Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call report stage on Bill 67.

* (1450)

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to continue my comments, but I will try and be very brief.

We note from the list of bills that was just given Royal Assent here a few moments ago in this Chamber that there was one piece of legislation, a significant piece of legislation that was missing from that list, one that I am sure all members opposite would like very much to have passed.

Well, Madam Speaker, since this Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) has said that he supports the first amendment that we have tabled in this Legislature, this is, I think, a significant start. We hope that this minister will show the same consideration for the other amendments which we are about to present to this Chamber through our MTS critic (Mr. Ashton). This could go a long way towards speeding up conclusion of this session if that is the government's will.

So they have the option here of looking very favourably upon the amendments that we have tabled here today, and since this government has said that they want this bill to pass in a very timely fashion, this is the way to do it. Take a look. You have the list of amendments before you. Now all you have to do is say yes to them and that would be it. We would be out of this session, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, with those few words, I am prepared to conclude my comments, and we thank the minister for indicating his support for this first amendment and look forward to his continued support on all the remainder of the amendments, and we will table them.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the amendment, report stage on Bill 67, moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

An Honourable Member: Nay.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment is accordingly carried.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

* (1500)

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Filmon, Findlay, Friesen, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Hickes, Jennissen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Mackintosh, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae, McGifford, McIntosh, Mihychuk, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reid, Reimer, Render, Robinson, Rocan, Sale, Santos, Stefanson, Struthers, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 51, Nays 0.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I was paired with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).

Madam Speaker: The amendment is accordingly carried.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that Bill 67 be amended by striking out the second paragraph of the preamble and substituting the following:

AND WHEREAS it is proposed that the shares of the Manitoba Telephone System be offered for sale to members of the public without the support of a majority of the people of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Thompson is out of order. The amendment to the second paragraph of the preamble is out of order, because it proposes to substitute an alternative scheme to that contained in the original provision which is contrary to Beauchesne 698(9).

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer),

THAT Bill 67 be amended--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment is accordingly out of order. The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer),

THAT Bill 67 be amended in the definition "land" in subsection 1(1) by striking out everything after "rights-of-way".

Motion presented.

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, indeed I am very pleased to be able to speak on this. I am just wondering if the Deputy Premier's (Mr. Downey) yelling out "question," indicates that now the government, after having said that Bill 67 was ready to go, to be pushed through on clause by clause at 3:22 in the morning on November 6--now we have just seen that the government unanimously, along with members of the opposition, supported an amendment brought in by the New Democratic Party.

Is it not amazing what a little bit of time can do in terms of the consideration of a bill? I realize it was difficult for some members opposite. I look at the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). I do not think we voted the same way on anything since she has been elected to this House, but we voted the same way on the first amendment. What a way to look at the business of Manitoba. The member for Riel (Mr. Newman), and I voted the same way. You know, it is just amazing.

The minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), I give him credit because they had to enforce the whip. They had members who wanted to instinctively vote against anything moved by the NDP, right? On the voice vote, there were some of them who said, nay. I appreciate the minister probably felt he had to apply the whip, but do you know what? I think that is encouraging because those two or three members on the government side who were saying nay on the voice vote, just hang in there. When we get to the final vote, that is all we need, is two or three of you to say nay, and this whole bill will be defeated. So I am extremely encouraged.

To the government members, we just had Royal Assent. Now, normally that means the end of the session. I realize that we were somehow being told after the 7th that we are being punished because the government was not going to bring in Royal Assent on its bills. To the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), I tell you, I had a real tough time explaining that in my legion, that we did not pass The Remembrance Day Act through Royal Assent because you did not ask for it. But, you know, we voted against it, you bet.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: I think the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is going to make himself sick here. Do you know what, Madam Speaker? Exactly--I had no difficulty explaining in my legion why we voted against the bill, and we are quite happy it was not proclaimed.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Thompson that debate is supposed to be relevant to the amendment just passed.

* (1510)

Mr. Ashton: I was only responding to the Deputy Premier. I have not quite figured it out, but we did vote against Bill 50, and we are quite happy it was not proclaimed before November 11, one more year in which Remembrance Day will be a true Remembrance Day.

So, to the Deputy Premier, he like to chuckle sometimes--and I think that description of him in the paper where it said he takes a thought and spins it out over 30 minutes--we know, when he heckles for a minute or less, there is no thought, and I think he just proved it a few minutes ago.

So, anyway, I get back to my point. My point here is, this is the government that a short time ago was saying, that is the way it is. We are going to ram through Bill 67. Today they supported one of our amendments, the first. I wish they had had the chance to support the second one. If it had been considered in order, Madam Speaker, they might.

But let us try for the third. I believe--and I will just check the order paper here. I just want to make sure this is clear. There are 36 amendments remaining in my name, and one in the member for Crescentwood's (Mr. Sale) name. So it is not bad. We are batting a thousand here. We have one passed. The other one was not in order. I felt like asking leave to see if they might consider it to be in order, given their generosity of spirit on this. What unholy alliances, I mean, the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and I voting the same way on a bill. Who would have thunk it? It was, I am sure, quite the experience for members opposite.

But, you know, it is not unusual on MTS for people to come together. When you have 78 percent of rural Manitobans saying Bill 67 is wrong, boy, is that not kind of a coalition-building exercise if you ever saw one?

I realize that the Deputy Premier still likes to think that anybody who opposes the bill is a socialist, and I mention this in the House that I thought it was quite bizarre. I think there are a fair number of socialists out in rural Manitoba but not 78 percent of the population. I mean, 22 percent supported this. That is hitting your base, 22 percent. I realize there are 22 percent diehards out there in Manitoba who think that the Conservatives can do no wrong. Wait a sec, that is 78 percent who think they can do a heck of a lot of wrong. You add it up, it just does not add up. I do not know what kind of math now, new math that the Tories are practising, but 78 percent is pretty overwhelming. Seventy-eight percent of rural Manitobans, 67 percent of Manitobans across the province

An Honourable Member: What about this rate shock?

Mr. Ashton: And indeed we will talk about things like rate shock. What I find amazing though that as we go by and introduce amendments such as this which deal with very substantive issues, I mentioned this in Question Period, but the Premier increasingly reminds me of the fable of the emperor with no clothes. Who can forget that? Remember as a kid learning about this where there was this tailor who convinced the emperor that he was going to make this new suit of clothing. He even convinced him that no one else could really necessarily see it, even including himself, but it was the most finely tailored suit of clothing that had ever been created by any tailor, whether it be to a royal personage or to an average citizen. And who can forget what happened? All the courtiers, everyone in the country said initially about the suit of clothing, what a tremendous suit of clothing. They did not want to offend the emperor. They did not want to say the truth that in fact perhaps there was not anything. So what I find interesting is, what an interesting parallel, because the conclusion of the fable was when one brave soul had the nerve, the temerity to stand up and say, the emperor has no clothes.

