ISS N 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. 132 - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry 1111. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

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

Rose Spri ngfield Thompson La Verendrye Minne dosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Chu rchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Ru pertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin- Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrol!'s Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 4 August, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Welding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS Government capital investment MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development.

The latest statistics from Statistics Canada, the upgrading of the capital investment in the provinces, which is July 25th, shows Manitoba as being fourth in Canada which is a decline. The previous statistics showed that Manitoba's total investment was the second in Canada, and now it shows fourth in Canada. I wonder if the Minister could explain why the total investment in Manitoba is declining steadily, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, stats such as that have a very complex set of explanations, but I would draw the member's attention to the fact that the investment figures that are within our capacity; namely, the public sector are in fact not showing a decline. The private sector ones, I think, we discussed the other day. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the public sector spending is now at 70 percent, gone from 40 percent to 70 percent, and the private investment has gone down which leads to my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Manitoba, the new capital investment manufacturing in the province is down 44.5 from 1982, Mr. Speaker, .vhich is the seventh lowest in Canada, which is steadily 110ving down; 1982 was down from '81; 1983 is down from '82. When we are seventh in Canada with a 44.5 :lecrease in manufacturing investment in this province, :�nd I wonder if the Minister can give us some �xplanation as to what the government is doing to ;hange this steadily declining trend in all investment, nanufacturing and manufacturing shipments in this >rovince. iON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, one of the main points ye were making in the statement to the House over 1 week ago - I was going to say, the honourable member vas not present but I gather that I'm not supposed to nake that sort of reference - was to the point that in Manitoba the rate of investment in the private sector on a per business base over the last 10-15 years has in fact been low, relative to the rest of the country.

I think what we're seeing is the accumulative effect of a trend that's been there and that is one reason why a recognition by the Federal Government of structural problems in an economy like Manitoba's are so important and why we are calling upon the Federal Government to alter their new plans such that it would take recognition of these factors and would in fact funnel more incentive investment money into the province. "Manitoba's Investment Activities" MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Economic Development puts out a "Manitoba 's Investment Activities" every six months.

I have before me January-June, 1982; July-December, 1982. Can the Minister please Inform the House when January-June, 1983, will be available to the members? HON. M. SMITH: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. Saskeram Wildlife Management Area MR SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. Some time ago the question was asked whether or not the government was going to renew a long-term contract with Ducks Unlimited involving their activities at the Saskeram Wildlife Management Area.

Has that agreement been renewed with Ducks Unlimited? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions, a good deal of consultation in respect to this matter and I expect to be making an announcement in due course on that matter. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me - and I'm going from memory - that some conclusion of the ongoing discussions that the Minister referred to had to be arrived at on or about sometime in July; we're not in August. Has the agreement run out? Is there an agreement in effect?

Does the government intend to continue on a co-operative development of the Saskeram Wildlife Sanctuary Marsh in co-operation with Ducks Unlimited? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is quite right. The lease period that was in existence did come to an end, but we extended the life of that arrangement on a temporary basis pending the further consultation that we felt was necessary. I have been in close consultation with all parties, including 4887 m f d a e c m p H w a w m

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Ducks Unlimi ted. They are aware of the reason for a further extension of time. As I indicate, Mr. Speaker, there will be announ cement in the very near future. Beaver Control Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a qu estion for the Honour able Mi nis ter of Na tural Resources. Mr.

Speaker, regarding the beaver problem around the periphery of the Riding Mountain National Park and the Duck Mountain Provincia l Park, I wonder if the Min ister can advise me what action he, his staff, or the government have taken since I raised the matter last week and earlier. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minis ter of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I know that my staff is in frequent consultation with in terested parties concerning the oversupply of beavers in the vicinity of the Riding Mountain Park.

It was my intention to personally look at some of that area, but because of the filibustering in this House, I haven't been able to get away and look at those things personally, Mr. Speaker. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well then, you'd better forget about going. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr . Sp eaker, I thank the Hon ourable Mini ster for his answer. Regardless of whether the beavers will go away or not, the debate is not going to go away on the issue that's before us.

So can I ask him again, does he not consider this to be a serious matter, and the losses that those people in the area are incurring should be dealt with by he or his staff or the government? Can I also ask him, Mr. Speaker, if he has had any phone calls, correspondence, or meetings with the Government of Canada and the staff or the officials from the Government of Canada regarding their interest and their actions to try and deal with the problem? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, someone of a less serious interest in this matter would consider that the honou rable member's repetitious questions are almost as redundant as the beavers. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter from a departmental point of view, and from the view of those who are affected by this oversupply of beavers. We have a program. We have the Federal Government inv olved in that program, and we have ongoing consultation in respect to the problems. MR. W. McKENZIE: Of course, Mr. Speaker, you get the same old class answer from this government and this Min ister especially on these matters. MR.

SPEAKER: Question. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, can I ask him what government policy or policy regarding this government 4888 can deal with the losses that these farmers are incurring in the area, which I sent some more to the Honour able Min ister yesterday of losses these farmers are experiencing through no fault of their own whatsoever? They are expected to bear the brunt by themselves, or is the Min ister and this government and the Federal Government going to assist those people that are experiencing those losses? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member knows that these problems have been ongoing for many years and there's been a high percentage and a high population of beaver that have been causing problems for many years. Certainly those problems existed prior to this Mini ster being in the Mi nistry of Natural Resources. As a result of those problems there have been ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . arrangements made in respect to the mon itorirag of the problem.

Beaver dams are regularly being removed, beaver are regularly being trapped, and where they cannot be trapped and they're in overab un danc e they are di sposed of in less favourable circums tances. There's no question that the damage does occur, and at this stage I readily admit that all of the dama ge that do es occur is no t compensated to those farmers. MR. W. McKENZIE: This government's got all kinds of mo ney to blow in advertising and vari ous propaganda, Mr.

Speaker, can I ask the Min ister will he consider it again to go out there and sit down with those people and discuss with them and try and help them come up with some solution to deal with the losses they are experiencing at this time? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to be able to have the assurance from my colleagues that I could go out and attend to problems like that, see things like that, without having a pair cancelled as happened with the Premier of this province because of the obstruction and the denial of a traditional right in this House by a filibustering opposition.

Bilingualism in Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General.

In view of the fact that there are now 52 individuals and organizations indicating that they are going to present briefs on bilingualism through !he public hearings, and that there has now been a formal no tification to the Clerk's Office from the muni cipal level of government that they may have 12 5 sub missions, and given that there are going to be additional briefs, perhaps num bering a total of some 200 to 300 in all; is the government prepared to allocate at least three to four weeks for public hearings? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Attorney-General.

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: We are prepared to allocate, as was being made clear by myself and by the Premier, such time as is necessary to hear those of the public who want to make their representations. We, in fact, are most anxious that these people and the hundr eds who will come after them and are waiting for the annou ncement have that opportunity. We, Mr. Speaker, are not the ones who are denying them that opportunity. It is the filibus tering tactics of the opposition which is denying them that opportunity.

A more shameful denial of the right of these people to make their representations has, I think, never been heard in the history of this Legislature. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney-General give the assurance that the public, who want to appear and speak on this important question, can they expect reasonable notice and reasonable hours of commi ttee, for example, from 10 :00 a.m. to 10: 00 p.m., or is the Attorney-General going to have the type of hours that he suggested a number of weeks ago; namely, that he would go till 1: 00 or 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning?

Can he give the assurance that reasonable hours will, in fact, be the order of the day? HON. R. PENNER: I would remind the Member for Elmwood and other members of the House that the referral motion which is before the House, but which is being blocked from being dealt with, calls for the comm ittee to set such times and places as the committee feels appropria te to do the business of that comm ittee; that is, to accommoda te those members of the public who want to make representations. It will be for the committee.

I can only say, speaking on behalf of the government, that we would be willing to make sure that the time is available, to do everything possible to make the time available, and furthermore, that it is not the intention of the government to extend hours to a point where that creates difficulties for members of the pu blic who are there and want to make briefs. It will sometimes happen. It has sometimes happened in comm ittee meetings.

Comm ittees themselves make those decisions, that there are members of the pub lic who have come from a long way, have sat through the course of an evening, and that sometimes means that by extending a meeting from 10: 00 to 11 :00 or from 11: 00 to 12: 00 or sometimes even after 12 :00, you can accommodate those people, who are often asked, as they should be, by the Chairperson of the comm ittee whether they would want to wait an additional period of time in order to make their representations then, rather than come back.

The comm ittee is there essentially to accommoda te the pu blic, not the members of the committee. I am sure that with good will, but that has to be there, the comm ittee in fact can accommodate the pu blic in a reasonable and responsible way. But give the public a chance. Stop obstructing the public. We say that again and again and again, and we will continue to say it. Let the pub lic be heard. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Turtle Mountain. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Mini ster of Labour. I asked the Min ister of Labour this morning if she could give an indication of any projects under the Jobs Fund that had been initiated either by the private sector or by agencies outside of government that would use the non-budg etary or self­ sustaining funds that are contained within the Jobs Fund. Can the Mini ster advise the House at this time of any such projects? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mini ster of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for that information. Staff is involved in meetings and will get it to me as soon as possible.

MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, can the Min ister advise the House when she will be able to provide a list of all projects undertaken through the Jobs Fund, and have them categorized as to whether the funds come from the budgetary side or whether they are from the non-b udgetary or self-sustaining side of the funding? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain this morning that the Jobs Fund and its activities is an ongoing process. It's not something that is decided at the end of one week and is over with for the year. It's an ongoing process of program development and appro val and implementation.

All of the information that the member has asking for will be available after the end of the fiscal year. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Mini ster of Labour. Surely she realizes that the government has approved some projects. Lord knows they've annou nced them often enough. For the programs that have been approved, can the Min ister list them? Can she simply list those projects, the amount of money attached to them and where the money comes from; whether it's from the budgetary side or from the non-budgetary side? Would the Minister un dertake to do that at the earliest opportunity? MR.

SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly intend to do that. The member knows that we had already tabled specifics for up to $131 million, which brought in more than $80 million from other sectors, the private sector, the Federal Government, municipal, etc., which meant that the $200 million we started out with, $1 00 million of which was new funds, had already by that time brought in an additional $80 million from other sectors, and we will provide further information. I'll see how much we can provide quic kly.

