Manitoba Hansard — 4 August 1983 (Sitting 131, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-131

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 131 - 10:00 a.m. , THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Sprin gfield Thonip3on La Verendrye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bon iface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Nia kwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Robli n-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrow;, Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Int erlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 4 August, 1983. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS Crow rate MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister of Highw ays and Transportation.

In view of the fact that the Federal Government are having Crow rate hearings in the City of Winnip eg today, will the government be making presentation to those hearings? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of High ways. HON. s. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be making our presentation at 2:30 this afternoon. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speake r, what will the Government of Manitoba be telling the people on the commit tee? Will they, Mr. Speaker, be forward ing the report which was presented to this Assembly after the Crow hearings, or are they taking another approach?

Possibly the approach that was presented from their New Democratic Conven tion, is tha t the kind of approach or what precisely will they be saying to the federal hearings? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hearings are open to the public and I would suggest that the members opposite may want to be there. I think that I should ind icate that our position will be that of Govern ment of Manitoba and will not be reflecting the position of the comm ittee, although the position of the commit tee will be attached as an appendix to our submis sion as information. MR. J. DOWNEY: That being the case, Mr.

Speaker, why were the taxpayers of Manitoba put to all the expense of travelling throughout the province to listen to the issue of the Crow rate when, in fact, they are riot going to use that as part of their presentation other than an attach ment? iON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for 11.rthur must realize and should know that there are nany briefs with different suggestions from dif ferent Jroupings in Manitoba , and our brief will inde ed mcom pass some of the suggestions that have been nade to the comm ittee although not necessarily all of hem. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Minis ter makes reference that any member of this House can go to the open public hearings. He, as well as the rest of us, is aware of the fact that this Assembly is still sitting and debating legislation which we are all very int erested in and want to represent our constituents, and it is di fficult for most people to attend the hearing. The question is, Mr. Speaker, why did the Min ister of Hig hways and Transportation not lay on this table this morning the precise position and the paper that he'd be presenting to the comm ittee this afternoon? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the former Min ister should know that when government presents views to a standing commit tee of another parliament, that it's unfair to that committee to have that commit tee pre empted by an advance distribution of the brief. I believe it's fair that that comm ittee be the first to receive that. Now, as soon after, I will be tabling a copy of it in this Assembly. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in other words, the Minis ter of Hig hways and Transportation is saying that the committee of the Federal Government that is hearing the proposals on Crow rate is of more sign ificance or more im portance than the Legislative Assembly which represents all of the people of Manitoba? Is that what he's telling us? I again would ask him to table the presentation this morning so that we're aware of what he's going to be introducing this after noon. HON. S. USKIW: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member should under stand the process that we' re involved in.

We are presenting a brief on behalf of the Government of Manitoba which indeed represents the Province of Manitoba to a parliamentary committee, and that information will be made available as soon thereafter as possible, but I don't believe it's proper to do it in advance of that commi ttee hearing . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, is the Government of Manitoba supporting the proposed Crow changes that are being presented now in the House of Commons? Is his government supporting that proposed change? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Member for Arthur to attend at the hearings this afternoon.

Excise tax increase on spirits MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General in his capacity as Min ister responsible for the Manitoba liquor Control Comm ission. My question to him, Sir, is: Has he objected to the Federal Government's excessive incr ease in the excise tax on the sale of spirits in Manitoba by some 13.3 percent? 4867 H A m g e m t

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, what I've done is taken this question up with the Minis ter of Finance, who I feel is the appropria te person to raise our very serious concerns. Indeed, we think that the federal policy in this area is wrong. We felt that it was wrong last September when, after having proudly annou nced 6 and 5, they then almost im mediately thereafter made it clear that it didn't apply to the long hand of the Federal Treasury.

We realize. looking at what is one of the bigge st earners for the Province of Manitoba, namely the operations of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, that where at that level of pricing, where the kind of im pact which an excise in crease of the kind contempla ted would have on spirits and beer and wine, the kind of price im pact that would have brings us perhaps beyond the line of marginal returns and it could begin seriously to im pact on sales and on the profit margin for the province.

This is another example where the Province of Manitoba particulary has been hit hard by, I would say, unila teral federal policies with respect to a whole numb er of things, establi shed programs, the equalization formula and this kind of breach of what the Federal Government itself is trying to im pose on the rest of the country in terms of a 6 and 5 or similar type of formula. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Attorney General for that answer.

By way of a supplementary question to the Attorney-General: In view of the fact that it is this govern ment's action in the 1982 Budget that has caused Manitoba prices to be among the highest in Canada - second highest, I believe, with respect to spirits - and in view of the fact that the Attorney-General and this government incr eased the markup to some 138 percent, does the Attorney Gen eral in tend to in struct the Liquor Control Comm ission not to imply this government's im posed markup of 138 percent, for example, on spirits which, in addition to tha t caused by their sales tax, will cause an incr ease of some 20 percent on the price of spirits?

Does he intend to take some action so that the Provincial Government will not take a further 20 percent, if he indeed considers the excise tax in crease of 13.3 percent to be excessive? HON. R. PENNER: That's a question which I will discuss in due course with the Min ister of Finance. We simply are not in a position as a province through this year and arguably next, because of the ac1ion of the Federal Government, to willingly suffer a revenue loss when we don't have to suffer a revenue loss, but certainly that is a question to be discussed. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary.

There would be no revenue lost. It is because the excise tax incr ease, 13.3, has come into effect that the Provincial Government is taking a further 20 percent. A decision ha s to be ma de by the government prior to September 1, and probably very soon, because the Liquor Control Commi ssion will be taking the steps to im pose that markup. Does the Attorney-General intend to take some steps with his Cabinet or in his own min isterial responsibility to instruct the Liquor Control Comm ission not to impose further provincial markup, which will cause a further price incr ease of some 20 percent? HON. R.

PENNER: I'll take that question as notice and thank the honourable member for his suggestion. As I said at the conclusion of my last reply, that is something I will be discussing with the Minis ter of Finance and subsequently it follows with Executive Council. Bilingualism - advertising MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the First Min ister I direct a question to the Min ister of Municipal Affairs and ask him if he can advise the Ho use this morning as to how many municip alities received a letter from the First Min ister with the so-called typographical error in reference to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act? Also when were corrections sent out to those municip alities? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Spea ker, I don't have that information, but I'l l take it as notice. Motor Vehicle Branch - drivers' licences MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urabl e Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I di rect a question to the Min ister of Hig hways who is responsible for the Motor Vehicle Branch.

During his Departmental Estimates a num ber of months ago, I raised a concern which I had and seems to be one which is growing thr oughout the provinc e. I' ve had a numb er of constituents call me in the last little while, I know some of my colleagues have, with regard to the problems of getting appointments when people wish to take drivers' tests. I'm wondering if the Min ister could inform the House whether or not he has unde rtaken any further studies or actions with regard to the lengthy lineups and the long time that is required for people to finally get their drivers' licences and their tests done. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of High ways. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was drawn to my attention a week ago that some people have had some difficulty in getting through the lineups or being able to be accommodated in a time frame within which it was reasonable and comfortable for themselves, given their own time constraints. I've asked the department to indicate to me what methods might be employed by way of appointment to make it more practical to acco mmo date tho se people tha t have rigid time schedules and have some difficulty under the present system. 4868

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for La Verendr ye. MR. R. BANMAN: I wonder if the Min ister of High ways could check to see if there has been an incr ease in the numb er of applications for a new driver's licence and the numb er of testing that is taking place. In talking to people from his department, I believe they ind icate that they are processing more claims under the system which was imple mented roughly a year ago and yet there still seems to be a backlog. In other words, the testers seem to be busier, and yet the backlog seems to be growing.

I wonder if the Min ister, on a supplementary question, could also un dertake, in order to provide the residents of southeastern Manitoba with a better service, would it be possible to station one or two of these driver testers in that sout heastern area, so that particular area will be better served and that the public won't have to wait two months to get an appointment with regard to driver testing. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I would presume that when I have a report back from the Motor Vehicle Branch with respect to how we might deal with that problem, that area will be covered in that report for that kind of a question. I do have to ind icate to the honourable members however that we do have budgetary constraints beyond which we are not able to escape, or from which we cannot escape, and we must live with that reality. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the final comment, but I would ask the Minis ter, in his study of that particular matter, since the testers now have to travel, spend two or three hours on the road just getting to the location where they're intending to do the testing, would he be able to, in his study, see if it wouldn't be more economical and more feasible to have these people located right in the region so that maybe there could be some cost savings with regard to this particular department and the activities of these particu lar individua ls? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I want to repeat what I said a moment ago, and that is that I hope to receive some kind of recommendation from the Motor Vehicle Branch on this issue and at that stage I will explore it further with the department. Nelson River-Cross lake bridge MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minis ter of High ways and Transportation. Can the Minis ter confirm that a bridge will be built across the main channel of the Nelson River at Cross Lake? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Hig hways. HON. S.

USKIW: I'm not certain that I can give that information. I can take it as notice, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware as to the status of that project at this point in time. MR. A. BROWN: I wonder if the Min ister then, at the same time, could maybe take as notice as to who is going to be picking up the cost of that particular bridge and what the estima ted cost of that bridge would be. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will have that inf ormation for the honourable mem ber. Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the First Minis ter and the Minis ter of Finance I direct my question to the Min ister of Labour. The government had approximately $72 million in the Estima tes placed before this House for their Jobs Fund. The First Minister has advised that the money has all been allocated. The question to the Minis ter of Labour is: Have there actually been more commitments made, more money comm itted than the $72 million which is available through the Estimate process? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Spea ker, for the kind of breakdown that the member is asking for I would have to take that part of it as notice, but I would like to clarify that certainly when you allocate mone y within a particular fund, you allocate it to programs that are ongoing or that have not yet been annou nced and to say now that the capital money has been allocated is to say that, yes, we have said that this program should go and that program should go, but whether or not they will all use the mone y that has been ind icated as being necessary for the program, whether there will be some money available for other programs and so on, is something that we can't kn ow.

