Manitoba Hansard — 12 July 1983 (Sitting 105A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-105a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542- 5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 105A - 2:00 p.m. , TUESDAY, 12 JULY, 1983. Prmted by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Msnitobs

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

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MA NITOBA Tuesday, 12 July, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STA NDING AND SPEC IAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Speak er, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Private Bills. MR. CLERK, W. H. Remnant: Your Standing Committee on Private Bills beg leave to present the following as their First Report: Your Committee met on Tuesday, July 12 , 19 83 and heard representations with respect to the Bills before the Committee as follows: Bill (No. 36) - The Agrologists Act;

Loi sur les agronomes, Mr. Edward Lipsett, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Bill (No. 38) -

An Act to amend The Society of Management Accountants of Manitoba Act, Mr. Len Hampson, Certified General Accountants of Manitoba, Mr. Er ne st Orpin, So ciety of Ma nagement Accountants of Manitoba, Mr. Dan Hi cks, So ciety of Ma nagement Accountants of Manitoba, Mr. Bruce King, Soc iety of Ma nagement Accountants of Manitoba, Mr. Harold Clubine, Solicitor for the Manitoba Municipal Administrators. Your Committee has considered: Bill (No. 40) -

An Act to amend

An Act to Incorp orate Portage Avenue Baptist Church, Bill (No. 53) -

An Act to Grant Additional Powers to Steinbach Curling Club Ltd.; Loi accordant des pouvoirs additionnels au Steinbach Curling Club Ltd., Bill (No. 59) -

An Act to grant Additional Powers to Victoria Curling Club Limited; Loi accordant des pouvoirs additionnels au Victoria Curling Club Limited. And has agreed to report the same without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mem ber for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Speak er, I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for St. Johns that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... ORAL QUESTIONS Bilingualism - MGEA MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. He has received, as have all of us, commu nication from the Ma nitoba Go vernment Employees Association in which they indicate that there are a number of substantive amendments that they would wish to make to the proposed constitutional resolution affecting

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act - resolution that is presently under debate before the House. The MGEA in their communication indicate that they're willing to sit down with the Attorney-General and with the government to discuss these matters further .

In view of tli e im portanc e of having an agreement that carries the support of the Manitoba Go vernment Empl oyees Associat ion, having an amendment to the act, which could of course affect them, will the First Minister give the House some indication as to whether or not he is prepared to reconsider this draft, and in the course of reconsidering it to give the House, the MGEA and the people of Ma nitoba further time for this reconsideration by delaying any public committee hearings until after this Session has adjourned? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, first the Manitoba Government Employees Association haven't asked for any delay. What they have indeed indicated by way of their letter is, and I quote from Page 2 of that letter, "In

summary, Mr. Premier, the Manitoba Government Employees Association fully supports the reinstatement of the constitutional language rights that existed in The Manitoba Act of 18 70. Had these rights not been abrogated, there would be no need for the potentially divisive debate on this issue today." So the Manitoba Government Employees Association has made their position quite clear in principle. They have raised three very important concerns pertaining to the phraseology pertaining to

definitions and other items that are outlined on Page 2 of their letter, and as I indicated to Mr. Doer yesterday I would be anxious to meet with the MGEA in the company of the Attorney General, in order to review their particular concerns to ascertain whe ther or not we can make any appr opriate amendment, if indeed their concerns be justified. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister. That same letter went on to say as follows, 4254

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 "The Manitoba Government Employees Association is clearly an interested party in the current debate as the proposed changes have direct implications for our membership. Our suggestions are made at this time based on our in itial review of the pr op osed amendments, which have been in our possession for barely one week.

We are, of course, prepared to continue di scussions with the Attor ney-G eneral, government counsel, individual MLAs, party caucuses and yourself in order to ensure that the rights of all Manitobans are protected in a fair and equitable way." In view of the fact that the Government Employees Association are indicating that this matter has not previously been discussed with them prior to, say, a week ago, would the First Minister not take that as some indic ation that there is not need to be hurrying this matter through the House, as apparently is the wish of the government to do, in the summer months when many people in Manitoba customarily take holidays and are not going to be available for public hearings of a comm ittee?

Would he not agree that it would be reasonable and prudent to have intersessional meetings of the comm ittee in the light of this new development and other developments? HON. H. PAWLEY: It is unfortunate and unfair that the Leader of the Opposition wants to read into the letter from the Manitoba Government Employees Association something that they themselves are not requesting. The Manitoba Government Employees Association letter is a responsible letter. It raises three valid points.

At the same time, it indicates its support for the principle of the legislation, and nowhere in the letter does the MGEA suggest that there be a postponement or a delay, but they are asking for the opportunity to discuss and to review three important areas that are of concern to them. At the same time, I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that in addition to the meetings that the Manitoba Government Employees Association are requesting, they too will have an opportunity to present a brief to the legislative committee to outline their points in the normal process.

I am looking forward to the meeting with the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Associa tion ; I am looking forward to the responses in repect to legal counsel pertaining to all three items that are raised by the MGEA. But let the letter not be misunderstood. The MGEA is not asking for us to delay, is not asking us to put this matter over to meet the demands of the Leader of the Opposition. That is not what the MGEA has indic ated. The MGEA has indicated its support for the basic principle of the resolution that we are dealing with. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister.

Far from me to try and put any words into the mouths of the MGEA. They say it all quite clearly in here, that they have had this mattter under consideration for only a week. I was asking, based upon that, based upon the res olutions now from over 10 0 mu nic ipal ities in Manitoba which are indicating the same thing to this Fir st Min ister , that more time is needed for its consideration, will he not do the reasonable, and may I say, Mr. Speak er, the honourable thing with respect to a cons titutional resolutio n and ha ve it heard intersessionally? That's No. 1. No. 2, Mr.

Speaker, is the First Minister now indicating, because he has gone to some length to indicate that he thinks that the suggestions made by the MGEA on Page 2 of their letter for amendment of the resolution are reasonable, is he now indicating a changed position from that which he and his Attorney-General announced a few days ago when they said that they would not tolerate any amendments to

Section 23? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, pertaining to question No. 1, the first part of the Leader of the Oppo sition's question, he has already asked that a number of times. Insofar as No. 2, I had indicated that the concerns that were raised were reasonable and ought to be examined by this government. I did not indicate that the concerns were right or wrong, but were concerns that were legitimate in requiring examination and review.

If the Leader of the Opposition had carefu lly listened to remarks earlier, what has been indicated is that the Ma nitoba Go ve rnment can not uni laterally make changes in the resolution; the Manitoba Government can the resolution entirely or that changes can be made if the resolution is to proceed with the agreement of the other seven parties to the court action. Obviously we cannot proceed in respect to a settlement that is reflected in the resolution without the agreement of all parties.

There's no unilateral change but on the basis of three responsible suggestions, or areas, for clarification in the Manitoba Government Employees Association letter I'm anxious to look into those legitimate areas of concern that have been raised in order to assure myself that those concerns are either correct or incorrect, and certainly upon the Attorney-General's return we'll be examing that. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, then is the First Minister now saying that the resolution that is before the Legislature is not chiseled in stone, as he and his Attorney-General tried to indicate initially, and that they are prepared not to be a bit more reflective and open with respect to the terms of that resolution, and to consider reasonable suggestions that are being made to it by the MGEA, and I'm sure by other organizations, that will come before the comm ittee?

And if that is the case will the First Minister not then beg in to see the wisdom of having interse ssional hearings on this committee so that all opinions can be sought? If this matter is still fluid all opinions can be sought, and the best advice distilled, and put into this

Section 23 amendment so that we do not bind for all time Manitobans into an amendment that is less than perfect. Layoffs MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour. Can the Acting Minister of Labour advise whether any employees covered by the Manitoba Government 4255

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 Employees Association contract have been laid off since the new agreement with the government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I'm not aware of any layoffs that would have been contrary to the agreement entered into between the government and the Manitoba Government Employees Association but certainly I can take the question as notice and get a more firm answer than that, probably tomorrow. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speake r, a supplemen tary question to the Acting Minister of Labour.

Can he advise how many employees not covered by the Ma nitoba Gove rnment Emp loyees Association contract have been laid off or fired? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Sp eaker, first of all with respect to firings, let me make it very clear that there was no agreement with the MGEA that there would not be firings. If people were not performing their duties, then we always reserved the same right before that contract to fire people for the normal reasons, for cause.

So with respect to that, I can certainly determine whether we can come up with that information without going to too great an amount of trouble and if there is a lot of trouble involved, I might suggest that the member file an Order for Return. With respect to layoffs of employees who are not covered by that agreement, I don't have a specific number. I can take that question as notice. I point out, however, that we have a large number of seasonal employees who are traditionally working at a certain time of year, be it summer or winter depending on the specific activity, and there are always some layoffs.

I'm sure that there have been some of those kinds of layoffs in the past since the agreement; some haven't been called back, I'm sure, and others will be laid off in the fall when the sum mer work is done. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Sp eake r, a supp lementary question to the Minister of Economic Development. Could the Minister confirm that a Dr. Malik, the senior economis t in the department, who has been employed by the government since 19 66 was laid off at the end of March of this year, without cause? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, due to repriorization of department activities, this person was laid off. She was not covered by the MGEA agreement. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speake r, could the Minister describe the repriorization that took place that caused the government to fire the senior economist in the department, having been employed by the Government of Manitoba since 19 66? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Sp eake r, the de par tment's activities have shifted more into the direct technology area to provide service to business and industry in the province, to assist them in the application of newer technologies so that they would, in fact, be able to compete more effectively in the very areas that the members opposite have been chiding us for being inactive in; that is, developing in the manufacturing and food processing areas. Workplace safety MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Acting Minister of Labour.

Last year after the tragic murder of a young female employee in a doughnut shop, the government indicated that it would be bringing forth changes to The Labour Act that would lessen the risk to employees under these circumstances. Is the government still intending to bring forth these changes? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to take that question as notice for the Minister of Labour. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, the Acting Minister of Labour was the individual at that time in the portfolio, who made that announcement, and I would ask him as well, to take as notice then; in view of the fact that a female employee in an all-night grocery store was raped in Winnipeg at about 5 a.m. this morning, would the Minister urge the Minister of Labour to stop worrying about minor irritations such as the relationship between parents and babysitters, and start looking at the real need to protect people in vulnerable situations such as this? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I think that that's somewhat unfair.

All mem bers of this Ho use are concerned with respect to what is happening at some of our workplaces at night. When I was Minister of Labour I had asked my department to review legislation elsewhere, to look at what we could do here for prevention - (I nterjection)- The Member for Sturgeon Creek seems to forget that he also was in government, and that when he was in government things like this, regrettably, were happening. I really find it somewhat disgusting that members such as he and the Member for Lakeside are trying to make some political hay out of some very serious, sad occu rren ces in our workplaces.

