Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 93 (32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-93

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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. 93 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE, 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, Wa rren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WA LDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

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

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 22 June, 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 . ORAL QUESTIONS Manitoba Cattle Producers Association MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier.

In view of the fact that this morning the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association held a press conference protesting the removal of their funding and the continued operation of the Cattle Producers Association, will the Premier and his government reconsider their position and withdraw Bill 90? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: It is the intention of the government to proceed with Bill 90. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister change from being the arrogant kind of a Premier and government that they are and allow the producers a plebiscite, or a vote on whether or not this kind of change is made? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there was no plebiscite. As I recall it, when the legislation -that's the subject of issue -was introduced in the first place, I believe it was in the 1980 Session, there was no plebiscite amongst the producers of the province.

The Cattle Producers Association, and any other group or individuals, will have the opportunity to submit their reasons and their rationale at the appropriate time during Law Amendments period, as to whether or not the bill ought to proceed or not. We'll be listening to the submissions that are made at that time, as is the process of government, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba Cattle Producers Act MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister check the record, and in checking the record confirm that the Progressive Conservative Party lived up to their election promise of 1977 and implemented The Cattle Producers Association Act that year? They didn't break the promises like the New Democratic Party have to the people of Manitoba on many other issues. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member whose premise is inaccurate because of the fact that there was a plebiscite by cattle producers in the Province of Manitoba, at which time the majority of whom voted against the setting up of such an organization. In '78, Mr. Speaker, when the legislation was brought in, a checkoff and an organization was brought in that was not wanted by the producers who voted in 1974. We are not doing away with that organization, Sir.

All that we are doing is making every producer who wants to belong to it signify that he wishes to contribute to that organization, and we respect producers who wish to join that kind of an organization. Beef Income Assurance Program MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker , the Minister of Agriculture feels compelled to get into this . I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can confirm that, since his government has been in office, and he's been the Minister of Agriculture, there's been a reduction in the production of slaughter cattle which are processed in Manitoba, a reduction of some 50 percent in this last year.

This year over last year there's been a reduction in some 50 percent of those animals that are produced in Manitoba being slaughtered and finished for job opportunities -that has been the reduction, Mr. Speaker -would he confirm that? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that when they started tinkering with the Beef Income Assurance Plan we did see a decline in the numbers of beef cows in the Province of Manitoba, and the beef cow herd over the last five to six years has decreased by, I believe, approximately 25 percent.

Obviously, from that kind of a decrease, there will be a corresponding decrease in the numbers of animals slaughtered within the province; but, Sir, in terms of the trying to stabilize the beef industry in this province, we have committed ourselves to the long term stability and the increase of animals that are finished in this province. It will not be an easy task, Sir, after having to face a tinkering and a totally destructive administration that was there previously. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Minister of Agriculture to confirm if it's true or if it's not true.

He can clarify the record that there has been a reduction by some 50 percent in those animals slaughtered this year over last year in Manitoba, a straightforward question. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, he wants me to confirm a statistic that I cannot confirm, but certainly there has been a reduction, I have not denied that. But the actual number, Sir, I will take as notice and provide the honourable member with a precise answer to that question. 3865

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 Health services - northern communities MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Health and do so in full recognition of the different responsibilities with respect to health services and medical services to Native Canadians -Indian Canadians in particular -and I would ask him whether, in the light of reports emanating from various northern communities and northern Indian reserves about inadequate medical services provided by the Federal Government; and in the light of allegations of serious illnesses and deaths resulting in some of those Indian populations as a consequence of those inadequacies, has the Minister of Health of the Province of Manitoba be en approached by spokesmen for those bands or for those communities to participate in a review of health services to northern communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker, but I have been contacted by the mother of one of the victims, the little girl that died a couple of weeks ago; it was during the week, and immediately have contacted staff and staff started discussions with the federal representative here.

I think the Member for Fort Garry has recognized that it is a responsibility of the Federal Government, but as the Minister of Health for Manitoba, we're treating with Manitobans and we are concerned and we're waiting to get the results from the discussions between our staff and the staff of the Federal Government before taking any other step, and this is something that probably I would want to take up with the Federal Minister of Health. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether that preliminary investigation and those discussions extend to the consideration of transportation facilities available for persons in northern communities requiring medical care, health care and medical transport. There have been , in the reports that have come out of those circumstances in recent days, references to specific transportation facilities available, helicopter services and the like available to transfer ailing Indians and other northern residents from one nursing station to another.

In fact, I think, Sir, it is questionable as to whether any such official transportation facilities do exist. The only one that would come to mind would be purely provincial, and that is the pn.Nincial Northern Patient Transportation system. Is the Minister investigating, or will he investigate the references to inadequacies and shortcomings in the transportation area for northern medical patients? HON. L DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, I might say that part of the problem seems to me, from the first preliminary investigation, is a kind of a battle of misunderstanding between the Federal Government and some of these bands up there; I think we saw that. I think the member is aware of that. I might say that we pretty well covered the question of transportation during my Estimates and I can't add much more than I did at the time. I think that, first of all, I want to let the public know and the honourable member that we have no air ambulance service. It is a kind of a program of helping in transportation.

I don't think that we need any more reassurance; I think that we stated that we all wanted it. The case was made by the honourable member, by my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs. I think that we made ii quite clear at the time that this is one of the options, one of our priority options, but in this time the Cabinet and the government did not feel that we could move in this direction this year in the kind of economic situation and the deficit that we have.

It is something that we certainly approve in principle, a proper air ambulance , and the question of helicopter and all that certainly will be considered but it is a very, very costly program. Now, if I said that I recognize that this is a high priority for our citizens, certainly, that is the first priority thinking, although we are concerned with the people under the federal jurisdiction, but that is a problem that the Federal Government will have to look at also.

Now, if we could get together, we certainly would welcome that if it would help us to institute such a program and we'll - (Interjection) - Well, if my honourable friend doesn't want to move ahead with those stupid questions just a minute ago, if he doesn't want me to try to answer the question, well, it's unfortunate. I don't think that the Honourable Member for Fort Garry was complaining. MANDAN Interco nnection MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct my question to the Minister in charge of Manitoba Hydro. Mr.

Speaker, last night I was in attendance at a meeting in Brunkild where some 40 landowners were in attendance, 40 people who will be affected by the proposed MANDAN route. They expressed at that meeting an interest to meet with the decision-makers in Cabinet who will be making the decision regarding the proposed route. I am wondering if the Minister could indicate whether Cabinet would be prepared to meet with the farmers in question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, we have a process whereby Manitoba Hydro has gone through the Land Use Committee process for about, I'd say, two years now, and the alternative routes are being discussed at the local level. If, at some time in the future, after that process is gone through, people would still like to have discussions with myself or other parties, we would look into that but I think it's important for the hearing process to continue. There are a number of other hearings slated over the summer. We would hope that those would be pursued.

If people aren't satisfied after that we will have to look at their sources of dissatisfaction, but I do think it's important for now that the hearing process, which I think is a full and open one, be pursued. 3866 I

• Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, my constituents, who were in attendance at that meeting, fully understand the orderly process working toward that decision and they are prepared, of course, to follow that. What they are asking, and I am asking on their behalf, is whether, at the end of that, whether the Minister, and indeed other members of Cabinet who will be making that decision, would be prepared to grant to them an audience so that they can pose questions directly to the people that will be making the decision? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I certainly wouldn't be against meeting with people at that particular time. Beef Income Assurance Program MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, in partial answer to the Honourable Member for Arthur, I looked through some notes and I did have some information that I could share with him, dealing with the marketing of slaughter beef in the Province of Manitoba.

From the statistics that we have received from the years 197 1 to 1982, it should be noted that in 1981-82 beef slaughter in Manitoba plants did increase from approximately 297,807 animals to 331,980 animals, or approximately 11.5 percent increase from 1981 to 1982. It should be noted as well, that in the Province of Saskatchewan the increase was substantially more - or a 17.4 percent increase, I believe -and I would anticipate and interpret that to mean primarily because of the price support and stability in the marketplace in that province, our plan was just getting under way.

We did have a slight increase in marketings '82 over '81, but we still have a long way to go and we have a big job ahead of us. Canada Packers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in the answer the Minister has given us, could he as well check out that Canada Packers are making an expansion to the Moose Jaw plant which could have an effect on the continuation of Canada Packers in Manitoba?

At the same time as he's checking out the questions asked, could he confirm that that is, in fact, taking place and that there could be a danger of the future for Canada Packers in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take that question as notice.

I should advise the honourable member that there is no doubt that in the meat packing industry, I am sure that he has read that there have been closures of 15 plants across this country, and that Canada Packers has just recently announced the closure of a major plant in the Province of Ontario after purchasing two additional plants to supplement their needs.

I should also mention to the honourable member that no doubt there have been rumours that even the Province of Saskatchewan is attempting to encourage a processor somewhere near the eastern border of Saskatchewan and the western border of Manitoba, in order to try and increase the number of actual slaughter in that province. I should point out that I am not sure any expansion in the processing industry certainly will have an impact on what other processors do in this country. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister is now confirming that Saskatchewan is open for business and there will be an expansion of the packing house industry in Saskatchewan under the Progressive Conservative Government. Will he find out for this Assembly and the people of Manitoba, whether or not Canada Packers are planning to scale down or to, in fact, close their Manitoba operation and move it to Saskatchewan? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I am not sure that the operation of Canada Packers is within the administrative competence of the Minister.

Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question so that it concerns a matter which is within the administrative competence of the Minister? The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, it would take me a long time to find anything that would be within the administrative competence of this government, so I would have to take some time to search out those areas.

The question specifically is, is there going to be a closing or a scaling down of the packing house industry in Manitoba under the New Democratic Party policies, and transferred to Saskatchewan where there is a government which is welcoming the packing industry, or many other industries, Mr. Speaker? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the honourable member that we have had discussions with Canada Packers and continue to do so.

We do have concerns, as they do, as to the age and the type of plant that they have in Manitoba, and we certainly want to do whatever is in our power to try and maintain a viable packing industry in this province. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: If I may interrupt the proceedings for a moment to direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where there are some school groups who are leaving shortly. There are 50 students of Grades 1 to 6 standing from the Cypress River School under the direction of Miss Skoglund. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Gladstone.

