Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 165 (32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-165

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 165 - 10:00 a.m., FRIDAY, 20 JANUARY, 1984. Prmted by the Office of the Quee ns Prmter. Province of Manitoba I

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Af filiation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN , Arnold BU CKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q. C. , He nry N. CORRIN, Q. C. , Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODI CK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOL IN, Hon. Mar y Beth DOWNE Y, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harr y EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON , Gar y FOX, Peter GOURLA Y, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND , Gerr ie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Ma ureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Fr ank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS , Abe LECUYER, Hon. Ge rard LYON, Q. C., Ho n. Ster ling MACKLING , Q. C. , Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C. , G.W .J . (Gerry) NORDM AN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Do nald PAWLEY, Q.C., Ho n. Ho ward R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C. , Ho n. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrn a A. PLOHMA N, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Ho n. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Mu riel STEEN, Warre n STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Sam uel WALDING, Hon. D.

James Constituency Ste. Rose Springfield Thompson La Verend rye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood 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 Flan 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

LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 20 January, 1984. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker . MR. SPE AKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINI STE RIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF RE PORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: I have a statement, Mr. Spea ker, if I can find it. MR. SP EAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the establishment and appointment to the Oak and Plum Lakes Levels Board. The water levels of the Oak and Plum Lakes area have been a serious concern to the community since the '50s. In the 19 50's Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administr ation, better kno wn as PFRA , did flood prevention work on the Pipestone and Plum Creeks. Concurrent ly, Ducks Unlimited erected the Kansas City, Oak and Plum Dam. This dam, however, does not and never has determined the outflow from Plum Lake.

In the 19 60's the Water Control and Conservation Branch, now the Water Resources Branch, built a dam at the outlet of Oak Lake to provide adequate water levels for recreation purpos es. Further study was done, specifically the Plum Lake Study, to ascertain water levels from an agricultural point of view. Subsequent to the Plum Lakes Study, the Plum Lakes Study Committee was formed and submitted a report in March, 1972. Further study ensued leading to the 1975 report, A Proposal for the Development and Mana gement of Plum Lake. This report called for federal-provincial cost-sharing and management.

The province agreed to the recommendations but withdrew its support in 1977 because agreement could not be reached with the Federal Government. In 1981 the Rural Municipality of Sitton passed a resolution requesting the Water Resources Branch to upgrade the Plum Creek Channel. Water Resources turned down this request. A subsequent request allowed a road to be built giving access to hay cutting on Crown land. Mr. Speaker, all these studies reflect several issues.

One is the need to maximize agricultural opportunity; another to preserve and encourage wildlife around the waterways; and a third to provide recreation water use for the community. These issues are grey that need community input and co-operation to maximize the use of land and water for everyone. In 19 82, at my request, the Ma nitoba Water Commission undertook a review of the management of Oak and Plum Lakes. The Commission held public hearings, affording all interested parties the opportunity to have input into the report.

On the recommendation of the Manitoba Water Commission, the Oak and Plum Lake Levels Board has been established to manage the water levels in the Oak and Plum Lakes area. The Oak and Plum Lakes Levels Board will manage the water levels in the Oak and Plum Lakes area endeavouring to keep the range between 14 07 and 14 09 feet. The board will esta blish a monitoring pr og ram, revie w records of levels, flows and development, as well as relate water levels to groun dwater. The people appointed to this board from the Brandon area are: Lloyd Hatch, Chairperson Garry Garriock, representing Ducks Unlimited Dr.

Evan Pepp er, rep res enting the Un iversity of Brandon Marshall Thompson, representing the Department of Natural Resources and Leonard Logeot, rep rese nting the agricultural community. There are four vacancies to be filled in the near future that will have representatives from wildlife, agriculture, the Co ttage Owners Associa tion, and the Rur al Municipality of Sitton. I would like to stress that we have, in the establishment of the Oak and Plum Lakes Levels Board, a solution consistent with the principles of community and co-operation embodied in this go vernm ent's policies and programs.

I am pleased to welcome the board and its members and gratified to note that the regional community will make local decisions to optimize regional resources use. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. To the Minister and his report, I'll have to say that on behalf of our party here, the opposition, that we're with you on this one. We think it is a worthwhile project and as the history has indicated, Mr.

Speak er, that there has been a lot of co-operation dating from years back, so just in case the Minister feels that he's done this single handedly , I'd like to illus trate to him and to the go vernment oppo site that there's been a lot of background work on this thing. I want to pay special tribute to the farmers, to Ducks Unlimited, and to the local people that have worked very hard to get it to this stage, and it is a worthwhile project.

I'd just like to draw to the Minister's attention that by establishing this board, we hope -like water supplies are a very necessary thing especially in that area -that this board will have water to work with in that category there. We also hope that one concern that has been coming forward from our side from time to time is the fact 5608

Friday, 20 January, 1984 we're pleased that the Minister is starting to make some announcements that shows that possibly there is some concern about doing certain things, because the lack of drainage projects and water projects really has been, other than talk about it, something that we're very concerned about. We hope that with these kind of projects, it seems that there is more co-operation now coming from this Minister than he had in establishing the Saskeram project there where seemingly the farmers were relatively ignored.

We think maybe things are looking a bit more positive in this type of approach, and I want to compliment the Minister. Thank you. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , I wonder if I can ask leave of the House to make a short non-political statement. (Agreed) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Of course, I have no copies, but I'm sure my statement will be backed by the kid battler from Niakwa, and I'm sure, Mr. Speak er, that you and all the members of this House will join me in congratulating Mr.

Cal Murphy, who is the first Canadian to be named the Coach of the Year in the CFL. I think that Winnipeg and Man itoba should be very proud and here I think I have to include the name of Paul Robson because I think they've worked very well as a team. They've accomplished miracles under very difficult situations, but probably more important, they've been a credit to Winnipeg and Man itoba on and off the field and we should wish them well in the coming year. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr.

Speaker, I also would like to ask for leave to make a non-political statement similar to the one made by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. (Agreed) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to congratulate Cal Mu rphy, whom I've known through many years of footb all, from the time that he was the head coach with the British Columbia Lions. I had the privilege of electing and to be the head referee at the very first game that Cal Murphy was head coach out there and had the privilege of talking to him prior to him going into the game.

We spoke out in the middle of the field and I've had a great respect for Cal all those years. Now that he is the head coach of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and now, after having many years in the Canadian Football League and not being associated with any one team, today I can now say that I am a fan of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. I also would like to congratulate Cal Murphy on his being named Coach of the Year.

It's not just all Gal's responsibility, it's the whole of the Bomber organization, Paul Robson, all of the assistant coaches, all of the players, the executive and all of the people of the Province of Manitoba who have supported the Bombers. I join with the Honour able Member for St. Boniface in congratulating Cal. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 60 students of Grade 9 standing from the John Pritchard School.

These students are under the direction of Mr. Reimer and Mrs. Macke y. The school is in the constituency of the Honour able Member for River East. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS Workers Compensation Fees MR. SPE AKE R: The Ho noura ble Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. My qu estion is for the Honour able Minister of the Environment and Workplace Safety and Health. Yesterd ay, in response to a question by me, the Minister denied that his depar tment was considering implementing a 53 percent increase in Workers Compensation. Mr.

Speaker , in view of the confusion about the question that I asked regarding an impending 53 percent increase in Workers Compensation fees -Mr.

Speaker, and if I may I'd like to quote from a letter to the Minis ter by the Chair man of the Workers Compensation Committee of the Canadian Manufacturers Association in which it says -"It was small comfort indeed to note that 12 million rrom the Workers Compensation reserve funds would be used to provide some of the $68 million required leaving an average assessment rate increase of 53 percent to provide the balance." Is his department, or is his department not, considering a 53 percent increase in Workers Compensations fees for this forthcoming year? MR.

SPE AKE R: The Ho no ur able Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition yesterday asked whether I had made an announcement the evening before to the effect that we were going to raise the Compensation Board rates by 50 percent or more. I answered yesterday that I had not, and I still say I have not, but from th ere I have to say tha t the Compensation Board, parts of my department, the Workers Compensation Board has recommended that such a rate be implemented, it is correct.

Now we haven't, at this point, made a decision as to what that rate will be for 19 83, and I have to let the Leader of 5609

Friday, 20 January, 1984 the Opposition know that even if it were to be at that rate it would be still the lowest in Canada. MR. G. FILMON: Well, this government certainly can't take any credit for the lowest fees in Canada. They inherited the lowest fees in Canada and that's why they can say that. I want to know, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure that the employers of Manitoba would like to know, whether or not the ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Spea ker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would save his comments for the Winnipeg Labour Council.

They appreciate them just as much as we do. MR. SPEAKER: Ques tion. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister is: Is this 53 percent increase that he is proposing in Workers Compensation fees . . . ? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr .

Speaker , is the massive increase in Workers Compensation fees that his department is considering at the moment necessitated by the new carpets and the redecora ting that were done in the offices of the Workers Compensation Board, or the large increase in senior staff at high salaries, the high severance pay settlements that they had to make when they fired senior people in the Workers Compensation Board, or the additional perks and automobiles and so on that their senior staff are getting as a result of this government's initiative? HON. G. LECUYER: Mr .

Speaker, in answer to that question, I suppose one would be led to say, none of the above. Basically, I guess, Mr. Spea ker, the truest answer or the closest answer I could give, that is, that the Compensation Board today is giving, under this government, better treatment to the workers than they ever did. MR. G. FILMON: Mr . Sp eaker , if all of those inappr opriate payments and additional costs that were added as a result of this government's actions are not being paid for by the Workers Compensation fees, where are they being paid from? HON. G. LECUYER: I have a two-part answer to that, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to know what the inappropria te costs the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. As tar as the second part, we will be coming forth when we decide on an assessment rate, an appropriate assessment rate for 19 84. We'll be making a statement to that effect and perhaps I could state, like the Leader of the Opposition, "sometime on a Friday morning we'll make a statement." MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, we're a little short for good answers across the way, so I'm sure that any answer sounds good to that group over there.

I'll repeat for him the inappropriate payments that I listed earlier: one was the expensive redecorating of the offices of the senior staff of the Workers Compensation Board; the second was the additional perquisites and other things that were added to the workers; the third was the settlements that they had to make for severance of staff who they have fired over there. Those are the inappropria te payments I was talking about.

My question to the Minister is when will he and his government stop adding additional payroll costs to employers, who are already overburdened by this government, and start looking for ways in which they can save the employer's money so they can add staff so that they can create employment and not kill employment in Manitoba as they are? HON. G. LECUYER: I suppose that some of the improvements that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to have no ( ... inaudible ... ) consulted before, when it came to striking the assessment rate, and this is the first time they ever were.

