Manitoba Hansard — 3 August 1983 (Sitting 130, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-130

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5 492 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. 13 0 - 8:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 3 AUGUST, 19 83. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKUNG, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Cla yton 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, LR. (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 Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 3 August, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion .. . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs advise the House whether or not he thinks we should have a question period tonight? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Questions are intended to be for information and not for opinion. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, because the House is having three separate sittings the opposition, of course, is entitled to a question period at each sitting.

But in keeping with the commitment and undertaking given to the Government House Leader, we will give leave to forego the question period this evening. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the referral motion, as it is now popularly called, on Pages 12 and 13 of the Order Paper, standing in the name of the distinguished Member for Tuxedo who, I believe, has two minutes left. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMEN T RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General and the amendment thereto, proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and the sub-amendment proposed by the 'ionourable Member for Gladstone. The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. WR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate ·he indication the Government House Leader has given, :hat I only have two minutes left. I know that time flies when you're enjoying yourself, but could you please tell me what the correct amount of time is that I have? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has 20 minutes remaining.

A MEMBER: lt will seem like two minut es. MR. G. FILMON: That's right, it'll only seem like two minutes, because you'll be so enthralled with the words that I have to say, but thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when we left for the dinner break I was placing on the record my concerns about the timetable that's been set and about the government's reluctance to enter into a situation by which there would be adequate opportunity and adequate time to have this proposed amendment to The Manitoba Act,

Section 23, which will be enshrined or entrenched in our Constitution of Canada for all time in future, the government's reluctance to have enough time spent in the committee stage. We, on this side, have made the case and I think very strongly and to the satisfaction, I believe, of most Manitobans that that time has not been given and would not be available, Mr. Speaker, if it were to be dealt with a standing committee of this Session. We have placed on the record an amendment that would ensure that the time could be given by virtue of having this resolution referred to an intersessional committee, Mr.

Speaker, that would report back to this House no later than December 31, 1983, so that indeed it would be in time for the timetable which apparently the Government of Manitoba has entered into in its agreement with the Government of Canada and the Societe Franco-Manitobaine, that is that to ensure that it is dealt with in the next Session of Parliament, it must be passed through this House and sent to Ottawa by December 31, 1983. I believe that we have satisfied all the elements of concern as expressed by the government, and it is now only a matter, Mr.

Speaker, of approving this amended motion that is before us, and going on with the hearings on an intersessional basis, so that all Manitobans will be heard and all of the views of the important groups in Manitoba society will be taken into consideration before we deal with this very very important matter before us. As I said earlier, Mr.

Speaker, this is not a matter that can be taken lightly. lt is not a matter that can be dealt with ever. in the same manner as most of our normal pieces of legislation are dealt with, because bills that we are about to pass in this Legislature, in this Session, dealing with such things as conflict of interest; dealing with such things as The Elections Finances Act; dealing with such things as The Legislative Assembly Act and all other matters that the government has placed before us, are bills that can be changed, indeed I suggest it will be changed during the next term of government when we are on the government side.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we will be 4851 t t H M

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 making changes in some of these major pieces of legislation that the government is about to pass at this Session, items such as The Elections Finances Act our leader has placed on the record, how strongly we feel about that legislation and that we are prepared to repeal it so that the taxpayers need not ever have to pay the election expenses of the New Democratic Party, or this party, or any other party out of their tax dollars. But this is an entirely different matter, Mr. Speaker.

This is a matter that will not be able to be easily amended or changed or taken out of the Constitution of Canada. Members opposite can use the argument that Prime Minister Trudeau used when he was entrenching his Charter of Rights and Freedoms when he said: ah, yes, but it can be changed. There is an amending formula and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that when we are dealing with an item with a topic, with a concept, such as the entrenchment of French language rights in

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act in the Federal Constitution, we are dealing with a matter that is very very difficult to explain and a matter for which the perception is more important than the reality. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would daresay that we've already reached the stage that the perception is being used as the forum or as the basis for which this is being debated and the reality of the bad agreement that has been drafted by this government is being totally lost on the public. We've talked about the debate that goes on through the propaganda and information that the government opposite is putting out.

We have the ads that are being run offering information by the government explaining the French language accord, the folder that's called, "The Facts About French Language Services." I demonstrated in my earlier speech on this matter that the very folder itself is contradictory, Mr. Speaker, one panel contradicts the so-c alled facts as they are presented in the next panel and the whole idea is down to a perception and the perception is: do you or do you not support the extension of French Language Services in Manitoba?

Are you or are you not in favour of French language rights, either in Manitoba or in Canada as a whole? Not whether or not the agreement that's been entered into will stand up in a court of law, will be opened to

interpretation, to court action and all those things that we have concerns about, not the concerns that are raised earlier that have been echoed by the Manitoba Government Employees Association as to, how will a court interpret central or head office of government departments, or Crown corporations, or agencies of government, or quasi-judicial commissions and boards of government? How will the courts interpret it?

None of those things become the reality, it becomes the perception of whether or not one side is in favour of French language rights, one side is opposed; whether or not one side favours the extension of services, or one side does not; those are the realities that we have to deal with. If this bad agreement, if this inappropriate amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act for all the reasons I've stated earlier, if it is entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it will be almost impossible to ever change it in future. If it proves to be unworkable, if it proves to be the source of constant court actions and a bone of contention, an irritation and a divisive influence on society in Manitoba, we will be faced with almost no opportunity to ever change it. Members opposite have gleefully pointed out the fact that our new Leader of our Federal Party, Mr.

Mulroney, is a very strong supporter of federal bilingualism in Canada. They have said, which side is he going to be on should this ever come to the Federal Parliament? The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that any national party today - and of course the New Democrats don't have that problem because they're not a national party in the sense that there are certain major sections of the country in which they have no representation and no hope of representation - but any national party today has to face the reality of the perception of how this disagreement as to facts, as to terms, as to good or bad legislation, this disagreement will not be perceived in the context in which it really is being debated today.

It will be perceived as whether or not the Progressive Conservative Party nationally, supports the federal bilingualism policy. If they were in any way to waver from that, I'm sure that they would have difficulty explaining that in Quebec. So consequently, if this were to become entrenched in Canada's Constitution, there's no question that in order to change it one would suffer serious consequences in dealing with the French language people throughout this country on a national basis.

No matter how bad the agreement was, no matter how divisive it became in this province, no matter how much difficulty it caused us in court

interpretations and court actions, it would not likely be changed no matter how that circumstance came about. So let's deal with some of the other matters that have been dealt with. The First Minister yesterday in his speech said that the government has always been on record that it was willing to amend this particular proposal, that it was never carved in stone; that it was never a fait accompli being presented to us that they have always presented it to us as a proposed agreement, but they were willing to listen to the people. Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you that despite the fact that our leader was thrown out of the House over this issue that I want to tell you why - (Interjection) - because he suggested that the government had either lied or misled. The leader of our party was thrown out of the House last evening. But I want to tell you something that I can read out of Hansard as to why there might have been some misinterpretation or some feeling on his part that the government had taken an about-face and, in fact, the Premier was saying something today that he would not have said a month ago.

I want to quote from a portion of a response that was given to the Leader of the Opposition in question period on Friday, June 17 th, by the Attorney-General. This was in response to whether or not it was possible to amend this proposal that was being put forward to us as a resolution for the French language accord in Manitoba. "So what I'm saying is this, that yes, the hearings will invite comments obviously," and now the Attorney-General was referring just to the public information hearings that were held in Dauphin, Brandon, Thompson and Winnipeg, those four short sessions.

He said: "The hearings will invite comments obviously. That's what they are there for. They are also 4852

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 there to answer questions because we have found out in the tour of southern Manitoba that when questions are answered with factual information, it helps considerably. The government has said that it will not call for a vote on the resolution until those hearings are finished because it is not, Mr.

Speaker, by any stretch of the the imagination, a PR exercise or a sham because it is open for us to do one thing, but one thing only, that is to reject the agreement completely." He goes on further to say: "it is not possible for us to take an agreement that involves four, five parties and unilaterally start playing around textually with the agreement. What we can do, and I hope we won't, because of the importance to Canadian unity of what we're doing, is pull back from the agreement entirely." So it seems very clear to me, Mr.

Speaker, and I think it was to all members on this side, that the Attorney-General told us on the 17th of June that it was not possible to amend this proposed agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Manitoba and the SFM. That's what he said and I can't see that anybody could interpret it any other way; that you either had to accept the agreement as it was presented or reject it, but there was no possibility of amendment .. . MR. R. DOERN: Not even a comma. MR. G. FILMON: Not even a comma, as the Member for Elmwood says. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that to me, is an entirely different position than that what is now being put forth by the First Minister when he spoke last evening, by others in their speeches in the House, and I would daresay that there's no question that they have taken a complete about-face. They started off by saying that there would not be hearings on the matter; then on the 17th of June the Attorney-General said that there would be these informational hearings.

