Manitoba Hansard — 17 May 1984 (Sitting 24A, 32nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

32-3-24a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542- 5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 24A - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 17 MAY, 1984. 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, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Stave BANMAN, Robert (Bob) SLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOV NATS,Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Yic 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 Spring field Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhine land Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Vir den Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mou ntain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NDP NDP NDP INO NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC · NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Th ursday, 17 May, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Gener al. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I have a statement; I believe the Clerk has copies.

On behalf of myself, acting in my capacity as Attorney General, and on behalf of the Minister of Highways and Transportation, and the Mi nister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insu rance Corporation, I am today announcing the second phase of the government's ALIVE traffic safety campaign, the first phase of which was launched in November, 1983, and focused on the province's new seat belt, child rest raint and motorcycle helmet laws. The in itiatives annou nced today concern the grave social problem of drinking and driving.

These init iatives mark both a continua tion and a step ping up of initia tives first announced in May, 1982. At that time, Mr. Speaker, in addition to other steps, a Task Force was established to make recommendations to the Attorney-Gener al. Some of the ini tiatives announced today are based upon recommendations contained in the Task Force report released last July.

Legislation will be introduced in this Sess ion to amend The Blood Te st Act in order to extend exemption from civil liability for taking blood samples for alcohol and drug analysis purposes without consent, where consent cannot be obtained, to cover registered nurses and duly qualified laboratory technolog ists in addition to doctors, who are currently covered. This proposal, I am pleased to say, Sir, is fully suppor ted by the Manitoba Medical Association.

Legislation will als o be introduced elimina ting provisions in The Highw ay Traffic Act which currently permit a suspended driver who is unsuccessful in his or her appeal to the License Suspension Appeal Board to appeal further to the County Court. Mr. Sp eaker , a careful analysis of compar able legislation in other provinces shows that only one other province, and that is New Brunswick, Sir, permits what is, in effect, a second appeal.

A further analysis of available statistics, as recently as for the full year 1982, demo nstrates that our License Suspension Appeal Board deals fairly with those who appear before it. 1t is our belief, and that of the Task Force, that a second level of appeal wea kens the deterrent effects of the license suspension which automatically follows a conviction for a drinking and driving offence . Mr. Speaker , it is our view that an increased certainty of being apprehended is not only the best deterrent 905 there is but, properly used, can act as a preventive measure.

We stro ngly support the extension of the ALERT program which, when opera ting, has proven highly successful and commands great public respect. We have offered to provide the City of Winnipeg with a specially equipped Breath Alcohol Te sting ve hicle similar to one successfu lly used in Vancouver. We are prepared to help fund a three-year pilot project whereby the ALERT program would utilize this special vehicle throughout the year. The vehicle makes it possible, Sir, for the police to admini ster the full legal breathalyzer test on the spot, increasing the efficiency and cer tainty of the operation.

I may say that the RCMP are already doing spot checks for im paired driving on a year-rou nd basis on the highw ays. In May of 1982, Crown Attorneys were instructed to charge an impair ed driver as a second offender, that is, one facing a mandatory jail sentence of not less than 14 days upon conviction, if the driver had a previous conviction at any time within a two-year period.

At my request, Crown Attorneys have now been advised that this time allowance, announced in May of'82, is a mandatory minimum and that, where circumstances warrant, the second offence charge can and ought to be laid even where it occurs later than two years from the first offe nce. Mr. Speaker, to carry on the work of the Task Force on a permanent basis, we are appointing a Mini sterial Commit tee on Drinking and Driving. One of its mandated tasks will be to monitor our program and report back to government with recommendations for impr ovements to and possibly extensions of the program.

I am very pleased to announce that Margaret Taylor, founder of Citizens Against Impaired Driving, and herself the mother of a victim of a drunken driver, has graciously agreed to be the chairperson of this committee. As one of her first tasks, Mrs. Taylor will be representing the province at a major North American Conference on Alcohol and Highway Safety being held at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institution in Baltimore in June.

The govern ment, through the Attorney-General, Sir, has commu nicated to the Minister of Justice its support in principle for proposed changes to the Crimin al Code designed to strengthen the criminal sanction against drinking and driving. A preve ntive theme is reflected in the Safe Grad Program introduced in a number of high schools this year. Through the Department of Education and the support of the Minister this program has received strong provincial support and endorsement. Mr.

Speaker, in support of these initi atives announced tod ay, the government and the Manitoba Pub lic Insurance Corporation are launching tod ay, at the beg inning of the first long weekend of the summ er, a multimedia public Information and awaren ess campaign. This campaign will run to the end of the year and then be evaluated using as its theme: "Drinking and Driving: The Hangover Can Last a Lifetime."

ThuradaJ, 17 Mar, 1984 Its pu rpose is to rem ind dr ivers of the tragic consequences which all too often result from the abhorent practice of drinking and driving. lt is also designed to bring home to everyone the legal consequences to the driver as well as the social consequences to the victims who often, Sir, include the family of a convicted and jailed impaired driver. Mr. Speaker , I have no doubt that the opposition and the vast majority of Manitobans will support this government's actions in stepping up the campaign against drinking and driving.

Those who drink and drive must be made to realize that the public will no longer tolerate this irresponsible behaviour. With the help of the Ministerial Committee and, I hope, of members of the public we will be monitoring the situation on a continuing basis. I want to assure this House and to assure the people of Manitoba that if further steps are required and capable of being effective, we will not hesitate to consider further action. The cou nterattack on drink ing and dr iving will not let up. lt is the responsibility of all Man itobans inclu din g the government to take a stand against drinking and driving.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the Ho use thank the Attorney-General for his statement and we would offer to him I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the unqualified support of members of this side of the House in this particular program. I think politicians and governments of all political stripes support action of this type in order to attempt to stop or reduce these tragic incidents that affect lives of Manitobans much too often. Mr.

Speaker, I offer one comment to the Attorney General with respect to his annou ncement and that is with respect to the elimination of appeals from the Licence Suspension Appeal Board to the County Court. Mr. Speaker, those appeals are with respect to persons obtaining licences for the purposes of work on ly, to drive for the purposes of work. I would ask the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, to review and investigate and perhaps have the Information available when he brings the proposed legislation before the House, to inform the House as to the number of persons who have had an appeal allowed by the County Court.

How many of those persons have then, while that order has been In effect, violated the terms of that order and, in fact, been impaired while driving for the purposes of work? If there is a significant number, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Attorney-General I will support the amendment; but if there is not, then I will not personally support the amendment because that appeal is there to allow people to continue to work under an order of the County Court.

If the deterrent action that has been taken is proven successful in those instances, that is, people who have had appeals allowed, have followed the orders in the great majority of the cases and continued working, then obviously there has been a deterrent effect in what is being done and there may not be any need to eliminate that appeal. "' On the whole, though, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the action of the government with respect to this matter. 906 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like leave of the House to make a non-political statement. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you. Last evening, Mr. Speaker, the YWCA held Its Eighth Annual Women of the Year Awards dinner and announced winners In seven categories. Included among the winners are several women familiar to this House. In the Business category is Carol Johnson. Carol is the only woman representing management on the Manitoba Labour Board. In the Professional category, Betty Havens, our Provincial Gerontologist, was the winner.

For Public Affairs, the awardee is Olga Foltz, the Director of the Mani1oba Anti-Poverty Association. Other winners include Dr. Wendy Dahlgren In the Sports/Leisure category, a new category; Mary Life Benham in the Arts category; Myrtle Lorimer in the Community Services category; and Dale Turner for Management category. I am certainly pleased that the contributions made by these women to our commu nity have been recog nized by the YWCA and by all of us. I am sure tha t all memb ers of the Hous e will join me in congratulating these women. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I, too, would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. it's been an honour and a wonderful association for these women to have been chosen, and we certainly go along with the appreciation. RETURN TO ADDRESS FOR PAPERS NO. 7 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, .1 have for honourable members Return to Address for Papers, No. 7, Correspondence concerning Wiesinger Systems Ltd. , dated January 9, 1984, on the motion of the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. MR.

SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 38 students of Grade 5 standing from

Thuraday, 17 May, 1984 the Kleefeld School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Martens and Mr. Siemens. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye. There are 10 foreign exchange students of Grade 12 standing from Inter Cultur e Canada who are attending various Manitoba high schools. These students are under the direction of the co-ordinator, Mrs. Gagne, and Mr. Stevens. They are accompanied by five visitors from the International Centre, English as a Second Language Program, under the direction of Mrs. Stevens.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Wife-beaters - prosecution of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. Today's news reports indicate that, according to lawyers and judges, the Attorney General's policy of prosecuting wife-beaters is wreaking havoc with the victims, their families and the judicial system. Is the Attorney-General prepared to review his policy? HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, I'm always prepared to review any policy in place and in force and being carried out where complaints are received about it. We're certainly open to that extent. I must note, however, that in a sense I'm taking this question as notice. I've asked the Director of Prosecutions and the Director of Osborne House for their comments and I will endeavour to obtain statistics. I do note, however, that the Senior Crown Attorney at the City of Winnipeg feels that, by and large, the program is effective. My own information which is anecdotal at this point is that, indeed, it Is successful.

There will always be a certain number of cases where it isn't; that goes without saying. But, yes, it will be reviewed and I have immediately asked for a report from the Director of Prosecutions who Is now the Acting Assistant Deputy Mini ster and from Cathy Hiller of Osborne House so that I may see the other side of the picture as well. MR. G. MERCI ER: Well, Mr. Speaker , would th e Attorney-General then undertake to inform the House of the results of that review and whether or not there will be any changes in his policy? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, indeed, I'm pleased to give that undertaking.

Home Manageme nt Systems - conflict of interest MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, during the Estimates of the Attorney-General, I raised a matter with him regarding the interest of an Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, Zorianna Hyworon, who's in charge of 907 computer information systems for the government, and has an interest in Home Management Systems as a shareholder and director of that firm, and Home Management Systems entered into a contract with the Liquor Commission to provide computer information advice on wine.

Has the Attorney-General completed his investigation of that matter and determined whether or not there is a conflict of interest? HON. R. PENNER: Indeed, I advised the Member for St. Norbert at that time that I would look into the matter immediately. I have not yet completed - I'll use his term - investigations. What I have done Is collected the basic information and sent it on to the Provincial Auditor for his comments. But, let me put it on the record here at this juncture, first of all, that what is being dealt with is a three-month trial program, a contract which began on April 1st and expires on June 30th.

