Manitoba Hansard — 5 July 1971 (Sitting 99, 29th Legislature, 3rd Session)

29-3-99

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XV 111 No. 99 8:00 p.m., Monday, July 5th, 1971. Third Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, July 5, 1971 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 2411 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (Leader of the Opposition) (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister. I wonder whether he can confirm now that Dr. Morison resigned his post with the government. HON.

EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Dr. Morison tendering his resignation and asking that the time which it takes ef fect be the time when he has completed a convalescence after a short stay in the hospital. MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the First Minister would indicate the date he received the let ter, or the date the letter was given to him. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the letter was received several days ago. I can't give an exact estimate on that just offhand, following which I was in conversation with Dr. Morison before any decision was taken. MR.

SPIVAK: I wonder whether the First Minister could indicate whether there were any other resignations to be forthcoming from that department that he knows of. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, that is an impertinent question but in any case I'll answer it. The answer is no. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the First Minister in the absence of the Minister of Youth and Education.

Could the First Minister indicate how many students have been placed through the Student Placement Bureau in the Planning and Priorities Committee of government? MR. SCHREYER: Quite a n umber, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY - GOVERNMENT BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment) (Inkster): I wonder if you'd call Bill No. 52, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The proposed resolution of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Af fairs. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. JAMES H.

BILTON (Swan River): In the absence of the honourab le member, may this be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Unless there's somebody else who wishes to speak on this bill there would be a value if there was somebody else. Mr. Speaker, would you call the resolution stand ing in the name of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, I believe it is, where we left off this morning - the concurrence. CONCURRENCE HON, SAUL CHERNIACK, Q. C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that the resolution reported for the Committee of Supply be read a second time and concurred in. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. Which resolution is he speaking to? We had just concluded 5 I believe; 6 had not been read yet so therefore it's not before the House. On a point of order, the Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M.

FROESE (Rhineland): We were dealing with an amendment, and certainly when we vote on the amendment this doesn't mean that the resolution has been passed, and therefore I take it that I'm quite in order in speaking on it. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has already spoken on Resolution 4. Is he speaking now on 5. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. The Honourable First Minister.

2412 July 5, 1971 MR, SCHREYER: We seem to have a carryover of the point of uncertainty that the Hon ourable Member for Rhineland had during the afternoon sitting, It's true that there was an amendment moved with respect to Resolution No, 4 and that was voted on. The honourable member then tried to rise to speak, to move another motion, but having spoken already he was not able to move that motion so then we carried on to REBolution. No. 5.

The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition had spoken on Resolution 5, then I had spoken subsequently, and I be lieve that if the Honourable Member for Rhineland is addressing himself to Resolution 5 there is no problem, MR. SPEAKER: Correct, The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr, Speaker, in making some comments on Resolution No. 4, I hadn't quite prepared my motion that I wanted to bring in and I'm going to bring it in under No, 5.

This has to do with the matter of this government's program, or whatever you may can it, that they have in connection with the Federal Government and the various meetings that take place under the Dominion-Provincial .relations meetings and . , . MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Finance on a point of order. MR, CHERNIACK: I believe the matter of Dominion-Provincial relations does not come under Resolution 5. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance's observation is correct. The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition, MR.

SPIVAK: I wonder if the First Minister can assure us that matters dealing with federal and provincial matters are not in fact handled partially by Planning and Priorities Committee. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I should like to indicate to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that he rose on a point of order and then he made a question to the First Minister. I do not think this is proper procedure in respect to debate. If he did have a. point of order it should have been in r·espect to procedure or to something that was occurring that was not cor rect in the House but not to ask a question in that manner.

If he wishes to ask a question I am certain that we can oblige. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, It's relevant to the question as to whether the Honourable Member from Rhineland is in fact discussing this item. He mentioned federal-provincial matters and my point is, Mr. Speaker .. , MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. I ruled on the admissibility of what the Honourable Member for Rhineland was saying and I agreed with the Honourable Minister of Finance that there was no relevancy to Dominion-Provincial relations under Continuing Programs of the Secretariat.

The Honourable First Minister, MR. SCHREYER: There really needn't be any confusion as to whether or not it's in order to discuss Dominion-Provincial matters under this resolution, Dominion-Provincial relations, as the Honourable Member for Rhineland knows, Mr. Speaker, are really relating to just about every department of government depending on the nature of the Dominion-Provincial relation in question. If it has to do with water sharing, if it has to do with inter-provincial transportation matters then it's the Department of Highways, a Dominion-Provincial matter of that specific kind.

If it has to do with Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations then it could be discussed under the Estimates or the

section dealing with the Department of Finance. If it has to do with Dominion-Provincial joint cost-shared programs of a special area kind, such as FRED, ARDA, Special ARDA, then it can be discussed under Resolution No. 5, the one we're on right now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR, FROESE: Well, Mr.' Speaker, certainly the resolution before us deals with Dominion-Provincial matters. We have all the various agreements under this one, the ARDA Agreement, the FRED Agreement, the DREE Agreement. How can you separate and not justify that federal matters can't be discussed under this resolution?

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. MR. SCHREYER: I have just indicated to you, Sir, that in my estimation it is in order to discuss Dominion-Provincial relations of a special area kind, that is to say having to do with DREE, ARDA, FRED and so on. So if my honourable friend is wishing to discuss those kinds · of Federal-Provincial agreements and relatio�s it's quite in order to do so. If it is having to do with broad fiscal arrangements, Dominion-Provincial, then it would not be in order to do so under Resolution 5. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition,

July 5, 1971 2413 MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. Because this matter has not been· clarified in the House before it will be interesting, because it's important and relevant, as to whether you can make a decision based on the information that has been made available to the House. The suggestion then is that Planning and Priorities deals with some federal-provincial matters. We've never had a delineation of what in fact Planning and Priorities does. We do not know what federal matters they deal with, and until that's clarified and the broad outline is given, I would assume, Mr.

Speaker, that we are entitled in this House to discuss questions of Dominion-Provincial matters with respect to Planning and Priorities because in fact they do, as we understand, do some work in research for the government in this specific area - in the broad area. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, still trying to speak to the point of order, I thought I had made it clear that Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet and Secretariat thereof are involved with Dominion-Provincial relations having to do with specific area agreements - FRED, ARDA and Special ARDA.

Insofar as fiscal tax-sharing arrangements are concerned, these are dealt with through the Department of Finance, and I suppose one could say in the normal course through the meetings of Ministers of Finance, First Ministers and so forth. I think that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition's point that Planning and Priorities Commit tee relates to all Dominion-Provincial relations simply does not correspond to the reality of present government organization. It would not be in .order to discuss all aspects of Dominion Provincial relations under Resolution 5. MR.

SPEAKER: I thank the honourable members for their contributions. I would like to indicate that on the point of order I am prepared to entertain, in respect to Dominion-Provincial relations, matters pertaining to DREE, ARDA, FRED and the Special Area Agreement and no more. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, the resolution before us deals with the various agreements that you've already mentioned, plus it says "other expenditures", which could include any item for that matter, and when we discuss some provincial relations, Dominion-Provincial relations under the previous motion, that particular one in the resolution calls for 11Cultural Relations". It doesn't mention ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Ffnance on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Since I started this conversation on the question of order, the reason I did so if I may, Mr.

Speaker, is because the Honourable Member for Rhineland spoke under Resolution 4 on the question of Dominion-Provincial Relations. He commented about the de sirability of reports being made to the House and consultations with the House in advance of Dominion-Provincial meetings. He spoke in particular about the Constitution, and I was sitting in the front bench at the time and I felt it was in order then because the Premier is indeed the Minister of Dominion-Provincial Relations and, as such, his salary comes under Resolution 4. I thought it was in order.

Now the reason I objected under Resolution 5 is that the honourable member has already spoken on this very m!J.tter of Dominion-Provincial relations, and that's why I believe that I raised the point of order correctly, and he should be confined now to dealing with those matters which appear in the Estimates under Resolution 5. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: It is rather queer in a way that the government is so sensitive when I want to comment on this particular matter. They must feel that they're probably not quite up to par on this and that they're beyond criticism . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the reason that we have submit ted the arguments to you, Sir, as to the admissibility of discussing a particular item is not be cause it's a matter of sensitivity but because it's a point of order which the Chair has listened to and has acknowledged, so that I believe that it is out of order for the Honourable Member for Rhineland to pretend that it isn't a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order - and we're back to the silly season again. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister has indicated four specific areas in which he believes we can discuss Dominion-Provincial matters, but, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he can assure the House that Planning and Priorities does not deal in its research with other matters other than the four.