I've indic ated that when I was Minister of Labour, I had initiated an investigation into how we can proceed with covering of this difficult situation in our workplaces. We were looking at areas such as some form of electronic surveillance, if there was anything that could be done in that area; we were looking at legislation that would require more than one employee on the site after a certain hour; we were looking at legislation dealing with ages of people who were working on their own and that sort of thing. I have to tell you that I don't know where it is at right now.

I haven't been Minister of Labour for about a year, and during that time I'm sure that more studies have gone on. I have indicated that I will take the question as notice for the Minister of Labour. But for the opposition to suggest that there's nothing happening is simply unfair. 4256

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 Well, the Minister of Labour is here now, I'm sure she'll be able to reply. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, as the Acting Minister indicates the Minister of Labour is here now. My que stion was with respect to legislation that was proposed by the government more than a year ago to protect workers, particularly female and lone employees in all-night situations. In view of the fact that last evening at 5 a.m. a female employee was raped in an all-night grocery store, my question is to the Minister, when is she going to bring forward the proposed legislation? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, this is an area of grave concern to us but it's not a simple area. To put an age on workers working alone doesn't work, as I'm sure the members are aware, because a person could be one week past their 18 th birthday and still be in some danger. There are a number of different areas where workers do work alone besides convenience stores and can be in some danger because of that.

We have had a study done, we ha ve the rep ort of that study , and my colleague, the Minister who is responsible for Workplace Health and Safety is actually the person who will probably be bringing forward the legislation since that is the area that it fits most closely to. It is really workplace safety that we're talking about. We are at the point of putting together the legislation. It is not our intent to bring it in as part of this Session. It is not one of the bills that we had on the list of those to bring in but it is proce eding.

In the meantime we certai nly ha ve been in consultation throughout all of this with the owners and the managers of convenience stores, of hotels, of small food shops, of all kinds of different organizations and employers who do have employees working alone at any time of the day or night. We have the assurance of some of the larger ones that they are either implementing alarm systems that they feel will work, or that they will move towards this very shortly. We are in process on this issue, and I agree with you it is a important one. Gasoline prices - Manitoba MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corportate Attain>. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable Minister can advise House if he, or any of his staff, have been alerted to the gas price increases that are all across this province this week, ranging from a 1.5 cents a litre in some gas stations in Dauphin to .5 cents in Roblin, .4 in Russell. I wonder can the Minister advise the House what it's all about, and if his department's been alerted to the problem. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: In answer to the question from the Member for Roblin-Russell, we have been aware of the changes in the prices that have been taking place not only in the last week but over the last number of months, and my department is studying that. Certainly when the report comes down on the difference between gas prices between southern and Northern Manitoba part of the report will deal with the variances in gas prices in southern Manitoba. Aut opac - new claims centre HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: While I'm on my feet, I'd like to respond to a number a questions I took as notice. Yesterday the Honourable Member for Lakeside had asked whether Autopac is planning the construction of a new claims centre in the City of Winnipeg. I am informed that consideration is being given at the present time to the construction of an additional claims centre, although the exact location has not been determined and definite plans have not been made. Co-op Implements HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I also took a question as notice last Friday, from the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, with respect to the $5 million of member equity to be raised by C.I. as part of the 198 2 Financial Assistant Agreement. Accord ing to the agreement negotiated between all parties an additional $5 million in member equity was to be raised within five years.

I'm advised by officials in my department, who have been advised by C.I., that a marketing package to sell $5 million of preference shares to members to meet that condition of the agreement is presently being developed with active marketing to take place to start in November of this year. Like other participants in the agreement we'll be monitoring the situation closely. Red River Co-op closure HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: And a further answer to a question I took as notice from the Member of La Verendrye with respect to Red River Co-op.

Up until the beginning of June, there had been 253 positions terminated as a result of the closure of various Red River Co-op outlets. With the closing of the Wall Street store, there were 47 additional jobs lost. Gasoline prices - Manitoba MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that the Honourable Minister hasn't been alerted to the fact that these gasoline prices are taking place in the p ovince, not only in the North, it's all across the )rovince. Can he advise me, or will he take it as notice, where do these price increases come from?

Do they come as a result of the recent agreement between Alberta and Canada? Are they the resu lt of tax increases? Are they just the oil companies raising the prices by themselves? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I really don't know where the Member for Roblin-Russell had the information that 4257

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 I wasn't alerted. I can assure you that every time I drive down McP hillips I notice when the prices go up and down. The fact is that there may be a number of reasons. I have asked officials in my department to determine the reasons for the latest price increase. When that information is provided me, I will so provide the honourable member. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Sp eaker, since the province gets about 50 percent of the revenue from these incr eases, I'm qui te concerned, so are my constituents. Can I ask the Honourable Minister, Mr.

Speak er, when we in this House, or when the people of Ma nitoba can be favo ured with this study or examination of gasoline prices which he's been exposed to since last December? He raised it, I think, even before the House opened, that he was going to study this problem in the province. When can we in this House at least get the draft report of what the Honourable Minister has found out for the people of this province? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm very glad that the member has asked that question. I can assure the member there is no one more frustrated in this House than I am.

It's not an unwillingness on the part of our department to provide a report; it is an unwillingness on the part of the oil industry in provinding the simple information that we have been requesting. If the member would like us to provide a report based on fairy tales and fallacies, we can do that. But we're responsible; we will wait for the facts; we are recei ving that information. I would hope that we do get the information to have an interim report within the next month or two. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Spea ker, I just wonder, and ask the Honourable Minister again if he realizes the power of government in this province. Can he give me any reason, or the people, why he doesn't call a com mittee of this House so he can examine with the oil companies the problems of these escalating gasoline prices? Surely the government has an understanding of the power that is in their hands today and can deal with this subject matter. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, I am very surprised to hear the comments from the member as to what power we have with respect to some sectors of the private sector.

I would like to inform the member that a few years ago in Alberta, the Alberta Government requested of the oil industry information as to the number of service station outlets that they had in that province. It took the oil industry 18 months to provide that information. I think the Member for Roblin-Russell is also aware that the Federal Government has had investigations for a number of years at a cost of probably tens of millions of dollars to obtain specific information from the oil industry, and I'm not aware that there's been any final recommendation.

How the member would expect us to, in view of the difficulties and the frustration and unwillingness or the inability of the industry to provide us the information we need - it's very simple information. What are your wholesale costs? What are the transportation costs? We know what the retail costs are because we've had a person out there. But to 4258 provide that kind of simple information has taking oil industry months and months. We are doing this under The Trade Practices Inqu iry Act, for the members information. The department will provide me with an interim report.

On the basis of that report I will recommend - if I feel there is justification - I will recommend to Cabinet that there be a full-scale inquiry as to the reasons for the very marked differences in retail prices between rural Manitoba and Northern Manitoba and the ci ty. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Finance on a point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker.

On a point of order, the Member for Roblin-Russell just misinformed the House with respect to the proposition that he made, that the Province of Manitoba is getting half of the amount of the increase in the price of gasoline that he was referring to. Now the fact of the matter is that we have a fixed rate of taxation on gasoline. It is a complete inaccura cy and falsehood that the province is making any portion of the increase, and I would ask the member to withdraw that statement. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister did not have a point of order.

It might have been a point of clarification, but it was not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Speak er, I'm rather interested to see ... MR. SPEAKER: Proceed. MR. S. ASHTON: . . . the rather belated interest of members opposite about the issue of gas prices. I raised this matter in the House earlier this Session via the complaints of myself and many other Northerners.

When I last raised this matter in the House the Minister indicated that he had received only one response from the oil companies, despite the fact this was some three months after he'd initiated preliminary investigation. I was wondering if he could give this House an upda te as to how many oil companies have responded to his request for information. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

In answer to the question from the Member for Thompson, we have now received, I believe, reponses from four oil companies and we're waiting for two others. MR. S. ASHTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it's been some five or six months since myself and

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 many other Northerners raised this issue and, in view of the fact that the oil compan ies appear to be deliberately stalling the progress of the investigation, I was wondering if the Minister could undertake to put some additional pressure on them to answer some very basic questions that I'm sure he has, and I'm sure many Northerners, especially Northern rural residents of this province have about the price of gas in Manitoba. Bill No. 47 - distribution MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Spe ak er.

This question is to the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs. Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs confirm that he is now receiving letters from rural municip alities and councils opposing the implementation of Bill 47, The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have received at least one; I'm not sure whether I've received two or not.

I'd have to check the files, but I believe that I have received one to date, to my recollection, but I could undertake to ascertain just how many I have received and bring the information back to the honourable mem ber. But, Mr. Speak er, I am satisfied that we have received very few complaints in regard to this bill, up to this point in time. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Sp eaker, we all feel sorry for the Minister of Municipal Affairs who has difficulty in counting over one and could possible get to two, we all sympathize with him. Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as he receives the letters and resolutions in opposition to his actions as Minister of Municip al Affairs, provide copies of those letters for the media and for the Members of the Assembly, so that we can be fully aware of the opposition to what he is trying to introduce to the people of Manitoba. A MEMBER: Hear, hear! HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Sp eaker , letters between a municipal council and a Minister are presumed to be confidential, unless that council was agreeable that their letters be made public; I'm sure that they can do so if they so desire at the present time.

It is no problem, Mr. Speak er, to send copies to the opposition if they so desire to have that made public. I submit again, Mr. Speak er, that I have received very very few letters in complaint of Bill 47; we have verbal suppor t from the Union of Ma nitoba Municip alities at the district meetings. They are prepared to support this legislation, Mr. Speaker; there may be some individuals who have expressed concern to members oppo site who, by the way, have stayed at some length of time at the district meetings to foment concerns about this bill, but I say that they have gone on a tangent.

There is general support for this bill, in fact, overwhelming support, Mr. Speak er. We know that there's overwhelming support. As I attended these meetings, Mr. Speaker, there was very very little concern about the conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Sp eaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In view of the fact that he did not send out copies of bills to each municipal council lor, as he told my colleague from Minnedosa that he would; and in view of the fact that it's probably been, and the question would be, has he yet sent them oul or are the municipalities, just by the public news media or through other mechanisms, finding out what is actually in those bills; will he, in fact, tell tile House whether he sent those bills out yet? HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I think I indicated to the Member for Minnedosa that I had sent out copies of the bill to all municipal councils, where they can review together, to council at their meetings and to discuss this bill, and I think many of them have. I am pleased that I am getting very very few complaints at this point in time. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that he has not sent copies of this legislation to each municipal counc il:0., will he send copie s to each municipal councillor so they knnw, in fact, what this government are imposing on them? Each municipal councillor has the right, Mr.

