Manitoba Hansard — 24 January 1984 (Sitting 167B, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-167b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 1678 -8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 24 JANUARY, 1984. Pnnted by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of M111titoblll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency Party ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) Ste. Rose NOP ANSTETT, Hon. Andy Springfield ND P ASHTON, Steve Thompson NDP BANMAN, Robert (Bob) La Verendrye PC BLAKE, David R. (Dave) Minnedosa PC BROWN, Arnold Rhineland PC BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. Gimli NDP CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. Brandon West IND CORRIN, Q.C., Brian Ell ice NDP COWAN, Hon. Jay Churchill NDP DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent St. Boniface NDP DODICK, Doreen Riel NOP DOERN, Russell Elm wood NOP DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth Kildonan NOP DOWNEY, James E.

Arthur PC DRIEDGER, Albert Emerson PC ENNS, Harry Lakeside PC EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. Brandon East ND P EYLER, Phil River East NOP FILMON, Gary Tuxedo PC FOX, Peter Concordia NOP GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) Swan River PC GRAHAM, Harry Virden PC HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park PC HARAPIAK, Harry M. The Pas NOP HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland NOP HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen Logan NOP HYDE, Lloyd Portage la Prairie PC JOHNSTON, J. Frank Sturgeon Creek PC KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene Seven Oaks NOP KOVNATS, Abe Niakwa PC LECUYER, Hon. Gerard Radisson NOP LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling Charleswood PC MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al St.

James NOP MALINOWSKI, Donald M. St. Johns NOP ,. MANNESS, Clayton Morris PC ... McKENZIE, J. Wally Roblin -Russell PC MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) St. Norb ert PC NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) Assiniboia PC OLESON, Charlotte Gladstone PC ORCHARD, Donald Pembina PC PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. Selkirk NOP PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson Transcona NOP PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland Fort Rouge NOP PHILLIPS, Myrna A. Wolseley ND P PLOHMAN, Hon. John Dauphin NDP RANSOM, A. Brian Turtle Mountain PC SANTOS, Conrad Burrows NOP SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic Rossmere NDP SCOTT, Don lnkster NOP SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) Fort Garry PC SMITH, Hon.

Muriel Osborne NOP STEEN, Warren River Heights PC STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. Flin Flon NOP URUSKI, Hon. Bill Interlake NOP USKIW, Hon. Samuel Lac du Bonnet ND P WALDING, Hon. D. James St. Vital NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 24 January, 1984. Time - 8:00 p.m. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 115 -

AN ACT RESPECTING THE OPERATION OF

SECTION 23 OF THE MANITOBA ACT MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. On the pr opo sed moti on of the Ho nourable Govern ment House Leader, the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Mi nister of Finance has 26 minutes remaining. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Th ank you, Mr. Speaker. As I had indicated this afternoon, during all of the speeches given to date by the opposition on this issue of Bill 11 5, I can recall only one reference and that was by the Memb er for Sturgeon Creek to Bill 11 5 wh en he discussed the issue of the ombudsman. A MEMBER: It was a mistake. HON.

V. SCHROEDER: It may well have been a mistake, and we have to get back to the history of it because wh at they are talking about, what the opposition is talking about, is a matter that is not before this Chamber. A MEMBER: You should have spoken to your Leader, the Premier, then. What did he speak about? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the issue is Bill 11 5, French language services in this province and, as indicated, in the spring, in Ma rch of 1982, the Premier made an announcement with respect to wh at French language services this government was prepared to provide.

The opposition never opposed it, indeed, indicated that they supported it. We then go into the matter of the amendment of the Constitution of wh ich we gave the opposition notice in December of 1982. They chose to sit in the bush, do nothing, say nothing, until May of 1983. A MEMBER: Not true. HON. V. SCHROEDER: It's true. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to see something on the record indicating that there was any indication that that is incorrect. I would like to see some quotes on that. Certainly I haven't see them.

In June of 1983 we brought the proposals to the House, or May, and in my opinion, we were wrong in terms of saying - and it was a caucus decision . . . A MEMBE R: You were wrong then and you are wrong now. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: . . . it was a decision of all of us to choose to come here and say that we weren't going to have public hearings. We changed our position on that in June of 1983, and at the end of July of 1983 the opposition was still in here talking about the fact - and in August - that back in June we had done something that was not rig ht.

But in June we were saying as soon as these people finish talking we will take this matter to the public, we will hear people in Winnipeg, in Brandon, in Thompson, in other centres of the province. As soon as they allowed us out of here, after six weeks of the kind of kicking and screaming that they were doing now in the last few days, they finally allowed us out of here to get to those hearings. As a result of those hearings, the package that we are here in the Legislature with, is a completely different package from what we had proposed initially.

To begin with , there is not one area wh ere we have in the constitutional amendment that is before this Chamber now, expanded French language rights in the Provi nce of Manitoba, not one. What we have done is propose to take away the right, the possible right, the probable right of French-speaking Manitobans to insist on the translation of 4,500 statutes, and in turn have said we will translate 400 of them. Th at's what we've done.

We have also said to French-speaking Manitobans that we will not tolerate in this province the kind of bigotry that happened in the Province of Quebec with Bill 101, wh ere the English-speaking minority had its rights taken away by the Government of Quebec, by the Levesque Governm ent, the Sepa ratists - a governm ent and a bill, which incide ntally, the Conservatives supported wh en they were in office. They supported Bill 101 in court. They went to court to support the position that the Quebec Government could take away English language rights from the people, the minority in Quebec. That's what they did.

We have said we're not prepared to do that and we're prepared to pass an amendment to the Constitution to that effect, and I believe the bulk of Manitoba, the va st majority of Manitobans would support us on that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: There is not one other . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Memb er for Virden on a point of order. MR. H. GRAHAM: Yes. The honourable member has put forward innumerable positions that they're not prepared to support. Will he put forward one "position they are prepared to support? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable member knows that is not a point of order. 5694

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHR OEDER: Mr. Speaker, as a former Speaker of this Chamber, one would think that we would get a better performance than that. Let us re-emphasis the constitutional amendment that is before this Chamber today. It takes away the probable rights of French-speaking Manitobans to the translation of 4,000 of 4,500 statutes, that's No. 1. No. 2 , it provides them with a shield with respect to their rights that are presently existing. Mr. Speaker, we have the legal opinion of Mr.

Kerr Tw addle, who happens to be a very promin ent Conservative lawyer in this provi nce. a capable lawyer, even though he's a Conservative. There are capable people in the Conservative Party, regrettably not very many of them in the Legislature, and what he says in terms of any possibility of our constitutional amendment expanding French language rights he says is a remote possibility - a remote possibil ity. Mr.

Speaker, I quote from an editorial of the Free Press that I wish more members of the opposition would have read and read very carefully, the January 6th Free Press editorial entitled: "Afraid of the dark." "Opp osition Leader Gary Filmon has come up with his position on the fourth version of the Pawley Government's constitutional amendment. He is opposed to it, but his work is not done yet, for he has yet to produce ... " A MEMBER: What happened to the first three? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Now, that's the problem, Mr. Sp eak er, that membe r keeps talk ing about wha t happened to the first three.

We are discussing here the fourth one. We are discussing what is before this Chamber and not a bunch of history. That's the problem. If those people would start talking about what's before this Chamber and not something that happened last year then we could get on with the business of this province, get on with the business of jobs and the economy and the issues that are important to the people of Manitoba. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. V. SCHROEDER: "He is opposed to it. " I read again, "B ut his work is not done yet . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please.

I'm having some difficulty in hearing the honourable mem ber. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A further quote from that editorial. "He is opposed to it but his work is not done yet, for he has yet to produce a plausible reason for his opposition. By announcing he is against, Mr.

Filmon keeps himself in the same camp with Sterling Lyon, whom he dare not contradict; with other members of his caucus whom he needs more than they need him and with all those around the province who do not actually know what the government is proposing and who do not need to know in order to find out they are against, but to make his position plausible to a wider audience, Mr. Filmon should work out an argument that is related to what the government is proposing. "There is a risk, Mr.

Filmon says, that the proposal might be interpreted to bring about an expansion of French language rights beyond those now established. He wisely does not try to cite the proposed words which will accomplish this, nor describe the expansion he has in mind and the damage it will do to Manitoba. "There is a risk, when Mr. Filmon gets out of bed each morning that he will fall and break his bones, but he does get up nonetheless. He does not lie there paralyzed with fear, calculating the risks and pondering the imponderables.

He looks rationally at what the risks are, sorts out those things that are worth worrying about from those that are not. Judging the risks in the constitutional amendment is worth at least that much intellectual effort. "When a frightened child fears a monster in the closet, the parent can turn on the light, open the closet and satisfy all reasonable observers that there is no monster; but the child who enjoys being scared will not say where the monster is. The parent is powerless to prove the absence of a monster who is given neither a description nor a location.

"The government has taken out of its resolution the nooks and crannies which were named earlier as the places where the monster was lurking; no matter that there was no monster. Sterling Lyon said there was one or might be one and a large number of Manitobans were incl ined to bel ieve him, so the government demolished

section after section. If the child is determined to go on screaming and crying with fright there is really not much left for the parent to do except wait for him to cry himself to sleep. "The fourth version, the one now on the agenda, preserves those freedoms to use French or English now enjoyed under law in Manitoba. Mr. Filmon is opposed to that, but he has not yet said which of the existing freedoms he wishes the Legislature to be able to take away. Would it be the freedom to use French as a language of instruction? Would it be the existing terms for French service in the municipal administration of Winnipeg?

Would it be the system enacted by the Lyon Government for putting French bills through the Legislature? None of these; it is expansion of French rights that terrifies Mr. Filmon. The protection of existing freedoms, done the way this constitutional amendment does it, appears to Mr. Filmon to be an expansion of rights. "An opposition argument that has a basis in fact and that leads logically from there to a conclusion deserves a hearing, and can require an adjustment to the government's policy . Mr. Filmon's whimperings cannot be taken seriously.

He should be told firmly to be quiet and go back to sleep." That's the problem, Mr. Speaker, they don't know what they are opposed to, but they think it feels good because they've got a referendum that said people disliked the package we had before. We come forward with a new package that they don't want to talk about; they want to talk about Package No. 1, Package No. 2, Package No. 3, but not what is here before the Legislature today. They don't have the guts to talk about what we have here, that's why they're talking abput referendums; that's why they're talking about what 5695

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 happened in March of 1983, May, June, that's what they're talking about. But let's go back then, let's take a little trip do wn memory lane. The Member for Gladstone, she'll recall moving a motion on July 29, 1983. She said on Page 4673: "One of the members from the opposite side was shouting across the House to us, in his usual ru de manner the other day, and suggested - ac tually he's the Member for Springfield - that perhaps we were trying to hold this up, to delay.

" And then she goes on: "So, in order to dispel the notion created by the Member for Springfield, I would like to propose a sub amendment to the amendment. "The refore, I move, seconded by the Member for Emerson "THA T the resolution be further amended by adding after the words "n ext Session of the Legislature" where th ey app ear in th e pr op osed amendm ent of Mr. Sherman, the wo rds "and in any case not later than December 31, 1983." They knew then that there should be a time limit on this.

