ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 133 - 8:00 p.m. , THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NOP INO NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NDP PC PC PC NOP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NOP PC NDP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NOP NDP PC NOP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 4 August, 19 83. Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commit tees . . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . Oral Questions ... . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our un dertak ing to the gove rnment, the opposition is prepared to forego their right to question period this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Govern ment House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the referral motion with respect to the

Section 23 amendment. I'm giving you the shortened version now. DEBATE ON MOTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and the proposed sub-amendment by the Honourable Member for Arthur , the Honourable Member for Virden has five minutes remaining. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that today has been a strange day in the democratic process in the Province of Manitob a.

We have seen the Mini ster of Highways present a brief to the committee on the Crow issue, ignoring comple tely the advice of the people of Manitoba; ignoring the advice of a committee of the Legislature that was set up specifically to investigate and to report to the Legislature, and presenting his own biased, narrow, pig-headed view of what this province needs in the Crow issue. At the same time, Mr.

Speaker, we saw another group in society, the trustees of the Province of Manitoba, wishing to meet with members of the Assembly, and in particular the Mini ster of Education, and she refused to meet with them claiming that Speed-up was the reason she could not meet with them. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to sit down in a couple of minut es and give her an opportunity to get inv olved in the debate to prove to the trustees that she was here and taking

part in debate in Speed-up, and I offer her the floor in a couple of min utes if she wants to get involved. But it's surprising, Mr. Speaker, how this government does not want to listen to people, refuses to take the advice of people and then -and I promised this before I sat in the Session this afternoon - I promised I would spend a couple of min utes on the remarks of the Honourable Member for Springfield. The Honourable Member for Springfield attempted to lecture this House on what they should be doing. Mr.

Speaker, he was wrong on his interpretat ion of the role of the opposition; he was wrong on what he saw as the government's role in their mandate, and he considered it to be an absolute mandate. Mr. Speaker, when I was Speaker of this House, the Honourable Member for Springfield tendered his resignation as Assistant Clerk of this House. Based on the judgment that he offered to this House today, I should have followed the advice of President Truman and refused to accept his resignation -and turned around and fired hi m. Mr.

Speaker, the advice that the Honourable Member for Springfield offered to this House was one that left only two choices to the people of Manitoba. He said that the choice left was a choice between communism and fascism. Again, the Member for Springfield is half wrong. There is a choice. There is a choice in this province between communism and democracy and we on this side of the House represent democracy in action. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Honourable Member for Springfield, who many consider to be a wit, again I say that they are only half right. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines.

HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I tremble to follow in the wake of that witty and perceptive and statesmanlike speech by the former Speaker of this Legislature who didn't indulge in personality attacks, but rather stuck to the issue, stuck to the sub­ amendment. Did you notice? He didn't even talk to the sub-amendment. He talked about the Min ister of Agriculture, atta cking the Mi ni ster of Agricu ltur e, atta cking the Mi nis ter of Hi ghways, atta cking the Member for Springfield. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, if that was the type of conduct, and he did reflect that type of conduct as a Speaker, it's a wonder that everyone didn't want to resign at that particular stage. Mr. Speaker, no one fired the Speaker of the Legislature of the previous administration. It was the people who fired the Speaker of the Legislature in the previous administration, speaking in a democratic way, Mr. Speaker. We will accept the will of the people. We wouldn't want to go out and try and subvert the will of the people, Mr. Speaker.

That is a major difference between the people on this side of the House and the people on that side of the House. They believe that, no matter what the people voted on in November of 19 81, somehow they are the divine rulers of this province and that is not the case. 4914

Thursday, 4 August, 19 83 It is interesting to note the tactics that they are using. rise to speak on one of the most perceptive sub­ amend ments I have ever seen int roduced in this Legislature. It taxed the mind of the Member for Arthur . He dug deep. He dug deep, and he said, I'm going to change this sub-amendment so that it says, instead of December 31, 1983, it'll say, December 30, 19 83. So indeed, Mr. Speaker, given the profound depth of that person's wisdom, I believe that they should launch him for leadership. He certai nly is showing a touch that some of the others haven't.

A MEMBER: How many days does December have? HON. R. PENNER: We're waiting for your decision. HON. W. PARASIUK: That's right. I am waiting. I expect that the next sub-amendment, possibly for the Member for Lakeside although I think he has a touch more intelligence, might be for December 29. Then the Member for Turtle Mountain, with his Turtle Mountain arithmetic, might come in with the December 28th, and gradually I expect that we'll have a meeting of the minds.

They'll work their amendments of amendments down to something like September 5th, and I guess they'll filibuster to September 5th, and we'll arrange a meeting of the minds. Unless, of course, they forget about what's happening and they will say that we should have this Legislature reporting no later than August 4th or August 3rd even though we might have passed those dates. It's an interesting thing to see what's at work on the other side. It is called by a lot of people the big lie tech niq ue. I'm talki ng about the technique.

The technique is that if you tell a mistruth or an untn.1th often enough, you hope that someone will believe it. It's interesting because they have all gotten up this afternoon and said that it's the New Democrats who don't want to hear the people. Yet we have a sub­ amendment, this perceptive sub-amendment, which changes it from December 31s t to December 30th, which is set up expressly for the purpose of denying the people of Manitoba the right to come before the Legislature. They weren 't even very creative in their sub­ amendment.

They had to take the simplist form of obstructionist sub-amendment, changing it from December 31s t to December 30th, and conceivably if one follows that logic, December 29th -all to subvert the right of the people of Manitoba to come before a legisla tive commitee. That is the fact. It is a New Democratic Party Government that wants to go out to the people and it's the Con servative opposition that is stopping this Legislature from doing that. Yet the Con servatives get up one after the other and say we have to listen to the people. Well, let's listen to the people.

Let's go out as a commit tee and listen to the people. But they do not want to listen to the people in open dicussion with Hansard there and with recorders there; they would rather do the whisper campaign. They would rather talk a lot of mistruths about what's being talked about than come before an open Assembly with recordings of what is said, and discuss the issue in an open and statesmanlike manner. At a time when the province calls for statesmanship, what do we get from the Con servatives? The scratching of prejudice so epitomized by the Dan McKenzies of that side.

I would have thought tha t we could get from that side people who would have gotten up consistently and put a position forward saying, we want to hear the people, we're willing to go out to hear the people; if we disagree we're going to come back to the House and make our objections known and do what we have to do if we believe in this at that

part icular stage. That position would at least have some integrity to it. But to go out and say, we want to hear from the people, but we won't let you hear from the people and therefore we're going to condemn you because you won't go out and hear from the people, has no integrity whatsoever. I thought that we could have had some statemanship. For awhile there we had some speeches from the Member for Lakeside, had a speech from the Member for Fort Garry, the Member for St. Norbert.

I thought that it might have been po�sible from those speeches to have what I would consider a moderate position put forward by the Conservative Party, one that says, yes, we'll try and hear from all people from all walks of life, consider their opinions and then make our judgments known. That's one position that I thought might come to the surface on that side of the House, but you have another streak of Conservatism -it's extremism -that's one of the reasons why they didn't win the 19 81 election. They move over there and they sit there and say, we know what's right from the beginning.

We adopt our position and we'll scratch every prejudice possible and it's interesting that some of the heckling coming from the other side is coming from a person who I think is moving into that camp and has. moved very solidly into that camp during the course of this Session. I would have thought that the people on the other side would have pondered what their future might be because this is a very important challenge for them, not only on this issue, but on a whole set of other issues as to what position they want to take within the political spectrum of Manitoba.

We have the Member for Turtle Mountain and some other people wanting to move this party, that party there, more and more to the right, thinking that there might be some swing to the right; thinking th at th ere are some other rig ht-wing governments in North America; thinking that that's the way to go. Now, if that's the way in which they want to go, I think it's a sad thing for Canada; I think it's a sad thing for Manitoba, but it's a good thing for us in a partisan way, but frankly, I think they should consider what they are doing.

I think they should consider what they're doing because the strategy they've been following has indeed been a particular narrow strategy, tactics first put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, now being emulated by what, I guess, is the stretch version of the Leader of the Opposition; being followed by a number of people, but I'm not sure that there is consensus on that. I say that there is an important choice facing the Conservatives. I wish they would ponder it. I wish they would ponder what position they want to take forward.

Do they want to come forward and say that they want to hear from the people, because if they put that position forward, why bring in silly amendments like they brought in? Why bring in silly amendments that have no purpose other than to serve as obstructions, and then get up 4915

Thursday, 4 August, 19 83 and frankly fili buster hour after hour? You can see some of the techniques. They are passing around speeches which all of them are reading. They are congra tulating each other and there are a few that get great handclaps when they manage to last 40 min utes. Is that what the Conservatives want? Is that what they want? Do they want to go before the people or do they want to fili buster? Because if they want to filibu ster, they'll bring in the December 30th sub­ amendment, and they want to call an election.

Four years in a term, but these democrats on the other side want to call an election. We have said very clearly to the people of Manitoba, because that side doesn't want to listen, Mr. Speaker, we want to go out and hear the public. We are willing to meet the public throughout Manitoba. We are willing to take sufficient time to hear them clearly. We are willing to discuss with them. We are willing to consider their views. That is what the New Democratic Party is putting forward and has put forward consistently as our position on this issue.

So that should be clear to the people of Manitoba; that when we sit in here hour after hour debating sub­ amendment s as to whether , in fact, it should be December 31s t or December 30th -and they have said that they'll move others -that it is the Conservative Party that does not want to hear the people. It is the Conservative Party who wants to twist and manipu late, not throug h the open legislative system as we want to, but rather through what I call the big lie techn ique. As I said, I would have thought that some statesman of moderation might have come forward on that side to put forward other positions.

I think there are some on the other side. I have looked at the speeches made by the Member for Lakeside, by the Member for Fort Garry, by the Member for St. Norbert. They have a chance to say, yes, we are prepared to go out to the people or no, we are not prepared to go out to the people and we're prepared to stick with this extremist position. What we're debati ng, Mr. Speake r, is not the resolution. We haven't debated the resolution since July 18th. We spent all of that time debating a referral motion that the Conservatives don't want to let pass.

That's what we've spent out time doing, not debating the resolution. They may want to talk about the resolution and twist it and turn it, spend a lot of time off topic; what we are talking about is a referral motion. Should the people be heard, or shouldn't they? It is the opposition, acting in what they think is a constructive manner but which, in my estimation, is a filib ustering, obstructionist manne r that have conti nuou sly put forward these amendments, which I think have reached the silly stage.

They have also indulged in a set of practices which I think are stretching the Rules of the Legislature and stretchi ng the Rules of Parliament, and parliamenta ry tradition right to the limit and are a loophole, a loophole which I believe creates a very big problem for the parliamen tary system because in Parliament, especially in a two-party system, you 're going to have a government that does have a majority and you will have the opposition. It will put forward its position; it'll put forward a position of diss ent. It mi ght raise constructive opposition, it migh t even raise destructive opposition points.