We are consulting with them to try and arrive at the rate which is the fairest, which meets the cost, and yet gives the fairest treatment for the worker. Mining industry - increase in payroll costs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Spea ker, a question directed to the Minister of Energy and Mines falling on the suggestion by the Minister of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health that the government is, indeed, consulting; has the Minister of Energy and Mines, who is directly responsible for the welfare of the mining industry in the Province of Manitoba, held any specific discussions about the dramatic increase in payroll costs that are being sugg ested by the board or by the Minister in these last few days? MR. SPEA KER: The Honour able Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK : Mr.

Speak er, I have not received any word from the mining industry on this. I know that we are concerned in the mining industry about health and safety because there have been many deaths in the mining industr y, and there have been many injuries in the mining industry. I can recall that when the Member for Lakeside was the Minister of Mines he was quoted as saying "production first, safety second." That is the wrong approach, Mr. Spea ker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I have listened to that accusation being made from time to time that they dig out at their pleasure. That is a deliberate distortion of what is on the record. What is on the record, that I felt made sense, when I was responsible back in 1969, was that the separation from the safety aspects of the mineral division of Natural Resources should, in fact, be transferred to the Department of Health, or to the Department of Labour. That is all that was said, that 5610 I

Friday, 20 January, 1984 the Department of Mines and Natural Resources, being primarily concerned with the development of the mineral riches of this province, has a problem philosophically in properly addressing the safety of the workers. Now, Mr. Speak er, let that be put on the record. But, Mr. Speaker, . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank the honourable member for that explanation. It was not a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines may finish his answer. HON. W. PARASIUK : Mr.

Speake r, obviously that stone hit its mark in that if, in fact, the Member for Lakeside believed that he had four years, from 1977 to 19 81, to bring about the changes that he says he wanted with respect to ensuring greater mining safety, he didn't Mr. Speaker, that showed his concern with respect to the mining industry. Obviously, Mr. Speaker , there has to be some balance and there has to be some fairness in the system.

Everyone knows that we want to get more productivity from miners; everyone knows at the same time that miners face tremendous risks, we know yearly that there are mining accidents, that there are fatalities. Surely the member is not suggesting that we shoul dn't compensate the victims of mining accidents fairly and on an accounting basis. Mr. Speaker, if he says otherwise I'm not sure what the intent of his question is because I have not heard concerns, and if they are concerns from the mining industry I'll certainly meet with them.

I didn't hear concerns from the mining industry when the Federal Government increased the unemployment insurance deductions substantially, Mr. Speaker, and in fact I never even heard concerns from the members opposite when that happened. They only tend to dwell on very minor cost differential when, in fact, the picture is much broader than that and requires much more than the simplistic approach that the Conservatives have shown on this question to date. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker , if the Minister does not want to answer the question; he doesn't have to, I know that, but I'll ask him the question again because he studiously avoided answering it. I am asking him, as the Minister responsible for the health and welfare of the mining indus try in this province, has he shown the cour tesy to that important industry in this province, that important job creator in this province, to sit down and discuss with them, in advance, the potential increases in payroll costs? A MEMBER: Never. MR. H. ENNS: Not whether or not he has received direction from them. I am asking a simple question.

Have you called in some of the mining executives, mining compan ies and talk ed to them ab out the possible action of your fellow Minister? HON. W. PARASIUK : Mr. Speaker, I have, in fact, had discussions with the mining industry from time to time, members of the mining industry, about the major issues that they feel are facing this countr y, the mining industry in the world, with respect to mining. They have not raised the issue of payroll costs, they have raised the issue of the lack of international markets, they have been dealing with the major problems, Mr . Speaker .

The Member for Lakeside is trying to imply that a change, a marginal change -because that's all it is in terms of the overall payroll costs -will be so deleterious as to bring the entire mining industry to a standstill. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. I have had discussions; I will be going up to Thompson on Monday to speak at a miners conference, I will be speaking to workers, I will be speaking to company representatives, I will be speaking to community representatives. Mr. Speak er, we have set up processes for discussions in Northern Manitoba with companies and with workers, something, Mr.

Spea ker, that the opposition didn't do; and that is one of the reasons why they are the opposition. Health care system - hospitals MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Spea ker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister confirm that some cancer patients at St. Boniface Hospital have received letters indicating that cobalt tr eatments are not available due to a shortage of staff? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speake r, no, I haven't. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Spea ker, would the Minister investigate a case of one of my constituents, who was due for treatment in Januar y, who received such a letter, who is experiencing intense pain, and whose doctor has only suggested the application of painkillers; will the Minister investigate this shocking state of affairs? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , I cannot confirm it's a shocking state of affairs before it is investigated, but if the honour able member wants to give me the details I'll be very pleased to investigate and give him the information. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister also attempt, during the Estimates process, to save some public expenditures on inessential items, like Jobs Fund adver tising and other go vernment pr omot ional programs, and direct those funds to health care and cancer treatment? HON. L. DESJARDI NS: Mr. Speaker, I have enough problems trying to run my department; if he want to talk about Jobs Fund he should direct that to the Minister responsible. Remand Centre policies MR. SPE AK ER: The Ho no ur able Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Corrections and it originates from 5611

Friday, 20 January, 1984 the unfortunate death of Mr. Moore at the Remand Centre. My question is, has the Minister determined yet why Mr. Moore was not allowed to phone or contact his family when he specifically asked to do so? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Spea ker, as is normal under the circumstances, but also at our request, there will be an inquest into the handling of that particular case which we agree is a tragic thing to occur .

We have strengthened or clarified, so the re can be no misunderstanding of what our expectation is of staff in their procedures there and we are now waiting for the outcome of the inquest to see if, in fact, procedures were followed or not. MR. A. BRO WN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has ordered an inquest into the unfortunate incident. Will the Minister now send a directive to all Remand Centres and police departments in Manitoba requesting that families, or responsible persons, be contacted when someone is apprehended because of being intoxicated? HON. M.

SMITH: That has already been done, Mr. Speak er. Renovations - Leader of the Opposition's office MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. Mr. Spea ker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Is he aware of whether or not the Leader of the Opposition . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Perhaps the Honourable Member for lnkster would wish to rephr ase his question to seek information rather than the opinion of a member. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Government Services confirm that the present stylish Leader of the Opposition has found his office spaces in the "oval office" of this building not to be suitable to his liking, and has requested, or has had work done in his office to the tune of some $1 0,000 to renovate his office which was certainly appropria te, sufficiently appropria te at least, for the former Leader of the Opposition? MR. SP EAKER: The Honour ab le Minister of Government Services. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The office of the Leader of the Opposition was upgraded and the cost was not $1 0,000, but was $1 5,000.00. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Spea ker, on a follow-up question to the Minister, the other official, or the other Oval Office that has been in the news with major renovations on Pennsylvania Avenue had a severe input of the First Lady of that countr y, can the Minister confirm whether or not it was Government Services personnel, or was it the Leader of the Opposition's wife who was asking for the renovations and requested a certain design for the office? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: On a point of order, Mr. Speak er, you remind us every once in a while that subject matters not germane to our jurisdiction here are out of order . I think the decorations on a building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., would have to fit into that admonition that you give to us from time to time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speak er, to the same point of order . I share the concern of the Member for Lakeside about the introduction of extraneous material in

preambles and I would certainly concur in you ruling that material out of order, Sir, from members on both sides of the House in the future. MR. SPEAKER: I thank those members and remind all members that their questions should be short, concise and to the point. The Honour able Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Government Services assure this Ho us e tha t the designs, or the work that was done in that office, was done in some form of procedure by government staff and not by the Leader of the Opposition or members that are close to him and his family or whatever? MR.

SP EAKER: The Honour able Minister of Government Services. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker , the work that was done in Room 172, which is the office of the Leader of the Opposition, had to do with upgrading of the ventilation system in that particular office and it's part of an ongoing maintenanc e of the Legis lative Building. Whether a specific request came from the former Leader of the Opposition, I don't have that information at this time, but the way the information comes to us is via the Deputy Minister, or one of the senior staff who makes a request for that kind of upgrading in the building. Senate reform MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. I have a question for the Honour able First Minister. I would like to ask the First Minister if he can give the House a reason why he cancelled a meeting next Wednesday and Thur sday from a visiting parliamentary delegation from Western Canada who were supp osed to meet with this government to deal with Senate 5612

Friday, 20 January, 1984 reform? Can the First Minister tell us why that was cancelled? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLE Y: I don't think there was any cancellation, but I wanted to inform the Member for Virden that my position in respect to so-called Senate reform is quite clear. Mr.

Speaker, I do not also favour parliamentary committees, if I can comment, that involve not only, I understand in travelling across Canada pertaining to matters. to my mind, as useless as discussing Senate reform, and also to other countries of the world, provincial committees to discuss Senate refor m from the Province of Alberta, trav elling throughout Canada, it is my understanding - I may be wrong and the honour able member can correct me - travelling to other countries in the world to discuss Senate reform. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the Senate should be abolished and the sooner the better . MR.

H. GRAHAM: While the First Minister is expressing his disgust with the spending of public money going visiting other jurisdictions to pr omote either the cause of the Senate or, say, promoting the cause of the great growth of a particular province such as Manitoba, would the First Minister's visits to Nova Scotia and to British Columbia and other places fall in the same category? Or the First Minister would express the same disgust with the spending of pu blic mone y visiting other provinces to promote a one-sided viewpoint of the health and wealth of this province? HON. H.

PAWLEY: I don't really und erstand the honour able member's question too clearly, but from what I understand it does give me a perfect opportunity to respond. Mr. Speaker, Ministers on this side will indeed travel anywhere, anytime, to promote the health and development of the Province of Man itoba. That has been done by the Minister of Agriculture, by the Minister of Community Services; in fact Mr. Speaker, I will do it from time to time. But, Mr.

Speaker, we will not participate in useless junkets in order to pr omote the kind of practice just now conduc ted by the Liberal Government in Canada, by which 11 new members were appointed to the Senate, $60,000 a year, young people 40 years of age drawing on the wealth of this country and draining the taxpayers of this countr y, the useless exercise of sitting in the Senate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for Virden. MR. L. SHERMAN: They all speak very highly of you, Howard. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr . Speak er. Mr.

Spea ker, in the First Minister's concern about the terrible number of appointments that are being made by the Federal Government, would he also consider rescinding some of the Orders-in-Council that we see passing every week with the appoi ntments, numerous innumerable appoi ntments at fantastic salaries. of some of his henchmen and his colleagues to positions of power in this province? Certainly, sure ly, Mr. Speak er, he must be running out of friends pretty soon. HON. H.

PAWLEY: There is a tremendous difference in Orders-in-Council, to appoint individuals to perform meaningful and useful employment in the service of the Province of Manitoba than being retired to political pasture, Mr. Speaker. I think there's all the difference in the world. Children's Aid Society - regional boards MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Speake r, I have a question for the Minister of Community Services and Corrections.

