Manitoba Hansard — 31 January 1984 (Sitting 172, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-172

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 172 - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 31 JANUAR Y, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Ouesns Prmter. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA 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, Q.C., 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, Cl.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCO TT, 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 Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere 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 ND P PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NOP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NOP ND P PC ND P PC NDP NOP NDP ND P

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 31 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 . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS Societe franco-manitobaine - official spokesman MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, I direct a question to the Honourable Government House Leader.

Can the House Leader confirm that he has made a statement to the effect at an informational meeting in his constituency and repectted to the general public via the news media that this Legislature passed a piece of legislation in 19 69 designating the Societe franco-manitobaine as being the official spokesman and the only party that any future government could deal with, with respect to Franco-Manitoban matters? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr.

Speak er, I cannot confirm that I said that the SFM was the only party that governments could deal with with regard to the Franco Manitoban community, but I can confirm that I did say that the SFM was incorporated by the Legislature of Manitoba at the first Session in 19 69 and is the spokesperson according to that bill for the Franco Manitoban community in Manitoba and is recognized, particularly with regard to political issues. In fact, it very specifically says that they will engage in and be and operate as a political organization in addition to the other activities that are condoned in the

preamble of that bill. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government House Leader whether he would not now want to take the opportunity to correct the actual statements made as taped on a radio station, where he states that the Weir Conservative Government passed a statute of the Legislature designating the Societe franco-manitobaine as the spokesperson for French people in Manitoba and that has been recognized by each succeeding government. We haven't had any choice; it's a statute passed by the Legislature of Manitoba.

I refer him specifically to Statute 26, which is the statute, essentially a change of name, change of title statute, setting out the broad interests of that society, but I would ask him if he would not now want to clear up that misinformation that he first uttered at a so called informational meeting, Mr. Speaker? HON. A. ANSTE TT: No, Mr. Speak er, I would not, because the quote the member first attributed to me was that I said that they were the sole organization and spokesperson and the government had to deal with them. Mr.

Speak er, de facto, they have been the only organization, that's why the government has dealt with them, and they were set up by that piece of legislation to which the member refers, and I would direct his attention to the

preamble therein which specifies the purpose as, "For the purpose of encouraging, promoting and furthering the economic, political, cultural and educational interests of the French-speaking population of Manitoba." Mr. Speak er, I would point out that the suggestion contained in the member's question that that was just a change of name is incorrect. The suggestion contained in the member's question that it was just a change in name is denied in the Hansard of the day when the Member for St. Johns of the day, Mr.

Cherniack, pointed out that two words had been added to the authority granted to this association and its change of name was quite substantive, in that sense, in that it had - and I quote from Page 11 12 of Hansard, dated April 9, 19 69 - ". . . that the purpose of the organization originally founded by legislation passed in 19 64 by the Roblin Government, but in existence since 1916 , existed in the sense of furthering education and culture; and I would think that it is in the interests of all groups to further their economic and political interests, if they are done well and they are done for the benefit of all the people of the province." That was further on a question he asked the member who had introduced the bill as to specifically what the change made in the bill, over the previous bill, implied, and that implication was, as the Honourable Minister of Health, then the Member for St.

Boniface, Liberal Member in the opposition at that time I think, quite possibly. "Now the times have changed; now they want to do a little more than that and they have, after carefully selecting delegates all over the province," etc., "and to take a very active

part in the affairs of our province." They specifically requested and received approval to become a political organization above and beyond being just an educational - (I nterjections) - above and beyond being ju st an educ ationa l and cultural organization. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I know that the honourable member's research is sufficient enough to know that he could also read from bills, on any number of private mem ber's bills such as the one th at set up the Mennonite Museum in Steinbach, that sets out the same kind of hopes and ambitions to further the culture and economic well-being of the Mennonite community but doesn't suggest they were the official spokesperson. MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. H. ENNS: But, Mr. Speak er, my question to the Minister is, and I ask him to just level with the people; 5790

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 you were trying to give out information at that meeting. In response to a question asked to him at that meeting that suggested that the SFM didn' t speak for that person, your response was - is this true or not? - "H owever, Anstett replied that the Weir Government in 19 69 passed a statute making the SFM the official spokesperson that any future government could deal with." Is that not what you said? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It is an improper use of the question period to ask a Minister to confirm something that appears in the newspaper or something else.

Perhaps the honourable mem ber wishes to rephrase his question. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, on a point of order. Part of the problem that we've had in this whole issue is getting out accu rate information. I ask the Honourable Government Services Minister if he also believes, as other spokesperson in his group have tried to tell the people of Manitoba, that the Lyon admin istration passed legislation making English and French the official lang uages of the Province of Manitoba, which is another lie? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable member did not have a point of order and he also knows that he is supposed to use parliamentary language at all times in this House. Health Sciences Centre - redevelopment program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Health and has to do with the 10 -year $13 8 million redevelopment program at the Health Sciences Centre, which was launched by the former Progressive Conse rvative Government of Manitoba in June of 19 79.

Given the fact that a few short months from now Phase I, the $75 million first phase, will be coming to a conclusion, can the Minister advise this House and the Province of Manitoba whether the $65 million second phase of that redevelopment program will go ahead as hoped for and as intended? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Cabinet is in the process of looking at the estimates, and during this exercise I will be bringing in my recommendation to Cabi net for the five-year capital project, as we do every year, and that will be announced as soon as possible once a decision has been made.

Increased funding - Klinic MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise the House whether or not he has received a request from Klinic, the community clinic on Broadway Avenue, for a substantial, additional increase in funding to take care of purported space difficulties on that community clinic site? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Yes, like most other facilities, they have requested more money. In this case, they would like money for a capital project also, and that also will have to be conside red in the five-year capital project. Th ere are many more also tha t will be considered at the same time.

Health care system - hospitals MR. l. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister advise the House to whether he has, in his own mind, priorized his approach to the pressures in the health system at the present time, and given the difficulties that, for example, the Health Sciences Centre is going through; given the difficulties in maintaining beds at an adequate level in operation in the Intensive Care Unit at the Health Sciences Centre; given the difficulties in attracting certain staff and retaining it, which have some fina ncial reasons and causes among other reasons and causes, will the emphasis in terms of the health care needs of Manitobans be priorized on the basis of what is needed at the Health Sciences Centre and the two major tertiary care hospitals in this community, to begin with?

HON. l. DESJARDIN� '.'.: Mr. Speaker, this is more than a question and you have to be very careful how you answer that question without necessarily agreeing with everything that was said before. Yes, of course, we are priorizing, and the department and myself, as usual, as any Minister of Health does or should do, will make recommendations. Now will we be successful? That's another matter and time alone will tell. As I say, we will make recommendations, as I know it's in a hurry. Accreditation of Ophthalmologists MR. L. SHERMAN: A final question, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister advise when the accreditation team from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons will be arriving in Winnipeg in the month of February, which beg ins tomorrow, to assess and evalu ate the ophthalmology unit at the Manitoba Medical College, for continued accreditation or a de-accreditation? HON. l. DESJARDINS: I don't know of the exact date, I've never been informed. I know, as I mentioned yesterday, that a committee has been named here and is working to looking at the situation to bring in the necessary changes if that is needed. Government funding - ARM Indu stries MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, I have a question for the Minister of Community Services and Corrections. Last August, the government made a grant of some $34 1, 000 to ARM Industries of Brandon, and since that time the government has essent ially taken over the operation of that organization in Brandon, and in her press release of December 16 th, the Minister promised that all outstanding bills would be paid. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that there are unpaid bills owing to ARM Indus tries that have been 5791

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 outstanding for many months or close to a year? Can the Min ister give some assurance to the House and to those people who are creditors, when those bills will be paid? A MEMBER: Pay the bills, Muriel. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, until December 31s t, the affairs of ARM were under the operation of a private board. Since then, the government has taken it over, ha s scheduled repayment of the debts and has un dertaken to pay all creditors.

If the re is any outstandi ng creditor whose bill has not been dealt with, I would appreciate receiving that information from the member opposite. Television film - withdrawal MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, a question to the Minister of Finance. Last night, a film entitled "E xcuse Me, but There's a Computer Asking for You" was shown on The Journal. In my view, Mr. Speaker - and I might say that film was made by the National Film Board and sponsored by the Department of National Revenue - in my view that film was an insensitive, insulting and arrogant presentation. Mr.

Speak er, the defence of that film offered by Mr. McDonald , the Deputy Minister of the Department of Revenue, and Mr. Howe, from the National Film Board, was a typical defence made by bureaucrats who don't understand the feelings of common people who are attempting to make a living despite bureaucracies. MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. B. RANSOM: My question to the Minister of Finance is, will he appeal to the Min ister of National Revenue to have that outrageous film withdrawn, the sole purpose of which seems to have been to prove that indeed Orw ell's 19 84 has arrived? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I should first take a good look at the film before I would undertake to say that I would contact the Federal Minister. Certainly, I'm not sure how such a film would, in any event, ach ieve anything. I take it the purpose of the film was to make people aware that they were required to pay their taxes. I don't know. If it was an insult to taxpayers, then clearly we wouldn't want it shown, although I would question how they would go about showing it to taxpayers in the first place. So, we'll take a look at it.

Brandon University Board of Governors - Vacancies MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I add ress my question to the Mini ster of Education. Presently how many vacancies are there on the University of Brandon Board of Governors? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are three that we are presently in the process of filling. MR. C. MANNESS: A supplementary, Mr.

Speak er, I'd ask how many people have been approached by the government to fill these positions and how many people have refused to take the position? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speak er, I'm not aware of any refusal. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I then ask the Minister, what has the government said to prospective board members that it may have approached re their personal liabilities should Dr. Perkins, the fired former president, bring a lawsuit against the university and its board of governors for wrongful dismissal? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speak er, I'm not sure that I am clear on the question, but if I am, we have not said anything to the present board members about their liabilities, legal liabilities. I think that we all know that this is a matter that is in the hands of members of the legal profession, that there is legal advice being given, and I assume that it will follow the normal and fair judicial process, which we do not intend to interfere with. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speak er, all well and fine, but I am wondering, certainly the government must have a position.

Prospective governors would naturally want to know their liability under this particular situation. Again I would ask the Minister to indicate what the department and the government is saying to prospective governors as to their potential liability? Obviously they have to know that. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I said that the Department of Education was not saying anything on tha t ma tter to respective mem bers or potential members of the board.