It may dissent, but at some stage it will say, okay, let the people have a chance to comment on this. It will say, at some stage an election will be held. We will put forward our position and you will have your position. We will let the people judge. But to go forward and say we are deli berately going to obstruct and fili buster and obstruct, and filibuster and bell ring, and walk out of the House, and move adjournment and then come back, and walk in and say call the vote, and if you call the vote we'll ring the bells. I've heard some comments from the other side saying, well, don't just keep calling this issue.

Even though they say it's an important issue, they say, don't just call this issue, call other bills and we'll speak to them. Well, I was in the House when we called other bills and virtually every one of them was stood, and the one that wasn't stood was, in my estimation, filibustered that day. They ragged that; four or five speakers got up on the same point that a member of the government bench ind icated that a change would be forthco ming. But the members of the Conservative opposition decided that the would rag out debate until 12 :30 so that they could stretch out debate and not really deal with the issue.

They didn't even pass that issue; they didn't even pass that particular bill. So when I hear these cries from the opposition side saying, now, call the bills -that rings pretty hollow. As the Member for Ste. Rose says -it rings like a bell and we've heard a lot of those. I think it's important for the Conservatives to ponder their position, and let this thing go forward to the people of Mani toba , because the lo nger they carry out obstruction and fili bustering, the sooner that will become the issue facing Manitobans.

If they want to become the party of extra-parliament ary opposition while trying to espouse parliamentarianism they will find that the people will see through that because it has been the Conservatives who have been ringing the bells. It has been the Conservatives who say that if you call this issue and try and bring a vote on it, they will keep talking and filibustering -and what they are basically trying to invite us to do -I've heard some people on the other side raise this a few times now. They said, well, if you feel strongly about this bring in closure.

In discussions with the House Leader and Deputy House Leader, I believe that the other side put forward the proposition to go into Speed-up which entails six-day-a-week Sessions, and move business along, and don't allow adjournment. Well, when we tried to sit on a weekend, they rang the bells. When we wouldn't allow adjournment as they suggested, they rang the bells. Now some of them are suggesting closure. I expect that they'd ring the bells again.

Where is there some consistency in the Conservative position with respect to the sub-amendment and the amendment and the referral motion that we're talking about, because that's what we are talking about? We're not talking about the substance of the resolution. What we are talking about is whether, in fact, the Legislature believes in this "whereas." I'll read it again because the don't read or don't listen. "Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba deems it advisable to hear the views of Manitobans on the subject matter of this resolution; Therefore

be it resolved that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections hold such public meetings at such times and places as it may deem advisable to receive briefs and hear representations." 4916

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 That is the heart of the referral motion that we are talking about. When we say we want to pass this so that we can hear the people - (Interjection) - that's on topic, that's precisely the point. When they get up and say that French language services is a thin edge of the wedge, that's not talking about the referral motion. It's not saying let the people come forward and be heard on this. It is reveal ing their true position on this. But we've got about four or five positions from the other side on this particular issue.

We have heard the Leader of the Oppo sition occasionally say that he is in favour of the substance in this resolution entirely , except for entrenchment. We've had a few others on that side of the House say the same thing. Now, that's the issue, fine we can debate that at some issue. Should it be entrenched or not entrenched? That, one can debate. But when we have people coming forward and saying this is a terrible resolution, I don't agree with the substance of it. How many people on the other side of the Legislature have said this? How many have said they disagree with the substance of the resolution?

Every once in a while they try and slip the entrenchment in but then in their speeches, in particu lar, over and over and over they say that this type of thing which their leader believes in is wrong, because it's a policy that supposedly exists. It's a policy that they supposedly support as a whole. It's a policy that I gather their federal MPs support. It's a policy, I gather , that the new Leader of the Federal Conservative Party also supports. It conceivably is a policy that I believe that aspiring MPs of the Conservative persuasion would want to support. I'm not sure.

I hear that the Member for Fort Garry is inter ested in

part in the federal scene. Is he going to come forward saying, no, I don't believe in any entrenchment of language rights in the Constitution; I don't believe in that at all? I'd like to know what the positions are, because I believe that there are those differences and those differences appropriately should be discussed when we discuss the substance of the resolution and people will get that opportunity to discuss the substance of the resolution.

They can come forward and say, this is what you've brought forward; this is what the people have said; these are the types of amendments that you've come forward with - I don't agree with some of them, or I agree with them, or they don't go far enough, or they go too far. They then can put their positions forward on the substance of what we were talking about. We are prepared to do that, they are not.

I can't understand why they get up over and over and over again and say that it's the New Democratic Party Government that doesn't want to hear the people; why they get up over and over again and lecture us that so1.1ehow the people should be heard, indeed must be heard. We've heard a lot maudlin commentary from the other side about how the people should be heard. We're trying to get to the people. We're trying to get to the people as a legislative enti ty. We believe that's a far more preferable way to interact with the people of Manitoba.

We want to have their concerns put on record so we can look at them, digest them, assess them and take appropriate action. I believe that's the way the Legislature should operate. Now, the Conservatives put forward, I guess in their amendment, a different position. They say that we should go intersessional, but they're also saying report back within a certain time limit. We are saying that we can do so, nor mally, within the actions of the Legislative Assembly of Mani toba without requiring an inter sessional committee.

We have gone fairly late, and I would suggest we have gone late because the Conservative obstruction and filibustering. I believe that we could have been hearing the public two weeks ago. It's not us who prevented the public from coming before a legislative committee to hear about this issue two weeks ago or a week ago. It's been the Conservative Party. If we said that we are going to vote on this, to refer it, a day from now, then we could set in motion a procedure and a

schedule so that people would get sufficient advanc e notic e if we were sufficiently concerned about them and not ourselves, if we were concerned about the larger public issue rather than narrow partisan issues or narrower leadership issues and tactics. We could say, yes, let's work togeth er, set a schedule; we have other things to do; go forward, take whatever time is required, and we have laid that on the table. We will take sufficient time to hear the people and then we will come back and we will have all the opportunity required to debate this issue.

You know, if the Conservatives are going to take three weeks and possibly five weeks and six weeks to discuss a referral motion, how long will they take to discuss the resolution itself? So, I'm hearing from ths other side that they want to take a long time. Yet, we're getting these silly sub­ amendments saying that we will prorogue the House after we clean up a whole set of other things, that we will then have inte rsessional committees, that we will come back and deal and expedite this entire matter by December 30th. A MEMBER: Who are they kidding? HON. W. PARASIUK: Who are they kidding? That's right.

Wha t the y have done to date undermin es everything that they say in this subamendment. We have said very clearly that we are prepared to go to the people as soon as possible, give the people sufficient advance time, give them sufficient advance notice and go out We won't filib uster. Very few of us speak on this issue because it is a referral issue and it's quite clear. Many of the opposition speak on this issue but not about referral, but about their fears about the resolution and how the people must be heard. Well, I'm going to be interested to hear what they have to say for the rest of the day.

I would expect another round of personal attacks, I would expect another round of concerns and false fears and phobias about the resolution, but I would expect precious little about the referral motion. We say they don't tell us what they're going to do and we say we're prepared to meet with the public; we're prepared to go outside of Wi nni peg. The opposition says that's precious little, or that's nothing. We believe it's a clear statement to the people of Manitoba. We believe the people of Manitoba want to be heard.

We are, in fact, prepared to hear them to the extent that the Conservatives continue the filibuster and obstruction. It will be they, not us, who prevent 4917

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 the people of Manitoba from being heard on this issue, and it will be they, not us, who I believe will have to suffer the consequences for that. They may think that the y may score some points through a lot of misrepresentation but ulti mately when it comes down to whether the people are being heard or not, there are enough recorded votes, there are enough recorded statements. I'm quite pleased to go out and show someone that the Conservatives are using a sub-amendment that changes a sub-amendment motion from December 31st to December 30th.

They'll be able to see through that tactic very clearly, and I say that it's time for the Conservatives to become far more statesmanlike than they have to date, to join with us and go out to the people and not cry crocodile tears, and not spread mistruths about who does not want to go listen to the people, because the position and the votes to date have been very clear. We will vote to go before the people; we will vote to hear them; we will vote to listen to them; we will try and take their concerns completely into account.

It'll be the Conservatives who are objecting to that, who are obstructing that and are filib ustering, and I would hope for the sake of Manitoba that they stop soon. MR. SP EAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, seldom in this House have we heard so much nonsense as what we have just heard. Concern must be expressed by other Rhodes scholars in this province because of the absolute nonsense that has just been heard from a Rhodes scholar, the Min ister of Energy and Min es. MEMBER: Is he a Rhodes scholar? MR. A.

BROWN: The term "Rh odes scholar" at one time or other used to command some respect around here, but that term is fast losing its respect. The Min ister has been accusing us of the untruths that we have been spreading, and Mr. Speaker, where did these untruths come fro m? What has happened? If you just take a look at this paper, there are the untruths that you are circulating throughout the entire Province of Manitoba. There they are, and I'll again point out some of these because I did so yesterday but unfortuna tely, there were not very many members in the Legislature at that time.

What they say in this particular ad is that, the re will be no unr ealistic programs for Ma ni tobans; the federal mo del of bilingualism will not be applied in this province. Mr. Spea ker, once this is entr enched, then the government of this province will have absolutely nothing to say anym ore about wha t programs will be impl emented or which will not be. That is going to be in the hands of the Supreme Court. That is why this paper, everything that you print in here, is wrong, because you are going to hand all the authority over to another body which is not responsible to any elected body.

You say in here that the French language services in Manitoba are being introduced in an orderly manner to meet the responsibilities, but will not incur wasteful expend itures through hasty action. Well, what is this nonsense that you are sending out? Is that not a wasteful expenditure? Since you have sent out this ad, you have changed your terms. You are saying now that you are willing to take this to the people, to have some hearings. Mr.

Speaker, if that was the case, if they are so anxious to take this out to the people, then why do they not vote for this amendment because that's exactly what this amendment says; that we want to take this out to the people; that there are going to be intersessional hearings; and that we will be reporting back before December the 30th. That's what this amendment says. So what is all this nonsens e saying tha t we are obstructing this issue, and that we don't want to take it to the people. It's tha t side tha t has refused consistently to take it to the people.

They have been wanting to ram this through, and we are going to oppose this. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to tell you that the morale on this side is building and it's building and it's building, because we are getting more phone calls from NDP members, from very influential members of your party who are phoning in. Keep that up, fellows, keep it up, we're on your side, they said, we tried to talk to our members. They said, our members are not going to change their position.

They said, we are now coming to you and we're pleading with you, keep up the fight because we are on your side because, in spite of some of the elected representatives that we do have in this Legislature, there are NDP people out there who are responsible people and who are very concerned about this particular issue. The issue is not the French language at all. We have all agreed upon this, and I think both sides have agreed upon how far we want to go, but it's the entrenchment. It is handing over the authority to another body. This is what the issue is, and this is what we're arguing about.

I hope that the Mini ster of Mines and Energy is not going to distort that fact, because that is the issue that we are talking about. That is entrenchment. There is no other issue as far as we're concerned. That is the big issue that the people of this province are concerned about is entrenchment, handing over authority to a body that is responsible to nobody, and who certai nly will, if a case is brought before them - and these cases are going to come. We will know. There are going to be all kind of cases that are going to be brought before the Supreme Court.