I wonder if the Minister could advise the House how the nominees to be elected to the new regional boards of the Children's Aid Society will be chosen. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, memberships in all the regional agencies are open to all the residents living in an area under the category of residents, and under the category of organizations working in the area. Representatives of organiza tions are eligible. The election will occur in public meetings held late Februar y, early March. To draw up a slate of nominees, Mr.

Speaker, people are invited to submit their nominations to the Social Planning Council who are working in a support role for us to help administer the process. They will, under the direction of a thr ee-person nominating committee appointed by myself, draw up a slate, a representative slate, of nominees at least 50 percent larger than the number of places to be elected. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, Mr. Speaker . To the same Minister: Will nominations be allowed from the floor? HON. M. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Guaranteed Loans Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Arth ur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Spea ker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of his government's stated policy yesterday on the interest rates to be charged to homeowners at 10 percent, will the Minister of Agriculture be introducing a new program, or a policy change, for the Manitoba Agricu ltural Cred it Corporation wher e the farm community will be as well able to have the same opportunities of 10 percent mortgage money? MR. SPE AK ER: The Ho no ur able Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSK I: Mr. Speak er, I recall the honourable member criticizing the Loan Guarantee Program -that 5613

Friday, 20 January, 1984 we would not find one farmer that would qualify under the program. I would hope that all Manitobans requiring a home, and wanting to purchase or build a home would qualify under the program, and including all farmers of Ma nitoba would qu alify under the prog ram announced by my colleague, Mr. Speak er. MR. J. DOW NEY: Mr. Speak er, I'm pleased to hear that the Minister of Agriculture is going to allow them to build a home at the same mortgage rate as anyone else.

Will they as well be able to carry out their farming operations, the purchase of land, or machinery, and other programs at the same interest rate, Mr . Speak er, which provides them for a livelihood as well? Will that kind of a program be forthcoming? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should remember that when they were in office -and it flowed over to our term -where loans were made by MACC, two farmers in Manitoba in excess of 13 and as high as 17 percent, during the years 198 1 and 1982, while we were in office -Mr .

Speaker, I was criticized by honourable members of acting as a ban ker, as the Minister of Agriculture, in not being able to deal with the question. We dealt with the question, Mr. Speaker. There were over $50 million worth of loans in excess of 13 percent. We offered the farmers of Manitoba a buy-down. Mr. Speaker, over 400 farmers bought down and saved over $1 8 million on the terms of their loans by this government, Mr. Spea ker. That's what we have done in terms of loans loaned by the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.

That couldn't have even been thought of by members opposite when they were in government, Mr. Speaker. Creamery plants - closure MR. J. DOWN EY: Mr. Spea ker, the farm bankruptcy rate in the province and the difficulties farmers are having, are speaking for themselves, and there's very little substance in what the Minister is saying. A further question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speak er.

For some time now the opposition has been trying to get a response from the Department of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture, re the cream quotas that are being cutoff, and the dairy farmers that are being shut out from shipping their product to the creameries as early as of the first of the week, Mr. Speak er, and in fact putting people's incomes in jeopardy . Has the Minister now developed a policy, or does he have a statement to make, to tell the cream shippers they're able to continue to operate their operations and earn an income that they've been told that they could do in this society, Mr.

Speak er, by many other governments before he came on the scene? HON. B. URUSK I: Mr . Spea ker, either the honour able member didn't read or listen to the answer that I gave him last week. I will repeat again the answer I gave him. Mr. Speak er, I will be the last one to defend the actions of the Milk Ma rketing Board in this situation. I believe that they did not judge the situation dealing with the expansion of cream production in this province and they reacted on the basis of their share of the national quota. Mr.

Speaker , the honourable member cannot get away from the tact that it was his administration that allowed a marketing board in this province, to deviate in terms of asking for increased national quota on terms other than comparative advantage. It was his administration that allowed a marketing board to do that. As a result we have been fighting, and I repeat that again, a rear guard action to try and recapture our position in the national scheme. We have had an increase in national quota in the dairy industr y, however slight Mr.

Speaker, and I believe that the board has overreacted in this situation imposing the type of controls that they have. However, it is very clear that the penalty to be paid to the Canadian Dairy Commission would have to be paid by other than the cream shippers. As a result the board moved in this regard. What I have said to producers, and I repeat this again, that they should appeal the decisions of the Milk Marketing Board to the Natural Products Marketing Council, anyone who can show that he has been adversely affected by that decision of the board. Broiler Board - Man. Natural Products Marketing Council MR. J.

DOW NEY: Mr. Speake r, a final supp lementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he confirm that under his administration and his government that the broiler industry in Manitoba has lost quota to the Province of Ontario and that the Broiler Board and he are now making application to the federal authority to have that quota brought back to Manitoba, Mr. Speaker? At the same time, would he have enough courtesy for the dairy farmers of Manitoba to ask for more dairy quota for this province? HON. B. URUS KI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member doesn't want to admit that when he allowed the National Turke y Bo ard to agr ee un der pr essure between provinces to use other criteria in terms of determining national quota he put all the supply management contracts in jeopardy by allowing them. Mr. Speaker, we have sat down with all the marketing boards in this province and said we want to work in a co-operative approach to regain what we have lost in terms of position in a national context. Mr. Speaker , we have not lost any broiler quota. Mr .

Speak er, we have been involved in co-operation with all the boards in the national negotiations. We have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort working with our boards to make sure that we regain what we had lost when it was allowed to lapse and allowed to go by the board by the former Minister of Agriculture who took a "hands -off" appr oach. Now, the Conservatives are squirming and saying we want more quota -but we allowed it to lapse when we were in government, Mr. Speak er. We allowed it to leave our province. Interest Rate Relief Program re farmers MR.

SP EAKER: The Honour able Member for Roblin Russell. 5614

Friday, 20 January, 1984 MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister, due to the severe economic conditions that prevail amongst the young farmers in the shor tage of capital that they're expressing concern about now, is he or the government prepared to reintroduce the Farm Interest Rate Relief Program that expired on December 31 st? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, am I hearing right?

Is my hearing correct, that we now have a Conservative member of the Legislature saying that the Interest Rate Relief Program did some good for the people of Manitoba? Do I hear that? Mr. Speaker, to the members of that government, when they were in office, said that they agreed with federal policy that the high interest rates were policy which could be accepted; it was the best that could happen to this count ry at this time, or words to that effect, Sir. Now, Mr.

Speaker, and honourable members and I'm pleased that now the Cons ervat ives are recognizing that the Interest Rate Relief Program is and has benefited farmers. Mr. Speaker, the program was a two-year program. Interest rates have started coming down. We accepted more than twice the number of farmers that we originally anticipated into the program and, Mr. Speaker, we realize that there are difficulties in agriculture and in rural Manitoba. That is one aspect. We will not be extending the applications under the Interest Rate Relief Program. But, Mr.

Speaker, what we did as well when we came into office is we doubled the amount of money to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation because it had run out of money within the first month I was in office and they came scramb ling to me and people were phoning and saying we can't make our loans. We can't complete our loans because there's no money. Mr. Speaker, we made those provisions and we will continue to respond in that manner. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a constituent that asked me to stand in my place today and ask the Honour able Minister a simple question.

Does he intend to extend the Interest Rate Relief Program for the year 1984? I don't want any song and dance of who's for what or who's against what. I just want a simple answer for my constituent. HON. B. URUSKI: The honour able member shou ld kno w that the Interest Rate Relief Program is a two year program. Anyone who is on the program or who has applied for the program prior to December 31, 1983, is eligible to apply for a second year on the program. No new applications will be considered. First time applications will be considered after the December 31 st deadline that was announced. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you call first the adjourned debate on Bill 11 5, and following that the adjourned debate on the res olution on which a sub-amendment is currently standing in your name, Sir? MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed reso lution of the Honourable House Leader, second reading of Bill 11 5. The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Stand, Mr. Speaker. If any member of the Legislature cares to speak on this bill, I would have no reluctance to allow him to do so, as long as it stands in my name, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to give the Honourable Member for Niakwa that leave? (Agreed) The debate will then stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Niakwa. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 115 -AN ACT RESPECTING THE OPERATION OF

SECTION 23 OF THE MANITOBA ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Hon our ab le Leader of the Opposition. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Th ank you, Mr . Sp eaker . In commenting on Bill 115 this morning, I think it's important for us to review the circumstances under which the bill is currently being considered and the process that we've been following since the bill was introduced. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for lnkster has a good deal to say from his seat; he rarely has anything to say from his feet. He'll have his opportunity to speak on this matter if he cares to later. Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced for second read ing by the Minis ter of Muni cipal Affair s last Wednesday, the 11 th of Janu ary, and it appears before the House concu rrently with its companion piece. the Constitutional Reso lution in its amended form -the resolution, that is, to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. I think that to understand the interties between the two we have to look at what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said when he was introducing his amended approach to the constitutional res olution. He said, at that time, and I quo te, "That bill" -referring to 115 - "is consequential to and flows from the amendment I will be proposing." So, he obviously acknowledged and agreed that it was consequential to and flowed from and, ther efore, was very much intertied with the 5615

Friday, 20 January, 1984 proposed amendment to the Constitution with respect to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. I think that tor further clarification of that close intertie we need to read Se ction 23. 1 of that prop osed amendment that says as follows, "As English and French are the official languages of Manitoba, the freedom to use either official language enjoyed under the law of Manitoba in force at the time this

section comes into force shall not be extinguished or restricted by or pursuant to any act of the Leg islature of Manitoba .'' Mr . Speaker, what we are saying is that this bill, if it is proclaimed prior to the passage of the constitutional amendment, will then become entrenched as part of Manitoba's Constitution. We further solicited the opinion of the Legislative Counsel, Mr. Tallin. The Member for St. Norbert asked for his legal opinion on that matter, and he said, and I would like to read this into the record, "In my view, the courts would proba bly give a very broad meaning to the word 'freedom'.

This broad meaning would proba bly include all rights and privileges bestowed on persons under the law of Manitoba, whether the law was statutory or common law. "In view of the fact that Bill 11 5 bestows statutory rights on persons to use either English or French in certain areas of government activity, it seems to me that this kind of right would probably be considered as coming within the expression of 'freedom to use' in the proposed

Section 23. 1 of The Manitoba Act. Bill 11 5, or at least those provisions of it which bestow rights, does not come into force until proc lamation. Whether Bill 11 5 were included in the freedom referred to in 23. 1 of The Manitoba Act would, therefore, depend on the date fixed for the coming into force of Bill 11 5, and the date fixed in the proclamation of the Governor Gener al bringing the amendments to The Manitoba Act into force.