Think about it because, first of all, I think there are a lot of parallels to this situation. First of all, the Premier and the emperor. I think I need to say no more because the Premier has been taking on rather a--I have to be careful of the words I use, but I think he has forgotten that he is the servant of the public in this province, a trustee of the public assets. I think the Premier has been acting like an emperor for quite some time. [interjection] Well, I cannot use "dictator," I did say on the record "not a dictator" before and that phrase has been taken under advisement, and I may have to withdraw that part, particularly the "not" part, but you know, the emperor. Who are the tailors in this case? Well, it is Jules Benson probably, Mike Bessey and the Bay Street bankers. The Bay Street bankers. They have said, this is the most beautiful set of clothing you have ever seen. Now, it does not exist. But you know what? The Premier stands there, he stands up in Question Period, it is like look, look, no rate increases, as he touches the hem of this invisible cloth. Hey, we are not going to have any increase rate shock in rural Manitoba. He touches the invisible pant leg and says we are not going to lose jobs. He says it will all come out in the wash. All going to come out in the wash.

Well, some of us can take credit. We started off--[interjection] Well, the only thing that is going down the drain is the Conservative Party in Manitoba. But what is interesting is we started off, some of us in February stood out in minus 20, minus 30 degree weather and we said, the emperor has no clothes. This suit of clothing that they like to wear does not exist. This privatization is a sham. It is going to lead to higher costs. It is going to lead to reduction in service across rural Manitoba particularly with the new services that are going to be coming in place.

What is interesting is the first thing the emperor, in this case the Premier did, was say, oh, well, that is the NDP. They extended that after a while, then it was labour, then it was social action groups. They must have had their caucus interne who wrote that letter churning out a number of them, because it was like--even though there was growing evidence of that. Then they ran into a slight problem. Then it was the union, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the union of Manitoba municipalities, a new definition to the term "union bosses." I think Jack Nicol must have been quite surprised, but the Manitoba Society of Seniors, after a while there were more and more people saying the emperor has no clothes but still they did not stop. Then they came in and we had 185 Manitobans out, 182 of which said the emperor has no clothes. Then we had in this House the ultimate denial. It was like nobody out there is really against this sale, they really support us. They say get it over with, do it. CBC runs a poll, 78 percent of rural Manitobans are saying the emperor has no clothes, 67 percent of Manitobans. But where does it stop? Now we have the comic opera, and I can think of a few Gilbert and Sullivan characters that the Premier might fit quite well here.

An Honourable Member: Phantom of the Opera.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the Phantom of the Opera. He is certainly going to be haunting the hallways.

Today we get up and we say, the counsel for MTS made statements on the record, the CRTC. I look at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) because he knows as a lawyer that lawyers do not lie. What they say on the record and what they say in their private life is the truth, and I mean that seriously. [interjection] Well, I think it is true. I think we all trust in that word and I mean that seriously to the Minister of Labour.

An Honourable Member: Is that Vic? Did he say Remembrance Day was our fault?

Mr. Ashton: Well, we will not get into that. I am trying to make a point in the debate here. I do not want to be distracted by my own members.

When I say that lawyers tell the truth, particularly on the record, is that a fair statement? Do lawyers tell the truth on the record? I am saying that.

An Honourable Member: Most do.

Mr. Ashton: I will say lawyers do. The member for Riel (Mr. Newman) gave us good advice on that. A short time ago, I thought gave an excellent view of the legal profession and I credit him for that. But we have Mr. Nugent. Who is Mr. Nugent? The legal counsel for MTS. Speaking where? On the record in front of MTS. [interjection] Well, we will not talk about Shakespeare and lawyers, that is going a little bit too far.

You know, he went to the CRTC, and what did he say, Madam Speaker? He said--I am quite prepared to get into the detail of this. In fact, at some point in time, for the Minister of Labour, I probably will. I may read it into the record.

An Honourable Member: I advise you to read the whole thing into the record.

Mr. Ashton: Well, you would. Listen, on third reading I do get unlimited time so you may get your wish coming true.

An Honourable Member: You do not have the guts to put the whole thing on the record.

Mr. Ashton: Oh, Madam Speaker, it is interesting. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) says you do not have the guts to put it all on the record because if you read it--to the Minister of Labour, have you read the transcript? Read the transcript, because, in fact--[interjection] Well, I have lots of--the minister can talk about guts here. It is interesting because we heard yesterday, or a few days ago, the House leader saying they were going to debate us one for one on these amendments. So much for that promise. I have not heard the Minister of Labour yet on this issue. I want him to speak. He will have plenty of opportunity after I am finished on this debate. [interjection] You might hear some truth because you know what is interesting, for the Minister of Labour, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) went outside of this House and said that the legal counsel for MTS was wrong.

You know, I mentioned about the emperor with no clothes. Even now the legal counsel for MTS does not know what is going on, only the Premier does. It is interesting, to the Minister of Labour, because if he was to read this and I will table this document for him, he will see that this is a very serious application. [interjection] Madam Speaker, I wonder if there might be leave to have the entire document printed in Hansard to satisfy the Minister of Labour. I would be quite happy with that.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1520)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I for no moment want to impinge on any member's right to speak on these matters; however, there is an issue of relevancy, and we have many amendments with which to deal. The member has moved an amendment with respect to the definition of land under the act. That is a very specific and narrow topic. I would ask if the Speaker would call the member over to discuss the reason why in fact he is proposing this amendment to redefine or change the definition of land and to make argument around that issue. We have heard many of his other arguments. There is opportunity to speak to it throughout the course of the process of bringing this legislation to a final result. I think it does the House an injustice if the member is not using his time to properly address the matter that he has moved. I think he owes us that respect.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable deputy House leader, I would indeed agree that the honourable member does have a point of order. Rule 35 is very explicit, and I will quote: Speeches shall be directly relevant "to the question under consideration or to a motion or amendment that the Member speaking intends to move."

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, in fact, I was about to end that particular discussion, which was being ably assisted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), by suggesting that I table the document that he wanted read--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Minister of Labour, on a point of order.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Yes, Madam Speaker, all I was interested in was the document there, but, to the extent that I may have led the member for Thompson down an erroneous path, I do apologize to this House.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour does not have a point of order, but I am sure the House accepts his comments with sincerity.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I accept the Minister of Labour's apology.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

I want to stress, though, in terms of what is happening here, that the emperor in this case definitely has no clothes. I mean, it is obvious to everyone. There is hardly anybody left outside of the cabinet in this Chamber, and I do not include a lot of their caucus members who cannot figure it out; and, if they have not looked at the documents I referenced, they should. What is interesting, particularly when we deal with this particular amendment, is that this is a government that fundamentally has not done the due diligence that should be required in any kind of sale, and I have said this on the record. I know a lot of people put a lot of due diligence into small business decision making. When you are going to sell a corner store, when you are going to sell a small business, you go through due diligence. There has been less due diligence on this bill than you would get in the sale of a corner store or small business, and this is a good example of it. I found it amazing following the committee hearings.

