ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 183 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBR UAR Y, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Quee ns Printer. Provinc#J of Meniloba

MANITOBA 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, O.C., Henry N. CORRIN, O.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 GOUR LAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, O.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, O.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, O.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 SCO TT, 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 Thomp son La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhinela nd Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Ki rkfield Park The Pas Ru pertsla nd Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Ru ssell St. Norbert Ass iniboia 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.

Vita l Party NOP NO P NO P PC PC PC NO P IND NO P NOP NO P NO P NOP NO P PC PC PC NOP NO P PC NO P PC PC PC NOP NO P NO P PC PC NDP PC NO P PC NO P NO P PC PC PC PC PC PC NO P NO P NO P NO P NOP PC NO P NO P NO P PC NO P PC NO P NOP NDP NO P

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 15 February, 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 . Notic es of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORA L QUESTIONS Bilingualism in Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Government House Leader and ask him again, as I did yesterday, whether or not it would be his intention to call the commit tee to hear clause-by­ clause consideration of Bill 11 5? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I expect the comm ittee will be called short ly. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, those of us that have been in this Chamb er know what words like "shortly" or "soon" or "ma ybe" mean.

I was honestly soliciting from the Honourable Government Hous e Leader whether or not it would be his intention to perhaps call the commit tee this afternoon . MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. H. ENNS: . . . should other events transpire that would not enable us to carry on with the other business of the House, or tomo rrow, and let's get on with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 11 5. MR. SPEAKER: I'm a little unsure whether there is a question in there. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. AN STETT: Mr.

Spea ker, it would be our intention to announc e the timin g of commit tee consideration clause-by-clause of Bill 11 5 as soon as all the hypothetical questions raised in the

preamble to the honourable member's question are answered. Bilodeau case - trans lation costs MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the First Minister, the Premier. Has the government established a - I suppose you could call it a contingency policy - that should the Bilodeau case advance to the Supreme Court and su bsequent additional translation costs be faced by the province, that those costs would be borne by the municipalities of this province? Can the Minister indicate whether that is a policy? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, that is a matter that will have to be dealt with very seriously, indeed, if the Bilodeau case does proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Obvi ously, the public will possibly be required to pick up mi llions of dollars of additional expenditure. The re is no qu estion about tha t. We have not determined by wha t route, by wha t process tha t additional expenditure would have to be assumed but, clearly, Man itobans would be faced with a possibility of a major additional expenditure of tax dollars in the Province of Manitoba. Bilingualism in Manitoba MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, a further question to the First Minister, the Premier. Is the Premier aware tha t a Min ister of his government, namely the Minister of Agriculture, a former Mi nister of Mu nicipal Affairs, is making agreements in his office with municipal officials that he is prepared to withd raw his supp ort from his government and from the language proposal that this government is presenting to us on the basis, that should muni cipalit ies be agreeable to picking up tho se translation costs, the Minister of Agriculture will be prepared to withdraw support from his government's measure?

Is the First Minister aware of this? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Asking for awareness is not a proper question to the Treasury Bench. Would the Honourable Member for Lakeside wish to rephrase his question? MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Spea ker, I am trying to determine im portant government policy and I will ask the First Minister whether or not - and that was the reason for my first question - whether or not this is government policy and individual Ministers can make these kinds of arrangments.

On the Mini ster of Agriculture's station ery, signed by the Minister of Agriculture, and dated last night: "I am prepared to allow the current challenge of Mr. Bilodeau to proceed to the Supreme Court when the municipaliti es within our province agree to pay for any additional costs of translating our statutes and related costs, above the proposed agreement, to translate approxi mately 400 statutes over a 10 -year period." Signed by one Bill Uruski. I am asking whether this government has a policy. This is a new twist of the free vote concept that we seem to have some trouble defining, Mr. Spea ker.

Are individual Ministers being allowed to sign these kind of agreements in front of a number of municipal officials - reeves and mayors - of this province? 6058

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Spea ker, I was advised by the Minister of Agriculture about the meeting he held with municipal officials from his constituency la st evening and about the propos al he made to them.

That propo sal was - and I think it is quite apparent to the Honour able Me m ber for Lakeside, the Opposition House Leader, that it was clearly an indication that the purpose of the government's proposal now before the Legislature is to save the Provincial Government, the citizens of Manitoba, the taxp ayers of Manitoba, and more im portantly the municipalities and school divisions of this province, millions of dollars. Mr. Spea ker, that's the purpose and that is what it will accomp lish. Mr.

Speaker, what the Minister of Agriculture was saying and what government Ministers have said at various times over the la st nine months is if the people of Manitoba want to pay these enormous costs; if the municipalities want to run the risk that the Blaikie (2) decision of May, 1983 will be extended to municipalities and school boards in certain factor areas; if they're prepared to live with that decision and that possible extension of the Blaikie (2) decision and they decide they want to pick up those cos ts, Mr.

Speaker, they should say so and the government will be influenced by that statement, and the Minister of Agriculture has put in writing the fact tha t he will be influenced. We've put it on the record. What more does the member want? But, Mr. Speaker, the extension of Blaikie (2) to municipal and local government authorities in Manitoba has implications for them of which they should be aware. Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the enormous costs to the Province of Manitoba, I wonder if the Member for Lakeside or his leader are prepared to put on the record that they're prepared to pay the tremendous additiona l costs that their obstruction and bell ringing will bring upon the Province of Manitoba if this matter goes to court? Mr. Speaker, . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Hono urable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: The height of the shell game, flimflam mery, is now being displayed. We are ta lking about what costs, what costs? There are no costs being opposed.

These members are applauding it as a given fact. We will win the case to begin with. Mr. Speaker, my question . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. ENNS: . . . simp ly is to the extent I want to ask the First Minister - what's been demo nstrated by this signed agreement to the extent tha t honourable members opposite will weasel their way out of facing their constituents. He agreed to trade and sell his vote.

Will the First Minister not now, even at this late date, ask that question of the municip alities, of the people of Manitoba, through a general election if need be, whether or not they are prepared to face whatever different costs might be incurred as a result of this case? (I nterjection) - If individual Ministers can make those kinds of deals behind closed doors, then why not let all his members and all of us make that kind of deal? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it's very interesting that the former Minister of Resources, the Member for Lakeside, now says we will win in the Supreme Court; we will win, he announced proudly and boastfully from his seat but a few seconds ago. It seems to me that I recall - and I will check Hansard - that the Member for Turtle Mountain, I think, quite accu rately said on January 12 th, that the chanc es of the laws of the Province of Manitoba being declared invalid were in fact quite - and I don't want to mi srepresent the honourawble member in fairness to him - but was quite possible, and we can check the words.

So it's very interesting that the Member for Lakeside is now boas ting because of an obvious la ck of understanding on his part and, unfortunately, in so doing mislead ing the municipalities and Manitobans in his statement;

whereas I credit the Member for Turtle Mountain of not misleading Manito bans. of standing in his place and tell::1 g it as it was in this Cham ber. It's unfortunate that the Member for Lakeside did not listen to the Hono urable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. Mr.

Speaker, what is im portant in respect to this issue and what the Minis ter of Agric ultur e was clearly attempting to present to the municipalities' areas is, indeed, that there may very well be additiona l costs - major addi tiona l costs - to the munic ipa li ti es, to Manitobans as taxpayers, if irresponsible conduct is proceeded with in respect to this matter, and that this government does not want to see the incurring of unnecessary costs, the burdening of Manitobans of additio nal millions of dollars because we failed to do our responsibility in this Cham ber. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. It is unparlia mentary to accus e an othe r member of making deli bera tely misleading statements. The Ho nourable Member for Lakeside. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Withdraw, Howard. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minist er. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw. I'm convinced it wasn't deliberate, it was based on ignorance on the part of the Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakesi de. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a further question to the First Minister.

Would he not agree that by agreeing to the amendment that we have before the constituti onal amendment, by then pa ssing on the amende d constitutiona l proposal tha t would valida te the laws, just precisely resolve that possibility - and all that is is a possibility - of any translation costs occurring to Manitoba, and carry tha t out. Why would the Minister, just following his own advice tha t he gave in this House 6059

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 10 seconds ago, not agree to our ame ndment and get the package off to Ottawa? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in fact I find that the Honourable Member for Lakeside is as though engaged in a comedy show. A few seconds ago he stood in his place and said, "We are going to win." Now he is saying, "Are you prepared to pr oceed with our ame ndment to va lidate the statutes?" If we're going to win, then what is the Honourable Member for Lakeside so concerned about, Mr. Speaker?

It was the Member for La keside, but a few seconds ago who said, unequiv ocally and clearly in this Chamber, "We are going to win." SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh , oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakesid e. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Spea ker, I would like to table this signed agree me nt, writt en on the Mini ste r of Agriculture's statione ry, putting the price tag of his vote for the government 's proposal as being, tha t the municipalit ies would have to bear the costs; and he would desert his colleagues and his government on a vote of confidence and not support their language proposal.

I'd like to table tha t with the Hous e, Mr. Speaker. Price war - grocery stores MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urab le Me mb er for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. My question is for the Ministe r of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Ove r the pa st few weeks, rura l and North ern Manitobans have again found themselves spectators to yet ano the r price war th at has benefited only Winnipegers and by-pass ed them, this tim e in the area of food prices.

In view of the fact that prices have been cut by nearly 20 percent overa ll in Winnipeg and by as much as one­ half in the case of some commod ities, while rural and northern prices remain the same, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he could look into the legality and fairness of such discrim inatory pricing for such an ess ential commod ity as food. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attor ney-General. HON. R. PENNER: The question of a price war does raise issues for consumers. Norma lly of course, Mr. Speaker, one . . . MR. SPEAKER: Ord er please . HON. R.

PENNER: . . . would want to encourage and not discour age the reduction of prices to consumers, so let's be clear about that. Ho wever, a price war between two large cartels virtua lly, in the food area, seeking to gain a monopolistic advant age and only thereafter to raise prices unconscionably is som et hing that ought to be mon itored; and certainly officials in the Consumer Affairs Department do monitor that kind Of thing. What worries me , Mr. Spea ker, about the price war is the aspect tha t may be there, and which will also be monitore d, of misleading advertising and the aspect of discriminatory pricing.

All of these arise in the context of a price war. In the long run, there may be some short-t erm advan tage for consume rs, but a lo ng-term loss to all consum ers. We have seen that whenever, as a result of thi s type of internecine war between the big monopolis ts, in the long run if one succeeds over the other, then the free market which that side, for example, declares to be their aim in fact disapp ea rs and the consumers suffer. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I realize me mbers op posit e may not be concerned about this, but my consti tut e nts certainly are.

