ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 128 - 10:00 a.m., WEDNESDAY, 3 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOW NEY, 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, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, 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 Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kil don an 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 Moun tain Burrows Rossmere ln kster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 3 August, 1983. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenti ng Reports by Standing and Special Com mittees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORA.l QUESTIONS Baby virus llllR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Acting Minis ter of Health, and I would ask him whether the viral infection which has caused the death of one infant, and illne ss of 19 others, in St. Boniface General Hospital is, to the best of the Ministry's knowledge, at this point in time, now contained and under control? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: The advice that I have received from the depa rt ment is tha t to the best of their knowledge the virus is, indeed, contained in St. Boniface Hospital, in the nursery there.

The advice also is that, at this time, the exact type of virus has not been identified, but that it is contained to St. Bon iface Hospital. Some 20 babies have been affected, one baby has died, three are critically ill. In this situation the infected babies are in isolation; maternity cases are being shifted to Mi sericordia Hospital, un less these are emergency cases or high­ risk cases, and ther e is co-operation between Misericordia and St. Boniface Hospital at present.

They've called in experts from the United States to try and determine the exact nature of the virus, but there is no situation where it's spread beyond St. Boniface. They are doing a check with those mothers and babies who have been in the hospital within the last 10 days. That check is proceeding to see if there are any cases but, to the best of the knowledge of the department, the situation is under control. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would thank the Min ister for tha t in forma tion. I would ask him a supplement ary.

Does the high-risk obstetrical capability at the Health Sciences Centre have the capacity to accommodate the volume in this field, the two high­ risk obstetrical centres for Manitoba essentially, but certainly particularly for Winnip eg, being the Health Sciences Centre and St. Bon iface Hospital? HON. W. PARASIUK: I have received the information that the Health Sciences Centre does have the capacity to accept the high-risk cases. I will have to take that question as notice. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, to the Honourable First Min ister, does this situation cause the government to rethink its decision to consolidate obstetrical units, and to phase out the obstetrical units at Seven Oaks and Concordia? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have received no in formation to indic ate th at decision should be rethought, reconsidered on the basis of what has happened in St.

Bon iface, but if, indeed, the Acting Min ister, upon obtaining further information brings anything anew that we ought to examine, then certainly we would exam ine it in light of any addi tional information. fitness, Recreation and Sport MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the First Mini ster could confirm that the government has disbanded and dissolved the Department of Fitness, Recreation and Sport. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, no, there is no intention to dis solve.

Ther e ha s been a res truc turing and reorganization insofar as the Department of Fitness. I think the Mini ster responsible for Urban Affairs is probably best to deal with that particular question. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, then a question to the Min ister, I guess, responsible for recreation in the province.

In light of the fact that the department has now been split up and there will not be any cohesive department in government which deals with sport, fitne ss and recreation, could the Min ister of Recreation now, who is also responsible for Cultur e, advise the House as to what type of duplications will now exist between the two departments?

In other words, how will the sporting public, as well as the recreat ion public, which are activities which go hand in hand, how will they be instructed to deal with this particular situation now that this department has been dissolved and the pri ority of fitness and sport downgraded by this government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Cultur al Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The newly reorgan ized departments will continue to work hand in hand with respect to the activities of recreation and 4803

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 fitness and sport. The reorganized Department of Cultural Affairs, including recreation, will be responsible for the regional delivery of recreation, fitness and sport activities outside of the City of Winnipeg, and we will work in concert and in consult ation with the reorgani zed Department of Health, Fitness and Sport to ensure that there is a cohesive delivery of those services to people in the Province of Manitoba. MR. R. BANMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in light of the fact that this is clearly a downgrading of priority by this government, with regara to fitness and sport and recreation in this province, and that really will be a blow to the recreation and sporting commu nity of this particular province, I wonder if the Minister now in cha rge of recreat ion could info rm the people of Ma nitoba why this action was taken , why this downgrading was undertaken. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reject the allega tion that this was a downgrading of the commitment of this government to recreation, fitn ess and sport.

The facts of the matter are the decision was made to reorgani ze the departments and to make one less department within government as a means of stream lining government operations.

It's certainly not the intention to downgrade the activities of recreation, and I'm sure if the Minister of Health, who is responsible for Fitness and Sport, were here he would echo my words and indicate that, in fact, it's an upgrading of responsibility by including and working closely together with the Department of Health and Fitness and Sport, and that the ongoing consu ltation and co-operation between our two departments will continue to ensure that there is an effective, but an efficient, delivery system for those services to people of the Province of Manitoba. MR. R. BANMAN: Well, to the same Mini ster.

In light of the fact that there was a cohesive org anized and conc entrated un it within government, namely , the Department of Fitness, Recreation and Sport, which was put in place because of the kind of chaos that was happening before when people were dealing with recreation in the Department of Cultural Affairs, and sport with the Department of Health; in light of the problems that were being caused at that time, how can this Minister now say we're going back to the old system and say this parti cu lar department isn't downgraded?

We've had experience with the type of approach that the government now is reverti ng to. We had a better system to serve the people of Manitoba, the sporting communit y. What kind of rationale does the Minis ter use now, going back to the old system, which will be less effective and less responsive to the needs of sport and recreation in this province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware of the chaos that the member opposite refers to. I can guarantee those - (I nterjection) - I hear some chaos over there, Mr. Speaker, but I'll try to ignore it.

I'm not aware of the chaos that the member alludes to or alleges existed in the past. I can assure honourable members, and the people of the Province of Manitoba, particularly those that are interested and involved in recreatio n, sport and fitness activities throughout Manitoba, that we will continue to provide the service, in co-operation with the local municipalties, the local recreation districts and the new revitalized Department of Fitness, Health and Sport.

I believe, from what I'v e been told by others, that the reorgani zation of the departments that took place some time ago were not done for reasons of government efficiency, rather for political reasons to shuffle Ministers, at the time, around. McKenzie Seeds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. It was recently reported that the manager of McKenzie Seeds retail outlet moonlights as manager for the Carillon Card Shoppe in Brandon. The Carillon Card Shoppe, of course, is owned by Mr.

Moore, and the other two senior officers recently fired from McKenzie Seeds in Brandon. There's also a fourth shareholder involved in that corporation, Mr. Speaker, who also works for McKenzie Seeds. My question to the Minis ter responsible for McKenzie Seeds is, does he see any potential problem with this kind of busi"ess arrangement? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Commu nity Services. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I read the newspaper this morning, as obviously the honourable member did and I gather that the Provincial Auditor is looking into the matter. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister who is responsible for McKenzie Seeds, who must answer in this House for McKenzie Seeds. I'm asking the Minister whether he has any problem with that kind of busin ess arrangement? Does he personally find that sort of business arrangement acceptable? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Commu nity Services. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone should try to presume to prejudge anything. We should get the facts, have an analysis by proper qualified people such as the Provincial Auditor and his staff. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, the Chairman of the Board of McKenzie Seeds, Mr. McDowell, has reportedly said that he sees no problem with this kind of busine ss arrangement, having a person emplo yed full-time with McKenzie Seeds, and also working part-time with another busine ss owned entirely by people who are the present or former employees of McKenzie Seeds. Since the chairman of the board has expressed an opinion about that, would the Minister not care to venture his opinion on this sort of situation? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, this sounds very repetitive.

I would like to get the facts and the anal ysis of the Provincial Auditor's Office. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the fourth shareholder involved in the Carillon Card Shoppe, a Mrs. Greeniaus, 4804

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 is a person who has served as official agent for NDP candidates on at least three occasions. Given that she HON. R. PENNER: That's dipping into the mud. MR. B. RANSOM: ... well, Mr. Speaker, the Attor ney­ General says that's dipping into the mud. If being an official agent for an ND P candi date is dipping into the mud, then that's up to them. This has to do with the responsi bility of the Minis ter.

He is dealing with a situation where one shareholder who has been an official agent of NDP candidates on at least three occasions; a situation where his long­ time frien d and poli tical associate was a ma jor sharehold er. Is that why the Min ister is so reluctant to accept his responsibil ity to take charge of this situation? HON. l. EVAN: I think the attitude of the honourable member is very regrettable. I think we have to look at the situation; we have to look at all the facts. The political allegiances of any individual or individuals involved is beside the point.

As the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain full well knows, some of the people who have been named by the Provincial Auditor and who have been in the news rece ntly have been prominent Cons ervatives in the Brandon area. But, Mr. Speaker, that is irrelevant. The irrelevancy is the actions of individua ls, the incidents, the events - not their political allegiance. MR. B. RANSOM: A question to the First Minis ter, Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds seems un able to an swer que stions in the Ho use conce rning his res ponsi bili tie s.

He has evidently expressed his concern pub licly to newspaper reporters to the effect that he feels betrayed by his long-sta nding friends and political associates. Given that set of circu mstances, Mr. Speaker, will the First Mini ster not come to the conclusion that this Mini ster no w responsible for McKenzie Seeds is incapable of dealing with the situation in an obj ective fash ion, and will he remove him from that responsibility? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important to review some of the circu mstances pertaining to the allegations that flow from the honourable member's question. It was the Minis ter responsible for McKenzie Seeds that caused an internal investigation to be undertaken four days before the matter was raised in the Chamber by the Member for Turtle Mountain.

It was immedia tely insofar as the additional information that was brought to light - and I have credited the Member for Turtle Mountain in respect to this - brought that information to light in this Cham ber, that the Min ister responsible for McKenzie Seeds caused an inquiry by the Provincial Auditor. Mr. Speaker, I do not know in what way it can be suggested that the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds has been negligent in respect to his responsi bil ities. He caused the Auditor to investigate the charges that were levelled by honourable members across the way.

He has been prepared to await the Auditor's report, rather than that it come to hasty, premature decisions; to act on the basis of factual information provided to him by the Provincial Auditor. Mr. Spea ker, the honour able member ha s no fo unda tion for any sug ges tion tha t the Mini ster responsible for McKenzie Seeds ought to resign. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Min ister. He has an interim report from the Auditor; it apparently dealt in sufficient detail with the situation to result in the firing of the three senior executives.

Perhaps the Fi rst Mini ster would be prepared to make that report public. A further question to the First Min ister, Mr. Speaker. Does he find it acceptable as a method of doing busi ness that a person employed by McKenzie Seeds should also be employed by persons who are now shareholders and formerly were employees of McKenzie Seeds and some who still remain as employees of McKenzie Seeds, does he not see some potential avenue for abuse in that kind of business arrangement? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is for that very reason that I would await the report of the Provincial Auditor.