There are 20 students from Pukatawagan School under the direction of Mr. Woboshello. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Housing. There are 23 students of Grade 6 standing from the Howden School under the direction of Mr. Borys. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Radisson. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. 3867

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 ORAL QUESTIONS Cont'd. MTS - Installations MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minister responsible for Telephones. Mr. Speaker, Rainbow Stage is opening its summer season with that band classic rendition of Gilbert and Sullivan, Pirates of Penzance. In that show the hero, Ralph Rackstraw, is sent to a dungeon. The heroine, in a very poignant and beautiful soprano aria, laments the fact that no telephone communicates with his dungeon cell.

My question to the Minister of Telephones is, will he assure me that he will provide a telephone to communicate with the dungeon that the Member for Elmwood, Mr. Russell Doern, has provided for himself so that the caucus chairman can, from time to time, communicate with him without the services of one Peter Warren? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Telephones as well, perhaps of a slightly more serious nature. Yesterday we were asking the Minister of Telephones about a situation in southwestern Manitoba where users of telephones, who previously had two users on the line, are now finding three and four, where individual people are being given private lines for $500.00. My question to the Minister of Telephones is, can every user of telephones in southwestern Manitoba, or indeed in Manitoba, can they get a private line for $500.00? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: At this time, Mr. Speaker, certainly as long as there is surplus facilities available within the existing facilities that are there, it will be granted as much as physically possible by the Telephone System. Of course, it is the case at this present time. It is possible for those people to receive the private line for $500 because of the fact that there was a major expansion of facilities in the rural areas in the late '70s - it cost dround $34 million to do that.

They did put in surplus facilties at that time so that even though the maximum number of subscribers on a party line would be four, in some cases there were two or three, the average of 2.6 subscribers per line in that area, so there was some room there to expand and to meet the requests for private lines and of course, the Telephone System is indeed doing that. There's movement within the rural areas as well, so sometimes there are cases where there are two people on a party line and that changes to three or four within a couple of years, due to a range of circumstances.

So as much as possible, the Telephone System will meet those requests. However, when that has saturated that amount, I'm sure economic conditions would dictate whether the Telephone System could expand to meet the demand for private lines in all cases. Obviously, the costs are prohibitive, to go to a situation of having everyone in Manitoba with a private line - that would be four times the facilities that there are now - because four, as I said on many occasions, is the basic service that is available. So it would have to be determined when the saturation point was reached, Mr.

Speaker, and I would certainly want to find out whether we're even close to that point. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, over the years, indeed until the advent of this government, there had been a decrease in the numbers of users on a line. We now have a situation where the number of users, in some cases, is being forced up as a consequence of the policy of this government, to provide individuals with private lines for $500.00.

My question to the Minister of Telephones is, how can he justify providing a service to a limited number of people - a service that is not available to everyone - how can he justify providing that to a limited number, at the same time as he is, as a consequence of that action, causing a decrease in the quality of service available to other users? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I've said very clearly that the service in cases where the number of subscribers was below four was a premium service. It was not intended to exist indefinitely. There was surplus facilities built in when the expansion was taking place.

So when subscribers were enjoying a situation where they only had one or two others on the party line, that was something that most Manitobans don't enjoy and was something that was not affordable, by and large. It was something that was anticipated, that there would be a need for expansi9n of facilities, and that need is being expressed now as greater demands are made for private lines to facilitate the use of weather information through the Telidon services that are available. I don't know whether the honourable members are saying that this shouldn't be available.

Do they want the Telephone System to charge more for private lines; do they want them to charge $2,000 for a private line; do they want the Telephone System not to offer the opportunity to use the Telidon services? They claim to represent the farming community, the rural areas of the province; they want farmers to have up-to-date facilities. They want to have up-to-date facilities that they can utilize so they can employ scientific methods for farming. Are they saying, Mr. Speaker, that should not be offered now, that Telidon services should not be made available to the rural areas and to the farmers?

I think that is what the honourable member has to look at, Mr. Speaker, and address. That is the concern he has to look at, not the matter that the Telephone System is endeavouring to meet the requests when they are made. 3868 I

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 MTS - emergency repairs MR. B. RANSOM: A final supplementary to the Minister responsible for Telephones, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, shortly after question period, I returned to my office and during a telephone conversation my telephone went dead and has been out of service ever since. Can I have the assurance from the Minister of Telephones that this incident is unrelated to the questioning in the House? HON. J. PLOHMA N: Certain ly, Mr. Speaker , the honourable member can have those assurances.

I'm certain that he's not serious and he would not think that I, in any way, would stoop to something like that. I'm sure that what he did is immediately phone the telephone repair service to attempt to get repairs. There are a lot of phones in this building. The Honourable Member for Pembina is not aware of that; he should, so that he can better service his constituents. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of phones in this building and I'm sure the honourable member knows where to phone to get his service repaired, and if he has continuing problems with that we'd be glad to help out in any way possible. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave from the House to revert back to Ministerial Statements. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we're quite prepared to do that. At the end of question period, I think, is the appropriate time. MTS - Installations MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister responsible for the Telephone System.

Since the implementation of his new polic y of $500 for a private line, in view of the fact that this policy is being achieved by simply adding more people to the party lines in rural Manitoba in order to free up one line for a private line; and in view of the fact that the former policy of charging for a private line was to pay for the cost of installation of new cables, would the Minister care to explain to the House just what the $500 charge is for since it does not require the laying of new lines, only a rearranging and an inconvenience to some customers for the benefit of one? MR.

SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the policy with rega rd to a number of subscribers, as I've explained, on a party line is not changed. The basic cost, the $500 surcharge that is made when a private line is granted is the average cost to the Telephone System for the provision of private lines and the extended services. I explained earlier there was a $34 million capital expansion to improve facilities in the rural areas and, obviously, the Telephone System when offering a deluxe service has to have some method of recouping that cost.

The previous situation was that when an additional line was required, naturally, they would charge the full cost of that charge. Now it is an average, basic nominal rate; nominal when you think of the fact that there's a tremendous improvement in service. The $500 is nominal and reasonable, and is one that can be averaged out to meet the costs of the Telephone System. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, now that the Minister has confirmed that this policy does not require the investment of $1 on behalf of the Manitoba Telephone System, how can the Minister justify the deteriorated service that he is offering to rural party-line customers whose lines have gone now from two per line to four per line, how can he justify that decrease in service by simply gouging one, who wishes a private line, of $500.00? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speak er, that is totally ridiculous, that you can offer improved services without cost. There has been a great deal of cost to lay the facilities that are there, Mr.

Speaker, and the honourable member knows that. It was also laid with the intent that the improved services could be offered for individuals or for meeting a greater demand if greater number of subscribers were moving into the particular area, so that it could meet the increased demands for capacity in future years. That was laid with the intention, Mr. Speaker , and the costs were incurred. The honourable member knows that.

Of course the service, as I explained, clearly was a premium service that people enjoyed for a short time until such time as the entire capacity was required, and that is the case in many situations now. I should point out that it is not always the case that these facilities, that the increased use of private lines and meeting the demands for private lines results in a greater number of people on a party line, Mr. Speaker. There are still situations where individual lines have to be laid and, of course, it does not always result then to a greater number of people on party lines. MR. D.

ORCHARD: The Minister is trying to justify this exorbitant charge to pay off an investment that was already being paid by the ratepayers without one more nickel coming in. My question to the Minister is, is this $500 charge another example of ways in which the MTS management has been forced to gouge the telephone-using customer in Manitoba to cover up for the financial interference in the management of MTS, imposed on that Telephone System by this government last summer? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members are again confused with their questions and with their comments.

On one hand, they're saying we're interfering; on the other hand, they are asking us to 3869

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 interfere. They are asking us to take additional steps to counteract certain policies that are in existence by the Telephone System. Of course, they should realize, Mr. Speaker, that the basic service is four and it has been four over the last number of years. The honourable member will recall, when he was probably going up on the farm, that he had cases where there were seven or eight or ten people on a party line. It has improved over the years. That has improved, Mr. Speaker; the number on party lines has improved.

If the honourable members don't know that, they never experienced a situation where that was the case and they're not aware of reality in this world. One thing they should be aware of, and the contradiction in his basic argument made by the Honourable Member for Pembina, is that the Telephone System cannot be gouging the people of Manitoba and the customers when they're charging less for private lines than they were previously when that member was the Minister responsible for the Telephone System. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Telephone Services confirm to the House that until this incompetent New Democratic Government got elected, the line loading on party lines in rural Manitoba was decreasing, and now with their change in policy whereby MTS is being allowed to gouge the rural customers in Manitoba, that the line loadings on party lines are now increasing, a reverse on the trend established during the Progresive Conservative Government. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that.

The general intention, as I've explained on many occasions to the honourable member - he would do well to start listening and pay attention - that the service that was in place when 2.6 was the average in the rural area through the capital program that was undertaken, was put in place with the intent that there was extra capacity there, and the honourable member is aware of that. That was a premium service for a short time. The basic service is for subscribers for a party line. That was the case then; that is the case now. It is certainly never the most desirable.

It would always be good to have a fewer number on a party line but that is certainly a reasonable approach at this particular time, Mr. Speaker. The honourable member should get his act together. Does he want cost savings? Does he want increased costs for telephone service or doesn't he? Because you can't have improved services, Mr. Speaker, if they're not going to be paid for. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has suggested I get my act together.

I suggest he find out what is happening with the Telephone System and in doing so, would the Minister undertake to provide to this House the party line loadings, on average, for last year as compared to this year, with the advent of this new gouging policy that he has given approval to, and clearly demonstrate to the people of Manitoba that under his policy party line loadings are going to increase to a maximum of four? Will he provide that simple piece of information? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Speaker , we're always discussing and receiving reports on ways to improve services in rural Manitoba and to reduce costs, and we'll continue to do that. Civil Service - firings MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. I wonder if the Minister can confirm that his department has fired a long-term civil servant who recently served as Regional Director of Northern Affairs at Dauphin. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: No, I can't confirm that but I can certainly take it as notice and get back to the member. four-laning Highway 75 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: lliir. Speaker, I'm wondering if I could ask the Minister of Highway.; if he could report as to the present status of the twinning of Highway 75. Is the project going to continue as planned, as indicated in Estimates? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that we are in the process of following through with the development on Highway 75 as is evident in the document that was tabled in this Assembly at this Session. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Minister if there's any consideration being given to varying the route, particularly around the Village of Glenlea? It is my understanding that the proposed route will virtually wipe that hamlet off the face of the map and I'm wondering whether in fact Cabinet has reached a decision whether to launch an enquiry under The Expropriation Act, and if they have, what was that decision? HON.