There will obviously not be a final report for some time to come because, as the Mini ster of Labour has ind icated, it's an ongoing process. I told the Member for Turtle Mountain the other day that when I ind icated that we had allocated certainly 4889

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 more than the $72 million in budgetary funds in total, that meant that some of this will be spent next year or the year after, etc., but for this year the cash flow will be the $72 million and we do have some flexibility within that amount. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Mini ster of Finance for undertaking to provide the information qui ckly, which the Mini ster of Labour indicated that she couldn't provide until the end of the fiscal year, but the Mini ster of Finance has ind icated now - has given an anwser that is contrary to an answer given by the Minister of Labour this morning. The Mini ster of Labour assured the House this morning that there had not been greater commitments made to Jobs Fund projects than there was money available to actually fund those projects.

Can the Mi nister of Finance perhaps clear up that contradiction in terms, because we have contradictory information from two Min isters, Mr. Speaker. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think this is really a contradiction in that as I understand what the Mini ster of Labour said was that we're not going to spend more than what we budgeted for in 1983-84.

Within that, we expect and we know that we have some room to move because there are some block amounts from the budgetary portion that we had allocated for specific projects that appear not to be required for this year and , therefore, there is some room to manoeuvre. On the other hand, this does mean that some funds will have to be comm itted now in the sense that the government will know that for next year there will be some projects that we've committed ourselves to which we had expected initially to spend this year, we will have to spend next year.

That had been explained to the member yesterday and if he wants further information on it, I suppose he can ask more questions. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the money then that the government has in its own estimates for the Jobs Fund has clearly all been allocated and, in fact, more has been allocated than the government really has to spend. They're simply counting on some of it not flowing during the period of time. Mr. Speaker, why are we continuing to see on almost a daily basis, certainly on a weekly basis, these huge almost full-page ads - this one happens to be August 3rd in the Brandon Sun.

The government continues to spend tens of thousands of dollars every week to advertise a fund for which the government seems to have no money left in their own estimates for that fund, Mr. Speaker. What is the purpose of continuing to spend the taxpayers' money on this kind of propaganda when the funds in the government's own estimates is broke. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the member opposite asking such questions. I know that he was in government at one point in time in the past.

I'm sure that he understands that in an ongoing program there are annou nced programs; there are programs that are under way; there are programs that are just coming on-stream; there are people out there who can still apply for programs; there are programs that have not yet been announced. All of these things are out there and they will come on-stream in due course in a rational and reasonable fashion.

For people not to know that these programs were available, that these programs could be discussed, could be evaluated, and that we invite the comments of the public on our programs would be us not doing our jobs, in my estimation. I have no qualms about asking the public how they feel about our Jobs Fund. I think they feel very good about it. Jobs Fund - Capital MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Mini ster of Labour then.

Can she give the House and the public assurance that anyone applying through the Jobs Fund will not be rejected on the basis that there are no funds left, that there's no money left in the Jobs Fund? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Perhaps you can have a dou ble answer on this one. I will certainly give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Again, le:'s use the NEED Program since that seems to be very visible to everybody. There is money allocated for the NEED Program. It's over an 18 -month period if members recall the initial agreement.

That 18-month period was three months in the last fiscal year, all of this fiscal year, three months into the next fiscal year. As it turned out, projects did not get under way in the last fiscal year, so none of the $12 million of provincial money was expended. We still have money in that pot, if you will, for the NEED Program. Applications can be made to the NEED staff and to the NEED Advisory Board for programs within that allocation. On the one hand, that's consid ered allocated money; on the other hand, projects can be applied for and can commence expending that money.

It has not all been expended; it may not all flow this fiscal year. It will probably lapse over into the three months of the next fiscal year, which is the last part of the 18 months of the program. Surely, the member, having been in government and I think a Finance Minis ter, should understand the flow of cash in programs throughout the fiscal years and beyond fiscal years. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Min ister of Labour could give a straight answer then to the question, because I'm sure the public would like to know.

Can she assure the public that they will not turn down applications made through the Jobs Fund on the basis that there's no money left? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the members Jpposite and the members on this side of the House voted a $200 million Jobs Fund. The former Min ister of Finance apparently is now embracing some Social Credit or other philosophy that would say that $200 million can just be added to, and it can be $300 million or $400 million.

Of course, at a certain stage if we've run out of funds for this year in terms of the cash !low for the $200 million for 19 83-84, then at !he end of that point we would say that there are no more funds available in the Jobs Fund. 4890

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 The Honour able Member for Emerson keeps saying there's no money; he doesn't understand. The fact of the matter is that there are still funds available for 19 83-84, although they had been allocated to projects where we know that the cash flow for '83-84 simply will not be what we allocated.

That means that whatever is left will have to be spent next year, and we then have the option of not spending the $200 million this year, which would provide us with some criticism from the opposition because they would say well, here you had an opportunity and you didn 't use it; or we look at other projects and that's precisely what we're doing, but certainly when we get to the point where we know that we will have a cash flow of the $200 million as broken up between budgetary and non-budgetary, there will be no more funds left in the Jobs Fund. At that point, our course is clear. llll R.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Mini ster of Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs: In light of the fact that the government has annou nced projects which they have admitted are in excess of the amount of money that they have in the Jobs Fund - so for all intents and purposes the Jobs Fund is broke or bankrupt, if you want to call it that, Mr.

Speaker - and in light of the fact that the government continues to advertise, I wonder if the Min ister of Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs can tell me whether or not there is a law in the Province of Manitoba against people advertising commodities for sale, or services for sale, which indeed aren't for sale or are not available. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously chooses not to understand, but I will give an example. Let us say, for instance, that the government decides to buy a CL-215 water bomber.

We would be allocating funds - and I am not saying it would be from the Jobs Fund - knowing that in 19 85 or 19 86, we would have to spend several million dollars. That would have no im pact on the 1983-84 amount but, nevertheless, we would have had to make a commitment now to spend that money later on. In the Jobs Fund, we had funds, for instance, $20 million for downtown redevelopment. It may or may not take place. As we get closer to the end of the year, it may be more likely or less likely that it will take place. If it does not take place, then we will have the option of reallocating those funds.

There are other instances where we already know that we will not spend all the money this year that we allocated. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the point is this. Therefore, we will be making further announc ements on projects that have not yet been announc ed to date. There will be further negotiations on other projects that have not been agreed to, to date. There will be fu rther expenditures from the Jobs Fund in the year 19 83-84. The statement that the Member for La Verendrye makes is simply totally incorrect. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Mi nister of Finance: Has the government ind icated to any of the applicants under the NEED Program or under the Jobs Fund that their projects could not be advanced or would not be accepted because there was a lack of funds? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, there have been people turned down. There were people turned down right in the beginning. A MEMBER: Because of the lack of funding. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I know of nobody who has been turned down on the basis that we don't have any money left.

Now if somebody came along and said I want $50 million from the Jobs Fund, from the budgetary portion, then clearly we would say we don't have that kind of money, but we will see what we can do if you're looking at considerably less. That surely was understood all along, that there have to be some criteria in the program; but I know of nobody who has been simply told that the only reason they're turned down is that there is no money left in the pot. Brandon University Music Building MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Min ister of Education.

Can the Min ister of Education advise the House whether or not a decision has been made by the Jobs Fund Board as to whether the Jobs Fund will provide money in order that the Brandon University Music Building may proceed as announced by the government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. 1111. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, the issue regarding the Brandon University Music Building is not related to money in the Jobs Fund. The question there is how much space and what quality of space is acceptable and is going to be approved.

I think I mentioned the other day when I was talking about it that the original request that came in, when the former NOP Government, was for just a little over .5 million. They wanted an addition for half-a-million dollars. They quickly changed that to i.3, and then went up to $1. 6 million. They then went to $4.5 million, and the last proposal was for $6 million. The approval in principle for the building given by the Un iversities Gr ants Comm ission was on the understanding that they would raise $4.5 million.

In other words, they said that this is more space than you need; it is certainly more space than we think that the public of Manitoba should bear the cost. If you want to build it, you can, but you are going to have to raise the money yourself, and they agreed. They have only raised half-a- mi llion doll ars, Mr. Speaker, so what we are going to have to determine is how much space is reasonable and how much is justified, so that we know how much of the $6 million project that they are proposing should be suppor ted by the people of Manitoba. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, is the Mini ster of Education aware that the "Wish List" circu lated by the 4891

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Mi nister of Finance in February which listed capital projects, in fact included the Brandon University Music Building at a cost of $6 million? HON. M. HEMPHILL: I am not sure what the point of that is. We had accepted the $6 mi llion pr oject, providing they could get support for it. I suppose if some of the support could come from the Federal Government, that's all right.

The Province of Manitoba is going to have to make a decision on how much money they will give out of the revenues of Manitoba's revenues, how much is justified for the Music Building, and their decision is that to go from a .5 million addition to a $6 million project is not warranted. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, can the Mini ster of Educ ation confirm that there has been no change in the plans for Brandon University's Music Building from the time that this government distributed their "Wish List" and included that building at a cost of $6 million until the present time, when they are finally being asked to fulfill their prom ise that they made in the October, 1981 election? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, no, there has not been a change since the "Wish List" was handed in. There has been a major change though in that they have tripled their space requirements from the original proposal.

They have tripled the amount of space that they're asking for. The government's commitment is, I believe, about $2.2 million. That was the Provincia l Government's commitment, and in no way could we be expected to, I think, or have ind icated any obligation or commitment by the Provincial Government to pick up the additional money that would be required to bring in a building of $6 million. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, if the Mini ster of Education doesn't feel It's justified for the province to pick up this kind of funding, what justification was there to ask the Federal Government, which is really just the federal taxpayers, to pick up half of the $6 million costs? HON. M. HEMP HILL : Mr . Sp eaker, each of the programs that a government has has its own criteria and has its own priorities.

I think when a Provincial Government submits a list to the Federal Government, that they put a numb er of items on the lis t for consi deration for that program by the Federal Government, and they will review the proposals and make a decision based on the priorities and the criteria of their program. Wayside parks MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon ourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. Mr.

Speaker, can I ask the Mi nister if he or his staff have replaced the toilets and the picnic table and the barbecues, which I raised last week, on the east side of the Lake of the Prairies for the local campers to go in there and fish and have some fun? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting the Lake of the Prairies earlier on this year, and I again ind icate the excellence of those facilities.

I know the honourable member is quite concerned about the pit privies out there in the camps, and I thought I would personally inspect them if I could get a pair to get out and do that, but they have been obstructing this House and I can't do that MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ou rable Mem ber for La Verendrye on a point of order. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy House Leader insis ts on saying that this side is not pairing, I ask him to turn around and talk to his Whip.

We have ind icated that for last .}eekend, where we thought we had an agreement with the government, the pairs were off. Right now the First Min ister is out of this House. He has been paired by this side and I have a good working arrangement with the Whip on the other side, so let him not get up and cast aspersions on this side of the House, because if he really doesn't want any pairs, that can be arranged. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Or der please. The Honour able Mi nister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKllNG: Mr.