As a supplementary, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider having his department monitor prices in rural and northern areas to ensure that rural and Northern Manitobans don't indirectly pay for the price war, which is being conducte d by the grocery st ores in Winnipeg? HON. R. PENN ER: The ques tion ra ises anoth e r interesting point. Of course we would be prepared to monitor the situation, but under existing consumer · legislation in this province - and indeed it is quite similar in most but not all other provinces whom we can monitor - we have very little regulatory ability.

One thing which my department is considering, not for the forthcoming Session because it is som ething that has to be looked into very carefully, is fair tra ding practices legislation such as presently ex ists in one or two provinces in Canada. Then you do have the power not only to monitor but to regulate in the interests of the consumers and tha t certainly might be the result of this type of thing. MR. S. ASHTON: A final supplementar y, Mr. Spea ker.

I would like to particularly ask the Mi niste r if he might monitor the rather expensive, obnoxious advertising that we have seen as part of this, which seems to benefit nobody ex cept the advertising agencies. Examinations in two languages MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, yeste rday I gave the Minister of Education notice of a question following upon my questions to the Government Hous e Leade r yeste rday.

Section 64 of The University of Manitoba Act, Mr. Spea ker, states that the examination for any degree to be conferred by the university may be answered by the candid ate in ei ther the English or French language. Does the Ministe r of Education favour entrenchment of that provision under the government's constitutional proposal? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Spea ker, I want to thank the Member for St. Norbert for giving me not ice of that 6060

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 questi on yesterd ay. I th ink he wanted to make sure tha t I was going to be prepared to give a comp lete and full answer. He also asked an additio nal question, but he was asking that within the areas of my jurisdicti on, what ot her areas are there that would be affecte d. I do want to say tha t the areas under my responsibility where acts are adminis tered are great , that I do have very large responsibiliti es and I just want to list them because it is im portant to know how minimal the effects are on all of th ese areas, of what is being done wit h th is act .

First of all, I have The Blind Persons' and Deaf Persons' Maintenance and Education Act under my responsibility; The Educa ti on Admin istra ti on Act ; The Public Schools Act ; The Public Schoo ls Finance Board Act ; The Teachers' Pension Act ; The Teachers' Society Act ; The Private Trades Schools Act ; Universities Estab lishment Act ; Universities Grants Commi ssion Act and University of Manitoba. A MEMBER: Is tha t all? HON. M. HEMPHILL: And I have to say that th ose acts are some of the most comp lex and compr ehensive acts th at exist in the entire Government of Manito ba.

It is very very minimal, in term s of the numbers of rights tha t are being affected. We discussed one of th em yester day - Act 79 of The Public Schools Act . This is one ot her and to his quest ion of - do I favour it ? - I, like the Roblin Government tha t brought it in, do. It has been in for a lo ng ti me; I see no problem wit h it . I know of no government on either side having any problem with allowing the examina ti on for any degree to be answered by a candidate in eit her the English or th e French la nguage. So I do not think tha t it will be ta ken away. I don't intend to.

I don't th ink they do and so I favour its conti nuance and its protecti on. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St . Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the sect ion tha t I referred to was brought to my at te ntion by a university professor who is concerned wit h the difficulty in the event th at th e sect ion was entre nched in th e Consti tu ti on and th erefore could not be a.mended wit hout a great deal of difficulty. No doubt, th is sect ion has probably not been used very much at all. I'm not aware of it being used.

But as th e Minister discussed wit h the admi nistra tio n of university, the difficulty tha t might be caused is if it were used in an unreasonable way and could not be changed except by const itut ional amendment. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I have tr ouble wit h th e suggesti on where people are raising boogeymen tha t don't exist, th at haven't existed - U1is act has been in si nce 19 66. The universi ti es and and both governments have had absolutely no problem with at all. I don't know why th ey want to raise spectres th at don't exist. It has not been and I don't expect it will be a problem.

A MEMBER: She's saying th ey could exist. 6061 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesti ng tha t th ere should be a change in th is sectio n at the present ti me. The intent of the questi on is to point out to the Minister that if it 's entrenched in the Consti tut ion, if it does cause difficulties, it is very difficult to amend as part of the Consti tu ti on. A supp lementa ry questi on, Mr. Speak er, to the Government House Leader. Prior to my giving not ice to the Minister of Educati on of this secti on, was Government House Leader aware of it s existence? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

Seeking the awareness of a member of the Treasury Bench is not a parlia menta ry questi on. Would the honourable member wish to rephrase his questi on? MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Prior to my giving notice to the Ministe r of Educati on yesterday wit h respect to th is matter, did the Government House Leader have knowledge of th is sect ion? MR. SPEAKER: It sounds rather like the same questi on. Does the honourable member wish to rephrase his questi on to seek information rather th an knowledge or awareness? MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I've asked questi ons of th e Gov ernment House Leader on a number of da ys wit h respect to a list of references to the common law, statut ory la w and regula tory la w th at would be entre nched under the government proposa l. Can th e Government House Leader advise the House if he to ok th is particular secti on of The Un iversity of Manitoba Act into considerati on when he said to the House th a t th ey had examined the St at utes of Manitoba that would be affect ed wit h respect by th eir proposa l? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I th ink I caught all of the questi on - I may have mis sed the la st portion. Mr. Sp eaker, th e go vernme nt considered th e implicati ons that the words "freedom to use•· might possibly - the. range of possibility is there - but anywhere from possible to remotely possible and certainly some might even say it 's proba ble tha t the word "freedom to use" will be broadly interpreted to include certain st atu to ry provisions. It is on tha t basis that the Member for St .

Norbert asks his questi on, so I have to reject the assump ti on that certain th ings will be entrenched whic h he places in every quest ion he asks. There's no basis for tha t suggest ion and I reject that assum pt ion. Speaker, clearly I would suggest to the honourable mem ber th at with regard to theo operat ion of the educati onal system which is app arently . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. Mr. Speaker, I would the questio n ol the Honourable for and provide him wit h as much as pos sible, I have no desire to compete with so rne ol his Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Member for St.

Nor bert that with regard to th e

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 imp lications of the legal opinions on the question of 23. 1 and the "freedom to use," he consult as well that

section in the Federal Charter - I believe it's

Section 23 - which specifically provides certain rights and entrenches and removes from any impa ct of the notwithstanding clause, as I understand it, certain guarantees with regard to languages in the educational system. We have deliberately throughout this process avoided in any way impa cting on that. Mr. Spea ker, the question becomes not a question of right with regard to the statute, but a question of the freedom to use.

There is no provision of which I am aware or the government is aware, and this has been extensively reviewed mainly because there isn't a very long list of which we were aware that in any way provides any freedom to use with which any member on this side takes except ion. Mr. Speaker, the whole assumption which underlines the questions of the honourable member opposite, I therefore reject.

We do not feel tha t there is anything in the Provincial Statutes or common law today which provides a freedom to use a language as oppo sed to any specific rights with which we disag ree and I haven't heard members opposite disagree. With regard specifically to

Section 64, The University Act, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the honourable member that directly affiliated to the University of Manitoba as a de gree-granting institution which regula rly cond ucts its exa mina tions in the French language, is St. Boniface College. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the honourable member, since he persists in this line of questi oning, is it the intention, of either he individually or the opposition, to destroy the use of the French language in St. Boniface Co llege? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H.

ENNS: I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point of order being that I welcome those kind of comments and that kind of interest and that kind of concern that he's now showing, if we could deba te to that in its proper place, namely, on the resolution. We have steadfastly refused to deba te the resolution, none of them would get up and speak on the resolution, Mr. Spea ker, and, Sir, they abuse the question period in a clearly out-of-order fashion to try to respond to legitima te questions that we're raising. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, to the same point of order. I agree with the honourable membe r, tha t if the opposition had not refused to deba te the resolution as he admi tted just now, we would not be having extensive questions that promote debate and are argumentative during the question period and I, Sir, and some of my colleagues would not be tempted to respond in kind and give lengthy answers. I recognize, Sir, that my last answer was engaging in debate with the Member for St. Norbert. I appreciate and agree with the Memb er for Lakeside as to why that's happening and I apologize to the House for the length of that answer.

I will try and limit my answers in the future but I have to express the reservation tha t the questions which are argumentative and deal with the matter for which debating time is appointed in this Hous e and which honourable members have refused, then they're going to continue to get answers to their questions. Now they either want answers or they don't. I' ll try and keep them short, try and keep the questions a little more simple. federal Budget � tax changes MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I would urge all members of the House not to take an undue amount of time in either quest ions or answers.

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my questi on is to the Minister of Finance. Ca n the Mi nister of Finance advise the House what sort of request he has made to the Federal Minister of Finance, what sort of advice he gave to the Federal Mi nister of Finance in terms of what the Federal Mi nister might include in his Budget toda y that would be helpful to encourage economic activity in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. V. SCHRO EDER: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I can provide the member with the co pies of various documents that we've presented to the Federal Minister of Finance over the last period of time .

They include the request from the Province of Manitoba, which was the first province to do so with respect to the national recovery projects, the capital projects, the "wish list" tha t members of the opposition said would never come true, which has resulted in many Manitobans already being at work; many millions of dollars worth of projects in the process now of being negotiated with the Federal Go vernment including upgrading of the Port of Churchill; upgrading of the rail line to Churchill; mass urban transport programs; di scussio ns with respect to construction of boxcars in Transcona, and so on.

We can go on and on with the list that we are working on right now. We are also in discussions with the Federal Minister of Finance with respect to equalization payments and our continuing di sagreement with the Federal Government with respect to what they have done with the new formula they provided to us in 1981, the five­ province average. We've been asking for a return to the 10 -province average which would mean several hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the next few years in revenue to the Province of Manitoba, which we would think would be only fair.

We are asking for the Federal Mi nister of Finance to to ok at ways of strengthening the health care system by way of paying 50 percent of funding again in the way that they did a number of years ago. Indeed in 19 79, they were well over 50 percent of health care funding. I take it some members of the opposition don't want too detailed an answer right now, so I'll provide the material ... 6062

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 Re-examination of tax structure in Canada MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, all of those things that the Minister mentions have to do with the expenditure of tax dollars through government agencies or the transfer of tax dollars. Has the Mi nister made any specific request to the Federal Government concerning the tax structure of our country that would lead to increased investment in the private sector which is so sorely needed today? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have indeed at the last Federal-Provincial Finance Ministers' Co nference made a request that there be a full re­ examination of the tax structure in this country which we believe is long overdue. The last proper examination was done in the 19 60s by Mr. Carter, the Carter Co mmission, which resulted in the 19 72 tax reform.

We believe that many of the items drafted onto our tax legislation since then have been very harmful to the economy, especially of Manitoba - one example of which would be the Petroleum Incentive Program which we dis cussed in comm ittee last year pursuant to which the taxpayers of Ca nada basically pay for the oil wells that are being drilled in the No rth - and indeed in some instances we are more than paying for the drilling of some of those wells. We're concerned about those kinds of areas.

