Manitoba where he or she was going to put that money. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is a fallacy to say, as the Attorney-General has attempted to say in his remarks attempting to justify this bad law, that the Treasury is being compulsorily deprived right now of money on tax receipts that are given, ergo this is a form of public financing. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. I made the argument in that respect on the main motion. I repeat it in short here merely to indicate to my honourable friends that the four principal bases upon which the Attorney-General argued in his vain attempt to establish the bona fides of this law, those four bases are all skewed. They are all ill-considered.

None of them holds water at all, because they are linked and one flows to the other, the basic imperfections in the base foundation that he laid, which was, of course, that all political parties have the right to have their message communicated to the people - that is pho ny. I don't think that the Member for St. Boniface, any more than I, wants to give the right of the Ku Klux Klan to have taxpayers' subsidy to convey their message to the people of Manitoba. Yet under this law, that potential arises, Mr. Speaker. I don't think, Mr.

Speaker , that the Nazi party of America should be allowed to come into Manitoba and to become registered as a political party, merely by the device of running five candidates in the next election, but that's what this bill makes possible. The Nazi Party could come into Manitoba, run five candidates, then take a seat if you please, Mr. Speak er, on the advisory commission that will run the elections, giving advice on how the election is going to be run.

If any one of its candidates gets more than 10 percent of the popular vote at his constituency, the Nazi Party of Manitoba would be qualified to receive money under this legislation. That's why this legislation is dangerous. I know that the arguments, when I put them with respect to Ma rxis ts-Len ini sts and Ma oists and Trotskyites and all of the other running mates of my honourable friends, I know that the arguments aren't as convincing. So I use the argument of the Nazi Party, because you see how their ears pointed up right away. They didn't realize, Mr.

Speaker, when they brought this legislation in that's what they were permitting under this. The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party could become, Mr. Speaker, members of the advisory committee under The Elect ions Fina nces Act as pr op osed by the Attorney-General, so could every other kook party of the left, of the centre, of the right. Every other fringe group could become people who would be advising our Chief Electoral Officer in the next election. That is an outrage. We don't need that. We don't want it, and it's not right. Furthermore, as I have indicated before, Mr.

Speak er, they would have then the potential of actually being able to draw down taxpayers dollars. The Attorney-General says, well, that's not a very strong risk that we're taking, because not too many of them ever get 10 percent of the vote in their constitue ncy. I remember, Mr. Sp eaker , when Communist candidates have had 10 percent of the vote in certain constituencies in this province. I can't think of any loyal Manitoban who wants to put a nickel into the coffers of the Communist Party of Manitoba. But, Mr. Speak er, that's what this bill is going to permit. Mr.

Speaker, I think my honourable friends opposite had better take a long look at what they are doing here because, aside altogether from pilfering the taxpayers' pocket to serve their own party interests, they are opening wide a door of potential harm to the public interest that they haven't even considered. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this is bad legislation. It is based on skewed thinking that should not become part of the public legislation of this province. So, Mr.

Speak er, not wanting to take up further time of the House, I merely say that, as I have said to a number of representatives of the different parts of the media in Manitoba, if the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his Caucus pilfered the public treasury of a 1. 7 million, there would be headlines all over Manitoba and on the radio and on T.V., and it would never stop and cease, nor should it. Mr. Speaker, let me say this.

I don't think that my honourable friends knowingly would pilfer the Treasury of Manitoba, but they come into this Legislative Chamber under the sanctity of their majority, and they pilfer the taxpayers of Manitoba by way of a legis lative act. Tha t's what's happ e ning in this legislation. They are pilfering, robbing the taxpayers of Manitoba of money that the taxpayers, in many cases, will not want to pay to support their political party. We, on this side of the House, Mr. Speak er, say very very clearly and unequiv ocally, we do not want, we do not seek 5284

Friday, 12 August, 1983 taxpayer suppor t for the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba. Let that be clear. My honourable friends want and are seeking and are prepared to use their majority to legislate taxpayer support of their party in Manitoba. That is wrong. That is immoral. It should not be permitted at a time, Mr. Speak er, when the province is in the state of economic degradation, which this government has dragged the province into. If we were the richest province in Canada, it would be wrong. It would be immoral. It would not be right. So, Mr. Speaker , I've made those arguments.

I have made all of the arguments. I have heard none of the substantive arguments that were made in opposition to this bill. I've heard none of them. In the Hansards that I have read and in the debate that I've heard in this House, I have heard none of those arguments answered. I have heard no word of justification for this bill, other than the sheer, unadu lterated greed of my honourable friends opposite wanting to get their hands into the taxpayers' pocket. A numb er of my colleagues have said, Mr.