There are a numb er of public servants who do have second jobs and have had second jobs for a numb er of years. Mr. Speaker, it is a question whether or not that second job is inconsistent or in conflict with their first job. That has to be determined, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have the facts and information from an independent source that reports to the Chamber as a whole and it is the Provincial Auditor that is non-political and reports to the Chamber as a whole that can best bring forth to members of this Chamber the facts so that we can evaluate those facts and then conclude whether or not there is an actual conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, that is the honourable way to undertake this. Otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, we will be resorting to trial by innuendo, trial by way of allegations in this Chamber without having the facts and the particulars checked out by the Provincial Auditor, that again, I wish to empha size, is non-political, is reportable to the Chamber as a whole and whose information I would best accept as to any member in this Cham ber, Mr. Speaker, as to the facts in this particular case. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Mini ster responsible for McKenzie Seeds. This situation has been reported in the press. It is public information.

My question to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds is, has he specifically approached the Provincial Auditor to ask whether or not he has the details involving this situation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor is on record as saying he is looking into this matter. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a public allegation has been made. There is potentially tremendous opportunity for abuse, not necessary that that abuse has actually taken place, but the opportunity is there.

Has the Min ister not even gone to the Auditor to ask specifically about this situation? 4805

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House are well aware, the letter requesting the Auditor to act on the matter came from me because it is under The Financial Admin istration Act - (Interjection) - Well, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Mr. Evans that very afternoon before the letter went to the Aud itor. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, members opposite know full well that the Auditor and I have been in discussion on a fairly continual basis on this issue.

On this particular item, the card shop, I had many weeks ago requested the Provincial Auditor to provide us with a full report. I point out that right now the conflict-of-interest potential that the Member for Turtle Mountain is concerned with is fairly insigni ficant, in that the actors who could have assisted in some kind of confl ict-of-interest are not there, that is, they have no access to any power or influence in McKenzie Seeds. They are not there anymore. There will be a report provided and it will include this particular item.

I point out as well that I had contacted the Member for Turtle Mountain within several days of the first allegations being made in the House and I requested that all information that he had should be forwarded on to the Auditor so that all of these items could be dealt with at once. Well, the member says that that's where we learned about the card shop.

In fact, the card shop item came to my office from another source, because once this thing was opened up, there were a number of other individuals who had some concerns, who came forward and people who were employed at McKenzie Seeds were interviewed, etc., and so the investigation should surely be allowed to conclude. The Member for Turtle Moun tain has requested the interim report of the Aud itor.

I will assure the members that I will attempt to talk with the Auditor today and ask him whether in view of what has happened between the time he provided that report and now, it would be all right, that there would be no conflict with other investigations that are going on, for me to release it. I would love to be able to release it in order that we can stop this speculation and have people see exactly what the Auditor did say with respect to the entire situation. He, of course, will be reporting again in a more full way. He was predicting the last time I talked with him somewhere around the end of Septemb er.

MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Min ister. Who presently within his government is responsible for McKenzie Seeds? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is responsible for The Financial Administration Act and thus is responsible pertaining to all matters referenced to the Provincial Auditor.

The Min ister responsible for McKenzie Seeds directly is the Mini ster of Commu nity Services, but there is a responsibility on the part of the Mini ster of Finance in respect to involvement in discussions and initiating actions by the Provincial Auditor and that has been done by the Min ister of Finance. MR. B. RANSOM: A question then to the Mini ster responsible for McKenzie Seeds. It's reported that Mr. McDowell, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds, may have know as long as a year ,;igo about a possible conflic t-of-interest situation.

Has the Min ister responsible for McKenzie Seeds been in touch with Mr. McDowell within the last few hours or days to determine whether or not that, in fact, was the case? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, the matter - and it's on public record that the Auditor has stated that he is looking into the matter and what discussions the chairman of the board has with the Auditor is between the chairman of the board and the Auditor. Ukrainian Festival MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs. Last week, on Thursday or Friday, I asked him a question concerning an impending annou ncement that the Dauphin Ukrainian Festival concerning some $10 million worth of construction and the Mini ster laughed uproarious ly because, of course, the announc ement was for $15 million and he wasn't making it. I want to ask him a question. In view of that announcement, did he himself make any announc ement of any goodies in Dauphin or did he just go there to sample the food? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Cultural Affairs. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was asked a number of questions last week regarding Canada's Na tional Ukrainian Fest ival. One was regarding whether or not I was announcing any new - and I quote the term used by the Member for Elmwood - "new goodies" for Canada's world-famous National Ukrainian Festival. My response to that was, no, I was not announcing any new goodies for Canada's National Ukrainian Festival.

What I did announce and present to the President of Canada's National Ukrainian Festival was a cheque in the amount of $15 ,000 from the Mul ticultural Grants Program of the Department of Cultural Affairs and Historic Resources, which is the same level of funding that was given to that festival last year. In regard to the announ cement that was made with respect to a Destination Manitoba grant, that grant comes un der the resp onsibili ty of the Min ister of Economic Development and I would ask her to respond on the specifics of that grant. I would, however add, Mr.

Speaker, I, and I think all Ukrainian people of this province, resent the allegations that are made with respect to the small amount of 4806

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 assistance that is given by the people of Manitoba, through their go vernment , to the world famous, Canada's National Ukrainian Festival. I believe that most people regret and do not agree with the kind of position th at's being advanced thr ough que st ions by the Member for Elmwood.

I think most Mani tobans, and I'm sure members opposite, recognize the value of Canada 's National Ukrainian Festival, recognize it both in terms of its tourist impact and in the proud way that the Ukrainian people are portraying their culture and heritage in the commun ity of Dauphin, and I think we should all congratulate them. MR. R. DOERN: On a matter of privilege. I have never said, and I have never complained, and I have never begrudged grants going to the Ukrainian commun ity, and I think the Minister is making a slanderous attack. I have never suggested, Mr.

Speaker, in this Hous e, or outside of this House; I have never made that suggestion before and will not make that suggestion. I have said that the Min ister is attem pting to influence the ethnic groups and organizations to support the government legislation. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member did not have a point of privilege. The Honourable Member for Elmwood, a second question. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I will make my statement later.

I have a question, then, for the Minister of Economic Development who attended the National Festival in Dauphin and announced a $500,000 grant - or at least I believe she was present - annou nced a $500,000 grant along with Senator Gil Molgat, which apparently is assistance for the construction of a $3.2 million multipur pose complex. I just wonder if she could explain what, in fact, is invo lved there; and secondly, whether there are any private funds going into that project. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy to rise to give more details about the Destination Manitoba grant that was made to the Ukrainian Folk Arts Council of Dauphin. Unfortuna tely I was not able to be present at the festival but the announcement was made, and quite appropria tely so, by the Member for Dauphin, the Minis ter of Government Services. Mr. Speaker, the grant was one of the grants being given under Program 3 of Destination Manitoba. That is a Capital Assistance Program for non-p rofit rural organizations, municipal organizations or non-pr ofit groups. It is one in a series tha t we have been announcing.

This particular one, as the Member for Elmwood ha s alr eady said, was for a $500,000 contribution, cost-shared with the Federal Government, and it is our contribution, along with some federal monies for employment, and monies raised by the local commun ity, to develop Pha se I of a site, a park, or at least an area on the north slope of Riding Mountain Park. This is a project that has been under study and in a planning phase for many years by the Ukrainian commun ity in Dauphin. I can't tell you the hours of volu nteer work, of vision, of careful thought and planning that has gone into this project.

It is in a phased state in a sense that this will mark the first stage, and the project will continue to expand as resources become available and we, I think, as Manitobans, can all be justly proud, not only of what will eventually be a major destination attraction for tour ists, but of the vision and the hard work that has gone into such a project. MR. R. DOERN: I still didn't hear whether or not there was private funding, but perhaps the Mini ster could indicate that. My final question is this, what is the length of the project, because according to a press release, Mr.

Speaker, it was a $500,000 grant on a $3.2 million building, which is the first phase of a four-pha se development which will involve a total capital outlay of $15 millio n? How many years or decades to the completion of this project? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the project is such that it can proceed from phase to phase, or it can stop at the initial phase, and that will depend on the resources available. The projected time scale is at least 10 years tor the completion of the entire project, but it is possible that Phase I will be as far as it goes. It would stand alone on the completion of Phase I.

As the tourism builds in the area, and as local resou rces are accumulated, possibly with public support from the government, but with no advanced commitment, later stages such as a museum may well be done, but the local group ha ve been extremel y responsible in developing their project in this way so that it could be responsibly handled, step by step. The member has also asked whether or not there is local money being put in. I think if he knows the contribution by us, and by the Federal Government, the difference between tha t and $3.2 million will represent local contribution. Pelly Trail School Division MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Honourable Minister of Education and it follows on a question that I asked about a month ago about a special grant to the Pelly Trail School Division. I have a copy of a letter in which the Min ister is explaining it to the reeve of the rural munici pality. If I could just read one sentence from it.

It says, "I am pleased to report that a special grant will be implemented in 1983 to assist small school divisions with enrolments of fewer than 1, 350 pupils which have experienced a decline in enrolment in 1983 of 5 percent or more. As a result, Pelly Trail School Division will receive an additional $99,675 from the province." My question to the Minister is, how many other school divisions fall within those parameters of having fewer than 1,350 pupils and a decline in enrolment of greater than 5 percent? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Very few, Mr. Speaker.

I will take it as notice, and provide the Member for Tuxedo with the information about the other school divisions. 4807

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 My recollection is that there might be three school divisions in the province, out of the 57 divisions, who were particularly hard-hit by declining enrolment this year, Pelly Trail was one; but I will get that information for the memb er. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minis ter, how did she arrive at those criteria. They are very specific, so I'm just wondering how she arrived at them. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, we arrived at the criteria by looking at the deficiencies of the Education Suppor t Program that put a large number of school divisions in a

part icul arly disadvantaged position because they were not adequately protected through the Education Suppor t Program for a number of items, particul arly, declining enrolment. We knew that the combination of very small num bers, and low assessment and declining enrolment, were the big factors that were hitting some divisions very hard. MR. G. F;LMON: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if it could possibly be that, rather than look at the deficiencies of the Educational Support Program, the Minister decided that this division should get a grant, and then sought out some criteria that would allow them to justify it for the division, is that possible. HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Speaker, it isn't possible. It is possible that we have done what we've done from the day that we took office, and that is, that we have been prepared to get informa tion and to receive informa tion that told us there were serious problems and deficiencies and to move. You know, you have two choices, Mr.

