ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature oflhe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 98 - 10:00 a.m., TUESDAY, 8 JULY, 1980 Printed by The Office of The Queen's Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER,Ho n. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vic SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP PC PC PC Ind NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle­ Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COM MITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. MR. CLERK, Jack Re eves: Your committee met on July 7, 1980 and heard representation from Mr. Paul Walsh of the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties with respect to Bill No. 59,

An Act to amend The Fatality Inquiries Act. Your committee has considered Bills: No. 12 - The Law Fees Act,

Loi sur les frais judiciaires. No. 37 -

An Act to amend The Highways Department Act. No. 39 -

An Act to amend The Social Allowances Act. No. 51 -

An Act to amend The Highways Protection Act. No. 93 - The Dutch Elm Disease Act. And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rock Lake, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. JIM DOWNEY (Arth ur) introduced Bill No. 86, The Milk Prices Review Act. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor) HON. DONALD ORCHARD (Pembina) introduced Bill No. 104,

An Act to Amend The Highway Traffic Act (2). HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside) introduced Bill No. 107,

An Act to Amend The Public Utilities Board Act and The Manitoba Telephone Act. HON. STERLING R. LYON (C harleswood) on behalf of the Minister of Mines introduced Bill No. 109,

An Act to amend The Mines Act. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. In view of a statement made by the Minister of Consumer Affairs to the effect that the average rent increases in the city of Winnipeg would be in the neighbourhood of 10 percent and the statement by the president of the Landlords Association, Mr.

Sidney Silverman, that landlords applying for rent increases in excess of 10 percent, better be prepared to justify such an increase in excess of 10 percent, is the Minister prepared to consider amending the legislation presently before the House in order to provide for a form of rent control pertaining to all rental increases in excess of 10 percent? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I made the statement yesterday that I was not prepared to re-introduce another form of rent controls.

The purpose of the bill before the House now is to remove the province from rent controls and any alternative form is just simply another form of rent controls and I'm not prepared to do that. We are prepared to consider whatever amendments may be necessary to ensure that safeguards are provided for undu.e rent increases and they will be monitored and there will be an opportunity for people to appear before the Arbitration Board. But for me to suggest what the rent increases should be is just another form of rent controls and I'm not prepared to accept that. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, then will the Minister by way of supplementary, indicate whether or not he is prepared to amend his legislation he has presently before the House in order to ensure there is proper appeal procedure involving all rent increases in excess of 10 percent? MR. JORGENSON: I wish my honourable friend hadn't added that last part to that question. We are prepared to amend, and I have already indicated that, we are prepared to amend the existing provisions, which is not an unusual practice.

I recall on one occasion my honourable friends introduced a bill that had 34 clauses, and they brought in 54 amendments, so amending legislation when in committee is not a strange or unusual thing to happen. I have already indicated that I am prepared to listen to suggestions from my honourable friends and from anyone who is interested and to try to incorporate what I consider to be the best possible 5393

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 method of dealing with that particular aspect of the decontrol program. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. This morning there is a report involving federal government Department of Health analysis indicating that there is asbestos in the city of Winnipeg water supply and that such supply can be cancer-forming. A question to the Minister - does the Minister have a copy of the federal government report pertaining to the asbestos in the Winnipeg water supply? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): No, I don't, Mr.

Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether or not his department has been in consultation with the federal government in terms of reviewing the crop insurance program with respect to the amount of pay-out that may occur and whether or not the assistance that the crop insurance . . . that the amount that the crop insurance covers will be adequate to sustain many of the grain farmers in this terrible period of time during the drought period? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, not only have the staff been having some preliminary talks, but the Minister of Agriculture at the federal level and myself, when I met him in Ottawa several days ago, discussed the very issue.

Of course, the Manitoba government, which was instrumental in setting up the crop insurance under the government of Duff Roblin, foresaw the need to have a re-insurance program, which is a program of paying into the federal government year by year, so that when we run into excessive pay-outs, such as we have this year, that in fact the crop insurance corporation is backed by the provincial government and by the federal treasury. The second part of the question, are the coverages adequate to meet the shortfall in crops that farmers may not get through their growth? Mr.

Speaker, we have been doing everything we can, through our board of directors, to update the coverage as far as crop insurance is concerned, and I would say that in most cases - well in fact it is evident, the success and the way in which crop insurance is bought year by year, that we have something like three-quarters of our eligible farmers buying it, that they are accepting the coverage which it is providing for them. So I believe that it is keeping in line with the producers and covering their needs. Again, we have to remember what the purpose of insurance is, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of insutance is to cover people when they do have a loss. You don't expect to make money out of crop insurance, but recover the input costs and keep you in operation for next year. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While the Minister can give us the discussion on what the purpose of insurance is, is there an analysis, or can I ask the Minister whether he can investigate the, what would be considered the amount, not the amount of coverage but the necessity.

The farmers, of course, have to purchase insurance because of the possibility of a disaster, but with the rapidly increasing and escalating costs and input costs that farmers face, whether the amount of insurance they may be able to cover themselves for will be adequate during this period of time and whether the Minister has instructed the crop insurance people to re-evaluate the entire program in light of the conditions of this year. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has to be well aware of the fact that the purpose of the insurance is to meet the ongoing needs of the farmers.

They demonstrated that by the inclusion of grain corns and other crops that they felt that they have been able to provide coverage because you have to go on the agronomic information you have, the experience that the corporation has and other crop insurance companies or corporations in other provinces and other jurisdictions. They have been doing this, Mr. Speaker. One of the other things that they have been instructed to do and that of course is to update the crop insurance in different soil reclassifications.

In fact, we would say that in certain areas of the province where we find some of the soils will not produce maybe the traditional type grains such as wheat, oats and barley, those soils may produce sunflowers or corn a lot better than they will produce some of the traditional crops. So we've asked for a reassessment of those soils so that in fact farmers can get adequate coverage. To respond to the immediate drought situation and make changes, Mr. Speaker, no they have not done that. It's an ongoing program.

It is there for times such as we are facing now and I think that the Crop Insurance Corporation, in general, is meeting the needs of the agriculture community and has been instructed to keep up to date with the changing agriculture practices. MR. SPEAKER: the Honourable Member for St. George with a final supplementary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister, since he's had several weeks time to examine the problems of credit and cash shortage in the farm community, can he indicate whether his government is now prepared to deal with debt moratorium or in the very least, interest moratorium with respect to small business operators in the farming community? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated to the member the other day that we were not moving in the direction of introducing debt moratorium legislation but , in fact, we felt that the farm community and the banking industry have had a good working relationship over the past few years; 5394

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 that we have seen the bank industry move into supporting the farm community; they moved in on the strength of agriculture and I don't think it would be in the best interests of the farm community to impose regulations, one way or the other. We have been assured by the bank industry they are prepared to work with the farmers through this difficult time, as the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation is prepared to work with the agriculture community and not, because of

an act of God, see people be put into an extreme difficult situation. I have to also add, Mr. Speaker, that since the past few weeks, we have seen somewhat of a different attitude in the farm community with the more general rainfall a week and a half ago. It has relieved some of the pressures that were being forced on the farmers . But again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is in the best interests of the agriculture community to impose a ... MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. I don't think it's necessary to re-emphasize. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and in his absence yesterday we asked the government several questions in regard to his government's activities in response to the Canadian Wheat Board announcement that the shipping season at Churchill may be severely curtailed or even cancelled entirely, due to a lack of grain to be shipped up there from CNR lines. I ask the Minister if he could take this opportunity to update us as to the activities of him�elf and his government in regard to dealing with this serious emergency situation for the Port ·of Churchill. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the member that the support of Churchill is certainly well known by the publ ic, the support that our government has given to the extended use of it, the support that has been given to the total grain industry and the transportation of it, which was spearheaded by the Premier of this province back in January of 1979 when we had all the industry together and from that day forward, every meeting and every communique that has come out of those meetings from all provinces has been support for the Port of Churchill. Mr.

Speaker, on the specific point of the CN-CP interchange at a recent speech that I gave to the Hudson's Bay Route Association, which my colleague from Rock Lake was attending that meeting with me, we conveyed the message that we wanted to see a CP-CN interchange so that it could facilitate the Port of Churchill. We're on record as saying that and were well received by the Hudson's Bay Route Association in making those comments, as well as well received from the farm community of western Canada. We, Mr.

Speaker, have communicated with the grain transportation co-ordinator's office to get a total update on what the situation is at Churchill. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation, I think at this particular time, where we have seen probably a situation of more grain movement and partially I would have to add, Mr. Speaker, without being too possibly, I don't want to overemphasize this, but the introduction of the hopper cars that the province have added to the system have helped the movement of grain.

