Manitoba Hansard — 30 July 1983 (Sitting 122, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-122

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 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. 122 - 2:00 p.m., SATURDAY, 30 JULY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La ·.erendrye Min nedosa Rhi neland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bonif ace Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Ni akwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin- Russell St. Norb ert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossrnere ln kster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NO P NDP PC PC PC NDP IND ND P NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Saturday, 30 July, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS French language Services MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speak er, I have a question for the First Min ister.

Could the First Min ister confirm that there were over 30 people in groups registered in the Clerk's Office who are waiting to make their opinions on French Language Services kno wn to this Legislature, and that they cannot do so because the opposition is obstructing the procedural motion to go to comm ittee? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minist er. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, there are 32 individuals and/or groups that are awaiting to make presentations to the commit tee. In sofar as thos e groups are concerned, Mr.

Speaker, they represent thousands of Manitobans that are awaiting the opportunity to make their views kno wn in respect to the resolution before the House. They've already signif ied their intention and their desire to make those presentations to the Clerk of the House. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the debate on the motion as amended, and further proposed sub-amendments with respect to the referral to comm ittee of the

Section 23 amendments, standing on Pages 12 and 13 of the Order Paper? AD JOURNED DEBATE ON MOTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of th e Ho nour able Attorney-General and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry and the su b-amendment pro pos ed by the Honourable Member for Gladstone. The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are probably no motions and no bills in the short time that I've spent in this House that have been debated as much as this one has until now.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there's any issue that I've seen coming before this House, in the short time that I've been a member in this House, that has had as much written about in the newspapers, as much said about it on the radio and on television. Yet, we hear the members across, Mr. Speak er, say: Why are we here? What's this all about? Why the rush? Well, Mr. Speak er, we are here because, as they have asked so many times, let the people of Manitoba get a chance to have their say.

We have given the people of Manitoba a chance to have their say on a number of occasions already, and we're willing to give them this chance to further have a say. But for that to happen, Mr. Sp eaker , we need the co-ope rat ion of the opposition, not this contin ued obstruction which is preve nting the democratic and the parl iamentary process from happening the way it should be happening. The members of the opposition have constantly asked for us to go into Speed-up. Mr.

Speaker, we are in Speed-up but, in stead of debating this resolution, we are debating amendments and sub-amendments which are put forth simply to obstruct the process. Don't kid yourself. This sub-amendment is no different than the original amendment because when the members across, and a lot of them have stood up to speak on the original amendment put forth, all of them, except one, all of them have stated, let's go into intersession, have hearings, take a few months. Then in the fall, call it back to have it through. Now, this sub-amendment that they are bringing in says, call a Session before December 31s t.

So it's no different than what they have been saying in the original amendment. So I fail to see that it's anything but obstruction. Let it be clear. This is pure obstruction of the democratic and the parliamentary process. For people who want to debate, for people who say that they want to hear the people of Manitoba, to constantly use procedural wrangles to prevent the debate from taking place, to prevent the people from being heard, then, Mr. Speak er, I say they are not being totally honest and far from it. They say, we haven't provided the people of Manitoba with the details of the agreement. Mr.

Speak er, we've done better than that, we've explained every aspect of this agreement to the people of Manitoba in public meetings; we've made sure that the people of Manitoba knew the meanings of each of these provisions, or the clauses of this amendment, in two pamph lets that were sent out. Now you know that if you sent simply clauses of an amendment, you could do that on any bill and it means very little on its own. We've done better than that. We have explained what these clauses were and what were the imp lications of this.

So for them to say that we have not in dicated to the people of Manitoba what this was all about is not true. For them to say that they are co-operating and co operating fully, I also beg to disagree. I disagree. They 4695

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 even go as far as refusing to pair the Premier who had functions to attend during this weekend. Never before have I heard that the opposition has refused to pair the Prem ier. MR. H. ENNS: We don't normally break our word either. MR. G. LECUYER: Well, we haven't broken our word eith er, but we've seen nothing but that coming from the opposition. So when they say, let the people be heard, but then they frustrate the process, Mr. Speaker, then I have to question: where is their honesty? Mr. Speak er, throughout this debate, we've heard the question from the opposition.

And this debate, I have to remind all members of this Hous e, when this first came on the floor of the House, it goes back two months ago and more - two-and-a-half months ago, so for them to say that they haven't had time, and when I see all the speeches that have been made, all the repetitions that have taken place, members taking unl im ited time to repeat themselves 10 times on the same thing. Mr. Speal;er, if you look back on May 20th, after this was announc ed in the Ho use in the Mini sterial Statement by the House Leader the Leader of the Opposition spoke at length.

There are pages and pages in the Hansard on May 20th. As the Government House Leader stated the other day, there were reams of articles that appeared in the newspaper starting as far back as a year ago. So the people of Manitoba have been informed about this issue way before this was even brought into the House. The people of Manitoba kne w that there was a case in front of the Supreme Court which was there even before we came in government. The Government House Leader has made that point a number of ti mes.

To have allowed this case to go to . the Supreme Court would have been to refuse to do our responsible role as a government, because either way, no matter how that decision would have gone at the Supreme Court, we'd have been losers, losers as Canadians and losers as Manitobans in the process. Because if the Supreme Court would have decided . . . MR. H. GRAHAM: Your whole life is an "if." MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, I will go on to explain that whichever way the Supreme Court would have decided, we would have been losers.

So if they have decided, on one side, that Manitoba's case was valid, therefore, would have given reason to the arguments that were put forth by Manitoba . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Ch, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. LECUYER: You had your chance to speak. The Member for Lakeside stood up and spoke on unlimit ed basis last night, and I never interrupted him. I did not interrupt his remarks, and I hope he will give me the same courtesy.

If they had decided that Manitoba's case was valid, then it would have meant that in the process minor ities everywhere else in Canada, but especially in Quebec, would have been the losers for a long time to come. If they would have decided that Manitoba's case was not valid, then in the process we would have had to translate all the laws passed since 18 70, all the statutes passed since 18 70, as they should have, according to the laws that existed at the time. Of course, they could not have forced the Federal Government to contribute 0!1 the financing of these costs that are going to be incu rred.

Now, to be forced to translate laws passed long ago which are no longer of value today is of no benefit to anybody and of no benefit to the Francophones of Manitoba. On the other hand, to have the right to use the language as we are entitle d to, according to the law that was in the book in 18 70, would have continue d to mean that Manitobans could have used the official language, the two official languages.

Let's not mince words, because that's what they were; as I stated before, what makes an official language is the languages which are recognized by the Legislatures, by the laws of that Legislature, and by the court system. Therefore, the provisions of the act, as it was passed in 18 70, made or gave Manitoba two official languages. So for them to try and renege on that now won't wash, and never did. I� only did while or during the period that an illegal law was on the books which was passed in 18 90. I want to remind the members of the opposition that in order to pass that illegal law there were no referendums.

There were no public hearings or committee hearings, but an illegal law was passed which, contrary to what they say - they say that this amendment will destroy the fabric of this province, and that is far from the truth. It is exactly the opposite to the truth, because the fabric of this province was, from the very beginning, that this was an officially bilingual province in 18 70. I see the member across nodding negatively to that. Well what makes a language an official language? I would like him to tell me at any time, and I shall repeat the fact that it was law.

It was in The BNA Act, the fact that they were the two lang uages recognized of the Legislature, of the official records of the Legislature, of the courts and the laws. Therefore, that made it the two official languages of Manitoba. And I ask the question, again. If those were not the two official lang uages, what were the offi cial langua ges of Manitoba? So I don't accept it when they say that we are adding something new when we say, English and French are the two official languages of Manitoba, which is the first clause after

Article 23. That is simply a declaratory statement of the facts. Instead of destroying, therefore, the fabric of this province, Mr. Speaker, which was the two official languages, we are trying to repair the fabric of this province, to sew it back together as it should have been. It should never have been torn in the first place. What they are trying to do is keep it torn apart. That's the truth. Now, when the Member for Morris spoke the other day and he says he was appalled when he heard someone on this side speak of tyranny of the majority. Well, wasn't that tyranny of the majority in 18 90? MR. H. ENNS: I didn't acknowle dge the change in 19 79. 4696

I Saturday, 30 July, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. LECUYER: The Supreme Court decision . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. LECUYER: I heard mum bles from the Member for Lakeside and I don't know why, because I have never stated that this would not change in 1979. MR. D. ORCHARD: But they bought it. MR. G. LECUYER: But what I am saying is that the fabric of this province was torn by tyranny of the majority in 18 90. So don't let him tell me that he is appalled, and these words don't make sense. It was torn again in 1916 by tyranny of the major ity.

Now, who used the words though, "tyranny of the min ority?" Who used these words? Who used the words, "this is a quantum leap forward ," and used it about 50 times? Who used the words, "This is a calamit y. This is giving away the farms," and I can quote the pages? Who used these words? The Leader of the Opposition. Now when the Member for Lakeside says, you kn ow, we changed it in 1979; it's not true. The Supreme Court changed it in 1979. Manitoba fought it up to the Supreme Cour t in 19 79. What Manitoba did is accept the decision from the Su preme Court.

Of course, they should; there's no higher court in the land, so they had no choice. But to now say that what we are doing is a quantum leap forward, is giving away the farm, these are just fear tactics. That's all it is because when, in 18 70, the people of Manitoba, two populations of Ma nitoba who were at that time about equally represented - in fact, the Francophones at the time were in a small majority - the reason that the two langua ges were pr otected in the courts, in the Legislature and in the laws of this province was because it was to assure the minimum guarantees.

If you don' t have it in the courts and the laws and in your Legislature, how do you expect to have it anywhere else? That was the minimum guarantee. I am sure the intent of that was that the services then, and even constitutional counsellors or counsels will admit that, that the intent then was that services would be provided in two languages. That was the intent. Legal counsel, federal constitutional counsel, has also in terpreted it in that way. That is why, when members across say there was absolutely no risk in going to the Supreme Court, that is why even the constitutional counsels will not go that far.

They say there was perhaps minimum risk, li ttle risk, but nevertheless they recognized there was risk. That risk is even greater today now, since the decision that was passed by the Appeal Court in Quebec which rejected the law passed in Quebec with regard to the striking teachers. One thing I noted last night, when the Member for Lakeside spoke, he referred to Allia nce Quebec having been supportive of the Supreme Court decision of 1979; that's not true. Allia nce Quebec did not even exist at the time.

All iance Quebec was formed in 19 81, and here's what they have to say about this propo sed agreement by the Province of Manitoba: "Your decision has seriously undermined the arguments of the present Queb ec Go vernment tha t only a separa te and ind ependent Quebec can prot ect the rights of French speaking Canadians.

No twithstan ding conti nuin g pressure from the Government of Quebec, English speaking Quebecers continue to receive more basic services than our French-speaking cou nterparts in any other province of Canada, notably in health, education, social and government services from un iversities to hospitals, homes for the aged and a good public school system." Further in the same letter which is add ressed to the Premier of this Province, dated June 1, 1983: "We continue to hear statements made by Premier Levesque and his colle agues which would attempt to justify our governme nt's continuing efforts to dimin ish the status of English langua ge in Quebec by pointing to the treatment of French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec, particularly to use both French and English before the courts and Legislature of Manitoba over 90 years ago.

