Manitoba Hansard — 9 January 1984 (Sitting 156A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-156a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding S,, eaker VOL. XXXI No. 156A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 9 JANUARY, 1984. Printed by the Olfiee of the Ouee ns Prtnler. ProvillC& of Ahnitobll .

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

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kil don an Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows 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 Monday, 9 January, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTE RIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REP ORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to, first of all, table the Annual Report of the Milk Prices Review Commission for the year ending March 31, 1983. I also would like to present a statement to the House. Mr.

Speaker, this statement is dealing with an update report on the Interest Rate Relief Program for the farmers of Manitoba. As you know, the Manitoba Interest Rate Relief Program was introduced in April of 1982. The purpose of the farm component of the program is to assist lower and middle income producers, who are in severe financial difficulty, to sustain their farm operations. Individuals, who met the specified eligibility criteria, are entitled to receive up to $6,000 per year for a period of two years.

In addition, my department offers intensive production and financial management counselling to clients on the program. In developing the Interest Rate Relief Program for farmers, we have worked in close co-operation with existing financial institutions, including the banks, credit unions and the federal Farm Credit Corporation. Originally, we estimated that implementation of the program would assist between 500 and 1,000 farmers. I am pleased to advise, Sir, that to date over 1,000 producers from all major agricultural regions of Manitoba have received program support.

Disbursements, to the end of the calendar year 1983, have been $6.5 million, Mr. Speaker - coming after criticism from members of the opposite side saying that they would not find any producers in their areas who would qualify for this program. Assistance has been distributed to low and middle income producers and approximately 50 percent of those obtaining support are younger farmers under 40 years of age. Sir, it is obvious that the program has provided critical support to many farmers, assisting them to avoid loss of their farms through bankruptcy, foreclosure or forced sale.

It has provided direct benefits to producers and extended an incentive to existing financial institutions to refrain from repossessing farm assets which have been as security for loans. Furthermore, production and financial management counselling have strengthened the skills of many of those farm operators. While the program is no panacea, I am convinced that it has played an important role in improving the financial situation of a significant number of producers in Manitoba.

Based on a comparison of financial statements for 1982 and 1983, approximately 60 percent of program clients have experienced a decrease in arears and almost 70 percent have shown an improvement in their current asset to liability ratio. Mr. Speaker, also, the average net worth of clients has improved. Sir, I expect that barring any unforeseen crisis many clients on the program will continue to experience progress in working toward financial stability. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to respond to a statement of very little substance today given by the Minister. In fact, I would have expected the Minister to have announced a policy which would have dealt with the real crisis in agriculture and that is the 400 percent increase in farm bankruptcies since this government took office, Mr. Speaker. A 400 percent increase, a record in the country of Canada right here in this province; and what we do have, Mr.

Speaker, is the Minister of Agriculture standing to say that he has provided a band aid to some 1,000 farmers who are bleeding to death of financial loss through a payroll tax that the farm community have to pay through increases in sales tax, which the farm community have to pay, an increase of farm fuel that every farmer has to pay, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, when their incomes have not increased substantially to take care of those increases. Mr. Speak er, the farm community is totally disappointed in this government and their approach.

We could go into the land taxation, the increase in land taxation, the loss of roads that should have been provided for the hauling of farm products after the removal of railroads which this government didn't put forward; this government destroying the Cattle Producers Association, which was a member of the Farm Bureau. The loss of one of the best farm organizations in the province can be laid at the doorstep of this Minister of Agriculture because he had nothing to do with the preservation of it; in fact, part of the destruction of it, Mr. Speaker.

This Minister stands to be proud of something that helped 1,000 people in a way in which they could have done without to start with, Mr. Speaker. If, Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Agriculture had of risen in his place to say that he would, in fact, introduce a program that would remove the taxes on farm fuel, or the same amount that the Federal Government have imposed, or give the farmer some kind of relief with that kind of cost, which is the real cost, if he would remove some of the costs that were incurred - and who, Mr. Speaker, in the last increases of Autopac rates got the greatest share of the increase?

The farmers had over 5 percent increase on their farm trucks, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government. 5401

Monday, 9 January, 1984 And who is the government that recommended that purple fuel be taken away from farmers, an increase of some several hundred percent in their truck licences, Mr. Speaker? This government. Those are the kinds of policies that we thought might have been changed, Mr. Speaker, under a government that was responsible. What is happening, Mr. Speaker? We have this Minister of Agriculture proceeding to go to the Orient, Mr. Speaker - now there's nothing wrong with the Minister going to the Orient to try and sell products, Mr.

Speaker, but he did so after the turkey products were sold before he ever left, Mr. Speaker. Was it to carve the first turkey? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Business Development on a point of order. HON. S. USKIW: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Arthur had indicated that this government had announced a removal of tax free fuel for farmers in Manitoba. At no time in the life of this government, or any previous government that I've been associated with, has that been the case. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

Since the Minister did not conclude his remarks with a substantive motion it was not a matter of privilege. The Honourable Member for Arthur may complete his reply. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, after the Minister returned from his trip to the Orient, and again I'm not against expanding agriculture sales for the farm community of Manitoba; in fact, I'm very supportive of it. I think it's a very important initiative, Mr. Speaker, that should be carried out, but the very fact that one of the main products that he went to sell, that the main sale had been consummated before he ever left the Province of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker. So the question has to be asked, was he going to carve the first turkey in Japan? Is that really what his mission was? I would have expected today, Mr. Speaker, after taking that trip that he would have been able to stand in his place and make a policy announcement or an announcement of some sale that he made while he was in that country. I would have thought it would have been the kind of important statement that would have helped the farm community of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, we have today a farm community not only in Manitoba, but it's mainly in Manitoba because of the bankruptcies that have been documented, that is not enjoying the recovery of what has been clearly stated as a recession or a depression. I believe they're one of the few groups in society, the only groups in society, that aren't enjoying an increased income in their daily businesses. There are still price receivers on what they sell and price receivers on what they buy and cannot in any way protect themselves . Mr.

Speaker, I would have thought that this Minister would have stood in his place today and said that he had forwarded a request to the Federal Government that they trigger a payout from the Western Grain Stabilization, not taxpayers' money, .but farmers' money that is being held by the Federal Government. I don't know why, Mr. Speaker, the Minister didn't put a request to the Federal Government asking the Federal Government then to remove the federal fuel taxes on farmers . Mr.

Speaker, I am surprised that this Minister is trying to get away so lightly with the kind of speech that he has tried to fool the farmers with, and he's not doing it. He is not fooling the farmers with this kind of lightweight deliverance from an office that should produce more. So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this Minister of Agriculture. I'm as disappointed in the Minister of Agriculture, as all the people are in the Premier of this province and the rest of his colleagues, who have done nothing but harm to the people of this province and the financial status of which we're in.

The farm community is the backbone and if it isn't shored up, Mr. Speaker, then the total province will continue to face the kind of difficult times that it's now facing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I will again remind honourable members that our Rule 19(4) says, "A Minister of the Crown may make an announcement or statement of government policy," and further down, it "should not be designed to provoke debate at that time." I would ask all members to reread that

section and not to abuse the rules or make statements which, in fact, may provoke debate where none is intended. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture on a point of order. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that the statement was not designed to have the unfortunate result that it did from the honourable members. It was an update for information that they wanted, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, you know, we take seriously your admonition with respect to this particular Rule 19(4).

I simply ask you to take under advisement what new policy area was announced by the Minister of Agriculture during his Ministerial Statements. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, members on this side certainly took your admonition of last Friday to heart, and it clearly was demonstrated in the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that the government wish to provide the opposition, the House, and the people of Manitoba with an update.

The statement was designed to be strictly a factual presentation, and it is certainly our intent, Sir, to abide by your Ruling in that respect . It is not our intent, Sir, to in any way make statements that would illicit the kind of response we've just heard from the Member for Arthur, and on this side, Sir, we pledge ourselves to observe Rule 19(4). MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable members for that statement. 5402

Monday, 9 January, 1984 The Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, Mr. Speaker , I have a short status report, a statement for the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister . HON. J. BUCKlASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My statement is with respect to the Manitoba Interest Rate Relief Program for homeowners. April 1982 marked the launching of the Manitoba Interest Rate Relief Program. The homeowner component of the program was designed to assist homeo wners facing serious hardships because of high interest rates.

Direct subsidies to a maximum of $275 per month are provided for 24 months retroactive to January 1, 1982. This applies to mortgage values of up to the first $40,000 if principal, interest, and taxes exceed 30 percent of household income. To be eligible, homeowners must have renewed mortgages on their principal resid ences between July 1, 1981 and December 31, 1983. In developing the Interest Rate Relief Program for homeowners, we worked closely with the Manitoba Lenders' Association as specific financial institutions.

A total of some 1,369 homeo wners received benefits totalling $2.1 million during the period of April 1, 19 82 to December 31, 1983. MR. SPEAKER : Order please. The Ho nourable Opposition House Leader . MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speak er, I rise on a point of House privilege, and I suggest to you, following your several admonitions with respect to Rule 19(4), that this is precisely the kind of information tha t is normally inquired for in this House by way of an Add ress for Papers or an Order for Return with respect to the facts and figures that are being presented to us of an ongoing program that shows absolutely no new policy initiatives, no new initiatives on the part of a government or Minister for which the tradition and the rule obviously applies. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I ask you very seriously whether or not we do not want to settle that issue right about now as to what is admissible with respect to ministerial statements? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member did not have a point of privilege since he did not conclude his remarks with a substantive statement. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker , on the assumption that the remarks of the Opposition House Leader were more properly directed as a point of order, I would like to comment briefly on our

interpretation on this side of Rule 19(4). Mr. Spea ker, in my opinion clearly the rule provides for statements with respect to government policy or announcements. Mr. Speaker , the suggestion that the statement begun by the Minister of Housing did not in any way contain an announcement certainly is belied by the fact that he has just very clearly announced that as of just eight days ago, and this is perhaps the earliest opportunity he had to announce that fact, the eligibi lity period for the program to which he refers ended December 31, 1983.

It was when he mentioned that date that the Opposition House Leader rose. Sir, that clearly is something of signi fi cance and imp ortance to communicate to Manitobans. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker , a report or progress report on an existing governm ent pol icy is clearly not disallowed by the Rules. There is nothing here that says it must be a brand new initiative. There is nothing to say that an update or modifications in policy or a briefing to the House on the status of a particular policy with regard to parts of it expiring or whatever would be inappropriate under the rule. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden to the same point. MR. H. GRAHAM: Speaking to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamentals of this Assembly is the fact that it conduct its business in an orderly manner and in a method which has followed the time honou red customs and trad ition s th at have been established over the years in this Assembly.