I think that, as I indicated before, this is before the members of the legal profession, but to my knowledge there has been no filing, there is no court case, there is no pending legal case, so I don't know on what basis the members opposite are raising this concern. Agricultural publications MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speak er, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I have received information, Mr.

Speaker, from a constituent that the Department of Agriculture are going to cease sending him out the weekly market report, which this constituent indicated to me was useful and informative as to the weekly market conditions of oil seeds and livestock. The last letter which was received there was an indication that due to government restraint that they would no longer 5792

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 be forwarding that letter to the farm community. Will he reconsider the decision of the Department of Economics branch, Mr. Speaker, to cancel that and continue on with it as it has been useful to the farm community? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and review the procedure in terms of that publication, but I believe that type of information is available on a daily basis in terms of the market news and the like. I want to check the honourable member's comments and provide him with the information.

Task force - motor transport industry MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Min ister of Highways and Transportation. Some time ago the Department of Highways had hearings into the regulations and deregulations of the highway transportation carrying-companies or system in the Province of Manitoba; and recommendations came from a former member of the government, or Deputy Minister, Bill Johnson, recommending that the farm community have the purple gas privi leges taken away from them and the truck licences could in fact go up as high as 800 percent.

Under his responsibility as the Minister of Highways and Transportation, will he assure the farm community that that will not happen, Mr. Speak er, that those privileges will be carried on under his term as Mini ster? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On October 21s t, the former Minister of Highways, Mr. Uskiw, made it very clear in a public statement that that was not part of the terms of reference of the task force.

It has been clearly stated, it's been stated publicly, even though perhaps members of the opposition are continuing to provide that kind of stimulus to the people out there and to get them concerned or worried about something that won't happen, this government has clearly stated that the matter of purple gas, as it applies to farm trucks, is not part of the considerations of the task force and that has been made clear and it stands as it is now. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Hi ghw ays confirm th at he is receiving , as we as members of the opposition are receiving, resolutions from the Union of Municipalities requesting that no changes be made? I think it's important that this be put to rest by him as a new Minister and I'm pleased that he's done that and I just want him to confirm that it's not us that's agitating this, Mr. Speak er, but confirm that he is receiving resolutions from municipal people which is a follow-through from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities' meeting in Brandon earlier this year. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Speake r, we're receiving correspondence from a number of groups who would be affected by any change in regulation in the trucking industry and municipalities have been one of those sending in resolutions. However we've made it as I said, and it was publicly stated clearly, that there were no changes with regard to purple fuel. The task force is reviewing the recommendations that came about as a result of the hearings that were held throughout Manitoba.

We will be receiving their report soon and reviewing that as well to decide on what action we will be taking in this very complex area that certainly needs addressing - and the opposition is quite aware of th at from the years previous and their involvement in the government - that it has to be add ressed. The report has not been received by myself as yet.

However, clearly, that area is not going to be affected and I think the honourable member can go about telling his constituents and municipalities in his constituency that that is the case and make sure that he's providing facts only and that there is no concern there with regard to purple fuel. Government policy - farmers' income MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Honourable Mi nister of Municipal Affairs.

I would like to ask the Honourable Minis ter of Municipal Affairs if it is the policy of the government to include old age pension as part of the income of farmers when it comes to the assessment of their farm buildings for taxation purposes? Is it the policy of the government to include old age pension as part of the income, off-farm income, to determine the eligibility for exemption or taxation purposes? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the nature of the question of the honourable member.

I would draw to his attention that this matter to which he alludes, and to which he alludes correctly, is not a matter of government policy. It is a matter of statute of the Province of Manitoba, first adopted by the House, I believe, in 18 92 and reconfirmed in 19 24, when a more specific statement with regard to chief source of income, was placed into The Municipal Assessment Act.

I would draw to the honourable member's attention the recommendation of the Weir Commission which proposes that all residences in the province be taxed and that the exemption to which he alludes being removed from pensioners, be removed from all farm residences in the province. I can tell the honourable member that that one recommendation alone is one of the ones which is requir ing signi ficant analysis and research by this government with a view to making some meaningful progress on assess me nt reform, but I thank the honourable member for the question. MR. H. GRAHAM: A supplementary question.

Can the Min ister tell me how much old age pension was paid in 18 92 and 19 24? 5793

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don't think the subject matter of that question is within the adminis trative competence of the government. The Honourable Mem ber for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: A further supplementary question then to the Honourable Minister. Since the Federal Government provides increased exemption from taxation for old age pensioners, would the Provincial Government consider doin g the same, provi din g increased exemption when it comes to the assessment of farmers' property, for the consideration of whether or not their farm buildings are taxable?

Would he give the same consideration to the farmers in the Province of Manitoba as the Federal Government does to all old age pensioners in Canada? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, the question the members asks - again, I'm not completely clear and would certainly appreciate clarification from him by a further supplementary if I don't give him the full answer - but I believe the question he's asking relates to increasing exemptions under The Municipal Assessment Act in some way.

I can only respond to him by saying that the government has made a firm commitment to assessment reform at the local level in Manitoba, that that commitment flows from, not only the MARC Report, the Weir Committee Report, but also from the report of the Standing Committee in which I believe the honourable mem ber partici pated and in the recommendations of that committee, one of which - both in the Weir Commission and in the committee discussions - was that the use of exemptions under The Municipal Assessment Act should be minimized to the greatest possible degree or, if possi ble, completely end it to provide, as former Premier Weir said, a fairer way to share.

MR. H. GRAHAM: A final supplementary question to the Honourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. Since he has had the Weir Commission Report for two years, and there has been an increased problem, particularly in the urban area here in Winnipeg with the freeze that has been placed on assessment, how long is it going to be before we can expect some positive action from this government on changes in assessment practices here in the Province of Manitoba? HON. A. ANSTETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question has two parts.

Certainly, I believe that the senior citizens of this province were receiving pensions between '77 and'8 1, that the awareness of that particular problem was very much in the minds of members opposite when they were government, but they recognized, as does this government, the complexity of the problem, but also the inadvisability of proceeding with a further patchwork on The Mun icipal Assessment Act. That is why they didn't proceed and why this government will not proceed to enhance or in any way expand exemptions without doing a thorough review.

The second part of the question relating to the City of Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, relates to a problem which is, to a large degree, very much of the City of Winnipeg's own making in terms of their appeal system and their refusal to deal with the border revision process, and there are several answers which can be addressed in that context. The Province of Manitoba in 1980, under the direction of the Member for Virden's colleague, the Member for Swan River now, brought in the assessment freeze in the City of Winnipeg.

There was some question as to whether or not the border revision process was frozen as part of that legislation. That freeze was continued by this government, and Mr. Speaker ... MR. H. GRAHAM: As long as you continue to do nothing, you'll continue to freeze. HON. A. ANSTETT: . . . the Supreme Court decision - for the benefit of the Member for Virden - is not a complete overturn of that freeze legislation, but does allow individual ratepayers to appeal under certain conditions to the Board of Revision at the local levels.

There have been discussions with the City of Winnipeg as to how to deal with the implications of that decision. Those discussions are continuing, and I hope to have more information for the House shortly. Affordab le New Homes Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing in connectin with the Affordable New Homes Program.

Over the last few weeks, there has been a number of northerners, including myself, the northern industry representatives have been seeking some changes to the program to reflect northern conditions, which include higher material costs and longer colder seasons. Could the Mi nister advise this House and the people of Northern Manitoba of any changes that have been made in the program? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, Mr.

Sp eaker , in response to requests from the Northern ML As and requests from the housing construction industry in the North, the real estate industry, last Friday I announced two amendments to the Affordable New Homes for Northern Manitoba: No. 1, the maximum unit cost to qualify for the Affordable New Homes Program has been increased from $68,000 to $72,000, reflecting the higher costs in the North; and, secondly, to reflect the difference in climate, the deadline by which the footings have to be in place has been delayed from May 15 th to June 15 th for Northern Manitoba. Housing - welfare recipients MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services. Does the Department of Community Services have a set of guidelines that would assure that people on welfare would not be placed in substandard housing with inadeq uate heating systems? 5794

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 A MEMBER : The y wouldn't do that, this caring government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Employment Services. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the policy with regard to payment of social assistance to families who are sometimes referred to as welfare recipients is a policy of allowing those families to have the maximum freedom to choose the kind of dwelling that they wish to live in.

In other words, it has been a long-standing policy of this government, and I bel ieve of previous governments, to allow welfare recipients the opportunity to choose the particular kind of residence that they would wish to live in. A MEMBER: Why would you pay the rent that you do for those shacks? Shame on you! MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Can he tell me why the family in Amaranth . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. A. BROWN: . . . who are on welfare and whose house burned, why they were placed in a substandard house with a dangerous heating system? HON. l. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, obviously the Honourable Member for Rhineland didn't hear my previous answer. The department did not place that family in any specific residence. That family chose that particular residence, as is in keeping with our policy. Families who are recipients of social assistance in Manitoba are free to choose the residence in which they wish to live, and we believe that there should be some responsibility on the part of those individuals. As I indicated, it's a policy that has been in effect for many a year. Midtown Bridge closure MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member for River Heights asked a question the other day with respect to hours of work of civil servants during the time that the Midtown Bridge is closed, and I would like to answer th at and ind ica te th at th ere is a government policy regarding branches or divisions of departments which are now allowed to determine the most suitable arrangement of hours of work for their employees. Variations in employees' hours of work may occur as a result of staggered starting or finishing times, or an alteration in the time allowed for lunch.

There are some outside parameters; that is, starting ordinarily in the office no earlier than 7:30 and having finished no later than 6 o'clock, and somewhere in between that people can work out within their divisions or branches some alternate hours which might be a good idea for that five or six-month period that tile Mid town Bridge will be closed. Information Services MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

My question is for the Premier, on the assumption that he is still responsible for the Information Services Branch in the government. - (I nterjection) - I'll try it, Mr. Speaker. In any case, this has to do with a publication the government puts out, entitled "Manitoba Facts." I think he is familiar with it. It has a golden boy on the cover. The 19 82 edition has, under a

section entitled "People of Manitoba," a listing of tile various principal ethnic groups from which Manitobans come, and it starts off with British 373,000, and so on. It goes all the way down to the Polish at 43,000 and further down to Hungarian at 5,000, and so on. The same book, pub lished in 19 83, has again the listings of the various cultural and ethnic groups, beginning with the British, and so on, and has no listing whatsoever of any people of Polish origin in Manitoba. My question to the Minister is, has there been a sudden exodus of reople of Polish extraction in Manitoba since . . . MR.

