ISSN 0542-549 2 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. 166A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 23 JANUARY, 19 84. Printed by the Office of the Ou-.s Printer. Province or ManitOIHI

MANI TOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., 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, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, a.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 Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-R ussell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI OBA Monday, 23 January, 1984. Time - 2:00 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 Economic recovery MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

In view of widespread concern throughout our province for issues dealing with the economy , the unaccep table high levels of unemployment, the need to attract investment income in the province tod ay, in view of all these concerns, when is it the intention of government to bring in its Estimates and its Budget so that the people of Manitoba and this House can deal with these important issues to date? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, we would be delighted to be in a position to move expeditiously to deal with the matter of the Budget and Estimates just as early and as soon indeed is possible. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, in case the Premier isn't aware, those are decisions that are made by the government, not by the opposition. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G. FILMON: When last I looked, he was the Premier and the leader of this government and that decision-, Mr. Speaker, is within his power to make. So my question, Mr.

Speaker, is: in view of concerns that are being expressed throughout the province that we ought to be dealing with the real issues of today, the economy, the high levels of unempl oyment, when is the government going to bring in its Budget for the coming year and its Estimates for the coming year? That would facilitate our opportunity to deal with those issues. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. Leader of the 0 position urged this Chamber to spend six more mont s debating the French language issue.

Now the Leade of the Opposition is asking us to move on and deal ith other matters of concern in the province. I agree with t e Leader of the Opposition insofar as getting on to eal with other matters. I just don't understand ho that is consistent with his plea to us in this Chamb r as of last Friday to spend six more months debati g the French language issue in the Province of Ma itoba. MR. G. FILMO�: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Premier has difficulty u�derstanding at the best of times what is going on in t1is House, but if he'd only read the .. . HON. l.

DESJARDINS: There's the bright boy, there's the genius, theie's another genius, the Boy Wonder. MR. SPEAKER� Question. MR. G. FILMO� : . . . motion, Mr. Speaker, he would understand tha�our intent was to lay the matter over for six months s that we could deal with these matters. My question to the First Minister is, Mr. Speaker: when will he alow that to happen; that these other matters be lai aside so that we can deal with the issues that con ern the people of Manitoba - jobs, the economy and t e future of our province? HON. H. PAWL Y: Mr.

Speaker, again I am surprised at the Honourab e Leader of the Opposition's comments when I heard hi' report, either in this Chamber or in the press, as in icating that all 22 members across the way want to de ate his motion to put the matters that are before us a way of business over for another six months. All 22 f them, Mr. Speaker, want to continue to speak. Mr.

Speaker, if their record of last week is any precedent by w�ich we wasted 14 hours of bell-ringing time and if all 2 members of the opposition are going to speak on t eir hoist motion, we will be in this Chamber for an ther six months wasting our time when we ought to be dealing with the matters of the jobs and the econo y in Manitoba. I SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER:l Order please. Bilin�ualism - hoist motion MR. G. FILMO�: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier then is:f "f the opposition agrees not to debate the hoist motio , will the government then agree to HON. H.

PAWLEY: I really don't know whether I am pass it expeditio sly so that we can get on to deal with hearing accurately - my ears fail me - because I am the important p iorities of the province? hearing words from the Leader of the Opposition that demo nstrate another flip-flop from Friday, when the SOME HONOU ABLE MEMBERS· Oh oh' � I ..

Monday, 23 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. order please. Order please. If the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would care to rephrase his question so that it is not hypothetical. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I will not make that hypothesis. I will tell the Premier we will agree not to continue to debate the hoist motion. Will the Premier agree then to pass the hoist motion speedily, so that we can get on and debate the important issues of the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was not indicated on this side, but it was spelled out clearly by the former Leader of the Opposition - sometimes one wonders if he is still not the Leader of the Opposition - who indicated that it's going to be a long winter and he would speak many times on the resolution before us. Mr. Speaker, we want to deal with the matter that is before us expeditiously so that we can discuss the Jobs Fund and the success that we've had pertaining to the Jobs Fund in the Province of Manitoba.

We want to discuss the Interest Rate Relief Program and the impact that it's had on the economy of Manitoba. We want to, Mr. Speaker, be in a posit ion to discuss the agreements, the agreements tha t we've signed with the Federal Government, pertaining to improvements in respect to plans for agriculture, for mineral development, for transportation in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, there are many items that we want to discuss but, unlike the former Leader of the Opposition, we don't want to spend the rest of the long winter debating the matter before us which appears to be now some inconsistency on the part of the present Leader and the former Leader of the Opposition. Let's deal with the matters expeditiously before us. We're not interested in postponement, delay, dilly-dallying, Mr. Speaker, we're anxious to get on with the business of this province, deal with the issue of jobs and the economy. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Economic recovery MR.

SPEA KER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, it 2ppears as though the government wants to hold the people of Manitoba at bay until it deals only with its agenda. My question to the First Minister then is, will his government agree then to have an emergency debate at which time we can discuss all of those areas that he says he's concerned about: the economy, job creation, unemployment, the budget, the future of Manitoba? Will he agree to that emergency debate, so that we can deal with that today or tomor row instead of being held at bay by this government's agenda? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, if there is any urgency, indeed any emergency, it is that we cease permitting the opposition to attempt to hold this House to ransom, and let the government of this province get on with its business. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, we now know where the government stands and we now know where their commitment is. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier said today in Thompson in his speech, and I quote, "The economy is our government's priority. We are moving ahead with those priorities.

We are getting on with the business of the economy while the Conservatives continue to obstruct and grind the House to a halt." Mr. Speaker, if he really believes these words, if they are anything more than empty words being put forward by some of his speech wri ters that he do esn 't understand, if he really believes these words, when will he allow for those issues to be dealt with in the House? Why is this French language issue the only item that we have before us on the Order Paper? When will we be able to deal with it, Mr. Speaker? Let's have an answer from the Pre.nier. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, how do you respond to such a kindergarten question when it was the opposition the mselves that wanted us to deal with the matter that Is before us, wanted the matter to be held over, agreed that the matter would be dealt with as the only matter of business to complete this Session? Mr. Speaker, I want to also read a further paragraph in that speech that I delivered this morning in Thompson for honourable members across the way, which also assists in answering specifically the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition.

I am sure that those of you here today - and, Mr. Speaker, I sense those that were present did agree - and the vast majority of Manitobans join me in saying to the Conservatives let's get on with the job, let's put the French language issue behind us. Let's get on with the job. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Now, Mr. Speaker, we're in complete agreement then.

When will the First Minister allow an emergency debate, so that both sides of the House can let their concerns be known and put their positions on the record with respect to the real problems that we are facing within the economy today: job creation, unemployment, and getting people back to work? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would say now we are both in agreement because it was again the Leader of the Opposition that wanted to dilly-dal ly, wanted to ensure that this matter be kept alive for continued debate over 5634

Monday, 23 January, 1984 the next six months. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that very clearly. It was the Leader of the Opposition that didn't want to proceed to deal with this matter before Christmas, Mr. Speaker. It was this Leader of the Opposition that led troops into this Chamber that walked out four times last week when the bells were ringing - five times - wasting 14 hours time of this Chamber, when we could have been winding up the affairs of this particular item, so we could have dealt with questions pertaining to the jobs and the economy. It was this Leader of the Opposition on Friday, Mr.

Speaker, that said very clearly to this House, I want to continue to dilly-dally on this matter for a further six months. I want the debate on this matter to continue to rage for another six months and then come back to this Chamber in six months time to further deal with this matter. Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth. There is only one direct clear message that I think is appropriate at this point. Workers Compensation fees MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker, my question to him: does the 53 percent increase in Workers Compensation Board assessments, recommended to him by the board, does that increase reflect the new policies and expenditures imposed by the recently appointed new board? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The rates that are to be assessed by the Workers Compensation Board are not now, nor were they ever, as far as I'm concerned, a reflect ion of the mem bers who are responsible for the board. They are based on the requirements of the board as they are spelled out in the law.

MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister confirm that the dollar amount of the 50 percent increase that's been recommended to him by the board is going to be imposed in spite of an up to a 20 percent increase last year, in spite of the fact that the number of accidents are down, and in spite of the fact that the new board, and the government have used up a good portion of the surplus? HON. G. LECUYER: First, Mr. Speaker, let me correct two of the three facts that are mentioned in the member opposite's question.

First of all, the fees were not raised by 20 percent last year, they were raised by an average rate of 9 percent, when they could ha ve been raised by a larger amount. Secondly, to say that the funds were depleted; the funds have been in the process of being depleted for the last three years, not only the last two, and basically that is due to the fact that they didn't either feel that the rates should be increased when they should have. Thirdly, I want to remind the member opposite that we haven't said, at this point in time, that the rates were going to be increased by 53 percent.

Workers Compensation Board - personnel changes MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister. Could he confirm that in addition to the senior officers who have left the employment of the board during the past months - Mr. Dyer, Mr. Hebert and Mr. Cross - that two doctors, the treasurer and the comptroller left the employment of the board during 19 83? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of th e Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: I cannot confirm nor deny all of these. First, I might say that I'm not sure that I heard all of the honourable member's question, but I can say this, Mr.

Speaker, whatever changes were brought about were to bring about improvements in the operation of the Compensation Board, improvements which will - and we are certain - bring about reductions in costs in the future, and to that even the employers are in agreement. Those employers that participated, for instance, in the Comm ittee 100 report regarding the rehabilitation procedures of the board were unanimous in saying that they also agree that the improvements in the rehabilitation procedures, for instance, will bring about reductions in costs not only in the long run but in the very near future.

Workers Compensation fees MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, one final question to the Minister. No doubt, the board has advised him of a projected increase for 19 85 in addition to the one they recommend for 19 84. Could he advise us what the projection will be for the increase in assessment in 19 85? HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, the member of the opposition should realize I think where the actuarial rates are set for any given year they are based on projections of income for that year and projections of pay out for that year. At this point in time, I haven't nor has the board struck any rates for next year.

McKenzie Seeds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. Did the First Minister receive letter from Mr. William Moore, the former Chief Executive Officer of A.E. McKenzie Limited, on or about December 16, 19 83, in which Mr. Moore provided a lengthy explanation of the conflict-of-in terest situation that he was allegedly involved with? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. 5635

Monday, 23 January, 1984 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it was an explanation that Mr. Moore tendered in respect to his conflict-of­ interest situation - yes, such a letter was received. MR. B. RANSOM: A supplementary to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Less than three weeks after the First Minister received this letter, Mr. McDowell, the Chairman of the Board of McKenzie Seeds, resigned; and the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds, the Member for Brandon East, unexpectedly but quietly was replaced as Minister responsi ble for McKenzie Seeds. Mr.