They are going to take one look at what has happened, and they're going to say, oh, Manitoba Government and the Federal Government, they have agreed that Manitoba is going to be a bilingual province. Therefore, this person wherever he went, whether it was Morden and a speeding ticket or whatever, wherever he went and it was not bilingual, that person should be entitled to have that bilingual. You know that. You all know that. That is exactly what's going to happen, because you said we were going to be bilingual. That is the reason why the municipalities are so upset.

That is the reason why the school boards are becoming upset, because they know that they are going to be the next on the line. You are not going to say how for they're going to go. It's going to be the Supreme Court that's poing to say how far they're going to go. A MEMBER: The Supreme Court's already said it. That's what the law alrady is. 4918

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think maybe that we should just go back a little. Why has this happened in the first place? Why has such a bad agreement been entered into? A MEMBER: In secret. MR. A. BROWN: In secret, right. Nobody knew about what was happening with this agreement. One day, the Attorney-General came in and he announced, this is going to be it. That's the agreement we have made. There is going to be no compromise. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R.

PENNER: That's a very serious allegation that these matters were in secret. I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that speaking in this House on the 18 th of May, 19B3, the leader of the Opposition said, "Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that these negotiations have been in the public domain for some several months, can the First Min ister indicate to us . . . " and so on. I want to repeat that !or the record, because I want to put an end to this lie that these were secret negotiations. The leader of the Opposition, -this is Hansard, Page 2878, 18 th of May, 1983 -"Well, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that these negotiations have been in the public domain now for several months . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. R. PENNER: I want that to be on the record . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: Let there be no more of that kind of ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It was not a point of order. It was a clarifica tion. The Honourable Member may continue. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order . MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a point of order? The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: On a point of order, clearly, Mr.

Speaker, prior to it having been in the public domain for several months, it was done in secret. That's the point that the Member for Rhineland is making, and that's the truth. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I will be only too happy to withdr aw that remark that these meetings were held in secret if the Attorney-General can tell me in one instance where he came and told us what kind of an agreement he was negotiating with the SFM and with the Federal Government, before January.

You never contacted us once. We had no idea what agreement you were arriving at. We had no way of telling what agreement you were deriving. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why are we in the dilemma that we are in? I think that what we have seen is some real bungling by the gover nment on that side. A MEMBER: They're a bunch of ding-a-lings. MR. A. BROWN: Maybe we should just go back a little distance and see just what kind of negotiations we have had so far.

We have been negotiated right out of the Alcan agreement. We have been negotiated right out of the Western Power Grid, because you said that you were better at 11egotiating than the former government had been. You could work up a better deal, and you negotia ted us right out of it. You negotia ted us out of the potash deal. You're experts at negotiating. Now that was the Min ister of Mines who was a very good negotiator when he was in the opposition, who was saying at that time that I can do better. I can negotiate better. I can get a better deal for you. Oh, he sure made a better deal.

He negotiated us right out of it. He negotiated us out of thousands and thousands of jobs. Then we have the Attorney-General who starts negotiating with the Federal Government and with the SFM -and what do they come up with? They come up with something which by and large is unacceptable to Manitobans and that story is being told day after day after day by the phone calls that we get, by the letters that we get, by the phone calls that you get and by the letters that you get, that people are upset and there is no way they are going to let you get away with what you are trying to do.

So, why don't we all, today, vote for that amendment that we are proposi ng? let's take it out to the people. let's hear what the people have to say and then come back and sit down and reasonably and rationally think this thing through and I am certain that we can at that time reach an agreement which the people of Manitoba have elected us here to reach the kind of agreements that they want us to make. Why is there so much concern about entrenchment? What are the imp lications of this? I would just like to quote from this letter that the Honourable Roland Penner, Q. C., received from Mr.

Twaddle, the lawyer, who they have so much respect for and who we all have respect for because he is one of the top constitutional lawyers. I would just like to read what Mr. Twaddle has to say about some of the concerns expressed by the Attorney-General, and rightfully so. "Dear Sir: Re: The Proposed Constitutional Amendment." A MEMBER: What's the date? 4919

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 MR. A. BROWN: The date is Jun e 23rd, 1983. It's a very current letter from Mr. Twaddle. "Re: The Proposed Constitutional Amendment. "You have asked me to attempt to identify those boards, commissions, corporations and agencies which will be subject to the bilingual language requirements of the proposed

Section 23.8 of The Manitoba Act. "I have reviewed all the statutes of Manitoba and the continuing consolidation and identi fied some 12 6 as potentially falling within the requirement. In forming an opinion as to whether or not a body does fall within the requirement, I have considered: (

a) whether or not the function of the body is that of government; (

b) the mode of the appoi ntment of members of the body; and (

c) the extent, if any, that it deals with the public. These criteria are not precise and in consequence it is impossible in some cases to say with any certainty whether or not the court would hold the body to fall within the requirement. "Following my review I have prepared lists of bodies, which in my opinion fall within the requirment, and again:

(1) The quasi-judicial and admi nstrative bodies of the Government of Manitoba;

(2) Crown Corporations; (3) agencies of the Government of Manitoba. Additiona lly, I have prepared a list of bodies which in my opinion are bordering cases." And I would like to read that list, and this is why Manitobans have so much concern. There are 126. - (Interjection) - He was mentioning 12 6. Anyhow, that is why we have the concern, because, Mr. Speaker, we are going to hand over to a body that is not elected, that really have very little interest as far as the everyday person of Manitoba is concerned.

We are going to look at one thing only, whether we are bilingual or not, we are going to hand over this by agreei ng to the entrenchment of the French language. But some of these agencies are -and this is outside of government departments. He's listed the quasi­ judicial and admin istrative bodies of the Government of Manitoba: "

(1) The Agricultur al Lands Protection Board;

(2) The Farm Machinery Board;

(3) The Manitoba Beef Commi ssion;

(4) The Manitoba Milk Prices Review Commission;

(5) The Mani toba Water Services Board;

(6) The Manitoba Natural Products Marketing Council;

(7) The Manitoba Feed Grain Marketing Commission;

(8) The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board;

(9) The Human Rights Commission; (1 0) The Manitoba Police Commission;

(11) The Public Utilities Board; (12 ) The Manitoba Securities Commission; (13 ) The Manitoba Rent Review Board; (1 4) Rent Regulation Bureau; (15 ) The Co-Operative Loans Guarantee Board." And inciden tally, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I am reading these into the record is, there are people back home, some of their members back home who don't know about these things. They are listening in tonight. They are listening in and they want to know just exactly how far this can go. "(16 ) The Co-Operative Promotion Board; (17 ) The Credit Union Stabilization Fund Board; (18 ) The Board of Reference; (19 ) The Public Schools Finance Board;

(20) The University Grants Commission: (2 1) The Lotteries and Gaming Licensing Board:

(22) The Manitoba Lotteries and Gaming Contr ol Commission:

(23) The Manitoba Boxing and Wrestling Commission." They will have to be bilingual also. "

(24) The Health Services Commission;

(25) The Sanitarium Board of Manitoba;

(26) The Driver Licence Suspension Appeal Board;

(27) The Hig hway Traffic Board;

(28) The Motor Transport Board;

(29) The Labour Relations Board;

(30) The Elevator Board: (3 1) The Pension Commission of Manitoba;

(32) The Workers Compensation Board;

(33) The Apprenticeship and Tradesmen Qualif ication Board;

(34) The Civil Service Commi ssion;

(35) Clean Environment Commission;

(36) The Oil and Natural Gas Conservation Board;

(37) The Muni cipal Board;

(38) Land Value Appraisal Commission;

(39) Film Cla ssification Board;

(40) The Film Classification Appeal Board; (4 1) The Horse Racing Commission." Then we come to Crown corporations: "

(1) The Agricultural Credit Corporation;

(2) The Liquor Control Com mi ssion;

(3) The Man itoba Centennial Centre Cor pora tion;

(4) The Ma ni toba Cr op In sur ance Corpora tion;

(5) The Manitoba Deve lopment Corporation;

(6) The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation;

(7) Manitoba Hydro," and believe me, there is a lot of concern over there. "

(8) The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation," also very much concerned. "9. The Manitoba Telephone System," again, a lot of concern expressed by the employees of these large corporations. "

(10) The Manitoba Trading Corporation." All these will be requested or may be requested to provide service in two langua ges. Then for the government to come up and say that the cost is going to be rather inconsequential, that there is not going to be a large cost involved, that's something that Manitobans are not going to believe, because we know that there are going to be millions and millions and mil li ons of doll ars spe nt in order th at all these commissions and boards can provide service in two langua ges. Those dollars, they could well be spent on other things.

We know that there is a large need for more hospitals, for more schools, certainly for roads. What's happening with roads at the present time, and the people that are involved in the heavy construction? They will tell you. They have told you time and time again tha t they cannot emp loy their lo ng-term emp loyees; that their long-term employees will not be able, this year, to get in the 20 weeks which are required for them to draw unemployment. These are people with families to support.

Because of certain other things, your job creation program or whatever, you have taken away money that was traditionally spent on roads and you're going to take more money away in order to pay for all this French language translation, which you will be forced to provide whether it's necessary or not. You will have lost control. So these people will not be able to look after their families this winter. You know, of course, what's going to happen. They will have to go on welfare. There is just no other way. But what have you done with this money?

You have given employment, I suppose, to a number of uni versity students and a number of high school students, which is good. There is no problem there, except that by doing that you have taken jobs away from people who have families to support. You have taken jobs away from them, which they require to feed their families. This is exactly what you've done in so many areas with your Jobs Fund. Getting back, Mr. Speaker, to the problem at hand, the item that we are discussing at the present time, 4920

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 and that is this particular resolution. The concern that people are expressing is very, very genuine concern. They are listen ing in daily , and I can na me you constituency by constituency the phone calls that have been coming in. You members all know where these calls are coming from - (Interjection) - yes. If the Member for St. Johns wants to know whether some have come in from St. Johns, yes they have. There is a very, very large concern, I would say, among the Polish communi ty. We were tal king about other mino rity groups yesterday when I was speaking and the problems that the mino rity groups are going to have,

whereas the government is saying, well their problems are going to be resolved, that the y'll be certain tha t with the entrenchment of the French language, that also their rights are going to be served. I say, not so, Mr. Speaker. I say, not so, because what is going to happen is that both English and French is going to be taught in the schools. If you want to teach Polish, that's going to be a third language.

Then already that means that you are taking away from teaching other topics such as, well whatever you have, reading, English or composition or mathematics or whatever, things that you need to make a living on other than language. It is going to take away from that time, and it's going to be more difficult all the time for the minority people within this province to retain the heritage that they have enjoyed so far. We know that this is going to happen, and I would just like to say to the Member for Burrows that we have also heard this concern expressed by the Filipino commun ity.

They are very, very concerned that they will be losing the heritage which they had hoped they would be able to continue when they came to Canada. There is great concern out there. I am sure that the Member for Burrows must be aware of it, because I am sure that he does keep in touch with that community. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that these members would stand up and would voice their opinion and voice their concern on these issues, because those issues are real. We have a large Polish community in Manitoba. We have a large Ukrainian community in Manitoba. We have a large Filipino communi ty in Mani toba.