2414 July 5, 1971 MR. SPEAKER: Oi-der, please. I would like to indicate to honourable members it was Order, please. Order, please. I would like to indicate to all honourable members it was my ruling which indicated the four areas that I would accept discussion under Resolution No. 5. Now I think we should get on with the job and get down to the debate of the resolution. If hon ourable members do not care for my ruling on the resolution they are at liberty to challenge it at any time. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR, FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, I will then move my motion and see whether it's in order so that I can speak. My motion is, Sir, that while concurring in Resolution No. 5, this House regrets that this government bas failed in receiving proper recognition for the Province of Manitoba in Dominion-Provincial relations such as spelled out in the resolution before us, relegating Manitoba to a backbench province having little or no say in amending the Constitution under the proposed formula. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: In pondering the acceptability of the motion in terms of its meeting the rules, I would like to submit, Sir, that the motion is not in order because it relates to the generality of Dominion -Provincial relations and you, Sir, have just ruled that under Resolution 5 it is permissible to refer to Dominion-Provincial relations specifically relating to special area agreements - DREE, FRED, ARDA, etc. Although I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I would very much like that this motion were accepted.

I would like it very much if it were ac cepted so I could deal with that silly motion moved by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, so that he could learn a lesson as to what constitutes the process of constitutional review and revision. MR. SPEAKER: I would like to thank the Honourable First Minister for his contribution. After perusing the motion by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, I can concur and would like to indicate that the motion is out of order in respect to Resolution 5. -- (Interjection) Does the member have -- (Interjection) -- Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? MR.

SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR, SPEAKER: Proceed - Clerk. MR. CLERK: III. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12, 607, OOO for Agriculture, Resolutions 8 to 20 separately and collectively, for the fiscal year ending the 3lst day of March, 1972. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to this resolution, namely the Minister of Agriculture, his estimates. I think the -- (Interjection) -- MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you.

This is what I was going to ask for an indi cation of, otherwise the Chair is not certain whether the member is speaking to all or to one, and if they would indicate then we would have no more problems as to whether a member bad spoken on a resolution or not. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, speaking on Resolution No. 8 -- and I will give it at the end of the few comments that I have to make. I think the economic situation insofar as agriculture in Manitoba is concerned at the present time is one of a very serious nature.

This government have brought in a few items and I want to comment on them. The first one I want to make mention of is the acreage payment that was promised in the by-elections, namely the $100 maximum that any one farmer could receive in the Province of Manitoba. There have been many farmers inform me that this is certainly in no way of any help insofar as the economic situation is concerned. While it was - and I will say for the record, Mr. Speaker, it's a token assistance, but in no way does it assist the dilemma that many many farmers find themselves in today. And I must say too, Mr.

Speaker, there are many farmers coming to me at the present day who have not yet received that $100. I don•t know what is wrong in the administration of the department, but there are many farmers to day have not received their $100 payments. They have a permit book_ and I don•t understand why, because having a permit book it's a very simple matter, they go through the elevator agent and it can be cleared through this agent. I don't understand why the concern -- going back, Mr.

Speaker, to April - the last week of April I guess it was, when the Minister of Agri culture was making these very promises and the Minister of Highways was reprimanding him for it, but there are a number of farmers who have not yet received that $100, as small as it may be. I know they appreciate it but this is not solving the economic situation in which

July 5, 1971 2415 (MR. EINARSON cont'd.) . • . . . farmers find themselves. There is another area too, Mr. Speaker, in regard to taxes - land taxes, property taxes, that farmers are concerned about in the Province of Manitoba. We had a formula when we were government as to how this was based, and at the present time it appears that the Minister of Agriculture has not seen fit to convince his colleagues that that principle should have been followed through; namely, where you had a willing buyer and a willing seller, you averaged the price in a given municipality, taking into account the percentage.

But farmers, because of the much reduced prices in many of the commodities they have to sell - and my colleague I think from Roblin has a beautiful example of what he may illustrate to you tonight as to just what I mean on the specific resolution and I'm not going to comment any further on that. However, the government were informed by various farm organizations, and it was done at meetings in my constituency, where they wanted this government to take some action insofar as reducing the costs property-wise to the farmers on education.

I know this government will come back and say, the Minister will say that we increased the Foundation Program from 70 to 75 percent, so this would tend to give the people the idea that they were alleviating the cost of education. What happened there, Mr. Speaker, is that pretty well went into the increased costs to those people who were in the teaching profession - and I don't say it in such a way that I'm being critical of the teachers getting an increase in their salaries - but the fact is, the fact is this is not alleviating the farmers of the Province of Manitoba insofar as education costs are cone erned.

There is another area, Mr. Speaker, that I also become concerned about, and while it all sounds very well - I like to try to be as constructive as I can - another area that the Minister saw fit to get federal assistance in one of the ARDA programs by making it possible, to a very small percentage of degree, in the way of assistance in improving the better way of life to the farm home by installing sewers and water. As I understand it, Mr.

Speaker, if a farmer does not have these conveniences - which I agree everyone should have in the affluent society in which we live in this provin ce but many who don't - as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the grant that they are being allowed is 50 percent. Now if I may use a few figures here, assuming that the costs - if a farmer wanted to go ahead with this - were $1, OOO, he would be entitled to a grant of $150. 00. Now the one area that disturbs me very much, Mr.

Speaker, in this connection is this, and I recall the Minister of Finance commenting on the one-city bill whereby it wouldn't be too long hence when you would see maybe 85 to 90 percent of the people of the province living in one city. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what this is doing to our rural communities? If this is the thought - and I don't know whether it's the intention of the government of the day try ing to carry out this idea - so I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if all those farms who do not have these conveniences, if they may put themselves into debt to try to get this and then suddenly find them selves in an economic plight where they can•t continue living there, it could be very very un fortunate for those people and, in essence, probably not serving in the best interests of the farm people who don't have these things. There's another area, Mr. Speaker, we had our Agricultural Committee go around the province and we listened to farmers and the problems that they had.

And there's another thing that I want to mention, when we talk about they promised this $100. 00 per farmer as a maxi' mum, but in connection with this, in the past two years, because of the wheat glut that has developed in the prairies, many farmers realized they had to go in some other diversified aspect of farming and so they decided to go into the production of hogs.

From this, with the MACC becoming involved, they were able to acquire fairly large sums of money, in fact far too large for the good of these individual farmers, and I would have thought that if we really wanted to help the farmers in their economic plight, which was a policy that I was associated with, -in assisting them by reducing the interest rates. A subsidization of the interest rates rather than this $1 . 00 per acre , I think, would have been of much greater assistance to those farmers who are now, some of them, finding themselves out of business. Farmers are right out of business because of this.

Because of the much reduced prices in pork, they just can't carry on. Poultry is another area where farmers are finding themselves in a very dif ficult position. I think, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the comments I think that are valid. I know that there is a great deal of farm legislation that doesn't altogether affect the provi.ncial govern ment. Much has to come from the federal, and I can think of one area when we t.alk about

2416 July 5, 1971 (MR. EINARSON cont'd.) . . . . . federal legislation insofar as our Provincial Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues are concerned, and I'd just like to make quick mention of Bill C-176 as it affects the farmers of Manitoba. I can't help but feel, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that happened in the Province of Saskatchewan in the rural areas.

In no way were they going to accept it, but if I understand the situation correctly, with the present government and their friends in Ottawa they were somewhat in favour of this, but where the Government of Manitoba were not in favour was the fact that they didn•t go far enough. And this is the area that really concerns me, that it doesn't go far enough. I feel that under the present situation it spells disaster as it is without going any farther. And what is the ultimate aim, Mr. Speaker, when we hear of the number of businesses this government is getting into?

I can't help but wonder, with the vast amount of moneys that are being invested, and some of the farmers just can't see their way clear after they have been operating for so many years, whether in time the government won't take over these farm enter prises. And so, Mr. Speaker, after these comments, I must say that while concurring in Resolu tion No. 8, this House regrets that the government through its lack of agricultural policies has failed to alleviate the economic hardships currently being experienced by Manitoba farmers. MR. SPEAKER: I would request the honourable member to pass the motion to me.

After all, it is necessary for me to have a motion of concurrence. I would also like to know who his seconder is. MR. EINARSON: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I could reiterate in a concurrence - this is a non-concurrence motion - and I move, seconded by my colleague the Member for Morris, that while concurring in Resolution No. 8, this House regrets that the government through its lack of agricultural policies has failed to alleviate. the economic hardships currently being ex perienced by Manitoba farmers. MR, SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR, WARNER H.

JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I want to direct nJ:y remarks to the motion that is now before the House on Resolution No. 8 dealing with "Research, " and my remarks are perhaps not intended to break new ground, not intended to castigate the present government for its lack of foresight, its lack of pursuance of a policy for agriculture, as much as it is the criticism of the departments of Agriculture, both federal and provincial, in the type of policy that they have been pursuing for agriculture in the past number of years, not just since my honourable friends opposite have taken office.