Speaker, my question to the First Minister: what was in that letter that led to the replacement of these two men? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, nothing. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister then. Will the First Minister table that letter in this House? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the letter has been forwarded to the appropriate ministers and officials dealing with this matter; namely, to the Attorney­ General, subsequently to the RCMP, and to the Minister of Finance, and to those that are engaged in respect to audit accountability. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I'll repeat the question to the First Minister. Will he table the letter in this Legislature? HON. H. PAWLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter that I felt would be best received by the RCMP. We're not going to do anything in this Chamber that will jeopardize SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, there can indeed be no more openness, but to deal with this matter by referring this matter to the auditor, by dealing with this matter by referring matters to the RCMP, so that the appropria te jud icial bod ies, the appropria te law enforcement tribunals can deal with this matter in a way that is consistent with the administration of justice. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister. In view of the fact that neither Mr.

McDowell, nor the Member for Brandon East, are available to testify now before the com mittee and the Minister refuses to table the letter, and in view of his statement made to this House on March 7th, 19 79, on Page 638, of Hansard of that year, he said, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "I can understand fully, Mr. Speaker, why the government of this day wishes to hide behind its own means in order to try to block freedom of information.

Let them be forthright and honest in this Legislature, and indicate that they don't believe in freedom of information, that there is certain information that they would prefer to keep close to their own selves. Let them be open." In view of those sentiments, expressed by the First Minister in this House, will he reconsider and agree to table that letter? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to prevent the honourable member for asking Mr. Moore for a copy of the letter. Mr.

Speaker, this government has moved to be, and needs no defense from honourable members across the way, to be forthright and to be open. It was this government, Mr. Speaker, that rather than burn reports, as indeed was the case with the previous administration in the Province of Manitoba when things got a little hot, this government referred matters of concern to the Provincial Auditor's Office and has referred matters to the RCMP through the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker, we are moving, and let there be no doubt about this, we are moving to clean up a mess insofar as McKenzie Seeds.

We have not faltered in our objective of cleaning up a mess so that McKenzie Seeds can operate on an efficient and proper basis. Wildlife Report MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Honourable Minister re.>ponsible for Natural Resources. Some time ago the Minister, or members of his dep artme nt, fo rward ed or cir cula ted a questionnaire to landowners in and around Riding Mountain National Park as well as other areas, the questionnaire pertaining to wildl ife habitat, hunting privileges, methods of hunting and several other questions.

I understand that those questionnaires have since been received by his department and I wonder if the Minister might provide the analyzed information to Members of the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the honourable member for indicating earlier on today that he was going to ask me a question. Since I didn't have all of the details of the question, I am not not prepared to give the fullest of answers.

However, let me indicate that the department has, over the course of many years, provided for research by questionnaire technique, and as a result of getting that information developed policy to reflect concerns of the people of Manitoba. In respect to the results of the questionnaire, I don't have those details tod ay. I'll be happy to review the results and if they're in a form in which I can give information to the honourable member or to the House, I'll certainly be prepared to do SO. MR. D. BLAKE: In view of the previous statements, Mr.

Speaker, by other members on that side about not withholding information, I've been given to understand that information will be made available as q uickly as possible. If the Minister can make it available to the House it would be appreciated on this side. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that what the honourable member says about 5636

Monday, 23 January, 1984 this government being open and providing information is quite correct. Mr. Speaker, at the present time this Minister of Natural Resources is involved in a dialogue with all citizens of Manitoba in respect to wildl ife. I'm pleased to report that last week, in this building, there was a dialogue on wildl ife that was open to all of the citizens in Manitoba, particularly those who live in Winnipeg. It was well attended and I enjoyed the experience of hearing first-hand from people concerned about wildlife, the issues that they thought were important to us.

Manitoba Hog Income Stabilization Plan MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of recent reports, there's indication that the loan that has been approved to the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Stabilization, or Marketing Board for Hog Stabilization is depleted or almost depleted. Is the Minister making provisions to provide further funds to keep that fund liquid? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'll take that question specifically as notice and advise the honourable member as to the exact status of the situation dealing with the present stabilization plan. MR. J. DOWNEY: As well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agricul tur e: is the Provincial Government charging the Manitoba Hog Producers Stabilization Board or group interest on the funds which they have now used from the province? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, due to the financial situation facing both the livestock industry and the hog industry, we, as a matter of policy, are not charging any interest on the mo nies put forward in the st abil izat ion fund to either the beef or the hog producers. llllR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in view of a possible shortfall in either of the beef or the hog stabilization funds, will the Minister of Agriculture provide more funds from the province or will he expect the produc ers to have their premiums increased to continue on with the program? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Would the honourable member like to rephrase his question so that it does not pose a hypothesis to the Minister? MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Agricultur e going to provide funds for the two stabilization programs, or is he going to be requesting the prod ucers increase their payments into those programs through the producer contributions? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware th at the programs have been developed on past history and projections as to what the future might be.

Any changes in premiums would be based on the agreement that we have with the Beef Commission and with the Hog Producers Marketing Board dealing with either the surplus or deficit in the fund, dealing with the payouts given to producers in order to support their income position in periods of low prices. Premiums are and will be changed on that basis dealing with the contract that there is, but until such a time as that is viewed, there are not anticipated any changes in premiums. Education funding- 3 percent guideline MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct a question to the Minister of Education and would ask her, in light of her ministerial statement on Friday the 13 th last, dealing with the 3 percent guideli nes requested by the government that the school divisions were supposed to adhere to, I wonder if she could inform the House whether or not the government will be bringing in legislation to deal with that particular 3 percent guideline limit. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the member opposite is raising the question of legislation that may be required relating to the existing legislation of the Education Support Program, and what I said when I made the original statement is that we would be bringing in whatever legislation was necessary during the next legislative process. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Sp eaker, a supplementary question to the Minister.

Since approximately 80 percent of a school board's budget is salaries and since we now have binding arbitration, which settles disputes in the case that the school division and the teachers, or bus drivers, or whoever they're dealing with, have to go to, I wonder if the Minister could inform the House whether or not they will be bringing in any legislation to deal with that binding arbitration clause which will allow school divisions to hold the line at 3 percent. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to co rrect some thing tha t the member oppo site suggested, that is not really accurate.

The arbitration process very seldom determines the level of settlements in this province of Manitoba. Most of the settlements and most of the contracts are done through the normal process of negotiations where the decisions are made between school boards and the teachers that are doing the bargaining. In this case, this year, we have I think at least four agreements on the table that will be largely the determining factor of settlements to come, not the arbitration process. MR. R.

BANMAN: In light of the gov ern ment's statements that they will not be increasing the provincial levy on property taxes this coming year, and in light of the fact that is predicated on and that the only way that the school divisions will be able to hold that line and not pass on increased costs to homeowners will 5637

Monday, 23 January, 1984 be to adhere to the 3 percent or lower guidelines, I wonder if the First Minister could inform the House whether or not the government will be intervening in settlements that exceed the 3 percent guideline limits. Winnipeg Jets MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health who is responsible for Sport and ask him that in view of the many news reports conce rning the Winnipeg Jets and their financial problems can the Minister bring the members of this Legislature up-to-date as to where the negotiations stand at present? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the last press release says it all . There has been some negotiating between the Enterprise and the Jets, and I believe there will be an effort today to try to bring this to an end.

The final offer of the Enterprise should be offered today. MR. W. STEEN: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker, may I ask him if the two persons that have been representing the Provincial Government during the negotiations, if either of them have had any discussions or any meetings with prospective buyers of the hockey team? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker, it's hardly the role of anybody representing the province to do that. First of all, we don't own the team; secondly, we're not the one that signs an agreement with the Jets.

This is the Enterprise because they own the Arena, so it would be absol utely wrong for the Provincial Government to do that; and secondly, I don't believe that while you're negotiating in good faith, you should try to deal with somebody else, a third party. MR. W. STEEN: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker, has he or representatives representing the Provincial Government, have they set any time limits as to when these negotiations can be comple ted by? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no time limit as such.

I think we're all anxious to see that settled one way or another, but as far as the province or the ci ty, at this time there is no time limit. Dakota-Ojibway Tribal Council MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Than� you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Attorney-G eneral. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney-General if the Dakota­ Oji bway Tribal Poli ce have the abili ty to enforce statutory regulations beyond reserved boundaries? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. 5638 HON. R.

PENNER: No, it's my understanding that their jurisdiction is strictly confined to the boundaries of the eight reserves that are involved in the program which, I think, as members of this House know, is substantially a federally-financed project that has been running for about six years now. They are assisted in their policing by the RCMP who assist both with respect to minor matters on the reserve where time is required, not otherwise available for mem bers of the DOTC force and with respect to serious crimes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question then to the Attorney-General is: has the Attorney-General received complaints from any citizens at large in the Province of Manitoba about enforcement off the reserve by members of the Dakota-Oji bway Tribal Police? HON. R. PENNER: I don't think so, but I'll take that as notice and review my files. If I receive complaints of that kind, I normally refer them to our new Director of Poli ce Services, Mr. Charlie Hill, and th ey' re processed in conjunction with the RCMP. There is a police board that is the governing board for the DOTC.

It has representatives from the RCMP on it; it has representatives from my department on it as well; and complaints of that kind would ultimately be handled by the DOTC board. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, I will provide the Attorney-General with a traffic notice issued by the Dakota-Oji bway Tribal Police to a constituent of mine operating her vehicle on Provincial Trunk Highway No. 23, and I would ask the Attorney-General that upon receipt of this and an investigation of this matter if he would issue a directive to the Dakota-Oji bway Tribal Police that their authority should not extend beyond the boundaries of the eight areas of jurisdiction to prevent any further infringements on citizens operating their vehicles on the highway. HON. R.

PENNER: I thank the member for bringing this matter to my attention, and for his undertaking to send me the particular complaint. I should note, and again this will be looked into by officials in my department, that members of the DOTC are peace officers within the meaning of the law and have certain statutory duties, which indeed may be the duties in some instances of all citizens with respect to certain kinds of offences whether or not they take place within the limited jurisdiction.