I understand that there are about 25,000 of them. I must say that they are becoming and have become very, very good citizens of this province. I don't know of anyone of the Filipino community that is not working. They have been able to find jobs. They're willing to work. They are people that are willing to work. All they really want is to be given the opportunity to work. I must say that I have gained a great deal of respect for that

part icular community along, of course, with all the other mino rities who have beero here longer and who have contributed a lot towards the development of this province. Mr. Speaker, I hope that these members that are from mino rity communities or from mino rity ethnic groups are going to stand up and voice their opinions, because if they do not they are letting down the very ethnic groups that they represent. That is not the reason why they were elected into this body over here. They were elected over here for a purpose, to speak their mind.

I certainly hope that they will do so (Interjection) - well that's right. There must be a lot of intimi dation going on on that particular side. 4921 Again I would like to come back to that particular individual who negotiated this agreement in the first place. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that when that agreement was negotiated that very, very few people on the gov ernment side really knew wha t kind of an arrangement had been negotiated.

I would say three probably, maybe a few more, very few more, because I'm certain that the members were not consulted when this arrangement or agreement was reached in to between very, very few people; which is going to change the Constitution of Manitoba; which we will have to live by for hundreds and hundreds of years; which is going to affect everybody, your children, their children and generations and generations to come. It's much too important an issue to do this all within one Session, Mr. Speaker. We should take our time. We should listen to the people. We should go to the people, have heari ngs.

Let them express themselves, and let them express their concerns, because they must have many , many concerns as is evi dent by the telephone calls and letters that are coming in. So, Mr. Speaker, I would very strongly urge the govern ment to take this amendment to heart. Let's vote for the amendme11t. Then we can get off this topic. Let 's vote for it tonight. Then we can take this to the people. If we take this to the people, we can come back, which we said, by December 30th, and we can see what the people have had to say. Thank you. TABLING OF A DOCUMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Hig hways. HON.

S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I wish to fulfill the obligation to this House, the commitment that I gave to them earlier on this afternoon, when I said I would table a copy of the presentat ion tha t was presented to the House of Commons Committee on Agriculture. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Mini ster have leave? (Agreed) DEBATES ON MOTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Re: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the main questions before the Assembly in terms of the present debate, appears to be: Is this a filibuster, or is closure imminent? That seems to be about where it's at. Is there going to be a continued attempt by the opposition to stall or block this legislation on one hand, and on the other hand is the gover nment going to resort to closure to force this legislation through? Mr.

Speaker, I believe that this is, in fact, in my exp erience, which goes back to 1966, the mo st important piece of legislation to appear before the Assembly . Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone can say that it isn't important because it's my information, and I have some pretty good sources to base this on, that

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 when this agreement was approved, assuming it was going to be approved, that there was going to be a little ceremony in Manitoba, and that Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Prime Mini ster of Canada him self, was going to fly in, big white bird, into Manitoba, maybe accompanied by Serge Joyal, I don't know who would be there. Serge was undoubtedly the person who deserved to be there.

The Attorney-General and the Premier would pose for photographs in the Legislative Building or on the front stairs, penning away their signature -Penner penning away -and the result would be a photograph that would then go into the history books, not only of Manitoba, but of Canada; for Manitoba a new pamphlet because Manitoba would then be officially bilingual, and another major step in the dream of the Prime Mini ster would have been fulfilled . Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the original scenario. Yes it was. Mr.

Speaker what happened, of course, was that the people at the top in the gover nment realized that even if the legislation passed, it would not be a good idea for the Prime Mini ster of Canada to come to Manitoba to sign a document and pose for a photograph, because his political clout in Manitoba can only be measured in negative megatons, not in positive credits. So that idea was thrown out as it was along these lines -thank you very much for your offer, we app reciate you r in terest and you r supp ort, we appreciate your earnest desire to come and pose for a photograph, and sign the document, but no thanks.

Well, of course, the Mini ster of Immi gration and Citizenship he would have been here too. So would the ML A for St. Bon iface. A MEMBER: The MP. MR. R. DOERN: Well, sorry the MP for St. Bon iface. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that after the next election the Mi nister of Citizenship of Immigration will no longer be an MP. In spite of the fact that he has paid for half of Osborne Village, built converted gas stations as theatres, put up new information offices, had for some magic reason the Osborne Village area, and the Roslyn Road and River Av enue segments of Winnipeg, which are among the classier elements.

I mean there are - (Interjection) - well, the Attorney-General lived there, and I lived there at one time, Mr. Speaker. We moved in and the other people moved out. Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, apartments that are very average in the area. There are, of course, just average homes and average apartments, and working class people, but there are also some of the finest. In fact, one of the reporters, whose watching now, lives in one of the blocks in that particular area. Mr.

Speaker , so you ha ve some of the better apartment blocks and some of the better residences, and yet somehow or other the Mini ster of Citizenship and Immi gration had that designated as an area that deserved special support along wih the core area. I assume they'll get a OREE grant sooner or later. I assume that there will be further monume nts to the Mini ster of Citizenship and Immigr ation, but it doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what he does, it doesn't matter how many dollars he invests in his own riding or how many building s, he's going down the tube.

Perhaps the Member for Fort Garry is the one whose going to send him on his way. Whoever it is, that man will not be reelected, because he's going down with his party in the next Federal election. So, Mr. Speaker, the question is, is this a fili buster or does the government have the right to invoke closure? Because if it's a filibuster eventually the government then may say they have a right to invoke closure. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this legislation should be withdrawn. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that an intelligent approach would be to gut this resolution and throw out 23. 1, and throw out 23.7, and pass the remai nder. That would be an intelligent approach, or else scrap the whole thing. In spite of the Attorney­ General's dire warnings that he couldn't even change a period, or a comma. He has partners and they tell him that he can't even make a move or take a breath unless he goes to them on bended knee, cap in hand, and says, "May I please?" - (Interjection) - Yes, the Franco-Ma ni toban Society has a veto over this legislation. We don't have a veto.

The other 920,000 plus citizens of Manitoban, they don't even have a voice, But the SFM has a veto . . . A MEMBER: Which side did they support in the Quebec Referendum? MR. R. DOERN: Oh, I know all about that. In fact I found my file the other day, and I intend to bring that out and go over some of those events leading up to that Referen dum and the position taken by their executive at that particular time. So, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General said that he couldn't even change a comma or a period in the agreement. Mr. Speaker, surely that is incredible. Who is running the province?

Is it the New Democratic Party which is in office, is it the SFM, or is it Pierre Elli ott Trudeau and the Federal Liberal Party? Mr. Speaker, if we go to the Supreme Courts have no fear. There is reason in the Supreme Court, there's rational ity. We're not concerned about remote possibilities. We're not concerned about that one in 10 0, or one in 1, 000 possibility "Alice in Wonderland" about no laws, no Legislature, and no courts. That is not a reasonable concern. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's possible that the building could collapse any second now, but we're not going to worry about that.

Well, that's the "Chicken Little" approach, isn't it? Chicken Little was running around, worried about that particular possibilit y. Mr. Speaker, the other approach that could be taken by the government, and the politically smart approach that I hope will happen but I'm not going to hold my breath, is that at some point public hearings will be held, hopefully after the summer, because this is the last few weeks of summer that we are now not enjoying since we are prisoners of the Assem bly. Mr. Speaker, the intelligent thing to do would be to hold the hearings a month later. Go around the province.

Gather the briefs. Talk to the people, and then gut the resolution, or thr ow the whole thing out and go to the Supreme Court, and come out ahead. In tna t way, Mr. Speak er, the Ne w Demo cratic admini stration would have a chance of surviving. The government could say, we have listened to the people, 4922

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 we have learned from the people, and we are going to follow what the public wants. At least, Mr. Speaker, they would have the respect of some people in society. They would have gone to the brink, tottered on the brink, almost fallen over and smashed the mselves for decades to come, but pulled back. So at least some would say, at least a handful would say, maybe a few thousand would say, well they almost did themselves in, but at least they pulled back. They saw the error of their ways. Mr. Speaker, if the gover nment proceeds, then all that work that was done from the 1930's to the present, and I had a role in that - I played a

part in that buildup period starting in the late '50s in a passive mann er, but in the early '60s in an active manner on the executive and then in the Legislature up to now, all that work will be thrown away down the tube, and the government will set back the New Democratic Party for a long, long time. Mr. Speaker, it's not the New Democratic Party that is out of touch with this issue. It is the government, the admi nistration that is out of touch with the New Democratic Party and with the people of Manitoba.

Because if you talk to an average New Democrat, if you go and talk to the guys -well the Min ister is here who represents Transcona. Go and talk to the boys in the CNR shops in Transcona, and ask them where they stand on this particular issue. They will tell you in no uncertain terms that they are against, loud and clear. Mr. Speaker, a lady brought a petition into my office one day, and then took it to the Premier's office. This was a couple of months ago. Mrs. Pat Mailman, and she brought in a petition with over 300 names.

Some were taken in the better off parts of town, and half of the petition, over 150 names, taken in the CN shops. Mr. Speaker, the CN shops and the CP shops, the backbone of the New Democratic Party, working men, blue collar men, New Democratic supporters; if they don't back the government on this, the gover nment is lost. They must have the support of trade union workers who live in Transcona and Elmwood and East Kildonan and the North End and Weston and ln kster and all these other places, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise, there is going to be a lot of trouble. Mr. Speaker, there is talk about the thin edge of the wedge.

I tell you that this is the thin edge of the wedge. I tell you that this is only the beginning. After us, the deluge. Mr. Speaker, Ontario is next, because now the feds have bilingualism across Canada federally only. Then they got New Brunswick. Okay, New Brunswick makes sense, doesn't it. Thi rty, 40 percent French Canadians in New Brunswick, does bilingua lism make sense there? You better believe it. I would support it there, easy. Does it make sense in Manitoba? No way. Are you kidding? This isn't 1870. This isn't the Red River Settlement.

This isn't when half the people spoke French and the other half spoke English. This is now, where everybody speaks English. Well, if it's not everybody -perhaps I'm exaggera ting. It is probably 99-44/100's percent speak English, because there are probably a couple of hun dred immigr ants who have just arrived in the last couple of years who are studying English and attempting to learn the language. So there is no need for official bilingualism.

There is no need to translate all these documents and set up hundr eds of jobs in the Civil Service, so that once in a while, maybe in a blue moon, somebody will come who will prefer to speak French. Mr. Speaker, Alberta and Saskatchewan have the same provision in their Constitutions in 1905 as we do. Now I don't know the exact wording. I simply take the word from Joseph Elliott Magnet or Magnet - I don't know how he pronounces his name, probably Magnet -Professor of Law at Ottawa Univ ersity, who wrote this large

article in the Globe and Mail on July 5, 1983. He said, ''This formula may be repeatable in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Under the acts by which those provinces entered Confederation in 1905, institutional bilingualism was entrenched. Like Manitoba, both provinces failed to respect the original agreement. Today, their drift toward unilin gualism is complete . . . " Then the last paragraph, "Geographic ally ... ," here's what you 're going to see in the future, "Geographically with New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba opted in, Ontario is the gaping symbolic hole blackening the middle . . " Black Bill Davis.