I would also say that it appears that there will be very few restrictions in the movement of grain at the end of this coming crop year, that if farmers want to deliver, they will be able to deliver any quantities of grain that they wish to do so. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying very hard not politicize in a partisan way this issue and finding it difficult in regard to the answers from the government, but I will continue because I believe that this issue does transcend partisan politics. I would ask the Minister, and we see it right now, Mr.

Speaker, we see that they can't treat an issue in a diplomatic and a statesman-like way, that they have to politicize it. But let me continue with my question if I may. The question to the Minister of Agriculture is much the same, with some re-phrasing as the previous question, because he did not indicate what his government is doing right now in regard to the emergency situation, so I would ask the Minister if he can confirm that as of the present time there is not enough grain and barley on hand in Churchill right now to load one average-size ship.

Can he confirm that there are no shipments anticipated as being on the way right now and can he confirm that there has been no set date for the first ship to enter the port. In fact, it looks like we may be headed towards that severe reduction in shipping activity out of the port of Churchill? Can he confirm all those facts and then can he indicate what he's going to do in regard to this serious emergency situation and what he's going to do now; not what speech he made a month ago? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I hope that we're enough· of a statesman and appreciate the responsibility of really who does have the authority and the jurisdiction over the handling of the grain that moves into Churchill. First of all , it's the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain transportation authority who have the responsibility of ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I would appreciate one speaker at a time during question period. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: So, Mr.

Speaker, when the member suggests that we should take direct action as a government, I want to let the individual know that we, as a provincial government, have to use persuasive measures and direct input to those individuals who do have the direct authority. We have done that, Mr. Speaker, I have talked, just as recently as this morning, to the Acting Mayor to get an update of his thoughts on what could be done and indicated our support to them. I've communicated with the Grain Transportation Co­ ordinator's office to let him know our concerns.

I'm prepared to talk to the federal Ministers of Agriculture and the Minister of Transportation and 5395

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 Canadian Wheat Board and let our concerns be known to them. But again, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate the authority for the operation for the Port of Churchill, the grain that goes to that, lies within federal jurisdiction. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that the member is recommending that we should have more authority given to us in the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There can only be one speaker at a time in this .Chamber.

The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I would only like to remind the Minister that when a strike appeared to be a possibility that the matter of jurisdiction didn't bother the Minister of Labour. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: So would hope that in this instance, that the -( Interjection)- . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you for your kind intercession, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Minister if they will follow the example that his own Minister of Labour provided him with in making direct representation to the interested parties and if he will contact the Minister of Agriculture, or the federal Minister of Agriculture in this regard, which he has indicated he has not in his previous answer, and if he will contact the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, in regard to the Ministry of Transport, in order to put as much pressure as is possible, to use his good offices and his government to apply as much pressure as possible, to have that interchange speeded up so that we can see the transportation of grain and barley to the Port of Churchill; so that they may in fact have a shipping season this year, which looks to be more and more in doubt as this government sits on its hands and does not apply itself directly to the problem, is he prepared to make those sorts of representations and is he prepared to make them in the strongest terms, and now?

MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Honourable Member for Churchill, the Canadian Wheat Board and that authority lies with the Minister whose responsible for the wheat board, not the Minister of Agriculture. Again I say that maybe it should be that it reports to the Minister of Agriculture because grain is, in fact, an agricultural commodity and I think that's where it should report. I would also, Mr.

Speaker, like to tell the member that as far as our representation to the federal Minister of Transportation, that was again one of the number one items on our agenda at the Ministers' meeting on June 3, that we wanted to be assured that we have the CP-CN interchange in place, so that it could, in fact, facilitate the movement of grain through Churchill. Again, Mr. Speaker, the member should also be made aware of the fact that there could be, on those lines that are servicing Churchill, particularly the CN, a shortage of grain appearing.

And the Wheat Board, I understand, are putting in a program of accommodating that movement by either trucking grain over to the CN Line or, in fact, as I would hope the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator would be prepared to move CP cars into that particular facility if it became an emergency situation. I believe that it is a matter of having the grain available to accommodate that port and we will do everything we can to make sure that we support the Port of Churchill. MR. SPEAKER: the Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture and ask him who is directly responsible for seeing to it that grain is delivered into the elevators at the Port of Churchill? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator would be the two bodies that are responsible for that movement. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that labour negotiations were settled approximately two months ago at Churchill, could the Minister give us information as to why it has taken so long, if there is no grain in the elevators at the present time, why it has taken so long to get grain moving to the Port of Churchill? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, that is some of the information that I hope to get from the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator and the Canadian Wheat Board. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake with a final supplementary. MR. EINARSON: A final supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, to the same Minister. In view of the information we are receiving from Ottawa as recently as yesterday that the drought situation is the result of no grain being in the Port of Churchill, I wonder if the Minister could inform this House as to whether a similar situation is being created because of the drought at the Lakeheads and the west coast. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, if it is the drought that is causing a shortage of grain in Churchill, it is because the farmers are not desiring to deliver their grain because of either what they don't expect to grow this year or an anticipated price increase.

The normal grain that would go to Churchill would have been produced last year and the normal grains that would be shipped out of Thunder Bay and Vancouver 5396

I Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 would also be from last year's production. The actual grain on hand that would have been grown this year to go to Churchill is practically negligible, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you very much. A further question to the Minister of Agriculture in regard to an interchange of grain from the C.P. to the C.N. In view of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that the CPR has been claiming for many years now that they're losing 45 cents a bushel on every bushel of grain that they're transporting, I'm wondering why the Minister isn't able to convince the powers that be - it seems to me they would be happy to have the C.N. haul that grain to Churchill because they're losing on every bushel. I ask the Minister, why he is unable to convince those people that it is to their advantage that grain be moved into Churchill. There's no reason for that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think the member should first of all remember that the grain transportation issue and the movement of grain to Churchill did not develop in the last two-and-a-half or three years since we've been in office, that their government had an opportunity while they were in office to do a lot of the things that are now being done and we lacked a lot of positive action during that particular period of time. -(lnterjection)- While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reply to a question that was brought forward by the Member for Ste.

Rose yesterday and I think that the public should be straightened out very quickly on the fact that Manitoba government is not buying hay from the Ontario government. Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government, in reverse, are offering to the provincial government and the farmers of Manitoba their ag reps, an office to facilitate the co-ordination of hay in Ontario, at no charge, Mr. Speaker, to the provincial government or to the producers of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, misleading statements by the fact that the Ontario government would be charging an additional 2.00 per bale of hay, is totally irresponsible coming from a member of this Manitoba Legislative Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Order . Order please. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I would address a further question to the Minister. In fact , the question that I posed was to seek information as to whether or not that was taking place.

I ask the Minister again whether or not the farmers in Ontario are receiving between 60 cents and 1.00 a bale and that hay is costing up to 3.00 a bale to the Manitoba producers. I ask him whether that is not correct. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, the correct figures that have been told to me and that's one of the reasons that we've encouraged the farmers to be a part of, the hay buying operation, is first of all they can be assured of the quality of the hay and No. 2, the fact that they are better negotiators, the private enterprise people of this province are better negotiators than the government system, something that we believe in and support to the fullest. We encourage the farmers to do it themselves. The hay price , Mr. Speaker , is in the neighbourhood of 1.35 to 1.50 per bale loaded on a car or transportation equipment in Ontario.

The Support Program that the government of Manitoba have put in place and are requesting support from from the federal government, is that all the freight be paid on that hay into Manitoba so that the cost of the hay to the Manitoba farmer is the same as what it costs being paid to the producer in Ontario. The producers of Ontario have assured us they will do everything they can to provide us with adequate amounts of hay without increasing the price, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose with a final supplementary. MR. ADAM: Thank you.

I would ask the Minister in regard to another question that I posed yesterday in regard to the price of hay. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the area around Red Deer Lake, approximately 3,000 acres have been opened by the Crown. I'd ask the Minister why this particular hay is being - apparently the information that we have that the price of that hay, slough hay, swamp hay, wild hay, is being sold at 25.00 for a 1,000 pound bale.

I would ask the Minister if he can give us the particulars of that particular agreement and why that hay was not tendered out to individual farmers instead of giving this contract to some friends of the Conservative Party -( Interjection)- to put up hay? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, here again we have the Member for Ste. Rose trying to mislead the public of Manitoba, particularly the farm community. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, the Member for St. George did have the courtesy to forward that question to me earlier last night, to get some information on it so I could respond to him in a reasonable mannaer.