Later on they said there would be hearings before a committee of this Legislature; that's the referral resolution that was put on the table by the Attorney-General that we're now debating. Later on the Attorney-General and various members of the government went on record as saying they were prepared to entertain amendments. Mr. Speaker, that is after almost eight weeks of debate - hard-nosed knocking back and forth - by this side and by various groups in society in Manitoba, who are very very concerned, and understandably so, about this proposed resolution.

Only after all that confrontation, only after all that debate, is the government now saying that they're prepared to go and take this before a committee of the Legislature to allow true public input. We are saying, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the two amendments that we have made to this referral motion, take it one step further. Make that little extra step, which is to put it before an intersessional committee and give a true opportunity with no time limits, with no bounds that will be able to be brought forth to say, we've got to cut it off like they did with the seat belts.

They gave five sessions and they said, that's enough, we've heard from enough people. we've got to get this thing through. Well rather than do it that way, Mr. Speaker, let's give it the time that it deserves by sending it to an intersessional committee. That's all we are saying. it's only another small step, but it will ensure that Manitobans get what they think they're getting, or at least understand what they're going to get, when this resolution is finally debated in final form before this House. So I don't think that it's a big step. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to just refer to an interview with former Premier, Duff Roblin, because the Minister of Health indicated in his speech on the matter that he felt the former Premier , Duff Roblin, would have handled this in an entirely different manner from what we on this side are doing today. He said that Duff Roblin would probably have not taken the position we are, in opposition, to the ramming through of this bilingualism resolution. it just happened the day after he made that speech in the House, there was an interview in the paper with Mr.

Roblin and he states very clearly what his position would be on the matter, Mr. Speaker. He said that if he were in the same position as the government, he would take this as though it were a White Paper and he would take it across the province; he would hold informational meetings; he would hold committee meetings intersessionally; he would find out what the people really believe.

He would take this proposal. he would refine it and he would listen to the people and then, and only then, if he arrived at a consensus, if he arrived at agreement with the majority of the Manitoba society with the major groups that should be involved in this final determination, only then, Mr. Speaker, would he come forward with such major sweeping, long-range legislation that is going to affect Manitoba for all time in future. That's what former Premier Roblin said.

So if the Minister of Health and his colleagues believe that the kind of moderate view that former Premier Roblin has stated is a good one, then I suggest that they listen to him; that they take their proposal to the people; that they go through the country and have intersessional committee hearings without any time pressure, without any hidden agenda or timetable that they have to meet and they say to the people, what do you think?

Give us all your concerns; let us have your criticisms; let us have your supportive comments; but let's have all the information on the table because when this resolution final passes this House and goes to Parliament in Ottawa, it will be entrenched for all time in future in Canada's Constitution. So what does it hurt to take that little extra time? That's all I ask, Mr. Speaker. What does it hurt to take that little extra time? Give it until the 31st of December , 1983.

Give the people the opportunity to be heard and listen to them and if you've done that, then I say that you've carried out your commitment to the democratic process. But if you insist on ramming it through in this Session, then you will not make the people of Manitoba happy, you will not have their support and you will not have the support of this side of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak once again on this very important issue that will be affecting all Manitobans.

What we 4853

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 are asking the government to do - and this just affects the process - is that a standing committee sit during recess, after prorogation, and report to the next Session of the Legislature, and in any case, not later than December 31, 1983. That last part, Mr. Speaker, was the amendment put forth by the Member for Gladstone. The Premier stated in his speech that this amendment to the Constitution of Canada is minor in comparison with our government, meaning the PC's, stand on the Charter of Rights. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier considers this minor in comparison, he has a much bigger problem then we ever dreamed of. This issue is divisive. In every way we turn we see people starting to speak out against other people in ways we haven't heard in this province for years and in ways I never dreamed to see happen here. Mr. Speaker, the entrenchment of this amendment is the issue at hand, and I have an

article here by Mr. Richard Clereux, The Globe and Mail, May 26, 1983, and I intend to read this

article and make comments on it because it tells a lot about why we ended up in this position. Mr. Speaker, it begins by saying: "Quite a collection of people turned up at St. Boniface College for what became the most important meeting of the Franco Manitoban community since Louis Aiel got everybody together in 1870. lt was a joyous occasion. They had come to ratify an historic agreement signed last week between the representatives of the Societe Franco Manitobaine and the Provincial Government restoring constitutional rights lost 93 years earlier." Mr. Speaker, that

part is not correct, but I can't blame Mr. Clereux at that time for misunderstanding the issue because many people didn't understand it. They had their rights restored in the Supreme Court decision in 1979, but time and time again this is what we keep hearing. This is what the government is trying to tell the people of Manitoba, that we are restoring their rights. That was done by the Supreme Court decision and our government, the former P.C. Government as is this government, were moving ahead to restore those rights, Mr. Speaker.

He went on to say in his article: "The right to use French in the Law Courts and in the Legislature, plus the right to government services in French that generations of Franco-Manitobans, since the days of Aiel, had never dreamed of obtaining. " That, Mr. Speaker, is what was restored by the Supreme Court decision. lt went on to say: "They had come from across Manitoba to attend the meeting, old sun-grizzled farmers from the little French farming communities of St. Claude, St. Malo, even far away, St.

Lazare; retired nuns who used to teach French in secret in the public schools and hid the books whenever t:1e inspector came around back in the days when French was a banned language. Smart young bilingual civil servants and well educated professionals and lawyers who make up the new vanguard of Franco-Manitobans. " Mr. Speaker, he went on later in the

article to say: "The SFM had made a deal with the Attorney-General, Roland Penner and the Federal Government for the restoration of French language rights in Manitoba." There again, Mr. Speaker, an error. Those rights were restored by the Supreme Court decision of 1979. lt went on: "A deal that required almost an entire year of closed meetings, night after night, and hard bargaining on both sides to go over every comma and period." Mr.

Speaker, I repeat: "that required almost an entire year of closed meetings, night after night, and hard bargaining on both sides to go over every comma and period." No wonder the Attorney-General didn't feel that he could change a word. They're talking about commas and periods. The

article went on to say: "What emerged was an accord that the New Democratic Party is committed to turning into a law, so that it can be approved by Parliament and become the first amendment of the new Canadian Constitution before December 31, 1983. " Mr. Speaker, now we know what the rush is. They're committed to a date. We knew that they were committed to a date at the time they introduced this resolution, so now we know what the rush is.

But what we're asking this government to do is to take this resolution between Sessions out to the people; let them speak their minds; let them have an opportunity to speak on this very important resolution. This is not the Charter of Rights, Mr. Speaker. We had rights; every Canadian as far as I knew had rights. Now they're entrenched, but this entrenchment is something far different . This entrenchment is going to change the complexion, the nature of our provinct. Mr. Speaker, went or. to say t:,e Tuesday meeting was called by SFM officials to sell the accord to the Franco-Manitoban community.

Lawyer, Remi Smith read it out clause-by-clause, commenting on each one, and then Mr. Robert went to work giving his sales pitch. This is in quotations, Mr. Speaker: "We got everything that any court could have given us and more, " Mr. Robert said. "And more, " Mr. Speaker, that refers to the entrenchment, not what we had before, but more. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read the

section that they're referring to, 23.8(1): "Anyone whose rights under

Section 23.7 had been infringed or denied may apply to the court for a declaration to that effect and where the court finds that these rights have been infringed or denied, it may make a declaration to that effect." The courts, Mr. Speaker, not Mr. Pawley, not the Attorney-General , but it's the courts that are going to decide, and when they tell us that this amendment will only have limited a effect, we can't tell that and neither can the government. I intend to read

section 23. 7(1) into the record as I'm sure it's been read in before, but it deserves repeating: "Any member of the public in Manitoba has the right to communicate in English or French with and to receive available services in English or French from (

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

b) the head or central office of (

i) any court (ii) any quasi-judicial or administrative body of the Government of Manitoba; (iii) any Crown corporation; or (iv) any agency of the Government of M:mitoba established by or pursuant to

an act of the •_egislature of Manitoba; (

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

d) the office of the Ombudsman for the Province of Manitoba. " I just want to read, I guess, 23. 7(1). That will cover the part that is referred to in 23.8(1), Mr. Speaker. "it's a fact that this government has given to the SFM that they can say we got everything that any court could have given us and more." Mr. Speaker, the

article went on to say, "To be able to live in French in your own home is something, but 4854

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 to be able to do it on the street every day, as this accord will allow us to do, now that's something. This accord means that it will be all right for us to speak French again outside the home, and outside the classroom walls. The audience cheered." Mr. Speaker, how long has it been that people of Francophone background have not been able to speak French in the streets, outside their homes, anywhere that they can speak to people in French? This is not anything new unless the expectation is there for something far more than this government intended.