S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, we have had many discussions with people from the area. In fact I had undertaken a tour of the area and have subsequently had further discussions and evaluation of alternate proposals and have concluded that our current proposal is the most efficient one and most cost effective to the Province of Manitoba. Press releases MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, once again we have a press release on our desks which has just been distributed with a bill, a bill entitled "Highways and Transportation Construction Contracts Disbursement 3870

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 Act," this of course being contrary to the traditional practice of the House. About two weeks ago I asked the First Minister whether or not the press release relating to The Election Finances Act had been released. I was assured that the press release had not been released. Contrary to that, I found out later that indeed it had been released that day, Mr. Speaker, so my question to the First Minister is, has this press release been made public and will this press release be made public before the second reading of the bill? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, my understanding is that it has been released to the members in the House here and not to the media at large. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a point that perhaps should be taken up by the Rules Committee - I'm not certain that it will resolve anything - but we do have a process wherein members must have the bill distributed, I believe, 48 hours in advance of second reading being given to that bill. Therefore, the media has an opportunity to peruse the bill itself.

The only way in which to communicate the message that is intended by way of tabling of a bill, is to summarize it by way of a press statement for the benefit of all and that's all we are doing. I want to assure the Member for Turtle Mountain that this is on hold till this afternoon. It has not been released in advance of being tabled in this House. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, is it now going to be the practice of the government to break another traditional practice, which this House has followed for years, and release information to the public, a public statement, prior to the bill being explained on second reading in the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can recall many many instances indeed in years gone by where honourable members would discuss the contents of bills that were being distributed in this Chamber and they were discussed with members of the media outside this Chamber. Press releases, in fact, were handed out.

The Honourable Minister of Energy and Resources gave a specific example but two weeks ago and there are other examples as well, Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the practice that has been in place in previous years. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions having expired. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: May I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 20 students of Grades 5 and 6 standing from the Waskada School under the direction of Mr. Miechkota. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Arthur.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to revert to Ministerial Statements. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the leave of the House to revert back? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make an announcement related to energy conservation which I believe, will have significant energy conservation and employment benefits in two Manitoba communities. Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to announce that in co operation with the Federal Government an $800,000 Town Conservation Program will be undertaken by two Manitoba towns. This program is another example of the continuing commitment which our government has made to employment creation and energy conservation in the Province of Manitoba. Recently, initiatives have been undertaken related to home retrofits, Small Scale Conservation Demonstrations, as well as the refurbishing of schools and recreation facilities in many communities within Manitoba.

This program is another building block in this development and demonstration of common-sense job creation and conservation measures which can be undertaken by residents, municipalities and small businesses in the Province of Manitoba. Under this program, 11 Manitoba towns with populations between 2,000 and 3,500 will be invited to apply under this program.

By selecting smaller communities in Manitoba, we are hoping that all segments of the population will be able to participate in the planning of the application and have opportunities for involvement in energy conservation activities once the program is operative. Further, we want to ensure that the towns were large enough to possess the adequate infrastructure necessary for the success of this program. From the eleven applicants, two towns will be selected to compete for one year to see which town can save the most energy.

The town which demonstrates the greatest overall energy savings will be awarded a major prize which would be used by the town to finance a local conservation project which would benefit the town as a whole. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the friendly competition between the two towns, residents will benefit from greater energy efficiency and savings in the heating and operation of their homes, small businesses and institutions. Also included in this demonstration program will be training and assistance through a series of seminars and public information activities.

Citizen participation will be a major element in this program. There will be opportunities for citizen involvement in planning and undertaking energy conservation in each 3871

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 of the towns. For example, the applications from each of the eleven towns will be judged in large measure upon the degree, variety and extent of citizen participation being planned for the period of this program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the mayor and the council of the communities of Altona, Beausejour, Carmen, Killarney, Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake, Minnedosa, Neepawa, Pinawa, Stonewall and Virden to submit applications under this program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's difficult to respond to a statement like this in a positiive sense. Statements in the House have normally been reserved for matters of policy, new initiatives of some significance that the government is undertaking. It's difficult to understand why the Minister has to rise halfway through question period to ask for leave to revert to Ministerial Statements to make the announcement of a program such as this. The program may well have some beneficial aspects to it, Mr. Speaker, I hope it would. But we have here a program that 1. expect the negotiations for this have been ongoing for some time.

It is a program which is going to involve a further expenditure of $800,000 of taxpayers' money. We look forward to the day, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Energy and Mines will on some occasion be able to arise in this House and announce to the province that some type of economic development is taking place as a consequence of something this government has done, not just to announce things that flowed from policies that the previous government had put in place.

Each time the Minister of Energy rises, we are hopeful that something of that nature will happen, Sir, but as my colleague from La Verendrye points out, each time he rises it seems to cost us money. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, two announcements of monumental significance. First of all, in view of an event later today euphemistically called a truce - I dare not elaborate - there will be, by agreement, no Private Members' Hour. I think some intense preparation is needed for some other kinds of private resolutions.

That's announcement No. 1. Announcement No. 2, the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet tomorrow morning, June 23rd, at 10 :00 a.m. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's perhaps a question really, concerning the order of the House to the Government House Leader. Have we now departed from the practice of announcing standing committees on the Order Paper? HON. R. PENNER: No, not at all. I suppose we have now developed a new practice of having question period after question period, but I don't mind if, Mr. Speaker, you do not.

The Opposition House Leader spoke to him, knew full well that we were considering an option of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs meeting either tomorrow night or tomorrow morning, and that it depended on an adjustment of the

schedule of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When I was advised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that indeed he could adjust his

schedule in order to accommodate members, many of them across the way who would rather have met in that committee in the morning than in the evening, then that was done. The nasty remark by the member opposite was unnecessary in the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, will you please call for the Adjourned Debate on Second Reading on Bill No. 3? MR. SPEAKER: Before calling the bill, the Honourable Member for La Verena.ye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make some changes on the standing committees.

On the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, the Member for Tuxedo for the Member for Arthur; and the Member for Assiniboia for the Member for Turtle Mountain. On the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, the Member for Gladstone for the Member for Minnedosa. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING Bill 3 - THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP . ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, Bill No. 3, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill.

I am somewhat disappointed that the House Leader of the government has seen fit not to call bills in the order that they were requested by the Opposition House Leader, but that may I say, Sir, is but another example of the fact that this government can't order the business of the House in an orderly way, doesn't know how, doesn't consult, doesn't communicate and doesn't do anything in a normal way. My understanding, just for the record, Sir, is that Bill No. 78 was going to be called first today.

The House Leader, of course, saw fit to disregard that, adding again to the problem that not only the members of this House but the public of Manitoba have with this government; that is, that it is not credible, it is not capable of being believed. Mr. Speaker, a fair amount of what I will have to say today will flow from that lack of credibility of this government and from the well springs of its . . . 3872

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are entirely out of order. The Government House Leader calls government business in accordance with the rules as the government sees fit. Of course, I consult with the House Leader of the Opposition, but I'm not bound to follow every suggestion made by that person. The government must order the business as it sees fit, and we have been working fairly well in consultation, but the suggestion . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R.

PENNER: . . . the suggestion that there is any other rule than the Government House Leader calling the Business of the House . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If there are members who have an overwhelming wish to sing perhaps they would do so outside the Chamber. HON. R. PENNER : They clearly do not have an overwhelming ability to sing. A MEMBER: What's the point of order? HON. R. PENNER: That is the point of order, the remark of the Leader of the Opposition, his usual sleazy, slimy, out of order remark. I just thought I'd put that on the record. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I was just reading an

article concerning the Attorney-General which says more about him than anything I could say, from the Mennonite Mirror. HON. R. PENNER: And far more literate. HON. S. LYON: It says: "He is impressive even he doesn't believe in God." People who don't believe in God don't know much about truth and we've just seen an example of that, Mr. Speaker, in his outburst in this House. He was asked by the House Leader to call Bill No. 78 as a courtesy.

In the normal workings of this House, in the last 25 years when I've been in and out of it, that is what happens, there is co-operation between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. This House Leader seems to think he is operating the central committee of the USSR, not a Parliament in Canada and if we have to, from time-to-time, remind him that he is under the British Parliamentary System, Sir, we shall; and he will order the Business in this House in a co-operative way, otherwise his First Minister should have the wisdom to replace him as House Leader.

Having already had the lack of wisdom to make him House Leader, he should see now, Mr. Speaker, through his incompetence, his lack of understanding of the parliamentary system; of course, why should he understand it, Sir, he spent most of his life trying to usurp it, so why should he understand it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Concordia on a point of order. MR. P. FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable House Leader for the Official Opposition quite often gets up and refers to the fact that there should be relevancy to the debate.

I would like to know where the relevancy was in the ongoing remarks that the Leader of the Opposition made up till now. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Member for Concordia shares most of the views of the Attorney General so we understand his hypersensitivity about the Attorney-General's background, and he knows whereof I speak, and he knows whereof I speak. Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the farm lands bill, a bill upon which I've had occasion to speak in 1977, again in 1982, each time to try to moderate the authoritarian, anti-ownership bias which the socialist party of Manitoba insists on placing into this kind of ownership legislation and, Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed.

As we look at the terms and conditions that are laid down in Bill No. 3 by the New Democratic Party, a bill that they were forced to withdraw last year because it was so incredibly bad, and one that they have brought back this year hoping that they can buffalo the House to pass it, again, is still incredibly bad, although I must give them some credit, Mr.

Speaker, it is slightly better this year than it was last year, largely because they have been forced by debate in this House, and public opinion to which they must pay some attention from time-to-time, to change the totalitarian approach that they used in Bill No. 3. Mr. Speaker, if the Member for The Pas finds difficulty in understanding what I'm saying, perhaps, a sojourn in the hall would help him a bit where he can reflect upon the state of nature and so on. We realize that he is perhaps as alien to a parliamentary institution as the Attorney-General so he has much to learn. Mr.

Speaker, Bill No. 3 does not contain the totalitarian terms that Bill No. 54 last year did. Do you remember that beautiful bill last year, Mr. Speaker, which started out by saying that no one in Manitoba could own any land except - it was the total socialist prohibition - and then the exceptions were to permit people in Manitoba to own land; and that spoke, Mr.