Speaker, I'm delighted that the honourable member now has put it on the public record that they are prepared to honour pairs for government business. I think that's a very honourable thing for the member to do and I congratulate him for that and we will certainly - (Interjection) - The Honou rable Member for Emerson wants to interrupt what I think is a very conciliatory statement on my part, to the Member for La Verendrye, who is the Whip for the opposition party and I thank the Honour able Member for La Verendrye for his conciliatory statement as well.

I certainly will take full advantage of that opportunity then and, if it's possible to do so, I would like to be assured of a pair so I can go out and look at some of those prob lems. I will make those arrangements. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There was no point of order. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a new point of order. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 4892

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon ourable Member for La Verendrye state his point of order? MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, on a point of order. that if it is the intention of the Minis ter of Natural Resources to go out and inspect some of the parks, in light of the sometime large problems that he causes in this Legislature, it might be arranged that we can provide two people on this side to pair with him. We would be willing to possibly pair two people if he would just get out of the House and let the House move in a proper mann er. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Nor was that a point of order. Clear lake - flooding MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've known before I even raised these questions how lazy this Mi nister is. He's not going to look after the wishes of the people in my constituency. Can I ask him - at Clear Lake last weekend when I was there, his aide, the Honour able Member for lnkster, was there and spoke at great length.

Can I ask him, was his Executive Assistant. the Member for lnkster, did he meet with the munici palities; did he meet with the Park Superintendent; did he go out and look at the problems in the area there with the local farmers who are flooding, while he was right at Clear Lake? Did he do that? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members can't have it both ways. They want me to go out and look at the problems and yet they want me here to answer their questions.

I know that the Hon ourable Member for lnkster - he's not my Executive Assistant, he's my Legislative Assistant - is a very dedicated Legislative Assistant and he has, on my behalf, looked at many areas of the province to give me advice. I know that he has been in the Riding Mountain area and looked at some of the natural problems there and he has advised me on them. I think he's a very hard wor king, able Legislative Assistant and I'm proud to have him as my Legislative Assistant. Beaver Control Program MR. W.

McKENZIE: Can I ask the honou rable member if he brought back a report on the problem with beavers around Riding Mountain National Park? HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Speaker, the Hono urable Member for lnkster has spent consid erable time with me talking about the beaver problem, and I can assure the Hon ourable Member for Roblin-R ussell that the Member for lnkster is as much an expert as the Honour able Member for Roblin-Rus sell is, perhaps more so, in respect to those forms of natural life and he's very much concerned about the problem and our app roach to it. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not arguing who's an expert, and who isn't an expert. Can I ask him again, did the Honour able Member for lnkster, who was in Clear Lake, I think, for three days, at least two days, did he meet with the municip alities, did he meet with the Park Superintendent, did he meet with the farmers in the area while he was there, to discuss the problem? MR. H. ENNS: Come on, Al, let's try a clean, honest answer. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the Honou rable Mem ber for Lakeside said, let's try an honest answer.

My face will turn as red as the Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek if I don't tell the truth in this House. MR. R. BANMAN: How about as red as the Member for lnkster? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I haven't asked the Member for lnkster, my Legislative Assistant, that precise question, and of course I' d have to take it as notice; but I know that he has talked to me about the problems of the beaver in the area of Riding Mountain and I assume that he has had conversations, but I haven't asked him about that. I sure will do that. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, before calling the order for this afternoon, I would just to annou nce that there will be sittings of the House tomorrow and Saturday in accordance with the Speed-up Motion. Mr. Spea ker, would you please call the referral resolution as it stands on the Order Paper with respect to the referral of the proposed amendment to

Section 23 to a Standing Comm ittee of the House on Privileges and Elections? I believe that someone opposite was speaking at the time. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SP EAKER: On the pro posed mo tion of the Honou rable Attorney-General, the amendment thereto proposed by the Honou rable Member for Fort Garry, and the proposed sub-amendment by the Honou rable Mem ber for Arthur , the Honou rable Member for Assiniboia has 33 minut es remaining. MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 4893

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 When we adjourned before lunch I was in the process of bringing the House up to date on the actions that were taken by the previous government headed by the Hon ourable Sterling Lyon with respect to the actions that they have taken towards the translation services.

I'll go back to the date of January 25th of 19 80, where a news service report states with regard to the translation services, "The Manitoba Government is expanding its translation services substantially, in what Attorney-General Gerry Mercier describes as a major fi rst step to meet both the spirit and the legal requir ements of the recent Supr eme Court decision on Manitoba's language legislation." Again, as I spoke earlier, with regard to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act of 1870, "Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the House of the Legislature and both those langua ges shall be used in the respective records and Journa ls of the Houses.

Either of those langua ges may be used by any person or in any pleading or process, in or issu ing from any court of Canada established under The British North America Act of 1867, or in or from all of any of the courts of the provinc e." The acts of the Legislature shall be printed and pu blished in both official langua ges - sorry, I added a word in there that is not here - in those languag es, and again, nowhere in The Manitoba Act of 1870 does it prescribe that English or French are official languages. Either of the languages, English or French, can be used, but they are not designated as official langua ges.

Then, on April 11 , 1980, the French langua ge bill introduced in the House. Premier Sterling Lyon has introduced a bill to implement the use of French as an official - this is the first place that I know of that the word "official" langua ge is stated. Now, whether that was a matter of

interpretation or not, I'm not sure, but this is the only place that I know of, until in the amendment that is coming forth that we are speaking on, that it is referred to - I believe it's in the First Minis ter's letter - that it is designated as the official langua ge. Now further on in this April 11 th News Service, "The Premier's bill is the first to appear in the Manitoba Legislature in both langua ges in 90 years, and the work of translating statutes is proceeding. The bill repeals the 1890 act entitled,

An Act to provide that the English language shall be the official language of the Province of Manitoba, but that is the 1890 act, not the 1870. It also provides that the first language in which legislation is distrib uted in the Legislature will take precedence over translated versions whenever any conflict arises over

interpretation. Further on he said "The Provinciai Government will continue to study the fu rther imp lications of the Supreme Court decision and will count on the traditional wisdom and fair minded ness of Manitobans in bringing our province fully within the provisions of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act." Going on again to the date of October 6th, we are speaking again of the French Language Services in Manitoba, that is October 6th of 1980 - now, we're speaking of French Langua ge Services in Manitoba, not bili ngualism as it known or determined by the Federal Government. In this statement to the Cabinet or commu nication to the Cabinet: "L ast May, by agreement between the Min ister of Cultural Affairs and myself, it was agreed that Mr.

Rene Prefontaine, Deputy Mini ster of Cultural Affairs and Historical Resources, would make a report on the availability of French Language Services within the Manitoba Government service and would make suggest ions for our consideration on how mu ch service could mo st effectively and reasonably be made available in the future." Later on, I believe it was the Government of Sterling Lyon, hired Mr. Kerr Twaddle, Q.C. to look into the same thing.

In his response of June 23, 19 83, re the proposed constitutional amendments, he says, "You have asked me to attempt to identify those boards, commis sions, corporations, and agencies which will be su bject to the bilin gual langua ge requir ements of proposed

Section 23.8 of The Manitoba Act. I have reviewed and identified some 126 bodies as potentially falling within the requirement. In forming an opinion as to whether or not a body does fall within the requirement I have considered: (

a) whether or not the function ol the body is that of government; (

b) the mode of appointment of members of the body; and {

c) the extent, if any, that it deals with the pu blic. These criteria are not precise, and in consequence it is impossible in some cases to say with any certc.inty whether or not the co urt could hold the body to fall within the requirement. Following my review, I have prepared a list of bodies which in my opinion fall within the requi rement: (

i) qua si-judic ial and admin istrative bodies of the Government of Manitoba;

(2) Crown corporations; and 3) agencies of the Government of Manitoba." Then, he goes on to say that he has prepared the list, and the list I believe has been already set before the House, and if it has not I would be prepared to put it on the table. This lists 41 to start with, and then another 10, Crown corporations, and maybe this should be placed on the table, Mr. Speaker. I'm prepared to move it there. Now, going from here I think you were pretty sure in knowing from the documents that I've been quoting from where the opposition is coming from, and how we stand on French Language Services.

We have taken every opportunity available to make our stance known. We are willing to extend French Language Services, but we are not willing to have those services entrenched in the Constitution. The motion becomes almost irr eversible and takes away from the elected representatives decisions on matters of importance, leaving those decisions to be concluded by the courts. The su b-ame ndme nt to the resolution requests referral to an intersessional committee that would listen to the citizens and organizations that are concerned, take time to have full and open hearings.

I think we have enough legislation on our plate to last us this Session. Again, I ask on behalf of the opposition, give the people of Manitoba the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is a subj ect of great importance and concern to all Manitobans, and they cannot be heard in a hurried mann er. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government, as so many of my colleagues have already done, take your take time, don't rush into amending the Constitution. let's hear from our constituents. I'm sure members opposite must be hearing from theirs as we are from ou rs. If 4894

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 they're getting the same message that we're getting, I can't un derstand why they can't see. Maybe it's all too close to them; maybe they can't see the forest for the trees. Mr. Speaker, I urge again, it's important that we make the right decision now, and the right move now is to refer that resolution to an intersessional comm ittee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, it's with some regret that I feel compelled to enter this debate this afternoon, not because I have some difficulty addressing the question, but because of the frustration with which I app roach the behaviour of the opposition over the last several weeks in this Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's become growingly apparent to the people of Manitoba that members opposite have no intention of expediting the business of the province; have no in tention of fa cilitating the passage of legislation; have no intention of assuring that this very institution has the respect and confidence of the people of Manitob a, who've come to bel ieve that this Legislature is the place where decisions affecting their future are made. Mr.

Speaker, the tyranny that has been observed by members of the public of this province has reached the point where the very confidence in the foundations of this institution has been shaken in recent weeks. Mr . Sp eaker, the mem bers oppo site ma y have problems with particular pi eces of legislation or resolutions before this House, however, the very denial of their belief in parliamentary democracy is what lies at the root of the lack of confidence that the public of this province has.

They are denying the very basis of parliamentary democracy, which is in essence that government has a manda te to bring in legislation, raise funds and spend funds, and must be allo wed to implement that mandate; that opposition has a mandate and a responsibility based on their loyality to the Crown, that's why they're called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; to oppo se reasonably; to oppo se responsibly; but also to allow the government to carry out its mandate. Mr . Sp eaker, that's not what's happ ening. Mr.