They, in fact, although they didn't say we want a six-month hoist in July in the way that the Leader of the Opposition did now, they were asking for a six month hoist then. We gave it to them. We went out to the people, we heard the people, we then came back. We waited for them. They were having a leadership fight. Mr. Speaker, they were having a leadership fight A MEMBER: Who won? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, on the first round the Member for Tuxedo won. I don't know whether this is their Transcona rules or other rules where they had, sometimes it was best two out of three.

The Member for Tuxedo won and then let's go into a little history, it's fairly recent He indicated he'd like an early Session of the House. We then indicated back, that's pretty good with us, let's go right away, let's go right away. What did he say? He was on television, on ra dio, crying about the notion of us coming back into the Session before Christmas. We would have to wait until after Christmas because so many of his people were out of the country. That's what he said. So we said, fine, fine, we will wait until after Christmas. We came back after New Years and what did they do now?

They refused to talk ab out the bill, they ri ng the bells. They have been rin ging the bells. Fourteen hours of speaking time they have wasted by ringing the bells like a bunch of school boys. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a specific bill before this Legislature dealing with French language services which, in principle, the opposition has agreed to on a number of occasions. There may be specific items in this bill which th ey do not li ke. Tha t is someth ing to be discussed at committee. We're prepared to do that if they propose amendments that make some sense.

We're prepared to accept amendments that improve the bill. We want to have the best possible bill for Ma nito bans . The y kno w full well that any future government can change this legislation if it proves not to be perfect and it is very seldom that any legislation is perfect. We agree with that, but we think this is the best possible at this time. Now what happens after the bell ringing, after a whole week of rin ging the bells and wasting the time of the Legislature of this province? What do they do? They get up and move another motion to have the debate moved back six months.

The Member for Charl eswood, the fl ower child up there, was suggesting this afternoon that somehow that motion meant that we would never debate it again, but that was a motion to kill it Well, the Leader of your party, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of their party told us at the time that what we needed was six months to cool things off, that we would come back after six months and discuss it in a rational way. Get your facts right. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Member for Charleswood , get your facts right. That's not what you told us when you moved the motion.

What you want is for us to come back six months from now. I don't believe there's anybody in Manitoba, except for the Tory Caucus and maybe a few other Tories, who would seriously want us to go home now and come back six months from now, to discuss this issue again. That doesn't make any sense. We're in here now and we're going to finish it. If they want to co-operate, if they want to talk to the principles of the bill, let them go ahead and do that, but let's not talk about all of this nonsense about package one, package two, package three.

The beautiful performance we had this afternoon from the Member for Sturgeon Creek, taking his 30 minutes to quote the Webster Dictionary, reading line after line about twits and twerp s. That is the level to which their debate has sunk and it's abou t time they started going through in principle ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I said to the House this afternoon that I hoped the wor ds used by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek would not be a precedent for other members. I would hope the Honourable Minister of Finance will take those words to heart. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V.

SCHRO EDER: Mr. Speaker, I was merely referring to what base levels the debate had sunk to on the part of the opposition. They're not talking about the French language serv ices Bill, which is the legislation of the package proposed by our Premier in March of 1982, a package which the members of the opposition then agreed to. They're now saying, we don't want to debate it now, but we want to debate it in six months.

What will have changed in six months that would make it more sensible to debate it then other than, that they can continue to spread their message of misinformation, this busi ness of, ah, they're entrenching French and they're doing this and they're doing that. They have shown no evidence to this House that there is any increase in French language rights in the Consitution as a result of this, excepting again for the shield I was discussing, and if they want to take away rights let them stand up and tell us which rights it is that they want to take away ad it's about time they did.

A MEM BER: What rights haven't they got that I got? What haven't they got that I got? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a sad commentary. That is a very sad commentary on the level of understanding of the opposition. 5696

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a proposal that is just, that is honourable in its principle. It's a proposal I think that members of the House should be prepared to accept in principle. We can then go into committee and discuss the issue clause by clause. Let's not get into the kinds of things that we saw from the Member for Charleswood this afternoon. The Premier read out a statement made by the Member for Charleswood when he was Premier of this province when the then Premier of the province said, we shouldn't talk about this.

This is our French language services but we don't want to talk about this. I don't have the exact words, but it was something like that. The Member for Ch ar leswood ins isted that that document be tabled. Rather than dealing with the substance of what our Premier said, that you people had wanted to stick this under a bushel in those days, keep us in the dark like mushrooms - people in Manitoba - you would have this policy but nobody would know about it. Nobody would know about it. What does he say in response when he gets the document?

He says, oh you socialists have copied this thing a number of times, it's hard to read. That is the kind of principle that we're dealing with on that side of this House. There is no principle there in terms of their position on this issue, and it is about time that we got away from that expediency, got back to where we were - I'm sorry, I made a mistake - there was one member opposite who did give a good speech on the issue and that was the Member for Turtle Mountain who dealt with the issue. Read his speech. I would commend that speech to you, Mr.

Speaker, to all members of the opposition, because he talked about the notion of French language rights in legislation. He understood what we were doing. He had some differences, but he basically understood what was going on and he was discussing the issues rather than pl aying to the crowd that they have developed themselves, the crowd that has come to believe that we are entrenching increased rights into the Constitution for French-speaking Manitobans, which is a falsehood, which is a falsehood that they well know.

They know that there is only a remote possibility of anything like that happening, and if they want to go through life without taking ch an ces of remote possibilities ever, as the Free Press editorial put it so eloquently, they should just go back to sleep. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, it's not without some sense and concern for history that I rise once again to speak on this issue. - (I nterjection) Well the history is, that what we're doing tonight has not been done in 54 years in this Chamber. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. H.

ENNS: In 54 years this has not happened in this Chamber. We have heard the admonition of the last speaker about opposite members not addressing themselves to the issue of the bill, Bill 115 . Mr. Speaker, I implore and I beseech you, did the honourable member, the Minister of Finance, spend five seconds on the bill? Five seconds on the bill? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, he did not. MR. H. ENNS: I heard him compliment the Member for Turtle Mountain about a speech that he made a few days ago. I heard him talk ab out the speech that the Member for Charleswood made.

I heard him spend a great deal of time with the speech that the Member for Sturgeon Creek made. But, Mr. Speaker, did he spend five minutes, five seconds in his 30-minute address on the bill? Mr. Speaker, now that a 54-year record has been broken and closure is being imposed on this House, it was the first time the Fi rst Mi nister of this province, the Premier of this province stood up and spoke on this issue. Up to now he's been pussyfooting around, sending letters to all kinds of constituencies - oh, he doesn't mean French bilingualism, he doesn't mean that at all.

Now that we have closure imposed on the House we find for the first time members of the government speaking to the bill. For the last 10 days nobody from the members of the government spoke on this bill. Nobody spoke on the resolution, nobody spoke on the bill. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. H. ENNS: Your record on Hansard today will prove, that all of a sudden on this whole issue today after closure is imposed, we have government spokesmen speaking, finally, for the first time the Premier. The Premier has not entered into this debate at all.

No, he's worked with his former Attorney-Ge neral who is House Leader, and then when his Attorney-General got into too much hot water because of it all, then he dumped them in favour of a new Minister. We got a new Minister of Municipal Affairs, a new Government House Leader, he's going to parrot this thing, but the Premier has not spoken on this subject until today. But what the Premier has done, he's written letters to individual constituents in Swan River saying, oh, we're not promoting the French question in Manitoba. We don't mean bil ingualism really in Manitoba.

When my colleague, the Member for Roblin -Russell, asked him today in the House whether or not . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Wolseley on a point of order. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that a member is supposed to address the Speaker, not the Member for River Heights. Being a rather more recent member of this Assembly to the Member for Lakeside, it's my humble opinion that that's the way it's supposed to work, unless he knows otherwise. My understanding is, he is supposed to address you? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I thank the honourable member for her reminder that all members should address their remarks to the Chair. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: My colleague, the Member for Wolseley is of course absolutely right and I should be addressi ng 5697

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 you, Sir, and I will address all my remarks through you, Sir, to other members of the House. Mr. Speaker, addressing other members of the House through you, Sir, the only important speech made on this bill today - the only one - was made by my leader. A MEMBER: Right. MR. H. ENNS: Yes, it was. Not only that, but he evoked his special privilege to speak beyond limits and spoke for the better part of an hour and a half and spoke to the bill and, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion of that speech, my leader did not make a frivolous amendment. Mr.

Speaker, it was in concert with the remarks that were made by the Member for Charleswood before we adjourned for the supper hour. It is this government, and the inept bungling of this government, that has so poisoned the relationship on this question that we cannot deal with this issue now and that's why the sub amendment made by my leader makes so much eminent sense. If this government wants, by means of closure and by means of debating this till 2:00 o'clock on a cold January morning, to bring this about, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, if the Francophone community of Manitoba wants this issue settled this way, they are making a bad mistake. That's not how you resolve, that's not how you move forward in trying to develop the kind of harmony, the kind of understanding, the kind of co operation and good will that's required.

If this has to be done and it is only on the shoulders of this government, the rules that we made, a la the Supreme Court decision in 1979, the near virtue of unanimous legislation that was passed by the same name, by the same title in 1980 by a Progressive Conservative administration, and the fact that when my Attorney-General, the now Member for St. Norb ert, Mr.

Mercier, set up the French Secretariat, when we started to move towards meaningful provision of French services in Manitoba if you want to do that under the umbr ella that this government is doing it - and I say to my friends and I have ma ny friends of the Francophone community - if they want to do it under this umbr ella, we are all making a mistake. We are making a mistake by not heeding the advice that our leader offered to this House by suggesting a cooling off period to deliberate this matter. Mr. Speaker, we are, as I said, setting history today.

This government is choosing, on this delicate and sensitive issue of French language services, the French language question, to use the muscle of their 33 members versus our 23 members. They're prepared. They don't understand there are some issues that you don't use your absent majority for. You need to have moral persuasion. You need to have the spiritual willingness of the people of Manitoba to go along.

You need the good will of the people of Manitoba to go along, and the militants and the zealots and the SFM Society are doing the Francophones such a tremendous disservice in this whole issue, that it will truly set back race relations for generations to come, if they persist in this. Well now, Mr. Speaker, this government has an opportunity to reconsider the course of action they're on. We've been put on notice, Sir, by the House Leader that they intend to follow the same path on the more impo rtant, much mo re impo rtant issue of a constitutional amendment.

The bill that we are dealing with now is a Manitoba bill. It is a bill that people with good will and good heart can change, can modify, can improve in the years to come, but the constitutional resolution that is facing us tomorrow, that the Government House Leader has said he is prepared to evoke, the same brutish strength of majority in closure that cannot be changed by this Legislature, ever. If you want that on your shoulders and if the NOP want that on their shoul ders, you are going to have to live with that for generations to come, and that message had better get back to some of your SFM friends.

They really have to because that is not a service done towards better co-operation between the two founding groups in this province. So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by simply saying that it is not too late for this government to come to their senses. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak, Mr. Speaker, on the hoist motion with somewhat of a feeling that today in the Province of Manitoba, we, as members of this Legislative Assembly, have been taken away the basic freedom that we have been given as a people of this nation and this province. I, Mr.