Speaker, more of the philosophy of my honourable friends opposite than anything that I could have said, or anything, indeed, that any free or democratic party could have said about the illiberal and the authoritarian if, indeed, not totalitarian tendencies of our honourable friends opposite. I regret to say, Sir, and I make these comments at the outset, and I will be dealing in more detail with some of the profundities, or lack thereof, of this bill as I advance further into my remarks. I regret to say that the bill, first of all, reflects that same kind of illiberalism, that same kind of anti-ownership bias.

The NDP, whether they like it or not, have within them a kind of visceral antagonism to private ownership. Mr. Speaker, I know of no kinder way of putting it. They are Marxian socialists and they don't believe in private ownership. We have the Minister of Agriculture in the last Session, in what he would not describe as a 3873

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 Freudian slip, but others would, saying to this House and to the people of Manitoba that sooner or later we were all coming to the landholding system in the USSR. I know that he gets his kicks at night thinking about this marvelous Pavlovian, utopian society in which all people ... Mr. Speaker, does Miss Piggy wish to engage in the debate?

I hadn't realized that Kermit and Miss Piggy were in the House this afternoon but if they wish to engage in the debate I'm sure that there will be an opportunity when the House adjourns at 4:30 for candid camera, and for the other entertainment features that the Member for Wolseley wishes to participate in, but she shouldn't interfere with serious debate in the House because she is not taken seriously in this House or very far beyond it, in any event. Mr.

Speaker , a visceral antagonism to private ownership, that is, what is demonstrated in this bill, and we all know that the state farm system that was promoted by the previous version of the socialists in Manitoba under Mr. Schreyer, the state farm system whereby 200,000 or more acres of private farm land were bought up by the state and then leased out, in some cases, just to their political friends. That system, Mr. Speaker , we know we stopped and they, notwithstanding the fact that they want to resume it, haven't been able to resume it because they know what a political albatross that was around their necks.

Manitobans don't want communal farm systems such as are favoured by members opposite. Manitobans want as much freedom in the ownership of farm land as is possible. Mr. Speaker, the other hallmark of this bill is that it is again reflective of the kind of muddled and disordered thinking that emanates from the other side with respect to land ownership. The Farm Lands Ownership Bill, when it was in its first form as brought in during the Schreyer years, was meant to do one thing and one thing alone.

It was meant to prevent offshore non resident people from owning farm land in Manitoba, a very simple proposition; but in the first variation of this bill, of course, the NOP had to get all of their anti ownership shibboleths involved in it. That means that they had to be anti-corporation; that means that they had to be anti-anybody who didn't live on the farm, even anti-Manitobans, and it meant they had to be anti-Canadian. We spent a fair amount of time in 1977, which was before some of the members here were in the House, curing and completing and updating that bill.

The then Minister of Agriculture, the present Minister of Transportation, may I say, Mr. Speaker, one of the more flexible of the members opposite because he understands ideas, which is something that not too many of his colleagues do, and ev€n though he was advised on it by that well-known socialist adviser, Mr. - (I nterjection) - Yes, I quote the Minister of Transportation, Red Bill Janssen, and to use the words of the Minister of Transportation, he was wise enough MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways on a point of order. HON. S.

USKIW: I believe it should be made known that I was merely quoting the Leader of the Opposition . HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, these moments of rare cross-fertilization in the House are so unique that I thought it was only fair in the circumstances to give attribution where it was deserved with respect to Mr. Janssen. Mr.

Janssen was one of the notable socialist advisers on this bill in '77, and I must say that the then Minister showed some flexibility in accepting ideas; especially when the chaos and the nonsense that was going to be created by some of the sections that were in that first bill were brought forcibly to their attention. As a result, we got a bill that, while still not a good bill, was at least one that stayed in the statutes of Manitoba until a more enlightened government came into office a few months later and made some amendments which made the bill workable. Mr.

Speaker, I talked about disordered thinking and I round that thought out by saying this, that the disordered thinking arises from the fact that my honourable friends opposite confuse the main purpose of the bill with other of their shibboleths and knee jerk and rather fossilized views of life. The main purpose of the bill, to repeat myself, is to prevent non-resident foreign owners from owning farm land in Manitoba. Anyone can understand that.

As I read some of the speeches, and I've listened to some of the speeches of honourable members opposite, we've heard people sucn as the Member for The Pas talk about the bill being against speculation, then the Minister of Natural Resources talked about the bill being against speculation, and there were others on that side of the House, thereby clouding the issue of foreign land ownership. We hear talk on the opposite side of the House about corporations can't be allowed to do this and can't be allowed to do that. As we will come to see, Mr.

Speaker , there are prejudical restrictions contained in this present piece of legislation with respect to farm corporations, with respect to other corporations, because of the well-known antagonism of my honourable friends opposite to corporations. Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to repeat all of the things that have been said in 1977 or in 1982 by myself or other speaKers on this side of the House about the inherent faults of the bill, but may I say that it is cluttered with this kind of left-wing baggage that really does the bill no good, doesn't strengthen the main point of the bill which is, of course, as much as it is within the power of a Legislature to do so, to prevent foreign non-resident landowners from owning property in Manitoba.

So the disordered thinking of my honourable friends who want to get off on red herring matters such as speculation, anti-corporate views, anti-ownership views, they don't want Canadians to own land and farm land in Manitoba because they say their only justification is that this might be a way whereby foreign landowners can, by ruse, become landowners in Manitoba. · Mr. Speaker, we are under no misapprehensions on this side of the House.

They don't want other Canadians to own land in Manitoba because they really don't believe in anyone owning land in Manitoba, whether it's Manitobans, resident Manitobans, other Canadians, or whomever. So let's wipe away all of the cobwebs that tend to grey up the area of foreign land ownership and let's deal with a few of the facts face on as they are. My honourable friends opposite have a visceral antagonism: (1) to private ownership; (2) they have 3874

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 disordered thinking about how they should approach a bill of this sort because they're trying to accomplish a number of left-wing nostrum remedies.

They're trying to prevent speculation; they're trying to slap down corporations; they're trying to say that anybody who lives in the city is only a second-class citizen and shouldn't be allowed to own land unless he's resident on the farm, and all this kind of National Farmers Union claptrap that we've been hearing for years, that does not represent the thinking either of the farm community of Manitoba, of the citizens of Manitoba, or of the citizens of Canada. This is left-wing nonsense that they're trying now to legislate into being, I suggest, to the great disservice of the public interest of Manitoba.

That is why, on this side of the House, we have taken some considerable time with respect to the debate on this bill and why we will probably take some considerable time yet, even though the First Minister has through the newspapers indicated by way of threat, I suppose, if this First Minister is capable of threatening anybody with anything, he has indicated by way of some hollow threat that he is going to impose closure upon the debate. Well, that's what the newspaper said even though he denied it yesterday in the House. Mr. Speaker, we're not afraid of any hollow threats of the First Minister.

We'll keep the debate going so long as it is necessary to get good legislation in the House. That applies not only to this bill; it applies to other matters that may be before the House. The fact that we happen to disagree with the approach of the government on this bill is not a new matter at all, we've disagreed with their approach a long time since. Last year they had the good sense to listen to some of the comments that we made about how the bill could be improved. They withdrew it from the Order Paper.

They were supposed to rethink it over the holidays and over the intersessional period, but we were faced then - back in December - with the reintroduction of the bill; the long statement by the Minister of Agriculture, which I was reading the other day, and with a bill that, while improved somewhat over the version of Bill 54 of last year, still requires severe structural and substantive change; if it is not going to do harm to the public interest of this province; if it is not going to do harm, Sir, to the growing image that this province is giving forward - courtesy of this socialist government - that it is anti-business, that it is anti-investment, that it is anti-ownership.

The regrettable result, Mr. Speaker, of this image that is being given forth by these left wing people, who are temporarily in office - the regrettable result, is that we have 52,000 unemployed people in Manitoba. That private investment is not increasing in Manitoba, in the proportion that it should be increasing. That, Mr. Speaker, we are becoming a province that is being passed over by investors in other parts of the country, because they just don't want to do business here.

Because they know, whether the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce tells them, or whatever, they know that this is an anti-business government, an anti-investment government, an anti-ownership government with, as I have said, a visceral antagonism to private ownership. - (Interjection) - So, Mr. Speaker, I hear some "jungle mouthings" from the Minister of Resources, whose line of philosophical thinking hasn't matured since he was 17 years old. He used to chatter away like that in the student parliament at United College 35 years ago. It's a pity, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't developed and matured in his thinking somewhat.

A MEMBER: Pity, pity. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I share the desire, as do the members on this side of the House, to have an effective act - as effective as any Legislature can make it - that will do its

part in prohibiting absentee foreign land ownership, without however, Mr. Speaker, and this I know is a caveat that doesn't carry much weight with my honourable friends opposite, without impinging upon the basic right of all Canadians to own and enjoy private property in Manitoba. I say now, as I said in 1982, as I said in 1977, that the right, Mr.

Speaker, the right to own and enjoy farm land in Manitoba is more important than the prohibition of foreign land ownership, and if the two run into collision, then a Legislature, in the public interest, should always fall on the side of freedom, not on the side of totalitarianism. Now that's the difference between my honourable friends and us. They will fall invariably on the side of an authoritarian approach. We, on our side, Mr. Speaker, will fall and will favour on the side of free land ownership, because the one is what makes this country a free country.

The approach of the NOP, on the other hand, is what could make this - sooner than most people think - the kind of totalitarian desert, which my honourable friends would, I'm sure, love to have; and because it would be their version of the Socialist utopia that they want to create, through their super intelligence and their super arrogant wisdom, of the kind of state that they want to impress upon the people of Manitoba. So, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear at the outset, that the philosophy of my honourable friends opposite, and our philosophy, is completely different.

We're in favour of freedom; they're against freedom and private land ownership. Mr. Speaker, it's important to keep your priorities straight, and you have to, when you're drafting legislation and if you know that your priority is in favour of private land ownership, then you don't run into the same rocks and shoals that Socialists usually do. The freedom to own and to enjoy property is more important than any prohibition contained in this act - that's No. 1 rule. When the two are in conflict, as I have said, Mr.

Speaker, the basic right to own and enjoy property must override any prohibition that any state is trying to put into effect to prevent foreign land ownership. We want to prevent foreign land ownership, but we're not going to get our priorities mixed up, the way the honourable members opposite have. As I said last year, Mr.