But I guess the Member for Ste. Rose wants me to respond and I will, Mr. Speaker, in this way. That the hay I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I will be checking further details, that the local authority the municipal people, have been given the responsibility of allocating that hay. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that it is the responsibility of a senior government to dominate or dictate to those local governments what should take place. We believe in the democratic system. If, Mr.

Speaker, there is something that is unusual taking place and creating unfairness to the farmers of that particular district, then we will look into it and report back, and that's what the Member for St. George asked me to do. Mr. Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to do so, but I will be having my department check into the specific hay allocation from the Red Lake area in the province. - (Interjection)- 5397

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'll try and ask the question without being political, if I can. - (Interjection)- The Liberal Party is enjoying the western hospitality for the first time in their history, thanks to the members opposite who ·supported them in that famous motion of non-confidence. And, Mr.

Speaker, with all the Cabinet Ministers of the federal government in Winnipeg on the weekend, I wonder if the Prime Minister of Canada or any of his Cabinet Ministers who were in town sat down with the Minister of Agriculture and give him any assurances that they are going to assist us in the Manitoba Drought Assistance Plan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I was unable to meet with the Federal Minister of Agriculture, not due to a lack of willingness on either part, but the fact that he was busy with the convention and I was busy out in the farm community meeting with farmers and at some of the local fairs. We did, however, have a discussion on the telephone, discussing the very cost-sharing thing that has been of some misinterpretation probably. There will be discussions at senior levels in the next few days to discuss the cost-sharing arrangements that will be worked out in a few days. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance -( Interjection)- I'll try and be non-political. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, using the same background material as the Cabinet and Prime Minister of Canada being in the city over the weekend, if any discussions or assurances were provided by the federal government regarding assistance on the Western Power Grid. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, not that I have seen reported, certainly nothing official and nothing I've seen reported in the media. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin with a final supplementary. MR. McKENZIE: I wonder then, if there's been any information passed back and forth to the Minister of Finance regarding the proposed federal energy tax on electrical energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, again, nothing official.

The only official word I have ever had, or the government has ever had, and this came directly from the Federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about six weeks ago, was that neither he nor his staff had given any consideration whatsoever to the possible taxation of electrical energy outside of to export it outside of Canada. So the reported announcement that I read in the media comes as a bit of a surprise in view of the fact that we were advised in an official way some six weeks ago that no consideration whatsoever was being given to it.

Presumably there has been a change of heart on the part of the federal government and they are now considering it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to follow up on the question to the Minister of Agriculture posed by the Member for Ste. Rose. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture what kind of guarantees is the province seeking when they turn over hay-cutting lands to local municipalities, in terms of guarantees for the farmers of Manitoba, in terms of cost of hay and supply of hay to the farmers, what kind of guarantees is the province seeking? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, as far as guarantees of any kind, the initial intent of allowing the Crown land to be made available, a colleague, the Minister of Resources, being the Minister who is also involved, we felt the most important thing was to make the hay available, that the government make the decision and move in that direction and that decision was taken. The decision to allow the allocation system to take place by the local municipalities was a part of that decision. Now, as far as policing that, Mr.

Speaker, I would have to say that this is the first time that anyone has brought to my attention that there may be some difficulties with the allocation system. This is the first opportunity that I've had to check into it; it's the first time it's been brought to my attention. I guess, Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the local municipalities that they are in a large part pretty fair and respectable people, b�sically made up of good agricultural people and we'll check out the allegations that are being made, that there is maybe some unfairness taking place. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, it appears from the Minister's answer that he has not asked for any basic guarantees for the farmers of Manitoba with respect to allocation of hay.

In view of the fact that it appears that there may be a conflict of interest in this situation, can the Minister indicate whether the price of 25 per round bale or per half-a-ton is exorbitant to people who are alleged to be cutting the hay who have neither the equipment to use, have had to either purchase or lease the equipment, while farmers are sitting idly by and wondering who is going to cut the hay and are asked to pay 50 a ton or more for hay that is wild hay, Mr. Speaker, is that not outrageous? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have indicated to the member, last night when he brought this to my attention, that I would be looking into it. I am indicating today that I will look into it and if there is some misuse of government property or something that is not of an ordinary situation, then it will be acted upon, Mr. Speaker. So it's in the process and I will continue to proceed. 5398

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a final supplementary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture of this province indicated that farmers are good negotiators, can he tell me how the farmers of that area are prepared to negotiate down from a set price of 25 a bale and receive an adequate guarantee that hay will be made available to all the farmers of that area? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to refer to another program that we've introduced and that's the Green Feed Program; that, in fact, the way it is being received by the farmers is very good. I think that when we see a larger quantity of tame forage, or I shouldn't say tame forage, but tame green feed such as oats, millets, come on the market and available that we will see the price of hay possibly I drop. I don't want to speculate that at this particular time, but at least it will give the farmers another opportunity to buy feed and they won't have to buy the wild hay. Mr. Speaker, that was the intent of the program.

We have to assess and monitor how successful that will be and then we will assess whether or not the price of hay is too high or too low. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. DAVID BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance responsible for the Energy portfolio. I wonder if he can inform the House the latest position of the objections to the federal government to the development of gasohol in the province of Manitoba·. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, again, there has been no official comment in the last few days from the federal department. The only other comment that has been made was again by the Federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Two or three days prior to the announcement in the House here through the budget that we would be exempting gasohol from the sales tax or from taxation, the Federal Minister at that time was advised of our serious interest in doing so and at that point was quite laudatory of the move being made by Manitoba.

So we find, with some surprise, that again, unofficially as reported in the media through the recent Liberal convention in Winnipeg, we now find him being critical of such a move. Mr. Speaker, I'm furthermore surprised at the reasons for what appears to be his reticence in removing his endorsement of the move and that is that it imposes a burden on the agricultural production and takes food away from production and puts it into alcohol. Mr. Speaker, the recent Power Alcohol Conference that was held in Winnipeg about two weeks ago came up with quite the opposite observation.

They made the observation that the protein that came out of the process that was going to be taking place in the example case, like the distillery at Minnedosa, was still left intact would be used as an animal feed, that it was a very sensible, vertical integration of the use of food stuffs produced from agricultural lands. So, Mr. Speaker, it comes with a degree of dismay to find these comments coming from the federal government and it certainly makes you wonder what is going on at that level.

I would further quote the head of the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation (SEDCO), who at that same meeting, said in reply to a comment then by the federal government, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at that conference, indicated his reservation about it in a manner similar to that now being put forth by the Minister. And the head of SEDCO at the time said that if they were to examine it more seriously, they should be coming to the conclusion that every province in Canada should be making the move that Manitoba made. This comes from Saskatchewan. MR.

BLAKE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister, while we're on the subject of energy. I wonder if he could just inform the House as to the present position of Manitoba with regard to the Polar Gas route through the province? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, the Polar Gas interests are presenting to the National Energy Board, have requested a hearing of the National Energy Board to look at a route for the line that would pick up all of the Arctic gas, not only the Arctic islands that they originally started looking at, but also the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Valley gas and what's now referred to as the Y-shaped route that would come down almost in the province - it would be almost entirely in the province of Manitoba, coming in at the northwest corner and at this point in time, they are proposing still to cut out of the province a little too far north, but certainly open for consideration on coming directly down through what has become known as the Interlake route into southern Manitoba.

I don't want to suggest that this route is going to be taken more seriously, that the Polar Gas project is going to be taken more seriously, than say the Mackenzie Line, that has been under consideration for some many years. However, it appears to be one of the most sensible proposals that has yet to come forth for the movement of all natural gas from the Arctic to the south. And if they are successful, and it's not likely to happen in the very near future, but if they are successful, Manitoba could be a very substantial beneficiary for such a route selection. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Brandon East.

MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance about the Polar Gas transmission proposal. While we would like to see this proposal become a reality, because it's indeed been considered for many years and talked of for many years, would the Minister advise whether the possibility or chances of such a route, whichever route it may take through the province, to what extent have the possibilities increased or decreased because of the new gas finds in Alberta?

The extent of new gas - my question is, is the phenomenon of new gas finds in Alberta aiding or hurting the 5399

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 possibility of an early Polar Gas line coming through Manitoba? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I would have to think that it sets back the time which we might expect a Polar Gas line to become practical. One would have to think that in view of the fact that the finds in Alberta, although they tend to be a bit remote in terms of the traditional Alberta gas locations, are still much more accessible than the Arctic gas locations and therefore it will come on the market at a better price, therefore likely to set back the developments of a Polar Gas or other Arctic gas removal.