You've heard, the big blue machine; it's the big black machine, Mr. Sp eaker, which must be correc ted. A ray of sunshine, a ray of li£'1t must enter Ontario. That, of course, would be Pierre Elliott Trudeau descending from the clouds to bring bilingualism to Ontario. Mr. Speaker, imagine. Never mind Manitoba. You know, we're Manitobans, and we are proud of it. I am born in Winnipeg, raised in Winnipeg, lived in Winnipeg, and will die in Winnipeg. I am proud of being a Winnip egger and a Manitoban, but let's call a spade a spade. We are pretty small potatoes compared to Ontario.

You know, you get Manitoba -Goody, goody! You get 14 federal seats. But if you get Ontario, what do you get? Ninety or 100 seats? Well over 80 seats federally. That's where the most Canadians live. How many Canadians live in Ontario? Well, 8 or 9 million. - (Interjection) - Well, my honourable friend says there are more people in . . . A MEMBER: There are more seats in Metro Toronto than in all of Western Canada. MR. FI. DOERN: No, that can't be right. My honourable friend says there are more seats in Toronto than in all of Western Canada, but I think it's more seats in Ontario than in all of Western Canada.

So, what's going to happen? The feds are going to go after Manitoba, they almost have Manitoba now. Manitoba's been hooked and they're pulling Manitoba in like a fish. Mr. Speaker, Alberta -can you see Peter Lougheed going for this? Could you see Peter Lougheed saying, okay, you got me, within the Constitution we're going go bilingual. No. Over his dead body. I don't know about Grant Devine. I don't know the measure of the man. I don't know his abili ty, but he'll never go for this. No way. And Bill Davis -can you see Bill Davis, Premier of Ontario, saying, okay, we'll go bilingual.

Can you imagine if he did what would happen to him in the next provincial election? He would lose his own supporters. The Ontario Cons ervatives would not support the Ontario Conservative Government if bilingualism became a fact in Ontario, just as the New Democrats in Ma11itoba will 4923

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 not support this admini stration if this measure goes through. In spite of the fact that it'll hurt them, in spite of the fact that it'll bring tears to their eyes, some of them won't work, some of them won't vote and some will vote against the gover nment, with some pain and agony they will vote against the gover nment, because they are so distressed by this approach that they will not even support a party that they have been supporting, Mr. Speaker, for decades. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a few examples of letters that I have received . Mr.

Speaker, tomorrow, I'm going to release the number of letters and signatures and petitions and dollars that I have had sent to me because of two advertisements. It's a phenomenal amount. Mr. Speaker, I want to read today as an ill ustration a couple of letters that I received from the Elmwood mailing that I sent out before, and tomorrow I'll release some letters, and I will send them to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party as examples. Some will fire them into the wastebasket, but some will read them, and some will realize and the depth and the breadth of . . .

A MEMBER: The Caucus Chairman reads all your mail, so he'll mail them. MR. R. DOERN: Well, he'll read it for sure. Mr. Speaker, I used to teach English and it is sort of annoying though, since I'm the one who normally corrects other people's letters and spelling, to have somebody correct mine, but perhaps,

whereas I was someone who knows a fair amount about English, perhaps my friend from Radisson knows even more about English than I do. He certainly knows more French than I do, but he could know more English than I do. I would find that surprising, but it's possible. A MEMBER: He's a teacher too. MR. R. DOERN: Well, what did he teach? A MEMBER: He taught English. MR. R. DOERN: He taught English. Wel l, that's interesting, so did I. Mr. Speaker, let me read you a couple of ill ustrations from my Elmwood poll. Let me read you a couple of illustrations from there.

Here's one sent in: "We are proud of the many ethnic groups and no one group should have any special language privile ges. Thank you for asking what Manitobans want." That's all. Here's another one: "French langua ge services for only 6 percent of the population of the province makes no economic sense." Right on. You get 100 out of 10 0 on that. Now here's one that's more painful: "I have nothing against people learning another language, but don't shove it down our thr oat. Why are they allowing English signs to be taken down in Montreal? Why did the politicians pass this bill? No guts probably.

There is a lot of hate in this country about French. The NOP have lost my vote if this is passed." Mr. Speaker, I sent these to my colleagues, they have seen this little sheet of quotes. I sent it to them a month ago. Mr. Speaker, here's another one: "Does the people's party really believe that at a time when unemp loyment is so high, taxes keep going up, people on fixed incomes are struggling to keep their heads above water, that whether you can speak French or not is a priority." Here's another one: "Canada is not a bilingual nation, only Quebec," etc., etc.

Here's another one: "The Franco-Manitoban Society does not represent the majority of the province's people and therefore it should be put to and explained more fully to the people in a vote. Please don't shove French down our throats because we don't need it. Another thing, jobs are hard to find already. Don't make it any harder. Instead of French, give us more jobs." Mr. Speaker, I could read hundr eds of them. I'll just read one more: "It's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to duplicate all the government forms, licences, etc.

As far as French becom ing a condition of employment that is," and there are a bunch of symbols meaning blan kety, blank, blank, blank. And then it says: "This is coming from a Canadian, one-half French, one­ half English." You know, Mr. Speaker, you read 300 or 400 of those, and I did, and you read a couple of hundr ed letters, which I did, and you get a pretty good idea of what people think about this particular point. I'll now read you a couple, and I'll read you some names, because these people were contacted and asked whether or not their names could be used.

They wrote me, but I checked as to whether they would allow their names to be read: Mrs. Alice Richmond from 2267 Gallagher Av enue. Now, I don't know if that's lnkster. - (Interjection) - That's lnkster. Well, there's the MLA for lnkster. He knows Alice he says. "Cong ra tu lations on having enough gumption to go against Mr. Pawley and do what you were elected to do, speak for your constituents. I wish my representative would do the same, but I know he will not as it was because of his stand on the French question while campaig ning that I quit the NOP." A MEMBER: Who was her member? MR. R.

DOERN: The Member for lnkster. A MEMBER: Right, thank you, let's have it on the record. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many more, I'll just read this one here which comes from my area, a gentleman named John F. Hicke y, 839 Manhattan. Now that may not be my riding, it's right on the border. It could be mine, it could be the Member for Concordia, and listen to this: "I have supported the CCF and NOP since I have been voting, and that's a long time. I voted for you last time out." Okay, so he is in my riding.

"Now, due to your party's obscene haste to have Manitoba become a bilingual province, I will never again vote NOP." MR. H. ENNS: If you send me his address, I'll send him a Tory card. MR. D. SCOTT: He'll probably get one on the mail anyway. A MEMBER: He's probably got one already, Harry. 4924

Thursday, 4 August, 19 83 MR. R. DOERN: So, Mr. Speaker, I'm simply saying to you ... A MEMBER: Russ is running for leadership too; Russ is running for the Tory leadership. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting a lot of encouragement from my colleagues. I've ha d suggestions that I run federally, I've had suggestions that I run for Mayor. Now they're telling me I should run for the leadership of the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker. Anywhere, anyplace except here. The field is wide open. I'm being encouraged to move on to bigger and better things. I appreciate the confidence that you're showing in me. Mr.

Speaker, some of the things that the government has done to date, in regard to bilingualism, have been just plain silly. I'll give you a couple of examples. We're already hearing about the official min ority, we haven't even got French as an official language of Manitoba when we already have an official minor ity. I asked the Min ister of Labour today, she didn't know what that was. The Mini ster of Cultu ral Affairs he didn't know what that was, but it's already beginning to appear in advertisements. I mean is this really what bilingualism is all about.

You know, I think what we should do is -do you remember Johnny Carson had something ab out "Happiness is?" Or was it Peanuts -Happiness is something? Well, we could have bilingua lism is, and here would be one of them. Bilingua lism is a ceremony on Canada Day, in which politicians attempt to speak French, and the public is asked to sing "O Canada" in French. Mr. Speaker, is that really what it's all about, handing out song sheets asking the citizens of Manitoba to sing "O Canada" in French? I mean is that what this is leading to? A MEMBER: If Diefenbaker could do it why can't you, eh? MR. R.

DOERN: Well, I could never. Mr. Speaker, I have six years of high school French, and one year of universi ty. Seven years and I could never understand Mr. Diefenbaker, I could never quite understand him. I couldn't under stand Mr. Pearson either , I must admit. He also spoke French. - (Int erjection) - Well no, Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Member for Wolseley, a one termer, if I ever saw one, Mr. Speaker, she says that six years in high school. Mr. Speaker, I started French in Grade 7. A MEMBER: That's not high school. MR. R. DOERN: Well, I didn't say it was high school. I said six years of French.

Alright junior high, and high school, plus one year of university - seven years. So I don't understand what the Mini ster of Health was talking about when he said in 1957 there was no French before Grade 9. I don't understand what he's talking about. I had seven years of French completed in 1957, junior high, high school, and university, so I'm not quite sure what he's talking about. MS. M. PH ILLIPS: You're not bilingual yet? MR. R. DOERN: No, I'm not bilingual because I'm a perfect example of the school system in Manitoba, taught to read French, but not taught to speak French.

What would be the point of teaching anybody to speak French in Manitoba? Where are you going to speak it? Put an ad in the paper and ask somebody to meet you at such and such a place, so you could have a conversation. There is no practical need, Mr. Speaker, to know French in Manitoba. - (Interjection) - Well Alberta's worse. They have more French-Canadians in Alber ta, but the population is two and a half times greater, so the percentage figure is lower. So what do we get? The Mini ster of Cultural Affairs. Isn't that a contradiction in terms, Mr. Speaker.

He calls, he has Canada Day, he has politicians come out and speak French and what a disaster. I wasn't there, but read what the Free Press said. Catherine Clarke wrote about it and it was a disaster. It said "Politicians asked to take

part in the opening ceremonies struggled admir ably ... ," well I don't know about that, " . . . struggled admirably through the French portions of their speeches. Many in the crowd didn't attempt the French version of "O Canada," but looked with an em barrassed silence at the French word sheet joining in only for the English parts." Well, what's the matter with th..>se people? I mean aren't they into the spirit of things? Aren't they with it? Don't they know what's happening? Manitoba's going to be bilingual.

This was the first province in Canada that had a bilingual Canada Day celebration, another first for the admin istration. Song sheets in Fren ch. Po liticians fumbling, and bumbling, and stumbling, trying to read phonetically part of their speeches in French. Well, Mr. Speaker, the invitations -we now have invitations one side in French, and one side in English. That's progre ss, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker .. How much time do I have? Five minu tes? - (Interjection) - Nine minut es, thank you. Mr.

Speaker, there are going to be public hearings sooner or later unless the government comes to its senses and drops the bill. That would be the smart thing to do. Drop the bill and go to the Supreme Court and come out a winner. But anyway, we're going to have hearings sooner or later, and boy are they going to be hearings, Mr. Speaker. There are now 52 names, I'm told, this afternoon, plus the municipal people have said we're sending in 125 briefs. A lot will be in person, and some will be in writing, and then there's going to be more people yet. I think 300 would be a reasonable number of people.