To see a serious breach of that occurring now under ministerial statements, which have traditionally in this House been used for the purpose of announcing a policy of the government, but now to have that being used by government purely for propaganda purposes, to me, Mr. Speak er, is a very serious challenge to the integrity of this Assembly and I wish to suggest, Sir, that you consider that very seriously before you make your ruling on whether or not this is admissible. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Ye s, Mr.

Speaker, I did in my earlier remark and would like to reiterate that we, on this side, reject compl etely any suggestio n tha t Ministerial Statements are inappropriate if they provide progress reports. I know that in a month or so mem bers opposite would be demanding - assuming we're in Session in a month or so, and hopefully the next Session may well start by then, Mr. Speaker - will be demanding flood forecasts and Ministerial Statements on those conditions on an ongoing basis. Mr.

Sp eak er, to de ny the Minister of Natural Resources the opportunity and the members of the opposition and the people of Manitoba an opportunity to hear those ministerial statements would be a breach of all precedents in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Did the Honourable Minister comple te his statement? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Just by way of completing my remarks, Mr. Speak er, I'd like to indicate that it is indeed gratifying to realize that so many Manitobans were able to maintain their homes as a result of the Inter est Rate Relief Program for home owners. Thank you. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. 5403

Monday, 9 January, 1984 MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker. the only thing that I would like to say, and I'd be very brief about it, is at least the Minister has not told the inaccuracies that the First Minister of this province has told, that nobody would lose their homes because of high interest rates, nobody. You know, the President of the NOP Party just put out a circular letter in which he said their problem was such and they had a program which nobody would lose their homes, or did lose their homes because of high interest rates, Sir. Mr.

Speaker , at least the Minister has given us the figures that are the facts, which are that many people lost their homes because of high interest rates in this province. Many people lost their homes and were foreclosed on because their program did not take those people into effect. Their program was just one of a limited group of people that would be able to be part of this program. Mr. Speaker, at least the Minister gets up and he tells us how many people were saved. Maybe he would get up and tell us how many people weren't saved.

I give him the credit at least of not misleading the people the way the First Minister does when he stands up and says nobody will lose their homes because of high interest rates in this province. And the President of the NDP Party made the very same statement in his letter , just recently , to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, let them get up and say how many people did, instead of misleading the public the way the First Minister is so happy to do most of the time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, I have a statement to make as well. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister . HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speak er, the Manitoba Interest Rate Relief Program was introduced in March of 1982, with the objective of providing a measure of financial assistance to offset high interest rates and provide counsel ling for small business dur ing this difficult economic period. I am pleased to advise the House that as of December 31, 1983, 551 businesses which dem onstrated financial distress, have benefited from this program through loans and grants totalling $3,554,347 and financial couns elli ng .

I can advise members that of the $3,554,347, $1 ,772, 173.50, or 50 percent is recovera ble. To date the program has experi enced a 94 percent success rate. In addition, 220 businesses have benefitted from the program by receiving in-depth counselling to improve management skills through the efforts of departmental staff, the University of Manitoba's Masters of Business Administration Program, and the Federal Government's Counselling Assistance for Small Enterprise Program. This service has provision for the department to monitor these businesses for a two-year period.

Sixty-three percent of the approvals of this program were from rural and Northern Manitoba with 37 percent of appr ovals from Winnipeg, thereb y contri butin g particularly to the maintenance of essent ial services to rural and northern communities. Insofar as the types of businesses assisted by the program, I can advise members that 41 percent of approvals have gone to small businesses in the service sector , 34 percent in the re tail sector , 22 in the manufacturing sector, 2 percent in the tourism sector; .:md 1 percent in the wholesale sector.

Although first year applications to !he program have ended as of December 31, 1983, 79 of !he originai 821 applications are currently under review. There are approximately 240 applications for year two of the program to be processed, the deadline of which is June 30th, 1984. There's no doubt that the Manitoba Interest Rate Rel ief Program has pla yed an imp ortant

part in preventing business closures throughout the province. It is the government's hope that, with an upturn in the national economy , these small businesses will be in a position to take advantage of the recovery and continue to contribute meaningfully to the provincial econo my. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Speak er, we finally have another Minister who doesn't go around saying that all small businesses would be saved that had interest rate problems. Mr.

Speak er, if I go back to the statement that the First Minister said and signed that said that to ensure that small business stays in business, he would have a program that would save all small business. Let's be reminded, Mr. Speaker , of the fact that the bankruptcies in Manitoba more than doubled in'81 and'82. The First Minister was speaking of how the record of bankruptcies in Manitoba is better than others. Bankruptcies in Manitoba started to go down, Mr. Speak er, when interest rates started to go down and that's the only reason. Mr.

Speak er, on this Interest Rate Relief Program for small business, the qualifications that were laid down by the government, by the Minister at that time, were such that very few small businesses in this province, compared to the number of small businesses in this province, very few small businesses that were really in trouble. Those fellows with a lot of emp loyees, those fellows with low inventories, those fellows that were doing well before this government came to power, Mr. Speak er, are now the ones that were in trouble. Their small business program, Mr.

Speak er, was one that did not save all that many jobs. It saved "Marna and Papa" stores. It saved small busi nesses with very few er�1ployees because of their limitations, Mr. Speak er, nnd what was their gre atest contribution to small �iusiness in this province? A payroll tax, Mr. Spea ker, a payroll was the contribution to business in this province, and what were they going to do about that? Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the Order Paper on Thursday, the 5th, and on the Order Paper on Page 4 it still says: Mr. Johnston, 12. Small Business Interest Rate Relief Program.

This is called the 32nd Legislature. In 1982 I made a request for an Order for Return which was accepted by the Attorney-General and we had 5404

Monday, 9 January, 1984 lectu res from the Attorney-General on all of this government's open government and they had nothing to hide from anybody. My Order for Return, Manitoba Interest Rate Relief Program for small business, has never been answered. Mr. Speaker, and that only goes to prove how really proud they are of this program. They're afraid to say who was helped and who wasn't, yet they'll advertise it in the papers. They'll put into brochures. They' ll do all of the things that they want to do with the program, Mr.

Speak er, but they have refused to answer my Order for Return on those companies helped on the Interest Rate Relief Program. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Notices of Motion . INTROD UCTION OF BILLS HON. A. ANSTETT introduced Bill No. 11 5,

An Act respecting the Operation of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act; Loi concernant la mise en application de !'article 23 de la Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba. (Recomme nded by Her Honour the Lieute nant-Governor.) INTROD UCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions we did have a group of students present, 60 of them of Grade 9 standing, from the Acadia Junior High School under the direction of Mrs. Straub. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert On behalf of all of the mem bers, I welcome them here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS McKenzie Seeds SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: My question is for the First Minister . Since the government is in such a mood for updating the House with respect to events, my question for the First Minister is can he tell us why the government is continuing to gloss over and try and cover up events that relate to A.E. McKenzie Ltd.? Why was the Auditor's Report released on October 26th, the day of the French language referen dum in Manitoba and the civic elections? Why was Mr. McDowell's resignation, the announceme nt of that resignation, made on Sunday, yesterday?

Why was the Minister of - whatever it is these days - Employment Services and Economic Security removed from his job, from his respon sibility for A.E. McKenzie last We dn esda y without announcement, Mr. Speaker? What is this government trying to cover up with respect to McKenzie Seeds? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately there appears to be some lack of transmittal of information between the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Member for Turtle Mountain, because the information was conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition on the Thursday of last week, that indeed the respon sibility for McKenzie Seeds rested with the Minister of Finance. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the government is now trying to make the point that filing of an Order-in-Council and advising the opposition of a change amounts to public announcement. There evidently is some effort here to cover up information as it relates to A.E.

McKenzie. Following upon that, Mr. Speak er, will the First Minister give his assurance that the present Memb er for Brand on East and the Minister of Employment Services and Economic Securi ty, along with the former Chairman of McKenzie Seeds, Mr. McDowell, will be called before the Committee on Economic Development to answer qu estions with respect to their term as Minister respon sible in the one case, and as chairman of the board of directors in the other? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I reject empha tically any suggestion of a cover-up. In fact I'm amazed that any such sugges tion could be made.

When the Provincial Auditor's Report was received on October 20th, dated October 20th to the Minister of Finance and was released within several days thereafter, how in the world could that be a cover-up, Mr. Speaker? How in the world could ii be a cover-up when the respon sibility for McKenzie Seeds, being in the hands of the Minister of Finance, was duly conveyed to the Minister , the Leader of the Opposition, of Thursday of last week in writing, Mr. Speaker? How could that be a cover-up? And No. 3, Mr.

Speaker, how could it be a cover-up when, within 24 or 48 hours of the receipt of the information of the resignation of Mr. McDowell, the Minister of Finance released that information to the media as a whole? Mr. Speaker, insofar as appearances before boards, commissions, that the facts as related in the Provincial Auditor's Report are here and the report of October 20th, there will be ample opportunity to question the Provincial Auditor insofar as the contents of that report, questions pertaining to same.

There will be ample opportunity to question the Minister respons ible for McKenzie Seeds during his Estimates and through the appropriate committee process. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question to the First Minister was will he give his assurance to the House that Mr. McDowell and the present Member for Brandon East, the former Minister respon sible for McKenzie Seeds, will appear before the Standing Comm ittee on Econo mic Development to answer questions with respect to their period of responsi bility relating to that Crown corporation? There has been a great deal of public interest in this issue, Mr.

Speak er, a great deal of public interest. There are many questions unanswe red. Will the First Minister simply give us that assurance that those two people will be asked to appear before the standing committee? HON. H. PAWLEY: It's rather peculiar that question would arise now when the Member for Turtle Mountain and other members in the opposition had opportunity to request the attendance of Mr. McDowell as Chairman of McKenzie Seeds during this present Session of the Legislature. It's rather strange that Mr. McDowell was not requested at that time to be present Mr.

Speak er, we will follow the appropriate course of action, the normal process of this Legislature to the 5405

Monday, 9 January, 1984 extent that the Minister respons ible for McKenzie Seeds and the Chairman for McKenzie Seeds will be prepared to respond to any questions from opposition in the normal process of the rules of the Legislature. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speake r, a further question to the Firs t Minister. In an effort to be com pletely reasonable with the government on this issue, the Standing Committee on Economic Deve lopme nt has not met to consider the annual report or any business relating to McKenzie Seeds since the issue of conflict of interest involving Mr. Moore and others arose last summer.