One of the problems that has b een experienced by the farmers, and what has been so frequently referred to as a new technological error, is their inability to keep pace with what has been described as a new age in agriculture. I might substantiate this argument by referring to two other examples. Our new policy for example in education has perhaps created more problems than it has solved. Our desire to alleviate the problems of poverty and of the poor has in my view created more problems than it has solved.

And the so-called technology in agriculture, if not arrested in its present trend, will not only create more problems as it al ready has but it will create a crisis, not just in agriculture but a crisis in the world food sup ply, and it is to this particular problem which is embodied in Resolution No. 8 under "Research" that I wish to direct my remarks. The agricultural technology of the past number of years has advocated continuous crop ping.

These are the so-called experts in agriculture, Sir, the experts that my honourable friends opposite say they are unable to continue without, the kind of expert advice that my friends, that the First Minister just before the dinner hour said it is necessary for the govern ment to have in order to function. These are the people that have advocated the practice of continuous cropping in agriculture which is proving to be a disaster.

These are the same people, both federally and provincially, who are advocating a program of specialization in agri culture which is also proving a further disaster to the continuance of the world's food supply. These, Sir, are also the same people who are advocating the use, without regard to its conse quences, of the application of chemical fertilizers which although may have beneficial short term effects, in the long run, Sir, will result in a disaster in agriculture.

During the past number of years, Sir, we have heard a great deal and we've seen a great deal of the evidence of the result of the application of those theories being advocated by the so called experts in agriculture. One only has to look down the Red River, the Assiniboine River

July 5, 1971 2417 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd.) . . . • . or any of our major water streams to see the evidence of that kind of a policy that is being advocated by the so-called experts. I can remember as a boy, when we used to swim in the Red River, the water was relatively clear during the summer months - apart from the spring run-off. You don't see that today. Now all my honourable friends opposite make fun of this. I see my friend from Ste.

Rose - who was a little more familiar with this than his neighbour the member from whatever he is from, the Member from Osborne who has perhaps as little !mow ledge of what is going on as anybody in this House - the Member for Ste. Rose has recently had some experience with this and he !mows whereof I'm talking and I see he is listening very intently. But in the past few years we have noticed the waters of these rivers running polluted with silt and chemicals, in capable of the kind of action that we'd like to see in water. I remember as a boy we used to swim in that river when it was running clear.

It doesn't run clear in the Red River all year round. And why? Why, Sir? Because of those people, who are supposed to be our experts, advocating the use of chemical fertilizers.

I suggest to you, Sir, that it is time that some of the so-called experts started making a survey and a study of the effects of the application of chemical fertilizers on the soil and they will find, they will find that that uninhibited use of chemical fertilizers on the soil is destroying the very soil structure that is sustaining plant life. -- (Interjection) -- Well, the Attorney General makes a comment to the effect that the weeds are growing better than ever, which is another indication of the type of concern, which is another indication of the type of lmowledge that my honourable friend the Attorney-General has.

Well, Sir, our pizza friend always likes to make his contributions to the House. He likes to create the impression that he is somewhat of a wit, but up to this point he's only half convinced this House. The fact is, Sir, that in the application of chemical fertilizers in the way that we have been applying them, we have destroyed the chemical analysis of the soil in such a way that rainfall and wind erosion can carry much of the productive capacity of our soils to the rivers and down stream.

The soil, Sir, is not, as many suppose, an inert substance which merely supplies minerals in the mineral elements to plants and gives them a place, just a simple place to anchor their roots. It is much more than that. A healthy soil is vibrantly alive with dynamic material. It teems with bacteria, fungi, molds, yeast, protozoa, algae, worms, insects and other minute organisms which live mostly in the top few inches of the soil, and unless that is maintained we will find that within a few years our capacity to produce the kind of food, in the quality that food was intended to be produced, will be limited indeed.

We've had that experience, I recall, sometime shortly after the war, on my own farm we broke up 17 acres of tree land, and along with that land we sowed about 40 acres that had been in summerfallow the year before.

And the rather strange thing about the effect of that crop was that the following year when the crop was sown, although it was sown on the same day, same fertilizer application, had the same weather conditions, everything being equal, the crop that was produced on the new soil produced 45 bushels an acre of No. 1 wheat, which is a rarity in this country, and the crop that was produced on the older soil, which had been in cropping for a number of years, pro duced 20 bushels an acre of No. 3 wheat, which indicates to me that in our farming practice of today being advocated by the Department of Agriculture and the so-called experts in Agriculture - and I'm not blaming my friends opposite because this has been carried on for too many years - I am blaming the so-called experts who try to tell us that the benefits of agriculture and of farming can be achieved by the application of chemical fertilizers and all the modern techniques and technology that they have devised without any regard to its consequences.

And the conse quences are, Sir, that if we continue to farm in this way, if we continue to listen to the voice of the so-called experts, then in ten to fifteen years time our soil will not be capable of producing anything in the way of food products for this country. What we are doing with out soil, Sir, is mining it, not farming it - and my honourable friend the Minister of Highways !mows what mining is, he !mows that in a mine, when you have completed a mine it is finished, that is the end, it's no longer capable of producing.

In agri culture, the kind and the type of mining that has been going on, aided and abetted and encouraged by the experts in agriculture, so-called experts in agriculture, will result. in our inability to produce the food that is required to feed the world. Sir, there is only ten percent of the land area of the world that is arable and capable of food production, and if we're not going to farm this ten percent rather than mine it, then in a very short number of years we•re not going to be able to supply the world's food needs. Even today, under the so-called technology, the world's

2418 July 5, 1971 (MR, JORGENSON cont'd. ) . . . • . population and the world's food requirements are in creasing at a rate faster than our ability to produce. If this trend continues and we continue to mine the soil in the way that we are mining it today, -one can visualize the kind of disaster that we'll face within twenty years. -- (Interjection) -- Somebody suggests over there, what's the solution?

Well, Sir, I'm glad that question was asked because I have a proposal for the solution, and I suggest that the first thing we start to do is to start talking to the so-called ex perts and say what are you doing to us? Is it so important that the kind of efficiency, the capability of producing so many more bushels per acre is so important for a short-term period that we overlook the long-term consequences?

Soils, and I remember reading this many many years ago and it came from a very author itative source I thought, it came from the - and I forget his name, but the President of the National Farmers Union in Great Britain, when he said that farming is a very simple procedure but we don•t believe that in our modern technology because we are living in an age when compli cations are worshipped and we like to believe that even farming is a very complicated pro cedure.

It isn•t; it is the act of producing food from the soil and soil will produce food for as fong as food is needed, as long as what we take out of it in the process of production is re placed. Sir, we're not doing that.

Through the use of chemical fertilizers, continuous cropping and the so-called specialization, we are not following the practice of returning to the soil what is necessary for long-term and continuous production, We have placed so much emphasis on the need for short-term advantages, on the need to increase production on a short-term basis that our so-called experts have forgotten what might happen to us tomorrow.

The breakdown of the soil through the continuous cropping method, through specialization and through the ap plication of chemical fertilizers, can only result in a poor quality food being produced, as in deed it is being produced today. Farmers often wonder why they cannot produce a No. 1 wheat any more and they have a tendency to blame the Board of Grain Commissioners for grading them down. That•s not the reason at all.

The reason we're not capable of producing a No. 1 quality wheat is because we•ve depleted our soil to the point where it is not possible to produce a No. 1 wheat, and un less our policy -- (Interjection) -- well former government my honourable friend says, and yes, the former government and the government before that, we•ve all been guilty of the same thing but that doesn't mean we have to perpetuate it, that doesn't mean we have to continue along a policy that is going to spell the ruination of the entire world.

My honourable friends opposite, they make light of all this, but I suggest to you, Sir, that today it is critical enough for each one of us to examine it very carefully. You know, I make a lot of speeches in this Chamber, and like a lot of members, Sir, maybe I don't know a great deal of what I'm talking about, but you know, knowing what you' re talking about is not a criteria for making speeches in this place.

But I can say, Sir, that when it comes to agricul tural matters I know whereof I speak, and I suggest, Sir, that the policies that we are follow ing - and I regret very much that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat tonight because I would like very much to have had him hear these remarks - but I see that the Attorney General who is the know-it-all of the present government is on his feet, he is going to ask me what I am sure is going to be a very dynamic question, an earth...,shaking query that is designed to shake me to my very roots, and so I will submit to him and let him ask that question.

MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON, A. H, MACKLING, Q, C. (Attorney-General) (St. James): Mr. Speaker, now that the earth-shaking Member from Morris is seated, I wonder if he would indicate to this House whether now he has foresworn the use of chemical fertilizers on his own property and the use of chemical sprays in his farming operations. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. - MR, JORGENSON: I'd like to advise my honourable friend that we discontinued the use of chemical fertilizers two years ago.