Spea ker, and I appeal again to the one base quality that I know everybody in this House probably possesses, but I appeal to this one qual ity, and that is the self-interest of my honourable friends opposite. I am not appealing to anything else over there, because I don't know how much there is, but to their own self-interest, because every publi cation that we tllrn out as a Conservative Party is going to say, not printed at public expense, and you won't be able to say it.

We are going to speak and we are going to publ icize on the radio, on T.V. and in the print media all over Manitoba that this government voted itself the right to rob every taxpayer in Manitoba to pay for its own election expenses. Mr. Speaker , that is going to cost them by, I would think a very conservative estimation, at least five seats in this province. If my honourable friends want, I will give them a list of the seats. We've been looking at them.

So I say to my honourable friends opposite, if the argument about morality doesn't convince you; if the argument about not using a government majority for immoral purp oses doesn't convince you, then look at the base argument that the public won't tolerate it, and we'll make sure that the public won't tolerate it. So, Mr. Speak er, if this bill goes to committee, again I say to my honourable friends opposite, they would be well-advised in their own basic interests of sur vival never to let this bill come out of committee, because it's bad legislation.

One of the architects, I guess, is the Member for Springfield - the petty bur eaucr at - sitting in the front row there, Mr. Speak er. I'm sure he's one of the architects of it, and it's because, Mr. Speaker, of that kind of skewed, sick thinking that goes on across the way that we have this legislation in this House. If my honourable friends, Mr. Speak er, want to subj ect their whole movement, the future of their whole party, to that kind of skewed and disordered thinking, well, then let the wrath of God be on them forever, as indeed will the wrath of the electors be on them for a long long time. This, Mr.

Spea ker, is the kind of issue the public won't forget. Believe me, this is the kind of an issue the public will never forget, particularly when we will never let the public forget. So if my honourable friends think I'm warning them, no; I'm merely telling them the rocky road to hell that lies ahead of them electorally if they have the immorality to pass this legislation. QUESTION put on the amendment and defeated. MR. G. MERCIER: On division. MR. SPEAKER: On division. The proposed motion before the Hous e is the proposed second reading of Bill 48. The Honourable Attorney-General will be closing debate. HON. R.

PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief; I certainly will not be any longer than the Leader of the Opposition in his last remarks. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, as he spoke on Bill 3 and as he spoke on Bill 48, reminded me - in terms of repetitiousness, talking about swamp fever, of socialism, of the mind set of the socialisms, anti-freedom, the long arm of the socialist purloiners of the public purse, the Jesse James story - of a programmed piece of software, a floppy disc, that every time you put it in, it plays out the same kind of phrases, it's programmed.

The only way in which that analogy breaks down is that at least that kind of software, that kind of floppy disc, has logic to it. The Leader of the Opposition has no logic whatsoever, and he doesn't rely on logic. He relys on all of this pejorative language, these scare tactics, these scare phrases, this notion of the Nazi party sweeping in behind the train of this piece of legislation. He says we do not need, we do not want the taxpayers' support. In fact, of course, they have it through the elections finances legislation, which was the product of their government. Of course, they have it.

What he doesn't want is that the game should be equa lized, because if you analyze what happens now under the existing elections finances legislation, you find indeed that there is taxpayer support, but it is unequally distributed. I suspect - far be it from me to categorically attribute this to anyone - I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition just doesn't like a fair fight and that's what bugs him.

That's the logic of his position, because if you really sweep aside these phrases about these kooky parties, these crazy parties, the Rhinoceros and the Nazis, and so on - and let me just footnote, that indeed, if any party, as defined in The Elections Finances Act or in The Election Act gained sufficient support of the electorate and came within the definition of party and was able to register, then what I detect is that he fears the democratic process. I wouldn't like it if a Nazi party made that kind of inroad.

I don't think I'll see it in my li fetime in this countr y, but if it was part of the democratic process that was designed - not just to benefit the majority but to allow a minority group to organize, become political entities, register campaigns and seek votes; if that's the result, then that is the price that you pay, and you do pay a price, of course, for the democratic process, but on this side of the House we're not afraid of that price.

