Manitoba Hansard — 25 January 1984 (Sitting 168, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-168

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 168 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 25 JANUARY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Quee ns Printer, Province of Mlll'liloba

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

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 25 January, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS Bill No. 115 - closure motion MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the First Minister.

Is it the government's intention to have Bill 11 5, when it is before the comm ittee, have the comm ittee sit regular hours as per the agreement that was arrived at between our two sides last August; or is it the government's intention to push the matter through in comm ittee, under duress, sitting long hours until the wee hours of the morning and forcing the issue to be discussed under great pressure? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I believe there is already some discussion with respect to that by our House Leader with your House Leader this morning, as to the ... MR.

G. FILMON : Don 't you know? What's your intention? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTE TT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In direct reply to the question asked by the Honourabl e Opposition Leader , Mr. Sp eaker, the agreement reached last summer with respect to the hearings, during recess of the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Ele ctions, was with respect to the hearings of that comm ittee which were scheduled for the month of Septem ber, and that agreement was with respect to locations, times of hearings and rules for the hearings. Mr.

Speaker, there was not in that agreement nor to my knowledge has there been an agreement in the past at any time with regard to the proceedings to be followed by a Standing Committee of this House holding hearings on a bill between second and third reading. The normal legislative rules apply and certainly it would never be the intention on this side, Sir, to abuse those rules, or in any way to limit the opportunity of the public to be heard. But, Mr.

Speaker, the suggestion that there should in some way be rules set up that would guarantee that the legislative process wouldn't function and that the hours of the committee would be in some way restricted, we would reject on this side. Mr . Sp eaker , I should advise the Honour able Opposition Leader that in my discussion with his House Leader that I did make a proposal to him with respect to the starting date for the sittings of the comm ittee, but more particularly with regard to allocating a period of time for debate during the balance of this week on the resolution before the House.

I hope to be hearing from him later on this afternoon and discussing that further with him, so that the House can avoid entering into the application of Rule 37. MR . SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker , in view of the fact that the Government House Leader gave notice of his intention to apply Rule 37, I don't think we need to try and sugarcoat the pill and suggest that he's going to give us all sorts of benefits while he does it. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the agreement that was entered into between our two sides last August called for regular rules of the House to app ly, called for regular hours to apply to the sittings of the House, is the Government House Leader saying to us now that those regular rules and regular hours will not be heeded, but in fact all hours will apply and that they will be able to send the comm ittee hearings into long night sessions, into the wee hours of the morning, under duress, on weekends and whatever to try and force through this issue before the comm ittee? HON. A. ANST ETT: Mr.

Speaker, the short answer to the question of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is "no. " But, Mr. Speaker , to clarify that answer and make sure it is understood, I should read the last three points in the agreement that was tabled in this House, I believe, on August 12 th or 13 th of last summer. They say and it says in No. 5: "Comm ittee reports to the House after completion of hearings." Committee has done that. No. 6 "Rules of the House apply with provision for a two-week maximum on bell-ringing. " No. 7 "Regular sitting hours after recess, except that there will be no Private Memb ers' Hour. " Mr.

Speaker, we are not unilaterally in any way asking for a deviation from those rules. We have, however . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBER S: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ANST ETT: Rules of the House app ly. I believe 37 is a rule of the House. Mr. Speaker, I do npt intend to engage in debate with the Honourable Member for Elmwood. I would like to finish answering the question. We intend to abide by and follow the rules of the House and the agreement. 5740

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 Ho wever. Mr. Speaker. members opposite have had an indication of the desire and the very firm desire and commitment of the government to deal with this matter and deal with it expeditiously and put an end to the obstruction and frustration that this Legislature has seen. We have therefore.

Sir, in an attempt to accommodate the concerns that were exp ressed by members opposite, made an offer and that offer, Sir, is, if we wish to avoid the application of Rule 37, which we on this side would just as soon avoid, we use it only as a last resort, we are prepared to see the resolution dealt with by Friday at the normal hour of adjournment.

Included, Sir, in that suggestion was the provision that we would agree, by leave and the leave of the opposition and other members, to extend the hours of the House. if necessary and if they desire, to allow full debate tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, later on tomorrow night, if they want to go beyond 10 :00 o'clock adjournment, to provide, Sir, full oppo rtun ity for those mem bers who feel that the application of Rule 37 unfairly restricts their opportunity for deba te. so they get an opportunity for that debate, but at the same time, the gov ernment's clear commitment and objective of dealing with this matter expeditiously is met.

Sir, that was our offer. The Leader of the Opposition is asking questions about it. I would be happy to clarify further if he has further questions. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Government House Leader, and I acknowledge that Rule 37 is a rule of our House, but I remind him that it has not been invoked in 54 years in this Assembly and under these circumstances, it is obviously a very unusual measure.

Given the fact he has acknowledged that the agreement calls for regular hours of the sitting of the House, will that agreement also apply to the hours of sitting of the comm ittee, so that people will not be asked to come here and stay until 2:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the morning, in order to have their views known on this bill? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I would remind members of the House that, yes, the rules of the House apply - that's the agreement. Members on this side have no quarrel with that.

I would remind mem bers, with respect to Rule 37 and the 54-year absence of its application, that the absence of bell ringing overnight or of four consecutive days of obstructionary bell ringing predates the 19 29 application of Rule 37. In fact, it had never happened before in the history of this Legislature, and probably to the extent used last summer and last week, probably never before to that extent in any Parliament in a Provincial Legislature in this nation, Sir.

With respect to the hearings of the Stand ing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections, to which Bill 11 5 has been referred, regular rules of the House app ly. That's what the agreement says. We have no intention of changing that. The regular rules for committee hearings between second and third reading are the rules this House always uses and we intend to ensure that those rules are respected. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the House Leader 's admonitions on the bell ringing and I remind him that the item about the bell ringing for two weeks was in there at the request of the government.

So obviously they acknowledge the use of that technique. My question, Mr. Speaker, is: will he assure this House and the people of Manitoba that the committee that sits to hear the presentations on Bill 11 5 will not sit on this weekend, on Saturday or Sunday, under the circumstances that this government wants to ram it through? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly Saturdays are the days of the week, usually, when many members of the public would have an oppor tunity to ma ke presentat ions to a standing committee. Mr.

Speaker, it has always been the desire of this government and the Legislature, and I would go so far as to say that, with the exception of a few rare occasions, I believe it has always been the desire of members opposite when they were in government, to pr ovide a full and rea sonable opp ortunity for members of the public to be heard on legislation between second and third readings on bills. Nothing has changed. We are in accord with the practice of members opposite. On that score, we will accord with the practice we have followed since we have formed government. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speak er, in view of the fact that it was the specific intent of that agreement not to be sitting in the hours that were normally sat during Speed up, that it was to restrict it to regular hours, and that was one of the commitments and one of the desires of the government as well as our side, and in view of the tact that Saturday sittings are only held during Speed-up during normal circumstances, will he assure us that we will not have Saturday hearings?

We are delighted to hear the public, we want the public to have an opportun ity, and there are opportunities within regular hours, and !•want the Government House Leader to assure us that he will stick with that agreement and with the regular sitting hours? HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. I don't know what I have to do to convince the Leader of the Opposition - it may not be possible - that regular rules of the House apply, means, as provided for in our rule book, that certain House sitting times are laid down. Sir, there are no sitting times laid down for comm ittees. There is a conventional practice.

We most often meet in comm ittees Tuesdays and Thursday mornings at 10 :00 a.m., when the House is in Session; but, when we're considering bills, we have often suspended a sitting of the House in an evening and held a comm ittee hearing, whether we were in Speed up or not. We have rarely, not often, but rarely sat on Saturdays when we have not been in Speed-up. It has 5741

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 been done. It hasn't been a regular practice, but it has been done. Mr. Speaker, when we are in Speed-up, we very often sit on Saturdays in comm ittee. Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that members are going to use the question period that they want to question this government about its performance in the creation of jobs in this province and the economy of this province to ask questions about whether or not they're going to have Saturday off. Mr. Speaker, I'm appalled that their major concern for the first 15 minutes of today's sitting is whether or not they're going to have Saturday off.

MR. F. JOHNSTON: Our major concern is you can't be trusted. You can't be trusted, that's our concern. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MFI. G. FllMON: Mr. Spea ker, our major concern is to get the Government House Leader on the record publicly so we can know where he stands on these things. In view of the fact that he is going to go outside of the regular practices of the House for the sitting of the comm ittee on Saturday, is he also intending, Mr. Speaker, to limit the length of presentations before that comm ittee? SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please . I would ask the Ho no ur able Me mbe r for Pembina to allow the Minister to make his answer. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition in my earlier answer, the assumption that the customary proceedings of this House do not include sitting on Saturdays is an incorrect assumption, so to answer his question and suggest we won't sit on Saturday because that would be breaking the regular rules of the House would be an improper an swer.

It would not be breaking the regular rules. If a sitting on Saturday is required, certainly we would consider sitting then. With regard to the setting of limits or how long the committee would sit at any one sitting, that's for the committee to decide. Comm ittees always make those decisions.

The only time that I can remember where those decisions were made outside of the comm ittee was last summer, in that agreement which was an unprecedented thing, something that was necessary to resolve an impasse in the Ho use, and its appl ication to the Comm ittee of Privileges and Elections ended when those comm ittee hearings ended. MR. G. FILMON: Mr . Sp eaker, I appr ecia te the Government House Leader's response on that, and given the fact that the government has the majority on that comm ittee, I will put on the record that we do not intend to limit any presentations before that committee.

Will he be able to give us the same assurance, as the Government House Leader? HON. A. ANSTETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Spe aker. I wasn't sure whether you had recognized me or my colleague. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared until we know exactly what's happening in the comm ittee and how long it will take and how many people there are on the list, whether or not there may be any requirement for limiting presentations.

I can advise the House that I have been advised by the Clerk that as of, I believe, about noon today, there were some 13 individuals who had indicated they wished to make presentations, either on behalf of themselves or on behalf of organizations they represent. Mr. Spea ker, I can't speculate as to how many there will be by the time we have the first meeting of the comm ittee. The list may have 15 names on it, in which case I would expect that probably at one sitting of the comm ittee or possibly two they could all be heard.

It may have as many on it - I don't think so, and I don't think members opposite expect it - but it may have as many on it as appeared before the standing committee in the month of Septem ber. Mr. Speaker, certainly having held those hearings for the whole month of September, it would not be the committee's intention, I would hope, to redo the whole pr ocess of last Septem ber.