That would be the case with the City of Winnipeg Police, who the moment they step outside of the boundaries of the City of Winnipeg don't stop being peace officers, but I'll look at both aspects of the matter. Road signs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. In view of a decision made in Nova Scotia and British Columbia and recent court action taken in Ontario dealing with metric or the imposition of metric, will the First Minister have his government

Monday, 23 January, 1984 or his Minister of Highways change the road signs or have the dualing of road signs so that the residents of Manitoba have the privilege of reading the mileage and the distances in both imperial and kilometers, Mr. Speaker? Will the First Minister do that? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in answering that question, first, in attempting to recall whether it was our government or the government over across the way, in which the Member for Arthur was a member of, that put the signs up that he now wants torn down. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister agree that the imposition of metric started back in 1972, and it was not unlike his French language bill that it now has come into effect and the people feel the impact of metric? The French language bill is somewhat the same that in 19 87 the people will have the pressure of French language brought on them. In view of those lessons, Mr.

Speaker, particularly in light of all those mill ions of people who are coming in during the visit of the Pope this corning summer, would he please move to accommodate not only the people of Manitoba, but the mill ions of neighbours who are going to come in and want to know the distances in imperial measure? Children's Aid Society - regional boards MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to clarify a comment, which I made on Friday, in answer to a question about whether the nomination process at the formation of the Children's Aid Boards in the City of Winnipeg would permit nominations from the floor. Mr. Speaker, the annual meetings of the boards will permit nominations from the floor, but in the formation of the initial boards, because of the complexity - nine people, three for three years, three for two years, and three for one year - it has been recommended that we operate instead with a nominating committee that will be charged with developing a representative slate.

We've alr eady been inundated, Mr. Sp eaker , with nominations and the whole problem of validation and accomplishing that at meetings is not possible. Information as to nomi nation procedure and membership is appearing in the daily papers. It is available by a special phone line and through the media announcements; mail outs are going to all organizations that we have names of and we will be more than happy to give people full information so they can take

part in the nomination process. Capital borrowing MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the Minister's Budget, he said that the government expected to be borrowing approximately $1. 3 billion this year. Can the Minister advise how mu ch of th at mo ney remains to be borrowed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take that question as notice, but I can indicate that the amount will be somewhat less than we had originally predicted.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek appears to find that hilarious. I'm happy about it. I'm quite happy about it, Mr. Speaker, because we recall that members like him were making all kinds of ridiculous statements last year when I presented the Budget, saying that we would be at least $200 million above where we said we were going to be - and he can laugh all he wants - but the bottom line is that we will be borrowing less and that we have done by far the majority of our borrowing for the year. Estimates - 3 percent guideline MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board. The government has assigned 3 percent spending guidelines to outside agencies and I believe these agencies and others - municipal corporations, for example - are doing their best to stay within the 3 percent guideline. Can the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board give the assurance that in the government's own spending they will not bring in Estimates that go above 3 percent more than last year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co-op Development. HON. J.

COWAN: Well, just as the member indicated, the outside agencies are doing their best to stay within the guidelines and to provide for budgets which are appropriate. The government will do exactly the same thing with its own departments. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, when the First Minister appoi nted his fi rst Cabi net, I bel ieve ther e were something like 12 Ministers in addition to himself.

That number has grown steadily now to where we have 19 Ministers in addition to the First Minister and of course those recently added bureaucracies add a great many new people and new expense - deputy ministers, special assistants, executive assistants, etc. Is that the sort of example that the Treasury Board Chairman would like to see set for outside agencies attempting to keep their costs under 3 percent? HON. J.

COWAN: Yes, if outside agencies find it necessary to reorganize in order to provide better services to those which they represent and those which they seek to serve, then they will attempt to do that within the limitations that have been suggested to them. If they can make a case outside of those limitations, that case will be reviewed on its merits. The same with government. Mr. Speaker, we believe very clearly and have been consistent that government must have the capability to govern. It's becoming an increasingly complex job, notwithstanding the laissez- 5639

Monday, 23 January, 1984 faire attitude of the members opposite who have turned their back on good government whenever they had the opportunity to provide for it. We are not going to do that because we believe that good government needs resources. We believe that we can do it in a fiscally responsible way and we believe that is a challenge which we must all meet on behalf of the people we have been elected to serve. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, a question of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition state his matter of privilege. MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, last Friday when I was absent from the House the Member for lnkster raised a matter of renovations to the office of the Leader of the Opposition, and at that time, in my reading of the transcript of Hansard, I see that he made a number of false allegations about work that was done. Mr.

Speaker, I want the record to show, and to show clearly, that not one nickel of expenditure has been made on renovations and/or alterations to the office of the Leader of the Opposition since I have been in the office. I want the record as well to show, Mr. Speaker, that despite the false allegations, despite the specious suggestions of the Member for lnkster, there was absolutely no involvement on my part or on the part of any members of my family in any request whatsoever. Mr.

Speaker, I want as well the record to show that despite the sleazy suggestions and allegations of the Member for lnkster that there was no request from the former Leader of the Opposition for any renovations to be done to his office either; that the work that was done earlier last year was in the outer office, in the space occupied by the support staff and secretarial staff; that it was done at the initiation of the Deputy Minister of Go vernment Se rvic es as a matter of correcting a problem of ventilation; that it had absolutely nothing to do with the request of either the former Leader of the Opposition or myself; and that not one nickel has been spent on that matter since I have been in this office.

I want, Mr. Speaker, to correct that for the record on a matter of privilege, because the allegations were totally false and unfounded. It reflects the narrow­ minded, petty and ignorant viewpoint of the Member for lnkster. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The honourable member might have had a matter of explanation for the House, he did not have a point of privilege in that he did not raise a substantive matter at the end of his remarks. ADDRESS FOR PAPERS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brandon West, THAT an humble address be voted to her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba praying for copies of all correspondence concerning the French-Language Proposals, from January 1, 19 83 to January 19, 1984, between the Province of Manitoba and the following: 1) Government of Canada 2) Franco-Manitoban Society 3) Manitoba 23 4) Commit tee for Manitoba's Constitutional Amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, we have no difficulty accepting this Address for Papers, subject to the normal conditions regarding legal privilege and clearance by third-p arty interests. The one item I wili discuss with the member moving the motion is, I am not aware of Item 4 in the Address for Papers, "Com mittee for Manitoba's Constitutional Amendment." I don't know the organization, but I am aware of the other three and we are prepared to meet the Address for Papers. If Item No. 4, or the organization listed as 4, exists and we have correspondence, we'll provide that subject to the same caveat. MOTION presented and carried. HON.

A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before Orders of the Day with regard to our customary mode of proceeding as a parliamentary assembly. I raise my point of order in particular with regard to a matter that was touched on briefly in discussion of a point of order last Tuesday, Sir; that being the question of the length of divisions and the ringing of division bells.

Sir, I would like to address that question not on an isolated basis or not with regard to any motions moved last week or the ringing of bells last week or last summer, but rather, Sir, in the context of our basic parliamentary institution and the respect for that, and how that impacts upon the precedents and customs which we follow in this House. I would like Sir . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member is surely aware that a point of order should do with a breach of our rules or procedures, and not be a reason to make a speech on some particular matter that is bothering him.

Perhaps he would indicate which rule or matter of procedure there is a breach of. HON. A. ANSTETT: Sir, under the Appendix to our Rules, which provides that point of orders are raised with a view to calling attention to any departure from the standing orders or the customary modes of 5640

Monday, 23 January, 1984 proceeding, I am raising a point of order with regard to the modes of proceeding of our Assembly on division. Since, Sir, the opportunity to raise a point of order during a division is in some ques tion, I would refer you, Sir, to Erskine May, which provides that a member may raise a point of order during a division seated and covered,

whereas Beauchesne does not make such a provision, and the opportunity, Sir, then to raise a point of order regarding such a departure is not available. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, for those members who consider the argument specious, I would suggest they might wait to hear it. Sir, I am submitting that the opportunity to raise a point of order with regard to division is not available when the departure may or has occurred. Therefore, the only opportunity is, at the present time, at the opening of the Orders of the Day. Mr.

Speaker, I would propose to proceed on that basis, subject to the same provision in Beauchesne, Fourth and Fifth Edition, with regard to the nature of points of order. I refer, Sir, not to a specific breach of our rules, but rather to a departure from the customary mode of proceeding, and how that is impacted upon by our parliamentary precedent and, Sir, more importantly by the spirit of parliamentary law. Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne, Fifth Edition, Citation No. 10 provides, Sir, that, "Changes in the Standing Orders from time to time also give ample opportunity for the House to adjust the

interpretation of its precedents and tradition in the light of changing circumstances." MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm still not sure what alleged breach of procedure tha t the honourable member is alleging. Perhaps he would make that clear before proceeding. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interject at this time. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please, order plea se. The Honourable Government House Leader rose on a point of order. I have not yet heard it. He still has the floor. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, it was my intention to raise for your consideration, and for the consideration of members, whether or not the procedure followed, the mode of proceeding followed under our rules with regard to divisions is in accord with the precedents of this Cham ber and with the spi rit and fact of parliamentary law, provided for under our rules and under the authorities and other Parliaments which we respect with regard to that form of proceeding, there being no other opportunity, Sir, because of the apparent restriction - and if there is another opportunity, Sir, I would appreciate your advice to that effect - to raise such a point of order during the Assembly.

As I understand it, points of order are not raised with Rules Comm ittee. They must be raised in the Assembly. It is for that reason, Sir, that I believe that there may - and I do not, Sir, allege that it is the case. I raise for your consideration and the consideration of honourable members that there may be a departure from the customary mode of proceeding in this House from the basic premises, the very first principles, Sir, of parliamentary law and conventions followed by other Commonwealth Parliaments and, in particular, Sir, by the mo ther of Common wealth Parli aments at Westminster.

That is the argument I wish to advance, Sir, with regard to our form of proceeding on divisions. Mr. Speaker, I wish to demonstrate .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. As the honourable member has already noted that a point of order should have to do with a breach or an alleged breach of our rules or a matter of privilege, I know of no possibility that a member can raise a question that might possibly occur on a point of order. If he is suggesting that there is a breach of precedence, he should make that. If he does not have that allegation to make, then he clearly does not have a point of order.

The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Sir, I do not allege that there has been a breach. I allege, Sir, there has been a departure from our customary mode of proceeding. I believe, Sir, that the appendix on points of order on Page 58 of our rule book uses the words "departure from," rather than "br each of." It is, Sir, in conformity with that that I make that suggestion. I make that suggestion, Sir, in the context of the spirit of parliamentary law.