Secondly, that at all material times, the person in question has filed first with the government and then, subsequently with the Liquor Control Commission, her interests in that and other companies indeed. So, indeed, she's filed and refiled on her own initiative so that I want to make it clear that this person has been, at all times, fully open in her disclosures of various interests. The other thing that I would note is that, prior to this contract being entered Into, the Director of Internal Audit of the Liquor Control Commission gave it as his opinion that there was no conflict of interest.

I don't feel that that necessarily concludes the case and, therefore, subsequent to the Member for St. Norbert asking his questions, I have put all of this material, a copy of the contract, a copy of correspondence with the Liquor Control Commission, a copy of disclosures with the Provincial Auditor and, as soon as I have his report I will either table it in the House or give it to the Member for St. Norbert, but certainly it will be disclosed.

The final point that I would mention is that the little pilot project, I think the contract is for $3,000 or $4,000, involves a product which is only marketed by this one firm. So, it wasn't a question of one tender being preferred over another. Police Commission hearings MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, would the Attorney-General inform the House as to the daily cost of the Manitoba Police Commission hearings, that is, the cost of the rental space, the commission, the lawyers, court reporters, etc., everyone involved in that hearing?

Could he advise us today of the dally cost of those hearings or undertake to obtain that information and provide the House with it? HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice and, to make that clear, undertake to obtain the information if it can be computed on a daily basis; I suspect it can, in round terms, and to provide it to the House. Co-operative Implements equity MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister responsible for Co-operative Development

Thursday, 17 May, 1884 and ask the Minister if he can confirm that farmers have had their hard-earned equity in Co-op Implements reduced to $100, thereby forcing many farmers to take a substantial loss on their Co-op investment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co operative Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, as the member is aware that would be a matter that would be a decision of the membership of the co-operative itself and would be in their realm and their purview to make. I can get at the details as to any decision they made recently in that regard and report back to him. MR. D.

GOURLAY: In light of the fact that farmers have had their equity seriously reduced or, in some cases, confiscated entirely, did the province as a major investor recommend this cou rse of action? HON. J. COWAN: The province has representation on the Board of Directors, but I would not suggest in any way that it is a controlling factor, or that it in fact would be able to make such a decision unilaterally.

What I can indicate is that the Board of Directors would be the appropriate body to make that decision, that the membership would be involved in that and, if they have done so, I will report back as to the details of any decisions, but I can't accept the assumption that the province would have a major role to play In respect to the internal decisions of a co-operative such as the one we're discussing today. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll ask another question to the same Minister. Does the Minister agree and condone this course of action that has been taken? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Whether the Minister agrees or condones some thing is not a suitab le question. Would the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to seek informa tion? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same Minister, in light of the fact that the Board of Directors of CCIL has sitting on the board representatives from the Manitoba Government, Saskatchewan Government, Alberta Government and Federal Government, in light of the fact that this company is really being run by a government-controlled board, would the Minister inform the House whether or not his directors, which he has appointed to that board, condoned this action and put this forward as a favourable way of helping this company? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co-op Development. HON. J.

COWAN: Again, there is an assumption that we control the board and that the Manitoba Government controls the board and, in fact, that a number of governments control the board. I think that is an erroneous assumption and should be laid to rest; that is, indeed, not the case.

I can check back as to what 908 recommendations were made by the government representative, the Ma nitoba Government representative, as to any discussions that were undertaken on this issue and report back to the member and I will undertake to do that, but I can't accept the premise that we, in fact, would control the board or would make this decision on behalf of the board or on behalf of the co-operative itself. We are a member of that board.

We act in an advisory capacity on many items, but our advice is given the same weight as the advice of anyone else, as an individual participant on a Board of Directors that runs that co-operative. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A further question to the same Minister.

I wonder if the Minister could inform the House as to the status of the refinancing package which was entered Into by the province approximately two years ago, one of the criteria being that the membership from CCIL, the farm population, would raise an excess of a million dollars in equity over the two-year period; could the Minister now inform the House whether or not that objective has been met? HON. J. COWAN: Well, i can inform the member as to our participation In it and what w<J've done to date. I'm not certain that's exactly what he requires.

In respect to participation of other parties, I can attempt to get that information and that which can be made public will be provided to the member. So if he wants detail as to our participation at this time, I can provide that to him. If he wants details as to the participation of other parties, I will make a determination as to what that has been and if, in fact, it is general practice to make that information public and if so, we'll do so. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker , since most co operatives are public, I believe that information, whether it comes from the government or the co-operative, should be made available to the people of Manitoba, but a further question, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister, in light of the refinancing package which was negotiated two years ago, in light of the fact that the $1 million equity to be put up by the farm population represented a major initiative by the government at that time, because without that commitment by the farming population this company will, in essence, become a Crown Corporation controlled by the Federal and Provincial Governments. MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. R.

BANMAN: Could the Minister inform the House as to how exactly this fund-raising, this equity drive by the membership is progressing and whether or not there has been any achievement of that million dollar equity position by the farm population? HON. J. COWAN: Well, I don't want to repeat the comments that the Minister of Agriculture has made in respect to all that we have done for the agricultural community in this province to the member who has addressed a comment from his seat. However, if they want me to go through that long list of progressive and positive things that we have done, I would be prepared

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 to do it. In the meanwhile, I'd like to answer the question which was put in the appropriate fash ion in respect to that which has been done on the re financing package. 1 think the Member for La Verendrye should be aware, and I know he is aware, that the refinancing package was finaliz ed and when it was so, it involved twelve major co-operat ives, three Provincial Governments and the Federal Government and Co-op Implements itself.

So if he is suggesting that that refinancing package turns it into a Crown Corporation, I would suggest that the very structure of it was made so as not to allow that to happen.

If he's repeat ing his earlier question as to how much has been raised in respect to the $1 million commitment, 1 will repeat my earlier answer, that I will find out that information for him, find out that which should be made public by the government - because we are dealing with an entity here that has an organizational life of its own - and they may be the ones that would be more appropriately suited to make that information public and I'm cer tain they would do so. But I will find out what has been the normal practice in the past in respect to making information of that sort available to the House.

We' ll un dertake to provide that which is available and that which has been provided in the past. Raising of drinking age MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, another question to another Minis ter. At the beginning of this Session the Honourable Attorney-General made a government statement with reg ard to drinking and driving. In his statement he mentioned that he will not hesitate to consider further action which will reduce the amount of problems caused by drunk drivers. In light of the fact, Mr.

Speaker , that many provinces, as well as states in the United States, have raised the drinking age from 18 to 19 and to 21, in light of the fact that the statist ics show that incr ease does help to create safer highways and more accident-free highways, could the Mi nister inform the House whether or not he will be bringing in legislation raising the drinking age from 18 to 19? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: I'm not entirely sure of what the phrase used by the Honourable Member from La Verendrye "statistics from other provinces show" imports, but if he inde ed has statistics I would be pleased to see them and consider them. I can say this, that we looked at statistics in our own province which 1 think would be the appropriate thing to do, and the population, at risk, our statistics show in the Province of Manitoba, in terms of the highest percentage of those having involvement in a fatal accident, is in the age bracket 21 to 35. That's where the population, at risk, is in the Province of Manitoba.

So that If he has other statistics certainly they will be considered, but we did, Sir, evaluate the situation In Manitoba. Wife-beaters - prosecution of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolsele y. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I have a question also for the Attorney-General. He mentioned in an answer for the Member for St. Norbert that he was willing to review the policy on wife abuse. I wonder if he could clarify that for myself, as well as other members of the House.

Is this review with a view to changing the policy or for dealing with procedural matters to make the present pol icy work more ef ficiently? 909 HON. R. PENNER: Well, primarily to make the present policy work more efficient ly. I'm continually monitoring our programs and the response I've had from the Director of Prosecutions, cert ainly from the RCMP, is that they are strongly supportive of the program.

Let me make it clear, Sir, and I think this ought to be known, that when the police are called to investigate an assault and it turns out to be domestic, in terms of the origin of the complaint, the police do not automatically say, okay, let's arrest someone. They carry out, being very responsible, the prel iminary investigation that one would expect them to carry out, and only then do they determine - and this Is the appropriate thing to do - whether or not there may have been a breach of the Criminal Code.

If there's a breach of the Criminal Code, at least prima facie, an apprendive breach of the Criminal Code then, not only do they have the duty to make an arrest, but in doing so - and this Is really the most Important part of the program - they frequently defuse a situation which, if left unattended, history tells us could lead sometimes to fatalities. That's where the strength of the program is initial ly.

Then a Crown Attorney will review and will speak to the complainant, and it doesn't automatically follow that a charge is laid in every instance, but simply because the complainant, after some reflect ion, Is reluctant to proceed is not, under present policy, a reason for not going ahead particularly where there has been any injury to the person - there, we will go ahead. Any suggestion that we shouldn't I think is wrong. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Further to the Attorney-Gener al.

I wonder if it would not be accurate to say that in any other kind of criminal cases, when someone is charged with a criminal offen ce, that that does not also wreak havoc with family life. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question is argumentative. Would the honourable mem ber wish to rephrase her question to seek information? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. Remand Centre - suicide attempt MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My ques tion is to the Minister of Community Services.

I congratulate the staff at the Remand Centre for being alert and preventing an attempted suicide of a 70-year-old grandmother at the Remand Centre last night. However, according to reports, this woman was obviously distraught when she was placed in the Remand Centre. My question to the Mi nister is, why was the family of this lady not notified that their mother was In the Remand Centre? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Community Services.

TlwrsdaJ, 17 IIIIJ, 1884 HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. the woman in que stion was offered the right to make phone calls on several occasions and declined. Now, to date, there hasn't been a practice of people calling beyond the permission of an individual in a remand situation. I think it's worth looking into and I thank the member opposite for suggesting that, but I think the staff did follow the procedures as set down. As you may know, we've added about 14 or 15 phones to the Centre, so there's no excuse now that phone lines are not available.

The staff did keep a close watch on this woman, but she was uncooperative. She did attempt suicide, was spotted in time, given oxygen, taken to the hospital and admitted, and I'm thankful to say has come through it all right. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the same Minis ter. Will the Mini ster make enquiries into this case so that possi ble cases of this nature could be avoided? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I have already enquir ed and have given the report, but I think the ongoing question of how to give maximum protection and security to the people in Remand Centre and in correctional ins titutions is a continuing concern. I can assure the member opposite that in the design of the rooms and in the procedures being followed, we're looking at every possible means of providing that protect ion and would welcome any suggestions the memb er opposite might care to give. Victoria Hospital - overcrowding MR. A. BROWN: I have a question of the Minis ter of Health.