Speaker, to receive a copy of legislation that will have a major effect on the telling of the public what their assets are. It's a direct intrusion into their rights as an individual in Manitoba and should have a copy of that legislation; will he send it to them? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question to the Member for Minnedosa when he asked the same question, and that was that if he felt that he wanted to send copies out to his municipal people in his area that was his prerogative, he could so; that I had sent copies out to each council.

They have the copies there; they've available to them at the meetings, and I'm sure it's going to be discussed by them and it has been discussed by them. In addition to that we sent Bill 18 out, prior to that; when the Legislative Conflict of Interest Bill was introduced, I sent that out, as well. I advised them that Bill 18 was very similar to that of Bill 47, and I'm sure that they have the information out there and at the meetings they were not that concerned, that we didn't get that many questions on conflict of interest. So, we do have majority support of that bill and I'm quite satisfied that is the case.

MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Sp eaker, in view of the fact that Minister is not brave enough to send the legislation 1t so that the people can see it who will be affected, �11d that he's now getting opposition to it, will he consider withdrawing that bill from this Assembly at this sitting? HON. A. ADAM: No, Mr. Speaker. Bombs - Oak Hammock Marsh MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Concordia. 4259

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 MR. P. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that there has been comment in the media in respect to some bombs in the Oak Hammock Marsh, can he inform us what kind of hazards there are and what is being done to alleviate this? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: I thank the honourable member for giving me notice of the question. Mr. Speaker, I had issued a press release a few days ago about the concern because there were a number of unexploded bombs that were found in Oak Hammock Marsh.

They were found as a result of the dra ining of one cell at Oak Hammock Marsh. There has been a very significant number of bombs thus far - 32 bombs have been found. They haven't been armed with explosives, but nevertheless, we are concerned that it may well have been that this area was subject to quite a number of bombs having been deliberately released or accidentally released over that marsh area. We have asked the military, the Department of Defence, to sweep the entire marsh and this will occur as and when access becomes possible to the individual cells.

The walkways themselves, the dikes and walkways, have been utilized for some time and we do not believe there is any danger in their being used. My staff will be meeting with military people on site tomorrow to confirm arrangements for completion of the sweep. There is every likelihood that that further check will include a check of all of the dikes in the walking areas, but we believe that there is no particular hazard in those designated areas. NEED Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, my question is to the Acting Minister of Energy and Mines.

Some time ago Sheritt Gordon had made a proposal to the government, to both the Federal and Provincial Government, under the NEED Program with respect to proving up the Agassiz gold deposit near Lynn Lake. The government has recently announced that they will be participating in a project there. Can the Acting Minister advise the House how the NEED project, which was approved, differs from that which was rejected by the government some weeks ago? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I'll take that question as notice and provide a com plete answer to the member.

As I understand it, though, just as a preliminary answer, there still are some concerns about the amende d agree ment. I don't think it's been comp letely finalized. MR. B. RANSOM: A supp lementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the time that we questioned the Minister of Energy and Mines some weeks ago &�•uut application by Sheritt Gordon, he indic ateci that th•' government was not willing to proceed without having an equity position.

Can the Acting Minister then also either take as notice or inform the House at this time whether or not the government has made provision to take an equity interest in this gold deposit? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I'm not sure as to exactly what it was that the Minister of Energy and Mines said. I could hardly believe that he would have said that with respect to a NEED Program, because I don't believe the NEED Program has provision for equity involvement.

I believe that he was referring to just generally proving up some resources, and he pointed out at the time, as I recollect, that one of the problems with the NEED application was that in order to qualify for NEED people, you had to have exhaustees or people who were close to being exhaustees from UIC. That isn't exactly the problem in that area. Therefore, the NEED Program might not apply unless there were some changes made. If the NEED Program didn't apply and if the province was to come up with money on its own then he was looking for an equity position.

So, I'm not prepared to accept at face value that bald statement of the Member for Turtle Mountain that we weren 't going to do anything without equity involvement. I think that there were some caveats put on that and I have indic ated already, we'll be giving a com plete answer in respect to where the NEED Program is in due course. Satellite receiving dishes MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On June 3rd, I posed a question to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System as to the number of satellite receiving di shes owned by the Manitoba Telephone System and the number of those dishes that were presently in service. The Minister indicated he would take the question as notice and presumably provide me with an answer at a later date and I'd like to ask the Minister if he has an answer to that question? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, as I recall, Mr. Speaker, I did have some information on that. I don't have it with me.

It's approximately 12 dishes that are in use at the present time. MR. D. ORCHARD: Twelve dishes are in use, Mr. Sp eaker, how many di shes do es the Ma nitoba Telephone System own? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The numb er owned by the Telephone System is what I was referring to, Mr. Speak er. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, could the Minister attempt to clarify his answer Thursday morning at the MTS Committee hearings and provide the information as to 4260 about this

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 how many dishes the system owns and how many are currently in service. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Speak er, I'll be pleased to give the exact numbers. The approximate numbers that I have given to him are very close to being the exact number, I'm not sure if it's 13 or 12, but I can get that for the honourable member. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speak er, I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr.

Speaker, I raised a matter of privilege yesterday and comments were made upon that motion by the Chairman of the NDP Caucus, the MLA for Radisson. I now have a copy of yesterday's Hansard, which was distributed this afternoon and it contains inaccur ate and misleading statements made by him. Mr. Speak er, he said in his comments of yesterday on Page 4223 of Hansard, that I had made allegations, he described those as, "pu rely allegations " and seco ndly said, "The Member for Elmwood has the same services of caucus as all members of caucus." Mr.

Speaker, if that is true, I think that all the members who are in the backbench of the New Democratic Party have a matter of privilege. Is it true that they, for example, cannot send out qu estionn aires to their constituents which I have been denied? Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that they are refused to have certain letters typed concerning a matter like that? Mr. Speaker, is it true that they have had mo st of their caucus documentation cut off as I have? Is it true that they have had mail withheld and read by the chairman of caucus or somebody else? Is it true, Mr.

Speaker, that their phone calls have been unanswered? And is it also true, Mr. Spe ak er, that they work in a hos tile environment of looks and remarks made by their fellow colleagues? Mr. Speaker, these are the statements that were made yesterday by the chairman of caucus. These are false and inaccurate statements which I think should be cleared up, and I simply say in conclusion, Mr.

Speak er, that if he is right, that this same treatment is provided to all members of the NDP backbench, if they too have limited services and have a big brother reading their outgoing mail, then they too should have individual matters of privilege. So I therefore move THAT this Assembly instruct the Committee on Privileges and Elections to examine the statements made yesterday by the Chairman of the NDP Caucus, the MLA for Radisson, with reference to the withdrawal and/or restriction of my privileges as a member of the Legislative Assembly; seconded by the Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR.

SPEAKER: The Acting Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order, pointing out that I don't 4261 believe the motion is in order that you have. The basis of the motion is a concern for the accuracy of facts. The Member for Elmwood questions the accu racy of the facts that have been given to the House by the Member for Radisson. There is a dispute as to the facts.

Beauchesne clearly indic ates - and I refer you to Citation 19 on Page 12 - that is, "A dispute arising between two members, as to the allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." The Honourable Member for Elmwood, in rising as he did, indicated that the statements that were given by the Member tor Radisson were not in accordance with fact. Clearly, Beauchesne says that that form of a question of privilege is not in order. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, and as I indicated yesterday, the Hon ourable Mem ber for Elmwood has some difference of opinion - (I nterjection) - with services that he alleges he is not receiving from his caucus. That is not a matter for adjudication by a committee of this House. It's a matter of some concern between his caucus and that member and he can settle that matter in the appropria te way. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. R. RANSOM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speak er. The motion clearly refers to privileges as a member of the Legislative Assembly.

It deals with a restriction placed on a member's services, Sir. Of course, as you pointed out yesterday, there are two things which the Speaker has to determine: Whether or not there is a prima facie case that can be established for privilege; and whether or not this is the earliest opportunity that the member could raise the point - today clearly being the earliest opportunity to raise it following upon yesterday's statement. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank the honourable members for their advice on this matter. I will take it under advisement to review today's Ha nsard and yesterday's Hansard too.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. R. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the Government House Leader could indicate which of the bills it is his intention to deal with in Law Amendments on Thursday evening. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. A. MACKLING: I will give that information to the !-'Jnourable Member for Turtle Mountain later on this ifternoon. - (lnterjection)- l'm hearing some observations from across the floor. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, pursuant to an accommodation that was agreed to between the Member for Turtle Mountain and myself, I'm happy to call the adjourned debate on the resolution standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 AD JOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLU TIO N CO NSTITU TIONAL AMENDMENT RE OFFICIAL LA NGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, on the pr op osed resolution of the Honourable Attorney-General, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. A MEMBER: Tha t lawyer that's leaving wouldn't understand it anyway. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participa te in the debate on this resolution which was initiated by the Attorney-General just over a week ago.

I feel privileged to participate in the debate and to set forward some views on behalf of the official opposition with respect to this vexed matter, because it is one that I'm sure has and will continue to engage the attention of the people of Manitoba for some time to come. This, Mr. Spea ker, is the fi rst const itutional amendment of fundamentally serious proportion that has been br ough t before this Ho use under the provisions of the new Constitution Act, which was brought into force and effect in Canada in April of "1982. This particular amendment purporting as it does to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act which, by the way, Mr. Sp eak er, is defined as part of the Constitution of Canada under that Constitution Act. This particular amend ment is of funda mental importance not only to this House today, but to all future Manitobans because, first of all, Mr. Speaker, it will become for all practical purposes an entrenched amend ment . The procedur e under which we are operating with respect to this amendment requires a resolution to be passed by the Manitoba Legislature and a joint resolution to be passed by the Parliament of Canada, ma inly the Senate and the Ho use of Commons.

That resolution, if passed by both levels of government, Sir, has the effect then of entrenching the amendment into

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the second thought we should all bear in mind as we approach this problem is that in large measure this amendment once entrenched will become practically irreversible, and by irreversible I mean it would require, unless further reading of The Constitution Act suggests other means of amendment, it will require a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate and a resolution of this House if any changes were to be made to it. The third point I would wish to make, Mr.

Speake r, about this procedure and about our approach to this matter is to point out the importance of adopting, in this first instance, a procedure that should be followed for all future amendments that are of an important and substantive nature such as this one. We are in effect, by our very participation in this debate, creating a precedent because this is the first const itutional amendment, as I have mentioned. That is why, Mr.

