Manitoba Hansard — 26 May 1981 (Sitting 86C, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-86c

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Prese nting Petitions . . . Reading and Receivi ng Petitions . . . Pres enting Repor ts by Standing and Special Commi ttees . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to draw the honourable mem bers' attention to the galle ry on my right where we have 25 students from the Emerson School under the direction of Mr. Gillis.

This school is in the Constituency of the Honourable Member for Rossmere. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this evening. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to acknowledg e the filing by the Min ister without Portfolio of the Order for Return which I have been seeking almost on behalf of the Member for Fort Rouge for a cons iderable length of time, I'm wondering if he could inform us in due course and possibly then by letter, what the cutoff date is for the information given in this Return, since the Order itself was dated April 11 , 1980. lt is apparent that there are subsequent appointments noted since I see some on October 22, 1980, whether in due course we could get information as to what cutoff date was set out for this Return? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio. HON. ED WARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Johns refers to the tabling of the report this afternoon, the one for which he had requested a Return. I'll be pleased to take his question as notice and attempt to determine for him, and in due course advise him of the date on which that Return was cut. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Memb er for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I' d like to addr ess a qu estion to the Min ister responsible for the Universities Grants Commi ssion and ask the Minister of Education whether he is prepared and his government is prepared to support the Un iversities Grants Commission in the approval of funds for the establishment of a school of nursing at Brandon University? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mi nister of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration. MR.

EVANS: Inasmuch as the City of Brandon has not only the university already in existence but also an excellent hospital complex plus a large mental health centre with various qua lified professional people, therefore providing a basis for such a school, is the Minister prepared to use his good offices to see that some decision is made in the fairly near future, or is this some thing that will be put off for a year or two, or is it something that we ca n look forward to in the next five to six months - that is a decision in the next five to six months - because as I understand, Mr.

Speaker, there is a problem also inasmuch as the University of Winnipeg is also, I belie ve, seeking approval for establishment of a school of nursing? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no quarrel with the member's statement about the fine facilities in Brandon; I think we all acknowledge that. Certainly I would be hopeful that a decision will be made in regard to any expansion that might take place in nursing education in 19 81. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Memb er for Brandon East with a final supplem entary. MR. EVANS: lt's related, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Min ister could comment on whether he's concerned about the duplication of training facilities in the field of nursing within one region of the province, namely the City of Winnipeg. As we know, the Un iversity of Manitoba has an excellent program and we know the University of Winnipeg wishes to establish a program.

I wonder if the Honourable Minister is concerned about unnecessary duplication and the expenditure of money on a program which is quite simila r within the same region, that is within the City of Winn ipeg, and therefore would that be a consideration in establishing a school of nursing in another region of the province? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, duplication is always a concern and it's one of the things that we will have to consi der in making a determination on the location or perhaps the location of another nursing course at the university level in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. George.

MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct this question to the Min ister of Health, a follow-up to the questions I posed to him earlier. Can the Minister of Health indicate whether or not all the alternatives have been explored with neighbouring hospitals, namely of Ashern, and even the possibility of Arborg, and per se more to prevent a closing of the hospital along, as I understand it, the guidelines that are established by MHSC and the government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Mem ber for St. 3867

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 George for asking that question. I was intending, after members of the Opposition had an opportunity to utilize a fair portion of question period to speak to the question that was put to me this afternoon by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge and then by the Honourable Member for St. George, relative to the Elizabeth M. Crowe Memorial Hospital in Eriksdale. First , I think I was asked by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge whether I could confirm that the hospital had been closed and that staff had been laid off. I can confirm, Mr.

Speaker, that the hospital has not been closed and that staff have not been laid off. However, the hospital is having considerable difficulty obtaining a doctor to take over from a doctor who was serving there on a six month's locum and who will be leaving on approximately June 20. In response to the direct question just posed to me by the Honourable Member for St. George, I'm assured that everything possible is being done by the Board, by the Physician Placement Bureau, by the Commission, and through the Standing Commit tee on Medical Manpower, to try to obtain a replacement for the doctor who is leaving.

In the meantime the pos sibili ty of interim tem porary service from Eriksdale, Lundar, Arborg, and other points is being very intensively explored. We have about four weeks - well I can hardly call it lead time, Mr. Speaker, but about four weeks breathing space and I can assure the Honourable Member for St. George that everything will be done as intensively as possible to meet that problem before the four-week deadline runs out. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George -(I nterjection) MS. JUNE WESTBURY (Fort Rouge): Mr.

Speaker, I did not ask a que stion that the Minis ter has answered, I asked if the hospital is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Honour able (l nterjection)- Order please. Order please. The Member for St. George. Order please. If the honourable member wishes to raise it, she can raise it at the end of the question period. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for his advice and I was aware that notice had been given to staff because of the contractual obligations between the hospital and their union.

I ask the Minister if he would consider in the event that the worst comes about, whether consideration can be given to maintaining the facility at least in terms of the personal care patients that are in the area because of the great shortage of beds, so that if the worst comes in that alternate care and the possibility of maintaining it as a care facility in the meantime be explored so that the entire unit is not comple tely closed down. lt may be closed down for acute care but for second ary care that may be required, whether that could be explored as well, Mr. Speaker? MR.

SHERMAN: Yes, I think that can be done, Mr. Speaker. As the honourable member knows the site and the board recently received appr oval for renovations to the hospital and construction of a 3868 personal care home. Certai nly the El izabeth M. Crowe is an excellent facility, certainly it would be my intention to maintain it and use it in health care services in the area even if as a geriatric centre and a personal care facility until the new facility is ready and until we have got the necessary medical staff in pl ace at El izabeth M. Cr owe .

I can give the honourable member an undertaking that certainly I would pursue that objective. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a final supplem entary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr, Speaker. I ask the Health Minister just so I am clear on this that there is no intent on behalf of the government to phase out the acute care facility. MR.

SHERMAN: There's certainly no intention on the part of the governement and if acute care services had to be tempararily suspended because of a lack of a doctor and the inability to meet the necessary standards, it would be held to the mi nimum time necessary to find another doctor. There is no intention to phase out the acute care facility. The intention is to find a doctor to maintain the acute care facility, to renovate the hospital, to build a personal care home, to restore and reinforce the spectrum of service that is necessary there. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Mr.

Speaker, you stated I did not have a point of privilege and I had to wait until the end of the question period, Sir. 1 thought a question of privilege had to be asked immed iately. Could I please understand that I do have some questions however. MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable member has a point of privilege, I will listen to her entertain her point of privilege. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My point of privilege is this, that the question I asked this afternoon related to a letter that has been sent by Manitoba Health Services Commission to the hospital stating that it will be closed, not that it has been closed, but will be closed in a month by June 30, if a doctor has not been found to take the place of the doctor who is leaving. And I also asked if it is not so that the staff were today given their lay-off slips effective June 23, and the Minister did not answer those questions. He answered questions as if they were in the past, Mr. Speaker, MR.

SPEAKER: Will the honourable member go to Page 59 of our Rules? A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in the Legislature. lt should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to im pose a reparation or apply a remedy. Since the honourable member did not make any motion, I rule that she had no point of privilege. The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. have a question for the Minister of Education.

Tuesday,26 May, 1981 (I nterjection)- I just hope things cool down a little bit. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the Minister of Education. I'd asked him several weeks ago whether he had had a meeting with the Chairman of the River East School Division with respect to a proposed German Imm ersion Program. Has he now had that meeting and if so what was the result? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mi nister of Education. HON. KE ITH A. COSENS (Gimli): I believe, Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member asked the question about a week ago. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can inform him we did have the mee ting. The result was that we had a very good discussion and I have the matter under consideration at this time. MR. SCHROEDER: A supplement ary to the Minister. Is it the intention of the Minister, if it is technically possible to provide a pilot project for this coming September, to provide the funding for that program? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of consi dera tions, certainly the funding is one consideration.

The time parameters are perhaps the biggest consideration at this poi nt. To consider putting in a comple tely new course over a period of some four months, is a rather short amount of time and that may be the prime factor in determ ining whether or not the course does take place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Rossmere with a final suppleme ntary. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A further supplementa ry to the Minister. If in fact a curriculum can be developed in that short period of time, is it the intention of the Minister to fully fund that pilot project? MR. CO SENS : Mr.

Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that the funding is only one of the factors that we have under consideration at this time. I mentioned one or two of the others; there are several that have to be taken into consideration. The funding is perhaps among the lesser factors that we're considering at this point. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Transportation. HON. DON ORCHARD (Pembina): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning the Member for Churchill posed a question as to the availability of driver testing in Lynn Lake and although we have greatly imp roved the level of service available to the residents in that area, we are unable to comply with the request that he referred to me this morning. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Churchill. MR. JAY CO WAN: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear that and I will have further discussions with the Min ister on it at another opportunity, but my question is to the Minister of Labour.

I'd ask the Minister of Labour what action he is going to take in respect to a recommendation by the Workplace Safety and Health Division occupational health nurse consultant and a request by the union, the In ternational Association of Mach inists and Aerospace Workers at Motor Coach Industries, for the establishment of an occupational health service, at that facility in the City of Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr.

Speaker, as the Member for Churchill knows, we were the first to ever establish such an occupational health service, so there's no question that we think it's a good way to go and in this particular instance we may give consideration to that again. We haven't made a firm decision on that. MR. COWAN: As the Minis ter is aware, Mr. Speaker, if I can respond to that, the enabling legislation that empowers them to provide that service was the legislation which was brought in at the end of the last New Democratic Party admin istration.

I would ask the Minister, in respect to the powers that are provided to him under that piece of legislation, if he is prepared to do more than consider it, but if they are in fact prepared to put in place that occupational health service which has been recommended by their own occupational health nu rse because of severe potential for health problems arising out of the soldering facilities at Motor Coach Industries in the Province of Manitoba? MR. MacMASTER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, to answer the first question first, yes, it was the New Democratic Party that brought in The Work place Safety and Health Act four days before the election was called in 1977. I suppose they had to give some indication that they were interested in workplace safety after eight years of showing no interest. As I said to the member on his previous question and to reiterate my answer, there is a good possibility that the service being requested in that particular establishment will be put into place. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, I should remind the Minister that that legislation was passed in the 19 76 session so his analysis of the situation is not totally accurate.

However, I will ask the Minister what action he is going to take in respect to a report by his own Workpla ce Safety and Health division that the existing exhaust ventilation at the silver soldering operation in the Motor Coach facilities is, and I quote, "totally inadequate for the effective capture and removal of contaminants generated by silver soldering" and the report goes on further to state that that is going to, or may in fact result in potential health problems for workers at that facility, not related to cadmium in specific, but related to the 3869

Tuesday,26 May, 1981 whole process of si lver soldering and health proble ms caused by ina dequa te exhaus t and contamination from other contaminants. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that it was a particular type of solder that created the problem in the first place and the best technical advice we had was that the exhaust system had to be impl emented last December. lt was exactly at that time and the member is aware of this of course that they changed the type of solder.