Since this incident involved overcro wding at the Victoria Hospit al, will the Mini ster assist with this investigation and work with the Mini ster of Corrections and come up with a policy that could prevent further incidents like this from occurring? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , this is something that could be better discus sed during my Estima tes which will be fairly soon, and also when I announce the five-year capital program of our department in government. Emergency psychiatric treatment MR. A. BROWN: I have a further question of the Min ister of Health.

Is there no way that persons in need of emergency psychiatric care can be accommodated at the Health Sciences Centre or any other place so they could receive the emergency care which they need? HON. L. DESJARDINS; Same answer that I just gave would apply here also. I think we will discuss fully the intended program of the government in the question of psychiatric health. I think it would be more proper to dis cuss it at that time than just during this question period. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speaker , I believe there are a numb er of people who would like to kno w.

Is there no other place where they can get emergency psychiatric treatment other than the Health Sciences Centre which was overcro wded? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Wel l, the member should know that, of course, any acute care facilities in psychiatry will give the same service and there are facilities at Grace, at St. aoniface, at Victoria Hospital, so it's not jus t the Health Sciences Centre. Maybe you should do your homework. A MEMBER: You have no answers. University of Brandon - President MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank_you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to address my question to the Min ister of Education. I'd like to ask her what is going on at the University of Brandon. Dr. Earl Tyler who, in February of this year, was appointed Acting President of the University, I understand was inaugu rated on May 12th as President and Vice-Chancellor in 'In informal ceremony prior to Convocation. Is it a fact that Dr. Tyler has been appointed permanent President of the University without the benefit of the traditional search committee which usually assesses numerous applications? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Education. 910 HON. M. HEMPHILL; Mr.

Speaker, I'm riot able to either confirm or deny the points made by the Mem ber for Morris. I can simply say that Mr. Tyler was appointed as the Act ing President and, at the time , the appointment of Acting President was very well received by the entire community of Brandon, and that he had done an excellent job in that capacit y. I can also say that I know that the Brandon board has been und ertaking an active search over the last few months and I have not personally been given any information about what has been happening with that search. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker , it's obvious, on the surface at least, that no one else is maybe inte rested in becoming President of that university because of goings on in that place over the last number of months. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minis ter, when is this government going to come to grips with the situation at that un iversity; and will the Minister reconsider her denia l of early requests for a judicial inquiry into all aspects of the decisions of her politically-appointed Board of Govern ors? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, if what he wants is a judicial inqu iry, he should be quite pleased with the fact that all of the facts related to the decisions and the concerns, will be dealt with in the best judicial forum and that is in the courts. Careerstart - jobs MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell.

Thureday, 17 May, 1984 MA. w. Mc KEN ZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Honou rable Minister of Employment and Economic Services. I wonder, is the Mi nis ter prepared to spell out and advise this House and the busi ness commun ity, farmers, busi nesswomen and others who have applied under Careerstart and have been turned down, if they can expect some other thrust or some other new program during the months ahead, to employ all these young people who are out there looking for jobs. These employers are ready to hire them and they're waiting for the Minis ter now.

Is there something that the Minister has in mind for the months ahead? MA. CHAI RMAN: The Honourable Min ister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to advise the honourable member that, indeed, we have certain initi atives that will be announced later this year for young people and for others in our community who may need some assistance in finding employment, and there are several programs that will be announced. I'd also like to take the opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, of noting the excellent news, the report that the rate of economic growth in Manitoba is the second highest in Canada which - (Interjection) - and I can advise honourable mem bers that economic growth does translate into new job development, that is a fact. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I want to be realistic. Unfortunately interest rates are going up and it may have a negative effect on the economy across Canada. But, having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that there are more jobs than ever before being created in the good Province of Manitoba. MA. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure the young people out in the province today will be really happy about the statement by this Minis ter. - (Interjection) - Talking about the Conference Board statistics which have been debated in this House for years, a new thrust. Can I ask the Minis ter when these programs for these young people will be announced that he's talking about? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we would hope in the next two or three months we would be in a position to announce additional programs. MA. W. McKENZ IE: Mr.

Speaker, that's going to be helpful to these young people in the next three or four months, so they're not going to be working this summer. Can 1 ask the Minis ter, then, can these employers, these businessmen, busi nesswomen, farmers and others, can they get on the same bandwagon with the Minis ter in his Jobs Fund and share some of those dol lars to em ploy these young people out in my constituency and across this province? There's a highly sophisticated advertising program about the Jobs Fund.

Can employers and busine ssmen across this province jump on the same bandwagon and get the same praise and some of those dollars to hire these young people? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker , even though we do have the second lowest rate of unemployment in Canada, 911 indeed last month the lowest, and we expect to remain either the lowest or the second lowest in Canada throughout the year, I agree if you're unemployed it doesn't do you much good, it doesn't give you much comfort. But the fact is, relatively speaking, compared to the rest of Canada, we are indeed in an excellent position.

With respect to assistance to employers, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the honourable member is aware, but this is the thrust of the Careerstart Program, where two-thirds of the money - (Interjection) - well, I want to mention something, Mr. Speaker. Two-thirds of the money goes to business enterprises; one-third of the money is dedicated to non-profit organizations. Well, there were a lot of people rejected, Mr. Speaker, simply because we have a certain amount of money available and we're always being preached at by the members opposite about spending too much money and how we have to be careful, and so on.

So within the budget that we have available, I think we've done an excellent job in providing thousands of jobs - as a matter of fact it looks as though it will be well over 6,000 jobs created this sum mer. A MEMBER: You're kidding! Fires in Manitoba MA. CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Member for lnkster. MA. D. SC OTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Given the fact that we now have some 14 fires burning in the Province of Manitoba and we're coming up to the Victoria Day long weekend - in the Manigotogan area we have a fire that is still burning out of control, I understand - would the Min ister give us an update on that fire and the situation in that area; and is he considering, or would he consider, any potential of closing down the forest in that part of the province for this long weekend,

whereas the opposition, a couple of years ago, did not do that in 1980 and we had a fire in the Alkens Lake area that destroyed over 100,000 MA. CHAIRMAN : Order please, order please. The question period is not a time of debate. The members should not put forward their own suggestions In the form of a question. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious problem in this province in respect to fires.

We have indicated our concern in many ways about that and I regret to say that the serious fire that we do have burning in the Manigotogan area was caused by human negligence or some human cause. The first started adjacent to an old logging road about 10 miles south of Manigotogan at approximately 7:00 p.m. on May 15th. Members can appreciate the difficulty we've encountered because of the high winds. The size of the fire has increased to about 4,000 acres, it spread �nother 500 acres yesterday and our efforts are continuing to suppress it.

There are two CL-2 15 water bombers involved, four helicopters and 100 firefighters.

Tburadar, 17 May. 1884 The honourable me.nber asked whether or not it may be appropriate to ban open fires in the area, or parts of the province. Certainly that's a suggestion that we'll have to consider, in view of the fact that our forests are drying out. We haven't had a great deal of precipitation in the last several weeks in the forested area and we have high winds, it's something we will have to look at and I'll discuss that with my staff. MR. D. SCOTT: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Given that this same weekend three years ago a fire started, was caused by men, burned over 100,000 acres of prime forest, would he consider not just shutting down open fires, but even the possibility of shutting the forest down so that we do not have a recurrence - (Interjection) - shutting down access to the forest, yes. Well, Mr. Speaker, we had the opposition hollering that it's a long weekend.

Would the Minister at least consider closing the forest through access this weekend in that area, thus preventing a potential large forest fire which would have been prevented three or four years ago had the government done the same thing? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The House is interested in hearing the answer to the question. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MA CKLING: Mr.

Speake r, unlike some members of this House, I take the concerns of the Honourable Member for lnkster in connection with the protection of our forests to be a serious matter, and in light of the fact that we're making enormous investments as a province in respect to rehabilitation of our forests, we should not take lightly concerns in respect to protection of our forests from wasteful fire. So, the honourable member has some very legitimate concerns. I recognize them and I've indicated that I will discuss those concerns with my staff. MR. SPEAKER: Is it on a point of order? MA. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I know it may come as a surprise to you, but I did detect a question that the Member for lnkster did place in all of that

preamble. Now, I'm not really concerned about the Member for lnkster's concern or his attitude toward forestry. He asked the Minister of Natural Resour ces a question, whether or not he would consider some further restrictions, I assume, shutting down the forest as the Member for lnkster has said and I want to hear what the Minister has to say. Is he going to shut the forest down or stop or prevent travel over the weekend? I agree with him, it is a serious question. But let him not follow suit in the same manner as the Member of lnkster who obviously has a difficulty.

Let's try and get an answer from the Minister. MA. SPEAKER: I also would like to hear the answer from the Minister. The Honourable Minister for Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I would not consider shutting down the Honourable Member for Lakeside in his unusual - I shouldn't say unusual -i n his customary 912 false points of order.

There is a legitimate concern in respect to the condition of the forests now. 1 will have to discuss with staff whether or not it is vital that we restrict movement, transportation into the forested area, because of the fact that with these high winds, if there is a fire, it becomes extremely difficult to arrest the spread of that fire. lt is a legitimate concern, I will discuss it with my staff very shortly. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa. MA. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minister of Highways.

I wonder If he can inform the House if the road restrictions have been lifted yet? MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I signed the order yesterday and it will take effect Monday or Tuesday. Premier's trip overseas MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MA. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. In his capacity as Minister responsible for Hydro, can he indicate whether the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro or any other senior official of Manitoba Hydro has joined Premier Pawley and the Minister of Finance in Europe?

MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PAAASIUK: Mr. Speaker , the Deputy Minister of Finance, who is also on the board of Manitoba Hydro, I presume is accompanying the Minister of Finance and the Premier in Europe. As far as I know, no one else is accompanying the Premier and the Minister of Finance. Hospital overcro wding MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health.