However, it is probably interesting to note that it appears now that the Alaska line is very close to proceeding and although . that will only move American gas from the north slope of Alaska, to the south, there was a possibility also of the Mackenzie gas tying in with that, through the Dempster route. Whether that proceeds or not still remains to be seen. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Time for question period having expired we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Would you call Bill No. 2, standing in the name of the Member for St.

Boniface, and then Bill Nos. 76, 80 and 82. And, Mr. Speaker, if we're through with those bills prior to the adjournment hour, I would like to then proceed into Supply. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON THIRD READING BILL NO. 2 -

AN ACT RESPECTING THE MANITOBA ACT -

SECTION 23 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if there is any point that disappointed me during the session, I guess it is not necessarily just the passing of Bill No. 2, but the action of the government in dealing with this issue, of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. Mr.

Speaker, if you remember during the introduction of this bill, at second reading, I stated that I didn't think it was that wonderful a bill, that I wasn't too sure if it was doing exactly what should be done and if it was correcting the injustice of the last 100 years or so. But nevertheless I stated that I would support the bill, as it might be felt that this would be a step in the right direction and the first step and at least I would vote to allow it to go to second reading and then we would no doubt find out more about the intentions of the provincial government. Mr.

Speaker, I should say that also with regard to this, that during my - when I took

part in the debate, in the Throne Speech, I spoke only in French, if you remember, Mr. Speaker. I started by asking a question in French, which no doubt wasn't answered, wasn't understood, and I spoke in French and only in French in the Throne Speech. And that, of course, wasn't understood and wasn't reported. It might have been a few weeks after or a few days, after but it wasn't reported and it was never translated. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I wasn't - don't take any exception, I know it is impossible to have people understand, know the meaning and know what you're discussing when they don't understand the language and that was exactly the point that I was trying to make. I've been informed that all of a sudden, it was a great victory, it should be regarded as a great victory for me, because after all the Supreme Court had stated that my right as a member of the second official language in Canada would be respected in this House.

From that day on, it was no longer a privilege, and it had been driven home on many occasions during my 22 years here that I could speak French when addressing this group, when speaking in this House, but that it should be clear to me that this was only a privilege that was accorded to me by the goodwill of the members of this Chamber and certainly not a question of rights. But with this change, well then, it became my right. But, Mr. Speaker, my point was, and it still is at this time, what was the point of having the right to speak French if I did not have the right to be understood. And you remember, Mr.

Speaker, that I stated then that if there was a debate, especially after the Speed-up motion and if I wanted to speak in French and the matter was going to be settled before a translation should be brought in, what was the point? That, of course, is the same concern. I also stated, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to be reasonable, that I thought I was a reasonable person and that I thought that many of the Franco­ Manitobans and other people that believe in this official status of Manitoba would be responsible people and fair people.

I think there would have been, had there been meeting and understanding between the groups and the government, had the government chose to maybe drag its feet a bit on some of these things that they were ordered to do by the Supreme Court, had they moved in another direction that would have been much more beneficial to the people of Manitoba, to the people of Canada. It certainly would have showed the example and would have gone a long way in trying to correct the injustice that has been committed for the last hundred years of so.

That is why during that speech I requested of the government to give us an idea, that we would understand that Rome wasn't built in a day, but at least we would be moving in a certain direction. If we had a

schedule of things that would be done, if we had an idea of what would be done, and of course I expected all kinds of new amendments in The Public Schools Act because I mentioned at the time, and I think that most of the members of this House agree with me, that if you're going to move in a direction of providing the facilities for bilingualism, then the best way, the only way, to really move would be in education and starting with the younger children. 5400

I Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 Again, my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, when The Public Schools Act came in with many many changes and not one single change, not one single explanation on the

section of teaching languages in that particular Act. Nothing at all, although there have been recommendations. Not only, Mr. Speaker, and this is an important point, not only by the Societe Franco-Manitobaine, les educateurs francophones ou les commissaires d'ecoles de langue franc;:aise; not only by those people but the parent organization, the Manitoba Teachers Society, and I particularly was careful to ask that question to make sure that this was the case when the spokesmen appeared for them on The Public Schools Act and they agreed with the les educateurs de langue francaise, which are the French teachers.

The trustees did also, the Trustees Association agreed also, so everybody in the teaching field agreed to this. The First Minister, well, he was Leader of the Opposition, had made a point that he felt that the way to move would be in education and I applauded him at the time. He stated that as far as he was concerned the best way would be to introduce French, make it compulsory, not as a teaching language but as a subject. Would that be asking too much to have French as a subject in all schools in Manitoba? Those were not my words.

This is something that I agree with, that I think it would be a step in the right direction and it would show the leadership, and you know, there's gestures that you might feel are not very important, but I think it is very important at this time in history to show the leadership and to have somebody from Manitoba where there had been an injustice perpetuated for so many years, where they would show the example .to try to rectify some of what had been created by this injustice and the assimilation that the Franco­ Manitobans have had and are fighting to retain, their culture and their language, which was so difficult, probably more so in Manitoba than anywhere else.

Now the First Minister also stated that he did not - mind you he's changed his mind on that, I don't know what the last bulletin said, I didn't see it - but I recall that the First Minister said that he did not want to see language rights enshrined in the constitution, that it would be up to the province to decide to do something about it and to protect these rights. There again my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, because as I say, some of the actions, some of the things that have happened. This bill doesn't spell anything out except they say, well, it's a legal document, we must have that before we do anything.

I'm not a lawyer but it's hard for me to understand that, Mr. Speaker, because I go to The Manitoba Act which was enforced before 1890 and this is the

article No. 23, English and French Languages to be used. "Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the House of the Legislature and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of the House". That didn't mean Hansard because there was no Hansard at the time, if that didn't mean all the records and journals of this House, I don't know what it meant.

And "either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under The British North America Act, 1867, or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The Acts of legislation shall be printed and published in both these languages". All right, well then, years after, in 1890, there was The Official Languages Act and that is what it stated.

"Any statute or law to the contrary, notwithstanding the English language only, shall be used in the records and journals of the House of the Assembly for the province of Manitoba in any pleadings or process in or issuing from any courts in the province of Manitoba. The Acts of the Legislature of the province of Manitoba need only be printed and published in the English language". That would mean then that this would take precedence over 23 of The Manitoba Act. But, what did the Supreme Court decide? It said that it was ultra vires, in other words, that The Official Languages Act of 1890 wasn't legal.

So if it wasn't legal, what did it mean? It meant, Mr. Speaker, in my layman's understanding, that we would go back to 23. So there was actually no need for this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another thing, it might be that the lawyers will come in and say, well, it would be better to have it. I'm going to bring in an amendment later on that we give it the six months hoist, not with the intent of saying this is going to be finished, but with the intent of looking at it for the next few months, of sending it ...

The Premier of Manitoba has got on the Order Paper a proposed resolution where a committee will be formed to sit between sessions and to report to the next session and this committee will look at the question of national unity and the question of the Constitution and so on, of language rights and so on. I think it would be a unique occasion, Mr. Speaker, to refer this bill to this committee and ask for a recommendation. And by then, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would have a chance to look at Bill 31 . We've heard delegation.

The committee will now deal with Bill 31 clause by clause and, as I stated in second reading of this bill, I intended to bring in some amendments that I think are reasonable amendments. We've had Bill 59, the Roblin bill on French as a teaching language, you know the one I mean anyway, I think it's 59; and then Bill 11 3, and any of these bills. The government members will be the first ones to agree that you will review these bills and things have to be changed.

You do that when you bring in this kind of legislation; you do that when you bring in The Winnipeg Act, for instance, nearly every year there is some change. We started with the Metropolitan form of government and then went from there. There were some changes. We have

an Act by the Minister of Sports on lotteries that we're going in a certain direction. He feels that he needs

an Act to change. Would it be asking too much to look at the situation, what has happened in the last few years in the provision of Bill 11 3 which made French a teaching language, a language of instruction? So I would hope that by then we'll have a chance to discuss this. The Minister promised that he would keep an open mind. I hope that he meant it I hope that we will be able to have some of my amendments passed, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to know before we do all this and before we start translating documents such as this that might come in three or four weeks after.

All right, it might be a victory for some people but what is that if we're really interested in results. We have to 5401

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 conform. The government has no other choice, the government has to conform at the direction of the Supreme Court but what is this going to do really? That could provide in a way, if that's all it's done, if there is not some education, if there are not other steps that are taken, this will drive people, instead of uniting them, will drive them apart. This will be divisive because you will have the French on one side, the English on one side and then they'll say, look, because right now we put a dollar sign on everything and we're going to look at the cost of this.