I had indicated earlier in response to questions from the Honourable Member for Elmwood, Sir, that the purpose of the hearings between second and third reading is to address the principle of the bill and clause by-clause of the bill, not to rehash the whole proposal. If members opposite are suggesting that, Sir, I remind them that governments and oppositions always bring in amendments during clause-by-clause consideration of bills before the Legislature.

They do not, Sir, after bringing in those amendments, go back and go through second reading debate on the bill again and hold public hearings on the amendments again. Mr. Speak er, that would be breaking with our regular rules and customary modes of proceeding in this House. Mr. Speaker, we have respect for those rules. We do not intend to break them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Sp eaker , to the Hono urable Government House Leader and for the record, I want to understand and have clarified for me what it is that he is offering the opposition with respect to the ongoing debate on the resolution. Is the offer that he's making us to break the rules that were honourably entered into last August with respect to regular sitting of the House - is the offer that he's making us now to break those rules and sit extended hours or the invoking of Rule 37, the closure motion? Is that the choice that the opposition has?

To break the rules that we'd entered into with respect to this Session or closure? Is that the offer that is being made? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speak er, with respect to the question the member has about breaking rules or breaking agreements, is to point out that on Monday the 12 th of December, 19 77, a time when this House sat and was just finishing a very short Session, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, chaired by 5742

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 the Honourable Memb er for Roblin-Russell now, then the Member for Roblin, reported that this mini-Session was not conducted in Speed-up, reported that your committee met on Friday, December 9, 19 77; Saturday, December 10, 1977; and Monda y, December 12, 19 77. Now I said, Sir, that it had occurred rarely but, Sir, I remind you, at that time there were about three times as many people who made presentations with respect to the repeal of some family law legislation, then currently are on the list for this committee. So, Mr.

Speaker, I'm reminded of the young child who called "wolf" once too often. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of whether or not the government's offer consists of an offer to apply Rule 37 or breach the agreement, I would say directly the opposite is the case. The opposition, last night during the debate on Bill 11 5, exp ressed concern and we heard that concern. We heard it loud and clearly, that their opportunities for debate were somehow being limited. That despite the fact that we'd had 100 speeches, despite the fact the bells had rung, that they refused to debate . . . A MEMBER: On the bill? HON. A.

ANSTETT: On the bill. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: The bells rang four days on the bill - clearly on the bill. Mr. Spea ker, I cannot rewrite the history that is contained in our Votes and Proceedings of last week - four consecutive days the bells rang on the bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't like that. Mr. Speaker, I don't like the fact that a government is forced. I don't like it, but we are committed to this legislation and prepared to ask for the application of Rule 37.

But, Sir, I want the opposition to have the opportun ity to debate the resolution, to put their principles on the record - if they have any. Sir, we've offered them the opportun ity to do that during the next three days, and ii they want it, Sir, to allow them the fullest of opportunity, we are offering to waive the sitting rules to give them more time. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked what were the details of the offer. I sketched it out earlier in reply to his Leader, but, Sir, there's one more important point, just so that, Sir, the Hous e can appreciate the sincerity with which that offer was made.

Sir, we said that we would agree to specifically limit the total time participation by members on this side to a small portion of the total hours that would be allocated till the normal hour of adjournment on Friday. Now, Mr. Speak er, what more do ihey want, knowing that the government has declared its intention to deal with this matter under the rules? Mr. Speaker, that's our declaration, that's our intention. We want them to either deba te or tell us to bring in closure. They have the choice. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, to the Government House Leader. Will the Government House Leader do me the 5743 courtesy, and that of the other members of this House, and indicate to me when he intends to bring in the closure motion again? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't particularly like entering into what normally are private discussions between the two House Leaders on the floor of the House. My answer to that question, Sir, will depend upon the response I get to the discussions the Deputy House Leader, the Honourable Minister of Health, and I initiated with the Member for Lakeside over the lunch hour today. Mr.

Speak er, I suggested that we could meet and discuss it, if he was interested, after question period. Mr. Speaker, if he is not interested, then, Sir, we will have to make a decision and we'll make that decision knowing whether or not he is interested. We can't make that before, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speak er, the other concern I have in response to that question is that members opposite seem to express the suggestion that the Rules of the House, in some way, apply to Standing Committees of the House, Sir, and I want to remind, particularly the Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader, who lectured us just a little while ago about how much time was being taken up in question period, has been standing up here and giving us a wide-ranging lecture on what he feels the conduct of the House should be. I simply asked him a specific question as to when he was going to bring in closure motion. That's all I asked him, Sir, and the record will show that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, I think I do have a point of order. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: There's no point of order, he doesn't have to answer. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I would remind all members again that questions and answers should be short, concise and to the point. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, to help the House Leader and to facilitate the business of this House, surely it silould be clear to him from the questions asked by my Leader that we honour and want to work under the agreement that was signed between the now Member of Turtle Moun tain and the Attorney-General with respect to how we conduct and how we sit. MR. SPEAKER: Question? MR. H.

ENNS: I am answering. I'm indicating to the Government House Leader that we are operating under those rules.

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 My question to him is: we are operating under those rules as entered into last August, my question to the Go vernment House Leader is, under tho se circumstances, when is he bringing in the closure motion? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speak er, I'm not clear as to whether or not the Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside is demanding that the gov ernment bring in the application of time allocation under Rule 37 . SOME HONOURABLE MEMB ERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, notice does not mean that the motion will be moved. It means it will only be moved if necessary at a subsequent sitting. That's what the motion says. Now, Mr. Speaker , the short answer to the member's question is I will be moving .. . MR. F. JOHNSTON: If we crawl, eh? You want us to crawl? We'll never crawl to you. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speak er, perhaps you could suggest to the Member for Sturgeon Creek that he not point that thing because it has a nail in it. Mr.

Speak er, the short answer to the question asked by the Mem ber for Lakeside is that I will be moving the motion, very reluctantly, when I have an indication that members on that side no longer want to debate the matter. We've made an offer. Do you want to turn the offer down? Mining industry MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question in regard to the five year $24.7 million Mineral Exploration Agreement that was signed by the province with the Federal Government. The question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines.

In view of the great interests of the program in the north, and in view of the fact it will create badly needed construction jobs in the explor ation area I was wondering if the Minister could indicate to this House that there will be an early commencement of the program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speak er, when I was up in Thompson, on Monda y, speaking to a conference where there were repr esenta tives of the workers, representat ives of mining companies, and representatives of the communities from the north there was very great interest in the agreement, the Mineral De velopment Agree ment, that the Mem ber for Thompson refers to. I can inform him, and them, that it would be the intention to have that agreement come into force on April 1 st, 19 84. MR. S. ASHTON: I thank the Minister for that assurance.

As a supp lementary I would ask the Minister whether any portion of the agreement will deal with matters other than explor ation, specifically mining-related second industries in Northern mining communities? HON. W. PAFIASIUK: Mr. Speaker, of the $24 million, some $7.43 million will be spent on research and technology which will be in part related to secondary industry, but also in part related to doing two things - improving productivity, and also improving the safety conditions. In fact, one of the topics is mine safety and prod uctivity. Tha t reflects the app roach of this government, Mr.

Speak er, to have a balance between productivity and safety. We want both to take place, Mr. Speak er, and this is a good emphasis. There will also be expenditure on process ing technology, milling research, tailings research, and industrial minerals. The hope is that from this will develop not only a better mining industry but also some futher proces sing from the mine. Bankruptcies - farmers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Spea ker, I have a question for the Member for Selkirk.

Could the member, in view of the fact that the numbe rs of bank ruptcies in Manitoba and the farm community have increased from 30 to 65 in the last year, and comments are coming from the farm community that few people who have gone through the Debt Review Panel have had such insignificant help that it's been of no value, will the First Minister, the Mem ber for Selkirk, recommend to his Minister of Agriculture that they abandon the Debt Review Panel to save the taxpayers some money, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr .

Sp eaker, first I think the honour able mem ber should indeed, in asking the question reflect upon the total, and the correct position that in some cases, of course, as the Minister of Ag ricultur e had indicated at the time of the annou ncement, and subsequent to same that the Review Panel would not be of assistance. In other instances it has been of an assistance in restructuring assisting farmers that are faced with financial plight situations. So, Mr. Speaker, it has helped in some instances, and as long as it is providing assistance insofar as substantial numbers of farmers are concerned then certainly, Mr.

Speak er, it would be irresponsible to dissolve such a panel. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, to the same member. In view of the fact that the same farmers are indicating that the situation is a far cry from his 5744

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 government's pre-election promise in 1981 that no Manitoban would lose his farm as a result of high interest rate, Mr. Speaker, in view of that, and the statements that are coming from the farm commun ity, will he instruct his Minister of Agriculture to review and change his policies so as those people won't go broke or that they don't have to lose their homes or farms as is being indicated by members themselves from the farm community? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, first the honourable member should be aware, he indeed is not aware that hundreds of farmers, in fact, I think the total is in the neigh bourho od of 1,000 farmers ha ve received assistance from the Interest Rate Relief Program. Farmers in the Province of Manitoba as a direct consequence of the actions of this government following up on no pr ogram under the former Min ister of Agriculture, the Member for Arthur, Mr. Speak er. So that should be clearly on the record. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Debt Review Panel.

The Debt Review Panel has helped in a number of cases assisting farmers and restructuring their debt load. In other cases unfortunately, as indeed the Minister of Agriculture would be able to certainly attest to, it has not been of assistance. What we indicated, Mr. Speaker , is that though the circumstances are difficult for farmers, individual farmers, we would be in a position to attempt to assist to the extent that is possible. We've done that by way of the Interest Rate Relief Program, we've done that in a way, a significant way with respect to the Debt Review Panel. Mr.

Speak er, the Honourable Mem ber for Arthur appears to be totally unrealistic if he thinks that the Debt Review Panel would be able to resolve each and every single case that would come before that Review Panel. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the First Minister is not able to demonstrate in his words that his programs are working will he provide for this Assembly the names of those people who have received help from the Debt Review Panel? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the Minister of Agriculture.