Speak er, over the past number of weeks, from this side of the House, we have asked again and again, that a matter as fundamentally important as this be referred to a Committee of the House, with that committee allowed to sit intersessionally so as to in an unhurried way, the people of Manitoba on topic. Mr.

Speaker, indeed in looking back at the nature of the amendment procedure that is set forward in The Constitution Act, it would appea r, and this comes from the benefit of hindsight, that there might well have been a provision in that Constitution Act requiring that amendments to the Constitution be required to be considered by the Provincial Legislature or Legislatures, and by the House of Commons and the Senate over a stated period of time, so as to avoid the kind of unseemly rush that this government is attempting to establish as a precedent in dealing with this matter. So, Mr.

Speak er, the first three matters I mentioned - first of all, this amendment will become entrenched in the Constitution; secondly, it will become practically irreversible if it appears in the Constitution in its present form, or indeed in an amended form; and thirdly, it is important in a reasonable and prudent way for us at this time to be establishing a precedent for the handling of these matters in a way that best serves the public interest, rather than the narrow partisan interest of any Government of the Day. Mr.

Sp eaker , I well recall that when we placed constitutional questions before a committee of this House, as government, in 198 0, at that time you will recall, Sir, that there had been a series of meetings between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers of the ten provinces with respect to very fundamental changes that the Prime Minister was trying to, at that stage, impose upon the people of Canada and upon the various provincial governments.

I need not at this stage, Sir, go into any long dissertation about those long negotiations and about the various attempts of the present Prime Minister of Canada to force his will upon the provinces of Canada to compu lsorily and unilaterlly change the federal nature of our country.

I need only say, Sir, that subsequently through court proceedings and through negotiations he was thwarted from carrying out that desire of his and the coun try, Sir, while not ending up with a constitutional package that is perfect - God knows it is not perfect - ended up with a constitutional package which at least today acknowledges the existence of the federal nature of our country, something that Mr. Trudeau's package was prepared to overrun and to cast aside as a useless part of our history. So, Mr.

Spea ker, when we placed the constitutional questions before the comm ittee in 198 0, we did so at an intersessional com mittee that was struck for that purpose, and the wording of the resolution, Mr. Speaker - it appears on Page 6202 of Hansard, Tuesday, 29th of July - part of the

preamble said: "And

whereas it is desirable and in the public interest to obtain the opinions of the people of Manitoba on proposals for constitutional reform." Mr. Speaker, I commend those words to the members of the present government because those words, I think, bespeak what any responsible government should be doing before it proceeds finally to the adoption of any fundamental cha nge to the Constitution. The then Leader of the Opposition, the present First Minister, responded, Mr. Speaker, on Page 6203 of Hansard. He said, "Mr . Speaker, we would urge that the comm ittee, if it is to have any effectiveness 4262

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 whatsoever at this late date, that the hearings take place as soon as possible.

There is not much point," said he, "in ensuring that the public will have real input into this com mittee's work and the development of proposals and initiatives if the public are making their submissions, not only after the Attorneys-General have comp leted their meetings with the Minister of Justice, but also the meetings have taken place after the Federal-Provincial Conference, which is to take place in September." Then he went on to say that he feared the committee would be doing little but to review hard and fast positions.

He said, "We will be suppor ting the establishment of this committee, we will be participating. Our only disappointment is that the formation of this comm ittee, the hearings, the public input might indeed have come, Mr. Speake r, at a time when it would have really been worthwhile; at a time when indeed the public of Ma nitoba would assis t and contri bu te in the development of proposals, rather than to request the public to make their submissions after already the Province of Manitoba has staked out its position." These were the words, Mr.

Sp eaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, now the First Minister of this House, dealing with the constitutional reference that we made in 19 80. He then went on to say, Mr. Speake r, "I trust that the hearings will take place in various parts of the province, including Northern Manitoba. I trust that all the position papers that have already been tabled by the Attorney-General will be made available to the comm ittee, to its mem bers, so that they may be discussed in the openness indeed they deserve to be considered.

We all, of course, accept the fact that the work of this commit tee is important in view of the discussions that are taking place, the prodding and urging of Ottawa, the participation of the provinces and the work toward the new Constitution to reflect new pur poses and ob jectiv es in the rene wing · of Confederation." Mr. Speaker, those are the words of the present First Minister, Mr.

Pawley, when he was speaking to a resolution wherein we were referring constitutional matters to an intersessional committee, and he was supporting that and going further, and saying that the committee should have been called sooner; that it must have hearings throughout Manitoba; there must be time given for consideration of the proposals; words, Mr.

Speak er, that we have been uttering on this side of the House for the last several weeks since the Attorney General and the First Minister indicated, first of all, that they would oppo se any intersessional comm ittee, such as the one they supported when we advanced it only three years ago on the \!\/hole Canadian Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I take the time to read into the record the response that I made to the then Leader of the Opposition's complaint about the co mmittee being called too late. "Mr .

Speak er, very briefly to respond to the Leader of the Opposition, this comm ittee has been undertaken by the present Government of Manitoba since the early days of our administration, at the time when we said it would be appropria te for the committee to meet and to hear representations. Had we listened to the requests of the opposition two years ago we would have wasted an awful lot of time in having a committee that was listening to proposals that are now defunct. This is the appropria te time to have the committee, and that is why the resolution is being moved at this time.

"The comm ittee, as has been undertaken before, will travel throughout the different regions of Manitoba to solicit the opinions of the people of Manitoba on the - :::urrent up-to-date constitutional proposals that are before them. "I'm sure that the members of the comm ittee, from both sides of the House, will benefit from that kind of input that the people of Manitoba can make. "The Province of Manitoba from time to time will be making public, and before the comm ittee, its proposals with respect to various matters. But, lest my honourable friend, Mr.

Speaker. get trapped into what I call the Trudeau syndrome, that the constitutional discussions are going to end on the 12 th of September, let him rest easy. The constitutional discussions in this country are not going to end between the 8th and the 12 th of September of 19 80." And I interrupt, Mr. Speaker, to say that that was an accurate prediction. Continuing, "They are going to go on for some time, but we are reaching one of the signposts on that trail toward building a rep0wed federalism in Canada and this comm ittee, I think, will be extremely helpful in the achievement of that goal." I don't suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that everything that the former government did is going to find favour with the present New Democratic Party Government; but I do suggest, Si r, that he re is one exam ple of open government, of a willingness to meet and have the people of Manitoba make submissions to a Committee of the House in an unhurried way. I suggest here is one example, one precedent left by our government, that this NOP Government would be well advised, in the public interest, to be following at the present time. I took the time, Mr.

Speaker, to read that material into the record in order that the First Minister may take the time, as I hope he will, to reflect upon the reasonableness of that approach; to reflect upon why it is important, with a fundamental amendment that is going to be entrenched, will become largely irreversible, and that the procedure that he is adopting may well become a precedent - and I would say, Sir, a bad precedent of process if he were to persist with it. I ask him, Mr.

Speaker, in the name of all of the people of Manitoba, to follow this good precedent that was established by our government on a constitutional process and procedure, with respect to

Section 23. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because all of us know that this matter is a vexed problem; all of us know that emotions can arise very strongly on this matter. The First Minister is heard to say from time to time, "that is because the people don't understand it." Well, Mr.

Sp2 aker, if the people don't understand it, what better iP Arumentality than to have an interses sional c;ommittee of the House to take the time to do that, and let the committee move around Manitoba, as the previous committee did, in an unhurried way; and let that commi ttee hear what the people of Manitoba want to say and, at the same time, let the committee have all of the briefing papers; the Attorney-General, the First Minister, the opportunity to do the questioning and all of the things that need to be done on something that is going to be entrenched, irreversible, and set the pattern and affect lives of Manitobans yet unborn. 4263

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 So, Mr. Speak er, I start my submission today by making that very simple, but I think very much needed request to the Government of Manitoba, that they follow the precedent already established in Manitoba to hold intersessional public hearings on this, and on any other important constitutional matter, in an unhurried way. That will mean, Mr. Speaker, that they have to back down a bit from the position that they have taken.

They've already backed away from the initial position which was: these amendments have been negotiated with six or seven parties; they are carved in stone and they're going to be passed by this Legislature, come hell or high water, after only informational meetings. That position was abandoned a few days later because even the government saw the tremendous lack of wisdom of that approach. So the next step the government said was, we're going to have our informational meetings but we're also going to refer it, while this House is still sitting - while this House is still sitting, Mr.

Speaker - now in July and August, refer this to a Committee of the House, later identified as being the Committee of Statutory Orders and Regulations. So, Mr. Speaker, they have gradually come to see the sense of public hearings on this but they still want to hurry it.

They still want to clog up the pipe of government legislation with extra hearings while this House is sitting, passing and trying to deal with bills as im portant as The Farm Lands Bill; as important as the bill whereby the NDP want the taxpayers to pay their election expenses; as important as the bill whereby the NOP want the taxpayers to start paying for their propaganda that they will mail out, for the printing of their propaganda, Mr. Speak er, that they will mail out once every Session to the mem bers of their constituenc y. We've got all of these important matters before us.

We've got the seat belt legislation before us; we've got the conflict of interest legislation before us that deeply affects municipal council lors, and the quality of public life, and the number of people who will run for public office in Manitoba; all of these things on the table at the present time in this House. The First Minister, Mr. Speaker, does he honestly expect that he can now load up the

schedule of the House with this fundamentally important resolution, and ask the commi ttees of the House deal with it concurrently? Mr. Speak er, that is unreasonable. That is unreasonable, it is not in the public interest; it is a course of action that should not be followed by any government that is truly concerned about its oath to serve the best interests of the people of Manitoba. So I make my submission, again, and it will be made again, and again, and again, in this House, Mr. Speaker, that this matter of

Section 23 amendments cannot and will not, Mr. Sp eaker, cannot and will not be rushed and hurried by this government, for whatever their motive may be, cannot and will not be hurried by this government through the perfunctory kinds of public hearings that they are hoping, I supp ose, they will have, because most Manitobans leave on vacation in July and August. What an ill-time time to have public hearings on something as fundamentally important as this, in July and August, that is just unreasonable. A MEMBER: Planned that way. HON. S. LYON: It verges, Mr.

Speak er, on perverse and I don't think that the Government Manitoba, if it gives thoughtful consideration to this matter, will want to be unreasonable or perverse. But that is the course of action that they have decided to follow so far, and it is our job, as a responsible opposition, to distract them from that unreasonable course of action, and to get them back on track serving the best interests of the people of Manitoba. So, Mr.

Sp eaker , back in the 19 60s, when constitutional amendments were being considered at that time, we had amendments before the 10 provinces of Canada and the Government of Canada, the Fulton Favreau Formula, going back into history - I was around at that time. We had public hearings of a committee at that time, Mr. Speak er, and matters were referred to a Committee of the House so that they could have the opportunity to review, in an unhurried way, the processes that were then being debated. Nothing came of those processes at that time, Mr.