Speaker. That is, that you leave things alone and say, too bad, they didn't cover it, then you'r e in a very difficult, awkward position, and we're just going to leave you there; or you decide that where there are serious problems you're going to something about it, and we opted for trying to do something about it. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this school division has an $800,000 surplus that it wasn't willing to spend on its needs, I find that to be a very fascinating response.

My final question then, in view of all this ad hoe dealing with divisions on a very political basis, when can we expect the Minister to bring in the Education Finance Report of Dr. Nicholls? A MEMBER: Where is Pelly Trail? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, where is Pelly Trail is a very good question, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: It's in Russell, isn't it? HON. M. HEMPHILL: More help for our friends, Mr. Speaker. We do have friends everywhere, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to say that. Mr. Speaker, I think I sug gested the other day that we are reviewing Dr.

Nicholls report and, I must say, that if there is real concern on the other side for getting 4808 it tabled and getting on with very very important business of the province, which is making decisions and having discussions about the recommendations in the Nicholls Report, I sugge st the members opposite get on with the busin ess of the House so we can get to other things. Fitness, Recreation and Sport and Co-operative Development services MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Co-operative Development.

In light of the fact that the Department of Fitness, Recreation and Sport, and the Department of Co-op erative Development shared administ ration services as well as personnel services, could the Minister tell us who will be pro viding that particular fu nction within his department? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That matter is currently under review between myself and the Deputy Mini ster. We're discussing that at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the referral resolution with respect to the proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act on the Order Paper, Pages 12 and 13, standing open for debate. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTIONS CONSTITUTI ONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the prop osed mo tion of the Attorney-General, and the proposed amendm ent thereto by the Honourable Member for Fort Gar ry, and the propo sed sub-amendment by the Honourable Member for Gladstone. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been listening with some in terest to the various Cons ervative positions being put forward in this debate over the last few weeks and I wanted to try and examine the logic of their position. Now the resolution that we are talking about clearly states that: "WHERE AS the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba deems it advisable to hear the views of Manitobans on the subject matter of this resolution;

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections hold such public meetings at such times and places as it may deem advisable to receive briefs and hear representat ions." That is the heart of the resolution that is being debated, not the substance of the resolution, but this is a referral motion. It's a very open referral motion, and I have heard Conservative after Conservative get up and say that the government doesn't want to hear from the people. It's comp letely and totally illogical. The government is stating very clearly here that it wants to hear from the people.

The government has stated very clearly for over two weeks that it wants to hear from the people, for the last month-and-a-half that it wants to hear from the people, and it has been the opposition who have frustrated the government from enabling the people to be heard. It has been the opposition who have not allowed this resolution to pass; it's been the opposition who wanted to have it both ways.

On the one hand, they would say that the NOP doesn't want to hear from the people, and then at the same time, they have been filibustering this resolution, this referral motion, they have been filibustering it, and anyone who observes what they have been doing would conclude that it is a fili buster. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, they have gone beyond what I would call parliamentary methods of trying to frustrate the passage of this referral which would allow the people to come forward and be heard by a duly constituted committee of this Legislature. They have used what I would call extra-parliament ary means.

They have done so, supposedly, in the name of protecting parliament Now, Mr. Speaker, that position is totally illogical. If they want to hear from the people let this resolution pass. Why stall it for three weeks? Why stall it, also, and then say that somehow, if this resol ution passes, it will be too rushed, the people won't have a chance to be heard? Imagine if this resolution had been passed three weeks ago, or four weeks ago; we would have been hearing from the people of Manitoba for the last three or four weeks on the su bstance of the resolution. Instead , Mr.

Speaker, what we have heard has been a filibus ter from the opposition on what they perceive to be the substance of the resolution; but we've heard about five or six different messages from the Cons ervatives as to what they think the substance of the resolution is. I'll get into that later, but let me be clear that the position of the government is that we want to hear the people of Manitoba, and we want to do so at such times and places as the committee may deem advisable. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said it's the committee that should decide when it should hear the people and at what places.

I heard him distinctly say that when my leader was speaking, when the Premier of Manitoba was speaking. We're saying, let the committee get on with its busine ss. We have said that we are prepared to hear people outside of Winnipeg. I sat on the committee that the previous Conservative Government established, after they had solidified their position, made it known publi cly in Federal-Provincial Conferences, but that government extablished a comm ittee and it went out to three places besides Winnipeg.

We have said, and the Premier said this yesterday, that he would expect that this committee would do at least the same. So we are prepared to meet outside of Winnipeg, and we are prepared to meet in Winnipeg, and we are prepared to let the committee organize its affairs in such a way that the people of Manitoba get a fair hearing; tha t's what we want. The best way for that to happen is to let it proceed as quickly as possible. Why the filibu ster? Why the extra parlia men tary opposition? Why the bell ringing on virtually every single issue? Why? I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, it's because the Conservatives don't have a unified position on this particular issue. I've heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he is in favour of everything in this resolution in terms of its substance, except the entrenchment. I've heard a couple of other Conservative members say the same thing, and I see that the Member for Morris is nodding his head in agreement. Well, if that is the case, why do we have the Member for Minn edosa getting up yesterday and making the following type of comments? He says - this resolution is the thin edge of the wedge.

He said that we would really have people concerned about job retention, about job advancement He says this is like the Federal Bilingualism Program. Well, if that's the case why doesn't he repudiate his leader because his leader has said that he agrees with all of this, with all of the subs tance except entrenchment. The Memb er for Morris nodded his head in agreement just now. So they can't have it two ways. They can't say that we agree with the substance of this and then go out and try and foment fears amongst the popula tion by misrepresenting what this resolution is about.

That is what some of them have been trying to do. I'm not saying that all of them are doing that I believe that some people, if they adopted that public position, would have a terrible time. I believe that the Member of Fort Garry has not adopted that position; and the Member for Lakeside hasn't adopted that position; and the Member for St Norbert hasn't adopted that position. But there have been others who have talked about the fears of creeping bilingu alism when indeed the Leader of the Opposition; the Member for Lakeside; the Member for Fort Garry; and the Member for St.

Norbert have said that they agree with this resolution except for entrenchment Mr. Speaker, we're hearing from the person who never thought in logical terms, because I believe that he has a mind that isn't capable of thinking in logical terms. So, Mr. Speaker, we won't pay any attention to someone who is completely and totally illo gical because we're talking about a serious matter. We're not talking about sort of the puffery types of things which require him to stomp out of here, and th reaten people in the halls. Mr. Speaker, that is the type of politics that people don't want at this stage.

They want to hear about the substance, and I'm trying to talk about the substance, and he doesn't want to let me talk about the substance because, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the substance - (I nterjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek on a point of order. MR. F. JOHNSTON: On a point of order. I would like the honourable member to show where I thr eatened 4809

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 somebody in the hall. Mr. Speaker, I have called somebody a name in the hall; I have never threatened them in the hall, as he refers to, and I would like the member to withdraw or name the time I did it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek for that explana tion to the House. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Just to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was listening very carefully. I never heard the Minister of Energy and Mines naming the Member for Sturgeon Creek at all.

If he has a guilty conscience, then so be it, but I think the record will show very clearly that, in fact, that is what we have here, a guilty conscience on the part of the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard ttie member refer to myself as illogical, a person who stomps out of the House, and thr eatens people in the hall. Now if the member can prove the time, etc., I have said, I have called people a name in the hall, I have never threatened anybody in the hall. I would like the member to withdraw. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, jabb ing the forefinger in someone's chest may, in fact, be conceived by some people as th reats. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if in doing that the member was not threatening, I withdraw the remark that the member was indeed threatening. MR. F. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At no time did I touch anybody with my finger in the hall. I know of an incidence he may be referring to, but at no time did I, and I would like the member to withdraw that. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

That is not a point of order affecting members of this House within the Cham ber. The Honourable Minister. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, if I said touching, I know he wasn't doing that. I saw him do that. I think he admits that he was doing it. - (Interjection) - And now the interesting thing about this though is that instead of talking about the substance, he doesn't want to talk about the subs tance again. All I'm saying is that we have a set of different positions being put forward by members on the other side, and I think that they should get some coherence in the position that they are putting forward.

If they have said - and I think it's a valid position for them to take - that they agree with this policy, but they do not agree with entrenchment then that is a valid debating point. I think we can debate that. We should hear from the people to see what they have to say about it. They may, in fact, have a lot of false fears about the substance of this resolution.

I think it's important for the government, and I think it's important for the opposition, because they agree with the su bstance of the resol ution, except for entrenchment, to tell the people that their fears are false, or that if their fears in fact do have some validity, that it's important for us to tighten up the wording of the resolution so that their fears are placated and that their fears are dealt with. That would be responsible government. That would be a responsible constru ctive opposition, but let us get on with that task. There may be some people on the other side who don't want to do that.

There may be some people who don't want to have the facts laid out to the people through a rational open discussion, with the Press there, with Hansard there, because they may in fact want to indulge in what I would call a whisper campaign; fomenting fears - telling people that their jobs may be lost, telling people that this is the thin edge of the wedge, and after that we have the deluge.

But they can't have it both ways, so it's important that this be conducted in a public place; it's important that these discussions do take place with Hansard there to record exactly what people are saying, because I think it's wrong for politicians to say one thing publicly, and then go out and privately tell people something that is compl etely the opp0 site. So let's ha ve everyone speaking in the open on this issue, with Hansard there, so that if the Conservative position is yes, they agree with the substance but they disagree with entrenchment, that is something that we can discuss with the people.

The people will know that there was a difference between entrenchment and something that is just provided by government policy, which is reversible as the Member for Minnedo sa said. He said he was concerned, or it might have been the Member for Swan River who said this; he was concerned about the resolution being entrenched because then it would be irreversible. Well, if you believe in something as fundamental as this, and I've heard Conservatives on the other side say they do, then why would you want to reverse it? Is it something that you throw out for a week and then take back?

Do we want to make a political football out of something like this? Do we want to go back to 1890 and the days after that? Let's be clear about what we are talking about. If we want it to be a policy that both sides of the House agree on in substance, and I've been told by the Leader of the Opposition and about four major speakers on the other side that it is something that they believe in in substantive terms, then let's make it bipartisan and put it forward in an irreversible way; but they aren't saying that, not all of them.

