Manitoba Hansard — 5 August 1983 (Sitting 136, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-136

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. 136 - 8:00 p.m., FRIDA Y, 5 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, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Stur geon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Int erlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP ND P NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday , 5 August, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . Oral Questions ... The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speak er, even though the opposition is entitled to have a third question period during Speed-up, we are, in accordance with our un dertaking to the government, forgoing question period this evening. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, would you call the Referral Motion dealing with

Section 23. Un less the Order Paper has changed, Sir , it is found on Page 12 and continues onto Page 13 of the Order Paper. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON MOTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the prop osed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and the propo sed sub-amendment by the Honourable Mem ber for Arthur , the Honourable Mem ber for Burrows has 22 minutes remaining. Can anyone advise if the honourable member has completed his remarks or intends to return? MR. B. RANSOM: Stand. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I understand the member had completed his remarks. A MEMBER: How do we know? HON. V SCHROEDER: He did complete them and said thank you. (Transmission fa ilure) MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that we on this side welcome the contribution tha t is made sparingly from the other side, as we had just prior to the supper hour adjournment from the Member for Burrows.

I was cer tainly led to believe that he had at least 20 or 22 minutes of enlightening arguments to bring to bear on this subject matter, but it would seem that the heavy hand of the government has cut him off and at least that one voice coming from Burrows, indeed in a form representative of an ethnic minority that we are concerned about in this resolution, did not have the opportunity to continue his remarks. Mr. Spe aker, I kn ow that honour able mem bers opposite are finding it hard to listen to some of these speeches, but they should be listen ing to the se speeches, Mr.

Speaker, not only because they're good speeches - Mr. Speaker, modesty prevails upon me to say up till now - not only because they're good speeches but they're the kind of speeches that are being made now across the Province of Manitoba. They're the kind of speeches that are going to be made by a group of people that are going to be running for the Provincial Conservative Leadership race and it will culminate on Decemer 8th, 9th and 10th; and Mr. Speaker, they're the kind of speeches that will be refined and even made better when next this government has to go to the people on election day.

So if for no other reason, and of course the principle reason that I would ask them to listen to these speeches is because I am not that cynical that I do not lose all hope of being able to convince honourable members opposite, from time to time if our arguments are forceful enough, if they are of the substance tha t makes common sense to most people in this Chamber and most people in the province, then they surely ought to listen to them. I'm particularly pleased that the First Minister is in the Chamber and I want to tell him that running caucus meetings in the loge isn't going to resolve this issue.

The issue has to be dealt with here on the floor of the House and people have to start to deal with these issues. Mr. Speaker, I support, of course, the sub-amendment that's before us, to the amendment, to the referral resolution that was placed by my colleague, the Member for Fort Garry, but I do so with some difficulty because deep down in my heart, I don't believe that they are the effective answer to the resolution to the problem that this government has, to a large extent, created for themselves.

It's certainly the only option that the opposition has to attempt to bring this government to its senses, to attempt to stop the haste with which they're acting in this very delicate matter, and it's for the same reason that I can und erstand different municipalities throughout the province agreeing to the holding of referendums on this question. Even the City of Winnipeg councillors are looking at the situation, I understand, within a week or two. But, again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you and I say to the members opposite and I say to the Premier, this is not a question that can be resolved by referendum. And, Mr.

Speaker, in much the same case, I suggest to you, that the course we're on, that we'r e urging the govern ment to take, to take this matter to an intersessional committee, that also is not going to 4985

Friday, 5 August, 1983 resolve the question and make it easier for government to deal with it. So, Mr. Speaker, they are on notice already that they're going to have 11 0 briefs against the government on this resolution, and we know for sure that they have at least drummed up 30 or 40 briefs in favour of the resolution. So, we have that expression of public opinion at the committee level, but not resolution to the issue, and the issue is the agreement that was worked out very privately by members of this government with a particu lar segment grou ping several groups, Mr.

Bilodeau and his lawyer, the Franco-Manitoban Society at the urging and pushing of Serge Joyal of the Federal Government, the Trudeau Liberals, promises of funding and doll ars to cascade from heaven if only the agreement is reached into. None of that is going to be resolved by listening to 100, 200, 300 briefs in a public forum. None of that, Mr. Speaker. You see the tragedy, Mr.

Speaker, is that what this government is now doing and the reason we're in this stalemate is that it is not dissimilar from the action taken by the then Liberal administration in 18 90 under Premier Norris, who simply used the majority of his government to arbitrarily - and subsequently proven illegal some 90 years later - passed

an act of the Legislature that abrogated certain language rights for the Francophone community of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, it was another Liberal Government under Premier Greenway that again used the majority of the day to further abrogate certain rights with respect to the school question in 19 16. In the interim, and it took a lot of time, what happened? Certainly that ac tion taken in 18 90 bred 90 years of frustration, bitterness and resentment by the Francophone community at those rights being abrogated by a majority government that exercised that majority in that way. Mr.

Speaker , what I have so mu ch difficulty in comprehending is what this government is doing. This government is acting much like the Norris Government of 1890, except the numbers are different. I am prepared to suggest that you are doing it for the best of reasons, but the num bers are different. In this case, 94 percent of the popula tion may well ha rbour bi tterness, frustration and resentment for the next 90 years while you seek, in a wrong-headed way, to correct some of the wrongs that, in my judgment, many of them have already been corrected by the actions taken in 1979. Mr.

Speaker, progress in this area of race relationships has only really come when there was a fairly substantial degree of bipartisan support for it. Surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, it has come, by and large, when Conservative Governments have been in power, not totally, but certainly to a large extent.

I remind the Honourable Member for Radisson; I remind the editors of La Liberte who are in the business of publishing racist and hate literature these days, that it was Liberal administrations, not that same old dirty party as referred to in the cartoon, that took away, that abrogated the Francophone rights in 18 90 and in 19 16. It took a Progressive Conservative administration under the leadership of Duff Roblin to start to make some amends, shar ed school progr am costs; introducing French language in different forms; making language and instruction of language in our school systems. But, Mr.

Speaker, that was done because the then Premier had the support of the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Gildas Molgat, had the support of the New Democrats who were then headed by Russ Paul ley, and had bipartisan or tripartisan support, had the support of the Legislative Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, in 1979, when a government that I was part of, accepted the results of the Forest case, accepted the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court that struck down a law that had stood for 90 years and restored original language rights to the Francophone community as they were agreed to when the province was formed, when the province entered Confederation, my Leader, my present Leader, the then Premier Sterling Lyon stood up in this House and said, yes of course we will abide by the law, and of course we will commence to recognize the language rights of the French-speaking people in this Chamber, in the courts, and begin the arduous task of translating to the statutes.

It was my colleague, the then Attorney General, Mr. Mercier from St. Norbert, who established the first French accord that was equipped with sufficient personnel that could deal and hear cases in French. Mr. Speaker, again, that was made possible because the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition stood up in the House and agreed with it, supported it, and it was by partisan action in this Chamber that made that all possible, without arousing undue emotions in the general population, without talking about referendums, and without forcing or jamming anything down anybody's throat. Mr.

Speaker, I indicated the other night in a rather lengthy speech, why I thought the government chose the particular action that they chose. They believed and I believe they now see the error of that way. I believe they felt somewhat loath into the position that because the Progressive Conservative Party accepted, with no difficulty, the rightful rights belonging to that minority group - in this case the Francophones in 1979, after the Forest case - surely there would be no great problems in doing what you are attempting to do right now. Mr.

Speaker, what they should have done and what they should do now, what the Premier should be doing now, is they should drop this whole matter and if they feel compelled to proceed on the basis that they are proceeding - and for a moment let me accept at face val ue the reasons that we have heard from the government why we are dealing with these resolutions at this time? The government has told us that unless they enter into an agreement of the kind that they have put before us, Mr.

Bilodeau, along with his conservative lawyer, Vaughan Baird, were going to go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court might decide in favour of Mr. Bilodeau, and consequently there would be chaos in the Province of Manitoba. No law would stand in our books, or at worst , we would be faced with an una ccept able dema nd, unr easonable demand, a demand that's hard to accommodate in terms of scheduling of translations of statutes, etc. We all know that's difficult to do. But, Mr.

Speaker, the mistake that this government made was when they made that decision; I don't know exactly when they made that decision, in June or April of a year ago. We know that the Bilodeau case stood before them, but at the time that they finally said, okay, we're scared, the Supreme Court could create chaos in Manitoba, that's when the 4986

Friday , 5 August, 1983 Premier should ha ve asked the Leader of the Opposition. Now we're faced with this situation. We can only resolve this is bipartisan manner. I want you to appoint two members out of your caucus, perhaps the former Attorne y-General, Mr. Mercier for St. No rbert, or somebody else, to sit down with three members of the government and to work on the agreement or work with the principles involved in the Bilodeau case with the Franco-Manitoban Society, and certainly to be there as watchdogs to make sure that Serge Joyal of the Liberal Party in Ottawa doesn't sell the province down the tube. Mr.

Spe aker, I'm not suggest ing that a simi lar agreement would have been arrived at under those circumstances. But, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that an agreement might have been arrived at that would have found acceptance in this Chamber, that would have been acceptable to this Legislature, and thus, Mr. Speaker, would have avoided all this nonsense, all this problem that we're faced with right not because I see no easy resolution to this problem on the course we're at.

I don't see the question being resolved by hearing 200, 300, or 400 briefs coming from people whose minds are pretty well made up and being presented to a government who has chosen to close its mind to reason on this issue. Mr. Sp eaker , the issue will no t be decided by referendum unless you want the sheer wait of majority of popular opinion to be the guide on all these matters. Mr. Speaker, I'm not arguing against that. That's really not how the government can resolve any of these issues. Mr.

Speaker, we have attempted to point out time and again in all our speeches the undue haste with which this government is approaching this matter. The very first substantive amendment to our Constitution, and the very first brush that we have with the new Constitution of Canada, and we are attempting to deal with it in the closing days of the longest Session on record. It was introduced into the Chamber on June 18 th, I believe, and we are supposed to conclude through the various passages, the mechanical passages of these resolutions, accommodate the public hearings and pass this message on to Ottawa. Mr.

Speaker, it just is un believable that a government would even have the audacity to expect that of any reasonable group of men and women that are sent here to deliberate seriously the affairs in the interests of the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, surely you realize that it took just a handful of men, nine at one time, 10 I think now, 10 or 11, something like 40 years to 50 years to find a way to amend The British North America Act. It took intensive effort in the past 10 years.

We had the Victoria accord, we had different agreements from time to time trying to seek out solutions to find an amending formula by which we could repatriate our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that that process would have ever been concluded by way of public form, by way of refer endum? It was only with dedicated effort on the part of nine, ten, First Ministers of the land knowing that they had the weight of the responsibility of the country on their shoulders, and I am proud to say that I was part of a government that supported a leader and a Premier that had a big hand to play in that.