Speake r, but the fact remains that the Government of the Day, the Roblin Government of the Day of which I was then the Attorney General, I believe did follow that same practical, reaso nable pr ocess of ref erri ng matters to an intersessional comm ittee. What's wrong with it? I've heard nothing from the other side to indic ate that the time limit is such that they can 't accommodate intersessional hearings of the comm ittee? What would be wrong, Mr.

Speaker, with the Parliament of Canada, in adjournment as it is until the 15th of September, what would be wrong with canvass ing the idea that the Parliament of Canada and the Manitoba Legislature have a joint com mittee that would travel throughout Ma nitoba and have hear ings with the people of Manitoba? What's wrong with that suggestion? Why does this government not show a bit more imagination and concern for the opinions of the people of Manitoba than it does in this ramrod approach that it is apparently dedicated to taking with respect to this resolution? So, Mr.

Speaker, I say that this is the kind of action the government should be taking. It should be an intersessional committee. Summer holidays are not the time to consult Manitobans. I received the other day a transcript of a broadcast that the Attorney-General, Mr. Penner, made on CBC Information Radio, July 8th, I believe it was, and the question of the day, I'll come to that a little bit later, but I refer to his response which appears on Page 6 of the transcript. I'll be happy to table this particular page in case he wishes to check the record for its accu racy, but it was taken from a CBC tape.

The question was, "Why is the government moving on French services now? Is it that pressing a problem? Couldn't it wait? Why now?" And the answer given by Mr. Penner, and I quote from this transcript, "W e would rather have taken a little longer, obviously. This is the type of thing that we would like to have as much opportunity as possible to discuss with people so that they could see the very limited nature.

They could see that it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a French bilingualism or federal bilingualism, but we were faced with this case in the Sup reme Court and we went three times to the Supreme Court and asked that the case be delayed. We succeeded the first two times, but when we went - when I say we, I mean the Federal Government and ourselves because the Federal Government is also 4264

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 a party to this case there before the court - and we said to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, could we please have this postponed until the end of the year or even a little later, but that was opposed by Mr.

Bilodeau and others who are also parties to the case." The Ch ief Justice sai d, "W ell, you 've had two postponements, that's it; it has to be heard on May 26th." The caller said, "So, basically, what you are saying is that the Chief Justice said that he wasn't going to postpone the court hearing any longer and this is why the government had to move when it did?" Penner: "Yes, although we had been working on it for about a year and we had indeed already developed a lot of the ideas that are in this, but we really could have used more time." Well, Mr.

Speak er, here out of the mouth of the Attorney-General himself is the statement that the government wants more time to discuss this matter, and it's faced with some intransigence by Mr. Bilodeau, the plaintiff in this action, and we'll be discussing the merits of this case a little bit later on. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not beyond the wit or the comp etence of this gover nment whic h ha s been engaging in these discussions for over a year, to obtain another stay, another postponement of proceed ings. Is the Attorney-General seriously trying to tell us, Mr. Sp eaker, that he cou ldn't get Mr.

Bilodeau to agree to another postponement in order to permit the people of Manitoba to hear, intersessionally, the response that they would like to make? I can hardly believe that, Mr. Speak er. I can hardly believe that the Attorney-General of Manitoba, who has some persuasive powers, is unable to make that kind of an accommodation with another lawyer or with the other parties to the action, it just doesn't ring right. It just doesn't ring right, Mr. Speaker. I see that the Minister of Natural Resources is becoming agitated on this point and I can understand the reason for his agitation.

It's being pointed out for the first time, Mr. Speak er, that this government really is trying to ram this through for no good cause. For no good cause, Mr. Speaker. I come back to my original point, Mr. Sp eaker, and say that there must be intersessional hearings of this matter; there should be in the public interest; and no, as the Attorney-General would say, milk and water excuses such as this are sufficient reason, Mr.

Speak er, for running roughshod - running roughshod over the people of Manitoba - and I'll come to deal with the Bilodeau case a little later in ways that will probably causeas much disconcertment to the Minister of Natural Resources as this branch of the argument has. So, Mr. Speak er, let us have and let us establish sound and common-sense precedence in the procedure of dealing with these constitutional matters. That's No. 1. Second ly, Mr.

Speak er, and now I'm getting into an area that comes more basically to the reason why this resolution is before us at all, why was the agreement needed between the Government of Manitoba and Mr. Bilodeau and the Federal Government? Why, indeed? That question is being asked throughout the length and breadth of Manitoba. The judgment, Mr. Speaker, - (I nterjection) - I hear some mutterings or interruptions, or attempted interruptions, on this impo rtant matter by the Minister of Natural Resources who finds it very di ffi cult to contain hi mself.

I'm sur e he doe sn't understand all of the implications of this matter. Mr. Speaker, I will not be rushed, and I will not be bullied, and I will not be intimidated in any way at all by the likes of the Minister of Natural Resou rces. I have been dealing with his kind ever since I was raised on a back lane, and I know how to handle him, Mr. Speak er. So, Mr. Speaker, I merely say, why was the agreement needed at all? Well, let's review briefly the background of

Section 23. - (Interject ion) - Let's review briefly, Mr. Speaker, the background of

Section 23 and for the purposes of that review I think it's important that we put on the record, I know for the umpteenth time, but for the benefit of some cohesion and understanding in the reading of this debate, what does

Section 23 actually say? - (Interjec tion) - Mr. Speak er, I'll find my papers, I don't need any help from the Minister of Resources. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Resources is capable of giving anyone any help on a topic as complic ated as this. Now, Mr. Speaker,

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act of 18 70 reads as follows, and I quote: "Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Legislature, and both those langmiqes shall be used in the respective records and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process, in or issuing from any court of Canada established under The British North America Act, 18 67, or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The acts of the Legislature shall be printed and published in both those languages." That, Mr. Speak er, is

Section 23. That is the existing

section that was enacted by the Parliament of Canada in 18 70 when Manitoba became a province. Su bsequentl y, Mr. Sp eaker , in 18 90, the then Legislature of Manitoba enacted - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend doesn't wish to participate in the debate in a reasonable way, if he wants to interrupt and be a nuisance in the House, that's his business, and the record will show that that's entirely what he is doing.

We, however, on this side of the House regard this as a much more serious matter, and one that deserves more thoughtful consideration than obviously has been given to it by a good number of the members opposite. So, if I'm taking the time to read a little bit of history to the House, Mr. Speaker, it's for good cause, because my honourable friends, Mr. Speaker, haven't shown too close an understanding of this province and the history of this province, and the background of this province in the way in which they have started to deal with this fu nda mentally important matter.

So, in 18 90, there was a Legislature of Manitoba which pur ported to pass

an act which, by this LPgislature, declared English to be the official language Manitoba, and it specifically negated and specifically repealed, or purported to repeal,

Section 23 of The Man itoba Act. If you read those judg ements, Mr. Speaker, you will see that there was within the act itself, the 18 90 act purported to understand, there was a question of the vires, or of the power of the Legislature to enact the statute that it did. It said if any part of the act is found to be unconstitutional then, of course, the parts that are constitutional will remain in force and effect, and so on. 4265

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 In any event, that happened, and for the next number of years, for the next almost a century, until this case was tested by Mr. Forest who started, Mr. Speak er, his case when the Schr eyer Government was in office back in 19 75 or 19 76, and the Sch reyer Government then was the first government to take opposition to Mr. Forest's position. The Sch reyer Government, of which my honourable friend by that time, the Minister of Resources, was not a member - he had been defeated in 19 73 as I expect he will again in 19 84, Mr. Speak er.

I merely point out that little piece of history that on the record we have heard across the way, Mr. Speak er, that we lost a particular constitutional case. I merely point out for the record, Mr. Speak er, that the Forest case started in the time of the Sch reyer Government, which took the position that the Province of Manitoba subsequently followed through the various courts of appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court, the position taken by the Province of Manitoba was in opposition to Mr. Forest's position, which was that

Section 23 was ultra vires. Mr. Forest, through the judgement in the Supreme Court, ultimately won his case. Indeed, he was successful in the Manitoba Court of Appeal on his case, and ultimately won his case in 19 79 in the Supreme Court, a case that had been pursued against him by by the Sch reyer Government, and subsequently our government when we came into office pursued the case, Mr. Speaker, so let the record be clear on that point. Now, Mr. Speake r, after the Forest case came down, the Ho use then was cal led up on to make a determination as to how implementation would be given to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, because, of course, the - (I nterjection) - If my honourable friend wishes to speak, Mr. Speak er, he'll have ample opportunity, otherwise he's not disconcerting me, but I'm sure that thousands of Manitobans watching him are able to form an impression of him and of his concern on this fundamentally important issue. So, Mr. Speake r, in 19 79, I made a statement in the Legislature at that time with respect to the intention of the government in carrying out the dictum of the Supreme Court of Canada which of course was, Mr. Speaker, that

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act was reinstated, that the action of 18 90 by the Legislature of Manitoba had been invalid and that Manitoba had to now start giving effect to

Section 23 which I have just finished reading for the record.

Section 23, Mr. Speak er, for the record, I point out again, English or French may be used in the courts, may be used in the Legislature and in the documents of the Legislature, and shall be used with respect to printed statutes and acts, etc. - (I nterject ion) Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's bothering my honourable friend today when he's hearing what I think is a reasonably dispassionate record of the history of this matter. If he finds that so unnerving, perhaps he should take himself out into the hall where he can begin to contain himself and stop being a squalid nuisance in the House. So, Mr. Speak er, I read a statement to the House in 19 80 and we started to reimplement

Section 23 under the guidance of the then Attorney-General, the present Member for St. Norbert, and ultimately the Ministe�. of Cultural Affairs. We started that procedure and I quoted at that time, Mr. Speak er, and I won't reiterate the quote. I quoted from the judgment of Chief Justice Freedman, as he then was, indicating the spirit that would guide the go vernment with respect to the reimplementation of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, the obedience by the Government of Manitoba and indeed by the people of Manitoba, to the rule of law that had been laid down in the Forest case. So a start was made on the implementation of

Section 23. No objection was made in the House or in public when we announced subsequently as we did, Mr. Speaker, that as the Attorney-General has pointed out, that in addition to the setting up of special court services and the provisions for getting translations done in the Legislatur e of Manitoba, that the Go vernment of Manitoba of that day was going to embark upon a policy of some bilingual services, further bilingual services to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that had been going on in Manitoba.