So I believe that the ball in this respect is very much in the court of the Conservative Part y. We say that we want to get on with the hearings. We would have been having the hearings under way three weeks ago, two weeks ago, a week ago. The people who are on holida ys, who do have time available now, could have come forward. There is enough time to space these hearings in such a way that people can be heard. I don't expect this House to end in two weeks. We have a lot of busine ss to conclude. We'll be here for four to six weeks if people co-operate and work together .

That is surely enough time for all the people of Manitoba to be heard on this issue. It's important 4810

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 that the comm ittee get under way with this task as soon as possible to organize its affairs to have that happen, but to the extent that the Conservatives filibus ter this referral; to the extent that they use extra­ parliamentary means; to the extent that they bring in further sub-amendments and sub-amendments to the sub-amendments.

We can continue to discuss this with a lot of innuendo out there without facts being distributed to the people, without responsible politicians on the government side and on the opposition side hearing the concerns of the population, determining whether they are legitimate, clarifying to the people if their concerns are based on fals ehoods or on mi srepr esentat ions or on misunderstandings about what the resolution is about, but surely we should be getting on with that task. That task will be frustrated not by us, but by the opposition.

So that if people say that it's important to go out of Winnipeg, we'll go out of Winnipeg; that's important. If it's important to hear the people in different spots, we will hear them. I look back on the committee that I served on that did go to three other places. The Government of the Day thought that was a good scatter ing of meetings to hear, to go into regional centres, to enable people to come into the regional cent res and make their presentations.

So we could go with centres like that, unless people want to come forward with a few other centres or maybe not exactly the same ones, but surely it's possible for the comm ittee to get under way with that task and organize its affairs if, in fact, it's the will of the people on that side of the House to let the committee get under way. If people want to again spread the falsehood that somehow this will be rushed through in a week or two, that's wrong. The House will have to sit for some time. We still have a number of other bills to hear.

I would expect that we have a number of other comm ittees that have to conduct their work, so let's organize our affairs and get them under way, but to the extent - (Interjection) - and I hear a comment. I hear a comment that the government shut off hearings. I was at that meeting. I noticed that at that stage there were no people there to make presentations anymore one full hour before the committee rose. MR. W. McKENZIE: There was one there. HON. W. PARASIUK: There was one there who came afterwa rds who said that he was not prepared at that time.

Again, I think it's important that the Member for Roblin-R ussell again be more accurate and not be as inaccurate as he was with his hydro bills for about the last 10 years. I sat on commit tees from 1977 to 1981, comm ittees that heard repres en tation on family law, and the Member for Fort Garry was there, and people said that people would speak for a certain amount of time because we want to ensure that everyone had a fair chance to be heard, and I think that the member, if he recalls, will remember that.

On rent controls, again, sometimes we sat until two or three in the morning, and there were some concerns that maybe those sittings were going too late; that maybe we shouldn't be hearing representation at two or three; that maybe we should have a cut-off time at 12:00 or 12:30.

Those things are sometimes a bit judgmental because if you've had a group of people come in from out of town, and they might be within 30 or 40 or 50 miles of Winnipeg, if they've come in for an evening hearing, they may in fact prefer to wait until 1 o'clock to make their representation rather than going home and having to make the trip again. So I don't know if one can make a hard and fast rule that it has to end at 12:00 or 1:00, but one has to use one's judgment, and I hope the comm ittee will. But, surely, aren't those the things that reasonable people should do?

We are prepared, as I said, as a committee to have the commit tee undertake those tasks. Now I don't know if the Member for Sturgeon Creek is saying that one will have the comm ittee in a sense sit and reconvene and reconvene if people aren't there to make representa tion, because I can look through Hans ard and I can find a whole set of past circumstances between 1977 and 1981 where that wasn't the case, where people went through the list; they said, are you here to make a presentation? If they're not here, fine, we went to the next name.

So let's not make a false issue out of that because Hansard is quite accurate in showing that was the case with respect to committee hearings if, in fact, people want to act in a reasonable man ner. So I think there possibly is some difficulty amongst the Conser vatives with respect to their position on this. I know that if the Member for Fort Garry, for example, wants to run federally, I think that he would want to present a factual, reasonable position on this. I don't think he wants to go around talking about something like this as the thin edge of the wedge.

I think that would be disastrous for someone who wants to embark or reembark on a career in national politics where I think he could bring a voice to the federal Conservative Caucus which migh t better reflect a mo derate conser vative position from an urban milieu; or if he wants to take a run at the provincial leadership, I would think that he again would want to present a moderate position that is a reasonable one; not one that is one that is characterized by Dan McKenzie, because I think that there are probably those forces at work and I think it's important for reasonable con servatives, for the Prog ressive Conservatives to come forward and put their position forward.

I've heard that position stated in a very articulate way by Lakeside, by Fort Garry and St. Norbert. I've heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he's in favour of the substance of the resolution, although every once in a while some demons take hold of him and he goes off on many other tangents, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he has stated, and it is on the record, that he favours the French Language Services, but not entrenchment. So that's the hang-up.

This is an argument and a debate that I guess we on this side of the House and the Conservative have had for some time, and it goes back to the Charter of Rights, where the Conservatives believe that it shouldn't be entrenched, and generally the New Democrats bel ieve that it should be entrenched. That is a debate that I think is a reasonable debate within the political milieu, so let us have the debate on that. Let us have the debate on that type of principle. We will go to the people; we'll hear from them. We'll try and tighten up this resolution to, in a sense deal, with 4811 •

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 their concerns, but let's not go out and try and foment prejudice because I believe that can be done through a whisper campaign. It's much more effective doing it in a whisper campaign than it is by coming forward in a com mittee that is open with the press attending with Hansard there. So I say that the challenge is with the Conservatives now. I ask them to speedily pass this referral resolution, and let's get on with the task of organizing our affairs and hearing from the people of Manitoba.

Because if this referral resolution is not passed, it is not the New Democr atic Party Government that is not letting the people of Manitoba speak out publ icly at properly constituted legisl ative forums on this issue, it will be the Cons ervative opposition who is filibustering this and obstructing it for particular reasons of their own, which I would expect, Mr. Speaker, if they will not let a properly constituted legislative or parliamentary body hear from the people, they want to obstruct and filibuster for reasons of doing it in, what I would call, extra-parliamentary ways.

So I say that the challenge is to the Conser vatives. I think that we have shown reasonableness on this side of the House. I think we have shown that we are prepared to work with the opposition, to work with the people of Manitoba to come up with a resolution that all of us could support, because I believe that this is important not only for today, Mr. Speaker, but for future generations. We don't want to go backwards, Mr. Speaker. We want to look ahead, and we want to build a solid foundation. So the challenge is for all of us, but right now the ball is in the Conservative court. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportu nity a few days ago to speak on the amendment to the resolution. At that time, I spoke in support of the amendment and here, a few days later, I again have the opportunity to address the sub-amendment. Again, I will be speaking in support of the sub-amendment. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy indicated that the ball was in our court. I am glad that he realizes that the ball is in our court, because I have done a lot of thinking about the issue itself.

The other day - I have a wife and two teenage kids at home - they wanted to know, how long are you still going to be sitting, dad? What are the issues that are so important that you have to sit there through the best summer what we have possibly had in many many years? Why are you going to be sitting all summer in July and August? I did a lot of thinking about it, Mr. Speaker, and I have gr ave concern when the Mi nister of Energy indicated that at the minimum we'll be sitting another four to six weeks. I don't know where he draws that conclusion from. We're in Speed-up now.

I think that we are at the point where possibly we could terminate the business of the House in a relatively short time providing that we have co-operation from both sides of the House. The members opposite in their speeches have asked why are we so adamant in debating this resolution? I would like to deal with that to some degree. In my speech the other day, I dealt with the procedure, the process that the government had outlined in terms of dealing with the bilingual issue.

I think we have, with the statements made by the First Minister yesterday and by the comments made by the Minister of Energy, there is some compromise coming forward. I think that is the big thing; that is already an indication. I think it is an important indication that government is possibly :econsidering their position to some degree. After I had the request from my fami ly, why can't we get out, I did a lot of soul-searching on this issue, because the constituency that I represent is basically split into four ethnic backgrounds.

I believe, as I indicated in other speeches, that mine is probably the second -hig hest Fren ch-popula ted constituency in Manitoba. So then I sat back and I figured that, did I want to play politics with this thing, or what basically is the issue? Why are we debating here day after day just on the resolution itself? In thinking the matter through, why would any opposition continually debate one issue this long? As the government indicates, why would we be trying to filibuster it? In thinking the matter through, it is because we think we are right. We are convinced we are right. A MEMBER: We are r':Jht. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: That is where the problem now stands. We have a government - and it was ill ustrated the other day by the Minister of Natural Resources, especially when he's Acting House Leader, and he has created a lot of problems doing that - he says we are the gov ernment, we have the numb ers, and we will do it our way. That is what the issue is all about. It's a matter of pride. You feel you are government and you can force these things through. That's where the beauty of the democratic system come in. You members must realize that we could debate here year-round on one issue, un less you wanted to force closure.

You can force closure on us at any given time, but I don't think you feel comfortable enough with the resolution that you'll force closure on us. The issue is too contro versial for you to force closure, so we'll be debating it. We will be debating it a long time, because we know in our minds we are right. We are right and how can I be that convinced that we are right? In looking at the resolution, when we talk of the issue itself, the bilingual issue, I have all kinds of people on my executive that are French-speaking. I have no problem with them.

I think what happened in '79 when the law was passed where we had to make certain changes to allow for certain French rights, translations, etc., there was no hullabaloo about it. There was no argument about it. Why then did this government go and make a deal? Why did they change that part of it? Everything was flowing along. The French society, by and large, has got more rights now than they have ever had. The major ity are relatively pleased with it. It's moving along in a nice, proper fashion; there was no acrimony. Now we are developing acrimony . We are. The issue itself, when I look at it, what is it doing?

I look back and I figure, well, it won't affect me that much, but it could. The fact that we state the province is bilingual; the impression that is left by that gives me concern. Because if my kids, my children, my grandchildren, my 4812

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 great-grandchildren do not want to speak French, they can be limited to certain positions that they can attain within government and government services. Those are rights. Now I'm here speaking on my rights. I want the rights for myself and my children and offspring in the future that they do not have to have certain rights taken away from them. We have had comments here of bigot ry, accused of each other of this and that.