Speaker, and one always hates to quote oneself, even though the words do contain more wisdom year by year; it is better to have a slightly imperfect law against foreign land ownership, than it is to have one which is perfect, in terms of preventing foreign land ownership but which is so anti-ownership [,nd so anti-freedom, that it destroys the very root cause of the system that underlies our society. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't expect that there is either much understanding, or sympathy, with that proposition 3875

Wednesday , 22 June, 1983 on the other side of the House. They have demonstrated again and again that, like the Bourbons, they neither forget and they don't learn.

They're always favouring the authoritarian side of any proposition, and it is our job, as a responsible opposition, to try to point this out to them; to try to point out to them the areas in which this legislation can be improved; and to try to suggest to them, as I will, Sir, that their approach to the bill should not be that they're trying to reinvent the wheel, because I know Socialists like to try to reinvent wheels, but they seldom invent anything that works.

What they should be doing is taking the existing legislation and correcting those palpable areas, where it is obvious that some tightening up should take place, or some plugging of loopholes should take place. They should be guided, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, not by the yearnings of every bureaucrat, who wants to have a completely tight piece of legislation, which makes it easier for him to enforce; they should be guided more by the philosophy underlying land ownership in Canada and Manitoba.

If they're guided by that philosophy, they will find that they may not have a perfect act, as I've said before; but they will have one that will preserve the essential freedom and right of ownership for farmers, for other citizens of Manitoba, and of Canada, in farm land in Manitoba, and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, they will do as effective a job as any man made institution can, to prevent people from getting around a piece of legislation. Mr.

Speaker, I've been too long a lawyer, and too long a legisl ator, to believe - (Interjection) - Well, my honourable friend from Wolseley, being neither, would have no appreciation of the responsibility that attaches to either. Mr. Speaker, I've been too long in both positions, to believe that it is within the wisdom of any Legislature to devise a perfectly airtight piece of prohibitive legislation, unless, of course, you're prepared to throw away all freedom. I don't know of any tax law in this jurisdiction, or in the federal jurisdiction, which is completely airtight. I don't know of it.

I don't think it exists because there are always tax accountants; there are always tax lawyers; there are always entrepreneurial citizens, and so on, who can look at a tax law and say, hey, I can see a legitimate and honourable way around this and I'm going to get around it, as indeed they can at foreign land ownership. Mr. Speaker, lest you're concerned about your watch I can tell you that I intend to utilize my time as Leader of the Party and to speak at some length, in addition to the 40 minutes that are customarily given to members of the House. Mr.

Speaker, as an aside, I can assure the Minister of Resources that the more often he makes his childlike interjections probably the longer my speech will go on. Now, I remind the Honourable Minister, Mr. Speaker, in a friendly way, that I suffer fools badly, and that his interjections thus far have tended to fall into that category. If he wants to say something that is relevant, that is bright, that is intellectually persuasive then, of course, he would have to turn over a new

chapter in his whole life and we haven't, as yet, seen that manifestation of talent from him, or from too many of his coll eagues . Mr. Speaker, the bill . . . Well, here he is, he's proving my point, Mr. Speaker, that he's caught up in some 19th century shibboleth about speculators and he's trying to use public legislation in Manitoba to prevent speculation. Mr. Speaker, from the time of Christ people have been trying to prevent speculation, in one form or another, in our civilation and they have uniformly failed.

Why some of these Godless atheists think that they can succeed where others have failed is absolutely beyond me. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santos: Order please. HON. S. LYON: If my honourable friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, are really interested in prohibiting absentee foreign land sales in Manitoba then, Mr. Speaker, I think they might well get together with the opposition, and with the Legislative Counsel, and we could sit down, put our heads together, and come up with something that would not be anti-ownership viscerally, as this bill is.

It occurs to me, and I know it's an oversimplification to say it, but it does occur to me, Mr. Speaker, that what you're attempting to say in a piece of legisl ation of this sort is that anybody - this is what you should be saying - is entitled to own land in Manitoba, period. That's the proposition you start from, but if it can be demonstrated that a non-resident foreign person is owning land in Manitoba, then the legislation will empower a board, or the courts, or whatever, to have a hearing on that matter and to ensure that that land ownership is not allowed to persist.

Now, basically that's stating the problem in a nutshell, that's all this legislation is trying to do, and I don't think it's beyond the ken, or the wisdom, if indeed any resides opposite, it's certainly not beyond the wisdom of our draftsman, to come up with something that would empower the Courts of Manitoba to deal with that narrow situation, because that is all the bill is intended to deal with.

If my honourable friends want to deal with citizen A buying land from citizen B in Manitoba and making, what they consider to be, a usurious profit on that transaction, then let them pass tax laws; but let them not try to deal with ownership, Mr. Speaker, as a means of preventing speculation. They have all of these funny ideas about what they're going to prevent in terms of speculation, corporate intrusions, and all of these nonsensical things that they feed on. Mr. Speaker, that, again, is not the purpose of the bill; the purpose of the bill is to prevent foreign, nonresident owners.

So why don't we come at it from a sane standpoint and say, everybody's entitled to own land. But if the board finds, Mr. Speaker, that anybody in Manitoba has bought land who is nonresident and foreign, then there is a set procedure, under the law, not by the whim of some bureaucrat, but under the law, whereby that person can be forced to cede that land back for proper consideration, because we're not yet, in only 18 months of socialism in this province, we haven't yet reached the stage of expropriation without compensation, but, Mr.

Speaker, some means whereby that land will be ceded by the nonqualified foreign resident, absentee land owner, ceded back to the previous owner or to the state. Now, that's essentially the problem and I realize, while that may be an oversimplification, I mention it to my honourable friends to keep them on track, so that they can understand what the priorities of this legislation should be. 3876 • I

I Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 As a prelimin ary, again, Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of other observations. I believe that this bill, and I'll be producing some figures a little later on to demonstrate this, deals with what is essentially a diminishing problem in Manitoba. It's a bill which attempts to deal with yesterday's problems. If you go into the farm communities of Manitoba today you'll find out that the problem in southeast Manitoba and southwest Manitoba, the problem in the Interlake, the problem in west Manitoba is not foreign land ownership.

The problem in the rural areas of Manitoba today is cash flow. The problem in rural Manitoba today is declining prices of farm products and the inability of farmers in Manitoba to pay ... - (In terjection) - Mr. Speaker, I don't expect the Member for Wolseley to understand or know anything about the farm problem in Manitoba because she doesn't even understand or know anything about the urban problems in Manitoba.

So if she wishes to engage in some form of ideological transference with the Minister of Resources why don't they go outside of the House where they won't cause a public nuisance as they are doing in the House. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Resources asks me if I can stand the heat. Well, he doesn't know how much heat I can stand, he doesn't know. He's not capable of radiating enough that would even warm my fingernails. Mr.

Speaker, I want to say this, I want to say that the bill essentially deals with yesterday's problem in Manitoba's agricultural community, not with today's problems and this government, when called upon my colleague, the Member for Pembina, to do something meaningful about today's problem for the farmers, today's problem being cash flow, income, bankruptcies, the inability to carry on an operation, a farmer having to question whether he can take equipment out onto the field because he doesn't know whether he can afford the fuel for that equipment.

When my colleague rrom Pembina brought a resolution that was very simple, in terms of giving immediate effect to some cost-cutting measure for the farmers of Manitoba, that is, to ask the Federal Government to take some of the excise or other tax off farm fuels, what did my honourable friends do? They amended it into nothing because they, first of all, either don't understand the real problems of rural Manitoba, or don't want to understand it; or secondly, are just afraid that somebody on this side of the House might get credit for an idea that they hadn't had the wit to think of in the first place themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we should be working more and more, whether on this piece of legislation, on anything we do with respect to the farm community, the business community, average citizens in Manitoba, to do things that are in their benefit, that are not ideologically inspired by 19th Century nostrums which seem to animate my honourable friends opposite; but rather be paying attention, while God gives us the right to be here, to what really does serve the public interest of Manitoba rather than the interests of Karl Marx or somebody long since dead. Mr.

Speaker, I've said that the problem that we face in this bill is a diminishing problem and it's not the real problem facing the Manitoba farm community today at all. The Minister's statistics, which he really hasn't updated from that rather long and tedious correspondence I had to have with him during the fall and up to the December Session of the House, the Minister's statistics are old, outdated, faulty in their origin, and don't really reflect the situation in Manitoba.

He used in his statement, when he announced this new piece of legislation, five and six-year old statistics about absentee farm land ownership in Manitoba. I said to him in the House - and this is all on the record, Mr. Speaker - please let us all be working from the same set of statistics so that we can all grapple with this problem if indeed is a problem. Let's grapple with it initially. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, will the Member for Blowtorch like to go down and continue her job on the bison, or what would she like to do? A MEMBER: Now, now, now, Sterling. A MEMBER: Why do you hate women so much, Lyon?

HON. S. LYON: I wasn't aware that there was one in the House, Mr. Speaker, at the moment, facing me. Mr. Speaker, there are two ladies behind me, but none within my view. Mr. Speaker, if we succeeded even temporarily in cleansing the House of the sour presence of the Member for Wolseley, then that indeed is an achievement of this or any other speech. Mr. Speaker, the Minister's statistics essentially are out of date.

I am going to make reference today to statistics that have been referred to by other speakers in this debate that came about because we were unable to get from the Minister of Agriculture up-to-date statistics with respect to the real situation of farm land ownership in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has been passing around five, six-year old statistics that were gleaned apparently by somebody at the University of Manitoba. They're not relevant today and he's basing his case, may I suggest, on a false set of statistical facts. Mr.

Speak er, failing the und ertaking of the government to get up-to-date statistics which would be available to all of us, what we did was then to write directly to each of the rural municipalities and the local government districts in Manitoba. We wrote that letter early this year and we've had responses altogether from 92 of 117 rural municipalities and local government districts in Manitoba. We either didn't get information, or the information that we got was not statistically usable from 25 of the rural municipalities. Mr.