That isn't a right that they haven't had for any length of time, "To be able to live in French in your own home is something, but to be able to do it on the street every day as this accord will allow us to do, now that's something." Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the something that they're talking about? What is it that the government hasn't possibly told us about? Is there something else that we don't know in this area? The article, Mr.

Speaker, went on to say, "The accord means that as of 1987, French and English will again be the languages of the Law Courts and the Legislature in Manitoba, as they were when Manitoba joined Confederation in 1870. In the 1981 census more than 52,000 of Manitoba's million residents specified French as their mother tongue." Now, Mr. Speak er, there again we have an error in the fact that English and French will be the languages of the Law Courts and the Legislature of Manitoba. Well, that right was given. Someone could have a trial in French with the Supreme Court judgment that was brought down in 1979. The

article goes on to say, Mr. Speaker , "Anyone who wants it will have the right to a trial in French anywhere in Manitoba (at present only one provincial court in St. Boniface operates in Frenc h). " Mr. Speaker, I question a trial anywhere with a population of 52,000 in this province. Where does the common sense or where needed apply in this area? I refer back again because if someone wants that right anywhere now, all they have to do in 23.8(1), "Anyone whose rights under

Section 23. 7 had been infringed or denied may apply to the court for a declaration to that effect, and where the court finds that these rights have been infringed or denied, it may make a declaration to that effect. " Mr. Speaker, there again we have an area that is going to be interpreted by the courts, not in a common sense matter by this government, not by the Premier of the province, not by the Attorney-General, not by any future Premiers, not by any future Attorneys General. The courts will be deciding on this very important matter. Mr.

Speak er, despite the Premier and the Attorney General's assurances, the Francophone community, the SFM, are obviously expecting far more, and with this

article in the proposed amendment to the Constitution they have a very good chance of getting far more. I'll go on in the article, Mr. Speaker. It says: "Some Franco-Manitobans were all for going to the Supreme Court again." I'll start a little earlier. "Three years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unconstitutional, an 1890 Manitoba law that banned French in the Law Courts and Legislature. However, the court did not set a timetable for the restoration of those rights. Some Franco-Manitobans were all for going to the Supreme Court again to force the province to ac t. " How, Mr.

Speaker, were these laws to be translated any faster than they were going? In the government's first Throne Speech, they were claiming they were going to speed up the translation, implying that our government had not been going fast enough. Then, Mr. Speaker, they had to later admit that it was physically impossible. Even disregarding costs, there are not enough legal translators available. We had some, and if my memory serves me correc tly, may be still on loan from the Federal Government and the Government of Quebec. It was still not enough. They were still not able to move quickly on it. Mr.

Speaker, surely the Supreme Court would not plan to create chaos in this province. If that happened, Mr. Speaker, it would turn the other 95 percent or 94 percent of the province's population forever against our Franco-Manitoban sisters and brothers. Surely that was not what the government intended when it brought in this resolution, but that's what's happening. We're turning friends against friends. It's a dreadful resolution, Mr. Speak er, but the process is even worse. The fact that they were trying to ram it through on the long weekend.

They thought they were going to have it all over with by Wednesday and I think that's today. Well, Mr. Speaker, one thing they'll learn about this side of the House is we're determined and that is not going to happen. A MEMBER: We'll never give up. Never. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The

article went on to say that faced with the prospect of an imposed timetable from the Supreme Court that could have been a lot shorter than it hoped for, the province decided to strike a deal with its Francophone population. Some deal, Mr. Speak er. Friend against friend; neighbour against neighbour; community against community. A MEMBER: That's right. Split the country up. MRS. G. HAMMOND: That's what's happening in our province right now and because this government is too stubborn, too bullheaded to realize what they are doing, this is the type of thing that is happening.

At the Winnipeg public meeting of July 14th at the International Inn, the Attorney-General said, "A deal is a deal. " I just want to paraphrase a bit because I don't remember the exact words, but he indicated that well, the deal might not be that great, but you'll be able to tell in five years. In five years you may not be able to do anything about it. In fact we know you won't be able to do anything about it. Once this is put into the Constitution of Canada, it will be irreversible, Mr.

Speaker, so even if the courts approve things that the government didn't think made sense, the Government of the Day - because it certainly won't be this government, Mr. Speaker, they're on their way out now - on this issue and on other issues. But I don't want to be political about this issue in the manner that I want to win an election on this particular issue. The election, as it's been said before, has been won. I don't want to win it on this. I want the government to reconsider. Think about what you're doing.

Surely to heavens, you must realize from the amount of public opinion, the radio programs, everywhere you turn, and 4855

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 if anyone is monitoring that phone number that was put in, I believe, the fact sheet or constitutionally speaking, I can't believe the numbers phoning to protest this policy. It must be tremendous. Are they not telling the members across the way? Possibly that's it. I can't think why they wouldn't be listening. Mr. Speaker, I go on to the next paragraph. It said, "Instead of the five years that the Franco-Manitobans had hoped for, the government will have until 1993 to translate all its laws and regulations, going back to 1890." 1993, Mr. Speake r.

Wh at happens if the translations are not completed by 1993? What do we offer then? That's just something to think about. It's a very great possibility that this cannot be done. So 1993 was just a number they picked out of the air - 10 years sounds like a great figure. Ten years probably will not be enough to complete these translations. Then what more do we give? What more is to be bargained away? Mr. Speaker, I think that this government should think very carefully. I think they should drop the whole resolution and continue doing what they've been doing, what we were doing, in a common-sense orderly fashion.

But you know, the problem with this issue is that maybe people are getting entrenched themselves and won't even want that to happen and what a shame, Mr. Speak er. What a shame, after all the work and all the progress that has been made in such a peaceful way, to have brought it to a situation where now they're just going to say, nothing doing, we don't want anything. How sad that that should happen; that every time a position is filled that's bilingual, someone is screaming. How unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. And yet this government doesn't seem to even realize what they have done; what they are creating.

The next paragraph, Mr. Speaker, "But the accord goes even further than the courts could have gone. Manitoba agrees to provide by January 1, 1987, services in French at the head offices of all government departments, Crown Corporations and agencies." Mr. Speaker, I repeat: "But the accord goes even further than the courts could have gone. " Nowhere, nowhere do we hear the Attorney-General saying that; nowhere do we hear the Premier admitting to that. They're always talking about rights being restored. Mr.

Speak er, we've said it time and time and time again, those rights have been restored and they were proceeding in an orderly fashion, as quickly as possible, as physically possible. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robert explained this means, that four years from now a farmer in St. Malo, who needs information about crop prospects or farm credit, will be able to get that in French. A St. Boniface woman, who spots a mistake in her telephone bill, will be able to call in French, and will have the right to an explanation in French. Well, Mr. Speaker, a St. Boniface woman will be able to call in French.

Now how, unless every person who answers the phone in the telephone system is bilingual, is this policy to be carried out? And carrying it a step further, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that every telephone operator will be bilingual? How does that jibe with the government brochure, "The Facts About the French Language Services", under Facts, Paragraph 4, it says: "This legislation does not affect non-French speaking Manitobans . Those who cannot speak French will not be affected. Civil Servants will not lose jobs or be displaced," Mr. Speaker, - "displaced" is the word - "because of this legislation.

Language training programs already in place for several years, will be optional." Mr. Speaker, how is that possible when Mr. Robert was explaining that a St. Boniface woman who spots a mistake in her telephone bill will be able to call in French? The MGEA, or whatever union represents the Manitoba Telephone System, have certainly got a case when they are telling the government, hold it, take a look at what you're doing. What are we talking about in numbers? But, Mr. Speaker, I'll go back time and time and time again to 23.8(1) which says: "Anyone whose rights under

Section 23.7 has been infringed, or denied may apply to the court," - not the government - "to the court for a declaration to that effect. And where the court finds that these rights have been infringed, or denied, it may make a declaration to that effect." Mr. Speaker, already the expectations of this St. Boniface woman, are that she can call the Telephone System in French. That does not wash in the remarks of the Attorney-Gern;rc.l, or the Premier of this province. It goes on to say, Mr.

Speaker, ""'."hat Manitoba Hydro, the Ombudsman's Office, the Chief Electoral Office, Legal Aid and the Human Rights Commission will all have to be able to provide services in French." More of the same, Mr. Speaker. That is so broad. They are looking at it in such a manner and the

interpretation that can be put on this resolution is so broadly worded that anyone can go to the courts if they feel their rights have been infringed, or denied, they may apply to the courts. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel that the Premier, the members on that side of the House have not read the amendment and I can understand that because it certainly wasn't in the fact sheet. I looked all over and nowhere did the first amendment say in the first part, 23. 1, English and French are the official languages of Manitoba. Nowhere did I see anything in this sheet to indicate that . . .