But that's how Canada amended and repatriated The British North America Act and brought it to Canada and made it the Constitution by which we now govern ourselves, Mr. Speaker. This government asked us within a few short, hot weeks, to change fundamentally the Constitution of Manitoba without at least having done that kind of homework, without at least having sought that bipartisan support that in my judgment is absolutely necessary. I repeat, Mr.

Speaker, in many ways the action of this government today, that it's contemplating is not all tha t unl ike the action taken by the Liberal admi nistration un der Premier Norris in 18 90. The gov ernment at that tim e, Mr. Speaker, perhap s understand that, because after all I'm a politician, I understand governments reponding to public pressure. It's a greater sign of some matu rity and some sophistication to some extent that we have not lent ourselves to that kind of positioning, if you like, in 19 83. Because, Mr.

Speaker, if it's a simple question of numb ers that politicians are supposed to respond to, then of course there is no problem. We wouldn't be worrying about the rights of 6 percent or 7 percent of our population, it's only because we recognize that it's how majorities treat their minorities is the quality and the level of parliamentary democracy challenged and added up in terms of how it measures up. So, Mr. Speaker, we're not talking and not being motivated in the way that Premier Norris was in 18 90 when he passed the bills that abrogated those specific language rights. We are talking far more responsibly now.

It grieves me that the government has chosen not to acknowledge that much headway has been made, in fact, during the intervening years. It grieves me, Mr. Speaker, that they were not prepared to learn from how progress in race relations have in fact been achieved in this province when we've acted in harmony and with support from either side of the House that they would thr ow into jeopardy that harmonious relationship by making this a strictly partisan NOP sponsored resolution for small political gain which by now, I'm sure, most honourable members opposite recognize as dissipated with no gain at all for them.

They can now only wonder how can they extract themselves from this mess. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting to them a manner and way in which they can. I'm not suggesting for a moment, despite what I said, that having created the scenario where the public now demands and wants, indeed needs to be heard, and I'll remind you, Mr. Speaker, not at their doing. The record should be expunged from the comments that were made by the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines last night when he chastised the Conservative Party for holding up the opportunity of the public to make itself heard on this instance.

It's only been at the instance, at the very first instance of our leader that the moment this matter was introduced in this House, stood up right in this chair and talked about the need for having the public heard on this matter, about the need of sending it to an intersessional committee and reporting it back, not in haste, to the next sitting of this Legislature. That was not coming from the government side, that was not talked about by the Attorney-General when he made this resolution. That suggestion came entirely, Mr.

Speaker, from this side of the House which the government now belatedly has acceded to. 4987

Friday, 5 August, 1983 But, Mr. Speaker, I can't help the feelings that I have. I think that we will have those hearings, we will have those meetings, but in order for some measure to be passed - Mr.

Speaker, I'm, of course, not persuaded that any measure has to be passed - what needs to be done was being done, was being done in the spirit of how Manitoba entered Confederation and it was being done with the support of all political parties in the Province of Manitoba, a natural, a common-sense effort on the part of the government to recognize the French fact in Manitoba and to make it possible to extend services in the French language where and when it made sense, and where and when your legislators, your Government of the Day, thought it made sense; not some unelected court body, not somebody that takes the matter right out of this Chamber and into a court house and the court house then has to decide what is reasonable, what is significant.

All these kinds of words, this kind of language that upset the MGEA, that upset the civil servants to the extent that they didn't know whether we'd require the 400 bilingual civil servants that the government and the Attorney-General speaks of, or the 4,000 that perhaps might be needed if the courts interpreted this language in a certain way. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the honourable members opposite that that, of course, is what they should have done in the first instance.

They should have established a five-member bipartisan committee to work on the agreement that the government felt was needed to resolve the Bilodeau and the Su preme Court issue. Mr. Speaker, even if it would have failed, because we could not come to an agreement - or at least Conservative members on that committee could not have agreed to any agreement - the government would still be in a better position today because they at least could stand in this Chamber and say, well, we tried. We tried to do this in a bipartisan manner, but, Mr. Speaker, they are not in a position to say that.

All we were informed of late in December - it was later on in January, I believe, that we actually saw the first inklings of what really happened, was that the Attorney-General and the gov ernment were busy drawing up an agreement and that it would be an agreement that would require a resolution to be passed in this House and to be forwarded onto the Parliament of Canada and the Senate, to formally make the constitutional change. Now, Mr.

Speaker, by that time, of course, the opportunities for genuine health and I use the word "genuine," because despite the heavy politics and the fighting that goes on in this Chamber, surely, we as Manitobans know - surely, we know, we've learned something through those 90 years that advances, changes, brought about on the issue 0f language rights in the Province of Manitoba have to be done with extreme caution, with extreme sensitivity and are successful and have been proven to be successful only when there is genuine co-operation and support from both sides of the House. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the irony about it is that we have in this Chamber right now two men, one former Premier and the present Premier, that were a party to that, that witnessed that. When Premier Lyon stood up in the House and accepted and acknowledged the judgme nt of the Supreme Court in the Forest case, the Leader of the Opp osi tion, Mr. Pawle y, stood up and generally applauded, acknowledged, supported the efforts taken by the then-Conservative administration. Mr.

Speaker, I'm not suggesting that there might not have been some additional words, either we weren't doing enough, or we should be doing it slightly differently, but in the main the opposition supported what the then-Conservative administration was doing. Mr.

Speaker, I remind you, again, that was a very significant, a very major step forward that went a long way to eradicating 90 years of frustrat ion, bitterness and resentment on the part of the Francophone community - the acceptance, the ready acceptance of the Supreme Court decision by the then-Conservative administration and the support that the New Democratic Party opposition at that time gave us. Mr.

Speaker, shortly after 1981, when the present government, the New Democratic Party Government took office, and when they carried on with very much the same program that we were embarked on, except they carried it on and they took it a few steps furth er. They suggested that they accelerate the program. As I said the other night, we spent $35,000 to make this Chamber available for instantaneous French Translation Services. we have a booth behind that curtain there that was built for $05,000 so that . A MEMBER: $55,500.00. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . $55,500, so that if a member wishes to speak in the French language, all he has to do is give notice to the Speaker and there will be translators in that booth and we have the instantaneous translation plugs and we can all listen to it - that, despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we all understand and speak to each other in the English language. Significantly, Mr. Speaker, even when our Francophone friends among us, like the Member for St.

Boniface, when he really wants to make a speech that's important to him, he doesn't do it in French, he does it in English, because he wants us all to understand it first-hand, not just through a translator. But, none theless, Mr. Speaker, that was no problem, because again when the present government did that, we supported that on this side of the House because we recognized it was in the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. We recognized and accepted the law had spoken and tha t th ose origi nal conditions of Confederation, as they applied to Manitoba, would be respected and would be honoured. They said, Mr.

Speaker, that French shall be available for use in this Chamber. French services will be available in the courts, in our statutes, the bills that we pass, exclusive of Hansard, will be made available in the French language, Mr. Speaker. That is all it said. It didn't talk about Manitoba Hydro, didn't talk about At,topac, didn't talk about Manitoba Telephone System, because of course none of these organizations existed at that time. It didn't talk about the various departments of governments, Highways, Agriculture and Health.

But now this government is talking about all those things, and they have tried to do that, Mr. Speaker, in what could only be described as in a secret way. It reminds you like an agreement drawn up in some railway car on a siding. They wonder why people are getting up in arms, and why the opposition is so upset with this government. 4988

Friday, 5 August, 1983 I suggest to them, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes the only way out of a difficult situation is to recognize the problem for what it is, make a clean, hard decision. In my judgment, the only decision this government can arrive at - and they should be doing it by now, because they should be concerned about the problems that they are creating throughout Manitoba - they should be concerned. Right about now, they should certainly start to recognize some of the responsibility that they have as government. I don't care who they want to blame.

If they want to blame Con servatives, want to blame somebody else, fine, want to bl ame Reeve Ha rms of the Rur al Municipalities, blame him, but, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that you've got an aroused and arousing public that is not going to stand for this. There is no resolution to the problem along the lines, along the path that they're proceeding. Make the break; drop the resolution. Let Mr. Bilodeau go to the Supreme Court, and let's get on with the busi ness of Manitoba. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, Hear! MR. H. ENNS: That's what you are going to have to do, fellows.

That's what you're going to have to do. At best, and I am not in a position to say that, but I can certainly say it as a private member, come to our offices and tell the Franco-Manitoban Society that you are prepared to set up now a committee consisting of members from both sides of the House to work out agreements that may be acceptable to this Chamber in the future. They will not be the kind of agreements that you have worked out in secret thus far, under the Whip, under the lash of one Serge Joyal. Mr.

Speaker, I suppose the part that makes it difficult for some of us that are speaking on this resolution, what the growing concern is becoming, because after all, we're all politicians. We understand when an issue hurts and when it hurts bad, that the normal reaction of a political party is to in some way respond to it. We can't help but wonder, we can't help but ponder the kind of arrangements that might have been made, likely involvi ng the Federal Govern ment, the Libe ral Government, Mr. Trudeau, that we have yet no idea of. MR. H. GRAHAM: Un der-the-table deal. MR. H.

ENNS: I am talking the kind of under-the-table deals, Mr. Speaker, that we know that the Liberal Party and this party are capable of. Mr. Speaker, what kind of money is really being passed un der the table between the Liberal administration in Ottawa and this admi nistration? Why else are they hanging in so tight on this issue? A MEMBER: They're in bed with the Grits. A MEMBER: Big dollars. MR. H. ENNS: Why would the Minister of Finance, who should know better, even at this late date continue to support the course of action that this government is on, unless perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, that he sees some salvation coming his way in terms of his deficit, his next Budget; some help coming from federal sources if we but co-operate with Serge Joyal and the Franco Manitoban Society. A MEMBER: Don't fight that theory. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, if there is that kind of a payola being arranged, the people of Manitoba better know about it. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is only conjecture on our part, because we begin to wonder why this government would hang so tenaciously to a res olution that has no hope of passing this Chamber and that has no hope of being acceptable to the people of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, you will end up doing what I suggested a little while ago; the only difference is, you'll do it a month from now. A month from now, you'll drop the resolution. You will go back to the Franco-Manitoban Society and say, sorry, I tried my best. We tried our best; it didn't wash. Mr. Bilodeau, off to the Supreme Court and take our chances. It's really surprising, Mr. Speaker, also I must say is that the Franco-Manitoban Society hasn't come to this government at about this stage and said, look it, I think maybe we bit off more than we could chew or than the people of Manitoba are about to chew.

Let's drop the issue, because it is be ginning to hurt us as Frenchmen, as Franco-Manitobans. It's beginning to hurt the entire Franco community. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Franco-Manitoban Society, although I have no difficulty in recognizing them as the society that they are, speaking for French interests in Manitoba, they do not represent the total French community in Manitoba. So, Mr. Speaker, there has to be some real concern starting to be shown right about now about who all is getting hurt in this business. A MEMBER: That's right, everybody. MR. H. ENNS: First of all, the government of course.