I don't want to take any French rights away, but I don't want any of my rights taken away, or my children's rights in terms of the jobs that they can qualify for in the future. Now, we say that is not going to happen. We'll entrench it, and so and so many positions are going to be bilingual. Well, Mr. Speaker, the concern that develops in my mind then is: what happened at the federal scene? We have a bilingual Federal Government. The departments, any positions that you have of worthy nature that unl ess you're bilingual you can't qualify for them.

There are many positions that the people that cannot speak French cannot qualify for. That's what worries me about this issue here; that my children, our children, have a right taken away from them. They will not have the right to apply for certain jobs un less they can speak French and we're taking away rights. I can't accept that fact. I don't believe in compul sory seat belt legislation. I've spoken against it, voted against it. But those are things I can live with. You know they affect me, but the issues are different and I am concerned.

Out there the public perception is at that point where there is concern developing. There's concern developing. I am getting letters pro and con. I've had the occasion, from the first weekend in June, to attend almost every weekend functions out in the country - centennial celebrations, sports days, fairs, whatever you have, and have been in conta ct with people, and this thing has gradua lly started building. The beginning of June nobody was asking me about the bilingual issue. They were talking possibly about things like seat belts, and what have you.

Now the issue is there and I'm pleased, you know, to some degree that there's already a compr omise starting with the Government of the Day by say ing, we'll go out in the rural areas and have hearings, because there's many people out there in the rural area that don't know what it's all about. Already there's a confront ration situation developing because people don't know what it is all about. I think that the fact that we're going to be going out and having hearings is good. I think it is good, but I don't think we should try and do it in this Session, take and have hearings.

Why are we suspicious about having these hearings? Because we saw the other day, the seat-belt legislation hearings, you can sit every day here, have committee hearings until 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, and you finally break the people down or they will quite coming, and then you will pass it as you want it. That is what we've said all the time. Why the rush? Why don't we go out to the public, take more time? We've blown the sum mer. The other issue is, of course, it is holiday time. We are all here.

We don't have holida ys, but there are many people out there that are not that concerned necessarily about whether we sit or do not sit. When they have their holida ys coming once a year, they go out and have their holida ys. They leave the issues and problems at home. We don't. But why during this time? It is a matter of concern.

Another concern that will happen, when we heard the Min ister of Energy and Mines say we'll be sitting another four to six weeks, harvesting is starting at the present time, it's just starting now, and we will by setting up a series of meetings or hearings, we will deny many people the opportunity to come and speak their mind. This is the question again - why the rush? I would plead with the First Min ister, is it not possible that you indicate - I think the Attorney-General indicated some possible amendments were coming.

Also I think the Ministers have indicated there's certain amendments in The Farm Lands Bill which we feel very strongly as well, we feel we are right, and that is our obl igation then not to pass these things. I can't understand why the Government of the Day is so hung up on the pride aspect of it. They feel they have the numb ers, they will not give, they will not tell us the amendme nts that they are proposing. If the Minister of Agriculture would indicate to us what the amendments in The Farm Lands Bill are, we could say, yes, they're acceptable, let's get it through. But they don't do that.

I was here on Monday, on the long holiday, and we were debating Bill 11 0. The Member for Springfield got up and said there are amendments coming, but we can't tell you what they are. Why not tell us what they are? We'll pass the bill if it's acceptable. It's always that little game you're playing - the pride factor - we are government, we'll force you. The First Minister knows that unl ess you put closure on us, we can keep this debate going for a long, long time.

The one thing that I want to indicate to the First Minis ter is that we are getting stronger every day in our conviction that we are right, and you are not sure that you are right or you would put closure on, but the issue is such that you do not have the guts to do it, because you are not sure, otherwise we would have closure in this House. We will debate for a long time because we are that convinced we're right. So why can't we get together and compr omise on some of these things, because exactly actually the man that the First Minister's talking to, he's been the problem here in this House for the last month.

Everytime he's been Acting House Leader he's created problems. He's going to force us. The beautiful democratic system will not allow us to be forced. We have our responsibility to our people, I have to mine. The French speaking, the Ukrainian speaking, the Anglo Saxon, as well as the German Menn onite people. I have my responsibility to all of them, and I want all their rights properly looked after. That's what they expect from me. I'm here to speak as much for the people for French rights as anybody else, and they have it by in large. Why are you creating a problem with my people, my French friends?

You'r e doing that. Why? We have a situation I indicated the other day. I have quite a numb er of French speaking mun icipalities. There's no problem, they provide a service in French. Walking into the St. Pierre Town Council, walking into the R.M. of De Sala berry, they provide the services that the people want without any enshrinement in the Cons titution. Why are we doing this? People ask me, 4813

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 now what's happening? We're at that point, I think, it is high time that we do some kind of a comprom ise; that we resolve this issue because it's starting to boil out there and people are getting to be un happy, largely because they don't un derstand as I indicated before. On the weekend when we had the bells ringing, and it was said that we rang the bells very often - we haven't rang them that often, but more than usual - you know what people say to me when I mention bilingual, they say ring the bells. Ring the bells, I don't care if you ring them all summer.

It bothers me that kind of thinking, because it's now starting to tear the province apart. We live in a land and in a province second to none. Why are we trying to just gradually destroy this? We're the most fortunate people in the world in the place that we live here. Things have worked well for 11 6 years. People of all walks of life have gotten together and built this country and this province.

As we go around to all the se fairs and centennials we see the reaction of the people, irregardless what their background is, they get along well together; they work; they've lived as neighbors in communi ties; everybody's participating in all functions. Why are we staring to destroy it now? That is a difficulty you have, Mr. Premier , that is a difficulty you have. Why? Well, I have my own vie.w on this, but I belie ve the government made a bad deal, and again because of their pride they cannot change their position.

That is, at the present time, creating problems in this province, and it can leave scars that are going to be here for the next 10 0 years, and you'll be able to take the credit for that. It is time we resolve it. The Mini ster of Energy indicated that if enshrinement is a big thing, let's change it a bit, you know, maybe we can compromise. I don't know what kind of deal you've made with the SFM, I don't know what kind of deal you'v e made. I am concer ned though.

I am concerned until I know exactly what the impl ications of it are, and until we get th ese things sort of straightened out, my gosh, I don't know, I look around both sides of the House, I don't think anybody wants to stay here any longer than we have to. We've already set a record on the time limit that we've debated, and it all hinges basically around this issue. On the farm lands issue I think, you know, that is a thing that we dug in on as well. We believe - the Mini ster won't tell us, he says he'll come forward with amendments - those kind of things we could resolve.

This is a very very serious ' matter - I think that's the word that the Min ister of Energy used - it is a very serious situation. Why the time limi tations for the Session? I'm sure every one of the Min isters of the government must be washed out by now. With the responsibilities that they have they must be tired, and that is why I say, if you believe in your conviction that you're right as we believe in our conviction that we are right, you know what you have to do to resolve the debate.

You know what you have to do because we are not giving in and our members. our caucus, is getting stronger every time we get up and speak on this subject because the reaction is coming. The reaction is coming. So, I suggest to the First Min ister, do it now. I don't think they will because they know they are not confident that they're totally on the right track and that public reaction is going to be in their favour. For that reason, they're trying to - well, not pleading with us necessarily - but the discussion has been, let's proceed, let's get out there with the hearings.

We're not ready to go to the hearings at this stage of the game until we have more commitments from the Attorney-General and the First Mini ster of exactly what is going to happen, and we'd like to get out of the House because then it's going to be very difficult to have hearings. You'v e indicated the possibility there will be hearings in the rural area. It'll be very difficult to run a House here in Speed-up and have hearings out in the coun try.

Everybody's under pressure; we still have a lot of work left on the Order Paper and then to deal with the most important thing that probably has happened in the last 10 0 years, the fundamental rights of people in this province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have already heard all kinds of versions from all kinds of members pro and con on this issue and we will continue to do so. Concerns that I have - what happened is the process, as I indicated last time, started to lead to doubt in people's minds.

When the Attorney-General held his hearings out in Dauphin, Brandon, Thompson and in Winnipeg, that is where a lot of doubt started because it was a two­ hour meeting. His side presented their case and all people that wanted to speak had five minu tes - and a two-hour meeting - bang, and it was over. Then the impression started in people's minds, they are forcing something on us. They are given the impression or a facade that they're having hearings to introduce people but they have it limited, people could not express. If they had open meetings, that's what we're asking for now, not during Session.

Let's clean up the busine ss of the House in the next few days, set up proper hearings so people can come and speak to this thing. If need be, we can recall a Session for a week to deal with the issue later on in the fall, so you can still meet your deadline and that is why the sub-amendment is there. It says that we shall resolve this before December 31s t. But, no, there is no give. There has been a little give, possibly having the hearings out in the rural areas, I want it aware. I represent 17,000 people in my riding, rough ly.

Where are they going to get the information? - not through the propaganda pages that have been sent out because that only raises more doubt. As long as we, as opposition, are going to be standing here debating this issue the doubt will remain in people's minds. So let us compromise; let's work this out. Let's work this out for the betterment of the province, for the betterment of people being able to live together in this province, so that we as a House, a legislative House, can work together. We will not agree with you on many things, because we don't think you've been running the House very capab ly.

You haven't been running your legislation very capab ly. We see that with the bills that you have to pull and a lot of it is contro versy; it is an aggravation to people that we have been doing in this last Session. One hundred fifteen bills, I don't whether that's a record or not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. - (I nterjection) - It's not a record? Why would we want to pass that much legislation and then tie this issue on at the tail end? A MEMBE i;;;: on, Al. 4814

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 MR. A. DRIEDGER: It is too much. Maybe the legal minds, like the Attorney -General, can cope with these kind of things. Myself . . . A MEMBER: No, don't give him credit for that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: . . . I should caution that one a bit, I guess. A MEMBER: Yes, you should. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Because normally I like to take a shot at him, Mr. Deputy Speaker - (Interjection) - very appropriate at times - we're at that stage in this Session where the government will have to either use a more high-handed position than they have till now or compromise.

A MEMBER: Well, don't encourage him to do that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: We cannot, I don't think, continue on this basis much lon ger, because the acrimony in the House has developed to the point where it is not functioning properly and you know it. Now, I would actually like to ask the Premier , you know, it would help if he changed maybe some of his responsible people, especially the Minis ter of Natural Resources, and I have to refer to that time and time again. He's been a sore on everybody's side, but he says he's going to show us. He's going to show that you're government.