By entering into the agreement to amend the constitution you have demons trated, in the clearest possible manner , your commitment to see that justice is done. You and, indeed, all the people of Manitoba are to be commended for this. "Some people in Quebec take a somewhat more cynical view and argue that the Manitoba Agreement to reinstate constitutional rights is too little, too late, and thus there is no pu rpose in giving effect to the agreement. We strongly dis agree.

When dealing with funda mental freedoms and rights, it can never be too late to ensure that citizens have that which rightfully belongs to them. Cl early the French-spe aking popula tion of Manitoba has dimin ished significantly over the last 90 years, but the rights set forth in the proposed constitutional amendment continue to be as im portant today as they were in 1873 for the future and the un ity and the strength of Canada.

"The agreement," it says further, "is a breath of fresh air and will inspire the majority of Quebecers, both French-speaking and English-speaking, who believe that our future lies in a unit ed and a better Canada." Mr. Speak er, when the Leader of the Opposition so vehemently opposed the entrenchment of the Bill of Rights in Canad a's new Constitution, did he hold a referendum? No. He did exactly what we propo sed to do, except the problem is now, Mr.

Speaker, the members of the opposition play two different kinds of games; one tha t suit s them when they are in government, and a di fferent game when they are in opposition; one which is intended purposely and strictly to thwart the parliamentary process.

Now that we have given the oppo rtunity to people to be heard in public commi ttee meetings; that we provided them with information; that newspapers in nu merous articles have provided information on this issue, and many of them supp ortive - in fact, I would say a majority of them supp ortive on this issue - now that we have people waiting with their names on the list, people representing many groups of this province who want to make themselves heard, the members of the opposition want to prevent them from doing just that.

So the members across said: "You have no manda te to do this; you did not say this in the election." Well 4697

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 how could we say this in the election? The case was before the Supreme Court shortly before the members of the opposition left their term in government. We had no opportunity at that time to be a party to any negotiations of this Supreme Court case. We had no way of knowing at that time where or how far it would go, if it were to go anywhere. But, Mr.

Speaker, after this case was set back purposely to give an opportunity to the parties to this case to try and strike some kind of agreement, which we arrived at after one full year's negotiation, or more, we have come to a resolution, or to an agreement, which all parties at the federal level are supporting, an agreement which would be good for Canada, because I think that is what counts first. We have to be Canadians first, because what good does it do to think primarily and only of Manitoba if we cannot keep this country together? So we negotia ted.

We came to an agreement which saves Manitoba mo ney, which does not go any further than what is happening no w, and repeatedly the members of the opposition have agreed that that was the case, repeatedly. Because what it does is provide certain essential services which they say, starting in 1979, we started providing as well after the Supreme Court decision. And they do not object to these services. The only one that I have heard object to that one is the Member for Elmwood on the basis of cost. I haven't heard any members of the oppo sition object to that.

Services, of course, is what is the livelihood, the survival of the language and the culture. With laws, with courts, giving the right to those who have commit ted a criminal act to be heard is not giving an opportunity for the survival of a language or a culture; is not really recognizing the intent of the law which was adopted at the time this province came into being which was to provide a minimum of court, legal, and legislative services, but the intent was clearly th at basic government services would be provided to the people of Manitoba, who were, at the time, a majority anyways; it's only later.

The Francophones in Manitoba were the majority at that time but, independent of that, the intent was, of course, that those basic services would be provided; that the minimum that was entrenched in that law was the court, the legal system and the legislative records. The Member for Lakeside last night said: Well we continued providing those services, we were going in a reasonable and a rational way.

On that basis, perhaps it would mean that you add one little bit of a service every five years, every 10 years, every 20 years, and maybe we'd get back to the full intent of the law in 10 0 years time, in 200 years time. Hopefully, what he is not saying, but what that infers and imp lies, is by that time, hopefully, there won't be any one of them left, therefore, there won't be any need for this. That is why they object to entrenching this. They object to entrenching it simply because they say, it's going to be too difficult to change it. Well, Mr. Speak er, the courts are rational; the people are rational.

If it's true that in 50 years time, that in 100 years time, there is no need for it, then I'm sure that the people who will be sitting in this Legislature, and the people who will be sitting in Ottawa, will also have enough common sense to realize that it's not needed, and there's nothing that would prevent it from being changed. After all, other things, other changes, will be made to the Constitution. This will not be the first, nor the last.

So to say that we don't want it entrenched because it makes it too difficult to change it; true it makes it more difficult to change, but why should it be easy to remove basic rights? Why should it be easy? These basic rights should be entrenched and should not be removed un less there is absolutely no need for continuing to have them on the books. What's wrong with having people being able to speak two langua ges or more; to be able to be served in two languages or more? That is why I fail to understand this slogan against bilingualism, as if this was something positive.

It's of the most negative in this enli ghtened day and age, in this day of modern communication, in this day wherein so much understanding is requir ed throughout the world. One of the reasons that there is so much conflict is because we don't understand one anot her, and because we are so intolerant to one anoth er. That is what this resolution proposes, to make it better, to re establish the structure or the fabric of this province; to put it back where it was always int ended to be. They say, Mr. Speak er, and I checked the words spoken by the members on the resolution so far, and on the amendment so far.

They say, and everyone of them have said, practically using the same words, this is the most impor tant item or the most im portant issue to have come before this Legislature. They almost go as far as saying, in all ti mes or forever to come. That's almost what they say. Why is it so imp ortant? I ask them that all the time when I hear that. Why is it so important? To whom is it so important? The only people that it is imp ortant to is the people who were deprived of these rights long ago. Those are the people to whom it is important. Who else is it important to?

It's imp ortant to enl ightened Canadians, enl ightened Manitobans who want to learn a second and a thir d language; to all these ethnic groups who are learning Ukrainian, German in their schools today; that's to whom it is im portant. Anybody else who doesn't see it as relevant to him, as having any value to him, why should he oppose it? Why should he oppo se it vehemently , there is no reason for it? It does not inter fere with them in any way; it does not take away anyth ing from them, and I cannot accept that this is a costly affair, a minimum of services.

Remem ber, according to the constitution, The BNA Act, these services should have been provided since 18 70. Look at all the costs they've saved in over 100 years to provide the very bare bones minimum - and that's all that this provides for - and it's limit ed, and it's written in there so that no one can go back and say, we are entitled to services in this area or that area. We're entitled to such and such a service. It's specified in there, and that's the extent of the limitation, as I say, only according to the intent of what was written in The Manitoba Act in 18 70. Mr.

Speak er, we negotiated an agreement which is good for Manitoba, which is good for Canada. We negotiated because we knew we couldn't win at the court. We couldn't win because, even if we so-calied win, we were losing. We were losing on another angle. So we negotia ted a good agreement, an agreement which goes a long way in making Canada a better place; an agreement which will guarantee minor ity rights, not for just one group, because if they can be guaranteed for one group, that will also assure they cannot be taken from another group; that will also assure that 4698

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 there will not be the tyranny by the minor ity, as the Leader of the Opposition spoke of, but that there would not be tyranny by the majori ty. Mr. Speak er, the members of the opposition have spoken at great length on this issue, more than on any other issue that has been spoken on in this Session, and probably more than Bill 3 so far, way more than has been spoken on Bill 3. Mr. Speaker, if you go back into the records you will note that on May 18th, May 19th, May 20th, May 30th, there are pages and pages in Hansard, and from there on until today.

There are Hansards that are strictly on that, especially in the last couple of weeks. Mr. Speak er, right from the beginning, the Leader of the Opposition has used langua ge to inc ite fear, to incite strong opposition on this issue, but he is the one - and I have to say this. I haven't spoken until last week or the week before on this issue, but throughout this I am called a zealot, a foolish zealot throughout, a bigot. I get that thrown at me everyday. To be called that, Mr. Speak er, would require for me to oppo se this.

To be called that they would have had at least to listen to me speak, but I'm being called that from the very first time that this issue comes up, the very first time in the Executive Council Estima tes, and I can quote the page if you want. It's repeated often: Page 416 2, Page 4285, Page 4284, Page 4049. These are instances when this kind of langua ge was applied to me, Mr. Speak er.

On June the 6th, the Leader of the Opposition states, "When you take a matter of polic y and entrench it in a constitution and call it 'a right', and then give anyone, be he a reasonable citizen of Manitoba, a language zealot or whomever, a right of enforcement, then you have created a form of potential tyranny in the hands of a few people who can cause chaos." So for the Member for Morris the other day, who was so appalled at hearing such words and were being applied to the majority and, of course, we all know that the majority sometimes can forget the min ority, and proofs of that can be given throughout the years.

Proofs of that can be given in relation to the agreements and to what the provisions that were contained in The Manitoba Act in relation to the Metis. Proof of that can be given into the agreements that were entered into in the treaties in regard to the Native people of Canada. So that there has been, in the past, tyranny by the majority doesn't have to be proven. History proves that all along the way, but that there is tyranny of the minorit y, that you will have to be proven to me. That the Francophones being provided a few limited services would then exercise tyranny of the minor ity, Mr.

Speaker, has to be ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, on the same date, Page 3486, the Leader of the Opposition said, there's " ... nothing wrong with the principle, Mr. Chairman, of saying that people should be able to deal with governments in Manitoba in French or English, so long as you don't carve that into stone and put into the hands of zealots and others a tyrannical weapon that can rip apart the social fabric of this province. Nothing wrong with it if you leave it as something that is not carved in stone." Mr.

Speak er, what he's saying is, if you leave it as something that could be used as a political football whenever it suits the governmental debate. That's what he's saying. He quotes further on, "The danger of this agreement is that, except for the translation portion, it is not needed," he says, "it was not required; it does give away the farm; it creates the possibility of social uphe aval and chaos in this province beyond anything that I'm sure the First Min ister or his Attorney-General can comtem plate at this time." If that's not trying to encite the bigots to create fear, what is? What is?

Further he says, " . . . it is someth ing that should be avoided if we want domestic tranquility in this province." If we want domestic tranquil ity, but, Mr. Speak er, what if we want justice? What if we want more tolerance? What if we want better understanding? What if we want to make this a better province to live in? What if we want to make this a country that is more unit ed? Shouldn't we think a little bit about justice? Shouldn't we think a li ttle ab out the barebone minimum? Mr.

Speaker, I could go on using copies of Hansards and dishing back at them some of the words that have been given to me for the next three hours and no problem at all. I only have but a few minu tes left, not just unlim ited time like the Leader of the Opposition who can speak three-and-a-half hours, and the Member for Lakeside who can claim unlim ited time privilege. So I cannot go back to all these words that show clearly how wrong they are on this issue. I'm sure, Mr.

Speaker, Manitobans, every Manitoban, given the least bit of an op portunity to un derstand without the distortions, without the misinformation, without anyone enciting undue fear, the people of Manitoba would also understand. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Fina nce. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard the Member for Morris say, gee I thought you were in a rush to end this.