We're concerned as well about any proposal which would make significant changes, for instance, to RRSPs which wouid assist people only in the higher income brackets. Now, if the changes were made in accordance with the way suggested by a comm ittee of Parliament which would provide a tax credit of 40 percent of your contribution, so that the rich and the poor would get the same amount of benefit per dollar put into an RRSP plan, we would support that kind of notion. There are a number of areas where we've had dis cussions with respect to taxes and the tax structure.

I would recommend to the members of the opposition a recent Globe and Mail

article - I believe it was in the busi ness

section - dealing with tax giveaways. It made the very clear point that tax giveaways are not a way to encourage investment in this country and indeed there is no evidence that kind of approach is going to put us in a position where we can move forward in terms of capital investment. I suppose the proof of the pudding is right here in Manitoba where predictions are that we're going to have the greatest increase in capital investment of any province in this country, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16 or 17 percent for next year, as compared to half-a-percent in the Province of Quebec. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Spea ker, a final supplementary to the Minister in hopes that I might elicit a direct answer from him. Did he make any specific recommendations to the Mi nister of Finance as to what changes might be made in the taxation structure that would encourage economic dev elop ment in this province, any specific recommendation? 6063 MR. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I've just referred to a number of areas where we've had discussions with the Minister of Finance. If he doesn't see that as being specific, then it's puzzling.

The member seems to think the only way that we can get economic activity going in this country is by giving away money. Tha t's what he wants to do again; that is the philosophy of the Co nservative Party . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of ord er. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I'm simply asking you to call the Minister of Finance to order, and if he chooses not to answer the very specific question put to him by the Member for Turtle Mountain, then it is of cou rse his right not to answer, but not to waste our time with the bafflegab that he's so adept at using in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I have requested on previous occasions that both questions and answers be short, concise and to the point. The Ho nourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Spea ker, I have outlined a number of areas where we have concerns about our taxation system.

We presented ihem to the Federal Government and we believe that ii the taxation structure were made more fair, the economy of this country would improve. There would be more investment. I suppose there are differences in philosophy at work here. There's a belief on the Co nservative side that the way to get the economy going is the trickle-down theory. You give money to the well-to-do and maybe it will come on down to the poor, and those people living in the Unit ed States know what has happened as a result of that kind of policy in the last few years. We do not believe that.

We believe that the way to get investment going is in the way that we have indicated. lan guage of instruction MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MS. 1111. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney-General. Could the Attorney-General inform me and the House whether there is presently any constitutional entrenchment of language of instruction? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, in fact, I've been astonished at the series of questions that have been asked with respect to whether or not the proposal of the government entrenches or could entrench languages of instruction because, in fact, in answer to that o 1estion, The Co nstitution Act, 1982, the accord signed for this province by the former government headed by the now Member for Charleswood, under the Attorn ey­ General , in fact under

Section 23, is the only constitutional entrenchment of language of instruction. It was their action, on behalf of the people of Manitoba - which I happen to support - but

Section 23 of the Charter, "Minor ity Language Educ ational Rights ," specifically states that citizens of Ca nada whose first language learned and still understood and deals with the minority position in any province have the right -

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 it's an entrenched right now to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in tha t language in tha t province - and it goes on to state tha t tha t right is to be supplied out of public funds. That was entered into by the previous government. We support that.

Secondly, because tha t is so, because there is now a specific constitutional provision dealing with the language of instruction, 23 .1 could not, even if the language was suscep tible of doing that, add to or detract from the exis ting constitu t ional provisi on, because on the theo ry, on the constitutional doctrine of occupied field, the field has been occupied - with the consent of that group over there - by a constitutional provision. We could not, even if we had intended to, add to or detract from that constitutional provision.

In fact, 23 .1 deals with the freedom to use and does not deal with languages of instruction. Teachers elected to public office MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Education. I have a copy of a letter dated February 6th , sent to the Minister of Education from the Manitoba Teachers Socie ty. That letter requests that the government introduce five specific items of legislation in the next Session. I'd like, with your indulgence, to read only two very short sect ions of that letter.

One request was, a guarantee that teachers who run for elected public office are granted leave, if requested, from the day their nomination as candida tes to the day after the date on which the results of an election are officially declared. No. 2, a provision that teachers who are elected to public office are entitled to leave for the duration of the term of office and guarantees that teaching positions will be guaranteed upon return. My question: Is the go vernment considering introducing such legislation next Session? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHI LL: Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Education, as all other departments, are working very hard to carry on with the business of the government and tha t includes bringing in and preparing our Estimates and looking at the legislation that we want to bring in, in the next Session of the Legislature. The Department of Education is in the process of preparing its priorities for legislation in the next Session and we will present them to this caucus for their decision in the normal course of activities. MR. C.

MANNESS: I' m wondering if the Minister could indi cate whether membe rs of her caucus, mainly mem bers from Dauphin, Kildonan, Radisson, Flin Flon and others are in support of this proposed legislation. MR. SPEAKER : Order please, order plea se. The question is not in orde r. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question to seek information of government policy. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I'll direct the next question directly then to the Attorney-General.

I would ask him, can members in this House, who are teachers, vote in this House on legislation that will guarantee the security of their future or are they in a conflict of interest situation? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. It is not in order to seek a legal opinion from a mem ber of the Treasury Bench. The time for Oral Questions has expired. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAK ER: On the propos ed motion of the Honourable Government Hous e Leader, the motion pertaining thereto by the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Order please, order please. Those members who wish to make a lot of noise should remember that they are delaying the proceedings of the House in doing so. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In continuing the remarks which I began yesterday on the motion of privilege which is before us, I will just briefly review the points tha t I was making.

Firstly, with respect to the fact that this motion of privi lege, which is a rath er unusual procedural man oeuvre before us, actually today the question that we are dealing with is the motion that the question shall be put. That, Sir, is a form of closure on the motion of privilege which seeks to reduce the length of time, that the bells are allowed to ring, to two hours, which is another form of closure, so that the government can be enabled to bring in their closure motion.

As I said earlier, it is a form of procedural manoeuvring that would see, at the end of this debate, a triple form of closure placed on the overall debate on the constitutional resolution and the amendments thereto. That, Sir , follows on the government's stated intention and, indeed, attempts on six separate occasions to invoke clo sur e on this matter of a constit utiona l resolution and the amendments that are being proposed thereto. That closure, as I said, Mr.

Speaker, was a most unusual measure, the first time in 54 years that a closure has been invoked on a su bstantive motion in this House, and it demons trates just how desperate this government is to try and ram through its French language proposals. Despite the will of the people, despite the desires and the stated lack of consensus that occurs throughout this province today on the matt er, th e government is rammin g it through by closure. As I sai d, Mr. Spea ker, there was the matter of the silent majority that the Premier kept referring to over and over again.

As I indicated yesterday, we on this side of the Hous e can find no evidence of that silent majority that is urging the government to proceed with this matter or, indeed, urging members on this side to capitulate and get rid of it once and for all. That silent major ity, indeed, Mr. Spea ker, is heavily in favour of the position tha t the Progressive Co nservative Party, in opposition, is taking on this matter. Mr. Speaker, further to that, I spoke about the very unusual terms that members opposite keep referring 6064

Wednesday, 15 February, 19 84 to on this matter, how they state that they are committed to freedom and the democratic process and that everything they are doing is to protect the freedoms of people in Manitoba and to enhance that democratic process. Well they, Sir, as I indicated yesterday, have a rather misguided view of freedom and the democratic process when they would invoke closure on the matter of a constitutional amendment which would be entrenched for all time in future undoubted ly, because of the com plex process that would require Federal Government agreement in order to change it.

Sir, that brings me to the next topic that I began as the House adjourned last evening, and that is about the misunderstanding of this issue on a national basis. Mem bers opposite are quick to make comment about the fact that this matter has brought forth a great deal of negative publicity for the province on a nationwide basis. They have said that the national media have been unkind and uncomplimentary to Manitobans for having fought the proposal of the Co nservat ive Government.

The Mi nister of Government Services states that they have been unkind to Co nservatives, the national press, Sir, I have not said that they have been unkind to the government. In fact, I have said that they have been unkind to the vast majority of people in this province who oppose this measure that the government is introducing, and they have said that Manitobans are not fair-minded . . HON. A. ANSTETT: You said this morning they don't understand. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the anxieties of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Government Hous e Leader, but I would ask that he please not interrupt because it will only prolong the discussion and the debate here in the Hou se. I understand that he wants to know our position and I understand that he wants to give us the opportunity to put our position on the record, and so I would ask, Sir, that you admonish him not to continue to interrupt but, in any case, I will proceed.

The fact is that members opposite have gleefully sug gested that we ought to stop our tactics of att empting to block the government, that we ought to stop debate and stop our opposition because the national media are painting the province and the Co nservative opposition in a very bad light. That's what the Minister of Government Services now confirms. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that one of the reasons tha t we are dealing with this on a national basis is because of a great misun derstandi ng, because of the kinds of editorials that I began to read last evening on the mat ter.

The one from the London Free Press, Sir, tha t has the audacity to suggest, and I quote: "For the past couple of years, the Pawley Government has been struggling to bring Manitoba law into conformity with that Supreme Co urt judgment." That is absolute nonsense, patently false. What the Pawley Government has done has been to merely put into practice the situations that were left to them by our government.

All of the various things, Sir, that were in the Cabinet documents, that were in the news releases from the former Premier, the Member for Charleswood, that were read into the record by the Attorney-General that said what we were commi tted to on a policy basis were just merely carried on by this admi nistration. Many of the things that we have seen happen were nothing mo re than carrying on our initiativ es and our decisions. In fact, I can find not one thing in this government's policy that goes beyond what our government was comm itted to .

In fact, I can find, as I did point out in previous speeches, many things that this government is not doing that we were commit ted to do, not the least of which was to provide - not on a compu lsory basis, but on a matter of choice - French language training for any senior civil servants who wanted to avail them selves of that opportunit y, or for members of this Legislature. This government has not carried through with that commitment.

This government does not have in place the means by which senior civil servants can take French language training if they so choose, to qualify themselves for perhaps what will be requirements as this legislati on and this constitutional amendment go through. Many senior civil servants may want, by choice, to qualify in terms of learning French, yet this government has not carried through with that commitment to provide them with the opportun ity.

Rather, they are leaving them in a situation where somebody else will be able to apply for a bilingual position in the Civil Service and they will not be able to avail themselves of that opportunity by virtue of the government policy. I say, Sir, that's the kind of emp ty sloganeering and empty theorizing without commitment that this government is famous for, tha t thi s government seems to be constantly bringing forward. Mr. Speaker, the London Free Press goes on further to compliment the government on what they say is a compromise with the Society Franco- Manitoban. I ask the qu es tion, Mr.