L SHERMAN: Just the Member for St. Johns, that's all. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Has there been a sudden exodus, Mr. Speaker, of people of Polish extract or is there some other reason why his department is reluctant to acknowledge the existence of so many people of Polish extraction here in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. A MEMBER: They're afraid the Pope will take over. HON. H. PAWLEY: I'm glad tha t the honourable member has raised the question since my wife comes from Polish descent. I certainly would want to check out the question before she poses that question to me. MR.

G. FilMON: Mr. Speaker, both on behalf of Adele and myself may I ask then that he'll ensure that the 19 84 edition does give recognition to the many people of Polish extraction who are in Manitoba today? local governments - nominations to housing boards MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Mr. Speak er, in the past it has been the practice of the government to allow the local government authority to make their own appointment to the local housing authority boards.

My question to the Minister of Housing is, when has he lost confidence? At what point did he lose confidence in the local governments to make their own appointments to these boards? 5795

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, I'd like to assure the Member for Turtle Mountain that I ha ve all the confidence in the world, of the municipal jurisdictions to nominate their nominees to the housing authorities. I would suggest that the member read the policy manual for MHR C and he will see tha t there has not been one iota of change. The policy manual indicates that municipal authorities are to submit a list of nominations in order of their preference to the Minister for his consideration.

We are simply following through what has been in the policy manual for a good number of years, certainly for the last 10 years, since I recall I was on the housing authority board in the early '70s. The same procedure was used at that time. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister give us the assurance and many local governments throughout the province the assurance, that when their list consists of one person whom they consider to be qualified to fill that position, will the Minister accept that as an appointment? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the policy in the manual is quite clear. MR.

B. RANSOM: Never mind the manual, what would you do? A MEMBER: He's telling you what he'll do. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The municipalities are asked to submit a list of nominees in order of preference and the Min ister will consider those nominations. It is hard to make a decision but certainly when the municipalities have submitted lists of two or three nominations, all nominations have been considered. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can make a direct appe al to the Mini ster to recognize his responsibility as Minister.

In a situation where the local government district makes a recommendation of a person who has served in the past on a housing authority ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. B. RANSOM: . . . and a knowledgeable contractor in the housing business and is once again recommended by the local council, will the Minister accept that person as an acceptable person to serve on the local housing authority? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I believe it is about the third time the same question has been asked. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, give us an an swer. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: This Minister intends to follow through with the policy of the MHR C manual, which has been in existence for a good number of years. The manual very clearly indicates - and I know the previous admin istration followed that manual, or should have followed that manual. A MEMBER: No, we didn 't. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, I'm sorry they haven't followed that policy manual. That's their problem. The policy is very clear that the municipalities are to submit a list of nominees. A nomination of one person does not to me constitute a list. A MEMBER: Freedom of choice. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister advise us what constitutes a list? In the view of the municipality they have submitted a list. What constitutes a list in the Minister's eyes as he goes about practising this outrageous patronage? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, to me a list would indicate more than one. Secondly, with respect to patronage, I fail to understand how nominating a person to a responsible position without any pay can be considered as patronage. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions having expi red, can I direct the atten tion of honourable members to the gallery. We have 20 students of Grades 1 to 5 standing from the Harrow School. The students are under the direction of Mrs. Belanger and Mrs. Bingham and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORDERS OF THE DAY HANSARD CORRECTION MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I wanted to make a correction of Hansard, Volume 16 9 at 2 p.m. on Thursday the 26th, on page 5772. In the question period I questioned the Mini ster of Agriculture on the publications of agricultural magazines and I mentioned the weed control guide and the crop recommendations - it's recorded in Hansard as the wheat control guide in one or two areas. If they would change that to weed control guide. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: For Privileges and Elections, the Member for Wolseley substituting for the Member for St. James. 5796

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speak er, before I ask you to call the Orders of the Day I have a brief statement with regard to House business. It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the House would not sit this evening but would instead adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would sit at 8 p.m. this evening, so that many of the public who have been waiting since Friday to appear before the committee can be heard. I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that this will contribute to expediting the business of the House. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND SUB-AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, would propose to call the resolution, standing in the name of the Member for Thompson as the order of business. I would remind honourable members that it is my understanding that the notice I gave last week with regard to our Rule No. 37 still stands, to be given at some future date should it be necessary. So, Mr.

Speak er, would you call the motion on Page 2, at the top of the page, standing in the name of the Memb er for Thompson. MR. SP EAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Government House Leader and the subamendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, the Honourable Member for Thompson has 22 minutes remaining. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say it's a pleasure to once again be able to debate this matter.

I must say that I would prefer to have de bated last week shortly after I first spoke on this issue, but once again, Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition have shown that they are not interested in really debating this matter. They're interested in proceeding with their continuing abuse of bell ringing and procedural wrangles to frustrate in answering the members of this House who do want to finish with this matter and get on with other business. Well, it's not surprising why they don't want to debate this matter that much, Mr. Speaker, it's not surprising why.

They spoke nearly 10 0 times on this issue already and they've said virtually nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing of substance. I think the only theme that one can pick out of those speeches - out of those nearly 100 speakers on this issue from members opposite - is the fact that the members opposite intend to use this issue for reasons of political opportunism; political opportunism I would suggest of the worst kind. As proof of that, Mr.

Speaker, I would submit that members in those 10 0 speeches have failed to come up with one consistent argument against what the government is doing, one consistent argument on the substance. They've argued, Mr. Speaker, about official languages, for example, but for those members who ha ve done some research on this ma tter, th ose arguments rang rather hollow. We all all know that in 19 80 that they passed a bill which declared in this act official language means the English language or the French language, and that was

an act respecting the operation of

Section 23. What are we debating today, Mr. Speaker? An amendment to a resolution on

Section 23. So, their arguments on official languages don't really hold that much water. It's the same thing, Mr. Speaker, with their arguments about us not proceeding with the present course in letting the Bilodeau case go to the Supreme Court. They've made this argument that we should send it to the courts, but at other times they've said, we in the Legislature should decide this matter, we shouldn't be hamstrung, for example, by entrenchment. They've made th at argume nt, Mr. Speaker . Wh ere is th e consistency in that?

To say on the one hand that we don't want the courts to decide, but then again we do want the courts to decide. Well clearly, Mr. Speaker, that is inconsistent. Now the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, may be inconsistent on this point. We, ho"vever, have attempted to be consistent on this, that's why we've come up with this particular package which does separate the resolution and separate out the question of services because it would allow the Legislature some control on those services while giving some protection to some basic level of French services in this province. That's a consistent stand, Mr.

Speak er, a consistent stand that members opposite certainly don't have. It's the same thing, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to their suggestion that this resolution would extend and expand French language services in Manitoba. The Member for Virden, as I pointed out last time, said quite the opposite in committee; he said it limits French services in the province. Now where is the consistency in those statements? I haven't heard the Member for Virden withdraw those comments. I know the former Leader of the Opposition, the now Mem ber for Charleswood, had to resort to that, Mr.

Speaker, to withd rawing comments, att empting to rewrite Hansard when he was caught on one of his inconsistencies in regard to his statements on official languages, but I haven't heard the Member for Virden do it. So I can only assume that members opposite are either divided on this question, or they just simply don't know what they're talking about and I would suspect it's the latter. Well let's go, Mr. Speaker, let's go even further. They sa id from the start th at our concerns about Mr. Bilodeau's case were not legitimate, they said that. Yet, !n debate, less than two weeks ago, Mr.

Speaker, they'd changed course. The Member for Charleswood and the Member for Turtle Mountain got up and they said, yes indeed, Bilodeau might actually be successful in court. They went to the second thing which they'd rejected totally throughout the initial de bate in the summer and that was any suggestion that we needed, validation of our statutes. The Member for Turtle Mountain got up and stated quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, that he felt when discussion was proceeding to the present subamendment before us, that indeed validation might be needed. What's the 5797

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 cons istency in all this, Mr. Sp eaker? Nothing of substance but one overall theme and that overall theme is political opportunism. What the members opposite are trying to do on this issue is to use substance only to delay; to use substance only to give them further time to attempt to make this an issue which will continue for many years in Manitoba; an issue that they think can elect them as a government next time; that's the real reason, that is the only consistent thing that members opposite have.

I have a word which I would use to describe a tactic such as that, I would say it's a sham, it's a sham. There's no other word that can describe it. What they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is they are throwing out any suggestion that they have any principled reasons for posing this. They're throwing out any suggestion on that simply to attempt to use this issue for political purposes. But let's look at that, Mr. Speaker. Is this a major issue of concern to Manitobans? Is it the No. 1 issue facing Manitobans today? Is it? Well, let's put it in perspective.

Traditionally in this province, as I pointed out when I spoke on this last time, the No. 1 concern of Manitobans has been the econo my, that's the No. 1 concern of Manitobans historically, and I would suggest it's No. 1 concern today. In 19 84, why did members opposite lose the election? I would suggest to them they lost it because the people of Manitoba simply did not accept the way they had performed economically over that period in which they were in government. I would suggest that to them as the reason why they lost the election in 1981.

I would also suggest to them too, that what will decide the future of this government will largely be its economic performance. Now members opposite will have their views on that, Mr. Speaker, and we will certainly have our views on that, but it will be the people that will decide. I think if you look at it and if you talk to people today, you will find that it is still the case in Manitoba.

I've talked to my constituents on this issue, people who have views on both sides of it, but there's one consistent theme that I pick up from it and that is, that while it may be an issue of concern, it is not the major issue of concern. As I said last time, I was out knocking on doors during the fall and it ranked as about No. 5 in terms of mentions, and that was on people both sides of the issue, Mr. Speaker, those who supported the government and those who opposed what the government was doing; but No. 5, and of the major concerns, 1 through 4 were all economic in one way or anoth er.

So let's put the politics of this into perspective, Mr. Speaker. Let's also not forget the fact, as members opposite do, that those referenda which were held in the province throughout October while they may indeed have been on one general question although they obviously had different wording - related to the first package brought forward by this government. Now members opposite may say, oh no no, they're still opposed to what you're doing. Well, I have a question I'd like to put to them, Mr. Speaker, and that is, do the members of the public really support what the Conservatives are doing?