If the date fixed by the Governor-General and the constitutional amendment proclamation is earlier than the date fixed in the proclamations of bringing force Bill 11 5, then the rights bestowed under Bill 11 5 would not be part of the freedom to use either language under the law of Manitoba in force at the time of the coming into force of the amendment to the Constit ution.

Howe ver, if the date fixed in the proclamation for coming into force of Bill 11 5 is earlier than the date fixed for the coming into force of the amendment to the Constitution and the proclamation of the Governor-General, then the rights in Bill 11 5 would be consider ed as part of the freedom to use either official langua ge under the law in force in Manitoba at the time the constitutional amendment came into place." That, of course, has been discussed here . . . MR. SPE AKER: The Honour able Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I would ask that opinion be filed.

I would also just remind you, Sir , of the commitment made by the House Leader, that question of dates would be worked out with Counsel such that that problem doesn't arise. MR. SPE AKER: Order please. Would the Honou rable Leader of the Opposition table the letter? 5616 MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney-General had allowed I was quite prepared to ackn owledge. on the record, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs had made that statement on the record earlier this week -I'm sorry, it was last week -at the time he introduced the bill for second reading . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR.

G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, under questioning last week, the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs stated on the record that it was not the government's intention to proclaim Bill 11 5 prior to the constitutional resolution being proclaimed in Ottawa; he said that on the record. So, at best we're ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: . . . in a situation of interdependent MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member quoted from a letter in this House and it was requested by another member that letter should be tabled. Will the honourable member please do so? MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I may want to refer to it later in the course of my speaking, may I table it at the end of my speaking? MR. SPEAKER: Fine. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that this situation continues to be handled in a confused manner by the government. They have interdependent pieces of government business going forth. They have acknowledged, on the reco rd, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, that there is this interrelat ionship that the bill follows from and is consequential to the constitutional resolution. That's at best, Mr .

Speaker; but, at worst, we're in a situation of being asked to deal with this bill under changing circu mstances, including the continual changing of the gover nment's positio n on the reso lution, and the statement by the Minister that, in fact, they were impressed with and they were excited about our own proposed amendment to that resolution, so we are not in a situation where we know the final form that the resolution may take when it passes this House. MR. SPE AKER: Order please. The Honou rable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I have not put on the record in this House any comments on the sub amendment because you, Sir, have taken that under advisement. However, Sir, what I did say, and I wish the Leader of the Opposition would represent it properly, is that I was impressed with the amount of movement by leaders and members opposite. Sir, I at no time indicated an endorsation or any pleasure with the substance. In fact, Sir, I said at all times that, in substance, members opposite had not come near far enough and their prop osal was unac ceptable to members on this side. I • I

Friday, 20 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. If there are other members who wish to enter the debate on Bill 11 5, I would remind them that they will get their opportunity in due course and, as of now, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify what the Minister did say, I thank some members of the media for giving me a transcript of his statement last Frida y.

He said, and I quote, "At first blush, it appears that the Tory Caucus is accepting virtually all of the proposal to entrench changes in the resolution to amend The Manitoba Act, except tor the declaratory statement that English and French are the official languages." I go on, he said: "It's a major reversal, I'm pleased by it." That's what he says, Mr. Speaker. So it would appear to me that we have a constitutional resolution amendment that is still in a fluid stage, that is still under active consideration by a Government House Leader who is pleased by the amendment that we've put forward -pleased by it, Mr.

Speake r. So I don't know whether pleased by it is the equivalent of agreeing to it, but we have reason to believe, Mr . Sp eak er, tha t his caucus is st ill giving active consideration to that amendment because they have chosen not to debate it, they have chosen not to put their position on the record and, therefore, they have chosen not to call the matter before the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speake r, there are, on the record in this House, several times earlier this week, clear statements by myself and other members on this side, on points of order, related to the calling of government business, our willingness to deal with the reso lution on Mo nd ay, Tuesd ay, Wednesda y and Thursd ay. On every day we have said we were willing to call the resolution after members opposite spoke on the bill. To allege, Sir, that at any time we were not prepared to call the res olution is not incorrect, but is contrary to what is on the record in this House.

We've been prepared since that amendment was moved to debate it and discuss it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Opposition House Leader to the same point. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Spea ker, on the same point of order, all my leader is alleging to, and referring to, are the comments that are on the record, both in this House and publicly through the media, his reaction to a sub amendment intr oduc ed by the opposition in this Chamber. He is not alleging or we are not discussing the calling of the busi ness of this House in the past few days, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, he has no point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: I would remind all members that the matter of the proposed sub-amendment is not before the House and a decision has not yet been given on tha t sub-amendment; it would, th erefore, be inappropriate for any member to discuss the matter. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue.

There have been comments by this Minister that indicate that he is pleased by the amendment that we put forward on the constitutional resolution and, therefore, that gives us the understanding that there may be some fluidity in the government's position on that interdependent piece of government business that's before the House.

If you could go so far as to accept the fact that if the current amendment, not the sub-amendment, but the amendment that's before the House, were defeated it would send us back to the original proposal which contains 23.7 and 23.8 which would entrench French Language Services and supersede this legislation. So all of these things indicate the interdependency between he reso lution and the bill, Mr. Speak er, and in my view indicate good and sound reason why we shouldn't be proceeding too far along the line with this particular bill until the proposal to deal with the constitutional amendment is dealt with. Mr.

Speake r, the fact of the matter is that this bill cannot and must not be passed in its final form without first having decided on the fate of the constitutional amendment, that's the bottom line. And, Mr. Speake r, what of the whole process that we've been going through as it's been orchest rated by the Government House Leader over the past week? This is our self proclaimed expert in the rules of the House; this is the person who was presumably the Messiah that was going to deliver the NDP Government out of the bul lrushes and out of the quagmire that they found themselves in last week. Mr.

Speake r, I know that this Government House Leader has assured his caucus that he can deliver them out of the gr eat embarrassment and out of the great discomfort that they find themselves in over this issue which they have brought upon themselves and the people of Manitoba. He has told them that he can deliver them out of this, despite all of the misinformation and the inappropria te action of the former Government House Leader , the Premi er, the Minis ter of the Environment and all of those people on the matter, he's going to deliver them out of the quagmire.

He's going to take them out of the bog, this self-created, self inflicted dilemma that they find themselves in. Mr . Sp eake r, this convulsion tha t we're in is something, let's make no mistake about it, the convulsion that we're in here in the Legislature or out in the province as a whole, let's make mistake about it, was brought upon us by this government. No one else bears the responsibility for this, no one else but this government.

So, let's not have them try and get out from under this by some discussion of House procedures and ordering of the business, and the right of the government to call the order of the business and all of those things. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs, Mr. Speak er, because despite the fact that the government over the past 10 days may not have liked what th ey were hearing on their propos ed amendment to the res olution, at least something was being dealt with, at least the business of the House was proce eding. It may not have been to the liking of the government, but at least it was proce eding, Mr.

Speak er, maybe not as quickly or as expediently as 5617

Friday, 20 January, 1984 the Go vernment Hou se Leader had promis ed his colleagues that he would pilot things through, maybe it wasn't as quick as he would have liked it, but progress was indeed being made. Speakers were at least being put up by this side of the House, perhaps not by the other side, but speakers were being put up. Let's not have the government tell us that in some way we are stalling the progress and the business of this Legislature or of the people of Manitoba. Mr. Spea ker, this Session was called together by the government.

They chose that we should be here to deal with one thing and one thing only -the French language proposal. There is nothing else that we are charged to deal with in the remainder of this Session, not a thing. They signed an agreement in August with our side of the House saying that we would come back to deal with one thing and one thing only -the French language proposal. So when they say that we are holding up the business of government, that we are holding up the affairs of the Province of Manitoba, there is nothing else before us, Mr .

Speaker, and it is their responsibility to ensure that those affairs are dealt with in the best possible manner . Mr . Spe ak er, that involves co operation. There are two things before this Hous e concurrently: one is a bill, one is a constitutional amendment. This side of the House has said that they are prepared to deal with the amended version of the constitutional amendment and would pr efer to deal with that prior to dealing with the bill. We have given reasons and we've indicated that, both on the record and we've indicated it privately to the House Leader. He has chosen, Mr.

Speaker , to pull the power play, to force the business so that they would not have to deal with the propos ed amend ment to the constitutional res olution. That's right, Mr . Speak er, he has chosen to call the business of the House in that order and it is on his head, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility for the ringing of the bells is, and the further responsibility for bringing everything to a grinding halt and causing, once more, a poisonous acrimonious atmosphere of rancor to overtake this House. That's his responsibility, Mr.

Speaker, because he has two things that he can call and he chooses only to call the bill, and not to call the other that our side of the House has said they were prepared to deal with. Mr. Spea ker, he has chosen to try and bulldoze over the opposition with his great interest in, and great knowledge of, the rules and procedu res of this House. MR. L. SHERMAN: We want Rolly back. HON . S. LYON : Better a commu nist than an incompetent. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON : Mr.

Speak er, if the government wants to accomplish their purpose -and I remind you that it is their pur pose and it is their decision, it is they who have brought this before us -if they want to, then I believe it's their responsibility to order the business of the House to facilitate things proce eding, and not to enter into a confrontation that will cause the bells to rings. It's their responsibility because they brought it before us and they chose to deal with this, and this only, Mr . Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON : Mr.

Speaker, further to that, I know that members opposite and the public were made aware back on Wednesday that I was prepared to speak to this bill this morning. HON. R. PENNER: You never said so in the House. MR. G. FILMON : Now, Mr. Spea ker, the Attorney General says that I didn't say so in the House. Mr. Speaker, our House Leader met with the Deputy House Leader, the Member for St. Boniface, prior to the beginning of the Session on Wednesday and made the proposal that that's what would happen. That proposal was obviously dealt with by the government caucus and, in fact, the House Leader was aware of it.

The Go vernment Ho use Leader came over and chatted, prior to question period, with our House Leader and was aware of that proposal. For whatever reason, he chose not to accept that assurance. He later came to my office, Mr. Speaker, and wanted clarification of it and, in the presence of the Opposition House Leader, stated at that time that he was willing to go back into the Hous e, even Wednesday afternoon, subject to the appr oval of his caucus, and order the busin ess differently so that the resolution could be dealt with. Mr .

Speaker, the next day he was not able to get the appr oval of his caucus, obviously, and he could not order the business of the House so that he could deal with the res olution, on the assurance that I'd be sp eak ing on Frid ay. In fact, Mr . Spe aker , in our discussion, I even suggested to him that if he wanted it on the record in the House he could get up and put it on the record in accepting the standing of debate on Bill 11 5. I suggested that he would put it on the record on the understanding . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. MR. G. FILMON : Mr .