It was bad enough that the government deemed consent on such issues as pensions, deemed consent. They had not even consulted with key employee groups until the Thursday, November 7. It was a memorandum that was drafted during that day, and it was a positive memorandum. I have said that. Still more work needs to be done, but I gave credit on that, but what I am saying, they did not even consult with the pension groups. We know they did not consult with Manitobans, but I can put that aside for a moment. I will get back to that.

But they did not consider the fact that, particularly when it comes to First Nations, for example, there is a completely different legal situation that transpires once ownership is transferred. I want to deal with that because that is very relevant to what definitions of land are included in this act and what definitions continue. I do note that this section has already been amended. It has been amended to take out mines, minerals and quartz. We believe serious questions about how far the amendment goes. I want to explain the First Nations issue, because the first point is First Nations' land is not privately owned land. First Nations' land is land held, according to treaties, with the federal government. It is held in trusteeship, and anybody who knows anything about the law or even such areas as commercial lending will tell you that. First Nations will tell you that.

There is a difficulty with dealing with land in First Nations community in the same way as you would elsewhere for very real reasons. You cannot sell off a parcel of reserve land. Reserve land is part of a document, an agreement, that overrides any commercial transactions. It is held in trusteeship.[interjection] The Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) says, we build roads. [interjection] To the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik)--well, the minister says, I am stretching it. I mean, I think the government is stretching this entire bill, quite frankly. But the issue, and I advise the members opposite to be very careful because when I see First Nations with the able legal assistance of one Jack London--[interjection] Well, oh, oh, I would say, oh, oh, if I was members opposite.

Does anybody remember Meech Lake? I mean, I want to repeat what happened with that and some of the legal advice that took place but, you know, the First Nations have a relationship with the Crown that goes back to the Royal Proclamation, the first contact between British settlers and between First Nations in this country. It is a relationship confirmed in the British North America Act. Who has jurisdiction over First Nations issues? It is the federal government and the Crown. It is further confirmed in treaties. Who signed the treaties? The First Nations and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Crown. It is further confirmed in the Constitution of Canada, signed, repatriated Constitution, 1982, once again, by fundamental contact between the Crown and First Nations. That is the basis of the way land is held in trust on reserves.

An Honourable Member: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs says, it has nothing to do with it, and I would note that he is the Minister of Northern Affairs. One of his responsibilities, I believe, should be to talk to First Nations about the very real concerns.

I want to deal with the question of easements, attachments, et cetera. First of all, the very real legal question has been raised about the fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs and indeed Northern Affairs at the federal level has to, as part of that trusteeship, agree to any transfer of liens, easements, et cetera, rights of way that are part and parcel of this. That is the essential legal point that is being proposed by the First Nations, and I say to the Minister responsible for MTS, do not take my word for it, talk to First Nations--[interjection] Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs, I am surprised at the Minister of Northern Affairs, he says, there is no transfer. I am really surprised. Well, he says, if I knew the law. You know, if he knew what First Nations were saying right now, I think he would be out there meeting with them the same way he did with pensioners. There is a real problem, there is a real concern.

An Honourable Member: No, there is not.

Mr. Ashton: Oh, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), says that, no, there is not. Is it not interesting that once again Conservative ministers are speaking for First Nations. [interjection] Oh, now we get into the telephone poll. You know, like, I have had one call on the issue.

To the Minister of Northern Affairs, have you not heard about the legal action that is being contemplated on this issue? I mean, you do not have to have a lot of calls, all you have to do is one document filed in court, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is successful and you have got a problem. I mean, you have already got one lawsuit. You do not have to take my word for it. The counsel, Mr. Nugent, stated today, put on the record that there was a lawsuit and pointed out that the Consumer Associations, the Manitoba Society of Seniors all wanted to be participants in the proceedings, has taken the matter before the Manitoba courts, trying to set aside the privatization bill on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. They have already got one lawsuit.

An Honourable Member: On what basis?

* (1530)

Mr. Ashton: On what basis? Actually, to the Minister responsible for MTS, on the basis of a court decision that was made in Quebec which was successful, which I understand was appealed and may be subject to further appeal, the same constitutional issue. I say this to the Minister responsible for MTS because, do not get dissuaded by the Minister of Northern Affairs and others. This is a real concern out there. It is partly the legal, it is partly also the very real symbolic relationship for First Nations when you are dealing with matters such as this.

Do not forget that when MTS operated as a publicly owned institution, there were two key factors for First Nations. First of all, MTS has a reputation throughout First Nations communities that is impeccable in terms of providing service to those communities. It has provided services throughout northern Manitoba, throughout Manitoba generally in rural areas and it has been a leader in northern areas. I mean, when I go to Nelson House today, for example, Nelson House not only has a fully functioning phone service as part of the call areas, it has its own Web page, its own Internet site. Indeed, it is a great community and in fact other communities are now becoming part of the mainstream.

An Honourable Member: They could not have it when you were in government, they have got it now.

Mr. Ashton: Oh, well, it is interesting to the former Minister of Northern Affairs who has the dubious distinction of driving the Tory vote in the Thompson constituency in the last election below the NDP vote in Arthur-Virden. That is a record to be proud of. I remember him and the current Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) arguing over who was responsible for doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Either way, I would be embarrassed if I was the Minister of Northern Affairs talking about anything to do with northern Manitoba, because the people of northern Manitoba spoke in volumes in the last election, particularly people at Nelson House. You know how bad it was in Nelson House? They barred the Tory candidate from the riding. They said, you are not walking here. You know how many votes they got? They got five votes, five votes in Nelson House. So let the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) not lecture me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members if they could keep the decorum to a mild roar. The honourable member for Thompson had been staying relevant until such time as some people went on a fishing expedition, so I would really appreciate it if we would allow him to maintain his relevancy to the motion before the House.

Mr. Ashton: I just will conclude on that section by saying that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) calls it a good start with five votes. I think in the previous election they had 10, so you can see the trend line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

But the point is there is a distinct relationship between First Nations and the Crown, and I mention this because when you are dealing with MTS, as a publicly owned corporation there is that service element. Believe you me, and I say this with no offence to Hydro but given the history of Manitoba Hydro's dealing, there is a whole lot of a different response that is received with Manitoba Hydro. They have done a lot of work not only in terms of getting into communities, but Bob Brennan--and I give him a lot of credit for dealing with the historic distrust that Manitoba Hydro has developed in the past 25, 30 years as an institution.

That is not the case with MTS. MTS has always been welcome in First Nations communities, but I want to point out that what you have essentially, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is also the fact that MTS is a Crown corporation. You cannot underestimate the significance of that to First Nations. For many First Nations people, when it comes to granting easements for Manitoba Telephone System access, we are dealing with a situation for those First Nations dealing with the Crown--and I realize the Deputy Premier's concern; he cannot stay and heckle me. I will stay after we are officially closed so he can get it out of his system. I know he is just bubbling away. I know he wants to call rural Manitobans socialists again. I really know that is really important to him, and if he wants to, I will grant leave at the end of my 40 minutes. He can get up and go on a 40-minute diatribe on how all the opponents to the sale of MTS are diehard socialists here.