That maybe works if you have your own office, something like that, you can tell them that you'r e boss. In this House nobody can do that. Nobody can do that. As I indicated, if you want to use your num bers and your author ity and move closure, do it. Move closure, but as I indicated before, you are not convinced enough that you are on the right track to do that and that is why the debate will continue. We'll all have a chance to possibly speak I expect maybe three or four more times on this issue because we know we're right. We do not intend to let this issue proceed. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P.

Eyler: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will begin. I thought I saw another person across the way stand up to speak, I was wrong. I know it's a very important issue and I'm sure there are many people who would love to speak on the issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that's of course what we're fighting for in this sub-amendment. We're fighting for a procedure tha t would drive the resolution into intersessional com mittees so everybody - everybody - can make presentation to the government at a time when they do not feel hurried, at a time when they'll be more properly prepared.

I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are countless thousands of people, not 40, not 50, not 60, but I would say 20 times that fold or 30 time s tha t fold tha t wou ld love to make presentation on this particular subject. Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke on the original amendment to the referral motion I think I dealt specifically with the process of the time. I stayed away from the main issue and I intend to do something similar at this particular time.

So from the outset let me tell you that I do support the sub-amendment and many of the comments that have been made not only by my colleague, the Member for Emerson, but other of those of my colle agues who have chosen to speak on the issue up till this point in time. Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke I took exception to the Attorney-General and his reference to consensus and whether it could be achieved on this issue.

I also I guess made comment to his words "tyranny of the majo rity." I think the Member for Radisson then picked out those words out of my speech and again was mildly critical in the sense in which I used them. Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that consensus on this issue is totally different from what is being attempted. We were challenged today, earlier on, by the Minister of Mi nes to debate principle. He said to us, "If entrenchment is your concern as espoused by your leader, then make that the focal point on the debate. Debate that. Debate the main resolution." Mr.

Speaker, I can support that, except when we look at the timetable the government has given themselves, and indeed the province, at which time public representation is to be made. We, I think, in all our actions over the last week­ and-a-half have given clear indication how resolute we will remain on this issue that the people must be heard in a proper fashion. Mr. Speaker, what again is the rush? I know members opposite must be sick of that particular slogan, but I ask it again. I am sure we'll keep posing that particular question. Mr. Speaker, the government appears frantic on this issue, absolu tely frantic.

We have seen so many examples of a frantic government. We saw as recently as last night our leader being expelled from the House for challenging the Premier to come forward . . . HON. R. PENNER: No, challenging the Speaker . MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, we also have come to learn that the com mittee hearings of which we were trying to bring to be by way of this referral motion - (I nterjection) - I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the comments of the learned gentleman sitting in the back row .. A MEMBER: "Red" Rol ly. MR. C. MANNESS: . . . but possibly he'll give me another opportunity to respond.

We saw a com mittee supposedly that was to be ready in place and yet we had not even finished debating the referral motion, and we may not finish for many many days, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The government is frantic to move on with this, and it begs an awful lot of questions when we see how rushe d they are. I suppose it's because they realize that it is now or maybe never, and because they realize H number of things, Mr. Speaker. I think they recognize that many many people are on holidays. Many people ha ve sort of tune d out the pro ceed ings of this Legislature. I find it hard to believe, but I know for a 4815

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 fact that one out of two people in this province don't even know that this House is still sitting. They feel or believe that we are in recess as our federal counterpa rts are. I think this go vernm ent also realizes tha t rural Manitoba is on the verge of harvesting and is begining to harvest . Therefore, at this particular point in time, if you want to speed something through without an outcry from certain areas, that certainly in a rural sense this is the time to go forward with comm ittee hearings. I think they realize that we in opposition are a little tired.

Obvious ly, they are too. I think they realize tha t, but I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to any of the members who choose to listen, that our resolve is extremely strong. We haven't even begun the fight.

I think they also realize as we push towards fall, as more and more municipalities and their council meetings these days are discussing the logic of holding a referendum on the issue within their jurisdiction, an d as they realize that more and more will inevitably come forward and place before the people during fall elections the question - do you support extended French services in the manner in which the y are being brought forward - I think the government realizes that more and more munic ipalities will put that on the ballot.

I think they also know that, to date, the public opposition is not terribly or well-organized, and they realize that, Mr. Speaker. It's because of all these facts, the government says, and I think deep down believe, it's in the month of August or early September or it may not happen. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe then these are the reasons why the government is frantic.

You know, we have seen many other things, and I spoke to this earli er, of a government, I believe, in many senses prepared to and wants at least to listen, although I question it after one of the committee hearings the other day in regard to Bill 60, but I believe that almost in every other issue, the opposition could convince the government on an issue this important to go to the public. I saw what happened in the Crow rate comm ittee where we as an opposition asked the government to have and to hold a few more hearings. They saw the logic of that and were prepared to do so.

They were prepared to extend it for even a longer period of time, but someth ing's different on this issue, even though in my view it's more important. Something is different, Mr. Speaker, and it begs 1he question: Why is the government so frantic? I belie ve, Mr. Speaker, it's because they know that opposition, although it's large in a quantity sense, that it is not well-organized. II it ever becomes that way and groups begin to counter the information that's come forward by way of the government, by way of pamphlet, that indeed they won't be able to have their way. Mr.

Speaker, I also believe that the government feels that fall hearings would swamp the comm ittee. That's the way that I said; that those in opposition would bP so great in number that it would take a full month to hear all the people of Manitoba who wanted to make presentation on the issue. They also realize that major lost referendums on the issue would make it impossible for them to proceed. Can you imagine, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the scenario of the councillors of the City of Winnipeg deciding in their wisdom to put on the ballot for fall elections the question, and having the City of Winnip eg vote it down two to one? Can you imagine, Sir, the political fall-out, and how any government would dare put something through in the face of opposition by two-thirds of the people in the largest city in the province? So we realize why the government is so frantic, and yet we realize that the people have a right to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I suppose it will come down finally to the determination as to whose resolve is the greatest.

I can tell you, Sir, and it should be readily evident to any onlooker who has viewed proceedings over the last two years in this House that we do not break, Sir. At times we bend, but we never break. So, Mr. Spea ker, they are frantic and they are desperate, and the y would have us work on long weekends, and they would have the clock go backwards instead of frontwa rds. Sir, they would do anything to push this through, and we understand why. They will publish ads in advance to pamph lets. Can you imagine that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? To put - and I'd love to know the cost.

In time, I suppose we will know the cost of the ad of the picture of the First Min ister. We think it's the First Min ister. We are not absolutely confident or sure yet, but we have a strong suspicion that was the First Min ister. - (Interjection) - He was well-dressed, yes. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you imagine putting an ad in the paper; drawing attention to it by the picture of somebody who we think is the First Minister; advising people to do nothing more than to be aware of a pamph let that's to come into their home or their busine ss within the day, within the week?

Can you imagine the logic of that type of advertising? Sir, it totally escapes me. To me, it reaches a new plateau of, I suppose, casting doubt into the credibili ty of the people, of the population, that they would fall for something like that; that they have to be prewarned that someth ing's coming as if it's a proxy almost for a registered letter. Mr. Speaker, I have to chuckle at it. I chuckle at it because it says to me that this government believes that the mentality of the population is such that they have to give notice of a pamphlet.

Again, coming back to the serious side, it tells me how frantic this government is. Like my colleague for Turtle Mountain says; it's government by adver tising. The policies are no good; the policies are actually marginal, to give them the benefit of the doubt. The way to sell them, in their minds, to make them feel that they are acceptable is to advertise. Sir, again, I don't know when we will receive the total cost of advertising. I'm sure we still will remember the Jobs Fund, but it will probably be a full year. Won't it be interesting to see the source of all the advertising?

This morning I drove down - a billboard on Main Street somewhere - Jobs Fund - a bill board on the Jobs Fund - just not in the newspaper, Sir, and on the radio and the T.V., but now bill boards as if they're selling a beverage. Mr. Speaker, it's called "government by advertisi ng." Mr. Speaker, we also realize they were frantic and desperate . Very little coverage has been given to a meeting that was held, I bel ieve in the Premier's office, a week ago Monday when representatives from the rural municipa:i:i es were invited in on the given notice the Friday bekre the Monday, I believe. to come in. 4816

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 Those municipalities, of course, were those that are designated, the some 30 or 40. I don't know how many sent in representatives; I assume that the vast majority did. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the scenario? This is relayed to you second-hand because I received this from somebo dy tha t was in atten dance. Sir , the municipalities received notice of the meeting with the Premier who was calling them in to dispel some of the doubts surrounding designation. The municipalities were called in on a Friday. They were asked to be in the Premier's office at 3:30 on the Monday.

They were there at 3:30. The Premier arrived in his office at 4:00. The Premier spent 20 minu tes with them - 20 minutes with the council - 25 minu tes, Sir, as I am told. I realize the pressures of the office. You can't always be where you want to be. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The Honourable First Min ister on a point of order. HON. H. PAWLEY: I wouldn't like the member to unfortunately be misi nformed and to misinform others. If he is referring to a meeting I had with the Union of Manitoba Mu nicipalities, Mr. Harms and Mr.

Beachell, the meeting was held in the offices of the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. The meeting lasted for some two hours, not for 20 minutes. Sub sequent to that, I held a further meeting with the Union of Manitoba Munic ipalitie s that carried on for approxima tely two hour s as well. So I know of no 20- minutes meetings in my office. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the First Min ister for some of that clarification. Again, I want to relate to him the story as I heard it. The meeting, and I thank him for telling me, was held, as he indicates, in the offices of the Minis ter of Muni cipal Affairs.

Sir, I don't know who extended the invitation to the members; I don't know if it was the Min ister of Municipal Affairs or the Premi er. The point is, Sir, many of those officials came to that meeti ng, wanting to speak to the First Minis ter. They had been moved around and they have not yet received answers to their questions as to what designation . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, again I just want the record to be very very clear because I don't want the honourable member to be emba rrassed by misinforming others, because I assume that he's working on the basis of some false report. I have had two meetings, both meetings arranged mutually between the Union of Manitoba Municip alities and myself; both meetings lasted two hours plus. I know of no meet ings in which the Union of Mani toba Mu nicipalities requested and which were either (

a) they were stood up, or (

b) lasted 20 minu tes. I would, therefore, ask the honourable member to avoid, for his own good, misinforming Ma nitobans because that doesn't work to his benefit or to anyone else's. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my intention is not to misinform. If the First Min ister would bear with me, I'll tell him the story as was relayed to me. HON. H. PAWLEY: Why tell it if it's not true? MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, what has come after that particular time at which I am prepared to relate, fine. The Min ister can stand and do as he's just done now, and give us the benefit of the detail after that point in time. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the point I'm trying to ·make is this. I know that the First Mini ster has had a number of meetings with the executive of the UMM. I am talking specifically about the 30 or some number of designated municipalities that were invited in, and I don't know who extended the invitation, Sir. I don't know if it was the First Mini ster or if it was the Minis ter of Muni cipal Affairs, but the Minister says now that the meeting was held in the offices of the Mini ster of Muni cipal Affairs. Mr.