Speaker, if they believe that we have wasted time, if they believe that we have held up this important bus iness, well they can answer to those who are concerned and who have urged them and who are forcing them to bring this bill before the House. They can answer to those people because we've been here every day, Mr. Speake r. We've given them an alternative and we have been willing to speak, Mr. Speaker. It is they who continue to mishandle the affairs of this Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, having said that and having put that on the record, to demonstrate our good faith, we, today are presenting our views on Bill 115, bearing in mind that we do not believe this is the way in which it should be dealt with. We do not believe that under these circumstances we are dealing with the bill in the best possible manner, because of the interdependency, 5618

Friday, 20 January, 1984 becaus e of the misha ndling. because of the inappr opriateness of dealing with the bill before the resolution has arrived at a conclusion. Mr. Speaker. But we're putting those views on the record today, despite the fact, Mr. Speaker. that this bill is not intended to come into effect until January 1, 19 87, yet we are being asked to deal with this under gr eat dur ess and under great pressure at this time thr ee years earlier; thr ee years before it's intended to come into effect we're now being asked to do it now and do it quickly and get it over with. Why, Mr. Speaker, why?

However, let's examine the bill and some of the provisions that it contains. First and foremost, Mr. Spea ker, I would like to speak about the provision for the appointment of a language ombudsman because it's very important in trying to understand what the possible ramifications and effects of this bill are, to understand what will be the role of the ombudsman, and I just don't mean what his duties will be, because his duties are laid out in a variety of different areas of the bill. The bill says in one portion, Mr.

Speaker, that the ombudsman shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned to him under this act. In an othe r ar ea, Mr . Sp eak er, it talks about his responsibilities with respect to initiating a complaint, "where the ombudsman has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person has been denied a right provided by this Act, the ombudsman may initiate a complaint." Mr. Speaker, I think that we have some difficulty with that kind of proposal. Mr.

Speaker, it further says, "notwithstanding that no complaint has been filed, the ombudsman may invest igate any matter rela ting to the pr oper administration or enforcement of this Act." Well, Mr . Spe aker , the respo nsibil ities of the ombudsman now start to take on the role of a policeman - a language policeman -somebody who goes out and looks to find ways of creating divisiveness, of creating acrimony, who goes about harassing civil servants and government departments because he'd like to enforce additional language services on them. His role, Mr.

Speaker, can make all the difference in the world as to whether or not this will be carried out in a reasonable manner, whether or not this bill has any reasonable base and rationale to it. It's all dependent on his role. Will he be a referee? Will he be an adjudicator or an arbitrator making judgments and decisions if disputes arise, or will he be a language zealot who is going out to try and find ways in which he can harass government departments who he believes are not promoting the use of the French language in the Civil Service and, Mr.

Speaker, under the circumstances of this legislation, that is a possibility. That is a possibility, Mr. Speaker. HON. R. PENNER: A remote possibility? MR. G. FILMON: Well, I don't know. The Attorney General wants to know whether it's a remote possibility and I suppose that it depends on who is put into the position of the language ombudsman. HON. R. PENNER: It's the Legislature who chooses him. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, indeed, it's the Legislature who chooses him, Mr . Speaker, but we know of course that 5619 the go vernment in power has cer tain abilities to influence choices of this nature.

All I say to you is just visualize, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Radisson could be the language ombudsman, and he is the person who only last week, if he resigns from the House, if he's defeated, as he will be in the next election, then he may well be a ca ndida te for the ·lang uage ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, last week, it was revealed in this House that the Member for Radisson was out suggesting that people would go and create demands that would then result in additional services being provided.

He used those words, I believe, "create demands." That's what he was suggesting that people who wanted French Language Services could do with this bill in place, go out and create demands for the use of additional French Language Services in this provinces.

Well, if someone such as that were at the head as the ombudsman, then undoubtedly we would be in a situation where we would be creating our own problems, that we would be entering into unreasonable circumstances and bringing in unwarranted changes and differences in the provision of French Language Services in Manitoba Civil Service, and we would be creating for ourselves the very problems that have occurr ed in the Federal Gove rnment's implementation of their bilingualism program. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this could indeed happen with the bill as it exists today, and that's a problem.

I think it's an important problem and a grave concern that Manitobans ought to be allowed to deal with. Mr. Speaker, what about the advisory council, their role in this bill? Are they going to be allowed to act reasonab ly, or is it just going to be a perfunctory kind of body, just as this government turned the hearings of the Committee of Privileges and Elections into a perfunctory exercise? I point out to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the bill, although it gives the impression that there will be a language advisory council that may have some influence on this whole process, it also says and I quote, "No advice, decision, or reco mmendation of the council is binding on the Minister or any other person affected by the advice, decision, or recommendation." So, although we may give the appearance of reasonableness by the structuring of the advisory council, we take away any real teeth or any real effect that they might have immediately by saying they're advisory only and they don't have any teeth by which they can say, no, we've gone too tar, that's too much, that's not what we intended, let's be reasonable.

Well, nobody has to accept their advice, Mr. Speaker, nobody has to accept their advice. Of course, you know if - (I nterject ion) - it depends who the Minister is, and if they happen to make this group report to the current Minister of the Environment, then we know how their reasonable advice will be dealt with. Mr . Sp eak er, I have to ask why this act takes precedence over The Civil Service Act? There's a provision in this act, Mr. Speaker, that says that the provisions of this act override and take precedence over the provisions of The Civil Service Act.

Will we eventually face the prospect - I know that we're already rapidly heading that way with this government, that the merit principle in the Civil Service will be overridden by the requi rements of a bill such as this -will \�·e

Friday, 20 January, 1984 eventually -we've already got a Civil Service whose morale is so badly damaged by virtue of the fact that this government is setting up political appointees to the boards of the Civil Service Commission that are selecting our senior civil servants; they've already damaged the merit principle; this would perhaps be the death blow, Mr . Sp eaker . That after having destroyed the morale, they are now suggesting to them that

an act such as this takes precedence over The Civil Service Act and might further erode the merit principle in hiring people for the Civil Service in Manitoba. Can it be, Mr. Speaker , that people will eventually be denied access to senior level positions because of this act overriding many other acts including The Civil Service Act? Most of the important areas in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are lacking firm definition. The following imperatives that appear in two different portions of the bill, the following imperative statements are relatively undefined.

I say, as follows, "Every person has the right to communicate in English or French with, and to receive available services in English or French from," That statement occurs in two different areas of the bill and it outlines what I believe is the heart of the government's intention by this bill. Yet, we have no way of understanding what the right to communicate in English and French and the available services from those principal administrative offices and so on that are listed here involves.

I wonder whether or not it will be deemed to be good enough that somebody can receive the services of a translator to understand what is being imparted by anyone in that office, or rath er, will it be interpreted to mean that anybody who has to provide specialized services in that office must be in a position to provide those services in French. I remind you, Mr. Speaker , that we are dealing with the principal, senior offices of the governments, of the courts, of Cr own corpora tions , government departments, agencies, and so on.

So, we are now dealing with services available from the most senior administrative levels of this government, and will it be good enough to have ava ilable the services of a translator? Is that what's meant by the right to communicate in, or will those people who provide very specialized services -let's take just out the blue a complicated legal question that has to be dealt with or ans wered by a senior counsel in Autopac, obvious ly, in the principal administrative office of Autopac, will that senior counsel have to be able to communicate in French with the individual in order to provide the services to them?

I don't know, and I wonder (I nterject ion)- A MEMBER: The bill doesn't say it will. MR. G. FILMON: Well, the bill doesn't have a definition that would give any assurance to anyone of the intention of the government in that respect. What are we left with, Mr . Speaker? We're left with the possibility of challenges, appeals to the ombudsman, reviews by an advisory committee, and ultimately appeals to the courL Mr.

Speaker, if that were the case, it could be argued by somebody taking this to cour t that pr oviding available services meant that the people who were the specialists in those senior level departments, offices, that those people had to provide their answers and their communication in French themselves, then I think that this would be clearly an un reas onable and unwarranted position and measure that was beyond what Manitobans wanted or needed and would be beyond what I think the vast majority of Manitobans would expect from this government or any government. That kind of definition and that kind of

interpretation of this imperative statement in there is what put the Federal Government's bilingual program into disrepute, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of thing we're dealing with. This government has a history of very very loosely worded pieces of legislation. We started with that problem last year with the whole constitutional resolution when we had terms such as significant demand; such as head or central offices.

The draftsmanship was poor and we're seeing it again and again and again, fuzzy and ill-defined intentions that none of us know how they will be interpreted, because ultimately it may well be that courts will interpret them on our behalf because that's what's provided for in the bill, Mr. Speaker . I take it a step furt her. The appeals that take place under this process, there is a potential, Mr. Speaker, that if the appeals go beyond the ombudsman, they go to the Court of Queen's Bench.

I say to you as well, that this bill says that when there is an appeal against an institution, the head of the institution involved in the complaint is the respondent in an application made under Su bsection 1. So, the head of the institution becomes the respondent if the appeal is against the actions of the head office, the principal administrative office of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench is named as the respondent and the court has to hear the appeal. A MEMBER: Unbelievable. MR. G.

FILMON: Now, that is something I'm told by lawyers that is without legal precedent anywhere in this province. It is, Mr. Speaker, what they say, is a legal absurdit y. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, there are other areas of draftsmanship and definition that are, I think, going to cause confusion and concern and not let people know where they stand on the issue. Mr. Speaker , there is a reference in here to that part of the City of Winnipeg historically known as St.

Norbert. Well, Mr . Speak er, I'd like to kn ow what

part is historically known as St. Norb ert? I think that perhaps there was a fair understanding of that some years ago when St. Norbert existed as an entity just outside the City of Winnipeg, but we now have, for instance, a constituency of this Legislature that is known as St. Norbert. Does that now become part of the area that's known as St. Norb ert? That isn't a legal definition, Mr. 5620

Friday, 20 January, 1984 Speak er, that's fuzzy draftsmanship that is going to cause problems for this government and for the people who have to deal with this. Mr. Speaker. people on the other side are saying that we're not dealing with the principle of the bill. They're assu ming that all of the things that we have dealt with, the fact that the

interpretation of the role of the language ombudsman is very very crucial to how this bill will be interpr eted and proceeded with, the fact that the definition of available services from and the right to communicate in, is totally open to

interpretation and misinterpretation, those. Mr. Speaker, are principles that get at the heart of what we're attempting to do in this province and in this bill. Mr. Speaker , members opposite may say that this bill, and the

interpretations that will be dealt with, will be dealt with in reasonable and rational terms. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that today in the circumstances in which we're dealing and the atmosphere that's been created by this government's mishandling of the bill, I don't know if you can find anybody who can deal reasonably and rationally with this bill or with the possible consequences of that bill. Mr. Spea ker. Mr.