It's an ongoing process and to say at one point in time, yes, this is all allocated and this is the end, would be a falsehood and I would not want to mi slead anyone into thinking that is the situation. Whether or not the portion of the $200 million that he is referring to is a portion that has been allocated, that has been spent or that is still going to be spent, is something that is an in tricate sort of question and would have to be dealt with probably at the end of the fiscal year when we can actually see and give accurate inf ormation on exactly where the money went. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, the Minis ter raised the question of faleshoods. Is the Mini ster saying that the government has actually annou nced more projects, more dollars worth of commitment than they actually have budgeted? HON. M.B. DOLIN: If I un derstand the ques tion correctly, the member is asking if we annou nced more programs or programs that would use more money than we actually have in the budget, and the answer is no. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Min ister of Labour. Can she advise the House 4869

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 whether any Jobs Fund projects that would use what is known as the non-bud getary capital, whether any of those projects have been init iated in response to action by an outside agency or an outside institution or an outside private busine ss? HON. M.13. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, again I will take the specifics of that question as notice. I am sure that the member is aware that we are constantly in consultation with the Advisory Board and with outside groups who have suggestions to offer to us about what kinds of programs they would like to see go forward.

That relates to all aspects of the $200 million. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, can the Minis ter of Labour give an example of even one project which uses the non-bud getary or self-sustaining capital, which is actually being shared with an outside agency, an outside institution or with the private sector, or are they all within the ambit of government itself? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice. There are programs that have, as I said, not yet been announ ced.

To annou nce them now in response to a que stion wou ld cert ainl y not be ap propr iate when the guideli nes ha ve not been thoroughly developed. Those things will be coming onstream, and I will be glad to annou nce them at the app ropriate tim e, or the appropriate Minis ter will announce them. Whether projects that have been annou nced in the past were initi ated from outside, many of them were initia ted from outside, as the member knows, through many aspects of the $200 million Jobs Fund. I can point to the NEED Program in which we are expending $12 million.

Certainly the vast majorit y of the expenditure of that money has been ini tiated by businesses and commu nity groups that apply under that program. The Manitoba Employment Action Program certainly was money that was available there for outside int erests, for business and farms, as well as commu nity groups, but particularly businesses and farms, to come forward with ideas on ways to spend the money. That's exactly what they did. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister advise the House then whether or not any of the money that has been comm itted under NEED projects, for instance, is of the non-bud getary or self-sustaining category? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if the member is talking about loan authority money or exactly what he is talking about, but the NEED money, as I und erstand it and I'm not the financial wizard in this particular question series, but without getting the answer specifically for him, I would have to say that it is my impression that the NE ED money came out of the capital authority. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps it would help to clear things up for the House if the Min ister would und ertake to supply the House with a complete listing of the approvals under the Jobs Fund, and indicate for each approval whether or not that mone y is to come from the budgetary side, from the $72 million which the government has budgeted within its Estimates, or whether it will come from the non-budg etary side, which is mone y that will be borrowed by the government for self-sustaining purposes. Could the Mini ster unde rtake to provide that information at the earlie st opportunity? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Cer tain ly, Mr.

Spea ker, tha t inf ormation will be available, but it will be available in due course. When the projects and programs are announced, then it will be clear where the mone y comes from. Bilingualism - advertising MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to di rect a question to the Minis ter of labour , who is responsible for the Civil Service Commission, in regard to an advertisement that appeared in last Saturday's Free Press. We are all famili ar, Mr.

Speaker, with the term "official lang uag es" and with the Pr ovincia l Government's desire to make French and English the official langua ges of Manitoba, but in the ad it refers to "the official mi nority," the expression, "the official min ority." Mr. Speaker, it ind icates that the Cultural Resources Branch of the Cu ltural Affairs Department has a responsibility to design and deliver cultural heritage programs to the ethnocultural organizations, the official minor ity, etc. Who or what is the official mino rity? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of labour . HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice. I don't personally place the ads, and I don't know what he is referring to. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would then direct a question to the Min ister of Cultural Affairs, who did place the ad? What is the official mino rity? MR. D. ORCHARD: It's got to be the NOP after the next election. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the specific ad, and the question has been taken as notice by the Min ister responsible for the Civil Service Commission. The answer will be given in due course, Mr.

Speaker. F. JOHNSTON: Doesn't anybody approve ads over there? MR. R. DOERN: I'm sure the "official minority" would also like to find out who they are. I would like to also di rect a question to the Min ister of Labour in regard to this ad for the Civil Service. I notice a line appearing in the advertisements. There is a logo that says, "Mani toba" at the bottom, and it refers to an equal opportunity employer. Can the Minister explain what is involved in being an equal 4870

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 opportunity employer? Are there certain groups, for example, that are being designated? llllR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, the memb er questioning has certainly been around this government and this Legislature longer than I have. I am certain he is aware that an equal opportunity office and an equal opportun ity program has been in place for many many years. We have an Affirmative Action Program that has been annou nced by this government, which will target directly women, the physically disabled and Native groups.

Now if that is the kind of question he is asking, that's the answer I can give him, but I would refer him to the Equal Opportuni ty Office, which has been in place for a num ber of years, for specific information on their activities, rather than give a lengthy answer. llllR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Minis ter whether lingu istic or cultu ral groups are presently included in that definition, or whether they will be in the future? HON. 1111.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, equal employment opportu ni ties or affirmative action deals with the employment disabled .

If a person is employment disabled because of a language disabil ity, then certainly we would do everything in our power to help that person overcome that employment disabilit y, whether it's through English as a second language in the workplace, or whatever other means we could find to assist that person. But affirmative action and equal opportunity employment offices deal with the employment disabled. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, a final clarification.

Does this exclude - or let me put it the other way - would this include, for example, if a particular group in Manitoba was found - for the sake of illustration, the Icelandic people were found to have fewer Icelandic people working in the Civil Service of Manitoba, would the Min ister be in terested in that, or is that sort of factor not included or not considered in the concept of equal opportunity? HON. 1111.B.

DOLIN: By way of illustration, perhaps I can point out the assistance that we have given to a union that operates within the garment ind ustry that is quite aware of the difficulties that their members have in either gaining or advancing in employment. They have a program for assisting these people that will give them the language capability to pursue their careers, whatever they happen to be. That's the kind of program that is involved in equal opportunity and affirmative action. MTS - computers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Min ister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. Approximately four weeks ago, we comp leted the Ann ual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System. At that time, the Min ister was to provide information to myself as to the ability of the Manitoba Telephone System to offer retail competitive projects, such as the VIC-20 Commo dore computers, and information as to their tendering practices on school division orders, and I wonder if the Min ister might be able to provide that information to me at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho no urable Minis ter of Government Services. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, those questions were asked of the general manager at the hearings, and I would assume that the general manager has provided that information to the honour able mem ber. If he has not at this time - and I have not received a copy so I assume it has not gone through at this time - I will ask the management of the Manitoba Telephone System to provide that information as soon as possible. MTX employees MR. D. ORCHARD: A second question to the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Telephone System.

At those hearings and later in a question period, the Min ister undertook to provide further details to allegations appearing in the media that employees of the Manitoba Telephone System working for MTX, the subsidia ry operation in Saudi Arabia, the Minis ter was going to provide details as to discipli nary action taken on MTS employees in Saudi Arabia for violation of religious laws. Could the Min ister now provide that information to the House? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Speaker, we had explained at that particular time that this was an isolated incident that had occurred ina dvertently and, although the employees had been versed and brie fed in the laws of the particular country that they were working in, they had a minor violation of that and had indi cated clearly that is not going to happen again.

They've been told that it's not going to happen again and there have been some steps to im prove the orientation of people who would be going over there and also considering a trial period and so on, so that the people that are selected, along with their technical expertise, are also people who are sensitive to the culture and the laws of other lands that they happen to be working in and will be compatible with that country; so that is also being consid ered and worked on.

I have received inf ormation from the empl oyees in volved th at they have suffered anguish and em barrassment at the way this has been, in their estimation, blown out of proportion for political reasons. I can't see any other reason why it would be and they have indicated that they are feeling very upset about this themselves. They've ind icated that they're very sorry it has been played up in the media the way it has and I just want the honourable mem bers to know that. It is an isola ted in cident and cer tainly will not be happening again. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, this government does not have a particularly good record in investigating 4871

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 concerns with Crown corporation operations in this province, as has been witn essed by questions posed on McKenzie Seeds over the past num ber of weeks. The question to the Min ister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System some weeks ago, which he undertook to provide further information and report to the House, was as to whether allegations which appeared in the media as to discipli nary action taken by the Saudi Arabian police officials, under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian Government were in fact true or not.

Could the Min ister please provide that report and information to the House? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don't think it's really proper to ask a Min ister of the Crown to confirm an allegation appearing in the press. In any case, the incident the memb er's referring to happened in a foreign count ry, for which the Min ister has no admin istrative responsibility. Furthermore, it's the Federal Government which has the int erest of C anadians overseas, which again is not within the responsibility of this particular government.

Perhaps the honourable member should confine any questions that he has to a Crown corporation operating in Manitoba. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The questions that were posed to the Min ister inv olved questions surrounding the operations of a subsidiary of the Manitoba Telephone System, namely MTX, a subsidia ry I might indi cate to you, Mr. Speaker, that was created by an Order-in-Council some 15 months ago by the Cabinet of the current government. It was given ... HON. R. PENNER: Question. MR. D. ORCHARD: This is a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, in case the Attorney-General and House Leader is not aware. The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 78 provided legislative authority to legitim ize the creation of MTX to operate offshore as a subsidia ry of the Manitoba Telephone System. If, Mr.

Speaker, we are not to inquir e into activities of MTX, which is a creation of this government and the Crown corporation, Manitoba Telephone System, then how can we assure that the taxpayers' investment, now close to $1 million, is being adequa tely protected by the MTX people and MTS and ultimately by the the Minis ter responsible for the Crown corporation? If we are not allowed to question the operations . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. He is venturing into an argument. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. 13. RANSOM: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. The Member for Pembina has been asking questions about a subsidiary of a Crown corporation. We have always had the right to ask qu estions in this Ho use about Crown corporations and their activities. If we are to be denied that right, Sir, then certai nly we have no opportunity to prevent these corporations from becoming out of control, other than a brief opportunity provided when they come before a legislative comm ittee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House i..eader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, I clearly heard you advise the Member for Pembina that your concern was not about his right to ask questions, but that he was asking a question about an allegation appearing in a newspaper and you, Sir, with respect, properly drew to his attention that particular kind of question, and one need only peruse Beauchesne to demons trate that you 'r e right, that particular kind of qu esti on is ina ppropriate.

No one is suggesting that the honourable member may not ask questions, but he's been in this House long enough to know how to ask appropriate questions within the competence of a Minis ter as to the operations of that Min ister's department or any operation for which the Min ister has min isterial re sponsibil ity. A Min ister canno ! a:;swer and ought not inde ed to answer for allegations in a newsp'lper; otherwise, the House becomes a rumour mill, a body commenting on hearsay upon hearsay, and that is an entir ely futile and an im proper exercise.