A MEMBER: It never said it to anybody. MRS. G. HAMMOND: . . . or in the brochure, constitutionally speaking, that they handed out at all the meetings. Now I said before when I spoke on this issue, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pretty big brochure, lots of room, but they put pictures in. There's the Premier, picture of the Legislative Building, Mr. Penner certainly is getting his picture on everything. Where he's not getting his picture he's putting his signiture. But nowhere do I see the amendment, Mr. Speaker. As the Member for Fort Garry said, what are they afraid of? What are they afraid of, Mr. Speaker?

I think they're afraid that the people might catch on to exactly what they're doing. Mr. Speak er, this amendment is no help the way it is being handled, the entrenchment to either French speaking people of Manitoba, or non-French speaking people of Manitoba. I think it's time the government took a good look, and took a good step back and took a look at what's happening in this province. 4856

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, and I'm back to the

article again: "In addition, in some regional offices services in French may also be available if the government judges there is a significant demand ." Now, Mr. Speaker, remember I'm reading an

article about a meeting that was held by the SFM explaining all the things that are going to happen, everything that they're going to get out of this amendment. I'm not just talking about any little old thing that might happen in Manitoba. We are talking about something that people are now expecting to get. The other 95 percent of the province are trying to stop them from getting it. What kind of an accord are we going to have here? Mr. Speak er, it's not right.

Here again, "In addition, in some regional offices services in French may also be available if the government judges there is a significant demand ." What is a significant demand? Who's going to decide a significant demand, two? It might be two one place, one anoth er, it might be 15 in some places, a significant demand. But where will they go? Not to the government; not to the Premier; not to the Attorney-General because if they went there and they were denied, they'd go to the courts, Mr. Speaker. We are putting the Province of Manitoba, we're putting their future in the hands of the courts. Mr.

Speak er, it went on to say: "We have to be reasonable," Mr. Robert explained. "The government machinery takes time." We've been alive illegally for 93 years, we can afford to spend another three years or 10 years, Mr. Speaker. What's to stop another Bilodeau or another Forest from exercising 23.8(1)? What's to stop them from going to the courts? Because once they have the entrenchment there are going to be some that are not going to be reasonable, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the SFM won't be able to stop them and neither will the government because, again, it's in the hands of the court. Mr.

Speaker, I go back to the beginning of the article. It said, "Before the evening was over, SFM President, Leo Robert, a wisecracking St. Boniface school teacher with a down-to-earth approach to language rights, would be fighting back tears as the audience of more than 600 rose to its feet and sang his praises with the rousing rendition of Gens de Pays." And why not, Mr. Speaker? II anyone deserved his praises sung it was and is the Societe Franco-Manitobaine President, Leo Robert. He managed, Mr. Speaker, something that no court could have applied to this government, to any government.

He gave them more than, I think it said, they had a right to expect. Yes. "We got everything that any court could have given us and more," Mr. Robert said. Why wouldn't they cheer and applaud and sing his praises? Believe me, I would be singing his praises also. I would like instead to be singing the praises of the Premier and the Attorney-General for pulling back on a bad agreement, Mr. Speak er, an agreement that was made behind closed doors without the opportunity of Manitobans to get up and speak on this issue, instead of having it in the Legislative Building as they had proposed.

Now the Premier is talking about possibly taking that committee out on the road. But, Mr. Speaker, what we want is an intersessional committee to meet because we have lots of legislation to deal with. This Order Paper is filled. The government is constantly talking about getting their legislation passed. The Minister of Labour was on the Peter Warren Show crying because we weren't debating one of her bills. Mr. Speaker, we're not getting a chance to debate anything but this resolution which the government has insisted that we can't adjourn, we can't get to anything else.

So don't let us hear anything more about the members on this side not wanting to debate. Mr. Speaker, we're doing nothing but debate, and the members on the government side, they filibustered their own bill on Saturday afternoon. We sat and listened to speaker after speaker. They were afraid we might adjourn. They're afraid we might call the vote, Mr. Speaker. They were afraid they couldn't keep us in the Legislature on a weekend, on an August long weekend. Mr.

Speak er, I want to tell the members opposite that the people in Manitoba don't give a hot damn if we're here forever on this issue, and I want to tell you that they don't care if the bells ring on this issue. They want us to stop this ir.competent government from going ahead with something that is wrong, very wrong, for the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? One minute. All right, Mr.

Speaker, I won't go on to something that I wanted to speak about except that I would like to say just one thing, and it came in the Minister of Government Service's speech - if I can put my hands on it here - yes, here it is. Mr.

Speaker, he said, "I should as well indicate that I have a copy of one of the Member for Elmwood's replies that he received on the bilingualism question." As he put it, and I will read part of it, it says: "You remind us of the other ex-NOP Cabinet Minister, both of you are foolish." It goes on to say, "You are just trouble, trouble, trouble, and personally , as a German, you rather make me ashamed." Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm ashamed to think that we have come down to this, that this government has people saying to one another, as a German, I'm ashamed of you; as a Scot, I'm ashamed of you; as a Ukrainian, I'm ashamed. When was the last time we heard that sort of thing in this province? Not for a long time, Mr. Speak er, and yet this government has brought us to this divisive, very divisive, point in time. Mr. Speak er, we will speak on this amendment forever if need be. We want this into an intersessional committee, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie.

MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter into this debate as well on the amendment proposed by the Member for Fort Garry, asking that the government give the people of Manitoba the opportunity to express their views and to get better acquainted with what the government intends to do - therefore

be it resolved that the standing committee sit during the recess after prorogation and report to the next Session of the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you and the members of the opposition just what is the big rush? Why is it that they're determined to force this on us at this time? The Premier has stated so often, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "We are the people's government." Mr. Speaker, 4857

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 we are dealing with the most serious issue that has come before this Legislature for some time. So what does this government want to do to rush it through before the people really realize just what is happening? This government has had lots of warning and I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the press release by the President of the Union of Municipalties, Dave Harms. I quote: "A very significant majority of the members of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and also a very large percentage of the citizens of this province, oppose the amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, as is presented by the Government of Manitoba. It is not that we oppose French language services when it is needed or requested, but we feel that the application of such a service should be entirely up to the Provincial Government to administer and should not be entrenched in the Constitution and left to the decisions of courts of law in Canada to enforce." We agree, Mr.

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

Speaker, the president goes on to say, "We know for a fact that it will affect the Civil Service people, agricultural representatives, nurses, labourers, teachers and many more, in the hundreds of government agencies and Crown corporations. " Well, Mr. Speak er, this government has already announced that the agricultural representative of Portage la Prairie will be bilingual. Well, this is hard to understand, Mr. Speaker, when less than 1 percent of our population in the Municipality of Portage la Prairie is French or bilingual. Why is it that this government are insisting that our ag rep be bilingual?

He goes on to say: "It will also affect all the citizens of Manitoba with the costs of Autopac brochures, drivers' licences, crop insurance procedures, hospital billings, etc. These items have to be paid by the citizens of Manitoba. " Well, I wonder if they've stopped to think just what this cost really would mean to the people of Manitoba, the taxpayers of Manitoba? This is what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the people out there, they just do not at this point in time realize the effect of this legislation, should it be made law.

The French Language Program, as it exists today, costs the taxpayer one point million (sic), annually. If it should be expanded, as indicated to all departments and government agencies, Crown corporations, electoral offices, and the office of the Ombudsman, it is conceivable to see the cost double and triple from year to year. This article, Mr. Speaker, goes on to say how it will open up a possible court action against the government departments. It is one of the most dangerous steps any government has contemplated under existing conditions, Mr.

Speaker, and could leave a never-healing scar on the citizens of Manitoba regardless of their ethnic background and nationality. The claim that the proposed program is not like the federal bilingualism program, is not creating a bilingual province, is 4858 unfounded with evidence of action already taken by the Provincial Government, as stated in the press by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture; that the agricultural representatives hired now will have to be bilingual, as well the issuance of this year's drivers' licences and other documents already going to municipalities in both languages. Mr.

Speaker, he went on to say here: "We say that this program is too costly . It is not practical as a dual language program. It is cumbersome and unworkable, and most important ly, it is not needed in Manitoba. The most important reason for the implementation of such a program is that it is going to, and already has, created hurt feelings and our legislators should have realized this. Not a single community in our province is made up entirely of one ethnic group." Why, in my constitue ncy, we've got Germans; we've got a very high percentage of Ukrainian families . A MEMBER: Poles. MR. l. HYDE: .. .