Sp eaker , why do they need to compr om ise with the SFM? What is it that the SFM is holding over their heads? What power does the SFM have to force the government into a compromise agreement on something that the va st majority of Manitobans do not want? Mr. Speaker, - (Interjection) - what is the position and what is the power of the SFM over the government that has forced them into a compromise that is not in the best interests of Manitobans? Mr. Speaker, you know, what is not being told by all of these members of the national media is the other side of the sto ry.

People in those provinces who are looking down their noses at the Conservative opposition and the 80 percent of the electorate who are opposed to the government on this matter . . . A MEMBER: Without consensus and under closure. We'll see what Ottawa thinks. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: . . . those people are not being told the other side of the sto ry. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. ORDER PLEASE. 6065

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 MR. G. FILMON: Fortunately, there are people in the east who do unders tand Ma nitoba and what is happening in Manitoba, and in response to this London Free Press editoria l, there was a letter to the editor in the London Free Press on the 6th of February. Sir, tha t letter sa id, and I quote: "In 19 79, as you point out, the Supreme Co urt of Ca nada struck down the 18 90 Manitoba language act.

The Government of Sterling Lyon accepted that ru ling and imm edia tely began the task of translating Manitoba statutes into French and expa nding the range of French-la nguage services avail able at the provincial level." A MEMBER: Who wrote the lett er? MR. G. FILMON: Please listen and you'll find out. He goes on to say: "T here is an im pression fostered by the Manitoba New Democratic Party and encouraged by the Federal and Quebec Governments that the Societe franco­ m anito baine is someho w representative of the Francophone community in Manitoba . That is not the case.

The Societe is a special interest group which over the years and with generous financial help from the Federal Government has transformed its elf from a cult ur<:li society to an activist pressure group. That it has no mandate to speak for the Franco-Manitobans was borne out in the November referendums where even the French-speaking munici palities voted against the government's position. Your editoria l carries the imp li cation that the ma jority of Ma nitobans are intolerant and unenlightened.

Having lived in Winnipeg for six years and in London for three years prior to moving West, and three years since, I have to say that smug, self-righteous Southern Ontario is, on the whole, much more bigoted and intolerant. "For example, your review a couple of weeks ago of London's former mayors was a list of good solid est ab lishment WA SP nam es. You even found it noteworthy to remark that there were two Roman Ca tholics. Winnipeg's list of mayors and councillors reflects the ethnic mix of the city: Anglo s, Ukrainians, French, Jewish, Ca tholic and Orthodox.

Manitoba has had at least two Premiers, Riel and Norqua y, who were Metis. Cyril Keeper , M.P. for an urban Winnip eg cons ti tuency is a status Indi an. Ho w many representatives of Indian or Meli s stock have been elected in Ontario? "French imme rsion classes are widely available from kindergarten upwards in the Winnipeg school system with free transportation provided. French is treated as a foreign la nguage in Lond on. Winnipeg's Folklorama predates Ca valcade in London and even Toronto's Ca ravans, and in my view involves the whole community much more.

"It has always struck me as rather hypocritical that the Ontario press estab lishment has been quick to point to other provinc es' perceived shor tc omings while staying rather silent on the Ontario Government's waffling on the issue of French la nguage services to Ontario Francophones, and heaven forbid that Ontario should have to grant official status to French along with poor lit tle New Brunswick and Manitoba.

A criti cal compa rison would reveal tha t in practica l terms, Ma nitoban s are far ahea d in pr ovi ding for and protecting cultu ral and ethnic diversity." I won't read the remaining paragraphs because the individual is personally acquainted with me and he makes some rather complimen tary remarks which I'm sure that members opposite won't want to hear.

I had no knowledge whatsoever of the individual's desire to clarify the record, but I say to you tha t he has indeed clarified the record, not only for members oppo site, but for people in Southern Ontario who are being mi si nformed by, as he calls it, their smug estab lishment press. The author of the letter is one F.R. Berry. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G. FILl\ll ON: Mr.

Speaker, further I'd like to read from the Montreal Ga zette of January 26th, because we have heard about the utterings of many of the French press in Quebec - La Presse, Le Devoir - many critic al articles, front-page articles that have said that Manitoba is filled with racists and big ots, tha t the officia l opposition in Manitoba is totally unfair with respect to the la nguage issue in Manitoba. I'd like to read into the record this

article that was written by Dr. W.F. Shaw. This individual, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, is a former Union Nationa le, an Independent member of the Quebec Nationa l Assemb ly, and I quote: "It is easy for Quebec's politicans and journalists to criti cize Manitobans for their reluctance to extend French la nguage rights via a cons tituti onal amendment." You see, he understands that it's an extension of rights, that it's not a conformation of rights. He understands that.

He goes on to say: "One hears the word 'bigot' used to describe anyone who dares to warn against the extension of these rights in Manitoba or anywhere else in Ca nada, yet the term is ca refully avoided when describing the glee of a Ca mille Laurin or a Gerald Godin overseeing the discomfor t that they are imposing on non-Francophone Quebecers.

"If these same journalists and politicians took the time to exami ne what la nguage rights exist in Manitoba and what the Co nservatives they have been calling bigots have been proposing as tangible extensions of these rights, they would find tha t Quebec's version of the respect extended to its mino rity la nguage group is very sick in comparison. "For example, it isn't illegal to use the French la nguage in signs or as the official name of a company in Ma nitoba. Franco-Manitoba ns have freedom of choice in choosing the la nguage of education, either English or French, for their children. Franco-Manitobans MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILllll ON: " ... can opt for a French la nguage trial as a right, not as a discretion ary decision of a judge. There are no children illegally registered in Mani toba schoo ls and there is no commission to surveillance intimidating Ma nitoba citizens. Certainly with the legislated racism intrinsic in Bill 101, no Quebecer should have the gall to call anyone else a bigot. "Ma nitoba has made important steps to expand and extend French language rights since the Supreme Court 6066

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 decision in the Forest case which confirmed that French is an official language in the courts and the Legislature. They have expanded French language education to conform with Ca nada's new Charter of Rights and Freedoms to which the Manitoba Government was a signato ry. They have establ ished French language court services and have developed an expanded system of French la nguage health and social services.

An office of French la nguage services has been estab lished by the Manitoba Government and while all legislation has not been transla ted, all that the avail able transla tor expertise can handle has been handled. "Manitobans respect the French language fact in their provinc e. Wha t the y are conc erned about is tha t entrenchment of rights, through

interpretation, can act to di scrim inate against non-Francophon es in that province. There is plenty of evidence that this can happen. Manitoba need only lo ok at their Federal Go vernment and the way it has inte rpreted the Co nstitution and The Officia l Languages Act. "Manitobans, with justificatio n, feel disadvant aged as to opportunities in the Federal Civil Service and the Federal Crown corporations, as the requirement of bilingualism now deprives them of access to senior positions in their own natio nal government's agencies.

They have seen that even in their own municipalities, senior positions in the RC MP or in the post office are being conferred on Francophones because of the requirement of Level C bilingualism. They are aware that 80 percent of those who have qualified to Level C are Francophones and this is perceived justly as being discrimination against non-Francophones.

"Perhaps most of all, there is a general annoyance that while Manitobans are being asked to give more parti cular powers to their French la nguage minority, where the French language is the majority tongue and the English language, in many instances, has been made illegal . There is also a la rge body of opinion, not only in Manitoba but across Canada, that rejects the concept of two founding peoples. "More than half of non-Francophone Canadians come from ethnic backgrounds that are not from the British Isles.

They or their forefathers came to Canada and built their lives with little or no help from English or French-speaking Ca nadians. They adopted English as the language of North America, of which Ca nada was a part, and as a means of communicating with each other. "They still have pride in their Ukrainian, German, Icela ndic, Polish or other ancestry but they seek no privilege for their mother tongue, although many would like to see the educationa l system help their children retain some of the li nguistic he ritage of their backgrounds.

These Ca nadians. which inclu ded indigenous peoples, the Indian and Inuit, feel with some justification that they are spectators in a language power battle and that the concept of two founding people is nothing more than a public rela tions effort to grant specia l privilege to French Canadians, especially in the area of public sector employment. "Anyone who has visited Ma nitoba knows that its multiculturalism has made it magnanimous to minorities because the people all feel part of mino rity groups themselves.

For this reason, they resent the assertions that their hesitancy about expanding the constitutiona l parameters of French la nguage rights is the result of bigotry and racism. Certainly, they are offended when they are described in these terms by French Ca nadians and English Quebecers who are a party to such heinous legislation as Bill 101. Perhaps the time has come for some soul-searching for Quebecers.

"Manit obans can and have been every bit as generous and just as Quebecers have and certainl y have no reason to feel that they have been anywhere as incompa ssionate in their legislative treatment of the Francophone minority, as Quebec with Bill 101 has been to its English-speaking mino rity. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and Quebec is far from being without sin."' Mr.

Spea ker, I in no way imply that our situation here should be compar ed to that of Quebec, but what I say is that this is evidence that the media of Quebec do not have very much basis in fact upon which to write their disto rted articles; upon which to look down their noses at Manitobans; upon which to cast stones and hold in judgm en! Manitobans for their actions toda y. In fact, those in Quebec who are calling down those who are oppo sed to the government's proposal , who are calling, as racist and bigots, members on this side of the Hous e, thems elves are not clean and free of sin on this issue.

In fact th<>y, Sir, are being - in this particular case - very much wrong in holding in judgment people on this side of the House. As this person said in his

article and as the other person said, the eastern press, Sir, are not in any way being fair or reasonable as they judge this situation, because they are not being criti cal of far worse crimes and far worse inconsiderations that exist in Ontario and Quebec. And yet they are saying that Manitobans have to adopt this, tha t Manitobans have to adopt this, that Manitoba ns have to give in on this matter . I say, Sir, that this letter and this

article have to ld it like it is and we don't have to accept the criticism of those people who know not what they speak of, as they hold us in judgment from on high in Quebec and Ontario. As I say, Mr. Spea ker, I don't believe that we should make our decisions here in Manitoba based on the inconsiderations and the inconsistencies that occur in Quebec. In fact, we should be fighting for the legitima te rights of everybody whether they be here in Manitoba or there in Quebec. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Quebec are not looking at Manitoba for what exists in the Constitution.

They are not made to recognize and to realize that we have a decision to make as to whether or not we want to expand French la nguage rights in Manitoba. It is our right and our responsibility to make that decision. We do so knowing and understanding the circums tances that face us here in Manitoba tod ay. Those people make their judgments without knowing and underst andin g what the constitutiona l provisions are and what rights we have t :i make those decisions within our responsibility. Mr.