But I digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the government has to realize with First Nations, there is a distinct issue here. For many First Nations now, if--and I say if and I say this to the Liberals. Well, theoretically, I say this to the Liberal members, who I am sure will read my comments in Hansard. When I hear them get up in the House and say, well, now that you are selling off MTS, and we are sort of against it--well, mind you, their Leader is sort of in favour of it. She is in favour of privatizing in principle but not the way it is being done, so I do not know how that works. I do not know how she would rather do it.

To my mind, it is like the Liberals are kind of firmly on the fence on this one, on both sides of the issue, but I do not think you can be on Bill 67. There are only two choices at the end of this vote, for or against it. We are against Bill 67; the government is in favour of it. But the Liberals say, their argument was--and I heard this today--well, now that you are selling it off, let us talk about the money here. They are almost rubbing their hands. They want to spend the money before it has even been--[interjection] I have news for the Liberals. It ain't over yet. It ain't over till it's over, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some people thought it would be over a little while ago. It is still not over.

I know some people wish it was over, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but until we have dealt with every single amendment including this one, it ain't over till it's over.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable deputy House leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the pressure that the member for Thompson sometimes comes under when members of this side of the House or members of other benches heckle and make comment and lead him astray. I think we all have to endeavour to ensure that the member can address the matter at hand, which is changing the definition of land. In the course of his remarks, I have heard some commentary, but he seems to easily stray off to matters that he is more familiar rather than the detail of which he discussing.

I would ask Mr. Deputy Speaker to call him to order and I will hope that members on this side will endeavour not to help assist him in getting off track as he appears to so easily do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that suggestion, but he did not have a point of order. The honourable member for Thompson had digressed but at periodical times he has been returning to the subject matter before the House.

I would ask though that the House assist me. If we want him to remain relevant, I think it is important that we listen to what he has to say and that will help him to remain relevant to the matter before us.

Mr. Ashton: If I do amble at times, I would just point out that one of things we are doing by this amendment is deleting reference to paths, passages, ways, water courses, water orders, water rights, water powers, water privileges. So, if I do seem to amble at times, it is perhaps because that is what we want to do, get rid of the ambling in the bill. So there is some relevance even with that.

The reason I referenced the Liberals--oh, and I take back the theoretical--is because this bill is not over. I hope the minister responsible will inform that to the Liberals. Until each and every amendment is dealt with, this is not a fait accompli. I cannot stress that--[interjection] I was talking about how the Liberals were trying to spend the money for MTS before it was even sold. [interjection] Okay, all right, and I thank you. Well, you were here, and I know you are always here in spirit too. So I did not mention anything other, so you do not have to worry about that.

But I was only focusing on the approach in that, because the Liberal approach here, and I will be interested to see, as I said--

An Honourable Member: You think you can provoke me to stand up and debate.

Mr. Ashton: Well, I hope I do provoke debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) might want to be aware that the honourable member is dealing with an amendment that is dealing with the definition of land. It would be much more appropriate if we would allow him to continue his debate and be relevant to that matter.

The honourable member for Thompson, to continue.

Mr. Ashton: Thank you, and actually I was appreciating the assistance from the member for Inkster. I do think it is important for all members to participate in this debate. I know he was listening to my comments, and I appreciate that. I look forward to his defence of the position his leader has taken on this issue.

Because this is relevant to this amendment, I am wondering when the Liberal leader says that they are in favour of this except the way it is being dealt with. For example, if this amendment is passed, will they then support the bill? There are 37 other amendments. I say that to the Liberal member because--I do not mean this personally, because I know the member for Inkster has opposed this bill from Day One. I just find it interesting because there is a problem when you get into that position like the Liberal Party has in Manitoba now, where they are sort of on the one side and the other side.

If we pass this amendment, is this good enough? We have 38--how many have I got left?--36 other amendments. If they are all passed by the Legislature, is then the process improved enough that they support the bill? I guess one of the concerns I have is, I do not see any way of making this bill better other than--even if you pass 90 percent of our amendments, including this one, the principle still applies. The only way this bill would be acceptable to our side is if a later amendment requires that the bill be put to a vote before it could be proclaimed, if that was part of it. That is the only amendment in here that would make it acceptable to this side of the House.

In fact, and if I am going out on a limb here, but I think that amendment and maybe a few others, if you were to pass those amendments, we would probably let this bill go straight through to third reading. We would not really need to deal with the others because, you know what, it goes to a vote, it is over--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: --and that is what I am talking about, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the key amendments. I appreciate your keeping the focus on this, because I want to know, is this one of those amendments that the Liberals want that will change their mind on this issue? I am almost afraid to bring in amendments in case the Liberals go, aha, that is it, now we have exactly what we want, we are actually now in favour of the sale, we believe it in principle, and now it is the right process.

* (1540)

I do not want to go that far. I do not want to amend this bill, and I hope the House leader will, the member for Inkster will tell me if there are any of these amendments that might trigger them to go the other way. I may reconsider whether I bring them in, because I still have hope that the three Liberals are going to vote with the 23 New Democrats, and two members of conscience on the government side.

An Honourable Member: I will vote.

Mr. Ashton: He will vote. I know he will vote against it. He will vote against the bill, but you know, I have faith. I still have. I had a lot more faith too when I heard the members on the other side defy their MTS minister in trying to vote down one of our amendments.

An Honourable Member: Just like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) did in the committee.

Mr. Ashton: Oh, I know. It is interesting. The Minister of Finance in committee actually, on an amendment, put his hand up to support our position. You heard of Freudian slips; these are Freudian votes. Their hands just wanted to go up. I saw some of them. I am sure there was a twitch there going on, and I think a number of them were just keeping their arms from just popping right up and voting in favour of this. I heard those nays today. I really think there were some government members. Listen, I thought it was government backbenchers, but the Minister of Finance. I would be interested to see on this amendment, we could set a pattern. What if we were to go through all 38 amendments that I have introduced and if they were to support every single one of them? My goodness, you know, would that not be an achievement?

An Honourable Member: You would still vote against the bill at the end of the day, would not you?

Mr. Ashton: Do you know what is interesting? The member opposite says, we would still vote against the bill at the end of the day. If you vote for the section that says it cannot be proclaimed unless there is a referendum, then you do not have a problem anymore. [interjection] Hey, listen, let us talk about it here. We may have a way of getting consensus on this bill. I appreciate the member opposite's comments because it is interesting. He is looking for ways to build consensus on this bill here. Let us start. We can pass this amendment, but do you know what? I think it is really interesting--

An Honourable Member: You would still vote against the bill.

Mr. Ashton: The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) says we would vote against the bill. You put in a reference to--[interjection] I say this to the member for Emerson because, if he wants to put in the section on putting it to a vote here, that may be a very interesting proposition. I am sure we would be out of here very quick, and I think everybody would be happy with it.

Do you know what? You would win some, and you would lose some. I have been on the losing side of elections before. To the member for Emerson, you win some, you lose some. You have been on the winning side of some and the losing side of others. You have to accept that.