Speaker, felt as a member of the Legislative Assemb ly, would have had a 40 minute speech to give on Bill 11 5, on the fact that my leader had indicated that it would be better debated some six months from now because, in fact, a six-month period would give the members of the Legislature and give the people of the Province of Manitoba an opportunity to reassess what has been forced upon them by this, the NOP Party Government in Manitoba. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, had the government voted down the hoist motion which was introduced last week, I would have again had another 40 minutes to speak on Bill 11 5. Mr.

Speaker, what the government has done today is struck me, as a member of the Legislative Assembly, as my colleagues, of 50 minutes of time to tell them how my constituents and the people which I represent feel about an issue and about a concern which goes to the very roots of this province. Mr. Speaker, we have had that taken from us and that, Mr. Speaker, is not a democratic society. We have, Mr.

Speaker, seen the New Democratic Party strip me as a member, and my colleagues, of a right that was given to us in a free country and they will never live to forget that and the people of the Province of Manitoba will never let them forget it, and their greatest reminder will come at the next general election.

The next general election will point out to this government that they have done the wrong thing and they have imposed, against the wishes of the majority of the people of the Province of Manitoba .and the minority of the members of this Assembly, what is wrong for the people of the Province of Manitoba and it is they - it is not the Premier because, Mr. Speaker, I respect the Office of the Premier and I respect all members of this Assembly - but when they disregard, Mr. Speaker, the wishes of the people of the Province 5698

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 of Manitoba, then I disrespect those individuals that have been given those offices, in trust, to act in the best interests of the people of the province. Mr. Speaker, I have 30 minutes of valuable time which I'm going to use. I'm not going to listen to the people who do not respect what the wishes of Manitobans want. I am not going to be bothered by the heckling which has come forward in an irresponsib le way by members of the government. They have not, on this hoist motion, been able to speak and tell us one reason why we shouldn't be debating it six months from now.

I believe that the man who holds the job of Premier in this Assembly, in this province, does not have the respect or the confidence of the people of the Province of Manitoba. He does not have the mandate nor his government do not have the mandate to continue to govern. He does not have that mandate and that is why - and not in a light way - we have asked him to reconsider his position and support a hoist motion on the bi ll that is before us, Bill 11 5. That is responsi ble, a decision which we have taken, not lightly as a caucus, but one which took a lot of time to assess and consider. If they think, Mr.

Speaker, that we don't have support from the people of Manitoba on what we are doing, then the best way to put the question to the people of Manitoba and sort it out, once and for all, is to call a general election. That's what my constituents want. That's what the constituents from Roblin-Rus sell want. That's what the majority of Manitobans want because how many things has this government done that have been in the best interests of the people of the Provi nce of Manitoba? How many things have they done that they've been com plime nted for? Has it been the handling of the Brandon University issue?

Has it been the McKenzie Seeds issue? Has it been the payroll tax? Has it been the incr ease in the sales tax? Has it been the uncontrollable deficit, Mr. Speaker, the farmlands ownership? Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is, the reason that we want a hoist on Bill i 15 is they have proven to the people of Manitoba in spades that what they're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. They are not listening to what the people of Manitoba want. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, the people that took the respons i ble po si tion of asking or petitioni ng the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba to handle this issue and to ask this government to resign by petition, are taking a responsi ble move. We have had enough, the people of Manitoba have had enough. And today what did we see? Not the Premier but the man who holds the office of Premier say to us - he read a letter from one person who has supposedly been a Conservative who tore up their membership card. What about the members that left his party over what they're doing, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Elmwood, the Member for Brandon West, the President of their party, Mr. Speaker, and long-time workers. He doesn't need to waste our time, Mr. Speaker, talking about a few Tori es that maybe tore up thei r membership because this has no political ties. This cuts through all political parties, Mr. Speaker. I know that D.L. Campbell, a long-time respected member of this Legislative Assembly and a leader of this province, does not support what they're doing. Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe when a government has lost their mandate to govern they should continue to hold the offices which they hold. We want the people of 5699 Manitoba to assess in the next six months, that's why we have introduced a hoist. Why, Mr. Speaker, do the people of Manitoba question what the government are doing? Well, let me make a short reference to what has happened at the federal level. This is along the lines of what is being proposed in Bill 11 5. I'll quote some of the statements in the Winnipeg Free Press, January 5th.

This came from nine members of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and they say that Canada has weathered but not solved the linguistic problems they were asked to study in the 1960's. In fact they say Canada has gone through a crisis. They go further, Mr. Speaker, to say in its preliminary report in 1965 the Commission stated Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, was passing through the greatest crisis in its history. Who created that crisis, Mr. Speaker?

The Prime Minister of Canada who was behind wha t the Premier of Ma nitoba is doing, supported by the Premier, and a part of the agreement wh ich was in itia lly set up by the Go vernment of Manitoba. I'll deal with the Federal Conservative Party because I believe, Mr. Speaker, when you look back at the vote on the bi lingual question, The Official Languages Act, that a tremendous tribute should be given to people like Walter Dinsdale who voted against that because they knew it was wrong, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't make what today may be proposed, by the federal party, right.

What was wrong in the 1969 vote is still wrong today because it':> dividing the people of Canada and the people of this province. When are you, as the man who sits in the Premier's office, not the Premier, going to come to your senses, Mr .. Speaker? When is the Member for Selkirk going to come to his senses? Mr. Speaker, I wi ll further quote from the Free Press article. This came from one of the Commissio ners, Mrs. Lang, and this is a direct quote. "Mr s. Lang regretted the way in which it was done." That's the legislation, Mr. Speaker, which we're being asked to imp ose on the people of Manitoba.

It was done, pointing out that the wholesale creation of bilingual positions and massive second language training programs were bureaucratic in struments that sometimes fail ed to respect the individual's feelings and needs, fears and aspirations. Mr. Speaker, there is evidence here, evidence in Canada that they have divided this country, and the man who holds the Premier's office is asking us to divide a province which we all love. We didn't want to be into this debate because we had handled it properly when we were government.

We had set an example that our brothers and sisters of whatever backgrounds they were, Mr. Speaker, and were given the rights and privileges that we have all enjoyed; but today I regret that I have to stand in my place and feel badly that we are pitting one neighbour against another neighbour, one member of one family again st anoth er, in termarr ia ges agains t one another. That's not Manitoba; that's not the province that I love, Mr. Speaker. Who has to wear the blame for this? The members of the New Democratic Government who have brought this issue before us, and it didn't have to be. We proved, Mr.

Speaker, that it could be done through government policy, and I believe if this government, if the Member for Selkirk who is now occupying the Premier's office

had not bungled it, had not mishandled it and flared the emotions of the people of Manitoba, that we could have all supported the legislation quite handily; but they have, as has been said by the Member for Charleswood and by my leader, they have poisoned the well and they have raised the feelings and the emotions. Mr. Speaker, they have raised the emotions of th e people of the Pro vi nce of Man it oba. - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. J. DOWNEY: And yes, Mr.

Speaker, the member, the imp lant from central Canada who is now the hero of th e New Demo cratic Pa rty, th e Mem ber for Springfield , is saying, do I support in principle? Mr. Speaker, I support the hoist motion which was brought forward by my leader. Mr. Speaker, I support the hoist motion because at this particular point we cannot support that which has divided our province and our country. How can we stand in our place and be responsible and take a decision of that magnitude when in fact the law doesn't come in to effect until 1987? How bloody ridiculous can they be, Mr. Speaker?

If that is not a parliamentary word, I wi ll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. How stupid can they be, Mr. Speaker? How stupid can they be to force the question on

an act that comes into force in 1987? Mr. Speaker, I am debating the hoist motion, and I will continue to do so as long as I have breath in me to do so.

I know my time has been restricted by some 50 minutes at this particular time, but that doesn't restrict me from walking out of this Assemb ly, this Chamber, and telling every New Democrat, whether it is in the member's seat for Interlak e wher e his constituents are telling him precisely how they feel; whether it's in the member's seat for Brandon East who won't be there anyway because of other actions that he has been involved in; whether it's the Member for Dauphin because of his inab ility to represent his people; or whether it's the Member for Flin Flon, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is, please, in the interests of a long-time legislative system in this province, please back off for six months and let the people of Manitoba get their message through to you. HON. A. ANSTETT: Will you support the bill then? MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, why would I be asked - the Member for Springfield says, wi ll I support the bill then? The bill doesn't come into effect till 1987 . Why should I have to answer that question today? I, Mr. Speaker . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, you know, this has been the problem. This is the problem. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Wha t we have jus t seen is a demonstration of how seriously this government takes the problem that is before us. They laugh because we, as an opposition, are deali ng responsi bly with it. We put in the policies that support the French language services in this government; we brought it in. What did they do? They didn't support it; they didn't continue on it. They are now in a position where they're in a trap. They're in a trap, Mr. Speaker, because they are trying to fool themselves.

I heard the man from Selkirk, the Member for Selkirk who occupies the Premier's Office for another short term of office, stand here and try and fool himself. That, Mr. Speaker, won't wash because, I'll tell you, the people of Manitoba have caught on to the game that he is playing. We all know that the government isn't sincere about what they are doing. They've been caught in a political trap, and they don't know how to get out of it. He has appointed a former Deputy Clerk of this Assembly as the man to pilot Bill 11 5 through . A MEMBER: Assistant Clerk. MR. J. DOWNEY: ... I'm sorry, the Assistant Clerk.

It has blown up in his face, it has blown up on the man who occupies the Premier's office, the Member for Selkir k, and it isn't going to work. It is bungled, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that the people of Manitoba don't even look at whether it's a bi ll we're debating or whether it's an amendment to our Constitution. What they're saying is the evidence is there, they have lost their mandate to govern. What we want is an election, Mr. Speaker. They have lost the confidence of the people and they can't demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that they haven't. There are 80-some percent of the people voting against. HON. A.

ANSTETT: Where do you stand on the bill? llll R. J. DOWNEY: I have dealt more with the bi ll, Mr. Speaker, than any member across the way. Mr. Speaker, I am de bating the hoist motion. I support the hoist motion because I don't believe the people of the Province of Manitoba support what they propose in Bill 11 5. I can deal with the bill. If you want me to deal with the bill, sure, I'll deal with it; but you have taken away my right to deal with th e bill by closure, Mr. Speaker, you have taken away my right to deal on the bill by closure. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. J.

DOWNEY: You have taken away my right to deal with the bill - (Interjection) - No, you've taken it away. You've stripped me of that right. I am dealin g with th e hoist motion, you have stripped me of the right, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. If members can control their exuberance for a little while they wi ll have the same opportunity to speak to the bi ll as they present member. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Legislative Assembly, a person, I believe, who has to 5700

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 speak how I feel - and I've been doing that - I wi ll continu e to do so in the remaining time that is left for me in this speech. Mr. Speaker, I am looki ng at the operations of the present government and the way in which they perform their duties as responsi ble elected members deali ng with 11 5, Mr. Speaker. Last night we saw and heard the government so carefully have the Member for Riel, I believe it is, stand and adjourn the resolution, which really is why we're back here; not the bill, but the resolution is why we're back here debating the French language resolution.

They carefully had the Honourable Member for Riel adjourn the resolution so that we were forced to debate the bill, which was initially the reason why we had the bells ringing because we were here to debate the resolution, and there was no mention of a bill when it was all started, Mr. Speaker. That's the issue in plain and si mple terms. We were here to deba te the resolution, but the government forced debate on the bill. Now they have adjourned the resolution and have now forced closure on the bill. Mr.