Just to come to the point I wanted to make about the equalization, the equity that this bill seeks to build in, you know, I'm reminded of something - the Member for Lakeside I think will know this - what Abe Lincoln once said; he said, "God must have loved the poor people, he made so many of them." If you look at the breakdown of income tax returns for the last full year in which we have figur es, in 19 80 you find a very 5285

Friday, 12 August, 1983 interesting thing. Of the 673,976 returns filed, 386, 000 and change showed taxable income, but a remarkable 42 percent, approximately 287,964 showed no taxable income. Now, Mr. Speak er, under the existing legislation only those with taxable incomes have the possi bility of making an advantage donation, such as you have under the present legislation. So those who are, by clear definition, at the lower end of the income scale, do not have the advantage that those who are on the upper end of the income scale, as presently set out in the current legislation.

If you take somebody who donates $1 ,000, it doesn't matter to whom or to which party a donation is made, then on the current tax break which is provided that person has a tax credit of $400. Logically that's $400 taken out of the public pur se to give to a political party, but regardless to whom it is given it is an advantage which only clearly those with a taxable income have, and by definition, those are the ones at the upper end. I'm not saying that they are the very rich, but they are the ones who are at the upper end of that spectrum of people who have income. That's what we're talking about.

Now, I make no speculation, Mr. Speaker, as to where the donations go from those who have taxable income. Indeed you don't need to speculate. The record shows that cer tainly very large donations are made predominantly to the Progressive Conservatives, so that indicates the kind of thing that bugs the Leader of the Opposition, when I said I don't think he likes a fair fight. They're advantaged by the present system and they want to maintain the present system and do so - this is the paradox, the irony - in the name of the democratic process.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition, despite all of his rhetoric, distrusts the democratic process and what annoys him are the measures we have brought in to democratize The Election Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly processes and committees. That's what bugs him. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House is the proposed second reading of Bill No. 48. Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

A ST ANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Adam , An stett, Bu ckla schuk, Corr in, Cowan , Desjardins, Dodick, Doern, Eyler, Fox, Harapiak, Harper, Hemphill, Kostyra, Lecuy er, Ma ckling, Malino wski, Penner, Phillips, Plohman, Santos, Scott, Storie, Uruski. MR. SPEAKER: All those opposed to the motion, please rise. 5286 NAYS Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Filmon, Gou rlay, Graham, Hammond, Hyde, Johnston, Lyon, McKenzie, Mercier, Oleson, Steen. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas, 24; Nays, 17 . MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. BILL 74 - THE ELECTIONS ACT

(2) MR. SPEAK ER: On the propo sed motion of the Hon ourable Attorn ey-General, Bill No. 74, the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to allow Bill 74 and the following Bill 11 4 to proceed to a vote. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 11 4 - THE LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

(3) MR. SPEAK ER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 11 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion on division? MR. G. MERCIER: On division. MR. SPEAKER: On division. The Honourable Government House Leader. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er, before calling what I think will be the last order of busi ness for the afternoon, just some annou ncements with respect to committees to supplement the annou ncements I made earlier today. The Standing Committee on Agriculture, Sir, will meet Monday evening at the usual time to consider Bills 3, 23 and 24.

The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet Tuesday morning at the usual time to consider bills referred. The Standing Committee on Mu nicipal Affairs will meet on Tuesday evening, and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Orders will meet on Tuesday evening. The House will meet Monday afternoon and Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Speaker , by leave, there is Bill 18 , which was previously referred to the Committee of the Whole, but there are some delegations that have indicated an interest in making presentations. They may still be interested.

By leave, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Bill No. 18, The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act, be withdrawn from the Committee of the Whole and transferred to the Standing Committee on Muni cipal Affairs. The reason for that, Sir, is that the companion piece, Bill 47, is in the Standing Committee on Mu nicipal j

Friday, 12 August, 1983 Affairs, and they might as well both be considered in the same place at the same time. MOTION presented and carried. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, I have some committee changes. On Private Bills, the Member for River East will substitute for the Member for Concordia. For the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, the Member for Bu rrows will substitute for the Member for Ste. Rose, and the Member for Osborne will substitute for the Member for St. James. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: Mr. Speaker, this will surprise some members. Would you please call the motion with respect to the referral of the proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, a referral motion in my name on the Order Paper, as it appears on Page 10 of the Order Paper? CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIA L LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the pr oposed motion of the Honou rable Attorney -General, conc erning the lang uages resolution and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Mj:lmber for Fort Garry. QUESTION put on the amendment, and defeated MR. G. MERCIER: On division, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: On division. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: On Division? MR. G. MERCIER: On division. MR. SPEAKER: On division.

The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that the House do now adjourn. MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use adjourne d and stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. (M onday). 5287