Given that the committee has not had the opportunity to meet, and the committee has not had the opportunity to question the Minister directly in the committee or the chairman of the Board of Governors, and that the Auditor did not deal with issues that members of this Legislature might additionally like to deal with, is it not reasona ble in the First Minister's mind that those two gentlemen be asked to appear before the standing committee? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker, the member indicated in his question that there had been MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: . . . no opportunity to discuss the matter of conflict of interest with the Chairman of McKenzie Seeds because the issue hadn't arisen yet when the matter was before the Comm ittee on Eco nomic Deve lopme nt last sprin g . I remind the member that it was at that committee where he asked the questions relating to the computer, where he asked the questions relating to the corporations which rent buildi ngs to McKenzie Seeds; he had all of the information at that time. He had the opportunity to ask for the then Chairman of McKenzie Seeds to be there; he chose not to do so.

We all know that once a chairman is no longer chairman he is not required or expected to be at meetings or hearings. A logical extension of his request this morning would be that all of us would have to appear at all of the various committee hearings of all of the organizations which we used to have respo nsibility for, and that is absolute nonsense. He had the opportunity last spring; he chose not to use it. For him now to ask for a second kick at the cat when that chairman is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: no longer th ere is nonsense. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain.

MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Spea ker, the Honourable Minister of Finance knows full well that it is the respon sibility of any member to have their facts fully substantiated before making an allegation. Of course, he knows that was the process that we were engaged in at the time that the committee met at the last occasion that we had to review the annual report. A further question to the First Minister, Mr. Spe aker.

In view of the fact that the now Minister of Income Security and Employment Services had twice appeared before the Stand ing Comm ittee on Econo mic Development, and answered questions with respect to McKenzie Seeds when he was not in fact charged with the respo nsibility of administering McKenzie Seeds, and since there has been a precedent for the Member for Brandon East to appear before the committee without having that respon sibility, will the First Minister not give the assurance th at he will be called before the committee once again? HON. H.

PAWLEY: The Minister respons ib le for McKenzie Seeds will deal with questions, but I'm sure that the Minister respon sible for Employment and Income Security will not hesitate to be present to engage in any debate or any charges that are likely to be made tha t are totally unfo unded and mischie vous by honourable mem bers across the way. MR. B. RANSOM: We're getting somewhere now. We have the First Minisl..:ir's assurance that the member will be at the committee.

Can we have the First Minister's assurance that we will have the opportunity to direct questions to the Mem ber for Brandon East with respect to his responsibilities concerning McKenzie Seeds, or is this First Minister going to continue in his effort to cover up and muzzle the Mem ber for Brandon East in answering que stions now with respect to his former respon sibilities? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, possibly maybe I could sit down and strike a deal with the Member for Turtle Mountain that he appear before a committee to explain his overstating of the projected deficit for the present fiscal year and to respond to que stions thereupon, and likewise maybe something could be worked out in exchange.

The Honourable Minister re sponsible for Employment and Income Security will, I'm sure , not be restrained or held back from being at that committee and dealing with any questions that any member raises at that committee and prepared to take on any unfounded allegatio ns that may be undertaken by any members across the way. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speake r, a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance advise the House whether or not any charges will be laid with respect to the alleged c'mflict-of-in!erest situation at McKenzie Seeds? HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, I cannot, Mr. Speak er. MR. B.

RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, a final question to the First Minister. Can the First Minister assure this House that before he accepted the requests of the Member for Brandon East to be relie ved of his respon sibilities with respect to McKenzie Seeds that the First Minister undertook to determine that there were, in fact, no reasons that 5406

Monday, 9 January, 1984 would lead the Member for Brandon East to want to be removed from having to testify before the Standing Committee of Economic Development? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: As I have indicated, the Minister will not ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: As I have indicated before, the Minister for Employment and Income Security will not hesitate to appear at that committee and to deal with any questions, and particularly to refute any unfounded allegations that are made by honourable members across the way, will not hesitate for one moment.

I'm sure the Minister will be ple ased to attend and to deal with any questions, any allegations, that are made by honourable members across the way. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MFI. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speak er, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As the Mem ber for Brandon West, I am very very concerned about the goings-on at McKenzie Seeds. When the Chairman of the Board retired, resigned this wee kend, and says it's no coinci dence, and it is a coinci dence th at his resignation took place at this time, I am prepared to accept that . . . MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. H.

CARROLL: My question, Mr. Spea ker , to the the Minister: did McKenzie Seeds suffer a severe financial loss this fiscal year just passed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Spea ker, the Annual Report will be coming out in due course and the numbers will then become available to all the members of the Chamber at the time that they are made public. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker , does the Minister have the figures now, and is he prepared to share them now with the members of the House? HON. V. SCHROEDER: We will be providing the figures in due course. l\ll R. H. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker , the question was: does he have the figures? HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, I don't have them with me. MR. H. CARROLL: As a final supplement ary, does the Minister have a prelimi nary indication that he can give the House at this time? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, based on the objections of the opposition in the last little while to any upda ted state ments on the goings -on in this province, I hesitate to give any kind of an updating, but as the member is aware, I'm sure - he's probably had some discussions with people in Brandon - it is a fact that the financial situation at McKenzie is not as bright as we would have liked to have seen it for the year. We will be providing an update on this issue to the members as soon as we are ready with ii. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BAN llll AN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

A further question to the Minister in charge of McKenzie Seeds. Could he inform the House when the year-end of McKenzie Seeds is? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I belie ve it is October 31, 1983. MR. R. BANMAN: Could the Minister confirm that he has had the prelimin ary report on his desk, or has had it transmitted to him, with regard to the loss at McKenzie Seeds? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I was at a meeting of the Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds on Thursday morning and there was a brief discussion with respect to the year-end state ment. MR. R.

BAN llll AN: So, Mr. Speak er, is the Minister confirming that at that meeting the prelimi nary or the rough amount of mone y th at ha s been lost was discussed at the board meeting? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Ye s, Mr. Speaker. As there has been discussion within the Department of Finance with respect to the quarter of the year ending, as it happens on the very same day of the year, October 31 st in the Department of Finance, that doesn't mean that we release the numbers until we know precisely what they are.

When we have the precise numbers, I've indicated to the Member for Brandon West, we will be passing them on in the normal course. I would caution the member to just be a little patient. I've indicated that numbe rs will come, as they did when he was in charge. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Sp eaker , in light of the circumstances surrounding McKenzie Seeds, in light of the Chairman resigning, in light of the Minister being rep laced by this ne w Min ister , in ligh t of the investigations that have gone on, the Minister now in charge has admitted that he knows roughly what the loss is, will he provide the Legislature that information? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, when the member was in charge of McKenzie Seeds, there were some incredible losses as a result of the kinds of conflicts of interest.

We ll, I would suggest to you that when a government refuses to allow a Crown corporation any capital financing and that sort of thing that the very same kind of difficulties can and inde ed sometimes do result. When you're too busy looking for someone to sell the thing to, to be able to operate it properl y, you do 5407

Monday, 9 January, 1984 wind up with losses, and certainly the Legislature in those days was asking for information and it received information, but I don't bel ieve that it received information before the Minister had an opportunity to study it carefu lly and know exactly what it was about. I would ask that the member have a little bit of patience. MR. D. ORCHARD: How long are you going to cover it up? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker , I assure the House that those numbers will be available at least as soon as they were when that bunch of incompetents, who couldn't even get the provincial books certified by the auditor when they were in government, sterling business people that they were. I assure the House that we will do better than they did. MR. SPEAKER : The Hon ourable Leader of the Oppos ition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premi er, sometimes known as the President of the Executive Council.

I heard earlier that he had made reference to some information tha t I had requested with respect to the ministerial res ponsibilities, particularly as they apply to A. E. McKenzie Limited. My question for the Premier is: in this information, which I was provided with on Thursday by the Clerk of the Executive Council, it is dated Novem ber, 1983, a list of the ministerial res ponsibilities and it shows that the Minister of Finance is respo nsible for McKenzie Seeds as of November of 1983.

How does he explain that, in view of the fact that the Order-in-Council making that appointment was not passed until January 5th? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: It obviously is a typographical error . It confirms the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was advised on Thursday who was respo nsible for the opera tions of McKenzie Seeds. That is all the Leader is confirming. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker , I wasn't asking when I was advised. I was advised when I asked a question on January 5th, on Thursday.

That's when I was advised, but the list that was sent to me is dated Novembe r, 1983. The date of the Order-in-Council is when he was appo inted . How could he have been the Minister res ponsible as of November if he was only appointed on January 5th? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: In case the Leader of the Opposition didn't hear, clearly it's a typographical error. He received advice on Thursday that the Minister respo nsible for McKenzie Seeds was inde ed the Minister of Finance. That is indicated on the sheet that he has made reference to.

I do not have the copy in front of me. He may also have been advised on that date that the Minister responsible for Employment was also charged with the respo nsibili ty for the Manitoba Statistics Bureau. Student enrolments - universities MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber !or St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the First Minister on another topic. Could the First Minister advise whether or not it is the policy of the NOP Go vernment to approve limi ting student enrolments at universities in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think that's a question that ought to be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Education. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Ed ucat ion th en, is it the polic y of the NOP Government to approve limiting student enrolments at universities in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. 1111. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker , this is an area that is under the jurisidiction of the universities. I understand that some of the faculties are studying the option and the consequenc es of limiting enrolment.

I have not been provided with any information that indicates they have made a decision to do so. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , in a news

article in the Winnipeg Free Press last November 25th, the Dean of Science, a Dr. Bigelo w, who I believe is also the President of the NO P Party, said that he was pleased with the outcome of obta ining approval to limi t enrolmen t in firs t year Science, down some 46 1 positions from 1,761 to 1,300 students this fall. Does the Minister approve limiting student enrolment in this manner, and if not, what does she propose to do about it? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I did not give formal response to enrolment limitations to the Science Faculty.

I was informed that they were considering and they were looking at enrolment limitations because of the large numbers of students enrolling, but I did not, and was not asked for a formal response on that item. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, this

article indicates that the administration of the university are concerned with de veloping a policy to limit enrolment in Science even if there is an abundance of students with high marks. Does the Minister approve that type of limiting of student enrolments in this province - and I would hope she do esn 't, Mr. Speaker - and would she undertake to investigate this situation in order to assure students in this province that they will not be limited at enrol ling in the Un iversity of Manitob a in the forthcoming term? 5408

HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker , I know this is a matter that the boards of governors at all the universities will be giving serious consideration to because the matter of limiting enrolment is a very serious issue, to both that faculty, to the students, and the education system. There are areas where enrolment is limited in university faculties and there usually are very very good reasons for this. One of them would be that we cannot continue to overtrain or train more people than the system can accommodate.