Then somebody, some members for sure, are going to ask how many French bills have been requested by the public? And there's not going to be that many. Then the idea of it will be lost and it will be just a cost for nothing. This is what I say, that I think reasonable people will say, well, okay, drag your feet on this - and I'm speaking very very openly, I'm putting all the cards on the table - drag your feet on this one but bring in meaningful changes that will help to, what? The Franco­ Manitobans and the others, and they're not only people whose mother tongue is French that are interested in that.

This kind of education can only do one thing and it can only profit and help and go to the advantage of this province. I think then, when you're talking about the services that could be given in both languages, at least in some areas where there's a need for that because of the population, that will be easier and it will be common then. You request certain things when you take law; you request certain things when you take medicine and if you stated that to be a civil servant, at least to go within a certain degree or certain position, that French and English would be needed.

In a few years nobody would think anything of it. It's done all over Europe. It's done all over the place? They say you try to shove something down people's throats. Well, it's not now to say, as of today, we're giving six months or a year to all the civil servants to learn French and they're going to go to Immersion school. That, as far as I'm concerned, is ridiculous. It is not fair and it is ridiculous. But if you start -( Interjection)- it's still ridiculous. There are a lot of ridiculous things that are done, it doesn't change anything.

As far as I'm concerned, in my own humble opinion, but it wouldn't be ridiculous if you started by providing that French - after all if there's two languages here - French could be at least a subject everywhere in Canada, a subject, and would it harm people so much to know two languages? And then it could become a necessity if it became something that was required, if you felt that you want to go in a certain field, or if you want to go to a certain level as a civil servant. Would that be asking too much? You're asking certain things in some areas, would that be asking so much?

If you start by providing it and make it possible for the younsters of the province and it would bring people together. Because when you want to look at certain things, I can't look at the problems or at the prejudice of other people through my eyes, I have to try to look at it through their eyes. I mention again, Mr. Speaker, how many times have I been told - and that happens to all the racial origins, I'm not the martyr here - but you know 'those damn Frenchmen and so on' and when they find out I'm French, well, you're not like the rest of the others. Well, they haven't met anybody else. We're all human beings.

We've got some good ones and some bad ones in all of them, in all professons and in all walks of life. There are even some good politicians, Mr. Speaker, there are even some sincere politicians. So nobody has a monopoly on goodness or honesty or sincerity or brains, for that matter. I think this was a chance to do something like that. Another thing that pained me very much is that problem that they're having to have a French school, a school where francaise will be taught and where the administration will be in French, a regional school in the same division around lle des Chenes.

Previously it was the government will not interfere with that. It's a different level of government, they know what they want, they have been elected. We'll go along with them so, therefore, this is the right of the school division. So it's the right of the school division and if the school division requests that something is done we'll go ahead with them, it's out of our hands. In this case it was unanimously recommended by the school division that this school be built and this school is needed.

I mean, you can play numbers and I'm shocked that the policy seemed to be coming from a Deputy Minister and I don't think he was elected. There was only the one meeting with the parents. The parents have been requesting a meeting with the Minister for months and months and months. This was not done, this has never been done. The school division is asking for a directive and the figures are not presented to the school finance board properly. Nobody is there to correct these mistakes and where do we go from there? The government now said well, I don't know the direction and no decision is being made.

Right now, if you understand the situation, there are many elementary schools. There are enough elementary schools teaching French, using French as a teaching language but then they are coming to this bottleneck, a secondary school. -(lnterjection)­ There aren't any. They're very small. They're bused from all these areas right up here to St. Boniface College, which is in the public schools system. St. Boniface College was built for so many students and it's busting at the seams and they're asked to stay in some make-shift school that they have instead of building.

That is one of the areas where a school is needed. There are some areas where, because of lack of new students, that it's going down and that is something that has to be looked at. Nobody is saying, well, you're going to abandon these schools and build a brand new school. That is not the point. The government, and I commend them for that, and the previous government did the same thing, you have to use what you now have before you start building some more. But that is not the case there. Something is needed and we haven't a decision.

Now all of a sudden it seems that it doesn't suit the government so now they're taking over from the school division and nothing is being done. Mr. Speaker, it is for those reasons that I am shocked. I looked at this bill in front of us and it's been stated, this is secondhand information that's been told to me, that the Minister had, not publicly, had stated, well, we'll bring in this bill the same as Quebec to give you the minimum that we can get away with. That is unfortunate if that is the case. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because I thought 5402

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 that in this bill we would try to get to the intent of the bill and the intent, not just the letter of the law. It doesn't seem to be the case at all and it's going to be money wast ed. You're going to have more divisiveness than you ever had before. It's not rectified; it's not helping anything. You are not showing the leadership that you should. On the larger plane, we're trying to keep this beautiful country of ours together. During the referendum, there were all kinds of promises of people saying, we want you.

You know, you would send messages to Quebec, we want you, and many of these people have believed because they love their country out there, too. Many of them and even many of them of those that voted, yes, in favour of the referendum did that, not to break up the country, but they felt that then, because they were a little fed up with all these promises and everything that was said but nothing was done. They felt, well, we'll bring it to a head, if the referendum passes and if it's a yes, what does that mean?

That before, from now, from the next day after their referendum until the provincial election in Quebec, well, then, that will be the last chance to save it and everybody will work and you will come with something concrete. That is why, just previous to the referendum, I suggested that some statement come in, that we should have had this committee before to discuss, to have a forum, where these people across Canada would know that there are other Canadians that realize that there are problems, but also want to keep this country together.

We say, well, isn't it too bad there are the separatists and we're going to lose this country. Bang, we say that and we don't think anymore about it. We think of all the other things and it doesn't mean that we have no other problems. It doesn't mean that there aren't any problems. Would we forget that? Then it might be too late when we ruin this country. I, for one, would be very happy to visit the United States, but I don't want to see western Canada as one or two extra states. No way, no way. It's a great country south of us, but we've got the greatest one here.

We've borrowed from the States and in a way we're progressive. I think the moral values, without knocking the United States, I think that we have a better idea of moral values. Not as good as it should be, but at least we were retaining some of this. I don't know if it's our British heritage; I suspect that maybe it is. I would want to keep this country the way it is. I think that we need leadership that is not coming from this province and leadership from western Canada. This is an unique opportunity, especially in Canada. Now let's not mince words.

In Canada, they look at Premier Lyon as one of the most hardnosed when it comes to that and he's not going to do anything to change that. Well, damn it, maybe he is different. Maybe he is different. The odd time I hear him say certain things that give me some bit of encouragement and what, if we were going to have this kind of leadership, it would pleasantly surprise many. It would fool others and it would show that we're all together in this. I'm not saying of giving the store away. That's not what I'm saying. People of Quebec, like everybody else, have to be fair.

Franco­ Manitobans and minority English people in Quebec have to be fair. But I mean to make a real effort and there must be something that we come, before we try to negotiate everything, there must be something that could be done in Manitoba, the province, that was probably one of the guilty ones because of that in this infamous bill of 1890 and that perpetuated an injustice all these years and that it caused a lot of assimilation. Let's go back to the beginning of the history of this province. I think that the Francophone had a role to play. I think they served this province well.

And look at during the war, they did their share. So we're trying to unite these people together. We're trying to do something and if we just look at a decision of the Supreme Court and we say, here is a bill that will provide us, that will give us just the minimum that we can get away with. On that kind of attitude and that's the attitude, rightly or wrongly, that's the way that the Francophone feels about this government at this time.

Then the rest of Canada, they look at Premier Lyon as the one that's not going to move and the one that's going to more difficult and the one that will provide less of this leadership that is needed. That could change and I wish that it did, and I know that it can. Mr. Speaker, this kind of bill, especially with the government remaining silent, as I said, the government did not announce what it was going to do. Sure, they brought a few people from Quebec and they are going to translate a few things and that will be in the Clerk's Office and then somebody from the back - Mackenzie is not here.

I don't mean this Mc Kenzie. If he would be here, he might even ask in Ottawa, well, how many bills have been requested by the public and there won't be that many. They will say, "H ere, we told you so." Then the fight will be on again. But if we brought meaningful things, if we tried to improve this question of French as a teaching language, if we give serious consideration to making French a subject, in English, in French, I believe that French should be a subject of instruction, not a language. A subject in nine provinces and I certainly believe that English should be in Quebec as a subject,

whereas as a teaching language of instruction, well, then you'd have the minority whenever the need is there. So let's make a real effort. Let's take this bill, hoist it for a while, send it to this committee who will - I hope that's not going to be just window dressing - who will look at it, who will see what is needed. It will help them set up some policy that will provide the leadership that will assist our Premier when he meets with the other Premier, will give him something to show that he is sincere, that he's done something. That he's not just taking the easy way out.