Speaker, it's interesting to note - and I'll just say very briefly - that the view across the country appears to be very very different. The letters that I receive, the communications, the phone calls, the telegrams from Eastern Canada all seem to be based on this kind of understanding, this only partia l understanding of the issue. People are saying, given the backdrop of the federal official la nguages, well, why not give it to them, they're entitled to it, not realizing that the consitutiona l provisions of

Section 23 are very limited, much more 6067

Wednesday, 15 February, 19 84 limited than what exists in federal legislation and not realizing that it isn't a straight, outright entitlement. It is, in fact, a matter of choice and a matter of decision within the control of the Government of the Day and the people of the da y. They don't realize tha t the rights of

Section 23 were restored in 19 80. Th ey don't realize tha t we acknowledge those rights exist and we do not want to change or dimi nish those rights, Mr. Spea ker, because they're not being told that They're not being told that this is not a denial of existing rights, but in fact, an argument as to whether or not it is fair and just to expand those rights on behalf of one of the language groups in this province, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: The interesting thing is, Mr.

Speaker, that in the west, as we travel westward from Manitoba, the letters, the phone calls and the telegrams that I get throughout the west say, you're right. We understand your position and it's your choice and your decision as to whether or not you expand French language rights. If you are forced by Federal Government initia tive, by Federal Go ve rnment funding, by pressure from federally-funded groups to buckle under on this matter in Manitoba, then Manitoba will become the next frontier and then it goes to Saskatchewan and Alberta and British Co lumbia. That's what they think in the west, Mr. Spea ker.

It 's an interesting breakdown as to what's happened in this country because of the involvement, initiative, backroom dealing of the Federal Government on this whole issue. Very very interesting. It certainly opened my eyes to the mi strust in which the Federal Government is held unilaterally, com pletely throughout the western part of this country. Very unfortunate that the Federal Government should have put itself and us into those circums tances. Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite have attempted by all sorts of different ploys during recent weeks to try and drive wedges amongst those in our caucus; to try and suggest that we have splits; to try and suggest tha t there's a great deal of disagr eement in our caucus. They're talking about flip flops; they're talking about who's leading whom in this whole issue and so on and so forth. The shouts back and forth, Mr. Speaker, across the House have been very interesting because I think they demonstrate the kind of sensitivity that exists over on that side of the House.

I think that we know a little bit about what's going on, on tha t side just by the way in which they're jumping to try and point out, ah ha, there is some disagreement; there's some difference of opinion on your side, because we know, Mr. Speaker, tha t they have serious problems on their side. I'll be the first to admit tha t I'm not perfect, that I have a great deal to learn as a leader, that I have a great deal to learn about the whole legislative process and about the whole process of dealing with issues in this Ho use, Mr. Speaker. But, you know, there's plenty of time.

I've just been leader for seven or eight weeks. When I look at what has happened on the other side with a leader that's been in place for five years or more and the kinds of pratfalls that he's been taking even in the past few weeks - Mr. Spea ker, let's just take a look at a few of them .

After putting this Legislature through one of the most acrimonious, divisive, bitter debates that we have ever seen that lasted for over a span of three years - in fact, the whole thing started in late 19 82 and we're still going in early 19 84 - that actually consumed nine month s of de bate and commi ttee hearings and legislative hearings and so on, after going through all of that the Premier said, well, really this wasn't a very imp ortant issue. About two weeks ago in question period he said, it's number 58 out of 61 on his list of priorities. What an insult to Manitoba ns.

What an insult to his caucus, to those mem bers opposite who have been bleeding and bleeding badly in the court of public opinion, who have been under pressure and being asked over and over again by their electorate to please withdraw from this, to please vote against it, to please not pass it - all of these people opposite who have been under such tremendous duress as a result of this, then sit and listen to their Premier say that, really, it's only 58 out of 61 on his list of priorities for this province. What an insult to his caucus. They put their political necks on the line - for what?- number 58 out of 61.

They had a member leave their caucus. They had to expell a long-time, prominent member of their pa rty, a former special assistant to the Premier of the province, the NOP Premier of the province in the '70s, somebody who had been an executive member of their party had to endure the longest Session in this Legislature's histo ry. They had to have the ignominious result of putting closure for the first time in 54 years on this issue. They had to do all of those things for something that their Premier has dism issed as being relatively unimportant - 58 out of 61.

Now if that isn't a faux pas, I don't kno w what is, Mr. Spea ker. Later on, only about 10 da ys ago now, the Premier had an interview with a reporter from Le Devoir and after arguing and fighting and debating over

Section 23. 1, which is the area of concern for this side of the House - the area that we have zeroed in on as being that portion we consider is still damaging to the future long-term interests of Manitobans - and there has been deba te and there has been speeches and there has been talk and so on and so forth, in an interview with a reporter from out of the province, the Premier says, well, he is not really hung up on entrenching the term "official languages" as French and English in this constitutional amendment, that he is really not tied to it.

The headline said, "Pawley ready" - I believe it said - "to trash official languages." Now, in looking at it, "Pawley admits he is ready to trash the word 'official."' I think tha t is probably a rough

interpretation and translation and that it probably should have been interpreted as Pawley admits he is ready to scrap the word "official" but, nevertheless, the intent was there. Now I further say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in case the Member for St. Boniface is getting up to tell me that I am wrong, that this individual who wrote the sto ry, Jean Pierre Proux, has since been spoken to by a representative from the Globe and Mail, Mr. Clereux, and he has confirmed tha t indeed his taping of the interview in English has that in it, that indeed that is what Mr. Pawley says. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Health on a point of order. 6068

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would table that article. I have heard an awful lot about this article, I haven't seen it. Would you mind tabling tha t in the official language that it was written in? MR. G. FILl\ll ON: Mr. Speaker, for the knowledge of the First Minister, I did indeed table this in the House - sorry - the Acting First Minister - I did indeed table this in the House a matter of a few da ys ago, and the Clerk gave the copy I believe, to the Premier.

It was our translation and I readily adm itted at the time that our translation could be faulty. Now in order to -- (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Mi nister for Government Services says that it must have been faulty, but I repeat that Mr. Richard Clereux of the Globe and Mail has interviewed and spoken to the writer of the

article and he confirms from his tapi ng, in English, that indeed that's what the Premier sa id. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of order. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I am told that it was the English translation that was tabled. I would like the member to table the original

article if at all possible. A MEMBER: It' s a public document. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Keep quiet, I am not talking to you. I am not talking to you. I am asking a question and you can ... A MEMBER: If you want it, get it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Shut up, idiot What an idiot. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. ORDER PLEASE. The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, for the benefit of the Minister of Health, I do not have the original French version; all I was sent was a translation.

For the benefit of the Member for Thompson, who obviously hasn't been listening, I will say for the third time that despite the fact that I do not have the original French language article, that I only have a translation, that Mr. Richard Clereux of the Glo be and Mail has assured me that he spoke to the writer of the artic le, Jean Pierre Proux, and he confirms that after listening to his tape that, indeed, that's what the Premier said in English, was that he was prepared to scrap the term "official." So he can take it for what it's worth. Perhaps the rest of the

article has not been adequa tely translated, but that aspect of it was apparently an accurate translation. The Mem ber for Thompson also said that they are not interested in papers from outside of Manitoba but, the fact of the matter is, if they are not interested in papers from outside of Manitoba, why is the Premier giving interviews to Le Devoir? Why isn't he telling the people of Manitoba where he stands on the issue? Why isn't he telling the people on this side of the House that he is prepared to scrap the term "offi cial"? Why doesn't he vote for our amendment and remove 23. 1 and get on with it?

That is what we are arguing about; that is why we have been here for the whole of this past month , because the Premier isn't able to face up to that. I say to him that he should go to his leader and tell him that he can save everybody a lot of difficulty, instead of getting into more and more difficulty, instead of creating faux pas after faux pas on the issue, get on with it in any case, Mr. Speaker. We are talking now about flip flops and faux pas. We have the issue of the free vote.

Last Thursday in the House the Premier jumped to the bait and he said that he was willing to have a free vote on his side of the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can teli you that there were a number of members on tha t side who turned white, absolutely turned white. They were ashen, Mr.

Speaker, because as this debate has progressed, of course, many members opposite have been able to hide behind the shield of saying that, of course, this was a government matter and that priv;:;tely they really did not support this, that in fact they had to go Rlong with it because it was a government measu re, it was a government vote and they had to support the government. The next day, of course, Mr. Speaker, the Premier very very quickly backfilled on this matter because he said, of cou rse, it's a free vote but it's a matter of confidence in the government.

Of course, members opposite are not going to vote against their own government and see their government go down on a matter of confidence and cause an election. MR. J. DOWNEY: Like turkeys voting for an early Christmas. MR. G. FILMON: As the Member for Arthur said , that's like turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is they are not going to do it; they aren't going to put them selves out of a job; they aren't going to get thems elves off the gravy tra in.

All those first two rows of members opposite who are now gett ing their ministerial salaries and their cars and their expense accounts and all of the perks that go with their jobs are not going to vote against that. They are not going to turf themse lves out of office two years earlier than they need to. Mr. Speaker, not even the back row, because they know tha t if they vote against this and the government goes down, they aren't going to be back here; they are not going to be back here.

Many of them had great difficulty holding a job before they got here and I can tell you tha t after they leave and their performance here they aren't going to get a job. So this is all they have got left and they are not going to vote against the government on a matter of confidence. So that tree vote, Mr. Speaker, is not worth the words that it represents because having a free vote and a matter of confidence are contradic to ry, absolutely in contradiction to each other, and it can't be. We knew that that was the case because I had a copy of Hansard dated July 7, 19 83, in which the Premier had been 6069

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 asked specifically on this issue, and this is the Mem ber for Elmwood: "Mr. Spea ker, I would then ask, as a last question of the First Minister, is this a matter of confidenc e or a question of con fidence in this gov ernme nt?" The respo nse from Honourable H. Pawley: "M r. Speaker, it's been made very clear it's a matter of confidence." So when he made that offer last week, as much as though it was made for the showmanship of the time, it was nothing more than wind and rabbit tracks, as my colleague, the Mem ber for Emerson says.

We knew more about tha t as well on the weekend because a number of people were phoning various members in the back rows opposite. Mem bers that were perceived or believed to be weak on this issue, soft on ·this issue, were being phoned by their constituents to find out just how they stood on the issue. You know, phone calls were made, for instance, to the Member for lnkster. Do you know what the Member for lnkster said? He sa id, don't bother me; my mind's made up; I'm supporting the government on this. And he sa id, you're wasting your time; don't call me anymore. That's what he said to them.

The Mem ber for St. Johns, - and the Member for St. Johns was thought to be soft on the issue - he said, I'm supporting the govern ment, it's a ma tter of confidence.

Now tha t was before the Premier made his flip flop and went back and stated publicly tha t it was a matter of confidence, but he told these people privately in a telephone conversat ion that the word was out that it was a matter of confidence, and as much as the Premier wanted to tell people that it was a free vote, privately he was telling them ii they voted against this and the government went down, they'd be out of a job because it was a matter of confidence. As I say, the Member for St. Johns said, look, on a matter of confidence, if I vote against it, the government will be defeated and I can't do that.