Speaker, when we have a government talking about legal chaos, legal chaos is the justification for proceed ing on this whole matter, talking in terms of saying that all of the laws of this province are invalid, I don't think we're dealing with reaso nable or rational people over there who are developing this legislation. Mr.

Speaker, when we have members opposite and people opposite telling us all of the things that they are telling us, and further to that, confusing the pu blic and even the media, I don't think we're in circumstances in which any rational or reasonable solution can be found today to the problems that confront us as a result of the initiatives of this government. When we have people telling us, as we had earlier this week, in an editorial, it was said, "Fr anc o Manitobans now have the right to receive from the government copies of the laws of the province in their own language.

The constitutional amendment now before the Legislature would sharply curtail that right." And they're speak ing of the amendment that was made last Friday by the opposition. "It would abolish the obligation of the government to print and publish in both official languages most of the laws enacted from the founding of the province down to the present day. It is politically impossi ble becaus e no Canadian parliament is going to agree to wiping out French rights in Manitoba." What rights are they talking about, Mr. Speaker? - the righ t to ha ve about 4,0 00 dor mant statutes tran slated into French.

Is that a right, Mr. Spea ker, that those dormant statu tes should be transla ted into French, those statutes that are never used, that will collect dust on the shelves? Is that a right that anybody should be proud of and hold the province up to ransom for, Mr. Speaker? Is that the kind of right that we ought to be dealing with as the quid pro quo for enacting legislation in this province? Is that what comes out of the minds of reasonable people, Mr.

Spea ker, to name that as the price that the whole of the province has to pay, to have those statutes that are gathering dust on the shelves be translated into French? If not, the gun is at your head, Mr . Speaker , I don't think we're dealing with reasonable rational people who would say things like that. Mr. Speaker. that's like saying to me that I have the right to buy shares in a company that's going broke and I can buy them cheap. That's great. That's a right that I don't need or I don't want. There are many rights in society today that aren't there. That's like saying, Mr.

Speaker, that we should justify the right of the City of Winnipeg councillors to bring in pensions at any level that they want to. That's a right. I'm not sure that that's a right that's in the best interest of all Manitobans. Having people hold us up for ransom because they're losing the right to translate statutes that are dead and dormant, that nobody ever uses, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the quid pro quo for bringing in legislation that isn't warranted and isn't reason able, Mr. Speaker , that's no right at all as far as I'm concerned.

And that's the kind of argument and rationale that we have on the other side of the House that's bringing us to this point in time. Mr. Speak er, this bill will provide for institutionalized divisiveness, acrimony, bitterness, inviting challenges to the authority and responsibilities that are set out in this bill, inviting litigation to tell us what is meant by all of those fuzzy

definitions that I spoke of earlier. Mr. Sp eak er, that being do ne at a time when this government has had the opportunity by policy to put its political commitment behind its beliefs and to bring in measures that would ensure the protection of the minority langua ge righ ts and fur ther enhanc e the av ailability of servi ces from the go vernment departments. They could have done it, it was being done by our government in 1980. We were doing it. We were doing it, Mr.

Speaker, and this government isn't willing to even take, as I said, last week, even take those steps that are within its total control, to bring forward additional services from go ver nment departments without legislation, without constitutional amendment, without any thing, Mr . Sp eak er, this government has the right to do it. Do you rec all, Mr.

Speaker, how members opposite read to us from documents of the previous government, read to us about how we were going into this and we were telling people that we were proud to bring in additional services, to bring forward additional commitments to the use of French language without any controversy, Mr. Speaker? These were all there and they were all there in the documents that were filed, that were read into the record by the former Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. He said at that time, Mr. Speaker, that these were some of the things that were being done by the Lyon administra tion.

"French Langua ge Services to the publi c." This comes from a Cabi net document. "Consideration should be given to the following aspects of French language to the pu blic: "(

a) All major Provincial Government Departments should equip themselves to serve the pu blic in French. This would likely include the hiring of bilingual civil servants where circumstances warrant. Provisions might also be made for language training opportunities for civil servants and, no doubt, for MLA's. It might also be desirable to establish a secret ar iat to receive questions and requests for advice from French-speaking Manitobans and to furnish necessary information obtained from government departments to that French speaking pub lic. "(

b) Letters or inquiries received by the government departments in French shall be responded to in that language wherever practical. 5621 .

Friday, 20 January, 1984 "(

c) A decision regar ding the availability of both English language and also bilingual versions of the following: official proclamations, licenses, permits, etc." Those are things that were being carried out and committed to by our government. It said further here in another Cabinet document, Mr. Speaker.

"Over and above its obligation to transla te statutes and regulations the government has stated from time to time its desire to improve French Language Services specifically by encouraging the Civil Service to resp ond, where practical, in French to letters and enquiries received in that language by deploying bilingual civil servants in positions that deal dir ectly with the Francophone community when possible by appointing the Deputy Minister of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources to act in a liason capacity between the community and government departments." That was done without legislation; that was done without constitutional amendment; tha t was done without bitterness, divisiveness, and acrimonny; and that, Mr.

Speaker , was good policy, that was good policy. Nothing happened, Mr. Speak er. HON. A. ANSTETT: Nothing happened. MR. G. FILMON: Nothing happened, Mr. Spea ker, the Minis ter of Mun icipal Affairs says, because his go vernment was elected and stop ped the whole process, stopped it dead in its tracks. I spoke earlier, Mr. Speaker , about the fact that I spoke to the Clerk of Cabinet more than a year ago and asked him; where was the opportunity for MLA's to learn French through their department's initiatives, and their gover nment's initiatives?

It was something that was being organized and being done under our gover nment, stopped dead in its tracks; still not available through this government, not available. Where is their commitment, Mr. Speaker? Empty, all we have here is symbolism without commitment, Mr. Spea ker. MR. SPEAKER, J. Walding: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: The commitments we were making by policy were commitments to action, Mr. Speaker, not rhetoric, not symbolism. Mr.

Speak er, why does this go vernment pre fer to set forth a series of statements in a bill that leaves it up to somebody else to decide what level of commitment will be imposed upon Ma nitobans? Why won't they take the resp onsibility for it? Why do they leave it up to a review committee, and Ombudsman, or ultimately the courts to define what they intend in their bill? Why can't they have the courage of their ways? Can't they take the political courage to say; this is what we are prepared to do, and we'll take the responsibility for it?

But, no, they put it in such a way that ultimately somebody else, some third part y, is going to define what those terms mean and what their commitments are and, if things go wrong, then they can wash their hands of the whole thing. They can wash their hands of the whole thing, Mr. Speaker , because they don't know, or are afraid to tell Manitobans, what they think is reasonable and justified, Mr. Speak er. What of the Premier, who's sitting their smiling and saying nothing? He hasn't said anything on this French language issue since we've been back in Session this year. Mr .

Sp eaker , he has a new person to run interference for him; he has a new Government House Leader, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who's running interference for him, Mr. Speaker, who's out there as a lightning rod so that the Premier will not have to take responsibility on this matter for what his government believes in, because I'm not sure that they know what they believe in, Mr. Speaker, or what they're prepared to do with respect to this. Will the Premier continue to write apologetic letters to people all over the province, to people who have criticized or questioned his govern ment's action?

Will he continue to say, no, it's not our intention to bring in a federal style of bilingualism? We really aren't going to go that far; we really aren't going to do all of those things, this really isn't bilingualism. Is that what he's going to do while his other Ministers talk about creating demands, expanding the use of French by their own choice? Well, Mr. Speaker, that's what the Minister continues to do; that's what the Premier continues to do, write apologetic letters. Here's one that he's sent out recently to many people who appeared before the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

He says: "And I can tell you that the Legislature's decision on this issue is one which will respect the views of Manitobans." Is that why we have hundr eds of people every day coming here to tell Minister after Minister, member after member of the government, that th ey disag ree with what this government is doing because they've arrived at a conclusion that respects the views of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker?

He goes on further to say "Our objectives in view of the uncertainties created by application of the 18 70 Constitution of this province are straightforward." They want a Manitoba Act which reflects the political concensus of the 19 80's, rather than of the 18 70's. Is that what we're getting here, Mr. Speaker? Is that what this proposal is all about? He goes on further to say "The September 1981 statement by the then Premier Sterling Lyon that both English and French are official lang uages will be reflected by a declaration in The Manitoba Act clarifying the 18 70

section which provides equal status to English and French." He goes on further to say -"That the statutes of Manitoba are invalid", or that the move that they're taking is because of a concern that the statutes of Manitoba could be invalid. Mr. Speake r, here's a response that was sent to him on that letter. Mr. Speaker, it's a response by somebody I know that the government knows and respects, a former member of their caucus, Mr. Sidney Green.

He says "The present proposal in no way reflects the political consensus of the 19 80's.-The proposal is being made after the English language has been used officially in Manitoba for 90 years . It is likely that the political consensus of the 19 80's would unfortuna tely result in reduced, rather than increased French language rights. If you do not accept my view in this connection, and you wish to avoid misjudging the political consensus, I sugge st that you test the political consensus by calling an election with a government proposal as the issue." He says further, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the statement about, Mr. Lyon's statement. He says ... 5622

Friday, 20 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite are feeling uncomfortable with this self-inflicted discomfort they have on themselves that it makes it a lot more diificult to have to remind them of it. However. Mr. Speaker, I will not be daunted. I will continue to remind them of the muddle, the problem, the acrimony and the divisiveness that is on their head. Mr. Speaker , he goes on further -that is Mr. Green -to say, "You appear to rely on Sterling Lyon for an endor sement. You mention th at Mr .

Lyon made a statement that both English and French are official languages. Your advisors have apparently not explained to you that the statement referred to was adopted by the Legislature without opposition and had to do with the

interpretation of statutes. It was not a constitutional ame ndment. It could be repealed at any time, if interpr eted by the courts as going beyond its intent. Your determination to make a constitutional amendment out of a statement in a statute would indicate to me that you require," and he puts in qu otes, '"to be kept up-to-date"' because the reason why the letter was sent by the Premier was "to keep him up-to-date" on the matter. And then he goes just one step further and he says, "You indicate tha t most Engl ish-only laws will be validated. When were they declared to be invalid?

You apparently have not had brought to your attention the fact that the Court of Appeal for Manitoba has already rejected a case seeking to declare our laws invalid." Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of problem that we're dealing with in terms of the information that's available on the government side of the House. When I spoke to the resolution last week, Mr.

Speaker, I said that by the bungling, by the crude mishandling of the matters with respect to the resolution and the bill, this NDP Go ver nment had crea ted such a poisonous, divisive, acrimonious atmosphere that they had set back relations between English and French speaking Manitobans for decades to come and I believe that. Mr. Speaker, they started by negotiations beh ind closed doors with only a small group who purportedly represented the French-speaking community.