I have just a few remarks but, before I make those remarks, I am prepared to waive making any remarks on this issue right here and now if the opposition is prepared to vote on this total package resolution to send this to a public commi ttee today. If the y are prepar ed to make that kind of a recommenda tion, an offer, then we're prepared; right now, I'm prepared to sit down and we'll have a vote on this subamendment, the other amendment, and on the main motion to send this matter to a public comm ittee. Now if that offer is not accepted, that demons trates, I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, what the problem here is. It is very, very clear. It is pure Tory obstructi on. That is what it is. What we are dealing with here is not the question of whether the resolution we have put before this Chamber to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act is good, bad, or indif ferent, what we are dealing with here is the question of getting this resolution before the people of Manitoba in order that they can be heard on it; that is the sole purpose of the resolution moved by our House Leader on this issue, many, many hours of debate ago. We want to get this matter to a public commit tee so that a commi ttee can hear the public, can hear the views of people out there, and we will then have to decide on whether this resolution, the main guts of it, is good, bad, or indifferent. We will have to decide whether we're prepared to pass it, or 4699

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 whether we're prepared to amend it, or whether we're prepared to reject it. That is the issue we are dealing with here tod ay, and that is the issue the Tories don't want to vote on because they like to give the public the im pression - and this is the mystery of what is happening here in the last few days. They are trying to give the im pression that we are the people who are trying to prevent the public from being heard; that's the im pression they're trying to create out here; that is an absolute lie. We are asking this matter to come to comm ittee. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: The Min ister knows full well that he's using unparli amentary language by accusing the opposition of lying, and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance is surely aware of that requirement in the House. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I will withdraw that, and say that the im pression created is very clearly unfactual.

The fact of the matter is, we have asked the public to come to a comm ittee, or we have a resolution which, if passed, will ask the public to come and be heard before a comm ittee of this Legislature. We have more than 30 peo ple who ha ve asked to app ear. - (I nterjection) - Now we've heard the former Min ister of Agriculture say, so what? Well, that's an int eresting attitude to take toward the various groups that are asking to be heard.

I would like to just name a few of them: the Ukraini nan Commun ity Development Comm ittee; Manitoba Parents for Ukrainian Educa tion; Manitoba Association for Bilingual Education; Manitoba Ass ociation of Righ ts and Li berties. That's an organization which the opposition has been quoting on other bills. Surely they want to hear from them. Why are they talking to the substance of the resolution before we hear from the public? That is what they have been talking on, instead of the question of whether we should or should not send this matter to a comm ittee of the Legislature to hear these people.

Now here we're giving them an opportunity to hear from the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. People on that side have been quoting that group. The concerned Mennon ites would like to speak to the members of the Legislature before they fix their minds in absolute stone in terms of where they are on the resolution to change our constitution. I think they should be heard. We have a variety of Franco-Manitoba organizations and individuals who would like to be heard by this commit tee which we would like to strike and would like to strike now.

I might add that if we could strike it this afternoon then I'm sure that we could arrange for not having this House sitting on Monda y, as had .been offered to the House Leader of the Opposition by the Min ister of Natural Resources. We wouldn't have had to be here today if we were just prepared to do that, and we wouldn't have had to be here on Mon day. The Tory obstruction is forcing us into this kind of a weekend; is forcing the staff of this Legislature into that kind of a weekend. Mr. Speake r, that is a matter of fact.

Just this morning I had a conversation with the House Leader for the Conservatives, who was hoping that the bells would ring all weekend as a result of his motion this morning and would not have come back, was telling us that he would not ha ve come back and the Conservatives would not come back until Tuesday afternoon, not Tuesday morning even, not Monday morning, not Monday afternoon, not Monday evening. not Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, although they are the people who asked for Speed-up. They asked for Speed-up. They said, when are you going to bring Speed-up in?

We're in Speed-up, and they were going to allow the bells to ring on a motion to adjourn because they don't have enough people to win a vote. They happen to be the minor ity. They think that, because they are a minor ity, they don't have to vote. That's the way they will get around dealing with situations where we come to a question of how we decide resolutions. They simply will let the bells ring. It's an activity that I think borders on the anti- Democratic.

Ok ay, there's the East Indian Ethnic Group, the Winnip eg Chil ean Association, a numb er of private citizens who say they'-e not necessarily representative of any group. There's the Chairman of the Manitoba Steering Comm ittee on Heritage Languages. We can go on and on. There are many other organizations, the Irish Canadian National Comm ittee; the Manitoba Metis Federation; the Manitoba Progressive Party, and so on.

There are organizations which would like to be heard Some of them . may represent more people than others, and some of them one may agree with slightly more than others, but I th ink that we should be giving them the right to be heard before we get into all of this debate on the substance of the change that is prop osed to the House. And yet, the Conservatives are very deliber ately holding back. They are prepared to waste the weekends of the staff; they're prepared to waste the weekends of the other members of this Chamber i'1 order that they can attempt to make some kind of point.

They are trying to say that we don't want to let the public have a voice. We are saying, we want the public to have a voice. We want the public to have a voice as quickly as possible. The public is asking to be heard, and the Tories are refusing to hear them. They are saying, so what? I think that it is now time . MR. H. GRAHAM: Have a refer endum. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Now that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in my life. It is now time that we heard from the public. HON. R. PENNER: Is that the Leader of the Opposition's position? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: The former Speaker of this Chamber is telling us to have a referendum. Mr. Speaker, is that the way the Cons ervative Party wants us to operate this item? Is that the official position of the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba? Let them stand up and say so; let them stand up and say that they want to end this by way of referendum. I don't 4700

I Saturday, 30 July, 1983 see anybody standing up but, if somebody does want to stand up to say that, I'm prepared to sit down - (I nterjec tion) - Can't have it both ways? We're asking to have it one way. We're asking for the public to be heard and yes, you want a referendum? You say you want it the other way. Well, Mr. Speaker, about a commit tee that will hear the public, a commit tee which already has 30 individuals and groups, more than that, who are ready to speak, what is the problem? Is there any reason why they don't want to hear from these groups and ind ividuals?

They are pretend ing somehow that they want to hear from the public. When we say, let's bring it to the public, they say, no, we are going to stall it here in the Legislature; we're going to waste the time of our Leg isla ture empl oyees on Frida y even ing and on Saturday morning, and on Saturday evening and on Monday morning, and on Monday afternoon, etc., because they're not prepared to allow the public to be heard on this issue and I don't think that's good enough. While they're doing it, and just to demon strate the kind of picky attitude the official opposition has . A MEMBER: Nit-picking. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Yes, nit-picking. They have become real nit-pickers over this issue, for today they decided, in their arrogant ignorant way, not to allow the Premier of Manitoba to attend at a Centennial celebration at Dominion City, Manitoba, an item, an organization, a town that had asked for his presence. He had accepted. It is a longstanding parliamen tary tradition that when the Premier has official government busin ess, and surely that was official government business, he would be paired. They would not allow that to be done, and I think that is shameful.

I think it's not only something that affects the people who now live in Dominion City, many hundr eds of people who grew up in that area now live in Winni peg and other parts of the province and in other provinces and, indeed, probably in other countries, who have come back for that centen nial. The Conser vative Party has, by their action, just demon strated how small they are in not even allowing the Premier of our province to attend that centen nial event. I am really emba rrassed for Manitoba to have that kind of an attitude on the part of the official opposition here. Mr.

Speaker, they say they want the public to be heard. They want the publi c to be heard, and they refuse to do it. They keep playing games. They keep thwarting the will of the House. They want to set up a situation this afternoon which would allow them to have the bells ringing all weekend. I believe that sincerely because that's what the House Leader tried to do this morn ing. He thought he had achieved it. Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, thwarted his deli berate attempt to have the bells ringing all day tod ay, all day tomorrow, all day Monda y, Tuesday morning. That's what he was attempting to do.

I am most pleased that he wasn't allowed to get away with that kind of an anti Democratic procedure. I would urge the members oppo site to get on with debating whether we should be bringing this to a publi c comm ittee or not. Do you want to hear from the public or don't you? We do. We would ask you to pass this thing this very afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Cultu ral Affairs. A MEMBER: Would you pass it? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Or are you going to let the bells ring until Tuesday afternoon? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HON.

S. LYON: . . . blockhe ads. MR. H. GRAHAM: Coward. HON. E. KOSTYRA: The Member for Birtle-Russell calls us cowards. He doesn't want to deba te the issue. He doesn't want to vote on the issue. He wants the bells to ring, and he calls us cowards, Mr. Speaker. Who are the cowards, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to un derstand what's going on with respect to Her Majesty's Royal Opposition. We had them earlier . . . HON. S. LYON: It's loyal opposition. HON. E. KOSTYRA: .. . royal. HON. S. LYON: They're not very loyal, but they're royal. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: . . . asking us, demanding that we get into Speed-up because they wanted to facil itate the workings of this Legislature, wanted us to get on with the business of the Legislature, wanted us to deba te, wanted us to pass bills, deal with bills. And what do we have now? They are trying to stop the process of this Assembly. They're letting the bells ring. They're making frivolous amendments, Mr. Speaker, and they are going on and on and on. Why aren't they allowing this to go to commit tee, Mr. Speaker? They are saying that they want the public input, but they're stopping it.

The facts of the matter are, they are stopping this resolution from going to commit tee. They're stopping the public from having their say on this issue. Those are the simple facts, Mr. Speaker. We could have the comm ittee operating. We could have the commit tee meeting and, sure, it's going to take time. There are going to be lots of representati ons before the comm ittee, but they are stopping this resolution from coming to the comm ittee. What's going on this weekend?

The Min ister of Finance ind icated that, for the first time in anyone's histor y, pairs have not been allowed for the Premier and other Minis ters on government business. A MEMBER: You broke your word. HON. V. SCHROEDER: We didn' t break our word. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Didn't break any word, Mr. Speak er. I was informed last night that they would not honour my pair; that the fact that I was asked by people in the communit y of Dauphin and in Flin Flon to attend , 4701

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 as a government representative in the case of Dauphin, to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival. I was told that they were not going to honour it; that they did not want to allow me to attend on behalf of the government, at a request of that organization, the festivities there. Through you, Mr. Speak er, I apologiz e to the people of Dauphin, to the Ukrainian people in that commun ity, and I wish them well with their continued festival this weekend. HON. A. MACKLING: Send them a formal letter of apol ogy. MR. E. KOSTYRA: Also through you, Mr.

Speak er, I apologize to the people of Flin Flan, the City of Flin Flan who invit ed me, as a repr esentative of the government, as Min ister of Cultural Affairs and Historic Resources, to their festival this week. I apologiz e to them that th ose members there would not afford me, not allow me the opportun ity on behalf of the people to represent the government in Flin Flon. It's the first time it's happened, I'm told, in the history of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and I thing it's deplorable. I just wonder if all the other members of their caucus agree with that position?

I notice that a good number of them are not he re, and I wonder if the y'r e embarra ssed by this rump group that's being led by the nose by the Opposition House Leader. I wonder where the other people that want to lead that party are? Where is the Member for Fort Garry? I would think there would be some leadership there; that he would not allow the kind of things that are going on on that side of the House. But no, they're being led by the nose by the Opposition Hous e Leader. HON. V. SCHROEDER: That's right, because he's been anoint ed by Lyon. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: It's a situation that I think the people in this province will not tolerate for very long. People of the province will not tolerate. It's important to get into comm ittee to allow the public to have their say on this resolution, Mr. Speak er, and we are being stopped from that happening. We're being stopped by the opposition to allow the public to have their say.