The students themse lves do no! want to spend four, five, six, seven years training in an area where there are no jobs. There is, I think, these days an increasing responsibility on everybody to do an excellent job determining what jobs there are, in what areas, and informing the students and looking at enrolment capacities in that light, so we're not training kids for jobs that do not exist. I expect them to be exam ining on that basis.

I would not expect that there would be any decision to limit enrolment at any faculty without having excellent basis and excellent reason for doing so, that would not arbitrarily keep students who want those programs out of those programs. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, I'm not talking about a professional course like Law, Medicine, Dentistr y, Architecture, Engineering. We're talking about general science courses, Mr. Speaker , in which there is an arbitrary limit imposed for the forthcoming term that has been approved - a reduction of nearly 500 spaces !or general scienc e students under this NDP Government.

Will this Minister, in view of the fact that her Leader will not involve hi mself in th is issue , undertake to assure the students of Manitoba that these arbitrary, artificial limits will not be placed on student enrolment at the university? Bilingualism - proposed resolution MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R.

DOERN: I'd like to direct a question to the First Minister and ask him, in view of a rising tide of opposition to the government's propo sals on bilingualism - hundreds of phone calls, letters, petitions being circulated throughout the province, people in the galleries, including toda y a contingent from the Interlake, and now ful l-page adver tisements, Mr. Speak er, in the Winnipeg dailies - will the First Minister now consider withdrawing his government's proposals on official bilingualism? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I find it rather strange that the honour able member keeps ref erring to opposition to bilingualism, when April 16, 1980 at Page 2572, on the passage of Bill 2, the Honourable Member for Elmwood said, "From this point on we will become officially bilingual and the task, in the narrow sense, is formidable." Then he went on to say on Page 2575, "And I have to say, Mr. Speaker , that I speak without any reluctance in support of the bill. I have no problem in supporting this measure. It's a step in the right direct ion and it's a necessity as far as I am concer ned." MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Spea ker, I wonder whether the First Minister would be prepared to table the letter that he wrote as Attorney-General, in response to a request for a letter to be replied in, in the French language. I wonder if he would table his letter , of which I have a copy some where in my office, that he wrote and told this person in no uncertain terms that he did not support the translation of letters or documents in the French language in view of the fact that this was a multicultural and multilingual province. Would he kindly table that letter at the same time? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Sp eaker , reg rett ably , the honourable member forgets that while I was Attorne y General was in the period 1973 to 1977, prior to the finding of the Forest case in 1979, when the present Member for Charle swood was Premier in Manitoba, when there was a clear ruling insofar as the responsi bility for the translation of statutes. MFI. FI. DOERN: Mr. Speaker , three strikes and the Premier is out.

My third question, not having received an answer yet, is given that thousands of signatures on petitions have been collected in the City of Winnipeg, recently, and in the Interlake, and in the City of Brandon, and in the Swan Lake area, that there are thousands and thousands of petitions being circulated in this province and thousands of signatures collected, has the First Minister received any copies of these petitions to date in his office? HON. H. PAWLEY: The Mem ber for Elmwood did deliver a number of envelopes to my office approximately two months ago when I was in the Legisla tive Cafeteria.

When I finally got up to my office to obtain the letters that he del ivered to my office. all expressing opposition, I found that they had been removed within 30 minutes by the Honourable Member for Elmwood so I didn't have a opportunity to peruse the letters containing the coupons of those that were, for various reasons and I suppo se, Mr. Speaker, for very unde rstandable reasons, in some instances expressing opposition. Unfortunately they were removed from my office before I had an opportunity to see the coupons. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker , my final question is this, I was not referring to the 17,500 signatures and coupons that I presented to the First Minister on that occasion. I'm not referring to those. I still have those in my office and I can present those again. I'm talking about another . . . - (Interjection}- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERM: Mr. Speaker, he who laughs last laughs best. I'm talking about an additional, recent, in the last few weeks, number of signatures on petitions, 5,000 or 10 ,0 00 in total. Has the Minister yet received any of those petitions in his office? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker , I would have to accept that question as one of notice. I have received letters. I've received letters, I've received some 12,000, 13,000 coupons. Insofar as another petition in the last two or 5409

Monday, 9 January, 1984 three weeks, if it was forwarded to my office in the last two or three wee ks, then clearly it was prior to the most recent proposal tha t was subm itted to this Legislature by the House Leader . Weir Report MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. I would like to direct my question to the Honourable Government House Leader. This, in particular, deals with his other activity as Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In his great profound urge to provide updates and the latest information to the Assembly I would ask the Minister if he has had any meetings with the Minister of Urban Affairs and the City of Winnipeg with respect to the recent Supreme Court decision on the ability of individuals to appeal their tax assessment in the City of Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Ye s, Mr. Spea ker.

In reply to the Member for Virden, I wish to advise him that the City of Winnipeg delegation met with a number of my colleagues this very morning and on the agenda at that meeting was the topic to which he refers. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs inform us whether he was at that meeting himself? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker , I apologize to the House if I did not make it clear that I, yes, was at the meeting and did participate in a discussion on the Supreme Court decision with respect to assessment.

I regret to inform the House that some memb ers still don' t appr eciate the sig nificance of goin g to the Supreme Court and getting those kinds of decisions thrust down our throat. MR. H. GRAHAM: A supplem entary question then to the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs in his role as Government House Leader . In view of his great concern and showing the wisdom of going to the Supreme Court, is he now prepared to withd raw the resolution that is before this House, unle ss . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A.

ANSTETT: I'm almost dumbfounded but not quite. I begin to understand when the Member for Virden asked the question originally that he appreciated that there was a problem with respect to assessment in the City of Winnipeg. As the Mem ber for Church ill, the Minister of Co-op Deve lopment says, I was too kind.

If the Member for Virden has any doubt in his mind about the dramatic and unfortunate impact that that Supreme Court decision with regard to the assessment freeze first introduced by his colleagues will have for the City of Winnipeg, I would recommend very strongly that he consult with members of the City Council and 5410 the Mayor, who were at that meeting this morning, mem bers in whose caucus, many of his present caucus colleagues sat until recent years. Mr. Speaker , I'm sure the lines of communication are still open. If he has any doubt, I would commend that discussion to his attention.

If he still has doubts, Mr. Speaker , I am prepared to table a copy of that Supreme Court deci sion tor his review. MR. H. GRAHAM: I apprecia te the offer of the Honourable Minister . Could the Honourable Minister indicate what decisive action his department is taking since the former Minister sat on the question for a year-an d-a-half? I realize that your time as Minister has been fairly short, but could he indicate to the House what advice he is offering to the City of Winnipeg and to the Minister of Urban Affairs when they carry on further conversat ions and meetings with the city? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Spea ker, obviously the details of the di scussions between my collea gues and representatives of the City of Winnipeg are privy to the meeting that we held . However, I'm cer tainly free to assure the honourab1e member that we shared with the city their concern about th(, ramifications of the decision which he apparently does not share, and we agreed to meet furthe r to look at methods for implementing a system of addressing those concerns. With regard, Mr.

Speaker , to the first half of his question, which relates to the Weir Repor1, the research group in my department has been working continuously, as they were under the direction of the former Minister , to do a complete implementation analysis and impact study of the implementation of the Weir Report. Some of the information required for that study is still being collected in the field.

I'm sure the member appreci ates the nature and time restraints associated with that, and I ex pect to be making re commenda ti ons to my colleagues in short order with regard to some fur1her work that will be necessary to smooth the way for assessment reform, which we all agree is required in this province. Mr. Speaker , one other point that I think should be made is that mem bers opposite I'm sure are aware that a major component of the Weir Recommendations was placed in legislation and passed through this House with virtually no comment from members opposite just this past summer. I refer of course, Mr.

Speaker , to Bill 10 5 at the last Session. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General. HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, on three or four occasions during the summer I unde rtook to table the study commissioned by my department and conduc ted by Wordsnorth with respect towards attitudes, !owards constitutional amendments, French Lanuage Services in Manitoba. I now table that as undertaken. Address for Papers and Orders for Returns MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Lead er.

Monday, 9 January, 1984 MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , just while the former House Leader is in the mood of divulging information that has been requested for some time now in this House, I wonder if I could ask the present Government House Leader , as there are some 14 or 15 Address for Papers and Orders for Returns outstanding from when last this House met, would it be the government's intention to provide them relatively soon? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, one of the duties I assumed upon appointment as Government House Leader was an imme diate review of the status of production of those documents and information, and I hope to be able to report to the House shortly with some of them. Others are taking a little longer to compile. Membe rs do appreciate that we cannot devote a great deal of staff time and energy to preparing the information, because I'm sure memb ers opposite don't want to see large costs associated with the production of this information.

It does take a little bit of time with regard to some of the very detailed requests, but all are proceed ing smoothly and will be supplied to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, to the Attorne y General. When he had made his undertaking last year, he undertook to provide at the same time the costs of this survey and the analysis. Could he advise us how much that was? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice, and I hope to be able to table that information shortly. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase.

The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY ADDRESS FOR PAPERS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur: THAT an humble add ress be voted to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba praying for copies of all correspondence from Forestry Branch personnel to persons, government agencies, government institutions or private countries concerning Wiesinger Systems Ltd. covering the period of January 1, 1981, until date of acceptance of this Add ress. MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader . HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Spea ker , we're prepared to accept the Order for this Add ress subject to the normal reservat ions which relate to corre spondenc e with particularly other government agencies where that correspondence originates from them. We would need their permission to provide th at information. I understand from the Minister involved, however , that he sees no problem related to meeting the request. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANS OM: On a point of ord er, if the Government House Leader will read care fully what I am asking for, it's copies of correspondence from Forestry Branch perso nnel , I'm not asking for copies of correspondence to personnel in the Forestry Branch. MOTION presented and carried. ORDER FOR RETURN - NO. 20 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGEFI: Mr. Spe aker , I'd like to move on behalf of the Honourable Mr. Lyon, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia: THAT an Order of the House do issue for the return of the following information: 1.

Has the government of Manitoba, or any of its boards, agencies, Crown corporations or agents, appointed, contracted with or retained the services of Jack Messer , the former Minister of Mine ral Resources in the NOP Governmen t of Saskatchewan, and/or David Dem bowsk i, the former President of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, either in their personal capacities or otherwise? 2. If the ans wer to question No. 1 is "yes," the date each such person was retained and the total amount paid or payable to each person for salary, expenses, etc. 3. For what purpose have Messrs.