I wish to advance, Sir, for your considerations and the consideration of members of the House that th at de parture is a breach of parliamentary law, and that there is no sustenance for that breach in the convention or tradition of this Assembly or other Assemblies in the Commonwealth to which we relate for guidance, the Parliament in Ottawa and the Parliament at Westminster. That is the case, Sir, that I would like an opportunity to make today. I make that case in the context of divisions that have occurred in the last five days of sitting in this Assembly. MR.

SPEAKER: I am still not clear - the alleged breach, the departure that the honourable member is alleging. Is he saying that the conduct of those divisions last week was somehow wrong, or a departure from our procedures? If so, he should choose his words with care that he does not reflect upon the Chair. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent to in any way reflect upon the Chair . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Then sit down. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A.

ANSTETT: . . . and for that reason I have been choosing my words very carefully. I am suggesting, 5641

Monday, 23 January, 1984 Sir, that there has been a departure from our customary mode of proceeding by members of the Chamber, Sir, not by the Speaker of the House. I wish, Sir, to state the case that that departure is different from the spirit of parliamentary law and the rules which we traditionally follow in this Chamber. I would like an opportunity, Sir, to make that case before honourable members opposite dismiss it out-of -hand. It is that case, Sir, that I wish to make.

I wish therefore, Sir, to recount for honourable members the basic parliamentary rules under which we operate and under which decisions in this House are taken, and then, Sir, to extrapolate from that a rule or a form of proceeding which I believe, Sir, should apply to the taking of divisions in this Chamber. I wish to advance that argument, Sir, based on parliamentary law and historical precedent. That is my purpose, Sir, in raising the point of order. I am not clear, Sir, whether that is acceptable, and whether or not you wish me to proceed. MR.

SPEAKER: . . . that the Honourable Government House Leader proceed with his allegation of a departure from our procedure. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I suggested that Citation No. 10 in Beauchesne provides that, "Changes in the Standing Orders from time to time also give ample oppor tu nity for the House to adju st the

interpretation of its precedents and tradition in the light of changing circumstances." I think, Sir, that's a key phrase with which I hope the House will address this question. "It is impossible to estimate the extent of this body of traditional parliamentary law. In Canada, not only is there more than a century of native practice, but also Standing Order 1 adopts for Canada all the centuries of tradition (where applicable) of the United Kingdom House of Commons. Custom and precedent are basic to the parliamentary system.

Parliament, and the manner in which it works, has developed over centuries and" - more importantly, Sir, this phrase - "the written rules are relat ive newcom ers to the procedural field. Indeed, increasingly, the written rules are being used, not to codify existing practice, but rather to trim and adjust historic traditions to modern needs." Under "Speaker's Rulings," Sir, and the character they take up on th ems elves when given : "The

interpretation of both the written rules and tradition is in the hands of the Speaker and his deputies, with their rulings forming a fundamental part of procedure." It's important, Sir, to note that it is both written rules and tradition which is in the hands of the Speaker. "Trad itionally, in Canada, the House has recognized" - and I'm in Beauchesne, Citation 12 - "the usefulness of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms and Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure." And it goes on to make reference to "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice" and "J osef Redlich's "Procedure of the House of Commons." Mr.

Speaker, I think then it is clear that the Speaker is not simply an enforcer of the rules - I think members on all sides would agree - but instead, more than that, the judge thereon. Sir, you have the utmost respect of members on this side in that role. When the rules are silent and precedents lacking or inconclu sive, Speakers have traditionall y relied on customs in the context of the basic principles of parliamentary law. We concur, Sir, re the application of these rules of

interpretation with regard to the question of taking divisions and calling in members. I would, Sir, refer to Beauchesne, Fourth Edition, Citation 67 - and, Sir, for purposes of this discussion, I would appreciate the indulgence of members opposite with regard to the basic principles of parliamentary law which guide all of us. Sir, I refer to

Section 49 of the Magna Carta, which reads: "In all !hose things which are appointed to be done by these 25 Barons, if it happened that all the 25 have been present and have differed in their opinions about anything, or if some of them who had been summoned would not or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed shall be held as firm and as valid as if all 25 had agreed in it." Perhaps the first statement of parliamentary law and practice out of Runnymede almost eight centuries ago. That is reconfirmed, Sir , less than 100 years ago in, amazingly,

Section 49, the same

section number, of The British North America Act. "Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote." Both, Sir , dir ectly reflective of parliamentary law with regard to divisions. Then, Sir, I'd like to reflect terms of that basic premise in parliamentary law on Josef Redlich . A MEMBER: Who is that again? HON. A. ANSTETT: Josef Redlich, author of "The Procedure of the House of Commons" published in 19 08 in a three volume study. Mr.

Redlich, Sir, on Page 5 of Volume 2 says, "The journals are by no means the only authentic sources of information as to what has been established by custom. A large part of what concerns procedure is never recorded in them; but not unfrequently usages have been formed and long observed without giving rise to any definite decision of the House or the Speaker, which would constitute a precedent.

Long-continued practice, moreover, is not always requ ired for the creation of customs in procedure." Our rule, Sir, Rule 1(2) provide s th at we make reference to Beauchesne and in terms of our rules in 1 Sub 2, we refer specifically to the rules in force in 19 55 which are more accura tely catalogued in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition than the Fifth with which we are usually familiar. And this, Sir, deals very directly with the question of the procedure followed in Ottawa in the Federal House of Commons with regard to bell ringing. That, Sir, reads as follows in Citation 63 on Page 51.

I'm reading, Sir, about halfway down the paragraph: "If at least five members then rise, the Speaker says: 'Call in the members,' and the Sergeant -at-A rms immediately sees that all the bells are rung, and that other steps are taken to bring in all the members from the lobbies and adjacent rooms. The Whips gather their co-partisans who may be in the neighbourhood. There is no special time fixed here as in England, where two minutes only are allowed for calling in the members. It generally takes 10 or 15 minutes to get them, the 5642

Monday, 23 January, 1984 Speaker remaining in the Chair although order is not strictly maintained. The signal for taking the vote is the return of the Sergeant-at-Arms who comes in and announces the performance of his duty by an obeisance to the Speaker who then calls the House to order, rises and reads the question." Mr.

Speaker, further in Redlich with regard to the obligations of the House and the powers of the Speaker with regard to ordering the business of the House, speaking of the functions of the Speaker, Sir, and I address this to all members, rather than to you, because I'm sure you are aware, "He must further, like a judge, watch to see that the advance of the majority and the resistance of the minority observe the spirit of the rules and the whole spirit of parliamentary life.

It is only when the Speaker is looked upon as a judge that we reach a complete understanding of his attitude to the rules on one hand and the House on the other. As the law stands above judge and parties, so do settled tradition and the unwritten standards of parliamentary law stand above the Speaker and the House. To apply this law to deal with wise discrimination between the House and the individual member and between party and party, to do this according to the rules and in the spirit of parliamentary law is the essential and crowning task of the Speaker.

"If we would understand the spirit of parliamentary law, we must clearly grasp the principl e tha t its provisions, however various, are all directed to one end, namely, that of keeping the activity of Parliament in full swing and of securing that in any event those affairs of state shall be attended to which would not be dealt with without a regulated force of proceedings in the House of Commons. On the other hand, the legislative proposals placed before Parliament by the government must be promptly dispatched.

On the other, a minority must under certain circumstances be given a chance of postponing the decision of Parliament as to some particular su bject.

These conflicting req uirements may both under different conditions become necessities of state to the securing of which the order of business and its treatment by the Speaker must contribute." Sir, I refer more specifically to the decision of Speaker Bra nd, in 18 77, in the Ho use of Commons at Westminster, quoted in Hansard Volume 235, Page 181 4, a decision, Sir, now 109 years old, but still is relevant when Speaker Brand dealt with the obstruction tactics of the Irish National Party under the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell.

Speaker Brand ruled, "This House is perfectly well aware that any member wilfully and persistently obstructing public business without just and reasonable cause is guilty of a contempt of this House." Sir, more directly then to the question of bells and the ringing of what we have here, being electronic buzzers, I would refer you, Sir, and members on both sides, to a statement made by Madame Speaker Sauve in March of 1982 and then more specifically to a decision made and reaffirmed twice in May of last year, May 17th and May 24th in which Madame Speaker Sauve dealt with the question of limits on dilatory motions.

Madame Sauve pointed out at the time of her March 19 82 statement that it was not a ruling, Sir, but rather a statement for the guidance of members. However on May 17th and May 24th she made specific rulings, Sir, which limited the length of time provided for divisions.

I would refer you also, Sir, to her statement with regard to a division called by Speaker Michener when it became apparent during his term as Speaker of the Federal House of Commons, that the two Whips could not agree to an end to the bells and Speaker Michener is reported to have requested that the Whips attend by a specific time and if they did not attend that the vote would be held without them.

I think it is appropriate, Sir, to refer to the Table Research Office in Ottawa, which has done some specific research on this question in an attempt to address the difficulties associated with a new form of obstruction which has been new to parliaments, amazingly only in Canada, not practised elsewhere in Canada. One of the propositions, Sir, is the one that the Whips, and the Whips alone, signal from both government and opposition and that is a hard and fast practice with regard to the ending of a division. There is even, Sir, some who would argue that it is a rule.

Charles Robert, on Page 50 of the table, which is the Journal of the Society of Clerks at the Table, says as follows on Page 50: "Ho wever this proposition is not nearly as clear as has been assumed. Earlier editions of Beauchesne indicate that the signal for stopping the bells was given, not by the Whips but by the Sergeant­ at-Arms, an officer of the House who acts under the authority of the Speaker." More importantly, Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Roberts concludes in the last paragraph of his article, "Co-operation can exist only when there is a mutual understanding of the role to be played by the government and by the opposition. This, in turn, is founded on a recognition that the transaction of public business must be secured in an or derly manner while, at the same time, acknowledging the right of the minority to be heard." Mr. Speaker, I submit that while members opposite may well be right, that in the long term this may be a matter which the Rules Committee may wish to discuss.

In our view on this side, it is also a matter, Sir, for all members in this House to consider and you may wish to want to consider it further in terms of the advisability of addressing this conundrum. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Bill 11 5 was called more than eight days ago now, through eight sitting days, that ii has only been debated once, that members, as my Premier said earlier, appear to now want to debate it at least twice for each member on the other side.