In view of the fact that there continues to be a shortage of accommodation for people in Manitoba to get the health services needed, and I have received a copy of a letter which the Minister received from a constituent of mine who applied for ultrasound testing in Brandon as of the 4th of May and ind icated that the earliest that test would be able to take place is the 31st of July, dealing with abdominal pains, Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Health take immediate action to speed up the kinds of crucial testing in the medical system that are required to maintain the system tha t they inherited, as they indicated, following our term of office? MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minster of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the honourable member who just spoke - and he

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 was away on business the last few days - read Hansard of yesterd ay. I think one of the answers that he was interested in was in it. Now, if he's going to bring in any specific case, I would like to make sure that I know which one he's talking about and we would investigate it. I suspect that the case he's talking about has been dealt with between the Member for Turtle Mountain and myself. I'll talk to him after to see if that is the same case he's talking about. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If members wish to ask a question, would they stand up and wait to be recog nized.

The Honourable Minister of Community Services. Premier's trip overseas HON. M. SMITH: I just wanted to clarify the comments made by my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Mines, and to say that in line with the whole trade promotion thrust of the Premier's visit to West Germany that he is accompanied by the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and by the development officer from that branch, Reg Ebbeling. Hospital accreditation MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a further question.

The Minister makes reference to a question answered yesterday. If he'd like a few more specifics, the case to which I'm referring is the one - well, he can check and I'll ask him if he would check - that the doctor made reference to, the one where if action wasn't taken, it would be referred to further standards in the Comm ittee of Accreditation for Hospitals in Manitoba. That's the case I'm referring to and if he would look into it, I think it would be appreciated. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I certainly will, Mr.

Speaker, and I'd like to make a suggestion that when there is a case like this, it should be brought to my attention not necessarily in the House until we've had a chance to check . Many ti mes there is a suggestion and accusation made that is not fair to those who are providing this service. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE - BELL RINGING MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the referral motion for the report of the Rules Committee? 913 MR.

SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Ho nour able Leader of the Opposition, referral resolution, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris, who has 37 minutes remaining. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in opening my address on this referral motion, I was commenting on some of the remarks that were made by the Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister seemed to be trying to make the point that Parliament was in jeopardy because, using his words, "the tail was wagging the dog." I found that comment very strange, Sir, because I suppose it depends on one's view as to what parliamentary democracy is all about as to how one then would determine the real meaning behind his comment. I have listened to much of the debate, Mr. Speaker, on the referral motion and I've had the opportunity to hear most of the comments made by members on our side and I think all of them have been very very reasonable and with a great deal of substance.

I can see where the journalist, Frances Russell, also felt that some of our remarks were worthy of comment. She paid some· credit to our justice critic, Mr. Mercier, as he spent considerable time indicating how important it is that a consensus be reached on the change of any rule within this House. Mr.

Speaker, I don't really care what House it is that you'r e in, whether it's one of a parliamentary nature like this, whether it's a business, or whether it's in a house proper where you have family members all working and living under that same roof, you're not going to have harmonious relationships unless consensus rules.

I think that members opposite, particularly the Government House Leader, would be very wise to take the comments of, not only the members of our caucus who were party to the committee that brought forward the referral motion, but also members and my colleagues who have addressed this very same question. Consensus is very very important. Just like I can't expect my younger son to take over my older son's bicycle within my home unless everybody agrees, I would say that the analogy is strong in this case. Everybody has to agree if there's to be harmony. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think one of the best presentations that has been made from our side has been offered by the Member for Pembina. I had an opportunity to peruse his comments and he broke his contribution into three or four areas where he indicated, by way of his argument, that it was very important that this rule change not proceed unless the consensus is there. I would like to dwell on one of his points and that is, Sir, it places you or your successor in a very untenable position, given the rule that the government is indicating they would like to see passed at this time.

How does the Speaker of the Day decide what issue is so important that the 15-minute time limit be waived? Sir, how does the Speaker of the Day decide whether the Attorney General's salary is such an important issue that the 15-minute time limit should be moved to 24 hours? How does any human being, sitting within that lofted Chair of the Speaker, make that determination? Would one do it on the basis that an individual's salary represents his livelihood and therefore is of

Thuraday, 17 May, 1984 critical personal and government importance? Does one make the decision that represents an embarrassment to the government in power? Does one make that decision on the basis that because the Speaker of the Day, before becoming Speaker, is an elected member of the ruling party? Sir, all those factors have to come into play. So how do es a Speaker make tha t determination? I believe it places an horrendous degree of responsibility on any Speaker who has to sit and rule un der those circumstances.

Really I'm qui te shocked that the government would feel that they could bring forward an amendment to the rules that would put that much pressure on an individual who has enough pressure, to be the umpire within this House. So, Mr. Speak er, I again ask the members opposite to reconsider that particular aspect and result of any proposed rule change in that regard. I'd just like to make reference again to something the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday in his remarks.

He has access to the list of rules that are avai lable, I suppose, in the other Parliaments within this nation, the Parliament and the other Legislatures. Maybe members of ours that were on the committee also have access to those - I haven't seen them - but he indicated that in the Commons in Ottawa there's a 15-minute limit for votes on Supply, on the Budget Speech and also on the Throne Speech. I can accept that I suppose, Mr. Speaker, but yet he made no reference whatsover to there being bell-ringing limits on bills and also no limits as to any constitutional changes that come up within the Commons.

Of course, that's our claim from our side. That's the argument. We've said from Day One that we could never really justify allowing bells td ring on an issue that the government not only had the mandate to bring forward, but also represented a change in law or the bringing forth of a new law, a statutory change. We said that that had to be separated from a constitutional change, through a constitutional alteration. I notice, even by the Minister of Agriculture's own remarks, that in Ottawa in the Commons there is no limit, there is no bell ringing limit, to any constitutional change that comes forward there.

I think that should be highlighted, Mr. Speaker. He also talked about most other provinces having rules limiting bell ringing. I can accept that, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't know what each province has, specifically - the Minister read out a number of the rules that apply in various provinces - but I asked him every time he read out specifically what occurred within a province, I asked him to read out whether that was reached unanimously or not, reached with consensus, and of course he didn't answer that because my best bet - I'd lay a bottom dollar on it - that in fact they were all reached with consensus, and that's the difference, Mr. Speaker.

We have just gone through, within this Legislature and within the province, a situation of disagreement that will be - in my view at least - will be written about in our history books. So there is an awful lot of mistrust as to why a government would want to change rules, want to change rules after they, in their wisdom, decided not to proceed during last Session. Mr. Speaker, there are many many Manitobans that are again asking, what is the hidden goal, what is the wish of this government in changing the rules?

Because, 914 Sir, I don't care in what walk of life you're in, I don't care what your occupation is, that there's nothing that is distrusted more than somebody who will change the rules so as to win. Nothing causes greater, not only greater consternation, but greater concern, greater dislike and contempt than somebody changing the rules to favour their goal and make their course to victory easier. That's what people within the province are asking us and that's why people are asking us to be very very careful as to what element of the change in rules that we are prepared to accept.

If I could digress for a second, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General said at the beginning of the first Session, or early into the first Session, he indicated that property rights, an amendment to the Consitution involving property rights would somewhere be included. As a matter of fact, our member who is prepared to bring forward a resolution dealing with that, was asked to postpone that because the government of the day was thinking of including lt; that would have worked towards a constitutional change. That has not occurred, Mr. Speaker.

There are many many Manitobans that are waiting for this Legislature to deal with that problem. So on one hand they see where a government is afraid to deal with the whole area of property rights and yet they see where a government is willing to change the rules to bring along another constitutional change which 80 p ercent of the people in various forms and by various voting techniques have indicated that they oppose; then can you wonder why they ask, what is the hidden agenda? What is this government going to do?

Are they going to spring in their fourth - and I dare say most people hope their last - Session within this 32nd Legislature. They're wondering what is coming in 1985 by way of constitutional change that is again going to attempt to increase rights for one favoured group within our society. Well, Mr. Spe aker , I think these are legiti mate questions and ones that of course are going to continue to push us to push the government to deal with the question and to separate the fact that a constitutional change is something much different than passing bills or passing changes in the statutes.

I think we've said on many occasions, none of us and certainly none of my colleagues were particularly proud of the events as they unfolded through last summer and through the beginning of 1984. But the reality was, as I've said on many occasions, the people demanded that we stop this government and the weapon is at our disposal. The weapons that we were given, as you know, were very few and the people again demanded we use whatever weapon was necessary. - (Interjection) - Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader says we were never given that one.

The people of this province say it's their rules just as much as it is theirs or ours. it's their rule also because that is their support. Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader again asks, do I believe that? I believe that if a ruling party comes to a place of governing and if they take to heart the word "govern" they will not bring in something that 80 percent of the people do not want. That's my point, Mr. Speaker, and when the members opposite realize that, then I think it will change, not only their direction in this whole matter, but also they'll possibly change their amendment to the rules.

Something the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday was very interesting. He said, what will happen if - if

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 I'm wrong I would apologize, but I think I captured his thoughts - he says what will happen if we change these rules? And he asked the rhetorical questions; will the walls come tumbling down? Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the answer to that question. But in a political sense - (Int erjection) - well, the Mini ster of Government Services says, that's not what he said. I won't differ with him because I didn't quite capture totally his thoughts, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. Mr.

Speaker, in a political sense, if those bells had not rung last year, the walls would have come tumbling down. That's what the members opposite do not understand, not the physical walls surrounding this building, but the walls of a very stable province in every fashion. The members opposite are only so happy to read to us what the Conference Board is predicting. They're only happy to - and if they haven't yet they will be, I'm sure - offering us the remarks of the three economists that were hired by the Conference Board to look into the stability of Manitoba's economical make up.

Pardon me, I stand corrected, it was the Economic Council of Canada. What do they say about this province in a manufacturing sense? Of course they said, well other provinces to the west I believe could take a lesson from Manitoba because it has such a stable economy dwelling and based very much on the diversification of small and light manufacturing. Of course, anybody that's lived in this province for a number of years, knows that that's an axiom of truth, Mr. Speaker, that's the reality. But just as that's a reality of stability, Mr.

Speak er, had those bells not rung last year, had this rule been in effect, I believe the walls, the political stability within this province, would have come tumbling down. That's I suppose, what I can't really understand is how the members opposite don't know enough about this province and the make up of it, and it's history that they would not see that fact. - (Interjection) - Well, you're right. One of my colleagues says they don't care, and I'm almost of the opinion that as sincere as they appear to be, that really they don't care. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture also said that we were holding this Chamber to ransom. We've had other comments from members opposite - I don't imagine they're on the record - but they indicated that while we've cashed all our cheques, our salary that we received during that time and obviously we can't feel good about that either. But the point is, Mr. Speaker , how did we hold this Chamber to ransom?

When one remembers that the language issue was not even discussed during the election of '81; when one remembers that the dialogue within this House and anybody that wants to read Hansard, they'll see that the debate was kept at an extremely high plane.