Speaker, that makes me sad, that also makes me frustrated, because I cannot und erstand the reasons why the opposition has taken this tact. Then, Mr. Speaker, this morning, an amendment was moved to the main amendment on this resolution, to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections. This new sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, exposed the opposition's strategy and their immediate tactics for all to see. I'm inclined, Mr. Speaker, if it isn't unparli amentary, to call the opposition the August flashers.

The weather is so hot, I can appreciate their desire to expose their strategy, to expose their very souls to the people of Manitoba in terms of the tactis they are applying in this House. But, Mr. Speaker, these August flashers, in the dog days of a long hot summ er, have exposed themselves just one point too far. They have exposed a strategy of obstruction and filibus ter, which goes to the very core of my frustration with their performance; the very core of their refusal to accept their ob ligations as a responsible opposition in a parliame ntary Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, the other point which is rather an anomaly for members opposite, is that during the months of June and July, we heard them argue that mem bers in this Ass embly sh ould all have other occupations; should all have other jobs or businesses to which to return; that being here was really only, Mr. Speaker, a part-time job. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what job you wish to return to. I certainly have no desire to go anywhere else. but now members opposite are putting up this vaunted front of not wanting to go anywhere else themselves.

All of a sudden, these gentlemen and ladies, who claimed that they could be better ML As if they were out doing busin ess with their constituents, farming in their constituencies, being part­ time ML As, are now claiming that they are full-time ML As and want to sit and sit and sit. Well, Mr. Speaker, it can clearly be said that this summer that's all they're doing, they're sitting for their constituencies. Mr. Speaker, I sup pose on the other hand that has one positive benefit.

Perhaps some members opposite will finally recognize the wisdom of those on this side who have suggested for a very long time that this job has grown of the last 30 years to be one to which members must dedicate themselves on a full-time basis. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal in more detail with the amendment, which I have described as both a fili bustering amend ment and obs tructionism. Mr. Speaker, it's a frivolous amendment. It proposes to change one digit.

It propo sed that instead of having the committee report on December 31s t, 1983, which was the amendment defeated last night, the comm ittee shall now report on December 30th, 19 83. Mr. Speaker, although a point of order was not raised by anyone on this side regarding the admissibility of the proposed subamendment, that lack of objection by members on this side does not for one minu te mean that we accept the propri ety of such an amendment. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it a frivolous amendment meant to obstruct the business of this House and the man date of this government.

The change in date only almost imp lies to this House - and certainly some members opposite, both privately and publi cly, have sustained that impli cation - that this amendment is to be followed by others. Will the next amendment be Dec ember 29th, or, Mr. Sp eaker, will the next amendment be Boxing Day, December 26th, or even better yet, Christmas Day, December 25th? I checked my calend ar, Mr. Sp eaker, I think no t, because December 24th, 25th and 26th this year is a long weekend, and we know that members oppo site do not want to work on a long weekend. Mr.

Speaker, even a more interesting question, and I ask members opposite - I know all of them will be speaking, so any one of them will have an opportunity to reply - will they carry this filibus tering, frivolous nonsense to its logical extreme and

schedule the report of the comm ittee for December 8th, 1983? For those members, Mr. Speaker, who haven't been following the press relating to the activities of many mem bers opposite, December 8th, 19 83 is the date of the coronation of the new Leader opposite. Mr. Speaker, do they want to be sitting in this Legislature on that day? Is that their tactic? Are they really serious, Mr. Speaker? I think not. 4895

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, all the evidence in the speech of the Member for Emerson, in the speech of the Member for Assiniboia, and the speech of the Member for Kirkfield Park last night, is that this is not only a frivolous amendment, but that it is deli berately intended as a sustained filibus ter against the will of the people of Manitoba, against the manda te of this government, to govern the province. However, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Emerson has a problem, except it's now as serious for him - even though he calls from his seat so frequently - as it is for some others. Mr.

Speaker, he will be active, but he will not be a prime contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, when we started taking about December 8th, it occurred to me that members opposite, particularly the leadership aspirants have a problem and I'm not sure they know it, so I want to place a question in their minds. I want the Member for Tuxedo; the Member for St.

Norbert; the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that's not an announ cement, but it's certainly an indi cation of my belief in his great ability; the Member for Fort Garry; the Member for Lakeside, without a doubt, and he has been wearing his good federal external affairs blue pin-striped suit now so frequently that there's no question that he's building the image; the Member for Arthur; the Member for Pembina as of today, I believe, is now considering entering the race. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you as an aside that he will have a lot of support on this side, the Member for Pembina. Mr. Speaker.

I ask all of those members, and for those who are unavoidably absent today, I say to their colleagues, please ask them the question: What's happening here? Are you watching the tactics and the antics of the Member for Turtle Mountain? Do you believe it's possible you're being held up to Ransom? Do you believe that this strategy of obstruction and filibuster by frivolous and foolish and cute amendments is possi bly designed only for personal self­ aggrandizement to create a charger on which the Member for Turtle Mountain will ride all the way to the leadership convention? Is that possible? Mr.

Speaker, I wouldn't want to imp ute motives. I only ask the question of those leadership aspirants opposite if this is the charger designed by their House Leader to ride his way in glory to December 8th? Mr.

Speaker, I think there is a danger that members opposite should countenance; I think there is a danger that this is a foolish grandstanding for leadership purpo ses and I think they should analyze that and be sure of where they stand. - (Interjection) - The Member for Emerson needs not my advice as to who he should support in the leadership now that his candidate has withdrawn for fear that the Member for Emerson might support him. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Emerson is found wanting for a candida te to support himself. Mr. Speaker, what do members opposite really want?

What's the problem that they have had over the last two or three weeks in this Legislature? Well, I talked about that briefly last Thursday; my Deputy House Leader, the Member for St. James and Min ister of Natural Resources, talked about it briefly last Thursday as well. Members opposite have seen no movement in the last seven days in this Legislature; virtually nothing has been accomplished. Why? Well, Mr. Speaker, we had another period like that the third week of July.

Virtually nothing happened despite the best intentions and diligence of members on this side; despite the valiant efforts of our House Leader and our Deputy House Leader, progress would not come. Why? Well, Mr. Speaker, it took a while, but even the media and, through them, the public of this province came to be aware of one thing: That members opposite weren't going to move until Speed-up was brought in. Late in June, whispering in the halls, members opposite to members on this side, was bring in Speed-up, bring in Speed-up.

Members on this side refused; many members on this side have an aversion to legislation by exhaustion. We tried to accomplish the legislative process without speed-up, but members opposite did their best to frustrate that. Finall y, pu blicly members opposite, for all intents and purposes, forced the government under threat of a long bell-ringing incident to bring in Speed-up, and it was done. But, Mr.

Speaker, there were no calls from the media; there were no calls from the public; there was no criticism of the government for bringing in Speed­ up even though there was major legislation, a major constitutional amendment before the House. Because the oppm:i�k: '.1 had forced the issue, because the opposition had frustrated the democratic for several weeks under the pretence that only up would allow the work to be done. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, a dupl icate mirror image strategy has been undertaken by members opposite. What do I mean? Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think I'm the first to enunciate it; perhaps the first in the Chamber, but the Member for Emerson gave it away yesterday. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Emerson said yesterday that the government - and I paraph rase because I don't have the Hansard with me, it hasn't come yet - had virtually no choice but to bring in closure. That's what he said.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek from his seal earlier today, in reference to the sub-amendment that was moved this morning, said, "and again and again and again, the 29th, the 28th, the 25th, the 26th and the 8th of December." I don't know if the dates are accurate, Mr. Speaker, but certainly "and again and again and again." What's the tactic? I don't want to speculate on why members opposite want or are beginning to demand closure; that would be imputing motives, but clearly, Mr. Speaker, members opposite have now shown their hand.

Priv ately, several mem bers oppo site have suggested to various members on this side that that would be the only way this matter would be dealt with by the Legislature, would be for us to bring in closure. We haven't even talked about it. No member on this side - I believe I'm the first to tell this Legislature that this government does not want to bring in closure; that we have opposed any possible suggestion just as we opposed Speed-up; that this matter should not receive the fullest possible consideration of the people of Manitoba. Sure, Mr.

Speaker, if the opposition continues to prevail in their frivolous, obstructive way with their filibuster, we may be forced to the wall. I would never say that it will never happen, but this government will resist virtually to the wall any suggestion that closure sh ould be used to deal with the constitutional amendment that is of serious significance to every 4896

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Manitoban and perhaps in many ways to every Canadian. Mr. Speaker, certain tactics are clear and were elucidated last week by my Deputy House Leader, the Hono urable Mini ster of Natural Resources, and it fits with this scenario of members oppo site demanding closure. Maybe they'll change their tune because I exaggerate slightly. They hav en't qui te demanded closure yet; they're building up to it just the way they did on the Speed-up Motion. They're building up to a demand that this matter be resolved with closure. Mr. Speaker, members opposite have a problem.

They don't want to oppose this resolution because they feel compelled to support it in princip le, but virtually all of their speeches have belied that supp ort. Out of one side of their mouths come statements that they support this in princip le; out of the other come statements such as the Mem ber for Kirkf ield Park who last ni ght suggested that there was . . . A MEMBER: Because that's a genetic defect that you have, don't subscribe that to us. l\ll R. A. ANSTETT: The Member for Lakeside, when I refer to the Member for Kirkfield Park, starts talking about genetic defects. Mr.

Speaker, I think it is a matter of privilege that the Member for Lakeside should not refer that way to one of his colleagues in her absence. MR. H. ENNS: It's a matter of privilege and a matter of record that they are forever speaking out of both sides of their mouths, on most issues. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member did not have a point of privilege. The Honour able Member for Spri ngfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have a federal problem called Brian Mulrone y, and I understand that earlier this week John Crosbie as well. Mr.

Speaker, it's glorious, I heard the Gallup Poll this morning and I smiled - 55 percent, that puts them even more on the horns of dilemma. How can they say to the people of this province and project an image of support in princip le for something that they know they must be perceived as supporting in princip le, when down inside, and by their own comments, they belie that support, they really don't believe in it. The Member for Kirkfield Park last night talked in opposition to providing French language court services in this province, something required under

Section 23 of The British North America Act, something instituted by the previous Lyon admi nistration of this province, ins tituted by mem bers opp osite. The Mem ber for Kirkfield Park served that adminis tration as a political appoi ntee and yet she now expresses some concern about providing those services. Mr.

Speaker, now when we get down to the nuts and bo lts of what will and will not happen after the implementation of this amendment and we hear the concerns of members opposite; we hear the Member for La Verendrye expressing concerns about what might happen on the ground in La Verendrye, then we get the real picture of where they stand on this issue, but federally they must project this image of support. In 19 79, they blew it for Joe Clark. Had they turned in only the three or four more seats that the NOP took from them, Joe Clark would have had a majority and the fiasco of '79 and '80 would never have occurred.