Speaker, those members, at least people that I spoke to, came in wanting to speak and pose questions specifically to two people - the First Min ister and the Attorney-General - those two people, and the y came from those 30 municipalities and some of them came from St. Lazare, Sir, some of them came in - I wish the Member for Virden were here - 250 miles. - (I nterjec tion) - I'm sorry. Sir, they were asked to be in attendance at 3:30. The first one of the two major people they wanted to speak to, either the Premier or the Attorney -General, arr ived at 4:00 and left approximately 20 or 25 minutes later. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order plea se. The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think that for the honourable member's own benefit he should avoid making reference to myself as First Mini ster being at that meeting only for 20 minu tes, because I was there one hour-and-some. The Attorney-General was also present much longer than what the honourable member is indicating. The meeting was called at our request to speak to those mun icipalities that would be entitled to assistance voluntarily in respect to French Language Services in the Province of Manitoba.

It was not called at the request of the mun icipalities in question. I know personally , myself, I was there for - and I will check my log sheet - well over an hour. MR. D. ORCHARD: Why not longer? MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept the words of the First Minister. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that these people who have come this distance, to feel free and loose to ask specifically the questions on their mind, were just moving into that type of frame of mind when the First Minis ter had to leave that meeting. Maybe he came back later and I'll let him address that.

I have no way of knowing. Mr. Speaker, on his departure then, I believe, the Attorney-General came to that meeting also. And, as the Attorney-General of course does, one question leads to a long answer of the history and all that, and I do not belie ve, at least I'm told, that very few of the real concerns that were brought forward were answered not because the Attorney-General wasn't prepared to answer them, but because time ran out and he had to 4817

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 leave also. But I do say that the Minister for Muni cipal Affairs was in attendance, I believe, throughout the whole meeting. A MEMBER: He never said a word against it. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was told that in fact he carried the rest of the meeting once the two main individuals, the two main architects, had left, the two main people that most of these councillors had come in to which to pose questions, the First Minis ter and the Attorney-General. The point I' m trying to make, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, was that many of the people that left that meeting, who were coming in and really should have spent a whole day with these two individuals and with the government, left not knowing anything more about what designation meant in their minds, where it would lead and therefore their concerns were not . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: The Member for lnkster says those people were very dumb. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for ln kster said the councillors who were in attendance were very dumb, and of course that's the attitude that prevails.

You can tell it by the pamphlet and the literature that comes forward. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. The Honourable Member for lnkster on a point of order. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, my reference to those people had been . . . The member is accusing me of saying something I haven't quite said is that if they were there for a couple of hours and left with no better understanding whatsoe ver, then I question how much openness they came to the meeting to listen in the first place.

He is the one that is trying to interpret or trying to say that thos e people left with no gr eater understanding of the issue. I do not trust, I do not put much faith in the Member for Morris's

interpretation of those people's ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the honourabl e member have a point of order? MR. D. SCOTT: Well, Mr. Speaker, when someone gets up and accuses me of sayin 'g something that I haven't said, then I think I have a right to be able to stand and defend myself. When he makes reference to people, I don't think it's responsible lor us to accept his

interpretation of other person's responses or other person's attitudes towards a meeting that they have had with the First Minister and other Ministers of the Crown. MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that constitutes a point of order. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Ther e is no point of order . The Honourable Member for Morris. The Honourable Member for Pembina to a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: No, if you ruled the other one wasn't a point of order, that's sufficient, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can take the comm ents from the First Min ister, he was in attendance at that meeting, I accept his word as fact. The Member for lnkster, I have some difficulty, he was not in attendance I believe. A MEMBER: Nobody takes it for a fact. MR. C. MANNESS: The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that many of the people who I spoke to who were in attendance at that meeting came, in all sinceri ty, to pose some very specific questions to the First Minister and to the Attorney-General.

It's not that they were not afforded that opportunity - I' m not going to make that point - the point is, as you know, when you come from your various areas in the province it takes you time being made to feel comfortable enough and have enough confidence to pose what's specifically on your mind. I say, Sir, that one meeting, as I'm led to believe, was a failure. Many people left early and others obviously stayed; and I haven't spoken to those, Sir, that stayed, maybe some of their questions were answered.

But I say that those muni cipalities that have been desig na ted, I think it's in cumbent upon the government to spend the day with them and tell them specifically what they are intending to do, because today the councillors with whom I touch tell me that they are not at all certain where it's headed. Mr. Speaker, what does designation mean? I don't know what it means and I honestly believe that many of the mu nicipalities do not yet know what it means. I almost question whether the government knows what it means.

Sir, the Union of Manitoba Muni cipalities put out a news release - I'm sorry, I don't know what day it was, I have it in front of me - it says: "N ews Release 11 :00 a.m." They said a number of things: "That French Language Services" and it skips for awhile and then it comes back, "should not be entrenched in the Constitution and left to the decision of the courts of the law in Canada to enforce." It also goes on to talk about the cost aspect, and I know the Attorney-General, particul arly, and the First Minister have taken exception to the cost argument. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the muni cipalities have said, "For $4 per person we are not prepared to give concessions that could plague us for all time to come in costs and legal wrangles." Now, the government chooses to take that $4 and make a large issue of it, and say how in fact there would be cost savings, and anybody who talks costs, of course, they'll be the first to point out that, no, argue the case any way that you want, but don't argue it on the basis of cost. Well, I think there's some truth to both sides of the argument, Mr. Speaker.

But I honestly believe that the councillors I'm talking about aren't concerned, even though they say 3bout the $4 per person, because that's 4818

' WeclnHday, 3 Auguat, 1983 up front and whether you want to argue that or not In terms of $4 per person cost and we look at our per capita debt in this province of some $5,000 per person, $4 versus $5,000 in terms of per capita debt sort of puts it into some sort of perspective. But the point is that I believe many of these councillors are saying, okay, the cost today may be $4, but what will it be in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, or 40 years. They can't prejudge that, Sir, and neither can this government.

So the argument of costs, I beli eve whoever brings it forward, is one that really cannot be accepted because we can't look that far into the future. I know both sides have used costs. I realize that ful ly. I think on this issue we really shouldn't put much weight on that argument. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, the reference, of course, to 23. 1 is a concern also to the municipalities and they say, "The first amendment; namely,

Section 23. 1, which states 'English and French are the official languages of Manitoba,' overwhelmingly proves the intent of the amendments and leaves the door wide open for a complete and compre hensive Federal controlled bilingual program." Sir, three weeks ago the senior officers of the Union of Manitoba Mun icipalities at that point realized what the amendment was. Three weeks later , today, councils are beginning to un derstand, individual councill ors throughout rural Manitoba are beginning to see now and hear of 23. 1. Sir, I guess it begs the question - Why?

We hear it from every member on our side that's spoken to it - Why has the amendment not been spelled out in all the information that's gone forward? Why do most of the muni cipalities, councillors are finding out just this week and last week as to the amendment and the detail of 23.1. Sir , it's on that one clause alone that many councillor realize the potential divisiveness of the issue.

To take a final quote from that particular release put out by the UMM, it says," The most important reason for not impl ementing such a program Is that it is going to, and already has, created hurt feelings and our legislators should have realized this." Sir , that's in the back of everybody's mind, and many of the same people who came forward at the invitation of the government to discuss with the First Minister and with the Attorne y-General some of the specific lead ons from that particular point and were not, in my view as related to me at least , given complete answers. Mr.

Speaker, we also realize that the government is possibly a little less than sincere and honest in this whole issue. I draw attention again to the pamphlet that has been put out and, of course, the constitutional speaking issue that came forward In Ju ly, 1983. I think the government realized, possibly earlier on, that when you put a large, al most a tabloid, of this nature that very few people take the time and the effort to give it close scrutiny. I think that's why, of course, the pamphlet followed it. I guess we also question what'll be coming next.

Of course, it is going to be very hard to surpass the ad of the First Minister, I can't imagine any type of advertising surpassing that. But, Sir, in all of it, the point I'm trying to make is, there's no mention of the amendment and of 23.1. Well, Mr. Speaker, we realize the government is a little less than sincere when up until yesterday they indicated there would be no rural hearings. I challenged the Min ister of Housing on this issue as to why he was not pushing to have the committee hear people in Flin Flan.

His report to me was, well,. it wasn't a big issue, it wasn't an important issue in Rln Flan at all, it wasn't im portant and therefore there was no need for the legislators of this province to hear the people in Flin Flan. I took it then that they had the same attitude regarding not only the people of Rin Flan, but possibly the people of Brandon, and maybe of Blrtle, and maybe of Dauphin, and maybe of Slfton, and maybe of Ethelbert; and more particular to me, maybe of Elm Creek, and maybe of Morris. Mr. Spea ker, that's something I cannot accept.

I can't accept the fact that the government, up until yesterday, were in our view not prepared to take the issue to all of the people of the province. You know, Mr. Speaker, it makes one wonder, even though there are only 50 groups who are prepared to make presentation, at this point, to the committee, which I believe will mushroom many fold, it's hard to believe how you could expect those same councillors, for instance, that drove 300 miles from St.

Lazare to be in attendance at a meeting with the First Minis ter, how you would expect them, or any people from that particular town, to come into Winnipeg for four days, five days, or six days and wait around for their turn to make representation. So I accept the words of the Rrst Minis ter last night when he indicated that there may be some flexibility on this issue, and the committee may go out into the rural areas. Although again, before I personally could sanction it, I'd want to see the list of all the places that they would hope to visit. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we realize that the government is a litt le less than sincere when as yet we have not seen the agreement that has been developed with the Society Franco-Manitoba. What is lt? The people do not really know for sure what the specific time table Is, what have been the secret deals? Where is it written, Sir? Is it written? What amendments are being considered? We always hear the Attorney-General allude to the fact that there could be some shoring up of wording, particularly he says this after the MGE A and Its President had some things to say about the issue. But where is it?