Well, that doesn't cause us much anguish on this side but, more importantly, the Franco community is starting to get hurt on this issue; and, more important ly, the entire province is getting hurt on this issue. The resolution to the problem is simple, Mr. Speaker. I shouldn't make small of it; we are all proud people. It's not easy for a government to acknowledge that it erred. It's not easy for any of us to do that, Mr. Speaker but, above all, surely there has to be some realism that reasserts itself from time to time. Mr.

Speaker, I want to assure the honourable members opposite that there is absolutely no thought at all on the part of the official opposition to allow this matter to pass. Mr. Speaker, what we are finding and what you are finding, Sir - and I'm sure you are enjoying this - that with every speaker that is speaking to this amendment, or the next amendment, or the resolution for the second or third or fourth time, finding it possible to speak to it with greater feeling, with different words, with new thoughts, because we speak from our hearts on this issue. We know that we speak for the people of Manitoba. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Spe aker, it's once agai n an opportunity to speak on the sub-amendment. As the 4989

Friday, 5 August, 1983 former speaker said, my colleague, the Member for Lakeside; that each opportunity we have to get up and speak on this issue - I'm sure you noticed - we're speaking with more resolve and more feeling, because there is some resolve on this side. When you know that you're on the right side of an issue, it becomes a little easier to get up speaker after speaker and debate, not for 5 or 10 minutes, but for the full allo tted time from every member on this side of the House. Mr.

Speaker, I'v e had the opportunity in the last while to be out a considerable amount of time in my cons titue ncy, because we have been celebra ting centennials there. That part of Manitoba must have been the busiest spot in the country 100 years ago, because I had about nine different municipalities and towns with centennials this year and I'v e become very proficient in riding in parades and atte nding congratulatory meetings for municipalities and various other functions. A MEMBER: Did you see Pete there? MR. D.

BLAKE: Yes, I'v e run into the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs on many occasions, carrying a very heavy plaque. I think the First Minister is going to have to get him a truss if he has to carry this 30-pound plaque around much more often with him. The cheques aren't too heavy, because they're not that large, but the plaques are very heavily cast in bronze and he's not the most robust chap to be carrying a 30-pound plaque around for an hour or two, until he gets his spot on the platform to make his presentation. But, Mr.

Speaker, in speaking with the municipal officials, it's been mentioned before there is strong feeling out there. The headline says, "Mun icipalities oppose the language deal two to one." Well, I think probably it's even a little higher than that, Mr. Speaker. The Union of Manitoba Mun icipalities, their sister organization, doesn't feel that 66 percent is strong enough to take a firm stand on it. I don't know what they read 66 percent as, because there was 25 percent undecided. I suppose if they could get them to decide, they would be around 80 percent, similar to the Union of Manitoba Mun icipalities. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is strong feeling building up th roughout the rural areas in my part of the country in opposition, not to the right of the French Canadians, the Franco-Manitobans to have their rightful place in society or their language, where it's required by the Supreme Court ruling. We have it in the courts and in the Legislature, and anything that they require available in the French language is available to them. But there's a strong feeling out there about the procedure that is being undertaken to sort of ram this bill through and that feeling is becoming known out in the rural areas, Mr. Speaker.

They are just starting to understand it and the brochure that was sent out by the Attorney General ... MR. H. ENNS: Another $55,000.00. MR. D. BLAKE: . . . I want to speak one or two minutes on that, Mr. Speaker. That's right, the cost is around $55,000 to mail and what not. But you'll notice in that, Mr. Speaker, by 19 86 new Manitoba laws are to be 4990 enacted in both languages. Without the amendment this would be required now. That's a little debatable, I suppose. By 1987, people requesting service in French will be served in French by certain specified provincial departments and agencies. In 1987, Mr.

Speaker . MR. H. ENNS: Nice date they picked. MR. D. BLAKE: Nice date they picked, because they kn ow very well that they'r e not going to be in government in 1987 and the government that has taken over, if this becomes entrenched, is going to be saddled with providing this service, and you know who's going to get blamed for it - the Government of the Day is going to be blamed for bringing it in even though it's a fait accompli. Another thing about the brochure, Mr.

Speaker - well it goes on, it says, "Busi nesses, municipalities, non governmental bodies and school boards and institutions are not affected in any way. " Well, what a lot of tommyrot that is, Mr. Speaker. If this comes into effect, what do you mean the municipalities and the school boards aren't going to be affected in any way? Certainly they're going to be affected. There's just no other way that they can't be affected. "There will no change in the language at work within the Civil Service." Well, there won't be much of a change, it might have been a little more accurate I think.

And, "M anitoba is not beco ming bili ngual nor introducing the Trudeau government's bilingual program. What are two official languages?" Read it, it's almost word for word, taken from the Federal Act that was passed. So that is a lot of nonsense. Mr. Speaker, I've have had several calls from people in the rural areas wondering how they go about charging the Provincial Government or charging the Attorney General with distributing false information and false facts.

Now, I wasn't able to give them that answer, but I'm doing some research on it to find out if there is a way, if someone wants to proceed and charge the Attorney-General with distributing false information in this brochure. I think they might have a case. It may be a little difficult to get a lawyer to get an injunction against the Provincial Government, because they may want to practice here for a while. It might be a little difficult. - (Interjection) - Yes, the Member for Turtle Mountain says they may get an out-of-court settlement, they might do all right on it.

But saving tax dollars is another heading in there, Mr. Speaker. You could on and on through this brochure and it is just filled with ... I can't really say that or it'll be unparliamentary and I'll have to retract it anyway, but it's filled with facts that aren't true facts, Mr. Speaker.

They're glazed a little bit and if there's a way for someone to lay a charge against the Attorney General or against the government for distributing this brochure, I hope we're able to find it, because there is so much in this brochure and there's no doubt that they scurried and had to put it out in a hurry, so there's a very good chance that in their haste and their rush to get this brochure put togeth er, that they did forget a few facts, or they didn't have all of the material available to them.

Because obviously they did jump on it pretty quickly when they saw that there was a surge of unrest building up out there and non-support for their program. - (I nterjection) -

Friday, 5 August, 1983 Well, we'll maybe mention Serge Joyal a little later, but Mr. Speaker, the procedural methods that the government has used were spelled out very clearly by my colleague, the Member for Lakeside, who does it so eloquently that we should have had a White Paper at least to bring into this Chamber and let us have an idea what the government had in mind, what they were negotiating with the Societe Franco-Manitobaine. We have no idea what arrangement they've made with them.

If we had known that and could have given them some indication that, well, we could accept part of it or this or that, then possibly we might have been able to proceed. But, Mr. Speaker, to bring it in this way and keep the members of this Legislature and the staff here for Lord knows how long because, as I said, there's some resolve on this side and it's up to members opposite just how long we may be here. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that it's causing you some concern to be still sitting here, when we're hosting the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, when we'll have 16 0 or 170 dele gates from all across our Commonwealth here that are going to say, my God, you're still sitting in the Legislature and it's August 12 th or 7th. What are you doing there? What is the reason for this? The state of the Province of Manitoba must be in a terrible state to have the Legislature sitting this long. Well, it is maybe unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't hire this $85,000 a year advisor a little bit sooner.

Maybe the government wouldn't have been in this spot that they're in now if they'd have spoken to him and maybe he could bring some outside feeling to them that this is not the way you do it. This is not the way business would do it, to bring something in and try and ram it through at the last minute, and they're in a position maybe to do it a little easier than this government is. But, Mr.

Speaker, it is a predicament on staff and on others that are involved in trying to host this particular gathering, and it's most unfortunate, because I don't think it's going to auger well for the way the affairs of the Provincial Legislature have been handled under this particular administration. We have said time and time again, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite are not very adept at running a government or running anything, really. We've seen how they've handled some Crown corporations and that's another story.

But to bring in something as important, as vitally important to all of the people of Manitoba - I kn ow it's impo rtant to the Franco Manitobans, but to all of the people of Manitoba - at the date that it was brought in and to insist that we take it or leave it. We either accept it or reject it and that was about the offer we had and it's Page 37 71. I didn't have the time to dig the Hansard out and quote right what the Attorney-General said, but that was the meat of it. We either accept this or reject it and later on the Premier says, well, maybe we can change the wording.

So maybe we can't take the Attorney-General's statements for full fact when he makes them, because maybe they're subject to a little bit of adjustment later on. But this was brought in, in such a rush, and I want to still talk about the procedure, Mr. Speaker, and the way it was brought in, because I don't think people out there, especially the municipal people and the general constituents that I have in my area, really realized what this was going to mean in total to Manitoba as a province and that is finally drifting down to them.

I'm sure that members opposite have noticed that the editorials and the newspaper articles now are starting to come out, realizing that there is a strong feeling out there that what is being proposed in this thing is not right. It's not the right way to go about it and they're becoming very adamant in their stand. This has to be of concern to the Member for Gimli, Springfield, St. George and I'm sure the Member for River East has got to be concerned with the feelings that are developing out there.

I know the Seven Oaks and Garden City area, from some of the reports we're getting out of that area, it's not augering well for the membership of the New Democratic Party, if they're out looking for renewed memberships, I'll tell you that, Mr. Speaker. It has to be a worry to those members when they realize how did we get into this? How on earth did we get into this - that's causing us all of this flack - when really there wasn't a need for it? It could have been handled a lot differently, because there's MR. D. ORCHARD: Because of Howard "A." Pawley. MR. D.

BLAKE: . . . right, with his promises - that I can promise you a great future, we'll turn around the economy. Now, we know what the prom ises of Howard A. Pawley mean and they're about equal to the ones from Howard R. Pawley, because the government will do anything that they think is going to be catchy and helpful to them at the polls, Mr. Speaker. Well, I think they've bit off something that's a little bigger than they realize and we don't know how it came about. We don't know whether the Attorney-General arranged this with the Federal Government and the Society.

As I say, we haven't seen the agreement; we don't know how it came about. But I've said to the Premier before, he'll rue the day that he brought the Attorney-General into his party and got him elected. He'll rue the day because I don't think the New Democratic Party means a damn thing to the Member for Fort Rouge, and next election, when this party is hanging in tatters with seven or eight members left, I know the Member for Selkirk won't have the stomach for it, he'll be gone and who's left to pick up the pieces? The Member for Fort Rouge, it'll be his party. MR. L. SHERMAN: He'll be the undertaker, Dave . . .

MR. D. BLAKE: He'll be the caretaker; it'll be his party if he's still around. A MEMBER: They're going to get rid of Russell. MR. D. BLAKE: So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the First Minister that if he was led down the garden path by the Attorney-General and the agreement that he made in this

part icular debate we're in at the moment, maybe he should sit back and rethink the position and say possibly there's a way out of it. I might give him a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, if he's looking for a way out of it. They have a great parliamentarian in their party who is called the dean 4991

Friday , 5 August, 1983 of the House of Commons, the greatest authority on parliamentary rules and procedures since Beauchesne - or whoever was greater than Stanley Knowles - I think the First Minister should seek the advice of Stanley Knowles, saying we've got a situation here, Stan, baby, and we would like to get out of it. Just give us a little bit of that knowledge that you massed over the last 60 years and tell us how we can sort of slide out of this gent ly, because we're on a slippery slope.