Yet, they try to talk that they want public input; that they want to hear from the public, but the facts of the matter are they're stopping us from going to the public, and they're using every means at their disposal to slow down the process of the government. There are many other bills that are awaiting that ought to be passed, Mr. Speaker, that are not being passed, and the people of this province are not being served by their actions. They'll learn. It rnc.y take some time, Mr. Speaker, but they will learn. They will learn that the people of the province will not tolerate that kind of action. Mr.

Speak er, I would hope that we can get to hear from the people of the province with respect to this issue, so that they can come forward to commit tee. The Min ister of Finance indicated, listed a number ol organizations that want to come forward to speak on this resolution. There's lots been said lately, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the position of the various ethnic minor ities in the province, the leadership of the ethnic minorities in the province as to their position with respect to this amendment.

In fact, just days ago, the Member for Elrnwood indicated that all the German organizations were opposed to the resolution. You know, just on that, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I am having some difficulty hearing the Honour able Minist er. I wonder if honourable members would co-operate. The Honourable Min ister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. As I was saying, there was mention made of the position of the major German organi za tions, or orga ni za tions repr esen ting German people in the province.

The Member for Elrnwood indicated that both of those organ izations were opposed to the government's position on the proposed amendment. Well, if one reads the letters from those two organizations, you find some int eresting points in there. First of all, they apparently were approached by the mem ber. He spoke to ''iern and explained to them what the amendment means, at least according to him.

As a result of that, one organization did write back to him indicating that they are oppo sed to it, and I would hope that organization would also give representatives from the government the opportunit y of explaining and discussing with them further their concerns with respect to the amendment. But the other organization who he quo tes is op posed to it did not state that in their letter. They did not state that they are opp osed to the amendment. They indicated, as a result of their meeting with the memb er, that they have some concerns and that they're worried about the impact on mun icipal ities.

Municipalit ies aren't covered in the amendment and it's clear that is separate, but they're concerned about that. But they did not state in their letter that they are opposed to the position. They indica ted that they have a number of concerns, but that's the kind of mi srepresentation that is corning out on this issue. In deed today, Mr. Speak er, in the Winnip eg Free Press, there's a letter from the Jewish Commun ity Organization indicating their position very clearly and very firmly in support of the constitutional amendment that is being proposed. In fact, they urge that this be done as quickly as possible.

It's the representatives of the Jewish people in the City of Winnipeg urging that this be done as quickly as possi ble, but that's not the only Jewish organization that has come forward on this resolution. There were other Jewish organizations that have come out in the past. Just also today, in reviewing my mail of yesterday, I received in the mail a letter from the Vietnamese organization, one of the most recent immigr ant groups to this province as you are well aware, Mr.

Speaker, a group that is just in the most difficult state of integration into our system, having difficulties with a whole numb er of problems, some health-r elated, some ernployment related, some language-related. But here is a new group, a group that is just getting used to being part of the Canadian mosaic, corning out and saying that they are in support of what is being propo sed with respect to 4702

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 French Language Services, what is being proposed by this government. They are clearly in support of that, Mr. Speak er, a very new and recent immi grant group; one that others suggest are going to be hurt by this amendment, and they are urging us to get on with it.

Also in yesterday's mail was a letter from one of the East Indian organizations in the City of Winnipeg, the Manitoba Branch of the national organization of peoples of origins in India, clearly stating their position that was arrived at after discussions with their full executive; that they are fully in support of what the government is doing, and ind icate that it is their view that the majority of their 20,000 members support the government's position in this regard.

I know that if, and I hope the member has the opportun ity , the Member for Fort Garry has the opportunit y of reading my comments, and he kno ws that organ ization well and has worked with them and kn ows they do represent the views of the very large East Indian communit y, I'm sure he would be concerned with respect to his caucus's position in regards to this issue and in regards to the fact that they are not allowing the publi c's input on this most impo rtant resolution, because he kno ws full well the credi bility and the people in that organization who are well-known leaders within the general Manitoba communit y.

We have also seen in the past weeks, Mr. Speaker, list and li st of leaders from the var ious ethnic communities indicating their support of the position, and urging the government and the opposition to move and to deal with this most im portant issue. So there is a great deal of public in terest, and there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, that want to be heard; that want to have the opportun ity of coming forward to a comm ittee of the Legislature to give their voice, to give their reasons, and to give their concerns with regard to this resolution. But those members there are not allowing that to happen.

I think that record has to be clear, Mr. Speaker, to all Manitobans that they are doing everything in their power to ensure that this resolution does not get to commit tee quick ly. I can't, I know, Mr. Speak er, impu te motives or suggest motives. I don't kno w what they are, Mr. Speaker, but they have some reason that they do not want to see this go to commit tee. On one hand, we had them saying, let's get on with the busi ness of the House. Let's get into Speed-up so we can facil itate the business.

On the other hand, we have the bells ringing for hours, hours that we could be spending listening to the people of Manitoba coming to comm ittee. But what are we doing? We're listening to the bells, the buzzers ring, wasting everybody's time , Mr. Speak er, and frustrating the democratic process and, in fact, stopping the democratic process, stopping people from having the opportun ity of coming forward to make their views kno w.

So I urge members and I know that there are some that are not following blindly the kind of cou rse that's being mapp ed for them; that they're feeling uncomfortable with frustrating the activities of this Assem bly; that they don't want to see this continue. I would urge them to speak out. I know they would not want to do it here, Mr. Speak er, but I would urge them in their own caucus to bring some sanity back into this House so that we can deal with the issues. We can deal with this most impo rtant issue, get the public's input, get into comm ittee.

We can deal with the other matters that are of impor tance to the people of this provi nce, and not frustrate and not slow down the process, because I don't think, Mr. Speak er, that is in the true spirit. It is not in the true tradition of this Assembly, and I would urge those members that are feeling uncomfortable and kno w that this is wrong not to be blindly led like they are right now, and to speak out. I accept that they can't do that publ icly, but speak out in their own caucus and say, let's stop this nonsense. Let's get on with the business, because that's what the people of the province want, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order? HON. R. PENNER: No, just to speak, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er, I propose to be very brief. I wanted to place someth ing on the record. I'm given to und erstand that, in my absence;, some remarks of a personal nature were made about my absence from the House. I think that is absolutely wrong. I have been led to understand that one of the precedents of this House is that is someth ing that ought not to be done.

I do not propose to engage in the debate about where I was in my brief absence from the House or why. That is a personal matter. I will peruse, let me say here, Hansard very carefully and if, in fact, what has been said gives rise to a motion for privilege, I will have no hesitation in making that. That ought not to happen. What does concern me, leaving those reflections on my absence aside, is the allegation, as I und erstand it, that there was some sort of a deal.

The Opposition Hous e Leader said to me yesterday in one of our discussions that he was prepared to admit that there may have been a misund erstanding. How can he admit to me that he's prepared to admit that there may have been a misund erstanding, and then tell House that there was a deal; to tell this House, on the one hand, that there was a deal, and to tell me that there may have been misu nderstan ding? How would you characterize tha t in someth ing that doesn' t bo rder on unp arliamentary language? I will be reading Hansard very careful.

I treasure my reputation, and I will not have it trampled on in my absence in that kind of cowardly, un mercilessly way. You see, the question is this, and it has been raised in speeches that have been made previously. What, in reality, is all of this about? I think we would really like to kno w why are they sitting there, waiting to pounce upon the bells, true to Tory tactics? They could hardly wait. They yell there - the Member for Morris and others - put the question. Put the question. Why do they want the question put?

Not, as challenge d by the Minis ter of Finance, because they really want the issue to be dealt with. The moment the question is put, the bells will ring until they decide, lords and masters of this House. They have been taught that ideology by the Member for Charleswood. They will decide how the busi ness of this House will run. They will let the bells ring. They can hardly wait to pounce upon the bells, 4703

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 a Tory tactic that is a discredi ted tactic. One day, I hope in my lifetime in this House, that rule will be changed so that indeed, as with the House of Commons, the Mother Parliament, members will attend to the business of the House and, if they are not there within half-an-hour of the bells ringing, the vote is taken. Why though are they doing this? What is the hidden agenda, if there is a hidden agenda? Why all of this delay? The Minis ter of Finance spoke very well to the issue. He poi nted out, there are now 30, 32 on the list.

That list is growing rapid ly, the list of people waiting to be heard. I venture to say, by the end of next week, it'll be close to 10 0 of people who want to be heard. Yet, I predict that, in a sense probably di ctated by the Opposition House Leader who has particular ideological views about this thing, the referral of this to the people - we've done it through the public meetings - through the parlia mentary process will be thwarted. There is now a sub-amendment. I venture to say, there will probably be another sub-amendment and another sub-amendment.

I mean, if it is not going to be a bell-ringing tactic, it will be another procedural motion, until what? Perhaps the government with those people wanting to be heard and we want them to be heard on the procedural question, they hope that the government may invoke closure. They hope that the government will do that, and then they'll say, ah hah, we told you. They want to ram it down people's throats. That part of their game plan is palpable. They think that somehow or other they can hide behind this thin veil of smoke, and their game plan cannot be seen.

You see, if they were genuinely interested in the people of Manitoba coming forward where people of Manitoba can best come forward in a formal structure to present their views; if they were genuinely in terested in that, then they would allow this motion of referral to go through, and the people would speak. I have said and I'll say it again, Mr.

Speaker, that with respect to the question of that one part of the amendment which is in a sense the one that places some burden on government - because the one with respect to the validation of statutes and with respect to the translation of statutes is all to the benefit of the government. The one part that places some burden on gove rnment, and that's only the Go vern ment of Manitoba with respect to services, if they genuinely feel that is the problem and that there is the need to sharpen up the terms and it's not that complic ated, then let them get in to the debate and make cons tructive suggestions.

Let them do that. I said when I spoke on this last, we will be listening. We will be listening for constructive suggestions on the wording of that part of the resolution . . . A MEMBER: You're talking on both sides of your mouth again. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, we will be listening. There are things that I believe can be done to tighten up the language. I have made that statement several times in the House, and let no one try to put a veil over that, or to hide that with smoke and mirr ors. I've said that very plain ly.

In deed as I said before, there are discussions with the civil servants, organized and unorgani zed, who might have some concern about displacement. I say here again, as I've said before, it need not have such concern, but we are pr epa red to tight en up the language. There are discussions that will lead to, I would hope, some suggestions coming forth in the very near future, in the next few days, that can be taken by those groups to commit tee. They're waiting to go to commit tee themselves and would like to make their presentations to commit tee, those directly affected in that sense.

They are being thwarted by these tactics. See, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the real concern is the wording of that particular

section of the resolution. They kno w that where language is allegedly weak, it can be strengthened. That is not a great compl icated matter that's going to take generations or months or weeks. You can sit down when you have language that is prob lematic, and you can negotiate or discuss and come to a sharper version without a great deal of difficu lty.