The Government House Leader shows some surprise at that. it's funny, does he not remember the words of the Attorney-General who complimented the level of debate on the subject, specifically through the summer on the referral motion and whatever summer debate there was - I forget - there were various motions on the main motion at that time and, Sir, you can see that. So what does the Minister of Agriculture mean that we held this Chamber to ransom? We're not the ones that brought in closure. How do you define closure? Is that a form of ransom, Mr. Speaker? In my mind it 915 is.

Well, it's just a technique, but to me that's holding the people of this province to ransom when you bring about a major constitutional change that our whole society will be expected to alter because of that change, then Sir, when you bring in closure you're being held to ransom. Mr. Speaker, I think that it's very unfortunate the government today feels obliged to bring forward a change in rules. I know the sentiment on this side is that there's a genuine willpower, at least from my und erstanding of it, to work together in a lot of legislation that's going to come forward.

Like I said, we're not particularly happy with what's happened. We're well aware of some of the things that are happening and there's a common goal on our side to work towards the ending of a peaceful Session. But, Mr. Speaker, why won't the members opposite realize that to bring in a rule change now opens up the whole subject again? Why will they not realize that? And, in closing, I just ask them to again bring nothing in unless they have the consensus and the shared support of all the members of this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. lt was not my intention to speak on this particular matter at this present time. However, upon listening to some of the debate and some of the rather facetious arguments put forward by members of the opposition, I felt that those arguments, those statements, could not go unchallenged. I would like to review, today, some of the background of this resolution and also some of the arguments put forward by members of the opposition. Well, let's look at the background of it. Is a limit on the ringing of bells a new precedent in Canada or, for that matter, anywhere? Well, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, it clearly it's not. We have limits in various provinces at the present time. Prince Edward Island has a limit of five minutes; Alberta eight minutes; New Brunswick five mi nutes; Newfoundland 10 minutes; Nova Scotia has a limit of up to one hour, a reasonable time; and in Quebec there is provision for the Speaker to call a vote. So, limits on bell ringing are not unusual, Mr. Speaker. From what I understand, there is no distinction made between any particular motion or act or any vote.

Those limits apply to all of them, and that's the first facetious argument put forward by members opposite, the suggestion that somehow there is a difference, Mr. Speaker, in voting on a constitutional amendment or any other resolution. As far as the Legislatures are concerned, as far as the Parliament of Canada is concerned, a vote is a vote. There are different categories; there are votes which represent a vote of non-confidence in the government and there are others that aren't. We have several different categories of votes, Mr. Speaker, but a vote is basically a vote.

So that's the first thing I think that needs to be said, that limits have been set in various other provinces, various other jurisdictions. The reason is obvious, Mr. Speaker, as to why that has been done. it's necessary for efficiency, to make sure that votes are held with

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 dispatch and that the business of the Legislature is not held up pending a lengthy bell ringing session. it's also there to prevent parliamentary paralysis, because that is what happens when bell ringing is taken to the extreme and that is what happened in this province several months ago when bell ringing was taken against this extreme. Now let's examine some of the arguments that member s opposite are put up against the matter before us toda y, the proposal to put a limit on bell ringing. There have been some who have chosen to argue on questions of substance.

The Member for Virden, for example, did raise some concern about a 15 -min ute limit and how it would come into effect if the Speaker was not at the Chair and not in the building, as is the case sometimes during our sittings. I think that's worth looking at. Other members have ind icated some question and concern about the 24-hour limit and how that would have effect. That's something that we can talk about. 1 certainly would like to hear what other proposals members opposite could put forward in that regard, and I think tt.at is worth discussing. But, you know, that is only a very brief argument they've put up.

They, immediately after getting down to the question of su bstance. bring up this whole argument about constitutional amendments. Well, let's look at that argument careful ly. Their argument is that somehow constitutional amendments should be treated differently when it comes to a vote in this Assembly , now based on what? As I said previously , votes are votes. There are di fferent categories of votes, but a vote is basically a vote. If the members opposite were to propose a different formula for handling constitutional amendments, I think that would be perhaps more legitimate, but they're not.

They're saying, in essence, that we should have the same procedure but there should be allowance for an opposition. if it feels that it do es not lik e the constitutional amendment, to ring the bells indefinitely and paral ize the Legislature, thereby preventing its passage. Well really, Mr. Speaker, how absurd can one get? Now this government did follow the prescribed procedure for constitutional amendments. it's outlin ed in the Cons titut ion of Canada. We followed th at procedure, there would have been various other procedures that would have come after that.

That is the constitutional proc edur e that is outl ine d for changing our constitution; we follo wed that procedure. The more consistent argument for members opposite would be not to argue in favour of bell ringing on constitutional amendments, but to argue for a change in the process of reaching constitutional amendments. That would have been the consistent argument, but that is not what we're getting from them. So let's go one step furth er, let 's try and rational ize why they're putting up this rather facetious argument. Well their argument, as I understand it, is based on the will of the majori ty.

They have said that they have the right to ring the bells on a constitutional amendment and that they should have that right in the future based on their perception. their argument that, in that case, they had majority support, and that in the future they might also have it. Well, let's look at that. In our parliamentary system, do we have any provision for that? Well. in fact, Mr. Speak er, I would suggest to you quite the opposite.

For, not only on particular issues is there no requirement that there be a referen dum or a pleb iscite or even general support as indicated by any mechanism, such as a Gallop poll or whatever, but the very basis of government itself is not based on that principle. Those members opposite should be aware of that because their party came to power federally in 1979; they came to power because the y had the largest numb er of seats in the House of Commons. They were just short of a majori ty. Did they have the majority support of people in this country?

No, as a matter of fact, the Progr essive Conservative Party in the election of 19 79 gathe red less popular support than the Li berals - 4 percent less. as my col league points out. Yet, because of our parliamentary tradition, the Conservatives formed the government, they had the most seats. Now some may say, well, that was a minority government, that was a different situat ion. 916 There were other precedents in Canada of a similar nature. For example, in Quebec in the 1960s the Union Nationale formed the government in Quebec. They repla ced the Li berals who were then in government.

The Liberals had 46 percent of the vote in that election; the Union Nationale had 40 percent. Why did the Union Nationale form the government, beca•Jse they had the majority of seats, a clear majority of seats in the National Assembly. That is what our system of government is based on. it's not based on opinion polls, it's not even based on popular vote; it's based on the party which receives the most seats in the Legislature and in the House of Commons. Now some will say that shouldn't happen and I must say that I personally question how democratic that system is when it invo lves that kind of result.

I question how democratic our system can be when a party which receives less votes is selected as government. But the approach I would take to that would be to suggest various parliamentary reforms. There have been a number suggested, such things as a different approach, the first past-the-post system that we have now, the individual const itu ency appr oa ch, th at has been suggested. There have been also other suggestions about reform ing our Senate, for example, to make that more democratic. But that is the app roach to follow surely.

You know, if we were to accept the argument of members opposite on this constitutional amendment excepting that, because it is somehow of greater impor tance than other issues before this Assembly, that they would have the right to bell ringing, I would say it would only be logical that the single most im portant decision made by the electorate, that is who their government should also be subject to the same bell ringing.

I would argue that if they are to take their argument to its logical conclusion, that the Liberals in 1979 in the House of Commons in Ottawa would have rung the bells and said, we have the majority support, we should be th e gover nment. The y should have said, the Conservative Party has no right to form the government. They should have said, we're going to ring the bells because we have majority support and we will not let that party govern. Of course, the y didn't, Mr. Speaker. They didn't do that in Quebec and what was the reason? it's because our parliamentary system is based on the

Thuraday, 17 May, 1984 principle that the party that has the most seats is the party that forms the government, not the party that has the most in terms of popular vote. If you look at it, the decision of who is the government is not even based on that principle, so it's somewhat inconsistent to argue that other decisions should be based on it as well. But let's talk about those members opposite and their great concern for the will of the majority. They have jum ped on this

part icular issue as indicating that somehow they have the great support of the major ity. They have somehow created the impression that this government is not concerned about that. Let's look at that. There are all sorts of issues that I could list which are part of that party's platform, which are not supported by the majority of people in this province. Let's take an good example, rent controls. I ran a constituency survey recently; 80 percent of people supported rent controls. That's 80 percent of the people in my constit uency, not just tenants, suppor ted rent controls.

Those figures, I think, are fairly consistent, they have been in recent years, and yet when that party was in gove rnment they removed rent controls. According to statements made by their leader in this House earlier this year, they would do so again if re elected, so where's the concern about the will of the majority? Let's take their whole scenario to another leap in logic here. Let's as sume that they were back in government and they did remove rent controls. What would there be to stop an opposition from ringing the bells, from paralyzing this Legislature?

They would have 80 percent support of the public - I've heard that figure before from others - and if they would suggest to me that that's otherwise, I'd be very interested to hear it, but I would suggest it was at least 80 percent of this province is for its rent controls. So you can see the kind of situation one gets oneself Into if one takes the argument of the members opposite and takes it further down the road. One ends up with a situation where you can have bell ringing on anything, according to their argument, where a majority has indicated, by what? By an opinion poll?

They've thrown those sort of things out. By a civic refer endum? You could use almost any basis to paralyze the Legislature. We ll clearly, that would be ridiculous. Let's look further at their rationale. Let's really look at how illogical it is. They' re basically saying that we should use what I would suggest is an unconstitutional act, it's bell ringing, because it has no place in our constitutional rules. There's no provision at all for unlim ited bell ringing. lt's a loophole.

They know it, we know it, the members of the public know it's a loophole, and so long as an opposition did not use that loophole, it went unnoticed, but it's clearly a loophole. So they want to use an unconstitutional act to est ablish a process for amending a Constitution which is without precedent. I know of no jurisdiction that allows bell ringing and parliamentary paralysis in terms of , amending its Constitution. lt's also totally inappropriate. As I said before, if they're concerned about our procedures for amending the Constitution, let them propose impro ved procedures.

Let them propose amending the Constitution by refe renda if they so wish, because that has been proposed by some. That would 917 be at least a consistent argument, but they're not proposi ng that. I didn't hear their former leader propose that as Premier of this province. In fact, even when the Civic referenda was on he made it quite clear that he didn't believe in refere nda.