We are now carrying on the kind of practice that I think should be carried on, and that is the crop rotation procedure which returns organic materials to the soil through the use of sweet clover, alfalfa, etc. , a crop rotation program. Insofar as chemical fertilizer, chemical sprays are concerned, well I don't see where the use of - what do you call them? -- (Interjection) -- No, not dusting, no we won•t use pesticides -- (Inter jection ) -- herbicides, the use of herbicides really has any great impact one way or the other.

It is merely destruction of a broad-leafed plant to a large extent that robs the growing plants of

July 5, 197 1 2419 (MR. JORGENSON cont•d.) . . . . . moisture fungus. I have no objection to the use of herbi cides in farming practice, but I do say, Sir, that the use of pesticides and insecticides has a very great impact on the balance of nature, because the use of those chemicals has the tendency to destroy many of the plant life or many of the insect life that is more beneficial than destruc tive to plant growth.

Now I don•t want to moralize, Sir, and I'm not intending to do that, but I do think that it's time that the people who are responsible for the research that is carried on in agriculture be gin to realize the long-term effects of the policies that they have been advocating - and I am thinking particularly of the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers; the prolonged practice of continuous cropping which they were advocating with a vengeance several years ago, which we never followed on our farm because we felt it would not be right for the proper continuation of plant life; and through the specialization that the experts were also advocating.

I am not suggesting for a minute that as farmers we are better than anybody else, but we have recog nized many years ago the need for the kind of a rotation program that would return to the soil the kind of nutrients that were necessary to perpetuate plant life and to provide food for as long as food was needed. I suggest that the Department of Agriculture, instead of advocating the kind of policy that they're advocating today, should start thinking in the long-term advantage of perpetuating the ability of our soil to continue to produce crops for as long as food is needed.

I don't thin k we can go wrong, Sir, andlhope that this government will start giving some direction to the so called experts who have been leading us down the garden path and who have been destroying if I may say, destroying more fa rmers than they have been helping. . . . . . continued on next page

2420 July 5, 1971 MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable The First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting and in many ways informa tive speech that the Honourable Member for Morris has just delivered. I must say that I'm not prepared to quarrel in any prolonged way with some of the main assumptions that lie behind his remarks this evening, I gather that the Honourable Member for Morris is ·pleading a concern that is affecting him and I rather suspect a good many agriculturists in our country.

There, in recent years, has been a growing realization that perhaps we are instead of engaging in good soil management that we are mining the soil by, as the Honourable Member for Morris puts it, continuous cropping without summerfallow practice or resorting to special crops of the kind that do put certain qualities back in the soil. I am a little surprised that he hasn't gone all the way and argued that continued intensive use, heavy use of herbicides and pesticides is not also having some kind of deleterious effect on our farming and on our environment in general.

But I would suggest to the honourable mem ber - I have no reason to think that he is arguing that one relatively small jurisdiction should try to do or presume to do anything about this acting entirely on its own in isolation of what is happening elsewhere in the country, in the continent and in the world, because I'm sure that the Honourable Member for Morris would be one of the first to agree that it would put the farm ers that try to follow cropping practices, farmillg practices based less on commercial, artifi cial fertilizers, etcetera, pesticides, herbicides, it would put them at such a great disadvan tage relative to farmers in other parts of the country and elsewhere on the continent, that they simply would not be able to make a go of it - and goodness knows even as it is farmers in Western Canada are finding it very very difficult indeed.

Now I'm not sure that the honourable member is suggesting that there ought to be a mov-' ing away from this heavy reliance on artificial chemical products as there has been in the past decade and more, Some people are -- as the honourable member knows, food faddists are gaining in numbers, people who want to buy products that come only from farms that are fol lowing the natural organic farming practices and not making use of any artificial chemicals. I suppose the Honourable Member for Morris isn •t going that far.

Now the honourable member makes a warning, sounds a warning that we should perhaps be taking a longer, closer look at the advice that governments and farmers are getting from - to use his expression -- "so-called experts." You know, Mr.

Speaker, it reminds me of speeches I used to make in this House seven, eight, nine years ago, when I used to admonish the Minister of Agriculture of those days for allowing farm policy to be determined too much by the advice of, and I think the very term I used was "so-called experts," and the real experts, because as I understand the phenomena that we have had to live with for the past 20 years and more it seems to me that it's true agriculture because of new techniques and technology is able to produce food at a unit cost that is no greater than it was years ago, lower perhaps, but un fortunately farmers lacking bargaining power in the marketplace are never able to· hang on, never able to retain any of the benefits of improved technology and lower unit costs; that as soon as there is an increase in efficiency of production in agriculture the benefits of that in creased efficiency are passed on to the consumer, the middlemen.and the consumers.

The result is that there is a far greater differential today, Mr. Speaker, than there was 15 or 20 years ago between the percentage of a person's income that goes for shelter and the percentage that goes for food and fiber. The point I•m making, Mr. Speaker, is that those who have had something to do with the construction of shelter, manufactured goods, have been able to retain a goodly percentage of any increased efficiency within their operations.

But with agriculture in every major occasion that there was a breakthrough in operaling efficiency and technology virtually the entire - I would go so far as to say the entire benefit of that change was passed on to the middleman and the ultimate consumer because of the cruel phenomena, but true phenomena, that farmers do not have any countervailing i>ower in the marketplace, And that, Mr, Speaker, is the simple fact of the matter, Now as to what can be done for it, I'm afraid that even if the Honourable Member for Morris is right", even if the solution that he said that he had - Eureka!

He had found the solution and he proceeded this evening to tell us what it was. Well, I'm not presum ing to disagree with that one aspect of the farming problem that he addressed himself to this evening, but even if I agree with my honourable friend, the fact remains that there is a multi tude of problems facing agriculture that the honourable member did not deal with - and that's only because of the time factor in this House, Mr. Speaker. I know very well that the Member

July 5, 1971 2421 (:MR. SCHREYER cont'd) • for Morris having served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, having been involved in farming himself at one time, having fol lowed the farming scene is well acquainted with the problems that are afflicting this industry.

The Minister of Agriculture unfortunately is away on business, public business this evening, unable to be here, but I do want to suggest to my honourable friend that in the Minister of Agriculture we do have a man v.ho is actively engaged in agriculture, has a practical orienta tion towards the industry much the same as my honourable friend the Member for Morris, I think is quite aware of the nature of the problems that exist. There is no easy answer to these, Mr.

Speaker • I address myself now to the remarks of the Honourable Member for Rock Lake who had perhaps less enlightening things to tell us than the Member for Morris did, The Member for Rock Lake went on to list a series of complaints that he had with this government's farm policy, I would say that this government's farm policy has perhaps covered the same area and set of problems as did the policy of my honourable friends when they formed the government, It has done all that and more and it's still far from being enough, I am the first to admit that, What ever efforts we make at the provincial level in agriculture are modest; are modest in compari son with what really ought to be done in order to bring some semblance of health back to this industry.

The very nature of the industry, however, is such that I really despair that much effective can be done until there is a significant change in world market patterns in respect to cereal grains, and also I despair about much improvement taking place until secondly, there is some kind of a breakthrough, I know not what kind, some kind of a breakthrough with respect to the age-old problem of how to give to people in countries, people which suffer undernourish ment, to give them the means by which there can be commercial interchange, commercial transaction of food or some other product which they would sell to pay for the food that they import, But until we can solve this problem of how to arrange for the commercial exchange of vast amounts of foodst uffs I don't know that there is much point in saying that we have the production potential here to feed the world; now why do farmers have a hard time selling their product let alone selling it at a decent price, Simply because we haven't figured out the way, the answer to arrange for commercial interchange of farm products so that it gets into the possession of people who are undernourished and hungry.

We have had one international agency after another established under the aegis of the United Nations; not one of which has really come to grips in an effective way with this problem, Granted that under the U.

N. there has been some tremendous, impressive breakthroughs in farming technology such as - just to give you one very impressive example, Mr, Speaker- A few years ago there was almost complete despair that India and Pakistan, India in particular, would ever be able to produce a significant percentage of her own cereal grains and as a result of experimentation in short, dwarf variety wheats in the past six years approximately, India's capacity· for wheat production of this new strain has increased hundreds of fold. And that's merely one example, In the meantime ••• MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris.

MR. JORGENSON: I wonder if he would care to outline to the House what the result of this so-called new found technology in India has produced, It's produced a low quality food that has not been acceptable by the people of India, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR, SCHREYER: Well, Mr, Speaker, I readily agree that the results of that cross breeding, coming down with that new strain of wheat, has brought about a very high yielding strain of wheat admittedly of a low quality.

I'm not sure that I'm prepared to admit that the honourable member is right when he says "a product unacceptable to the people indigenous to the area," Admittedly, it would not be acceptable to those who have become accustomed to hard wheat for bread flour, but perhaps that is a point that we can each file away and check further on.