Do they support this sub-amendment? Do they support the stand put forward by members opposite, that they are in favour of French services, but somehow against entrenchment? Do they support that? Do they support some of the various stands they've taken on their various flip-flops on this issue over the last eight months? Well, I would suggest to you, no, Mr. Speaker. When I was in committee, Mr. Speaker, I listened to many people who gave submissions against what the government is doing and I asked them straightforwardly; I said, well, do you support what the Conservatives are saying?

Are you in favour of French services, but against entrenchment, and about three quarters of the people I asked, Mr. Speak er, answered, we're against both. That should be made clear; that should be made cle ar, Mr. Sp eaker , when one looks at the politic al ramifications of this. This is one of the reasons also I think the members opposite are pulling a sham in this province at the present time and that is because they're not even really saying what the people who are against this issue are really saying either. They're trying, Mr.

Speak er, and have several faces on this issue, one for Brian Mulroney and the federal Tories, most of whom, even here in Manitoba support what the government is doing. One face here, Mr. Speaker, one face in Quebec and another face to those members of the public who appeared, for example, at the demonstration here last week, a different face altogether. On the one hand they say, well we're against the government. Don't worry, don't worry, we're going to block them, we're going to fight them, we're going to make this dramatic last stand.

That's what they say to the people who are adamantly against what we're doing. But what do they say to their federal colleagues? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, then out comes the other face. Don't worry, they're probably saying to Mr. Mulroney in Ottawa, we're just doing this for political reasons here; eventually it will blow over. We'll get the political benefit and you don't have to worry in Quebec. We'll have two faces on this issue and everything will be okay. Mr.

Speak er, that kind of strategy only works so long; it only works so long, and they found that when they attempted to move the subamendment before us at the present time. They found that out, because no sooner had they moved that, Mr. Speak er, and no sooner had the word gotten out that the Conservatives had actually moved toward the government's stand, then they received, according to their own leader, many phone calls from people who were adamantly against that proposal, and I've heard rumours that they may yet again move another amendment to this issue, another subamendment. My question, Mr.

Spea ker, is the same question that one of my constituents asked me on this issue about two weeks ago. He said, how many faces do the Conservatives have on this issue? That is something I would like to find out, Mr. Speaker, because it seems the number of positions that they can take on this issue is never ending. I think that has to be considered as part of the political ramifications as well, because when people select a government one of the key factors they look at, Mr. Speak er, is how far they can trust the individ uals who are seeking office; and I would say, Mr.

Speaker, based on this issue, that they cannot trust the present Leader of the Opposition because he has flip-flopped. He has put up so many faces on this issue that they don't know where he stands and if they can't trust him on this issue, they can't trust him on anything. I would suggest to members opposite that that will play a political role in the next election. 5798

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 That will play a political role, because that's one thing I've even heard from my constituents as well, Mr. Speaker. They've said, who is this new Leader of the Opposition anyway? He came in with so many promises and he turns out to be nothing more than a Bobsey Twin of the Member for Charleswood, the former Leader of the Opposition. He says different things, Mr. Speaker, but he's the same basic person. Tha t's something that has to be kept in mind when one looks at the political side of it. Let's accept for a moment, Mr.

Speak er, that there are indeed many Manitobans who are concerned about this issue. Let's look at it. Why are they concerned about it? Because of the substance, Mr. Speak er, because of the arguments put forth by the members opposite on this issue? Clearly not. Their concerns have been clear throughout. They're concerned that it might be similar to federal bilingualism; they're concerned that it might impact in terms of civil service hiring, in particular, and they're concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the cost. I've heard that. Also they're concerned that it might lead to expansion.

We've add ressed those concerns, Mr. Speak er, and if ever there was proof of that, look at the position of the MGE A. They certainly expressed some concerns about the original package before us here today, but they are now largely satisfied with the government's new proposals and they're the ones directly affected. They are the ones who would be affected, in the Civil Service. They're the ones who would have the first concerns about whether this was federal bilingualism in another form. They've looked at our proposals, Mr.

Speaker, they've looked at the amendments we've made and they agree that it is an acceptable package as far as the members are concerned. That's one thing I think that has to be communicated to members of the public who also have this concern, and that is the fact that if the government employees themselves are satisfied, then surely the government has made some substantial change in this area and has substantially listened to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I could list those concerns, but I know it wouldn't do any good with members of the opposition.

I know it wou ldn't do any good at all, because really they're not concerned about those particular concerns. They have not, in any of their 10 0 speeches, done anything other than get up and say, well, there is a perception, there is a concern; they haven't add ressed that, Mr. Speaker. Very few of them had the guts to get up and even say they have a personal concern about it. The Member for Charleswood, for example, said there's going to be a perception that we're ramming French down people's throats. He never said, that's what I think; he didn't have the guts to say that, Mr.

Speaker, because it's so easier to use concerns that way, to use somebody else's concerns and then have your two or three faces on the issue, go to Brian Mulroney in Ottawa and say, well, didn't say that; I said there was a perception, so we're all okay on this issue. Let's look at it, Mr. Speaker. What is the real bottom line of this? The real concerns of Manitobans? No. What it is, it's a sham, it' s an attempt by members of the opposition to develop fear within the people of Manitoba about this particular issue. That is the bottom line, fear for purposes of political opportunism and fear, Mr.

Speaker, certainly has been expressed on this issue. It is a fear of the unknown, a fear that it might lead to the dire consequences; but I will say quite clearly that I do not have that fear. I have supported the government's position on this quite clearly. I've stated so in my constituency.

At the first series of informational meetings, before about 75 of my constituents, I was asked, "Where do you stand on this?" and I said, "I support what the government is doing." I stated it then and I will state it again. let members opposite not play this game of, oh well, let's have a free vote; let's have a free vote and find out where you really stand. I'll tell them where I really stand. Free vote, no free vote, under any conditions, Mr.

Speaker, I support the clear intent of the Government of Manitoba as expressed through the original package and upon consultation with the people of Manitoba by the new package. I would like to just point out one thing, in terms of fear if I could, Mr. Speaker, and that is, I think, one of the most interesting factors in this whole issue; and that is that the people who fear this the most are the people who the oppo,.,ents of this particular issue would suggest have the most to fear and that, Mr.

Speak er, is young people, young people in general, the people of my generation, you know, as the youngest member in this House. The people of my younger brother's generation, I've talked to them on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and I found that there is strong support amongst many young people for what the government is attempting to do, in attempting to reach an important, historical compromise, an important recognition of French language rights in Manitoba. There is a lot of support amongst young people for this. Their future is the future that will be affected by this. Do you know why there is such support?

It's because they don't have the same fear that some people do on this issue. They have the competence that we in Manitoba can have the good faith and the good will to work out this particular matter. That's something, I think, members should learn from, Mr. Speaker, and that is as much as they can tempt to whip up fear, as much as they can tempt to use this as a political issue, it won't last; it won't last because the dire consequences that they predict will not happen in two or four or six or eight or ten years, Mr. Speak er.

They will not even happen in 20 years and the young people of today who have that faith in our ability to deal with this matter, they will be proven right. Of course, Mr. Speak er, and I just heard from the former Leader of the Opposition, not sitting in his seat today but in another seat, saying something about, oh well, will I be around? Mr. Speaker, I want to add ress that for a second. Well, they so no, Mr. Speaker. I've got news for them. When he was in government, Mr. Speaker, he tried to fool the people of Thompson on many issues. They didn't buy it, Mr. Speaker, that's why I'm here today.

I remember when he tried to tell us our population was 19 ,000 when it was about 14 ,500. He didn't have any more success with that particular effort then he's going to have on this particular issue eith er. But, Mr. Sp eaker , I think any elected representative has to be willing lo ask the question. That is whether he is willing to face the voters on this. As I said, I faced the voters, Mr. Speaker. I'm willing to live by the consequences. 5799

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 You know, I can stand here today, Mr. Speak er, I can stand tall on this issue, because I think the government is doing the right thing. As much as I can say, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents don't feel this is a major issue, it's up to them really to decide. It's not up to me to say, it's up to them to decide. But I think those mem bers opposite should perhaps recogn ize, Mr. Speaker, why this side is so strong on this issue, why they've become stronger, to a certain extent, actually when our political back is against the wall. That is because, Mr.

Speak er, what we represent here today is a his torical thing within our party; th at is, a commi tment to principl e, Mr. Sp eaker , and a commitment to justice, ol doing the right thing. We did that, Mr. Speak er, with the Japanese during the Second World War. We did it on The War Measures Act, Mr. Speak er. Those things were not popular at the time. We've stood by that and we're stronger because of it. If members opposite, Mr. Speaker, think that we're like them , that we're only interested in political power, they're wrong. We are as much a political movement as a political party. I know, Mr.

Speak er, whether or not I'm re-elected, that somebody else will carry on the fight either in this Chamber or out of this Chamber tor what is right and what is just. That is why, Mr. Speak er, I have no fear on this issue, but lest anybody say that I am admitting the possibility of losing, well, they've got the wrong idea about me. I fight on this issue. I fight for what is right. I fight for my constituents too, Mr. Speake r. I can tell them - they better know - that if they're going to pull a sham on this issue, they're not going to do it in my constituency.

That is why last time I spoke I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to deba te this issue in my constituency, Mr. Speaker. I want him to debate this issue. I want him to debate his stand on the economy because that's what I think is a real issue. I want to find out where he stands on the North, Mr. Speaker. I want to know where he stands on things like rent controls, because we all know he's opposition to that, Mr. Speak er, which is, I might add, supported by the vast majority of Manitobans. I want him to come, Mr. Speak er, to my constituency because I am confident that it will be shown to be a sham.

I think the Member for Springfield deserves credit for doing that in his constituency. I think he did an exce llent job in dealing with the concerns of his constituents. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I am ready to do the same. I am ready to debate that so-called Leader of the Opposition any time on these and other issues. Let's talk about fear, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about it. Let's get it out in the open. Let's deal with it. Let's deal with their concerns and for God's sake let's get on with the real business before this province, the real issues of concern, Mr.

Speaker, to people like my constituents and that is issues like jobs, the economy, northern development, the real issues before us and not this bogus sham that members of the opposition are trying to foist on the members on this side of the House and the public of Manitoba in general. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the sub amendment to this resolution proposed by my colleague, the ML A for Fort Garry.