The fact of the matter is, if we go back to what has been said in the limit ed way in which the opposition has spoken on this matter; the fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition, at least being consistent ideological ly, is unalterably opp osed to the entrenchment of rights in a constitutional way. They are dedicated to that Leac:.;er, come hell or high water - and I think it's going to be a bit of both - until December the 8th when there is a new Leader.

Is it - I only ask the question - that they would like to drag this matter out until that time to see who the new Leader is and what the new ideology is? Is that what it is? It must be something like that, because they cannot come forward as the Member for Lakeside, the Member for Tuxedo and others who have said, we want to help you. When that kind of a helping hand is put forward by members of the opposition, I want to see what's in the other hand. Where, all a sudden, do they want to help us? Where is it all of a sudden that they want to make sure we don't have great difficulties in the next election?

Now didn't that surprise you, that they want to make sure that we don't have difficulties in the next election? They want to us. Well, if they want to help us, then let's put it on the table. Are you in favour of entrenching minority language rights including services in the Constitution? If you follow and are prepared to follow to the end the ideology of your Leader and the stated position of your Leader, then you have to say, no. So don't fool around, preten ding that you're waiting for the public to tell you which side of the issue you should go on that. Because if you're waiting for the public, Mr.

Speaker, surely they're not waiting to her what the public tells us. They're waiting for the public to speak. - (Int erjection) - That's right. Now, if they're saying, well if we heard enough of the public who said that they were in favour of the entrenchment of these services, why we would change our mi nds. Nonsense! As long as the Member for Charleswood is sitting as the Leader of the Opposition, that will not happen. Would they, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree tha t if you are to have right s that are constitutionally entrenched, then it doesn't make sense un less you have a remedial section?

Are they prepared to say that they would want to have that in the constitutional in strument ? Non sense, abs olut e 4704

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 nonsense! They don't fool us on that for a moment. Pure balderdash, that's all it is, nothing more nor less than that. We, Mr. Speaker, as I've said, have been debating this issue and debating this issue, giving them the opportunity so that the matter can go to the people who are waiting to be heard. You see, Mr. Speaker ... MR. W. McKENZIE: Let's vote on the amendment already. HON. R. PENNER: Well if the Member for Roblin- Russell is prepared to tell us that if we put the question - the Min ister of Finance asked the question.

If we put the question on the subamendment and the amendment, are you teliing us that you will actually take the vote? Is that what you're telling us, today? (I nterjection) - No, no, we are no t going to support that subamendment, but you know what will happen when we call the question on that. As I said, you're waiting to pounce upon the bells. That's exactly what you'll do, no question about it. We are not going to let you thwart the business of the Hou se. We are not going to let you make a mockery out of this particular Legislature. We are not going to do that. So, Mr. Speaker - (I nterject ion) - Mr.

Speaker, I want to make one final remark. I spoke a few moments ago about whether or not they would support the entrenchment of services, more sharply defined if we can, in the Constitution with some min imal remedial action. What I want to add as a footnote there is to point out that the notion that has been put about that somehow or other ther e's a quantum leap - (Interjection) - Al, I want you to hear this too, you see - that somehow or other, the notion of parliame ntary supremacy is being thwarted by putting something in the hands of the courts. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is an elementary lesson of Canadian constitutional history that has been a fact of Canadian constitutional life since 18 67. The moment the Fathers of Confederation divi ded powers between th e pr ovin ces and the Federal Government, from that moment, the courts have the ulti mate say on exceptionally imp ortant things, far more important than arises in this amendment, with respect to such issues as the legi slat ion of criminal law.

Hundreds of bills put forward by Legislatures have been struck down by the courts because they have been beyond the powers of the provinc es as set out in that constitutional instrument. With respect to who controls broadcasting right through the 30s, and into the post Second World War with the new technol ogy, the Supr eme Court has ruled either this law is good, in the sense that it is with in the powers of whoever passed it, or it's bad.

With respect - my God! - to taxation, there was a case not long ago when the former NOP Government, and I think they were right in this, wanted to be able to collect sales tax from the sale of liquor on air flights over our airspace. That was passed by this Legislature, but the Supreme Court of Canada said, no. That was beyond the powers. I could go on at length, but it's so obvious. At least the members sitting in this House should know that this is not like Britain where there is no such a constitution.

Therefore, the question of whether or not a law is within or without the power of a government never arises in the House of Lords, the ultimate authority there with respect to the British legal system, but here in Canada since 1867. They're 16 0 years behind in their thinkin g. They're still struggling to bring the Tory Party into the 19th Centu ry. I mean, that's how far behind they are in their think ing. They listen to the Leader of the Opposition and his erstwh ile friends, the Leader of the Progressive Party, who have this notion of constitutional history that is bizarre, that is absolutely bizarre.

So, the notion that there's a quantum leap in terms of the courts being able to deal with the matter of either powers as divided in the Constitution, or rights as entrenched in the Constitution is just not so. Again then, if that isn't so, where is the quantam leap? Mr. Speaker, with respect to the services being proposed which are by the Provincial Government only and then in a very limi ted way, those services were first offered, not to the same extent it is true, by the now official opposition.

In March of 1982, the Premier of this province spoke and annou nced in very defi nit ive terms what the policy of this government was with respect to services in the French language. Read that speech; you'll not find anything in it - or put it the other way - you'll not find anything in our proposal today that is different from what was outlined in that speech. At that time there wasn't a murmur , nothing. A MEMBER: We weren't entrenching it - it was in the hands of the courts. HON. R. PENNER: Well, there you are, that's just what I said a few moments ago.

You think that the quantum leap is giving the court some remedial power, but that is not a quantum leap, that is part of the constitutional history of this count ry. So, what you have is not a quantum leap in the sense of a qual itative change. You have a proposal that far more defi nitely defines what the services to be offered are, so that they shall be known in clear terms, but what you do, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is you remove them beyond the reach of those who, for narrow political advantage at some time where perhaps bigotry might reign supreme, would remove those rights, trade them off, in deed, as some of the Premiers of this province were prepared to do at a time when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being articulated, when there were trades being made or at least suggested between fishing rights and oil rights and fundamental rights. That, we don't want to see happen. The Member for Radisson is absolutely right when he points out that in this province at least, we have some history.

We kno w that a majority, a relatively small majority as these things go, trampled on the rights of the French mino rity by what can only be described in constitutional terms as the tyranny of the majori ty. The majority is not always right. The majority may be pressed by narrow political advantage. The majority may, in fact, yield to the temper of the times. We have heard enough in the debate currently before us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suggest that there are some people out there who will boo when one word of French is spoken, who will boo anyone who annou nces that 4705

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 they are speaking in favour of French language mino rity rights. There are some such out there. Their voice may be heard. They may persuade a party, let's say, on the verge of an election to make a promise to limit or re examine and that party if elected government, then cuts back. For example, in 1980-8 1 - I'll get the exact date, it's in Hansard - the now Minis ter of Energy and Mine s sitting in opposition rose to ask the then Min ister of Transporta tion, the now Member for Pembina, about drivers' licences. Why aren't they appearing in two lang uages? Are they not ready?

He says, no, they're ready, but we'll have to wait and see; it's a question of a low priorit y. I'm not purporting to quo te, but that is the effect of what he said, and it took another two years, I took a full two years past the time when this was ready for the document, in fact, to be pri nted, characteristically , just about the time of the writs of the last election were issued.

This demonstr ates the point that I'm making, that if you take these rights which are cons idered to be fundamental or imp ortant because of the constitutional history of this province or for any other reason, and you leave them exposed to the political whims of the moment, then you do not really recog niz e their fundamental impor tance. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in rising on this occasion, I want to repeat, I resent very much the remarks as I understand them to be have been made by the Member for Turtle Mountain. That was improper; it ought not to have been done. I will read Hansard very carefully.

I want to say that it is clear to me that they're sitting there, have been sitting there waiting to pounce upon the bells, so that this House cannot meet on Mond ay, but the Deputy House Leader has announc ed a Session of the House on Mond ay in the morning, the afternoon and the evening, and the House will meet and the House will do busine ss. We will not be thwarted by procedural gimmickr y. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Deputy Speak er, a few moments ago I looked outside and what was once a sunny day in July has turned cloudy.

I booked th ree plane tickets about six weeks ago for my wife and myself and my daughter to go to Vanco uver. That was made in early June, and we then thought that the House might finish about July 15 th, and just to be on the safe side booked for the 29th. That apparent ly, has gone by the boards, and today I went out again with some optimism and bought a couple of ba thing suits at Eaton's on sale, and those may also be going into 'he mothballs. Mr. Speak er, I am prepared to give up this summer to debate this biling ual resolution.

I'm prepared to give up many more months to debate this polic y, because I think that it should never have been intr oduced in its present form and that it should never be impl emented in its present form, because this will do harm to Manitoba. It will also do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, irreparable harm to the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speak er, I just want to make a few remarks in regard to the comments made by some of the members so far in debate, and then get to one or two points. 4706 The Member for Radisson has said on a number of occasions that he doesn't consider cost to be important.

He considers the principle imp ortant, and therefore, once you have the principle, money is no object. Mr. Speaker, surely the principle is, in fact, No. 1, but one cannot ignore the costs, and the costs of this particular measure are very high indeed. The translation costs are high. The costs of providing hu ndreds of jobs in the Civil Service is very high, and no one can measure the damage in terms of our community that will result in this kind of a polic y. So, when the Member for Radisson says, well, you shouldn't consider costs, it's an excuse, it's a subterfuge.

I say that costs are as much a part of this debate as anything else. When he says that money is no object, he sounds very much like a Federal Liberal; 89 billion bucks to tap - what's $5 million, what's $10 million, what's ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Member for Radisson on a point of order. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, th roughout my speech I have at no time said that money was no object; that cost was not im portant.

That is not true, and if the Member for Elmwoorl wants to say that I have said that, he better show and answer where that is the case, because I have not said these words, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : I thank the honour able member for that clarification. It was not a point of order. The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster of Finance mentio ned that there are a numb er of organizations waiting to speak. Mr. Speak er, I attended some of the publi c hearings. I went to Brandon to the publi c informa tional mee ting, and I also went to the International Inn to the Winnip eg meeting.

I wit nessed there, Mr. Speaker, a stacked meeti ng. I saw groups of people sitting in portions of the audience who were obviously whipp ed up into a frenzy and were determined to influence the outcome of that meeting, and as soon as the questions were called for an input from the audience, the four microphones were immediately filled with lines of people. Lo and behold, miraculous ly, the first 12 to 15 speakers were in favour of the government. Terry Sargeant got up and made a 15-minute speech or a 10-mi nute speech about how wonderful this was. Other people read prepared statements.

It was either a coincidence, or some of us are underestimating the depth of commitment and the depth of the popula rity of the government proposal. It certainly was true that at every microphone, the first three or four speakers were favouring the government. I'm sure when we finally have our commit tee hearings here, we will find that the first 5, 10, 15 , 20, 25 briefs will be all pro-government, and it'll only be later when we get a more representative sampling from people all over the province, that we will see what public opinion in fact is.