If the Attorney-General is reasonable -I'm not counting on him to be reasonable -but if he were reasonable he would have the hearings 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. He would like them 10 p.m. to 10 a.m., but I'm arguing for 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., Mr. Speaker. He said several 'imes, and he said it in the Press, and I have the clippings and I'm sure you do, he's going to run them 'till 1:00, and 2:00, and 3:00 in the morning. In the heat of summer, and in the middle of summer holida ys, he's going to go right through, push it. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the submissions to date, it's quite clear what we're getting.

We're getting the government supporters first. I'll bet you any money when we go into the hearing room the first 35 briefs will be about 32, 33, or 34 for the gover nment, and 4925

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 ther e'll be all kinds of people sitting the re and applauding. The impression will be created momentarily at the beginning that the pu blic is behind the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me read you some names. At some of these I have to guess, at some I have to guess because I do not know. Let me run down the list. Maurice Prince, I don't know where he stands. - (Interjection) - Opposed. That would be very interesting, because he fought against the PQ when the Society Franco­ Manitoban backed the PQ in the Referendum. That will be interesting.

I assumed he would be opposed, but I didn't know. Professor Don Bail ey, well, he'll be in favour of the government, because he was at the International Inn speaking in fa vour . The Ukrainian Commu ni ty Dev elopment Comm ittee, Ma ni toba Parents for Ukrainian Education, Manitoba Assocation for Bilingual Education, in favour of the government; Mr. Abe Arnold, in favour of the government. Concerned Mennonites, contact John Klassen who works as a researcher for the New Democratic Party, got to be in favour.

Well, you must be an unconcerned Mennonite and you must be an unconcerned Mennonite, because these are the concerned Men nonites. So you had better find out if there's another group that's going to appear. A MEMBER: Quit picking on the Mennonites. MR. R. DOERN: Some of my best friends are Mennoni tes. Remember that. Mr. Georges Forest -you know, I heard a funny thing the other day, Mr. Speaker. This was a laugh. This woman that I was talking to, who can back it up and I can produce her, went to Teachers' College with Georges Forest -pardon my pronu nciation -25 years ago. Do you know who it was?

I'll tell you who it was. It was the lady that brought the petition that I sent to the Mini ster of Hig hways, the lady from Beausejour who collected the petition. She's a teacher. She went to Teachers' College with him. During a roll call, the teacher said, Georges (Foray), and Georges said, Forest. Well, that was a long time ago. I know Mr. Forest or Mr. (Foray). I think he's okay; I don't find anything wrong with him. He said some nasty things about me one day, but I still think he's okay, Mr. Speaker.

But he will, of course, enthusiastically throw his support behind the government; just as the SFM threw their support and their money behind him; just as the Federal Government threw their support and their money behind the SFM to throw their support behind him when he fought his parking ticket. Leo Robert, well, we know where he stands; Louise Dupont, I can't say; Corelle de Blais-Auvant (phone tic), presumably in favour; Mrs. and Mrs.

Chandra, East Indian ethnic group, probably in favour; Dennis Heeney, I don't know; Roy Tsai -if that's how you pronounce it -he's in favour, because I saw his name; he's the edit or of a Chine se ma gazine or some thing or newspaper. Bob McGregor from the Manitoba Metis Federation and so on; Mrs. Johnstone, I don't know; the Manitoba Prog ressive Party -well, that will be interesting. Mr. Sidney Green, he will certainly make a blistering speech; Mrs. McKenzie, private citizen, I don't know; Olivier Beaudette from St.

Pierre from the Conseil de la Co-operation du Manitoba, probably in favour; Michelle Roy, Conseil de la Co-operation du Manitoba Jeunesse Provinciale, probably in favour; Jeanine Bertrand from Plurielle (phonetic), probably in favour; Mario Sousa - I know Mario. He's a good man, but he's probably in favour; Ron Nash, I don't know; David Lerner, probabl y in favou r; Bareau Gr ande (phonetic), he's in favour, he's writing letters; Robert Andre, Societe Historique de St.

Bon iface, he's got to be in favour; Raymond Clement, Allia nce Chorale, in favour; Bernard Turenne, CCFM, in favour; Florent Arnaud, Danseur de la Riviere Rouge, in favour; Rhea! Teffaine, I know Rhea! Teffaine, a very good man, Federation de Caisse Populaire, in favour. He spoke to me one day and told me in French he respected my position, but he disagreed with me and I understood him, but he will be in favour; Raymond Ferrier (phonetic) Federation Provinciale de Comite des Parents, in favour; Maitre Marc Monette, I think it is, College St.

Bon iface, probably in favour; another, looks like the same person; and Maitre Leo Teillet, Festivale du Voyageur, in favour A MEMBER: Okay, Russ, we get the drift. Get back to hitting the government again. MR. R. DOERN: Okay. I just want to make the point. So, Mr. Speaker, I will simply conclude at that point and say, ther e was sta cking and pack ing at the International Inn, and there is stacking and packing for the public hearings. Mr. Speaker, that's okay to a point. The gover nment has a right to get out its supporters; the opposition has a right to get out its supporters. But do not be deceive d, Mr.

Sp eaker, and the government should not be self-deceived that the first briefs will represent the public. It is the overall briefs that will give an indication of what the people think. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr. C. Santos: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know, I'm really looking forward to the next sub­ amendment, the 29th, the 28th. I am looking forward to the 27th, and I'm looking forward to all of them very sincerely. A MEMBER: The 25th . MR. F.

JOHNSTON: No, I - the 25th, I think that we would take off, although this is the first time in the history of this province that, I believe, we sat on a long weekend holiday because we were dealing with a madman House Leader, but maybe we can solve that problem. Mr. Speaker, the irony of the statements that were made by the Member for Transcona earlier tonight is just some thing that is ama zing. This honour able member says that we are holding up the hearings on this bilingual resolution, that we are holding up the fact that the people want to come and be heard and give their opinion on it. Mr.

Speaker, that's typical of the Member for Transcona. He is famous for whispering campaigns, etc. So let me tell you what has happened in Manitoba for many, many years. To use an example, Sir, I 4926

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 remember being on a commit tee that was in this province to look at the LGDs of the Province of Manitoba, the local government districts. It was a constituted comm ittee of the Legislature put together to take a look at the LGDs between Sessions. We traveled to all of them. We were twice in every LGD for hearings. We came back to the Legislature, and we had our meetings, came up with a consensus as a comm ittee, present ed it to the Legislature.

The Legislature and the Government of that Day, which was the NOP, worked at it and came up with legislation on that basis, presented legislation. It then went to the committee during the committee process of legislation, and it was all done in the proper way of making changes to people's lives, the people's lives being those in the LGDs of this province. They were given the opportunit y, Sir, to speak to us when we went out there as a constituted commi ttee of the Legislature. Now, Mr. Speaker, what do we have in this particular case? Yes, we'll tell you.

We had an Attorney-General and a Premier and a Cabinet who sat down and had meetings with the Franco-Society, with the Liberal Party of Canada and the Government of Manitoba. After it started, which we were told about in December or Januar y, we all of a sudden get presented to us a resolution that entrenches languages, Sir, I'm not going to say French and English. It entrenches langua ges as the official langua ges of this province.

It was presented to us just like that and it was rather surprising that it was presented like that because the Premier of this province, as my leader pointed out in his speech, said in speaking to the fact that we had called hearings between Sessions on the Constitution of Canada for the Charter of Rights, etc., in ensuring that the public will have a real input into this committee's work and the development of the proposals and initiatives. Those are the words of the Premi er. Those are the words of the Premier of this province, where he says the people should be telling us what they would like.

The people shouldn't have the -well, let's put it this way, people shouldn't be insulted with what has gone on to date. The Attorney-General going out to four places in two days or three days ... A MEMBER: Two days. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Two days, thank you. And then having two hours or so at each one, giving people five minutes to speak after he spent an hour and a half speaking at each one. But we went out and we listened in those hearings as the Premier of the Province, Mr. Pawley, says, we listened to receive input so we could make the proper decision regarding their lives. As I said, what do we have today?

We have this presented to us in this Legislature, laid upon our desks, forced them, because we argued with them they had those meetings -they thought they were good enough. Now we have said, we want to have intersessional hearings from the people of this province so that they can have an input as to what happens in their lives, exactly the same as the Premier of Manitoba said when he was speaking in this House. Mr.

Speaker, he also said, at a time when it would have been really worthwhile -he didn't agree on the timing, but he did say -at a time when, indeed, the public of Manitoba would assist and contribute in the development of these proposals. Would somebody tell me, Mr. Speaker, what person in Manitoba, the public, the people of Manitoba, were given the opportunity to assist and contribute in the development of the changes to

Section 23 that we have before us today? One group, a min ority of a min ority, the sixth mino rity in this province, Sir, and I don't care if they were tenth or eleventh, but that's the only group of people in this province that had the opportunity as the Premier of the Province of Manitoba says, would assist and contribute to develop the proposals. I've never heard of anything so downright hypocritical in my life. Now, this govern ment, this Attorney-General, who runs the government, comes along and he says, we want to put it into a committee of the Legislature.

Never have the people been heard regarding the development of the proposals and he wants now to put it into a committee of the Legislature to have people have hearings on what they think of the proposals. Yet, as the Premier of the province requested, those people were never giv en the op portun ity to assist and contribute in the development of the proposals. So when the Member for Transcona gets up with his two-faced rendition and saying that we are holding things back, we are saying that this government should do the proper thing in this province. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to rush this through.

No constitutional change in Manitoba should be rushed through. It is the people's Constitution, Sir, and they have the right to have every opportunity to under stand what is happening and give their input, as the Premier of Manitoba says, to assist and contribute into the development of the proposals. At the hearings that the people will be at, they will be saying what they feel is right or wrong with those proposals, Sir. They never had an opportunity to be part of the proposals. Hypocritical, Sir, ve1y hypocritical.

And all we are asking in this House on this side of the House and all of the thousands and probably 90 percent of the people of this province are asking for, is to be heard. - (int erjection) - Mr. Speaker, I just heard another person say, that's what we want to do. He didn't hear what I said. Maybe he can get up and comment, comment on what the Premier said. He wants the people to assist and contribute into the development of the proposals. Are you going to do that? My foot. My foot, you're going to do that. Mr.

Speaker, just on Aug ust 2nd, last Tuesday morning, speaking in the House when the Attorne y­ General was giving one of his sarcastic smart-alee answers to the Member for Elmwood - (Interjection) - well, Mr. Speaker, this great Attorney-General comments that the Member for Elmwood is not a lawyer, he need not repeatedly prove it. The Member for Elmwood and I have never been close friends in this '_egislature and he knows it and I know it, but he has principles, Sir.

He has principles because his principle is that he believes in listening to the people which is more than those Manitobans on the other side with him believe. Not true? Not true. Well, then maybe you're accusing the Member for Elmwood of reading you letters that are not factual. Maybe the Member for Dauphin who sits there, will table his 300 names that he had presented to him the other day, so we can look them over. Maybe when you 4927

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 hear tomorrow of the number of names that the Member for Elmwood has, you won't say, not so. Maybe your head will come above the clouds and you won't say, not so. But, Mr. Speaker, they said they were going to listen and I wanted to come back to - here's what the Attorney-General said on Tuesday, August 2nd, as late as Tuesday. He has said previously, it can't be changed. Everybody's got to agree. The Franco Society says it's going to be this way or nothing. As the Member for Elmwood said, they're running us.