I would think that indeed it would be, maybe we need some kind of privacy provision that the honourable member appears to want names, addresses, financial circumstances of honest hard working farmers in the Province of Manitoba that are having a difficult time making a go of it. If the honourable member would like to have that before this Chamber for a full scaie debate so that the farmers full circu mstan ces could be exposed to complete the public scrutiny surely, Mr. Speaker, there's such a thing as privacy, or have we indeed reached the point of 19 84, and George Orwell. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: In response to the question raised by the Honourable Mem ber for Arthur about the Debt Review Panels I wish to advise the honourable member that the Debt Review Panels are just part and parcel of the program ming established by this government to assist Manitoba farmers. In case the honourable member does not know that this government, and I will bring it to his attention, this government has assisted both the hog and the beef industry in this province to the tune of in excess of $20 million, Mr. Speaker, in the time that we have been in office.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the financial situation that farmers are faced with today will go away overnight. The problem didn't start when we came into office, Mr. Speak er, we inherited a farm economy that was in drastic state, a state left by a legacy of do nothing Conservatives in this province, Mr. Speaker, left by Conservatives. We will not be able to solve the situation overnight.

The Debt Review Panels are only part and parcel of dealing with the question and I want to tell the honourable member that we have assisted many farmers before they have gotten to the review panels with couns elling, with assistance, with negotiations with the financial institutions to try and resolve some of the financial difficulties that they have had. Midtown Bridge closure MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission and ask that Minister, in light of the proposed closing of the Midtown Bridge on February 6th, has he or she - because I'm not sure who the Minister is now - given any thought or had their department given any thought to having employees working for the Provincial Government in the downtown area who perhaps tnight use that bridge going to and from work and have those people work flexible hours so as to try and ease the traffic burden that the Osborne and the Main Street Bridges might have? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHR OEDER: No, I haven' t given any consideration to that, but certainly it's something that possibly we should take under advisement and we will do so. · Bilingualism - funding MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General and ask him, in view of the fact that the Franc o-Man itoban Society has now admitted that it made a request to Ottawa for funds to fight the plebiscite, was a similar request for funds made to the Provincial Government? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: No. 5745

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 Bilingualism - Ad dress for Papers MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speak er, I'd like to ask the House Leader, in view of the relevance to the debate on the resolution and the bill, and since the House Leader intends to invoke clos u re any day now on the constitutional amendment, which is an unprecedented and dictatorial move, can the Minister indicate when the Address for Papers, which he accepted a couple of days ago, will be answered? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. The Address for Papers will be answered in due course.

Usually that takes some time, the third party clearances. I really wouldn't expect that it would be answered prior to the end of this Session. Mr. Speak er, I don't recall Addresses for Papers being answered in less than a month or so during Sessions and sometimes not till the next Sessions or several su bsequent Sessions. Certainly, if the record of members opposite when in government is any precedent, I would think the member would certainly not expect it until sometime later on this year. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speak er, I wouldn't expect a rapid answer because of the possible embarrassment of the information contained therein. Bilingualism - funding MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speak er, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Minister or the government will encourage their allies in the Franco-Manitoban Society to allow the people of Ma nitob a to see the corresp ondence that they had with the Federal Go vernment conc erning gr ants of a minimum of $735,000.00? Mr.

Speak er, my question is whether the government will encourage their allies to make those documents public because we won't get the information now on the provincial scene, I'm asking him whether he will encou rage them to relea se the federal information which they have specifically censored and made unavailable to the public? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I believe that organiz ation is not within the admin istrative competence of the government, therefore, the question would be out of order. Abortions - Dr. Morge ntaler llllR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr.

Speak er, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General able to take any action to prevent the disclosures of names of the women who are alleged to have had abortions in the Morgentaler case? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I'm sorry, I don't understand that question. I wonder if the honourable member could repeat it. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I was asking the Attorney General if he is able to take any action to prevent the disclosures of the names of the women who are alleged to have had abortions in the Morgentaler case? HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, while there is provision within the Criminal Code of Canada for the evidence taken at a preliminary to not be published during the course of that preliminary, there is no other provision within the criminal law and procedure, which is solely within the prerogative of the Federal Government, to prevent the publication of evidence when that evidence is adduced in court. Indeed since the Charter came into force a little more than almost two years now, the opening of court proceedings, even in the case of juveniles, to the media has taken place to a considerable extent.

Certainly criminal trials have never been closed except under exceptional circumstances and I doubt whether they could be closed at this time. It would certainly be up to the discretion of the press, which in this instance I trust, to avoid emba rrassment to those called by the Crown as witnesses. I don't think any special injunction is needed from me in that respect MR. SPEAKER: Order plea se. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker , would you please call the resolution moved by the Honourable Attorney General and currently standing in the name of the Memb er for Riel? ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLUTION CONSTI TUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed amendment of the Honourable Attorney-General and the amendme nt thereto pro posed by the Honourable Government Leader, the sub-amendment thereto propo sed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. The Honourable Mem ber for Riel has 40 minutes. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, I adjourn the debate in the name of the Attorney-General. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Sp e11ker. - (Interjection} - I don't think I'll need it particularly. I propose to address specifically the amendment moved by the Member for Fort Garry who did so on Monday last. You will recall, Sir, the substance of that amendment was to remove from the government's proposal, as moved by the form of an amendment by 5746

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 the Government House Leader, to remove from that proposal

Section 23. 1 and I therefore find it necessary to address the meaning and significance of

Section 23. 1, why it's there, how it comes to be there, the function that it plays, and its role as an integral part of a package. You will recall, Sir, that the way was paved for that amendment by remarks made earlier, indeed repeated last night by the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain who raised the question of, well, yes, we can certainly see the need for validation because there is the possibility of legal chaos.

He recognized and he did so fairly, that I had never put it on any higher plane than that possibility, but I had pointed out on many occasions that we were dealing with, in fact, the legal infrastructure of the province. Therefore, even if the odds were small, you don't take that kind of gamble. He had the good sense and the principled approach to face up to that question and say, yes indeed, this is a question that ought to be resolved if it can. I am paraphrasing. If I misrepresent what he says, I'll be glad to indicate that on the record if he brings that to my attention.

He said, but why don't we just do that? Of course, later on the Opposition House Leader at the be ginning of the deba tes following the recommencement of the Session made a point in his remarks, both in this House and in an address on CBC Radio on January 16 th, that the elimination of the need to translate some 4,000 dormant statutes - of course, he's wrong in that, not all of them are by any means dormant.

A great number of them indeed have vital sign ificance to a number of institutions, towns, municipalities and hospitals, so it's not a question of dormant statutes - but nevertheless, he pointed out that there is a great saving and benefit to Manitobans, because it saves the enormous cost and effort of translating over 4,000 statutes.

So you had from the Member for Turtle Mountain a recognition of the need, if at all possible, to validate the statutes, and a recognition by the Leader of the Opposition that it would be a senseless waste to translate these several thousand statutes, most of which although vital to the legal existence of a number of municipal and priv ate corpora tions for example, nevertheless are not in frequent use in court. Therefore, their need to be available in both official languages was not a pressing need, indeed often not a need at all.

So we have the recognition of the significance of what was being done in that respect, and I respect them for having pointed that out. Now the question then arises: what is the significance of 23. 1, or the original version, why is it there? First of all, as to its significance - and I think that this is a matter of vital importance to place on the record again. The actual wording of 23. 1 is: "As English and French are the official languages of Manitoba, the freedom to use either official language enjoyed under the law of Manitoba in force at the time this

section comes into force shall not be extinguished or restricted by or pursuant to any Act of the Legislature of Manitoba.'· Mr. Speak er, I respectfully submit to you and to the members of this House and indeed to the public that is clear on its face. There is, in effect, a

preamble and a very short clause. It is clearly a

preamble, because you ha ve a change from the former decl arator y sta tement, "English and French are the official languages," to "As English and French are the official languages ... "and I'll comment on that in a few moments. Then you have the operative words, ". . . and courts, in dealing with statutes and statutory provis ions, legislative language whether in a constitutional form or in a legislative form," look primarily at t11e operative part. What is significant there is the operc.!ive part. Equally, of course, the

preamble has significance and I'll deal with it, but most significant is the operative part, " ... the freedom to use either official language enjoyed . . . "etc., may not be extinguished. Now courts in interpreting, Mr. Speaker, constitutional instruments do so differently than when they interpret a bill or

an act of the Legislature. There is a fundamental rule of legislative interpretration that courts except under unusual circumstances may not go behind the wording of a particular provision and look at the legislative history and the legislative debate, the social history, the social and economic context of the time when it was passed, but with a constitutional provision, it is quite the other way. They can, in fact, take a look at the whole context. They would note immediately that there is a change from, "English and French are the official languages ...

"to, "As English and French are the official languages . . . "They would say, well why was that put in? Clearly no one enacts even to a single word, even to punctuation without having something in mind. That is the way courts interpret statutes. They would say, well it was intended to act as a link, given its placing and its words, to

Section 23. So it means that, to the extent that English and French are official languages as in 23 - and the Member for Charleswood, the former Leader of the Opposition has admitted on the record that English and French are the official languages as in

Section 23. He virtually used our own language when he corrected himself. Incidentally, will he let us listen to the tape? Will he let us listen to any missing little buzz on the tape? l challenge the Member for Charleswood to let us listen to the tape, and it can only be done with his permission. I acknowledge that, but nevertheless even with his little ellipse or gloss or correction - there might be a correction. A MEMBER: They told us yesterday they'd already listened to it. HON. R. PENNER: No one on this side has. No one on this side has.

Not to my knowledge and not to the knowledge of the House Leader or the Premier, no one has. Mr. Speaker, the former Leader of the Opposition, •he Member for Gharleswood, acknowledged that English and French are the official languages as in

Section 23. They did so in Bill 2, but I'll just confine myself because it's more relevant to that statement by the intellectual mentor if not the actual Leader o! the Conservative opposition, the Member for Charleswood. So that same recog nition is given in our bill. So here we are. They're talking about moving closer and closer. We are now even a little closer. Here the government and the Member for Charleswood at least are exactly at the same point with respect to, "As 5747

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 English and French are the official lang uage s of Manitoba." Okay. So what have we got left? What we have left, Mr. Speaker , is the oper ative words that for that reason - that's what it means - " ... the freedom to use either official language ... "etc. The courts would say if it ever got to court - and I doubt that very much, but one has to assume that possibility - why does it use "freedom" and not "rights and freedom" as in public session?

For example, many persons and organizations advocated and pressed, including the Societe franco ma nitobaine, they were asking for "rig hts and freedoms, " and here the government only legislated the word, "fre edom." Why? Becaus e there is a difference in the concept of "rights and freedoms." "Rights," Sir, and there is an equivalent word, "duties," are legally enforceable, matters spelled out either at common law or in a statute or in a Constitution that you can point to as an enforceable right.