An Honourable Member: You cannot raise mushrooms everywhere. You cannot leave everybody in the dark.

Mr. Ashton: Well, it is interesting about keeping people in the dark--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I remind all honourable members that they will all have an opportunity to put their voices on the record at a later date and that the honourable member for Thompson at this time has the floor, and I know he is trying real hard to be relevant towards the amendment that is before the House at this time.

The honourable member for Thompson, to continue.

Mr. Ashton: I am trying, for the member for Emerson, to shed some light on this, because the government has not had a single informational meeting on the implications of this section or any section in this bill.

I would say that the government might have some ability to get up and criticize us for bringing in this amendment. If they had had the courage to travel around Manitoba and have public hearings in every corner of this province--it is interesting, the Minister responsible for MTS talks about editorials. How about the Brandon Sun? I think they actually support the position of the government, but they said they had blown it. They said you are blaming people out in rural Manitoba. You are calling all New Democrats and socialists--they said, a lot of average folk out there are against this. They said, you should have held public hearings; you should explain your position. I think the fact that they have not had a single public meeting anywhere in the province is proof positive that this government does not have a leg to stand on. It cannot make the argument. It cannot, in any way, shape or form, get public support for this bill, and I think they made that decision right from the beginning.

They did not want public hearings because they knew that they would run into difficulty. They cannot get up--and I mentioned this before. At some point in time, you go to a public meeting and the emperor has no clothes, someone is going to say, the emperor has no clothes.

If the Premier goes to a public meeting, if he dares, on MTS, people are going to say, you do not have a leg to stand on on this issue. You do not know what you are talking about. They will be waving the CRTC documents around. They will be talking about the common sense of it. Do you know what people are saying at our public meetings? They say this about the government: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. They are saying, you cannot fool us. That is why the government--oh, they came out with a brilliant strategy. They do not want to go out and explain the impact to this, and I find it interesting.

The member for The Maples' (Mr. Kowalski) father came. What was he talking about? Easements. Here is an average citizen, and I am sure he probably has a greater than average interest in the political process because of his son's involvement as an MLA. I credit him for coming out to the committee, and he stayed throughout the hearings and made a very good presentation. Those are the people who have a lot of questions. Call a public meeting. We are concerned about this broad definition of land here. Is it necessary? You have already deleted the mines and minerals section. Do you need to pass passages, water courses, air rights, licences, liberties, privileges, easements, and pertaining thereto and all trees, timbers? Do we need that? [interjection] The messuages. Yes, do not forget the messuages, and I am prepared to explain what that means if I am allowed leave to go past my 40 minutes which is one minute last.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this kind of detail is subject to real questions out there. We have received questions, a number of people have raised questions, not just the member for The Maples' father, about easements, et cetera. First Nations are raising those questions. They are real questions. If the government is so sure they can be answered, why not answer them? I say to the minister responsible, for example, he can start tonight. At the Dugald Community Centre at 7:30 we have a public meeting. He is invited. I have sent him an official invitation. I hope he will come tonight and he will ask his constituents in Springfield what questions they have and will actually answer them. You know what, I repeat that invitation. He has received a written invitation to it. We are quite prepared to give the minister all the time he needs in the world to explain to his constituents about this and other issues relating to MTS. I hope he is there.

In fact, I have an open invitation to any Conservative members across the way: if you want to set up a public meeting or if you get a chance, you can get up and call me whatever you want at a public meeting. I will come. You can call me. You can blame me for this, that and the other. You can call all those people out there socialists if you want. You can do that. But how about if we have public meetings throughout the province to explain what the real issues about MTS are with the people of Manitoba? You and I will have a joint meeting with all our members of the caucus.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up and speak in support of the amendment to delete a portion of the definition of "land" from the definition of "land" in Bill 67, the bill to privatize the Manitoba Telephone System.

I would like to speak in dealing with this amendment in two areas: one is the process, and the other is the impact. Now this amendment on the surface of it, you wonder why this amendment is here. Why are we asking for the deletion of this part of the definition of "land"? [interjection] and I am wondering if the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) would care to answer the question that I just posed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, on a point of order.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I wanted to indicate by what I had just said here was when she asked, the answer to the question, I think, is that their ideologically--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable minister up on a point of order?

Mrs. McIntosh: No, I was just going to respond to--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington, to continue.

Ms. Barrett: I was going to say that we were raising this amendment because we are ideologically hidebound, and if I have put the wrong words on the record, I know the Minister of Education will certainly correct me, as the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) corrected the Minister of Education earlier in Question Period today. It is important that when people make positions and make statements on the record that they are sure of the accuracy of those.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let us start the debate off by being relevant to the amendment that is before us. I do believe the honourable member has a copy of the amendment before us, so I would ask her to be relevant towards that amendment.

The honourable member for Wellington, to continue.

* (1550)

Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yes, I was beginning by saying rhetorically, I guess, why would the New Democrats put in this amendment? We have a number of amendments that we have to deal with in this--

An Honourable Member: Thirty-nine.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, 39 in total or 39 more. I have not even counted them.

An Honourable Member: Thirty-six more.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, 36 more amendments to deal with in this piece of legislation. Why are we dealing with this particular one in the definition? Usually definitions are fairly straightforward, and they do not cause a lot of concern and trouble. Well, this particular amendment, as I understand it from having discussed it with my colleagues and having listened to some of the discussion here this afternoon, does have a great deal of relevance to the import and the impact of Bill 67 on the people of Manitoba, on all of the people of Manitoba in one sense and on a smaller number of the people of Manitoba in another sense. I will get into that when I talk in terms of the impact that this amendment will have on the people of Manitoba, the impact that not voting for this amendment will have on the people of Manitoba as well as the impact of, we hope, the continuation of the government in seeing the validity of the amendments which we have brought forward and that they will vote with us in this amendment.

I would like to speak to the process that has led to this particular amendment, the process that shows, we believe, because of the elements in the definition of land that the government has put into this piece of legislation to our way of thinking, that the process that they undertook in developing Bill 67 from the beginning to end was flawed. This amendment itself is only one part of that.

We have stated that we believe that the government knew before the provincial election a year and a half ago that they were intent upon privatizing the telephone system. The government has stated that was not the case, but we believe that in effect is actually the case. We believe that and have been shown in the process of Bill 67, the way it was introduced, the way it was handled at the public hearings, the way it was handled in the committee when it was going clause by clause, the way it is being handled in the House as we come to report stage and ultimately after discussion of this amendment and other amendments, third reading, while the government talks about its competency in introducing legislation and dealing with legislation, the way that this bill has been handled from first to last--and I think I am being charitable here--shows the incompetency of the government. If it is not an incompetency factor, then it is a factor of--and I am trying to think of a word that I can use that will be parliamentary--putting things over on the people of Manitoba. It comes from the understanding very clearly understood by caucus members when they were even candidates, before they were even caucus members, that they had as their intention to privatize the telephone system.