You were not, Sir, as I un derstood it, attem pting to tell the member or any member of this House that he cannot ask questions, only that questions must be within the parameters that have been clearly established over a long period of time in order to give some sense of focus and direction to question period. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same point of order, the Minis ter currently responsible for the Mc.nitoba Telephone System un dertook to provide to this House further details and information regarding charges that were laid in Saudi Arabia agains t MTX employees. I was simply asking the Minis ter to provide to the House the inf ormation that he ind icated he would provide when questioned and unable to answer those questions at the time. MR. SPEAKER: I believe that was not a point of order. The Honourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I can provide some additional information for the honourable mem ber on the situation. I can inform the House that there's besn no reoccurrence of violations of prayer time in Saudi Arabia by any MTX employees; that there were 1ther people involved, including local people; that other companies have also had similar incidents in the past with regard to prayer time violations in that area; the local baker and butcher were also inv olved in this particular violation. It inv olved a total of six individuals, two of which were MTX employees, Mr. Speaker.

They consider this a personal matter ; there ha s been no specific disciplina ry action. The incident in itself has been sufficient discipli nary actions for the employees. One 4872

Thqreday, 4 August, 1983 of them has returned back to Mani toba for other reasons non-related to this particular incident and is no longer in Saudi Arabia. I can say that under Saudi Arabia law, the Saudi spons or, in this case AI Bassan Int ernational, is completely held responsible for the actions of any employees, and so therefore MTX is not directly responsible for this un der Saudi law. lt's the responsibility of AI Bassan and, lastly, I can mention that MTX empl oyees are, as I said earlier, being well versed in local customs and laws and so on.

The MTX contract specifically states, and I quote: "You will have to comply with the laws, regulations and customs of Saudi Arabia." So they are aware of that and, as I have said, there is a commitment that this will not happen, certainly not intention ally, in the future. Manitoba Beef Commission MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked questions of the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Further to those questions, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Mini ster of Agriculture today how much money is left in the fund that is available for the Beef Stabilization Program and, as well, are there any plans to either lower or to increase the support level? As well, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Agriculture tell us what percentage of cattle are going to what packing house indus tries - the numb ers, as I asked yesterday, of the cattle that are being handled by the Beef Commission - slaughter cattle - and the packing house industries that are buying those cattle, and how the price striking mechanism is established through the commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker , the honour able member, in terms of the three separate questions that he has posed; first of all, in terms of stabilization fund, I will take the specifics of that question as notice as to how much money is expected to be paid out this year out of the fund in terms of stabilization. There is a separate fund through MACC dealing with advances that can be made to cattle producers who wish to either place their cattle in custom feedlots or to retain their animals for finishing pu rposes.

That fund has drawn down several millions of dollars, but I will get those figu res as well. In terms of the questions dealing with - the second question - that information that was asked of my colleague yesterday, we still have not received the information from the Beef Commission and as soon as we have it, I'l l provide it to the honourable member. The honourable member, if he wishes to state the second question, I'll try and answer it for him. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Spea ker, how is the price established by the Beef Commission and what is the breakdown of the purchases?

What packing companies are buying the cattle from the Beef Commission? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I ind icated that we will be providing that information for him. The honourable member did raise a question with respect to whether the support levels will change and when do they change. Under the terms of the program, Mr. Speaker, support levels are triggered under the formula to be changed on January 1st and July 1st of each year. There was a change and a revision made in the support level on July 1st, which is, I believe, approximately a 3 percent increase over the last change that was made last Janu ary.

So there's been an upward revision in the support price in line in terms of the way the forumula operates. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The tim e for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the referral resolution or, more appropria tely, the amendment to the referral resolution as it stands on the Order Paper, Pages 12 and 13, standing, I believe, open for debate. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTIONS CON STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR.

SPEAKER : On the proposed motion of the Honou rable Attor ney-General and the amendment thereto proposed by the Hono urable Member for Fort Garry - the Honou rable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak today on the amendment to the referral motion. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak on the sub amendment proposed by my colleague from Gladstone and was in support of it, and indicated at that particular time that I was as well in support of the amendment which was proposed by my colleague from Fort Garry. Mr.

Speaker, we have to look at the referral motion as one of extreme importance to not only this Legislative Assembly, but to the people of Manitoba. lt goes right to the roots of democracy, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we as an opposition, and I think rightfully so, are standing and defending our constituents and speaking out to protect what basically is our democratic system. Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Day have a minds et. They have set their minds to the point that they believe that they are right in doing what they are doing. Mr.

Speaker, the main reason that we have to continue to debate this issue and point out to the people of Manitoba as to the importance of it is the long -term effect that it will have on the future of Manitobans and the direction in which our young people will have to take. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the intersessional hearings that we are urging the government to go ahead with, we aren't doing it lightly as can be seen by the many speeches that have been presented to this Assembly. Why, Mr. Speaker, Is this government so set on pushing this resolution through? Why, Mr. Speaker? Is 4873

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 it because the Mem ber for Ste. Rose is ge tting tremendous pressure from his constituents saying, Mr. Adam, the No. 1 issue before us is the fact that we have to have this resolution? Is that the reason why they're proceeding? That it's the grassroots people from Ste. Rose are saying that? Is it the Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet's constituents that are coming forward and saying we aren't concerned about the economy of Manitoba?

We're not concerned about the hig hways that have gone to Hades; we're not concerned about the payroll tax; we're not concerned about all those economic things that are bothering us today. It's the resolution on bilingu alism that has to be passed so that Manitoba is a better province to live in. Why, Mr. Speaker, are they proceeding to go on the path on which they're going? Is the Mem ber for The Pas when he goes home - if he goes home anymore - does he go home to talk to his constituents about the Saskeram area, Mr. Speaker?

The Saskeram area - is that their main concern whether it's expanded for agriculture use, or whether it's used for Ducks Unlimi ted, or is the main issue, Mr. Speaker, the bilingualism resolution? Is that the thing that he's facing when he goes back to his constituency? Mr. Speaker , the Min ister of Agricultur e who is proceeding to put in bilin gualism services within the Ag. Rep. districts of the province, which we aren't opposed to in a great way - there's a service needed. If the need is there, Mr.

Speaker, we aren't opposed to it, but why entrench it in our Constitution so it is taken out of the hands of the Min ister of Agriculture? He's pointing his finger at us. If he had listened to what I had said, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with proceeding in the way in which is being done on a demand basis rather than entrenching it in a Constitution, taking the power out of his hands? That's where he should come to his senses, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speak er, I bel ieve tha t ther ;, ar en't any constituents coming forward to the memb ers opposite.

Well, I shouldn't say any, but there are very few constituents coming forward and saying the priority of their day, each day when they get up, that the No. 1 thing they want their government to do is to provide them with the bilingualism service and the resolution as it's presented by this Assembly. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it's very much the opposite, and I believe it's their democratic right through the Legislative Assembly to present their thoughts and their views, and that's what they are doing. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, as much as a lot of people think that we are here to obstruct what the government is doing, is not so. We are not here to obstruct the government. We are here as responsible legislators to protect and to use the democratic system in the best inter ests and the long-term advantage of this province. That's what we are going to continue to do, Mr. Speaker. We're going to act responsibly as legislators. We're going to make sure the views of our constituents are laid before this Assembly even though honourable member s opposite are not, Mr.

Speaker; and I challenge them to stand and show the petitions, to show the numb ers of people in hun dreds that are supporting what they're doing because there is a mem ber, a former member - we don't really know what his status is - can stand and give lists of thousands of names that are opposed to what they're doing. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that information would be made public.

I would hope the Member for Elmwood would make that inf ormation public so that it is to the advantage of the people of Manito ba, the majority of Manitobans, to know the kind of information that is coming forward through the kind of polling that is taking place. That's important, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm not giving any great credit to that socialist from Elmwood because he is a socialist. He won't deny that he isn't, but he's a smart enough politician to know that he has to survive, and this is the one issue that he can survive on standing alone outside of the New Democratic caucus room. Mr.

Speaker, what I'm saying to him is it's im portant that that inf ormation be put forward. Mr. Speaker, why do we have to stand so firm on this issue as an opposition agains t the government's intentions? Because, Mr. Speaker, once this change is put into our Canadian and Manitoba Constitutions, it is almost - I say this and I'm not completely convinc ed of it, but I believe it to be almo st the case - once it is entrenched in the Constitution, it's irreversible. Mr.

Speaker, it has been our tradition, it has been the tradition of this Legislative Assembly to pass all the laws for the people of Manitoba within our provincial jurisdiction. Why would we give that away? Why would we give that away, Mr. Speaker, when we know the best government for people is the government that's closest to the people. The government that understands what the people's needs are your local and your muni cipal governments and then your Provincial Governments, and the least of all government we need to handle our affairs is either the Federal Government or the judicial system, Mr.

Speaker, because it's without our reach. We cannot control what happens after it leaves this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and that's the major concern. It's going to have an im pact on every one of our constituents. I say that, Mr. Speaker, whether they are a mi nority group or whether they're a Francophone society; because if we were to proceed as we want them to, to go to intersessional hearings, all sides of the issue can come forward and would do a proper job and it would be a credit to all mem bers of this Legislative Assembly. Today, Mr.

Speaker, I would say the NOP are doing a great disservice to the legislative process in the province because of their belligerent approach on this particular issue. I call it a belligerent arrogant approach, and they are caught in a web that they can't get out of, Mr. Speaker. I think they could save face and I think they could do good tor the people of Manitoba if they were to back off a notch and have those intersessional hearings. Why, Mr. Speaker? What can be accomplished by interse ssional hearings? What can be accom plished? s::irst of all, it would remove the rush.

It would remove the pressure to deal with that particular issue at a time when we've got how many other legislative bills before us? We've got the seat belt legislation before us; we've got the farm land ownership legislation before us; we've got The Elections Financ es Act before us; we've got the conflic t-of-i nterest legislaton before us; we've got a multitude of heavy heavy legislaton, Mr. Speaker. I know that there are a lot of first-term politicans - first and last, Mr. Speaker - there are a lot of first-term 4874

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 politicans who didn't understand before they entered into a legislative process how heavy the legisla tive process can be. I, Mr. Speaker, learned that lesson as a new member of this Assembly, and as a new Min ister coming in in 19 77. It is heavy; it is extremely heavy to pass even one or two major pieces of legislation. I sympathize with what they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, as human beings, because they can only take so much of it and they are to the breaking point as Minis ters, particularly the new and inexperienc ed ones who are trying to do something of a heavy nature.