Messer and Dombowski been re tained? 4. Have either Messrs. Messer or Dembowski travelled to China, Brazil or any other foreign country, or within Canada, pursuant to their retainer? 5. Has a contract of employment been signed between the Government of Manitoba or its boards, commissions or agencies, or any agent of the said government, with Messrs. Messer and Dombowski in any capacity and, if so, what are the terms and conditions of that contract? 6. Have Me ssrs.

Me sser and Dem bowski submitted any reports to any Minister of the Go vernment of Mani toba or any board, comm ission or agenc y, or agent of the Government of Manitoba and, if so, what are the contents of the reports? 7. Is it the intention of the Government of Manitoba to retain Messrs. Me sser and Dembowski for any further services and, if so, give details of what those services and travel requir ements will be and the total cost thereof? 5411

Monday, 9 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this Order for Return with certain reservat ions; specifical ly, the reports noted under Item No. 6 in the request may relate specifically to the competitive position of Manitoba corporations or other corporations and that information may be required to be confidential.

So we would have reservations about submitting the reports requested under No. 6 and similar reservations under No. 7 because of the expression of future intentions of the government or its consultants that might then be contained by providing that information. So, Mr. Spe aker, with the exception of Item 6 or 7, we are prepared to accept the Ord er. In fact, Mr. Spea ke r, we'r e prepar ed to go substantially further than what has been requested in the Ord er.

We are prepared to provide from date October 11 , 1977, a list of all boards, agencies and Crown Corporations who have appointed or contracted with or retained the services of any consultants with regard to the information requested by the honourable mem ber. So, Mr. Speaker , we will be prepared to provide all of the information requested in Items 1 to 5 with respect to all consultants from 1977 to the present. MOTION pres ented and car ri ed. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Government House Leader indicate the next item of business? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speak er, before you call the resolution and the amendment standing in my name at the top of Page 4, I would like to ask the House for leave to introduce for Second Reading Bill No. 11 5, which stands in my name, which was moved for First Reading this afternoon, however was distributed to members last Tuesd ay. MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted to the honourable member? - (Interjections) - Leave is not granted. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the amendment standing in the Leader of the Oppo sition's name at the top of Page 4 on the Order Paper .

ADJOURNED DEB ATE ON RESOLUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the reso lution moved by the Honour able Attorney-General and the amendment ther eto prop osed by the Honour able Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Honourable Leader of the Opp osition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to participate in the debate on the resolution and the amendments thereto that have been tabled by the Government House Leader .

I found it interesting on Friday when I rose to request the indulgence of the House to stand the resolution, or the amendments thereto, that members opposite were indulging in taunting and urging that I participate immediately and issue forth my remarks on the matter . I found it rather contradictory, because, of course, that wasn't their attitude in the past at all.

As a matter of fact, on December 12th, when I met initially with the Premier regarding this particular issue - and I might say that at that time it was presented at a meeting that was attended by the Member for Fort Garry, and the Government House Leader , the Premi er, and myself - we were presented with a proposal - I might indicate not in writing - a verbal proposal that was indicated to us was desired to be that way, verbally , not in writing, so that there could be some flexibility to the discussion.

I guess it was purposely so because the government at that time appeared to be desperately groping for some solution to the problem in which they'd placed thems elves; any way out of the maze that they had created, this self-inflicted conundrum that they'd put thems elves in. At that time, I agreed after the meeting that in courtesy I would take the proposal, which was vastly different from the proposal that had originally been put before the House in July of 1983, I had agreed that because of the changes that had been made to the overall proposal that I would in courtesy take that to my caucus.

Being a new leader , I wanted to ensure that on issues of such major import that the caucus had an opportunity before the public did to see the matter . It did involve, of course, the proposal to remove the French Language Services aspect of the resolution and put that in a bill, dropping and amending various other sections and so on. It did involve, however , at that time, what the Government House Leader referred to as the simple declar atory statement, 23. 1, that said that Eng lish and French are the official langua ges of Manitoba.

He said - and I think I use his words - he referred to it as a simple declaratory state ment, which was, I think in retrospect, a terribly shallow and naive interp retation on his part, because as I read the various presentations th at were made to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Mr. Forest, who has had some experience with taking proposals of this nature to the courts, suggested that was all that he needed in order to ensure that he had the kind of flexibility and expansion for ensuring that he got all the rights that he wanted out of French language usage in this province.

However, I think that being naive, the Government House Leader thought that he could solve all of the problems that had been created in the past, that he could achieve consensus where it hadn't been able to be achieved before by the former House Leader , by the Premi er, if indeed he was involved at all, that he could show the world, and, I suppose, more particularly his caucus that he was the constitutional expert, that he was the master of the Rules and Procedures of his House, and he would be the hero of the New Democratic Caucus in Manitoba.

Of course, I think we have some appreciation for his command of all the Rules and Procedures and all the knowledge of this House. He takes positions right o!f the cuff and stands as the authority on everyt hing. Last Friday morning, when the Mem ber for Elmwood brought a ques tion up about the procedure in referring bills to committee, in responding to the Mamber for 5412

Monday, 9 January, 1984 Elmwood, he said and I quote, "Part of that experience was his support in 1980 for a bill bearing the same title which was not referred" - which I find rather interesting - "to a standing committee at that time." HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker , on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker , yes. Mr.

Speaker , I had a note to rise during question period and failed to do so, and in view of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I feel that I should clarify that in accordance with the excellent tradition established by the Member for Sturgeon Creek last week, apologize to the House for incorrectly advising them the procedure followed with regard to Bill 2 in 1980. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will accept my apologies. I was in error , and I was referencing another bill in that same Session. MR. G. FllMON: Mr. Sp eaker , I accept the new information that the Government House Leader has put forward.

Indeed I am delighted that he did the research and did, in fact, determine, as he indicated to me later that day that, in fact, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments and did, in fact, have three representa tions before it. I'm delighted that he continues to pursue his interests, and he continues to be open to suggestion and amenable to knowing the correct information as req uired.

In any case, he faced us at that time; he faced me and as I say the Mem ber for Fort Garry during our discussion on the 12th of December with the suggestion that 23. 1, stating that English and French are the official langua ges of Manitoba, was a simple de clar atory state ment. I believe that he made that same statement to others, perhaps to the media, certainly to other groups that the government was meeting with on a regular basis in Decem ber.

Of course, he very quickly was told that such was not the case, that English and French are the official languages of Manitoba was not a simple declaratory statement as it was proposed to be; that, in fact, it was a major step beyond what exists today under

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act; that his legal counsel and various other lawyers who were asked to comment, and various other learned individuals indicated to him very strongly that particular statement was not merely restoring French rights in Manitoba, but a marked departure over existing rights. So, whatever , that is the sort of process that we've been going through.

In fairness, I took the matter to caucus and on December 14th, having had the proposal in my hands for less than 48 hours, we met for five or six hours, had some thorough di scussion and reje cted the proposal, and I think with a great deal of justification. At that time, the Government House Leader criticized the fact that we had not taken long enough to consider the proposal. He said that we had only met for a matter of hours, that we'd only had the proposal for less than 48 hours, and he criticized our rapid decision on the matter .

He said that we hadn't taken long enough to consider it, said it wasn't responsible for us to do that, Mr. Speaker . So that's why when this past week we were faced with a new proposal on Tuesday; with a legal opinion upon which the decision was to rest, the government's justification was to rest, on Thursday; Friday, members opposite in their typical irresponsible manner were cackling away and suggesting that I ought to be ready to go and fire away on Friday. So I just say to you, Mr. Spea ker, that they can't have it both ways. They can't have it both ways.

If they prefer to have it considered properl y, then let them give us the time to consider it properly . If they prefer to have it dealt with in what they consider a responsible manner , then it requi res the time that has been taken at this point in time to arrive at the determination and to arrive at a position to speak on the matter. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the government wants to put the new Opposition Leader on the spot.

I can unde rstand why they want the new Opposition Leader to be speaking on the amend ments very very quickly, to be up on his feet and stating a position, testing his mettle, so to speak, because they have a leader who it appears is not capable of doing precisely that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. SCOTT: We have a Leader . MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, the Member for lnkster says they have a Leader . I'd like to know which one of them it is, because we hav en't been able to find out at this point in time. There appears, from recent experience, to be various

interpretations of just who the Leader is on the other side. Some suggest Karl Marx; some have suggested the Member for Fort Rouge; others have sugges ted other alternatives. We'd like to know from the Member for lnkster just who the Leader is on the other side. In any case, Mr.

Speak er, to give you some example of just the quandary that I understand mem bers are in, the da y of the Lead ersh ip Co nvention of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, in fact, that evening, after the decision was taken by the convention, the iOth of Decem ber, in the midst of a celebration, I was handed, hand-delivered, a letter from the Premier.

A letter, in the midst of a gathering at one of the hotels in the city, this man made his way through a crowd and handed me a letter urgently requesting that I meet with the Premier in his office on Monday to discuss the French Language Services issue, and that's what was the referenced point in the letter and that was the only point that was at issue as far as the Premier was concerned, that I meet with him, urgent ly, on Monday, December 12th, to discuss the French Language Services issue.

So on Monday morning, having responded to the Premier in writing and suggesting to him that there were indeed other serious problems in this province that ought to be dealt with, and that if we were going to have the first meeting between the Premier and the Opposition Leader that it ought to include more topics than just this one, having stated that as the quid pro quo for the mee ting, the Premier agreed and he 5413

Monday, 9 January, 1984 accepted and said he would indeed meet later that afternoon with me. Well, he had his principal secretary call me and suggest that he wanted to make the arrangements, and he, at that time, proposed that the Premier wanted to have the Government House Leader with him when he met and, of course, you can well understand that I questioned that. I suggested that if we were going to meet, it ought to be Leader and Leader , that there didn't need to be anybody else present for the meeting, but they pressed the matter.

The principal secretary pressed the matter, sayi ng, no, it wasn't possible for the Premier to meet with me by himself, that he had to have the Government House Leader with him. Why? We ll, I said, couldn't the Premier explain to me the proposal himself? Could he not tell me what was in the government's mind? Could he not tell me what this new initiative was? No, he wasn't able to do that, they said. He had to have the Government House Leader do that. I said, why? Well, they said that the Government House Leader was expert in the rules and procedures and it was the process that was really complicated.

That's wha t was at stake, Mr. Sp eaker , that the Government House Leader had to be there because he under stood the process.

Wel l, I said, fine, if it has to be so, and I don't understand that, but if it has to be so, then I would like to have one of our caucus with me and the Member for Fort Garry was available and so he did attend with me on that and it's a good thing he did, because later on - and I'll refer to that - the Government House Leader in speaking to the media about just what was discussed, suggested that he had presented us with the very same proposal that appeared in writing later that week on the 15th of Decem ber.