Poles, that's right. Mr. Speaker, it's just unbelievable that this government should endeavour to enforce this on this province of ours at this time. Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned how the government, as I see it, have just lost contact with the people. They've had the warnings given to them, but are not taking the advice that is being presented to them. The Honourable Member for St. James, the Minister of Natural Resources, the other night, stated he wanted the people to have the opportunity to express their feelings. If that is the case, then why are they rushing on this issue?

Give the people the opportunity to express their feelings. Don't cut them off like the Attorney-General did in Dauphin and in Brandon at the public meetings that he held. He took the opportuni ty, Mr. Speaker, to express his side of the issue. Mind you, I wasn't in attendance, but from what I have been told and read in the press, the Attorney-General was certainly not helping the issue at all. He wouldn't let the individual briefs that were presented, would not let them get their side of the story across at all. He chose to make it a one-sided issue and that was it. Mr.

Speaker, in the part of the province that I represent, I daresay the percentage of the people who speak French would be far under 1 percent. The French families I talked to are saying to me, what is all this fuss; we never had the trouble in the past, and they did not expect it to be ever again until this last year or two. We had a man who was charged on a traffic violation; he chose to make an issue of it. Today I say that this government has picked that up, they've picked it up and are determined that we as Manitobans are going to be bilingual - the Bilodeau case.

In our area, thoughts of whether one was French or English or Ukrainian or whatever never seemed to cross our minds up until recent months and then today, Mr. Speaker, it is the most important issue that this Legislature has dealt with for many years. When the Member for Radisson spoke in support of the main resolution, he - I'll just refer to this clipping, Mr. Speaker - and I'll quote. He called it, " . . . a great opportunity to reduce social tensions and social discrimination and a chance to right the wrongs suffered

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 by Manitoba Francophones who had guaranteed language rights by The Manitoba Act in 1870. The amendment simply establishes what was originally intended, no more and no less. " He claims, "It cannot be true that to be a Canadian I must deny my culture, my language, challenging MLAs to be prepared to practise what it really means to be a Canadia n. " Mr.

Speake r, we on this side have never never said that we would deny anyone, whether they be French Canadians, whether they be Belgian, what they would be, it would never be said that we would want to deny these people their cultural benefits. The Premier, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure has received thousands of letters protesting this action on this issue. He has received letters from many in my constituency, Mr. Speak er. There is one in particular that I want to refer to. It is signed by Mrs. Les Bowes of Portage la Prairie.

This is addressed to the Honourable Howard Pawley, Premier of Manitoba, Legislative Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba. "Dear Sir: I am writing to express the thoughts of our family and many other citizens of our district regarding our concerns ol the great expense in the enforcing of two languages in this province, and the consequences. We are definitely against the expense and the ridiculous translating of past laws into French. If ever necessary, a translator could be supplied at far less expense as would be done with any other language.

"We, the taxpayers of this province, simply cannot afford the expense of promoting French so much, and at the same time, it is an offence to many very hard working people of many other nationalities that have helped build this free country with the rights for all, and we hope to keep it that way. "The ability to do a job properly is far more essential than the language people speak. Bilingualism should not be a priority which seems to be happening in many places. A pat on the back to Mr. Russell Doern for the stand that he has taken and the majority of Manitobans should be with him all the way.

"We also believe in the pay-as-you-go policy with the priorities given to necessities as early settlers had to do and they succeeded with fair thought to all we hope to have in the coming generations of our provinc e. " Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the family. They are pioneers of the Portage area. There's a little footnote here too. She says, "I am a farmer's wife, a loyal Canadian citizen of both English and French origin. " Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that she brought to the attention of our Premier. I doubt very much if he even took the time to read that letter. A MEMBER: He's not listening. MR. l.

HYDE: That's right, he's just not listening to the people that are out there and are concerned with what is going on with this. We had another letter here from a Joan Pearson. This is addressed to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Speaker . "I would like to express my deep concern about making Manitoba a bilingual province. There are many nationalities other than French in Manitoba that wish to preserve their culture. I read in the paper recently that this will not affect jobs in the future; that is not true as it is already affecting people looking for work.

I'm sure this will only cost a great deal of money and create a lot of unrest. I u'lderstand that the wishes of the people are the concerns of our representatives in Parliament and hope that this subject gets top priority. " That is one other citizen of the area of Portage la Prairie who is very concerned about the outcome of this legislation. We have another letter here, Mr. Speaker, signed by Mr. and Mrs. Jack Corbett. They outline the same concerns, Mr. Speaker. Why do we have to go through this at this particular time with the costs that are going to be taken in seeing this legislation through? Mr.

Speaker, the cost of this to the taxpayer, we haven't got a clue at this point in time what it is going to cost us. We haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg, as the old saying goes. It's there; it's ready to explode as I see it. The governments will lose control of this, Mr. Speak er, and it will just run at a rampant pace and I'm afraid the cost, as I said earlier, the cost will just be unbearable to the citizens of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, why do we have to put up the cost of all this on to the people at this time? What is this rush? What is this?

We are asking the government to just slow down long enough that the people will have the opportunity to take and understand the program better, to understand what they are endeavouring to do to us. A MEMBER: Wait a couple or three years. MR. l. HYDE: That's right. We could wait a couple or three years and let the people feel more at ease with it all. Mr. Speak er, the people are asking me: why is it they are putting this here to the people at this particular time? Is it for them to make a mark in the history of Manitoba?

If that is the case then it's going to be a very very costly issue that we and the people of Manitoba will be paying for, for a long time. Give the people the opportunity to express their feelings, as I said earlier. Today the people are concerned about how this is going to affect them, their children, their grandchildren also. The people are asking, Mr. Speaker, that they be given that opportunity to express their feelings. They are saying, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want this to be entrenched in the Manitoba Constitution. Mr.

Speaker, we have been accused of holding up the work of the House from the people of the opposition in this government, or the government is accusing us, on this side of the House, of holding up the work of the House by continuing to debate this issue. Any government that would not allow any further briefs to be heard on Bill No. 60 this last week, Mr. Speak er, it is unbelievable that they should figure that we are holding up the work of this House. Mr. Speaker, the Premier of our province has put out many brochures and articles. Here's one where he says: "Working together for the future.

After the first few months in office I have renewed confidence that Manitobans' tremendous spirit and the basic strength of our reversed economy are the basis for an early recovery when this disastrous recession finally ends. Our province can and will pull its own weight. One important reason, " - and this is most important, Mr. 4859

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 Speaker - "One important reason is that Manitobans work together in times of crises. hope to continue meeting many of you as I travel throughout the province and I welcome your letters to my office in the Legislative Building." Mr. Speaker, there is a man who is the Premier of our province, has stated that he's been working together for the future. I say, Mr. Speaker, what is he doing? He is going to split this province from one end to the other. There is just no way. Is he going to be able to deny that this is going to influence the future of our province for some time to come?

I suggest, Mr. Speak er, that the scars will be there for years and probably into the next centu ry. A MEMBER: What's the big hurry? That's what I can't figure out. MR. L. HYDE: That's right, just what is that big hurry? Let us understand, let the people understand once again, that we want to as Manitobans, we want to be part of this legislation that is proposed. Mr.

Speaker, this now famous bit of advertisement that the province has brought forward and, "Our constitutional commitment to Manitobans," it says, and there's a picture of a man - I still can't quite understand who his stand-in could be, - it isn't the man that we know today, that's for sure, and besides that, his signature is not really his own according to what we can see from that ad. Mr.

Speaker, talking about costs, it was just this last week, late in the week that this beautiful brochure - I'd like to tell you the colours are something that I like, that nice Tory blue colour - but my God the message in there is something that we just can't quite agree with. A MEMBER: It's hard to digest. MR. L. HYDE: ... it's pretty danged hard to digest. We were talking just a moment ago here about the costs, this $28,000 for printing this beautiful piece of paper here with very little in it. The cost of printing it, $28,000, and I've been told, Mr.

Speaker, that it cost the Province of Manitoba or the taxpayers of this province another $27,000 to get this damn thing into the homes of the people that they don't want. They don't want this. - (Interjection) - that's right. It'll never get past the desk in many of the public post offices. They're chucked in the wastebaskets there by the dozens - garbage. Mr. Speaker, in one issue it says: "French Language Services are to be offered by the Provincial Government in limited ways and special areas only." Mr. Speaker, this is just a start.

Heavens, I can just visualize what is going to happen in a few years down the road. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this province would just slow down a bit. If it takes us another year or two or three years, we'll all benefit by it. In 1987 he says here, the people requesting service in French, "will be served in French by certain specified provincial departments and agenci es. " Wh at percentage of people are asking this or even needing it? Very very few.