Look at the question of the school and have a real effort, the politicians, the people in Cabinet, not the Deputy Minister. Look at the situation of that school at lle des Chenes. Look at these things and then we'll be able to bring in something meaningful, something that will help, that will profit all Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Burrows, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" in the first line and substituting the following: "B ill No. 2,

An Act respecting the operation of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act as 5403

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 regard to statutes,

Loi sur !'application de !'article 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba aux textes legislatifs, be not now read a third time but be reread this day six months hence." MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for St. Boniface has rather forced me to get up to speak on this bill because I have always felt, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't think that there is a great deal of controversy on the subject to suggest otherwise, that · I have a $trong commitment to Canada, continuing to be, and in fact becoming more committed to a country which is based, not on a single homogeneous language, that the existence of the French fact in Canada, which comes about by accident rather than by design, is one of the most valuable features of Canadian nationalism, because it reverses all negative forms of nationalisms, or most negative forms of nationalisms, so that I don't become exaggerated, which stress some type of commitment to one particular form of ethnic origin.

And having the French fact in Canada has made Canadians the better for it. We are ingrained from birth and from our daily lives with the knowledge that people of different backgrounds have to respect each other and that the differences are not a handicap to us, but enhance the totality of our being, that the fact that the languages that we are dealing with are English and French is an accident, but they certainly confer official status on these languages. And also, Mr. Speaker, in realistic terms , they become the languages of the country regardless of the ethnic origin of other people.

Yes, other languages are spoken, but to suggest that Jewish, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, or any of the other ethnic groups in our society would have the same status as English and French is just not realistic. What they can get as a dividend from the existence of two official languages is the attitudinal respect that must, of natural consequence, flow from the fact that Canada is so structured. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that I have to run around convincing people of my commitment in this respect.

But I don't support the honourable member's motion and I don't wish, in not supporting this motion, that it be suggested that I am on the other side of this question. I just don't understand my honourable friend's reasoning. I have looked at the bill. It's too bad, Mr. Speaker, that when we have addressed ourselves to this bill, that we have not talked about the bill and we've talked about the symbolism that is involved.

And if my honourable friend was asking me to vote against the symbolism, I would vote for him because I don't believe that the bill is symbolic of a great deal or establishes a great deal, and therefore, to the extent that I say that neither the Supreme Court decision nor this bill is going to effectively deal with the role of French in the province of Manitoba and particularly the role of French in Canada, is something that I have been telling people for years. I have been saying to Mr.

Forest, I have been saying to any lawyers that would listen, I have been saying to the judges, that regardless of the law, and I'm not sure because in questions of law there's always a difference, but the Supreme Court has said that French is an official language in the province of Manitoba, and the 1890 Bill is ultra vires. So what? What does that achieve? Does it mean that the statutes will be printed in both languages and I too say that doesn't achieve anything, and I agree with my honourable friend.

But he should tell that to all of the people who for years have been saying that if the statutes are in French and English, we will have achieved our position, or if the courts have to be translated from French to English, we will have achieved our position. Mr. Speaker, I have been saying that will not achieve anything. As a matter of fact, it may be a negative thing, because the existence of Canada as a French-English country depends on the existence of Quebec as a French province. There will be no French spoken outside of Quebec if Quebec separates.

The balance of the Francophone community would lose whatever impetus there is for a French Canada. Quebec, thankfully, has not given impetus to the separatist movement but, Mr. Speaker, both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Levesque and the majority of people in Quebec agree that French has to be the living language of Quebec. And if the Supreme Court decision hinders French becoming the living language of Quebec, it won't aid the cause of the Francophone in the province of Manitoba, it will hurt the cause of the Francophone. But I really didn't think that we were arguing the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court has ruled, much as I say and have said that that decision is not of great consequence to the Francophone community in the province of Quebec. What I gather the government is doing is trying to deal with that decision and this Bill No. 2 doesn't enact the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of honourable members, doesn't need a bill to enact it. It is the law. The 1890 statute has been struck out by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, French and English are now the official languages in the province of Manitoba for the purposes described in that bill, so the government is faced with a problem. Not a problem in terms of agreeing with it. They don't have the option of agreeing or disagreeing. They now say that one of the things that they have to do, have to do, Mr. Speaker, and this is what I have objected to; one of the things that they have to do is put the statutes into English and in French. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it may be a complete waste of time and money. Some people think that symbolically it's a great thing.

I am not interested in the symbols, I am interested in action. And for people to have to devote their attention to what they have to do deters their attention from what they should and want to do. And between, Mr. Speaker, 1966 when I first came into this House and 1979, in my respectful submission, great progress was made by the people of Ma nitoba with respect to implementing in Manitoba a greater degree of the character of Canada than had previously existed. And I'm not saying that we have reached a 5404

' • I Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 millenium. There was a long way to go, but the way to go, Mr. Speaker, is not in every case agreed to. I do not agree that French schools are for people of French origin any more than English schools are for people of English origin. I do not agree with those who say that they want a French school, but a person with an English-speaking background should not be permitted to go to that school, he should go to another school. I don't agree with that. But that is the position that is taken by some people. Mr.

Speaker, I regard French as being the language of Canadians, not as the language of people of French origin. It is as much my language as it is their language, and to the extent that they tried to take that language from me, they, Mr. Speaker, are harming the Francophone fact in our country, not I. Mr. Speaker, I look at this bill. What is the government doing with this bill? It is not enacting the Supreme Court decision.

The government can't enact the Supreme Court decision because the Supreme Court decision said that the government is ultra vires with regard to that particular . . . the government has no power with regard to that particular feature. That power was enacted in The BNA Act and in The Manitoba Act and we have no power to change that Act. What the government is saying is, now that the languages are in English and in French and we will have to publish bills in those two languages, we are going to have a rule of

interpretation. That's all. When a judge then has a statute and one person argues that the statute in French means, and he gives the French

interpretation, and the other person says that the statute in English means something different - and it is possible, Mr. Speaker, because languages are never fully translatable. . There are things that you say in certain languages which cannot be translated into another language and, Mr. Speaker, that's why often words do not become anglified. You will never hear coup d'etat anglicized. It cannot be said in English. You cannot say cut off the States or cut off the head in terms of dealing with a coup d'etat. Even rendevous is not perfectly translatable, so it remains in its French form.

The word "chutzpah" is not fully translatable, so it becomes an English word. The word "shlimazel" is not fully translatable. It becomes used howsoever and therefore, what the government is saying is that it is now the law in the province of Manitoba and we can't enact a ... The government didn't have to bring in in a bill to bring in the Supreme Court decision .. Why did they bring in a bill? Because this bill does not deal with the Supreme Court decision. This bill says that the . . . well, I asked the honourable member to read the bill. The bill says that it is a rule of

interpretation that if a statute is printed in French and English, it will be interpretged as it was first printed, which might be the French, it might be the English. That's all it says. I mean, I can't find anything else in the bill. And then it tells how you determine when it was first printed, etc. Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe it's a mistake that when people got up to speak on this bill they started to talk about the great symbolism. That probably was a mistake, but we all did it. So we were all mistaken. But it leads to a suggestion that the bill not be enacted. Then I want to know from the Member for St.

Boniface, after these statutes are printed in French and in English, which I gather some of them will be, and I'm not sure how many, and frankly, on this point I have never cared and still don't care. I am following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. That's all. It has never been my priority as a person who wants to extend the French language in the province of Manitoba that we take The Highway Traffic Act and put it into French. And the people who think it's a priority are badly mistaken, Mr. Speaker. It will cause more harm than it will cause good. And they are badly mistaken.

However, it is the law, so we have a certain respect for law and we now start printing statutues. Now there is a case in court conducted in French because it now can be conducted in French or in English, and the statute of one lawyer pursues the French position, the other lawyer pursues the English position. What is the rule? The government says the rule is that it shall be interpreted, I gather, in the language in which it was first printed. That's all. Now why should I hold that up for six months?