Sp eaker, in deali ng wi th the bill - (I nterjection) - the hoist motion is what we're deali ng with because they have taken away, they have used their NOP Government power to take away my right to speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker, they have taken that away. I am speaking on the hoist motion, the reason for it, Mr. Speaker, they're trying to fudge it. Mr. Speaker, what they have said is the bill that we're deali ng wi th, the hoist motion, the reason that we have to get on wi th it is because we have to deal with the economy. Mr.

Speaker, where did the man who occupies the Premier's Office, and the Member for Selkirk, make that statement? Was it in this Assembly? Was it before the people who are elected to hear him? He went to Thompson, Mr. Speaker, and again tried to fool the people of the province. Where did the Member for Springfield, the temporary Member for Springfield, and Minister who is supposed to be the hotshot member to pilot this thing through, where did he make his statements on how we were going to have closure in this Assembly?

Well he made a brief comment last night after the Member for Riel had taken the adjournment on the resolution. Mr. Speaker, he had a press conference this morning at 10 o'clock so that he could bluff over the people of Manitoba, so that he could tell them what he thought it was all about. He went to the public, that great parliamentarian, that person who pretends to know all the rules. Oh, he was quite impr essive yesterday when he rose and abused the privileges of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, he was quite impressive. We couldn't deal with the bill then, Mr.

Speaker, we had to listen to him and let him tell us all about the rules and lay the groundwork for a closure motion which would stop us from debating the issue. He thought he was hot-time stuff, he was a big shot, Mr. Speaker. Well let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's been said many times, people like him have talked their way in here and right through, Mr. Speaker, and that's the path that he is on. I, and my colleagues. are going to work to see that that happens, Mr. Speaker, because he does not have the support of this Chamber.

He, as a House Leader, has lost the respect of this Chamber; he has lost the 5701 respect of our caucus; he has lost the respect of his constituency. And what wi ll happen to him? He wi ll be voted out at the next general election if the temporary man who holds the Premier's Office, the Member for Selkirk, would screw up his courage and call an election, Mr. Speaker, because he does not have the mandate to govern anymore. I would challenge any member, any backbencher or member of his Cabinet, to stand in their place, Mr.

Speaker, and tell us, tell the people of Ma nitoba what they have done, that they have the support of the majority of the people in Ma nitoba on, they cannot tell us one thing, so the people of Manitoba have lost faith in this Premier. I'm sorry, again I apologize, he is not the Premier, the Premier is the top man who governs the Province of Manitoba; he is the Member for Selkirk who occupies the Premier's Office. I have no disrespect for the individual. It's not a personal attack, it's proven, Mr. Speaker, that he hasn't been able to muster the job.

He can't handle it, and that's why I am saying the people desperately want a change; they want a change in government, they want a change in the province. I wi ll conclude my remarks this evening, Mr. Speaker, by again saying that 'i is proven the Federal Government and their imposition of a federal 1->ilingual act has divided Canada. To this point what the NOP Party have done in Manitoba have divided Manitobans, and that tears me apart, Mr. Speaker, because I have friends in every community. I have friends of every ethnic background, and I don't feel that we should be apologetic, Mr. Speaker.

We shouldn't be apologetic for standing here in our place and stopping this government from doing something that is wrong, that is not supported by the people of Manitoba; and I would expect that each one of my colleagues, as wi ll be demonstrated later tonight, as wi ll be former New Democratic members of his caucus, Mr. Speaker, will be standing and speaking against what he is doing. When does a government come to life and realize that the path they are going is doing nothing but destroying the very roots and the very being of what has made this a great province?

I would plead wi th him and I would plead with his Cabinet and his caucus members to say to the people: we have made a mistake, what we have done is wrong, we have seen what you are saying, we have finally heard. Sure we have listened through hearings that we were forced to have, but we have not only listened, but we have heard and got the message.

And , not only are we going to delay the bi ll six months, but we are going to delay the constitutional change which is being proposed for the same six months or longer; and let us put the question to the people of Manitoba, whether it be through referendum or through a general election, let us see, let us campaign on the issue, if that is the direction we want to go. It's not a matter of us standi ng stopping people from getting rights. We have demonstrated time and time again we're for more rights than they are, Mr.

Speaker, because today they have taken away our rights, they have taken away our rights to speak, and that's a demonstration of what they think of our rights; they've taken them away. Why don't they demonstrate to the people of Manitoba that they're listening, that they've made a mistake and that they'll back off, Mr. Speaker,

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 and forget that they ever introduced such a divisive mechanism and a divisive policy into the Province of Ma nitoba? With those words, Mr. Speaker, I wi ll conclude and hope for the best interests of the future of the Province of Manitoba and the people that we all love, because they show no compa ssion for the wi shes of the people of Manitoba.

I would ask in all sincerity, in no light way, that they withdraw this issue and if, after six months of careful consideration, if they still feel as strongly about it - because the bill doesn't come into effect until 1987 - in six months then bring it forward again but don't force it upon the people of Manitoba at this particular point because it is disastrous and you wi ll pay the political reward which you deserve from that action. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. FI. DOERN: Mr.

Spea ker, these are trying times for members of the New Democratic Party. Party members have had to swallow a great deal in the past few months. First of all, they have had to look at what the government has done in terms of its general performance and, more particularly, in regard to the language legislation which, not only does not have support within the general public, but does not have support within the New Democratic Party. Mr.

Speaker, no sooner had the people of Manitoba expressed their opinion in an overwhelming plebiscite which 225,000 citizens voted and 175,000 voted against the government's measures, than the Attorney-General rose at a press conference the following morning and told the people that he didn't care - these are not his words, but this was the thrust of his remarks - that he really didn't care what the results were because the government was going to press on. Mr. Speaker, it was only a few days ago that the Minister of Health said the same thing in this Assemb ly.

He said that he didn't care what the results of the plebis cite were, that he - (Interjection) - well, he still says that. Mr. Speaker, that is the attitude of the government, a callous disregard of the opinions of people in the general public, and a callous disregard, I think, of the views of the majority of members in the New Democratic Party. Mr.

Speaker, when the government introduced this measure today, and when the House Leader attempted to ma ke the case yesterday for an extraordi nary measure, I think that a lot of people in the New Democratic Party who have allegiances going back many decades were considerably pained, because all of us who have been around since the 1950's very much recall, and are painfully aware of the use of closure. Mr. Speaker, a New Democrat is the first to recoil at the thought of closure, and for them to have to swallow that this administration had to resort to that measure, I think, is excruciatingly painful. Mr.

Speaker, I have a few quotations - (Interjection) - Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know I, myself, have always opposed the Speed-up resolution, and I have alw ays opposed .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: . . .

Speed-up, particularly because when the debate goes long into the nights, particularly past 10 or 11 p.m., I think there's a tendency for it to deteriorate and members find it difficult to properly perform their duties when they are asked by the government, or coerced by the government, to stay up all hours of the night and, in this in stance of madness, until 2 a.m., and then are asked to come in the next day and debate. - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, the 1956 pipeline debate, if I had the time I would read pages and pages of the remarks of M. J.

Coldwell and Stanley Knowles in this regard. Mr. Speaker, only today I received a couple of mailings from Stanley Knowles, his speeches, his contri butions to the House, as he is now concluding his career in the House of Commons which goes back to 1942. The man with the longest record in the House of Commons - some 40-odd years, minus one term, minus the Diefenbaker term which was largely the result of the im position of closure by the Liberals and the public reaction to this, which not only wiped out the Liberals but smashed the NOP.

The Premier and I were both attending United College in 1956 and had to suffer all the Tories who came out of the woodwork suddenly sprouting blue ribbons in great jubilation in 1957 and '58 in the reaction to Diefenbaker's first narrow victory and then his massive sweep in 1958. All of us were pained. Mr. Speaker, here are a few remarks reaching back into 1956 by M. J. Coldwell and Stanley Knowles. Mr.

Coldw ell said, in the deba te on May 30, 19 56: "Any thing I can do to stop this going through, under pr oper pa rlia mentary procedure, I am right in undertaking." He said, on the next page: "I hope the people of Canada are taking some notice of it. The time has come when the people of this country should have an opportunity of exercising some judgment over what has been done in the House over the last while. " Stanley Knowl es, who was the pre-eminent expert on the rules and who researched all sorts of material to speak in that famous debate, Mr.

Speaker, I'm remi nded of the conclusion of th at deba te - the conclusion - when members of the opposition rushed to the Speaker's Chair and as mild a mannered person as M.J. Coldwell and as fine a gentleman as M.J. Coldwell was, he raised his fist in the direction of the Speaker's Chair in trembling and with many others of the CCF and Conservative side, rushed the Chair to protest, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Knowles - (Interjection) - Well, the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: . . . was not a CCFer at that time. Mr.

Speaker, Stanley Knowles, in his quotes, referred to Rob ert Borden who made the following remarks about the procedure that this government has invoked 5702

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 - and I realize that this is another debate and another time but a lot of this applies, Mr. Speaker, to the present - Robert Borden said much earlier, "The mere existence of the rule wi ll itself prevent the necessity of its being brought into practice at least very frequently," and Wilfred Laurier said that they are holding a terror ab ove our heads. Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Knowles again quoted Laurier who said, "There are times when you can oppose that measure with all the force at its command." This is what he said in regard to the role of the opposition when confronted with an obs tinate government that is promoting, pushing and ra mming legislation through Parliament that is not in the best interest of the country.

I would simply give a couple more quotes in which he said - and this is now Stanley Knowles himself speaking - "The day wi ll come," and he's quoting Laurier as well, but these are his own words now, he said, "I believe the day wi ll come when posterity will bless the pertinacity of those of us in this House who believe that Parliament is still free and that we are not called upon to bow our necks to the tyranny of a despotic government.'' Mr. Speaker, I conclude with this remark from Mr.

Knowles, who said, "Closure is not a blow at the opposition of the House; it is a blow at the rights of the Canadian people." Then he said, "I t is a blow that strikes at the very heart of our democratic system." Well, those are authorities that may or may not appeal to everyone but they certainly must be respected in the CCF and the New Democratic Party. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's therefore a sad day for the government's supporters to have to stomach this after stoma chi ng the results of th e pleb is cit e, after stomaching the Attorney-General's rejection of that and now having to put up with th e new House Leader who struts arounds here and quotes the rules until he's blue in the face; and now he has put the party on the hook because of the fact that closure has been invoked. Mr. Speaker, it was only last Wednesday that the House Leader came into my constituency to sell the Elmwood New Democratic Party on the government program.

I was curious myself as to what the result of that would be, because here was the new shining star - temporary albeit, here today and gone tomorrow, Andy Who - but here he was coming into my riding to sell my people on this and there was some support in the constituency for the government position. It is a painful thing, Mr. Speaker, for the party supporters to have to choose between loyalty to the government or using their own intelligence to decide on whether this is a right measure or not. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to give you a couple of quotes that came out of that meeting.

There are a few I wi ll not qu ote becaus e I think th ey would prove too embarrassing to the government and to the Premier in particular. The first speaker got up and said that he came to congratulate me. Well we were off to a good start. The second speaker - remember these are party members, these are not Conservatives, these are not people who belong to no party, th ese ar e not Li bera ls or Pr ogressives, th ese are not So ci al Cr editors or Commun ists - th ese ar e mem ber s of th e New Democratic Party who live in the riding of Elmwood.