Speaker, it would be much easier for the government, through its access to the assessment rolls in Manitoba, to get this information, but if the easy way isn't being followed by the government, then the opposition has to obviously take the hard way and that's what we did. But I want to thank all of the municipalities who received our letter and who responded to the letter, and copies of this

summary sheet are going out to them so that they will have an up-to-date picture as to ownership of farm lands in Manitoba, more up-to-date than anything that the government has been able to give them. Mr. Speaker, what we found was this, that the total area of the rural municipalities and the local government districts who responded, the total area of all of the municipalities and local government districts was 21 ,655,450 acres. The total acres of farm land within 3877

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 those rural municipalities and local government districts was 15,71 0,073 acres. In other words, about three fifths of the total acreage of the municipalities is made up of agricultural land. The total non-resident, foreign owned land in acres in the rural municipalities in the local government districts who responded, and I put that caveat clearly on this figure, was 372,037 acres; representing, Mr. Speaker, 2.37 percent of the farm land in Manitoba of the people who responded. Mr.

Speaker, the total non-resident but Canadian owned farm land in Manitoba that is owned by Canadians who are not resident in Manitoba, a rounded figure again, from the 92 of the 117 municipalities and LGDs, was 337,737 acres; 2.15 percent of the farm land in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the total acreage of farm land in Manitoba in the rural municipalities who responded and in the LGDs owned by Manitobans was 14 ,849,296 acres or 95 percent of all of the farmland in Manitoba presently owned by Manitobans. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let me be the first to say that municipalities and others in sending in statistics would say, this is our judgment of the category in which some of these may fall. Now, it may well be that there are fringe cases where somebody in Manitoba holds land as a trustee on behalf of somebody in Ontario or Saskatchewan or whatever. But what I am merely suggesting, Mr. ·Speaker, is that these statistics in a ball park way, with all of the caveats that should be attached by people wanting to deal with statistical facts, with all of the caveats, show that we do not have in Manitoba a serious problem: (

a) of non-resident, foreign land ownership in this province at 2.37 percent of those who responded. We do not have a serious problem in Manitoba of non-resident Canadian ownership; that is, by non-resident Manitoba ownership of foreign land at 2.15 percent in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends - the Minister of Natural Resources is mumbling away from his seat apparently attacking the credibility of the rural municipalities. Mr. Speaker, we got information from the government that was out of date. We asked the government to get the proper information because we knew it was out of date.

Failing their action, Mr. Speaker, we then wrote to all of the rural municipalities and asked them to give us the different categories of farm land ownership in Manitoba. They sent the information back to us. We've codified it onto this table, and I've just given you the

summary of it, Mr. Speaker, which demonstrates I know, much to the consternation of my honourable friends opposite but within the knowledge of the municipalities, not my knowledge, but the knowledge of the people who have the assessment rolls, who knows who the owners of the land are. They say we haven't, collectively, got a problem in Manitoba on nonresident, foreign owned farm land. That, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of the report. Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy if my honourable friend is rearing himself up to ask for the

summary to be tabled, I'll table it at the end of my remarks, I'd be quite happy, in fact I want it to be tabled. Now we hear all of the nigglin g and the sliding and the other comments by the left-wing nuts on the other side, Mr. Speaker, but when we're talking about land we know how much attention should be paid to the left wing in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the second proposition then that I lay before the House - the first, remember again, was this act proceeded from disordered thinking, that it really was born, it had its genesis, in a kind of visceral antagonism to private ownership. The second proposition, Mr.

Speaker, is that statistically there is no justification for the kind of Draconian legislation that we're being asked to pass in this House, because the statistics do not justify the need for this bill. As a sub-heading under that proposition, as I indicated before, it is yesterday's problem. Go and talk to the farmers, they'll tell you; they're not interested in farm land ownership by foreigners. I've had farmers say to me, I wish to God there had been some farm land bidding by foreign people at the last sale because the prices were so bad.

But if you're anti-ownership, anti-investment, anti-capital, you don't understand that, you have to be a normal, ordinary Manitoban who doesn't carry the kind of ideological baggage around on your shoulders that honourable members opposite do. Mr. Speaker, the problem in the farm community today is not this bill - it will be if the bill ever passes - but the problem is something else. The bill deals with yesterday's problems; today's problems are the ones that I have mentioned. Today's problems are the ability to get capital at non-usurious rates.

Today's problems could be helped somewhat by the Minister of Agriculture giving better funding and better directions and opening up the application of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Plan to farmers who want to borrow money at non usurious rates in Manitoba; that would help the farm problem in Manitoba more than anything in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I've said, is a response, not to a demonstrated need in our community today, but rather to an inbred and intuitive trait of envy and malevolence which so often characterizes actions taken by honourable members opposite. Mr.

Speaker, we know the kind of fever swamp out of which this kind of legislation emanates, the fever swamp of left-wing minds imbued as they are in this 19th century anti ownership kick that these people are on. The bill smacks of authoritarianism; it shows a contempt for our traditions of free land ownership in this province and in this country, and for the marketplace, as well. Mr.

Speaker, it still has, as I said last year, a kind of narrow meanness of outlook, with respect to land ownership, which I still find regrettable, but which so often colours so many initiatives that are taken by the honourable members opposite when they, from time to time, trick the public into letting them get into government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal for a few moments with the bill ... MS. M. PHILLIPS: It shows what little respect you have for the public. HON. S. LYON: I know that this bill, Mr.

Speaker, has not been read or, if read, not understood by some of the honourable members opposite; but, for those who are capable of understanding some of the sections and some of the ill-effect that these sections will have on their fellow citizens in Manitoba, I ask for their consideration that the bill either be stopped and back to the drawing board, again, or that these sections be cured at the committee stage if, indeed, the bill ever gets to the committee stage, but I would strongly 3878

• Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 recommend, Mr. Speaker, that this bill go back to the drawing board for further improvement because it is an anti-freedom bill and is not a bill that should be passed in its present form at all. Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this bill in 1977, as I've mentioned, in Hansard, Page 2919 and the pages that follow.

I spoke on this bill, again, last Session, 1982, June 28th I think it was, and I'm not going to rehearse all of the comments that were made at that time, but many of them still apply to this bill because many of the same mistaken and disordered pieces of thinking have crept into this same legislation. I mention, again, because I think it is a particular piece of irony that has to be mentioned in connection with a socialist government bringing in a new piece of legislation purporting to deal with farm lands ownership. They 're attempting to restrict what?

Well, they're attempting to restrict foreign money from absentee land owners coming into Manitoba to invest in Manitoba. I made this point before, but it is so ironic that it bears repetition again. Isn't it ironic, Mr.

Speaker, that money was fleeing - particularly five or six years ago - West Germany, which was social democratic; was fleeing Italy, which was on the verge of having some communist influence; is now fleeing France because it does have a socialist government; and is coming to reside in Canada, which is regarded as being a safe haven , and the socialists in Manitoba are trying to pass legislation to keep out the money that is fleeing from their doctrine overseas. Now, if there isn't a peculiar kind of irony to that situation then, Mr. Speaker, I don't know anything about irony.

I mention that because I knew it would titillate some of the honourable members across the way whose minds are capable of grasping with two consecutive thoughts, and it would give them something to think about; that it is because there are govern"Tients of their political stripe in Europe that we're faced with a problem in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, that point, which was relevant in 1977, was relevant in 1982, is still relevant in 1983, even though the amount of money that is coming here now is much less than it was in earlier days and that, by virtue of the fact that West Germany and Britain, of course , have had the sense to become socialist and that the French, even with Mr. Mitterand now, I think, the two communists in his cabinet - Mr. Mitterand and Mr. Pawley differ in that sense you know, Mr. Speaker - Mr. Mitterand only has two communists in his cabinet. The government opposite, Mr.

Speaker, is seeing all of its policies being implemented on a national scale in France by a fellow socialist, and what's happening? Well, there's absolute chaos in the country and the IMF and the other world bodies are saying to France, you've got to go into a period of restraint; you can't spend money at 19 or 20 percent the way the NOP are in Saskatchewan. So we have another irony, Mr. Speaker, that where the socialists opposite see their philosophy being carried into effect on a national basis in an old and established country like France, what do we witness?

We. witness economic chaos of the same kind in a much lesser scale than we are seeing being inflicted upon the people of Manitoba, because the same wrong headed ideas are being inflicted on the economy here. Mr. Speaker, those two ironical conjunctures, I think, are worth bringing to the attention of the House because I know that honourable members opposite, those capable of grasping with those thoughts , would appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, on the restrictions that are contained in this bill against fellow Canadians and against Canadian corporations reflect nothing that is worthwhile in the legislation at all.

Indeed, they reflect on the part of the people, who caused this bill to be dratted and put in the House, a kind of malice, a kind of envy, a kind of adherence to old and creaky shibbeloths that they still like to manifest when they talk about absentee landlords and all of the other sloganeering terms that my honourable friends are wont to use when they come to consider legislation of this sort. Mr. Speaker, this kind of bill is no vehicle for malevolent sloganeering which is what we are hearing from honourable members opposite.

It contains within it that kind of implied disdain and niggling contempt agaisnt fellow Canadians, against fellow Manitobans who just don't happen to live in the particular place that these social engineers want them to live in. Well, Mr. Speaker, legislation of this kind has no place in the legislative tomes of a free Legislature, and I suggest again that is why it should be taken back to square one and worked on again.

The bill has a number of major defects, major uncertainties, major violations of our heritage of freedom, and it represents a kind of unnecessary interference in the way in which private citizens are permitted in a free and democratic country to order their own affairs. It reeks still, Mr. Speaker, of the same kind of social over management and the same kind of social engineering that was present in Bill No. 54 last year. Mr.

Speaker, a small band of dedicated socialists may favour that kind of arrogant social engineerin g, but the people of Manitoba don't favour that kind of arrogant social engineering and, as I've said before, let's get our priorities straight and let's make sure that we're doing something in this bill that is in the public interest. Now, Mr. Speaker, across the way, members say that they want to preserve the family farm. This bill, Mr. Speaker, could well work against the preservation of the family farm by cutting off flows of capital not so much from foreign sources but from internal Canadian sources.

We need, in Manitoba today, all of the Canadian capital that we can find to help to develop the farm operations in this province. Why in this bill are we trying to build up some kind of a Berlin Wall against all other citizens in Canada to keep out all other Canadian capital from Manitoba. Are we to become the East Germany of Canada, that we want to keep out foreign capital from our province where it can flow freely to other provinces? Come on, Mr. Speaker, this is 1983. Why are we trying to erect these kinds of malevolent and perverse restrictions against the flow of capital, against fellow citizens? Why, Mr.