We weren't satisfied that even changing the type of solder, taking cadmium out of it, would be good enough and after they took that type of solder out of the way the experts went back in to see what was happening with the new type of solder. lt was established late in spring that even the new type of solder was creating a problem, that a ventilation system should in fact be put in place. The company has experts in there and we have experts in there now and a ventilation system will in fact be put in place in that particular plant.

In relationship to the bill that the member is talking about, a piece of legislation that was passed in 1976, after seven years of wondering what you were going to do about Workplace Safety, they passed a Bill in 1976. They didn't know what to do with it so they proclaimed it five days or four days before the election was called. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WE STBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the very Honourable Minis ter of Health would be kind and gracious enough to inform the Hous e whether indeed Manitoba Health Services Commission has sent a letter to the admin istrative director of Elizabeth M. Crowe Memorial Hospital in Eriksdale, stating that the hospital will be closed by June 30, and whether the hospital has today given layoff slips to its emp loyees effective June 23 on the instructions of the board which met last night? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that.

What I can confirm is that the hospital board and the Commission have certainly been in close touch dur ing this period of anx iety and the Commission has advised the hospital board that four standard conditions are required in order for the hospital to maintain operations as an acute care facility after the date on which the present physician leaves, but beyond that I can't confirm the impl ications in the question from the Honou rable Member for Fort Rouge.

What happened was the board of the hospital met last night, concerned as they are whether they are going to be able to obtain the necessary coverage and being responsible parties to a contract with non medical union personnel which calls for a four week notice of a layoff, they have warned the empl oyees that they are in difficulty locating a doctor; that they know they have to meet certain standard conditions to maintain operations as an acute care facility and so they have warned the non- medical un ion 3870 emplo yees that a layoff ma y well ensue, but everybody remains determined to solve the problem and certainly my office remains determined and optimistic, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho no urable Memb er for Radisson. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Environment. I wonder if the Honourable Minister can tell me whether anything has been done to corr ect the odours that are emitted in the St. Boniface area particularly close to the rendering facilities in that area? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. GARY FILMON (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I must admit that I haven't had any evidence of it in the last while so that might indicate that the problem is improving. MR. KOVNATS: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. I was just wondering whether the Minister can advise me and the House whether the odours being emitted in the north end of the city are harder to take than the odours being emitted in St. Bon iface? MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I would say that would require a fairly subjective analysis and I suppose it depends whose nose is involved. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Me mb er for Radisson with a final supplem entary. MR. KOVNATS: Mr.

Speaker, on television the other evening there was a particular movie where there was a kidnapping and in the car there was a blindfolded victim. The blindfolded victim was able to advise where he was by the sounds and the smells that he was able to distinguish while being transported through a particular area. I wonder if the Honourable Minister is allowing the odours to remain so that if anybody is kidnapped and blindfolded that they would certainly be able to tell where they were? MR. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it's one way of identifying very positively the honourable member's constituency. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker , I have another question for the Minister of Health on another matter. I wonder if the Minister is yet able to answer my question of May 4 regarding the reason for a young retarded male being retained for 20 hours in the emerg ency department at St. Boniface Hospital even though the Minister had stated that there was no shortage of beds in that or any other hospital. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer that. I apologize to the Honourable Member

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 for Fort Rouge. I made an inquiry; I don't have an answer on that question. I will obtain an answer for her and supply it to her this week whether the House is sitting or not. MR. SP EAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Health and ask him in view of some recently expressed concerns by pharma cists about the theft of drugs and in view of the need to have fai rly tight security about the distri bution of dr ugs, has he received any submissions either from ind ividuals or the Phar maceutical Association reques ting that pharma cists as a procedure have access to the medical numb ers?

Apparently there is a medical list of doctors and they each have a number which if used would help the pharmacist sometimes decipher the signature and in other cases be assured that it is in fact a doctor who has sent in the prescription. Has the Minister had any submi ssions to that effect? MR. SHERMAN: Not that I recall, Mr.

Speaker, but in this after noon's sitting of the Hous e the Honourable Member for Transcona asked me about the situation with respect to over-pre scription of drugs and unfavourable relationships between drugs that are prescribed for elderly persons and I think I tried to address the subject fairly extensively. I am not sure whether the Honour able Member for Elmwood is seeking information in that sort of same subject area. If he is I would refer him to the exchange between the Member for Transcona and myself this afternoon.

As to his specific question I don't think I have received any specific requests on that point. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister indicate what the problem is with a central registry of drugs? My colleague referred to a case where dozens and dozens of prescriptions were given to a particular person. The matter was raised several years ago in Estima tes. What is the holdup in establ ishing a system whereby doctors and pharma cists kn ow precisely what prescriptions are being used by a particular person? MR. SHERMAN: I don't think there was any holdup, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to be corrected but I believe that I'm right in saying that the system was changed, the regulations were changed, the requirements were changed, and the legislation was changed by the previous government. I may be wrong on the subject of legislation but certainly the procedures and requirements were changed and there no lo nger was the close monitoring operation and precision available.

That has been changed again and we now have established arrangements between the College of Physicians and Sur geons and the Ma nitoba Pharma ceutical Association for precis ely that reporting process that the member inquires about. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Me mb er for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, if there is a central registry which the Minister didn't seem to indicate before, which would prevent adverse affects of people using drugs and might elimi nate some of the high costs involved, how is it that some people ap parently are getting dozens and dozens of dif ferent kinds of drugs and that drugs are sometimes being prescribed by doctors to counter adverse affects from other prescriptions? Can the Minister explain how that can occur? MR. SHERMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, other than to point to human nature.

There is a tendency for people to shop around, both for doctors and for druggists and there is an element of that in society.

We live in a society in which the pill, the therapeutic agent, the prescription drug, the medication, has become to a certain extent a highly recognized social and physical crutch. lt's also become a weapon in the armament of the medical profession and the combination of the two has lead to serious incidents of the use of prescription drugs in North America and that has lead in some cases to over prescription and abuse and overuse and all jurisdictions are attempting to reform and reduce that situation now and certainly Ma nitoba through the Drug Standards and Therapeutics Commit tee is in the forefront of those efforts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, Orders of the day? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Memb er for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Yes thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a followup question to the Minister of .Labour in respect to the cadmium and silver soldering contamination problem at Motor Coach Industries. lt was also suggested by the occupational health nurse consultant that one can anticipate that there will be other health problems arising out of that industry and that a Medical Surveillance Program, those are my words not hers, Mr.

Speaker, should be instituted so as to follow those emp loyees to make certain that the imp act of this contamination on their health was being studied and was being dealt with. Is the Minister prepared to commit his department to conducting, to formulating first and implementing such a study, so as they can better research this very serious and urgent problem? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Speaker, I don't recall those exact words but I do know that the department is and has been in touch with the empl oyees in the particular area and we're now in the process of attem pting to track down X emplo yees of that company. MR. COWAN: The report by the occupational health nurse also makes mention of a numb er of cancers in the area but does no t attribu te them to that particular contamination problem, but the suggestion is that there may be some connection. Can the Mini ster confirm that the Workers Compensation Board is undertaking a study in respect to workers 3871

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 who have worked at that facility and any potential carcinogenic affects of their work? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Speaker, again I say I don't recall those particular words being in the report and I'm not aware of the Compensation Board being involved in this situation. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Churchill with a final supplem entary. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, as the suggestion is that there are a numb er of other indus tries in the Province of Manitoba who are using solder which may contain cadmium, and I emp hasize may because we have no accurate way of telling unless the government undertakes a thorough investigation of the situation, is the Minister prepared to contact the suppliers of silver solder in the province so as to determine if in fact cadmium containing solder is being used in other facilities and if so, so that the department can then provide some warning and some program to reduce exposure to that suspected carcinogen and industrial toxin? MR.

MacMASTER: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, but I think our department is doing some thing along those lines. While I'm on my feet, the member made reference the other day in one of his questions to the accidents increasing in the Province of Manitoba.

He may have been correct in saying the num bers are increasing but 1 think if he'll relate the numb ers of accidents in relationship to the work force in the province, and I think he recalls what we were talking about at the time, that he'll find that the percentages of accidents as it relates to the work force in the Province of Manitoba has decreased pretty dramatically if in fact you consider an average of 10.5 in the mid- Seventies down to the last four or five years of 9.5.

So when he's doing his calculations during the summer he may take those different figures and I think he'll find it's encour aging that the percentage is in fact decreasing. MR. SPEAKER : The Hono urable Memb er for Churchill with a new question? MR. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it arises out of the statement by the Minister and I assure him we have done that research going back to 1969.

Can the Minis ter be mo re specific as to the difference between the numb er of accidents per individuals in the work force for the year 19 80 and the year 1979, which I believe would be the most recent figures which are available to us? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest that information of that detailed nature be asked for in an Order for Return. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I would ask him a general question, Mr. Speaker.

Can he not confirm that in a year by year basis, the numb er of accidents per numb er of workers in the work force fluctuates up and down, to not a significant degree but to a degree which is enough to determine and to analyze statistically and that a one year drop over a year previous is not 3872 unusual, but one has to determine the trend in order to see if in fact actions which are being taken are red ucing the levels of industrial accidents and industrial diseases in the province? MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Speaker, that's exactly what I was saying to the Member for Churchill, if he'd just look at the general num bers in the mid- Seventies, he'd find that it was a 10.5 percent of accidents as it related to this type of work, the number of the work force, and if he looked at the last four, maybe five years and just average them out he'll see that the average is now dropped to 9.5. And I would hope that he would share with me that after three or four years from now he'd look at the percentages and see again it substantially decreased. MR.

COWAN: I do share that hope with the Minister and as I said I find any reduction in the numb er of industrial accidents and industrial diseases in the province encouraging.

However, I'd ask the Minister if he can confirm and this is according to my analysis of the situation that there has been no appreciable decrease in the numb er of accidents per work force in the last five years, in other words that the change in government has in fact had very little or no effect on that and if you looked at the last three years of the New Democratic Party government and the first three years of the Minister's government that you may in fact find that the num bers are very similar if not higher in the last three years than they were in the previous three. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I find the honourable member seems to be entering debate rather than seek ing informa tion. The Honourable Min ister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: Jus t that the averages are absolutely incorrect what the member is saying and if he wishes I could forward him the information and he'll find that my statements are absolutely correct. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. ME RCIER: Mr. Sp eaker, would you call Adjourned Debate on the Proposed Motion of the First Minister. ADJOURNED DEBATE CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned Debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable First Minister and the amendment moved by the Honourable Member for ln kster - the Honourable Member for Winnip eg Centre. MR. J.R. (Bud) BOVCE: Mr. Speaker, it's 12 years ago to the day that I had got over the shock of having been elected to the Legislature for the first time and yes, 12 years ago, June, today is the 26th. (Interjec tion)- In Ma y; I mean it's a month short of it. That's all right. I was at a meeting the other night and I thought the hockey game was on

Tuesday,26 May, 1981 and I was feeling badly that I was missing a hockey game, but nevertheless, I was sitting here listening to some of the things that were going on and I was just remembering. Twelve years ago, anyway, a month, what's a month?