Another gentleman was very upset - he spoke second - because the government, he said, was ignoring public opinion. A woman wanted to know the costs of providing services and she was told by the House Leader, well, I don't have a dollar figure but it's about a quarter to a half of the cost of vali dation and the up-front cost. Wasn't it Joe Magnet or somebody like that who said it was ab out the equivalent of the cost of the ball players, the catcher of the Expos, Ga ry Carter's salary? I was waiting for the Minister to say it was less than the cost of a package of cigarettes a day but he didn't get that far.

Someone admonished the Minister for excluding yours truly from caucus. He said, "Well you could exclude him on this issue but he should be in caucus on the other issues." He said, "When you're excluding him, you're excluding the Elmwood constituency." Another lady got up and - this is maybe the worst I'm going to mention and I'm going to leave out most of her remarks - but she said, "The government smells." Now, Mr. Speaker, again I have to tell you that that was said by a member of the party. One lady disagreed with me.

Then another lady got up, and she and her husband have been in the party about 30 years, and she said that she phoned the Premier's office and she wanted to know what a definition of an Anglophone was and they gave her a definition and it was somebody who doesn't speak French or isn't of French birth; everybody else is an Anglophone. She said, "Wha t about some of the other people? What does that make some of us, Ukrainian phones, Germanphones?" That is what she said about this sort of thing.

Then she quoted the Minister of Health and she was furious with him because he said wor ds to the effect and I think this is a right quote, "Wha t the hell do I care ab out the results of the plebiscite?" She said to the Mi nister who was present, "Is Desjardins representing the views of the government?" and he said, "Yes, he is." - (Interjection) MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: The Minister of Health misunderstands me. She put that question to your seat mate and he was asked whe ther you were re presenting th e government and he said, "Yes ." Mr. Speaker, I could go but those are examples.

There were a few stro 119er words used. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, the House Leader, he had his ears filled when he left that particular meeting. Maybe he'll stand up and say some of the final words which were said to him. Mr. Speaker, the House Leader tried to make the case at that meeting and it was a phony argument if I ever heard one. He was very clever, as Saul Mi ller used to say, "very cute, very cute." He tried to make the case that whatever happened from Novembe r on was his respons ib il ity and wha t hap pened before November didn't count. I mean that's like in the old days.

You know what I mean. Back in the old days there was this resolution, these guys were debating, there was a plebiscite. Remember the plebiscite, a long time ago. It's fading into history and he tried to make the case that that didn't matter because now he was in charge. He was running the government and he got 5703

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 the best legal advice and he came to that meeting and it was a brand new ball game. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it may be a brand new ball game because in the last one - here's a headline from the Winnipeg Sun, July 8th, "Penner strikes out in Brandon and Dauphin." You remember the results of that ball game. Mr. Speaker, now the new Minister comes in there, struts out before this meeting and took a shellacking, a shellacking from party members. Not from the general public, not from the Tories, from members of the Elmwood New Democra tic Party.

Several of them were members for 30 and 40 years. One man said, who has been a member since the 1940s - he said, "I wi ll put up a sign in the next electio n but it wi ll only have a name on it, it won't have a party." He said, "b ecause I'm going door to door and the same people I appeal to votes for are hammering me in this regard." (In terjection) Well, I wi ll talk about the bill in about two minutes, just as much as the other speakers on that side talked about the bill and just as much as the Premier talked about the bill. Mr.

Speaker, it is not true, it is not true that support is growing for the government. We heard that today. The House Leader came out today and in invoking closure said that support was growi ng for the government position. MR. H. ENNS: Not true, lie. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, he said that at 10 o'clock. At 11 o'c lock Ma nitoba Gra ssroots held a press conference and released the results of their ballots and their petitions . . . llll R. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: . . . 15 ,000 ballo ts came into date; 10,000 signed petitions to date; 25,000 signed to date.

The new proposals, the spanking new proposals by the spanking new Minister brought in on January 3rd or so; the ad went in on January 7th and the ballots started to come in and the petitions started to come in and they're still rolling in, Mr. Speaker, still rolling in, 25,000 to date and when I had a campaign in July and August, 17 ,500 signatures and petitions came in. That was a massive display of opposition. Now it has incr eased 50 percent and still climb ing, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal in the remaining time with some of the principles of this bill. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Environment said it all in an interview in La Liberte. He said in effect, we're going to put this legislation in place before proclamation. We're going to put in as much as we possibly can, we're going to have it so that people get accustomed to the demanding of these services, get used to it and ask for even more. Well, Mr. Speaker, think of it. Think of it.

If you want to do that, if you intend to do that, if you are starting to do that now and wi ll implement that bill in its fullest extent prior to the date of proclamation, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't need a bill at all, that you can do it as a matter of government policy. So there's no need for this bill. There's no need for this debate. There's no need for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, then we look at the bill. Same old stuff.

The right to communicate which means that a citizen who speaks French can go in to any government department, can go into one of the 260-odd boards, commissions and agencies and demand that he have the right to communicate in French. He can go all over Manitoba. Don't give me this stuff that it's only in areas where there's a heavy French-Canadian population or component. That isn't true. It is in those areas, plus it's in all these head offices, hundreds and boards and commissions and agencies plus the Crown Corporations etc.

As soon as one person goes in and demands a right to speak to somebody in French the trouble wi ll begin and when the letters go in, they'll have lo come back in French. We saw this silliness today of where the Winnipeg Sun is being told to go and change the print on the outside of their boxes in the airport. Now, Mr. Axworthy at least had the political sense today to invoke his right as a Minister and wi pe that out today. It has nothing to do with the fact that one o! the members of the House is running against him or that an election is imminent in terms of the next few months. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that

section has to be amended. I'm saying to the House Leader, that has to be amended . The boards and comm i ssions and agencies shouldn't be in there. The right to communicate is one that is a thin edge of the wedge that can result in the full range of services throughout the entire Civil Service. Mr. Speaker, another thing I am concerned about is, even though school boards and R.M .'s, municipa lities are mentioned - I'm concerned that they too wi ll be pressured by the right to communicate. Mr.

Speaker, finally one of the most ominous and stupidest and most dangerous sections of this bill is the language ombudsman. I mean, just think of it. In Quebec you have the tongue troopers running around, ordering people to take down their signs; that you cannot, in the Province of Quebec, have a bilingual sign on your business or on your building. You must have a sign in French only. I don't know what's going to happen here eventually. Don't tell me that this bi ll is the maximum because it isn't. This bill is going to be the minimum. It's going to be the beginning of a long journey.

If it goes into place, then it's going to be the bottom line, but it's not going to be the top and it's not going to be the end of the road. It's going to be the beginning of something that wi ll fuel and grow and expand throughout our provi nce wi th very detrimental effects. So they're going to appoint a language ombudsman, aren't you? Mr. Speaker, can you imagine somebody filling that role, going around ordering people what they have to do in terms of translating things into French, providing French services, etc. You know, Mr.

Speaker, about the only thing they don't have in the bi ll is the costume of this man. I mean, can't you see in the future, a couple of years from now, where some business man will have a sign in his wi ndow and somebody wi ll report it to the office and then you'll hear a voice just like in the old radio thrillers saying, "This is a job for l.anguage ombudsman!" Then, like a bird or a plane or a Tarzan swinging on a vi ne, into the wi ndow wi ll come language ombudsman. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what he is going to wear because at first I had it figured out he would have pink tights, or maybe orange tights, and a black cape and 5704

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 a big "O" on his chest. That was my first thought, but then I li stened to one of th e speeches from the Conservative Party and I guess it was, in fact - no, it was in fact the speech made only a few days ago by the leader himself who was concerned ab out zealots. What would happen if a zealot filled that particular position?

Well, if it is a language zealot, there is a costume for him - a black outfit with a black cape and a black mask and a Spanish bullfighter's hat and a big "Z" - the mark of "zealot" carved with a sword in the sand, on the building, on the window, wherever it is, to draw attention to the fact that that person, that business, that school board, that municipality, that Crown corporation, that government agency, or that individual, was violating the spirit and the law of Bill 11 5. So, Mr.

Speaker, these are the sort of things that we have to be concerned about and, although I make light of that particular point, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the Province of Quebec it's no laughing matter. When some group comes into an office, peopled by good Queb ecois, people who speak French in the back, in a kitchen, not in the front where they meet the public, in the back where they have a calendar in English showing how many calories, and they are told to take that calendar down, or they are told to take their sign down because the sign isn't in French only and nobo dy, least of all you, Mr.

House Leader, can guarantee that this sort of thing won't happen here, because this is just the beginning. It is just the beginning, and nobo dy, Mr. Speaker, predicted this sort of insanity at the federal level, in terms of some of the things we have now; and nobody would have predicted some of these ina nities in the Province of Quebec as a result. So we don't know what is before us.

We know what is in the bill - far too much - a number of areas which should be gutted, or the entire bill withdrawn; and I say that the opposition and the general public should oppose this bill with everything they have because we not only will fight for ourselves and for the province now, but we wi ll fight for the benefit of generations to come. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Min is ter of Government Services. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on this particular issue.

I did, throughout the early part of the summer, listen to what took place in this Legislature on the provision of French language services. I also had the opportunity of going out in the country as a member of the committee and listened to the views of the people of Ma nitoba in Swan River, Dauphin, Ste. Rose and other areas that the meetings took place. In addition to that, I also attended a numb er of district meetings when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, district meetings held by the Unio n of Ma nitoba Municipa lities. Mr.

Speaker, at every one of those meetings I heard the sub ject of French services brought up, questions being raised at all of these meetings, and at every meeting the president indicated that there was no objection to the provisi on of French language services. They had no opposition to that; they were not opposed to French language services, but they didn't want it entrenched in The Manitoba Act. That is what they were opposed to; that is what they were against, Mr. Speaker.

There were about 1,200 people that attended those meetings, I believe, and they made their views known and we heard, during the hearings as well, many people have supported what the government was trying to do, and there were others that did not Mr.

Speaker, it's because what we heard out in the Province of Manitoba - and I want to extend my congratulations to those who came forward and expressed their views sincerely to us - and it is they who should get the credit for the changes that we have made and not that bunch that sit over there and call themselves Loyal Opposition of Her Maj esty, because I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that there ever was, in history in this province, a government that had to face the obstructions of the kind that this group have put up. Mr. Speaker, we never heard, including the little rat from Charleswood, . . .

A MEMBER: Withdraw, withdraw, withdraw. MR. SPEAKER: OrJer please. I really don't think those are the sort of words that we expect to hear in this House. The Honourable Minister. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I should apologize, but I remember very well when the former leader, and I think the de facto leader, was calling people on this side of the House "church mice" and all kinds of other names. You know there is not much difference between a mouse and a rat, they are very closely related. A MEMBER: What's religion Pete? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I listened to the Member for Elmwood, and I recall that he had a study, sent out a survey in his constituency asking his members - they were sent to party members and I am not sure how many members they have in Elmwood - but he sent out a study asking for their views on whether they supported what the government was doing. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, he put his words and his questionnaire that he sent out in order to get the answer that he wanted. It's very easy to do that, Mr. Speaker. We've seen the opposition members do that as well. Mr.