But, Sir, aside from right in our system of law, we have one of the best systems of law in the world and its common law heritage from England; that is, that generally, unless something is prohibited, you have the freedom to do it. But there is an unfortunate history in this and other nations, in this nation less than in others, thank goodness, but nevertheless we have that history of legislative and constitutional action to restrict freedom.

The Francophone population of this province, or a considerable part of it in any event, say, with justice, there is unfortunately a history of the restriction of the freedom to use one or another of the official languages. Indeed, there is a history of restrictions of the freedom to use other languages, and they were able to point to Bill 101 in the Province of Quebec and say this is not ancient history, this is not some bad old times when legislative werewolves howled in the night, when there were bad old guys and all the rest of it, this is 19 77, in Canada, a Legislature passed a bill which said French only.

Then, you know what they said? The Government of Manitoba, the Tory Government of Manitoba, sent its counsel down to the Supr eme Court to defend Bill 101. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: In Blaikie, 19 79 - (Interjection) - they can't, I've got the case here. In Blaikie, the past President of the Cons ervative Party ironically challenging on behalf of the English-speaking people of Quebec this draconian legislation, challenging it on constitutional grounds, had to face not only the counsel for the P.Q.

Government and Monsieur Levesque, but had to face counsel from the Tory Government of Manitoba. And that, Sir, that's the truth, I've got the case here, it's a matter that cannot be denied. I said in the House when I mentioned this before that the reason they did it was because at the same time they were arguing Forest and they had to be consistent. They were arguing for the 18 90 imposition of one official language, English, and in order to do it they were defending legislation in the Province of Quebec that defended one official language - French.

So there was a consistency, but a consistency with respect to what? - the supp ression of linguistic rights.

So, say the representatives of a considerable number of the French speaking people of Manitoba, there is something real that we are concerned about and at the bottom all we're asking for is wording in a constitutional provision which we recog nize is not carved in stone, because Constitutions can be changed, but they cannot be changed in the panic of the moment by a panic-stricken Legislature, by a Legislature or a government, at least, do minated by fear as the mem bers op posite are dominated by fear when it comes to linguistic rights. - (Interjection) - Listen to what I'm saying because it's a matter of record and of historic truth.

They had a concern. You may say, well, they ought to know that we're really all good guys, but they have a recent history where the good guys were pushed by the bad guys and became bad guys. That happens in politics when you don't have principles but the sole desire of the political movement is to gain and hold office at any count regardless of principles, all the more reason to be afraid. Also they had a history in 19 82 in December - for the Member for St. Norbert, I believe it was December, not January - when the SFM came to speak to the Tory op position on the proposal and in effect were cold shouldered.

Now, it was in that context that they were concerned about this particular question. MR. G. MERCIER: Put it on the record what happened in the Blaikie case. HON. R. PENNER: What happened in the Blaikie case is despite the representations of the Government of Manitoba at the time and of Levesque, the Supreme Court - because there was a constitutional protection of the use of the languages throughout those provisions - those provisions, Sir, but only those provisions which were clearly sp elled out in

Section 13 3 of The Constitution Act, 18 67, which are the identical words in

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act but left intact the other parts of Bill 101 which prevent the use by English speaking people or Greek-speaking people of business signs in their own language, that still remains because there is insufficient constitutional protection. I'm glad the Member for St. Norber t asked me the question. That's exactly what Blaikie points out, so that is why it is there. Now, how does this come about? It comes about because of course we know the history, I'll not go over the whole thing again.

But I'll talk a little bit about contemporaneous history and that is that when this matter was first being discussed let me, Sir, put it on the record again that the discussions with respect to how to resolve the problem created by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Forest and Bilodeau - on how to deal with that problem, and let me say again for the record it was my strong recommendation to all concerned that we seek to effect a political solution to a long-standing complex historical and constitutional crisis, that we ought not to risk a court-imposed solution which might not be a solution at all, but indeed might create many more problems than were posed for solution because the issue before the Supreme Court was very narro w.

So that I advocated, the government 5748

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 backed me on this all the way - indeed I hear the Member for Turtle Mountain and perhaps others saying, yes, that kind of solution is a better one if you can attain it - and it was along this course that we moved. I want to say this for the record. I have the drafts that I'll be glad to table with the Order for Returns even though it wasn't asked. I have the records, the draft that was first propo sed was to the members of the SFM for discussion. It was one which dealt, Mr. Ransom, with validation only. That was the draft I presented.

I wasn't born yesterday, in terms of looking at a possible solution; I was the Attorney-General for the Province of Manitoba. You start with what you consider to be, in the first instance, the easiest thing to deal with, the most direct solution. But of course it was a simp listic approach, albeit, to the na rrow advantage of the Government of the Day - we wouldn't be here now had it been accepted - but it was said to me, in the course of discussions, you can get at least that from the Supreme Court. Here you're asking to reduce the number of statutes to be translated from 4,000 to 400. You want that.

You want validation. Well we, as a society, don't want to create legal chaos. We don't want to put you to that expense. We would like to be able to do that but that's not the whole problem. There is this other problem. Let's resolve the whole thing, not just one part of it, and so discussions continued, month after month, and as the former Leader of the Opposition pointed out, those discussions were in the open. They were reported in the press, not merely communicated to the opposition, but reported in the press.

So the discussions took place and let me again put it on the record, at no time, Sir, at the table - there was always the table in the Office of the Attorney General - was there ever a representative of the Federal Gov ernment. But the Federal Go vernment had a position, and I know what that position was because it was being publicly declared, it was this, because the Federal Government was a party to the Bilodeau case, had argued the Bilodeau case before the Manitoba Court of Appeal, had taken a position that indeed the statutes of Manitoba were constitutionally invalid.

They took a position somewhat different, not completely different, but somewhat different from that advanced by the Government of Manitoba at the time, but another argument on the table before the Manitoba Court of Appeal dealing with the doctrine of necessity, but the G.overnment of Canada had a position, which is a matter of record with respect to the Bilodeau case, but on this they had a political position. Do you want to hear what it was?

It was if it's made in Manitoba, if it comes up with the substantial agreement of the Government of Manitoba and the constituencies which it affects, then, even though we don't like it, we would recognize our obligation to pass it. That's what they said. They said that very very clearly and that's all they said.

Yes, the Secretary of State who is used like a spectre or haunting this Legislature, particularly by the Member for Elmwood, came here on the 16 th of March of 19 83, and in speaking to the Society Franco-Manitoban, said and urged upon them that they should seek to have the same kind of ob ligation with respect to municipalities, and that they should seek to attain language similar to that used in The Constitution Act 19 82, as it applied to Canada and New Brunswick and 5749 made that as a public speech on the 16 th of March - and you know what I did?

I got on the blower to the Minister of Justice and I said what the hell is going on? I said, we're talking made in Manitoba. I don't need members of the Federal Cabinet coming here and making speeches. I'll produce the phone records. I got on the blower within minutes and he apologized. He said he recog nized that it had to be made in Manitoba. I said to the Society Franco-Manitoban, I said to the Minister of Justice on that occasion,

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act is one of the cornerstones of the provincial Constitution. That's all we're going to deal with. We're not going into the Charter - not because I can't defend the Charter, I can - but we're dealing with a Manitoba problem and we're going to deal with it in a Manitoba way.

So, by the 16 th of December, 19 82, we had something that wasn't satisfactory in a complete sense to ourselves or to the Society Franco-Manitoban, but it looked to be a workable model and at that stage, because it was only then - after a considerable amount of discussion that I had a mandate from the government, from Cabinet - that I sent the document to the Member for St. Norbert and the Leader of the Opposition and we've talked about that and I don't have to canvass it again. The rest of the history is known. So what is it that I am saying and putting on the record, Mr. Speaker?

What we have here is a package for a political solution for a difficult problem - not the best in the world. I think - history may prove me right or wrong, I don't care - I do things out of a sense of what I believe is right at the time and I've been wrong and admitted it. At least I have the courage to change when I think I've been wrong. The accord that was made the 16 th, I thought was pretty good, but the people of Manitoba, rightly or wrongly, didn't.

They had some concerns because, indeed, there was that sordid history of the misuse of federal bilingualism in terms of the operation of The Official Language Act, particularly with respect - and people forget this - to something that forms no part of our proposal - a policy with respect to language of the workplace. That is something I think was misconceived, and in any event has gone wrong, and creates these irritations and problems which people legitimately are concerned about.

We rejected the federal approach, as I pointed out to you, not only with respect to Monsieur Joyal, but with respect to that particular approach in any event, we rejected it and we de veloped this particular approa ch. But we knew, once the meetings began and the hearings, that no matter how much you said that, people still were concerned about a number of things. What were the concerns that were expres sed?

Primarily about the entrenchment of services because that is something that was not only a status question, it was an economic question that related to a fear that it might be so interpreted by the courts - if it was a constitutional provision, that you would jeopardize the right of young Manitobans who could not speak French to job positions.

I was able, but only in part yesterday, Sir, may I be tangential for a moment to point out that indeed, with respect to the operation of the service requirement, the number of jobs we're talking about that would be identified throughout government departments and Crown corporations, is less than 500, less by far than

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 3 percent of the total work force and more than half of those are now - in fact, at least since March 16 , 19 82, when the Premier of this province announced our policy with respect to French Language Services - that process has been taking place. Have you heard a murmur? Has anybody been fired? Has anybody been denied promotion? Has there been a grievance? No. But let me, Sir, while still being tangential, apologize to the Member for St Norbert He was right and I was wrong.

I went further than I should yesterday, standing in my place, when, in reflecting on their approach to French Language Services. I said it was zilch-zero and he got up and he was right. He was right. He said that certainly in the Department of the Attorney-General some steps had been taken, steps that weren't even req uired - at least not apparently re quir ed by constitutional or statutory provision - that some steps were taken and I apologize. I should not have gone as far as I did. I was correct in my basic, I believe, statement that they move very slowly and secretively.

They were afraid of the issue, but movement there was at least in that department. Let's give credit where credit is due. Nevertheless, Sir, the issue remains with respect to the !ear that people have. So through the long, hot summer, here and out in the hearings we heard these concerns. We knew obviously we may not always appear particularly bright, but we're not dumb we heard the message of the referendum that there was a grave concern. We attempted to put all of the evidence that we had together. The evidence of the hearings in a way was the best evidence in the sense that particular concerns were articulated.