But over the past 12 years, I guess I've spent probably more time than anybody looking at the symbolism and the rest of the things that kind of remind us of what we're after in this place, and for those people that were elected with me in 19 69 or preceeded me in 19 69, they may recall that one of the things that I attempted to do was to have this body review the admin istration of justice by way of introducing a private members' public bill and the name of it was the Communal Colony Property Act.

We had the august body of the Supreme Court of Canada which had ruled that a particular case which had come to their attention in the dividing up of land which was held by virtue of a deed which is in trust by a colony of the particular faith, could not be put on the market and sold, and the judgment of Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Cartwright; their opinions were such that the judgment that we're making is terrible but the Legislature should act, that this was unjust, that the Legislature should act.

So I introduced this bill and I went to try and brief myself on what had taken place in the admin istration of justice in our land. And I went to the libr ary because I use to think that that's what parliamentarians were supposed to do; they were supposed to study the subjects with which they dealt.

And I looked into the evolution of the idea of equity before the law and I went back and of course in the years of Christ's life on earth, there was an argument between the law and the spirit of the law, and one of the things that was quoted in this context was the argu ment with some memb ers of the Sanhedrin that he did not come to deny the law but to fulfill the law.

And some people take this as a thread that led off into the course of history and the evolution of deciding things in justice that we had courts of equity, courts of chancery and some people are familiar with some of the abuses of this that led to the courts of the inquisition and such things. Nevertheless it was man's attempt to deal with the idea of equity or justice or being fair about things. I called a press conference, Mr.

Speaker, to try and explain to the press at that time what I was trying to do in introducing this particular piece of legislation and the press had absolutely no interest, in fact there's only one survivor in the press gallery. They actually yawned in my face; they didn't want to know anything about this idea of justice or equity. They wanted news, you know, rape, murder, kill, this sort of stuff, so I never will forget ... May I go back just a bit?

The First Minister at the time said, "Bud, nobody is going to understand what you're trying to do." I said, "Well, I think I have to do it anyway because I think the principle is important that we should force ourselves to look at this idea of equity and justice in law and our participation in it." But the prese nt Gover nor -General is right, nobo dy understood and even worse than that, nobody really cared.

I remember the Member for Lakeside was sitting on this side of the House and there was a group in the gallery and he sent me over a note that the wrath of God was about to descend upon me, and that kind of summed up the attitude and I think we sprung that bill out into limbo by a technique that was not actually hoisted but it was referred to a committ ee or some thing and it never saw the light of day again. But it didn't dampen my ardour for trying to see that we as parliamen'tarians or legislators strive for this idea of equity. I said in anotherdDebate, Mr.

Speaker, that every act that is on the Statutes of the Province of Manitoba starts off with a

preamble, "Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba enacts as follows:" And, it may sound trite in this day and age but nevertheless I think that's still is of some im portance.

I don't know how many people know that in the law, in The Court of Queen's Bench Act, it uses phrases like and I'm not going to get into the lawyerees of it but just the expr ession, "on its equi ty side, in a suit or proceeding for the same or like purpose purportedly instituted before the passing of The Queen's Bench Act of 18 95, the idea of equity before the law," and it says in these law books that if it's a question of equity and law, then equity.

But the lawyers, and I don't fault the profession per se but, nevertheless, for expedience sake and to have things processed and proceed, they have come up with rules of evidence and rules of equity and all the rest of it; the concept of doing things equitably. This is what this whole constitutional debate is about, Mr. Speaker. And in my search for a rather cursory knowledge of what's going on, I happen to have three volumes of the five. -(I nterjection)- I have read them. I wish every member in the House would read them; I wish they would, I wish it was required and you had to pass an exam to get in here.

I felt very inadequate to be a legislator until I had read them because what is it? lt's the McRuer Inquiry into civil rights in the province of Ontario. I kno w there's a lot of people disagree with the findings of the commission but, nevertheless, this was in the late '60s this inquiry was carried out; and what were the terms of reference of this particular Royal Commis sion? Because this is what the argument's all about. The terms of reference of the McRuer Commission:

(1) To examine, study and inquire into the laws of On tario, including the statutes and reg ul ations passed thereunder affecting the personal freedoms, rights and liberties of Canadian citizens and other residents in Ontario for the purpose of determ ining how far there may be unjustified encroachment on these freed oms, rights and libe rties by the Legislature, the government, its offices and servants, divisions of public service, boards, commissions, commi ttees, other emanations of government or bodies exercising authority under and adminis trating the laws in Ontario;

(2) After due study and consider ation to recommend such changes in laws, procedures and processes as, in the opinion of the commission, are necessary and desirable to saf eguard the fundamental and basic rights, liberties and freedoms of the individual from infringement by the state or any other body. That was what the commission set out to do. And after all of these studies, and it included the self regulatory bodies, the professions, the bodies which are delegated authority by the Crown to admin ister certain functions, tribunals, licensing and all the rest 3873

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 of it. Nowhere in this thing does it say that you're going to protect anybody's rights by entrenching it in some kind of a constitution. One of the things which slips by unnoticed in discussion of rights is that people forget that there has to be remedies; rights and remedies. When you talk about somebody's right to some thing it's implied that you're going to be able to come up with some remedy should a person be deprived of that right. Also, Mr. Speaker, the idea that you can expand by listing rights in general form.

Take, for example, the right that some people believe was important in having entrenched in the argument that's taking place at the federal level at the present time, native rights. To inc lude in a Constitutional Charter of Rights, native rights. Native rights, what does it mean? Some people have touted this as if it is going to help the na tive people of this countr y. Mr. Speaker, I don't know from what experience they speak. I do not, for the life of me, know from what experience they speak.

I have lived in Manitoba most of my life and in the last 50 years I've seen more people of different ethnic origins come to this province, struggle, and prevail. When I was a youngster if you got off a boat in a babushka and felt boots people laughed at you. We ended up here recently with the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg proud to be a Ukrainian. We had people who couldn't get a job of any consequence because they were a Jew or a Catholic. This has disappeared from our community. For my particular constituency which I represent, after the First World War there was an influx of German people.

They lived in that particular area, they sent their children to school, they learned the system, they moved on. Came the Italian people; came the Portugese people; and at the present time we have ethnic Chine se from Vietnam and Cambodia, and these people too, will survive. What has happened to the native people in Manitoba? The worst thing that happened to them is people selling them the idea that the law is going to protect them; the law will do equity. The law can't, because it won't do equity in our courts.

That was one of the reasons I raised that particular case back in 1970, was to try and demons trate that the courts should do equi ty. They're ch arged with the responsibility, under my understanding of it, that equ ity shall exist as it did in 1875 when they amalga mated the courts of chancery and law. But they don't function this way and if they don't function this way what gives people the basis to think that they will function that way?

There was a classic case of the Justices of the Supreme Court say we cannot do equity because the idea of them doing equity had gone so far out of law that they were unable to do it; they said that the Legislature should act. lt was in the judgment, if people want to read those particular judgments they will see the case. There was only one judge said that the decision was wrong and therefore he ruled for the plaintiff in that particular case, and that was Pigeon but the other justices, there were two different opinions but they both gave the opinion that it was a lousy decision.

So for people to think that the enactment of a statute, which is para moun t and can only be amended by some formula which we don't even understand, is going to protect rights I think are naive. Mr. Sp eaker, in these remedies that were proposed by McRuer in his look at civil rights he lists, as I said earlier, a number of things that will protect human rights.

And it was best summed up, I think it was Lincoln that said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; and the place that vigilance should prevail is in this Legislature, in all the other nine Legislatures across the country and in the Parliament of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is about the last subject that is before us for consideration and I really wish I had the silver tongue of an orator to prevail upon people to change their minds because it is one of the most important subjects that we can talk about. lt is the very fundamental reason for us being here.

But we hear people say, all in the same speech, every Legislature should have the right to strike down that which was passed by a prior Leg isla ture. The Member for Rossmere in his address earlier today used that very phrase. But then these people go on and how they come to this conclusion is beyond me. lt is beyond me that there exists in this country today a group of parliamentarians in Ottawa who are so wise that they should have for this moment in history that absolute right to set down on a piece of paper, words which will be almost impossible to change.

These people who proposed that route use the example that there are other nations in the world who have written constitutions, who have in the constitutions protections of rights, but they neglect to say that they're comparing apples and oranges. In the unitary states in Eu rope to which they are referring to, it is not a federation of states, it is a unitary state, and one particular country, I believe Sweden, they have a different way of doing it. They pass an amend ment to their cons titution but it doesn't come into effect until after the next election.

The people have a right to throw those people out of Parliament if they don't agree with that particular amendment so it never becomes a constitutional matter which has supremacy over laws which are passed in the future. But even the next Parliament should they agree with change, having won it, can be thrown subsequently and the process can take place. What in heaven's name in the name of reason ... Why can't we bring the constitution back now the way it is and put it through the process for amendming in the future? If the amending formula is so good for the future, why isn't it good for the present?

Why don't they bring it back now and subject it to this wonderful formula that they're trying to sell us is going to be able save us, should we put some thing in there which is not in the best interests of the people? Let me go back to this native rights thing. The Me mber for ln kster and other people have mentioned it in their remarks that The British North America Act has put the well-being of native people under the protection of the courts. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that has been a dampener on their progress because they have relied on an instrument which can't help them, and if there is anything which is demons trated it is the inability where the last 100 years to help the native people keep pace with the advancements in the rest of the society. As an aside 3874

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 to this particular point, the entrenchment of native rights in the constitution . . . In my consitutuency of Winn ipeg Centre I have more native people than there are on many reserves in the province. They have voted with their feet that they want to join the rest of society. They want to become doctors, lawyers, legislators, carpenters, plumb ers. They want to join the mains tream of life. They have already voted their position on this subject. But back to this idea, Mr.

Speaker, that the present group in Ottawa has any right by any far stretch of the imagination to im pose on Canada something which no one can change, virtually no one can change, because if the y can't get basic agreement under the present arrangements, the present system, they can't develop a consensus, how they can go about the country telling people that, oh, just bring it home with all these things set down and if they are wrong we can change it? Mr.

Speaker, they should go the reverse - if they are right we can change it If they bring the Constitution home and they say okay, we want to put in the Constitution, (a), then let it go through the process. If we want to put in the Constitution, (b), let it go through the process. If they want to bring in (c), let it go through the process, because if it is a good process for amending the Consi tution, it mu st be a good process for establishing the Constitution in the first instance.