That government denied Joe Clark a majority and allowed the reincarnation of Pierre Trudeau. That previous government. Joe Clark didn't do it, the Lyon Tories defeated Joe Clark. Mr. Speaker, that's a cross they bear, but now they have a problem. Now they have a very serious problem. The National Tory Executive, the federal caucus are saying, "Ma nitoba Tories, don't do it again. You put it to us once." Every time that support for Mulroney goes up, every time the Federal Progressive Conservative Party looks better, the pressure is greater on the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Caucus.

It puts them in the position of having to support in princip le something in which the vast majority of them do not believe. Their statements in this House and, Mr. Speaker, I've gone through their speeches, members on this side could give you 100 citations of indi vidual statements, from the Member for Niakwa, the Member for Kirkfield Park, the Member for La Verendrye, Emerson, virtually every member, there's less than one handful on that side who have not come up with statements which belie their support of this resolution in princip le. Mr.

Speaker, members opposite then have to find a way to support this agreement in princ iple, but because they know that the vast majority of the people of this province have a tremendous antipathy to the federal biling ualism program, and because the efforts of the Member for Elmwood, irresponsible that they have been, and the speeches of members opposite, have attempted to associate this French Language Services Agreement with federal bilingua lism with which there is absolu tely no comp arison , but because that association has been made and because the vast majority of the public have now begun to accept that association, members opposite know that to score the political points they want to score on this issue, they mus t reinforce that false associa tion.

They must reinforce that connection and that's what they're doing. Well, Mr. Sp eaker, I wish them luck in their conundrum. How do you support Brian Mulroney and convince the people of Canada that you agree with the French Language Services constitutional amendment in princip le that Mulroney and Crosbie and the Federal Tory caucus is a good amend ment and a good agreement, and at the same time build up a charade of opposing anything that resembles Trudeau's federal bilingualism? Mr. Speaker, you do it very simp ly and the cat has been out of the bag.

You filibuster, you make all kinds of statements containing all kinds of minor concerns about the impact which emphasizes its sim ilarity with the federal agreement - that false assumption that members opposite have been pushing - and then you find a way to kick it around the block and you call that entrenchment. Mr. Sp eaker, what's the basis of the whole entrenchment argument? I see it very simply - and I don't want to dwell on it because I said I wanted to dwell on the process of what was happening in this Legislature, rather than on the substance of the main motion, which I don't think is appropriate. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Turtle Mountain, as well as his colleagues, talk about entrenchment in the 4897

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 context of the courts. They talk about it in the context of the judiciary of this nation and they say that Manitoba should not allow the courts to decide any questions relating to the

interpretation of the Constitution of this province and to avoid going to court in the future, we should go to court now. We should allow the courts to decide today and every day thereafter, rather than giving the cou rts any authority to decide these questions for all time. Rather than resolve the issue, let's go to court forever. Mr. Speaker, even that argument might have a smidgeon of logic to it if they were dealing with the Charter of Rights and only the Charter of Rights.

I have to conceive I was one of those reluctant New Democrats, as I know you may have been in your days before you took the Chair, in agreeing that the Charter of Rights sh ould be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. I was one of those who had some reservations and who had great faith in the unwritten British parliamentary tradition. But, Mr. Speaker, I always agreed that one matter could be entrenched, and in any comments I made at that time about entrenchrr.ent and about the Charter of Rights, I said our forefathers made a compact, and in that compact, Mr. Speaker, they placed

Section 133. They felt that British parliamentary tradition meant that there was no requirement for a guarantee of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom ol association, freedom of political belief, just as members opp osite felt when they were carrying on the affairs of this province and negotiating the new Constitution. They felt that those guarantees would be sustained by our British Parliamentary tradition. Mr.

Speaker, I felt that there was some merit in that argument, but I acceded to the greater wisdom of the New Democratic Party and of the federal agreement which finally came to the conclusion that a Charter of Rights, subject to certain conditions, would be the best way to resolve a constitutional impasse. That's what's done, that's what happened, and the Member for Charleswood, the Official Leader of the Opposition, also came to that conclusion and agreed to that constitutional proposal. But, Mr.

Speaker, at no time during those discussions was it suggested that language rights which had always been entrenched should not be entrenched. The Leader of the Opposition and no members opposite dur ing the debate on the Constitution in this Legislature or in the negotiations in Ottawa argued that those language rights that had been entrenched in 1867 should be removed. Now, Mr. Speaker, if they believe what they say about entrenchment, if this dog that they found to kick around the block they really want to kick, then I issue a challeng e. Bring in a constitutional amendment, a Notice of Motion tomorrow.

We'll start debating it Monda y. Bring it in to remove all language guaran tees not only from The Manitoba Act, but from the Constitution of Canada. Turn the clock back 11 6 years if that's really what you believe. - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, this is a false claim members oppo site make. This argument against entrenchment is not an argument against entrenchment in the Charter of Rights, it's an argument to turn the clock back 11 6 years and remove something that was entrenched then as part of a compact, as a convention. Now, Mr.

Speaker, mem bers oppo site know about com pacts and conv entions, because their gov ernment was the government that led the fight about compa cts and conventions across this nation for a full year during the constitutional negotiations. Mr. Speaker, if they now want to deny com pacts and conventions, let them do it, let them bring in that resolution and we'll debate it, and we'll tell the people of Manitoba where they stand on entrenchment, because that's where they stand.

They stand opp osed to the entrenchment of a Charter of Rights, and many people share that, although certainly those many are still a small mino rity in this province, but they also stand opposed to the guarantees that were the very basis of this nation that were entrenched, that were not part of a Charter of Rights, but were entrenched rights of a very very different kind. Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba will see that difference, and the people of Manitoba will see it soon.

The longer this filibuster and obstruction continues, the greater the opportunity is for members on this side, for the members of the media who have been amazingly responsible 011 this issue. I say that in no sense of derogation about their sense of responsibilities on other issues, but the media has been amazingly responsible on this issue and has µresented fairly !he people of Manitoba. I believe that di.>tinction between Charter of Rights and convention and compact on language rights will be brought home to the people of Manitoba by a responsible media and by a responsible government caucus. Mr.

Speaker, there is another fundamental problem in this Legislature that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, there is a problem in terms of the very fu ndamental faith in dem ocracy that members on this side feel and that up until recently I very devoutly believed was shared equally by members opposite. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking this morning after the sub-amendment was moved by the Member for Arthur about how the effectiveness of a Parliament can be destroyed. Mr.

Speaker, my thoughts took me back in history- it'd be interesting for the Member for Elmwood who claims to be an historian to read my remarks because it might bear some witness for him as well - to 1917 across the ocean to a country where a group of social democrats called Mensheviks were trying to develop a parliamentary democracy in which an old order was represented, an old aristocracy of feudal origin, a new group called Democratic Socialists, or Mensheviks in their native Russian, and a group of terrible communis ts who hardly wanted to participate and call themselves Bolsheviks. Mr.

Speaker, within nine months those Bolsheviks had destroyed that attempt at parliament ary democr acy by frustra tion, by filibustering, by refusing to attend, by deliberately disrupting the proceedings. MEMBER: Ringing the bells. MR. A. ANSTETT: They didn't ring the bells, but they did everything but. I don't they'd developed to the point where they had bells yet in their Assembly. Mr. Speaker, nine months after that attempt at parliamentary democracy had begun, a communist revolution overturned that government, destroyed the 4898

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 faith of those people in parliamentary democracy and parliamentary institutions, and to this day the prospect of a return of those institutions to those shores is not good. Mr. Speaker, 20 years later, on the same continent, but in the Iberian Peninsula, another group of people who called themselves Loyalists made up prima rily of Liberals and a few Democratic Socialists tried to form a parliamentary democracy.

It was also a constitutional monarchy, which I would think would appeal to members opposite, but because there were a few commun ists involved, members opposite in those days and still today, as we found out this spring, would have nothing to do with it. It was alien to them and yet it was a parliamentary democracy. Mr. Speaker, within months those who opposed that democracy refused to partici pate, blockaded the Parliament, refused to allow its Sessions to proceed, refused to allow the Loyalists and their king to represent the people of Spain. Mr.

Speaker, within less than a year a government of reaction, a government opposed to parliamentary democracy, a government that was a symbol for fascism in the free world was formed. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's how far obstructionism can go in a parliamentary democracy. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fragile institution. This is an institution which cannot withstand the denial of the opposition to do its job. Mr. Speaker, democracy would fail if any government ever tried to railroad , ram or disrupt to the point where the opposition was not allowed to do the job they pledged to the Queen they will do. Mr .

Sp eaker, the Pip eline Debate in 19 56 was evidence of the intolerance of the people of Manitoba and of all of Canada to any government which tries to prevent the opposition from doing its job. Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada will also not accept the obstruction of an opposition which prevents a government from fulfilling its mandate. Mr. Speaker, they may not use the labels "communist" or "fascist" to describe the chaos which results from the destruction in confidence in parliamentary democracy, but let me tell you, there is no other choice.

No one opposite would describe this institution as anything but fragile. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask members opposite: Why do we then tolerate those who would go about breaking china in a china shop? Why would we tolerate those who would deal with that kind of fragile institution in the way members opposite have in the past few weeks? We do, Mr. Speaker, because we believe in the institution, but I warn members oppo site the peo ple of Ma nitoba believe in this institution too, are aware of its fragility and will not tolerate the kind of obstructionism that is being used by members opposite for long. Mr.

Speaker, the issue will no longer be imp ortant; mem bers op posite run that risk. If parliament is threatened, the people of this province will not consider French Language Services to be the issue. If the Legislature is incapable of doing its work, the people will not consider the role of the opposition to be responsib le. Mr . Sp eaker, the oppo sition has responsi bil ity in this issue, the gov ernme nt has responsibility; but obstructionism and filibus ters will not be tolerated by the people.

If the people of this province demand it, the government will have no choice but to proceed as it sees fit to resolve this impasse. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see that. I said before, I don't want closure; I said before, I don't want the House prorogued.

I want to see these matters dealt with, but the opprobrium of the people of Manitoba will be brought down on the heads of those who treat Parliament lightly and try to destroy the mo st fundamental institution in this province; will recall in the minds of the people of Manitoba and the people of Virden where a former Speaker is leading a filibuster and an obstruction in this House, will recall in their minds that all that stands between law, order and democracy in this province and in this nation is this Legislature, its traditions; its conventions and its compacts.