That, Sir, is a privilege that is provided under our rules, but certainly there is no such privilege provided in the form of the unlimited ringing of the bells. I would submit, Sir, that one of the considerations that must be taken by this House and by its presiding officer is whether or not there is a limit; whether or not there is intervention required; whether or not with respect to the taking of divisions in this Chamber, the purpose of the bells in accordance with parliamentary tradition is to summon the members or to tell them to go home.

I submit, Sir, that the purpose of the bells is to summon members; that to have the bells for any other purpose would be to deny the right of government to bring forward legislation and to see it proceed to ena ctment; th at the unlimi ted possi bil ities for obstruction by a minority or by an opposition of the right of government to have its legislation proceed to enactment, after proposing it to the House, would make the opposition the government; would make, Sir, the 5643

Monday, 23 January, 1984 right of government to propose and enact one of the most basic principles of parliamentary law annulity. I submit, Sir, that would not be healthy for this House or for parliamentary practice to provide that the right of government to propose and enact its legislation can be determined to be annulity by the opposition. I would ask you, Sir, to consider taking these points under advisement for your consideration with regard to the ringing of division bells in this Chamber. Thank you. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

I listened very carefully to the honourable member's arguments and while it is certainly well researched and might be quite effective, if there were to be any debate in the House as to the changing of the rules, the honourable member did not show in any way that there was any departure from the customary mode of procedure in this House, therefore, there is no point of order. The Honourable Opposition House Leader on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, because the gratuitous remarks of my learned ex-a ssistant Clerk of the Assemb ly, now Government House Speaker, has in his remarks reflected on you, Sir, and on the Chair. Mr. Speaker, in making those remarks, he has assumed and was speaking for all members of the House. I want to make it absolutely clear to you, Sir, that we do not feel that way. I've listened very carefully to you, Sir, asking the Government House Leader repeatedly to refer specifically to the breach of the rules that causes a point of order to be raised, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase, order please.

The honourable member is continuing the debate started by the Honourable Government House Leader. A ruling has been given. There is no point of order; therefore, there is no debate. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Can the Honourable Government House Leader indicate the next item of business? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, would you call the resolution standing in the name of the the Honourable Member for Fort Garry? ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND MENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR.

SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General and the amendm ent thereto proposed by the Honourable Government House Leader. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to assume my responsibility and take up my duty to speak 5644 on the important matter before us, Mr. Speaker, namely, the government's latest revisions and latest version in respect to its resolution to amend the Constitutions of Manitoba and Canada. I say "r esponsibility and duty," Mr.

Speaker, and I do not say "pleasure" because I think it can hardly be described as a pleasure to find oneself, as a Manitoban, still caught up in the turmoil and trauma of social and cultural divisiveness in this province after lo these seven months - turmoil, trauma and social divisiveness caused entirely unnecessarily, Sir, by a government over there which unfortunately did not apparently know what it was doing. It remains a duty, Mr.

Speaker, and a heavy responsibility, bearing on all of us on this side of the House, to continue to serve in this ongoing debate and to continue to try to prevent that government from damaging our province further. I say damage, Mr.

Speaker, because in this debate we're dealing with an incipient or a potential social tragedy, and that is to be found in the damage to the spirit and the brotherhood of Manitobans that has already been worked or for which the ground has already unfortunately been laid as a consequence of the foolhardy cou rse of action pursue d by th at government for the past seven months in this area of policy and debate. And that is the tragedy, Sir.

The tr agedy is th at many of us have Franco­ Manitoban friends as well as Anglophone Manitoban friends who stop us on the street, who stop us in the halls of this building, who stop us in the course of serving our constituencies and performing our function as legislators in this province, regularly - certainly weekly, sometimes daily - and ask us, Sir, what is that government doing to us and why are they doing it? That is a question of torment that has been put over and over again to members on this side of the House.

It is a question of torment that has been put to me, the Member for Fort Garry, by constituents in my own cons titue ncy and by Franc°"' Manitobans of longstanding acquaintanceship and friendship of mine, longstanding associations that have spanned a great period of time for them and for me in this beloved province of ours.

I must say that in the time I have lived in Manitoba - and that now, Sir, is 40 years of my life - I have never, until this past seven months, had this trauma tic experience of having fellow Manitobans, in this case Francophone Manitobans, stop me and plead to me, and ask me, what is that government doing, why are they putting us in this position in which they have put us? Why are they turning Manitobans of other ethnic and cultural backgrounds against us?

Why are they embarrassing me and compromising me, and making me feel as though to some extent, for some inexplicable r oiason I have resented the atmosphere, the environment, and the history of Manitoba, and have always felt myself as a Franco-Manitoban somehow denied my rights? I have never felt that way. That is what my Franco-Manitoban friends say to me. For that government of the day to put those words into my mouth as a Manitoban is for them to do enormous disservice and tragedy to me as a Manitoban, to me as a Franco-Manitoban, and to all persons in our province.

That, Sir, is a fair paraphrase of conversations that I have had, conversations that have been brought to

Monday, 23 January, 1984 me, directed to me by many of my Franco-M anitoba friends over the past seven months, and that experience has been repeated again and again, Sir, for and among my colleagues on this side of the House. It has been repeated again and again among Manitobans, whom ! represent and whom my colleagues represent, and I suggest without fear of contradiction, Sir, among Manitobans whom those members opposite in the government represent, whether they admit it or not.

Whether they admit it or not their constituents have had the same experience and have come to them with the same pleading agony, the same pleading reflection and representation of inner torment, the same dismay and concern over the kinds of corners and positions into which they've been backed by the foolhardy course of that government opposite.

So I say, Sir, that I speak today in this debate out of a sense of duty and responsibility, and out of a sense of trauma and torment, and to a sense of damage in this province, and to a condition that represents at least, Sir, a potential or an incipient social tragedy for this province. The greater part of the tragedy is that those members opposite, through this course of action, have so poisoned the atmosphere in Manitoba now, have so poisoned the harmony , and so damaged the cordial relations that used to exist between our ethnic and linguistic groups that it will be a long, long time, Mr.

Speaker, a long, long time before any government, or any party, will be prepared to proceed very vigorously with any initiatives whatsoever in this field. One of the burning questions for many of us, Mr.

Sp eaker , is with all the urgent problems faci ng Manitobans today, with the situation, for example, in our health care system, which is in deep trouble and under deep challenge; with the situation in respect to the economy and the opportunity, or lack of opportunity for jobs and careers, and career advancement for our people, including our young people; with the situation in terms of unemployment and the high cost of living and the difficulty for many of our people simply to survive in today's conditions; with the difficulties in terms of financing our priority public services; with all of those problems, challe nges, and urgent consi derations faci ng Manitoba ns tod ay, why are Manitobans in their own persons and through their legislators in this Chamber being forced to expend their time, their energy, and their money at this critical moment on this issue, which has been deliberately developed and foisted upon the Legislature and upon the people of this province, by a government that is misguided in its approach to Manitoba's issues and challenges of the day?

Why are we being asked to spend such energy , and such time , and such commitment on this issue, Mr. Speaker, when there is so much that we should be about, so much to which we should be attending in terms of the social and economic well-being ol our people. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that many, many health care professionals are extremely concerned about the priorities here. Whether those members opposite care to admit it or not, Mr. Speaker, many health care profe ssionals are ext remely conc erned about the priorities here.

That government over there would not permit a debate on the difficulties, the troubles plaguing the health care system in this province. They would not permit it. They would not address the kinds of references to a crisis in our health care and hospital system that have been raised by many health care profes sionals and commentators, and media commentators, and consumers of our health care services in the past month or two. They have insisted instead in attempting to smoke screen those issues and divert attention from those issues by focusing on this manufactured one.

They have denied Manitobans the opportunity to debate and add ress critical social issues of that kind. That cynical unwillingness to meet its responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, on the part of this government has not gone unnoticed in the health care community. I can assure the honourable members opposite of that fact, that health care professionals have approached us in subs tantial number, with significant expression of concern on th at point. They have noticed that government's total lack of consideration for those issues that need to be addressed today. Mr.

Speaker, there is a way of this traumatic impasse into which this government has forced our province to descend and I wish to spend a few moments this afternoon addressing that possible avenue of approach and solution. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, in its explanatory background notes on its proposed amendments of January 5th, 19 84, to the original resolution, which was moved in this House by the Attorney-General last July 4th, the government in the person of the Government House Leader had this to say.

If the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources can restrain himself for just a few moments, Mr. Speaker, he can have an opportunity to participate in the debate. If he would restrain himself for a moment I think he might benefit to some extent from listening to some of the things that some of us on this side of the House are trying to say. In those explanatory background notes, Mr.

Speaker, moved as I say by the Attorney-G eneral, moved on January 5th by the Government House Leader in support of the latest proposed amendments to the original resolution of the government, the government in the person of the House Leader had this to say, and I quote directly from those explanatory notes distributed with the proposed amendments. "New

Section 23. 1 The statement of official languages has been redrafted to act as a

summary of

Section 23 and a

preamble to the substantive part of

Section 23. 1. The substantive part of

Section 23. 1 protects the freed om to use English and French against any restrictive statutes of the Legislature. Object: to prevent legislation such as Bill 101 in Quebec, where the freedom to use English in the private sector has been attacked by the Legislature." As I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a direct quote from the govern ment's own explana tory notes. By the gover nment's own tes timo ny the refore, Si r, the substantive part of

Section 23. 1 in its latest amended form, the January 5th form, the important or crucial

part is the part that protects the freedom to use English 5645

Monday, 23 January, 1984 and French against any restrictive statutes of the Legislature. That, Sir, is an obje ctive to which I would think all members of this Ho use and inde ed all Manitobans of good will can subscribe. It is certainly an objective to which I subscribe. I think we can achieve that, Mr. Speaker, if the government truly has the courage of its convictions and really means what it says in those explanatory notes. I think, Sir, that we are very close.

If the government honestly means that the crucial purpose of 23. 1, as it struggles by means of its latest proposed amendments to find an acceptable wording, is to "p rotect the freedom to use English and French against any restrictive statutes of the Legisla ture," then I suggest that we really can achieve that in a way that I think should be acceptable to both sides of this House. It can be achieved, Sir, through further refinement of the government's original proposed resolution; that is, further amend ment of the government's prop osed January 5th amendment being debated here.

It should be clear to the government, Mr. Speaker, that the fund amental sticking point in its original proposed resolution, as far as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this Legislature is concerned, and as far as an overwhelming majority of Manitobans expressing themse lves through last October's pleb iscites are concerned, is to be found and always has been found in its evoc ation of federal -style biling ualism for Manitoba.