There is one other point that I want to make in these remarks that I want to try and keep brief, but how can we as legislators ask parliamentarians in another country to pass a law which they would not pass for their own people. This idea of entrenching rights in a constitution is foreign to the British parlimant ary system.

How can we ask these ·people to do that? lt's like asking this Legislative Assembly here to pass on some thing that isn't going to have any effects at all on Manitobans but may have effect on people in Saskatchewan. lt's like the people from Saskatchewan came to us and asked to pass a law which had no relevancy in Manitoba but applied in Saskatchewan. I think we chased them. Mr. Speaker, the idea of a written constitution is foreign to the British parliamentary system. As an aside to this, there are lots of things that we do in the name of the British parliamentary procedure that is foreign.

I think they pass Orders-i n-Council to declare a war or somet hing else li ke that. The Ministers still have more administr ative responsibility than they have in our system. I am going to conclude my remarks, Mr.

Speaker, to ask the people who think that putting something in the Constitution insist, if they are right then the people in Canada will agree with you and if they agree with you then I will go along with it because we will at least have demons trated that people are willing to have that which they propose be subject to the same process they want the rest of us to be subject to should we want to change what they bring back. So if the Constitution comes back and it has the same im pact ... Imagine, Mr. Speaker, this scenario.

If I am right on my point that having enacted in The British North America Act, which for all intents and purposes is our present Constitution, native rights, it hasn't worked. Then where do we go? How do we change it? lt's going to be nigh on impossible. I believe I am right when I say it won't work, so I think bring it back the way it is and let's address ourselves to the problem. Let's tell the people who want to be protected that the best way to protect yourself is the system as it exists but, Mr. Speaker, we have to elect people who will make sure that it works.

In my view, with the present government, we have had several instances where I don't think that they have addressed thems elves to making the system work relative to the protection of peoples' rights. For example, the people in my constituency in which I live have been deprived of representation in this Legislature, because the government refused to act in a particular case.

I think that they are being deprived of their right I think the individual who is involved was deprived of his right In other instances, their approach to the idea of delegation of authority, they make it synonymous with abdication of responsibility as far as self governing bodies are concerned; I disagree with him on that I believe that they have the authority to do that, but I insist on having the authority to throw them out and put somebody else in there that can change it So, Mr. Speaker, once again I will conclude the final conclusion.

For those people who insist that the Constitution must be brought back with certain rights entrenched in the Constitution and an amending formula, I would say no, bring it back with no rights entrenched in it; just the way it is and enshrine anything which can be put in there by the process that they want to im pose upon the rest of us to take out some thing with which we disagree. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that I would be speaking to the amendment by the Member for lnkster on behalf of the First Minister, Mr.

Speaker. I hope that I will no t need the additional time that will be available but I have indicated in advance that I will be speaking on behalf of the Premier if necessary. Mr. Speaker, in mentioning the Premier of this provi nce, some mem bers have indic ated, Mr. Speaker, and have criticized in this House the role of the Premier of this province for spending too much time on this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress once again for the record and finally for the record, Mr. Speaker, that this is not his timetable, Mr.

Speaker, nor that of the other seven Premiers, who along with him opposed the unilateral action of the Prime Minister. I just want to refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the Manitoba Government Submission to the Special Joint Commi ttee on the Constitution of Canada that was filed in Janu ary of this year, in which the government asked the Federal Go vernment to abandon its proposals at that time and reconvene the negotiating process of constitutional change and that follow ed along, Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister's sugg estion at the September Constitutional Conference that the First Ministers be reconvened to meet at the bargai ning table to persist in negotiations to resolve the constitutional discussions. Now those are two very specific occasions, Mr. Speaker, in which the Premier of this province has gone publicly on record in asking for a continuation of constitutional discussions. 3875

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 So this is not his timetable, Mr. Speaker, but the Federal Government at the same time had persisted in their unilateral action. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the amendment of the Member for lnkster, the Min ister of External Affairs for the Federal Government has confirmed that their pri mary objective is not to patriate the Constitution from England, but to entrench a Charter of Rights, by doing in England something that they cannot do in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The position of the Federal Government has been extremely contradictory, Mr. Speaker.

We had at one stage the statement by the Justice Minister, who said "The Western Premiers make me laugh when they say they will not accept as final the results of the Supr eme Cour t of Cana da decision on the Cons titution". Chretien said "Ottawa will live by whatever the nine Justices decide". Now, Mr. Speaker, su bseq uently we have in Mo nda y's edition of the Winnip eg Free Press, "J ustice Minister Jean Chretien warned yesterday that if the Federal Government loses its patriation case in the Supreme Court of Canada, it may begin by applying the existing Constitution to the letter.

This would mean restricting provincial powers". Well, Mr. Speaker, that is only one of a number of 18 0 degree turns that the Federal Government spokesmen have taken on this particular issue. The Justice Minister amazingly can't seem to understand, Mr. Speaker, that just on the assumption that the Supreme Court of Canada were to find the Federal proposal legal that that makes it some thing that should be properly done within its authority. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that Chief Justice Freedman in the constitutional reference in Manitoba clearly defined that type of issue and the boundaries of the legal case and he said in that case that "Before proceed ing with the consideration of the three questions, which have been referred to, would I · deem it useful to define the boundaries within which our inquiries should be conducted.

Those bound aries are best defined nega tively; that is to say by indicating what does not fall within their scope, and clearly what does not fall within their scope is the political wisdom or unwisdom of what is contained in the joint address. The attempt by the Federal power to patriate the Constitution unilaterally may be

an act of high statemanship or a political falling. That is not a determination that we are called upon to make". So the Chief Justice of this province, Mr. Speaker, was clearly able to understand and comprehend the fact that the legal decision is not a decision which will necessarily decide what is desirable, what is wise, what is the best course of action for the Federal Government to follow. I would only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Minister of Jus tice at the same time could understand that particular issue. Mr.

Speaker, the amendment to the resolution put forward by the Member for ln kster is in fact a comple tely new resolution which he seeks to have this House substitute for the resolution put forward by the First Minister. The motion is significant, both in what it seeks to dele te from the government resolution and in what it seeks to have this House endorse. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the member's amendment on the whole, while it certainly has the effect and advantage of rejecting an entrenched 3876 Charter of Rights, is inferior to the government's resolution and should be rejected.

The amendment would drop any reference to the Federal system in Canada or to the divisi veness of the Federal Government's approach and would concentrate the attention of this House solely upon the preservation of res ponsible, parlia ment ary government, not some thing, Mr. Speaker, which by itself I would disagree with.

While members of the government firmly believe that the preservation of responsible parliam entary government is a cornerstone of Canadian unity, and while our opposition to an entrenched Charter of Rights is as deep as that of the Mem ber for lnkster, I believe it is unfortunate that the honourable member has seen fit to ignore the qu est ion of the preservation of Canadian unity. Mr. Speaker, in a sense, the dispute between the provinces and the government in Ottawa is a dispute over the nature of Canadian federalism and the most appropriate means of preserving Canadian unity.

Clearly the Prime Minister sees the government in Ottawa as superior to the provincial governments, � and entitle d by petitioning the Parlia ment in � West mi nster to seek change s in the Canadian Constitution which are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Canadian provinces.

The qu estion of the legal ity of the Federal Go vernment pas sing and forwar din g such a resolution is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada, but as the Honourable Member for lnkster and others have so corr ectly poi nted out, the question of the legality of the federal resolution is only a subsidiary question to the propriety of the Federal Government acting unila terally and the effects which such unilateral action ma y have on Canadian unity.

In the Honourable Member for lnkster's proposed second recital, he correctly points out that the Federal Government is claiming for that Parliament majority preroga tives which have never been claimed by any previous government and which will be precluded from the powers of any future Parliament. But would he be satisfied, Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government changed its amending formula so that � the Canadian Constitution would forever be the � plaything of a transitory majority in Parliament?

Certainly we, on the government side, believe that unila teral federal action to amend the Canadian Constitution is objectionable in itself and should be beyond the future, not only of any future Parliament, but of this Parliament. The Member for lnkster's amendment, the third recital, makes references to Parliament abdicating its power and how this will irreparably impair the democratic process. Again, we agree witl:l that concept, Mr.

Speaker, I believe it is obvious that entrenchment does indeed transfer from elected representatives of the people to the appointed judiciary significant power to make social policy in this country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement that the proposed entrenchment of a Charter of Rights will impair the democratic process. I would like, Mr. Speaker, later on, to expand on that particular subject in some detail. What I find significant however, Mr. Speaker, is that the honourable member never mentions in his amend ment to the res olution that the Federal

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 Government is not only proposing to abdicate its respo nsibili ties, but it is proposing to force the provinces to abdicate their responsibilities, despite the objections of eight of the ten provinces. Surely this is at the heart of the divisions which are being created by the unilateral process adopted by the Federal Government and I am frankly surprised to see that the honourable member has not, in his resolution, referred to the effect of the proposed federal resolution on the provinces.

Again, the government resolution clearly condemns the federal ini tiative for its divisiveness and is therefore superior to the resolution put forward by the Member for lnks ter. Mr. Speaker, the weaknesses of the member's recitals may not have been significant, if the member had indeed put forward as he claimed he was going to, a new proposal which would save everybody's posi tion. I mu st say that when the member so described his proposal, I looked forward to hearing it with some anticipation.

Unfortunately as he read the motion , I was struck not by the novelty of his position, but by how old a proposal it was. In fact, when his proposal is examined, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that he's proposing simple patriation with the Canadian Parliament being substituted for the Parlia ment of Wes tmi nster. That is not a new proposal, Mr. Speaker, that was a proposal originally put forward in 1926 by the British government at the time of the Imp erial Conf erences to discuss the impl ications of the Balfour Declaration and to draw up the Statute of Westminster.

This was the approach which was opposed by all of the provinces at that time and which led in 1931 to significant rewriting of the Statute of Westminster to ensure that The British North America Act would not be amendable by the Canadian Parliament acting alone. Not only was it put forward some 55 years ago, it has been revived on a numb er of occasions since, Mr. Speaker. The Member for lnks ter may recall in March of 19 76, when he was a member of the Government of Manitoba, Prime Minister Trudeau wrote all provincial governments setting forth three possible approaches to constitutional reform.

The first approach was simple patriation. The plan now being put forward is a new proposal by the Member for lnkster. The second approach was patriation with an agreed ame nding formula, the app roach to constitutional reform which this government is asking the Legislature to endorse, and the third proposal was for patriation with an amending formula and a significant body of constitutional reform at the same time. 1t was this third approach which the New Democratic government endorsed in 1976 along with the other provinces. Mr. Speaker, we now bel ieve that the third approach is not workable at this time.