Take that away and you have either fascism or you have communism. Mr. Speaker, which will it be? It is their choice. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honour able Member for Roblin-Rus sell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe the childish remarks we just heard from the Honour able Member for Spri ngfield; remarks that I would expect from a five or six year old child dealing with the su bject matter that's on the table. Mr.

Speaker, a man that sat at the desk of this House and is suppo sed to understand and know something about Parliament, and put those kind of comments into the record, I think he's an insult not only to his own constituents, but he is an insult to Parliament. He doesn't understand Parliament; he doesn't understand what we're here about; he doesn't understand the issue, and he doesn't understand how to deal with it. He stood in his place this day, Mr. Speaker, and says that this is an irresponsible opposition. He said we are obstructionists, that we are part-time ML As. Well, let me tell him very qui ckly, Mr.

Speaker. He has a lot of things he can do. He can either get his Premier to call an election, they can withdraw the resolution, or they can accept our amendments. There are three choices he's got, and he's screaming over here about destroying Parliament. They are the ones who are destroying parliament because they don't think that our amendment and our position on this matter is worth dealing with, Mr. Speaker. I think it's the most childish remarks that I have heard all the years I've been in the House, the remarks that were just put in the record by the Hon ourable Member for Spri ngfield.

I expected a lot more; I really did, and yet when you hear other things that he does and says in this place a.id the way he guid es the members opposite, we do expect that he from time to time gets mucked up in his philoso phy, in his dreaming, and gets this place in one heck of a mess. If we were to listen to him on this matter that's before us here, Mr. Speaker, what a place this Parliament would be and what a place this province would be. Mr.

Speaker, this controversy that we're facing in this House here where we're standing toe-to-toe on an issue, the most extreme and important issue that this province has ever seen, and for some reason or reasons we on this side and the Government of the Day can't agree and can't seem to settle the issue. As we stand here, 4899

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, and debate day after day, the heat of the subject matter grows, the numb er of phone calls grows, and I know phone calls that are coming into our caucuses today from campaign managers of members opposite, telling us to hang in here, you guys. Hang in here, you Tories; your NOP Government is wrong, they're wrong wrong, and stay there until you clean them out of office. That's their supp orters and they still can't see that there's a problem, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll offer the government several opportunities this afternoon to try and clear up this impasse and see if we can't settle it amicably or if we can't, the debate will carry on. Let's drop the resolution and go back to square one and come up with a Green Paper and then a White Paper. There's one alternative; why not try that on for size? That's the way it should have been done in the first place. Members oppo site, Mr. Speaker, can't blame us for the crude and shoddy manner in which this resolution has been dealt with to date.

We are not at fault, we didn' t bring the resolution in; that's one alternative. Drop the resolution; let's go back and draft a Green Paper, work with us on it and then come out with a White Paper and show the people of Manitoba where we intend to go as a Legislature. That's one alternative, but I suspect, Mr. Speaker, they're not going to do that. So let's then call an election. Let's call an election; let's go to the people on this issue. I'm sure we're going to be talking here till Christmas and we're not going to settle it unless one side or the other gives.

I think, rather than the honou rable member that just spoke, from Springfield, matters of this nature can be solved because we can always go to the people. If the debate's going to continue in the tone and in the frame that it's been in up till now on this subject matter, and the Government House Leader is seeing fit to set all the other government business aside and only deal with this matter day after day, then let's go to the people on it. Let's get the Premier here and go over to the Lieutenant-Governor's office and call an election and let the people settle it.

That's a very sane, simple solution to the problem because the people in my constituency tell me: McKenzie, stay there till next year if necessary to make sure that they don't pass this accord in its present form. That's what I'm being told everyday. A MEMBER: Stick with it. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, stick with it, someone says. Maybe that's what we're going to do. I suspect we are, because I would not be a very good ML A for the people in Roblin- Ru ssell with the numb er of notes, phone calls and messages I'm getting if I walked away from this issue. I would be a very poor ML A. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know where all this problem started, who cooked up this deal and where did it all start? In whose office and who was the author of it all. Where did the mandate come to this government asking them to bring in this accord and these changes to the Constitution. Manitoba's first change in the Constitution of Canada, where did it come from? Was it in the election literature? No, it wasn't in the election literature?

Did any members in the Chamber sitting in their seats today or of those who are absent, did you go and tell the people in your constituency during the last campaign you were going to put this matter before the Legislature in the Session of 1983? No, they didn't. Their New Democratic supp orters and friends that contacted me said they had no knowledge of it whatsoever, none whatsoever. Well, why then, Mr. Speaker?

Don't you think that we have right to take this thing out to the people of the province and let everybody have an input into it that wants to have some input into it when they don't have a mandate to do it. As the Attorney-General said when he spoke in the Ho use on July 26th, he said there should be a consensus. There certainly should be a consensus, and I don't think there's any member opposite that would disagree with that that we should have a consensus from the people of this province before we make these changes. Mr. Speaker, I don't know. The Throne Speech - was it mentioned in the Throne Speech?

I'm sure the Honour able Member for lnkster would know if it's in the Throne Speech, because, I think, he either moved or seconded the motion. MR. H. ENNS: That usually signals the government's intention about what they want to do. MR. W. McKENZIE: That generally does. I don't think it was in the Throne Speech, so there's the second reason or maybe the third or maybe the fourth why we're standing in our places today in opposition to the manner in which the government has handled this matter, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, who's at fault. Now, the Premier says the Feds are at fault.

He said in interview that was reported in The Sun: "Premier Howard Pawley said yesterday the Federal Cabinet Ministers have said Manitoba is becoming a bilingual province, increasing the people's fears." So it's the Feds that are at fault. Was it the Federal Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that started this ball of wax rolling that we've got on our desks today, this resolution and this proposed amendment to our Charter? Was Trudeau at fault? Was he the one that started it? That's the strange thing.

The Hon ourable Member for Springfield just rose in his place, he said a lot of things, but you're not answering the questions that they're asking on this subject matter. If Trudeau didn't call the first meeting, who did? Was it the Society of Franco-Manitoban? Did they call the first meeting or did the Attorney-General or the Premier call the first meeting that started this thing on its way and the momentum? MR. H. ENNS: Or maybe Mr. Trudeau. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, maybe it was, but we don't know.

That's why I ask time and time again for the honourable members to stand in their place and tell us how we arrived at this place we're at today with this problem which we can't resolve. We don't have basically any information, Very very little information has been offered. I noticed in one of the articles in the paper today the Attorney-General has loaded the MGEA with stacks of information; we don't have any. All we've got is the wishes of the people - the people of my constituency 4900

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 telling me to stand in there, McKenzie, and fight these guys toe-to-toe and fight them till next year if necessary on this issue until we clean up the impasse, stand in there McK enzie. Even though I'm getting old, senile, tired, I'll hang in here, have no fear, because that's my job to represent the wishes of the people. Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Mini ster of Energy, why weren't some of our members invited to those so-called secret meetings when this deal was cooked up?

Why was the opposition left out on the first time that Canada's Constitution would be amended until it arrived in this Chamber or the Hon ourable Member for St. Norbert got a note from the government? We don't know, we don't know, but we keep asking. Where was that first meeting held? Do any of the members opposite know where that first meeting was held? My people are phoning me and asking me all these questions on this subject matter.

Who called the meeting; where was it held; who was there; who brought the subj ect matter up; how did they arrive at this consensus; who proposed the package that we got in its present form? The Mini ster of Natural Resources, I wonder was he there? I doubt it. I wonder. We don't know those things, and that's the second problem we have in debating this thing, Mr. Speaker. Was the City of Winnipeg, half the people in this province, representing 500,000 people, was the City of Winnipeg at that opening meeting, or did they get the same treatment that we got on this very very very important subject matter?

I don't think the city was invited, I don't think they have any more knowledge than we have on it, and yet they're going to ram that thing through, Mr. Speaker, and they're going to tell us over here we don't have the right to stand up and fight. Tha t's what the Ho nour able Mem ber for Springfield said, we're going to destroy Parliament. Huh, what a joke! What a childish remark from a man that sat at the Clerk's table in this House and is supp osed to have some knowledge of the workings of Parliament.

He's got about as much knowledge of Parliament as a three-year-old child and we don't take him very seriously any more when he stands in his place, because we've learned some things about this Hon ourable Member for Spring field that scares us. Mr. Speaker, I now come to the matter of the Union of Munic ipalities in this province. How are we going to deal with these people who are no w some 12 5 municip alities elected by the people and they've come out strongly opposed to the manner in which this government has handled this. Mr. Speaker, what are some of these municip alities saying?

What's some of their resolutions saying? It's too bad the Honou rable Mini ster of Mu nicipal Affairs isn't in his place this afternoon, because, Mr. Speaker, I see here that on May 20th, the Executive of the Union of Munic ipalities, Mr. Harms, Mr. Beachell, and Mr. Rusk, and the Hon ourable Peter Adam and the Attorney­ General along with Mr. Greenslade and Mr. Shead of the Town of Selkirk, they were called to this meeting on May 20th. That's their first inkling, I guess, of what the province was intending to do. They were informed, according to this

article here, at that time that the Provincial Government had reached accord with the Federal Government. Now, this is different than I've heard it. I didn' t know they had reached an accord with the Federal Gov ernment. They said it's still negotiable, but this says that the thing was fine with the Franco -Ma nitoban Society of Manitoba for Manitoba to be declared a bilingual province. That's what the Attorney-Genera l and the First Minister of this province told the Union of Muni cipalities and the Manitoba Urban Association. So, Mr.

Speaker, that created a turmoil in the Union of Mun icipalities in this province. I wonder, do members oppo site have any idea how many people the Union of Mun icipalities in this province represent? People that elect them to office and are opposed to the way the government is handling this resolution and this change to the Charter of Canada. Are we going to tell those mun icipali ties that they're wrong; that they should n't be sending resolutions in some 12 0 strong in opposition to this subject?

Should we walk away from our chairs in this place and leave those municip alities high and dry to those gangsters over there? No way, no way, am I going to let the munici palities down in this province and leave them to them wolves over there? Mr. Speaker, never, never will we let the mun icipalities in this province down, even though they're prepared to sell them down the river, because the municip alities are concerned. I'll read a resolution here.

This is from the R.M. of Shellmouth which is in my constituency and here's the resolution: "WHEREAS the Council of the Rural Mun icipality of Shellmouth is unanimous in belief that we can live in Canada and that we are Canadians; "TH EREFORE BE IT RES OLVED that council is in disagreement that Manitoba be declared a bilingual province. "FUR THE R we are in unanimous agreement that we are neither English nor French nor Ukrainian, Rumanian, German, Polish, Jewish, Japanese, Chinese, etc.