They are, Mr. Speaker, inexperienced and I would advise them so that they don't make the gross error of allowing the Attorney-Gene ral, the Pr emi er, the Member for Radisson to continue to push this legislation or this accord through without having the public input is a very dangerous path. It's a dangerous path because I do not believe, with the other responsibilities that they have to carry, that they can honestly - and I mean honestly - deal with it the way in which they should. If they didn't have public hearings, Mr.

Speaker, surely they would be wise to go back to their constituents and have meetings within their own organizations. They can't have those meetings when they're sitting in this Legislative Assembly for six days a week - which we're now into - to try and deal with all the legislation. They cannot do it, Mr. Speaker, and I would plead with them to back off, to go to in tersessional hearings. Mr. Speaker, there would be a lot more credit to them if they were to do that. So the rush, Mr. Speaker, that we're being asked to be a part of is totally, totally unacceptable. HON. B. URUSKI: What kind of rush? MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Speak er, the Min ister of Agriculture says, what kind of rush? Well, Mr. Speaker, because of the magnitude of the change we are being asked to make, I would expect - and the precedent setting, the mechanism that they're using - that a change like this could take up to two years, Mr. Speaker. I would expect the government to have laid out a White Paper on policy that this is what their intentions were and to have debated through int ersessional comm ittee hearings, and then, Mr.

Speaker, a year down the road present this resolution not at the end of a heavy Session, not at the middle of a heavy Session, but announce it in their Throne Speech. Did we see this in our Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker? No, we did not, and that is an indication of what government policy is for the coming Session, but we didn't have the privilege of seeing that, even though it was probably being negotia ted at that very time. So they haven 't treated us fair ly, Mr. Speaker, and if there's acri mony in this House, that is why we haven't been given a fair opportunity to deal properly as legislators.

If they'd have only put that in the Throne Speech Debate, if they' d only told us that this was the kind of issue that we'd been facing, then we would have been prepared for it. So that is why I'm saying it is a rush. You cannot go through this kind of a process in this kind of a Session with the heavy legislative program that we have and deal effectively in the best int erests of all Manitoba ns, particularly when it has the long-lasting effect that it's going to have, because as I say I would doubt if it would ever be change d back because it is a constitutional amendment.

How many times has the Constitution been changed in this country? Not very many, Mr. Speaker, and when it is it should be well thought out, and capable and quali fied people deal ing with it, and the recommendations of the people of Manitoba should be listened to. When I refer to the other duties of the House, well, Mr. Speaker - the Min ister of Agriculture, I'm sorry, is not here at this particular min ute to hear this - what other duties of the House have we had to perform? We have had to find out the inf ormation, the statistical information on The Farm Land Ownership Act ourselves, Mr. Speaker.

He alluded to the fact that they had meetings and inf ormation that he had support, which it comes in through this Chamber and in our deba te that he hasn't got support. Mr. Speaker, we were dragged around the province as an agricultural comm ittee to find out about the Crow rate when in fact the Federal Government hadn't even established their final position on what they were doing, and it's evidenced today, Mr. Speaker.

It's evidenced today we see another waste of our time and the taxpayers' money because the Min ister of Hig hways and Transportation is going to the hearing with the government's own position and its own mind made up, and my colleague from Roblin- Russell said, who is presenting the Agriculture Comm ittee's report? Well, Mr. Speaker, no one is, it's being attached as an attachment to the NDP government's approach which is of course to nationalize the CPR.

That's the position that we've said all the way along that they believe in, that they really weren't going out to listen to the people on Crow rate, other than to political posture. Well, Mr. Speaker, now is the time when they really can go out in a mean ingful way and have an int ersessional hea ring , not to rush the people of Manitoba, because what do the people of Manitoba do in July and August, Mr. Speaker? Their children are out of school, many of them go for holidays, they go to the lake.

They kind of just say we're going to enjoy this ni ce 35 deg ree Celsius or 90 to 95 degree Fahrenheit temperature at the lake. Are they worried, Mr. Speaker, at this time of year what the government are doing? Well, I'll tell you, I think this year maybe they are. This year maybe they are. But why don't we give them a chance to come back, to have their children go back to school, for them to take part of their daily activitie s, to read the paper, to listen to the news media and say, my goodne ss, is that really what's happening?

We want to present a brief on the bilingualism proposal at that particular hearing that could be set up in Flin Flin, The Pas, Dauphin, Brandon, Boissevain, Wink ler, Steinbach. What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? Because it's the normal process, it's working within the daily habits of people's lives; and that, Mr. Speaker, is im portant that we as legislators accommodate the public to some degree on such a massive change to what will be a change for their future generations to come. The other dutie s, Mr.

Speaker, as I've ind icated, I know, as being a former Cabinet Min ister and member of this Assembly, that they can't accurately deal with the majority of the Legislative Assembly bills that they 4875

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 have here as well as the constitutional accord that they're proposing. I know the Minister of Agricultu re, I know he hasn't had the opportunity to find out the full impa ct of what he is proposing on his constituency in the North In terlake area. He hasn't had the time to find out what the im pact is. The Member for The Pas for sure hasn't. He is more preoccupied with what is happening to the Saskeram area, and he should be, Mr. Speaker, to incr ease the land base in that area. So it's im portant, Mr.

Speaker, that they back off and give this a fair chance to be aired and aired properly within the proper process that is available to this Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, who will gain by the course that the government are proposing? Who will be the gainers? Let us look at why we do it. We do it because the government are bound and bent they're going to change the Constitution of Canada, of the Province of Manito ba, dealing with in troduction of a bilingual program that will make us a bilingual province. It's outlined, Mr. Speaker, as plain as can be in the agreement that has been sigr�ed.

One has to ask the question, why? I've gone over that. It appears it's a court case that they believe that it's a "what if" situation. What if we were to go to court and be defeated? The chaos that could be created by the Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, any commonsense thinking person would know better than that situation. And what if, Mr. Speaker, the court case were of a far more serious nature than a speeding ticket that Mr. Bilodeau has agreed to drop if, in fact, this accord is passed.

What if it were of a lot more serious natur e, would we still be dealing with this kind of a massive issue in the way in which we are? - because I call it frivolous, Mr. Speaker. We are spending the time and putting people in Manitoba through a lot of anguish because of what I would consider a frivolous case which this government has yielded to and hasn't followed the procedure that the Honourable Duff Roblin suggested we should have. Let the thing go through the process of court and law, and then, Mr. Speaker - if we have to deal with that situation.

I said yesterday and I'll say it again today, what if it had been a lot more serious charge? - (I nterjection) - Pardon? MR. B. RANSOM: I'll say it tomorrow and the day after. MR. J. DOWNEY: That is right. My colleague from Turtle Mountain says I'll say it tomorrow and the day after. We will say it until we get this government to yield and go to the int ersessional committee hearings that we would say is in the best in terest of democ racy, Mr. Speaker, and the people we represent. That's what it's in the int erests of, Mr. Speaker.

What I'm saying is we are dealing with a what-if situation, which is the worst possible platform that any Legislative Assembly or any government should work from. Goodness sakes, we cannot work from that kind of base. You have to work from a solid un derstanding of a given fact, Mr. Speaker, and we are not dealing from that. That's why I plead with the government to reconsider their position, I plead with them. As I said, particularly the new and the younger members who 4876 are Minis ters carryi ng a load which is far greater than they ever thought when they entered their jobs as government Ministers.

I know the pressure they're un der, Mr. Speaker, and they cannot be of the right mind to deal with all these situations in a current legislative Session in the middle of August or the beginning of August. Yes, Mr. Speak er, our mem bers ha ve other constituency work that they could be doing. Mr. Speaker, we all have other activities, but our priority, the Prog ressive Conservative priority is to protect democracy and make sure the people of Manitoba are heard on such a basic constitutional change that will affect their lives, their childr en's lives and new generations thereto come afterwards. That, Mr.

Speaker , is why, because a constitutional change is one which is irreversi ble in most people's opinions on this kind of issue, so the magnitude of the issue is far greater than I'm sure any one of them are aware of. I would hope they would yield to the pleas. Mr. Speaker - (Int erjection) - the Minister of Agriculture said let's go to hearings. That's what we're saying, let's go to properly constituted int ersessional hearings where we're not rushing. How many mem bers of this Session can leave and go out on hearings throughout the province now? How many people are still at the lake, Mr. Speaker?

How many people are away on holidays and are not really aware of the magnitude of this problem? Mr. Speaker , the government is trying to quick trick the people of Manitoba on the procedure on which they're following, and it won't wash. I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker, the NDP Government can be defeated next election, and we know that's a given right now on the path that they're on, but what about the longer term? The longer term, Mr.

Speaker, is the im portant issue here because the people within the province, who are legislators, who are trying to make peace with their neighbours have to live with one another in a mixed social arena of different ethnic backgrounds. With this kind of forced attitude, forcing the bilingual proposal on those people, Mr. Speaker, is not going to add to the strengthening of our social fabric, but will continue to tear it apart and that's in the longer term.

Every member of the Legislative Assembly shouldn't just look at the next election or at the next day, they should look at what they can benefit, the long-term benefits, that they can contribute to society when they are performing their public duties. MR. G. LECUYER: That's what you should do. J. DOWNEY: The Member for Radisson said that's v::1at I should do. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what I am doing. I, Mr. Speaker, believe that the majority of legislators here should have the longer-term objective and do.

I do believe there are certain people who have entered this Chamber to accomplish one or two things in as quick a term as possible, because they know they aren't going to be here, and what they do will in fact take the province the way in which they want to go in the longer term, not the wishes of the majority of even their constitue ncy, not the majority of Manitobans, but

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 their own personal self-satisfaction. Mr. Speaker, when it becomes that narrow, it is very obvious that you cannot properly debate and persuade people to change their mind. It's unfortuna te that people have that kind of mi ndset, because I do not believe they make good legislators for the people of the Province of Manitoba. I believe, and I'm sure many mem bers that are here would say that their minds have been certainly fixed, or fixed in a certain way, on a particular issue when they've entered this Cham ber.

I'm sure that members of the media as well have entered this Chamb er and listened to debate and have gone a complete change of 180 degrees. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what this Assembly is about, and if you come in with an intransigent position that you're not going to change, then I don't believe that you are worthy of representing your constituents in the way in which is honourable, which we are called as mem bers of this Assembly, to in fact do in our best int erests of living in the social arena in the Province of Manitoba. So, I ask, Mr.