I also note that the Attorney-General correctly, but I would say not very forcefully, said to the people in Dauphin that if anyone wanted to submit a brief, they could send it in the mail. Of course, that's one of the problems. People have to come to Winnipeg. I don't

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 kno w how many people are going to come from southwestern Manitoba to be heard and hang around three or four days in a hotel - or somebody from Roblin driving in, or someone from Church ill and Flin Flon and Thompson and The Pas. NOP strongholds, I don't know whether they'r e going to come in by bus or by car or by plane to sit around never knowing when you're going to be called, or never knowing how long it'll take. It certainly shows I think, Mr.

Speak er, that it would have been better and should now be possible for a group to go around to hear the briefs and collect the briefs, rather than asking the public to mail them in or drop in to the Legislature in August and give up your holidays and make a submission. Mr. Speaker, every single credit has been called on this debate. You know there are people who owe the government something morally or owe the government something political ly, and there are those who owe the Liberal Party of Canada something, and are obliged and obl igated to Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Bockstael and Mr. Trudeau and others Mr.

Serge Joyal, our favourite person in this particular debate. You can be sure that everybody who is ever going to support the Federal Liberals is going to be out now, and everybody who ever is going to support the New Democratic Party is going to have to come out now and wave a flag, because if they don 't, they will not only imperil the legislation, th ey will imp eril the existenc e of the Provincial Government and the Federal Government. We all know, Mr. Spe aker , that the Federal Government is going down the tube. There's nothing that'll save the Federal Li berals.

John Turner on a white charger, he hasn't got a hope. William of Orange couldn't save the Liberal Party of Canada today. Mr. Speaker, if the New Democratic Party pushes this legislation thr ough, then I think that at the next provincial election it's going to show. It's going to show first of all at the municipal elections in October, then it's going to show in the federal election next year, and then finally it will be reflected in the results of the next provincial election. Mr.

Spea ker, I also note that the Attorney-General when he was in Dauphin - the reason I'm quoting him is that there were tapes taken of all the meetings, and I asked him whether I could see the tape of the Dauphin meeting and the tape of the Brandon meeting, and he concurred and allowed me to see the videotapes. So, I am now watching the Dauphin meeting; I' ve only watched about the first half. I haven't yet seen anybody get up. The first hour is Professor London and the Attorney- General. It's very interesting to watch.

The presentation was about the same at each meeting, namely, the Dean of the Law School spoke, and then the Attorney-General spoke and they showed charts, always carefully emphasizing the need, and that you would get French Language Services in a limi ted and practical way where there was a demand. Then, the suggestion was always made, only in certain areas of the province. It was never talked about entrenching jobs. It was always suggested and int im ated that it would be in St. Jean and St. Pierre and Ste. Rose and St. Bonif ace - that that's where we were really going to do something.

It was always kind of smoothed over or gl ossed over or sloughed over about the entrenchment of positions on boards and commissions and Crown agencies and the Ombudsman's office, and on and on and on. Mr. Speak er, the Attorney-General also said - this is a very interesting remark that he made and he's made it before - they wanted to sign an agreement because they were afraid that the courts would im pose an unr easonable settlement on the Province of Manitoba. They were afraid of what the courts might do and that drove them into an agreement. Mr.

Speaker, now we're going to, as the result of the agreement, throw the whole agreement to the courts and then again we're going to have to be afraid of what the courts might do to the agreement. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, the courts will not make a wacky ruling that will elimina te our Legislature, our courts, and our laws. So there isn't anything to fear; so let's go to court; let's see what happens. Mr. Speak er, the public information meetings - how many people are going to come now? This is July 30th. I've almost forgotten that summer is just about over.

I mean in Manitoba, August 15 th to me marks about the end of summer. It still goes to the end of August and the weather is lovely in September and October. In fact, my favourite time of year is September and Octobe r. I like the fall better than any other ti me. But how many people are going to take time out to come here in the first or second week of August to sit in a hot, sweltering room waiting as No. 38 on a list and wondering whether they're ever going to get up and be able to make a comment, especially since the first 25 briefs will be pro-government?. Mr.

Speaker, the government wants to get this debate over with quickly because it wants to get into committee quickly so that the whole thing can be wrapped up quick ly. That is the name of the game, to get it through the House in the next couple of weeks, or even the next three to four weeks. The reason, Mr. Speak er, of course, is that there has been a lot of blood lost on this issue. It's like having a slashed wrist, and if you just stand there and let your wrist bleed, even tually you're going to drop dead. Mr.

Speaker, the problem is the government has lost a lot blood over this issue, and they want to cauterize the wound and get going before any further losses, political, are suffered. I don't know, I'm not he ari ng much from my colleagues about how many phone calls and letters and petitions that they're getting. The Member for Flin Flon said he hasn't heard anything; hasn't heard a word. Well, that's incredib le. Mr. Speaker, I have been talking to people from early June - (I nterject ion) - I think that is a good idea.

I think he should put an ad in the Flin Flon paper - (In terjection) -- No, he should word it any way he likes, and he should explain it any way he likes, and he should ask the people of his area to vote. I would hazard, Mr. Speak er, that the majori ty, regardless of the wording, that 70 percent or more will say, no way. Mr. Speaker, I have put ads in the paper, and I'm going to put more ads in the paper. This week alone, I received 7,000 letters. Is that a heavy mailing or not, Mr. Speaker?

Normal ly, I get 10 or 12 letters; sometimes I may have had 20 or 30, but I have had 7,000 letters, and those letters - (Int erjection) - A MEMBER: How many dollars? MR. R. DOERN: ... more than $7,000.00. Mr. Speaker, I am going to also have an ad in this Su nday's Sun, 4707

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 and there will probably be more letters coming from the Free Press, and more letters coming from up North, because the Free Press, I'm told, doesn't get up North until Tuesday. - (Int erjection) - Right. - (Interjection) - Well, you get it Satu rday, but somebody up North gets it Tuesday. I don't know if that's Chur chill, and the Member for Rupertsland said he'll get his next year. They have a much slower system. We'll have to get you that carrier pigeon that flew across the Atlantic, and that would be a much more effective system than the federal mails. So, 7,000 letters, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and probably 10 ,000 names. We're going to now count the names, because there's Mr. and Mrs.- and some have sent additional letters, and some have sent petitions, and some have been signed by more than one person. So, 10 ,000 for sure. maybe a lot more. Mr. Speaker, I will say that to my friends, and you know what they'll say? So what? What does it prove? It's only 10 ,000 people. Mr. Speaker, if we had a rally on the Legislative grounds and had 280,000 people from he re up to Portage Avenue, from Memorial Boulevard down to Main Street, just solid people, you know what they'd say? So what?

It's only one out of four; that doesn't prove anything; anybody can get out 280,000 people. They would only be impr essed if we could get out 50 percent of the adult voters plus one, who would then sign a statement that they were not in favo ur of this polic y. Tha t would im pr ess the government. Maybe we will yet, Mr. Speak er, maybe we will be able to get that many people out. We'd certainly get them out at election time. At election time you can get that kind of a response, but you can't get it out right now. Mr.

Speak er, I want to say a few things about the ethnic minoriti es that are supporting the government. You know, the Min ister of Cultur al Affairs is a powerful figure. He can go around and speak to people, and I'm sure he has, and I'm sure he will and he just has to say what he thinks is the right position, and a lot of people will listen. They will pay attention to what he's saying. Why? Because outside the door is a great big bag like Santa Clause, a huge bag full of toys and goodies for good little girls and boys. - (I nterjection) HON. E.

KOSTYRA: ... the Ukrainian people sell themselves for us, what a stupid statement, a stupid statement. He's suggesting that the Ukrainian people, that other people sell themselves? MR. R. DOERN: ... Is that what I said, really? HON. E. KOSTYRA: That's stupid. That's what you said, that's despicable. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can explain what I said. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent - (In terjection) - I won't be dissuaded from speaking because of him yelling at me, Mr. Speaker - 90 percent of the Ukrainian Canadians in Manitoba are against this agreement. A MEMBER: How do you know, Russ? MR. R. DOERN: 90 percent.

If a few ethnic leaders, and if a few people come out in favour of the government, it doesn't prove a thing, Mr. Speak er. A MEMBER: Back up your statements. MR. R. DOERN: Let me give you an example from today's paper. - (In terjection) - I will speak to the m. HON. E. KOSTYRA: That they can be bought. MR. R. DOERN: I never said that. HON. E. KOSTYRA: You said that. MR. R. DOERN: I never said that. - (I nterjection) - No, what I said was, Mr. Speaker, that the Mini ster of Cultural Affairs may attempt to influence the Ukrainian commun ity. HON. E. KOSTYRA: You're saying that they'll be bought. Despicable. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting remark. There's a letter in the paper signed by Israel Ludwig. I don't know Israel Ludwig, I don't know who he is, but he's writing a letter on behalf of the Winnip eg Jewish Commun ity Council in sup port of the government. He must be a very interesting guy, because he's the same guy that about a month ago, there was a big

article in the Free Press saying - (I nterject ion) - no, I said I read an

article about him. - (Interject ion) - No, maybe you can contact him. He got a grant from the Federal Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker - listen to this - for $115 ,000 to start a new Native organiza tion, no; to help a Native organiza tion, no; to study whether or not he could establish with some Native leaders, a Native organization in the City of Winnipeg. He got 11 5 grand. Some fellow phoned up Peter Warren - I happened to hear this - - (Interject ion) - I will in a minute, yes I will. He got 11 5,000 bucks.

Some guy pho ned up the Peter Warren Show - I thought this was a riot - and he said, I know how .this works; a hun dred grand to the lawyer and 15 ,000 bucks to the study. Isn't that the old trick, Mr. Speaker? The Liberals give mone y, millio ns, to certain groups, particularly the Native groups. The Native groups then give the money to a bunch of Liberal lawyers with a large "L" and they spend the money to help write briefs to get more money from the Federal Government so they can get more mo ney, so they can write more briefs.

It's the old trick of funding and supporting your buddies who are Liberal lawyers, and they're about the last Liberals left in Manitoba, about the last left. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ludwig obviously has very good connections with the Federal Liberal Party. I'm simply saying that every Federal Liberal had better come forward now, and every New Democrat had better get into that commit tee and say something now, because now is when they're needed, now is the time when they are needed, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to read them today, but I could read letters from New Democrats who are saying that they are quitting the party if this goes through. I won't botnc." ltJ :Jo that now, but I have them, I have those lettc" s, M,_ Speak er. 4708

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 What do we get about this ethnic group, the ethnic groups? Well, we're talking min ority groups. Which group, name one group in Manitoba that isn't a minorit y, name one. Anglo-Saxons, wrong, 40 percent or less; • the German commun ity, 12.5 percent, they're No. 2; the Ukrainian communit y, 11. 6; the French commun ity, depending on where you get your figures, 5, 6, 7, 8, the hig hest I've seen is 8.8; I assume that inc ludes the Metis, I'm talking of French-speaking Manitoba citizens.

I read some of these articles in the paper by Richard Clereux of the Globe and Mail, and by Larry Hill about min ority support for the government. You know, Mr. Speaker, they were very very misleading articles. I mean, Mr. Clereux's

article - as a matter of fact, I don't know if I have it here; no, I don't have it handy - but Eric Wells made a comment right after and blasted Mr. Clereux right out of the ballpark in terms of what he said. What did Mr. Clereux say? He's the Globe and Mail's representative here. He had a big

article on the front page of the Globe and Mail for all the world to see, and it said "Rights struggle in Manitoba." Then, the big heading was "Ethnic groups backed French." What does it say? It says - Mr. Speaker, I'll read the first paragraph and the second: "Just when it seemed that nobody in Manitoba cared about Franco-Manitoban rights except the Francophones and the New Democrats, out of nowhere came the ethnic groups charging to the rescue.