We are Canadians and we favour legislation so that the affairs of our country, especially the province we live in, can be cond ucted in Canadian only. Council is confident that we are speaking for 99 percent of the people in our mun icipality." The Member for Springf ield says we should back off on this resolution and walk out of this place, when, as an example, one mun icipality has 99 percent of its residents opposed to what this government is doing. Well, I can assure the Union of Rural Municip alities in this province and the Rural Mun icipality of Shellmouth that my colleagues and I will be here.

We'll be here if it's necessary even to go to the people, we'll be here till this thing gets settled, so that we don't have 99 percent of the people in the Rur al Munic ipality of Shellmouth opposed to what this government is trying to do. Does the Cabinet, the Min isters of the Treasury Bench think that we are wrong by what we are doing here today, standing up and fighting for 99 percent of the people in the Municip ality of Shellmouth? If they think so, stand up. What kind of an ML A would I be, Mr.

Speaker, if I walked out and left 99 percent of the people in that municip ality, which is in my constituency, hanging high and dry at the mercy of this government? I would never do it, Mr. Speaker, and we never will. None of us in this caucus are going to back one inch away from this, until they finally come to their senses and recognize they're a bad government; they got bad ideas; and we're not going to accept these changes in their present form. 4901

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, where is all these changes that they're propo sing? Where is this package of new ideas that are going to make it more palatable? I haven't seen any. The Honour able Minister of Cultural Affairs just brought some literature over here what he's sending ·around the province, because I raised that in my speech - was it yesterday or the day before - wondering what kind of letters ... that's the first informa tion that I'v e got since this debate started. That's the first and he's telling us - (Interjection) - Well, we have the pamph lets, the propaganda, but, Mr.

Speaker, when are we going to get some of this informa tion? When am I going to get something for the Mu nici pality of Shellmouth, so I can take it out to them and show them and say, look, the government has proposed to make some changes in this package? - (In terjection) - Well, give it to me so I can take it out to them. But they're not going to give us anything. They are going to ram it through by hell or high water and let the municip alities in this province sing for their food or sing for their money, because they've got them over a barrel now.

If the munici palities don't tow the line, they won't give them any grants. They're on the horns of a dilemma. Don't think that this government wouldn't do it, Mr. Speaker. They haven't made the threat yet, but as this debate goes on, I wonder and I wonder and I wonder and so do they. How far will they go? How far will this government go on this issue, Mr. Speaker? We saw what they did in the seat-belt hearings; we saw how they handled the Crow hearings around this province; we saw what they did to the farmers in this province the other day, the beef producers when they put the boots to them.

We saw all that, so they are a ruthless cruel type of government, Mr. Speaker. They're not a government with com pass ion; they're no t a gov ernme nt with und erstanding; they're not a government that has any compa ssion tor the municipalities in this province and think, as they sit there today, the municipalities, or at least 12 3 of them are wrong. That's what they say. We say they're right. At least we're going to hang with them until we get some answers and some un derstanding from this government of what this is all about.

Even if the Member for Sprin gfield - oh, what a concession he made today, we're not going to have to face closure. Now, wasn't that a tremendous concession that we are not going to face closure on debating this issue! Well, I think on this issue, if this government's got the guts and the courage and the audacity to invoke closure, the first time that the Constitution of this Canada has been amended for this province, wouldn't that be a precedent to set for all time? For generations yet unborn; for the ordinary man in the street who says, we'll get you guys whether you like it or not.

Either you line up and march behind us and we're going to k;iock on the door in the House of Commons and we're going to enshrine this thing, whether you like it or not. I say that's wrong. I say that's wrong and I want the com mittee, which they say, yeah, we're going to get a com mittee, but they still haven't promised me that I can take that com mittee out to my constituency to let the people in my constituency express their opinions on this matter; to let the Ru ral Mun icipality of Shellmouth express their opinions on this.

As I said in my remarks the other day, there's two Indian Bands in my constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Shouldn't they be heard on this subject matter? Shouldn't this committee go out and talk to those people on this matter? You don't get an answer. They don't even heckle, Mr. Speaker, and they don't speak. They're speechless on this subject, they don't even heckle, they're not giving us any answers, they don't have any solutions, and they have no proposals to offer. Mr.

Speaker, I know that the Minister of Natural Resources doesn't want to go out and deal with the beavers at this time, and he doesn't want to deal with the problem I have with picnic tables and barbecues, etc., etc., but maybe when this committee is set up, he would be one, he could look at the park and he could look at the beaver problem when we're on our way to have the hearings in Roblin-Rus sell. Solve it and kill two birds with one stone. Simple. But no, he ain't going to do that. He's going to vote against this proposal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we were offering the people in this government an easy out.

He could deal with the beavers, he could clean up the problems in Asessippi, and we could listen to the two In dian bands and the people in Roblin constituency, and we could even go to San Clara and Boggy Creek and listen to my Metis friends on this subject matter. That could be done, but they're not going to allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker, un less they change their minds in the next few days. Up to now they haven't. We've been debating this matter now for close to a week, sort of a marathon­ type of debate, and they don't budge an inch. They are not going to budge an inch. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I can assure them, I'm not going to budge an inch either; and we may end up having to go to the people to settle this matter, because once you get a conflict in this place, and I've never seen one as bitter and as deep rooted as this one all the years that I have been here, and I'm sure the Honour able Member for Lakeside and the Honour able Member for Concordia can vouch of those of us that came in '66 . A MEMBER: The old '66 bunch. MR. W. McKENZIE: I've never seen both sides locked in struggle in this Cham ber so deep and neither side willing to give an inch.

So maybe that's the answer, but I know, Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't call an election on this issue. You know what? I bet they wouldn't come back with three seals if we went to the people. I doubt if they'd get three, because as I said in my opening remarks today, you should listen to what some of your New Democratic friends are saying, and these are key people in your organization. They're not just the ordinary voters; these are some of the key dogs are telling us, come on over, we'll give you a hand to clean this government out of here. We're going to clean you out, have no fear.

It's going to happen sooner or later. On this issue alone, you can never be re-elected as a government; that's for sure. So why not back off, why not back off and take the offer that I've made at this time; pull the resolution. Pull the resolution and let's try a Green Paper across the Province of Manitoba and see what their wishes are on this subjc matter. Then after the Paper has been cic�u1awd around evince, Speaker, 4902

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 let's produce a White Paper for the people to take a look at to see where we in this Legislature and the government is misguiding the destiny of our people for the next 10 0 years and more. There's two things you can do. They're not going to do it. See, they're all looking down at their papers as if I wasn't here. They're not interested. They're not interested in anything that we offer them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are not interested at all. They've got themselves locked in on this issue and they're not going to budge. Well, we're not going to budge either.

You're the ones that's going to have to make the decision because the Honourable Member for Sprin gfield said Parliament can't carry on this way. Your House Leader has the right to call - he can stand in his place any day here and call all these matters on the Order Paper that are not yet settled. (Interjection) We'll deal with them glad ly, but he's not going to call them because he's going to ram this thing down our throats - at least he thinks he is - in its present form and we are not going to accept it.

They won't call all these other matters !hat are before us, Mr. not going to call that; they're going think to get them because this is the This is the issue on going to stand or fall unless because the people this province have up to there on the way they've handled this matter. No manda te, no consensus, not in the Throne Speech, never mentioned and they're proceeding to change Constitution, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That's an insult to every citizen in this province and, of course, we know the hard known left-wingers that they've got on those benches over there who would like to see those kind of things happen.

That's the way they think government should govern. You govern with your feet; you tramp the little people down in the ground and push all over them, but the tragedy is, Mr. Speaker, we are over here; we are here and we're 23 strong, not very easy to move and not very easy to change because we are the opposition. We are the opposition, and by the Constitution of this province and this country, we are here to oppose the government un less they come up with solutions that meet the wishes of the majority of the people of our province. On this issue, they have not carried out that mandate.

They don't have a manda te; they don't have a consensus. They never had it in the Speech from the Throne and they still think that we should stand here and pass it? Never, never, never, Mr. Deputy Speaker, never. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder, and I know it was raised, if the First Mini ster has sent out corrections to the Town of Grandview on this so-called error that he made, so­ called typographical error, and that matter was raised also to the Mu nicipality of Swan River when the First Mi nister of this provi nce, in res ponding to the muni cipalities and the muni cipal governments in this province, sent out a type of a chain letter or a circular letter and said the acts of the Legislature shall be printed and pub lished in both official langua ges.

I wonder has he sent an apology to the Town of Grandview or has he sent a correction, because that has been rai sed several times. I wonder if the Honourable Member for Swan River has got any information back from the government or from the First Min ister on this same subject matter; and if we're not getting any more action out of the First Min ister on this issue than I've seen up-to-date, I doubt very much that either Grandview or Swan River have a response to this date. That's the shoddy manner in which they're handling • this thing, Mr. Speaker.

That's another example of their lack of interest in the wishes of the people, their lack of interest in what's going on out in the country, the lot of things about this resolution and these changes that are before us, Mr. Speaker, complete chaos. What other word can I say? I would like now to deal with the proposal that's been laid on our desk by the Union of Mu nicipalities in the province, and that is an interesting one; a propo sal whereby the Union of Mun icipalities has seen fit, Mr. Speaker, to lay their concerns on the desk for this government to deal with.

To !he best of my knowledge, they have not received any answers to date. In lact, the last I heard was that the First Mini ster and the Attorney-General didn't stay long enough at the meeting lo them some of the that they were for; but here is what mun icipalities in this province were opposed the way !he no·11P.r..-m:1P.rw� handling this resolution in present form says that a very significant of the members of the union and a very percentage of the citizens ol this province oppose amendments lo

Section 23 of The Ma nitoba Act as presented by the Government of Manitoba. Is anybody prepared to stand there and dispute that statement? Has anybody toe-to-toe with your reeves and councillors and said you're wrong, your figures are wrong, your facts are wrong. No, they haven't Mr. Speaker. It goes on here, Mr.

Speaker, the mu nicipality says, "It's not that we oppose French language services when it's needed or requested, but we feel that the application of such service should be entirely up to the Provincial Go ver nm ent to ad min ister and should no t be entrenched in the Constitution and left to the decisions of the courts of law in Canada to enforce." Is the Attorney-General prepared to deal with that one and assure the Union of Municipa lities in this province that he'll provide amendments for the Union of Muni cipalities on that subject matter and alleviate those concerns, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

I d0ubt it I don't think he has. That's another reason why we're standing here today debating, struggling and fighting this issue. It goes on here, Mr. Speaker, and the mun icipalities say, "The program, as suggested, leaves itself wide open to challenge by any person or group, as to the limited service given or significant demand made for such services.