Speaker, who is going to gain in the short term, a few members who have a personal thirst to accomplish this. I know many mem bers of the government side, Mr. Speaker, have second thoughts in their mind about the path that they're on, I know it. I've talked quietly to some of them and they've ind icated that they feel that they are in a trap. They are in a trap, Mr. Speaker, but it's not an im possible trap, and that's what I am speaking today to try and do.

What they need is more time to talk to their constituents, to be able to find an honourable way of backing off the position that they have taken, so that they can stand taller in their commu nities, so that they can stand taller in this Legislative Assembly as representatives of the people, which they are here to do, not to represent them inc orrectly. Mr.

Speaker, far be it ii it were the right direction for us to stand up here and continue to debate this issue, but we are being told daily by phone calls, by petitions, by direct contact with people that wh atever you do as legislators, please give us the opportunity to be heard, please don't allow the government to ramrod through this constitutional change which will change Manitoba forever. That is not what we are used to within this province. We have not had that kind of tradition. Let us not set the precedent for constitutional change in this manner .

I say it over and over again, there is a mechan ism, whether it be a presentation of a White Paper, whether it be the whole process of going to the public on a major plebiscite, or whether it be calling of a general election, Mr. Speaker, because that is the magnitude of this issue. I again go back and say why weren't we told in the Throne Speech? Every member of the media knows that the gove rnment, when they intr oduced their legislative program and their intentions or what they're going to do in the coming year, highligh ted within a Throne Speech Debate, but were we told about that, Mr. Speaker?

Were we told about that during the Throne Speech Debate? My goodness, the Throne Speech Debate is so far away. What did they tell us they were going to give us in the Throne Speech Debate? - (Int erjection) - Well, I see some of the evidence of it, Mr. Spea ker, that we're getting, li ke a 6 percent provincial sales tax, like a payroll tax, like farm land ownership protection, not farm land owner ship, farm land ownership control. Control of who owns property in this province, Mr. Spea ker. Those are the kinds of things, and we are still debating them, Mr. Speaker.

What I am suggesting is, with that kind of a legislative load, let us give the people of the Province of Manitoba a chance through their legislative people to go to them through the hearings. I'm saying, and I've said it again, Mr. Speaker, who are the people that lose in this kind of an exercise? The people of Manitoba - whether you're for, or against, or whatever position you take, whether you'r e a minor ity, or a majori ty, Mr. Speaker, we all lose because of an improper process. We're all losers, Mr.

Speaker, because those who are in support of what the government is doing can stand up and present their views in a normal process. Those that have some questions of it, can have those questions answered and th en can swi ng to suppo rt, and tho se tha t are vehemently opposed can come forward and relieve themselves of that particular feeling towards it. That's why we ha ve to go to the people through an int ersessional comm ittee hea ring, Mr. Speaker. There is another particular area that hurts, Mr. Speaker. It hurts not only the process, but the ind ividuals to some degree involved.

I'm sure there are a lot of Manitobans saying, what are the legislators of Manitoba doing sitting in the Legislative Assembly into the longest Session in history of this province, when in fact ii would be so easy, so easy for them to back off as a government and allow the opposition to have the int ersessional hearings. We produced a sub-amen dm ent yesterday that suggested, or the other day that was intr oduced by the Member for Gla dstone, that we have it dealt with by December 31s t. But no, Mr. Speaker, they voted us down on what is a solid and a sound approach.

Not trying to shelve it forever, but they wouldn't hear of that kind of a recommendation, and I again plead with them, Mr. Speaker, why? Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left please? MR. SPEAKER: The honour able mem ber has 10 mi nutes remaining. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I honestly feel that we RS legislators, representing our constituents, who are voted here by majorities of the people that we represent in that area, are particular issues like this wondering why, and saying, can you not do the business of the Province of Manitoba in a less amount of time?

Can you not do the legislative program that has traditionally gone through in probably 100 days or less. You know one has to wonder when you look across the border at the Un ited States, where under their system, and I'm not advocating it for here, but one has to ask the question, that they sit every two years, they don't sit every year, Mr. Speaker. They apparently are able to live as a free and democratic society. They aren't, Mr. Speaker, dealing with constitutional change in a hurry-up, get-along situation. No, Mr.

Speaker, one would have to question how many cons titutional changes they've ever had south of the border. Probably very few, if any, that would cause this kind of a confrontation within their Assemblies. 4877

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 What happens in other provinces, Mr. Speaker? What other provinces sit the length of time that we sit? We look at other provinces, Mr. Speaker, and we say, can we look to other provinces to speak out on this issue? No, Mr. Speaker, this is not another provincial issue, this is Ma ni toba's issue. Mr. Speaker , the other provinces will automatically say, if the people of Manitoba, through the Democratic system, have agreed to this process, that this is what they want in the province, why should they stand in the way?

Five years down the road, if the Government of the Day happened to decide to change it back, are they going to say, "Do the people of Manitoba really know what they want?" That's why it is so im portant, Mr. Speaker, that before we continue on the path that we continue, let us hear from every Manitoban that wants to be heard, Mr. Speaker, that wants to put their thoughts forward. I go back to the loss of the prestige of the Legislative Assembly and that's what's happen ing.

The prestige, the honor, in which this building has been kept by the majority of people in Manitoba, I think, is somewhat being lost because of an intr ansigent government that just won't back off in a common sense recommendation by the opposition of the government. It is a reasonable request, and the Member for Radisson, if he would get out of his shell, Mr. Speaker, and come out and speak on the process, rather than the content, he would be contributing something rather than taking away from this Legislative Assembly.

He hasn't added one constructiv e rec ommenda tion on the way in which this could be handled other than with a bulldozer, Mr. Speaker. That's not the traditional manner of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and he should learn that, Mr. Speaker. If he isn't prepared to learn it, then he'll have to suffer the consequenc es at the next election. Mr. Speaker, there is give and take in Manitoba and he'd better learn that. It's not all one way, but he thinks it is. - (Interjec tion) - Well, it isn't, Mr.

Speaker, there is give and take and our government have proved it in our term in office, and we will continue to prove it when we get back in. But when you take that belligerent bulldozer approach, you gain nothing for the people that your working tor, Mr. Speaker, you hurt them and that's what he is doing. He is hurting their cause, Mr. Speaker, that's what he's doing and I hope he's proud of himself for it. Mr. Spe aker, the Legislative Assembly, the process here is not and should not be degraded by anyone in this province, or in this Cham ber.

It should be held as the most precious thing that we have to protect our rights and freed oms. I again go back to saying that's what we we 're doing as an opposition. We are responsibly standing here speaking to protect the democratic rights of the people that sent us here. Thut's what we're here for, Mr. Speaker, that's why we are insisting, and will continue to insist until the long week end in September if we have to. I'm sure there are many of my colleagues that will be prepared to sit here on that long week end in September to debate this issue. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ste.

Rose, if he won't back off, will be here as well un less he can't continue the pressure of the Main Street Manitoba Program which he's undertaken. Mr. Speaker, so it is the legisla tive process that we have to protect and that's what it's all about. Mr. Speaker, I believe firmly that all members of this Assembly, I mean all members, have to reassess what they are doing. We have to reassess, Mr. Speaker, the long term effects by not going to hear the people of Manitoba in an intersessional hearing. We have to consider the short term effects on the daily liv es of our commun ities that are living together Mr.

Speaker, I therefore, in the firm belief that we, as legislators, have to go to an int ersessional committee to protect the democratic rights of the people we represent so this issue can be firmly and fully spoken to, I want to move a further sub-amendment to the amendment. I move, seconded by the Member for Turtle Mountain, that the amendment be further amended by adding after the words "next Session of the Legislature" the following words, "and in any case not later than December 30, 19 83." MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C.

OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to address the sub-amendment intr oduced this morning by my colleague, the Member for Arthur. In addressing this new sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, I wish to appeal once more to the Premier and to the Attorney-General of this province and to the other members of this government on the other side of this House.

If you have any shred of respect for the people of Ma ni toba, you would go to the people in int ersessional hearings, in comm ittee hearings, and let the people have their say; let them tell this government what they think of the propo sed amendments to this Constitution. Let the people tell this government, in an un hurried way at in tersessional hearings, their opinions and their questions to the Attorney-General. They have lots of questions to the Attorney-General. There is a great deal of un happiness with this government, Mr. Speaker. People are suspicious.

They're very suspicious, and rightly so, that this government is not telling them everyt hing. It is not coming clean; not telling them all the ramifications of this agreement. Why is this government determined to rush headlong into oblivion with this ill-founded amendment? Can they not tell from our position and our sincere efforts to convince this government that we mean business, that we sinc erely believe in what we're doing? If we did not, why would we be sitting in this House day after day, night after night, hour after hour, trying to convince you to

schedule int ersessional hearings,

schedule them throughout this province. This is one of the most im portant issues, I believe, to ever face this Legislature. Then why are we hurrying and rushing headlong into it? Why don't we give the people a chance to express their opinions? The First Min ister tried to save the face of this government by dragging in the subject of entrenchment of human rights. They'll do anything to cloud the issue, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is once again trying to fool the people. He's trying to fool them into thinking that he did a great favour to them when he held the so called inform::�ion meeti ngs. He's trying to make the 4878

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 people believe he is doing them a great favour by holding hearings during this Session. What favour in the heat of August? Now, he's trying to say that he might hold hearings outside the city. He might. Just what does this Premier intend to do? This is a far cry from the stance that he and the Attorney-General took when they first introduced this motion into the House.

At that time, the Attorney-General and the First Min ister made it very clear to this House that this matter was to be debated in this Cham ber, that it was to be passed quickly and it was going into the hands of the Federal Government immedia tely. The die was cast, there was an agreement, consultation was over, period, that was it. Well, now we have the Premier every so often - well, he did get up once, yes, and he says well, maybe we'll have hearings outside the city. He didn't even intend to have the so-called informational meet ings at first.

It was only on the urging of the Leader of the Opposition and some of my colleagues that that was even done. So how are they going to know from one min ute to the next what the Premier of this province plans to do? Now we have this government yelling at us in all their speeches, telling us to hurry and pass this motion. Hurry, hurry, hurry, they say; pass the motion so it can go to a committee of the House. Hurry, they say; the people want to be heard. They do ind eed want to be heard. They want to hear from this Attorney-General the answers to a great many questions.

They want to state their opinions on this matter, as I am sure they have stated their opinions to many mem bers of this House, many mem bers who have not risen and said what their constituents want, as my colleague for Arthur said. I haven't heard the Member for The Pas telling us what his constituents say about it. The people of this province, Mr. Speaker, don't trust this government and they have every right not to trust this government. Why should they? This government has done very little to woo their trust on this and many other subjects. We have seen over the long long days of this Session many times, Mr.