One ethnic group after another has come out pub licly in the past two weeks in favour of a government proposal." Then the third paragraph says this, and this is what I want to look at: "It began two weeks ago. First, it was the Jews, then the Ukrainians, a German education group," that's the only one they qualified, "then the Metis, the Italians, the Portugese and the Chi nese." Then it said, "Not a single ethnic com muni ty has come out so far against the government plan." Well, Mr. Speaker, you know it takes a lot of guts to either op pose a government - a very risky thing to do - or to be neutral.

If you read those letters - I think I will read those letters - I want to put those letters on the record, because I spoke to the German Society's Executive, 15 strong, and at the same time to the German Busine ss and Prof essional Associati on's Executive at the same time and, you know, their first view of this matter was we're staying out of this. It is very dangerous indeed, Mr. Speaker, to say publicly , not that we're against, but that we are not in favour of the government polic y.

That takes guts; that is dangerous; tha t is some thing one mu st do with discretion, because then when you go to the government a month later and say hey, knock, knock, Min ister of Cultural Affairs, could I see you about a grant, I wonder what he's going to say. I wonder whether you have a better chance - (Int erjection) - when you come there having just voted for his measure than when you have come there opposing his measure. What do you think? What do you think? Well, you're going to treat everyone equally? Are you treating everyone equally? HON. E. KOSTYRA: That's right. MR. R. DOERN: Good, glad to hear it.

HON. E. KOSTYRA: Fool. MR. R. DOERN: I will relay the message, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the insults of the Min ister of Cultural Affairs who is the most uncul tured Minis ter of Cultural Affairs in Canada. - (I nterject ion) - Mr. Speaker, I want to read first the letter from the German Cana dian Busine ss and Profess io nal Association. I read it and I will table it.

July 22nd: "In reference to the meeting held at the German Society on Monday, July 18th, I would like to express my thanks to you for taking the time and effort to explain to us the comp lexity of the amendment to the Constitution, 'Official Langu ages of Manitoba.' We, the German Canadian Business and Professional Association are very concerned about the following." Mr. Speaker, I think I will read after the honorary members of the organization.

Here is what they are concerned about; ''( 1) the future of all eth nic groups; (2) the enormous cost of im plementation; (3) the free enterprise of business and emplo yment; (4) to become a second-class citizen, etc, etc. ," it says. "All of us came to this great country to start a new life for our families. Our first priorit y was to learn and express ourselves in the English language and to utilize our skill and profession to the fullest. We are proud Canadians and altogether happy to maintain our heritage and customs. We are filled with gratitude to live in peace and harmo ny.

This amendment will divide Manitobans." That's their opinion. "There are many more questions to this issue and more time is needed to find the proper solution. In closing, I can assure you, Sir, that you have our support in your endeavour . On behalf of our association and myself, thanks again. Si ncerely yours, Mr. Daniels." Now, Mr. Speaker, - (I nterjection) - I'll table it right now. Two points are im portant here. Check the record of the German Society of Manitoba, which I will deal with in a moment, and the German Canadian Business and Profess ion al Assoc iati on, they don't get any government grants.

They don't ask for any government grants. They don't need any government grants. They are self-supporting, dynamic organizations. They don't need to be prop ped up. They don't have to go and ask for mo ney for bui ldi ngs or grant s or special subsidies, they sustain thems elves. Not every ethnic group has to run to the government every five min utes for a transfu sion of federal and provincial funds. Who are the hon orary members of this club? This is very interesting, let's look at them: Russell J.

Doern, former Min ister of Public Works; His Worship Stephen Juba, former Mayor, City of Winnipeg; Rudolf Thiele, Honour ary Counsel of the Federal Republic of Germany; W.C. Barthel; Harry Enns - good old Harry Enns - MLA; Michael Mork; Kurt Otto and Hans Pazula. Mr. Speak er, I table that particular letter. Then I would like to read then the letter that came from the German Society. The German Society, Mr. Sp eaker, has 1, 000 fam ily memb ers - not 1, 000 members - 1, 000 families belong to the German Society. They have German language classes on Saturday morning.

Let me tell you that I was delighted the other day, delight ed, when my daughter who is 10 came to me of her own accord and said that one of her friends in Elmwood is going to the German Society's Saturday morning langua ge classes this fall, and could she go. I said, boy oh boy, you better believe it you can go, 4709

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 because I'll drive her or I'll make arrangements so that we can transport her and her other little buddy there every Satu rday morning . My daughter takes both languages at school, Glenelm School. French and German in Grade 1, French and German in Gr ade 2, French and German in Grade 3, French and German in Gr ade 4, and this year French and German in Grade 5 and in addi tion she may be tak ing th ose cla sses. It's not mandatory; it's not compuls ory; it's not entrenched. That's something that I would like her to do because my family came here, Mr. Speaker, to this land in 1891.

My family settled in Gretna for about eight years, and then moved to Overstoneville, which is a little tiny whistle -stop not too far from Dominion City where they lived for another number of years; then they settled in Morden; from Morden my grandfather left and he went with his family - he was the eldest son - to near Stony Mountain, Stonewall. My father was, I think, born in Overstoneville. The family lived in Stonewall and then came to the City of Winnipeg. So our family has been here 92 years, Mr. Speak er.

My grandfather who was really almost like a first generation Canadian came at the age of 10, of course was perfectly bilingual in German and English. My father was bilingual and is; and is 77 years old in German and in English; and my mother who had German parents and settled in London, England, was born in London, England and came here at the age of 14 , spoke what was described to me as a perfect High German; but I was the second-generat ion Canadian or really the equiv alent of a thir d-generation Canadian. I really do not speak German. I know a few hun dred words. I know a couple of dozen words in Ukrainian.

I grew up in the North End of the city and I kno w the Ukrainian people I think about as well as anybody in this House because I lived the first 17 years of my life in the North End of Winnipeg, all my buddies and 70 percent of the people I grew up with were Ukrainian. I have a pretty good idea what these people think and what they think of this particular proposal. So, Mr. Speak er, when it got to me, that's where the language sort of stopped and this happens in every ethnic group.

The first generation usually speaks both, because their parents sometimes don't speak very good English; then when you get to their kids, it starts to fall off. Mr. Speaker, I want to now read the letter from the German Society of Winnipeg, 121 Charles, as follows: "D ear Sir: We would like to thank you for attending our executive meeting on Monday, July 18, 1983, at which you brought to our attention the proposed amendments to the Constitution regarding the official lang uages of Manitoba. Your comments and explanations were received with great interest.

We also considered a letter," - oh, this is good, I wish the Min ister was he re - ''W e also con sider ed a letter and explanations attached to it by Eugene Kostyra, Min ister of Cultural Affairs, Province of Manitoba." He sent his letter and his explanations. "According to our by-laws, the German Society of Winnip eg does not engage in politics. It sanctions and sup por ts, ho wever, the democratic in stit utions of Canada.

The Board feels that this constitutitona l amendment, to have Manitoba officially declared a biling ual province, is drawn up quite loosely and vague, therefore it is open to many int erpretat ions." "We German Canadians are the largest ethnic group of many in our province, while the Francophones are only a minorit y. We have full understanding that Canada is a bilingual nation. Some services by the Federal and Provincial Governments should therefore be provided in French.

Moreover or however, it is very questionable, if not indeed dubious, whether these 'rights' ought to be entrenched in the Manitoba Constitution." "One has also to consider the substantial costs of providing such a service. As we understand it, this amendment will eventually als o in cl ude muni cipal services. We are sure that 90 percent of the population will resent this." "As immigr ants of German-Canadian origin, we came to Canada to start a new life in freedom, peace and harmony with different people.

Putting this amendment through without further consu ltation with a wide range of different int erest groups will surely divide the population of Manitoba in stead of letting each of us live in harmony with his neighbour of another orig in." "Thank you again for your visit and comments. Yours very tru ly, German Society of Winnipeg, G. Sickert, President." I table that letter as well, Mr. Speak er. So I will conclude by just reading you a couple of quotes from these letters, these articles which purport to show that the ethnic community which is, of course, the backbone of the New Democratic Par ty.

The backbone of the New Democratic Party is the ethnic community and if you shake it down furth er, probably the greatest support of any group in Manitoba as I understand it is from the Ukrainian communit y. That's how I see it. I'm sure that the Min ister of Agriculture would agree that the Ukrainian Canadians form the backbone of this party and if that vote is lost, so is the government. Mr. Speaker, I say that Mr. Clereux goes on and he quotes Danny Waldman, Chairman of the Manitoba Parents for Hebrew Bilingual Educat ion, and Danny Waldman's been talking a lot.

I don't know if the honourable member knows Danny Waldman, but Danny has been making a lot of noise about this. I'd like to kno w how many members he has. I'd like to know how many dozen, or hun dred, or thousand members there are to this group. I have a feeling it's very small indeed. Then he goes on to say and here's a comment. This is a really fascinating paragraph in this article. Terry Prychitko who is also very prominently quo ted and comes, Mr.

Speak er, not from the Canadian Ukrainian Comm ittee Executive, not from the 30 groups that make up that particular umbrella organization, he comes from one subcommit tee. There are probably hun dreds of subcomm ittees, and the impr ession is that, of course, that he is speaking for the organization. Well, Peter Manastyrsky, and I don't kno w Peter Manastyrsky - he was qu oted in one article, and I think I can qu ote him, Mr. Speak er, as saying that he was very leery. Here's what he said in the Free Press.

Peter Manastyrsky, President of the Ukrainia n Comm ittee's Winni peg Branch, he said: "The Manitoba Government was rushing the accord without letting most Manitobans express their views." Then he said that his peers in the Winnip eg Branch mostly fear that the Manitoba Government would devote so much time, effort, and money to live up to the bili ngualism accord that it would neglect other ethnic groups in the province. Then you ::. e rest of this Free Press

article and it quo tes Waldman again. It qu otes Ha rry 4710

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 Shellen berg, President of the Manitoba Parents for German Educa tion. I don't know how many members they have. Let me tell you, however many they have is just a drop in the bucket compa red to the German Society, and the 200 members who make up the German Canadian Busine ss and Profe ssional Association representing Lutherans, Catholics and Mennonites, busine ss and professional. So because of one man, Harry Shellenberg, who is in one little group, the

article says at the beginning "L eaders of several Manitoba min orities have come out in favour." Then it says in the next paragraph, "Those favouring the agreement between Ottawa, the province and La Societe Franco-Manitobaine incl ude members of the Ukrainian, Jewish, Metis, German, Portuguese, Italian and Chinese communities. Is that the German community? Harry Shellenb erg is 12 5,000 people all of a sudden? I'm sure that if you asked him he would say, I never said that. He just gave his views, but he's being represented by the media as the leading spokesman and the representative of the German commun ity.