I also appreciate the opportunity that the Government House Leader has provided us today to proceed with the debate on the resolution. However, I can't help but mention the minor threat that he left with the introduction that we would be able to further debate the resolution, that we would be threatened with Rule 37 that this could be imposed on us at anytime in the days ahead. Just listening to the last speaker, the Member for Thompson, indicated that we had spoken on this topic for some hundred speakers or there abouts. This is absolutely nonsense.

We spoke a number of times on the deferral motion, insisting that this government go to the people and listen to what they had to say by having hearings held throughout the province. This government was not interested in having hearings as you recall last summer and they had to be badgered and hounded into holding these hearings throughout Manitoba so that we could hear from the people as to what they had to say about amending our Constitution. We never had the opportunity to debate the resolution to any great extent.

We've only had a few number of speakers and then, zap, the House Leader he wants to put on closure so that they can wind up this mess and send it off to Ottawa and amend our Constitution forever, something th at the people of Manitoba absolutely are opposed to. It's just absurd that the Government House Leader would invoke closure on the resolution to muzzle the members on this side from representing our constituencies. The Mem ber for Thompson says that we're political opportunists.

I would say that if that is listening to your constituents and coming back here and debating this issue, representing what our people are telling us; if that's political opportunism then that's what I'm all about. Certainly the people of this province are being heard every day in growing numbers that they are absolutely opposed to what the government is proposing. Then the members of the government say, well, you know the people don't understand, really the people don't understand what we're trying to do. Yes, we have the support of the people of Manitoba in what we're trying to do. Mr.

Speaker, there's something absolutely wrong in this whole issue because certainly the people in my constituency had an opportunity to vote on it. Part of the municipality of Swan River, which represents a fairly large segment of the Swan River constituency, and they voted 88 percent in opposition to what the government is doing. This was multiplied, I think, 16 times or 16 municipalities throughout the province representing well over half the population because the City of Winnipeg had a referendum. We all know how the results went on the City of Winnipeg referendum where you have a broad cross-section.

The NOP hold the majority of seats in the City of Winnipeg and yet some 75 percent of the people are obje cting to what this NO P government is trying to ram down the throats of Manitobans. Now, to introduce closure in this House so that we would only have some eight hours to further debate the constitutional amendment is, as I say, absolutely absurd. Most of us, I think, have belonged to many 5800

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 organizations throughout the province, whether it be political or whether it be 4-H or curling clubs or service organizations, and most of those organizations if not all, have their constitution and bylaws. As I recall, anytime you want to make some constitutional change to your organization you have to a! least two-thirds approval from your membership.

But here this NDP Government, they don't even want to debate this resolution, they want to put closure on it so there is no further word to be spoken on it, they want to shove it off to Ottawa, they want to get rid of it because they know it's a dic ey issue and one that they should never have gotten involved with in the first place. There's too much to really be concerned about to rush the constitutional amendments through. It involves all of the people of Manitoba. They want to have an opportunity as to what this really means.

The Member for Thompson and other members on the government side have said, "b ut this is not federal bilingualism that we are introducing." We all know the dicey mess that the federal bilingualism policies have brought upon us.

I had indicated, when I spoke on this resolution before, about the situation that we find in the RCMP, that we find in the military, that we find in the customs offices, that we find in the post offices, and the members opposite say, but, no, we are not going to get into that kind of mess; that they are not able to give us any kind of an assurance where this can be stopped, and it can be stopped. There is too much fodder to digest that has been brought forward to us by the people of Manitoba on the hearings that have been conducted throughout the province and the hearings that are going on at the present time.

You can tell by the number of people that have indicated a desire to speak on Bill 11 5, which is closely related to this resolution; and that is another issue that certainly has to be tidied up before this could even be thought of being approved and sent on to Ottawa because we're not sure of the final outcome of the resolution in view of the fact that the government may not wish to scrap this whole resolution. Bill 11 5 really ties into the final outcome of the resolution and we certainly don't know what that's going to be yet. So really, what is all the hurry?

The Member for Thompson said that in his area and the people of Manitoba are saying that the majority of the people that he talks to are 10 0 percent with this constitutional amendment and they want to rush on with this and get on to more important things. I will certainly agree that there is a lot more important items that we should be discussing at the present time, but that is the only one before us at the present time in the House, is the cleaning up of the holdover from the cu rrent Ses sion.

We really should be di scus sing unemployment and the economy and the things that people are really concerned about in this province. A MEMBER: Address it quick, Harry, because we won't be around much longer. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, the government is anxious to get on with this constitutional amendment and send it off to Ottawa so that we can sort of appease Mr. Bilodeau. I don't think that we are obligated to work under any timetable of Mr. Bilodeau. He has indicated that he will proceed to the Supreme Court if there isn't action taken quickly, but that is his prerogative.

This is an important issue to all Manitobans and we have to take time to listen to the concerns of the people so that if there really in fact is a need for a constitutional amendment on the bilingual question, then certainly that can be done over a period of time and certainly with the will of the people and not something that is being forced on the majority of Manilobans. I mentioned the public hearings that were held in September throughout five, or six, or seven locations in Manitoba.

In my particular area, in Swan River, they were held - we were pleased to have the hearings there - but they were held at a time when harvest was under way, and that particular day the weather was good and a lot of people who would liked to ha ve made presentations at that meeting were not able to do so because of the harvest situation. We have the hearings now, as I mentioned, going on, on Bill 11 5 and there are hundreds of people that would like to be heard. I know that many people from Swan River would like to come in here to make presentations.

Last weekend, the weather was not good and people who wer€ trying to get in could not make it because of road conditions. Certainly, there are many people still to be heard on Bill 11 5. There is the Gr assroots organization that is growing like Topsy everyday because of their concerns with this whole bilingual question. The Premier mentioned - I believe it was last Friday, January 27th - and I would just like to quote a question that was presented to the Premier. He answered, and I quote, "Mr.

Speaker, what would be more irresponsible but to go to the people on what would be about No. 58 in 61 issues of importance to the people of the Province of Manitoba, No. 58 by way of range of priority and importance? What are the important issues in the Province of Manitoba and the issues indeed that we will proceed to obtain a manda te from the people of the Provirice of Manitoba upon is: (

a) how this government manages the econo my, and how better this government has managed the economy of this province than did the previous ad ministration; and (

b) Mr. Speaker, how well this government has created jobs in the Province of Manito ba; how well this government has created jobs in comparison to how they, the present opposition, Conservatives in this House managed job creation; how during the term of this government of Manitoba enjoyed a population boom rather than a population depression as existed under that group. "We will be proceed ing to the people of Manitoba at the appropriate time to discuss the quality of life issues in this province: health, education. Those are 1:1e issues that are im portant to Manito bans, Mr. Speak er.

Manitobans are saying to us in increasing numbers, get on with the job; get this matter dealt with; get on with the real tasks that face and confront Manitobans." Well, this is an interesting comment from the Premier who says that this item is No. 58 in his list of 61. A MEMBER: 58! Unbelievable. MR. D. GOURLAY: That's pretty near the bottom of the barrel and yet we ha ve been debating and 5801

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 discussing this issue since last July, and as a result of the - the Premier says this isn't important - but we just have to review the facts. He has lost one ML A over it and there are obviously other ML As in his caucus that, if they were really listening to their constitutents, they would be up in arms and supporting the Mem ber for Elmwood, because certainly he is obviously listening to his constituents. A MEMBER: There's no doubt about that. MR. D.

GOURLAY: Certainly, there's going to be a lot of other MLAs on the government side that are in a very dic ey position because of their stand on this particula r issue. Th ey are not listen ing to their constituents. A MEMBER: Springfield is only one example. MR. D. GOURLAY: There's another good example. I understand the ML A for Springfield, his constituents called a meeting with some 500 or 600 people, and I think he got the message that they were not happy with what he was doing.

But he said, well, you know when I got elected I didn't say that I would act according to your wishes at all times, there would be some difficult decisions for me to make, and obviously, this is one of them. Certainly, he hasn't got the support of his people. Who elected him? Who elected the guy? Who elected the ML A for Springfield? Was it some people from outside of the Springfield constituency? Well, I hear a chirp from the Mem ber for St. Johns, and I would just be interested in hearing the comments of the ML A for St.

Johns because I'm sure that he has a lot of constituents that are not happy with what is being proposed by this government. I would be very surprised if he has many supporters that support what the government is trying to do. It would be interesting to hear his comments when he gets up to speak on this resolution. A MEMBER: When are you speaking Don? MR. D. GOURLAY: I mentioned that the Premier says that this item is not a very important issue and it's number 58. This is an absolutely ridiculous comment to be made by the Premier of the province who is trying to ram this thing through.

Certainly he is not putting much importance to it, because he would like to see it over and done with and he has not had much comment about it. He usually turns it over to his Government House Leader or the Minister responsible for piloting this project through the House. But certainly the Member for Thompson just indicated that this political opportunism will not stay around, that soon we'll know the real facts and that we will have wished that the opposit ion would sup port the government on this very important issue.

I would like to mention to the people or the members in this House that this item will be around for a long, long time. This item will not go away very easi ly. The people of Manitoba are very upset and di sturbed on what this government is doing and their concerns are growing day by day. You just have to go home on the weekends to find out what the people are saying. - (I nterjection) I hear the Member for The Pas making some comments from his seat. It would be interesting to know just how the people in The Pas really feel about this issue.

I know that the Member for The Pas - he was raised in the constituency that I represent - and if he would just go home to his home town community of Cowan, he would find out that that community, who normally vote very strongly in support of the NOP, are having very serious concerns about this one particular issue. There are other issues too that these people are concerned about, but we are di scussi ng the constitutional amendment this time. The people of Cowan , the communi ty th at I represent in my constituency, the majority of those people do not support what the government is trying to do.

The community of Mafeking, another community of a couple of hundred people, that normally vote 50/50, but I'm getting calls from people that have voted NOP all their lives there they tell me and there with us on this issue. They said they've had enough of the NOP on this one issue alone. Now I'm happy to represent the people of my constituency and if they voted NOP in the past, that's fine; I respect that.

But certainly if the people of my constituency are saying, "Ha ng in there and if you have to let the bells ring, let the bells ring." As a matter of fact, they're saying, we're afraid you're going to cave in and not let the bells ring when they should be ringing. A MEMBER: Freedom bells. MR. D. GOURLAY: That's right. That's the comment that's coming out now in every phone call I get; hang in there and stick to your guns, this is a very important issue and let the freedom bells ring. Certainly, I can't understand and the people of my constituency can't understand what's in it for the government.