They were working on deals and arrangements that involved the Federal Government, the SFM and others without airing their thoughts, their ideas and their desires in front of the pu blic of Manitoba. That started the problem and that created the kind of acrimony and divisiveness that has carried on step by step, as this government has proceeded along its bungling ways. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this is that no one is spea king on behalf of the pub lic other than this opposition right now.

No one on that side is listening to the 80 percent of the people who voted against the entrenchment of the government's proposal and no one has convinced the people of Manitoba that any additional rights, with respect to French language in Manitoba, are required. Mr. Speaker , now the government is proc eeding on its two-pronged course, concu rrently, the bill and the resolution amendment, and that has further confused the issue, so that today the public is totally upset, totally confused and totally divided on this issue.

Even many of the Franco-Manitobans who have been calling us within the last week or 10 days -even since I spoke on the constitutional resolution -have said that they would prefer the government to stop, to withdraw their proposal and to withdraw from this matter, to let a period of time go by to cool off on this whole thing, to let things just cool down and relax and let more rational calm heads prevail, Mr. Speaker. Instead, Mr.

Speaker, what has happened is that in the last week the Opposition House Leader has insisted on accelerating the acrimony, on increasing the pressure and forcing things to go his way and his way only, and sadly, even in the last 10 days, the atmosphere in this Legislature has become more emotionally charged, more rancorous, more embittered and it's because this government, this misguided government, has pushed on without reason, pushed forward. I think, Mr. Speaker, that they have done a serious disservice to Manitobans of both English and French origin, of either language. Mr.

Speaker , they have destroyed, in my view, any opportunity to make rational decisions on this matter and they must bear the responsibility for it right now. Mr . Speaker, we have talked about our concerns on entrenchment. We've talked about the advantages and the clear opportunities that this government has, by way of policy decisions, to implement many of the things that it says it believes in. We, in 1980, had to act on these matters and clearly we brought in a bill that dealt in a rational, reasonable way with what we thought was the best approach to this matter.

At that time it was reasonable and it was warranted and under those circumstances a bill was the best answer. That bill, Mr. Spe aker , was an an swer that was accepta ble to Manitobans almost unanimously at that time. As the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs pointed out, there were only three people who appeared before the committee. That's how little notice was taken of it and nobody ob jected to the pol icy decisions that we were implementing. That bill did not have the kinds of excesses and the kinds of opportunities for uncertainty, misinterpr etation and litigation that this bill has, Mr. Speaker.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, in its present form cannot be acceptable without major amendment and certainly not at the present time. Where is the justification? Where is the reasonableness, Mr. Speaker, for pushing on, for creating acrimony, divisiveness, for causing relations between the English and French to further inflame in this province? Mr . Speaker, I am reminded of a quotation in 1868, Thomas D' Arey McGee, reflecting on agitation in Nova Scotia for the repeal of Confederat ion, told the House of Commons and I quo te: "We need, above everything else, the healing influence of time." Mr.

Speaker, we need that healing influence here and now, not to push through under gr eat dur ess a bill which doesn't take effect until January 1 , 1987, at a time when acrimony, divisiveness and bitterness is all around us, at a time when the whole atmosphere has been poisoned by the members opposite, the government, on their whole approach to this. We need that healing influence before further venturing into unchartered waters in a bill such as the one that we have before us, Mr . Speak er. So, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Gar ry, that Bill 11 5,

An Act respect ing the 5623

Friday, 20 January, 1984 Operation of Sect ion 23 of The Manitoba Act, be not now read a second time but read this day six months hence. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker , I'm not aware of any precedents in this House for the moving of a substantive amendment, such as the hoist, which has just been moved by the Leader of the Opposition while the bill is standing in the name of another member.

It's my understan ding that the purpose of allowing debate to stand and someone to speak is that the Mem ber for Niakwa has given, in effect, leave and the House has given leave for another member to speak on the question that the Member for Niakwa adjourned debate upon. The Leader of the Opposition in moving this amendment changes the question before the Hous e. The Member for Niakwa has adjourned the debate on the motion that the bill now be read a second time.

That motion, if the amendment is admissible, has been changed despite the fact that the debate has been adjourned and stands in the name of the Member for Niakwa. I subm it, Sir, that you may wish to consider the admissibility of that amendment and of the right of a member who is speaking under leave to move an amendment which changes the question before the House.

I'm not aware, Sir, that we have established any precedents in this House to allow that to happen, and with a few moments, Sir, I'm sure I can find citations which will sup port the suggestion tha t members speaking under leave do not have the right to move amendments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Opposition House Leader on the same point. MR. H. ENNS: We found out the Government House Leader could not and has not found the citation to support that position that he has just taken. Let me, Sir, ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. ENNS: . . . and so, in the absence of the citation, common sense prevails.

I have been advised, Mr. Spea ker, that the Member for Niakwa has no objection, and the Government House Leader is citing his position, inasmuch as that the debate is being adjourned in his name raises no objection to the amendment made to the bill which by tradition and precedent ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. ENNS: . . . is very much in order in this Cham ber , one tha t I have experienced on many occasions in this House. I further advise you, Mr .

Speak er, that if indeed the government House Leader wants to play this kind of a game, then, of course, I would ask the Member for Niakwa to promptly read the same amendment into the record on the arguments of the House Leader that it would be appr opriate for the Member for Niakwa to put forward the amendment tha t was just put for ward by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the Honourable Government House Leader need very much more time to find his citation? I'm not aware of one in existence. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on the same point. MR. G.

FILMON: Yes, while we're waiting the Government House Leader's resear ch, may I table the document that I referred during my speech, the legal counsel's opinion? MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Honour able Government House Leader. HON . A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speak er, without doing more research - I don't want to unnecessarily delay the House proceed ings - I cannot find the citation, Sir, that I recall has been used in this House at times in the past with regard to the use of motions interrupting debate on which a member has been gran ted a stand in debate.

I know, Sir, that has been cited in this House on previous occasions. I would ask, Sir, that you consider whether or not, in terms of the basic principle, that should be allowed. I do not, Sir, in any way intend to frustrate the desire of members opposite to move the hoist, it is a common motion moved by members, in opposition, in an attempt to demonstrate their opposition to a bill, and we certainly have no objection to them moving it. My concern was, Sir, that it be moved properly and the rights of the Member for Niakwa be in no way infringed by it being moved. HON. S.

LYON: He's already said that, he doesn't care, so sit down. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ANS TETT: The former Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the Member for Niakwa doesn't care about his rights. Sir, we have not heard that from the Member for Niakwa and I do raise the objection as House Leader, on behalf of all members of this Hou se, with respect to the proper observance of our rules. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Opposition House Leader on the same point. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speak er, I just further reiterate that, of course, the motion itself is in order, of that there is no question, and I'm happy to hear the acknowledgment from the Government House Leader that there is nothing wrong with the motion. I repeat to you simply, Sir, that the Member for Niakwa is quite prepared to have this amendment made while the bill stands in his hand; and, Mr. Speaker, for your further edification, he is also prepared to so indicate that willingness by raising in his chair to say so, even if it should mean that it would be construed as having spoken to the bill. 5624

Friday, 20 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There is normally no difficulty with the moving of such a motion on the second read ing of a bill and that has been the way it has been done in the past. Of recent times the practice has grown in this House of allowing the debate to stand in the name of one member while another member, in the meantime, speaks on it, which is what has happened in this particular instance. I do not believe when the House gave the honour able member leave to have the matter stand that it, in fact, put any conditions on that leave.

To do otherwise I believe would be to take away the right of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to move an amendment. a right which applies to all members of this House. I would think, under the circumstances. that since the House has allowed the debate to stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Niakwa, the debate on the main motion, when we next reach it, would continue to stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Niakwa, that anyone wishing to debate this particular amendment, which I believe is quite in order, is able to do so at this time. It is moved ...

Does the Honour able Minister of Natural Resources have a point of order? HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm prepared to speak on the motion. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, we have waited tense hours while the buzzers buzzed, or the bells ran g, while the Leader of the Opposition labour ed long, the world expected an elephant and he produc ed a whimpering mouse. Mr. Speaker, the mask is off.

The new leader of the Conservative Party in Manitoba cannot marshal! his caucus in support of a consistent stand in respect to French language rights. They have had the audacity, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that to be called upon to speak and debate the principles of a bill dealing with French Lang uage Services would confuse the issue of dealing with French language rights in Manitoba. Mr .

Speaker, it is the Conservative Party of Manitoba or at least its leader and some of its caucus members who have sowed the seeds of confusion in Manitoba, confusion and hate, bitterness and gall; because, no matter what they say, they cannot erase from the record what they said in the past. And what did they say in the past? They said they had no objection to the advance of French Language Services in Ma nitoba. Why are they opposing it now, Mr. Speaker?

Why is tha t Leader of the Opposition who had days in which to prepare a very well crafted speech, to speak out on principle, why, after all that time, did all we hear was a succession of rambling nit picking? Because, Mr. Speaker, that's what it amounted to; a concern that maybe the ombudsman would have too much power; a concern, maybe, that the Advisory Council may not have enough power -or too much power; a concern that an appeal mechanism may provide some problem. 5625 Mr.

Speaker, after working so long with all of the talent that was available to the Leader of the Opposition including, of course, all of the assistance of the Federal Conservative Party whose position has been put on the record in the House of Commons in favour of what this government is doing. After all of that, to sit here and hear that rambling disposition of double talk, after all of that, Mr.

Speak er, to move a hoist, to postpone facing up to the realities, the decisions ha ve to be made in Ma nitob a in connection with the rig hts and the services of Francophones in Manitoba, not by the appointees of a Federal Government in a court. Surely, Mr. Speak er, members of the Conservative Party can stand up for right sometime. Sur ely we can accept as principle the statements that Conservative members of this Legislature made in other times, but in this Legislature. The Ho nour able Mem ber, the Leader of the Opposition, read from a Cabinet document . MR. D. BLAKE: Times change. HON. A.

MACKLING: Yes, times change, says the Honourable Member for Minnedosa. They change their principles, Mr. Speaker , like they change their socks. But, Mr. Speaker, how often do they change their principles? I will refer back to some statements by the Mem ber for Char leswood, the former Leader of the Opposition of yesteryear, but not so long ago, in 19 80. But what did he say on September 24, 19 83, last fall, what did he say about French language rights? He was interviewed by the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park on television. This is what the Member for Charleswood said.

Well, first of all, the Member for Kirkfield Park said: "Some critics of the press have stated that the Conservative Party and yourself are opposed to French Language Services, what do you say about that?" Mr. Lyon, the former Leader of the Opposition says: "Well, that's not the case. All of the governments of Manitoba in recent years have been en gaged in some extension of French Langua ge Services in our province. Certainly to extend French Language Services to establish the French Language Secretariat and so on, and we did not oppose Mr. Pawley when he was doing it as a matter of policy.