It has been feared and di slik ed and mistrusted by a majority of Manitobans ever since it was introduced last July 4th because, rightly or wrongly, Sir, it has conjured up visions and reminiscences for the people of this province of a national program of legislated bilingualism implied and invoked by the Federal Government which a great many Manitobans and millions of their fellow countrymen across Canada feel was sold to them, Sir, in cynicism if not outright deception.

A great many Manitobans and mil lions of their countrymen across Canada believe, rightly or wrongly, that they were deceived by the architects and the salesmen of the federal bilingualism program in this country of the 1970's. Their experience is that it has been a program that, at least in its application if not in its concept . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. l.

SHERMAN: . . . has damaged the economy, has damaged the nation's social harmony, has damaged the Armed Forces, has damaged their jobs and their career advancement opportunities very very severely in many instances, and all for the sake of ensuring the continued support of a particular and an influential voting block essential to the survival of the Federal Go vernment of the day. That, Sir , has been the experience of the Federal Bilingualism Program for these Manitobans of whom I speak.

Their attitude towards anything more of this nature has, quite understandably, become the attitude, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." They are not about to let themselves be fooled that second time. If members opposite don't believe me, Mr. Speaker, let them ask the First Minister. Let them ask their own Leader.

The First Minister knows that what I'm saying is true. 5646 The First Minister has taken great pains in the past, and quite understandably in my view, to emphasize that he does not want a federal style of bilingualism program developed and applied here in Manitoba in the provincial context. That is not what his government's proposed amendment to the Constitution is intended to do.

The Government House Leader, the Attorney­ General, the former Government House Leader and many other spokesmen for the government side in this debate have taken pains to try to stress and make the same point, Sir, that this is not federal-style bilingualism.

Indeed, in many of the dramatic changes they have already made to their original position of last June 17th, the date on which in this House the former Government House Leader , the Attorney- General, deli vered his opening and introductory ministerial statement on this whole subject, and in many of the equally dramatic changes they have made to the wording and content of their original resolutions, changes embod ied in their latest proposed amendments of January 5th, members of the Treasury Bench have come a long way in backing off a position that did smack very strongly of federal­ style bilingualism, and coming around to a posture and a revised proposal that is quite obviously designed to soothe those fears in the public's breast.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, their words and their actions over there attest very clearly to the truth of which I am now reminding them, the truth that in their own hearts they quite obviously know; the fact that many of us in Manitoba and all across Canada look at anything having to do with bilingualism programming introduced by a government and saying, conditioned by the experience we had under the federal program, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Hence, I return, Mr.

Speaker, to my point that the almost insurmountable barrier that the government of this province has faced and continues to face in its tor ment ed st ruggle to foist its resolution on the Manitoba mosaic is to be found in that resolution's reminder - maybe realistic, maybe not, subliminal perhaps but there just below the surface nonetheless - that resolution's reminder of the federal bilingual program, and the way it has been applied.

Nothing that the government spokesmen, including the First Minister, have been able to say, nor all the retreats in strategy, nor all the retreats in language, nor content of the resol ution itself, nor all the amendments so far have altered that !act, Mr. Speaker.

None of the revisions proffered by the Government Ho use Leader and his col leagues, none of the protestations offered by members of the Treasury Bench and other spokesmen on that side, none of the vast, sweeping reversals, retreats and changes in the wording and content of the resolution itself have sufficed to dispel that fear and that suspicion and that anxiety in the public mind. None of those things have altered the reality of evocation and reminder of federal bilingualism. None of them have enabled the government to do anything about that public anxiety and that public concern.

It's still there, that reminder of federal-style bilingualism. It's still there, that suspicion and mistrust in the public mind, Mr. Speaker. On that last point, the Government House Leader may feel constrained to raise an argument. Some of his col leagues may feel constrained to raise an argument, because they may insist that although that

Monday, 23 January, 1984 suspicion and mistrust were there to begin with and although the evocation of federal-style bilingualism was there to begin with, everything has changed or should be changed now because of the government's many many modifications of its original position, and its many retreats in language in the resolution's contents.

Members opposite may suggest that the resolution's original stumbling block, its original pitfalls lay in its constitutional provision for vastly-e xtended French Language Services in our province, and in the concept of entrenchment itself, entrenchment of those provisions in the Constitution of the country and, because its latest proposed amendments remove that profound point of contention, Sir, it has addressed and rooted out that problem. That may be the view of some members opposite.

The sore or the ulcer that was gnawing away at the credibility and acceptability of the resolution from the very day of its inception has now been removed, now been excised as a result of the latest amendments brought forward on January 5th by the Government House Leader. If that's their contention, Mr. Speaker, if that's the posture either of the Government House Leader or the government itself or any spokesman over there, I want to suggest with respect, Sir, that they are dead wrong.

Because it's a misreading of the history of Manitoba and it's a misreading of the mosaic of Manitoba and the public reaction to the Federal Bilingualism Program of the 1970's to suggest that was all they had to do to make their position, to make their reso lution acceptable to Manitobans. It's not sufficient simply to remove tha t deeply contentious and highly unacce ptable attem pt to entrench an array of new French Language Services from the resolution, Mr. Speaker, to make that resolution entirely palatable to this opposition or palatable to the majority of Manitobans.

More is required than that, and this is the reality th at government has failed to acknowledge, has failed to face, perhaps does not even understand or recognize. This is the reality that we plead with that government to address. This is the reality that we urge that government and plead with that government to recognize and understand. More is requir ed than tha t simple removal of th at highly contentious and unacceptable entrenchment proposal, Mr. Speaker. What the government must acknowledge, must be prepared to face if it truly wants a solution to this impasse is that the latest proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act is not quite enough to erase that stigma of federal bilingualism of which I spoke, Sir. Slowly but inexorably, that government is bleeding to death over this ill-considered initiative that it took seven months ago.

But the tragedy is that slowly, but inexorably, many of the harmonious relations that have extended and existed for so long in our history among the various parts and components of Manitoba have also been suf fer ing a hemorrhage as a consequence of the traumatic experience we've been put through in this province in this unnecessary debate - unnecessary because the initial initiativ e was unnecessary - highly necessary once a misguided gover nment persisted in pursuing that kind of unfortunate course.

Sir, in order to stop that bleeding, in order to end that hemorrhaging and in order to find a solution to the impasse, the government must go one step further, at least one step beyond the step that it has taken in these amendments before us today. If they want worried Manitobans to be able to breathe easy on this point, they need to make a further revision to the resolution that they have put before us. The current amend ments introd uced by the Government House Leader on January 5th and the subject of our debate at this point in time come close to resolving the impasse.

I think the government is coming very close in its latest proposed amendments, the ones that are in front of us right now, but they're not there yet, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the Government House Leader and his colleagues opposite that they can come all the way, and the government can come all the way, with a further simple refinement of the terminology of the amendment itself. What's more, Mr. Speaker, it can do so without compromising itself. The government can achieve this without compromising itself.

I remind the Government House Leader and his colle ague s, Sir , of their own words, their own explanatory notes to which I referred a few moments ago, those notes which say: "The substantive part of

Section 23. 1 protects the freedom to use English and French against any res trictiv e statutes of the Legislature." Well I read notes of that kind, proffered so readily and so impr essively with the propo sal for th.e amendments itself, as indicating and spelling out to me, Sir, and to all members of this Legislature that essentially what the government now is concerned with preserving in its initiative is that protection of the freed om to use English and Fr ench against any restrictive statutes of the Legislature, and that other aspects and components of its original resolution are unimportant in relative terms when compared to that objective.

The objective is that protection, and we can get it, Sir. We can achieve that. If that's what the government wants, I say, let's do it. Let's provide that protection. We can provide it without using langu age and te rmin ology and content th at stirs up fears and suspicions in Manitobans' hearts. We can do it, Sir, by means of refining the language used in proposed new Sections 23.7 and 23.9( 1) .

We can do it t-iy refining and reshaping the terminology contained in those parts of the government's proposed amendment; that is, moving on Sections 23.7 and Sections 23.9( 1) to alter the language if necessary to accommod ate that particular objective spelled out in the explanatory notes offered by the Government House Leader, that objective being the protection of the freedom to use English and French against unforeseen legislative events or initiatives in the future. To accomplish this, Sir, we start first, I suggest to the Government House Leader and his colleagues, by addressing

Section 23. 1, by removing from the public fear, concern and anxiety from that sphere, the spectre that is still there of federal-style bilingualism. Therefore, on behalf of my party, Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a subamendment to the government's amendment before us. I do so, Mr. Speaker, with great optimism and confidence in its acceptability to the government, particularly to the Government House Leader. I will be proposing that amendment in the next 5647

Monday, 23 January, 1984 minute or two, Mr. Speaker, but in support of it I wish to make an observation for the record. On Friday, January 13 , 19 84, we moved, through my colleague the Honourable Member for River Heights, our first proposed subamendment to the government's proposed amendment to the constitutional resolution. It was ruled not acceptable, Sir, and it"s not my intention to discuss it. That would obviously be a violation of the rules, but I presume it's perfectly legitimate, Mr.

Speaker, to refer to the position it represented - the Progressive Conservative position, our caucus position, the opposition position , the position of tho se Manitobans for whom we've spoken throughout this debate. It represented, Sir, th at position and it was enthusiastically and widely hailed by the Government House Leader. In fact, the Government House Leader dominated weekend news report that weekend - that was the weekend of January 14th and 15 th - with his effusive and glowing responses to it. So I'm absolutely confident, as are my colleagues, Mr.

Speaker, that he'll have no difficulty with the sub-amendment which we intend to propose now. On that occasion, the Government House Leader called it, " ... a major Tory reversal." I don't accept for a moment that it was a major Tory reversal, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly was a major articulation by this party of its intention to salvage what we can for cordial and harmonious intercultural relations in this province, and it was an intention to preserve the integrity of the Manitoba mosaic as it has been constituted for the last 11 0 years in this province.

The Government House Leader responded to it, leapt to it with enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker, that would have impressed even those champions of bilingualism programming in the federal sphere. The Government House Leader indicated quite clearly and quite emphatically to us, Mr. Speaker, that he saw a solution here for the problems that he had constructed for himself and into which he had led his government. He said, Sir, that it is, " ... clearly not a stalling tactic. It shows that they, the Tories, are willing to move," and he went on in like vein in interview after interview that weekend, Mr. Speaker.