Why are they so insisting on pushing this item through? A MEMBER: A Senate appointment for Howard. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, you know the Minister of Government Services said it's a matter of principle. Well, that's very interesting. It's the first time I've heard the NOP were ever concerned about a principle. Certainly, when you talk about principles and what has happened on this issue, this government has lost a lot of their good strong supporters, some of the grassroots people that have worked for a long, long time in the NOP Party.

I'm not talking necessarily about the Member for Elmwood, but I think he has been an important cog in the overall success of the NOP in the past decade or two, but I'm also looking at people with the stature of Mr. Green, who sat in this House for a number of years and made a tremendous contribution to our parliamentary system. I'm not an individual who had a love for Mr. Green, because when he was in this House he didn't care who he took a swipe at and he stoop up for his rights. On that basis, I think, he contributed a lot to this Legislature over the years.

But just looking in the Hansard, I would just like to quote what Mr. Green had said when the Member for Ste. Rose, the Minister of Government of Services, talks about principle and Mr. Green I think had a lot to 5802

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 contribute to the NDP. He still thinks and believes in that philosophy, but he couldn't hack the members in the government today and he had to leave that party. He formed his own party, but basically he's still and ND Per at heart. But just to quote wllat Mr. Green says, "Mr. Chairman, I appear here as a citizen of the Province of Manitoba whose maternal language is neither English or French. I grew up in this province and went to school and when I attended school I was taught the English language. That is the only basis upon which English is my official language.

Had I been taught French when I walked into the same school room, would be speaking the French language and that would be my official language. "Throughout my carreer in politics, I don't think it can be questioned that it was my view that one of the most valuable features of our Canadian society was the fact that we were not founded on any one ethnic or cultural basis. That was an accident. It wasn't something that we were clever about, it just happened to us.

This was a valuable feature of our society and througout the years that I was in politics, active politics in the Legislature, the citizens of Manitoba in a healthy atmosphere and with great good will extended the use of the French language in the Province of Manitoba in a far more important way than is suggested by this bill on several occasions." To go on with Mr. Green's comments and I quote, "N ow, Mr. Chairman, I had high hopes for the enhancement of the use of more than one language in this province and particularly the French language and the English language.

I worked very hard in that respect and I say that those hopes were based on the fact and can still be based on the fact that the people of the Province of Manitoba wanted to improve their lot by the advent of this new dimension. Where there is a will, Mr. Chairman, you do not need a legislation. Where there is no will, the legislation won't do you a bit of good." Just to go on a little bit further, "So what you're looking for is the good will of the Province of Manitoba, not legislation.

What you've got is a creation by this government and it didn' t exist prior to two years ago, bad will on the part of the Province of Manitoba towards this end. I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a bigger tragedy created by this government than any previous tragedy - economic, social or otherwise that I can remember having experienced in the Province of Manitoba and they continue with it." Those are the words of Mr.

Green who sat in this House for a good many years as a member of the ND P Party and I believe the latter year or two he sat as an independent and then subsequently as a member of the Progressive Party when several other members of the ND P Party left that party and joined Mr. Green. Then, we have another individual, who I believe has worked hard over the years for the NDP Party, and he didn't choose to leave that party, but understand that he got thrown out of the party not too long ago by the executive, they di dn't want him in their party anymore, and that's Mr. Herb Schulz.

I'd just like to quote one paragraph from a presentation that Mr. Schulz made. "The government justifies closure on the grounds that the legislative opposition was deli berately delaying the busi ness of the province. The simple fact is that the legis lative opposition would never have dared this 5803 delay had they not known that the vast majority of the people of Mani toba were opposed to wha t the government is doing. Closure to enact legislation is not unusual, however.

It is used when the government believes it has general support of the popu lace, but this government tha t listens has taken the unprecedented step of invoking closure because it knows its legislation is not acceptable to the people of Manitoba." This is not from a Conservative, this is from Mr. Herb Schulz. - (Int erjection) - So, here we have the people that have contributed greatly to this party over the years that are speaking forthwith and every day we hear of ND Pers that are tearing up their cards because of what this government is doing. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I say that the members of this government can support our subamendment by removing 23. 1 and getting on with what is left of this amendment.

Just interesting, last week - I believe it was last Wednesday - the Minister who was formerly responsible for charting this constitutional amendment through the House, the Attorney-General, he was speaking and it was very interesting to listen to the comments from the Attorney-General, the difference in the tone and what he spoke in this House last week compared to when he introduced the constitutional amendment back, I believe it was, early July or late June. It was interesting to hear his comments and he spelled out the areas on where he had gone wrong.

I don't think this government has learned anything after the Attorney-General had spoken and he outlined the various issues, that they should have been a little more gentle and not tried to ram this thing through. They should have indicated right at the start that there would be an opportunity for hearings to be held throughout the province where people would have a definite input where they could be heard and amendments could be based on the input from the people. He was very gentle on it.

Unlike when he stood in his place back some eight months ago and he rammed and he said there's nothing that can be changed in this amendment. We've had secret meetings with the SFM and the Federal Government and Mr. Bilodeau, and there's not a word can be changed. We will have informational meetings, but there won't be input from the public, and that's the way it's going to be. - (Int erjection) - HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. A.

ADAM: Well, I heard the Member for Swan River indicate that the Attorney-General had made a statement in the House that he had had secret meetings with the SFM, the Societe franco-manitobaine, and the Federal Government. I would ask him to review that very carefully because I don't think that the Attorney General ever made those statements in the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the Mi nister of Government Services on a point of order, or was he asking a question or just interrupting, I presume?

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 The Mini ster is saying that there were no secret meetings with the SFM, is that what the Government Services Minister is saying, that there was no secret meetings held by the SFM and the Attorney-General, and the Federal Government, and Mr. Bi lodeau? Because I am of the opinion that there were several meetings held by these people. They weren't advertised, they were held in secrecy. I'm not sure that all members of the government knew that these meetings were going on. Certainly, we didn't know these meetings were being held.

But the Attorney-General said, we cannot change this agreement because we made it with the good wishes of the SFM and the Federal Government and Mr. Bilodeau. Nothing can be changed. We'll have informational meetings to explain it to the people. We'll pass it ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. D. GOURLAY: ... it'll go to Ottawa and that will be the new amendment to our Constitution. Some way to deal with our first amendment to our Constitution. Well, I'm wondering now, we have a new Minister.

He hasn't learned from the comments obviously made by the Attorney-General because here we have a new Mini ster who up until a few months ago was a backbench er, and now he is Mini ster responsible for this bilingu al issue and he's also the Min ister of Municipal Affairs, but certainly all of a sudden he becomes Mr. Know-It-All. I give the Minister credit.

I think that he has stood his ground well and he has put up a very good argument, albeit certainly he hasn't got the support of his constituents obviously, hasn't got the support of the people of Manitoba, that he has been the one, the Minister, who has invoked closure. We've heard the bells ringing here for a number of days.

They wanted to wrap up this debate on the resolution and get it shipped off to Ottawa, so that this would be amended forever because I'm not certain that any government in the future would ever want to get into this kind of a situation, ii what we've had in the past few months is any example. Now, who is the government really helping with this constitutional amendment? Certainly, the people of Manitoba are not with the government, and certainly the SFM are not happy with what the government is doing.

They've watered down and they've changed and rehashed this proposed amendment so many times that they're not really sure that they've got something that they really want. So it's kind of interesting to know what is behind the government in their forcing of this issue through the way they are doing.

The A/G, when he was speaking on this resolution, he explained what has gone wrong; the way they introduced the resolution in the first place there would be no flexibility on it; there would be no room for change; there would be no opportunity for the general public to have any input into it because they had made a deal with the SFM and the Federal Government, so why go through this exercise if they couldn't make the necessary changes. We found that many amendments have come in, many change s. Th ey'v e even with drawn some of the amendments that they made earlier they couldn't live with.

Anyway, the no provision for the people to be· heard, well, of course, we know tha t they had to change their views on that and hearings were held. I think that there was a reasonably good turnout of people to make their cases known. Obviously - and I indicated before - I felt that the SFM were in a conflict of interest in making presentations to this hearing because they were party to the agreement and yet they chose to have people going to all the hearings defending their case, but that was okay.

I just think that they upset a lot of people throughout the province because of the fact that they were party to the agreement and they were sending representatives to the hearings throughout Manitoba even though there was no SFM people in some of those areas. The Attorney-General admit ted that they were wrong and the government didn't use the right approach, but what the Attorney-General didn't really dwell on was the fact on how poisoned the system has been as a result of the actions of this government. The people do not trust this government because of what they have done.

They absolutely are very nervous what's happening. The government are saying that people don't understand what we're trying to do, but the people very well know what's happening. They understand very well the issues at hand and they certainly don't want to have English and French officially entrenched in our Constitution.

I think they feel that by and large the procedure that had been followed up until the time being has worked fairly well, but what we've heard from this government in the last eight months has poisoned the system to the extent that it would be very difficult to go back to even what we've had in the past, because of the distrust of the people and where neighbour had been pitted against neighbour on this issue and certainly this whole package has become a very emotional concern of the people of this province.

When the Member for Thompson says that we are political opportunists for speaking out against this constitutional package, well, all I can say is that we are listening to our constituents and they are saying, hang in there, and if it takes ringing of the bells until the next election, you'll have to do that. We want to stop this government in its tracks and - (Int erjection) - Someone mentioned, is that what we're going to do. It depends on how this government proceeds. We started today with the threat that ma;be tomorrow closure will be invoked again and we will only be given some eight hours to further debate.

We have, I think, a lot to contribute on this Constitution and certainly we want to be heard. I would just like to take a moment to indicate why the people have reacted the way they have. The Member for Thompson and some of the other speakers have indicated on the government side that the people are with them on this issue, that they want to get this thing over with so they can get on to more important economic issues to deal with unemployment or what have you.

I believe that the people do want to get on to more important issues, that they feel that this constitutional amendment is very important at this stage of the game because of the way the government has brought in this and wanted to pass it very quickly. They are very suspicious of the actions . HON. B. URUSKI: Come on. 5804

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 MR. D. GOURLAY: The Minister of Agriculture is saying, come on, but I would just like to ask the Minister of Agriculture his true feelings about his constituency. You must be in an area where there is a lot of opposition to what the government is doing, and how does he justify going against the wishes of his people when he is sent into this Legislature to represent them, just like the Min ister of Municipal Affairs is here to represent the interests of the municipal councils in this province? I would just like to relate what the Attorney-General identified.