The people in my constituency who are of French nationali ty, when they phone up the agricultural department at Portage la Prairie, the ag rep, they don't talk to him in French. They can speak their English and get their points across even though they may come from down south there, in the St. Claude area, where there is a little heavier concentration of French speaking people. But, Mr. Speaker, this is just ridiculous to think that in a place like Portage la Prairie where they are going to insist that the agricultural representative will have to be bilingual.

Businesses, municipalities, non-government bodies, school boards, institutions are not affected in any way, he says. Ha, ha, I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, it won't be long before they'll be up to their ears in demands on the Government of Manitoba for bilingual translations. "Provision of French Language Services will be limited to communities which have a significant number of French speaking Manitobans ." About 30 out of the 202 municipalities, they claim. Well, Mr.

Speaker, in our case I'm sure that we have no more than .5 of 1 percent of my population in the area of Portage la Prairie who will need assistance in the French bilingual work. Mr. Speaker, this piece of information, if you could call it that, that has been put out by the Attorney General, it's just full of propoganda. Here it is right here: "Putting this agreement into the Constitution guarantees exactly what services are legal rights and therefore is not the beginning of creeping bilingualism." I just don't believe that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I just do not believe that.

We are just starting to have and will have trouble in the very near future. He says there's nothing being forced on people. Well I wonder. You know, it struck my mind the other day as I was driving through Portage when I had to pull up at a stop sign, I wonder how long it's going to be, Mr. Speaker, before he'll have - Arret - across there instead of - Stop - like we in Portage la Prairie are accustomed to reading. I can just see this here mushroom to the point where it will just get out of hand entirely.

Well so much for this here piece of garbage that has the Honourable Roland Penner's signature, the Attorney-General of this province of ours. I say that he will be one of the many that will not be back when we meet the people again. Mr. Speak er, there's a letter here that's lengthy, and I want to pick out portions of it here and read them into the record. It's signed, Respectfully yours, Jean M. Ross. Well I don't know who Jean M. Ross is, but she certainly has some good points in this here letter that she wrote to the Honourable Howard Pawley, Premier of our province.

"Dear Sir: When your government came to power you indicated yours would be an open government. Manitobans construed this as meaning that you would listen to them and govern accordingly. If you are listening you will not proceed with the resolution to entrench French language services in the Canadian Constitution. To forge ahead with this amendment, which is so divisive, is foolhardy on your part. The feeling around abounds that you, Mr.

Pawley, Attorney-General Penner, Prime Minister Trudeau, and this Societe Franco Manitobaine have attempted to resolve this issue in a devious manner behind the backs, and upon the backs of the majority in this province. 4860

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 "The cost of bilingualism, as we have seen in the Federal exercise is excessive and wastef ul. To say as Mr. Penner has, that it really won't cost Manitobans that much, is ludricrous. Mr. Penner's explanation that the Federal Government will provide money is, I'm sure, very true. Of course they will because the Liberal Government of Mr. Trudeau, is determined to promote French at any cost. "Does Mr. Penner believe that all Manitobans are so naive that they don't realize that provincial and federal moneys needed to carry out this proposal come from the taxpayers' pocket? Does Mr.

Penner think that the Federal Government has a money tree? Many people who expect government to subsidize everything don't realize that the money must come from their pockets but I wouldn't have expected Mr. Penner to be one of those. "Now the Georges Forest and the Roger Bilodeau perpetuation of the alleged injustice upon French Canadians is enraging to many people. Could neither of these men read or speak English?" she asks. "Was there really a need there? Their cost battles . . . and company and funded by taxpayers were not needed. They were demands for revenge by the vindictive individuals." She goes on, Mr.

Speak er, it's quite lengthy and there's another paragraph here that I want lo bring to the attention of the Assembly this evening. It goes like this: "Before you decide that I'm a bigot I'd like to tell you that until a number of years ago I thought all French Canadians were fascinating, fun-loving people. My husband's mother was French Canadian. Before Pierre Trudeau started pushing for bilingualism my husband, and one of our daughters, and I took private French lessons from a transplanted Quebecer." The lessons were paid for from her husband's pocketbook.

"Unfortunately our teacher was transferred before we became proficient in the language. Now I'm not sure I'm interested in learning French as a second language." She says, "I think I'll push for Gaelic," because as is mentioned earlier in the lette r, she has a Scotch background. "Seriously though, I feel our official language should be English. I'm in favour of learning as many languages as one is able to do. However, the costs of learning other languages should not be borne by the taxpay er." That is the part that is very important.

We as individuals, as Canadians, if we wish to be able to speak other than the English language - the No. 1 language across the world, incidentally , recognized as the official language is English - if we wish to speak in tongues other than English, it should be at our own cost, not at the cost of the taxpayer. It is my belief, Mr.

Speak er, that many civil servants in the Federal Government in Ottawa and right across the country for that matter , have been sent to achieve that goal of being able to speak another la nguage, have been sent at the government expense, at the taxpayers' expense to see that this happens. She went on to say, "I resent government having its hand in my pocket to pay for the demands of every ethnic culture. No culture should have special status." Mr. Speak er, there's one other letter here that I get a chuckle out of, really I do. It's signed by a Mr. Merritt, and I just want to read this one paragraph.

It says: "Mr. Bigelow," - Mr. Bigelow is President apparently of the Manitoba NDP Party - and this one says, "Yes, I had been - I had," it says and it's underlined - "I had been faithful to the part;; since the Schreyer era, a willing footworker, even displaying the party banner on my front lawn during election promotions and now, regretfully, I realize what an idiot I have been." Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many letters that we know is circling around. There is a man who was faithful to the NDP Party for many years, and has made it well known that he is through with that party.

He is ready to work with a party that believes in people; that believes in the interests of people in Manitoba; not just one group, but the overall population of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by stating that I'm sure if this government continues to operate the way it is and has been doing, it is going to split this province of ours right down the centre, right down the centre. If they cont inue to insist that this res olut ion be entrenched in the Provincial Constitution, we on this side of the House will continue to debate the issue, to when we hope, Mr.

Speaker, the government will realize that they are on the wrong track; that they have forgotten just what they intended they said they would do in the fall of 198 1; that they would work with the people of Manitoba; that they would stress the need of a government working with the people. This government, Mr. Speaker, failed the people of Manitoba and they are failing the people of Manitoba on this partic ular very important issue that is before this House. I certainly will support the efforts of my leader, of all those who have spoke in the last few days, on this particular issue and I will continue to . . . MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please. Are you ready for the question? The Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This occasion gives me another opportunity in this debate to elaborate a little further some of my concerns, some of my feelings, and I also hope that the message that I transmit to the government on behalf of the citizens of my constituency do not fall on deaf ears of members opposite. We have seen in the last several weeks, something which is relatively unique with regard to this Assembly.

In the 10 years that I have been here, I have not seen the events of the Chamber unfold in such a manner and maybe it's because of several reasons. One of them, of course, which is before us this evening, is the attempt by the government to move through this Chamber a resolution which will represent the first amendment to the Constitution of Canada and the first bid by the Province of Manitoba to do that. As the government has been told by numerous speakers on this side, we believe that this matter is much too important to be hurried through in the manner that the government has undertaken.

I think what is becoming abundantly clear to this government and to members opposite is the fact that they have done the Manitoba citizens, both of Francophone descent, of English descent, and of the other ethnic communities, a great disservice. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because what they have done is they have torn the scab off the wound and the wound will once again fester. For years 4861

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 we have learned, Mr. Speaker, through slow, deliberate planning and moving into this direction of providing French services, that it was the best way to do it without evoking the type of animosities and hostilities which this resolution will do. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say that as someone who represents a riding which, as I mentioned several days ago, is a true cultural mosaic of this province and coming from one of the ethnic groups in that area, I do believe I speak with a little bit of authority and also with a little bit of experience and most of all, I speak with conviction.

Let me put on the record what was happening in this province over the last number of years. In 1979, when the Supreme Court ruled on the question of the Forest parking ticket, it was the then Premier of the province and the then government that took a responsible approach to dealing with this matter . We indicated that, yes, we would be providing services in the courts, and we would be moving to translating statutes, and we would also be moving to provide French services in major government departments in this province. Mr. Speak er, that was done in the same common sense approach method. Mr.

Speaker, it's interesting to note, at that time, there was no hue and cry from the public. Sure, we had a few letters from people who at that time thought we were moving too fast and too far, and those people will always be in society, but as a member of a government that was moving in a responsible and common sense approach manner to this particular problem, I would say to members opposite that there was a minimum amount of hostility or animosity between different people in Manitoba.