We don't want to go all the way down, but we'd like to slide sideways a bit and come out of it half intact anyway, with a little bit of face left, maybe a little scrape here and there on the cheeks, but most of our face intact. I'm sure that Mr. Knowles would have a method at his fingertips that he could pass onto the First Minister and get them out of their particular predicament. MR. L. SHERMAN: You can count on Stanley. MR. D. BLAKE: But, Mr.

Speaker, I'v e been mentioning the municipalities earlier and the regional meetings that were held, the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs is saying, well, we didn't get too much reaction at the regional meetings, I explained the case. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've heard the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs explain things, and if that's the way he was explaining them at the regional meetings it's no wonder he didn't get much action out there, because the fellows were saying, well, there's just no point in asking questions because he doesn't know the answers anyway.

So that's why there wasn't much reaction out there and you'll get that time and time again in talking to rural municipal people, Mr. Speaker, and they are the ones that this government should be listening to. The First Minister is a former Minister of Mun icipal Affairs that prided himself in being in close touch with the municipal people, the grassroots of rural politics. Well, he hasn't been listening to them on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, there's no question about it. There's no question about it.

I don't want to reiterate what the Member for Lakeside said about going back to the Society and saying, look, we tried, we've had debate on this - we don't know how many more days it's going to go on - but as long as it's necessary, we'll be available on this side because, as I said, there's some resolve here to take all the time that's needed. But, Mr. Speaker, I implore the members opposite to take a real hard look at it. Take a little stock on what it's doing in their constituencies, how it's going to affect them at the polls the next election because there is no question that it is going to affect them.

The editorials I mentioned earlier are coming out now stronger than ever. You know, "Why the big hurry about bilingualism ;" "Take all the time necessary;" "Tories try the jaw-jaw," and many others, Mr. Speaker.

The one editorial didn't like the method we were using by ringing the bells, so now that we're deciding to debate the issue for as long as members opposite care to have us debate it, they feel that that's the best idea and they go on to say that, "By now the government has to walk us through gently, trying to push the legislation through by the end of this Session is, while tempting, not a great idea." A MEMBER: It's not a great idea at all. MR. D. BLAKE: "This is no small matter, better to grind it out, introduce it again the next Session, if necessary, but give everybody a chance at it.

Perhaps the Tories are right, and the people of Manitoba don't want biling ualism no matter how rati onall y it is approached." SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. BLAKE: "But the government may find that by living up to its pledge of open accessible government, there is strong support for its legislation. At the moment, by its own actions, it is affirming the Tory point of view." Well, we know that from contact with rural people there is not much support for their proposal out there, Mr.

Speaker, and if jawing it in the Legislature here is the method that we have to use, then we know that we're on the right course. When you get out in the rural areas and talk to people and get their reactions to what has happened in here, Mr. Speaker, you become all the more convinced that you are on the right course. I think between this piece of legislation and the seat belt law, and another one that can't be overlooked is the conflict of interest when I'm speaking of rural municipal people, Mr. Speaker.

The conflict of interest bill is causing a great deal of c0ncern and unrest in the rural areas and this government is going to have to carry the can for that one. If they don't amend it or find some way around it before the municipal elections this fall, I'm sure they're going to be very very sorry for their actions in bringing that piece of legislation in without some more consultation and further research on just what type of conflict legislation the rural people were looking for. But these bits of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, are not sitting well out in the country, and I've mentioned that members opposite should be taking a long hard look at their own positions in their own constituencies, because we all know in this particular forum here, we're pretty close to the forest and maybe if you get a chance to get out and stand back a little bit, which the rural members have a chance to do, because we have the wide open spaces and the beautiful rolling hills and the clean streams that the city folks don't have.

They have to put up with mosqu itoes and spray and all of that; they don't really have a chance to step back and take a look at the wider scene that we rural-based people have, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: All that mosquito spray. MR. D. BLAKE: That's right. The mosquito spray might fog up their vision a little bit. A MEMBER: Free "Off," hand it around. MR. D. BLAKE: I don't want you to get from my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I'm against spraying. I would spray every living mosquito that I could find, so don't let me get sidetracked. Some of the environmentalists might jump up and think they have an ally.

A MEMBER: Would you use Bay gon? MR. D. BLAKE: I would use Baygon, I would use 245- T, anything I can do to kill them. I'm sometimes at odds 4992

Friday, 5 August, 1983 with the good Lord, Mr. Speaker, because I haven't really found a reason for him putting those little pesty things on this earth. I'm not always in tune with him, I must say, but I do my best as a good Christian, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Redemption's just around the corner. (Lights went out in Cha mber) A MEMBER: You better get on your knees, Dave. MR. D. BLAKE: I'll wait for the big booming voice to come. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: It was only a matter of time until darkness descended on that side of the House. MR. D.

BLAKE: And a big voice comes down and says, "Blake, sometimes you tee me off." I'll try and gather my notes up and just speak from my heart, Mr. Speaker. That'll be all right in the dark. I know they know that . . . A MEMBER: That's why the good Lord gave you a memory, Dave. MR. D. BLAKE: That's right, they know that I haven't got everything written down anyway, but I do have to refer here once in awhile, Mr. Speaker, to just get back on track. I'v e got a note down here about Serge Joyal, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's best that we are in hush darkness when we speak of him. A MEMBER: No, he's a hockey player.

He's from Quebec. MR. D. BLAKE: He's a hockey player all right. He stickhandled you guys into a sweetheart deal, believe me. There's no question about that. Mr. Speaker, my strongest feelings that prompt me to speak as often as I have on this motion and on the amendments is the fact that you get the feeling in the rural area that they're violently opposed to this. There's no question about it, and I don't bel ieve in gov ernment by referendum either. I don't think that's the way to go, but you do get a pretty strong feeling.

It's far better than a poll and the avenue that you left open to the municipal people to hold referendums, I know that you wanted to get a big push on nuclear disarmament and anti-Cruise and all that crap, but the avenue is now open for them to hold referendums, Mr. Speaker, and they're going to take advantage of it. They're going to be holding referendum on referendum this fall. A MEMBER: Who gave them that advantage? MR. D. BLAKE: That's right. The First Minister was kind of cute.

He thought he was going to get a great "serge" of support - I keep using that "serge," it comes in there - but a surge of support for his anti-nuke kick that he's on. It's going to backfire on him because he's going to get a whole bunch of referendums on the bilingual issue, Mr. Speaker, and he's going to be very surprised with the results. I don't know how he's going to go with cap in hand to Ottawa, if he does manage to ram this thing through with closure or whatever method he might be thinking of using.

I don't know how he's going to go down there faced with the referendums that are going to proceed him that oppose what he's doing very very strongly. I don't know how he's going to come out of that particular situation. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt referendums are going to be held. I just don't know how many there are going to be. There are eight or nine I think that have agreed to already and there are some others that have to be brought in, but, Mr. Speaker, I have resolution after resolution from municipalities and towns in my area strongly opposing to it.

We have copies of letters that have gone to the Premier , and I don't suppose we'll find out how many letters or phone calls they've had, but they've had a poll done and we're trying to find out the results of the poll. The Attorney-General is not quite through analyzing it yet, so we don't know how long that's going to take or what the results of it are going to be, but there should be a message, Mr.

Speaker, for the strong opposition to this particular proposal because if the resolution and the press releases that have come in from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities are not strong enough, there are other methods that the First Minister can use to satisfy the First Minister that he's on the wrong course. Mr. Speaker, I have a newspaper

article on the hearings tha t were held and this is one of our agreements.

That's one of the suggestions that we have, we wanted this to go to an intersessional committee so it would go out to Manitoba, not to three or four municip alities, but a good broad cross-sect ion of Manitoba after the Session is over, when all of the members have had time to recharge their batteries, and the Ministers can get back and tidy up their offices a little bit, when the harvest is over, when we can go out there when everybody has had a chance to collect their thoughts, do some research and reading and find out what this particular issue is all about.

That's what we're asking, plus the fact that we're opposed to the entrenchment of it, Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister of Mines the other day said, well, you're opposed to entrenching. Well, why would you be opposed to that? If you're in favour of it, you entrench it and you've got it. You can't have it one week and take it away. Well, that's not really the reason that we're not in favour of entrenchment, Mr. Speaker. But the Attorney-General went out on some hearings at the start of this fiasco that we're in now, and he had hearings in Dauphin, Brandon and a couple of other places. Mr.

Speaker, the staff writer, Mr. Coyne, writes that "Manitoba Attorney-General Roland Penner may have hoped for some support as he launched public meetings on the provinces proposed French langua ge and aboriginal rights policies. He didn't get it. Penner's public information caravan made its first two stops yester day in Dau phin and Bran don, both NOP strongholds." He's a little off, there he should have "used to be" NOP strongholds.

"But Penner ran into a stone wall of crossed arms and pursed lips as the spector of the federal bilingualism program hung over his attempts to convince local residents unlimited form 4993

Frid ay, 5 August, 1983 of bilingualism in Manitoba doesn't mean French will be rammed down their throats. " Well, they know a little better, Mr. Speaker. They know. They've seen the federal program; they've seen metric. They saw how metric came in and said, well, this is just a method of us increasing our opportunity to do great trade volumes with our trading partners, the Unit ed States and the rest of the country. The United States is going metric, and we're going to increase our trade by billions of dollars if we can only go metric. That's the only thing that's holding us back.

They sold the people a bill of goods, Mr. Speaker, that has cost this country billions of dollars, and what has it done for us tradewise? It hasn't done a damn thing, Mr. Speaker. We haven't increased our trade volume. The Americans saw what was happening and backed off. It hasn't done anything for Britain. They finally backed off to the point where you can use either measurement over there in your shops. You can use pounds or metric. We went blindly ahead, Mr. Speaker, with this metric that has cost us billions and billions of dollars for absolutely nothing.

There was no reason for it; there was no demand for it. There is no demand for what we're faced with now in this resolution. There's no demand for it and there's no reason for it. The facilities that the Francos need is there, readily available to them, and what we're being asked to do now is utterly ridiculous. The

article goes on to say, "H e gave it his best shot, reiterating the government's defence of the plan, but with the first syllable from the floor microphone it became evident Penner had changed no minds, and voices cracking with suppressed anger, speaker after speaker rose to denounce the bilingual amendment to applause and cheers from the crowd ." Well, that should have been a message to him, Mr. Speaker. The implementation of Frencl' services they felt would be costly and unnecessary.

The cost is not maybe as important as the fact that it's unnecessary, and the method that it's being brought in and rammed down our throats. "A Dauphin businessman said the legislation was the res ult of pressure by a very vocal mi norit y and represents the thin edge of the wedge. You say it's not going to mushroom but I tell you, Mr. Attorney-General, it will mushroom." Now, there's no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, the message was there. It was the same story in Brandon where 150 predominantly elderly people grilled the Attorney-General.