The government tried to force this issue through and this is what has upset the people; the speeches of Serge Joyal, Mini ster ol State, last March; this is what has upset the people of Manitoba. You will recall that when this accord was struck the Minister of State, Mr. Serge Joyal, came to St. Bonif ace and spoke to some 600 people. I think I should just mention here what Mr. Joyal did say and I think the members of the government can say th at, no, we are not introducing federal bilingualism into Manitoba, but when you hear what Mr.

Joyal has to say, it scares the people that this is going far beyond what the government had indicated to the people of Manitoba. To quote Mr. Joyal, he says, "You know the idea, the challenge, the ambition of making Canada a French country, both inside and outside Quebec, an idea some people consider a bit crazy." The people of Manitoba have some concerns about it. Maybe they don't think it's crazy, but they think it's something that they don't want to have any part of. It's something a little beyond the ordinary imagination.

You have to have intense conviction, you have to have an ideal insight to turn around and look back at 200 years of history, 300 years in Nova Scotia's case, and thank God, when you ask yourself and when you try to define the stages of the process, you realize clearly that there are many pitfalls. Mr. Joyal - I can't begin to read this speech into the record, but I think he made a few comments that scare the people of Manitoba. They are looking at something far beyond what this government is saying they're proposing. You just ask practically any people in this province and you'll certainly get the answer.

You can listen to radio shows; you can pick up the newspaper; you can go to the hearings. Everywhere you go, people are saying, you know, I voted ND P for a number of times, but I've had it with these people, they're not listening to what we're trying to tell them. It's all because of the way this whole thing has been handled and I've been trying to point out some of the areas and why people have reacted. To go on, just to quote another little bit here from Mr.

Joyal, "With all its programs and Manpower and Immigration or any other department that has economic impact, the government must realize and ask itself to what extent these programs directly affect the growth and development of Francophones in their province." That's quite an abrupt change in attitude.

"As hard as it was in the '70s for some of our fellow Canadians, who speak the other language, to accept the fact that Canada is a French State, is going to be, or it may be equally hard to convince that Canadian government that has a comprehensive responsibility toward French speakers and the strengthening and the status of French extends well beyond the responsibility of the Secretary of State." Mr. Joyal had a strong message there. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have only one minute left and I would just like to finish up by saying that this government should really go to the people with an election rather than pushing through this constitutional amendment, because in the '81 election they put out a document here of some 12 or 15 pages and you can go through it with a fine tooth comb and there isn't one sentence in here where it says that they're going to amend the Constitution and to make French and English official languages of this province.

I strongly will support the wishes of my constituents in opposing what the government is trying to do, but I support the subamendment that my colleague, the ML A for Fort Ga rry, has brought in, to delete making English and French the official langua ges of this province. MR. DEPUTY SPEAK ER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. W. STEEN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my privilege at this time to say a few remarks regarding this amend ment and the subamend ment on the constitutional matter. I would like to begin, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, by covering some of the background that we, as members, have been faced with over the past number of months, and touch on some of the history behind this constitutional amendment. Sir, there has been much said in this Chamber about the fact that the Progressive Conservative Government in 19 80 passed a bill at that time that was going to make it possible that French services could be made available to Manitobans.

Sir, as a supporter of such legislation, I think th at it would ha ve been id eal legislation when passed, and would be legislation that could serve Manitobans well today and for years to come. What the intent was of such legislation at that time was that, for example, in the community of St.

Pierre, if the government offices there would have somebody avai lable that could speak to a person within that community in their mother tongue, could communicate to them in French, and this would be done in other areas where there was a sufficient need to ha ve somebody working in government offices that could communicate to the citizens of Manitoba in French. There are, Mr. Speaker, still persons residing in Manitoba who do not speak English and that do require assistance when dealing with government services in their own tongue. This also applies to other languages.

There are pockets in Manitoba where the German people are heavily populated, as well as the Ukrainians, and, to me, it makes sense that government offer those services in those communities, government services to those people in their language and the language that they can communicate to government and get their services. Also, in 19 80, it was passed that in the courts of Manitoba and the Legislature French would be an accepted language, but, Sir, I hear the Member for lnkster - the brainchild of the NDP - chirping away in the background as this being our policy. I say, Mr.

Sp eak er, tha t it is a common -sens e policy th at Mani tobans have French services where sufficient demand presents itself, that such services be made 5805

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 avai lable for people in those communities. I also say that services in both German and Ukrainian should be offered in communities where such a demand presents itself. The people talk of 18 70 where Manitoba was to be French and English only, and that in 18 90 the French aspect was taken away. I don't bel ieve any member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this Cham ber, has ever said that the wrong that was committed in 18 90 is agreed by anybody in this Cham ber. We all recognize the fact that a correction should have been made.

A correction, in my opinion, in 19 80 was made after the parking ticket incident. I don't think that anything further to that was really necessary, and the political hassle that we have been going through for the past eight months was totally unnecessary. What has resulted from this past eight months of political debate? We see now today - we are at the end of January of 19 84 - we have had hearings on the resolution as of Friday and Saturday last, as of yesterday morning, and again this morning.

What we have seen on a constant basis is people appearing before the legislative committee saying that Manitobans are a divided group of people. They have been divided by this legislation and by this government wanting to force this piece of legislation through this Legislative Cham ber. Mr. Speaker, when one talks about them forcing the legislation through, you must again look at the fact that they have, on a number of occasions, used closure as their means of getting it through.

The Mem ber for Elmwood, who spoke on this matter when closure was used on Bill 11 5 at second reading, mentioned about the famous closure deba tes in the House of Commons back in 19 56 where the then Liberal Government led by St. Laurent tried to get the pipeline de bates through through closure. MR. H. ENNS: Actually, it was G.D . Howe. MR. W. STEEN: Well, G.D. Howe was perhaps the architect of the closure motion. He was perhaps the House Leader at the time, and now we have a new G.D. Howe some many years later in the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Government House Leader, the Member for Springfield.

But the Member for Elmwood made reference to the fact that, in his opinion, two great and well-known members of the former CCF Party, now the NDP Party, in the names of Stanley Knowles and M.J. Coldwell, both fought extremely hard fights against the G.D. Howe-St. Laurent team for bringing in closure in 19 56. What was the result of the closure? The bill did pass - yes, Mr. Speaker - and the bill in this Chamber is going to pass as well. The Liberals of 19 56 had a majority in the House of Commons at the time, and the NDP have a majority in this Cham ber. It's only a matter of time when this bill will pass.

But in 19 56, after the St. Laurent Government used the method of closure, which is seldom ever heard of in parliamentary terms, Mr. Speaker, what followed from that was a Diefenbaker victory in the election of the spring of '57, and then a landslide victory when he didn't have a majority in the winter of '58.

What this government has done, Sir, is put itself in a position where we are seeing, day in and day out, persons coming before them, whether it be at committee or in private meetings; and now some of these so called private meetings are getting on television where people are confronting their mem bers, the ND P members of the Legislature, and saying that they want to give back their cards, their memberships.

They are telling the people that's not the govenment or the party that they voted for, and that this resolution was not in their propaganda in the fall of'81 during that election campaign, and that during that election campaign of'81 there was no talk on the part of the now-present government of introducing such a resolution or a bill such as Bill 11 5. We are seeing regularly, day in and day out, people confronting these members opposite, saying that this is not what they want or expect from their government or from members that they voted for. We have been saying, Mr.

Speaker, members on this side of the House, for months, that the majority of the people are not in favour of this proposed legislation. It was proven this past fall during the municipal plebiscite. Members opposite say, well, we are talking about something differently now.

I say, Sir, that if almost 80 percent, or 80 percent of the people that voted in the municipal elections and voted against the proposals of that time are still 80 percent against this proposal and that the people opposite, I don't know what it takes, to get it through to them that they are driving down a one-way street and the y are driving themselves into nothing but trouble.

Besides many persons who, as I have said, have made representation before committee, who have talked to members of our caucus, who have talked to indiv iduals from our caucus have said that this proposal is driving a wedge between Manitobans and they are dividing Manitobans to the extent that they have never been divided ever before. We have seen in this Chamber in the past, some legislation that has caused concerns with Manitobans. We saw Fam ily Law proposed by the Schreyer admin istration. We saw the Family Law Bill that was proposed by the Lyon admin istration to make some amendments to that legislation.

We saw The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act of 19 70 before this legislation, and we have seen bills that have got to the people and have disturbed people in the past. Sir, I don't believe that any of those pieces of legislation I have spoken about ever caused the co'lcern and the divisiveness amongst Manitobans that this proposal has. - (I nterjection) - I believe I hear opposite somebody saying, do you think that we should back down now or I hope you don't believe that we'll back down now. No, I don't expect they'll back down. I'm sure that when G.D.

Howe had a bushelful of grain thrown on the stage at Morris when he was speaking down there that that didn't deter him and he proceeded and forged ahead with his idea of the pipeline debate, and it only took the people of the country of Canada at a general election to tell him that he was on the wrong course, and to tell his government that they were on the wrong cou rse and tha t's when the Government of Diefenbaker came in with a minority government, followed by a great majority. I would go so far as to say, Mr.

Speaker, that this government will lose the next election and will lose it over this issue, if nothing else. Even though the First Minister says that this item is not an important item 5806

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 and that there are economic issues that are of greater importance to he and his government and many other issues, that this one, I believe, he said the other day was 58th on a list of 61 items that were before him. I would say to him if this is 58th and we have had the public reaction that we have had to date, I would hate to see it ever be in No. 1 or No. 2 position. Goodness gracious, we've had tremendous public outbursts concerning this to the extent that in a few cases it's gotten rather ugly.

If this was a high-priority item with the government in the eyes of the First Minister, god only knows what would happen. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter that Mr. Sidney Green, Q.C. wrote the First Minister on January 12, 19 84. In this letter I believe he points out a number of areas that he at that time in writing to the First Minister, asks the First Minister if he would consider.

He concluded the letter by saying that he would welcome any reply from the Fi rst Min ister regarding his statements within that letter, and I would like to refer to some of the areas in the letter where he says: "Mr. Premier, I acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 30, 19 83, wherein you advise that you would like to keep me up-to-d ate on recent developments regarding The Manitoba Act." He goes on to say that this is Mr.