Tha t's what his answer was. A MEMBER: You must have a good phoning commit tee. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, a phone call was made, interestingly enough, to the Member for Burrows - and do you know what he said ? He said he hadn't made up his mind yet on how he was going to vote on the issue. Isn't tha t interesting now? Of cou rse, he's being very closely watched on this whole thing by his own members because they couldn't take the chance that he might be soft.

In fact, he had great difficulty even getting permission to speak the other day, but they eventually allowed him to speak for 10 minutes on this motion of privilege. Mr. Spea ker, he might be a little soft on this whole thing. I understand that he really doesn't favour entrenchment. A MEMBER: Not only soft, he's sensible. MR. G. FILMON: Tha t's right. In any case, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of confidence and the members opposite are not likely to derail the gravy train.

Well, the Member for Dauphin, the Minister of Hi ghways, of course, he's one of the ones who turned ashen when the mention of free vote was made, because he was very concerned tha t he couldn't hide behind this busin ess of a government decision. He won't be able to use his expense account next year to buy his rink di nner in the MCA Bonspiel if he's off the gr avy train. In fact, he won't even be able to afford to curl in the MCA Bonspiel next year if he's off the gravy train. So, Mr. Speaker, he wants to be back, he wants to be back. Mem bers opposite know just where the score is.

The Member for Elmwood said the other day that if this matter were to result in an election tod ay, that the government would be lucky to come back with six members in this House. I think he was probably being a little pessimistic. But another member of the ND P Government caucus privately told us within the last 10 da ys that his prediction is, you might come away with 12 seats. Let's look at it and say tha t it's probably somewhere in between those two extremes, but there's no question tha t the government is not popular on this matter and the ND Party is not very popular in this province as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, if this government were to allow a true free vote, they would lose because a number of their members would simp ly, not in all conscience, be able to support this measure. That's why they've muzzled so many of their mem bers, as I spoke about yesterday and I read off all the names of the members opposite who have not spoken on any of the three elements of this constitutional resolution. The resolution, the first amendment and the sub-amendment, at least half their caucus have not spoken on any of those three elements of the resolution.

You have to know why; because they've been muzzled, because they can't afford to have some of their members put their true feelings on the record. They have to ensure that it's a ma tter of confidence and tha t they will vote to protect their jobs, and that's why it's there. Mr. Speaker, I can understand . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: . . Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there'll be time for the Mi nister of Government Services. I'm not backpeddling on this.

I have never suggested that I didn't want the member to speak, but he's not going to do it when I have the floor. He has ample opportunity and indeed if his government will take off the threat of closure, he will be able to speak at great length on this. He'll be able to speak on the resolution because he hasn't spoken on that; he'll be able to speak on the amendment because he hasn't spoken on that; he'll be able to speak on the sub-amendment because he hasn't spoken on tha t. He hasn't spoken on any of those three, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that there will be time for the Minister of Government Services to speak on this perhaps by Friday or so when he's able to get the floor, and I'm sure that he'll want to speak on that. I want at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the matter that was brought up in question period tod ay, the matter of the government's misunderstanding of the provision of

Section 23. 1, the proposed amendment that would entrench all references in our existing statutes to French and English. It means that any 6070

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 provisions that are there for whatever reason they were placed, will not be able to be changed without a constitutional amendment in future. and tha t is going to create serious difficulties for tl1e normal workings and operations of government. The Minister of Education made light of the fact that she was asked about the provision that exists today in The University of Manitoba Act, and that's

Section 64 and it's under the heading, "Examinations in English or French," and I quote: "The examination for any degree to be conferred by the university may be answered by the candida te in either the English or French language." If that provision, Sir, were to be enforced, I would suggest to you that there are many faculties in specialized areas that would be incapable of examining many of their students today in the French language.

As a graduate of engineering at a Master's level, where you're dealing with highly technical subjects, I can tell you that had I asked for examination in the French language, of my Master's degree professors or to have my thesis indeed dealt with by my professors in the French language, they would have been incapable of doing so. It's just like the problem that we have in translating the statutes. We're not talkin g about ord ina ry information; we're not talking about ordinary use of language; we're talking about highly technical matters.

I'm suggesting to you tha t in a num ber of the specialized, technical faculties in this university, they would not have people who were capable of giving an examination in the French language to the kind of degree of accuracy and in the highly technical areas in which it would be required. Mr. Spea ker, (Int erjection) - the Member for Thompson says, is there anybody who knows French? Of course there will be some, but what happens if you're dealing with the specialized field of fluid mechanics and you've got somebody who's got a Ph.D in Structural Engineering who understands French?

He's not going to be able to do a Ph.D dissertation in fluid mechanics just simply because of that. So you've got to have the people who are specialized in those areas capable of doing it and I'm saying to you that if you had a zealot approaching the university to try and put them on the spot and demand tha t the examination in a highly special ized field of technical knowledge and they had to do it in French, the university would not be capable today of fulfilling that requirement.

The problem is that if we're faced with tha t kind of situa tion, we would seek some form of practical compr omis e. - (I nterject ion) - know tha t the Member for Rad isson is gett ing very exercised over this, because he knows we've hit upon some matters that they have not considered and that they are not able to deal with. He is becoming very anxious lest they become more foolish in the eyes of the public than they already are by showing the weaknesses and the lack of information, the lack of knowledge that they have in this whole proposal.

This requirement, if forced to its ultima te on the university, would not be one that could be dealt with easily. So what would a reasonable government do to try and modif y that? A reasonable government might amend this act in order to allow for a reasonable

interpretation of that provision. I might point out that 6071 that provision was put in by the Roblin Government in 19 68, that we do not want to withd raw that provision but we want a say that, if it turned out that the university was incapable of fulfilling the requirements of that provision, then it could be adjusted or amended to suit the circums tances. But under this provision, under this constitutional iimendment, it will be entrenched and in order to satis fy the situati on, in order to modify this provision, it would then require a constitutional amendment in future.

That's the kind of problem; that's the kind of legislative stupidity that we're faced with by this government's entrenchment proposal. That's the kind of situation that we are arguing against on this side of the House, and they don't understand it. They don't understand the difference between entrenchment and ordinary statute law.

They don't understand that one can be changed, modified, adj usted to suit the needs and the circumstances without wanting to take away or diminish rights of groups in soc iety, but we want to have the power to do that and that power will be taken away from future Legislatur es because they're going to entrench everything, including all references to English and French regardles� of where they are in the statute. I want so say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not some dream out of somebody's mind, some strange quirk of somebody's imagination.

This was referred to us by a university professor who knows and understands the meaning of entrenchment and the difference between statute law and entrenchment in a Constitution, and he just simply pointed that out as one example that came to his mind. I say to you that because we have not had adequate review, adequate discussion and adequate dealing with this issue, we are being faced with the decision to constitutionally entrench matters that nobody understands in this House tod ay, especially on that side of the House.

We don't want to take away anybody's rights, but we want to know what we're entrenching before we make that decision and this government can't give us tha t answer. That's why we are so adamant about our concerns and our consideration on this whole matt er. Mr. Spea ker, the Premier has said on a number of occasions, both inside this House and in speeches outside - in fact, he's quoted in a letter that he sent around recently, to the effect that the reason government is having to deal with this matter is because when we pa ssed Bill 2 in 19 80, we didn't really adequately take care of this matt er.

He says that our legislation was faulty and that we should have known better and that we are the cause of the problem. Mr. Speaker, I knew that the Premier had been here in 19 80 and had the right and the responsibility at that time, as Leader of the Opposition, to examine the legislation a11d to make critical comment if he felt that it was faulty, 1f he felt that it wasn't able to cover the circumstances or the needs, he had the right and the responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to say so, to stand up and be counted, to tell people where he stood on it.

I'll just quote from the Premier's speech on the 1s t of February, 19 84, Page 584 1 of Hansard. He says, "But one of the reasons that we have problems today is because they didn't have the initiative and the courage. In fact, they hid rather than ensure that things were done properly in 19 80."

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 Mr. Speak er, secondly, as I have indicated, I don't claim like honourable members across the way to be a constitutional lawyer. I depend upon the advice of constitutional lawyers and I wish, indeed, that I had taken the opportunity to acquaint myself with the views of some constitutional lawyers, because I suspect in 19 80 they wou ld ha ve advised me tha t what the Government of the Day was doing was incorrect. Well, Mr. Speaker, those same constitutional lawyers tha t are advising the government toda y - Mr. Kerr Twaddle, for one - were advising the Government of the Day in 19 80.

They advised that government of the manner in which to proceed, tha t resulted in Bill 2. Mr. Spea ker, what did the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the now Premier Mr. Pawley, say in his comments on Bill 2 on Monday the 7th of April, 19 80? Did he question the bill? Did he di sagree with the bill? Did he argue with it? Did he say it was faulty legislation (I nterjection) - well, the Member for Virden asks the rhetorical question, did he know what he was talking about? Indeed, all you have to do is read his comments to find out. I'll quote, Mr. Spea ker, from Page 2004 of Hans ard of that date.

Mr Pawley: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to commence my remarks by indicating that the general nature of this bill will be supported by the opposition and that there will be support in principle to the second reading of the bill in process on its way to comm ittee. Certainly we understand that the bill, as it presently exists, contains an effort to imp lement the main requirements as per the recent Supreme Court decision, the decision which invalidated The Official Langua ges Act of 18 90 and reinstituted the law as per The Manitoba Act of 18 70 ." He goes on further to say: "So, Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion, the legislation before us is im por tant legislation. It is legislation that mus t be introduced, because there is no option. The Supreme Court has made a ruling, a ruling that the statutes and regulations, at least to some extent, must be transla ted into French and into English." So at tha t time, he wasn't even acknowledging that the statutes all had to be transla ted into French and English. He was saying that just to some extent. He says: "We have no qua rrel.

The opposition will be supporting the provisions of that legislation." He goes on and he says: "The First Minister quoted the words of Justice Freedman which, in fact, I wish to also refer to, because I do believe that they strike very well at the nub of what we are doing tod ay. 'Constitutions can be made to work only if the spirit of them is obs erved as well as the black letters they contain, and if there is a di sposition on the part of all concerned to make them work in a practical and reasonable way without, on the one hand, intransient assert ion of abstract rights and without, on the other hand, a cutting down and a chipping away of those rights."' So, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier had ample opportunity himself to criti cize this bill; to say that Bill 2 of 1980 was inappropriate; that it didn't cover the sub ject properly; that it was faulty and all of those things. He didn't do that. He said that they would be supporting it.