And why can't they come forward now? We ask the question. Well, Mr. Speaker, that leads to a whole new area and that's the amendments themselves. Why can they not be spelled out right now? Why cannot this wording, the so-called wording that can be tightened up, why can they not come forward right now? I dare say, Sir, that if they were laid on the table something might improve in this Imp asse that we find ourselves In, If they were laid forward today.

Why should people, people that the government are asking to come forward and make public repre sentation, why should they be expected to make representation on something that's almost old, that could be almost passll, when the government already has In their back pocket some of the amendments? Sir, we went through a Crow process in this province where we took out a standing committee and we went to hear specific representation on a proposal. The very same proposal, at which time we were In the countr y had changed because the Federal Government had brought In new amendments. Here we were, as a group 4819

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 of legisla tors, out on the committee not even being able to discuss the latest amendments because it had been changed. I asked the government that they lay before us the amendments they have in mind so that everybody can make proper representation. Sir, the issue cannot be rushed, and I think the Member for Fort Garry said it best. He says, "What are you afraid of; why are you so frantic?" And I say: What is the hidden agenda? What is happening? What secret deals have been made with Ottawa of which we are not aware? There must be something.

There is something that is not being spelled out in this issue, and I think it's fair to ourselves and the people of Manitoba that they be laid in front of us. Something does not add up, Sir; otherwise the government would not be going to such ends. Well, Sir, why are we so resolute on the issue? I tell you because the government's credibil ity, I belie ve, is at issue. We do not honestly belie ve the government after some of the things that have happened, and I could refer to the Jobs Fund - I have no time to do so - but, Sir , all I can say is that we are going to stay here and fight this.

Entrenchment is what we are opposed to, and that's the principle issue; and, secondly, we want all the people of the province to have an opportunity to have their say, and we feel that can be done best in intersessional hearings during the fall. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOW NEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak today on the sub-amendment dealing with the change in the provincial Constitution at a time when I do not believe, Mr.

Speaker, that it's in our best interest to be dealing with such an issue as legisl ators, because I do not belie ve that the Legislative Assembly and the members of the Legislative Assembly have been given the proper opportunity to truly be told by the people of Manitoba in a reasonable way what their feelings truly are about such a major constitutional change. Last night, Mr. Speaker, we heard the First Minis ter of the province; the first time that he has stood up and tried to defend his government's position and his government's action in this Assemb ly. Mr.

Speaker, I have to be honest - it was a dismal attempt to lay to rest any of the fears that we have as an opposition to those kinds of concerns that we think the majority of the people of Manitoba have dealing with the particular constitutional change.

The sub-amendment as introd uced by my colleague from Gladstone, I think, is one which is very reasonable; one which does in fact tell the government we are prepared to deal with it within a certain time frame; something that, personal ly, I have certain reservations about, but have certainly agreed to go along and support the particular time; that we do not want to delay the proceedings and the path in which the government wants to proceed. What we want to do, Mr.

Speaker, is to fully make sure that the proper process is put in place, as has been recommended by the amendment by my colleague from Fort Garry, that ther e are int ersess ional hearings; that there are opportunities for everyone who feels so inclined to come and lay their ideas, their briefs, their comments before a legislative comm ittee and then we can proceed in what I would call a civilized legislative man ner, Mr. Speaker. But we haven't been given the opportunity to do that, Mr.

Speaker, and this last weekend and these last few days have demonstrated the kind of desperate situation that the government finds itself in truly because the whole activity of this government has been in question and will continue to be so. The people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, have lost their trust in the government that has been given the job of admin istering the affairs of the Province of Manitoba over the last almost two years. The trust is gone, Mr.

Speaker, between the people of the Pr ovince of Manitoba and the government, and another main reason why they have found to this date and will continue to find a difficult time in passing this resolution through this Assemb ly. Mr. Spea ker, the First Mini ster last night made reference as to why we lost the last election; that our leader was spending too much time dealing with our constitutional matters as was laid before us by the Prime Mini ster of Canada; that he was paying too much attention to national affairs. Mr.

Speaker, I want it plainly on the record that thank God it was our Premier Sterling Lyon that was dealing on constitutional matters in a major way rather than Howard Pawley with the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, that has to be very plainly understood, that the people of Manitoba trusted Sterling Lyon; trusted him and his Attorney-General, Gerry Mercier, when it was negotiating on major cons ti tut ional changes. There was a bond of trust that isn't there today, Mr. Speaker, with the New Democratic Party, and that's what's at the basic route of the whole problem here today. Mr.

Speaker, we had a man who has probably made one of the best presentations to this Assembly several days ago when the leader of our party made his presentation on this constitutional change, and he understands it probably better than anyone else in this Assembly what the long-term effects of a constitutional change can mean to the overall society in the longer term, and he laid it out very well, Mr. Speaker. That's why I'm still having difficulty not knowing why some of the members of the New Democratic Party who sit in here haven't stood up to be counted and truly represent their constituents.

Yes, we have had one of them stand apart from their socialist government. We've had one of them stand up and be counted, but I'm sure there are more, Mr. Speaker, and in quiet conversation with some of them, there are some serious questions amongst them as to why they're on the path that they're on. Why has it all come about? Were they knowledgeable, Mr. Speaker, prior to the introduction of this constitutional change? Was the Attorney-General fully telling their caucus the route in which he was taking?

Was he sitting down and going through it as was done during our term of office when our leader and our Attorney-General made sure that first of all, Mr. Speaker, it was the Cabinet and the caucus truly unde rst ood the dir ection th at the government was going? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. I don't think !he New Democratic Party Cabinet or caucus had the handle on what the Attorney-General 4820

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 was doing in negotiating with the SFM and negotiating with Pierre Ellio tt Trudeau and the federal Liberals. I don't think they truly knew what was going on until all at once it was lying on their desks. A MEMBER: A fait accom pli. MR. J. DOW NEY: That's right. It was agreed to and as was said earlier by the Attorney-General, it is in stone. It'll either be passed as it is, or it will be rejected in total. That's what we heard in this Assembly.

So now what we are seeing - we have seen the Member for Elmwood shave off from that great socialist party in Manitoba; we've seen some of the other members starting to waver. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, if they truly listen to their constituents as they should, then they too will take up the cause. They too will take up the cause that their member for the New Democratic Party has; but the real opposition, Mr. Speaker, is coming from people who are speaking right from their hearts and from the hearts of their constituencies. We aren't here, Mr. Speaker, trying to make political marks out of this.

That has already been done by the government, Mr. Speaker. The people of Manitoba have already made up their minds on this issue and how they're going to vote at the next general election. It's not a matter of whether the New Democrats do this or that or try and sell their project through pamph lets, whether they be telling the full story or whether it be telling part of the story. The people of Manitoba have made their minds up. There are New Democrats who are tearing their cards up, their membership cards, because they said this gover nment did not have the mandate to do this.

The mandate that we gave that government was to make sure that nobody would go bankrupt; that everybody would have a year's notice before they would lose their jobs; that Hydro rates would not go up, and all those falsehoods, Mr. Speaker. That's what they voted for the New Democratic Party on. It wasn't on making a major constitutional change to introduce biling ualism into the Province of Manitoba once and forever; Mr. Speaker, and that's what they are trying to give the people of Manitoba. But you can't fool them. You cannot fool the people of Manitoba.

It is in their minds today that what this government is doing is wrong, is wrong, is wrong, is wrong. They have no base from which to operate from, no mandate other than from a small group in society who they negotiated agreement with, and the other partner to this agreement, Mr. Speaker - goodness sakes, who would make an agreement with Pierre Elliott Trudeau and try and gain popularity with the people of Manitoba through that kind of action? That is political insan ity, Mr. Speaker, and they have approached onto that path. It's an irreversible approach, Mr. Speaker, and they'll not be able to return.

All the advertising in the world, all the informational meetings of the world, where people won't be able to be told what is really happening to them because there isn't enough time by the Attorney-General, will not be sold this bill of goods because it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is wrong, and the people will not swallow it. That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely why we are insisting, not on a narrow, political basis to try and win that next election - as I said, that has already been accomplished - but what we want, Mr.

Speaker, is to allow the public of Manitoba to come into an intersessional hearing set­ up system, where, in fact, they can truly be heard about the way they feel. So it isn't a matter of us standing here in a partisan way debating it, but it truly is getting to the grass roots of the people of Manitoba on such a major issue. Mr.

Speaker, when we talk about the leader of our party and the presentation that he made to this House and this Assemb ly, I would hope that each member of the government party would go back over those comments that he laid on this record, would go over them in detail, and try and lay aside their philosophical thoughts on this particular issue, because he is right. He is right, Mr. Speaker, and as the days go on, the entrenchment that you see take place on this side of the House proves again and again how committed we are to truly stand up for our constituents and the people within the province. Mr.

Speaker, to do less would be an injus tice to our jobs as MLAs. To do less than stay here on a long weekend in August and July would be committing a sin or be committing an omission that, Mr. Speaker, we couldn't afford to happen. It was by the gover nment's choice that they decided to push through on a long weekend, when a few of our members were here, an item of such major importance. Mr. Speaker, let us deal with why they don't want public hearings. They don't want public hearings, Mr. Speaker, because they are going to hear what they don't want to hear.

The best way not to hear it, I guess, is not to have the hearings or be committing an omission that, Mr. Speaker, we couldn't afford to happen. It was by the government's choice that they decided to push through on a long weekend, when a few of our members were here, an item of such major importance. Mr. Speaker, let us deal with why they don't want public hearings. They don't want public hearings, Mr. Speaker, because they are going to hear what they don't want to hear.

The best way not to hear it, I guess, is not to have the hearings - very simple - but they will pay the price as will the people of Manitoba pay the price. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Mini ster of Finance on a point of order. HON. V. SCHROEDER: On a point of House privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The former Min ister of Agriculture has just stated to the House that the government does not want this matter, the issue of the amendment to our Constitution, to go to public hearings at a time when he is deb ating a re solution put forward by the government requesting that the matter go to the public for hearings, at a time when over 30 people and groups have applied to tell the government what they think about that particular item, and he has the gall to stand here and say, when we have a government motion on the Order Paper - a motion that he is debating right now - that we don't want public hearings.

That is just as far from the truth as even a Conservative could get. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. 4821

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance thought he had a point of order, Sir, then I will . . . HON. V. SCHROEDER: Point of House privilege. We don't have to listen to that kind of absolute untruth MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There was no point of privilege raised. There was no point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: If the Minister has a point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to it, but if he's simply interrupting proceedings in order to try and participate in debate, then it's not worth responding to. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur may proceed. MR. J. DOW NEY: If that