We weren't left to guess. I mean, all kinds of assumptions might have been made about the votes and the referendum, but they would only be assumptions. But with respect to the submissions and the hearings, there you could hear where there was a submission and discussion. So that was good. The Minister of Finance, standing in his place, also had the courage to stand up yesterday and say that we were wrong in that three-week delay in recog nizing tha t the pub lic meeti ngs would be insufficient. We ought to have public hearings. Clearly we were wrong on that.

I would like to hear them get up and say they were wrong in hanging us out here for seven weeks, insisting that it had to be intersessional or nothing, but we won't hear it from across the way. We won't hear it. All right, forget it. In any event, there were these concerns, and the Member for Turtle Mountain was right yesterday in reading into the records some of the fears and concerns and misund ers tandings that were out there, as exemplified in the Mason Poll, and I referred to the Angus Reid Poll, and we read those very very carefully.

So from the time of the ending of the hearings through to January 5th, we struggled to find a solution we felt must be found. I say to you, Sir, and I say to members of the opposition that it is here. Now it may be that you can find some fine tuning with a word here or a word there, but the essential package, validation, 400 against 4,000 statutes and a protection of the freedom to use the language, that's what 23. 1 is. That's the package. Now we're told again and again about how the people of Manitoba are being convulsed. First of all, that is a gross exaggerat ion.

Certainly a considerable number of Manitobans are afraid, but has anything that has been said by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition done anything to allay those misconceptions? Not only in the House but out on the hustings, have they gone to their constituents and said, no, that's not so, this does not force any language down anyone's throat? Have they said, no, there's no requirement that the street signs are going to have to be in French? Have they said, no, there's no requirement that the business signs will have to be in French? Have they done any of that?

No, they said, there is a remote possibility that somewhere down the line some big bad wolf is going to jump out and bite you. People go, noooooo! They say, we're not bigots. I don't think any of them are. We're not zealots. Well they're certainly not zealots. Belie ve me, they 're not zealots. Lan guage schizophrenics, they are, but zealots or bigots, no. But that kind of an approach for narrow, political, short term gain is not only irresponsible, but it creates this kind of convulsion about which they speak. Mr. Speak er, we have come a long long way.

I have been closely associated with the issue, perhaps more closely associ ated than anyone else except the Government House Leader who is doing a remarkable job in this House, who's doing a remarkable job in his ministerial responsibility for this issue. I want to say that we have come to a point where, if they could only take off those blinders or if they could only lose that tunnel vision which sees nothing but the electoral light at the end of the tunnel, we could resolve the issue. But we get these process arguments.

We get the violence in the House of the Opposition House Leader, who ought to show a model of decorum and respect for the House, when he takes the desk and he slams it down, nearly breaking it - (Interjection) - mock indignation or not, there is a way for him to have discussed his concerns. So our House Leader went with our Deputy House Leader , an experienced parlia ment arian , to the Opposition House Leader and said, well look, surely there's a way to resolve this. What did we get in response? That nega tivism, that bitterne ss, that apparent resolve not to resolve.

The apparent resolve not to resolve procedurally is the evident resolve not to resolve substantively - no way. So, Sir, with respect to the proposed amendment by the Member for Fort Garry that says to us like it's so easy, like a knife going through butter, just get rid of 23. 1, just leave us with this nice little validation package. Thanks loads, but it takes two to tango. Politically, it takes two to tango in the resolution of this kind of problem. It is not that we have to soothe or stroke or allay groundless fears. We have to deal with the real problem.

So the government has gone through all of these steps and come to this particular point. If, Mr. Speak er, we show determination, it's because the fundamental issue that faces all of the people of Manitoba is the econo my, the question of jobs, the question of getting on with the fundamental task of keeping that recovery which we have helped to stimulate in Manitoba going against some very adverse things which are happening nationally and internationally with respect to interest rates which could dampen the recovery. We're worried about that, and we want to work on that. 5750

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 They should be there, wanting to help us. The Leader of the Opposition should be out speaking to his troops, and at least becoming a Leader in the real sense. They should be developing some real legislative alternatives, but no, let's stay here another week, six months. Why? Because there's a little political light, they think, at the end of this particular tunnel. Well there isn't.

The next election will be fought on the basis of the ability of a government or an opposition, if it's seen that way, to deal with the problems of jobs and security and the economy and the future of the young people in this province. That's what will be dealt with. So I say to them, get rid of the blinders, get rid of the tunnel vision, deal with the issue. If this matter were to be forced in one way or another to the Supreme Court, then you would have to take the responsibility for that because we've tried - God knows how we've tried! - to arrive at a made-in-Manitoba, honest solution.

In this House, on the 16 th of August, when the Premier of this province stood up and spoke, and that speech should be reread, he made clear, and I want to make clear Mr. Speaker, in closing, that although we started with a particular legal constitutional problem which we wanted to resolve, and although one of the primary things that we had in mind was the validity of the statutes, and the reduction of the costs, we also had another ideal - the ideal of the rights of minorities, the importance of language to minorities, the importance of linguistic rights to cultural rights. Yes, we didn't make history.

History is not made out of the whole cloth they say. You make history out of what material you're given. As it happens for good or for ill, the material out of which this national fabric was woven was the two-nation concept which is a historic fact. It won't go away. The French-speaking people of Manitoba, and the English-speaking people of Quebec will not be frightened back into the corners. They will be heard.

They have the right to be heard, and we will be sure as a government that we will do everything to allow them to be heard, and to listen to in their own language within the rights that they have as bona fide residents of the Province of Manitoba and of Canada. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Honourable Attorney-General.

You couldn't help but feel sorry for the member when he was pleading for understanding in the errors of his ways, and how he has admitted that he has fumbled, and bumbled, and created untold misery in the political arena of Manitoba politics as we see it today. Mr. Speaker, I have known the Honourable Attorney General for many, many years. I have seen him - I saw him at University when he was just freshly out of the Army at that time, and I well recall many of his political activities at that time, probably not for the same political party as he is labouring today, but not that different.

One of the things that I give him a lot of credit for is that whatever he tackles he tackles with full sincerity, with vim and vigour, and he will attempt to achieve his aims and his own personal goals regardless of the cost. That unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the position that we're at here in Manitoba today, because I don't 5751 think that the Attorney-General is really concerned about the cost to the Province of Manitoba of the imposition of his will in the political arena at this particular time. Because if he was the least bit concerned, then he would listen.

He would listen to the advice that he has been getting from this side of the House. He would have listened a long time ago to the people who have appeared and he would have done what was good for Manitoba, not good for him politically but good for Manitoba, and we would not be debating this thing at this time. We would not be debating this thing. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Why don't you talk about the res olution, Harr y? Roland was talking about the resolution, why don't you try it? Tell us what's wrong with it. MR. H.

GRAHAM: II the Honourable Minister of Finance wants to speak he knows full well how he can do it, and I will wait for his remarks the same as I waited when the Honourable Attorney-General was spea king. I didn't interrupt him once. I did not interrupt him once. I would suggest that the Honourable Minister of Finance, if you can call him a Minister of Finance, that he show the same courtesy at this time, but that's all right if he wants to interrupt let him go ahead. He has the right to do it, but it shows to the people of Manitoba the level of intellectual capacity of the Minister of Finance of this province.

It shows you the character of the man who we have in this province supposedly in charge of the financial affairs of this province. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Look at the predictions you guys made on the deficit last year, Har ry. You guys were saying it was going to be a billion dollars . . . MR. H. GRAHAM: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the performance of the Minister of Finance and the performance of the Attorney-General, who's his seatmate, then you can understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

I would hope that all members of the House would give the Member for Virden a fair and courteous hearing. The Honourable Member for Virden. HON. V. SCHROEDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance on a point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, on point of order. I'm asking that the member be asked to talk to the resolution, to the amendment prop osed by the Mem ber for Fort Garry, rather than deal with personalities. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hope that all members would speak with the same degree of appropria teness that has been followed in this debate. The Honourable Mem ber for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , we are dealing with an amendment and I listened very carefully to the remarks of the Attorney-General, who really made only passing reference in all his remarks, made one reference to

Section 23.1 in the amendment that has been proposed. He spent 10 minutes, but that was the only reference that he made. Mr. Speaker , let's take a look at the history of how this has developed and the history as the Attorney General told it to us today. He was talking about the history of how this whole debate has started. He started with last year in a proposal that he put forward, which - and I will accept his word because I believe him - when he said that the first proposal was for validation only. It had no reference to any other aspect. I accept that.

I have said that before in this House that if validation was the only issue then I would be prepared to deal with that aspect, just the validation. However, the Attorney-General has said it cannot be done that way, it has to be done as a package. I believe he honestly thinks that to be true because he then entered into negotiations with the Societe franco-manitobaine; he then ente red into nego tiations with the Federal Government and, by his own words in this past debate, he said that he told the Federal Government to butt out. I believe those were the words that were used by the Honourable Attorney-General.

He told the Federal Government to butt out, that this was going to be a made-in-Manitoba solution. That's fine. If he wants a made-in-Manitoban solution, that's what it should be. But, Mr. Speak er, he only tells you part of the truth because we were given to understand that there was an agreement between the Societe franco-manitobaine, the Attorney-General and the Federal Government. Yet he tells us today that he told the Federal Government to butt out. So, I have to come to the conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that everything the Attorney-General has told us has to be accepted with a grain of salt.

I recall very much earlier, Mr. Speake r, when the first expenditure - and he said it was going to save money, but we saw the multi-coloured brochure and the four page fold on Constitutionally Speaking. Some of the words of the Attorne y-General in that are rather interesting, because we have found out since that, maybe what he was saying was not exactly the total truth. I refer, Mr. Speaker , to the pamphlet which he presented dealing with: court decision might have caused legal chaos.

In one of the statements that is made in there, and I want to refer to it, says, "Then in 1981 Roger Bilodeau, charged with a provincial offence argued in court that under the Constitution all of Manitoba's laws were invalid because contrary to The Manitoba Act they were passed in one language only. That was put out in June from the Attorney General's office at a fairly expen sive cost to the people of Manitoba, because I'm sure it was paid as information in a legitimate ·· according to the Attorney-General - cost of the operation of this whole venture. Yet, Mr.

Speak er, we heard the same Attorney-General when we were in committee saying that was not the case at all. In fact, he went to great lengths to point out that the Bilodeau challenge was only to The Summa ry Convictions Act and The Highway Traffic Act, only to those two acts and not as he states in Constitutionally Speaking to all of Manitoba's laws. Mr.