When this particular government announced about a year ago that they would also try to speed up somewhat the process of translation and that, there was no objection from the opposition and very little objection from the public at large. Wh at has happened tod ay, Mr. Speaker? The government decided to take a course of action which has gone ahead and torn the fabric of our society. We see that happening right now. The government realizes, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the problem they have created, not only for themselves but for Manitobans, for Manitobans as a whole. Let me cite, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what really was happening in this province. As you know, the area which I come from, and my ethnic background, my grandparents never did learn to speak English. I have a grandmother some 90 years old in a personal care home in Steinbach who speaks only German. My children were learning German in school. Mr. Speaker , up until this last year my young daughter who just graduated if you want to call it or passed Grade 3, was not offered a French course in Steinbach. As she now enters Grade 4, she will have the opportunity of choosing either French or German. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, keep in mind that German is an integral part of my heritage and I do not want to lose that heritage. Howev er, as a parent, I had to choose between continuing with the German or switching my daughter into French.

I ask members opposite, if education means arming your child, or arming an individual with the best possible tools to succeed and the best possible tools to be able to get those jobs, whether in the Provincial Civil Service, Federal Civil Service, or other jobs within this great country of ours which will increasingly require the use of French, what real choice does a person such as myself have? Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that issue before this resolution came before the House. My decision was to have my young daughter enrol in the French course, and that wasn't an easy one. Mr.

Speaker, my son who is going to be going into junior high this year has taken German in school till now, Grade 7. We were faced with the same decision there - to continue in German or switch him over into French. Mr. Speak er, I'm fortunate, my son doesn't have a hard time in school and I was determined to have him learn both languages. I talked to the teachers and the principals to see if there wasn't some way, even if it meant an extra hour of education a day, that he could take both those courses. Mr.

Speaker, it turns out that because of timetabling, there is not that opportunity, so my son will be taking French this year knowing full well that it will result in my not passing on to the full extent possible, my heritage and culture. Mr. Speaker, all people of other ethnic backgrounds are coming to the realization, if they really sit down and look at the situation, they are coming to the realization that if education is arming your children with the best possible tools to achieve, one of those tools will have to be French. Anybody that doesn't realize that is fooling themselves. That realization, Mr.

Speak er, came to me not because of anything that any government decided to do, not because of any resolution in this particular Chamber, but because it's a fact of life. I am one of these people, Mr. Speaker, who believes that one of the big injustices that we've done in the education system - and you can't blame any particular government with regard to that - is the deletion or removal of the requirement to have a person who is entering university to have two languages. That used to be the case. There was an incentive there for individuals to learn that second language.

Instead of moving in a direction which sort of enhanced that particular program, we have moved in the opposite direction and done away with that requirement. I would suggest to the government if they're looking for some positive suggestions, it might be time that we sit down and change the curriculum, change the requirements for university entrance and say that you have to have that second language. These are the types of things, Mr.

Speaker, that can be done without bringing upon us this type of animosity and this type of resolution which I have no hesitation in saying that it is going to be a big, divisive item in this province of ours. I see evidences of it alrea dy. As someone who has been, I believe, very responsible about this issue, and someone who has had to come to grips with it within my family contacts and within my culture and environment, I want to say to members opposite that this resolution before us will not help the citizens of Ste. Anne, La Broquerie, Steinbach, Hadashville, to become a more cohesive force in Manitoba.

It will have just the opposite effect. I know that we're dealing with a resolution here which will call for public hearings, but I say to the Attorney General and I say to members opposite, maybe some of my colleagues won't agree with me, but these hearings which we are going to have - and I've looked 4862

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 at a list today of some of the people that are going to be at the hearings - Mr. Speak er, these hearings will be attended to a very large extent by the vested interest groups on different sides. I doubt very much if you're going to hear the average person on the street come forward with regard to this issue l:rdcause we are in a position on this issue where anybody who speaks against it, is automatically branded a bigot. Mr. Speak er, people are scared to speak out on this issue. They will speak to their member privately.

There are very few people that will write their member in protest to this there are some that will but there are very few people - because this is a very private and personal thing and is at the root of many of the concerns that people have with regard to, not only the education system, but with regard to the divisive nature that this particular resolution has.

I say to members opposite, if they don't believe that, let me say to them that the type of animosities that have built, not on the anti-resolution side but even on the pro-resolution side, rea lly are evidenced and highlighted by such things as the cartoon which appeared in La Liberte several weeks ago . Mr. Speaker, that cartoon shows the type of animosities and hatred that develops when something like this is brought out. Mr.

Speaker, I resent - and I know there is nothing I can do because as someone has said, politicians are fair game on this - but I resent in the strongest way being depicted as someone standing there with a Ku Klux Klan mask on either holding a noose or a pitch fork or an ax, as someone who is there to either desecrate the tombstone of Louis Riel or burn the Societe Franco-Manitobaine building. Mr. Speak er, this type of hate literature is precisely the thing which is going to cause this government and this Manitoba of ours the type of problems which none of us wanted to see, none of us.

This government, in their hasty approach to deal with the subject matter, has brought this type of cartoon to the fore and I don't want anyone, Mr. Speaker, on either side of the issue to use this type of tactic when they're dealing with this subject matter. A MEMBER: That's over now. They're already at it, Bob. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier I have a large number of Francophone residents in my area. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to many of them.

My position has been and continues to support the expansion and establishment of French language services in this province, as I mentioned before, which were initiated by my leader and I was a member of the Executive Council of it . I was proud of my involvement in that government which moved, Mr.

Speaker, as everybody knows, and which the Attorney-Genera l acknowledged in his speech and I thanked him for that, he acknowledged that we had done some significant things with regard to providing French language services and instead of doing us a disservice by bringing those things out, which I think he thought he was doing, he thought he was going to put us on the spot and say, well look, how can you be against it if you've been already moving in that way? Yes, we were moving in that way and I was proud of that But, Mr.

Speaker, I am opposed to entrenching these services because I believe that the responsibility for the administration of this should rest with this governing body, in other words with the elected officials in this particular Chamb er. I do not think that we should hand this matter over to the courts. Now, why do I say that? We have seen what has happened to a number of federal programs when they are handed over to the courts or, Mr.

Speaker, I must say lo the bu reaucrats, and I want to deviate just a little bit from my speech and indicate to members opposite when the language commissioner came through Manitoba and was holding his hearings and he met individually with different members of the then Executive Council, I asked for an audience with that particular gentleman and said at that particular time, that I had a number of issues to raise with him which I think served to show how, when bureaucrats get a hold of something, they become overzealous in their drive to implement it and all too often the politicians are helpless in dealing with it People wonder why there is a reaction to this particular resolution when we have, as I indicated, cartoons like this coming out; but furthermore, incidents happening in areas such as mine, dealing with this.

A number of years ago, Mr. Speaker, in their drive to make sure that everything would be labelled bilingual in this province, the Bilingual Commission decided that about $1 5,0 00 of plastic bags, which were used by Freindly Family Farms in Steinbach, which is a fairly large employer - it's an eviscerating plant - did not have the proper labeling on it. So, Mr.

Speaker, they made the company burn those bags and they did it in such a manner that the press showed up, took pictures and there were headlines in the local paper and on the local radio station showing how $1 5,0 00 worth of perfectly good plastic bags were being burned because the Bilingual Commission said they didn't have the right lettering on it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that highlights the ridiculousness of that type of approach.

Instead of going ahead and saying to that company, hey, we have a policy in place, could you on the next shipment that you're getting in, of this particular product, have the French also put on it. It would not have cost the company maybe a few cents extra and they would have done it. But, Mr. Speak er, to move in a high-handed manner without using any common sense in dealing with a particular issue like that, really makes people wonder; then the members opposite wonder why the reaction to this is what it is. People are concerned about it.

People have seen in the past, what has happened by some overzealous bureaucrat and politician, when given a little bit of au thority, they have moved in a manner which defies any logic and any common sense. What I am saying, Mr. Speak er, is that the general public out there really do not trust the government on this particular issue. Mr.

Speak er, there are a number of issues in the past while that people have been told that really they're of no real consequence, and they're not really going to cause any problems for anybody, and it's only going to be a little bit here, and we're not going to move very quickly on them, and then people wake up the next morning and find out what was supposed to be of not much consequence, turns out to be a major piece of legislation and will affect their lives. 4863

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 I suggest to the government that no amount of advertising, of putting out newspapers, or putting out pamphlets, of TV and radio advertising, is going to dissuade the public from having that feeling of skepticism which exists over this issue. This issue is one which has become a very emotional one. I want to say to members opposite, that as someone who lives in an area and represents an area where people have been getting along together very well, thank you, for many years, this resolution does a lot of damage.