That was wrong and I'll explain that a little further later , but you know, just as an aside, I find it very very odd and interesting that the Premier didn't understand the new proposal well enough to be able to explain the process and all the differences and nuances to me. I later found out, Mr. Speaker , that the reason he didn't understand it was that he hadn't even been at the caucus meeting at which it had been agreed to the previous Friday. He hadn't even been in attendance at that caucus meeting.

I can und erstand and apprecia te why membe rs opposite are so anxious to put me on the spot, to see whether or not I can deal with this proposal, and am prepared to deal with it because . . . HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Spe aker , on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The Honourable First Minister on a point of ord er. HON. H. PAWLEY: Maybe I should correct the Leader of the Opposition on a misrepr esenta tion in this House. I was present at the caucus meeting of December 9th. The source of the member's information is incorrect. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Spea ker, I'll accept that. There must be other reaso ns why the Premier didn't under stand the proposal well enough to . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker , that's the situation we're faced with, is that members opposite have a Leader , and a Premi er, who either is unsure of the process or unsure of the content of the proposals th at his Government House Leader is making with respect to this very important issue, or just simply doesn't care enough about it to be able to fully understand it and explain it to someone else. So to look at the issue as we face it today, Mr.

Speaker, I think that we have to first understand how we arrived at this point. That takes us back a considerable length of time and I apologize right from the beginning to members for having to go through all the the various steps and to take us back to late last spring to the point at which this arrived before us in the House, but I think it's important enough that it has to be done. I see members are becoming uncomfortable right from the beginning, members opposite. This, Mr.

Speaker , is important because we have to know how we got to this point and what were the various steps we followed, and what hoops did we have to jump through, and what ere the things that brought us to here. Let's look firstly at the justification that was used by the Attorney-General in introducing this whole res olution to the Legislature. I'll acknowledge that it was in the words of the new Gover nmen t House Leader. "a substantially different proposal." But let's look at the main rationale for any proposal to amend

Section 23 having been introduced to the House, because this is indeed a proposal to entrench in the Constitution of Canada an amendment to

Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, which has serious long-term consequences for our province. It was, Mr. Speaker , to avoid the potentially disasterous effects of the Bilodeau case in the Supreme Court which, in the words of the Attorney-General I think, would have all Manitoba's laws which were not enacted in both English and French be declared invalid. That was the possible disasterous consequence. I will quote the Attorney-General so I'm not accused of misleading anyone from page 4058, of Hansard, of Monday, July 4th.

He said "Dealing with the question of invalidity, that is, what would be the likelihood and the outcome if, indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada found that because of our failure to observe our own constitutions, the laws which had been passed in one language only were invalid, both Professor Gibson and Mr. Twaddle said, well, that's possible; they didn't feel that it was likel y, but it was possible. "Sir, I felt that was not a risk that I as the Attorney Gener al of this province had the right to take." So that was what was said in introducing it. We ll, Mr.

Speaker , I have to say that as we look at this matter we have to ask the question which I think was asked at that time. Who had given them the right? Was it an elect to enter into such a serious long-term issue on behalf of the people of Manitoba? Was it an election issue in 1981? No it was never heard of. This from a government that said it would listen, consult, that it would have an open-door policy. That's not an open-mind policy but an open-door policy. Wouldn't you have thought, Mr. Speak er, that in a matter that is so important as one that is the first 5414

Monday, 9 January, 1984 constitutional amendment proposed by a province since our Constitution was patriated to Canada, that on a matter that so seriously affected the fundamental rights and responsibilities of all Manitobans in future, that it should have been the subject of broad consultation, that public hearings should have been held to ask Manitobans what they thought was required in the way of expanded French language rights?

Because, it isn't an issue of protect ion of existing French language rights - let's put that on the table immedia tely - it's an issue of the expansion or extension of French language rights. Wouldn't you think that they would have wanted to arrive at some broad framework or consensus within which to work and then sit down with the people that they had to deal with in order to effect their agreement with the Society Franco -Manitob aine, the Federal Government, and Mr. Bilodeau?

Wouldn't you think that they would have sat down with them , knowing what the consensus and framework upon which they were operating was? Wouldn't you think that they would have those parameters in place before they sat down to negotiate? Instead they didn't consult, they didn't let people know what they were thinking, or what they were doing. Instead they sat down with these parties to the action, the SFM, Mr.

Bilodeau, and the Federal Government, behind closed doors and they arrived at an agreement, not with respect to the protection o! existing French language rights in Manitoba, but with respect to the extension of French language rights in Manitoba. I suggest to you, Mr. Speak er, that if you're dealing with extension of rights of any minority group in this province beyo nd what exists today at the expense of, and I don't mean expense in terms of cost . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, on a point of order.

The Leader of the Opposition, as the Member for Minnedosa did the other day, I have yet to check Hansard, has made a serious allegation which I must point out immed iately . That is that I, or anyone else, sat down behind closed doors with representatives for the Federal Government and negotiated some deal. Mr.

Speak er, for a period of how many ever months it was, approximately 18 months, every single meeting was held in the office of the Attorney-General for Manitoba with the Ch ief Legislative Counsel for the Province of Manitoba, the Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy Minister , the French language consultant, Mr. Turenne, appo inted by the Co nse rvat ives, and sometimes representativ es from the SFM. At no single meeting was there ever a representative of the Federal Government. This was from start to beginning a made in-Manitoba solution.

That kind of statement ought not be made by the Leader of the Opposition, who I take to be a principled and responsible person, and I would ask that he withd raw it, because he hasn't got a single basis for making that statement, and knowing that he doesn't, he ought to withdraw it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I thank the Honourable Attorney-General for that explanation. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I'll accept the word of the Attorney-General on that I'll ask him at some point, as I arrive at the quotation that I'll attribute to him from Hansard with respect to the various parties that he refers lo to the agreem ent. I'll ask him who represented the Federal Government or how the y were involved in the determination of their position on the agreement. Perhaps he'd like to put that on the reco rd, but I'll put on the record what he said about the parties who were party to the agreement. Mr.

Speak er, in any case as I return to the point that I'm making, and I apologize if the repetition of this information is falling on sensitive ears on members of the government side, but in any case, there has been, and I appreciate the effort of the Attorne y-General to try and clear up any misinformation because I think that we ought to be dealing with fact, and if any misinformation is coming from members on our side.

I have to say that th ere was a good de al of mis informa tion thr oughout the piece, th at in presentat ions to committee government pamphlets were quoted with statements that were not factually correct. Statements of members on the other side were quoted that were proven to be factually incorrect. So I'll go through that and if the Attorney-Genera! wants to assist in the process by correc ting anything I say that wasn't quite factually correct, I'll be glad to have his contribution at any time.

Carrying on with the misinformation, and we'll go back just a few days ago - in fact, back to last Thursday and Friday - when in response to statements that were made perhaps by the Member for Minnedosa, perhaps by others, about the fact that the government initially was unwilling to enter into a full scale public hearing on the matter , to refer the matter to a sta nding committee of the Legislature at which time members would have an opportunity to appear before the committee and members of the public would have an op portunity to make th ese repr esenta tions, the members opposite objected to the fact, it was said that they were dragged kicking and screaming into that process.

They said that they had always been willing to go to public hearings, to have the matter considered in full public view.

They said that was untrue, that the Member for Minnedosa and others who made that statement should not have made it, that they had always been willing to have that full scale of public hearings before a standing committee of the Legislature and so on; that they were not forced by opposition pressure, that they were not dragged kicking and scream ing into the process after eight weeks of bitter acrimonious debate, perhaps the most divisive and acrimonious session that this Legislature has ever seen. They said that was not true.

We ll, now I would li ke to quo te from various exchanges that occurred in the Legislature in June of this past year, Friday, June 17, 1983, Page 3770. This is in part a question from the then Opposition Lead er, the Member for Charleswood, and he is addressing his question to the Premier: "I would commend to him the suggestion that the House meet intersess ionally with respect to these constitutional matters, so that there may be sufficient time given by all members of 5415

Monday, 9 January, 1984 the Ho use to he aring the people of Mani toba, particularly on the matter of bilingualism." The response from the Premier is as follows: "Mr. Speak er, no. This is a matter that will be dealt with not on an intersesess ional basis, but as a consequence of the kinds of meetings that have been outlined by the Attorney-General to deal with information. The meetings are caused as a result ol the necessity for resolution of certain matters pertaining to a court case.

It's not an instance where we could fairly say that intersessional committee meetings could change the nature of the agreement that has veen arrived at." Now, the hearings that were announced by the Attorney-General that day were merely informational meetings and they were described as such, and that there would not be an opportunity for discourse back and forth for unlimited public presentat ions as should occur in meeti ngs of standing commit tees of the Legislature or any of those matters. They were just simply informational meetings at which the government position would be explained.

Limited questions might be asked depending on the agreement of the Chair at those mee tings, but they would be a very limited process. That's in fact what was carried out and members opposite will recall that inde ed happening. Further, did they want to have the matter dealt with at all in a public sense? Did they want to have the matter dealt with in the sense of people being able to make suggestions, recommendations, amendments? Did they want that process to occur at all? Mem bers opposite said, oh, yes, they've always wanted to be open and to consider everybody .

Did they want to do that or did they really want us merely to rubber-stamp their agreement? We ll, let's take a look a little further at what is said on the record on Friday, June 17th, Page 377 1. And now the question is being asked again by the Member for Charleswood, and I quote, "Is the First Minister indicating that the mind of the government is not made up on this matter and that the government is prepared to be flexible and to listen, or is he saying that the government is going to go out and propagandize its point of view, and to hell with the people of Manitoba, we' ll pass it anyway?

Is that what he's saying?" That was the question. Now here's what the response was from the Attorney General. It was addressed to the Premi er, but it's from the Attorney -General. "So what I'm saying is this, that, yes, the hearings will invite comments obviously. That's what they are there for." Then he goes on further to talk about whether or not it's a public relations exercise. He says: "Because it is open for us to do one thing, but one thing only, that is to reject the agreement completely . It is not possible at this stage because the case in the Supreme Court merely stands adjourned.

It is not possible for us to take an agreement that involves tour, five parties and unilaterally start playing around textually with the agreeme nt." At that time, although they are now saying that they were always willing to change an amendment, at that time it could not be changed. That was the position, that they could not change it. So, Mr. Speaker , now we know precisely whether or not they intended to have full public hearings on the matter .