Speaker, I believe - I stand to be corrected but I believe he got about . . . A MEMBER: It won't be the first time. HON. A. ADAM: . . . he may have got about 5 percent response - and the member nods agreement - so I don't have to be corrected. He received about 5 percent response and he says that was a majority in his constituency. I remind him that there's 95 percent other people there as well that did not respond to his questionnaire. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, we know what happens to people, to those who have taken the path now be ing 5705

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 followed by the Member for Elmwood. We've seen what happened to people in the past; history has shown what happened to people. MR. W. McKENZIE: Like Stanle y Kn owles and Coldwell? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speak er, I'm still not sure the reason for the position now taken by the Member for Elmwood. I'm not sure if he's still not bitter over past events that have taken place. He spoke awhile ago and he said that what was happening now was the beginning of a long journey. A MEMBER: No wonder he's bitter, seeing you in the Cabi net and him ... No wonder he's bitter. HON. A.

ADAM: Those are almost the same words that he said when Bill No. 2 was introduced in the House and when he spoke to it. He made those same words. It was the right way to go. Mr. Speaker, according to this report - and I know it's in Hansard because I read it - that on the 16th of April, the member said, "B onjour Mesdames et Messieurs." That's how he began his speech, Mr. Speaker. "Bonjour Mesdames et Messieurs. Manitoba has been officially unilingual and now I suppose, from this point on, will become officially bilingual." A MEMBER: When did he say that? HON. A. ADAM: On April 16, 1980.

"This isn't a bill to translate some statutes. It is a bill because of the fact that we in Canada and it is because of the fact that we have a French Canadian population, we have an obligation to a bilingual country." He said that he was not concerned about the impact of pleb iscites in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.

He went on to say, "The Tory legislation is a step in the right direction and as it has been said, a journey of thousand miles begins with one step, but there are many more steps that must be taken and there must also be, as we advance along the way, appreciation for the multicultural diversity of the people of Manitoba and Canada." Mr. Speaker, those are almost exactly the same words that he said in conclusion of his comments. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: We have listened to members opposite speak. None of them have dealt with what was before the Legislature.

None of them have dealt with the fact that we were now coming forward with a complete new package, except one person on that side, and I want to give credit, as some of my colleagues have, and it's the Member for Turtle Mountain who should have been the leader of that party. While I didn't agree with all that he said, Mr. Speaker, he said it with sincerity. We didn't have to agree with him and he made sense and he was rational. We never heard one speech outside of that that made any sense and I want to extend my congratulations to the Member for Turtle Mountain. Mr.

Speaker, we listen to the ranting and raving - and I don't even want to waste time because he isn't even worth the time of day - from the Member for Arthur who carped abo ut closure. Can you imagine that? Anybody on that side that has the nerve to get up, the audicity, Mr. Speaker, to come up and say, "Y ou're not giving us a chance to speak," and for four days last week, when we asked them to speak, they let the bells ring - four days, cost to the taxpayers, heavy costs to keep this operation going and the backup staff, so let them not, Mr.

Speaker, come up with those arguments, a phony argument if ever there was one, for members to come up and say that they didn't have the opportunity to speak. I recall very well - I believe it was back in 1980 - when they brought in closure on the Department of Agriculture and I remember very well in 1978 or'79 when they brought in closure for the Minister of Cultural Affairs, Mrs. Norma Price, when they brought in closure - that's just a few years ago, Mr. Speaker.

Let them not come down and say, "H oly thou," because we know where they stand and they cannot come here now today and say that they had no opportunity to speak on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have been out, we have listened to the people and . . . A MEMBER: But you didn't hear them. HON. A. ADAM: . . . we have made some changes to our proposal. Throughout this province the message that I heard was that people did not want to have services entrenched in the Constitution, in The Manitoba Act.

Those servi ces will not be entrenched in the Constitution, they will be brought in by a bill which can be changed, which can be amended by another governm ent, or this governmen t and tha t is th e impression that I got when we went out to those hearings. It is a reasonable proposal, a principled proposal. It's a compromise, a complete change from what we had proposed last year, Mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no reason for the opposition that we have at the present time for this resolution.

People in their everyday lives after this is done and gone and forgotten, people will not kno w th e difference in th eir daily lives. It is unfortunate that we have those people who want to use this issue for their own political gains. It is too important an issue for that and, Mr. Speaker, I for one would rather lose my next election - (Interjection) - I hear the Member for Charleswood say you will. He was out in the Interlake country in 1981 telling everybody that we had Neepawa, Ste. Rose in the bag. Well, he got left holding the bag. He was the one that was left holding the bag, Mr.

Speaker, and he was on this side wllen he was saying that, and where is he now? He's not at the front bench, he's at the backbench and that's where he should be. He never was fit to be in the front row anyway. Yes, he went out in the Interlake and said, oh yes, we've got Ste. Rose in the bag. (Interjection) MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I would rather lose my election on this issue because you don't measure the strength of a government on what it does for the 5706

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 majority, but you measure the strength of a government on how it protects its minorities. That is how you measure the strength of a government. When I hear people stand up and say - and the Member for Charleswood said it today - 78 percent vo ted agai nst th is. They voted agai nst that other package. They didn't vote against this, they voted against something completely different. But if you look at it the other way, you can turn that around and say listen, 78 percent says that you shouldn't do that, and the Member tor Charleswood says, are you saying that they're wrong?

No, we're not saying they're wrong, but let's put it on the other term, let's turn that around. What he is saying is that might is right. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in history it has been proven that might is not always right. A MEMBER: You always listen to the people, Peter. HON. A. ADAM: Well, if you have no principles and you just wanted to flow with the wind so that you can be elected, that is how you operate. You are willing to sacrifice your principles in order to try and defeat this government so that you can get elected, that's all you care about and it's obvious. Wherever the wind blows, that's where you go.

I kind of think the Member for Turtle Mountain is maybe an exception to that, but the rest of you, the rest of them, Mr. Speak er, you could put them in - (Interjection) - A MEMBER: You're a lone man there. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I think we want to be fair and reasonable, we want a compromise. This is a great country. Canada is a great country and Manitoba is not an island. We must recognize the rights and our heritage and the rights of the minorities in this provin ce and in any province in this country. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, this is a reasonable compromise that has come up and I want to thank again the people of Manitoba for helping us, because it's they that help us do it. Even the plebiscites, and I don't like to see a government run by plebiscite, that's not the way you run a country. You don't run a country qy pleb iscites. You don' t run a muni cipali ty by plebiscites. A MEMBER: What do you think an election is, Pete? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, we have elections every four or five years.

That is the time for the people to make their views known, but as I said previou sly, I would rather lose an election on account of my principles, what I believe is right, than to win an election and sacrifice my principles like what I think is happening over there. Mr. Speaker, we know what happened in the past. We've seen what was happening back in 1980 when they were meeting with their Franco-Manitoban Society. Yes, the Honourable Member for St. Nor bert I think it is. Yes, the former Attorney-General and Mrs.

Price, the Minister of Cultural Affairs met with the Franco Manitoban Society to try and find out what services that they should provide and so on. We read all the documents, they're there. We know that they said well look we keep this under wraps because, you know, the Federal Government is coming in with a bilingual policy, and we sure don't want to be on that band wagon, we don't want to get on that band wagon. Th ai was the reason why. Of course, we don't support what the Federal Gove rnment is doing wi th th eir bilingual language either, Mr. Speaker.

A MEMBER: Are you going to ride with that in the next election? HON. A. ADAM: Mr . Sp eake r, th at is wha t has happened in 1980. We know what happened. When I was out on the hearings we heard numerous people and I th ink even the Mem ber for Elmw ood was complaining about the costs. Oh, there's going to be costs involved, it costs too much. Well, I want to give credit to th e Mem ber for Charleswood who was former leader, maybe still is, and he said on July 12, 1983 in debating this resolution - and I want to congratulate him and give credit where credit is due - Mr.

Speaker, he said, "Y ou've never heard anyone on this side of the House talk about cost. I don't think you heard me talk ab out costs in 1979, 1980 when the Forest case came down. I said the rule of law was that we had to obey the Supreme Court of Canada and to engage in those translation services that were necessary to re-implement

Section 23. You don't talk about costs unless you're shallow in your thinking." A MEMBER: Who said that? HON. A. ADAM: The Member for Charleswood. A MEMBER: No kidding. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, that you don't understand what the country is made of. You don't talk about costs in a murder case, there's a principle involved. You pursue the case until the end. One of the jobs of state. One of the legitimate costs of state is to pursue justice and that's wha t we're doing. That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, right now. We are following the course of justice to the people of Manitoba, to the people of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, this is a good proposal that I am sure in the years to come the people of Manitoba will be proud that there was a New Democratic Government that had the nerve and the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted on this issue. Well, when the former Leader of the Conservative Party accused people who talked about costs, that they were shallow, we heard quite a number of people raise that argument too. Now I'm not going to call them shallow because I think that, in themselves, they felt that that was a legitimate argument. It's not my intention to accuse these people of being shallow, Mr. Speaker.

I know that those people who are concerned of the unknown are concerned that things might happen that you don't perceive at this particular time. But all the 5707

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 best legal advice available tells us that what they are concerned about is almost 100 percent or so remote because you can never be 100 percent sure in our system of law. But it is so remote that those concerns should be laid to rest. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely difficult tonight. normally have 40 minutes, with this closure motion I'm cut to 30 minutes.

I have to speak on supporting the proposed hoist motion that was provided by my leader, I would like to speak about the bill and I would also like to speak about the closure motion which was historically imp osed and it's all concise now to 30 minutes. So I have a difficult task, Mr. Speaker, to try and tell the House and the people of this province what the people in Roblin-Ru ssell constituency think about what is going on in this House since we were called back since the recess. Mr.

Speaker, may I first of all assure the Francophone community who are up in our galleries, or any place in this province, this caucus, this party, these people that I represent in Roblin constituency, we believe in equal rights for all the people in this province because they are all equal. Mr. Speaker, may I assure my friends again, there are no majorities in this province. We are all minorities. Every group in this province are minorities. Let that be on the record, Mr. Speaker, and let it be fair and square.

That's what I stand for, that's what the people in Roblin constituency stand for, that's what our caucus stands for, that's what our party stands for on this issue and wi ll be forever. Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult time to speak on this motion. I sat here for two weeks waiting for the Premier of this province to rise in his place and answer the 25 questions I raised about two weeks ago. What got him to his feet, Mr. Speaker? A closure motion. It takes a closure motion to get the First Mi nister of this province to rise and get to his feet.

Did he answer any of the questions that I raised on behalf of my people, the some 35 questions? He never answered one. He never answered one question. Is that an ins ult to me? Is that an in sult to democracy? Is that an ins ult to the people I represent? Is that an insult to the Franco-Manitoban Society who sit up in the galleries? That's an insult, I say, to Ma nitoba, Mr. Speaker. That's an ins ult that the First Minister rose in his place and why it took him so long I don't know because those questions have been on the record for weeks. Mr. Speaker, what did he say? He accused us of McCarthyism.