If my honourable friend was saying to me that this bill is intended to undo efforts to bring about education in French and English and there was somewhere in that that I could read that or deduce it or infer it, I would think otherwise. But surely, it would not then be on this bill. We would then argue within the estimates of the Minister of Education, put forward resolutions or put forward bills, but not deal in this way with a bill which is simply a rule of

interpretation. And in this, Mr. Speaker, in saying what I am now saying, I am saying exactly what I said when the bill was placed before the Legislature. So, Mr. Speaker, I am impelled to speak, because I gather - if I gather the remarks of the Member for St. Boniface as being a position which his party has taken - I gather I'm going to be voting against that position. But it certainly, Mr. Speaker, cannot be attributed to me, that I am voting in such a way as to represent some opposition to the live existence of the French fact in Canada and in the province of Manitoba.

That has not been my history, that has not been my position, that has not been my posture before my own constituents, before the people of the province of Manitoba and at every opportunity at the national level. I am fully in accord, Mr. Speaker, with the enhancement of that character of our country which stems from the fact that there were two language groups upon which Canada was based. I have profound differences of opinion, with many who say how that extension and how that enhancement will take place. In particular, I have never accepted the position that used to be taken by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I notice that he has. in the last several years, weakened a little in his suggestion that the existence of French is not something which is dependent upon the French language in the province of Quebec and that really the French and English will have equal status in terms of federal institutions and governmental agencies throughout the country, because in that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. Trudeau was much more concerned with the English­ speaking minority in the province of Quebec than he was with the French-speaking minority in the province of Manitoba. 5405

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 And that indeed was his position, particularly in 1968 when he took two responsible people, Mr. Stanfield and Mr. Douglas, who had seen the necessity of the recognition of the French fact, at least in Quebec, and from there flowing to the rest of Canada. And Mr. Trudeau attacked those people and the rest of the country as catering to the Quebecois and brought about more ill-feeling in this country, with respect to the recognition of the French fact, than he did anything to solidify it and that was proven by events, Mr. Speaker. When Mr.

Trudeau started there wasn't a single elective deputy in the province of Quebec committed to a separatist party. Within ten years a separatist party was elected to be the government of the province of Quebec. Fortunately, things look better now, but I also believe that Mr. Trudeau's position has changed somewhat, although he is not a very changeable person. And I don't make that as a critical statement. I indicate that as a conviction . . . But because I disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I disagreed with the importance of the Supreme Court decision.

There is no doubt that I disagreed and I think that from what the Member for St. Boniface is now saying, that he recognizes that that decision is not the springboard from which we are going to bring in a new situation. As a matter of fact, it could be negative and he himself has said so. What is necessary, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of will, the kind of desire, the kind of commitment that brought this province considerably forw ard, as between 1969 and 1979 and I hope that is there, Mr. Speaker, the passing of this bill will not in any way detract from that; if I thought so, I would vote against the bill.

The passing of this bill is merely one of the legal requirements that has been made necessary by those who think that the avenue for recognition of French in our society is a legal avenue. I disagree with them entirely. But if it is a legal avenue, this is part of the street that they have to go on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. L VON: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion that has just been moved by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, I intend to be very brief.

I didn't have the benefit, Sir, of hearing all of the remarks of the honourable member, but I did by hearsay obtain the gist of what he said. Of course, I'm aware of the amendment, which is a hoist on the bill, which in our parliamentary tradition, of course, means to kill the bill, and my honourable friend has been in the House long enough to know that that is the effect of his amendment. -(I nterjection)- My honourable friend says "N ot necessarily." I can assure him, necessarily, that is the effect of a hoist. He has been here long enough to know that.

I say to my honourable friends opposite, first of all, I would like to have some clarification as to whether or not the position that has been enunciated by the Member for St. Boniface, by the amendment that is before us, represents the considered opinion of the official opposition of Manitoba, because it would be interesting to know if he was speaking on behalf of his whole party, or merely on behalf of himself. I think that can very soon be cleared up by way of a vote, on the amendment, and I think that is important.

Number two, having had the advantage of hearing some of the remarks of the Honourable Member for lnkster, I can say that in general I certainly subscribe to what he has been saying about the effect of the bill. The law in Canada today is that

Section No. 23 of the Manitoba Act, as originally enacted, is the law in Manitoba. The effect of the bill, as I recall, the entitlement of the bill, is to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court and it is, if not entirely procedural in nature, it is largely procedural and interpretative in nature, in order to give better effect to the change in the law that has been brought about by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Why my honourable friend would move that that be hoisted, or killed, is really beyond my comprehension.

I realize that there is a lot of emotion that gets involved on the periphery of matters of this sort - symbolism, as my honourable friend from lnkster has referred to it. And a lot of sometimes non­ understandable positions are taken, by well-meaning people, such as the Member for St. Boniface, and I make no attack whatsoever upon his deep emotional feelings in this regard. But can he not see that by moving the motion that he has just moved before the House, he is taking

an Act - or placing before the House a position which is almost as perverse as the position which he quite properly attacked, taken by the Franco-Manitobaine Society, when they in some wild adventure of opinion suggested that the people of Quebec should vote for separatism. I'm not suggesting that what my honourable friend is saying today is quite that perverse, but it verges on being almost that perverse, and it makes it difficult to deal in a rational way with matters of this sort when you sometimes are being faced with flights of emotional fancy which really have no bearing upon the subject matter at hand.

We want to get under way with the implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in the province of Manitoba and indeed, before the Act was brought into the Legislature, steps were taken to give effect to that judgment, because the judgment of the Supreme Court, under the rule of law under which we operate, is the law of Manitoba and this bill is to give better effect to the implementation of that law. And so why anyone would want to hoist the bill or to kill the bill, is really beyond my comprehension. So, Mr.

Speaker, there is very little else I can say at this time, of course, other than to indicate that the gover nment, of course, will vote against this amendment because it would have the effect of killing the bill and of rendering nugatory the effect of procedural and interpretative sections that are necessary to give effect, to the rule of law and to the Supreme Court judgment in Canada. I would think that upon sober reflection, my honourable friend from St.

Boniface, when he returns to earth from the emotional flights that he has been engaged in, will realize that we are doing him a favour by defeating his motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. 5406

I I I Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am also going to have to vote against this amendment, one of the reasons being that in Law Amendments committee I spoke to some of those who made representation to committee and who I felt had justified complaints about the bill and I said, "Would you rather the bill went forward in its present form, or would you rather it was withdrawn in its present form, in the hope that something better would come from this government?" The reply was, "This is better than nothing and we would rather it went forward in its present form." And taking my advice from those people, I will vote against the amendment, and I will vote for the bill.

However, Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that the government can take great pride in having presented this legislation, because I believe it's the merest compliance that could be possible with the decision of the Supreme Court. I think it's a niggardly compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court, Mr.

Speaker, and I can only hope that through pressure, or through the workings of their collective conscience, that they will come forward with something in the next session that is more in the spirit of the wishes of the people of Canada, for equality for all of French people and of all Canadian people and for their right to speak in the ancestral language of their choice, in one of the two official languages, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, speaking in second reading, I believe that the very least that we should have been offered would be a sort of a programming timetable as to what we can expect to have come before us in the future.

I can understand that everything couldn't be provided at the first session, after the Supreme Court decision, but I would have expected the Attorney-General or the First Minister to come forward with a programming as to what they intend ultimately to do, how far they mean to go, this government, what they see as the programming, what they see as the possible expenditure or alternative programmings and expenditures, so that the House can understand what they're considering, the House can understand what they're thinking and the people of Manitoba can understand, can see - where are we going? Is this it?

Is this the end? So, I just feel that there's nothing we can be very proud of in this. However, I will, through necessity, support it. Now, one of the people who came to Law Amendments committee, Mr. Speaker, made the particular point that there are certain acts that should have been translated into French because of the need for people to be familiar with them, in the language in which they are most familiar. And three that were suggested at Law Amendments committee were specifically The City of Winnipeg Act, The County Court Act, The

Summary Convictions Act. We were told last night in that same committee, we were given some valid reasons by the Mini ster of Corrections as to why - the use of the translators that were available to them, how and why they had been used to do amending bi lls rather than do original acts. But I would ask that the government give consideration as soon as possible to translating those existing acts which are most important to the everyday lives of Manitobans. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to be brief, Mr.

Speaker, but I am wondering whether or not what the government is proposing is to follow the law of Canada in degrees. And what it appears to me, my concern is that what it leaves out and what is not in the bill, what is excluded from the bill is more or less to be discarded because we have no opinion from the government how far it intends to follow the law of Canada.

Again, I want to express my concern about the government's way of bringing in legislation without proper consultation to the people that it is intended to affect and we've seen this time after time again, that there has been no consultation with groups which legislation is being brought in to affect these certain groups. I have asked many of my people of French origin what they thought of this particular bill and it's a laugh to them, as far as they're concerned, it's insignificant.