I go on to say to the Honourable Member for Rock Lake that it really ill behooves him to pretend that this government felt that it had come forward with the definitive answer, the major answer to farm problems when we came forward with the $100, 00 payment, the $1. 00 per acre up to $100, 00, What we had in mind, Mr.Speaker, was a means of injecting something in the order of $4 million into the rural economy as quickly as possible in order to stimulate local economic conditions.

Four million dollars when taken in its totality,in its multiplier effect, deserves more than a token effort; and furthermore, it is $4 million more than my honourable

2422 July 5, 1971 (MR, SCHREYER cont'd) •• • • • friends saw fit to attempt when they were in office. We have had slow economic conditions in rural Manitoba in past years - maybe not in the recent past but in the early '60's, very late '50's - and no action comparable to this kind was taken by honourable friends when they were in office.

And lest it be forgotten I remind my honourable friends that when they take the $100. 00 plus the $104. 30 that every, practically every farmer in Manitoba saved as a result of the changeover from Medicare premiums to income tax, this amou,nt in total to $204. 30 per farm; $204. 30 which they would not have realized if my honour able friends' policies were to have been in force. My honourable friend suggests that many farmers in Manitoba have not received these cheques, haven't received the payment.

I simply tell my honourable friends that we use the Canadian Wheat Board records for the mailing and if there are a number of farmers who have not received these monies then it is the same kind of administrative problem that would apply in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board issuing the final payments on last year's crop or what ever. My honourable friends are aware the way in which the Wheat Board operates with their initial payment, sometimes their interim payment and their final payment.

We use the same mailing list apparatus that the Wheat Board has on file, and any individual who has a problem merely need relate to the Department of Agriculture.

With respect to assess ment in rural Manitoba, I say to my friend the Member for Rock Lake that if there is a problem - and I should think that in a number of circumstances there is , a I?roblem with respect to assessm ent of farm lands - that the problem has an origin that goes back beyond when this government took office, because the asses sment officers are the same people, the asse ssment criteria which determined the assessi ng formula is the same as applied in years gone by, so if my honourable friends are prepared to say that there is a problem per haps we had better look at the assess ment legislation that was passed here quite a number of years ago.

Meantime, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and others of my colleagues have been looking closely at asse ssment criteria with a view to revising some of these. We increased the Foundation levy from 70 to 75 percent. My honourable friends can dis miss it as again a token effort, but it is still, Mr. Speaker, five percent more than the previous government allowed for two years ago and it is ten percent more than the previous government allowed for four years ago.

So a ten percent increase is again - my honourable friends can call it a token effort, we choose to regard it as being just that much better than what my honourable friends were willing to do when they were in office. In addition to that we have made provision for an increase in financial support by the province to local government in the order of $10 million.

This is over and above the normal escalation in provincial grants to local government, this is $10 million extra beyond escalation; and that my honourable friends can call token efforts but we choose to regard it as $10 million more than my honourable friends were prepared to do when they were in office. And my honourable friend, the Member for Rock Lake, ends .his remarks by making ref erence to the sad, nostalgic trend off the farm - rural depopulation.

And again, I would ask my honourable friends to read - it's not often I ask somebody to read my speeches but I would really ask them in respect to agriculture �o read my speeches of 1963 - 64 when I was im ploring the then Minister of Agriculture to try to come forward with something more effective to counteract the trend off the farm. But I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that I also said in practi cally the same breath that I fully realized that the major onus, major responsibility, major financial capability for dealing with a problem of the magnitude of problems facing western agriculture, they would be government of Canada. I never pretended otherwise when I was solidly in the ranks of the Opposition. This is something that's been going on for many years. The Minister of Agriculture of the early 1960's Mr. Hutton, used to quote back to me the verses of Oliver Goldsmith's "The Deserted Village".

Something he said what was going on in the 17th Century, had gone on in the 18th, 19th, would go on in the 20th and into the 21E?t Century - a kind of a fatalistic view of what was trending in agriculture and rural life. Per haps the honourable minister of the day was not that far wrong, because the trend of the farms , rural depopulation has continued. I'm not sure if the percentage rates of depopulation has altered much, but certainly it is a matter which I unabashedly admit is still taking place des pite our efforts.

It is something that is the product of our times I suppose and nothing that any provincial government can do will seriously alter that fact until and unless we come forward in our country with a farm commodity price policy that really is worthy of the name, but that, Mr. Speaker, is something that would cost in the order of $150 million per annum in order to

July 5, 1971 2423 (:MR. SCHREYER cont'd. ) . • • • • provide real stability for farm income. And when we talk of figures of that amount, applying it to the western grain economy, then we are obviously talk ing about something that requires the major involvement and intercession of the Federal Gov ernment. If my honourable friends are prepared to admit that, then I would say that they are acting fairly and we have a basis upon which we can dialogue and discuss further.

But if they are not prepared to admit that but trying to put the entire onus of farm income stabilization problems on the doorstep of a provincial government, I say that they cannot be taken seriously. Jl.IB. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. Jl.IB. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin) : Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter the de bate tonight but when the First Minister of this province got up in this House and said that this government's policies are all that the previous governments have done and more, that brought me to my feet.

He went on at great length and quoted that Medicare, the certain benefits that this government has brought to this province ta da ta da, and I have evidence in my hand here today of producers - egg producers from my jurisdiction are shipping eggs into Winnipeg today and losing four and five cents a dozen. I'l l read you some evidence here of how bad it is in the agricultural economy today. Here's a man who shipped 90 dozen eggs to Winnipeg and he got $2. 85 for the eggs . The transportation costs on those eggs were $2. 84 and the commission was $3. 60 ; so the farmer ended up with a loss of $3. 59.

I'll read you another one. This was on June 14th - 90 dozen of eggs shipped to Winnipeg, the farmer got $2. 53 .••• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. Jl.IB. SCHREYER : Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure how you would wish to consider this point, Sir, but if the honourable member is referring exclusively to egg prices , I point out, Sir, that egg prices come under the Agricultural Stabilization Act which is a Federal Statute passed in 1958; a Federal Statute. Jl.ffi , SPEAKE R: The point is well taken. The Honourable Member for Roblin. Jl.IB. McKEN ZIE : Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I have evidence of a second one, A certain person shipped 90 dozen of eggs to Winnipeg. On June 14th he got $2. 53 for the shipment ••• Jl.IB. SPEAKER: Order, pleas e. I did indicate to the honourab le member that this was a point well taken and by that I mean that the matter he was discussi ng was not in the realm of this province but was a Federal issue and consequently he should not carry on. The Honourable Member for Roblin. Jl.IB. McKEN ZIE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for your judgment in this matter and I will dwell then in fact with the matter of the $100 per farmer policy of this government, elec tion promises that went out at great length across this jurisdiction. But they forgot one thing, Mr. Speaker , and the First Minister forgot. They didn't have the machinery to produce those cheques. They didn't have the machinery to look after the farmers of this province where there are hundreds today that haven't got their cheques.

Hundreds right in my constitutency haven't got their cheques; and yet I can point out farmers in Saskatchewan that got cheques from this government, from this province. Farmers that have delivered grain from Saskatchewan into Manitoba got paid. Certainly they got paid. Of course there was an election over there and it's quite understandable why some of this money was infiltrating across the border. And, you know, the First Minister can stand up and try and convince me to the best of his ability •• Jl.ffi, SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable First Minister on a point of privilege. Jl.IB.

SCHREYER: Yes , my point of privilege is that the Honourable Member for Roblin is intimating that this government knowingly had public monies of the Province of Manitoba spent or distributed, disbursed to persons resident outside of this province, a matter in which most circumstances is illegal, and if the honourable member is suggesting that we have know ingly followed this course of action it does constitute a matter of privilege affecting members of the Cabinet. MR. SPEAKER: I would agree with the Honourable First Minister.

I would suggest to the Honourable Member for Roblin that he reconsider his words, what he has said. As I said earlier today, possibly his words were running ahead of his thoughts again and that he should withdraw the charge that this government has made payments outside of this province which is contrary to conduct of this government. Jl.IB. McKEN ZIE: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw that remark. I have proof. I will not Withdraw that remark • • • MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

I have asked the honourable member to reconsider the choice of his words because it does constitute a matter of privilege if he's making a charge

2424 July 5, 1971 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd.) • • • • • which he cannot substantiate. I would ask him to also care fully reconsider before he indicates to the Chair of what his desire is. The Honourable First Minister on a point of privilege. MR. SCHREYER: Speaking further to the point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, I point out to you, Sir, that what I have said is that if the Honourable Member for Roblin is suggesting that we authorized the payment of public money, Province of Manitoba, to persons who are not Canadian Wheat Board permit holders operating within Manitoba, then his statement clearly does constitute a point of privilege, because as I indicated earlier, the mechanism we used was the permanent mailing list of the Canadian Wheat Board permit holders which we obtained • co-operation, from the Canadian Wheat Board. MR, SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Morris. MR.