There are simply too many variables and combinations to build up a consensus. The Western Premiers who participated in that 1976 decision, Premiers Bennett, Lougheed and Blakeney, have all decided, I believe, that it also was the wrong approach to constitutional reform and that the proper approach is to have patriation with a workable amending formula. However, no one, to my knowledge has suggested in the current debate, Mr.

Speaker, that the proper approach is the approach that was rejected 55 years ago, simple patriation with the Parliament in Ottawa assu ming whatever powers with respect to the amendment of the Constitution that the Parliament in Westminster now possesse s. · The transfer to the Canadian Parliament of the powers with respect to the Canadian Cons titution which are now exerciseable in Great Britain is not a minor question, Mr. Speaker.

The Parliament of Great Britain retains sign ificant powers as a trustee of Canadian Federal ism, and has, through the Kershaw Commit tee examined in detail precedents and conv entions which exist with respect to the amendment of the Canadian Constitution.

That comm ittee has rightly concluded that the action proposed by the Federal Government in its resolution is unprecedented and the Parliament in Great Britain retains power not to consider the merits of the proposed amendments but to consider whether the prerequisites to Great Britain acting to pass a resolution conforming to the request of the Canadian Parliament have been met. lt is a function of the Parliament in Great Britain to examine the resolution, to determ ine whether it affects Federal Provincial relationships, as that phrase has been used in the Canadian White Paper published in 19 65 and by the Su preme Cour t of Canada and the Senate reference. lt is obvious that the resol ution which the Canadian government proposes to forward to the Un ited Kingdom does in deed affect Federal Provincial relationships. lt affects them because it impo ses an amending formula on the provinces over their objec tions and because it alters the constitutions of the provinces by making provincial laws in such matters as education and property and civil rights subject to being overturned on policy grounds by an appointed judiciary.

Once the Un ited Kingdom Parliament has concluded, as it must, that the resolution that may be forwarded by the Canadian government affects Federal-Provincial relationships, then it is part of the duty of the Un ited Kingdom as trustee of Canadian federalism to determine whether the process which has led to the request for changes in the Canadian Constitution respects Canadian fed eralism by obtaining the requisite degree of provincial support. The honour able members will realize that the questions which the U.K.

Parliament must ask itself before passing the resolution are far different from the questions which have been before the courts in Canada. Entirely different considerations will govern the actions of the United Kingdom Parliament and the merely technic al legality of the Federal Government forwarding the resolution. These important functions which may ultimately be the final safeguard of provincial rights within our confedera tion would be transferred by the Honourable Member for lnkster to the Parliament in Ottawa. In other words, Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister and his caucus will have to decide whether their proposed changes in the Canadian constitution affect Federal- Provincial relationships and whether they have sufficient support within the provinces. We already know how the Federal Government would answer those questions, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Min ister and the Min ister of Justice have repeatedly stated that in their view, Federal- 3877

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 Provincial relationships are only affected if there is a transfer of power between levels of government. They have also stated that the provinces need only be consulted if proposed changes in the Canadian Constitution would increase the power of the Federal Government relative to the powers of the provincial gove rnme nts. In their view, the proposed amend ments to the Canadian Cons titution will incr ease provi ncia l powers by giving additional powers to the provinces in the field of resources and indirect taxation and by entrenching an equalization principle within the Constitution.

We do not take such a narrow view of the meaning of Federa l-Provincial relationships. Mr. Speaker, we would not expect the Parliament in Westmins ter to take such a narrow view of its responsibi lities. Does the Honour able Memb er for ln kster, Mr. Speaker, really believe for a moment that the Federal Parliament will re-exa mine its unilateral process and suddenly realize that the process does not respect Canadian federalism? Again, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Min ister and Mr.

Chretien have stated that their proposal does respect Canadian federalism because in their view the fact of an all party support in Ottawa is sufficient to justify the process, even though it is opposed by a majority of provincial governments. The Federal Government has also justified its propo sed resolution by stating that it respects Cana dian federalism because it will give the provi nces a role in the amendment of the Constitution which the provi nces in the Federal Government's view have not before enjoyed. And so, Mr.

Speaker, when the members of this House are considering the substance of the proposal put forward by the Member for lnkster, I believe they should realize that it amounts to giving the Federal Government carte blanche to make amendments to the Constitution over the objections of the provinces, if the Supreme Court should hold that this procedure of passi ng a res olution and forw ard ing it to Westminster is technically legal. For that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, the government cannot support the proposal put forward by the Member for lnkster.

He has proposed that the Canadian Constitution should continue to provide for two basic conditions, namely that the elected representatives should ultimately be respo nsible for laws respecting the social and economic lives of Canadians and that no Parliament should be entitled to enact a law which cannot be repealed or modified by a successor Parliament. Both of these principles are important. They would be totally useless once this exis ting Federal Government was given the powers which the mem ber proposes to giv e it with respect to amending the Canadian Constitution.

Unfortunately these principles which should apply to ordina ry law maki ng, cannot appl y in the constitutional fie ld. By their very nature, constitutional amendments are placed beyond the reach of either the Federal or the Provincial governments and they cannot be repealed or modified by a single legislative body in the future. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must be extremely careful when we propose to pass constitutio nal amendments because mistakes are extremely hard to undo.

Furthermore, the ability of the federal and 3878 provincial levels of government respectively to make laws governing the social and economic lives of Canadians is affected by the very division of powers which is at the heart of federalism. it is the division of power which makes cooperation between levels of government to attain social and economic goals essential in Canada. Again, the divisiveness of the unilateral process adopted by the Federal Go vernment in the constitutional field cannot help but reduce the ability of governments to work together in other fields. Mr.

Speaker, because the recitals put forward by the Ho nour able Memb er for lnk ster igno re the federal nature of Canada and the divisiveness of the uni lateral proced ure adopted by the Federal Gover nm ent, and because the so-c alle d new proposal put forward by the Member for ln kster would merely strengthen the Federal Government in its unilateral course, we cannot support the proposed amendments. But as I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the Member for lnkster's amendments condemn a Charter of Rights, it has the support of 4 our government and I would like, Mr.

Speaker, to speak in some detail on that aspect. I would like to review, Mr. Speaker, some of the principles of our opposition to entrenchment of a Charter of Rights. We have said from the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, that the issue is not whether human rights should be protected but what is the best method of protecting them. Mr. Speaker, provincial governments of all political views across Canada have supported and appointed Ombudsmen, Rentalsmen, Law Reform Commissions, Hum an Rights Commissions, support Legal Aid Programs, Public Auditors, etc. and I believe, Mr.

Speaker, provincial governments across this country have demo nstrated a commitment to protect human rights. Mr. Speaker, the provi nces generally across Canada, and I think all ten provinces, have enforceable human rights acts. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Bill of Rights passed by Mr. Diefenbaker's Governm ent in the early 19 60's has only been applied in court in one or at the most two cases, � because the courts have said, Mr. Speaker, that it lacks paramountcy. One mu st wonder why, Mr.

Speaker, these great champions of civil rights in Ottawa have not amended the Federal Bill of Rights to strengthen it, to give it paramountcy, and to make it an effective document. Mr. Speaker, they have known of its lack of effectiveness for at least 15 years and nothing has been done, Mr. Speaker, by the Federal Government to attempt to impro ve that document. I have suggested and in response to a que stion in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, or in response to a speech in comm ittee, I think, or a qu estion from the Memb er for Rossmere, I suggested earlier on last July in the first week of mee tings to Mr.

Chretien that here was a compromise position that might settle this whole question that they could make if the wished to strengthen rights at the federal level. They could strengthen the federal Bill of Rig hts, give it paramoun tcy and avo id the opposition to entrenchment and see how that experience worked out, Mr. Sp eaker. That's a point of view, Mr. Speaker, that I am not pretending to say that I was

Tuesday,26 May, 1981 the only one who thought of that; there are noted constitutional experts across the country who have written on that subject and have suggested that as a method of compromise to the Federal Government. As we ind icated earlier, Mr. Sp eaker, the entrenched Charter of Rig hts would destroy the principle of the supremacy of Parliament and of the Legislatures and would transfer final power from elected and accountable representatives of the people to appointed judges who are not accountable to anyone, Mr. Speaker. Now one must determine whether or not that is some thing that should happen.

We have argued, Mr. Speaker, that Parliaments and Legislatures are better equipped to resolve social issues than judges. Mr. Speaker, I don't pretend and I don't think any advocate or opp onent to entrenchment has argued that the parlia mentary system is without fault and has not made mistakes. Mr.

Speaker, Legislatures and Parliament have available to them task force commit tees, public hearings, royal commissions, advisory commissions that can hear all sorts of expert and lay opinion with respect to matters, while courts will only receive the information that the litigants choose to place before them in a particular case which is admissible by the rules of evidence and the procedures in that case. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that no rights or freedoms are absolute.

They conflict from time to time and the role of the legislatures is to strike a balance between or when individual rights come into conflict. Mr. Speaker, for example, the Federal Gov ernment, the Parliament, in the past has restricted freedom of the press by limiting the right to report on Juvenile Court proceed ings and by protecting the complainant in a rape case from publi city. Under an entrenched Charter of Rig hts those rights would be su bject to review by the courts. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the Uni ted States Supreme Court struck down as unconsitutional a Georg ia law which made it a misdemeanour to publish or broadcast the name of the complainant in a rape case, which would be directly contradictory to action that has so far been taken by the Federal Parliament. We have argued, Mr. Speaker, that the courts will be involved in political matters if they become the final arbitrators of our rights under an entrenched Charter. Mr. Justice Monnin, Mr.

Speaker, of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in the Mclntyre decision on man datory retirement, in fact in his decision said, "The entire matter" - and this is the issue of manda tory retirement - "either in the civil service, municipal, or private sector is lively at issue." Some three or four cases of a similar nature have been decided or are pending before boards of inquiry. He went on to say, Mr.

Speaker, "The matter raised in this lively and hotly contested issue is much more sociological and political in its nature, but since it comes to me as a request for a declaration of rights, I must consider it as a purely legal issue which in fact it is not." He went to say, "l t is an issue which should be resolved by the elected representatives of the people and not left to the courts to struggle with unaware of all social, actuarial and other impl ications involved." Mr.

Speaker, as members are aware we have appointed an inquiry with respect to this matter to review all of the compl icated aspects of this particular issue. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Charter of Rights as proposed by the Federal Government purports to deal with the question of discrimination on the basis of age. Any kind of a decision is possible from a court on that issue. We see in this country, we've seen in fact in recent days, Mr.

Speaker, a decision by the Quebec Government to phase in and gradually do away with all discrimination on the basis of age, and I have asked for material on that subject, and I can only conclude that course of action was taken because they have felt that you can't do away with mand atory retirement overnight, that you have to phase it in because of compl icated pension plans, etc. Now we are going to examine the material that they have developed on that issue to determine that is right, but under the Federal Charter, Mr.