He said tha t it served the purpose; tha t it brought us back in keeping with the law of 18 70 and all those things, yet toda y he goes on record in Hansard, in this Legislatur e, in letters that he's sending out to people throughout the province saying that the government wouldn't have had to do this if the previous government had acted properly in a matter in 19 80. Where was he at that time? Where was his advice, his criticism as a member of Her Ma jesty's Loyal Oppos ition? Where were his amendments tha t would have approved the bill? Mr.

Speaker, not there, because he didn't seem to have tha t great an interest or a concern about it in 19 80. Mr. Speaker, members opposite, throughout this whole de bate, have talked about the need for consensus. They've talked about it on many occasions. For instance, the Government House Leader has talked a bout consensus. On the 5th of Janua ry, 1984 Page 5376 of Hansard, the Government House Leader said: "Mr. Speaker, what I find rather amazing is that the position of the members opposite has not changed even though they claim to have been listening and to have heard.

It is the position of members on this side that has changed in response to those messages. I believe the government has listened well and is prepared to respond in a fashion tha t provides a consensus for the 19 80s and for the future. I believe that it is a credit to all Manitobans that this consensus is not only possible, but real." That's what he sa id. His leader in this selfsame letter that I'm speak ing of that went out to Manitobans spoke about consensus. The letter is dated February 7, 19 84 and it's from Premier Howard Pawley.

It says: "We believe that our new proposal reflects the political consensus of the 19 80s rather than that of the 18 70s." So members opposite seem to feel that consensus is important on this issue. Further to that, the former Chief Justice Mr. Freedma n ha d said when he was di scussing constit utiona l amendment, that it should ha ve consensus. I spoke earlier about the fact that even Prime Minister Trudeau waited for 13 years to get consensus amongst the provinc es , the Federa l Government and the oppositi on." Mr.

Spea ker, the Minister of Natural Resources said on Page 5400 of Hansard of January 6, 19 84: "There is an opportunity now for the Leader of the Opposition to demonstra te under his leadership a concern to leave the past behind. There is an opportunit y, Mr.

Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition to demo nstrate that under his leadership, an official opposition party will do what an official opposition party is c�pable of and that is advancing in a constructive way, suggestions, ideas, proposals to ensure that the decisions that are made are consensual decision that will receive the endorsement and approval of all of the people of Ma nitoba." Well, Mr. Sp eak er, we did offer tha t approa ch. In fact, we offered by virtue of our amendment to remove

Section 23. 1, that we would support the package with the removal of

Section 23. 1. As I said earlier, the Premier has gone on record as saying that he's not tied to and not hung up on the term "official languages." Now all they have to do is resolve the matter of attempting to entrench wrongfully all references to English and French in the statutes and, Mr. Speak er, we have a consensus. That would be a consensus that would be arrived at through debate in this House, through the proper process of this whole event, of this whole constitutional amendment. That would be a consensus that reflects what people in this 6072

province really believe and really would support; but their idea of a consensus, Mr. Speaker, is faced with the opposition of 80 percent of the people in this province to press onward bullheadedly, to press onward, through closure, through whatever means necessary to press onward. That's their idea of consensus. Well, Mr. Spea ker, that is absol utely shame ful. Who is included in the consensus that they speak of? Where are the peopl e represented? Who represents the people? You know what their consensus is, Mr. Speaker?

It's to go into a back room, make a deal with a special interest group and then have Dick Martin approve it because in their view, if you ha ve the Ma nitoba Federation of Labour on your side, that's a consensus for the whole province; that's the only consensus that I can find in this whole issue, is that Dick Martin agrees with them. A MEMBER: Does Dick Martin speak for the MGE A? MR. SPEAKER, J. Walding: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the MGE A is part of this consensus.

I read in the last speech that I gave to this House a couple of weeks ago what the MGE A said and they did not agree with 23. 1; so they are not in consensus with the government on 23. 1. They have given conditional approval to Bill 11 5 but they have some serious reservations about the

definitions and the implementation. That does not represent, in my view, consensus and I don't think that too many people who looked at it realistically and ob jectively would sug gest that that represented consensus. Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite, there is overwhelming consensus that the government is proceeding wrongly and that the government should come to its senses, allow for the validation of the statutes, agree with our amendment and get on with the business of government in Manitoba. That's the overwhelming consensus, as I see it, in this province tod ay.

I just want to once more reiterate the fact that we do indeed agree with the validation of statutes; that we do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the validation of statutes is something that we are prepared at this point to go along wit h. We believ ed earlier that the government, as per its own advice from Mr. Twaddle, had nothing to fear from going to the Supreme Court - and I quote from him - Mr. Twad dle said, in his advice to this government early last year, that the government had an excellent chance of success in Bi lodeau in the Supreme Court.

Now an excellent chance of success meant that there really shouldn't ha ve been a concern abou t the confirmation of the validity of the statutes. There really shouldn't have been that concern, but this government panicked because there was some small chance. Well, I would say, Sir, that it's very possible as well that the course of events of the last nine months have seriously weakened the government's position on this.

There's no question that if you go to the test and you back away and say, I don't want to go to the test, I don't want to put our case to the test in the court, I'd rather make an out-of-court settlement, and you start to negotiate and negotiate and you offer publicly new legislation, a constitutional amendment, all those things, that the nine justices of the Supreme Court who read the papers and listen to the media will know that the Manitoba Government was afraid of going to the Supreme Court, that in itself will seriously weaken the chances of the Manitoba Government in going to the Su preme Court today .

This gover nment has put Manitoba ns at that risk and has caused us to have great concern. So, Mr.

Speaker, because as well the government has said that its major purpose in putting forth this constitutional amendment was to avoid the prospect of what they called legal chaos by a lawsuit in Bilodeau in the Supreme Court and that the Attorney-General said that their first position was to accomplish the validation of statutes by constitutional amendment, we have sai d, in view of all of this, in view of the fact that it has gone on so long, we will help the government take itself off the hook on the Bilodeau case and we will support the remainder of the proposal that allows for the confirmation of the validity of the statutes by the constitutional amendment, we have agreed to that.

I think that was a displa y of generosity and concern for the people of Manitoba and this government and the position it has wrongfully put people into by this whole issue. We continue to take that position and let there be no mistake that this government, by its actions, has severely weakened its own case in the Supreme Court on the matter and we have said, during the course of this debate, that we will attempt to help and we will now agree to the entrenchment of those parts of the resolution that seek to confirm the validity of our English-only statutes.

That's what approval of our amendment to delete 23. 1 would involve; that would be reasonable; and that would be justified; and that would be the consensus of the 19 80s in our view, on this matt er. That, I think, represents what the government ought to be looking at; and I am disappoin ted that the Premier is not considering that matter and is not looking at it in a very realistic manner. As I go further through this whole issue and the motion that is before us, there are a number of other points that I'd like to make in the course of the debate.

This government says it has a mandate to proceed and that mandate is all it needs. In the course of discussion of what form that mandate takes place, the Premier has said that when they were elected in 1981 they had a mandate to govern and that included this French language issue, thi s constitutional am endm ent or anyth ing else they wanted to place before this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the literature of the New Democratic Party in the 1981 election campaign was this issue mentioned - nowhere.

Nowhere in public forums, on public platforms did the Premier say, that if elected he would go and change Manit oba's Constitution to ma ke French and English official langua ges and to entrench all of the Statutes of Manitoba that refer to English and French. Nowhere did he say that in his platform, in his policy enunciation or in the speeches he made during the 19 81 election campaign. Mr. Speaker, when you're talking about mandate, you have to look at the plebiscites that were held last fall 6073

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 and you would find indeed that the pub lic has told this gover nment and told this Premier, as stro ngly as possible, that they do not have a manda te; that they do not believe that what the government is doing is right; that they do not believe that what the government is doing is reasonable; and they do not believe that the government ought to proceed in this manner. That's what the people have told them and that's what the people of this province believe with respect to the government's manda te. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. Fll l\ll ON: Mr.

Spea ker, throughout this whole debate members opposite, and the Premier have said it and the Member for lnkster has said it and others have said it, that the question here is a question of protection of existing French language rights. I have said over and over again tha t the existing rights are protected by

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. You know, with respect to those who want to argue about French language rights. there are some within the Francophone communi ty in Manitoba who are far more qualified to discuss that than any of us here. One, for instance, Mr. Georges Forest, has written me a very lengthy letter and has given me a very complex legal opinion. This is an individual who went all the way to the Supreme Court with respect to the matter of The Manitoba Act of 18 70 and

Section 23 and their provisions that are there. He understands the legal process, he understands the kinds of protection of rights and he fought for Sect ion 23 in his

interpretation. He says some very interesting things, Mr. Speaker, in his letter to me. He says, among other things, the government is wrong to proceed on this basis. He says that all he wants is

Section 23, he doesn't want all of this other verbiage that the government is putting in place, that all that is necessary is

Section 23. He says further that he is ashamed of the Mem ber for St. Boniface, the Minister of Health, who has, in his view, been the champion and the chief spokesperson for French language rights in this Assembly for almos t two decades, to now be co-opted onto this issue and to be put in a position of supporting something that he thinks is not worthy of the support of the Member for St. Boniface. Well, Mr. Spea ker, the Mem ber for Radisson says Mr. Forest is ashamed of me, or members on this side. Mr. Speaker, he nowhere in that letter is critical of our position.

He, in fact, asks us to continue to work against the passage of this constitutional amendment, that's what he asks for. He asks for our support of his - (Interjection) -- For me it's in English. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. Prince, another spokesman for the French language communi ty in Manitoba, another person who, unlike the SFM who suppor ted the yes vote in Quebec, who wanted to have Quebec separate, Mr. Prince .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G.

FllMON: . . . was among the Francophone group in Manitoba who recognized that we do, in fact, have a country for all people, we have a province for all people, and that we can live together in harmony. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of order. HON. l. DESJARDINS: I don't think it was done with malice, but the Leader of the Opposition said that the SFM supported the yes vote. That is not correct, it was the executive without a mand ate of the Societe franco­ manitobaine. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Leader of the Opposition. HON. l.

DESJARDINS: They were taken to task for that. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FllMON: Mr. Speaker, the Mi nister of Health indica tes that it wasn't the SFM, and I apologize, it was the executive without a mand ate. Was the Member for Radisson a member of the executive at that time? A MEMBER: I don't think he was. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Or der please. The Hono urabl e Mi nister of the Environment on a point of order. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, yes, I do believe the Leader of the Opposition asked a question and did nod in approval when I asked if he wished an answer and, therefore, I do want to put on the record ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. G. LECUYER: . . . that I wasn't a member of that executive . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a point of order. If the honourable member wishes to engage in the debate he will have the same opportunity to do so as other members. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Order please. MR. G. FllMON: Mr. Speaker, that indica,es just exactly the kind of position . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FllMON: . . . this government is in. The Minister of Health indicates that the executive acted without a mand ate. Well, Mr. Spea ker, that's precisely what we're talking about here, this government is acting without a manda te. Now, they can understand how when people go forward without a mand ate from the people they represent and try and do something that their people don't agree with, they should not proceed . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FllMON: . . . and they should not be seen to be acting in the interests of the people that they represent. 6074

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMOlll: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G. FILMOlll: . I want to talk a little bit about the speech that was made last week by the Premier, the Premier's speech. During that speech, Mr. Speaker. I tried to find, and it was reported in the newspaper that speech had consumed an hour and 12 mi nutes. It is indeed a lengthy one, you'll see it in Hans ard of February 1st beginning on Page 5836 and ending, Sir, on about 5845.