Sp eak er, it is interesting to watch the contradictions that have appeared over the last nine months from the Attorney -General, the differe nt positions that have been taken by the government, and just lately, the remarkable difference that has been taken in this, maybe their final proposal. I think you can't deal with that without noticing the changes that have occurred on the other side of the House, the change of authority and the responsibility for shepherding this responsibility as it now rests with the Honourable Member for Springfield. A man, Mr.

Speaker, who will probably go down in history in this province in infamy. Mr. Speak er, it's interesting that regardless of what the people of Manitoba think, regardless of the advice that they are receiving from this side of the House, the government is going to carry on in their wrong-headed approach and foist upon the people of Manitoba an agreement or a proposal that is unacceptable to the majority of Manitobans. I realize, Mr.

Speaker, that this is only a proposal and that proposal will go from here to the House of Commons and to the Senate, and the Senate and the House of Commons will act on that recommendation. I would hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when that proposal is put forward that the entire history of this debate is sent along with it and that the recorded votes that have occurred in this debate are included, because I believe very very strongly that if any change is being made to a Constitution that it should be done only after accord has been reached.

We have seen the Prime Minister of Canada take 13 years to reach a fundamental accord. It wasn't total accord, but it was a large majority and it took him 13 years before he imp lement ed constitutional change because he would not foresee unilaterally. I would hope that this government would adopt that same philosophy that unless there is at least 80 percent support that they should not proceed. The opposite is really taking place. It now appears as though at least 80 percent of the popu lation of the Province of Manitoba are not in accord with the government and its proposals. So you see, Mr.

Speaker, why we on this side are using every means available to us to try and persuade the government not to proceed with their proposal, because we feel that it is not in the best interests of the people of Manitoba and the Province of Manitoba at this particular time. I add that last

part in, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, because it has been said on this side of the House many times that it falls on the shoulders of this government, the responsibility for poisoning public opinion in the way that they have done in the last nine months in this province. I sincerely hope that even at this late date the government will back away now and not proceed and allow time for healing. Let this matter wait until some future time before any further attempt is made. The Attorney-General in his remarks, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, made mention of the fact there would be a tremendous cost-saving if we translated only 400 statutes instead of 4,000. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to take issue with that. If you put a factor on the damage that has been done to the internal fabric of this P.rovince, if you put a value on that, you will find that the translation of only 400 statutes as oppos ed to 4,000 will be a very very expensive proposition. But I don't think that you can put a dollar factor on good will and harmony that should prevail in this province. That is an indictment that we lay at the feet of this government.

It rests on 5752

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 their shoulders alone, the responsibility for destroying the good will and harmony that existed in this province for these many years since Confederation. Mr. Speaker, I can't express in any better words the concerns of one Manitoban, who wrote a letter to one of the local newspapers in my area. He wrote a letter to the editor, and I would like to quote some of it. It's from last week's edition of the Gopher Creek Chronicle, which is pub lished in Virden. This letter is signed by a Mr. B.C. Stevens.

He writes: "When the ND P Government of Manitoba introduced their extremely unpopular language amendment, they issued at public expense a very defensive and deceptive pamphlet entitled The Facts about French Language Services ... " That's this little pamphlet here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put out in many colours, a very flashy thing with a map of the province. I think it shows 30 areas of the province coloured with little blue dots in designated areas. ". . . attempting to justify their legislation. This pamphlet seems to have set the tone for the whole campaign - in one word 'deception'.

"The Provincial Government, in order to justify to the public their reason for dealing with the Franco M anitoban So ciety, states that this or ganizat ion represents the ma jority of the French people in Manitoba. This is less than honest. "The Federal Government recognizes the Societe franco-manitobaine and ignores the Association Pro Canadiens du Manitoba. This is less than honest. "The Provincial Gov ernment is ignoring another association of French-speaking Manitobans which has more members than the Societe franco-manitobaine." (Interjection) - I gave you the name, Mr. B.C. Stevens.

"This is less than honest. "When the New Democratic Government introduced the amendment to

Article 23 to expand French services, they stated that they had proof, the result of a survey, of the support of over 70 percent of Manitobans for this amendment. This is less than honest. "Whe n the recent plebiscite confirmed that the government had no such support for this amendment, the government stated that they intended to proceed with the legislation anyway. This is less than honest. "The NDP Go vernment claims a ma ndate for introducing and proceeding with their amendment. This is less than honest.

"W ithout the app roval of the ma jority of the electorate, the Provincial Government entered into a 'packroom deal' involving the Federal Government and the Societe franco-manitobaine. This is less than honest. "The Federal Go vernment has intruded into a Manitoba concern by means of the above 'backroom deal', by the three-party resolution, by political support of the Societe franco-manitobaine, by funding these activities with taxpayer dollars. This is less than honest. "The threat of our citizens with virtual anarchy if the Supreme Court handled the Bilodeau case and found all of Manitoba's laws invalid.

This is less than honest. "No group supporting the government's amendment, including the government itself, has addr essed the apprehension created by Serge Joyal's French state remarks. This is less than honest." But, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , I have to admit, the Attorne y-General in his remarks tod ay, did make reference to it and he informed the Legisature today that he told the Federal Government at that time to butt out. He told us that today, but did he tell that to the people of Manitoba in June? A MEMBER: No, he did not! MR. H. GRAHAM: Did he tell it to anybody in the committee?

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, he did not! MR. H. GRAHAM: Did he inform the Manitoban citizenry Of it? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, he did not! MR. H. GRAHAM: So, Mr. Deputy Speak er, I would suppo se that perhaps if the reader was informed of what the Attorney-General said today, he would again say this is less than honest. Well, Mr. Speaker, this letter goes on and on and I could cite numerous other cases in there that this writer makes, but I think the message is there from just one citizen.

But it comes from a citizen who has become so incensed with the activities of this government that he has taken the timz to do the research, to write a letter to the editor. It has taken 'his individual, he has taken enough initiative that he wants the people who read that newspaper to be able to read his remarks because I think, Mr. Speak er, a lot of people that read that newspaper would probably agree with him. But that is not the issue, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

The issue that we have before us is an amendment to this resolution, an amendment that was moved the other day by the Honourable Memb er .for Fort Garry, an amendment which I believe will do a great deal to improve the resolution that this government has propo sed. I would hop e that the govern ment will consider it seriously because I think it will make a better proposition. I think it will be a proposition that the people of Manitoba will feel a little more comfortable with and it might, Mr. Deputy Speak er, allay some of the fears of the people of Manitoba about the proposal that this government has made.

It would mean, Mr. Speak er, an admission basically that would say we have no official language in Manitoba. Basically that's what it would say. It would say that English is not the official language. It would say that French is not the official language. It would say that there are no official languages in the Province of Manitoba, that every language can be used in this province. That's if you think it out and you carry it forward, basically it says that there will be no privileged languages in this province and, Mr.

Speaker, even though I speak English, I do not want the English lunguage to have a privileged position in this province. I do not want that and I would hope that the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose could say the same about his native language. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Speak er, it sounds like the redneck up there is having his little go at things. - 5753

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 (Interjection) We don't kno w. I wouldn't call him a bigot, never. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will wait to see what great contribution the Honourable Member for lnkster makes for this debate. It will be interesting to listen to him because I think that the people of his constituency would like him to speak out on this issue. I think they would. Perhaps, Mr . Sp eak er, if the honourable member is chafing at the bit, if he wants to get into this debate right now, let him indicate so. No, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I hear the silence emanating from the Honourable Mem ber for lnkster, so we have to assume that he's going to be a good little boy, he's going to take his lessons from the school teacher and he will do as he's told, as he has on so many occasions during the various deba tes and votes that we have had in this Assemb ly. We know his character, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know his ability to do as he is told to do, so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that is all the time we should spend dealing with his remarks and his contributions. Well, Mr.

Speak er, I would urge this House very carefully to consider the proposals that we have put forward. I think they are good proposals. I think they're deserving of serious consideration and I would ask the government to give us some indication whether or not they are prepared to accept these proposals because I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker , it would make a great deal o! difference to what transpires in this House in the next two or three days or in this further debate on this.

If the government would just tell us whether or not they are prepared to accept the amendment that has been put forward because we listened to the Honourable Attorney-General - I listened very carefully - he gave us no indication whatsoever of whether or not he was prepared to accept. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have listened to the remarks of the Honourable Attorney-General, and we are waiting for someone on that side to indicate whether or not they are prepared to accept the pro posed amendments that the Member for Fort Garry put forward. I'll tell you again, Mr.

Speaker, that if we can get that indication now, then the desi red wishes of the Go vern ment Hous e Leader could pos sibly be accommodated. So, I think it's very important that the government indicate now whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposed amendment that the Memb er for Fort Garry proposed. So, Mr. Speak er, with those few words, I want to thank you for the opportunity of taking

part in this debate at this time. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER, J. Walding: The Honourable Government House Leader. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to announce a committee meeting for Friday at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Speak er, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet at 2:00 p.m. on Friday of this week to consider Bill 11 5. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Clerk's office to make arrangements because of the nature of the subject matter of the bill for simultaneous translation facilities as were pr ovided during the committee hearings on the resolution last fall.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Flin Flon, the Minister of Northern Affairs, says, let's vote on it. Let's, before we vote on it, ponder upon what this is that we're voting on and the process upon which we are engaged. What we're doing here, Mr. Speaker , is amending part of the Constitution of this province and how, Sir, should that pr ocess be undertaken and carried through to completion. Mr .

Sp eaker , surely , a cons titutional amendment should be something that would have the support of all of the members of this Legislature. That is the way that a Constitution would be formed, Mr. Speaker, that is the way a Constitution would be put together, that is the way that a Constitution should be amended. It is the responsibility of the government to amend and shape and change their proposals until they have that sup port. Tha t sup por t tha t would be representat ive of the people of the provinc e. Mr. Speaker, we don't have that. What we have here, Mr.

Speaker, is a process where the Constitution of this province is going to be changed under the threat of closure. Think of that, Mr. Speaker . That here is a situation where closure is going to be used to change the Constitution of this province against the will of at least three-quarters of the people of this province.

When one consi ders the dimensions of that proposition, I find it extremely hard to accept and to believe that any government would be prepared to go to those lengths, to go against 75 percent of the people and to invoke a procedure which has never been used before to amend the Constitution of the country. Mr.