So I have no doubt that the Government House Leader is going to find it equally comfortable and equally exci ting to accept and accommoda te the sub ­ amendment that we are going to move now. Mr. Speaker, because this one is moved in a way that is technically in order and apparently the only thing wrong with the other one was the fact that it had some technical inadequacies, but the content, the thrust, the purport of it was entirely acceptable to the Government House Leader; in fact he loved it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MR. SPEAKER, J. Walding: Order please, order please.

The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite has just said that the content of a previous amendment moved by his side, I was entirely happy with. Mr. Speaker, the same press reports he just quoted all contain very strong and direct reservations with regard to that sub-amendment with respect to

Section 23. 1. He knows that, Sir, and to suggest the opposite is to misrepresent my statements both in this House and to the media. Mr. Sp eak er, th at amendment was enti rely unacceptable with regard to its change proposed to 23. 1. I said so ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest to members opposite that they consult the newspaper clipping, quoted by the Member for Fort Garry, in which I said the opposition has ignored one of the most vital and important parts of the proposed amendment, but with regard to the other sections, yes, they were very attractive and very interesting. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for that explanation. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could you just advise me how much time I have left, due to that last interruption? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has five minutes remaining.

MR. l. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've just witnessed one of the greatest conversions since St. Paul on the road to Damascus in th at position articula ted by the Government House Leader. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government House Leader was singing a far different tune. He recognizes though that he's got himself into difficulty by his response to that amendment, and I don't blame him for attempting to get himself out of that corner, but I don't doubt his sincerity, Mr. Speaker, in his response.

I believe that he was quite sincere in that initial response, because I think that he saw for the first time, very clear ly, Mr. Sp eaker , a major indica tion of this opposition's willingness to help solve this impasse and an acceptable exit for himself from those deep deep waters into which he got himself and his party, so I accept that response and the sincerity of that response.

I simply suggest to him that it was not accurate on his part to suggest that it represented any kind of Tory rev ersal, becaus e our position on it has been consistently throughout that we did not wish to see the entrenchment of those extended French Language Services and those provisions were taken out of the resolution in the latest propo sals for amend ment brought forward by the Government House Leader himself.

Now what I'm saying is we can go one step further and I am absolutely confident the Government House Leader will accept that prop osal on the basis of per fo rmanc e two weeks ago, and reshape th at resolution into a form that works in the best interests of all Manitobans, that worl<s in the best interests of 5648

Monday, 23 January, 1984 this Legislature in this House, that resolves this difficulty, that breaks this impasse and that reinforces the existing 11 6-year integrity of Manitobans and their mosaic and their cultural harmony, in the form in which we have known it ever since The Manitoba Act was passed in 1870, Mr. Speaker. We do that through offering to this Legislature and to this province the following sub­ amendment to strengthen the government's proposed amendment and to reinforce Manitoba history and Manitoba cultural harmony. On that note, Sir, I therefore move, seconded by the Hon ourable Member for St. No rbert, tha t the amendment be amended by striking out all of clause (

a) thereof and substituting therefor the following clause: (

a) by striking out the proposed

Section 23. 1 of The Manitoba Act 1870, as set out in

Section 1 of the Proclamation and by renumb ering the remai ning sections as required. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't believe my ears today when I was driving down in the car to hear the news report that the First Minister was blaming the Conservatives for the state of the present Legislature, "that the economy is our government's priority." Mr.

Speaker, this government can rule on the business of the House and this is the agreement that we came to - that we would come back and debate the issue. But this issue we thought would be debated in October, not in January. We had the hearings; we sat all sum mer. We had the hearings and then there was silence. We didn't come back right away. The government sat, and they sat, and they sat, and then when did they call the House back? Not 'till the 5th of January, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the present Premier of this province hasn't seen fit to speak on this issue unless he's outside the House.

Then he is saying, instead of striving for a solution to the French language question that respects the views of Manitobans, the Conservatives have turned their backs and suggested six months more of debate. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Our move was to hoist the bill for six months - not to speak on it for another six months. Mr. Speaker, this government is at liberty to bring in a budget, to bring in Estimates, to bring in whatever it pleases and let us get on with the important things, the things that matter most to Manitobans.

Instead we're here glued to this building discussing something that the vast majority of Manitobans don't want. They don't want to see the entrenchment of any statement that would extend French language rights in Manitoba and that is the reason that we have brought in the motion to delete 23. 1 out of the present watered-down resolution that the government brought in. Mr. Speaker, it is most important to the people of this province that that

section is deleted. That is the same stand we have taken from Day One. When we stayed in the House this summer it was to assure Manitobans they had a chance to be heard. Well, they had a chance to be heard and they told this government what they wanted but they haven't listened. Mr. Speaker, on January 14th, in the Winnipeg Free Press, it indicated that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as has been mentioned by the Member for Fort Garry when we brought in our first amendment, was just elated at this sudden turnaround. Mr. Sp eaker, he was absolutely elated. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in that he said that it was a dramatic change. Where has he been? Where have the members opposite been? Practically every speaker on this side has referred to 23. 1 as the offending section. In the same

article the Minister of Municipal Affairs was quoted as saying: "Ho wever", he said, "it's clearly not a stalling tactic it shows that they're willing to move." Mr. Speaker, that's what this is all about. Surely they don't think we're here to stall. We're here to get rid of this offending section. We mean business about this. We want to represent the people of Manitoba as this government cert ainly has not. Wh at is left, the translation sections, and exclusions, and 23.9, 1, and 2 referring to other languages. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the amazement of the new Minister of Municipal Affairs I am still opposed to the

Section 23. 1, and we are still opposed to 23. 1. When the new Minister was explaining the changes in Hansard, on January 5th, Page 5377 he said - "It has always clearly, Mr. Speaker, been the government's intention to leave

Section 23 in its original form and ensure that none of the amendments proposed in The Manitoba Act, the original resolution, in any way impact on the wording or

interpretation of

Section 23." If that was the case, Mr. Speaker, what are we doing here? Withdraw the amendment 23. 1, agree with our proposed sub-amendment. It is unbelievable to me that this government was prepared to push the original resolution through. Whether by design or ignorance, this government was ready to adopt a resolution to amend the Constitution of Canada and they didn't know what they were doing, but they were going ahead anyway. It boggles the imagination that the members opposite were blindly following the Attorney-General and they knew not where. Thank God, Mr.

Speaker, that the members on this side, along with the Member for Elmwood, and the people of Manitoba, recognized where this crew was taking us, as the Member for Roblin- Russell mentioned, down the garden path. To get to this new amendment we had to stay in this House all sum mer. Mr. Speaker, we pushed, we shoved, we did everything we could to get them to agree to hearings. At first there were going to be no hearings. Then there was going to be limited hearings. Then finally we got an agreement. They were determined to push that original amendment through, Mr.

Speaker, but we were as determined that they would not without hearing the people. They got to the point, Mr. Speaker, this government, that they were so afraid we would let the bells ring that the government, themselves, spent one day filibustering. Make no mistake. This government intended to pass the original resolution. We had the odd lighter moment, Mr. Speaker. I think it was a Friday night when the government had to let 5649

Monday, 23 January, 1984 the bells ring to call in their members. The Member for Pembina described it for us as seen from the front steps of this building with the crowning glory, of course, being the Member for Dauphin with his hand on the door as it closed. Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this exercise that we went through this summer was to have hearings so that the government would listen and would introduce amendments. Well, they did introduce amendments, Mr. Speaker, but they didn't go nearly far enough. Every day during the summer, we had calls, "Can you keep them from passing this resolution?" Today, Mr.

Speaker, nothing has changed. Only the calls have increased. The demands are greater. The people are far more aware of the damage that this government has done with this resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have problems in this province that have arisen from this resolution, neighbour not speaking to neighbour. It has set, as I believe Mr. Georges Forest mentioned, the French back about 50 years in this province. I can believe it, Mr. Speaker.

No one wanted to be standing in this Legislature, speaking as we have been on th ese reso lutions with the gover nment determined to get its way and the people of Manitoba wanting them to halt, stop, wait, listen to us. That wasn't happening. It's a funny thing, Mr. Speaker, about people in communities, and I noticed it when the schools were closing in our area. You get people involved. They have resources, and they are resourceful.

The information, the research, the time, the money that they will spend on their own to get to the bottom of an issue, they turn out to be the resources that a school division can use. This is the same thing that's happened in this province. I don't imagine there are too many people that understood the Constitution of Canada or Manitoba or

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. Now we have countless numbers of people who understand the meaning of that act, who agreed with what we did when the Supreme Court made the ruling. But now, Mr. Speaker, that this government - and I can only think it was in ignorance. Surely, no one would have done this knowing exactly what they were doing - I can only believe that it's in ignorance that they got started on this issue, and they don't know how to get off. Well, we are giving them a bit of an out, Mr. Speaker. Remove 23. 1. The government made their first mistake, Mr.

Speaker, when th ey lis tened to people other than their constituents, and they're making the same mistake today. Finally, or should I say reluctantly, this government agreed to hearings around the province after that original amendment was introduced. Then, as the Member for Turtle Mountain said, silence, except for the plebiscites and the referendum. Mr. Speaker, no one had to pull the vote out in the last municipal election, because they had the motivation to get out themselves.

The people of this province went out en masse, and in the city or even just generally it was a 78-percent vote against the extension of French Language Services in the Constitution. The pressure, Mr. Speaker, that was put on the council and the Mayor to withdraw, not to have the plebiscite, but this was the only route the people of Manitoba had to go. This government was not going to call an election.

They were not going to let them be heard in any other way, so they demanded of the people that are probably closest to them, the elected officials that are closest to them, tha t there be pleb iscites, tha t there be referendums, and there were all over the province. Mr. Speaker, they wanted to be heard, and at least one level of government was about to let them. They were demanding that. That was the only election that was coming up right then. Whether it was a municipal issue or not, it was affecting everyone. That is the level of government that chose to listen at that time to the people.

They didn't have the choice to call an election. They didn't have the choice to vote on this government, but they sure let their municipal officials know that they wanted a chance to vote on it there, and they got that chance. Mr. Sp eaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, referring to a legal opinion, indicated th at: "Mr . Speaker, I believe, as obviously does our counsel of record in this case, Mr. Kerr Twaddle, the chances of misrepresentation have been reduced so dramatically as to render the fears of many of the instant constitutional experts completely without foundation, but more importantly, Mr.