If other members across the way are consistent with the traditions of their party, I'm sure they do not believe in gover nment by refe renda as well, because that has been parliamenta ry process and it's the parliamentary tradition. lt's also, supposedly , the Conservative Party tradition, a tradition that they seem to have abandoned rather quickly on this particular matter , so what is the bottom line then of the argument of members opposite? There's really a number of scenarios one could create and one is, that they're so blinded by their own arguments they actually believe what they're saying.

They actually believe that there is a place for bell ringing in this province, but I would suspect that isn't the case. I think the situation is that they're caught in a bit of a bind of their own making on this. - (Interjection) - They laugh, Mr. Speaker, but let 's look at that. They proclaim to this House that they are going to be the government after the next election. We' ll see about that, but let's assume that they are. Do they really want the opposition to have the same brute power that they've had toward the bell ringing?

Do they really want the opposition to be able to ring the bells on rent controls or any other Issue they try to bring in? What say, for example, they decided to go the route of British Columbia with its cutbacks, its elmination of the Human Rights Depart ment, its sava ging of the social services, its antilabour legislation. Let's assu me for one minute that they were going to adopt that here in Manitoba. Would they want the opposition to have the power to ring the bells, to paralyze the Legislature? Would they want that power to be in the hands of the opposi tion? Well, I suspect not.

Of course, they have eight months of statements to live up to. They have eight months of statements saying they were going to ring the bells and ring the bells indefinitely on the issue of French Language Services in Manitoba. They have those eight months of speec hes that come back to them to haunt them so they have to rationalize and their rationalization is yes, we want it on most things but not if its on a constitutional amendment.

That sounds fairly reasonable, I'm sure, to members opposite because they could then go back to those people who they whipped up into a frenzy in February and say, we're going to ring the bells and ring the bells forever and they can say, look, we're being consistent, we're not giving up that power, we're going to continue it. But there's one basic flaw in their argument - one basic flaw - which goes beyond any of my suggestions about what should be the case. Ther e's a flaw in their own argument.

Their argument is based on the will of the majority, that they had majority support in their actions against what the government had proposed for that eight-month period; but talk to people and find out what they think about bell ringing. There was a poll. They like to talk about polls and public opinion. There was a poll that showed that a large number of people in this province were concerned about what the government was doing, but did that poll show that 80 percent of the people of this province were in favour of bell ringing? No, Mr. Speaker , it

Thureday, 17 Mer, 1884 showed that they were split down the middle. In fact, I would suggest to members opposite the majority of people are not in favour of bell ringing. The majority of people are not in favour of bell ringing. At a time when this issue had reached its height in terms of public opinion and awareness of it; at the time when people were most concerned about this Issue they still didn't have majority support for ringing the bells, and I can confirm it from my own experience In my own constitue ncy. I've had people I've spoken to who did not agree with what the gove rnment was doing.

They were quite emphatic about not agreeing with what the government was doing, but they also told me they did not agree with the opposition ringing bells. A MEMBER: How did they think they were to stop the government from what they're doing? MR. S. ASHTON: They did not agree with what the government was doing. I hear members opposite say, how do they think we're going to stop the government from what it's doing? There are a lot of people out there who belie ve in the parliamen tary system , who believe In our system of elections.

They would quite gladly, in the next elect ion, have considered that Issue along with the other issues and if they felt so, would have voted this government out of office on that basis. They felt that that was their democratic right. They felt tha t was what democracy was all about, our parliamentary democracy of elections, Mr. Speaker, of the public deciding at that point in time, but they did not agree with the minority party In this Legisla ture, the opposition party deciding what would pass and what would not pass.

This is, as I said, coming not just from people that suppo rted the government but from people who opposed it. Members of this House, members on this side have made reference to a number of them, former leaders of theirs - a former leader, for example, Sid Spivak - who pointed out quite rightly there was a similar precedent in the early 19 70s, Autopac. Let them not try and split hairs now; let them read some of their own statements in that debate. Let them read about how that was described as a black day for Manitoba, that's right, a black day for Manitoba, .the day that Autopac was passed by this Legislature.

They wore black arm bands Into the House. A number of the members on that side will remember that because they were here. They called it a black day for democracy but they didn't ring bells. As the member points out, they said they had done everyt hing they could do to stop it, but they set a limit on it. Let's look at it. In those days there were 10 ,000 people on the steps of the Legislature. There was delegation after deleg ation in committee. There was incredible pressure put on members of the govern ment. Surely that is . . . One member opposite says, well, you were elected on that basis.

The members of the opposition at that time did not say that they fought tooth and nail against Autopac. A MEMBER: Of course you did. MR. S. ASHTON: They said it was a black day for Manitoba; they did not ring bells. That is the way a 918 parliamentary system should operate. That is the way that I always thought it would operate. That is the way, I think, a good number of people today feel it should operate.

And the fact that during the time when this debate on French Language Services was at its height, that the majority of people clearly did not support bell ringing, I think, is an indication that the majority of the people of this province are concerned about more than just one Issue. They are concerned about our parliamentary system itself. Let's not underestimate the extent to which people have gone in their statements, and I have had people speak to me who are not NDP at all, who have said that they are concerned because this kind of thing leads to dictatorship, this bell ringing.

They said that this Is what led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. These are older people, perhaps, who remember that experience, but they remember that the first thing that happened in these countries was that democracy was turned in on itself. I hesitate to use that example because I know what happens when you refer to that. The immediate reac tion on behalf of members opposite is to say that's not us, you know, and I say that's right. lt isn't them, but it's the same question really, it's the same bottom line, preservation of our system - demo cracy, or parliamentary democracy.

I think it goes just beyond the traditionalists in our population. I think really if you want to get down to the level that it's at you have to talk to some of the young people that perhaps don't have the background in tradition. Talk to them about how. cynical they get about the political process. I have talked to a lot of people, they say all they ever hear from the Legislature or the House of Commons Is a big racket; they hear Mr. Speaker this, Mr. Speaker that; they hear bell ringing. They hear the noise, Mr. Speaker, they don't see what is attempting to be done In this process.

Where does bell ringing fit into that? Does that help improve the perce ption or system? No, it doesn't; clearly it doesn't. Talk to people, talk to young people about their perce ption of the system . lt's being eroded very rapidly by tactics such as this, tactics such as bell ringing. So when we are talking abour preserving our system, we are talking about doing it at two levels.

That basic tradition that is there, the basic parliamentary tradition, we have to preserve that, but we also have to preserve the system itself as a func tioning system , a system that gives people some faith that our system can work and can operate and can achieve Its goals. So long as this loophole, as I said previously, of unlim ited bell ringing is there we cannot do that; we cannot preserve the parliamen tary system, we cannot regain the confide nce of the many people who have lost it.

I just want to say, in completing my remarks, that I personally bel ieve that we need to reform that parliamenta ry system In a numb er of important ways. We need to improve the amount of participation that people have in our system. I see it every time I go out and talk to my constituents. There is a sense of alienation from the system that is pretty widespread . We have to get people participating more. I will be one who will say that I believe that plebiscites and ref erendums can form an important part of that. I am not opposed to plebiscites or a refer emda, in

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 principle. I think they can be a positive thing for democ racy, I really do. So I want to make that clear. I also want to make it cl ear, too, that I am not arguing against the fact that governments and oppositions have to be concerned about the will of the majority of people because surely that is the essence of democra cy. There are other aspects, too, that ha ve to be, I think, recognized, for example, the protection of minority rights; that's one thing.

But in any system in the world that we have, any democratic system, I think the one thing that has to be re cogn ized as being the mo st im portant for maintaining that de mocratic syst em is its set of traditions and its set of rules, because a system that does not have a clear set of traditions inta ct is a system that is founded on a base of sand; a system that does not have a clear set of rules that allows for the efficient operation of that system is a system that can be turned in on itself.

That is why I raised the example of Italy and Germany; not to say, well, those members opposite were doing the same kind of thing delib erately or accidently or whatever. I am not trying to tarnish them at all with that brush. Some would say I am too kind. I'm really not trying to tarnish them with that brush because I think people make their own judgm ents on the motives of the members of the opposition and the members of the government.

But what I am arguing for, in fact, what I am pleading for is a recognition that we do have a gaping hole in our rules. it's not just the hole that can hurt this government, it's a hole that can hurt many other governments. lt can hurt not just the NDP, but the Conservatives and whatever successive parties come into office. My argument is that it would not only hurt those governments; it would hurt our system as well.

We need a functioning system, and that system functions on the basis of reaching decisions based on the elected members of this Legislature and the people of this province having the right to re-elect or thr ow out that group of legislators. That's what it is based on, it is not based on parliamentary paralysis; it is not based on a loophole; it is not based on the rhetoric of a heated, emotional debate as we faced the last eight months. Let 's take one step back. Now that we are a couple of months away from that, let's take a step back and look at it.

Surely, all members in this House could recognize the heated rhetoric that was involved, the great deal of emotion that was involved in that thing; but surely we could put that to one side as being part of that particular issue and recognize that there was a separate issue totally in this particular case. That issue is the funct ioning and the very survival of our parliamentary system and the democratic traditions that are invol ved with that.

For that reason, I would really urge members opposite to separate this debate entir ely from the debate that we faced in the last eight months; look at this issue, make constructive suggestions.

If not 15 minutes, let's hear some other suggestion; if a 24-hour allowance, which would account for people such as myself, for example, who might be snowed in in my constitu ency, or other rural members, I would gladly like to hear that, but let's not try and create an artificial argument based on the experience of an issue, a very emotional issue, 919 cert ainly a very political issue that is still before us in some ways, let's not try and turn that into a way of continuing a dangerous loophole in our rules in this Assembly . Thank you, Mr. Speak er. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R.

DOERN: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I listened with some interest to the last couple of speakers and also to the Member for Thompson, in particu lar. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was pointed out to me once a few weeks ago, and I hadn't recognized this similari ty, but someone mentioned to me one day that the Member for Thompson looked like a young Stanley Knowles. I must say today, as I listened to him and watched him, I certainly could see the physical resemblance to the great Stanley Knowles, but he doesn't talk like Stan ley Knowles and he, of course, doesn 't argue in the same way as Mr. Knowles does.

So I might say to the Honourable Member for Ellice that in his campaign for the nomination in North Centre he would be well-advised to take the young Member for Thompson with him from door-to-door and somehow or other link up the associat ion. Perhaps with a little makeup on the Member for Thompson, it would look like the Member for Winnip eg North Centre is in fact supporting the Member for Ellic e. A MEMBER: Don't let him speak. MR. R.