Even since 18 90, there have been bilingual services available in one form or another as a matter of policy of the governments. Mr. Speak er, it had been going on in the times of the Br acken Go ve rnment, the Roblin, the Ga rson Government, the Campbell Government, the Roblin Go vernment, the Sch reyer Go ve rnment, our government and then on into the Pawley Government as well. I call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it was not a matter, as the Attorney-General would try to indicate, that the Government of Manitoba of our day was trying in any way to hide. It was a matter, Mr.

Speake r, of pointing out to the people of Manitoba, as we did in News Service releases and so on, the various acts that were being taken by the Government of Manitoba with respect to further bilingual services in Manitoba.

Now, the Attorney-General in the course of his remarks the other day filed certain exhibits and seemed to take a little bit of school-boy glee in the fact that he had found some Treasury Board documents; he had found instructions that I had written as the president of the council to all Ministers, to all deputies, pointing out to the Ministers and the deputies how that policy was to be followed and, Mr. Speaker, there were news releases turned out on April 11, 19 80.

There was a news release turn ed out, "F rench language bill introduced in the House, Measure restores French status in Legislature." That was not a matter that was done privately or quietly at all, that was a matter that was done openly in the House, a news release was made to the people of Manitoba about that; and subsequently on March 20th - I'll go back to the one on April 18 , 19 80, Mr.

Speaker - there was a news release out of the Government News Service talk ing about asking Qu eb ec joining in rene wed Constitution; building for Canada; pointing out the action that Manitoba had taken in response to the Forest case and so on. Then, Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 1981 as has been pointed out, we did establish, by order of our Cabinet, a French language

section to improve Government Services in the two official languages and there was a news release of that date which I'll be happy to read into the record, quote: "P remier Sterling Lyon has announced the establishment of a small

section in the Department of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources to improve the capacity of the Provincial Government 4266

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 to respond to requests from the public in the French language. Reporting to the Deputy Minister the

section will assist him in the following functions; liaison between the Fran co-M anitoban commun ity and government departments; liaison with government departments in channelling requests for specific services or information required by individuals or organizations; studying and reco mmendin g polici es and pri orit ies of services provided in the official minority language, French; responsibility for matters related to French language and culture at the provincial, federal and international levels; advising Provincial Government departments in the planning and operation of programs and services in French. Mr.

Spea ker, this was a news release that our government turned out to indicate the action that go vernment had been taking with respect to establishing the Government Services Branch, that was in place with Mr. Turenne when this government came into office; and, Mr. Speaker, far from trying to hide that from the people of Manitoba we turned out releases and indicated to the people of Manitoba that this activity was going on at the time, that it was commendable activity and I heard not a word of objection from the NOP then in the opposition. I heard no objection from the people of Manitoba at all.

This was something that was going forward in the natural course of affairs concurrent with the reimplementation of

Section 23 in Manitoba, the translation, the cour t services, the services conne cted with this House. There was not - (I nterjection) - Mr. Sp eaker, I keep hearing the shallow question from across the way - how much did it cost? Mr. Sp eaker, are we only here, in the minds of these socialists, talking abouts costs? I thought we were here debating principles. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. S. LYON: I know, Mr. Speak er, that principle is a stranger to their thought processes most of the time but they are going to debate principle today whether they like it or not. I think the cost of it, Mr.

Speak er, was a few hundred thousand dollars which was in the Cabinet papers, which my honourable friends have dug out, thinking to embarrass our side of the House with respect to a policy that was public knowledge at that time and we're proud of that policy because it was a good policy. It was a good policy. It was not, as this policy by this gov ernme nt is doing, eliciting provi nce-wide emotional uprisings. It was not eliciting that because it was being done, Mr. Speaker, in a way that the people of Ma nitoba, including the Fr anco-Manitoban com munity, understood to be reasonable and in the public interest.

So, Mr. Speaker, far from the Attorney-General having embarrassed us with respect to those papers that he tabled the other day thinking that he was going to pull a real great partisan embarrassment on us, not at all. Those were public policies that we were carrying out, as part, hand-in-hand with the reimplementation of

Section 23 as the Supreme Court of Canada had ordered the Government of Manitoba to do. So, Mr. Sp eaker, we expande d the Translation Services with a news release bulletin on January 25, 19 80. We talked about the expansion of the Translation Services, a two-page release that was public knowledge at the time. We appoi nted Mr.

Turenne and on June 26, 1981, there was a news release bulletin went out, "French Language Services Consultant is Appointed, Roger Turenne named to the Post," that wasn't done by ste alth; that wasn't done in a way to caus e embarrassment either to the Government of the Day or to the opposition. That was done, Mr.

Speak er, as an evidence of the goodwill of the Government of the Day in carr ying on a companion program - which had been going on for years in Manitoba in any event - a companion program to acknowledge that there were certain services in this province which could and should be made available - which could and should be made av ailable - although under no consitutional imperative to make them available, could and should be made available to Franco -Manitobans and that was a reasonable policy that was being carried out at that time. Do we apoligize for it? Never, Mr. Speaker, never at all.

Then in March of 1982, Mr. Speaker, after the present government had been in office for some three or four months, they announced a policy, which was in many respects a reimplementation of the same policy that our government had been carr ying out with some new factors added to it, in a speech that was made, as I recall, by the First Minister to the Socie ty of Franco Manitoban in March of 19 82. That, again, Mr. Speak er, was a matter of government policy. It was a carrying forward, largely a reaffirmation of the policies that we had been carrying forward, or had been working on. Mr.

Sp eaker, was there any objection from the of ficial opposition when that policy was announc ed by the First Minister? No, there was no objection by us at all because it was a reaf firmation and a carrying forward of government policy that had already been established. It was policy being carried forward in conjunction with the reimplementation of

Section 23 and when the Attorney-General stood up in the Ho use or in his Estimates and talked with the Member for St. Norbert, his predecess or, about the great difficulty of getting French legal translators in Manitoba, we knew whereof he spoke and we knew the practical problems that were involved, Mr. Speaker, in giving full implementation to

Section 23. But our government after the Forest case, and the Pawley government after the Forest case, carried on with the policies of government that had been established by us in 19 80. Now, Mr. Speake r, I point that out merely to indic ate to my honourable friends that far from trying to take some chintzy kind of political and partisan advantage out of those natural progressive movements that were taking place, they should be proud of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that governments have been in office, including their government, which were able to carry forward that kind of forward-looking policy without arousing undue fears among the people of Manitoba and without, in any way, trying to entrench them, or trying to make them irreversible matters of policy in the Constitution, which we will come to discuss in a few minutes. Mr. Sp eaker, so long as these matters of giving government services in the French language were carried out as policy by our government, by the Pawley Government, there was no objection to speak of in the 4267

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 Province of Manitoba at all. It was being carried forward in a reasonable and in a civilized way and it was for the benefit of all Manitobans; and the domestic scene in Manitoba, with respect to that matter, was a tranquil scene. It was a tranquil scene, Mr. Speaker, compared to what we witness in our poor province today. Mr. Speaker, no objection from the opposition, no outcry from the public; it was being done as reasonable and common sense response and it went beyond the impositions made on the government by the Supreme Court case in Forest. Then, Mr.

Speak er, the Bilodeau case came along and I'm not going to read the judgments of the Bilodeau case into the record; I've referred to them on previous occasions, but suffice it to say that the proposition advanced by Mr. Bilodeau, through his counsel, was in effect that all of the laws of Manitoba were invalid since 18 70 because they had not been translated into English and French; and indeed the record is very interesting in that respect, Mr. Speaker, that while the counsel for the Province of Manitoba, Mr.

Twaddle, has not even been able to establish, through his searches in this regard, that there was even translation carried on between 18 70 and 18 90, that is contemp oraneously. It appears that there might have been a set of statutes that were subsequently translated between 18 70 and 18 90 but, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the spirit of the law between 18 70 and 18 90 was honoured, apparently, more in the breach than in the observance. Mr. Sp eaker, the Bilodeau case came along and advanced this proposition, that all of the laws were invalid because they had not been translated as

Section 23 requires. Well, Mr. Speaker, that case went to our Court of Appeal and, unlike the Forest case, that case went to our Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal, by a two-to-one judgment, found against Mr. B;lodeau and the basis of the judgment of the then Chief Justice Samuel Freedman was to accede to the proposition advanced by Mr. Bilodeau would cause legal chaos and of course the courts are not in the business, Mr.

Sp eaker, of causing legal chaos in a country or in a province and therefore the case failed; and I ask my honourable friends opposite to contrast that with the success of the Forest case in the Court of Appeal, contrast the fact that Mr. Bilodeau lost his case and in the one judgment which dissented in part, a judgment by Mr. Justice Monnin - (I nterjection) - Mr.

Speaker, I really don't care to argue law with the Minister of Finance who's making sort of coarse interjections, because his ability as a lawyer, I think, would require him to spend the next five years in any library at all in order that he would be on a plane able to discuss this case. Mr. Sp eaker, this involves something more than the Beausejour Small Debts Cou rt, I want to tell my honourable friend. - (I nterjection) - That's where some of us started and that's where the Minister of Finance will probably end up. Are we going to have any more interjections from the Minister of Finance, I wonder?

The Bilodeau case, Mr. Speaker, was lost in the Court of Appeal on a two-to-one decision. Mr. Justice Monnin, dissenting in part .said, "Of course, to say that ... " - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is proving that he can read; well that's one point for him. If he could start now to count, Mr. Speaker, then the province wouldn't be in the desperate situation it is financially. In his partial dissent, Mr.

Justice Monnin said, with response to the Bilodeau proposition: "Of course, to invalidate all of the laws of Manitoba since 18 70 would cause legal chaos, so that proposition must fail." In other words, the three Justices who heard the matter in the Manitoba Court of Appeal all said that the Bilodeau propositon failed . Mr.

Justice Monnin dissented in part and said, "But since 19 79, since the rendering of the judgment by the Supreme Court in the Forest case, a case can be made that all of the laws of Manitoba should have been translated from that time forward". - (I nterjection) - A question comes from the Member for Radisson, why weren 't they? Well I ask him to invite the answer from his own Attorney-General, because there were not sufficient translators available at that time, Mr. Speaker. A court, as that court acknowledged, cannot order the impossible.

I know that's a new proposition to zealots, such as the Member for Radisson, but the court cannot order the impossible; a court cannot order the impossible to take place. So, Mr. Speaker, the Bilodeau proposition failed in the Manitoba Court of Appeal on the basis of the main proposition it advanced, that all of the laws of Manitoba were invalid since 18 70 and Mr. Justice Monnin dis sented , in pa rt, as I have indicated. Mr. Speaker, the question remains, why was this agreement needed? I start first of all with the legal opinions that were tabled - (I nterjection) - Mr.