Speaker, because I honestly don't view this as a battle of legal opinions, this compromise symbolized by the amendment I will shortly move and by the bill we'll be presenting in the House during the next several days represents a consensus of what is best for Manitobans." Mr. Speaker, this is not a consensus. This new amendment from the government is not a consensus. The people of Manitoba are as opposed today to this resolution as they were to the last resolution. They have no trust in this government, and I think that's basically what it comes down to.

No matter what this government is choosing to say on this issue, they will not believe them. The trust has gone, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, regrettably Manitobans have lost faith in their government. One of the questions most often asked is: how can we get an election called? I don't think probably in my lifetime that there has been a petition going around hopefully asking the Lieutenant­ Governor to have the government call an election to set aside this government. Yet there is a petition as such going around this province.

I don't think that this sort of thing would happen normally with the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, but they know once this is entrenched they don't get a second chance, so it's urgent. This isn't like a plebiscite; this isn't like anything else. They don't get a crack at it a second time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in Gordon Sinclair's column, under the heading, "Dub ious Achievements, 19 83, the list you've been waiting for," it says, "Don't worry. If it was anything important, it would have been repeated in English.

While speaking to a gathering of Liberals in a very small room in Winnipeg, Prime Minister Trudeau casually mentions that the Societe franco-manitobaine and the Provincial Government have reached an agreement whereby the province will become bilingual. The problem is Trudeau makes the announcement in French only and the English-speaking media misses it. C'est la vie." It must be very frustrating for Mr. Trudeau and his cohorts, especially Serge Joyal, pouring all the money into Manitoba through the SFM and who knows where else, and they haven't achieved their goal yet, although, 5650

Monday, 23 January, 1984 Mr. Speaker, this government is doing everything in its power to help them achieve the goal. Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Member for Minnedosa that mentioned there must be a carrot somewhere. Well, it's some carrot, Mr. Speaker, to have them keep on with this kind of an issue in the face of all the opposition. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the new res olution, packaged as made-in-Manitoba . Mr. Sp eaker , on January 9th , while our Leader was speaking, the Attorney-General interrupted our Leader with a point of order.

He indicated that ". . . a serious allegation which I must point out immed iately. That is that I, or anyone else, sat down behind closed doors with representatives for the Federal Government and negotiated some deal." Then he went on to say that for " ... approximately 18 months, every single meeting was held in the office of the Attorney-General for Manitoba with the Chief Legislative Counsel for the Province of Manitoba, the Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy Minister, the French language consultant, Mr. Turrenne ...

"and, of course, had to say that he " ... was appointed by the Conservatives," which is true, Mr. Speaker, ". . . and sometimes representatives from the SFM. At no single meeting was there ever a representative of the Federal Government. This was from start to beginning a made-in-Manitoba solution." Everywhere you turn, all of a sudden this government is trying to tell the people of Manitoba, to quote the Attorney-General, that "This was from start to beginning a made-in-Manitoba solution." Now why they would want to take all the credit for this dubious amendment is beyond me.

This is a resolution that the vast majority don't want, and I just have to look at the plebiscite results, Mr. Speaker, to realize that this is true. They don't want it. Why will this government not listen? They have no intention of listening. Mr. Sp eak er, when I'm ta lking to the original resolution, the amendment that this government put in on January 13 th, Page 5565 in Hansard, the Member for St. Boniface indicated in his speech that: "Two or three members spent all their speech reading the results of the referendum. What the hell do I care about the results of a referendum." A MEMBER: Who said that? MRS.

G. HAMMOND: That was said by the Member for St. Boniface, Mr. Speaker. That is the point of the whole thing. Someone has to care, Mr. Speaker. But everywhere you turn, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the interruption, of the point of order from the Attorney­ General, everywhere you turn there is the fine hand of the Federal Go vernment in this made -in-Manitoba solution. Mr. Speaker, I refer to the hearings. Most members probably would be familiar with Dr. Shaw's presentation from Quebec. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 30th, Dr. Shaw who came in from Quebec to speak against the resolution - his qualifications, Mr.

Speaker, are all in Hansard of that page and I won't go through them. He indicates that he is speaking for some of the English­ speaking members of the community in Quebec. He states: "You have already heard from a representative of Alliance Quebec on this subject. We are in serious fundamental disagreement with Alliance Quebec on this and on many other issues, and we feel that to allow the representation of Alliance Quebec to be interpreted as the consensus of the Quebec non­ Francophone community would be improper.

In fact, we feel that we more closely represent the consensus of the general opinio n of the non-F rancophone community in our province, in spite of the fact that we receive no funding from the Office of the Secretary of State." Mr. Speaker, Alliance Quebec was here twice that I'm aware of, possibly more, speaking in favour of this government's position. They met with our caucus. We were given or had mailed to us glossy packages of material. When they presented their brief, Mr. Speaker, questions were asked about their funding. Mr.

Speaker, on Page 78, on Tuesday, September 6th - I believe it was the first day of the hearing - that a Mr. E. Maldoff, who was the spokesperson for Alliance Quebec, was asked a question about their budget, Mr. Speaker. How were they funded? Mr. Maldoff, as part of it, indicated that their ". . . budget in the past year was $900,000 of which we received approximately 60 percent through the Official Language Minority Program of the Secretary of State of the Federal Government. A further question, Mr. Speaker, about that they received approximately $540,000 from the Federal Government. Mr.

Speaker, then a further question - how large is your full-time staff? We have a full-time staff of approximately 25 people. Mr. Speaker, what we are getting at here is this made-in-Manitoba solution has been liberally - and I use the expression loosely - funded by this Federal Government and yet they persist, this government, this N DP Gover nment provincially, persists in the illusion that this is a made­ in-Manitoba solution - has no federal input. Mr. Speaker, now we look at the other side, the people of Manitoba trying to fight this issue. On one hand the pro-resolution people seem to have unlimited funds.

Then we have ads in the paper from the Grassroots, funded by the people on donations, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday in the Winnipeg Free Press, close to a full page ad, "Bil ingualism is not what it appears," is an ad that was taken out by a Mrs. Jane Hebert. She had to take, it says, a $2,500 loan from the bank, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the odds of the people of Manitoba even coming this far to speak against this resolution, to fight this resolution, have been immense and now we are asking the government to accept the sub­ amendment that was made by the Member for Fort Garry. Mr.

Speaker, speaking again of the type of funding that has been given to the people who are supporting this resolution, that the SFM were given an additional $1 08,000 to the over $600,000 that was given to the SFM already. Mr. Speaker, Eric Wells used the word "manipul ation" to describe the use of monies by the Federal Government and this government has been manipulated out of its socks. I'd just like to recap briefly the monies we can see that were given by the Federal Government: Alliance Quebec, $540,000; the SFM, $627,000 plus $1 08,000, Mr. Speaker, for a total of $735,000 and that's what we know about.

That only came out because of people having to go to the Federal Government under the 5651

Monday, 23 January, 1984 Access of Information, that that $1 08,000 even came to light, Mr. Speaker. So how many other questions haven't been asked in the right places to find out about funding? How much more for this made-i n-Manitoba solution versus Manitoba Grassroots? No funding. Mrs. Jane Hebert a $2,500 bank loan, a consensus, Mr. Speaker - the Minister of Municipal Affairs says that there is a consensus. There is no consensus, Mr. Speaker. Money isn't the only way the government can manipulate, Mr. Speaker.

There are other ways of manipulating besides money and on Page 963 of the hearings in Hansard, September 30th, the Attorney­ General asked the question - he was questioning Dr. Shaw - and he said, "But the Supreme Court has not ruled that way," and Dr. Shaw answered, "Because it hasn't had an opportunity, because these cases haven't been passed to the Superior Court. The Quebec Home and School Association has had a case on the rolls for five-and-a-half years." And then he went on, Mr. Speaker, to say, "Now I would like to speak to that because, in Blaikie, there was the inside route right to the Supreme Court.

In Forest, it was pretty darn quick. In Bilodeau, there hasn't been much trouble, but in any other cases that I know, being sort of the prime mover in all the traffic ticket cases in Quebec, and we had to go through nine traffic ticket cases before we could get one that will even be listened to in the Supreme Court, and without any help whatsoever from the courts of the Province of Quebec, we had to go by a special provision of The Supreme Court Act to get that case heard." "That's the MacDonald case," Mr. Penner indicated, and Dr. Shaw said, "That's right.

When you see two kinds, this is another example of the double standard, the double standard in the access to the court system, the double standard in the funding. The Secretary of State has funded Forest," and he goes on about funding. Mr. Speaker, there's another kind of discrimination. There's another kind of manipulation and that certainly is it.

The new Minister of Municipal Affairs said that some kind of individuals in responsible positions have gone to great lengths to be ir respo nsibl e and misrepresent and play on that fear - talking about the fear that people had of the amendment going into the Constitution and referring to implementation of federal bilingual programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, in one of the articles - and it's the Attorney-G eneral, it's from the Winnipeg Free Press, October 29th - it says: "Penner compares battle for rights." Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is talking about fear.

Well, what kind of fear is the Attorney-General trying to strike in the hearts of the disabled, when he considers minority rights, it says, and I quote in this article, "Mino rity rights including the rights of the disabled should not be decided by plebiscites or referendum." Speaking to delegates at the National Meeting of the Canadian Association for Mentally Retarded, Mr. Speaker, Penner drew a parallel between the ongoing battle over the extension of French language rights in Manitoba with the extension of rights for the mentally handicapped. Mr.

Speaker, how low can a government stoop when someone will go into the mentally handicapped who have a hard enough time without the Attorney-General going in and putting that type of pressure on them? What kind of pressure have other Ministers of the Crown put on individual groups that get funding, that get anything from this government? Well, I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that there's a lot of that going on, and has gone on. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has seven minutes remaining. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr.

Speaker, I wish that this Assembly would take our initiative and vote for this amendment the Member for Fort Garry has proposed; that

Section 23.1 that states: '"As English and French are the official languages of Manitoba, the freedom to use either official language enjoyed under the law of Manitoba in force at the time this

section comes into force shall not be extinguished or restricted by or pursuant to any Act of the Legislature of Manitoba," be deleted. Then this government will have come a long way to at least doing some of the things that the people of Manitoba are asking them to do. Mr. Speaker, they are not going to be happy right now with almost anything that this government proposes when it has anything to do with French language rights.

That is something that this government has taken care of for a long time; that anytime they do anything, they make any changes, they make any moves, there is going to be a hue and cry from the community. All one person has to stand up and say, my rights have been taken away. Someone has take