DOERN: Right, don't let him speak, don't let him open his mouth, just stand at the sidewalk and nod his smiling benign approval of the Member for Ellice and I think it will be worth a couple of hundr ed votes. Mr. Speaker , as I said, the Member for Thompson looks like the Member for North Centre, but he doesn't talk like the Member for North Centre. I want to tell you what the Member for North Centre said about closure in the great pipeline debate that went on in Ottawa some 25 to 30 years ago, I guess about 1956. I want to quote what Mr.

Knowles said against closure at that time, the very position being supported by the Member for Thompson, the Member for Ell ice, and the members of the New Democratic Party, a very shocking turnabout of circumstances for a party that was so proud of opposing what was being done by the government of the day, the St. Laurent Government. Mr. Knowles said, for example, in that debate - I don't have the exact date here, I think it was May 30, 1956, accord ing to what appears to come before this page of a House of Commons Hansard, Page 4470. He said, "Mr .

Chairman, I believe the day will come when posterity will bless the pertinacity of those of us in this House who believe that Parliament is still free and that we are not called upon to bow our necks to the tyranny of a despotic govern ment." And then he said, "I suppo rt the challenge given by my leader that the Prime Minister take this matter to the country." Then at the end of his remarks, he said, "Closure is not a blow at the opposition of the House, it is a blow at the rights of the Canadian people. When closure is imp osed in this way by the moving of a motion that is

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 out of order, it is a blow that strikes at the very heart of our democratic system." That's what he said in 1956. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Thompson said some contradictory things - I didn't quite get the end of his speech - but he said at the beginning that he doesn't believe in government by referendums or government by referenda. Well, I'm not sure anybody does. The question is, do you believe that there are issues that sometimes are so signi ficant that they should not be proceeded with unless there is a referendum?

Do you believe that there are times and circums tances when some issue is so important, so crucial, such as a constitutional amendment, such as something that could be divisive, something that is new and major and controversial, that the government could go to the people and ask their approval of that particular approach? I will argue, Mr. Speaker, without question that there are times that there is a place for the referendum and/ or the plebiscite in our society. Now maybe we haven't used it up to now.

Maybe it's only been used rarely, maybe it should only be used rarely, but I suggest that there are tir.1es when a referendum and/or a plebiscite should be used. - (Interjection) - Well, you said that perhaps at the very end, but at the very beginning you were arguing against what you called "government by referendum." Mr. Sp eaker, it's difficult for mem bers of the government to believe in public opinion. it's difficult for them to believe in polls that show their not doing very well, by letters and petitions and all sorts of examples by the public, that they are not in support of a government position.

These are not positions against the NDP. The people aren't saying, we're against the NDP; they're saying we're against certain policies and programs insti tuted by the New Democratic Government and that's where the government is having a problem. They can't see the difference. They're taking a position that the people are against this or the polls are against this. Well on certain portions of their program, the public is overwhelmingly opposed. There is, I think, a great tendency within the government to avoid and explain away the truth and the facts of the matter.

There is a great tendency to hide from the public. Mr. Speaker , as a result of the government's actions on the French language issue, yes, in a way bell ringing has been brought into question. Bell ringing has been brought into question - people are asking questions about it - but closure has also been brought into question. People are asking, why the government take a poll on what people think of closure. You think a lot of people are against bell ringing, right, ask them what they think of closure.

Ask them what they think of the French-language question and the government's appraoch to it; ask them what they think of that. Then put those questions in juxtaposition and have different combinations and you will see what people like and don't like and what they're afraid of and what price they're willing to pay to stop something that they regard as an unpopular measure. I'll tell you something else that's been brought into question, Mr. Speaker, the party system itself.

Go and ask people what they think of the fact that the Whips were on, on the government, on this particular issue and whether they would have liked to have had a free vote or whether they think that there are times when 920 members should buck their own party or separate themselves on an issue if not permanently. Ask them what they think about that because a lot of people have said to me and one person in particular said to me, he thinks it would beneficial for any Legislature to have six or eight independents. Why did he say that? I know why he said it.

He said it because he felt that the government was ramming through legislation, coercing their members to support it and that this, in effect, called the whole party system into question and it's true. Some people have raised questions about that tradition as well. Mr. Speaker, I listened as well to the Member for Morris and he had some hesitancy, as do other members in the House and members in the Conservative Party, about what went on in the last year.

He was somewhat apologetic for the fact that bell ringing had to be resorted to and other tactics and techniques in the parliamentary system had to be resorted to. He was almost apologetic about what had happened. Mr. Speaker, I have never been apologetic for what has happened. I'm proud of what has happened. I believe the Conservatives were right in walking out of this House and ringing the bells and so does the public. So do the people of Manitobr: If you ask them about bell ringing in isolation, the people will say well we don't want this bell ringing, get back to work.

If you say that the bells were rung to prevent the French-lang uage package from being imposed on the people of Manitoba, then the average Manitoban will say, let them ring until hell freezes over. That is the opinion of the average Manitoban. Let the bells ring and that was the opinion ofthousands and thousands and thousands of people. And because of that position, Mr. Speaker, the government was afraid to stop the bells from ringing and take the vote.

If they had been on another issue, if they hadn't had to be confronted by the public who was aroused and emotionally concerned about this issue, they would have cut the bells. They would have tried to cut the bells. But they were afraid and they had good reason to be afraid as well. So I say that what went on in Manitoba in the last year and it's been - right now I think, Mr.

Speaker, when I think back, it's almost one year to the day that this issue came into the NDP caucus. lt was on the 15th or 16th or 17th of May when the Attorney General came in with his proposals which were signed, sealed and delivered and agreed to by the Franco Manitoban Society. What they said counted. What that SFM said in a general meeting counted.

What those 225,000 people said in the plebiscite, well you know maybe it was interesting, maybe it wasn't, but what 500 or 600 people said was crucial but what the 17 5,000 against said, and the 50,000 for, well that was one of them there plebiscites or one of those referendums and we don't believe in government by referendums. Mr. Speaker, I say that it was a victory for the people. 1t was a victory for the democratic process and the public spoke loud and clear on that particular issue. Mr. Speaker, the Minis ter of Agriculture, he had a concern. He spoke yesterday and he's a pretty good speaker.

I've never seen him speak on the stump at election time, but I'll wager that he's a good speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, a good stump orator and he was worried about the tail wagging the dog. He said,

Thursday, 17 May, 1984 the tail was wagging the dog. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say what Churchill once said in another context, "some tail, some dog". I'm paraphrasing, Harry, I'm paraphrasing. Mr. Speaker, the NDP isn't the dog. The Conservative Opposition isn't the tail. The government is simply the flea on the dog. lt's the temporary government of the day which should reflect what the people think. lt's the flea on the body politic and it should be reflecting and responding to what people think. I'm saying, Mr.

Speaker, that when 80 percent of the public want to fling off the flea, then they better pay attention. When they don't have the support of more than 20-odd percent of the communi ty, they would be well advised to think carefully about proceeding because they would proceed then at their own peril. Mr. Speaker, now we're confronted with this 15- minute bell ringing maximum and one of the problems here is that the opposition and the people of Manitoba don't trust the government.

They are worried that if this go through that it will only be a matter of days or weeks or months before somehow or other this constitutional package will come back and the government will try to ram it through now that they have a new weapon in their arsenal, a 15-minute maximum on bell ringing. Mr. Speaker, we don't trust the government. The public doesn't trust the government; they don't trust them on what they've done up to now and they will not trust them on having the wisdom to apply that 15- minute bell ringing maximum. Mr.

Speaker, 1 have sat in this House for 18 years and I have seen the best House leaders In the business and the worst. The best ones in my opinion were Sterling Lyon and Sidney Green. In my judgment, historically, I consider them to be the two finest. And I have seen the two worst, the Attorney-General and the present House Leader; they are the worst. Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact of the personality of the present House Leader, which I don't care to discuss, aside from the fact that he is not a very likeable person, I don't trust him.

I remember very well one of the sneakiest and trickiest things that he ever pulled in this Chamber was when the House Leader - here he is - ran outside one day when there was a proposal by the Conservatives and he described the Conservative langua ge amendment as a major turnar ound. Remember that? I remember how all of us were rather thun derstruck, inluding me. I thought, well the Conservative amendment made sense; the House Leader says it's a great idea, there's something wrong here. I became very nervous, maybe the Conservatives had set a trap and fallen into it; but, no.

What happened was the House Leader simply decided to be very tricky that day. He took a very slippery position; he went out into the Chamber and he made the point to the press that the Tories had made a major reversal, a major turnaround, that what was happening in effect was that they were somehow or other supporting the government and all of us went out and scratched our heads on that. We really couldn't figure out what was wrong with the proposal. But all that the House Leader was doing was he was pulling a fast one. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we don't trust the House Leader.

We don't consider what he says sometime to be a reflection of what is going to happen. Mr. Speaker , 921 we also know that the House Leader is not only unpopular in this House, he's unpopular in his own constituency and we know what happened when his own constituents came here to see him that time; they had to have a bodyguard. The Minister of Health was called upon and someone else and they had to take him through the public and sneak him in the caucus room, and the Minister of Health, who is probably still the strongest man in the House, he tried to crush this poor constituent's foot in the NDP caucus door.

Here was this poor lady sticking her high heel in the door and the 250 or 260 lb. Minister of Health - 275, I stand corrected - was trying to crush her - Larry the Crusher. lt sounds like one of the wrestlers on Channel 13, and Mad Dog Vachon whoever was the other Minister with him trying to ram through the little House Leader into the caucus room because the people were out there trying to grab and throttle the House Leader. Mr. Speaker, the House Leader - (Interjection) - No, what I'm saying is if you would have put that legislation through you would have had civil disorder in this province.

You would have had that in this particular province. Mr. Speaker , I say that unless the government is prepared to bring in a new procedure of amending the constitution, I could never support that particular proposal, no way. I will vote against it; I intend to vote against it. I also into to bring in a resolution suggesting a new procedure of constitutional amendment. - (Interjection) - Well, I'd have to consult my colleague on that. But I say you cannot separate out bell ringin g from constitutional amendments.

We all agree on that point, that it's because of the lack of assurance we're not prepared to consider bell ringing in isolation. If it's part of a package, then it will be given serious thought, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the government was desperate a few months ago. I think that's the hallmark of this government - desperation. Henry David Thoreau said that most men leads lives of quiet desperation. Mr. Speaker , this government leads a life of quiet desperation. Mr. Speaker, the government was prepared to violate a number of traditions in this House.