In fact, I guess another good source of that particular information is because they are fond of sen ding me copies of Free Press Editorials, I'll read from a Free Press Editorial that addresses this issue as well. It's dated August 16th. It's title is: "At last they will listen." It says: "Attorne y-General Roland Penner and his caucus and Cabin et coll eagues withstood a month of all-out paliamentary warfare from the Conse rvative opposition, def ending Mr. Penner's timetable for ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment.

They took a number of casualties, the most serious being the damage to their record as a government that wants to listen to ordinary Manitobans and incorporate their views into provincial policy. "But the casualities were in vain. The timetable has been torn up. It has become day by day more implausible since the government was unable to get the reso lution out of the Legislature, past the Conser vative filibuster and into the committee. Now, Mr. Penner has agreed to a recess of the Session which will allow the committee to hold hearings in eight places in the province, perhaps into October .

"The Attorney-General is pleased because the committee will report back, techni cally, to Part Two of the same Session of the Legislature and not to a new Ses sion." That's what they gained. That was the victory. Finally it says: "The mood of the committee hearings would have been helped ii the government had chose n that system of its own accord, going forth cheerfu lly to meet Manitobans, hear their views and exchange ideas with them. Since Mr.

Penner and his colleagues have been bludgeoned into this procedure, people turning up at the hearings may wonder how eager the government is to hear them, how open it is to adopting good ideas that are presented to the comm ittee and whether they are wasting their breath." Was the Free Press editorial staff looking into a crystal ball? Because when you look at the page-and-a-quarter report that came out of that committee hearing, you have to wonder whether or not the Free Press predicted exactly what happened. In any case, Mr. Spe aker, the public hearings began in September of 1983.

The government introduced certain amendments, one of which stated,

Section 23. 1, "English and French are the official languages of Manitoba as provided for by in

Section 23 and Sections 23.2 to 23.9 inclusive." Now, this amendment, as I under stand it, was unacceptable to certain parties, and so that was never proceeded with and never, in fact, discussed to any length in the committee or later . In fact, most of those September 6th amendments appear to have received short shrift by the government. Then the public were heard, and my, were they heard! Almost 400 briefs were made to that committee, almost 400.

They represented tens of thousands of Manitobans on an official basis. - (Interjection) - We ll, the Attorney-General states that 70 percent of the briefs were in favour of the government's position, and he declines to tell you that almost 10 0 of those brie fs were people who just simply stood up and stated that they were in favour of the government's position without - (Interjection) - I happen to have copies of Hansard as well does the Member for lnkster , only I have the advantage of being able to read Hansard. Mr.

Speak er, there were many well-reasoned, well-researched, well presented brie fs that came before that committee. They put in a great deal of thought and a great deal of effort. 5416

Monday, 9 January, 1984 They were concerned citizens who made presenta tions to that committee. As well, of course, we had the plebis cite that occurred during th at period of time. Of course, both the presenta tions before the committee and the plebis cites have been dismissed out of hand by members opposite. They continue to be dismissed as being not relevant and not valid to the case.

People instead prefer to (Interjection) people instead on the government side prefer to attribute it all to an anti-French sentiment, to the fact that people were painted as bigots, the people were politically motivated, that people were misinformed. The Attorney -General, as recently as the first week of December in British Columbia on the Jack Webster open-line show, made references to his dismissal of the results of everyth ing that occurred during that period of time, the period of September and October when the commit tee he arings occurr ed and when the plebi scites were taken throughout Manitoba.

Here's a question that was posed to him by Jack Webster , the host of the open-line talk show: "Many people in the West were, I think, kind of surprised when a massive plebiscite was held in the City of Winnipeg and some surrounding municipalities and the people voted totally and absolute ly, 76 percent to 80 percent, against bilingualism in Manitoba." Is that not correct? Penner: "Yes.

They voted against what they thought was being proposed by the government, namely a forced req uirement on them to speak French - that was one of the gut issues to which they react ed, but ess entially of course was not our program." We ll, that's what he says. He dismisses it. He says further on the same topic: It was a simple, it was a sensible, it was an honourable deal, but it was misunde rstood.

So the question comes back to him from the host, "And that was why the pleb iscite was taken?" "Yes, because your deal was misunderstood?" "It certainly was." So he dismisses it totally as being a misunders tanding of the deal. That's why all of those things happened; that's why people reacted; that's why the plebi scite results were as they were. He says further, Mr. Speak er, and I quote again Mr.

Penner on that particular program: "It's the opposition which has pounced upon this issue like a tiger sensing game and has torn the pie ces and thrown them in the public arena in an unconscionable way." That's what he says is the whole rationale behind the public opinion as exp ressed before the com mittee and the results of the ple biscites. Again, here's what he says about why the pleb iscites were as they were and why the public response was as it was before the committee.

Question: "What's all the fuss about?" Penner: "The fuss is about people who lost an election and would like to win it back on any basis in my view." Simple isn't it?

It has nothing to do with this French language proposal, it has to do with winning and losing an elec tion. - (Interjection) - He goes on in that particular exchange to say "Well, there's a frig htening aspect, the ease with which people's gut fe elings about minority rights or language rights are being manipulated to be quite blunt, and they sense this about French-Ca nadians." Now, that's what he's saying, is that it was a whole manipulation of public opinion, that this was because the question that was put before people was the wrong question, that people misunderstood it.

He says that 200,000 or almost 200,000 Manitobans who voted in the pleb iscites, their opinions are invalid because the proposal was misunderstood. We ll, Mr. Spe aker, Winston Churchill said, "Trust the people," and we trust the people on all issues, but the Attorney-General does not trust the people. He says that the people were misled, and they misunderstood, and that's why they voted as they did in the plebiscites. So let's look at the pleb iscites and the questions that were asked. Look at the question that was asked in the City of Winnipeg.

The question was "Should the Provincial Government with dr aw its prop osed constitutional amendment and allow the Bilo deau case to proceed to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the validity of the English-only laws passed by the Legislature of Manitoba since 1890?" Now, is that misleading? Does that provide any misinformation? I don't think so. In fact, I think that was very carefully worded. So much so that it was worded in a way that it wouldn't conjure up any reflex bigoted, anti-French feelings, any racial biases.

I think that was put in probably the most careful manner it possible could. There were many who suggested - I think the Member for Elmwood - that it was too charitable, that it gave the advantage to the government in placing the question in those words. Despite that, almost 76 percent of Winnipeggers who voted on that issue said (Interjec tion) - 76.5 according to the Member for Elmwood said that they did not agree with the government's proposed course of action on this matter.

Here's a question that was asked by most of the municipalities outside of the City of Winnipeg who had the question on their ballot in October of 1983, and it said: "Do you favour the proposal by the Government of Manitoba to amend our Constitution to make English and French the official languages of Manitoba and to entrench in our Constitution the right to receive services in French as well as in English from designa ted offices of Provincial Government departments, boards, and agencies?" I bel ieve at that time that was the proposal that was before the Legislature and the committee. HON. FI.

PENNER: Validation of statutes. He's completely missing the matter . MR. G. FILMON: We ll, the Attorney-General says that the validation of statutes was completely missing and so he says, therefore, that this question was invalid. But I suggest again th at th at que stion has no misinformation in it, that it is factually and textually correct, and that the people of Manitoba said - in numbers exceed ing 80 percent of those who voted - that they would not like the Government of Manitoba to proceed with the proposal that was currently before the Legislature.

The Attorney-General at that time said that they would not necessar ily be moved or influenc ed by the pleb iscites. That the y, as a govern ment, were committed to do what they felt was right on the issue and despite -(Interjection)- Ye s, this is a government that listens; this is a government of the people; this is a government 5417

Monday, 9 January, 1984 that consults - they would still move forward on the proposal to amend the Constitution with respect to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. - (Interject ion) - We ll, the Member for Thompson refers to minority rights. Let's then bring this a little further and talk about what people said at the committee and let's find out who these people were. Were they anti-French? Were th ey prejud iced people? We re th ey people who appe ared before the committee because they had biases against minorities in this province? Wel l, let's start with Sid Green. Let's ask the members opposite whether or not they classily Sid Green as a bigot. Would they say that he's an individual who does not want to protect individual rights?

He, above all, in my estimation, from having seen him in action in this House, would be classified as a civil libertarian, as one who has always spoken out strongly on behalf of the protect ion of individual rights and liberties. I would say that that was the cornerstone of his arguments in so many different issues.

Philosophically, he certai nly is probably closer to the New Democratic Party than to any other organized political party - if they can be called an organized poli tic al party - cert ainl y he's cl oser to the New Democratic Party in philosophy than other existing political party in this province, but . . . MR. H. ENNS: He even has some recent identification with them. MR. G. FILMON: Some recent identification. I'm trying to think of what it was.

Perhaps the fact that he was a member of the Cabinet in the last NOP administration, the fact that he sat as a New Democratic Member of this House for something like a dozen years or more, the fact that he was a leadership candidate, I bel ieve, at one time for the Provincial New Democratic Party, so I think that he could be connected with this New Democratic Party in some way. In fact, I think he even ran as a national vice president of the New Democratic Party, so cert ainly he could have been connected in the past in many ways, even philosophically, with the New Democratic Party. Mr.

Speake r, what was his principal premise when he appeared before the committee? Was it one of the destruct ion of minority rights, the destruct ion of individual rights? Was that what he was after? Was he after the topic that we should destroy any agreements that we have in our province in favour of better agreements? No, the principal premise, as I read his presentat ion, was that a deal is a deal, and he made the point that French language rights were entrenched in The Manitoba Act of 1870, and consequently in our Constitution.

And he made the point that they exist on an entr enc hed basis for the best interests of all Manitobans, whether they be English or French or of other origins. That's why they exist. That was the point he made and he said that in his view a deal was a deal and that was what we ought to be talking about, not saying that we're going to change deals retroa ctively .

I'll just give a brief quote with respect to that particular area of discussion that he adopted, and he said, "So if there are people in the Province of Manitoba who are inter ested in retai ning 23 and if there is a 'Retain 23 Group', I wish to associate with all of those who wish to retain 23. I am very much in favour of it and I adopt the language of the Attorney-General. In 1870 we made a deal and I belie ve in keeping the deal and the deal was 23 and I don't know why a government is now trying to change that deal and undo what we said at that time," That was his position on it.