It's the entrenchment that's at issue, because once you entrench it, then it's there for all time. That's what the problem is." Well, Mr . Spe aker, the Honour able Member for Char leswood is in that caucus. He's still in that caucus on September 24, 19 83, and he couns elled the present Leader of the Opposition to move a hoist, to what? - an entrenchment of French language rights or services? Not at all, a hoist to an elab or ati on, a sp ecific elaboration of basic services to Francophone people in Manitoba. Now, how, Mr.

Speaker, can you reconcile the statements of leaders of the Conservative Party on this issue? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, back in 19 81, the Member for St. Norbert provided an Order-in-Council

Friday, 20 January, 1984 elaborating provisions of French Language Services and let's hear what that government said. This is in a submission to the Treasury Board, January 19, 19 81, later approved by their government. First of all it starts out with a background of the memorandum of October 6, 19 80, on the subject of French Language Services, signed by the Premier.

Then they say that Ministers will recall that the document was fairly received but that because of certain other factors such as the Federal Government's desire to push for the entrenchment of minority language rights, it was agreed not to announce any new policies in this area, not to announce any new policies, do it in the dark, hide it. No pride about it, not like what he said on September 24, 19 83, no, no, don't annou nce anything. But here's what they're going to do.

Notwithstanding the above and over and above its obligation to translate statutes and regulations, the government has stated from time to time its desire to improve French Langua ge Services specifically by encouraging the Civil Servic e to re spond wher e practical, and you know, isn't that a little confusing, Mr. Speaker? Where practical. You don't define it, you try to hide it so it'll never be practical. It goes on: Where practical in French to letters and inqui ries received in that lang uage.

By deploying bilingual civil servants in positions that deal directly with the Francophone community and by appointing the Deputy Minister of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources, to act in a liaison capacity between the community and government departments. On December 5, 19 80, the Minister of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources and the Attorney-General met a delegation from the Societe franco-manitobaine. The above noted areas of activity were discussed and Min isters reiterate the go ver nment's desire to implement those policies as rapidly as possible. Well, Mr.

Speak er, that was the pronounc ed policy of the former administration. No question about those rights to services. They were going to stand up and do it. They're going to do it in the dark because they weren't very proud of it, but they were going to do it nevertheless. In speeches in this House, that long past summer we had, we didn't hear any criticism in respect to the advancement of services, not at all. The former Leader of the Opposition was quite proud of the fact that the policy of his administration was to move French Language Services forward.

Now, never did he put on the record that when he spoke in 19 80 and addressed the question of French Language Services in Manitoba his act, and that respect ing the operation of Sect ion 23 of The Manitoba Act in regard to statutes, the definition of his act, the definition of official language in that act was, Mr. Speaker , "in this act official language means the English language or the French language." And that same act, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member for Charleswood was proud to present to this Legislature also provided for repeal of

an act to provide that the English language shall be the official language of the Province of Manitoba, being

Chapter 010 of the Revised Statutes is repealed -proud of that fact. Mr. Sp eaker , he made a vigorous defence of his government's position in respect to that. Here, Mr. Spea ker, on Wednesday (I nterject ion) - No, I'm going to come to another honourable 5626 member in respect to that. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 19 80, in this House, here is what the Honourable Member for Char leswood had to say: "As members will know, Mr.

Speaker, when our provinc e was cr eated through legislation of the Parl iament of Canada, the popula tion in the new province was approximately 55 percent French speaking and 45 percent English speak ing, although it is clear that many members of each community were; in fact, able to speak both of these languages." A proud day in the history of Manitoba.

"It was clearly the intention of the Fathers of the Canadian Federat ion th at Manitoba, as the first daughter province to join our four founding provinces, would receive the surplus populations from both Eng lish-speaking and French speaking Canada to the east -of course, as subsequent events proved, populations from Europe, who were neither English nor French speak ing." He stops. "It was undoub tedly expected in 19 70" -that should read obviously 18 70, Mr . Sp eaker -"that the bilingua l character of our province would simply be reinforced by that migr ation from the eastern pr ovinc es to Manitoba." Mr.

Speaker, yes, in 18 70, the people of Manitoba did a terrible wrong; and yes, they closed the society to French Canadians . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: . .. Mr. Speaker, I said 1870, I meant 18 90, post Louis Riel. You know that Louis Riel stood for basic rights in this province, and you know what Conservatives in Canada did to Louis Riel. He stuck for the rights of the poor people who wanted land, who wanted their basic rights, and Conservatives in Canada hanged Louis Riel. Let's hear what Mr. Lyon goes on to say, Mr. Spea ker, on April 7.

"In so observing and following the rule of law as the basis of government in our province, we are also aware of the national --(I nterject ion) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON . A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I would love for the honourable members to listen at least in some sort of reverend silence to the words of their former leader. These are not my words, they're the words of the Honou rable Member for Char leswood. To put them in context again, I have to read again -shame. "In so observing and following the rule of law as the basis of government in our province, we are also aware of the national ... " Mr.

Speaker, I would love for the honourable members to listen, at least in some sort of reverent silence to the words of their former leader, these are not my words, they are the words of the Honourable Member for Charleswood. To put them in context, again, I have to read again. "In so observing and following the rule of law as the basis of government in our province, we are also aware of the national constituency in which our reaction to the Supreme Court judgment takes place.

The provisions of Bill 2 are of a technical nature, it is true, but they will be understood throughout Canada as an indication of our loyalty to the national identity of Canada, and of our firm commitment to the rule of law, and to our respect for the guar anteed rights of Canadians as set forth in our constitution."

Friday, 20 January, 1984 Yes, he went on in this, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this statement. "The government, Mr. Speaker, " - and this is Mr. Lyon in Hansard April 7, 19 80, Page 2004. Mr. Lyon, the Member for Charleswood said: "The government, Mr. Spea ker, will continue to study further implications of the Supr eme Court decision and will count on what I have described as the traditional wisdom and fair-mindedness of Manitobans to assist in bringing our province fully within the provisions of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act as it is to apply to us in 19 80 and beyond;" a commitment to continue to move for rights. Yes, by statute, no entrenchment, but by statute. "I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that not all Manitobans will sup port wholehearted ly the actions which the government is bound to take." I take an aside there, Mr. Speaker, what a gross understatement considering what sits opposite here. "Those actions, however, I sug gest are ab solutely necessary in the national interest" -mark that, Mr. Speaker, "in the national interest," and Mr.

Mulr oney is hearing those words - "and in fairness and equity to our fellow Manitobans whose mother tongue is French." I commend, Mr. Spe ak er, the meaning, the reaso ning of th ose statements to members of the loyal opposition." Their former leader made those statements and he repeated his commitment to French language services in September of 19 83. Mr. Speak er, but what have we now? A slithering, dithering, inept opposition.

There's only one man that sits opposite in the opposition that has indicated in a clear, concise way and recognized the need for action by this government in connection with these rights, and I refer to to the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. He indicated and, yes, it was a major difference, a significant facing up to the fact that it was necessary that further legislative initiative was requir ed to deal with the question of French rights in Manitoba.

We must acknowledge that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain indicated the substantial shift that the Conservative Party of Manitoba finally was prepared to make in accepting the fact that some action was necessa ry. We didn't sa y, oh that is wonde rfu l, everything they say is acceptable. What we did say is that was the first time the Cons ervative Party in Manitoba had acknowledged what we were doing was necessary, in part, if not in whole. Now, Mr. Spea ker, what did we have today?

We had from that "Tuxedo Kid" -as I would prefer to call him -the most inept, the most awkward, the most slipshod dealing with a major matter of rights that I ever ever heard. Mr. Speaker, they have practised confusion. They have sowed hate. They have sown distortion and, Mr. Spea ker, they have continued to try and frustrate what is reasonable. They have rung the bells. For what? So that they can spend more time in their caucus room trying to develop a speech for the Honour able Member for Tuxedo, the Leader of the Opposition? Did that take him thr ee days to write that miserable drivel?

It's incomprehensible to me, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, that we should, the people of Manitoba should have been held up for ransom -that those thousands and thousands of dollars of time for the operat ion of this facility should be held to convenience -and this is simply it -to convenience the Leader of the Opposition, so that he could get the television, so 5627 that he could get the press for a Friday exposition. An exposition of what? Absolutely nothing. Nit-picking, distortion, confusion and then he winds up with a hoist. You would have thought, Mr .

Sp eaker, tha t the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would have said, in concert with the principles that were enunciated by the Member for Charleswood, the former Leader of the Conservative Party, yes, we believe in the principle of minority rights; yes, we believe there is an obligation to the Franco-Manitobans; yes we do not believe it should be the su bject matter of litigation in courts. It is the responsibility of this Legislature, a Legislature tha t in 18 90 struck down the rights of French Manitobans . We would have expected that from the Leader of the Opposition.

We would have expected he would have said yes, the principles of this bill, we agr ee with. We have difficulty with some of the parts of this bill but we are prepared to go before a committee and state our views and let the people of Manitoba know that the Cons ervat ive Party of Manitoba and the Conservative Party of Canada stands for minority rights -rights that are entrenched in the Constitution now and this is merely a legislative, a statutory development of those services.

The honourable leaders, all through that long hot summer , said oh, we' re not concerned about a pragmatic, a rea sonable exte nsion of rights and services, just don't entrench it. Don't deal with the Constitution becaus e we can 't handle that. By implication, Mr. Speak er, they said bring in a statute, put those provisions in a statute and then, if we disagree or some su bsequent Legislature disagrees, we can amend it, we can change it. Don't entrench it Well, Mr.

Speaker, as a result of that vigorous dialogue that we, as a government had with the people of Manitoba, where we went out and we listened, we came back and we changed. But members opposite haven't changed one word in their speeches. They are still bitter. They are still negative. They are still willing to deny fundamental rights in this province. Sur ely, Mr.

Speaker, there was a time for cool sweet reaso n, to use the words of the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry, a time for consideration of rights in this countr y, rights of an Englis h-spe aking minority in Queb ec , rights of a Fren ch-speak ing minority in Manitoba. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there was an opportunity for the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to say yes, we're in favour of principle, we're in favour of advancement of services, reasonable - we may disagree with the vehicle, we may have some criticism about that, but we're not opposed to that But no, Mr. Speaker, the mask is off now.

They' re opp osed to any consideration of rights. They want the Su preme Court to impose on the people of Manitoba a formula crafted by judges appointed by the Federal Government in Canada. That's their consideration of justice. That's their approach to responsible governmen

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-165
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 165.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ff5f7d9e7acabd2967d0926003f5922df1e36fc

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