Speaker, should it be an offence which is cause for a man to have land stripped away from his ownership merely because he moves from Manitoba to another province? Why should that become an offence? What legislator in this province is willing to stand before the public and say, I think that when you move, if your're business takes you from Reston into Regina where you're working on a job , then you're no longer entitled to own farm land in Manitoba. What kind of a police state are we trying to erect in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker? And that is what this bill says. 3879

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 This bill says that if you live somewhere other than Manitoba, even if you live in the city in Manitoba, you're a second class citizen. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends are the ones who always prate about the equalitarian state, about how equal everybody is. Why do they, when it comes to farm land ownership, Mr. Speaker, have to create different categories of those who, under their social engineering scheme, are capable of owning farm land in Manitoba? Why? Because, Mr.

Speaker, they are motivated by - (Interjection) - Maybe my honourable friends opposite would like to carry on their left-wing conversations in the hall, where they can exchange their Marxist talk with one another without infringing upon the public business of Manitoba. - (Interjection) - Well, listening to 19th century Marxists is not the business of Manitoba either. Mr. Speaker, listening to members still wet behind their ears is not the business of Manitoba either. Mr. Speaker, why are we creating different categories of citizens?

Why is this so-called egalitarian party so prepared by law, by its temporary majority, to create different qualities of citizenship in Manitoba and in Canada? Why? If your relative leaves Manitoba, why does he or she become a second-class citizen? If your relative hasn't farmed for 10 years, why is that relative prevented from taking title to property? What's wrong with nine-and-a-half years, or as the Real Estate Association said, the seven-and-a-half years somehow, why should that disqualify you from taking title to land? Why do these people, Mr.

Speaker, these temporary masters as they like to refer to themselves, why do they presume to come in with a piece of police-state legislation, and that's what this is, a piece of police state legislation, and they say to every testator on a farm, to every man or woman who draws a will in Manitoba, we are going by our majority to interfere with your right to pass this farm land to whomever you see fit. That's what this law does, Mr. Speaker. If a farmer is drawing up a will today, that will is fundamentally compromised by this piece of legislation as it stands.

This Legislature, this temporary majority of left-wing people, are saying to everyone who draws a will in Manitoba today, we know better than you as to how you should dispose of your farm land in Manitoba. Well, Mr. Speaker, they don't and they shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of a law which will interfere with the ordinary testamentary dispositions that farm people want to make of their own land. What have we come to in this province, Mr.

Speaker, when we have socialists trying to say to ordinary God fearing, good citizens of Manitoba, we know better how you should make your will than you do, and if you want to leave this land to your daughter and she lives in Toronto, you can't do it. There you are, Mr. Speaker, there you are. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, if s:1e's farmed for 10 years - (Interjection) we're going to read the bill. I'm going to read it all back to him, don't worry. Absentee landlords they talk about. Mr. Speaker, they have this kind of Maoist concept that was in Bill 54.

Do you remember that beautiful concept, that a farmer was being defined by law in Manitoba for the first time as somebody whose physical labour was involved on the farm and I pointed out to them very simply, well what do you say about disabled people who live on a farm but God hasn't permitted them to work physically on a farm? What do you say about them? Oh well, they hadn't thought about that - this egalitarian party of social engineers - they hadn't thought about the disabled.

They were more interested in projecting their Maoist concept - (Interjection) - Wasn't it Ruth Pear, the former candidate of the NOP who wrote that marvellous tract about how everybody in Manitoba should go out and pick strawberries for a week every year? You know, that's the thinking that animates these funny people opposite, Mr. Speaker. This kind of overmanagement, this kind of social engineering, this kind of, we know better than you, about your estates, about who should own your land and so on. Mr.

Speaker, there are many many farmers in this province - the Minister of Agriculture knows this particularly - who in the last 10 years and in succeeding years are going to be celebrating 100 years of the same farm family on the same farm and by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, first of all he goes around and hands out plaques to these farmers and tells them what a great contribution four generations of their farm families have made to Manitoba.

Then by !his legislation he slips a legislative shiv into their backs and says, but if you want to transfer this land to somebody who doesn't live in Manitoba who also carries the family name, you can't do it anymore. That's what he says, Mr. Speaker. He gives them a plaque with one hand and says, we're going to interfere with the method by which you dispose of this land with the other. Well, Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough and it isn't going to be tolerated in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, let's take a look.

My honourable friends want to take a look at the act, well let's take a look at the act, and let's see some of this kind of perverse - (I nterjection) - left wing, authoritarian, mean, narrow, envy-ridden, malevolent legislation that my honourable friends opposite are proposing to put before the people of Manitoba as being in the public interest. Well, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the

definitions first of all of a family farm corporation. A family farm corporation is described in this bill - (Interjection) - the definition by farmers in this act could negate the rights of non-resident family members, non-farmers or anybody else who doesn't accord to the social engineering definition that these honourable members opposite want to give, to aid family farm corporations. Mr.

Speaker, the definition of farmer, improved I must admit over what it was last year - a family farm corporation by the way is found on page 2 - means "a corporation that is primarily engaged in the business of farming" - and listen to this - "of which not less than two-thirds of the issued and outstanding shares of all classes are legally and beneficially owned by farmers, the resident spouses of farmers, 6r the resident children of farmers, or any combination thereof." Mr. Speaker, Farmer Jones has a wife. He has three sons and he - well he's not NOP so he has a wife - well, Mr.

Speaker, (Interjection) - he creates a family farm corporation while the three sons are legally of age and while they're on the farm and completing their post-secondary training or whatever. In the ordinary course of events those three sons, who are equal shareholders in the farm and own three-fifths of it, leave to work in the nearby town, leave to work in another province, they engage in the exercise that we know as 3880

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 freedom in this country of moving about the country as they see fit. The minute they do that under this perverse piece of legislation, Mr. Speak er, that corporation that was formed by that farmer for his own tax purposes, for his own family purposes and so on, ceases to be a qualifying family farm corporation under this invidious piece of legislation, merely because people exercised their freedom to move about the country. That is what this legislation does, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, - (Interjection) - they're saying resident Manitobans.

Well, resident East Berliners can't get into West Berlin either and it's the same thought, Mr. Speaker. If you leave Manitoba, you're a second-class citizen. That's what they're saying here. - (lnterjection)- Mr. Speaker, did you look at the definition of "deemed control?" I don't think they've improved it from last year. Deemed control makes no sense. It needs a clarification.

I presume that it means - and I'm sure the Legislative Counsel could confirm this even though the Minister can't - that where a corporation is controlled by both non-farmers and farmers, the non farmers are deemed to be in control even if they only own a minori ty. Mr. Speaker, I prefer to have comments come from the literate side of the government rather than from the illiterate side. - (Interjection) - I'm reminded, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the Member for Radisson of a statement that was made of one of his predecessors that he had an l.Q. of 150; 75 in French and 75 in English. Mr.

Speaker, when we get to deemed control, we find - (In terjection) - Listen to this. I ask any of the bright lights opposite, Mr. Speaker, including Radisson - let him grapple with this for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker - I don't think it's worthwhile wasting that definition on my honourable friends because it's so inexplicable, even to minds that understand it, or that might understand it. All I say, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes no sense, it makes no more sense in this draft than it did in Bill No. 54; it needs clarification. Mr.

Speaker, this bill gives further retroactive effect to legitimate land ownership that was entered into prior to April 1s t, I believe it is, of 1977, by people who, acting under the legislation that subsequently was put into place in Manitoba, took title to land legally, and so on. Now this government is presuming to say that if there is any change at all in those corporations, then that land is subject to being ceded back. Mr.

Speaker, that is a form of police-state legislation to put in legislation, to make it retroactive for a period of six years, and to say that other arrangments that were lawfully entered into can be cut asunder, merely because there has been some slight change in ownership of the land. Mr. Speaker, that is silly - (Interjection) - The Honourable Minister of Agriculture is trying to say it's in the present act. Well, if it's in the present act, Mr. Speaker, it shouldn't be in the present act because it is offensive. It is offensive and shouldn't be in there at all. Mr.

Speaker, why do we give so many powers to an appointed board in

an act of this kind? Why do we not try to lay out the general principles that should apply, and I've already annunciated the proper general principle which should be, that anybody should be allowed to own land in Manitoba; but where it is found that somebody who does not fall under this definition, that is, an absentee foreign landowner, then he is subject under law to having the land taken away from him because he entered into its ownership in a manner that was contrary to the spirit and to the text of this law. Why don't we do that?

Why don't we stick to that aim, rather than getting worried about whether a son of farmer, who moves out of Manitoba, then has any right to own land, and so on? Some of those sections want to make reference to. Unrestricted ownership,

Section 2 this is the reverse of the one last year where they said nobody could own any land, except. Now they come at it this way, and this was meant to cure the defects. They say, "Without restriction or limitation (

a) a resident; (

b) a family farm corporation; (

c) a municipality; (

d) a local government district; or (

e) an agency of the government, may directly or indirectly, take, acquire, receive or hold any interest in farm land." And then: Existing holdings - and this is the one where the retroactive

section is in it, Mr. Speaker, under "3(1)(b), any change in the ownership, direct or indirect, of any share, security or other interest of a proprietary nature in the corporation; the corporation shall within 90 days notify the board in writing of all details in respect of that change, and if after the change there is, or the board determines that there has been any change in the control in fact of the corporation, and if the corporation is not, then a family farm corporation," - and I've just demonstrated to you, all you have to do to cease to be a family farm corporation is to have two sons move off the farm.

A MEMBER: Right. HON. S. LYON: If that happens, "and if the corporation is not then a family farm corporation, the interest in farm land shall be deemed to be held by the corporation in contravention of this Act, and the corporation" - meaning the family farm corporation - "shall within three years from the date of the change reduce its aggregate interests in the farm land, whether held directly or indirectly, to not more than 10 acres." Mr. Speaker, what kind of totalitarian nonsense is that, to put in any legislation emanating supposedly from a free Legislature in a parliamentary democracy?

That's a form of expropriation. What has that got to do, Mr. Speaker, with foreign land ownership? That's mean, narrow, envy-ridden, inspired legislation against Manitobans who may not temporarily live in Manitoba. That is not going to be permitted in this province, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Hear, hear! Hit them again. Hit them again. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, but here in the great munificence that all socialists like to show, here is the great munificence that they show to get around this police state piece of legislation that I just read.