Speaker , what we hear from the mem bers opposite seems to be an effort to place the responsibity on us to go along with what it is that they are proposing, but because they don't like the debate that is taking place, they don't like the positions that we have been taking on it, they're trying to put that responsiblity on us. Mr.

Speak er, the members on this side of the House represent the views of approximately 75 percent of the people in this province, and if that's not true, if those members oppo site don't believe that's true, then let them stand up and provide some eviderice that indeed the people are behind them. Because we have lots of evidence to indicate that the people are behind us. We're not talking about a little political light as the Attorney-General spoke of earlier. No, Mr. Speak er.

We're talking about represe nting the views of 75 percent of the people of this province, and surely that is a respo nsibility which rests with the opposition. When the government refuses to recognize the views of the majority of the people of this province, surely it is the responsibility of the opposition and surely we should not be condemned for repres enting the majority of the people in this province and surely we should not be threatened with closure on a subject as important as the Constitution of our country, the Constitution of this province. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are faced with.

If this go vern ment is pr epared to go to tho se unprecedented lengths and they believe that they are 5754

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 truly representative of the majority of people in this province then there really is only one honourable thing from them to do and that is to call an election, if they insist on proceeding with something that does not have the support of the majority of people. There really are only two things that they should do, Mr. Speaker: one is to make that resolution acceptable or to call an election. They should not be threatening closure to ram through a constitutional amendment that is clearly against the wishes of the majority of people in this province.

There is an amendment before the House right now, a sub-amendment, which could render this resolution acceptable. Mr. Speaker, if that is not acceptable to them, let them go to the people. I heard last night all of the talk from members opposite about misunderstanding ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Can I assure honourable members that they will have the same oppor tunity to speak as the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Let's go back and look once again at why we are where we are because I think, Mr. Speaker , until the members opposite fully understand how they arrived at the position that they're in they are not going to be able to see their way out of the dilemma that has been created. I would only go back again to the Bilodeau case and the options that the government was laced with, the possibilities that the government was faced with with the Bilodeau case. Now the case, Mr. Speaker, had been dismissed in the Manitoba courts and they had legal opinions, Sir, that it would be at best unlikely, Mr.

Twaddle said, and this was only referring to if the courts found all existing legislation invalid, he said, which I consider unlikely. Mr. Gibson, I believe, said that there was a possibility that the Bilodeau case might be ruled in favour of Mr. Bilodeau but it was a very slim chance based on the experience in the courts of Manitoba. So what the members opposite were laced with was either let the case run its course or try and head it off. We think that they chose unwisely to try and negotiate the solution rather than let it run its course.

But they chose and that's the position that we've always taken, but the government chose to try and negotiate it. Now, Mr. Speaker, having chosen that route then they had at least two options again and those two options were presented to them by Mr. Gibson, by Mr. Twaddle. Mr. Gibson said simply, seek a Constitutional Amendment that will validate the laws. Mr. Twaddle said, seek a Constitutional Amendment that will validate the laws but there will probably have to be some kind of compensation, ii that term can be used, to the Franco-Manitoban people of the province.

Now I'm not sure that there's real justification for that course of action, Mr. Speaker, it was one of two opinions that the government was presented with, and again I think they chose the wrong one. I think that the government should have pursued the direction that the Attorney-General indicated to us today that was his original inclination to pursue. That is that if they felt that they were threatened then seek validation.

Let me just say once again to clear up the record from some of the comments that the government members have been making in that they have been misrepresenting the position that I took on this issue earlier, again the Attorney-General today did the same thing again when he said that I had acknowledged that we could see the need for validation, and the need to validate, we should seek validation if at all possible and that it would be a better solution if we could attain it. Well, Mr. Speaker , I never advocated that.

What I said was that if the government felt that there was a serious threat then they should seek validation. In this regard, Mr . Twad dle had said that it wou ld be inconceivable that a way could not be found to validate the existing laws. Now why didn't the government, having chosen that action, having chosen the course of having to validate the laws, simply say to the people of Manitoba, and to the Parliament of Canada, we think there is a possibility of legal chaos in this province, that all of our laws might be ruled invalid. Do you think for a minute, Mr.

Speak er, that if the gov ernment had come into this Ho use with that proposition, and that proposition only, and sought an amendment to validate those laws that they would have had any opposition? Can you imagine, Mr.

Speaker, that if they went to the Parliament of Canada and said there is a very real possibility that legal chaos is going to be created in Manitoba, and that we should act to head it off, does anyone think that the Parliament of Canada wouldn't have acted on that when the Parliament of Canada has acted promptly on situations of work stoppage for instance in the past where that's judged to be in the national interest, that they'll force through bills within a matter of hours? Does one think they wouldn't proceed with that proposition to validate the laws? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker .

So the government went wrong there alter having made the wrong decision not to allow the case to proceed through the court. Had they lost, had that unlikely eventuality have come about that the Bilodeau case was ruled in favour of Mr. Bilodeau, does anyone think that they wouldn't have been prepared in seeing that coming about? And had that resolution been avai lable immed iately, as Mr. Twaddle says, it is inconceivable that a way could not be found to validate existing laws. Given that kind of opinion from a man like Mr.

Twaddle, inconceivable that a way could not be found to validate existing laws, why would the government have entered into the sort of negotiations that they entered upon, Mr. Speaker? That's the problem that the government created. That's basically one thing that they shouldn't have done was go the way they did. I think they should have gone the other way but what should they have done in terms of providing actual services? I say to the members opposite, and I repeat again, that they needed to give some modern meaning to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act and I can say without hesitation, Mr. Speaker, as we were starting to do when we were in government. Here's a point that last night when we spoke about this, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite kept saying, ah, but you were doing it in secret. You were doing it 5755

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 all in secret you weren't telling anybody. This was after, following upon the Attor ney-G ener al's - what he regarded as revelation in this House, I'm sure, last June when he tabled documents, Cabi net documents - showing that yes, indeed the Lyon Government was moving to implement expanded French Language Services, and to give meaning to

Section 23. Look at those two things, Mr. Speaker. They thought we would be embarrassed first of all, by them saying what we were going to do. Last night they talk extensively about, ah, but you're hiding it. Why are you sneaking around doing this? You know what, Mr. Speak er, what our government was doing was fulfilling an obligation and a commitment and we did it with an understanding of this province that these people opposite don't have. They don't have the understanding to realize how the real forward steps on an issue like this could be taken. You would take the forward steps as we were doing, Mr.

Speak er, by doing it quietly. Certainly, I don't say that we weren't doing it quietly, we weren't out there waving flags, trying to gain credit from the Franco M an itoban people for what we were doing for implementing things that they would see as their rights in any case. We weren't trying to do that. No. 1, because we wouldn't take that course of action to try and get credit, but more importantly, Mr. Speak er, we didn't want to raise the fears and apprehensions and anxiety that we knew would be created by an open type of action like these members have taken.

What was needed was some meaningful action that the average French-speaking person out there would recognize as being something more to recognize their rights, something that would have meaning in their every day existence, and it wouldn't matter to them whether it was done by government policy, whether it was done by statute, or whether it was done by constitutional amendment. If it was there, that's what would make sense to them and that's the way we were proceeding, Mr. Speaker.

We were criticized in the press at the time for not moving faster, but we knew that to move precipitously on this type of question was to create an outbreak and a furore - an outbreak of public opinion in this province such as we have now seen. We knew that that would come about for at least two reasons, Mr. Speaker. One, because of the history of this province and two, because of the actions of the Federal Government and their bilingualism program, which people in this pr ovince ha ve seen to be unreasonable.

The Federal Government through their program has raised fears - and the members opposite can argue they may be ungrounded fears, but there have been fears raised because time and time again, the public have been assured that everything is going to be done in a common sense way, and then they see that it isn't carried out in a common sense way. People are assured that they will not be affected in any way, Mr. Speaker, and lo and behold, they are affected by it. So, unfortunately, we have arrived at the situation where politicians aren't trusted, government isn't trusted, Mr. Speak er.

The government can give their commitment and the people won't believe them today, because they've been given commitments before and they've seen what has happened. So in this case, Mr. Speak er, the way to make improvements and to make advances was to do it in the traditional conservative way, and that is to recognize that the world is an imperfect place and to make some improvements and to make it a better place.

What the mem bers opposite chose to do was to try and take, if I m ay use the term, a revolutionary approach and wrench the system over in a short period of time, and in doing so, they created the situation that they find themselves in today, and sadly that all Manitobans find themselves in today. Now, Mr.

Speak er, what the government did, of course, was to present this House with a propo sed constitutional amendment, and we've been through this many times, but tha t constitutional amendment represented an extension of French language rights and it included French Language Services in the Constitution, and the public could immediately see what kind of consequences could flow from that resolution they put forward - the very kind of thing that I just spoke of a few minutes ago - where they receive assurances from the government and then subsequently see actions take place that are in conflict with the assurances they had been given.

The public, having been through the constitutional debates a couple of years ago, are well enough informed now to understand what entrenchment means and even though the politicians might write down some words today and entrench them in the Constitution and say to the public, this is what these words mean and they don't mean all these other things, don't worry about it, it's not going to happen, the public understands that it will be courts, it will be appointed judges who are not in touch with what the public opinion is.

It is those appointed judges who will interpret what those words will mean as years pass and indeed they can see the possibility of things happening, which the government assured them wouldn't happen. The public wasn't prepared to accept that and they wer en't pr epa red to accept the appr oach the government was going to take to that. We today have had the admission from the government members that indeed they were wrong on the way they were going to proceed. They were going to push that through.

There wasn't going to be one comma, one jot or one tittle that was going to be changed in this and they weren't going to have pub lic hea rings, they cou ldn't be amended. Well, now today they admit that they were wrong in not agreeing to hold public hearings. They were wrong in what was contained in that constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker, but yet I recall the abuse that was heaped upon the members on this side of the House for pushing for public hearings, for pushing for taking services out of the constitutional amendment. We had abuse heaped upon us for doing that, Mr. Speaker . Now they've done it.