One man said the next step will be martial law, while another said Francophones should learn to speak the Canadian language. Well, I think the majority of Francophones, in fact I think all of them in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, can speak English, the recognized language in Manitoba. I don't think we have a problem there because it's pretty evident by the number of requests that we have had for the translation of the French statutes that we've spent a couple of $3 million already in translating, because there is not a strong population out there that would demand this thing be rammed through. The

article goes on by another writer, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Speaker, "U proar, all the feds' fault - Pawley. 'The Federal Government is to blame for much of the hostile reaction to Manitoba's language policies,' Premier Howard Pawley said yesterd ay. 'F ederal Cabinet Ministers have said Manitoba is becoming a bilingual province, increasing peoples fear s,' he hold a news conference." Well, Mr. Speaker, he can get upset about that all he wants because in the resolution it says that French and English will become Manitoba's official languages. If that doesn't hint at bilingualism, Mr. Speaker , I really don't know what more the Premier can expect. But there has been

article after

article like this and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the First Minister and the members on the opposition benches are being called time and time again by their constituents to say, "What are you trying to do? How did you get into this? I have been a supporter of your party and I'm afraid now that I'm going to have to withdraw my support." I'm sure they're getting those calls, Mr. Speaker, because we're getting them from former NOP members. This has to be of concern to the members. The Member for Dauphin can slough it off and say, well, there's no problem in Dauphin.

The Member for Flin Flon laughed about it and said, well, there's no problem in Flin Flon, people don't understand what it's all about and there's no French up there to speak of anyway. Mr. Speaker, he hasn't been out talking to the people in Flin Flon. He's probably busy trying to be a new Cabinet Minister, and I don't crime him for that, but he should go back to Flin Flon and talk to the constituents there, because I've talked to a few of them the past numb er of days. He's out to lunch if he thinks the people in Flin Flon are not concerned about this, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Dauphin has to be concerned.

They're going to be one-time members, Mr. Speaker , not that we mind that, but surely they're getting the message, and surely they can go to caucus and talk to the First Mi nister and the Attorney-General or whoever it is on that side that's pushing this. A MEMBER: And the Member for lnkster. MR. D. BLAKE: I know the Member for Springfield is concerned because he's on pretty shaky ground out there anyway, and to get a little bombshell like this thrown into his midst is not going to enhance his chances. A MEMBER: He's gone, gone. MR. D. BLAKE: He may feel that this is going to blow over, Mr.

Speaker, but I can assure you it's not going to blow over. People are going to remember and we're going to remind them tha t this has caused this Legislature to sit for endle ss, endless hours and weeks - not only this, some of the other legislation they brought in. I hope that they've got the message now, that they've got to get their act together and get the Legislature called at a reasonable time and deal with some form of consultation with the House Leader on this side, and a House Leader that can be dealt with and trusted on that side of the House, and things will move along.

I know the Member for Concordia knows that that's how you move things along in the House and that's what has to be done. This is really almost inhuman to subject 4994

Frid ay, 5 August, 1983 people to sitting in this sweatbox in the month of July and Aug ust when with proper arrangements, Mr. Speaker - it's not really necessary unless there is a crisis. If we had a crisis in Manitoba that required all our attention . . . A MEMBER: Particularly with bad lighting. MR. D. BLAKE: I know, I just hold up my hand. If we all do this, Mr. Speaker, there's an old Chinese proverb that says, "Many hands make light work," so maybe we can get it back on. Mr.

Speaker, as I say in closing, if there was a crisis, no one would object to sitting here through the heat and toiling these long hours that we're toiling, if we had a crisis and if we had something that was important to all of the people of Manitoba. But it's not that important.

We can deal with this issue over one year, two years, or three years and arrive at something that's agreeable to all sides of this House, and we wouldn't be going through this wrangling and the bad feelings that have been created by some of the acrimony in debate - we know that happens in this House and the people out there don't always understand it, I suppose. I think that could have all been avoided, Mr. Speaker, with the government that had the best interests of all of the people of Manitoba at heart and was interested in doing the right thing for the majority of Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker, I know that I'm going to have an opportunity to speak again on this matter, so with that, I will thank you for your attention and wait my next chance to debate this important issue. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I've enjoyed listening to the debate on this referral resolution and certainly it's a tough act to follow the Member for Minnedosa. He was really at his best form tonight and even had the Good Lord above reacting to his comments.

We've had a lot of good speeches here today and unfortunately we haven't heard from many of the members opposite, but the members that we've heard from ha ve not really dealt that clos ely with the resolution, but they have criticized the members of the opposition for talking about this sub-amendment and the amendment to the bilingual agreement. Mr. Speaker, this is really the only opportunity we have to represent the people of Manitoba, to let the people in the government know what the constituents are telling us. Certainly, we want to relay the messages that we're hearing from our constituents.

It's amazing that we haven't heard more speakers, from particularly the back benches of the government, responding to the comments that they must be receiving from their areas. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to really put on the record once more what the amendment is all about. I don't want to go reading this whole booklet that the Attorney-General presented to us several weeks ago, but I think there's some points I would like to have on the record, at least. "P roclamation amending the Constitution of Canada, 1. The Manitoba Act, 18 70 is amended by adding thereto, imme diately after

Section 23 thereof, the following Sections. 23. 1 English and French are the official languages of Manitoba." That is what we are discussing. There's another part that I think requires some mention at this time and this is 23.7( 1). "Any member of the public in Manitoba has the right to communicate in English or French, and to receive available services in English or French from, (

a) the head or central office of any department of the Government of Manitoba; (

b) the head or central office of (

i) any court, (ii) any quasi judicial or administrative body of the Government of Manitoba, (iii) any Crown corporation, or (iv) any agency of the government of Manitoba established by or pursuant to

an Act of the Legislature of Manitoba; (

c) the office of the Chief Electoral Officer; and (

d) the offices of the Omb udsman for the Pr ovi nce of Manitoba." So these two areas are really that part of the amending part of the Constitution that gives us some concern. As a matter of fact, this is what the people of our constituencies are telling us that they're reacting to. I think it's important to ask the members of the government, what's all the rush on this issue?

The Attorney-General introduced this, I believe it was some time in June, I just forget the exact date, but he indicated that there was a sense of urgency, this had to be passed through the Legislature before the end of the year and that there would be, I think, four informational meetings would be held in the province and one committee meeting would be held here in the City of Winnipeg.

Certainly, he had said that there wouldn't be any opportunity to amend this agreement, because there was no room to manoeuvre with respect to the Society Franco -Ma nitoban, that he and mem bers of that organization, as well as the Federal Government, had met in some secluded place to draw up this agreement, and for some unknown reason this amending part of the Constitution would have to be rushed through. There would be very little opportunity for the people of the province to really have a chance to understand what was happening.

There would be very little opportunity for the people to express their comment to the government with respect to the amendments that the government was bringing forth. What we are saying is that already we have countless numbers of important legislation that is in various stages of completion. We still have considerable work to do to complete the business of the House, apart from this amendment to our Constitution.

What we are saying is that there's no particular rush to put this amendment through, because it's no doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this Legislature in a long long time, and certainly we have other matters that we can deal with at the present time and get the business of the House completed, refer this amendment to an intersessional committee of the Legislature, and go out to the people between now and December 30th to hear the views of the people and report back to the Legislature, as I say, a couple of days before the end of 1983.

As tias been mentioned a numb er of times today and other times, when we have been discussing this resolution, the intersessional committee can go out to 4995

Friday, 5 August, 1983 various constituencies of the province - I think it's important that we go to as many as possible. It may not be possible to get to all 57 constituencies in the province, but certainly there should be an opportunity for the people in every co nstituenc y to have an opportunity to express their opinion as to what is happening with respect to this resolution.

To expect the people of Manitoba to respond, as the Attorney General has said, to have one meeting here in Winnipeg to listen to all of the people who might want to present presentations or briefs or written submis sions to the committee, is absolutely unacceptable to members on this side of the House. It was intere sting on Tuesday of this we ek, I appreciated the comments by the Premier when he indicated that they now were prepared to look at having additional meetings held throughout the province. I'd just like to refer to his comments.

Tuesday, August 2nd, the Premier speaking on this resolution said, "First, as we have been indicating for the last number of weeks, we are prepared to examine the word ing of this resolution and to ensure that wording reflects the stated and public intentions of this government." Well, I have some concern as to just what he means by this, because, certainly, members on this side were not aware that they were indicating for a number of weeks that they were prepared to examine the wording or make any changes.

As a matter of fact, the Attorney General in an earlier speech had said that there was very little room to manoeuvre on this proposal, and it would have to be approved in its entirety or rejected, but now the First Minister is making some changes to that comment that the Attorney-General had made earlier.

To go on quoting the First Minister, "We are prepared to listen to ind ividuals and to group s that make representations and if, indeed, it is demonst rated to us that the wording be too loose or too br.:>ad, as was suggested by the Manitoba Government Employees Association one month ago, then we are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to tighten that wording in order to reflect our stated intentions." Well, certainly this is a change in what we had earlier been led to believe, and certainly we are pleased that it's in the right direction. Further on the Premier says, "Mr.

Speaker, the resolution pertaining to referral of this resolution to a committee or committees at place or places certainly does not preclude this government.

The committee in performing in the same manner as was in the case in 1981 - (I nterjection) - The Attorney-General points out to me, it is such times and places that it is in the hands of the committee, but I would think it would not be an unreasonable expectation that the same kind of process. the same sort of format, would be held in respect to this particular referral resolution as was done in respect to the referral of the resolution pertaining to the entire new Canadian Constitution that was being dealt with in the years 1980 and 1981." Well, Mr.

Speaker, this is certainly, as I said earlier, it's a step in the right direction, but certainly to expect the committee to perform, as the Premier would say, during this Session of the Legislature is where we have a very serious hangup because, as has been pointed out a numb er of times, we're into the harvest situation, we're into the time of year when, I think it was pointed out, 80 percent of the people in the province, if they're 4996 taking a holiday, will take it during the months of July and August.

So, to expect people to be available and to be able to be in a position to present presentations on this amendment, and to suggest that this committee could meet and do a reasonably good job while this Session is still taking place is absolutely ridiculous. I think, and certainly my colleagues on this side of the House cannot for the life of us understand why there is this great rush that has been exemplified by first the Attorney-General and by the Premier. Although the Premier is now saying, well, we can certai nly bend a little bit on it, and we've been saying this for some weeks, he says.

This is only news to us of Tuesday this week where they are prepared to look at the wording and prepared to go to other locations, other than Winnipeg, with a committee of the Legislature. So, really, there's only one other step that has to be taken and that is having the committee go about their work on an intersessional arrangement and report back to the House at the next Session or certainly before the end of the year. I can't overemphasize the importanc e of this amendment to our Constitution.

We all know that back in 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada had made a ruling on the Georges Forest case, on a parking ticket. The Lyon administration was in government at the time, and certainly the Lyon administration did not hesitate in proceeding after the Supreme Court had made their ruling, and it was mentioned by a previous speaker tonight, I think the Member for Lakeside, that there was fairly close agreement by the then members of the opposition tha t the Su preme Cour t ruling be implemented and the Lyon administration did proceed on the translation of the statutes.