During that period of time the Premier spoke at great length about all sorts of things. He spoke about the Grassroots Organization; he spoke about Conrad Kelly; he spoke about Ron Gostick; he spoke about the pet itions that were delivered to the lieutenant-Governor; he spoke about the Member for Elmwood and his role in this; he spoke about an

article in a Filipino paper in Winnipeg; he spoke (I nterjection) - no, it was an

article in which I was quoted, so he spoke about that. He spoke about the Province of Quebec, and he spoke about all sorts of things, Mr. Speake r. He spoke about bell ringing; he spoke about Chile; he spoke about the New Democratic Party philosophy; and he spoke about Family Law legislation; and he spoke about rent controls; and he spoke about Autopac. A MEMBER: What did he say about the French language issue? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMOlll: One of the points that I'm going to make, Sir, is that he almost didn't talk about the issue before us.

He certainly didn't talk about our amendment and he rarely touched on the constitutional amendment, or either amendment that's proposed. What he did was he com pared this to the man ner in which other oppositions have dealt with other pieces of legislation. What his message was was that other oppositions have debated and dis cussed and indicated their opposition and then have let it go. He gave instanc es in which his government did that. He said when he was in opposition they gave in on the dismantling of rent controls, they gave in on Family Law legislation changes, they gave in on all sorts of things. Mr.

Speaker, not only do these not compare in magnitude and im portance, but he fails to understand the difference between statute law, which can be changed by a future government, and constitutional amendments, which are unlikely to be changed by future governments because of the requirement for federal approval to amendments.

Sir, that is why we don't take these decisions lightly, that is why we don't take this kind of determination without having consensus, without having the agreement of the vast majority of Manitobans, and that is why we don't proceed on a constitutional amendment as though it's an ordinary day-to-day bill before this legislature. I am absolutely astounded at the Premier for not appreciating that.

He talks about bell ringing and closure and wrings his hands and says this is dreadful what we are doing to the parliamentary system and to our system of democracy in the legislature, and so on and so forth, but he fails to understand that we're not just dealing with an ordinary garden variety bill that'll be able to be changed; we are deal ing with a constitutional amendment, Si r, that may never be able to be changed by a future government. He talks implicitly about all the groups tha t he's dealt with and how they agree with him on the matter.

It's a funny game that he plays because he says: "Last Sunday I had the opportunity to meet in this very building with appr oxi mately 300 leaders of ethnic commu nities that came to visit this building and I talked with them. I was pleased with the understan di ng expressed by the leaders of the ethnic communities that I spoke to. It wasn't just one or two, but it was many, many that said to me, stick with your battle on the French language service issue." That's what he says all of the various ethnic leaders said to him. Mr.

Speaker, if that's the case, why is it that when the Member for Turtle Mountain was reading the figures of the public survey of the various groups of this province and their attitude toward this proposal, those people who are not of English background, not of the so-called WASP background, those people who are from the Ukrainian, German, Polish, Dutch, and other commun ities, are more strongly oppo sed to this than are the average person in this province. Why is that the case if the Premier says that he has the full support of the leaders of the ethnic communi ties in this province? Mr.

Spea ker, it's because that statement has as little validity and as little veracity as his statement that said tha t the silent majority out there is with him. He doesn't know where it's at in the ethnic commun ities, and he doesn't know where it's at in the silent majorit y, Mr. Spea ker, he does not understand the public mood and public opinion on this issue whatsoe ver. That is the whole problem with which we're dealing, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, the Leader of this province of ours, the Leader of the government and the Leader of this party doesn't understand what's happening at all.

That's why we're into this situation, Mr.

Speaker; that's why we're into the bitterness, the divisiveness, the acrimony; that's why we're into the bell ringing; that's why we're into the procedural manoeuvres; that's why we're into all of the problems that have been caused by this government's process with the whole effort to change our Constitution, to entrench French and English as official languages, to entrench statutes, tha t we aren't able to be told by the government what is involved, to do all of these things that Manitobans have sa id, and said clearly right through the whole process of this debate, through the process of the plebiscite, through recent polling that we have done on this side just to confirm what the public mood and the public opinion really is on this matter, Mr.

Speaker. The fact of the matter is that it is the government who is off course, it is the government who was off course. It is the government who does not understand. It is the government who is wrong and it is the government who had better come to its senses and support our amendment and withdraw from this whole issue. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. 6075

Wednesday, 15 February, 19 84 HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, we have been challenged by members oppo site that we are not getting up to speak, and I challenge the Leader of the Official Opposition, if he would sit down, that I would stand and say a few words in response to his comments and comments made by other members of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, why is the obstruction by the opposition taking place during this debate on this issue? Why is the abuse of the rules taking place on this issue? Why the refusal to answer the calls for a vote? Why the filibustering on this issue, Mr. Speaker?

Why is the Conservative opposition trying to paralyze the work, the legitima te, reaso nable, orderly busi ness and operation of the government? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. They are in opposition and they are speaking from a very weak position. I hear them laugh and I hear them snicker, Mr. Speaker, because it's common for them to do that, it's normal. It's very simple, what is happening in the Leg islature.

I think it is histo ry-making, what is happening here, and it's very simple the reason why, because on economic issues, on creation of jobs, on the building ol homes for Manitobans, on the delivery of health and human rights, they are com pletely outdis tanced, outmano euvred, outflan ked by New Democrats. Mr. Speaker, they are grasping for issues; they cannot go to the electorate on bread-and-bu tter issues and win an election.

They have to find an issue in the next election and they have latched on to this issue in the hope tha t th ey ma y be able to convince enough Manitobans to support them in the next election and hope that they may win in that way. Mr. Speaker, they are now being exposed. They have dragged this on too long and they are now being exposed right across this country, including Manitoba, for what they are. They are being condemned in the media all over the country, Mr. Speaker. You don't have to leok only in today's Free Press at the editorial, and the condemnations that they are receiving from the Free Press.

You can look in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Spea ker.

Let's look at the editorial of February 7th, Globe and Mail, and they are describing the ringing of the bells in Ottawa last year by the Cons ervatives and they say tha t the Cons ervatives had a legitimate reason to ring the bells then, but when they com pa re what is happening in this Legislature, here is what they have to say: "Using the bells, the Conservative Opposition forced the government to break the bill in eight places" - that is the federal ringing of the bells - "to refer tax measures to a special com mit tee with powers to call expert witnesses to explain what they meant, but it is very different in Manitoba.

There the debate has already proceeded for eight months. Special hearings have been held across the province. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that both the Legislature and the courts must function in French as well as in English. All the bill offers beyond this are a few limited language rights to French speakin g Ma nitob ans. The gov ernment is entitled to a vote on its legislation. The Manitoba Cons ervative Opposition is causing the bells to ring in the service of obstruction pure and simple.

A decent respect for the rights of Parliament would put the Conservatives in their seats for a vote." That is one editorial, Mr. Spea ker. Another one that's just come out toda y, on the 15 th, and here it is, quite a lengthy editorial condemning the actions of the opposition, but I will quote just a few paragraphs.

The entire paragraph is a condemnation, the entire article, but here he says: "Does it not emb arrass the Conservative Opposition to find itself marching at the he ad of a raucous pa ra de of standardb earers for some of the meaner, sillier and more backward points of view heard in Canada for the past century or so? Perhaps not." (Int erjection) - I have just heard one member say no. "Perhaps not.

Opposition conduct in this whole affair has been conspicuousl y inglorious, characterized by obstruction, posturing, inflexibility and a readiness to forge alliances with any reactionary elements willing to take a swipe at modest improvements in the position of Manitoba Francophones." That is what is co ming back to condemn members opp osite. Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak very long, but I want to say I spoke on January 24th on Bill 11 5.

I think mem bers were upset with the comment I made, because they were saying that because there appears to be a ma jo rity out there tha t is opp osed to entrenchment of French language services, because of that vast strength, that vast major ity, that is the way we should operate. I said and I quote: "When I hear people stand up and say - and the Memb er for Charleswood, the former leader of the Conservative Party said it today - 78 percent voted against this. They voted against that other package. They didn't vote against this, they voted against something compl etely different.

But if you look at it the other way, you can turn it around and say listen, 78 percent says tha t you shouldn't do that, and the Member for Charleswood says, are you saying that they're wrong? No, we're not saying they're wrong, but let's put it on the other term, let's turn that around. What he is saying is that mi ght is right." They have picked up on that, Mr. Speaker, because that disturbed them very much - I think every member said it on the other side - that because there is a multitude of people out there, according to them, that is opposed to this, we should drop this issue complet ely. Mr.

Speak er, I think this has gone so far now tha t it is no longer a question of providing French language services to the people of French origin in this province. His tory is in the making here and what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is a challenge. The future of Canada hangs in the balance because of what we are doing here now. Let's not be mistaken about this, let's be clear that if this small package do es not pa ss thr ough this legislation, if it does not pass, Canada will go down the tube. A MEMBER: Garbage. HON. A. ADAM: Canada as a nation . A MEMBER: How did we manage to live so long here? HON. A.

ADAM: The future of Canada is being decided now. A MEMBER: Here? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. 6076

Wednesday, 15 February, 1984 HON. A. ADAM: We are deciding whether that's going to continue. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: Members opposite pay heed to what I say. You are placing yourself in history now. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: They will be known in history as the group that destroyed Canada. including the Mem ber for Elmwood. Their names will be carved in posterity as the group that destroyed Canada because. Mr.

Sp eak er. it's not a ques tion of prov iding French language services anymore. it's a question of whether we want Canada to continue as a strong country made up of all the people, the different ethnic people that we have in this count ry. That's what makes this country strong. Just as sure as we stand here tod ay, those few people - and I know there are moderates in there. they're not all extremists - they are the ones that have to examine their conscience. Mr. Speaker, and decide whether they want to be party to the destruction of this country. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to have to be add ressing this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, because it deals with the very objectionable measure of closure and placing a limitation on the amount of time that the opposition has to ring the bells in a technique that was legitim ized by the signature of the Attor ney-General of this government. Mr. Spea ker, I was pleased to see though that the Minister of Government Services was prepared to rise in the House and to make some comments on this issue because whether or not we accept