We would forever be faced with court rulings by any individual or groups of people." Did the Attorney-General or the First Mini ster or the Mi nis ter of Mu ni cipal Affairs or any Mini ster of Go vernment tell the Union of Mun icipaliti es like Shellmouth, who are in my constituency, that they're wrong on this matter, that they're going to bring in amendments or changes in this package to satisfy their needs? No, I don't think they have, Mr. Speaker.

So until the municipalities of the province get some answers and get some solutions to the matters they raised, do you think that we're going to walk away and leave them? You think the Honourable Mini ster of Consumer Affairs 4903

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 will walk away and leave the municipalities in Gimli out to dry on this issue? He shouldn't, if he does. He shouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. My colleagues over here wouldn't leave the munici palities out to dry on this issue, no way. I think that's one of the problems the members opposite have got. The Member for Dauphin, I think, has a real problem, because he's got himself dug in on this issue. I talked to the reeve the other day about the problems that the Member for Dauphin faces on this issue. Mr.

Speaker, the munici palities go on and they go through this paper and they raise many many points. "We know for a fact," it says, "that it will affect the Civil Service, agriculture reps, nur ses, labour, teachers and many more in the hundr eds of government agencies and Crown Corporations." Has any member over there told the municipalities that's not going to happen; that they're wrong; that they're not interpreting this accord correctly? They just sit there like a bunch of dummies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they don't say anything.

I don't think they know anything; they don't hear anything; they don't say anything on this issue. They're absolutely scared to open their mouths and that's too bad, that is too bad, Mr. Speaker, on a matter such as this. This shoddy, careless, ill-informed government don't have the guts and cou rage to stand up and debate and fight this issue the way it should be fought and give us the package, give us the amendments, give us the whole deal.

Tell us who had the first meeting; tell us where the whole thing started; and tell us why you don't have a mandate; why you don't have a consensus; why it wasn't in the Throne Speech. Why? Those are all legitimate qu estions on this su bject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they deserve answers. Let's look at some more things that the municipalities have raised in their paper. They get into the cost factor and I wonder how the Attorney-General or the First Minister - it says here, "The French Language Program as it exists today costs the taxpayers $1.7 million annual ly.

If it's expanded as indicated to all departments and gov ernment agencies, Cr own Corpor ations, electoral office, Office of the Om budsman, it's conceivable to see the cost double and triple from year to year. " Are the Union of Mu nici palities who are trying to protect the interest of the taxpayer in this province wrong, by making those calculations and estimations, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Has the First Minister or the Attorney-General given them new figures in there, to assure them that their estimate is wrong? No, they haven't said a word.

Why doesn't the Minister of Government Services come into the debate and correct some of these things that the Union of Mu nicipalities are asking? He's got a lot of munici palities in his constituency; he's the Minister of Government Services. Why doesn't he stand up and answer all these many questions that we're asking? Give us the answers. I don't know why they don't, Mr. Speaker, and until they do, we're not going to go away, because as the union said, for tour bucks a person, we are not prepared to give concessions that could plunge you for all time to come in costs and legal wranglings. So, Mr.

Speaker, I can assure you and the people of this province and these honour able members opposite, I will be here until this matter is resolved if, for no other reason, on behalf of the people in my cons tituency and for the munici palities in this province, who I think have to be recognized. We have to stand behind them and we have to fight on their behalf, because they can't sit in these seats today and deal with this matter.

I am also concerned about this government, their lack of cour age; their lack of fortitude; their lack of integrity; their lack of honesty; their lack of dealing and understanding as to what the people of this province want to do on subject matters such as this. I ask them again and I plead; please listen to what we're saying; please support our amendments. If not, you are the ones that are going to pay the consequences because, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, when we go to the people on this issue, I doubt if they'll come back with more than three of the members sitting opposite there right today. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think I heard somebody yell the question on the other side, and I wonder if that individual has been attending the House in the last few days or not, because he must be dreaming, because the message has been given very clearly from us, it's not going to be dealt with that easily. Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of the Member for Springfield very interesting.

I think he's feeling his oats a little bit now, today after the announ cement of Jake Epp, that he would not be in the provincial leadership. I think even his colour looked a little better today because I think he's been having a nightmare for monthi:, and one of the reasons for the pallor on his face has been the fact that I think he expected that a federal member would be running for the provincial leadership and maybe running in his seat. I think he looks a lot better today, but I think he should maybe reconsider that position because that will not help him anyway.

He will not be here anyway after the next election. Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to speak to this resolution yesterday and have the occasion again today. I have no difficulty speaking on the resolution again, on the amendment, and as I indicated yesterday in my remarks, why is it that speaker after speaker on this side can get up and speak with dedication and conviction on this subject, and as I indicated yesterday, because we know we are right.

In debating this issue here day after day, hour after hour, the one imp ression that I've got is - and it brings an old saying to mind - none are so deaf as those that do not want to hear, and that's exactly what's happening with the Govemment of the Day. They don't want to listen to us in this House; they do not want to listen to the public outside, because if members would go out and make contact with their con stituencies and their people, their advisors, they would be starting to get a message. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, they are afraid to go out there because we've had in dications already and it's building all the time, that their own organizations are getting upset with their position. And refuse to change their position. It's been overtcilard nd one shou!:J nece:: �rily repeat 4904

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 comments or gossip in the halls, but it's been heard to say one of the Mi nisters of the Crown had ind icated we'd better move this through fast because we're in trouble with this one. That's just what we've heard down the halls, Mr. Speaker, but we believe that is the case. That is the message that we're getting out from the constituency.

Every time after we've been through a day of debate on this issue here, and it gets tiring in this heat, we go back home and I check around with the people, talk to various business people, constituents, people from other constituencies, and I ask are we on the right track? Are we doing the right thing? What is the message? And it comes back stronger and clearer all the time, stay in there and fight because what the government is doing or trying to do is not right. It is not acceptable and this is what we've been telling them and telling them and telling them.

That's why yesterday in my remarks I said, if you are convi nced of being right as we are, then you should have no trouble bringing in closure on the resolution and then out and have the hearings, but you're not '"''"'' inroArt that you are right The message is coming to each one of you whether you admit it or not, you're getting a lot of negative reaction; you have within your own caucus. There are members already that have bolted created big problems for you.

The Member Elmwood has been doing on his own and I don't like to give a member of the NOP necessarily any credit, bu! you have to say as many other people have said, he's had the guts of his conviction and his constituency to stand up and light his own government, and he's been ridiculed by his colleagues, by his Min isters. They like to shunt him out. They don't have the guts to do it. They want to throw him out of there, but they don't have the guts to do ii A MEMBER: Why don't they throw him out? MR. A. DRIEDGER: Because of the issue, Mr. Speaker.

They are not sure of their ground or else they would have kicked out anybody that would rebel as the Member for Elmwood has to the government, should have been heisted out of that seat and sitting over here with the Member for Brandon West. Then they play the shell game. The Member for Spri ngfield all over the place telling us our problems with Mulr oney at a time when the polls are indi cating 55 percent for the PCs and Mulro ney, and he says we have a problem with that. Well, look at your problem. You have a problem right in this House, more than one.

Many of your members are starting to have second thoughts because the people are getting to them. You must be getting phone calls like we are getting - and not in support. There is a small core that is giving support, and you've been snookered in a bad deal with the Attorney-Gen eral, the Premi er, the Federal Government. You've been snookered and you can't get out of it. You can, but you'll have to bend, and nobody wants to do that, you don't want to do that. I know for a fact that the Member for St. Johns must be having all kinds of qualms in his mind. He sits here because he's a token member in the government.

I don't mean that as an insult. I mean he's sitting on the backbench, and he has to go the way the front bench says, but he knows in his guts he is wrong. The Member for The Pas, you know, I sort of find the man an enjoyable individual, and I think he's got relatively strong principles. He doesn't feel comfortable with this in spite of the fact that he smiles and says - it's okay, my people are for it. They are not. But he's a likeable guy and, you know, I'll accept that to some degree. The Member for Spri ngfield could not defend the position what they were doing.

He was all over the field or all over the House, let's say, in his comments about his position. Yes, then there's the Member for Ellice who is running for the mayorship in this fair city of ours, who's been on Peter Warren and on all kinds of programs indicating that maybe the government has not been moving in the right direction. It's there all over; everybody knows it, and you know it. Then they say we're filibustering. I don't care what you call it, we are here to defend the rights of Manitobans and will continue to do that.

Call it filibuster if you like but I say we are sure of our ground and you are not of yours. I don't think anybody on that side is. Yes, possibly the Member for Radisson because I think he's - I think the Member Radisson is, you know, believes in that cause. think he's sincere and I don't necessarily agree the position that he's taken when we, some of us, defend our that we are called bigots, things of that nature. But, Speaker, I still will allow him that. But there are so many members out there on that side who must have great difficulty with this. Now, continue from there.

Why is there suspicion developing out there? I covered some of that ground yesterday in my remarks. Why would we, and why would the public start having suspicions? Why do we have that deep conviction that we're right? Because of the way you're handling the whole situation. You're handling it poorly. Much of your controversial legislation you've handled very poorly. You have. I'll refer to the seat belt legislation. Why are you imposing things on people in this province that are not desired, not wanted?

Bill 90, I want to just refer back to that famous manifesto and we've used that many times but - quality of life it says here. This is the Howard Pawley man ifesto signed by him where he says, a fair chance for all. And a little quotation that I'd like to put in, "Discri mina tion and pr ejudic e still tarnis h our socif ,; fabric. As Manitobans, we want a government which will protect the rights of all our peopl e." That was Pawley's statement. And are they doing that? Are they following the wishes of pub lic?

We have in Bill 90, and I would just warrant a guess, but I'd say anywhere in the percentage of 90 percent of the beef people in this province were suppor tive of the MCPA. I think about 10 percent opposed it, and that 10 percent, of course, suppor ted Bill 90. They forced it through. This is a government that indicated all the time, we're going to be an open government and we're going to listen to people. Well, we've seen their example of how they listen to people. They have, yes. Sometimes they've listened a little bit, but they've always gone their way and never have gone with the way the people wanted.

Ironi cally, we all get elected in this House on the basis of a majority, each indi vidual. The government gets elected on the basis of a majority. They had more seats than us in '81; as a result they're the government, 4905

Thursday, 4 August, 1983 unfortunate as that is now in the eyes of the people of Manitoba because if they could redo that now, there would be major changes. Anyway, be that as it may, we all work on the basis of majori ty. Why would we not then, on a conte