Certainly, we have had, I think, some measure of success, not only since 19 79, but over the years with respect to the provision of bilingual services to any of the communities where there was a need demonstrated. As I mentioned earlier, when the Attorney-General introduced this resolution, he indicated there would be some informational meetings held throughout the province and they were held at Dauphin, Brandon, Thompson and Winnipeg. One report I have heard from the meeting that was held in Brandon, the headlines in the Winnipeg Free Press at that time said, "Little support voiced for bilingualism deal." The

article goes on to say, "Attorney-General Roland Penner yesterday offered the people of western Manitoba his practical solution to the controversial French language rights issue in the province, but the majority of people were not impressed. Penner however was content with his reception, telling the reporters later that according to polls conducted for the government within the last two weeks, it has supp ort from about 70 percent of Manitobans." A MEMBER: Dream on. MR. D. GOURL AY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have been asking questions in the House for several weeks now as to the details of this poll that was commissioned in which the Attorney-General refers to the 70 percent support of Manitobans, because certainly that is not the information I am getting from my constituency. That is not the information that is coming to all of the

Frid ay, 5 August, 1983 constituencies on this side of the House and we are also getting many calls from NDP constituencies as well. Certainly it's well known - the indications from the rural municipalities in Manitoba and the word that's coming from the Union of Manitoba Mu nicipalities. I had the privilege of attending one of the Jun e meetings that was organized and is held annually by the Union of Manitoba Mu nicipalities.

They hold June meetings in each of the seven districts throughout Manitoba, and we had members from this side of the House attend each of those meetings to discuss some of the more important issues with the municipal people that were in attendance, and particularly this resolution, as well as some of the other bills that are before the House. But the word that was coming out loud and clear from the municipal people was that they were not at all happy with this resolution that the government was trying to force through at a very rushed and hushed up atmosphere.

As a matter of fact, the Unio n of Manitoba Municipalities, the executive, have had an opportun ity, I understand, to meet with the Premier and members of his Cabinet to discuss the issue of the amending resolution and they are not yet convinced that the government is doing the right thing.

I think that it's important to put into the record once more, the news release of the Union of Ma nitoba Muni cipalit ies, President Dave Harms, when he said, "A very significant majority of the members of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and also a very large percentage of the citizens of this province oppose the amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, as presented by the Government of Manitoba. It is not that we oppose French Langua ge Services when it is needed or requested, but we feel that the application of such a service should be ent irely up to the Pr ovincial Gover nment to admin ister and should not be entrenched into the Constitution and left to the decisions of the courts of law in Canada to enforce.

"We agree that the minority groups in our province should be protected from injustices by the majority, but not to the point where it could and will give the minority the power to rule the majority through the courts, thus destroying the democratic rule. "The program, as suggested, leaves itself wide open to challenge by any person or group as to the limited service given or a significant demand made for such services. We would be forever faced with the court rulings by any individual or groups of people.

"The program, as proposed, affects all of the citizens of Manitoba directly and indirectly, as already the gov ern ment depart ment s are ins truc ted to hire bilingual-speaking people, whenever replacements of staff occur. We know for a fact that it will affect the Civil Service people, ag reps, nurses, labour, teachers and many more in the hundreds of government agencies and Crown corporations." In an

article that appeared in the Free Press just a short time ago, "P rovince to hire bilingual Ag Rep." This is something that is sort of close to my heart, having been an ag rep in the Province of Manitoba for some 21 years. This is an area that we never had a problem with. It was always a very forthright thing with the Governments of the Day that where you had a French community you hired an ag rep that could commun icate with the people. During the time that I had been employed with the Department of Agriculture, I can recall the ag rep at St. Pierre, for instance, was Joe Lafrance.

He had worked in that ag rep area for over 25 years. I recall when they had a 25-year celebration for him. Gus Amal served for some 30 years as the ag rep in Ste. Rose. Dick Philteau served in the community of Steinbach for a num ber of years. As I recall, I served in the area of Pilot Mound and at that time I covered Somerset and the Swan Lake area where there was a fairly large percentage of French-sp eaking people. I was provided with an assistant ag rep by the name of Romeo Cinq-Ma rs, (phonetic) who later set up an agricultural office in Somerset.

This sort of thing didn't have to be entrenched in the Constitution. This was just common sense of the Government of the Day, and it went over not only the PC administration but Liberal administration and the former Ed Schreyer administration where there was never a problem with this kind of thing.

But "The province to hire bilingual ag reps," is the headline in the recent Free Press, "M anitoba plans to hire bilingual agricultural experts to serve farming communiti es with large percentages of French-speaking people. 'Eight of the province's 42 agricultural districts will be getting bilingual agricultural representatives in the next few years,' Rod Bailey, Deputy Minister of Agriculture said yesterday.

"B ailey said, 'No English-speaking agricultural reps will lose their jobs as a result of the new policy which ties in with an agreement between the province, Ottawa and the SFM to expand French Language Services in Manitoba."' Well, isn't that just great. People are going to be entrenched with this kind of service that never had a problem over the last 90 years or whatever. '"As English-speaking representatives resign or are transferred, bili ngua l ones will replace them. The Agricultural Department always has tried to provide bilingual services where the numbers warrant,' he said." Well, that's true.

I think I pointed out that certainly the exte nsion of French Lang uage Services to the government departments which is to be entrenched if this resolution is to pass, we're certainly hoping that we won't see this take place.

But certainly under the Lyon administration when the Supreme Court made the ruling in the Forest case, we did provide or commence the translation services as quickly as could be arranged and was progressing qu ite favourably , as well as providing French language services to the areas of Ma nitoba where ther e was sig nificant Franco populations to warrant the kind of services that they required.

So we're just really upset with the government's stub borness on this decision to try and ram this resolution through the Manitoba Legislature without even giving the people of this province a fair hearing or opportunity to make their views known with respect to this new bilingual agreement. Now, I mentioned earlier tha t we've heard from very few mem bers opposite with respect to this resolution. HON. S. LYON: What about their mayoralty candidate, why shouldn't we hear from him? MR. D. GOUR LAY: We would, yes the mayoralty candidate is here and I'm sure that he will want to 4997

Friday, 5 August, 1983 participatE) in this debate, because we have over 6 percent of the population in the City of Winnipeg and this is a very important issue to the City of Winnipeg, it's an important issue to the people of Manitoba period. Certainly, we would look forward to hearing from the Member for Ellice. The members that have spoken on this resolution, what have they said? They have not really contained their remarks very much to the resolution. They have talked about the Speed-up Resolution.

Really we had a Speed-up Resolution and !hey had the opportunity to deba te that resolution at that time, but, no, they didn't take the opportunity to talk on the Speed-up Resolution then, they have chosen to speak on speed up during this resolution, condemning the members opposite for insisting that Speed-up be introduced. It's interesting to see how the government operates with Speed-up. They feel that they want to shove this Speed-up down our th roats.

The Estima tes were through many weeks ago and we could have been into Speed-up shortly after Estimates were completed, we could have had sessions morning, afternoon and evening. Just because Speed-up is there, that doesn't mean to say that we have to sit all night, we can have reaaonable hours in Speed-up, but certainly it does put the onus on the opposition to discuss the bills that are present, to get on with the House business, and to wrap the Sesson without undue process.

Certainly, there are some time constraints that we all have to live by and it's important that we get on with the important legislation so that we can wrap up the Session and get back to our constituencies and let the Treasury Bench get on with the day-to-day functions of the business of Manitoba.

But, no the members opposite, I think unfortu nately, end up abusing the Speed-up thems elves by insis ting tha t after ther e was an agreement reached th at we sit thr ough the long weekend in August, something that hes never been done in the history of this province, that - it was a very reasonable thing for government members to do and I think the treatment they received was justified.

I know that constituency calls that I'v e received were pleased that we weren't pushed around and especially when they make reference to this resolution, as well as our not being pushed around and letting this resolution be passed so hastily without an opportunity of people of the province having a say in the destiny of this province. I recall the Member for Ste. Rose, he dwelled extensively on the Speed-up Motion and the Member for Springfield, he gave us qu ite a lecture too. He thought that we were really trying to introduce closure because of our tactics. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, once again, I want to put on the record that what we're doing is really the only opportunity we have to protect the people of this province in defending what people are telling us to do, that they don't want any part of this entrenched amendment, and that they want an opportunity to be heard before a legislative committee.

The fact is that right now, as I'v e indicated earlier, it's unreasonable to expect th e people of this province to make presentations to a committee when the weather is 10 0 degrees or more, people are on holidays, the farm people are now into the harvest situation and will be for several weeks, at least till the end of Octob er, because the harvest situation is at various stages and certainly it's a busy time of the year after harvest as well.

The recommendation that we're making to refer this to an intersessional committee where there would be several weeks, several months, yet where this important work could be undertaken.

Certainly, I don't think it's unreasonable at all for that recommendation to be accepted by the government, because as I mentioned earli er, and has been mentio ned many ti mes by members on this side, this is a very important decision that is facing the people of Manitoba and why the government is closing their ears to what is being said by the constituents and wanting to accept what the Attorney-General is tryi ng to ram thr ough is just unreasonable.

As was mentioned earlier, obviously the Attorney-General - he hasn't been a member of the NDP for very long - and it's obvious that he doesn't really care what happens to the party, but he is going to force this issue through if he possibly can. Unf ortun ately, he's got a lot of foll owers there apparently. They're just sucked right in by this Attorney General and what he's gambling is that he can convince the people that this is the greatest thing. If he's successful, then he becomes pretty important down the road. Unfortun ate:;y , we are not going to let that happen.

We are going to dig in our heels, as we have, on this very important issue and if the membe rs opposite want to call it stalling or trying to force closure, let them say that. Certainly, we feel right in what we're doing, because the people that elected us to come and speak in this Legislature are telling us that this is what the y want to see happen.

They don't want the government to ram this thing through and I think that the members of the government, I would hope, would take seriously the many comments that have been brought into this Legislature by the amendment, by the sub-amendments, and by the speakers that have contributed to this cause. As was mentioned earlier, the government has been spending a lot of money on pamph lets trying to get a message out to the people that this new amendment is not making Manitoba bilingual.

It's been mentioned many times that the nice colourful pamphlet that we see before us says nothing and is being forced on the people, Limited service simply means most people will not be affected. There's a personal message from the Attorney-General that says "This folder has been prepared for you to explain the fact that Manitoba is not going bilingual." Mr. Speaker, this pamphlet would have been just dandy the way it was before.

This really represents what we've had, except what this government is trying to do is entrench the bilingualism on all of the people of Manitoba and certainly, as I had indicated, under the Lyon administration, things were going along very wull. I believe that we've come a long way with respect to fulfilling some of the requirements that the Franco Manitobans would like to see, maybe not to the full extent that the SFM would like to see, but certainly there has been pretty good advancement made over the last 90 years.