Speaker, a court could come along and suddenly declare on the basis of a case involving two litigants, on the basis of very lim ited information available to them, unaware of the effects of a decision like that on society as a whole, and make a decision on an issue which would be binding on all elected representatives in this country, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe members opposite, who through the Minister of Labour's estimates, who through my estima tes, and I believe other estimates, expressed various concerns from time to time on this issue of man datory retirement and who recognize it as a compl icated issue really despite the Leader of the Opposition's claim that they want to see an entrenched Charter of Rights, I don't think that they really believe, if they sit back and think about it, they really want that issue decided by the courts for them. Mr.

Speaker, we have argued that entrenchment will involve a lo ss of judi cial impa rtiality and independence. We have argued that the appointment of judges under an entrenched Charter of Rights will become a matter of public controversy. Mr. Speaker, I alone of ten Attorneys-General in the constitutional discussions upheld the right of the Federal Government to appoint judges to our federal courts in our constitutional discussions during this past summer, because I am firmly of the view that over the long-term is a job that is best done by the Federal Government. But, Mr.

Speaker, if the Federal Gov ernment chooses to entrench a Charter of Rig hts, I would argue extremely hard that the province have the right to appoint judges and to have much more of a say in the appointment of judges because the philosophy of those judges who are appointed are going to be extremely important. We look back in history, Mr. Speaker, in the 19 30's President Roosevelt attacked the Supreme Court for being too conservative. They struck down the New Deal legislation. The Member for lnkster has referred to all of that.

In the 1960's the Warren court were being attacked for being too liberal and I think a bill for impeachment was brought in the 1960's. The pol itical phil osophy of ju dges under an entrenched Charter of Rights will be extremel y im portant, Mr. Speaker. The Memb er for ln kster referred during a debate on some aspect today, and he managed to bring in the constitutional issue on a lot of issues but he referred to the book, The Brethren Inside the Supreme Court. I have read most of that book, Mr. Speaker. I don't know whether anybody else has, but if they do they will find it to be 3879

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 an amazi ng chron icle of what happens on the Supreme Court and how the judges are torn by differing political views, how they lobby on the court. Mr. Speaker, I don't bel ieve it happens in our Supreme Court under our system and I don't think it's a system that we want brought into Canada. We have argued, Mr. Speaker, that because it can be more easily amended statute law permits a more flexible response to social and other changes to better protect the rights of citizens. I have referred, Mr. Speaker, to the Mclntrye case in Manitoba. The Member for Rossmere, Mr .

Speaker, made a comment on behalf of some members of his caucus when we were discussing the committ ee report to the Legislature and he said in fact where governments are generally agreed that the courts are wrong, amendments can be made to the Charter using his amending formula, almost as quickly as any other statutory changes could be enforced. Mr. Speaker, I don' t care which one of the formulas was the one that was adopted, but I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that if Manitoba containing 5 percent or less than 5 percent of Canada's population was very concerned about some issue that was decided in the Supreme Court and had to, in order to change that, arouse a majorit y in Parliament to pass a resolution, to get support from six, seven, eight other provinces, Mr. Speaker, that it's extremely unlikely that kind of action would take place in the same time span as would happen or could happen simp ly by an amend ment to the legislation in the Provincial Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, if the Member for Rossmere really believes that the Charter can be changed as easily as legislation, then I would have to ask him what would be the point of an entrenched Charter. I don't think it's a valid point, Mr. Speaker. I would think, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the - and later on I will deal with a numb er of amendments being made to the US Bill of Rights . . . Mr.

Speaker, when we look at the Statute Law we look at the manner in which Statute Law has been developed, particularly over the last 20 or 30 years, we have seen the developments of Bills of Rights, The Human Rights Act, Ombudsman legislation, legal aid schemes. Mr. Speaker, as late as 19 77 this Legislature added the provision with respect to discrimination against the handicapped. Mr.

Speaker, I think those people who advocate an entrenched Charter of Rights should remember that immense strides have been made in the area of human rights legislation under our parliamentary system and they should compare that with the tortuous experience of the United States where people have attempted to amend the Constitution to supposedly remedy some legitimate grievances. They can look back on the latest proposed amendment, the equa l rights amendment. Mr. Speaker, we have argued that an entrenched Charter would encourage legislation.

We know from the hearings on the Constitution that The Indian Act will be attacked in the courts. We know that MARL, the provincial association, indicates that it considers freedom of religion to be inconsistent with prayers in public schools, so we can expect The Public Schools Act to be challenged in the courts. The law union disappr oved of the obsenity provisions of The Criminal Code of Canada and can be expected to challenge them. Mr. Speaker, the list can go on and on. The Quebec Government, Mr. Speaker, recently listed more than 10 0 Quebec statutes and regulations which might be attacked in the courts.

Our legal counsel, Mr. Speaker, in the reference to the Supreme Court and the constitutionality of the federal proposal, pointed out that the provincial power to determine the qual ification of voters for and members of the Legislative Assem bly could be challenged, as well as our present control over the duration and frequency of sittings of the Assem bly. The Charter would restrict provincial authority to legislate as to who may seek employment on a local project or as to professional qualif ications. The Charter would, as I've indicated, Mr.

Speaker, our Mandatory Retirement Acts could be challenged and on the basis, Mr. Speaker, of that Quebec report, I asked officials of my department to review the Manitoba Statutes. They indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the task was massive and they ill ustrated this by pointing out that the first volume of the consolida ted statutes alone includes the following potential breaches of the entrenched Charter of Rights. The first Act in the Statutes is The Age of Majority Act, Mr. Speaker. Ten years ago this Legislature established eighteen as the age of majority.

Other provinces have different ages, but clearly the entire purpose of The Age of Majority Act is to discrimina te on the basis of age. Will 17 year olds now be able to challenge the constitutionality of our Age of Majority Act? The next four Acts in the consolidated statutes deal with agricultural matters. Our Agricultural Credit Corporation Act and Agricultural Lands Protection Act, still under debate, Mr. Speaker, appear to be in direct conflict with

section 15 of the proposed Federal Charter which guarantees to every individual equality before the law and the equal benefit of the law. In The Agrologist Act as in so many other Acts, there is a req uirement that agrologists to be members of the Association must be residents of Manitoba. This would appear to conflict with the right of every citizen to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. The Alcoholism Fou nda tion Act requir es its directors to be Manitobans. This again could be challenged.

The Amusement Act and the entire scheme of film classification could be in violation of freedom of expression. The Anim al Diseases Act allows an ins pector without warrant to enter any place in which he has reasonable ground s to belie ve that an ani mal is located and search the place.

Section 8 of the proposed Charter, gives everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. There is an age restriction in their Apprenticeship Act, setting 16 years as the minimum age for entering an Apprentice Program. The entire scheme of The Architects Act is to restrict certain work within the Province of Manitoba to mem bers of the Manitoba Assoc iation of Architects. Mr. Speaker, I remind mem bers also, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act is in that 3880

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 first set of consoli dated statutes and I would ask them after the time that they have spent, Mr. Speaker, how they would react to a court striking down that particular Act. Mr. Speaker, under an entrenched Charter of Rights there will be no law that will be certain until the highest court in this land has dealt with it. Now, Mr. Speaker, members opposite and other speakers have talked about the Japanese Canadians and Japane se Americans and how Japane se Americans were so much better treated in the Un ited States because of their entrenched Charter. Mr.

Speaker, in fact the American courts did nothing to protect Japane se Americans from the effects of mili tary orders requiring their forced evacuation from the West Coast of the United States. If Japanese American treatment was in any way less inhuma ne than the treatment of Japanese Canadians, it was solely as a result of actions taken by the Un ited States Congress. Mr.

Speaker, the relevant American legislation did not make any provisions for forceable deportation of Japanese Americans, however the legislation did permit Japanese Americans to choose to reject their American citizenship presumably so that they could return to Japan after the war.

More than 5,000 Japanese Americans took advantage of this so-called opportunity presented to them at a time when they had been stripped of their civil rights and herded into detention centres leaving all of their property behind to be dealt with at the discretion of the American mil itary. lt was not until 1959 that the last of these Japanese Americans who wished to regain American citizenship were permitted to do so. The Unit ed States Congr ess order ed a full investigation of the treatment of Japanese Americans when the Second World War was over. As a result of that congressional report completed in 19 47,

an Act of Congr ess was passed in 19 48,

an Act of Congress, Mr. Speaker, providing for compensation for Japane se Americans. In many cases the details in compensation were not settled until the mid-Sixties. But in a book, Mr. Speaker, which I could refer members opposite if they're interested, it's estima ted that Japanese Americans received an average of 15 cents on the dollar for their losses without any compensation for interest.

The actual involvement of the Un ited States Supreme Court in these matters consisted of two decisions in 19 43 which upheld the right of the military to im pose a curfew, exclusively on Japanese Americans and two cases decided in 19 44, which upheld the right of the mil itary to expel Japanese Americans from the West Coast. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would have to be conceded, Mr.

Speaker, that the entrenche d American Bill of Rig hts proved to be a feeble rampart indeed, for the defence of civil liberties and their statements that Japanese Americans were treated as harshly as Japanese Canadians, in spite of their Bill of Rights, is correct, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, I could deal at length, Mr. Speaker, and I did during at various times of the commit tee hearings with various cases which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if the public were aware of, we would not have a gallop poll that indicated support for the entrenchment of a Charter of Rights. Let me, Mr.

Speaker, deal with one particular case that mem bers op posite migh t unders tan d, Mr . Speaker, and might get some understanding of this issue and the effect that it can have on them. There was a recent decision of the Canadia n Labour Relations Board, Mr. Speaker, and the headnote in this case reads: "A fter lea rning of a union organizing campaign being carried out among its reservation agents, the emp loyer add ressed a letter of May 9, 19 80 to its agents and office empl oyees informing them that it was neither in their interest nor the companies that they unionize.

After hearing the parties at a public hearing the Board concluded that the actions of the emplo yer cons tituted interference in the representation of empl oyees by a trade union in violation of

section 18 4(1) (

a) of The Canadian Labour Code". This is a case involving the Brotherhood of railway, airline and steamship clerks, etc., CLC, AFL, CIO, (complainant, an American Airlines Incorporated, Toronto, Ontario). And on page 24, Mr. Speaker, the Board said "as the law now stands in the Federal jurisdiction, it is clear that the wishes of the emp loyee to join a union are as a general rule established by documentary evidence and that the emplo yers involvement through campa igning or otherwise in that process is prohibited." But earlier on at page 13, Mr. Speaker, they reviewed the law and its

interpretation in Canada and the United States. That analysis showed basic differences between the Canadian and American app roach as regards certificat ion procedures. In the United States a union can only be certified, following an election, said election being equated to a political election. In that context, the emplo yer in the name of freedom of expression, entrenched in the first amendment of the Uni ted States Constitution, has the right to campaign prior to said election, in order to try to convince his emplo yees not to join a union. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I refer the members opposite and I don't want to get into a discussion of the merits, Mr. Speaker, but I refer members opposite to their legislation which they passed, Mr. Speaker, in 19 76 and this relates right, Mr. Speaker, to the alleged activies of Mr. Perfumo of the Manitoba Labour Board, but I rem ind them and I'm sure they're well aware of the amendments that they made to The Labour Relations Act in 19 76, Mr. Speaker, which were severe restrictions on an emp loyers right of speech, when a union was being organized. Mr.