Well, that has been shot down, Mr. Speaker, and should never be spoken of again in this House. If the honourable mem ber, the Min ister of Cultur al Affairs, wants to say that the Ukrainian community is behind the government proposal, let him say so. I will question him, but let him say so. But ii wants to say the German community is, then he is wrong on that particular account. Mr. Speaker, this is a fascinating point.

Terry Prychitko said in the Globe and Mail, he's quoted as saying, "Terry Prychitko says that when the Ukrainians go asking for support for expansion of Ukrainian education, the French Manitobans had better be there, you better be there. You have to back us if we back you." Then listen to the answer, "Sure thing," says Real Sabourin, a spokesman for the Societe Franco- Manitobaine which is wholehe artedly behind the resolution it worked out with the NDP Government, and here's the quote, "Sure thing," he says.

"Look, it's very easy for us to endorse mino rity langua ge education - Ukrainian classes in Dauphin, Winnip eg; Gaelic for the Irish ." Then, here's the best line of all, "We believe in all that now. All that stuff, man, we believe in that now." MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please, order please. The honourable member's time has expired. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say I did not get an indication my time was about to expire. Could I have another minute? MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) MR. R. DOEFIN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I will simply conclude by saying this, that it is ina ccurate and erroneous to suggest that the ethnic communities are behind the government. Some of their leaders are, and some of their groups are, but I think have made the case that the German commun ity, for starters, isn't. I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you take the cross

section of Ukrainian Canadians over 11 6,000, and take a poll, I say that they will be overwhelmingly against. Mr. Speake r, I think that the government is deceiving itself if it thinks that it therefore has the support of 471 1 some 60 percent of the people of Manitoba, nam ely, the other ethnic groups in our province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MFI. C. SANTOS: Mr. Speak er, the reference of the Member for Elmwood about the ethnic groups include the new waves of ethnic groups of which this member belongs.

Like any other ethnic groups in Manitoba, many of the people out there are still unclear about the real issues in this great debate about the propo sed constitutional amendment. I can say that the ethnic groups believe that this is a Ca nada which is a pol icy of bili ngual ism and multiculturalism. That is what is Canada which they have found, and that is Canada that they understand. We in the ethnic groups also believe in the equality of economic and social opportunity for everyone without any artificial barriers.

Yet, we respect the historical traditions and historical rights of the country of Canada and of the Province of Manitoba. In this regard, I feel it is an obl igation on the part of any new Canadian to look into the historical, the remote history as well as the recent history of Manitoba and of Canada in particul ar. In this regard, I have devoted myself to studying exactly such historical perspective. In 17 38, the French explorer La Verendrye claimed what is now part of Manitoba as the possession of France. By the year 17 63, there were many French settlers coming down from Lower Canada to Manitoba.

By 1812 , the first Scottish settlers arrived and formed what is now known as the Red River Colony. Remember the Hudson Bay Company that had a franchise from the King, and had acquired rights and in terests in the Rupertsland are now wanting to divest itself of int erests of the Ru pertsland, and th ey sold to Cana da, Rupertsland in 18 69. Canada was prepared to step in and even without consulting the citizens of Rupertsland, they would like to take hold, control and manage this vast territor y.

As a result of the economic difficulties and of The Union Act of 1840, coupled with the apprehension about the intentions of the revolting colonies south of the border, coupled with local economic problems, all this on a national scale led to the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, ulti mately terminating with The British North America Act of 18 67,

Section 133, of which gua ranteed the four basic li nguis tic right s to the Francophone. At the same time, shortly afterwards, there were migrations, not from Quebec as expected, but from Eastern Canada as well as some parts of Europe and !he population quickly changed. The Francophones, which used to be 52 percent, now begin to become a dwindling group in Manitoba. In Janu ary of 18 70, there were 40 persons who were delegated by the respective parishes and were chosen to go to Ottawa in order to determ ine what to do with Manitoba.

They wanted to discuss the transfer of Rupertsland with Canada, and in the spring of 18 70 these 40 delegates went on to Ottawa carrying with them some kinds of demands. Some 19 rights were prepared by the Provincial Government of Manitoba under the leadership of Louis Riel, and this list of demands for rights were intended for negotiations with Ottawa.

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 Item No. 16, 17 and 18 of this list of rights carried by these delegates in their negotiations with Ottawa included, (1) the right that both English and French be the languages of the Legislative Assembly; (2) that both English and French be the languages of the courts to be created in this intended new province; and (3) that all documents should be publ ished in both English and French languages.

In addition, it was also part of their demand that the Lieutenant- Governor, as well as the Supr eme Court Judge of this putative province should be able to speak both English and French languages. After the negotiations in 18 70, the Parliament in Ottawa enacted what has now become known as The Manitoba Act of 18 70 which contains

Section 23, which entrenches the following constitutional language rights: ( 1) the constitutional right that either the English or the French langua ge may be used by any person in the debates in the Hous es of the Legislature; (2) the constitutional right tha t both English and French langua ges shall be used in the respective records in Journals of those Houses: (3) the constitutional right that either the English or the French language may be used by any person, or in any pleading, or in any pr ocess , or in using from any courts of Canada, establish under The British North America Act of 1867, or in all and any of the courts of the province; and (4) the constitutional rights that the acts of the Legislature of Manitoba shall be printed and publi shed in both English and French langua ges.

Gi ven the constitutional entrenchment of the se lingui stic rights, Riel saw no logical reason why they should not join the Dominion, because it will give them certain practical political and economic advantages that they envisioned. They envisioned that upon the joining of the Confederat ion, there would more settlers that would come to Manitoba. They envisioned also that there will be some federal support in order to stimu late eco nomic gr owth and social dev elopment in the Province of Manitoba. But it seems that the Prime Min ister of Canada, then John A. Macdonald, had other objectives in mind.

Louis Riel, who was granted a full and absolute amnesty after the first rebellion, suddenly became accused of the murder of James Scott. Riel was later tried, he was convicted, and he was hanged. The im migrants that came to Mani toba are imm igrants, not from Quebec, but im migr ants from eastern Canada and some of them from Europe. The percentage of the Francophone population in Manitoba drop ped dr ast ically .

By 18 88, for example, in the Legislative Assembly of 18 88 there were 38 seats in the Manitoba Legislature, but there were only six of those 38 seats that were held by the Francophone representatives or MLAs. Six out of 38 sit in the Legislature.

That was the setting when in 18 90, the Provincial Legislature of Manitoba passed The Official Languages Act of Manitoba which provided: (1) that any statute or law to the contrary notwithst anding, the English language shall be used in the accord, in the records, and journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court in the Province of Manitoba; (2) that the acts of the Leg islatur e of Mani toba need be prin ted and publis hed only in the English language.

In the meantime, French language continued to be taught in schools, but only on equal footing with the other ethnic languages such as German and Polish until 1916, when the French language teaching in the school was abolished, and making the teaching of the French illegal for the Manitoba schools. I have heard some incidents about students attending those schools.

When the school inspector from the Department of Education are not around, they will be reading some French books, but then when the school inspector from the Department of Education comes, they will hide all those books in French, they will speak in English, they will put out all the books in English only, so that they will not violate the law. That was the life of the Francophone at the time. So the Francophone is indeed a mi nority that has been oppr essed by the majority.

Their language rights that were entrenched in The Manitoba Act of 18 70 were reversed by the passage of The Manitoba Official Langua ges Act of 18 90, and contradicted the constitutional provision of this province. They have lived that kind of life, which is a second-cla ss status in the province which they had founded, and which they had developed. Now, let us look at a more recent history of the background of this controv ersy. In February, 19 76, Georges Forest had a car that was parked overtime. He got a ticket that was printed only in English.

Georges Forest was a busi nessman and he had had previous dealings with the city, and so he was quite familiar with the City of Winnip eg Charter. He remembered that there was an

Article 80, subparagraph 3 of The Winnip eg Act which states that all notices, bills or statements sent or demands made to any of the residents of St. Bon iface community in connection with the delivery of any service or the payment of a tax shall be written in English and in French. The lawyer for the City of Winnip eg argued that since the overtime parking ticket is not a provision of service to the commun ity, therefore, The City of Winnip eg Act,

Section 80, subparagraph 3, does not apply. Instead, he argued that the process of parking tickets is indeed a part of the court process, and thus it falls under The Manitoba Official Langua ges Act of 18 90, which made the English language as the only official langua ge in the courts. Forest, at the time had never heard about The Manitoba Act or The Official Languages Act, but through his legal counsel he had conduc ted some research and had found that there was a Manitoba Act of 18 70,

Section 23, of which was almost exactly

Section 133 of The British North America Act, which states (1) that either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates in the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; (2) that both the languages shall be used in the respective records and Journals of those Houses; (3) either of those languages may be used by any person in any pleading or process in issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, or in and from all of ar.y of the courts of Quebec; and (4) that the acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be pri nted and pub lished in both official languages.

Forest appealed his case to the St. Bon iface County Court, which th:uugh Judge Dureault, ruled thai The Official Lanuua ,:; :::; Act of Manitoba was invalid as being in conflic' •ith "!le Manitoba Act of 18 70. 4712

Saturday, 30 July, 1983 The Attorney-General of the province did not appeal the County Court ruling and Forest apparently had nothing more to contest, and he had difficulty pursuing his cause. So what Forest did to keep the issue alive is that he wrote to the Queen's Printer and requested a copy, in French, of all the laws that are invo lved in this case, name ly, The City of Winnip eg Act, in French; The County Court Act and Rules, in French; The Court of Queen's Bench Act, in French, and The

Summary Conviction Act, in French. Obviously enough, since all the four statutes were passed and pub lished in English only, the first reaction that he received is that it would cost him the cost of translating all these statutes. The Queen's Printer said it will cost Forest $50,000 to have them printed in French. Later on, this was toned down, the Attorney-General clarified, it will only cost $17 ,000 to put ... MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease, orde r pl ease. The Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell on a point of order. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speak er, can I ask you, is the honourable member speaking on the main motion or the amendment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Amendment. I'm speaking on the sub-amendment. I stated in my preface, Mr. Speaker, that I want to go into the historical, both the remote history and the recent history to be able to compl etely understand the issue that is involved. - (I nterjection) - I'm coming to that, Mr. Sp eak er. I am about completed and finished in my historical perspective, both remote and recent.

Denied of translation at his own cost, Georges Forest filed a request in French for a mandamus in orcter to oblige the Provincial Government to provide the official translation of the four statutes. He was told that he must file this request in English. Instead of complying, Forest filed a similar request in the higher court which is the Manitoba Court of Appeal, and the same court again requested that he file the same in English.

The Attor ney-General of Manitoba, through his counsel, argued that the Court of Appeal cannot hear the case without the case first passing through the lower court which is the Court of Queen's Bench. Forest returned, th erefore, to the Court of Queen's Bench in 19 77 when there is a change of government in the Province of Mani toba. In 19 77, the Progr essiv e Conservative Party now becomes the government party. The Attorney-General, through his counsel, argued that Forest had no legal standing in order to question The 1890 Official Languages Act of Manitoba, and ruled that Forest had no legal stan ding.

So, Forest appealed his case to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that The Official Languages Act of Manitoba

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-122
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 122.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a1e620e4d6576d51bc436a1b6158eb448af7bfb6

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