They knew that they were going to do it. They also knew that the people of Manitoba would not appreciate that, so that they did not make it as part of their election platform except when they were asked. And several of their candidates, including some who are currently in the House today said--erroneously as it turns out, and I believe erroneously knowing that it was erroneously stated--that there were no plans to privatize the telephone system.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that an argument could be made that one of the reasons the process has been so poorly--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member might have to explain to me how the process is relevant towards this section.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the connection between the process on Bill 67 as a whole and the amendment that we are putting forward in the "definition of land" is that I believe that an argument can be made that in the definition of land the process was not thought out. We are trying to help the government in making a definition of land that is more accurate.

We believe that the process that was followed by the government had to be done in sort of a very quiet covert manner because they had told the people of Manitoba they were not going to privatize the telephone system, and so they could not act in an open, above-board manner. Part of the problem that we see in the whole process that it has gone through with this whole bill including the definition of land in the definition section is that the government, because it chose not to consult, because it chose not to talk with people who had a particular interest in the impact of the sale of the telephone system such as the people who are affected by the definition of land in this amendment, as well as the entire province of Manitoba.

Because they knew that they were going against the wishes of the people of Manitoba, because they knew that they were on very shaky ground, they did not do in this definition of land what they should have done. What they should have done was, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has stated, they should have consulted with the people who were going to be affected by this. They should have gone to the First Nations. They should have gone to the federal government. They should have said, okay, this is what we are going to do. We are going to go against our election promise. We made a decision that we are going to do that. We are going to privatize the Telephone System. In the act, one of the things we are going to have to do is we are going to have to deal with easements; we are going to have to deal with Crown lands; we are going to have to deal with land that is under treaty rights established between the federal government and the aboriginal First Nations. So how do we do that so that we protect our process?

Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clearly, they did not do that. The First Nations have told the government, the First Nations have told us, that they have never once been consulted on the impact that the sale of Manitoba Telephone System will have on them, particularly as First Nations. Now, the impact of the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System will be great on everybody in the province of Manitoba, but in the definition of land as proposed by Bill 67, it has particularly focused impact, we believe, on the First Nations, but because the government knew that they had to go behind the province's back, that they could not discuss this in the light of day, that it had to be done in the basements of the Legislature, metaphorically speaking, that it could not be done in good consultation. What has happened is that the entire bill is riddled with problems.

Whether you talk about your position, your principled position in opposition to the sale of the Telephone System, leaving that aside, the bill itself as exemplified by the definition of land which we are amending, the bill itself in its entirety is full of contradictions, is full of things that cannot possibly take place, is full of stuff that even the government admits. To take a case in point, what actually happened in committee when the committee went clause by clause is that the government itself brought in 26 amendments--26 amendments to a bill that is only 31 pages long.

Well, just to compare that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am talking about why we are proposing this land amendment, because it is part of a larger problem that the government has in this, The Municipal Act which was a brand new act, the first time in over a hundred years that a municipal act had been put together, the Minister of Rural Development went out and he consulted. He talked for over two years with virtually everybody in the province of Manitoba who would be impacted by this with one small exception and that being the City of Winnipeg, and there was a problem that was brought to the minister's attention about that. But, by and large, The Municipal Act, the process was undertaken very well.

* (1600)

You know what, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because that process was undertaken in the proper fashion, there were very, very few amendments that were brought forward by the government to The Municipal Act and very few amendments, I might add, that were brought forward to The Municipal Act by the opposition, because the process was undertaken properly.

Not only that, but the amendments that were brought forward by the government were amendments that were a reflection of and a response to the public hearings, the things that the people of the province of Manitoba said to the government in the public hearing process, were listened to by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and responded to with a series of amendments that he brought forward and that we in many cases, in most cases, agreed to because they were good amendments, and they showed the Minister of Rural Development's commitment to the legislative process that we all should be responding to.

In the case of the government and the Manitoba Telephone System, they had ample opportunity to listen to concerns that were raised and specifically concerns that are probably not only being dealt with in the amendment before us now on the definition of land, but that will be dealt with in other amendments, they did not listen to nor did they consult with the people most affected by this definition of land, and that is the First Nations. [interjection] No. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) says he has not received a phone call from the First Nations.

I would suggest to the Minister of Northern Affairs that it is his responsibility as one of the members of the government that is putting in place this act, which will have an enormous impact on all of the people of the province of Manitoba and most particularly on the people that his department is supposed to be representing, it was his responsibility to say, wait a minute, let us look at the definition of land.

This is an enormous change, but the minister did not look at that. The minister changed, eliminated, and all mines, minerals and quarries, from the definition. Why did the minister not deal with the issues around easements and around water, air rights, all of these things that, according to our understanding, are issues that relate to Crown lands and issues that relate to the First Nations people of the province of Manitoba?

The minister, the government, was put on notice several days ago by a question asked in the House by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) tabling letters and concerns raised by First Nations about this particular issue, about the fact that First Nations do not believe the government has the right to transfer those Crown lands to a private corporation, and that is specifically what this amendment does. It says that land as defined does not include those Crown lands that are Crown lands as a basis of, as a result of treaties between the federal Crown, provincial Crown and the First Nations people.

So I would say that the due diligence in the largest sense of the word has not been done in the MTS bill as a whole but, most particularly, in defining what land means.

I would like to talk about the impact that this amendment, or not passing, perhaps, this amendment, will have. In effect, if I am reading this properly, what this--[interjection] The Minister of Northern--the Minister of Urban Affairs or the Minister of Northern Affairs says that I am not reading the act properly. I would like to, rhetorically only, ask the minister how he knows I am not reading it properly when I have not even had a chance to say what I think the impact is going to be. Clearly, he does not care to listen to anything. Their ears are closed. Their minds are closed. They are not prepared to debate in any meaningful fashion this incredibly important piece of legislation, and if he is not prepared to listen he can at least stop chirping from his seat.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If we continue along those lines we will be into a debate between the honourable members. At this time the honourable member should revert back to what she was dealing with, and that is the amendment before the House.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am talking about and will talk about--whether I am heard by the government members or not we will be heard and are being heard by the people of Manitoba. I am talking about the impact that the current definition of land will have on the people of Manitoba as a whole and most particularly on the First Nations. If this amendment does not pass, if in effect Crown lands are left in the definition of land, then what will happen is that Crown lands, which are now controlled by a Crown corporation as a result of treaty negotiations between the Crown and the First Nations, with those benefits of Crown ownership, Crown lands being felt by and having benefits attributed to all of the residents and citizens of the province of Manitoba in general and most particularly benefits accruing to the First Nations.

If this definition is not amended, the current situation, as is now the case, will be changed and what will ultimately happen is that those Crown lands that are currently beneficial to one million, one hundred and some thousand residents of the province of Manitoba, those benefits will now be given over to a private corporation, and a private corporation, the ultimate ownership of which we are morally and legally convinced, will, within four years, potentially go to a private corporation not only that is not owned by all of the citizens of the province of Manitoba, as the Crown corporation is now, but that could very easily be owned entirely by non-Manitobans and even non-Canadians.