Speaker, the Canada Labour Board itself and I don't know anybody on the Canada Labour Board, I don't know who they are, but they've examined the law; they've said the right of free speech entrenched in the American Cons titution would result in a comple tely different approach. The amendments, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite, the New Democratic Party Government brought about in 1976 would be one of the first set of amendments to be thrown out. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to refer to cases, Mr.

Speaker, that memb ers oppo site actions in the past, in government, would most particularly be affected by an entrenched Charter of Rights because I think they should much more seriously, Mr. Speaker, consider their position. (I nterjection)- Well, the Member for Pembina says, that's all the more reason to have it. That may be, there may be from this side, Mr. 3881

Tuesday,26 May, 1981 Speaker, there may be, we may have trouble on the vote on this one, Mr. Speaker, because there may be a lot of these instances where members in this side would like to see those kinds of decisions happen. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think there are a numb er of other areas, Mr. Speaker, that I think we on this side would not like to see an entrenched Charter of Rights. I don't want to get into too much more detail, Mr. Speaker, but there's one incident, one other matter, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to look at and I don't know how many members have seen this, Mr. Speaker, an

article by Rod McLeod, Mr. Speaker, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Ontario Attorney- General's Department wrote an article, Mr. Speaker, on an American case in which a conviction agains t an accused person was overturned. This was a case of murder of a 10-year old girl, Mr. Speaker, where the courts found that the accused had waived his rights of silence, his right to have an attorney present when he spoke in the car.

That was the trial of course, but the Supreme Court overturn ed the conviction saying that his constitutional right to have a lawyer present had been violated and the evidence of the finding of the body in the accused car, should be excluded, Mr. Speaker, and this is the exclusio nary evidence rule. it's interesting, Mr.

Speaker, to note that the Attorney-General from On tario, whose Premier suppo sedly suppor ts an entrench ed Cha rter of Rights, wrote to every Member of Parliament and said in conclusion: "I would urge you to avoid the introduction into our criminal justice system of American conc epts which have subs tantially undermined effective law enforcement in the Un ited States while failing to enhance the rights of individual citizens." Mr. Speaker, obviously there is not much interest on the part of members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

I've cited a specific case I think which would affect an area of law which they would consider to be most significant and im portant to their philosophy, Mr. Speaker, and I'm suggesting to them that and many other laws, which they passed in eight-and-one-half years of government, would be among the first to be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada under an entrenched Charter of Rights. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go through a long list of distinguished Canadians who have opposed entrenchment of the Charter of Rights from Premier Campbell of this province, Mr.

Speaker, former Premier Manning. (Interjection)- You didn't see all of these, Mr. Speaker. Senator Thompson, the former Liberal Leader in Ontario; Senator Mcllr aith, former Solicitor-General in the Li beral government, former Justice of the Supreme Court of B.C., J.V. Kline. Mr. Speaker, that list goes on and on and includes eight premiers of this country, it includes Mr. Claude Ryan in Quebec. I only wanted to speak, Mr.

Speaker, to this issue to alert mem bers opposite, if not to the dangers of an entrenched Charter of Rights, at least to some of the uncertainties that may result from an entrenched Charter of Rights. The list of statutes, Mr. Speaker, that could be attacked and would be attacked under an entrenched Charter will only be lim ited by the imagination and the ingenuity of counsel, and I say to the members opposite the statutes which they passed in eight-and- one-half years, an example of 3882 which for the amendments dealing with certification of unions would be among the first to be attacked.

I find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to think that if they really believed in what they did in eight-and-one -half years of government, and if they really believe in what they say they would like to do, if they were fortunate enough to ever form another government, Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely difficult to believe how they can suppo rt an entrenched Charter of Rights. MR. SPEAKER : The Ho nourable Me mb er for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that for students of history who may read some of this debate years from now, I think, it should be put on the record that the Lyon Government, which spent the la st six months stirring people up on the Constitution and the Premier who ran up and down the country and over to England and prom ises to go to England and prom ises to fight to his dying breath, I think it should be clear for the record that the Lyon Government in regard to the Constitution went out with a whimper and not a bang.

And that all this talk and all this promise and all this publicity that we've been listening to and all these speeches, including that very long contribution of the Attorney-General, it just demo nstra tes that in the last analysis the government lost the issue, and

whereas only a few months ago they're prepared to go to the people on this issue, now they've hidden it and kept it for the last moment of the last day of the last night and the last hour of the Legislative Debate because all of the dynamite has gone out of this particular issue. Now, Mr. Speaker, we're seeing a dry run and a very unimpr essive one of the next Cons ervative leadersh ip race.

We'r e seeing the can did ates jockeying with one another for press as the Attorney General just gave us a boring presentation and now he's going to attempt to be topped by the Minister of Finance, and if that's all that they have to offer, then it doesn't auger well for the future and the man who sits right between them may come up the middle. He's coming up the middle right now, Mr. Speaker. "Pothole for Premier" is definitely a slogan that I think we're going to hear more of. Mr.

Speaker, well, another colleague suggests "O rbit Orchard ", that has a highway's ring as well. (I nterjection)- "The Big 0", that's another one. Mr. Speaker, the man has great potential as a candidate in terms of what he could use for a slogan. (Interjection)- A big zero, that's another one. That's got a lot of potential. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the government in the last analysis on this issue chickened out. They were prepared to go to the people on this issue, they were in position a few months ago where they thought the New Democratic Party was on the ropes.

They were going to ignore everything else, call an election, pull the plug on this issue and they were all excited about the Progressives, they were going to go to the people and win an election. Well, wha t happened, Mr. Speaker? A failure of nerve] When the chips were down, when they had to look the New Democratic Party in the eye, they chickened out. No guts, Mr. Speaker, no guts. I simply say to my friend from lnkster that I regret to inform him that in the next election he and his party, such as it is, are going to get trampled into the dust of history and will never be heard from again. J

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 Mr. Speaker, the problem is this, and I know this as a person who was in a provincial cabinet, the Cabinet is clinging to power, the Cabinet is afraid. Look at the Minister of Health and they are afraid to meet the people, they are afraid to put their jobs on the line because they are not certain of the result and that, Mr. Speaker, is a failure of nerve and they are going to wait until the last possible moment. The First Minister of this province had a lot of fun the last six months.

He happened by the luck of the draw to be the Cha irman of the Premie rs' Conference, he avoided all his responsibilities in the province; he avoided the basic issues confronting the people of Manitoba and he travelled up and down the country at taxpayers' expense, had a gay old time kickin g and bitting the Prime Min ister of Canada, thumbing his nose at him, holding his nose, ca lling him every name in the book and now, unfortunately for him, has blown the ball game. Mr.

Speaker, Joe Clark threw in the towel on this particular issue a few months ago, and in so doing damaged the position of the Pr og ressive Conservative Party of Manitoba and Jake Epp, who's being talked about as leader, gained a lot of valuable experience. The only problem is the issue is going to recede into the distant past, so although it was a useful experience at the time, it is no longer useful to be known as a great authority on the Constitution. Witness this particular debate, witness the fact that the Debate is shoved back to the last moment of the Legislative Session. If this was a winner, Mr.

Speaker, they would have brought it up months ago. They had it on the Order Paper, they could have made much of this, they could have in their own minds, they were waiting for an opportunity to emba rrass the New Democratic Party, pull the plug and go to the people. Boy, they sure didn't do that. They sure didn't do that. So, you know, Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the leadership candidate that are mentioned in today's paper jockeying with one another. While there's three of them here, wel l, maybe fou r, the Min ister of Highways, he's a possible long shot.

The Minister of Finance, he's a front runner and the Minis ter of Consumer Affairs, he's a candidate, but the Minister of Health, he's a candidate, too, I recognize that. MR. SPEAKER: I believe we have a resolution and an amendment before us that is dealing with the Constitution and I would hope that the honourable member would at some point in his Debate make some reference to the Cons titution. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to point out that it's peculiar indeed that for many months the people who are bei ng considered as leadership candidates have been silent on this issue, silent on this issue. One of the most promising is the Minister of Agriculture, he's been silent. You know, if he played his cards right, he could be Premier. You know, if you could suspend him from an airplane with a piano wire and fly him over the Province of Manitoba ... MR. SPEAKER: Obviously the honourable member didn't hear the advice I offered to him. I would hope that he would ma ke some reference to the Constitution in his remarks.

The honourable member may continue. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'm simply saying that the leadership candidates of the Conservative Party have not been tal king about the constitutional question until today. Now, we're going to get into the dying moments of the Session statements by the lea dership candi dates. We got one from the Attorney-General; we're going to get one from the Minister of Finance. I simply say to the Minister of Agriculture having watched him for the last three and-one-half years that if they could fly him over the province by a piano wire, he would fertilize the entire province.

You wouldn't have to dig a potash mine. You wouldn't have to go through the expense of developing all that expensive material , he could do it, singlehandedly. Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the constitutional question is a fait accompli as far as I'm concerned. lt might more accurately described as a Fed accompli because of the fact that the people in Ottawa made an agr eeme nt, the federal party leaders, which has permanently altered this whole question. I believe once that agreement was reached by Clark, Broadbent, and Trudeau, that the whole thing has shifted and that the Great Debate is over.

I don't care what people do in the future; I don't care what the Supreme Court decision is. Someone told me today that they knew for sure that the provinces were going to win. I say the Federal Government is going to win. My friend from ln kster says he's not sure, but those are the three positions. Mr. Speaker, I say regardless of what happens the Great Debate is over. Never again in our time will people get as excited about this particular issue, because the public has had enough of this issue.

The public has heard enough of all this constitutional wrangling, of the Premiers and the Prime Minister trying to ram this thing through and the Premiers blocking it. Anybody who starts that process again is going to get hurt, Mr. Speaker. Western alienation - (Interjection)- I was at Valley Forge, but that was only five years ago. Western alienation will continue, that will not change. There'll be cons titutional conferences and constitutional discussions, that will occu r, Mr. Speaker, but we will not see the excitement and the drama that we have witnessed in the last few months. I say that is over. Mr.

Speaker, I simply say that I think it's about time that this government addressed itself to the problems of the province. I mean, we've had a whole year, going back to late last Fall, up until now, where they tried to make this the prime issue confronting the people of Ma nitoba and they were al most successful. They almost did it, Mr.