Now the member brings in an amendment in order to hoist the bi ll which effectively, I agree with the First Minister, is going to kill the bill. Now, killing nothing is maybe not a detriment, I don't know, to the people that it's going to affect, if you're killing nothing. I am going to immediately, upon rising for the dinner hour, Mr. Speaker, I am going to contact some of those French people and the French Cultural group in Ste. Rose, to find out what is their opinion on this. Then I will make a judgment as to whether I should support the amendment or not.

But as far as I'm concerned there is nothing in the bill. And to make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, when the Attorney-General introduced the bill I think it was more or less grandstanding, because the second word that he mentioned, after introducing the bill, was how much it was going to cost. It's going to cost a half a million dollars. That's the big connotation. I think they were just grandstanding on this bill, that's all I can see. But there's absolutely nothing in the bill that affects the fundamental rights of French­ speaking people in this province, that they have been deprived over decades, Mr.

Speaker, of their rights in this province. The government seems to be reluctantly admitting that French people have been deprived of some of their rights in this province over the years and in a minimal way they are trying to bring in this bill and I say that it doesn't go far enough; they haven't consulted sufficiently with the people that this bill is intended to affect. As far as supporting the amendment that's brought in by my colleague, the Member for St.

Boniface, I would want to discuss it with my people - unlike the government who doesn't intend to consult with the people that legislation affects - to what effect legislation would have on these groups. I intend to call my people and find out what they feel about it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. On the other hand, of course, at this point we must ask ourselves 5407

Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 what will be accomplished, what will be gained by either hoisting this bill for a six-month period or killing the bill in its entirety. I understand fully and pointed out during the second reading, that indeed this bill, in its present form, does not really meet the essence of the problems which we ought to be concerning ourselves in respect to Manitoba.

That pertains, of course, to the legitimate concerns that were expressed during committee about the use of the French language in certain settings, where same could serve a useful and effective purpose for the peoples in those communities; for the recreational pursuits of the youthful members of society, health and social development, public servants, where we're dealing with the elderly, within the school system where there is a desire on the part of the school division that indeed a French school be established, in order to encourage the diversity within the Manitoba context. But, Mr.

Speaker, what we are basically dealing here is a bill which goes, with some debat;, this bill on becoming law may very well be struck down as the 1890 law, I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a chance that this legislation wi ll be challenged, a reasonable chance that it will be struck down just as the 1890 legislation was struck down. At least it appears to be an effort to comply with the Supreme Court ruling so that, as I understand the bill before us, we are simply attempting to comply with a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, i.e., the law of Canada at the present time.

Whether or not this particular bill is necessary, I suppose, is open to debate. I happen to think that it does, in order to meet the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. So on that basis, Mr. Speaker, certainly with no deal of enthusiasm, with reluctance, we, in the opposition, will be supporting the bill itself solely on the basis that it is an attempt to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

But trusting that the passage of this legislation will not then permit us just to, at this crit ical time, not only within the Manitoba context but within the context of Canada, will not permit us to be lulled into a sense of complacency pertaining to the legitimate concerns, the expression of desire for a change which is uppermost in the minds of so many of those of the francophone community within the province. There is need for a further evolution, further growth, further development insofar as this bill is concerned, an attempt to simply bring about some degree of compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.

I believe the bill deserves support. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I'm a little confused as to the debate as to who will be supporting the bill and the exact feelings of the members of this Legislature. I don't see how you can say I believe in brotherly love, relief, truth and things of that nature and then go out and kill people, lie, cheat and things of that nature. I'm not using it as a comparison but I say, how can you say one thing and do another? The Honourable Member for St. Boniface has confused me.

I thought we both supported the same thing. I really am confused. I do not support some of his other policies but his policies towards the support of the French language programs seem to coincide with mine. I cannot understand his motion or his amendment to the motion to hoist Bill 2 which would, in effect, kill it. I'm not going to say one thing and do another. I will be voting against the amendment to hoist the bill and I will be supporting the bill because I do believe that the bill is in support of the Supreme Court decision. I will not keep debating too much longer, Mr.

Speaker, inasmuch as I would like the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose to make up his mind without consultation with some of his advisers. I think that he is the representative of that group and I've heard what the Leader of the Opposition is going to be doing and I just would take this opportunity to, once again, state my complete support of Bill 2 and my complete opposition to the amendment to Bill 2. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to get involved in this debate.

But you see, one of the problems that I have is that I am not a native of this country. I came from another country and I had to learn a language before I could even converse with the people that I came to see and then came to admire and now it's my country; I have fought for it and I have done many things in order to prove my allegiance. But I have no problem in respect to other people having a culture, having a language and that they should be entitled to it.

At the present time the only reason I got up is because the Honourable Member for Radisson said he couldn't understand how there could be different views and why they should not be expressed - at least that's the gist of his remarks - and I wanted to indicate to him that we, in the New Democratic Party, have no problem having people with a minority view, giving them the right to indicate . . . -( Interjection)- The Member for lnkster no longer belongs to the caucus. - (Interjection)- Well, everyone is entitled to make their own decision as clear as they like and some of us are team players and some of us happen to be individuals that do not wish to belong to a team and sometimes it's necessary to prove a point, that you have to declare this kind of demonstration, show this kind of a demonstration.

Now that's all beside the point. The issue was that the Member for Radisson said he could not understand that there could be differing views and I want to indicate to him that it is very simple to understand. If you believe others should have the same right as you, then you'll have to give them that recognition and I think that's the essence of democracy. Now let me get back to the original question in respect to the language.

I am really sorry that 90 years ago there was an error made and I, as a Canadian who have now lived in this country over 50 years, wasn't aware of it and never became fluent in both of this country's languages, and it bothers me. The other reason it bothers me is because my children, who had to go to school in this province, never ha d sufficient opportunity to become 5408

I Tuesday, 8 July, 1980 bilingual. Now, I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that it is easy to become bilingual. I spoke four languages before I ever spoke English and the simple reason was because those were the common languages in my community, all three of them which were the ones that were recognized by the state, plus another one which wasn't recognized, were part of my original upbringing.

It's true today I can no longer speak fluently in all of them and one or two I've lost totally, but nevertheless, what you learn in childhood you learn very easily, very quickly and there is no coercion or intimidation necessary, it just becomes a part of second nature, children will converse in any language. In fact, I want to go further than that to indicate that children have no biases, not like us grown-ups. We create the biasis in children and that's something we should also become aware of because some of us have become very very perverse in the way we look at the world.

The Honourable First Minister will probably say we look at it through rosy coloured glasses and he looks at it through pragmatic glasses but sometimes that 's not necessarily true. You can be as pragmatic as you like and miss the point of what you're looking for. But to get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I see no reason in voting for the hoist. I, with my Leader, concur that possibly this bill may be insufficient, may still be struck down later on, may be challenged, but if it helps to affirm the Supreme Court decision, then I'm prepared to live with it.

I have no legal mind in that respect so I cannot pass an opinion as to whether it is right, wrong or indifferent. I have to accept the efforts of my other members, as a part of the team, who are very well versed in the law and ask for their opinion. So, therefore, I will be voting against the amendment, Mr. Speaker. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated. MR. LYON: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House is the Amendment moved by the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Member for Burrows, that Bill No. 2 be not now read but be read six months hence. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Adam, Desjardins. NAYS Messrs. Anderson, Banman, Barrow, Blake, Brown, Cosens, Cowan, Craik, Domino, Downey, Driedger, Einarson, Enns, Ferguson, Fox, Galbraith, Gourlay, Green, Hanuschak, Hyde, Jorgenson, Kovnats, Lyon, MacMaster, Mc Bryde, McGill, McGregor, Mc Kenzie, Miller, Minaker, Orchard, Pawley, Mrs. Price, Messrs. Ransom, Steen, Uruski, Mrs. Westbury. MR. CLERK: Yeas 2, Nays 37. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the Amendment lost.

The question before the House is Bill No. 2 be now read a third time and passed. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 76. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what order of business we can deal with that we can complete in five minutes. I wonder if the House would be disposed to call it 12:30 at this time. MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement to call it 12:30? The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder, if I may, it would be our intention to deal with the resolution standing in the name of the First Minister, the first resolution on the Order Paper, and then going into Supply to deal with the various supply motions that are before the House. The probability is that tonight we'll be in the House dealing with legislation. MR. SPEAKER: The hour being 12:30, the House is accordingly adjourned and stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. 5409