The harmony with all of the ethnic groups, the Anglos, and what have we that makes up the mosaic of Manitoba, I believe that the harmony has been pretty darn good over the years. Our concern on this side is that when this amendment is to be forced on the people and it is entrenched that it will cause a 4998

Friday, 5 August, 1983 lot of friction between the Angles, the ethnic groups and the Franco-Manitobans like we've never seen before. I don't un derstand why the mem bers of government are wanting to proceed in the fashion that they're doing. Mr. Speaker, we've had a pretty hot week here; we've had a lot of debate of long hours and here it is Friday evening at live minutes to 10 and I know that my time has almost run out, but I would move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa, that this House do now adjourn. MOTION presented and defeated. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Call in the members. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Wa lding: Order please. The question before the House, as moved by the Honourable Mem ber for Swan River, and seconded by the Honourable for Niakwa, that this House do now adjourn. A ST ANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Banman, Blake, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Gour lay, Graham; Mrs. Hammond; Messrs. Hyde, Johns ton , Kovnats, Lyon, Man ness, Mc Kenzie, Nordman; Mrs. Oleson; Messrs. Orchard, Ransom, Sherman. NAYS Messrs. Adam, Anstett, Corrin, Cowan; Mrs. Dodick; Ms. Dolin; Messrs.

Eyler, Fox, Harapiak, Harper; Ms. Hemphill; Me ssrs. Kostyra, Lecuy er, Ma ckling, Malinowski, Parasiuk, Pawley, Penner; Ms. Phillips; Messrs. Santos, Schroeder; Mrs. Smith; Mr. Uruski. MR. ASSISTANT CLERK, G. Mackintosh: Yeas, 19; Nays, 23. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The motion is accordingly defeated. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the loge on my left. We have a former member of this Cham ber, Mr. Jake Froese. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this evening.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question before the Ho use is the pro posed su b-amend ment by the Honourable Member for Arthur. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker , I have to apologize for being slightly late for the vote and delayed it by about 35 seco nds, but I was enjoying some entertainment that people have paid $1 0, $15, $20, $30 a ticket to see at the Indianapolis Speedway and other daredevil racing shows.

I was standing on the front steps watch ing frantic Cabinet Ministers and backbenchers round the corner into the Legislature on two wheels, tires screaming, great round eyes as big as saucers saying, how long have the bells been ringing, running up the stairs, charging in here. The delight of it all, Mr. Speaker, was seeing the door close as the frantic Min ister of Government Services was grasping for the knob, trying to get in and missing the vote. Mr.

Speaker, what we have seen tonight indeed is a true circus and the classic zoo that the Attorney-General and others have so often said is demonstrated in this House. The zoo, Mr. Speaker, was in those daredevil driv ers com ing tearing around the corner, ti res screaming, breaking the speed limit, not wearing their seat belts, frantically to get here for the vote. I saw, Mr. Speaker, with my own eyes, the Minister of Energy and Mines come rounding the corner doing a four wheel slide in front of the building, in front of Queen Victoria, and he got out of his car and he wasn't wearing his seat belt.

He was not wearing his seat belt, Mr. Speaker, and when he votes on Bill 60 he is going to vote with forked tongue and without conviction normally accompanied for voting for such legislation. The worst of all was the frantic Min ister of Government Services tearing up the steps with two frantic children bumping along the stairs because they couldn't keep up to their father taking four steps at once.

They'll need medical attention for bruised knees and stubbed toes; and there they were, dragged into the House by their father, only to see him grasp desperately for the door as it was slamming shut, so he could not vote as he was supposed to. Mr. Speaker, I also noted, when the frantic Minister of Government Services came up here, not doing the four-wheel slide that the Minister of Energy and Mines did in rounding the corner in front of Queen Victoria, only a two-wheel slide, with the other two tipped up slightly, he also did not have his seat belt on. He didn't, Mr. Speaker. And the beautiful one of them all .

HON. S. LYON: The reds don't like this. MR. D. ORCHARD: You see, there is a difference. You know the old story, Mr. Speaker, that has btold time and time again about the old bull and the young bull. A MEMBER: No, they don't know that one. MR. D, ORCHARD: I want to assure you the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Government Services, being rather new members to the House, franticc..lly drove up, their eyes as big as saucers. But I have to tell you, I saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs gently proceed around the corner, park his car, walk 4999

Friday, 5 August, 1983 up, have a conversation with the guards and come into the House - proof positive, Mr. Speaker, that the old bull has the wisdom, knowing they won't vote without him. There was no panic in the eyes of the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs, because as the First Minister has described, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he has the best political nose in Cabinet. He knew they weren't going to vote without him.

I suggest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he has a little condolence chat with the Minister of Government Services, who frantically was clawing at the door as it was slamming shut on him when he missed the vote. He might condole him all the way to the hospital, taking his two beautiful young children there for stubbed toes and bruised knees as he dragged them up the steps, and for dislocated shoulder joints because he was pulling them along at four steps at a time. The interesting one was the Whip.

The Whip pulled up frantically, didn't even park in her normal spot, parked out in front illegally and charged up the steps, because, alas, she was the one that was supposed to have the count on tonight, Mr. Speaker. She was not to be seen until she drove up in a dead panic, cold sweat beading on her forehead, to get here in time for the vote. Then, the best of them all was my favourite MLA, the MLA for Radisson. You should have seen the pace that man was moving at when he come around the corner. It put the Minister of Energy and Mines to shame, Mr. Speaker, but he made it. MR. P. FOX: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Me mb er for Concordia on a point of order. MR. P. FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know what motion we're debating that the honourable member is having so much fun with? HON. S. LYON: We're talking about the incompetence of the government. MR. P. FOX: I would like to know if there's any relevance to deba te in this House? MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member, I was beginning to wonder the same thing. Perhaps the Honourable Member for Pembina will enlighten us. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was about to get to that. Mr.

Speaker, we were debating the referral motion and the sub-amendment thereto, and which we have deba ted long and arduously tonight. It was demonstrated tonight the kind of indecent haste that this government has for this resolution when you saw them driving around the corner getting here for the vote, the indecent haste with which they want to push this through, and the indecent haste in which they were all rushing here, all 17 of them who were absent, and had to get here tonight to allow this debate to continue on. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, to the honourable former Speaker of this House that I was entirely on the topic, because there was ind eed a small problem this govern ment had. As we saw last wee kend, they attempted to ram this thing through the House, and they said we were going to sit all the long weekend in August to push it through. We sat in this House Saturday morning, and we waited 45 minutes on this side of the House for the government to come in and vote. Tonight we waited again for the government to get here to vote. Who is the government in this province, Mr. Speaker?

That is what the people of Manitoba are asking and they are getting the same answers that I have gotten from my colleagues tonight.- there isn't a government operating in the Province of Manitoba. There is a collection of incomp etents pret ending they' re government in the Province of Manitoba and tonight was a further demonstration of their lack of competence, and their lack of ability to govern. They cannot even organize the workings of the House with sufficient numb ers to assure that they can win a vote in this House. They, Mr.

Speaker, are led by the Minister of Natural Resources, in his Acting House Leader capacity, once again into an embarrassing fiasco. I don't know how many more situations have to develop where the Minister of Natural Re:,.:>urces acts first and thinks about two days later, and called that vote tonight and wouldn't accept an adjournment motion at a reasonable hour. Instead, Mr.

Speaker, we spent some 40 minutes waiting for the government to get here, so we could continue to speak on this resolution as they so desire, although they're not here to listen to our contributions to the debate, although they weren't here all evening to listen to it. Well this, as my colleague, the MLA for La Verendrye, said is the government that was going to listen. Well, I suggest they weren't listening very well tonight, Mr. Speaker. Here we are on force debating this issue tonight and look at the depleted ranks over there, Mr. Speaker.

They're probably all back home now safely figuring there'll be no more votes tonight. Well, that may be, tt>at may not be. I'll guarantee if we do have another vote tonight, the best show in town is on the front steps of the Legislature. The admission is free and you will see driving that puts the best stunt driver to shame. I witnessed it with my collea gue, the MLA for Stu rgeon Creek. It was something to behold, it really was, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize again for being some 35 seconds late for the vote. Well, Mr.

Speaker, why are we here tonight, and why have we been here for the last two weeks debating a referral motion with amendments that make that referral motion mean something, not only mean something to this Cham ber, but mean something to the people of Mani toba? We are here deba ting it because the government does not want to listen to the people of Manitoba.

The government wants to hold a little enclave in the hallowed halls of this building in the dying days of the Session, in the heat of August, in the middle of harvest in rural Manitoba, to gather public opinion on probably the most important piece of legislation that has been considered by this Chamber, certainly in the time I've been here and I would venture to say in many many years. We are here debating this resolution because we have seen that this government is not interested in 5000

Frid ay, 5 August, 1983 approving an amendment and a sub-amendment which makes this committee hearing they are calling for legitimate, worthwhile, and one that gives the people of Manitoba a true and adequate opportunity to express their views to this government. That's why we're here debating it, Mr. Speaker, because this government won't accept the reality that Manitobans wish to offer an opinion. They wish to do it in a thoughtful, reasonable manner.

They wish to have the same opportunity to make that opinion as they had to voice their opinion to this government on the Crow rate, and that means a comm ittee that travels the province. The Crow Comm ittee, the Ag Commit tee did not tour the provincial intersessionally, because once again with undue haste, the government set up and scheduled those meetings while the Session was sitting.

It's interesting to note - and here's the parallel that I would like all Ma nitobans to consid er, and I'd particularly like members opposite to consider - this Session we took the issue of the change in the Crow rate, a federal issue, to the people of Manitoba with the Agricult ura l Commit tee. We met in seven communities outside of the City of Winnipeg. We heard from various groups, individuals, and representatives of farm organizations. They expressed opinion pro and con to the Crow rate change. We drafted a report based on what Manitobans had said to them.

We drafted the report reflecting the opinion of individual Manitobans and representatives of farm organ izati ons. Ju st yesterday, the Minister of Transportation presented the government's view on the change in the Crow rate and what did they do with the drafted report which reflected the opinion of Manitobans? They attached it as an appendix to the back of it, and they never used it any way, shape or form.

They went out and listened to the people of Manitoba or pretended to listen to the people of Manitoba on the Crow rate and went ahead and said to the Federal Government exactly what they originally inten ded to say anyway. The people of Manitoba were not listened to. Their thoughts were not reflected by this government at the Crow rate hearings where the Minister of Transportation presented the government view yesterday. What kind of a feeling would Manitobans have after viewing that abrasion to democracy that this temporary government gave them on the Crow rate?

What do they think will be the value of them coming to this government now and offering legitimate criticism to the constitutional amendment entrenching bilingualism in the Province of Manitoba? They've done it in the Crow rate issue, and did the government use what they heard from the people of Manitoba? Absolutely not, they certainly did not, Mr. Speaker. What confidence do Manitobans now have that this govern ment, when they hold their committee hearings, are going to listen to Manitobans? They didn't in the Crow rate.