Speaker, and if they had brought this resolution in months ago and if there had been a vote on it at that time and if an election had been called, maybe, just maybe, they could have diverted public attention to this issue, away from the basic issues of the province and maybe they could have won another mandate but they waited too long. They waited too long. There was a failure of nerve and a failure of courage and a failure of guts and now this whole issue is really a dead issue and that's what we're seeing.

We're seeing simply the last speeches and I'm one of the last speakers and we're going to hear from the Mini ster of Finance and we may hear from my col leage from St. Bon iface and perhaps that'll conclude not only this debate, but this session, but 3883

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 mark it well, Mr. Speaker, that this was the burning issue of 1980 to 19 81 and it ends with a whimper. lt fizzed out because the government struck out, because the government waited too long and blew their opportunity. So I say, Mr. Speaker, let's get back to .the basics; let's get back to the economy; let's dispose of this particular amendment and this resolution and all we're going to be left with, is a memory of the great debate of 1980-8 1. We're going to then look at the mega promis es, because that's all we have. The Tory record's a disaster.

We're going to look at the mega prom ises and on that basis, we will meet the Conservatives at the election, whether it's going to be in the fall, which is my prediction or whether it's going to be a year from now, or whether they're going to wait until October, because they're going to say, we've got to go until the end. I think that as history is written, it will be said, that the Co nservative Party of Ma nitoba had an opportunity to win re-election in the spring of 19 81; they waited too long; they blew their opportunity and they were voted out of office in the fall of 19 81. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Finance. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Ki llarney): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Attorney-General, has dealt with some aspects of the issues, Mr.

Speaker, and I would choose to address myself primarily to two sections within the resolution which the amendment by the Member for ln kster proposed to elimi nate and that primarily is the third point, that the Assembly urge the Federal Government to abandon its present unilateral course of action and the Federal and Provincial Governments to undertake the im mediate resumption of negotiations to reach agreement on a more flexible amen ding formula, recognizing the equality of provinc es and the traditional constitutional sovereignty rights of the Federal and Provincial jurisdictions. Mr.

Speaker, I regret very much that the Member for Elmwood would make the sort of speech which we have just heard him make on this resolution. The speech, Mr. Speaker, is one that could well have been made on the Supply Motion which is still before the House and we would have understand that he was attempting to have a little fun, supposedly at the expense of the government. I think it tends to be more a joke on hi mself than on the government, but we could understand that, but this is an example of the position being put forward by the New Democratic Party.

This is an example of the depth of analysis and thought that has been devoted to this question and, Mr. Speaker, I truly say it more in sorrow than in anger that the members would not realize the signi fic ance of this issue and have attempted to analyze it in some sort of depth and place before us and before the public of Manitoba, their considered position. Instead, Mr.

Speaker, we have allegations by the Member for Elmwood that the First Minister, that our First Minister has been running around the country, I believe he said at public expense, enjoying himself, ignoring the issues, I belie ve also that he said ignoring the real issues. Surely, surely that cannot be the extent of their understanding of the significance of what is taking place in this country today. I can't believe it, Mr. Speaker. it's ama zing to review the Leader of the Opposition's presentation and indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is very little there.

There was no indication in the Leader of the Opposition's speech that he had exam ined the issues, that he un derstood the im portance of the issues. He quibbled about whether or not there had been consultation and tried to make that as some thing that was equivalent to whether or not the Prime Minister and the Federal Government had consu lted with the provinc es, as if the relationship between a government and a legislature to the Opposition is analogous to that of the partners of our federal form of government in this country. Mr.

Speaker, I find it incredible that we should have these positions put forward and I am pleased to know that the Member for St. Boniface is likely to speak on this resolution. The time after all, Mr. Speaker, is only twenty after ten. I don't think that the question of the Constitution of the country and changes that are being attempted to be made in that Constitution are too important an issue to take some time of the House this evening. (l nterjection)- Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Elmwood says, why don't we do somet hing about the economy and they have said all along, that our Leader, our Premier, the First Minister of this province and this government have been devoting too much of our effort to the constitutional issue. Don't they understand what is at stake, Mr. Speaker? Don't they understand what is happening to provincial rights and to peoples' rights in this country because of the resolution that's being put forward by the Federal Government? I'm afraid they don't und erstand it, Mr.

Speaker, because what they would have us do, what they would have our First Minister do, is ignore what's going on, ignore what the Prime Minister is attempting to do and retreat into a shell here in Manitoba and have those changes take place in the country. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it's the most serious attack on federalism in Canada since 1867 that is taking pl ace. (I nterje ction)- Well, the Member for Elmwood says, it's rubbish. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to deal with the effect of what's taking place, not within the area of the entrenchment of human rights so much, but with how the action is being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken and the fact that it will affect provincial rights and rather than trying and make that case myself as to the extent of it affecting provincial rig hts, Mr. Speaker, I simply would qu ote the authority, someone whom I'm sure the members opposite would acknowledge as an authority and that's the Prime Minister himself and he said in reference to the Bill of Rights and I quote, Mr.

Speaker, he said: "This will confer new and very important responsibilities on the courts because it will be up to the courts to interpret the Bill of Rights and decide how much scope should be given to the protected rights and to what extent the power of government should be curtailed." He goes on then to say again that he envisaged and I quote "a Bill of Rights, broader in scope, firmly entrenched constitutionally, so designed as to limit the exercise of all government power in favour of the Canadian citizens, who would in consequence be 3884

Tuesday, 26 May, 1981 better protected in the exercise of his fundamental rights and freedoms." Those are two quotations from the Prime Minister of the country, Mr. Speaker, which clearly show that it is the intention of the Prime Minister that the res olution should infringe upon the rights of provinces and I suppose how clearly it is possible for the end results of that action to be debated and to be considered to be desirable. We don't for a minu te think that's the case, but clearly that is what they have set out to do and, Mr.

Speaker, why does that cause us so much concern and why do we see it as some thing that is wrong? One of the things that concerns me most aside from the long term impl ications of the entrenchment of the Bill of Rights that the Attorney-General has dealt with, is the fact that what is taking place has truly destroyed the element of trust that holds together our federal system of government. lt has destroyed that system of trust upon which our system is based. Now for how long that has been destroyed, I don't know.

If the Federal Government is unsuccessful in what they're attempting to do, then I'm sure that that sort of trust can be built up again but I would like to again give a few quotations, Mr. Speaker, in support of the position. Some of the quotations that I would like to give come from the speech given by Senator Thompson and I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that it's evident from reading some of the speeches that have been given in the Senate, that the Honourable Members of that Chamber have been able to devote a great deal of conscientious time and effort and study to this issue and they have presented some of the most learned expositions of positions that I have had the privilege of reading, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the one by Senator Thompson, who is a former Liberal Leader in Ontario, is one of the finest examples of that and I recommend that speech very highly to all members of the Hous e.

The qu estion that he raised - (Interjection)- Well, the Member for lnks ter said he didn't vote, perhaps not, but he certainly did put forward a position that warrants the examination of all members of this House. I believe he, if I read his speech correctly, the main point that he was making was and I quote from him, he says, "Are we keeping our word?

Are we breaking the rules by which we agreed to govern ourselves in the Federation?" And he was recognizing the sorts of agreements that are in law and that have come to be recognized in the 11 4 years since Confederation and he said that people have given their word and that's what holds us together.

However desirable the ends might be that are being pursued by the Prime Minister", he said, "that the ends did not justify the means." He gave a little a anecdote in here which I thought was very good where he recounts how he went to work in the fields in harvest time in the west and being new to argiculture, and he describes himself as being small and skinny, that after working for some time he had felt that he had not served his emp loyer very well and he said to his emplo yer, a man by the name of Mr. McGregor, he said that really he hadn't been a very good worker and that he was not obliged to pay him.

And McGregor said to him, remember this laddie, you're in Canada and a man's word is his bond, poor bargain or nay. And, Mr. Speaker, that's the sort of trust that can bind people together when you're not dealing with things set down hard and fast in law, but you're dealing with trust that's established between people and between governments. Now ju st let me deal briefly with what has happened to this trust at the hands of the Federal Government.

Let me deal first of all with the Kirby. (Interjection)- I'm not even going to respond to that other than to acknowledge that the Member for Rupertsland at least is listening. I'll begin by having a look at the infamous Kirby papers that were leaked or made available to the Premiers at the time that they were meeting last September after extensive meetings throughout the summer of the Attorneys General from across the country. The Premiers sat down with the Prime Minister, they're attempting to work out twelve settlements on some twelve points relating to the Constitution.

This document became available at that point, Mr. Speaker, and let me read one paragraph and I quote: "The First Ministers' Conference is now generally perceived at least by the media and the public to be the culminating point in the negotiating process.

The challenge now lies with the Federal Government to try to bring out the agreement on a package which appears to be within reach and failing this, to show that this agreement leading to unila teral federal action is the result of an im pos sibly cum bersome process or of the intransigence of the Provincial Governments and not the fault of the Federal Government." What do you suppose Mr.

Speaker, that that would do to the trust that the Provincial Governments would have in the Federal Government and in the Prime Mi nister sitti ng down with tha t kind of document in front of them knowing full well that that is the pattern that was being follo wed by the government? Mr. Speaker, that document a rather extensive document, ends up with some further quotation at the end which shows where the Federal Government gets their direction when it comes to dealing with the provinces, and I quote again, "The probability of an agreement is not high. Unila teral action is therefore a distinct possibility.

In the event unila teral act ion becomes necessary, Min isters should understand that the fight in Parliament and the country will be very very rough, for as Machiavelli said it should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful to success and more dangerous to carry through, than initiating changes in a States Constitution." Mr.

Speaker, that is where the Federal Government gets their strategy when they work with dealing with the provinces, they quote him, they quote him in their documents - Machiavelli - a fine statesm anlike example to use when you're trying to strenghten the federalism of this country. Mr.

Speaker, let me quote from a former Liberal Prime Min ister and a Li beral Prime Mini ster of somewha t different character then the one that we now have in Ottawa and this is a quotation from an Address by the Right Honourable Lester Pearson in 19 65, and I quote, he says, "In any Federation the two most critical questions are the distribution of powers between the two levels of government and the manner in which the Constitution can be changed. A Federation is necessarily a del icate balance between conflic ting consider ations and interests. lt is to be expetecd that the most delicate 3885

Tuesday,26 May, 1981 of all questions should be the way in which such a balance might be altered." - The most delicate of all questions is the way in which such a balance of the distribution of powers between governments might be altered. In how delic ate a fashion, Mr. Speaker, are the negotiations now being handled between the Federal Government and the provinces, when the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-86c
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 86c.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	33ca54f874989a021566b7f0ac27ccf53001cd1d

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