JORGENSON : • , , what my honourable friend from Roblin was suggesting, that there are a number of farmers who live along the border of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border delivering their grain in Saskatchewan elevators, they are Manitoba farmers, and what this government promised was that each farmer who lived in Manitoba would get $100 or $1. 00 an acre up to 100 acres • • • and these people • • • MR, SPEAKE R: Order, please, I would like to indicate to all honourable members when they are stating a matter of privilege or a point of order that they must stay within the realm of the point itself, that they must not debate and enter into the relevancy of what has gone on before, I am inclined to give every opportunity to every honourable member in re spect to stating their matter of privilege or their point of order.

In this particular instance, I was prepared to rise myself because the Honourable Member for Roblin had indicated that people outside of Manitoba had rec eived cheques in re spect to an election, where he was casting an inference which I thought was getting into the area of infringing on the privilege of the House or of the government. I have heard various opinions on the matter; I would suggest to the honourable member that he choose his words carefully when he is making inferences or casting imputations, The Honourable Member for Roblin, MR.

McKENZI E: Well, Mr, Speaker, I'm not one that's well known for my terminology or my phras eology but I am trying to tell the First Minister of this province that they've handled this $1 00 per. acre payment very poorly, b,ecause I have evidence of 100 or more that haven't got the cheques that live within the boundaries of this province, and yet people in Saskatchewan who deliver grain into Manitoba, by mistake or otherwise, have rece ived pay ment, And the First Minister frowns; maybe he doesn't understand.

I have been down to the Minister of Agriculture's office last week and again this week with names of people that haven't got paid, I'm only trying to do my service to my constitutency and do my service to this gov ernment, Mr, Speaker, I'm not here to quarrel or to try and make an issue; I'm trying to point out to the First Minister that in fact his government hasn't got all the answers for agriculture in this province, I tried to read into the record the fact that producers in my community are shipping eggs to Winnipeg and losing four and five cents a dozen, Transportation costs and the comniission of the local broker is more than twice as much as the eggs are worth, And yet the First Minister says that his government has done more than any other government, if I understood him correctly; and I quarrel with those remarks, Mr.

Speaker , otherwise !wouldn't be on my feet at this time, Bec ause I have evidence to prove what I am standing here before you tonight to try and bring to the attention of the House, And the First Minister reads into the record the Medicare thing and again we hear that over and over. Is that the penalty that the farmers of this province have to pay for their eggs today? Lose four, five cents a dozen when you ship eggs to Winnipeg, pay the freight, pay the commission costs -- Is that the penalty for Medicare for the farmers of this province ? MR. SPEAKER: Order , please, The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr, Speaker, Sir, I thought that the Chair had established that inas much as egg price stabilization came under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Board estab lished under Federal Statute in 1958 , that this was something that the Member for Roblin was not in order in dealing with - and particularly in suggesting that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction? Egg prices - Federal Statute, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland, MR. FROE SE : Certainly even though this is under Federal legislation, that doesn't

July 5, 1971 2425 (MR. FROESE cont' d. ) • • • • • prevent us from discussi ng it in this House. This is the point, MR, SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR, McKENZIE : Mr. Speaker, I'm not blaming the First Minister, but at the same time hope that he'll accept the responsibility of office, he's the First Minister of this province, and not try to drive down my neck that he's got more policies and he's done more for the people of this province than any government before him. I quarrel with those remarks, Mr.

Speaker, otherwise I wouldn't be on my feet, because I specifically say, plumbing is not going to fix up the farmers problems in rural Manitoba. No way. Nor is the $1 00 , and I wish it could have been $1 0, OOO that the First Minister went out and gave t he farmers of this province because I' m all for it and I would have voted for it gladly; because unless we can find some way or some means to keep the people, the young people today in this province farming, it's finished.

For get about Roblin constituency and forget about rural Manitoba because we won't exist, it's that bad, And the First Minister understands. I think marketing - as the First Minister, and I thank him for his remarks in the debate and I back up his comments 10 0 percent - it's a national problem, it's a problem of many provinces in this jurisdiction, and the one of course that comes back to haunt us on all occas ions is marketing, I for the love of me cannot see why any people in the world today that want food - we have the best food in the world, we can produce the best food in Canada of any jurisdiction.

First-class wheat, first-class meat , first-class poultry products, vegetables , everything to " do, and why can't we sell it; and that of course is the quarrel, It comes into the political arena, we hear it on the television screen.

I have always submitted, and I submit again tonight, Mr, Speaker, that marketingboards are not going to solve our problem, The world is too big today, We cannot possibly consume all the food that we produce in this country and the many farmers that I talk to tell me one thing: put up the world price of wheat, oats , barley, beef, corn, eggs, everything, the world price on a blackboard every morning, put it on the television screen, give it to them in the newspapers, give it to them every way possible and that's the world price and they'll compete with it because the farmer is a gambler, And look at how many times over the history of this country the war problems - where they ask the farmer to move in, there' s a war on, and he'll produce.

We got a national regulation on our statutes today where the farmer ships the feed grains down to eastern Canada to feed the beast down there so they wouldn't have - and that's still on the record today. And these producers in western Canada are still doing it today.

Well they're quarreling with it, they don't like it, but they still did it and they're still doing it today and I say to the farmers that today as a farmer in this country, give him the world price morning, noon and night and if he can't compete with it, then I'm sure he'll gladly phase out of farming, But don't let the First Minister of this province stand up and tell me that he's done more than any other government before him and he's got the answers for all the problems of the farmers of this province, by providing plumbing or $1. 00 an acre, because I submit, Mr. Speaker, ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I'm certain the honourable member is not imputing things to the Honourable First Minister. I would certainly like to hear him express himself in more direct terms so that one can really assess what he does mean, because unfortunately it appears to me that the honourable member is skating in the area of trying to impute some thing and inferring things to the Honourable First Minister. I'm sure he doesn't want to do that, The Honourable Member for Roblin. The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER : My point of order is very similar to one, Sir, that was raised by the Minister of Mines and Reso urces several days ago, in that the Member for Roblin has again presumed to quote a member on this side in a way that is completely inaccurate and mislead ing, When the honourable member said ju st a few moments ago that I had stated that we had the answers to all the farm problems, Mr. Speaker, that is simply a misquotation, In fact, I said the very opposite, I said that we did not pretend that we had the answers to many of the farm problems .

I did say that we had allocated more monies for agriculture than the previous administration ever did, MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR, McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, if you will remember my remarks, I never said in any part of my speech that "! quote", never; I never said in any place, Mr, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order , please. Order, please. I would like to indicate to the

2426 July 5, 1971 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd. ) . • • • • honourable member that he didn't say "quote" but he did say "state" and the Chair has difficulty in trying to determine the great difference that there is in the two. Now would the honou rable member confine himself to remarks that everyone can understand. The Honourable Member for Roblin. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable member in his re marks is indicating his opinion of what the honourable members opposite have said, and, Mr. Speaker, ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: I am not challenging the Speaker's ruling, I am suggesting to the Speaker by way of a point of order that the honourable member has indicated in his remarks that it is his opinion the government has stated this position and in the matter of debate this is his manner or his way of presenting his

interpretation of what the government has said. And, Mr. Speaker, I think he is perfectly entitled in this respect to make that presentation. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to indicate, and I'm not going to debate ·with anyone any more on this point, but I did indicate what I understood and what I heard and the Honourable Member for Roblin had stated and indicated the First Minister, not the govern ment.

I notice the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is not listening to me and consequently he won't be aware of what I am saying; but I do want to indicate that I am capable of hearing what is going on in this Chamber. And that includes the remarks and the quips that keep con tinually interrupting and interjecting. This is the kind of thing that creates the heat in this Chamber and slows us all down from getting our work done.

I'm prepared to stand here and indicate how I feel about these rulings and the Ass embly can accept them or reject them, but I certainly do not intend to carry on a continual dialogue in respect to rules . I think members should be able to conduct themselves with decorum and with some self-discipline. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll draw my remarks to a close very quickly. I don't want to create a controversial debate in this House , Mr. Speaker, nor do I want to in any way impose upon your rules , Mr. Speaker.

I would not have spoken at all on this resolution, Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the speech of the First Minister. I have great respect for the First Minister because his wife comes from my constituency, Mr. Speaker, so there's no way that I would want to impose any rem;:i.rks on the First Minister that might have an ill effect on me when I try to get re-elected in my constituency. I fully support the First Minister but I quarrel with some of the remarks from time to time, Mr.