Of using McCarthy tactics. Mr. Speaker, I say, when I and the people of this opposition bench stand up and defend what 80 percent of the people in this province are doing, that's not McCarthy tactics. That is not McCarthyism. That's representing the wi shes of the people. That's practising democracy. That's what 's makes this country so great and tha t's what makes this province so great and makes its people so great, practising democracy. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, do the members opposite ever take a look at that statute over there? Moses, with the Ten Commandments in his hands.

Do you ever take a look at wha t Mo ses sai d and wha t th ose commandments said when you go to bed at night or before you rise in your place in this House and misguide us and mislead us day after day after day, tell quarter truths, tell half-truths, tell something that we can't even understand? Mr. Speaker, I don't think they know what Moses is all ab out . I do n't think th ey unders tand the Ten Command ments. I don' t think they und ersta nd democracy. Mr. Speaker, it scares me. It scares a lot of people what's going on in this province as I speak in this Chamber tonight, Mr. Speaker.

This First Minister that we have in this province - and now I'm comparing him to those three brass monkeys, the Premier and this new House Leader and that one that got dumped, what was his name - the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of this province - those three brass NOP monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil and are afraid to speak; afraid to speak on the most im portant issue that this province has seen since it was incepted. There they are; those three brass NDP monkeys.

They are now guiding us, well one now is dead and gone, the Attorney-General who guided this, directed this resolution through the early stages. Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier should have told me today, and the people of this province, why did he defrock the first chief law officer of this province of this issue? Why did he dismantle him and kick him out of office? The chief law officer of this provin ce, could he not handle it? Was he not capable, or did he go wrong? The First Minister never said a word, and that's why I compare him to those brass monkeys. We don't get those kinds of answers.

A MEMBER: Wally, be fair to the monkeys. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well . . . but, Mr. Speaker, we are learning real quick. When you want to deal with these people over here, you bring in a closure motion; then they all want to talk. They all want to talk. I have been wanting to speak since 4 o'clock this afternoon; I am just getting on. What time is it now, Mr. Driedger? Ten o'clock. We have heard, well, already three members opposite in a space of - we heard the First Minister, we heard the Minister of Finance and we heard the honourable member that just took his seat, the Minister of Government Services.

We have already heard three biggies on this issue - (Interjection) - well, two-and a-half. Mr. Speaker, this closure motion scares me; this government scares me - these people that are over here who treat this place as a playground, a political playground. Mr. Speaker, I just suggest to some of the members opposite some of us have been around here for a little while, such as the Member for Concordia, or the old club; there's five of us left from '66. The Member for St. Boniface is here; the Member for Charleswood.

How can you possibly compare this Chamber and the conduct of the way business is carried on the way it was when we first came in here? There is no comparison. It's a nightmare in this place; it's an insult to those people who inha bited this place and guided this province through those years. If you don't believe me, my friends and my colleagues, I just ask 5708

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 you, tune into Channel 9 some time at night and try to listen to what is going on. It's an absolute nightmare the way we conduct ourselves in this House. Don't you look at Moses when you walk in the door? Don't you look at Solomon? Don't you look at the decor and the grandeur of this building?

This is the highest court of the land, my friends; this is where the final decisions are made right in this room, and I suggest that we had better clean up our act and start dealing with matters the way they should be dealt with, and not in this childish manner that this government, of course, plays around with all the time. Mr. Speaker, I understand this government had a problem. They have no leader. They are absolutely leaderless. The Attorney-General, he tried to lead the gang for a while and he got dumped. He is not even considered now in this matter anymore.

So they got this new wil d-eyed guy here that came in here not so long ago. He used to sit over at the desk here . A MEMBER: Assistant Clerk. MR. W. McKENZIE: Assistant Clerk - and he used to guide us. Some of us that have been around here are old enough to be his father, but he tried to tell us how to deal with it. Then all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, he became a rules expert, and people still say he drew the lines for the bounda ries, in the constituenc y boundar ies. I don't know if it was him and the Clerk and the Chief Electoral Officer, and that's fair ball. Then all of a sudden, Mr.

Speaker, this wild -eyed guy, he quits one day. He says, "Ah, I've got this place made." He takes leave of absence and he goes and campaigns for 18 months. He gets elected; he comes in here and now he is running the place. Now that is progress; that is. The problem, Mr. Speaker, the problem that they have over there, this man, this House Leader can't be trusted. Nobody in our caucus trusts this House Leader that you have today, Mr. Speaker. We can't trust him. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is reflecting on a member of this House, suggesting that a member of this House took a leave of absence and campaigned while he was still an employee of this House. MR. W. McKENZIE: No, I didn't say that. HON. A. MACKLING: That is wi1at the honourable member said, and I ask him to withd raw it because that's as false as the rest of his speech. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. If I said that, I apologize to the honourable member of the House. What I said was he took leave and quit then and went out campaigning; but let's go a little farther.

He sat at the desk, he worked there, he drew bounda ries, he guided us; he did all of those things; he helped the Clerk. Then he resigned or quit, wha tever the case was; then he went out and campaigned for 18 months and came back and was elected. Now, in that short space, he is running the province. He is bringing in a motion of closure, this man who sat over there telling us about the rules and how to guide us through this problem that we have in this extremely important time in our history, and now we don't trust him over here. We are not talking to him anymore. Parliament, Mr.

Speaker, will not work under those kinds of conditions ever. If we can't have House Leaders that are speaking; if we cannot have a House Leader that we can talk to, that will give us some sense of sensibility, some understanding and some guidance, Parliament will not work. That's the first problem we've got with that House Leader. The second problem: He doesn't know how to run Parliament. He may know how to read the book, Mr. Speaker, but he doesn't know how to run Parliament because Parliament cannot work unless you get both sides of this House functioning.

You have to have compassion; you have to have understanding; you have to have agreement; especially, Mr. Speaker, when you come in this House and there is only one issue on the table. One issue - that's all we have on the table in this last two or three weeks, and then the honourable members say that we walk out. Sure we walk out; we can't get along with that House Leader. Is that our problem? No, that's the First Min ister's problem; that's the leader of the government that is trying to bring this thing to a head and pass it through this House with the help of the oppposition, and I don't see, Mr.

Speaker, as a person that's been here a long time, how we are ever going to pass that with that House Leader guiding this legislation any farther. We are on a disaster course. Sure, we will go to the hearings and we will hear the publi c. We have to come back in here and deal with the resolution. How, Mr. Speaker, in anybody's wildest imagination, are we going to deal with that resolution with that House Leader on the government side guiding the government in this most extremely difficult time? It won't work. The other thing, Mr.

Speaker, that we have to watch so carefully - do you know what the next step is after closure? Dictatorship. That scares the living daylights out of me. If you are going to throw a motion of closure around in this place, in this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and use it as a playground the way they do - and I am surprised at a lot of the legal fraternity who know this is the highest court in the land - lawyers wouldn't conduct themselves in a court house the way they conduct themselves here. No way; it wouldn't be allowed. So, Mr.

Speaker, we have a problem; we have a difficult problem, and the time on the clock moves on and on and the problem gets bigger and bigger because the people outside this Legislature, the people from the north, to the south, from the east to west across this province have not escalated from the 60 percent to 70 percent. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, about 90 percent of the people in this province are opposed, absolutely opposed, to what this House Leader is doing to our province and to our people, doing it by closure, a closure motion going against 80 percent of the people, or 85 percent of the people.

That's an insult to democracy; that's an insult to the people of this province; that's an insult to the Franco- 5709

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 Manitoban Society; it's an insult to the Poles; it's an insult to the Ukrainians; it's an insult to the whole mosaic, this fantastic province of many many people from many many lands. It's tearing their hearts out; it's tearing their guts out as we wrestle and struggle with this problem every day, and we have a House Leader that we can't trust. And now I doubt if we're going to be speaking to him the way he conducted himself today, and that is a tragedy for Parliament. Parliament is the one that's going to suffer and the people of this province, Mr.

Speaker, are the ones that are going to suffer. Mr. Speaker, I'm also concerned about the press, since this debate has been going on for months, and one only has to go an listen to the various press releases and the press stories that come out almost every day about this place, and there's hardly two that will agree. Here's one, I'll just give you an example - January 14th, Brandon Sun: "P. C. proposal could prolong French debate." Turn it over - Free Press: "Tories ready to compromise." The same day and the only one issue before this House. Mr.

Speaker, what has gone wrong with the media, the Third Estate in this province, who are supposed to take this message out across this province and tell the people what's going on. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr . Sp eaker, do they not understand? Don't the people that sit up there in the Fourth Estate understand this democratic system? Don't they understand this Chamber? I wonder. - (Interjection) - It's every day. Mr. Speaker, that's another problem that we have to deal with in trying to resolve this extremely important matter that we are dealing with at this moment.

This closure motion - I call it Black Tuesday for Manitoba; I call it Black Tuesday for this mosaic of many many people from many lands, 85 percent who oppose what this government is trying to do. It must be a black black day for them. It must be a black day for the Franco- Manitoban Society who we support and will do everything we can because look at what the Lyon Go vernment is doing to try and give them the rights that they lost, brought them all back and was promoting them on, but now there's hate, there's animosity, there's bitterness, there's mistrust. I wonder sometimes, Mr.

Speaker, if this Parliament will ever function again until we go to the people. I don't see how this Legislature will ever function again unless we go to the people and bring some new faces in here and a new government because we are bogged down to the nth degree on this issue; and if that gov ernment brings in the closur e motion on the resolution, which is going to be dealt with after 2 o'clock this morning, if you have to go the closure route with that then I say we have to go to the people, there's no other solution.

I think it would be an insult for me to stand in my place and even speak to a second closure motion. I think we should call the Lieutenant-Governor and ask her to issue the writs for an election, even if the Premier hasn't got the guts to do it, I think the people should do it because we're, not only destroying the rights of the people, 80 or 90 percent of them, we're destroying Parlia ment, we' re destroying the honesty of the members across this place. We're not talking, we're not speaking, we're tearing the heart out of the people of this province, the fabric that's so tender.

We used to curl together; we used to dance together; we used to play ball toget her. That's gone my friend, that's gone. Who did it? That First Min ister over there, that First Minister is the guy, he's the one that started it all and there we sit. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how we're going to get out of it? How are we going to get out of this impasse, because we're not going to back off.

Why should we back off when we have over 80 percent of the people on our side telling us, and phoning us, and writing us day after day; McKenzie, don't come back to Roblin Constituency until you give every breath and every ounce of your strength to fight this issue to the last hour and the last minute, and I'm not going to let those people down, never. We're going to fight it right here until the bitter end and I tell you - (I nterjection) - Oh, we'll ring bells, we're going to do a lot of things. A MEMBER: Not one of you can say that. MR. W.

McKENZIE: We're going to do lots of things, my friend, because you, you new House Leader who nobody trusts on this side anymore, nobody speaks to, you carry on the way you're going, my friend, you're goin g to lead this pr ovince and your party and democracy into an abyss it'll never come out for decades. You're on the wrong track; you've got the wrong frame of mind. You don't understand what compassion is; you don't understand what compromise is; you don't understand what Parliament is all about. All you've got is a bunch of books. Parliament is people, my friend.

Parliament is people, and once you interfere with the rights of people you destroy Parliament, and I defy you to bring in that second closure motion on the resolution. We'll be standing in our place and demanding an election and I'll betcha you'll have the people on your back and you'll be calling an election a lot quicker than you thought you were. Why not support the compromise that my House Leader offered you, to give it a hoist for six months and let it cool down. Why not? What's wrong with it? What was w rong with that motion?