So Crown lands that currently are held in trust to all of the people of Manitoba will now potentially go solely under ownership to a private corporation such as AT&T, the largest communications company in the world, a communications company that is advertising hourly on our television screens, and that is making tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of calls to the people of Manitoba getting ready to take over not only our publicly owned telephone system, but the Crown lands that are delineated under the current definition of land.

If this government is not prepared to listen to this, if they have not, in a sense, made a mistake in their lack of due diligence in drafting this legislation, if they really meant and mean to have lands as defined here include the Crown lands that we believe they include, then this government has shown even larger lack of control or concern for the people of Manitoba than we first thought.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to put a few things on record because when you look at this amendment, it is an excellent amendment because it will hopefully protect a lot of citizens of Manitoba.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

As a private landowner, I know, for myself, if a Crown corporation came to me and wanted to use part of my land to help others, in most cases, I would say, sure go ahead and do it and sign whatever agreements that they wanted because, as a socialist, I have always believed in sharing what you have and enable to have the ability to help others. But, if it is a private individual that wanted to build a store or whatever on my land, then I would have to say that I have the right to charge you rent because you will be profiting from the use of my land. So, if you will profit, then I should make some kind of a profit.

So, when I think in those terms, and I am really surprised that the government has not dealt with some of the land issues, the first thing that comes to mind when the government is dealing with First Nations communities. That agreement that was signed between the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Province of Manitoba on behalf of MTS, or the Minister of Indian Affairs and MTS, was signed in good faith. It was Crown to Crown because reserves are Crown land, which is owned by Indian Affairs, and MTS, the way it is today, that is Crown land. So you are dealing Crown to Crown; but, if you change the definition of one or the other, then you have Crown versus private. Whichever is the one that is asked to give their rights or give their land away for nothing to a private individual or company for profit purposes, I do not think anyone in this room would ever agree to that, if they were the ones that owned that parcel of land that a private individual or private company was going to profit from.

So if you look at that, how can the government say that we will just transfer the lease agreement that we have with Indian Affairs from a Crown corporation to a private company, and everything will go along as in the past? If you read the agreement and if you read the document that was sent by Opaskwayak Cree Nation, they are very concerned.

* (1610)

For instance, they start off by saying the microwave tower on the Umpherville Road which was leased to MTS, when MTS divided into separate corporations, the lease was assigned to MTS NetCom which is currently the lessee. This is standard commercial lease which requires ministerial consent for any transfers such as an assignment, relinquishment, et cetera. Failure on the part of the lessee to obtain consent would make the transaction void.

Even for the government of Manitoba or MTS to go the Minister of Indian Affairs to ask for blanket approval for a private company to use reserve land, that minister cannot give blanket approval because that minister should go back to every leader and the people of that reserve to get the consent of a new agreement, because it is a new agreement.

Also, it goes on to say, to the best of our knowledge, neither MTS nor their subcompanies have contacted our First Nation with regard to any transaction or the sale of MTS. We are aware that Indian Affairs and MTS have had some discussions regarding the blanket permits which are in existence on most reserves in Manitoba. Those discussions have not been extended to include our reserve.

Now, there is a problem here. We keep talking about MTS and the government have to consult with people, and this is a good indication where obviously that has not occurred in the First Nations communities, and I hope before this bill passes that they will put together quick hearings, so people can have their say, because how can you just ram something through onto people hoping that the agreement you have or should have is the right one?

It goes on to say, the blanket permits which were utilized to allow MTS to install services on the OCN reserves are agreements for as long as required for the purposes described. Although it is now Indian Affairs policy that permits cannot be assigned, the MTS blanket permit provides that the permittee agrees not to assign or sublet the rights hereby granted without the written consent of the minister, and the minister cannot give written consent without consulting each individual band. The bands have to give their agreement to the minister on their behalf, and I know that that has not been done.

The permit may be terminated by the minister if the permittee is in default in the performance of any of the conditions in their permit for a period of thirty days, so if it goes on to say that we have an agreement, and if the bands say, no, we do not have an agreement, and it is taken to court and the bands win, what happens after 30 days?

Also, another interesting paragraph in this letter, it says MTS has installed their infrastructure along highway rights-of-way throughout the province. Is there going to be an automatic agreement provided to a new non-Crown company? Further to this, highways such as in front of Otineka Mall were expropriated from reserves for road purposes. The Order-in-Council mentions nothing about other uses.

Further yet, there are several highways in this area which remain reserve land, yet both have telephone and hydro services installed within the right-of-way. This situation has been brought to the province's attention December of 1995, but no response has been received to date. Well, why? If they were requesting information at that time, you would think now would be a crucial time for the government to try and get some correspondence and communications going with First Nations communities. Like I said earlier, when you are dealing Crown to Crown, a lot of times you get full co-operation and it is an easy thing to do, but when it becomes Crown to private, that is a whole different matter.

A First Nations individual can go and hunt on any Crown, as long as it is not a park, on any Crown, but a First Nations' individual cannot go hunt on private land unless they get the permission of the land owner. So would you not think that onuses would be the same if you reversed those roles, that if a private person wanted to do something on a reserve for their own profit, whether it is to feed their families or put in a telephone system or build a store, I am sure they would have to get the permission from the band members or even the Minister of Indian Affairs, who, in turn, cannot give approval, I am sure, without getting approval from individual bands. So that is 61 different communities that this government, hopefully, will deal with, because if you go ahead and do the agreement, hopefully, understanding that you have a blanket agreement and if it is proven not to be in 30 days, what happens? If the agreement is there, fine. Give it to us. Tell the people.

In the Indian Act, it says right here: Every transaction purporting to pass the title to any property that is by this section deemed to be situated on a reserve or any interest in such property is void unless a transaction is entered into with the consent of the minister or is entered into between members of a band or between the band and a member thereof.

So I think that should explain itself. I hope that this government will take those letters that were tabled by our member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), that was given to him by his band, because they are very concerned, and I think all citizens should be because First Nations people and all aboriginal people, I think, have to be taken seriously. It goes on to say--this letter is from Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Canada, and it goes on to say in 9, the permittee agrees not to sign or sublet the rights hereby granted without the written consent of the minister.

I hope the government has that written consent, and I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs has got the approval by band members, because the old days of just ramming things through, I do not think, are here any longer. In the First Nations and all aboriginal communities we have strong leadership, and we have more consulting going on in those communities than has ever happened in the past.

Also in No. 7. it says, during the term of this lease the lessee will not assign, sublet, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise encumber this lease or part with possession of the whole or any part of the demised land without the consent in writing of the lessor first, first had and obtained, that any purported assignment, subletting, mortgage, pledge or hypothecation shall, in the absence of such consent, be void. The lessor agrees that such consent shall not be unnecessarily withheld, and that consent to any mortgage shall be deemed to include consent to the right of the mortgage or exercise any power of sale or chattel or remedy under the mortgage.

In No. 8. it goes on to say, if at any time during the continuance of the term hereby granted the lessee be permitted in the manner hereinbefore provided to sign or sublet the demised land or any part thereof the amount of rent set out here and shall be subject to revision.