Speaker, that the opposition has risen to ask them questions and they have evaded giving forthright answers to the questions that were posed. Now this is the government that is shouting at us to hurry; pass the motion, they say; pass it qui ckly. Yet this is the same government which would not allow the vote on Saturday. They didn't want to vote on it on Saturday. They filibus tered their own legislation, Mr. Speaker, and now they're making a big show of protest that the opposition is holding them up.

If this government would tell us that they will vote in favour of our amendment to hold intersessional heari ngs, then we would be delighted to pass this motion. So far, Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing from this government to indicate that they are in agreement with that amendment. We have seen no valid reason that has convinc ed us that we should hurry up and proceed with this voti ng; not one shred of evidence that would convince us that they should hurry this through or ram it through as some of my colleagues have said, like my colleague from Arthur just referred to bulldozing it through.

That's probably a more apt expression. Unless this government can produce a plausible reason why this should be hurried through, then we'll continue to debate their motion until we have a clear ind ication stated in this House, Mr. Speaker, that they will hear the people of Manitoba in int ersessional hearings. We want them to get up and say so and put it on the record, not meetings, Mr.

Speaker, like the ones held by the Attorney-General when he was shamed into it by the opposition, not meetings at which people could ask a few questions in a limited time and be given only one-sided answers by the Attorney-General. The meetings were short. They were n't allowed to go past a certain time. People were frustrated by the process of those meet ings. We are in sisting on intersessional heari ngs. Hearings are a great deal dif ferent from the meetings that were held. Hearings, Mr. Speaker, at which time the people can present briefs stating their concerns and wishes with regard to this matter.

How can this government, which tells us over and over again that they are people who listen, they listen, they listen, they listen, how can these listeners vote against an amendment which will allow them to listen and listen to all the people of Manitoba who wish to be heard? Perhaps these listeners, this group of incomp etent listeners, are listeners and listeners on ly. Perhaps they can't hear any thing that's said to them. Perhaps they can't hear what the opposition is saying and what the rank and file of Manitobans are sa ying. Perhaps they are listeners only.

Perhaps they're so bewitched by the fact tha t they have a majorit y government that they feel they don't have to listen any more, that they know everything. They don't have to listen. They do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have to listen and they have to hear what the people have to say. My constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they're phoning me and asking, why does this government not want to hear us? What's wrong with this government? Why are they forcing us into something we neither want nor need?

They asked me the same thing about the seat belt legislation; they're asking me the same thing on The Farm Lands Ownership Bill; they're asking me the same thing about The Municipal Conflict-of-Interest Bill. They phone and they write and they say: What is going on in that Legislative Building? Doesn't the opinion of the majority of people in Manitoba mean anything any more? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please, order please. Order please. MRS. C. OLESON: Is there no way we can stop this government in their head long rush to legislate every aspect of our lives?

One woman who phoned me the other day in a voice of desperation asked: When is the next election? And I had to admit to her that it couldn't come a moment too soon to stop this government Some people, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have never paid too much attention to government activities or whether er not the Legislature is sitting are asking, what's going on in there? Why is this government pushing this bilingual business through the House? Why don't you adjourn and hold hearings in the fall when we have time to go and listen to them and present briefs, and 4879

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 when we're avai lable to go to the comm ittee hearings? Why aren't the hearings going out into the country? Does this government think everyone lives in Winnipeg? That is inde ed a good point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of the people in the country often have the fe eling tha t the gov ernme nt agencies and the government itself feels that there is no one living beyond the Perimeter of the City of Winnip eg. They have that feeling and they are quite rightly entitled to have that feeling with the way they are treated at times. These are the sort of questions that are being asked, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they're being asked throughout the length and breadth of this province. The Min ister of Hig hways in answer to a question by the Member for Elmwood told us that the people don't understand the issue. They don't understand this issue of bilingualism. Mr. Speaker, I think that remark by the Min ister is an insult to the people of Ma nitoba, and I think the people of Manitoba understand the issue far better than does the Minis ter of Highw ays and far better than the rest of his government colleagues. They understand the implications of this legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

They understand it much better than the members opposite seem to un derstand it. Nothing that they have told us ind icates clearly to us that they really understand the people and their fears and expectations. Soi . 1e people have very high expectations from this legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard not long after the resolution was announced, someone on the radio in excited tones telling people that now we would have bilingual stop signs. Well is that the intention? Are we going through all this exercise so that we can have bilingual stop signs?

I think probably there are, and I know there are, bilingual stop signs where they are needed. This is not the issue, but some people think it is. So, it's im portant to go to the people in these in tersessional hearings, allay their fears, hear what they have to say about this. It may turn out that they're all in agreement with it. Why are you so afraid to hear what they have to say? If you had the feeling that they were all in agreement with it, why would you be so concerned? What's the problem?

One of the people who presented a brief to the Comm ittee on Statutory Regulations and Orders spoke at some length in opposition to Bill 60, the amendment to The Hig hway Traffic Act. Remember those hearings? We remember those hearings quite well. Those were the hearings that were closed down by a government majority, high-handed government majority, I might add. There were several people waiting to hear it and to be heard at those hearings. Now one wonders if this might be the thing that happens to these bilingual comm ittee hearings and the presentations that are to be made to them?

It certainly makes one wonder. After all, we've seen in the days of this Session, we certai nly wonder if this government can be trusted to give a fair hearinr to all who wished to speak. We certainly wonder. Now, I ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Min ister of High ways. HON. S. USKIW: I was just wondering if the member would permit a question at this point in time. MRS. C. OLESON: I'll try to answer it, I won't guarantee anthing. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure the honourable member wouldn't want to have left on the record an untruth, which was just stated, in that hearings were closed down while there were people wanting to be heard. I'm sure the member is aware that we have exhausted all the people who wanted to be heard on that day and we adjourned the committee an hour ahead of time. The mem bers surely wouldn't want to leave that on the record. MRS. C. OLESON: I cer tainly wouldn't want to leave on the record, Mr.

Speaker, if I had uttered an untruth, but my understanding at that committee was that there were people who wished to be heard, people who understood they were to be heard, and people that had been told at very short notice that that meeting was being held were unable to go because of other commitme nts, had sat for long hours in the heat of many days and nights to be heard. There was a speaker that came to the podium and his words clearly indi cated that he expected another meeting to be held.

There were people who weren't able to be contacted for those meetings, and it was clearly my unde rstanding that there were other people to be heard. I may be proved to be wrong, but I will take that because I firmly believe that there were people waiting to be heard. My concern is with this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the people of Manitoba will suffer from the same sort of high-ha nded ness when it comes to these hearings. We have seen enough from this government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we wonder , sinc erely wonder if everyone will get a fair chance.

It has come to a sad point in the Province of Manitoba where people cannot trust their government, and I know that is the case. The people expect and have expected over the years, no matter who was in power, that they could trust them when they spoke. I think that is a sad state of affairs when it comes to something like this in the province where people cannot trust their government. That is a feeling that has been cultivated by this government. If I am in error in that, I will apologize to the Min ister of Hig hways later, but I do not feel that I am in error in stating that.

I referred a moment ago to a gentleman who spoke at those hearings, and who presented a brief, a very very lengthy brief. He started I believe in the afternoon and carried on long into the even ing. Very int eresting speaker. In his remarks he spoke at some length on the philosophy of governments and the way they deal with issues that they're asked to deal with, or that they feel they should deal with. One of the theories he brought out was that a government sometimes acts in a paternalistic way.

They feel that, you know, here's daddy, he's going to help you, he knows what you need, he knows what you want. - (I nterject ion) - Yes, the big brother, I know better than they attitude. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what we have with respect to this issue of bilingual entrenchment. This government thinks that they know exactly what the people should have, and they imply by their very actions that the people don't know what is good for them. 4880

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people of this province do know what is good for them. They want a chance to be able to say so. They want a chance to be able to tell this government in no uncertain terms how they feel on this issue, and what they feel is right for the future of their children. Their children yet unborn are going to be affected by this legisla tion. We are concerned, we are very concerned. It should be quite evident to this government at this time that we are concerned, and we intend to stay here as long as it takes to convince them.

We are concerned because of some of the things this government has been doing. We are concerned that all of the facts haven't been given clearly to the people of Manitoba. They've sent out these brochures, very attractive looking brochure. One of the things on the back of it says, "Ma nitoba is not beco ming bilingual, nor in tro ducing the Trude au Gove rnment's biling ual program." Yet, the very first

section of the proposed resolution reads in

Section 23. 1, "English and French are the official langua ges of Manitoba." Well, we would like to hear from the Attorney-General a clear concise explana tion. When we ask for a clear concis e explanation of this, he stands in his place and he talks and he talks, and we still have not got a clear concise explanation of how these two statements, how they wash, what they mean. We see in the actual resolution that something is going to happen, but then he says it is not happening. We would like to have people go and express their opinions on that and be told exactly what this means.

We are concerned also with another statement in here. It says, "P utting this into the Constitution guarantees exactly services are legal rights and, therefore, is not the beginnin g of creeping bilingualism�" - I'm being int er;·upted by the Mem ber for again. He's noticing me, I'm so thrilled. This statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is another one that we're concerned We want this statement explained to us at int ersessional hearings. lntersessional hea rings is what we 'r e complai ning about. Tha t information doesn't seem to have crept through to the people on the backbench, intersessional hearings.

If this guarantees exactly what services, then why this hazy area over the muni cipa lities? People in muni cipalities are concerned about this and I'm sure they'll want to come when the harvest is over and they have time to prepare a brief and think this thing through. They will want to come and hear an explanation of that, I'm very sure they will. Of course, they've written already to express some feelings to the Attorney-General and the Premier on this subject. I'm sure they'll want to take time to study the thing through.

I'm sure if they feel it will the benefit to everyone in their munici pality, they will be delighted to come to these intersessional hearings and say so. So what is the government afraid of? They're afraid of intersessional hearings, that's what they're afraid of. They're afraid that people may have time to really study and really be able to do something about this. - (I nterjec tion) - Well, if they talk to them, they should also listen and hear what they're saying. We hear it all the time. We get phone calls from people, we get expressions of people and their fears of this.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 4881 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MRS. C. OLESON: We know what the people are thinking. We hear them every day, but we do not hear members from the other side of the House get up and tell us what their constituents are saying about this, except for the Member for Elmwood who certai nly tells us, and rightly so. - (Interjec tion) - Right, he's not really a member of their party anymore. I guess we shouldn't paint him with that brush anymore. - (I nterjection) - Right. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people of Manitoba know what is right for them. They know what they want.