I never heard one of them that spoke toda y speak to my leader's compromise - a simple, easy, compromise. Let's cool it down for six months and see what the people say then; but the Premier didn't speak to it, the Minister of Finance didn't speak to it. A MEMBER: Yes he did. MR. W. McKENZIE: You never offered any solution, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mickey Mouse stuff. Mr. Speaker, where did this problem start? Where did it start? It started here. MR. H. ENNS: You're right Wally, and you're the first one to point that out. MR. W. McKENZIE: It started, secondly, Mr.

Speaker, did you ever hear of the word, "mandate"? When you 5710

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 want to do something in a Legislature or Parliament, you must have a mandate. You must have the wishes of the people. You must campaign in your election campaign and tell the people what you're going to do. Mr. Speaker, let's go through this book, page-by page, and see if we can find one trace of the word, "bil ingualism, entrenchment." It's not there. You can search the pages inside out - and it's a big document. It's "A Clear Choice for Manitobans." Policies - the New Democratic Party; great people, NOP. great future, Manitoba and the NOP." A MEMBER: Who signed it? MR. W.

McKENZIE: Signed by Howard Pawl ey. MR. H. ENNS: Nice picture of Howard there, too. MR. W. McKENZIE: Yes. "G reat people, great future," signed by Howard Pawley. There it is; there's their whole election platform. MR. H. ENNS: Anything about bilingualism? MR. W. McKENZIE: Bilingualism's not there. MR. H. ENNS: Any thing about entrenchment, constitutional change? MR. W. McKENZIE: Entrenchment's not there, not mentioned. MR. H. ENNS: It has to be, Wally, it has to be there, look at that thing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: It's not there. I've searched it, I've tciken it home, Mr.

Speaker, and I've read it . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: . . . on weekends. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't sleep last night, the heat of the debate in this place and the bi tterness. I went and got myself a copy of a dictionary. What's the word "ma ndate" mean - just for the benefit of the First Minister and members opposite. Have you looked up lately what the word mandate means? Have you looked it up? It means, Mr. Speaker, an authoritative command. Now, did you get the authoritative command from Trudeau? Did you get it from Bilodeau?

Did you get it from the Manitoba Franco -Manitoban Society, but you never got it to the people. Did you tell the people that you were to do this, Mr. Speaker? Did the First Minister anyplace in this analogy of words and pictures and great wisdom for the future? Not mentioned, not mentioned. That's what scares me, Mr. Speaker. There they went across this province, toured, and says no we don't need to listen to people, we'll do it our own way. The tragedy is, Mr. Speaker, they have gone farther, they've gone on to closure.

As I said earlier, what scares the living daylights out of me, the next step after closure is dic tatorship. I tell you, there's some wild -eyed characters across there when I start thinking about a 5711 dictatorship that scares the living daylights out of me and scares the living daylights of a lot of people in this province who don't understand Parliament, as I said earlier, who treat it as a playground. Look at the way they've conducted themselves every day, banging desks and screaming and yelling. This is the highest court in the land, Mr. Speak er, this is Parliament. This is Manitoba's No. 1 court house.

Mr. Speaker, the first guy that got ruptured in this debate was the No. 1 law officer in the highest court of the land. Is that not enough reason to go to the people? Defrocked, pushed off to the side, the chief law officer of this province, the No. 1 guy, he's been dumped, he's been sent to the salt mines, he's gone. Is that not a reason to call an election? He laughs, he laughed. Mr. Speaker, what else does it say about mandate? It says its a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one. Now, where's this superior court that gave you this mandate to go this route? - (Interjection)- HON. R.

PENNER: That's a mandamus, not a mandate. MR. W. McKENZIE: I'm talking about mandate, I'm using the dictionary, the explanation. I'm not a lawyer. I can go to mandamus, it's farther in here, Mr. Speaker. The other thing it says about a mandate, Mr. Speaker, it's an authorization to act given a representative, an authorization given to act by a representative. Who are we representing? We are representing the people of this province, these great Manitobans, one of the greatest provinces in all of Canada, Manitoba. We are standing here, Mr.

Speaker, supposedly representing and standing up for the rights and wishes of the people. Where did you get this mandate to pursue this right? Where did you get the mandate to bring in closure today? Did you ask the people? No, they didn't ask the people, Mr. Speaker, they've never talked to the people. They live in dens, they live in the caucus room, they live in their little cells, they don't go out and talk to the people, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, where was this resolution, Bill 11 5, conceived? Now, you can't blame the Attorney-General because he was dumped.

He wouldn't be part and parcel of this bill, so who was it? Was it the Premier? No, it wouldn't be the Premier. It would likely be the new House Leader; -this new genius, this rules expert that they've brought in. I wonder where the Premier was when this Bill 11 5 was - because we seldom hear anything about him, what he's doing, or he is saying. Where was he when this Bill 11 5 was drafted, was he there? He said he wasn't there when the resolution was cooked up. He's already told us he had no part of that earlier resolution. I'm asking him, was he there when the bill was drafted?

What was the First Minister's comments today about what's going on? He called it McCarthyism because we over here, the opposition benches, standing up and fighting for the rights of 80- 90 percent of these people in this province and we're called using McCarthy tactics. That's how wrcmg these people are, that's how wrong this New Democratic Party is on this issue, Mr. Speaker, that's why they shouldn't be al lowed to govern in this province any longer. Mr. Speaker, it goes on and on and on.

Tuesday, 24 January, 1984 Mr. Speaker, let's go back to the early days of this resolution that was first brought in by the Attorney General and the Government of the Day. I was very pleased with the speech that the Honourable Member for Charleswood raised the other day to see why they went from no bill then to a bill now. Where was the decision made to get rid of the Attorney-General, then go a different route and come in with a different resolution and now a bill. Why was that made, where did they go wrong, did they think they were going to mislead us as to this sort of trickery that was going on?

Did they think they were going to mislead the people of Manitoba on these tactics? Did they think we would lose our courage and back off? Did they think that we maybe didn't have an understanding of this issue, Mr. Speaker? I don't know because you know they won't talk until you put closure in, then they all want to talk. I daresay there'll be two or three more rise to their places tonight So, Mr.

Speaker, very quickly and very sad - this black day, this black Tuesday in Manitoba I fully support the hoist motion given by my leader and will vote against this closure motion, and I will stand here as long as I can breathe and fight to defend the rights of the people that I represent . llll R. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: . . . in Roblin constituency on the issue. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. l'A-"'S:NZIE: I tell you, I'm told today by phone calls ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Are you ready for the question?

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to participate in this debate on what is known as the hoist motion that had been moved by my leader. It's interesting, Mr.

Speaker, I draw this to the attention of the Minister of Government Services who spoke on this hoist motion tonight, and also to the Min ister of Health that back in July of 1980 when our government had introduced Bill No. 2, which was part of the process of restoring French language rights in this province, those two gentlemen opposite moved the hoist motion to try to kill Bill 2 when it was introduced here in this House in 1980. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a final appeal to the members opposite. They are making a terrible mistake. A MEMBER: Right on. MR. B.

RANSOM: They are making a terrible mistake and I don't care about what it does to them because one of the things, of course, that I would like to see is that those people oppo site are repla ced as government in Manitoba. So I'm not concerned about them as individuals but, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about Manitobans. I'm talking about all Manitobans, whether they're Francophone Manitobans or whether they are non- Francophone Ma nitobans. This government is making a mistake and I don't think they understand the extent of the mistake that they are making. Mr.

Speaker, we need only go back to the case that George Forest brought into the courts and that went to the Supreme Court and resulted in the law of 1890 being ruled invalid, and the law of 1870 being reinstated. Tha t, coupled with the bill that our government introduced into this Legislature in 1980, is when the rights of French-speaking people were restored in this province, and what flowed after that would have given meaning to that Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, our government moved to begin the implementation of French language services in many new areas to give some reason to the restored

Section 23. A MEMBER: Is that why you advertised it? MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Natural Resources continues to demonstrate is that he doesn't understand what is taking place, he doesn't seem to understand the people of this province. Well, Mr. Speaker. progress was being made in this province. At that time there was a considerable measure of good will with respect to the use of the French language in this province. You will recall, Sir, that attendant with the court decision that restored

Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, that shortly after that we had the referendum in Quebec, and that Quebec people voted overwhelmingly against separation from Canada. That, Sir, created a considerable amount of good will across the rest of the country, and it was possible for us to move and to begin to make changes and to expand French language services in this province in a way that did not create divisiveness. It advanced the rights of the French-speaking people in this province, but it did not trample on other people's rights, it did not go against the wishes of other people in this province.

When this government came in they proceeded the same way for the first year, Mr. Speaker, and there were no problems. The public was not outraged at what they were doing; the members of the opposition were not opposed to what they were doing; the rights of French-spe aking people were being expanded to virtually everyone's satisfaction in this province because it was under control, it was within the control of the government and the Legislature of this province. Then Mr.

Bilodeau took his case to court to try and overthrow The Hig hway and Traffic Act and The Sum mar y Convictions Act, and that's where the government went wrong. That is where the government made the mistake that when they opted to enter into negotiations with the Franco- Ma nitoban Society with respect to an amendment to the Constitution of Manitoba, of Canada, which could be made by the Parliament of Canada and by the Legislature of this province. 5712

Tuesday, 24 Janua ry, 1984 I just want to say a word in that respect, Mr. Speaker, because the members opposite, I believe, have to some extent misrepresented the speech that I made on the resolution when I acknowledged that there was a possibility of legal chaos if the Bilodeau case went forward and was upheld.

I didn't say there was any likelihood of that, I didn't say that it was probable, but I acknowledged that it was possible and I said, if the government opposite felt that that was a threat and they wanted to head it off, then the way to head it off would have been to put a resolution through this House and through the Parliament of Canada validating the laws of this province. If they had that !ear then that is what they should have done, then they should have proceeded to give some meaning to

Section 23. But, Mr. Speaker, they chose not to go that way. They chose not to go that way and now they have placed all Manitobans in a situation that has taken us back probably 25 years from where we were in 19 81, in 1982 and as recently as May of 1983. This government should make no mistake, we are not a vocal minority fighting for some self-interest. All of the people who are opposed to what the government are doing are not some vocal minority fighting for self-interest. What we represent is the vast majority of the people in this province. Those people are not quite Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Mr.

Speaker, by any means, they are not bigots, they are not racis ts and they are no t rednecks; they are approximately 80 percent of the people of this province that cut across every ethnic group that exists in this province that are opposed to what this government is trying to do. It is wrong what they are trying to do. Mr. Speaker, if they think - (Interjection) - well, not the old package. Mr. Speaker, let's have a look then. This government doesn't believe in government by referendum - fine. That's fine, they brought in the bill that allowed it, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was wrong, I think it was wrong that they should have brought that bill in, but they did. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. B. RANSOM: The bill happened to al low municipal ities to carry out a referendum that the members opposite didn't want to see carried out. Let's set that aside, let's look at a technical study that was done at the University of Manitoba by the Institute for Social and Economic Research. This is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-167b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 167b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	aea4621e7d7f7a42964b1e0addf34b882deb45f8

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