What would have happened if we had not carried out our responsibility, as the opposition, to represent the views of the public and to be critical of what it was the government was proposing? Well, today we have the admission from the government that tt.iey were wrong in what they were doing and they have made some changes. I acknowledge they have made those changes, and as the Member for Char leswood said, they've gone about 17 0 degrees from what they were proposing before. What we are telling them now is that there is another 10 degrees to go before they get to 5756

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 that point where they have some consensus on making a change in the Constitution. I ask the members opposite, Mr. Speaker , to look at what has happened to the resolution that they proposed in the House last May and to look at the resolution that's here now, and they will find if they look at 23. 1, as it's propo sed in the amendment put forward by the Government House Leader, they will find that section, that proposal, is not in the original resolution. It's not there. Now if it was satisfactory to proceed in May without that section, why isn't it satisfactory now? Because, as the Attorney-General told us this morning, that one of the purposes of

Section 23. 1 as it is in the amendment is to protect the freedom to use other languages. Well, I don't see anything as a layman, Mr. Speaker, in the May resolution about the freedom to use other languages. I don't see any protection in there. The government apparently didn't recognize any need for protection at that time, but they've got it in here now. Well, if that's why it's here, Mr. Speaker, then why doesn't the government move that extra 10 degrees that could have the support of the people in this province, that could have the support of the majority of people in this province?

That's the way a constitutional amendment should be done, and they would not have to be threatening us with closure. I know that the honourable members opposite aren't considering that very carefully, because obviously there aren't very many of them even bother to listen to the arguments that are put forward. I'm not sure how many of the backbenchers, and there aren't very many backbenchers over there now because they have such a huge Cabinet as you'll be aware ol, Mr.

Speaker, but I asked the backbenchers and the Cabinet Ministers who have not looked carefully at the proposition that's being put forward: what are they doing? Is the price that they are going to pay worth what they are going to get by forcing this resolution through with a closure motion? Mr. Speaker, I tell them it is not worth it. It isn't worth it in the political sense. You are going to pay a political price such as no government has ever paid for such a foolish action, and what is going to be gained? What is going to be gained from it?

Some kind of protection that somebody isn't going to come into Manitoba and pass a law that you can't put up a restaurant sign in Greek. Is that the kind of protection that they're going to put themselves through this torture for? Mr. Speaker, is there any pos sibility, is there even the remotest possibility of that happening in this province? Absolutely not. Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Yet, here we have the Government House Leader threatening us with closure to get through that kind of resolution.

Why don't they just acknowledge that if they accept the amendment that has been pro posed by my colleague, the Member for Fort Garry, that they could have support and that the pub lic would be able to acknowledge that the government did indeed listen to them and that they would not be forcing through changes that the vast majority of people were not prepared to accept. I'd like to stress once again, Mr. Speak er, because I think the honourable members have to appreciate the reasons why they find themselves in the dilemma that they're in today, that they now have to back off from what they are proposing.

When I spoke last night, Mr . Sp eak er, I made reference to the good will really that existed in this province two or three years ago and right up until a year ago, and the opportunity that was there for the government to make improvements in French Language Services and in elevating the status of French-speaking people in this province, recognizing the fact of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. The opportunity was there and what happened was, this government bungled it. They bungled that opportunity that was there. They could have had the support of the members of this side of the House to proceed in the delivery of services, just as they supp orted what we were doing when we were in government and as we suppor ted them in the first year that they were in government. That is the way that real progress could have been made and you could have done things, Mr. Speaker. They could have done things, Mr.

Speak er, under those circumstances that would have been acceptable to the people of Manitoba that are not acceptable now. They are not acceptable now, because they tried to go too fast and in so doing, Mr. Speak er, they raised all those appr ehensions and fears and anxieties, which anyone who understood Manitoba should have known were there and should have known what would happen. That's when my colleague, the Member for Charleswood says, they have poisoned the well. That is what has happened, and what could have been achieved can not now be achieved for some period of time.

If those members opposite think that they can make a case that somehow we are supposed to come to their rescue now, that we're supposed to go against the wishes of 75 percent of the people in this province to bail out this incompetent government, Mr. Speaker, then they misunderstand the role of the opposition, they misunderstand what the people of this province think and they misunderstand what the members on this side of the House are going to do. I tell the members opposite in all sincerity that what they are doing is wrong. The people of the province are opposed to it.

What they are proposing is wrong and how they are proposing now to push it through is wrong. They should not be using closure to make a constitutional amendment and, Sir, the members on this side of the House are not going to go against 75 percent of the people of this province to bail out an incompetent government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Again I rise in my place to speak to an issue which has not in the last few weeks in the province or in the last few hours in the province become easier to speak to, Mr. Speaker, or be a part of the debate of. Mr.

Speaker , last night in my comments, I felt very strongly as I do today, that I would have hoped with my strongest hopes that some way, somehow that the present government could stand in their place and could justify through verbal deba te, through reasoning and support of what they're doing to what is, Mr. Speaker - and I'm not a lawyer and I don't profess to be one, but I do understand that the proposed changes or the Constitution which has been the ground rules or the rules from which we have all worked for the last 10 0- 5757

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 and-some years, Mr. Speaker, have to be solid. They have to be soundpr oof, and they have to be fair, not to any majority in society, not to a minority in society, but they have to be fair to everyone, Mr. Speak er, because really it is the laying of the foundation.

It is the base; it is the touchstone; it is the wall from which we all have to work. would have hoped that this Legislative Assembly, whether it be the New Democratic Party, whether it be the Progressive Conservative Party would have been able to work somewhat more co-operatively to continue with the base and to set the base or change the base that would be in everyone's interest, very fair. My colleague from Roblin-Russell last night put his finger on it pretty accurately, and I think did a very good job.

The very arena, the very being, the very law making and the system which we work to build that base to work from, Mr. Speak er, has come to a stalemate, has in fact broken down. It has broken down, Mr. Speaker , not by anyone's wishes in here. The members of the government keep pointing their finger at the opposition and saying, you're ringing the bells and you're stopping debate. Mr. Speaker , it has been stated many times. We are doing it because we have the mandate from the public that we represent to do that, because they, the public, in majority numbers, Mr.

Speaker , and in minority numbers are saying, what they are doing is wrong. I'm not going to try and point out what is wrong. My colleague, the Member for Fort Garry, in the introduction of his sub-amendment points that out. But we are now in a situation where the very instrument that we have to work with is not functioning.

So the answer to that, to make the system or the vehicle that we have to work as repr esentatives of the people of Manitoba have now been given an ultimatum by the government, by the people with the majority who are now the NOP Party, saying that you are now given our rules and our guidelines and our power is going to force you to come to a decision. HON. L. DESJARDINS: They're not our rules. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, the Member for St. Bonif ace says, they're not our rules.

It is he and his government that have invoked closure, that have put a time limit on the amount of time that we have to work our way through - not only us, themse lves and their own constituents - what is a first-time, as far as I'm aware, in the history of this province a major constitutional change. We are being asked now - (Interjection) well, the member says, there was one a few years ago. I said a major constitutional change. I believe - (Interjection) - yes, Mr.

Speaker, I think the member had all the opportunity to bring it forward at that time as an opposition, but that's the kind of atmosphere, that's the kind of thing that should never be allowed to develop. One has to go back to the saying, blame them not for they know not what they do, because that's really, I think, where we are at. I really question if they know what they're doing. What group in society, who, Mr. Speaker - and I plead with one of them to stand in their place and say who is going to be happy with the present propo sed constitutional amendment? I would like names of people, names of groups.

Somebody please stand in their place and tell me in debate, that's what this place is for. Why don't they stand and say that this propo sed package that is now being proposed by our government - and I plead with the Attorney General - why don't they say that this is what will satisfy and protect the rights of the Francophone community; of all the groups in society; that it will give them a better way of life; it will be fairer for everyone? HON. R. PENNER: I said that earlier this afternoon. MR. J.

DOWNEY: I listened, but I didn't hear what group in society were going to be more satisfied or have better fairness or a better way of life in Manitoba. I listened carefully. Certainly, I appr eciate the Attorney-General made some apol ogies. Certain ly, it take s a big ma n to apologize when he's wrong. We are as big a man, but what I am asking and pleading with - and women - I'm pleading with them to stand and tell us who is going to be better off? Can the Minister of Agriculture stand in his place and say that? Can he go through it?

I apologize for not being a lawyer, but I have not been able to und erstand why we're in this, breaking down the very system that is supposed to work to the betterment of everyone in society. I haven't had that kind of an explanation, Mr. Speaker , so one only has to say that they can't apparently do it. If it's a philosophical hang-up that they have, if they're afraid that they make changes, they're going to fall out of favour with somebody, then let us hear that because I haven't heard it yet. You know, they can't fall out of favour with many more people.

My colleagues have pointed out time and time again that there are many many groups who are feeling uncomfortable with what they are doing. They haven't explained very well what has really happened in the process. The Attorney-General today, and I compliment him for it - my gosh! He finally said certain things that we were assuming, but he finally cleared up on the record. You know, that's the kind of thing we haven't been hearing. I, Mr. Speaker, believe that we don't have to get into a position or should never get into a position in this Chamber of name-calling or of degrading one another. No one likes that, Mr.

Speaker. I don't believe the public expects that of their members. But wi1at has forced that? When you change the very ground rules or the basic foundation from which our society works and we haven't been told the full story and we have been misled to a certain extent by certain mem bers, then it does in fact, Mr. Speaker, degrade. It forces people to take the avenue out that is theirs, it is physical, it is something that is not normal to the average carrying on of a daily life.

We have seen the opposition use, quite legitimately, mechanisms to try and make the point with the government as to why they are doing the wrong thing and to buy time, because really that's whaf we are after. Why should we rush in, as a Legislative Assembly, as the people's rep rese ntativ e whether we're Progr essive Cons ervativ e, whether you're New Democara tics, why should you rush in to a bad agreement particularly when it is going to be lifelong lasting. 5758

Wednesday, 25 January, 1984 HON. l. DESJARDINS: You don't have to rush in. MR. J. DOWNEY: The Mem ber for St. Boniface says we don't have to rush in. We are now operating under closure threat by the House Leader, who for many many years sat in here as a Deputy Clerk, who stood in his place and voted against Speed-up, and now is holding the gun to our heads saying we don't have to rush this through. Mr. Speak er, I again plead with them to stand in their place and say, why the rush? Who are their suppo rters, and who is going to benefit from a constitutional change that is being proposed? I said, Mr.

Speaker , I was not a lawyer. I have to take the advice of professional people. My colleague, the Member for Charleswood, I believe has about as good of understanding as a constitutional lawyer and an understanding of the makeup of how Canada and our province works. I don't for one minute take lightly what my colleague for St. Norbert said, who was one of the major pla yers as well in the overall constitutional changes that took place in Canada. I have to take their advice, because I respect it, Mr. Speaker .

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-168
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 168.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	16be72a4e4f2f7662e6d4d6cdbd4695054bca04f

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