Speaker, no amount of interruption is going to stop me from making my case to the people of Manitoba because the case has not been made by my honourable friends opposite. In their coarse and guttural and bovine approach to this matter, all they have done is stirred up Manitobans, they haven't tried to explain anything and I'm attempting to explain to Manitobans how this incompetent government got themselves into this pickle that they're in now and, Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to suggest one or two ways as to how they can get out of the pickle; and one of the first ways would be to have intersessional hearings so that they can start getting some good advice, which they need. Now why was the agreement needed? First of all, you come to the opinion, tendered by Mr. Dale Gibson, the former colleague of the Attorney-General. who was asked to give an opinion on May 10, 19 82, and at the top of Page 2 he says, "I share Mr.

Twaddle's opinion, that if the case proceeds to a final determination by the Supreme Court of Canada, the constitutional validity of the statute in question will probably be upheld." That is the opinion of Mr. Gibson. Mr. Twaddle gave an opinion on this matter as well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to why the agreement was needed, and I refer you to that opinion, and I'm not going to read it all; the opinion has been tabled in the House. It is not evident from the judgments and from the opinions received that this kind of agreement was needed at all.

There was an outside chance, at very best, said the lawyers who were consulted on this matter. As a matter of fact, other lawyers have been :1eard to say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole principle involved in the Bilodeau case, even though the courts haven't said this, but others I think 9ould honestly say that the principle involved in the Bilodeau case verges 4268

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 on being frivolous because a court was being asked to impose a chaotic condition upon the people of Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speak er, - (I nterjection) I don't ask the Minister of Natural Resources - I can 't command him to understand, that is within the power of God only. I only ask that perhaps if he listens he may begin to comprehend some of the problems. So, Mr. Speaker, what did Mr. Twaddle say? What did Mr. Twaddle say and he was the counsel of record on the Bilodeau matter. I point out, Mr.

Spea ker, that this case had been under way for some time, that the then Attorney-General of Manitoba, the Member for St. Norbert had the general charge of all litigation that the province was conducting. I don't recall, Mr. Speaker, that the then Attorney-General of Manitoba felt that there was any great threat to the people of Manitoba by the Bilodeau case at all at that time. It was on the table when the present government came into office and we'll deal with that a little bit later. But here's what Mr. Twaddle had to say with respect to that matter and he was not, Mr.

Sp eaker (I nterjection) - he was a former colleague of the Attorney-General. Mr. Twaddle is a court lawyer, Mr. Gibson happens to be a professor at the university. I am not making any divisions between them. If my honourable friend wishes to make comment upon the quality of Mr. Gibson's opinion, that's his business. All I say, Mr. Speak er, is that the counsel of record Mr. Twaddle gave opinion that ·there was very little likelihood that this matter would have any success in the Supreme Court. - (I nterjection) - I'll read, Mr.

Speaker, more importantly I'll read to my honourable friend or ask him to read himself and not to waste my time or the time of the House, I ask him to read the opinion and he will see in that opinion, Mr. Speaker, he will see in that opinion that Mr. Twaddle is of opinion along with, as stated by Mr. Gibson - I share Mr. Twaddle's opinion that if the case proceeds to a final determination by the Supreme Court of Canada the constitutional validity of the statutes in question will probably be upheld. Is he doubting Mr. Gibson's word? Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask him to read Mr.

Twaddle's opinion which is on record in this House. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! A MEMBER: Shut up, you empty-headed baboon. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Al, you were a lousy lawyer then and you're a lousy lawyer now. You're the worst lawyer St. James ever had. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr.

Speak er, perhaps I could draw your attention to Rule 42 which says, when a member is speak ing, no member shall interrupt him except to raise a point of order or a matter of privilege, Sir. I think the normal heckling which is allowed to go on in this House is being exceeded by the Minister of Natural Resources in that he is continually interrupting the Leader of the Opposition who is in the process of attempting to add ress and is addressing the most important resolution to come before this House for many years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on the same point. HON. A.

MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speak er, I would like to say in respect to that point of order. It has been tradition in this House as it is tradition in the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments in England to direct words of praise or criticism in correct heckling to members when they are straying from fact. Mr. Speak er, that is what I have been doing in this House and it's comp letely in accordance with the traditions, the parliamentary traditions that I respect. To suggest that I have been interrupting the member is false, Mr.

Speaker, as false as some of the argument that has been advanced in respect to this resolution. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East to the same point. MR. P. EYLER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members on this side of the House are prepared to extend to Leader of the Opposition just as fair and courteous a hearing as he extends to us. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I would hope that all members of the House would be prepared to extend the same court esy of a hearing to the present member as they would expect for themselves. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S.

LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Page 11 of Mr. Twaddle's opinion which is a matter of record of this House and I'm jumping ahead a little bit in my argument but I do that in orde r to quell the kindergartenish concerns of the Minister of Natural Resources whose ability - I'll read the full quote because it's a quote my honourable friends have never bothered to quote to the people of Manitoba at all. On Page 11 , second paragraph, and this is Mr. Twaddle's opinion of April of 19 82.

"In return for waiving their existing right to have all statutes translated, the Societe Franco Manitobain would require a constitutional extension of their language rights. This will be included in the draft amendment to be prepared by Mr. Tallin but essentially would give a constitutional right to French-speaking Manitobans to receive biling ual services from government and its agencies where there is a significant demand for such a service or where it is reasonable due to the nature of the office that communications be in both official languages.

These are somewhat similar to the consitutional rights afforded by The Constitution Act 1981 with respect to the Federal Government in Western Canada." 4269

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 Continuing the quote, "I t will be appreciated that such a constitutional extension cannot be imposed on Manitoba. As there remains an excellent chance of success in Bi lodeau before the cour t , careful consideration should be given as to whether it should be agreed to as the price for relief from the obligation to translate all existing statutes. The difficulty with the suggested extension of constitutional rights is that the extent to which bilingual services must be made available is unknown.

At present the governmment can itself decide and alter the provision of such services on grounds of cost or lack of demand as perceived by the government. If the obligation is constitutionally entrenched, the courts will determine what 'significant demand' is and when 'it is reasonable due to the nature of the office' if the obligation is construed more widely than the government thought would be the case, the government is nonetheless bound by the

interpretation of the courts." Mr. Speaker, I jumped ahead in my elucidation of this case to give that full quote to my honourable friends opposite, not only an answer to Mr. Twaddle's opinion as to what he thought the chan ces of success were on the Bilodeau case but also to point out to my honourable friends a quotation that they have never printed in their explanatory document, that they have never mentioned at all as they try in their funny manner of propagandizing to sell a bill of goods to the people of Manitoba, to sell a bill of goods to the people of Manitoba and to pretend, Mr.

Speaker, even worse, to pretend that they are not doing something that they really are. They are entrenching, they are agreeing to entrench conditions that no court could impose upon Manitoba and they are, Mr. Speaker, - (I nterjection) - well, Mr. Speak er, if my honourable friend doesn't like Mr.

Twaddle's opinion then he should take it out ir.to the hall and read it and if he has the ability to comprehend it then he will come to understand why the course that has been followed by this government is a course that is not in keeping with the previous course that was followed by our government, by the Pawley government in its announced intentions of March of 19 82 but rather is taking a quantum leap beyond all of those things to settle a case, the point being, Mr. Speaker, to settle a case in which the chan ces of the provice losing are infinitesimal. So, what we're getting down to, Mr.

Speaker - or should I say were infinitesimal until this government started mucking about and tinkering with the case. So why was the agreement needed, it's not evident from the judgments or from the opinions received, an outside chance at the very best that a court, if this case had matured when it should have matured, that a court would have paid any attention to the rather outrageous proposition that was being advanced by Mr. Bilodeau. Mr. Speaker, if agreement is to be reached it should be on translation because that's what was at issue. That was what was required by the Forest case.

The extension of bilingual services into the Constitution, not the extension of bilingual services by themselves, that can be done by go vernment policy. But the entrenchment of those and the irreversibility of those services, once entrenched, and the taking away from government of the .control over such policy development and putting it into the hands of the court, all of that, Mr.

Speaker, could not have been imposed by any court so the quid pro quo about which the Attorney-General spoke the other day, the quid pro quo that he was asked to put up in response to this apparently craven fear that he had of the Bilodeau case, was a very very severe settlement to impose upon the people of Manitoba because no Supr eme Cour t could have imposed that on the people of Manitoba at all. That's not my opinion, that's Mr. Twaddle's opinion and he's the counsel of record and so . . . HON. A. MACKLING: Would you answer a question? HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speak er, I'll be happy to answer any questions at the end of my remarks. A MEMBER: Well, right now is the right time. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can understand my honourable friend's concern at hearing both sides of the question. I know that coming from the fever swamps of political ideology that he does that he's used to hearing only one side but he will hear the other side.

I will finish my remarks, he will hear the other side, whether he likes it or not, we'll get him sort of nose-twitched into parliament yet if he stays here long enough and I don't expect that will be very long, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. The extension of bilingualism could not have been imposed by the Supreme Court. Why are the Attorney General and the Premier trying to imply that this agreement that they have negotiated is saving us from some tyrannical judgment of the court? Saving us from what?

They go about the province saying but for this agreement we're going to be saved, we're going to save you from all sorts of terrible things that the court might have done. Mr. Sp eaker , wher e is tha t brochure that my honourable friends turned out the other day? Here is a four-page brochure called "Constitutionally Speaking, July, 19 83". The first observation that I make and that a number of people have made to me, isn't it funny that they didn't print the amendments to

Section 23 in this document, isn't it funny that they didn't print those so the people of Manitoba could see them. I'm going to read them a little bit later on so the people of Manitoba can see that. Here's what they said and I asked a question on this the other day, Mr. Speak er, they said in this piece of propaganda that they have turned out which doesn't contain the text of the agreement. They said: "To avoid these very real risks." What very real risks, Mr. Speaker, we've been dealing with them. - (Interject ion) - To avoid these very real risks the Manitoba Government entered into a negotiated settlement.