The Crow rate was a political ploy, a sham and a misuse of the trust of the people of Manitoba by this gang of incompetents that currently are in office in government. Are they going to tell the people of Manitoba now with hearings on this fundamentally important issue of the entrenchment of bilingualism that we're going to listen to you, and we're going to make amendments if necessary based on sound public opinion?

Of course, Manitobans can't come to the conclusion that is what you're going to do, because you have not demonstrated that you are willing to do it on any other issue that you've taken to the people of Manitoba. The Mi nister of Muni cipa l Affairs did take an intersessional committee out to the people of Manitoba. He listened to various reeves and councillors and mayors and individual citizens on the very important issue of municipal assessment, and the outcome of municipal assessment on the tax bill to the individual landowner in Manitoba.

They listened throughout this province at five hearings, four of them outside of the City of Winnipeg. They got a consensus from those mayors and reeves and councillors and the individuals who presented briefs that, yes, we don't agree with everything that's in the MARC Report, but we believe you have to move and you have to make some changes, and you have to get on with the reassessment and the impr ove ment of the assessment system as recommended by the Weir Report. What are they seeing happen ing? Nothing, Mr. Speaker.

The government listened, claimed they wanted to get the people's opinion on an important subject such as assessment, and they come back in this House and the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done nothing, absolutely nothing. He didn't listen to the people of Manitoba. When he asked them for their opinion, he didn't listen to them. When the people of Manitoba gave the Minister of Municipal Affairs their opinions, they didn't listen to them. They didn't use them. They didn't undertake any of the recommendations that were made.

So what kind of confidence do you think the people of Manitoba have in you people to listen on the fundam entally im portant issue of entr enche d bilingualism? Your record hardly warrants confidence from the people of Ma nitoba. Your record hardly warrants the trust of the people of Manitoba. So why are you trying to ram it through with a closeted-in set of hearings that are going to be inside the walls of this building at a time when farmers are extremely busy, and not only farmers but the business people of Manitoba are also busy?

Machinery dealers, grain elevator agents, agribusi ness suppliers are not going to be able to take the time in the next three weeks to come in here to present their views on this matter in Winnipeg. They could in January or February or March when there are not too many farmers undertaking their business operations and putting the grain in the bin, but no, no, this government wants to hold them in the month of August. They want to hold them in the month of August when everybody's away.

They want to hold them when the farm commu nity in rural Manitoba is extremely busy contributing to the gross provincial product of this province in a very very large, large way. The farmers and the people who work with them in rural Manitoba do not have time to come and speak their piece to the government on this issue, yet the government is willing to slam this thing through, to ram it through before those people can be heard.

So I ask you, do you blame us on this side of the House for trying to get you to take this matter to an intersessional hearing so that busy Manitobans, the Manitobans that are creating the wealth and paying the tax dollars in this province, can have an opportunity to speak to this resolution? Do you think that's an unfair request? I don't think it's an unfair request. 5001

Frid ay, 5 August, 1983 Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Manitobans don't think it's an unfair request. They want to have the opportunity to be heard in an intersessional committee that travels throughout this province, but are they going to? Well, the question has to be put. Why is the government defeating our sub-amendment? If they defeat the sub amendment, they'll defeat the amendment which calls for those intersessional hearings, because not one speaker up to and including the Premier have indicated any desire for intersessional hearings.

They have been forced and dragged, kicking and screaming, to go even to a committee hearing. It has been our opposition that has caused them to do that, and it will be our opposition that causes them to take it to an intersessional committee to get the job done properly with full opportunity of input by all Manitobans of a variety of ethnic backgrounds and occupational backgrounds.

But it seems to me that unless we hear someone over there, either the Premier or the Attorney General, either of those individuals stand up in this House and put it on the record that, yes, this matter shall be lait:l over, this matter shall go to an intersessional committee, then we intend to stay here and debate this issue until the government comes to its senses and does what is honourable, what is decent and what is just for the people of Manitoba. So the choice is fairly clear for the tempor ary government over there. Let me assure you, I don't use the word "tem porary" in a light-hearted way any more.

There was a time, a year-and-a-half ago, when I used to say that simply to goad the government a little bit and get a rise out of the government members. Let me assure you, with the handling this government has shown to the people of Manitoba on important issues in this Ses sion, the y are ind eed a temp orary government. It would be as tem porary as the ne xt elect ion whenever it was called. If it was called tomorrow, they would be gone in 35 days. If it was called two months from now, they would be gone in 35 days.

When they finally are forced to call an election, some two or two and-a-half years from now, they will be gone in 35 days. This is truly a temporary government trying to wrack permanent damage on the people of Manitoba and the social fabric of this province. No temporary government should be able to do that. No temporary government should take it upon themselves to undertake this kind of a constitutional entrenchment of language rights without the mandate and without the consensus of the people of Manitoba.

If they think they have consensus, then they're obviously not reading their mail, because we got copies of the letters from their organizers, their fund raisers that say, "This is it for you guys. The last time we worked for the NDP was in 19 81. You have burned your bridges with us." If they think the people are with them, then they haven't been answering their phone calls, because our caucus phones are busy with Manitobans phoning in an telling us, "Keep up the fight. Stop these people; don't let them ram this through; we're with you all the way.

" If they aren't getting phone calls telling them to back off, then they're not answering their telephones. So, how can a temporary government dealing with a permanent change that is irreversible proceed - (I nterjection) - well, the good Father says, "Don't be sarcastic." I am not being sarcastic. You are a temporary 5002 government and the good Father may even be more temporary, because I'm quite sure the Attorney-General cannot win Fort Rouge next time. He's probably going to go up and contest a seat up there again.

Except is the good Father uses the same speech in his native language, wherein he alluded to the political background of the Attorney-General, chances are the Attomey General won't get the nomination again. It's for certain the Attorney-General will not win Fort Rouge next time. So I'm not saying in a lighthearted way that you're a temporary gov ernment, because indeed you are. Answer your telephones, answer your mail, read your letters and you will kn ow you're a tempor ary government. We're getting carbon copies of the letters to your Premier.

Now, maybe your Premier in the infinite ability he has to lead you, which is so evident in this Ho use for the last th ree mo nths, has not been distributing the letters that he gets on this subject matter to the caucus for their perusal. Well, he should. As a matter of fact, maybe we should, maybe the carbon copies we get we should put them in every New Democratic MLA mail slot so you can read what your organizers, your supporters, your fund raisers are saying to you on this issue. Maybe there wouldn't be quite the will to proceed if you knew how much trouble you were in. Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity to be out of the House for the last day approximately and I attended a couple of functions in my constituency. One of them a very unpleasant one, but another a rather pleasant one, and the third one a little bit of a coffee shop discussion. It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear the opinion of people - and I have to tell you, these people were not campaign organizers for me last time. They weren't my die-hard, true blue supporters. They may have voted for me, I don't know, in a couple of cases I certainly don't know.

I do know that one of them is from a very very strong Liberal background, but she said to me, "I read the pamphlet from the Attorney General ." She said to me, "When you read that pamphlet, you know" - and she's about 68 or 69 - "it doesn't seem as if they're doing very much, that nothing's really going to change, because that's what they say in the pamphlet that this is a very mundane sort of an amendment and nothing will change.

It's carry on the ball game the same as it always has been." But she couldn't quite put together that if this was a sort of a meaningless measure that really didn't affect anybody and didn't really change anything, she couldn't qui te come to grips with why they re quir ed an amendment to the Constitution of Manitoba. If it is such an innocuous thing that they're doing, why do they need to have it legislated? The basic message from that 68 or 69-year-old lady was, I don't trust these pe0ple. That's the basic underlying message.

She said, "The basic underlying message was I don't believe what was in that pamphlet, that can't be the whole truth on the matter, because if it is so good, why are they entrenching language rights? Why are they passing a constitutional amendment? Why does it have to go to Ottawa if it doesn't accomplish anything that's going to change anybody's lifestyle or the linguistic lifestyle of the Province of Manitoba?" She doesn't trust the Attorney-General in what he says in his pamphlet. Another fellow, who offered a very very interesting perspective in the coffee shop, Mr. Speaker, which I'll

Friday, 5 August, 1983 be glad to share with you and with any New Democrats that are listening. He said, "I' ve been thinking about this constitutional amendment," and he said, "and for the life of me, I can't figure out why a government, who theoretically must have some astute polit ical advisors around, would be doing such a suicidal thing that will, without doubt, defeat them in the next election." Do you know what his conclusion was?

I have to admit that I had never put it together in this perspective, and I suppose that speaks well for being able to sit back, not involved in this Chamber where you're too close to the topic, to sit back at a distance and analyze the bits and pieces that come out in the news media and whatnot.

This fellow said to me, "It finally clicked on me that the government proudly announced some three or four months ago that the Federal Government was going to pay the payroll tax, and then it clicked with me, that probably was the quid pro quo, the trade-off that this government made to get the Federal Government to pay the payroll tax. For an $8 million payroll tax they had to agree to Trudeau and his Liberal majority.

They had to agree to entrench bilingua lism into Manitoba." Wasn't that an interesting observation from an outsider who was wrestling with some semblance of sanity in the government as to why they were doing this? He didn't think th at any government would have an obvious death wish, as this government appears to have, and he came up with the simply analogy, $8 million from the payroll tax with an under-the-table deal that they will entrench bilingualism and the French language in the Province of Manitoba for 5 percent of the people. Only the government can answer that one.

If they hold true to answers they've given to us in the past on a numb er of subjects, we know we will never get that answer from them. We know they will never be forthright enough to tell us whether that was the trade off that they negotiated to get the Federal Government to pay the payroll tax after only one year, where it took seven to eight years for the Federal Government to negotiate to pay that same tax in the Province of Quebec.

Interesting analogy, deserves some thought and I'm sure de serves some qu es tions from the backbench of the New Democratic Party of their Finance Minister and their Premier as to whether that was the kind of trade-off that was made on this issue. Another chap I talked to last evening was very much alarmed at the fact that this measure was to be entrenched in the Constitution. He doesn't have a legal background.

He is a citizen who works with a credit union, and he just has what I would say would be an average or an above average understanding of the workings of government, but he knows instinctively that an entrenchment of this sort is permanent, and that it is wrong. He is not an atypical Manitoban. He is a typical Manitoban on this su bject. He and many tens of thousands of other Manitobans understand the wrong that this current short-lived, temporary ND Government is doing to the people of Manitoba, and he is very much agains t it. He says th at all other issues pale in comparison.

He doesn't like and others don't like the fact that Canadians cannot own land and farm land in Manitoba, but they recognize that we can change that when we defeat this government and form the next government of the Province of Manitoba. They don't like The Elections Finances Act where they will have to pay 50 percent of the campaign costs of New Democratic Party candidates, but they know that we can change that when we defeat this temporary ND Government in the next election. They equally as well know, Mr.

Speaker, that on this issue, once it's entrenched by being passed in the federal Parliament, that it is 99.9 percent assured that it will

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-136
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 136.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4aae3168a677c65c640a700fe4d4cdd8d7eed8ec

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