The y are living in apprehension about what this government is doing to them. They do not trust this government. As a gesture of faith and trust, I think this government should agree with these int ersessional hearings, get on with the rest of this Session, close it down in a reasonable sensible man ner, and then get on with these inter sessional hearings, so that the people can be heard. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that's all I have to say at this time. I think probably there' ll be several opportunities for me to express more opinions on this matter. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Mem ber for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise again and speak on the issue. Many of the things I have to say will no doubt be repeat of comments I made yesterday, although it's amazing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as each and every one of us speak on the issue again, new points do surface and do arise. Of course, the members opposite, if they took

part in the discussion, they may even have more to add to the issue. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I posed the question as to why the government - I also gave I believe some of the answers - is so frantic on this issue, and why they're so desperate in saying it has to move forward at this time. I think I was pretty accurate when I said that from their viewpoint It may be now or never, and that they were terribly concerned, of course, with the potential referendums coming forward this fall, certainly in the rural areas and maybe even some of the major urban cities in our province. I think, Mr.

Speaker, we also see something else happening. I'm almost positive that some of these same groups who are requesting of the government that this process be al lowed to develop to a point where everybody not only has a proper opportun ity to be prepared to make presentation to a comm ittee, certainly preferably in the fall, they're also saying, gi ve us an opportunity to vote on the issue. Of course, that's what this government is desperately afraid of.

I guess it harkens right back to a comment made by the Attorney-General on one of his presentations last week, when he said words to the effect , as I remem ber, that the consensus, although it's an ideal t·:> strive for, is not always the important goal. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'll come back to that issue a little later on. I think it's incu mbent, at least, upon the members opposite to realize that we're not speaking as a party

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 just for ourselves; we'r e not speaking for our political future, but that we belie ve we're right. Of course, any politician that believes they're right very rarely walks away from what the vast majority of the people really believe to be right also. I think the people, in majori ty, are saying, give us an opportunity to speak to the issue, and that is entrenchment or not. Mr. Speaker, this government is frantic. It'll be very int eresting to see the response and their reaction to this new sub-amendment as has come forward.

I honestly believe that they're not totally surprised at the action that has taken place here this morning. It seems to me last week they hurled comments across the floor to the effect that they might be expecting some additional amendments. Well, Mr. Speaker, they well understand our resolve on this issue. As a matter of fact, I would have to say, as a group, we're looking extremely healthy, we're well rested. And as I hurled a comment across the floor to the Member of Springfield, to those of us who are used to pitching sheaves, this represents a cool relaxing respite from that hard, hard physical work. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wanted to clarify a comment that I made yesterday and I don't know whether it was fully und erstood or not. It was to do with the mun icipalities coming forward by way of press release, and making the ind ication that they were not prepared to accept the government's argument that there would be a cost saving if we followed through with this so called agreement - the agreement by the way, Sir, which we have never seen spelled out on paper in totality. I think the mun icipaliti es had a very sound point.

They were saying that if you're asking us as mun icipalities, the first order of government within the province, if you were asking us to endor se specifically the issue which you have placed before us, you can't use as a justification the fact that there are a few millions of dollars coming from Ottawa, or that some few milli ons of dollars may be saved in translation.

I think specifically what they said was, at $4 per person - that was the saving that, I think, the government has used if we follow this quickly by the approach developed - that at $4 per person you cannot use that as justification for selling this program. It just won't wash, and I think in gr eat num bers rur al cou ncill ors and rur al muni cipalities are saying they will not accept that argument. I think we'd be wise if we put aside the cost saving principle that is espoused by the government. Again, Mr.

Speaker, to put it into perspective, how can the government in all honesty attempt to sell something of this nature, something that's going to require a change in the Constitution. How can they put a $4 per person price tag on it and say it represents a saving, when this same government incr eased the debt to some $600 per person the past fiscal yAar. Really, let's not even use that argument, please. Just because you're the government and attempt to use that, all you're really sayi ng is the people really have no understanding whatsoever of the financial plight of this province. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I covered some of this material yesterday. I'd like to move onto an area that I didn't delve into to a great deal and that was the whole amendments area. Mr. Speaker, we've challenged the government to sort of put up or shut up when it comes to this whole amendment area. They keep telling us that if we move this along quickly into commi ttee that they then will, at their pleasure, bring forward a so called tightening of wording the amendments towards this whole area. I think it's incumb ent upon them to lay them on the table right today.

Or are they saying really that they're not prepared, or are they saying that they may not even really consider them? We don't know what they're saying. But I think it's vitally important that whatever amendments they are consideri ng, not only on this issue but some of the remai ning bills, be put forward and presented right now. After all, who has the first right to know and to see some of these amendments, so-called? Certainly it has to be the House, Mr.

Speaker, and I believe that if there is a desire to work towards a solution of this impasse at all, cert ainly one of the first areas in which the government has to be prepared to concede is the tabling of those amendments. Not only to suit our request to see them, but I believe also other inter ested parties; specifical ly, I say, the MGEA and, of course, hopefully the so-called amendments will make some clearer understanding as to what this whole issue will mean to the munic ipalities, because they too are looking for a much clearer delineation of the new bilingu alism as it applies to them. Mr.

Speaker, I think that they have to bring these amendments forward. The other night the First Min ister alluded in some mann er, at least in my

interpretation, that maybe numb ers could be entrenched. I'm not saying that's what he meant, I don't even know if he knew what he meant, but I took out of the meaning of which he gave to us an inferral that maybe the government was considering entrenching a specific num ber or a specific percentage. I have no way of knowing, but if that is part of their thinking, lay it before us now and lay it before the people of the province now so that we can do away with some of the mi strust, and I think that's a first course of action and I think it should be taken by them. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I've said before and I'll say it again, only briefly this time, that I find it incomprehensible that the government really would ask people to come forward and make representation on their own behalf without not having before them two things: First of all, the specific agreement that has been struck with the Societe Franco- Manitobaine and the Federal Government; and, second ly, the latest government thinking on the issue by way of the amendments. I think it's ludicrous, Sir, that a government would expect people to come and make representation and not be prepared to address the latest amendments.

Again, I allude to something that happened on the Crow rate hearings where many people and much time was spent by those of us on the committee, posing questions about the latest federal proposals which we were not even mandated to do by this Legislature on that Standing Committee of Agriculture. We were mand ated to refer to co mmi ttee a specific proposal. What happened, Mr. Speaker, we found ourselves out in commit tee discussing proposals that were not even referred to it by the power and the authority of this House.

On this issue, if we would see the very same thing happen, whereby people would come forward and would be asked to come forward and to make presentation on the issue and yet would not be fully cognizant of 4882

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 what the government was really thinking, I think would be a terrible disservice, certainly on the most im portant issue of our time. Well, Mr. Speaker, I remembe r, and I believe some of our other memb ers will be quoting the original comments by the Attorney-General, and maybe they have already, when he first intr oduced the issue, that we had two choices in this issue. It was either to accept it completely as it was or to reject it, totally out of hand.

Of course, nobody on that side wants to dispel or challenge me on that comment, but that was the original comment of the Attorne y-General in introducing, I don't know if it was the referral motion or if it was the main resol ution, but some thing's happened over the last three or four weeks and, of course, we take some pleasure in the fact that the government, at least, is amenable to consideration of some further amendments. We wonder again why they will not spell them out now, because it almost leads us to believe that there's something hidden or something that is not being presented to us.

Although we say on this side, rhetorical ly, Sir, we say, what is the rush - we may have said that again in the first ins tance is rhetoric - we are now seriously beginning to believe, particularly in view of all the pressure not only from the House here, but from outside sources that are putting the government and in the face of that, the government wanting, against all advice, to continue - we're wondering, what is the hidden agenda. What is not being told to us and to the people of Manitoba? What agreements have been struck th at we are not aware of, with Otta wa in particular?

I think as long as the government remains intransigent to this whole issue, that question will take on greater and greater weight not only within this House, but within the confines of the boundaries of this province. Mr. Speaker, we wonder why the government will not accede to our wishes in this particular case and to those of the Province of Manitoba; and I know they feel they have the political majority and they do.

They were given the right to govern the province in the election of 19 81, and I realize how upset they are when they see the min ority party frustrating them and I can share in some of the frustration if I were on their side, but that's what oppositions are in place to do, I believe, at the proper time and by the methods at their disposal, is to prevent gov ern ments from pushing through legislation that is totally unwanted by a vast majority of people. It's on those two areas then that I guess we gain our new wind in this issue; we dig in our heels and our toes with even greater spirit.

We wonder what the hidden agenda is, we wonder what arrangement has been made with Ottawa; and, second ly, we wonder why the government cannot see the wisdom in waiting two short months and calling an int ersessional commit tee. Not one speaker on the other side has told us why we're wrong in wanting to hold the issue to follow; not one, Sir. We're not asking to drag this out for two or three years. We're not asking that the so-called magical December 31 st deadline - we're not asking, even though we do not know on what basis it comes forward or on what solid ground it stands.

I guess we're even prepared to accept and meet that deadline, although we don't even know on what basis it comes forward; but, Mr. Speaker, we say that the people must be heard. Many of my colleagues from this side have made reference to remarks made by a former Prem ier, Mr. Roblin, and I'm not going to dwell in great length on that particular report, but I just wanted to add a few comments to those made by the Member for Arthur when he says that he remembers the issue in his area, and although he's older than I am, I can tell you, as a very young person, I remember the issue in my area.

As a matter of fact, I can remember the person that came out to speak and address that issue in my little hamlet, and it may or may not surprise people opposite to know that the person that came into my particular town - and of course I didn't attend the meeting, but my parents did - was my present leader, the Member for Charleswood.

I can tell you, Sir, that the vast majority of people in our area were terribly upset with the Conservative Gov ernment of the Day, which they supported in overwhelming fashion in our local poll, but they were upset with that issue because they saw autonomy again being removed from them.

I don't know when that began; I would defer to some of my older colleagues where this action, either legislatively or voluntarily; where autonomy began to be removed from local areas, and it not only happened in the former government, but also it hap pened in the form of grain handling companies and many other apsects of rural community life.