He went on to tell what successive governments were doing in a concrete, legiti mate and well-intentioned sense to protect the rights of French-spe aking Manitobans and to protect the rights of all Manitobans to speak French in this province and to give meaning to not only the letter of the law, but to the spirit and the intent of the law, by providing opportunities for Manitobans of all origins to participate in the use of the French language in Manitoba, where reasoned and where practical and wher e called for under our Constitution, and beyond that because he, like our government, the government of which I was proud to be a part during the Lyon administration, bel ieved that we not only had a commitment to protect ion of the rights, as they were laid down in The Manitoba Act of 1870, and as the Supreme Court decision in the Forest case said so, but that we had to give living meaning to the spirit and the intent of it, rather than come forth with some constitutional court-imposed impractical and maybe even unr ea sonable impe rative th at this government was now embarked upon at that time, as it appeared before the Standing Committee of the Legislature.

In

summary, he gave examples. He gave examples of his own commitment to bilingualism, to having become fluent in the French language - that is, Mr. Green - that of his fam ily, having taken French Immersion programs, of his commitment to the federal bilingualism as a member of the New Democratic Party, at a time when it wasn't popular in that party to be committed to federal bilingualism, he indicated of his commitment at that time.

He indicated about the inclusion of the rights of Franco-Manitobans under The City of Winnipeg Act, Under the development and the su ccessive expansion of French Immersion Programs in the '70's, not only under the Sch reyer administration, but under the Lyon administration, and he referred to the fact that this legislation was put in place, not only for the benefit of Franco-Manitobans, but all Manitobans. He referred to the fact, Mr.

Speak er, that in Swan River , French Immersion Programs were put in place because of the initia tive of Engl ish- speak ing Manitobans, who wanted them to be available for their use and for their benefit and for their opportunity, and that is true. He made the point, Mr. Speak er, and I think that it's one that should be repeated - that no constitutional imperative nor any government legislation was of any ultimate value unless it had the good will of the government in power, assuring that it would be protected and would be implemented, both to the letter and the spirit of the law.

That's the point that he was making and he referred to the fact that the Attorney General had taken gleeful delight in this House in pointing out what things were being done by the former government of the Lyon adminstration. He read memos from our administration that showed that we were doing, not only what the Constitution of 1870 required of us with respect to the translation of Statutes and so on, but that we were putting into effect many programs 5418

Monday, 9 January, 1984 beyond that, that we were proce eding to provide additional opportunities - and I want that word to be remembered - opportunities by way of policy decisions, opportunities for people to utilize the French language in a public sense in Manitoba in a variety of different ways. The thrust of what he was saying was that our government was going beyond that in terms of providing these opportunities without benefit of legislation, without benefit of cons titutional amendment; and this government seemed to be apologetic about its intrusion on the French Language issue.

He read a letter from the Premier to various municipalities and the other letters from the Premier to various critics of what was happening, and the letters of the Premier appeared to be almost apologetic, saying that this was not really bilingualism, in contradiction to wha t was being sa id, incide ntally , by his own members in the House in debate because the Member for Radiss on, now the Min ister of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health, had said, that we are a bilingual province.

He had said so in this Legislature, but the Premier apologetically was saying in his letters to the various critics of his proposal that we were not a bilingual province, that we were not proceed ing in the same way as others who had encounted on this. It rem inded me, Mr. Sp eak er, as he spoke apologetic ally, of a discussion that I had with the Clerk of the Executive Council, Mr. Deeter, at a social gather of this Assemb ly, of mem bers of this Assemb ly. Back in December of 1982, I had a discussion with Mr.

Deeter and I asked him about the policy that had been put in place by our administration whereby members of the Legislature were given the opportunity, or would be given the opportun ity, to learn French if they so desired. That was a policy that one of our members had already been taking advantage of, and that is, the Member for Niakwa. He had, through the graces and the cou rtesies of the Federal Go vernment, an arrangement made by the Provincial Government, had been taking French Immersion, had been taking some training to become more fluent in the French language. I had asked Mr.

Deeter back in December of 1982 whether or not the Pawley governmen t would be carrying on with that policy because I had some interest in taking French on an immersion basis. I felt that it was something that would be advantageous; I had felt from my experience as a Minister previously in federal provincial meetings that it would be advantageous to have some greater understanding and fluency in French in dealing with members of Cabinet in Quebec, in dealing with some of their senior advisers, in discussing policy matters, it would probably be advantageous for me to have that kind of flue ncy.

I wanted to have that fluenc y so that when we return to government after the next election that I would have a greater advantage in dealing with perhaps Federal Civil Servants, or Quebec Civil Servants, or senior Ministers in those governments by being able to speak with them in their language.

That was one of the thoughts that I had , and that was an opportunity that I was wanting to embark on, saying nothing of the fact that I have two children who, again by choice, have taken advantage of the opportunity that was provided for them by our go vernment and taken French imme rsion training and are relatively fluent in the language. I just thought that would be an important thing and an advantage, and I spoke to Mr. Deeter at that time.

At that point in time he could not give me any assurance that the government was going to be carrying on with that, that this government was going to be providing !or that kind of opportunity for members ol the Legislature.

I don't understand it, because here they are talking about constitutional impera tives that will see court imposed solutions on the limit to which we will provide French Language Services in this province, but they are not willing, by policy, to implement the very things that would give living meaning to their commitment to additional French language services and additional French language opportunities in this province - (Interjection) - a double standard, a contradiction in terms, Mr. Speaker, and I don't under stand it. I don't know whether or not the Premier understands that. I hope he does, but instead, Mr.

Speak er, here we have a proposal that involves divisiveness and acrimony, convulsion of an entire province, yet are not even proceed ing with what they can do by So it seems to me to be symbolism without any commitment. I don't know whether the Premier is even interested in this or whether he cares about the significance of that, but I think a good deal should be read into the meaning of that very contradiction in terms.

I don't know whether he really wants to do anything more than just read the speeches that are being prepared for him by his French language secretariat - (Interject ion) - which we es tablished, and give lip service to a commitment to the various groups who he is dealing with on this particular matter , at the same time writing apologetic letters to municipalities and other critics saying that this isn't really an extension of French language rights and so on.

I don't know whether he bel ieves, like the Attorney-Genera! does, that the public response and the public position on this matter is based on simply misinformation, on misunde rstanding. So, let's take a look, as I said earl ier, at who's re sponsible for the misinformation on this matter , because I agree that there has been a good deal of misinformation on all sides and from all quarters and it continues on this issue, and that's why I thank the Attorney-General for having corrected me technically in the statement that I made earl ier.

B· ;t let's take a look at the evidence that was provided about the misinformation, and some of the best evidence of that was presented before the committee by Messrs. Green and Schulz, both I think familiar to mem bers opposite. Here we have, Mr. Speaker , the position placed on the record by Mr. Green when he came before the committee.

The first thing he did, of course, was he referred to the information that was being provided in the material that was being published, and you recall that of course, during the summer, the reams and reams of folders and brochures, full colour, question and answer, all of the advertising material and the PR that was being put out by this goverment to try and explain what they were doing on this issue. If you look at the material, Mr.

Speak er, which it bothers me to look at every time I see it because I paid for it, there is no government that has used a public purse more to pursue its political position than this administration. Of course, he goes on to say, as he has before, that this is the 5419

Monday, 9 January, 1984 most inept and incompetent administration that the government has ever seen, and I'm quoting Mr. Green on that matter , not myself. So, he then refers to the literature specifically and he refers to what he calls the falsehoods in this material. He's talking about a brochure that was published by the government this summer. It says: "This limited agreement applies to only limited, designated areas of the province which have a significant Francophone population," and he says that is false, Mr. Speake r.

It has nothing to do with the Francophone population, it has to do with !he people demanding services in the French language, they need not be Francophone, they could be Anglophones. He says next, Mr. Speaker, the program does not involve or affect any individual, any business, or any private institution whatsoever .

He goes on to tell you that many people act as agents for the government and therefore they immedia tely become involved even though they are private ind ivid uals or busine sses because they are agents for the government with respect to collecting sales tax, or with respect to collecting gasoline tax, and all of those kinds of things. He goes on and he said, that is a second falsehood tha t was right in the government's do cu mented literature that was sent out. - (Interjection) Then he says, the agreement will result in an overall cost saving to the province and then he says, that is false, Mr. Speaker .

Nobody can make that state ment because you do not know what the implications of the legislation are, ther efore you do not know what the cost will be. He goes on and on to find various other false assert ions in the article. Then, Mr. Sp eaker , sinc e we' re speaking about falsehoods - and the Member for Radisson is chirping away from his seat - so I'll refer to him from this because here's a quote that refers to him.

We have Gerard Lecuyer a government MLA tel ling the Manitoba Legislature that this amendment "simply establishes what was originally intended, no more, no less," and that of course is a falseh ood. It was a falsehood as it applied to that proposal that was before us at that time and it's a falsehood today, Mr. Spea ker. We ha ve New Democratic Party literature, Mr. Speaker .

Quoting an editorial from the Vancouver Sun which critic izes the oppo ne nts of the prop osed constitutional amend ment because, "They fail to acknowledge the fact that the province has depr ived its French-speaking minority for almost a century and is now being offered the chance to redress this wrong." That's false, Mr. Spe aker , because that wrong was redressed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Forest case; and in 1980 under the Lyon administration that wrong began to be redressed and all of those things flowed from it, various things flowed from it, Mr. Speaker . Mr.

Speak er, if we are talking about falsehoods and misinf ormation we have to understand th at those falsehoods and misinformation have been coming from all sides of this issue. As much as can be attributed to the various people who appeared before committees and made presentations, have taken out ads and all of those things, and the misinformation can be pointed to, so can misinformation on the government side be identified very readi ly. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker , is it any wonder that all of this misinformation, all of these falsehoods, led to the kinds of articles that were written in newspapers, the editorial positions that were taken, even indeed to statements in the House of Commons by leaders of all three parties that were based on false information th at was put out by this government, by membe rs of this government. Mr.

Speak er, here we have right out of an editorial, The Winnipeg Free Press of October 4th, 1983, "The constitutional amendment restores the right of English speaking Manitobans and French-speaking Manitobans equally to read the laws of the province in their own languages." Not so, not so, Mr. Speak er, that was restored in 1980. Mr. Speaker , so all of these people based their arguments and their positions on false assertions made my members opposite. They said th at the Constitut ional Resolution represented a restoration of French language rights in this province, Mr.

Speaker , and it seems to me that if the premise upon which the assertion or the conclusion is arrived at is false, how can that conclusion, in fact, be truthful? How can that conclusion be able to be relied upon if it's based upon a false premise? That's in fact what we're dealing with in this whole issue, Mr. Speaker , because the Attorney-General, the new House Leader , the Premier - if he was involved in any of this and of course it's open to question whether he has been involv

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-156a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 156a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b333e638b753bfd9cabd81a1aaa206842ff391ad

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