"Where the board is of the opinion that is it is not contrary" - listen to this - "Where the board is of the opinion that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so :t may, on application or on its own initiative, subject to any regulations and to such terms and conditions as it may impose, by order, exempt a person, class of persons, farm land, class of farm land, interest in farm 3881

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 land, or class of interest in farm land, from all or any part of this Act or the regulations, and the board may, in its discretion, declare the exemption to have retroactive effect for the purposes of this Act, The Agricultural Lands Protection Act, The Farm Lands Protection Act and regulations thereunder; and the order is conclusive for all purposes of this Act." Mr.

Speaker, that is investing in a board appointed by this government - and you can be guaranteed that any board appointed by this government - will contain a majority of members who share the same anti ownership bias that they do, the same kind of nonsense that is subscribed to by them. You're giving a board, an appointed political board, Mr. Speaker, the right to amend a Statute of Manitoba. First of all, I don't think that the courts would uphold that

section because it is a delegation that the Legislature is not capable of giving, and we should have the committee sitting on delegated legislation so that we can be looking at some of these perversities that are being put through. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be looking at things, because we weren't doing perversions like this, Mr. Speaker. We weren't permitting perversions in our legislation like that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Thompson on a point of order. MR. S. ASHTON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Section 734 of Beauchesne, in regard to second reading, states it is not regular on this occasion - that being second reading however - to discuss in deatil the clause of the bi ll. The Leader of the Opposition has dwelt at some length in terms of specific discussion clauses of the bill. I would ask you to rule that out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the senior members of the party opposite were asking me a few minutes ago to do just exactly what I am doing, that's why I am doing it.

If some of the junior members find it offensive to their ears, perhaps they should go elsewhere with their lollipops. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be able to read a bill; it's another thing to be able to understand it, and that latter quality is one that is not very much in evidence across the way at the present time. Mr. Speaker, I hear the l.Q. specialist again just had something to say. Mr.

Speaker, the bill goes on, and I think all of these sections need to be read into the record, even though it may be a bit of a technical infringement, because I don't think that many of the people in Manitoba realize the kind of malevolent infringement that this bill, even in its present form, even cured of some of the grosser and courser defects that we pointed out last year, still contains, with respect to freedom and ordinary dealing in farm land in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, let me carry on, they've come to the realization in

Section 3(6) that if you have a mortgage on land, and you have to move to foreclose on that mortgage, and you take title, that that's not an illegal way for a person to come into title of land. That, by itself, is a major intellectual achievement for my honourable friends opposite, given all that baggage that they carry around about who's entitled to own land and so on. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, and I mention it only as an example of the kinds of perversity that can be allowed to creep into legislation.

Section 3(7) "Where an interest in farm land is held by any person, and as a result of a change in the residence of a person who was a resident the continued holding of the interest would be other than in accordance with

section 2 or

section 3," -

Section 2 or

section 3 limited who could own - "apart from this subsection, the person first mentioned shall, within 3 years of the change in residence reduce his aggregate interests in farm land, whether held directly or indirectly, to not more than 10 acres." What in God's name are we saying in here, Mr. Speaker.

A person makes a simple change of residence, and he's got then to divest himself unless this board of socialists that is appointed by my honourable friend sees fit to have this otherwise free man, until this legislation pass, comes as a supplicant before this politically-appointed board - and I suppose he has to twirl his cloth cap or tug his forlock before these great social engineers and say, may I please continue to own the land that is my birthright. Mr.

Speaker, let it be said that the Province of Manitoba should never come to that situation where it says, to its citizens, you hold land, but you hold land only if our appointed board says you hold the land. That's what this bill says. It's a shocking piece of infringement on human freedom, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Springfield, who is filling out the last 2.5 years of his one turn, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Springfield says it's absolutely wrong; well then let him screw up his courage because most of his constituency is rural in nature; let him screw up his courage, stand up and debate in this House and just tell us how these anti-freedom sections ever crept into legislation in a party that he says he is proud to belong to. Mr. Speaker, listen to this kind of condescension from these freedom lovers opposite.

Section 3(9), "A corporation," listen to this, "that was a family farm corporation may continue to hold all interests in farm land held by it, notwithstanding that a person whose occupation as a farmer qualified the corporation as a family farm corporation has become a retired farmer, and nothwithstanding that transfers of shares of the corporation may have occurred if the transfers, had the retired farmer remained a farmer, would not have caused the corporation to have lost its status as a family farm coproration, but not otherwise." What in God's name, Mr.

Speaker, a"re supposedly reasonable thoughtful people trying to do by this kind of police-state nonsense, making a purported definition of, when a man is a retired farmer, whether or not that will affect some deemed

interpretation of a family farm corporation which they have set up for God knows what purpose? What has that got to do with an investor in Italy, or in France, or in West Germany, buying farm land in Manitoba; telling a farmer in Manitoba, who's lived here all of his life, that if he chooses to retire his family farm corporation won't suffer from that? Why in God's name is this insidious sticky hand of the 3882

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 socialists trying to interfere with normal family relationships of free citizens of Manitoba? What in God's name are they trying to do, Mr. Speaker, in this police state piece of legislation? Court orders, listen to this. The condescension, the arrogance of it, the social engineering of it, the social overmanagement. Well, Mr. Speaker , the greatest response to somebody of diminished intelligence like the person who just spoke; the greatest response when one talks about arrogance, Mr. Speaker, is to leave freedom alone. If you don't want to be called arrogant, leave freedom alone.

Don't try to tell a farmer when he retires that he fits into a certain category in the perfect little socialist world. Mr. Speaker, don't try to tell that, not in my province, not in my province. If my honourable friends, Mr. Speaker MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. S. LYON: If my honourable friends want to practice this kind of left-wing nonsense in Czechoslovakia, Byelorussia, Latvia, Lithuania and so on, where it's accepted, let him go and practice it there, but not in my Canada; no, never, not in my Canada, no. Mr.

Speaker, my job, as much as it is the job of every Member of this House, is to maintain freedom in this country and I have no hesitation, and I have no apology, in talking about my Canada, nor should any of them, except they want to change it into a form of Canada that none of us would recognize. They want to make a form of East Berlin out of Manitoba in this very piece of legislation. So, Mr.

Speaker, nobody on this side of the House need make any apology for speaking out against legisl ation which is fundam en tally and unalterably opposed to land ownership and to the ordinary arrangements that men and women make in a free society to order their own affairs.

That's what we're talking about and we don't need some puffed up bureaucrat, or puffed-up political board, appointed by the socialists opposite trying to tell farmers when they're retired farmers, or whether or not they will be permitted to continue to own land through a family farm corporation; or that their children, if they choose to move off the family farm, and even deign, Mr. Speaker, to move out of Manitoba, if they deign to move out of Manitoba. We don't need some puffed up bureaucrat and board telling them that they must then divest themselves of farm land that they legally own. Mr.

Speaker, listen to this as another example of the kind of socialist condescension, and this was an improvement in the act from Bill 54 of last year. This deals with relatives; socialists acknowledge that human beings have relatives. Listen to this,

Section 3, subsection 13: "A natural person, wherever resident, may take, acquire, receive or hold an interest in farm land if the interest is conveyed to the natural person by a retired farmer, the spouse of a retired farmer, or the spouse of a person who has prior to the conveyance been a farmer for at least 10 years, and if the natural person is the spouse, child, grandchild, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the person conveying the interest." Now, Mr. Speaker, what if you're the half-brother? You don't qualify under this piece of legislation. HON. A. MACKUNG: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources to a point of order. HON. A. MACKUNG: Yes, Mr. Speaker. While it doesn't trouble me in the least that the Leader of the Opposition makes his first reading of the bill, his first perusal of this bill in the House audibly, you, Mr. Speaker, have drawn to the attention of a Minister on this side of the House, quite properly, that we in introduction or in speaking on second reading should not refer to specific clauses in the bill.

You did that, Sir, under the rules, and I refer you to Reference 734 in Beauchesne, and the Minister on that occasion quite rightly took your advice and ceased to make any specific reference to sections in the bill. Now, the Honourable Member for Thompson drew to the attention of this House the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding all of his experience in the House, was continuing to make specific reference and he has continued to do that I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to advise him about the Rules of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase.

I'm sure that all honourable members are familiar with the fact that, at second reading, it is not proper to refer to the clauses of a bill. Second reading is discussion of the principle of the bill involved. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, what I am doing is referring to sections of the bill which show the underlying philosophical flaws of this bill and the kind of police-state legislation that this government is attempting to enforce upon the citizens of Manitoba.

I realize that honourable members opposite don't like to hear these words of truth, but hear them they will. Mr. Speaker, there are many other sections in the bill, but I call to the attention of the House particularly Sections 2 and 3, which show the nature, the skewed nature of the bill, which show the authoritarian . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have recently brought it to the attention of the House that members should not refer to individual sections of a bill, but on second readings they should refer to the principles involved. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S.

LYON: That's exactly what I'm doing, Mr. Speaker, and I'll carry on without further interruption. Now, Mr. Speaker, the early Sections 2 and 3 of the bill are the ones which reflect the flaw of disordered, skewed philosophy of this bill. I read a few of them into the record to indicate how skewed and flawed that philosophy is, and I'm prepared to read many more that would go to prove my point that this is a piece of authoritarian legislation; it represents a kind of social engineering that is inimical to freedom in Manitoba; it represents nothing that is related to foreign land mmership.

Why, as I have said before, Mr. Speaker, are we concerned about retired farmers and about children of farmers taking title to land? This bill is supposed to refer to foreign land ownership; not to 3883

Wednesday, 22 June, 1983 interfere with the private affairs of farmers and other citizens of Manitoba or other citizens of Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, I intend to conclude my remarks on the bill by .. . On this motion, Mr.

Speaker, I intend to conclude my remarks by saying to honourable members opposite that we intend, as an opposition, to fight this bill at every juncture of its passage or of its movement in this House; and if my honourable friends think that they have heard anything with respect to the number of objections that we intend to make to this bill, they've only had the first chapter, because we intend, Mr.

Speaker, in due course to ensure that this bill be debated again and again and again, if necessary, so that honourable members opposite will not be allowed to inflict a piece of police-state legislation upon the citizens of Manitoba or Canada. Mr. Speaker, I come back to what I said at the outset of my remar ks. The former Attorney-General of Manitoba has pointed out that this bill may well infringe certain sections of the Charter of Rights. I point out again what an extreme irony that would be, that the great proponents of the Charter of Rights

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-93
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 93.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f52a3a7a39cf3053af5657737300432aae0a07a8

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