Speaker, and had it not been for the remark that he said that the farm policy of this government are all that all the previous governments have done and more I would have not been to my feet, but I challenge the First Minister and I ask him to put the policies on the blackboard and challenge the farmers of this province. They have met every challenge for three or four decades and they'll meet the next one too if we give them the proper guideline and the marketplace and they'll produce the goods. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. JOSEPH P.

BOROWSKI (Minister of Public Works and Highways) (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I, too, had not intended to speak. I see the House Leader giving me the eye to sit down but like the Member for River Heights and the Member for Morris I too am a farm soil expert and therefore well qualified to speak. I was most interested in the remarks made by the Member from Morris and I'm sorry that he stalked out of here in anger like a little kid that lost a marble game because I want to congratulate him for what he said. That took, I think,

an act of courage to get up in this House, for a guy who comes from a farm area, and say that fertilizer is harmful. I've never heard any politician tell that to the farmers, not even, you know, the brave boys on this side. I ju st wish that he had carried on further and said the same thing about pesticides and herbicides because if you look at the record - this is one area that I've been interested in for years since I do organic gardening myself, don't use any fertilizer or sprays and have the best garden in the country. I've been interested. in this area, and I've rea d ju st about every

article that was written by the experts that he despises so much, and I don't recall recently in any case of anybody dying because of fertilizer poisoning, whether it is through application to the skin or a cut when applying it on the field or as a resu lt of it getting into the food chain. But there is continual evidence coming in and cases of people dying of poisoning from DDT and other chemicals; in fact one of the most deadly chemicals used today is para •.• I believe that's the

July 5, 1971 2427 (MR . BOROWSKI cont'd. ) • • • • • proper pronunciation. I think since 1958 the U.S. Agri culture Department has documented close to a hundred cases of people, women, children and peopleJapplying it on a farm and having died directly as a result of the application, so it's surprising that he would talk about the abolition of chemical fe rtilizers and not use the same argument for pesticides because the record clearly shows they are much more dangerous. There's a chap in the States that just passed away a couple of weeks ago, Mr.

Roda le, he puts out a magazine called "F arming and Gardening" and he has been talking about pesticides and fert ilizers for twenty years and nobody has really paid much attention until recently when the American Government suddenly discovered that the soil there is being destroyed, completely sterilized by chemical application of fertilizer and pesticides. I recall a few years back my brother put a lot of chemicals on his farm when they had the great grasshopper attack. Everybody naturally sprayed their crops.

The result is of course the grasshoppers died, they saved the crop; the birds ate the grasshoppers and the birds in turn died because of the poisoning of the grasshoppers. The result was of course there was no birds to eat the other bugs including the mosquitoes so they turn around and then they use more spray to kill the mosquitoes. It's a vicious chemical chain that's going to end in disaster as the Member for Morris suggested and fortunately there's people in high places , particularly in the u.s. and they are leaders in this field , that are waking up to this fact.

I find it comical, and that's why we were laughing when he spoke, when he's suggesting that it is those cursed experts that are responsible for this. You know, that's the fur thest thing from the truth. Defeated politicians are suddenly experts and the experts are the scapegoat. The fact is , Mr. Speaker, that it's the politicians that are responsible, not the experts. I haven't had one expert tell me put the herbicides , the pesticides on the hi�way right-of-way or to the Minister of Tourism who is responsible for telephones, in his area; it wasn't the experts that made those decisions , it was the politicians.

It was a question of should you cut it by hand or should you spray it. Obviously it is cheaper to spray it. That government didn't follow that policy and this government doesn't have in this case much more courage than the previous gov ernment, they're doing the same blasted thing. On Hydro right-of-way they used the most deadly spray. I recall going to Recla Island bef ore we started the program and they used a herbicide so powerfµl along the road there that trees an inch thick were curled up like pretzels from using this stuff; and we're still using it, this government's using it.

Could you imagine the effect on the ducks that are out there and we shoot the ducks and • • • the fish that we catch and we have the nerve, some of us, to stand up in this House and blame the experts. We make the decisions , not the experts. We can tell the experts where to go; as politicians have done from time to time.

I would suggest that if the members are serious about this instead of chastizing, whether it's me or other members of this government, when we say we are not going to use chemicals for spraying the right-of-way , we 'll pay more money and have it cut by a mower, that they should say well that's a wonderful program even though it's going to cost double, it may cost more than double; but it wasn't the experts that were saying this , the Member from Morris , and this is really very strange; again it's the old story of the holdup man lecturing a judge on virtues of honesty.

You know, this is the same person that several weeks ago gave me heck in this legislature for discontinuing the use of pesticides or herbicides to kill the weeds along the highway right-of-way , and now he turns around and he is giving this government -- of course we deserve it in this case, but not from him; anyone but the boys on that side. Mr.

Speaker, I will simply close by saying that if the members of the Opposition are serious about the soil sterilization that is going on that they should attack not just the chemical fertilizer but the pesticides and the herbicides that are being used by, I suppose, just about every department in this government and other governments. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): I would simply want. to enter into the debate just briefly to enquire through you, Mr.

Speaker, of the government members, perhaps we could hear further expressions from particularly members of the Treasury as to the extent of the views that were just expressed by the Minister of Transportation, how they are shared by members of the government now responsible for the regulations and for directing as the Minister of Transportation quite correctly said, the application of, or the permissibility of use of certain pesticides and herbicides and fert ilizers and so fo rth. I think that this particular subject is certainly one that would bear a great deal more time and attention by not only this

2428 July 5, 1971 (MR. ENNS cont'd.) .....

Chamber but all Chambers and pos sibly particulariy in our Federal House; but, you know, is it really a game of little politics that we find ourselves playing this evening or what is the Mini ster of Transportation doing with his colleagues with whom he sits around the Cabinet table, the Minister of Agriculture; what is he doing with his colleague the Minister of Industry and Commerce with whome he shares the room at the Cabinet table , and certainly not lecture us about I think a subject that we are all prepared to accept the seriousness, yoil know, of the situation facing us, but you know we seem to find ourselves in a posi tion from time to time, all too often, of having to remind, particularly Treasury members �pposite , that they are now government and that if they don't like some thing that is going on they in many other instances have no hesitation to so indicate change and make change if they feel deeply and strongly about certain things, then I would certainly, you know, encourage other Treasury members, perhaps the First Mini ster, to indicate to us, but more fairly, more fairly, more fairly I think to the industry, more fairly to the industry whom I woUld suspect employs perhaps a thousand or thousand people in Manitoba or two or three · thousand pe(lple -- (Interjection -- Well the former Minister of Agriculture finds myself - being an organic farmer not neces sarily by choice but by the fact that I have so little lime to get out in my field, I.would have to report to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the dandelions, the sowthistle and wild mustard is growing in wild profusion in my grain fields at this particular time. ·I could I suppose say that it comes from a compassio n that I have for all things living andJ refuse fo put on any herbicide or pesticides on the grounds, or indeed even get around to tilling them in the traditional method that one looks after summerfallow. But that, Sir, would not be quite honest; the'fact of the matter is I just haven't gotten around to it, . I can at least say to you, Sir, that on my farm I use no pesticides nor herbicide s.

I wish sometimes I did because I got a call from one of the experts that the Minister frowns on or we shouldn't be blaming, I got a call from one of his experts now threatening me with a lawsi.iit if {didn 't clean up the weeds on my land because we passed legi slation in this Legis lature calling for the establishment. of weed control districts and I would have to remind the Honourable Ministers opposite that there are government employees throughout the width and br� adth of this province with the power that we in this Legisla ture invested them with, that can call on you and order you to spray, and if you don't spray within a reasonable time they'll spray thems elves artd charge you with the bill, and if you don't pay the bill they add it to your tax bill . -- (Interjection) �- They order you to get rid of the weeds ?

In fact I thiilk the ques tion is spray. However, Mr. Speaker -- you see they're diverting me, Mr. Speaker . What started off was a fairly serious contribution to this debate by the Minister of Transportation. I am only attempting to perhaps help them from this side of the House when he meets with his colleagues around the Cabinet table, and I'm also suggesting that, in all seriousness now, Mr .

Speaker, that if this government has the intention - and I always take seriously the expressions of a Cabinet Minister - if the Member of the Treasury bench is suggesting, and perhaps we should have a wide debate on the matter, that we lead here in the heart of the continent and do away with pesticide s, chemical fertilizers, that's a debate of another matter, a very serious one which I would be quite happy to enter into , but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that in fairness much, you know six months ' notice should be given, 12 months' notice should be given, that if this is a serious thought as was expressed by a member of the Treasury bench, then those several thousands of people that are involved in this particular industry in one way or other should be given some advance notice of it. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR . FROESE : Ye s, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn 't want to let this item go past without - (Interjection) -- no, I would disappoint the Member for St. Boniface if I did .