The first part of the settlement requires Bilodeau to end his Supreme Court case. Well, now isn't that a different story from what we were hearing. Mr. Bilodeau's prepared to stop the Supreme Court case. Then, of course, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wouldn't have any concern, would he, about postponing the case again? Why wasn't that a precondition then, Mr. Speaker? So that we could have intersessional hearings. What kind of negotiating have they been doing? They've already agreed that Mr. Bi lodeau's going to withdr aw his case, isn't that interesting? 4270

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 Other cases - listen to this, Mr. Speaker, - other cases could have been raised on a continual basis but the agreement now effect ively eliminates such possibility. Well, what does Mr. Twaddle say about that, Mr. Speaker? What does Mr. Twaddle say about eliminating other people who may wish to take this government to court on this matter? Well, let's look at Pages 6 and 7 of his opinion that he gave to this government. Amendment before - and he was talking about a propo sed amendment this government was considering - amendment before a Supreme Court ruling could presumably be made pursuant to

Section 43 of The Constitution Act 19 81, although it would be open to someone to challenge the validity of such an amendment on the ground that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba was not properly constituted. This would reintroduce the issue presently before the Supreme Court in Bolodeau vs. the Attorney General of Manitoba. What protection is this agreement giving us from somebo dy, some zealot, or some other person coming before the courts tomorrow and saying this Legislature had no authority to pass

Section 23. Where do they come off, Mr. Speaker, saying other cases could have been raised on a continual basis but the agreement now effec tively eliminates such possibility. That's what they say in their propaganda but that's not what their legal counsel tells them in his opinion at Page 6 and Page 7. So, Mr. Speak er, who's giving misinformation out about

Section 23? I think that question has to be asked. If, however, - he carries on - the amendments had the approval of the French speaking population of Manitoba. perhaps the issue would never be raised. There would remain, however, the right for someone now or at a future date to challenge the authority of the Manitoba Legislature to act at all. How does that legal opinion, Mr.

Speaker, squa re with the propaganda turned out by the NDP saying that because of this great agreement they've negotiated other cases could have been raised on a continual basis but the agreement now effectively now eliminates such possibility. Mr. Speaker, when is this government going to be frank with the people of Manitoba and tell them that they've negotiated a bad agreement and that it doesn't do the things that they claim it does in their statements and in their propaganda? Mr.

Speak er, he then goes on to say, in the same opinion which the Honourable Attorney-General tabled on Page 7, if it is deemed appropriate and expedient to seek an amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act at this time what amendment should be sought? Obviously provision should be made for the validation of all Manitoba statutes hitherto enacted in English only. Presumably the Federal Government would only agree to this on condition that some or all existing statutes are translated into French within a stipulated period. What the period should be must depend on the advice which you received from those responsible for translating the statutes. That's what he said should be in the agreement, some

schedule with respect to translation and I read to you the quote, Mr. Speak er, where he suggests that the quid pro quo as the Attorney-General describes it, the extra amount that the Franco- Manitoban Society is asking for goes way above and beyond anything that is at issue in the Bilodeau case at all and imposes upon Manitoba constitutionally entrenched conditions that no court, no other authority, could ever impose upon our province. So, Mr. Speak er, my honourable friends really have got to start being frank with the people of Manitoba as to just what this agreement involves. Mr.

Speak er, I read to you from the brochure; I read again. On Page 13 of the Twaddle opinion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Twaddle goes on to talk about the different options that are available to the government, and the difficulties with this option, he says on Page 13, are that (a) - and he speaks of Mr. Bilodeau wishing to pursue his appeal - well Mr. Bilodeau apparently is prepared to give up his appeal. Then he says (b) "E ven if Bilodeau withdraws his appeal someone else may attack the validity of the Legislature's resolution." Mr.

Speaker, there again that's at distinct odds with the statement turned out by the Attorney-General's Department, the Attorney-General trying to say that they, through this agreement, have stopped all future law cases attacking this matter from going to the courts. Mr. Speaker, that just isn't so, and it's important for the record that the people of Manitoba know that they're not getting the full or straight story from this government. Mr.

Speak er, one further quote, and I know that this is something that the Minister of Finance will want to pay particular attention to because obviously it has escaped his attention. On Page 12 , Mr.

Twaddle is referring to some of the options, and he said, "If the court found all existing legislation invalid (which I consider unlikely), it is inc onceivable that a way could be found to validate existing laws." Of course he considers it unlikely because there is no real substantive threat in the Bilodeau case to justify the kind of craven fear, and to justify the kind of capitulation that my honourable friends op posite are enga ging in with respect to this agreement. Mr. Speak er, I can only point out, again, that Mr.

Twaddle pointed out to this government the danger of the course it was taking; the tactics adopted by the government are reducing day by day its chances if Bilodeau or another case is heard. Mr. Speak er, it's something like settlement negotiations being done in public. If you're prepared to lay your full hand out on the table then, when you go to court, the court has constructive notice of what you were prepared to settle for.

Lawyers, and I know there aren't too many on the other side, but lawyers understand that you can't settle cases like that and disclose all of the giveaways that this government is apparently prepared to make without imperi lling, ultimately, the success that you might achieve if you had litigated, as you should have litigated, a case that was before the court when this government came into office, a case that, as Mr. Twaddle says, is very unlikely ever to succeed. Well, Mr. Speaker, I merely point out, and I'm coming to develop this point a little bit further, the negotiations that this government has carried on.

The reason for the agreement escapes me, I do not know why the government felt this kind of craven fear with respect to the Bilodeau case, with respect to its being litigated. The opinion of Mr. Twaddle is the same; Mr. Twaddle says, go ahead, let the Bilodeau case be decided and then, if you have to have a constitutional amendment, wait for the result of the Bilodeau case and you can 4271

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 incorp orate that in any constitutional amendment; but, for heaven's sake, don't go ahead and agree to the imposition of conditions that no court could impose upon you. Mr. Speaker, it's a case of this government not even following the good legal advice that it's getting.

I'm pleased that the Attorney-General saw fit to table these opinions, because it shows that the government has been working against the quality of the advice that it has been receiving on this fundamentally important matter; and that's why the province, this government, is getting the province into the the kind of pickle that we're in today with respect to a matter that need not have been carried to this extreme situation in terms of a constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I move now to the remarks that were made by the Attorney-General when he introduced this resolution. Mr.

Sp eaker, the Attorney-General made, and I say it with no hesitation, a useful contribution to the debate; and, while not buttressing his case, he did fail to prove that the Bilodeau compromise, as we see it in this agreement, was necessary. He failed, indeed, Sir, to prove that the agreement is needed at all.

It seemed to me that it was fundamental if the Attorney General, speaking on this matter instead of the First Minister - and I say, with respect, it should have been the First Minister who spoke on this matter, not the Attorney-General - the Attorney-General should have been concerned with making the case in support of the need for the agreement. I've read through his remarks; I sat and listened to them; I read through them, again, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say, with regret, that he did not make that case. Mr.

Speak er, I tell you now that he will not be able to make the case before the people of Manitoba anymore than he did before this Legislature, because the case isn't there to be made. I don't know why this government engaged in the kind of negligent negotiation that they did. I don't know, because the case has never been made as to why they were in the negotiation in the first place. So I merely say, Mr.

Sp eaker, that, while he made a useful contribution to the debate, he missed and he failed on the main obligation that he had, which was to suppor t and to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the agreement that he brings before this House is needed in the public interest of Manitoba. He has failed on that point. Mr. Sp eaker, the Attorney-General keeps referring to Manitoba being a bilingual province, and the First Minister will recall we had a little bit of a discussion about that in his Estimates. I have read into the record, for good reason,

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, which made the use of French and English available in Manitoba for limited purposes of the court and the Legislature, and so on. That, Mr. Speak er, and the First Min ister agreed to this, and the Attorney-General agreed to it in the Estimates of the Executive Council, that that did not make Manitoba a bilingual province,

Section 23 did not make Manitoba a bilingual province, except to that limited extent as is provided in

Section 23. It was on the basis of the document turned out by the Civil Service Commission, May of 19 83, Inside Outlook, Volume II, Issue 2 where, in the first paragraph they sai d: "Why is Ma nitoba beginning bilingual services at this time? Answer: Manitoba entered Confederation in 18 70 under conditions guaranteeing the equality of both official languages." Mr. Speak er, that statement isn't true. The First Minister - and I'll read him back his comments ii he wants from Hansard - the First Minister in the Supply debate agreed that statement went too far.

Manitoba was bilingual for the limited purposes of courts, and for the limited purposes of this Legislature, and the publication of the Statutes. Every thing else, Mr. Sp eak er, that subs equent governments have done, as a matter of policy, with respect to bilingual services in Manitoba, is not because they're under any constitutional imperative to do it, but because it was the reasonable and the honourable thing to do with respect to the Franco-Manitobans resident in this province. That's why, Mr. Speaker; not because there was any constitutional imperative.

So, while not making a big point of it, I regret that I have to keep coming back to the point, which has already been agreed to by this First Minister and by his Attorney-General, that that statement of Manitoba being a bilingual province just isn't true; it's not !rue historically; it's not true politically; it's not true legally. It has never been true that Manitoba was conce ived as a bilingual province. Mr. Speak er, the Attorney-General , .. I'm trying to find the exact spot; I thought I had it marked, Mr.

Sp eaker, where in the opening remarks, the Attorney Gen eral made some refere nce to this particular statment that I have just been referring to. I'll come to it at a later stage in my remarks as we come to deal, Mr. Speak er, with his comments. Mr.

Speak er, let me continue - (Interjection) - I'm sure that the Minister of Finance will have a lot of questions for his colleagues and for the Attorney General, if he's paying any attention, by the time I finish, because I'm sur e that he has an inc om plete understanding of this, as he does of many other things in life, and that perhaps if he will listen, he may gain from an elucidation of this point, that he has not perhaps heard before. Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the matter of the need for the agreement, I want to refer now to statements that have been made by the Federal Minister in charge of Cultural Affairs in Canada, with respect to matters dealing with the language question in our province. read these matters into the record because I think they're important when we attempt to answer the question, why is this agreement-before the House at the present time?

Because there has been no case made by the Attorney-General, in law, other than his apparently craven fear of the Bilodeau case, there's been no substantial case made as to why we're even having this debate. But then we see a speech that was made by the Honourable Serge Joyal at the annual meeting of the Societe Franco- Manitobaine on March 19, 19 83. I'm going to read a few excerpts from that speech, Mr. Speaker, because perhaps from some of these excerpts we begin to divine why this agreement has been entered into in the particular way that it has. This is what Mr.

Joyal said on March 19 th, and he's speaking to the Franco-Manitobaine Societe, "You now hold the keys to restoring the equal status of French in Manitoba. The SFM has begun discussions with the Manitoba Government, in an attempt to extend the protection contained in

Section 23, to all public services 4272

Tuesday, 12 July, 1983 available to the francophone public. This is a critical moment; it is a chance that will not come again. It is a unique opportunity to make French a language equal, not only in law, but in fact as well." Mr. Speaker, that's the statement by the Federal Minister in March of 19 83. In March of 19 83 he knew that the Societe was in negotiation with this government, with the NOP Government; nobody else did, but Mr. Joyal knew that. He carries on, Mr. Speaker. He said, "What I told them was the following: Canad

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-105a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 105a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3d175fb1c54730e2b4f135693d90727d0da6dbec

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