At this particular time when you had Provincial Government spokesmen coming forward and saying tha t ther e was a tremendous advantage into consolidating school districts and it represented an advancement in education and, in the long run, into efficiencies as far as funding, I can remember the people in our district totally rejected that out of hand. They did for two reasons. First of all, they saw some of their local authority being removed; and, second ly, they saw that spectre of the heavy hand of government beginning to come toward them. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the only thing I draw from that comment was that on that issue, which was very im portant in its time, but I think, as history will record, was of meagre im portance relative to this one; but the Government of that Day had only one way of sel ling it before it went to a vote of the people, at which time it was overwhelmingly accepted, and that was to go individually out to the areas involved and to sell the particular system of consolidation. That's the rightful way, Sir.

As former Premier Roblin ind icated, that was the proper method, and I'm wondering how society has advanced in 20 years, or 25, where all of a sudden that's no longer the proper way, because I believe on this issue that if the proper process had been followed, you'd have a lot less divisiveness and, more importantly, you would have some major acceptance, at least, in principle. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I only mention that because I think it's very im portan t tha t whether people have an opportunity to pose the question directly to indi viduals within the confines of their own hall or within their own communi ty club, people throughout this whole province want an opportunity to speak to the issue. Of course, the only opportuni ty that will be afforded to them under the particular process we're in is one by which they come forward and speak to comm ittee; something 4883

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 which I'd say is a little bit foreign to many many citizens of this province. So, Mr. Speaker, it's on that basis that we remain so resolute also, and it's on that basis that we continue to dig in our heels. Well, Sir, I had mentioned it briefly yesterday , the issue of credibil ity. Quite frank ly, Sir, there are a vast majority of the population in this province who do not believe any of the written remarks of the NDP by way of pamphlet, by way of ad on billboards, by way of ad in the papers. Frank ly, they do not belie ve.

I'm not going to go into the history of how the government was elected in the material they floated at that time to become elected, but I can tell you that there are a large large majority that do not believe this government. When they say they know where it's headed, I believe they believe the government to be sincere in their attempt to bring it forward - I don't deny that - but I honestly believe that the vast majority of Manitobans do not accept the government's word that they know where this issue is headed and how the province will have to deal with it in some 20 or 30 years.

I think that's a major pointed issue, because after all, Sir, it's something that's being entrenched and it'll be with us hopefully forever, as all aspects of the Constitution will be. Again, I ask the question: Why is the government so frantic on the issue? More importantly - and of cou. se this is in retrospect, Sir - but why did the government not consult us before they struck the agreement?

I know the Attorney-General did send correspondence over to us last December and then after that, but why didn't the government see fit to include memb ers of the opposition; not only to this issue, Sir, I say on any issue dealing with constitutional change.

Does it not make eminent sense to anybody that looks at the issue, that if you're going to change any aspect of the Constitution - and I don't care what it is - dealing with any subject that you would want to include through all the stages of the process, even thr ough the conceptualizing aspect of trying to work around the problem, wouldn't it be abund antly wise to include some people from the opposition?

I think it would be, and I suppose if there's anything that I'v e learnt through this whole issue, I can tell you, Sir, because of it and many other things, that our party expects to be in power for many years in this province; that any constitutional change that is being consider ed by the government - I think I would at least argue within our group - should include input from the opposition.

So, Sir, I think in retrospect the government can blame themselves to a great degree for where we're at in this issue, because they could have easily included mem bers from this side in attempting to hammer out that so called agreement, the one which, of course, we have never seen. If they didn't want to do that, why then didn't they float a White Paper, something where everybody could react to; something that everybody had an opportunity to know what was on their mind before they introduced the resolution to the House?

That, I understand, is done quite often in Ottawa, and I don't know when the last time it was done here. I'll defer that to people with more experience. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we've never amended the Constitution, but I know White Papers have been floated on other subjects in Ottawa. Why wou ldn't the government do that?

Then they can say, with all justifica tion, that people have known not by way of press report like the Attorney-General gives us the catalogue of all the news releases that have spoken to the subject in the paper over the last year, not by that way, Sir, but by the proper legislative procedure of bringing forward a White Paper so as to intr oduce the whole subject to the people. Again, in retrospect, I'm sure they question themselves. But, Mr.

Spe ake r, the gre atest blu nde r the government made in this whole issue is that they misread the opposition, not only the opposition in this House, but the opposition outside of it. I don't know what their thinking was; that they believed, first of all, that as a party we had certain bounds on us not to speak out to the issue, or that we would dare speak against it.

I don't know why they were lulled into that belief, firstly; and then, second ly, I can't believe for one moment that they thought the municip alities, as an organization and as a group with all that grassroot power and everything good that rural Manitoba stands for behind them, could possibly accept it without delving in it in greater depth and all that could have been dispelled to some degree by including that organization in the beg inning also. Mr.

Speaker, the government misread the opposition badly and they have the hard decision to make as to whether, in spite of all the people being against them - or the vast majority - whether to steamroll them or use the bulldozer approach, as the Member for Arthur said, or whether to give some ground and let the people be heard properly. I'd like to slide a little onto the issue. I pride myself a little bit that I've attempted to speak toward the process on this issue, but I'd like to slide onto the issue for a little bit. I don't really want to, but I will. Mr.

Speaker, aside from the legal questions on this whole issue, which have been so well covered by our leader, and I give credit also to the Attorney-General in the way he approached the subject from the legal aspect, I think that what's at cross purposes here are the question of two realities. Of course, we have the historical reality and I know that's foremost in the minds of those who want to see the resolution go forward and, of course, we have the reality of today's world. Mr. Speaker, it's on that basis that this whole issue is at cross purposes.

Sir, the people must be heard and they must be allowed to speak to both of those ends because today's realities are not at all consistent with the historical reality of which, particularly the Member for Radisson and others, hold so dear and so close. I understand that, Sir, and I can tell you that when it comes to speaking to the main resolution, whenever that is, and how many days or weeks that may take to come, that that will be the main thrust of my presentation.

So, Sir, the issue is not cost, and again, as I indicated earli er, it's not cost and I think that's borne out by many comments and probably borne out best by an association which the government listens to, I know, very attentiv ely, and of course that's the Manitoba Government Employees Association, who, on July 12th, sent a letter to the Premier and who, on Page 3, made this comment, and I quote: "We further support a limited extension of those rights in the provision of practical bilingual government services.

Any extended rights must be im plemented in a realistic and workable manner in order to avoid future conflicts. We believe our suggestions will help to achie ve that end." 4884

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, that's what is at issue, of course, is some thing that's real istic, if some t hing can be developed that's realistic and something that can be developed that will not bring into being future conflicts, something that will not, as has happened in New Brunswick - and I think colleagues of mine have quoted from that particular

article extensively. An aside, Sir, it's those types of articles that one does not like to see, but they are written and they come into the homes of many many Manitobans and they represent, in the minds of Manitobans, a very real threat and one that must be dealt with. So, Sir, it's on the basis of that type of comment and a wish to avoid future conflicts that the government has not proven to the opposition, nor to the people of Manitoba, that they have thought the issue forward that far. How long is future? I think that's the question.

I mean, is it something that we'll have to grapple with in 10 years or 20 or 30, or will it not be an issue? Nobody can answer that question, absolutely nobody can answer that question with total confidence, but we only have experiences to work with and today, Sir, we've seen something that happened in the nation, something that was brought into being to make the nation a more unified country and which through many great regions of the country has done just the opposite.

Those are the experiences that we work with and there's nothing that can move them out of our mind when we try and give logical thinking to the subject. Sir, the issue is not cost. It involves history, but not in totality. Anybody that says history is the only issue is ignoring today's world and where we are and where we may be going.

The issue is entrenchment; the issue is who will have the ultimate say, and the issue, of course, in the minds of many rural people is muni cipal designation and what that really means and how it will impact upon, not only those of us who come into contact with provincial agencies and Crown corporations on a more frequent basis, but those in our midst who come in contact daily with their own local governments. Sir, that answer has not been adequately answered, and until it is, I think this issue will always remain live and open.

People need time; they need time to prepare for the res olution; they need tim e to prepare for the amendments which will hopefully be laid before us; they need time, Sir, to come back from their holidays; they need time to dispose of the harvest; and they need time to adequa tely prepare. That's all we're asking for, nothing more. On any other issue, I'm totally convinc ed this government would see the logic of our request and would grant it, on any other issue, Sir, but not on this one. A MEMBER: They're not a logical government. MR. C. MANNESS: Again it begs the question, what do we not know?

What is being kept from us, because in our view our request is so pure that we can hardly believe that a government would not accept it. With those few comments I'll close my discourse on the su bject for now, and again I question why the government is so frantic on the issue and why it has to be done by way of their timetable. I think there are many unk nowns, which could help this process greatly if they would just tell us completely what's on their minds. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Mem ber for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to commend the previous speaker for his well chosen words over the past few moments. It's so long since this particular bill was brought before us, or this resolution was brought before us, that maybe some of us are forgetting what it's all about; and the amendment that Mr. Sherman, the Member for Fort Garry, has put before the House, really all it says, after the words of comm ittee in the last paragraph, is that we sit during recess, after prorogration, and report to the next Session of the Legislature.

There is another amendment that was made, but was turned down, and we now have another amendment before the House. Maybe we aren't really remem bering what The Manitoba Act says.

The Manitoba Act of 1870 says that either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the deba tes of the House of the Legislature, and both these langua ges shall be used in the respective records and journals of the House, and either of those langua ges may be used by any person or in any pleading or process or an issuing from any court of Canada established under The British America Act of 18 67, or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The Acts of the Legislature shall be printed and published in both these langua ges. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think anyone on this side of the House, the opposition side of the House, has denied that the French lingui stic rights were written into the bill when Manitoba entered into Confederation in 1870. We also acknowledge that in 18 90 that the Legislature of Manitoba altered the Constitution of the Province of Manitoba and passed an Official Langua ges Act that was not challenged until 19 79, when the Forest case went to the Supreme Court of Canada and The Official Langu ages Act of 1890 was declared invalid. Then again in 19 81, Mr.

Bilodeau took his case before the Manitoba Court of Appeal and now into the Supreme Court and it still sits there. Many cultural changes have been seen since 1870. The Francophone population of Manitoba in 1870 was approximately 51 percent. Today, the Francophone population of Manitoba is in the neighbourhood, I believe, of 6 percent, Mr. Speaker. Immigr ation of other ethnic groups such as the Icelandic people, the Ukrainians, the Polish, the Germans, the Filipinos, the Asians, and the Anglos have relegated the Francophones to a mino rity position, b

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-131
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 131.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	46b90dfffa9a6f9c021733edfaa4f9f1634ad0ef

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