I was rather interested in the discussion that took place here earlier in connection with the egg war or the egg prices . Ce rtainly this is a disgrace in this day and age when farmers have to sell their product for the prices that were quoted� I feel that this is in large degree attributable to the Marketing Board system that we have in this country. I feel that we should never allow Federal legi slation taking unto them sole control over marketing to let it pass without thallenging the same in the Courts .

I feel that on occasion, and more than once, we in this House have passed supplementary legi slation in order to make Federal legisl ation legal and also so that it will stand up in Court both here and elsewhere . · Then, foo, I find that too often this puts the Prairie Provinces especially into a strait jacket from which they cannot escape and which very often is detrimental to people in the

i __ July 5, 1971 2429 (MR. FROESE cont 'd. ) . province . Ce rtainly when the matter that was just being discussed here in co nnection with spraying, sure enough, I don't use fertilizers to the degree that some people do, ju i;; t for the very reaso n that I feel that you can burn your so il an d lat er on it will not produce as much. We find that the potato growers who have co n tinually been producing pota toes and putting in so much fert ilizer s that these people continually go and buy new properties, new parcels of land so that they can produce more and use fert ilizer s on the new la nd .

This is what is hap pening, because the old the land that has been used and subjected to this type of treatment for a good number of years becomes sterile and does not produce the way it did oriipnally . Ce r tainly I think we can learn a lesso n from that, that there is a limi t to what can be done in produc tion and in mining the soil as the Member from Mo rris I think indicated. On the - (Interjectio n) -- Yes. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Fi rst Minis ter. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I would just ask the Honourable Member for Rhineland if he would agree with the biblical admonition about practicing moderation in all things would apply as well to farming practices and the use of various forms of artificial aids to farm ing ? . . . . . Co ntinued on next page

2430 July 5, 1971 MR . SPEAKER: The Honourab le Member for Rhineland . MR. FROESE : I don't know .how far the First Minister would go in this connection. Sure enough there are various practices that were. followed in biblical times and even they had the 50th year when nothing could be done and even land and properties reverted back to former owners and so on. Maybe if we wanted to go back to some of the practic es that took place in those times - in certain .respects they would be good because you could clear out your de bts . There would be no debts and ever ything would be wiped out .

Co ming back to this matter of marketing boards and marketing legi slation . I was also interested in the case that this provinc e put before the cou rt in connection with the chicken and egg proposition . I' m wondering just how this originate d here in Manitoba . Did this province bring up a hypothetical case ? Did they pass regulati ons by Order- in-C ouncil and develop a situation in that way ?

Ce rtainly we have the Natural Product Marketing Act which has wide powers and under which the government can take action, but did they, in the original case that they prese nted , did they set up a plan by way of re gulation that they intended to bring forward at some futu re date and had it tested on that basis ? Ce rtainly I think we should know about this because if it was proposed legislation, then I feel that this government should have an obligation on itself to at least introduc e it to the House so that we would be living up to what we had pro posed.

I certainly would like to hear from the Attorney-General on this very point , because if it was proposed legislation, we should know about it and now that it has proceeded first to the Appeal Bo ard and then later on to the Feder al court and to this government 's liking, sure enough we should be informed on this very matter. Otherwi se, this government I guess could dream up any hypothetical case and have it referred to the courts for an opinion and so on . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General . MR . MAC KLING: Mr . Speaker, I' m delighted to elucidate for the Member from Rhineland .

As the Member from Rhineland probably recal ls, we hope to go directly to the Supreme Court and indicate our concern with a marketing barrier that was erected by another provinc e by way of regulation under a marketing act which we thought was ultra vires of that provin ce . When we did not succed, then what we did is said that we could under our Natural Product Mar keting Act prepare regulations like any other provinc e under similar legislation, but we didn' t enact those regulatio ns .

They were proposed regula tions and on the basis of those proposed regulations we went to the Co urt of Appeal and said is this within the legislative competence of the provin ce . We didn 't expect that they would say, yes, but we weren't cer tain . When we got that negative answer, we took that decisio n from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court and they reaffirmed the Co urt of Appeal , that the proposed regulation would not have been within the legislative competence of the province to pa ss. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for Rhineland has already spoken.

The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR . FRO ESE : ... that honourable members should have interjected the way they did. I couldn 't hear the remarks properly when the Honourable Minister was giving an eqilanation . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye . MR . BAR KMAN: Maybe you can clarify the situation . If the 10:00 o' clock deadline is supposed to take effect tonight then I would not wish to say a few words ,· otherwise I'd like to say a few words . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the House Leader . MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, we really had intended to adjourn the House with the passing of this res olution but if this reso lution is going to go on for a long long time then we will adjourn. But if the honour able member is wanting to speak on this re solution then we would urge him to do so . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendcye . MR, BARKMAN : 1Ylr. Speaker, I shall not hold it up very long .

I was wondering when the Honourable Minister of Transportation talked about insecticides and herbicides and all the pollution , I' m wondering what kind of insecticide or herbicide they're going to find out to perhaps take care of some of the pollution that takes place in this House at times, but I' m not referring to the Minister only nor any one individual . However, Mr. Speaker, so many points have been bro ught up this evening and since we did not really cover the topic of agriculture to any extent during the Estimate s, I' m glad that so much has been bro ught up .

I agree partly with the Honourable Member for Morris when he

July 5, 1971 2431 (MR. BARKMAN cont'd. ) . . . . . touched on technology . I didn't completely agree with him as far as fertilizers are concerned, but on the other hand, I think we have a very serious situa tion in agriculture . This has been said by many, I don't have to repeat that. We know this. And as far as talking of experts, I believe that farm people themselves must have a much greater opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in the field of agriculture . I am convinced that farmers will no longer tolerate policies being forced upon by whoever it may be .

I' m not referring to civil servants only, I' m not referring to this government only, but whether it be on the provincial level or federal level, I think certain of these people are too far removed from the farming communities or the farming problems and are not fully aware of the probl8ms that really take place . Now I know that perhaps much could be said as far as technology is concerned and I think it was brought up also by other members .

I think we have to get at the main problem otheiwise than by piecemeal legislation which was demonstrated so clearly when the dollar per acre grant came out, which was good . It was acc epted and appreciated but it is not the type of policy that is going to help us on the over-all agricultural situation. I think, Mr. Speaker, also there's so many other factors that are involved in agricultural problems . We have our uncon trollable factors , we have our barriers of exporting. Much has been said on that.

We have our price variation and naturally we have our family farm problems, but I think we know first of all it hits the farmer himself and it has hit him badly and this government is responsible -._ regardless to what extent the Federal Government is responsible , and we all know they are responsible to a great extent, but to some extent it is not good enough for us to say that we are just going to pass this on to Ottawa. This can't be done. I think too much of this has been done over the last 15 or 20 years .

I believe the time has come where we' ve got to look this case right in the eye and I think look for long-term policies, not for piecemeal legislation, because we know it isn't only hitting the farmer, it is tearing up rural communities, small businesses are going broke because of the farmers dilemma. I' m sure , Mr. Speaker, if this does not pass tonight, I perhaps won't be speaking on it again, but many many things could be brought up and it is the responsibility of this government as well as Ottawa to take the situation the way we 've got to face it, seriously, and I know you want to but that's not enough.

We 've got to have some action on it . MR. SPEAKER put the question on non-concurrence and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: That was Resolution 8. The Honourable the Clerk. Resolution 8--passed; 9--passed; I wonder if the clerk would ... MR . CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, since this is my motion, can I assume that we have passed resolutions 8 to 20, both inclusive , as read by the Clerk. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion here on Resolution No . 15 . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please .

I should like to indicate to the House that this has been part of the problem of the Chair that the Clerk has been reading the motions inclusively in a group and then going from one to the other. I-was waiting for him to say 8 and someone to say "p ass "; 9 for someone to say "pass" and we would stop at wherever anyone indicated. I think if we can get the cooperation of all the members then we could carry on to where we have to stop . The Honourable First Minister. MR .

SCHREYER: If it will help to cla rify matters, it is our understanding that the Member for Souris-Killarney has a motion with respect to Resolution 15; so if we could go then sequentially 8, 9 through to 14 inclusive and then call it a day. MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed) Would the Clerk call the resolutions to that point. MR. CL ERK: (Resolutions 9 to 14 were read and passed .) MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I understand that there is a meeting of Public Accounts Committee tomorrow morning and that it's the disposition of the House not to have the morning sitting� So that Public Acc ounts Committee would meet in the morning at 10:00 and that the House will meet tomorrow at 2: 30 . That being understood, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour that the House do now adjourn. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:3 0 Tuesday afternoon.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-3-99
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 3rd hansardpdf 99.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f83333c3e0324f9711a2f166f8abe89193eb345a

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