But here's what he said, continuing with the Member for Elmwood, the fact of the matter is, and it has been made abundantly clear time and time again in the presence of the Honourable Member for Elmwood, none so deaf who will not hear, that what is being avoided are tests on the validity of our statutes; that it will not be possible now if this goes through, as I am sure it will ... " Isn't that something? Tuesday morning the Attorney-General who wants to have all these marvelous hearings, to hear the people, to have input, said on Tuesday morning, August 2nd, " ... if this goes through, as I'm sure it will ...

" That's Page 4746 of Hansard, August 2nd, 19 83, Sir. Now we wonder on this side when we here the members on the other side talking about hearings and wanting to hear the people and the Attorney-General who is running the gov ernment says "I am sure it will." He doesn't say that it will; he says "I am sure it will." (Interjection) - I just heard a member on the other side say positive thinker and he can be a positive thinker because he knows that he's not about to change anything, and you people on that side haven't given any indication that you're about to change anything.

Then when we hear that it's got to be one way or not at all from the Franco Society, the only group thal had discussion on this ahead of time, not the rest of the people of Manitoba, we, on this side of the House say that we will have intersessional hearings, Sir, for the people of Manitoba to do what the Premier of the province said -assist and contribute in the development of the proposals. All we're asking to do is what the Premier of the province wanted done previously. That's all we're asking, Sir. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say this in addition to what I have said.

This gover nment wants to ha ve the committee hearings while the House is in Session. They want this resolution passed this Session, Sir. I wonder if we could get a guarantee from the government that if we went into these hearings and at the same time did the business of the House, and the business of the House ended I wonder if they would guarantee that the hearings would carry on? If the House adjourns, Sir, would they guarantee that the hearings would carry on of the y wer en't finished? Could we have that guarantee? I doubt it very much, Sir. I doubt it very much.

The Member for Transcona gets up and accuses us ol holding things up when he has presented a kangaroo court. The Attorney-General has presented something that he says is going to happen in this province and that's all there is to it. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to debate this for the benefit ol the people of this province. We will continue to debate it for mino rities in this province, Sir. I'll tell the honourable members why. It's been told to you many, many times that there is no official 4928 language in the Province of Manitoba.

Even though the government puts out press releases that are misleading which my colleagues read out earlier today, you know, they put out a press release to the people of Manitoba that states that Manitoba is the only province that is both officially bilingual and fully multicultural. Manitoba is not officially bilingual.

Section 23 of our Charter doesn't have the word "official" in it; it just says that we must have French and English in our courts, in this Legislature, and that our legislation must be written in French. That, Sir , was put in in 1870. In 18 90, Sir, the Government of Manitoba passed legislation saying that we were a unilingual, English­ speaking province. We lived for many years with that and we found out in 1979, because we live in a democratic society, that the Province of Manitoba had done something they couldn't do. As Mr.

Eric Wells said on his program in his comment the other day, protection of the min orities happened in 1979. I would be willing to bet that the Attor ney­ General and the Premier and honourable members on the other side agreed with and were very happy to see that that situation was changed. Even though they might not have known the outcome of the legislation, they were probably happy to see that happen. Mr.

Speaker, now, in 19 83, this government comes forward and wants to entrench two langua ges as the official langua ges of the Province of Manitoba, French and English basical ly, because the y are the two mentioned in our original Charter -not one language, but two. In 1890 they only entrenched one; it was illegal. But in 1983 they want to entrench two languages, French and English, and now what happens to the other min orities. This government keeps saying, Sir, that if we don't protect the mino rities of the French how can we protect the other mino rities? Well, Mr. Speaker, it's completely the opposite.

If we entrench these two langu ages and make them the official langua ges of Manitoba, what happens to the other minorities? What happens to the Ukrainian; what happens to the German; what happens to the Filipino; what happens to the Italian? What happens to all of those languages that we're so proud of when we have Folklorama in this province? Are they entrenched? As I said when I spoke on this earl ier, Sir, I am a WASP. I am English, Scotch and Irish, I tiiink. I say "I think" because I'm not sure without going away back. But, Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to see the English language entrenched; I don't want to see the French language entrenched. I don't want to see any languages entrenched in this province because we are a great mosaic; we are a great province; we do have the multiculture that I mentioned previously. We do have the multiculture that we mentioned earlier . So, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we are not helping the other min oritie s in this province by entrenching two langua ges. What happens when you entrench it, Sir?

Section 23 says very clearly, right off the bat, and this will be the Constitution probably lor hundr eds of years or a hundr ed years anyway, it won't be changed -23. i, Engl ish and French are the official lan guages of Manitoba -and no lawyer or judge will ever argue with that statement, it can't be clearer, and you are putting the decisions of what services will be given in those langua ges into the hands of a judge.

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, let me read to you: "These are the policy of French language services that were presented by this gover nment on Ma rch 23, 1982. We ha d presented services when we were government. Let me say this, where practical, signs and public notices in the above-mentioned designated areas should be in both official languages. The above-designated areas," it says, "where feasible. Forms, identity documents and certifi cates for use by the general public shall be in bilingual format." Mr. Speaker, where feasible -who decides?

At the present time, the government decides where feasible and can use common sense for the benefit of all the people of Manitoba. Where feasible? Who decides where feasible when it is entrenched in your Charter? The courts will, and don't give us any of that folderol about the other sections of

Section 23. 23. 7 says that . . . but remember this province is a creation of the Federal Government, and all of the muni cipalities, etc., are a creation of this province and I assure you, and I don't care what any lawyer says, and the ones that I have listened to, the good ones that I have listened to have said, who decides? The judge will decide and the first thing he reads in the Ch arter is, "E ngli sh and French are the official languages of Manitoba." Very clear, isn't it? There must have been a lot of negotiation on that one. Here's another one.

"Where feasible the information documents destined for the general public shall be of either bilingual or separate language formats depending on the cost and efficiency and required distribution ." I agree with that, provi ding the government makes the decision as to cost efficiency and required distribution. Under the present legislation, under our present Charter, the Government of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba who elect us are the people who will make the decisions as to what is the best service for the Province of Manitoba.

Are you truly telling me that maybe road signs, Sir, if they're going to have an area where they should be in French, that we put "Arret" and "Stop?" Are they going to tell me, Sir, that they'll make two different road signs? Is the Mini ster of Highw ays going to order two different kinds of signs? He is not. He will put out a directive: don't waste my time; get it done in both, because I'm probably going to have to do it in both. He has been in politics long enough to know that he'll have to do it.

If somebody says that I couldn't find my way because there were only English signs, he could very easily go to the court. Because the Department of Hig hways is a department of the Provincial Government, I think. I ask the Mini ster, are you still part of the Provincial Government? Mr.

Speaker, I can only say that the bilingualism situation that we are talking about can be and is being controlled by the Provincial Government listening to the people of Manitoba on the basis of taking care of all of our cultural groups and min orities, trying to be fair to everybody as all the governments have been in the past few years of the Province of Manitoba. The government just put in the Ukrainian Cultural Society. Mind you, somebody looking for it may have to get there reading French signs, but they put it in. Mr. Speaker, I agree with all of these things that are being done.

I agree with the language programs that are in the schools, the Ukrainian, the Jewish, the French and all of them. I agree that the government has to give services to all ethnic groups within this province. I don't agree that they should go overboard, but they are the government and they make that decision, but at least the government can make the decision, but when we say in 23. 1 -"English and French are the official langua ges of the Province of Manitoba" -Mr. Speaker, they wonder why we are debating this in this House. Mr. Speaker, they could be calling other House business.

They say we are filibustering and I guess we are because if they don't call any other business, this is what we're going to talk about. There are other bills on this Order Paper that will be spoken on and passed and moved into committee. There's nothing in the committees right now, Sir. We are holding up this House. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you it's the dogmatic government that's holding up the House because they have to deal with the Franco Society and the Liberal Government of Canada to pass this through and they are determined to do so right away.

I say this, and I say this to the honou rable members of the press up there who are being told by the members on the other side that we are holding up the House and I say very sincerely, Sir, when I pick up this Order Paper, I can see second readings, all kinds of them that can be passed into the committee of this House. Well, Mr. Speaker, when you - I heard that firefly voice from ln kster who keeps his knees waving all the time -the reason they weren't passed on Saturday is because when you have an agreement not to sit on the long weekend, Sir - (Interjection) - Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for ln kster says, he doesn't have an agreement and I say to him that if the Attorney­ General told me the time, I'd look at a clock. So, I assure you very sincerely that I believe my House Leader and I don't believe your Attorney-General. It's as very very simple as that. We had an agreement not to sit on a long weekend, and then there were sittings on Saturday, there were sittings on Monday of the Jong weekend. This was going to be the Deputy Leader of the House's great vindic tive plough, tou know, he was going to bring us to our knees on the long weekend.

Well, he found out differently , as they will continue to find out differently from here on in. Mr. Speaker, there is lots of House business. Mr. Speaker, I think that the members opposite are living in a bit of a dream, because they think after three years, before this comes into effect that everybody will forget it. The Member for St. James is not present, but let me remind this House that three years before the election in 1973, the Member for St. James stood up and voted for Uni city - (Interjection) - I just heard the words, he paid his price. There were hearings. Those were very famous hearings.

The Member for St. Johns, then Mr. Cherniack, went all over the city having hearings on Unicit y, getting people's input from it. What did we get? Exactly what he was going to do in the first place, the same thing. Of course, we know that because the Attorney-General just said on Tuesday, as I am sure it will. I'm sure it will. So, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. James, as the Member for St. Johns says, he paid his price.

Do you know, if you look around the members of the City of Winnipeg, you w'll find that most of them were in the cities that were hrnught into Unicity. f\'ost of the members thAt art here from city are m·•·mbers that 4929

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 were from outside of the Winnip eg area. Mr. Green was from lnkster. I believe Mr. Miller . . . A MEMBER: He was from Kildonan. MR. F. JOHNSON: Well no, he was a separate city. Kildonan was a separate city. But most of the members that were members outside the original City of Winnipeg didn't make it By sheer accident, the Member for ln kster beat Mr. Green, which is hard to believe, but it happens, and it will be changed shortly. So, Mr .

Speaker, the people of Ma ni toba and Winnipeg, and I put it in the two because there are about half of the seats in Winnip eg and about half of the seats in the rural area, are not going to forget, you're all vulnerable now, because you are all going against 90 percent of the people of this province - (Interjection) - thank you. The Mini ster for Highw ays says, 93, because it is 6 percent. In fact, I would go so high as 95.

If the Member for St James can pay the price on Unicity after three years, I assure you that on this, which is not uni fying the City of Winnipeg -it's changing the Charter of the Province of Manitoba - I assure you the members on the other side will pay the price, whether it's two, three, four years or whatever. If you think that you can solve, if you think that you can wipe this away in three years, you're very wrong because we already have people saying, if they do it, we'll never vote for them again, and they won't. You people have misread the people of Manitoba.