If they had taken the course of action which was open to them and moved on providing some of these services at a pace which was one that everybody could understand and acknowledge, this whole question wouldn't have been raised. Something that gets sort of lost in the shuffle in the speeches is one thing which I think is very important and which nobody has really ever talked that much about. The fact of the matter is, in dealing with the way the previous administration did and this government did, is that you really couldn't move any faster than you were in areas of translation and other means.

We just don't have the people in place in Canada to deal with the statute translation. We couldn't move any faster than we were. We don't have people who are of that legal technical background in translating from English to French to move any faster than we were. Now suddenly we are led to believe, by the introduction of this resolution, that things will happen a lot quicker. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think so. If we couldn't get the people with the expertise to translate before, how are we going to get them now?

I guess that one point sort of highlights the ridiculousness of what we're going through here right now. We were moving. The previous ad ministration and this government were moving about as fast as they could , because physically it wasn't possible to move any faster. What more could the governments do? What this resolution does - and the government will deny that - but what this resolution does, it heightens the expectations of the Francophone community in this province; it really does.

The entrenchment of both languages as being official languages in this province - and the government can downplay it - really highlights the concern that many of us have. It's moving in a direction that I believe was never intended by politicians in previous years, and was never contemplated by the Legislature. What was contemplated was to provide court services and legislative services in both languages, but it was never contemplated that Manitoba was to be a fully bilingual province.

Several weeks ago, we had a group here from Montreal who are fighting the cause for the Anglophones in Quebec and of course their pitch to us in our caucus was that if you're against this resolution, you're going to do irrevocable damage to the English community in Quebec, and that you're also against binding Confederation together. Mr. Speaker, what those people fail to see is that there has never been any requirement in Manitoba for an immigrant moving into Manitoba, they didn't have to prove that both parents or one of the parents was from English descent or English stock in order to go to an English school.

Those types of restraints were never pu t on people in our society. When our people came from Vietnam, or from Cambodia or Thailand, or some of the other areas, they were never given a test as to which language they had to take in this province. Mr. Speaker, the first thing was to try and get them to learn some English. I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, knowing some of the young children going to school right now, many of those children are enrolled in the French courses in Steinbach and you're going to have these children, when they come through the school system, speak both English and French; but there was never any test as to what their pedigree was or their nationality was with regard to whether they take French or English. Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba it's a totally different scenario than they are facing in Quebec, totally different. So let's not say that both situations are analogous. As I mentioned before, Mr.

Speaker, this issue is an emotional one and will continue to be so. Members opposite, I know, when they're going home, especially rural members, are hearing from their constituents and the majority of the people are saying one thing, what is the hurry? What is the hurry? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my constituents that this particular government has arrived at an agreement with the Francophone Society, Societe Franco-Manitobaine, with the Federal Government and themselves, and that they have established a deadline of December 31, 1983 , to push this through.

That isn't our date, that's the government's date. I've indicated before, Mr. Speak er, that those negotiations did not include the some 95 percent of the people that are not of Francophone descent. And all the opposition is asking for is for this issue to be discussed thoroughly by the public, and I think the opposition is providing that vehicle at the present time. If we had just passed that resolution without drawing some of the highlights of that resolution to the attention of the people of Manitoba, we would not have been representing our constituencies in a manner which I believe they want us to.

One of the other areas, Mr. Speaker, that I want to also touch on is that we are, in this province, facing many other difficulties with regard to economic issues, unemployment issues. Many of our people, of course, are asking the question, why spend so much time on this issue? Why does the government insist in bringing this issue to a head when there are so many other things to be working on? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have my own theory on that and I have no hesitation in espousing that here this evening.

I'm sure members opposite, when looking at their re-election prospects, decided to zero in on a number of ethnic groups, and I think this is the old divide-and conquer theory. If we can make a deal with the Francophone community, which represents 6 percent or 7 percent of the electorate in Manitoba, we can then go to La Verendrye and say, during the next election, look, your member Banman, he's not representing you very well. Look what he said in the Legislature about the French resolution. Mr. Speaker, that's really what's at the heart of this matter. Mr.

Speaker, they really believe that everybody would sit back and not say anything with regard to the issue. They've sort of hoped that everybo dy might be intimidated because they were hoping that our leader, in his first speec h, would come up and really indicate that he was totally against any French services and 4864

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 that we were totally opposed to the bilingual issue in the total spectrum of things. That has not happened. As I mentioned before, the Attorney-General did us a favour by putting on the record all the things that happened since 1979 which the previous administration had introduced. He put that on the record. I appreciate his assistance with regard to that. But they really believe that they could consolidate one segment of the voting public, and thereby try and save a seat maybe like Springfield, maybe Russell, a seat like Emerson, away from the Tories because, Mr.

Speaker , I have no hesitation in saying that in the next election the speeches in this House, on this side, will be used in a selective way. They'll pull certain passages out of a speech and will be circulated. Somebody on the other side talked about the whisper campaign - I believe the Member for Transcona. Well, Mr. Speak er, these speeches which are being made today, I'm sure my speech at some form or another, they're going to pull some excerpt out of there out of context and say, Banman said that - and they will use that. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Radisson, I know is very intent on seeing this resolution passed because he is part of that 5 percent minority, and he has a vested interest in this; he really does. Because, Mr. Speaker, he wants to go to the people of Manitoba, and his family wants to be able to say that the Member for Radisson, when he was there he was part of the group along with maybe the Member for St. Boniface and a few others, who forced the New Democratic Party to put this through. He wants the history books to say that he was part of it. So he's got a vested interest in it and that's fine.

That's his own politics. I know, Mr. Speaker, the Member for lac du Bonnet, the type of heat he's getting from his constitu ency , and not in just the form of a petition of 300 names. He is getting the quiet coffee-shop heat; the quiet meetings such as the one the other day in Beausejour. That kind of heat he's getting on this particular issue and he's taking it because, you know, the Member for la du Bonnet, he is one thing, and I have to give it to him, he's a real good grassroots politician. He's one of the best that the members opposite have on their team.

But I'm sure that member is starting to have second thoughts and wondering what kind of a sore and wound they opened on this particular issue, because he realizes what the concern is out there. Mr. Spea ker, that is the type of stuff that is coming back.

I believe that this government, for political purposes, to try and consolidate a certain ethnic group or a certain minority group in this province, to consolidate that vote for a number of years, has moved on this resolution in a manner in which I believe - and time will show - will serve as a detriment to the implementation of bilingual services on the people of Manitoba, and will create animosities among the citizens of Manitoba such as we would not have had, had the government moved in an organized, systematic, rational, and common-sense approach as started by the former Lyon Government. Mr.

Speaker, that can be argued. The members opposite might well say, well, Banman, you know not of what you speak. I say to members opposite, they have created a conflict and have done a disservice to the Francophone commun ity, and have done a disservice to the other residents of this country. Instead of binding Manitoba togeth er, they have done just the opposite. They have really torn away at the fabric of Manitoba society. Time, Mr. Speaker, I am confident will bear out what I have said. We realize, all of us, in speaking to this resolution, that we are not dealing with something that is of a short-term nature.

We are dealing with an issue that will affect not only our lives but our children and grandchildren and I have indicated this evening how it's going to affect my children and my culture. I have come to accept that fact as being one which I will deal with and which I have dealt with, and I am moving to bilingualize my family, but Manitobans as a whole do not want to be told to do something, they would like to have that done voluntarily. That was happening. This government has created a bigger problem than the one they're trying to solve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J.

Walding: Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is the proposed sub amendment moved by the Honourable Member for Gladstone. Do you wish it read? QUESTION put on sub-amendment, MOTION defeated. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House is the proposed sub amendment, moved by the Honourable Member for Gladstone appearing on Page 13 of the Order Paper. Do you wish it read?

The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Gladstone and further amendment thereto: THAT the amendment be further amended by adding after the words "next Session of the legislature" where they appear in the proposed amendment of Mr. Sherman, the words "and in any case not later than December 31, 1983." A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Banman, Brown, Downey, Enns, Filmon, Gourlay , Graham; Mrs. Hammond; Messrs. Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Manness, McKenzie, Merci er, Nordman; Mrs. Oleson; Messrs. Orchard, Ransom, Sherman. NAYS Messrs.

Adam, Anstett, Bucklaschuk, Corrin, Cowan; Mrs. Dodick; Ms. Dolin; Messrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox, Harapiak; Ms. Hemphill; Messrs. Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mackling, Malinowski, Parasiuk, Penner; Ms. Phillips; Messrs. Plohman, Santos, Schroeder, Scott; Mrs. Smith; Messrs. Uruski, Uskiw. 4865

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas 19; Nays 26. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly lost. The question before the House is the proposed amendment moved by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines that the House do now adjourn. MOTION presented and carried and the House adjourned and stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday). 4866

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-130
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 130.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	66e0f0400284f20b713a2e964c984f0e41a2c5b7

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