* (1620)

I am glad it says "subject to revision" because, if the understanding is Crown to Crown and now Crown to private, I am sure the bands will be asking for some form of compensation. At least I hope they will, because the reason I say I hope they will is because you only have to go into any First Nations community and you will see such a shortage of housing, employment opportunities, and any way that the bands can generate some revenues to help their people has to be a plus.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

When you are going into a new agreement, or if that will be the case, the revenues that could be generated from rent or the amount of compensation paid for use of reserve land could really go to offsetting a lot of the child poverty that we see in Canada.

The revenues generated need to be directed because yesterday you heard on radio, you saw on television, I am sure you read the papers where Barb Gray, who is a Winnipeg schoolteacher, she said she "watched a child come to her school in sneakers yesterday--because the child's sister was quicker to grab their only pair of boots." Now, is this Canada we are living in?

So any form of revenues that can be generated by First Nations or any community that could be used to help eliminate child poverty has to be a plus. And it goes on to say, "That's not unusual, said Gray, a Winnipeg schoolteacher." "There are lots of hungry kids out here." "If you're hungry and you're cold and you're tired, you can't pay attention."

So you just think about that. Anyone that says, you know, a private corporation is there to only make money for their shareholders, and that is what a private company is all about, when you sell shares, you are there to make money for your shareholders, so if there is a way that First Nations can reap some of the benefit of a sale of MTS, a Crown corporation--[interjection] The minister says, buy shares. Like, how, what world do you live in?

I am just talking to you about how poor a lot of those communities are. They cannot even buy shoes, and you say, they should go buy shares. Like, how can you buy, why would you buy shares instead of shoes for your children? Where is the priority? So how can you sit there and say that? If they do not have money for shoes for their children, they are not going to have money to buy shares in MTS or any corporation. That is what I have been saying from Day One. What will happen to those people that have telephones today because they are subsidized by a Crown corporation, they are subsidized by all the users, and the way it should be? [interjection] That is what you say, in the future, till when? Four years from now, and then what happens? The rate rates will go up because, as you know, in northern communities--

An Honourable Member: Read the press release from the CRTC.

Mr. Hickes: Would you put it in the bill? If the government is serious about the rates staying the same, I wish they would put it in their bill so that the citizens of Manitoba can have a better understanding and maybe if the minister puts it into the bill, you might get support out there instead of 78 percent of your rural members of Manitoba saying they do not support the sale of MTS. Now, if 78 percent of the rural population does not support--CRTC is not in business to look after people that need a pair of shoes for their child to go to school. That is not how it works, and you know that. CRTC will look at how much it costs to run the telephone company, how much they have to pay out for new taxes now, because they will be a private company, and how much they need to pay their shareholders, and if you think the rates will go down, I do not know. You know, put it into your bill guaranteeing to all citizens of Manitoba that, yes, the rates will stay the same or the rates will go down. Put it into your bill. If you are that confident, put it into your bill. [interjection] Competition for who?

Will the most members of the First Nations communities, most members of northern communities, will they be able to compete, will they be shareholders? Most constituents in Point Douglas, will they be shareholders? Will they--[interjection] When the stocks are down. Now, how can you say that when I gave you an example. The cost of telephones right now are even difficult for some individuals to maintain, and in Winnipeg, it is $13.30; rural $12.90; northern Manitoba $11.75. So you mean to tell me that once it is privatized and they have to pay the true cost for a telephone in Gods Lake Narrows, the private company will subsidize those rates? Sorry, I cannot answer that call because the private company is not there to help individuals as Crown corporations are there for everyone to make the phones accessible to people, to keep the rates down. A private company is there for profits for their shareholders, simple as that.

An Honourable Member: To satisfy our customers and keep their service.

Mr. Hickes: That is right.

An Honourable Member: And make profit.

Mr. Hickes: And make profit. Who is going to buy shares if the company is losing money because they are subsidizing northern and rural users? Are you going to line up to buy shares for that? Of course not. No investor will.

An Honourable Member: It is going to be interesting to read these comments back in about three years.

Mr. Hickes: Yes, for sure it will be. Then it goes on. When I was talking about, I hope that the First Nations will get some benefits. I hope all citizens that need the help will get it, because you just look at what has happened to child poverty in Manitoba. The number of children living in poverty has jumped 46 percent since 1989 when Ottawa pledged to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000 according to Stats Canada. In Winnipeg about 42,000 children were living in poverty in 1994. That represents an almost 17 percent jump from 1989.

Jerry MacNeil, who is the executive director of the Manitoba school association, said that the escalating number of poor children has trustees worried.

Well, I hope it has all citizens of Manitoba worried because, if we can use any dollars that are either gained through the governments or gained through whatever means is earmarked to help child poverty, I applaud.

It also goes on to say: It is very, very difficult to teach children whose stomachs are empty. These are the future leaders of our province. We need to give all children an equal opportunity to be what they can be and to give an opportunity to all children, whether rich or poor, to fulfil their dreams. With kids going to school on an empty stomach, that will not solve that problem. We have to make sure that we find ways for all children to have the opportunity to at least go to school with a full stomach.

If it is to be the sale of MTS to help the First Nations communities to at least help a little bit to this way, I would applaud the First Nations to stand up for all Manitobans and, hopefully, stop the sale of MTS for all the citizens of the province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to take a few minutes to say that I support the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). When we look at this amendment, I have to say to the government that, had they listened to the public and had they gone out to rural and northern Manitoba and heard what people had to say about this and not been afraid to face the people, they might have been able to address these concerns.

I have to say that the concern about easements has been raised by the aboriginal community, as my colleague from Point Douglas has indicated, but the issue of easements has also been raised in the farming community. Thousands of people--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) will have 19 minutes remaining.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, given the opposition's interest in debating these very important matters that are before the House, this side is certainly more than prepared to grant leave to waive private members' hour to allow for this matter to continue for a further hour of debate.

You may wish to canvass the House to see if there is leave. This side of the House is prepared to grant that leave; and, considering it is a government member's resolution today, we are prepared to give up that time to all members to address these important issues.

* (1630)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I was going to ask the question.

Mr. Hickes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the government is asking leave to debate MTS. We feel on this side of the House that all issues pertaining to Manitoba is very important, as is MTS, but tourism is also very important to us, as is health and education.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Point Douglas does not have a point of order. Is there--

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, just for the clarification of the member for Point Douglas, I can appreciate--perhaps I caught him a little off guard. I understand that the next resolution before the House is one to be put forward by the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) on tourism, and this side of the House is more than prepared, the member for La Verendrye is more than prepared, to waive private members' hour and debate on that resolution in order to allow for the consideration of the amendments that the opposition is moving forward.

They have come to this House and made a very strong argument about the importance of their resolution. We are prepared to give them--I just wanted to make sure that he was aware of matters that we are prepared to give up in order to further their opportunity to debate.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to waive private members' hour?

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No, leave has been denied.