You think you know them, but let me assure you the people of Manitoba may not say an awful lot, they're very reserved people. In fact, in Missouri, they say, I'm from Manitoba. I assure you that they will quietly remember what this government has done; first of all, not listen to the people; first of all, done what the people don't want them to do. That's the worst one, and there are all kind$ of other legislation that is going to affect people's lives in this province that they won't forget, Sir. They will pay the price in thr ee years, as the Member for St. James did.

He came back into this Legislature, Sir, on one basis only. He came back because his party went out and told the people a bunch of folderol. "Clear Choice for Manitobans," that's why he came back, all a bunch of garbage that has never happened. Do you know, they won't give him a third chance. I live in that area. He won't get a third chance. So, Mr. Speaker, the argument that this gover nment gives that passing this is assurance of protecting the other min orities is just the reverse.

Once you entrench French and English in this province, tho se other minorities do not have the same rights as they have now, because there is no official language in this province at the present time. Those other mino rities that raise their children, learning the cultural language or the language of their forefat hers or their parents, whether it be Italian or whatever -take a look at Folklorama. All of those cultures and people within this province will be teaching their children those languages, and they will have to learn a third to be able to do business in this province or to work in this province. Mr.

Speaker, the Mem ber for Rhineland just read off the list of boards. Let me say this. Let's take, for example, the Licence Review Board. You are going to have one member on it that can speak French? They meet all over the province, Sir. They have a shift system, because they can't all get off work at the same time. They'll have two or three there at one time. It really doesn't make sense to have one bilingual person on that board.

You are going to have to be bilingual to be on that board, and you're going to have to be bilingual to be on mo st of the boards tha t my honourable colleague, the Member for Rhineland, listed, Sir. This gov ernment says the y are pr otec ting the mino rities? Mr. Speaker, that is probably the most mislead ing, deceitfu l, and anybody that tells the min orities that should be ashamed of themselves, and if the Member for St. Johns believes that, he ought to turn his collar around. Mr.

Speaker, I say sinc erely - (Inter jection) - I should change my act, I've been sick of looking at yours for 14 years, and I assure you I'm a little sick of it I've known your act, sir. But, Mr. Speaker, I say the people of this province will remember what this government is doing and we aren't holding up the House, we'll be very happy to have the House Leader come in tomorrow, pick up the Order Paper, and call the business of the House, and we'll be very pleased to care of it, Sir .

We will do it efficient ly, and we will move the business of the House, but we will not put this resolution into a committee while the House is sitting, and when it shouldn't be there in the first place, it should be in intersessional hearings. Thank you very much, Sir. l\ll R. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with some interest to the speech by the Member for Sturgeon Creek. I think it would be useful to remind the House of exactly what it is we are debating.

The government proposed to the Legislature that the issue of the amendment to the Constitution be referred to a commit tee where we would hear the public. We want to hear the public. The opposition has presented several amendments and sub-amendments saying they want a committee that reports back by December 31 st, that was voted down. Now we are on the very narrow issue of whether the comm ittee should report back by December 30th. Now the Member of Sturgeon Creek in his speech didn't really talk about that very much, but he did mention it a little bit.

He did indicate, I thought, and I might have misunderstood him, but it seemed to me that what he was concerned with was the process in terms of exactly how that commit tee will operate. As he knows, and as members of the Legislature know, it matters not whether the particular committee to which we have referred this would be sitting next week, or two months from now providing a proper forum is used. That people are notified and - (Interjection) - Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek asks "Will the House adjourn?" It is my under standing of the Rules, and I admit that I'm not an expert, but it is my understanding of the Rules that unless there is leave we can't have a comm ittee of the House sitting at the same time that 4930

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 the House is sitting. If that is the case, then obviously the House would not be sitting unless there was leave. So I don't know why members opposite are up tight about that. It seems to me that it's very clear that once this matter is referred to a commi ttee that the House would not be sitting during the time that the comm ittee is sitting unless there is unanimous agreement. If there's not unanimous agreement, then obviously the House would not be sitting. So I don't really understand what the problem of members opposite is with respect to going and hearing from the public.

We've wasted two weeks, more than two weeks now talking on this very topic rather than listening to the public. We have apparently now 150 submissions, people wanting to be heard, who are waiting while this group here is determining December 31 st, December 30th, December 29th, etc. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Certainly . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Did the public of Manitoba -by having hearings at the time when indeed the public of Ma ni toba would assist and contribute in the development of the proposals -Mr.

Speaker, I ask the member, did the public of Manitoba assist in putting these proposals together? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult for the public to do that before they're heard. We are saying that the public . . . A MEMBER: How come the Franco-Society did? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the member keeps referring to the fact that the SFM was involved in negotiation. The SFM was involv ed as a party to a court case.

If somebody sues you and you're trying to settle a court case, you talk to the person who sues and not necessarily to someone else, and then you try, in a case such as this where we are a public body, we go to the public and discuss it with the public and the public will have input certainly as much or far more input than they had when that group was in government and when we had a committee going around to hear people's views on the Constitution. The, then Attorney­ General was on that circuit.

I was in there, I heard the people of Manitoba tell that comm ittee we wanted a Charter of Rights and I recall the report back to the Legislature by that committee that the NDP voted against, because it did not represent either the views of the people or the views of the Official Oppcsition at that time. So, don't let us hear from that group that they are the ones who listen to the public. We are prepared to listen to the public. The Premier has said very clearly that he is prepared to make changes if changes are proposed and they make sense.

There have been some changes proposed by the MGEA, I think that they have to be looked at. I'm sure the MGEA will be there. The Member for Sturgeon Creek in his speech just referred to another item of great concern to him, the fact that document refers to the two official languages of Manitoba. I would refer the honourable member to a memo dated September 4, 198 1 from Sterling Lyon to all his Mini sters, starting paragraph 2: "I'm pleased to in form you tha t Mr. Roger Turenne has been appointed to this position . . .

" - he referred to a senior advisor on the French Language Services Secretariat, which had been esta blished. There's another sentence outlining Mr. Turenne's background, and he goes on: "In the coming weeks he will be calling on you and will be seeking your views on ways and means to give substance to the gov ernment's announc ed intention of applying the spirit as well as the letter of the Supreme Court's ruling on bilingualism in Manitoba." Now, he didn't say two official languages in that particular - (Interjection) - I was hoping you would say that, because it's in the very next paragraph, Mr.

Speaker, the man said: "One of the Secretariat's first tasks will be to draft a set of guidelines for Cabinet considera tion, creating a framework within which departments and agencies, which have not already done so, may im plement policies designed to provide at least some of their services to Manitobans in both official languages." What hypocrisy!

We have heard 40 minutes from that gentlemen telling us that he is concerned about the two official langua ges, and here his own Premier, who understood that ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, was talking about the two official languages, was talking about the Supreme Court's Ruling on bilingualism in Manitoba. What hypocrisy on the part of the opposition! What total, pure hypocrisy! Mr. Speaker, the then Premier - (Interjection) - No, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that, it was not hypocrisy, but it was so close that it was difficult for me to distinguish between that and hypocrisy. Now another memo, Mr.

Speaker, we've heard the concerns of members opposite with respect to the translation of statutes. Right? They've been complaining about the costs. Here we have a proposal . . . MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Member for Sturgeon Creek on a point of order. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Will the honourable member permit another question? Is the item he's reading from a memo to the government, or is it a news release? The one I was referring to was a news release to the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, the item I referred to, dealing with both official languages, was a memo, as I said at the time, from the Premier to all of his members of his Cabinet and all of his Deputy Mini sters. Was he not telling you the truth? Now, Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 1980, the President of the Council again in a memorandum to Cabinet reg arding French langua ge services in Ma nitoba recommended, No. 1, " ... that we confirm the decisions already made to translate statutes, bills and regulations as the necessary translation services are available. \Ve st'.)Uid confirm our intention of furnishing translation and

interpretation services the French language w''.hin the court system of 1\11 anit0b'"!. and make 4931

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 it clear that it is our policy to furnish such services. We should confirm the policy so that, as rapidly and completely as possible, all operative statutes, bills and regulations will be transla ted." Now, Mr. Speaker, we have come forward with an agreement, with a proposal to change the Constitution so that instead of translating all of the operational statutes, regulations, etc., of the province, that we will be required to translate 500 of the 4,400. Which is the better proposal?

The one of Sterling Lyon that said he would do all of the operative statutes or the one of Howard Pawley that says we will do the 500 that are most needed? Which makes sense to the people of Manitoba? Which makes sense? Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things we think we should be talking about to reaso nable Manitobans. The reasonable Manitobans I expect to see, quite frankly not too many of them are in this Chamber on the other side, but I believe people out there are prepared to come forward and give us advice. Hopefully, they will impr ove the proposal we have made. We do not pretend to be perfect.

If they can come up with more recommendations to make this amendment one that is acce ptable to the great ma jor ity of Manitobans, we would be delighted with that. We have to assess what people tell us at those public hearings. We are serious about them, but quite frankly all of us would have to admit that the last couple of weeks spent in this House have been a total waste of the taxpayers' time, and has been a tremendous cost to the taxpayers of the Province of Manitoba. We would have been spending that time far better listening to the public.

You know, as I've said before, apparently there are now somewhere around 150 submissions, 150 individuals and groups who are prepared to present evidence to our comm ittee when it decides to convene. I would urge all the members to get off of the filibuster, to stop this nonsense of sitting late into the night every night in order to exhaust your speaker's list on this, and then tomorrow start on December 29th and repeat your same speeches. Let's go and listen to the public. Let's not pretend that it is all a clear-cut issue of the NDP and the proposal is all bad, and the Tories are all good.

Let's not pretend that what we would have without this agreement, without this amendment would be all good. Let's not pretend that we would not have difficulties if we continue to have people challenging the various statutes that have been passed in the last 90 years which, as we have seen in other court decisions in the last few years, have been overruled by the superior courts of this countr y. Let's not pretend that won't cost money.

Let us recognize that if we can get an agreement under which we don't provide the unne cessary services of translating 3,900 statutes that are unne cessary to transla te, tha t isn't some thing to the ben efit of Manitoba. Let us look at the benefits of this agreement. Let's look at the difficulties with the agreement. Let 's try to work something out to make for the best possible amendment to the Constitution, and let's get on with the job. Let 's stop the filibustering. Let's stop the nonsense. MEMBER: Support our amendment. HON. V. SCHROEDER: You know, Mr.

Speaker, the member down there says, support our amendment. He seems to think that he's in gover nment. He seems to think that he is on this side of the House, and he will decide exactly how this province is run. MR. G. MERCIER: Right. HON. V. SCHROEDER: And the Member for St. Norbert says, right. Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that people who have lost an election cannot get it through their heads that they are no longer in government; that they no longer can completely dictate the will of this House. They are entitled to disagree with us. They are entitled to vote on disagreements.

I don't believe that they are entitled, day after day and week after week to filibuster; to hold back the work of this House; to hold back the passage of good legislation that we still have on th