Green - that he wishes to indicate the following and the first one is: "The present proposal before the Legislature does not, as you appe ar to belie ve, respect the vie ws of Manitobans. The best evidence available as to the views of Man itobans is that they do not desire any amendments to The Manitoba Act" Mr. Speaker, in repeating myself, this is exactly what I have said, that Manitobans over the last eight months have been telling this government, they have been telling members of the opposition, that they don't want any changes made.

I say that we have all kinds of proof from Manitobans besdides the provincial plebiscite, as well as the numbers of calls and letters that members of the Legislature, regardless of which side of the House they're on, are receiving from Manitobans. He goes on in the second paragraph to state: "Y our stated objective is to have a legislative rather than a judicial decision. Your present proposal will fail to realize this objective and will result in greater uncertainties regarding the use of French and English languages than presently exist." I've been one of the persons, Mr.

Speak er, that has said from Day One I would prefer that members of the Legislature be the persons that guide the destiny of Manitobans for the years to come, as well as at present, rather than have the judicial system or the judges from the Supreme Court, if a matter was to go to the Supreme Court, be the persons that dictate to Manitobans what should be the case for us. At least, we, as Manitobans have the right at election time, Sir, to defeat a government if we disagree with their proposals, but if we differ with the judges, we have no recourse whatsoever.

The judges have been appointed and in many cases they're appointed for life or until age 75 and they are there and they will render decisions that they wish to render and whether they are within the keeping of the majority of the Manitobans or a small minority. He goes on, Mr. Green, to say that: "Your proposal will open the door to more judicial decisions than are presently avai labl e at the present time. You are apparently unaware of the fact that the purpose of entrenchment is to remove legislative power and to place authority in the hands of nine judges in Ottaw a." Mr.

Speaker, I think that this is an important issue when you move authority from the Legislature and put it into the hands of some nine judges in Ottawa of which we would be very fortunate if one of them came from the Province of Manitoba. Currently, there is one from Manitoba and the other eight are from outside of Manitoba and they would be in a position to tell Manitobans what is best for us.

I say that I would rather have my destination in the hands of the Legislature of Manitoba regardless if it were from the Progressive Conservative Party or not, rather than have it in the hands of nine federally-appointed judges in Ottawa. - (Int erjection) - "The present proposal," Mr. Green goes on to say, "in no way reflects the political consensus of the 19 80s. The proposal is being made after the English language has been used officially in Manitoba for 90 years. It is likely that the political consensus of the 19 80s would unfortunately result in reduced, rather than increased, French language rights.

If you do not accept my view in this connection and you wish to avoid misjudging the political consensus, I suggest that you test the political consensus by calling an election with your government proposal on this issue." We have heard many members from this side of the House suggesting to the government that call an election if you don't believe us, that the people of Manitoba are opposed to this resolution and to the language rights being brought forward in this manner. Mr.

Speaker, if we reflect back to 18 90 when it was the Liberal Government, and I like to always refer to it was a Liberal Government at that time that took away the rights of the French people at that time, and as I've said, that all members in this Legislature disagree with that action that was taken at that time, but perhaps one of the reasons why the people of 18 90 did make such a change was that the French population in Manitoba, which had been at least 50-50 in 18 70, was starting to decline and decline greatly on the English speaking population was increasing.

History will tell you that people that were immigrating and moving out to Manitoba at that time were basically coming from English -speak ing Ontario and tha t Manitoba was receiving very few French-speaking people who were at that time were moving to Manitoba. Perhaps that's the reason why the Government of the Day did make such a change, but I say that with hindsight some 90 years later that - and I have said this before - all members of this Legislature say that that decision at that time was incorrect and that the rights should have been restored and they were restored in 19 80 by the Lyon admin istration.

A MEMBER: Sure they were, sure they were. MR. W. STEEN: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green goes on and says that he is certain that "the Federal Government will assist in the translation services without pressuring the province into enacting a constitutional amendment." This is one of the areas, Mr. Speaker, that we've heard many speakers opposite say, that without 5807

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 proceeding on this course that they would be forced into translating some 4,500 statutes, and by following their action they will be able to reduce that to some figure of 600 and therefore save the taxpayers of Manitoba great sums of money. I say, Mr. Speak er, that I doubt very much that the Federal Government would ever have forced them into translating all 4,500 statutes; we would have gone for years and years into the future without having to change them.

Perhaps statutes that were being used each and every day of the week by the population of Manitoba, yes they should have been translated, and the Federal Government, I'm sure, would have assisted in the financing that was involved in making these changes. One of the problems that I know that faced the Lyon ad ministration was, where could you get qualified persons to do the translating? These people were just not avai lable and it was going to take a great period of time to get sufficient people to make these changes and to get this translation work.

I'm sure that members opposite are going to find the same is going to be the case, that people who have the skill of doing translations are just not avai lable in great numbers. Going back to Mr. Green's letter, "The present proposal," he says, "can be interpreted so as to embody the entrenchment of many more services than were provided for in the original proposal. The position of the government has the people of Manitoba somewhat confused. Six months ago people who opposed the government's position were referred to as bigots and/ or ignorant.

Now the government is doing its best to convince Manitobans that it seeks no enhancement or no expansion of entrenched French services." He goes on and says, "Ha ve the government members joined the ranks of the bigots or the ignorant?" That's just my case and my point there is, Mr. Speaker, th at we don't ha ve to enha nc e and expand the entrenchment of French services, the legislation o! 19 80 is sufficient.

What we could have done for the last eight months is dealt with matters as the First Mini ster says that are of greater importance than this matter, because he's got this matter 58th on his list of 61, and we could have been dealing with many other matters pertaining to everyday matters and concerns of citizens of Manitoba. What has happened though, as a result of the proposals, is that we have, as I have said before, divided Manitobans and have Manitobans arguing with their neighbours and with their friends over an issue that has never had such importance before in their eyes for argumentive purposes. Mr.

Green further in his letter said to the Premier just two weeks ago, "You appear to rely on Sterling Lyon for endorsement. You mentioned that Mr. Lyon made a statement that both English and French are official languages. Your advisers have apparently not explained to you that the statement referred to was adopted by the Legislature without opposition and had to do with the

interpretation of statutes. It was not a constitutional amendment. It could be repealed at anytime if interpreted by the courts as being or going beyond its intent. Your determination to make the constitutional amendment out of a statement in a statute would indicate to me that you require to be kept up to-date on this matter." So obviously Mr. Green is offering his legal advice to the First Minister and trying to help him out with this matter. He goes on to say, "You indicate that only English laws will be valida ted ." Then Mr. Green asks the First Min ister, "When they declared to be invalid?

You apparently have not had brought to your attention the fact that the Court of Appeal of Manitoba has already rejected a case seeking to declare our laws invalid. Mr. Speaker, this goes on to point out again the fact that this proposal is not necessary and that we could have easily have lived with the actions taken in 19 80. I say that we have done for the past number of months is that we have seen the Attorney-General, the former Government House Leader, introduce the resolution back in May, have it discussed in the Legislature on a number of occasions during the latter part of May and part of June.

I believe it was mid-June that he decided in his wisdom to go out and have public forums where he could talk to Manitobans and tell him what the intent of the government was. I say, tell them what the intent of the government was, not go out and discuss with them and hear feedback from the Manitobans as to what they thought about the proposed resolution, but he was going to go out and lecture them, teach them, and train Manitobans as to how to react to his proposed legislation. I recall being at the very first meeting.

It was a noon hour meeting in the constituency of Dauphin, in the town of Dauphin, and there was slightly better than a hundred persons in attendance. About 11 or 12 persons were, at the end of the meeting, granted permission to state their views although this was not the intent of the government to have persons from the audience be given an opportunity to state their views, and of the 11 or 12 persons at that meeting who spoke on the issue, every last one of them were definitely opposed to the ideas of the Attorney-General. So much so, Mr.

Speak er, and I don't ever feel uncomfortable or feel sorry for members opposite, but the Member for Dauphin, the Mi nister of Government Services at the time, was in attendance at the meeting and I have never seen a politician so uncomfortable as to be in a room with better than a hundred constituents and almost to a man, women and child being definitely and strongly opposed to what his government was proposing.

When I say that I witnessed that, I was not present the other day, but I did see it on television when our new Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Government Services Minister was confronted by a number of his constituents and perhaps put in a rather uncomfortable position. I did as I say, Mr. Speaker, attend that Dauphin meeting and I did see the Member for Dauphin in a very uncomfortable position.

I would say, Sir, that speaking of Dauphin, that with a community that likely has better than 50 percent of its population who are of Ukrainian background, that this now Min ister of Hig hways, I am sure was taught a valuable political lesson on that hot, sunny afternoon, that you don't take thorny issues into your back yard unless you have tested the waters and he obviously was taught a great political lesson that day.

When the government did eventually listen to the opposition and accepted the idea of holding a committee, intersessional hearings on this matter, they chose not to go back to Dauphin, and obviously because they had been there once before on their informational circuit and found how uncomfortable it could be, they went down the road somewhat to Ste. Rose. 5808

Tuesday, 31 January, 1984 The Member for Dauphin, I'm sure, has been taught a great political lesson in the year 19 83, and that is you don't take a French issue home to your home town of Dauphin and try and ram it down the throats of your citizens and your electors, especially when more than 50 percent of them are of Ukrainian background and haven't perhaps got the need or the use or the value for having French as their second language.

They would rather have Ukrainian or English as the second language and I would hope that Member for Dauphin has perhaps been taught a good political lesson and perhaps in the fall of'85 or the spring of '86 he'll get the results of that political election back in his home town of Dauphin. Mr.

Speak er, I made reference to the fact that in 18 90, when the changes were made by the Legislature of Manitoba, and said at that time that what the government did was not correct and that at that time Manitoba's population was growing and growing at a rapid rate, but it was growing with English-speak ing persons predominately and not the French people. - (I nterjection) I hear the Min ister of Municipal Affairs over there chirping away. I made reference earlier, Mr.

Speaker, about that Minister who has the distinction of being likely the only former Clerk of this Legislative Session every to become - or Deputy Clerk - an elected official in this Cham ber, and then he is the only person in years to have ever advanced a motion of closure before this Legislature. I say, Sir, that he is going to go down in the history books of Manitoba, if for nothing else other than the fact that he is the man that moved closure, and yet it was strong proponents and supporters of the party that he subscribes to in M. ,I. Coldwell and Stanley Knowles tha

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-172
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 172.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c0410059c84c91d70a02ffffd5dea24edbf05370

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