They invoked closure which had not been used for some 50 years in this House. Can you imagine people saying, how did you get approval for your constitutional amendment at a conference? And the House Leader says, well we rammed it through with closure, as opposed to going out and selling it and gaining widespread popular support for such a significant measure. They considered cutting off the bells; they considered violating a tradition of this House, which Is, that both Whips signal the Speaker that they are ready to vote, they were going to violate that.

They considered putting the Deputy Speaker in the Chair when the Speaker wasn't here and allowing him to conduct the vote. So, Mr. Speaker, they had a lot of problems. Mr. Speaker, what stopped them? Well, a couple of things stopped them. One problem was the staff. If the Speaker wasn't here and the staff wasn't here, they had a problem. Mr. Speaker, tradition was another problem, but the biggest problem was public opinion. They would have cut off the bells, they would have conducted the vote.

Thur-.day, 17 May, 1884 But it was because of the fact that there was so much opposition in the public, hundreds of people clamouring in this building; thousands clamouring at the Convention Centre; 225,000 voting in a plebiscite; 50,000 sending coupons to Grassroots; 20,000 and more sending them to me; 100s of phone calls to Ministers; 100s of people trying to come into this building, and the Member for Aiel was one of them who knows what people in her constituency thought. Mr. Speaker, that's what stopped them. Mr. Speaker, I almost got my leg broken there, but imagine that poor woman.

I'm a lot bigger than her, but imagine that poor woman with her foot in the door. Mr. Speaker, in the last analysis they tried to pressure you and I will read you some of the headlines that came out of that period, lest anyone forget. Here's one from the Free Press on February 4th: "NDP expects Walding to break French impasse." Another one in the Sun, February 6th, "F or whom the bells toll," saying of the Speaker, "He's the right man for the job." One, Under the Dome column, saying, "The Speaker's Chair turns out to be a hot seat." And one in the Winnipeg Sun on February 22nd, "P awley lashes Speaker." Mr.

Speaker , we know what went on in an unprecedented way. A letter was sent by the Premier to the Speaker and it was an ultimatum, it was coercion, and the Speaker had the intelligence and the courage to immedia tely respond. Mr. Speaker, I know what the game was at that time, too, I can figure it out. The game was that everyday the government would come and sit In the House at 2:00 p.m. and wait for the opposition, and the pressure would build, and it would build, and it would build, and it would build on you, Sir.

What happened was, of course, that the First Minister sent a note, a letter, on February 21st, with copies to the Press Gallery and said, in effect, that he was going to be there at 2:00 p.m. ready to vote. Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote your response to him and then to conclude my remarks. When the Speaker said in his letter, immediately, that he required fairness and impartiality, and he concluded his letter in the following way: "Sin ce the House is close to effecting a change in its rules I am surprised that you would request tha t I contr avene the existing rules and procedures at this time.

Any unila teral action on my

part could only be a betrayal of the impartiality of the Chair and would seriously undermine the integrity of the Speakership. In view of the foregoi ng, I cannot accede to your request to contravene our Rules and Procedures." Signed D. James Walding, Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the last analysis, they attempted to intimidate and coerce the Speaker by offering him an ultimatum. Mr.

Speaker, I simply say that this is a desperate government, it's a government that we do not trust, and it's a government that should only consider limiting the use of the bells if it will give us the assurance that it will not then attempt, again, to ram in their French language proposals, however moderate, however watered down they may be, and that they should give us the assurance that a new procedure will be introduced into this House as part of a package for constitutional amendments. Then, and only then, should the opposition and the people of Manitoba consider limiting the use of the bells. MR. SPEAKER, J.

Walding: The Honourable Member tor La Verendrye. 922 MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Swan River, that debate be adjourned. MOTION preaentec:l and carried. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be an inclination to go into Supply now to consider the Estimates of the Department of Government Services in committee, and Education in the House. However, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to announce one change in Estimates order at the request of the Minister of Health and the opposition health critic, the Member for Fort Garry . lt's been agreed that the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture will follow the Estimates of the Minister of Education, perhaps some time next week when those Estimates are complete, rather than the Estimates in the Department of He<:!th. So, Mr.

Speaker, I also believe there may be an inclination on the part of members opposite to forgo Private Members' Hour today and subject, Sir, then to leave for that, I would move, by leave, seconded by the Minister of Business Development and Tourism, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that that committee sit through Private Members' Hour.

MOTION preaented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with tile Honourable Member for River East in the Chair tor the Department of Education; and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Government Services. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - GOVERNMENT SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: This

section of the Comm ittee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Government Services. We shall begin with a statement from the Honourable Minister responsible for the department. Mr. Minister. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before introducing my department's 1984-85 Estimates, I would like to comment briefly on the role and purpose of the Department of Government Services. Government Services is a Central Service Agency within the Manitoba Government.

The department is responsible for providing a wide range of central support services to all departments and some agencies, boards and commissions. These services are categorized as Property Services and Supply Services. Pro perty Services entail the planning, desig n, acquisi tion, construction and management of

Thunda� 17 May. 11184 government-owned or leased prope rty. They include such services as project management, design, land acquisition, accommodation planning, maintenance and operation , construction, security and parking, employee housing, contract services, energy management and the operation of the Gimli In dustrial Park. Supply Services entail the acquisition, supply and management of common government commodities and services. They include such things as fleet vehicles, purchasing, inventory management, office equipment, telec ommun ications and postal services.

As the provider of these common services, the department attempts to offer a cost-effective service to plan departments, a service which, if delivered by departments themselves, would not be as uniform nor cost-eff ective to the government as a whole. Having said that, I will now highlight some of my depart ment's major accomplishments during this past fiscal year. The Department of Government Services Is committed to an operating phi losophy that embr aces services as its foremost concern. Recognition of and response to our clients' needs form an integ ral part of the department's operation.

In order to continually improve our clients' relations, the department has embarked on several initiatives. An annual meeting between senior management of Government Services and client depar tments has been he!d to discuss and resolve policy and service concerns. A number of visits with client groups at the working level have also been made to address policy and service issues applicable to selected programs. We have developed an easy-to-follow guide on how to do business with Government Services, called a Client Service Manual, and have distributed this manual to over 600 clients.

We have also planned and designed a Client-Relations Training Program to help our staff impr ove their client relation skills. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder If the Minister could supply me with a copy of this report? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage wants a copy of the Min ister's opening remarks. HON. A. ADAM: No, I don't have a copy. MR. L. HYDE: That's a poor start, Mr. Chairman. However, we'll over look it for the time being. I trust you will have a copy for me in the very near future. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not sure whether it's common practice for the Minister's comments to be distributed. I don't find anything wrong with that. May I continue, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter has the floor. HON. A. ADAM: We have also planned and designed a Client-Relation Training Program to help our staff improve their client-relations skills. Many of these initia tives will be continued and further enha nced through 1984-85. The huma n resources of the department are considered to be our most valuable asset in providing 923 good service.

As such, human resource development in both the profes sional and technical areas has been an ongoing concern of the depar tment. This year a staff training and development survey was admin istered to departmental staff in conjunction with the Civil Service Commission and the Manitoba Institute of Management . The survey identified a number of training needs and led to the development of training programs to meet those needs. Turning now to Management Information Systems, the department has begun several system development projects to automate work processes and decision systems.

The department is now into the second year of a five-year project to develop a property management system. When completed this system will automate most of our property management functions. We hope to integrate them into a total information system with other divisions at some later date. The system is comprised of commitment, accounting, space management, police management, parking control, financial modelling, job costing, work order control, inventory control and personnel modules.

A Fleet Management Information System has been developed to provide cost data on each vehicle unit and a data base for establishing vehicle-use rates by depar tment. Since April, 1983, the system has provided vehicle cost and utilization information to assist clients in better managing their vehicle assignments and In controlling their transportation costs. Another automated system which became operational this past year was the Common Material Identi fication System.

This system ensures that all government inventory supply items are consistently classified and numerically catalogued, thereby facilitating effi cient Inventory manageme nt and stock replenishment. The system is a precursor to a comprehensive purchasing information system. In the area of telecommunications, the department has co-ordinated the Impl ementation of Centrex Te lephone Services for the government's use in Winnipeg. Centrex Is a computerized system capable of integrating voice, data, text and high speed facsimile within a unified commun ication operation.

The Centrex Service has a number of implications for improving telecommunications, service and reducing cost which will be increasingly evident as the system becomes fully operational in 1984-1985. I should also mention that during this past year an INWATS telephone system was implemented to permit the general public in rural areas to contact their MLAs In their Winnipeg offices toll free.

Again, in order to assist the general public and improve its access ibility to the government, the blue pages of the MTS Winnipeg Directory were revised to provide an alphabetical functional listing of government programs and services. In conjunction with Translation Services, bilingual listings were prepared for the blue pages of the 1983- 1984 Winnipeg and Provincial directories. Through the application of nume rous inno vative and proven energy conservation techniques, Government Services is continuing to achieve a 20 to 25 percent reduction in energy consumption in the operation of gover nment buildings.

Relative to the 1979-1980 base year, a cost avoidance of approximately $1.5 million was achieved in 1983-84. We expect a similar cost avoidance for 1984-1985.

Thur8d ay, 17 May, 1984 An example of one of the measures we've taken to reduce energy costs is the closing of the three provincial community colleges during the 10-day winter break. In 1982-83, this resulted in a $1 5,900 gross energy cost avoidance. With increased fuel and utility rates, the cost avoidance was $1 8,000 this past fiscal yea r. The department has also continued to conserve energy and reduce cost with the ve hicle fleet. lt operates on behalf of the government by acquiring the smallest and the most economical vehicles for the job.

Compacts now comprise over 40 percent of the approximately 2,500 vehicles in the fleet, more than double the proportion in 19 79-80; 94 percent of the sedans are presently either compact or sub-compacts. This resulted in a 250,000 litre reduction in fleet fuel consumption. Turning now to land acquisition, my department has negotiated a number of land purchase agreements under the Winnipeg Core Initiative Programf This has involved property on Portage Ave nue, Logan Avenue, the Canadian National Railway East Yards and the new Air Canada Adminis trative Centre.

If the North Portage project should procee d, the North Portage Deve lopment Program is also expected to generate a su bstantial amount of activity for our Land Acquisition Branch in the coming fiscal year. In the next year, land acquisition involving multiple land owners s

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-3-24a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 3rd hansardpdf 24a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2d53552fc79c2cc8407e8e3e71c1f6a618329d83

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