ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 119 -8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 28 JULY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

Frank KOSTYRA,Ho n. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, LR. (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 V0�endrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon Wesf Ellice 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 Pembiha 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 NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 28 July, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Spe aker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Welding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUE STIONS Brandon University - construction MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Min ister. Mr.

Speaker, the Brandon Un iversity Music Building was promised by the NDP during the election of 19 81. lt was include d in the "wish" list released with the Jobs Fund. lt was part of a NEED Program announce ment made by Mr. Axworthy and the Min ister of Labour on July 15th of this year. Can the First Minis ter advise the House now whether or not approval has been given in order that that project may proceed as planned? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I ind icated on Monday and Tuesday, this matter is presently being dealt with by the Minis ter of Education, and there will be an annou ncement shortly. MR. B. RANSO M: Mr. Speaker, can the First Minister be a little more specific, and advise when a decision is expected ? HON. H. PAWLEY: Soon, Mr. Speaker. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, can the First Minis ter advise the House when construction must begin in order that the $931 ,000 which the Federal Government has pledged towards the project will not be lost? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, we are taking that into consideration in respect to the announcement that will be made. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was roughly - this is a further question to the First Min ister - there was roughly $72 million of budge tary authority in the Jobs Fund. Can the First Min ister advise the Hous e how much of that 72 million has now been committed ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. Wages - construction indu stry MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, a further question to the First Minis ter with respect to utilization of the money set aside in the Jobs Fund. l, and I'm sure the mem bers of the heavy-duty construction industry, are still awaiting some word from this government whether or not any decision has been made for some recognition of the problems the heavy construction industry faces.

Will the Mini stry of Transportation receive some additional dollars, specifically , meeting some of the requests that were made of the government during meetings they had with you, and other members of the Cabinet, a week ago when they were told that some action would be taken? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, yes, there will be an announcement, and the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs and the Minis ter of Tran sportation are In the process of completing an announ cement that will be made pertaining to same. Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Mo rris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speak er, I'd like to ask the First Minis ter, also, a question on the Jobs Fund, if I can. I served notice to a staff of the First Min ister, 1 believe, In early July, regarding an application by the Town of Morris for an extension of the Sewer Trunk Project. I was told at that time that the Jobs Fund would consider this request on July 15th. I would ask now of the Mini ster whether, indeed, that was done? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on or about July 10 th or 12th, I indi cated that there would be a program that would be revealed which would be an overall provincial program pertaining to municipa l and community groups involving some $7 million In total; the details of that would be announc ed on or before July the 31s t. The Min ister of Mun icipal Affairs, along with the Minister of Transportat ion, who is partly involved, as well, will be making an announc ement within the next several days pertaining to same, along with the details and the guidelines pertaining to same. MR. C.

MANNESS: I would then ask the First Minister whether that's a general program or whether, indeed, a certain specific num ber of applications that have come, you know, to the government covering certain projects would make application for that? HON. H. PAWLEY: They're pertained to that program, the municipal portion will be a general program that will invite applications from municip alities. 4620

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 Government polls MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the First Minister. When will he be able to provide to this House the information I requested with respect to details of government polling done at the taxpayers' expense and the cost of those polls? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: There is being circulated a request for information from various departments as to any polling that they have done. When that is obtained then the information will be tabled.

Workers Compensation Board - personnel changes MR. G. ME RCIER: A quest ion to the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, Mr. Speaker. Could he advise approximately how many persons are employed by the Workers Compensation Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: I'd have to get specific information for the Member for St. Norbert on that question. I couldn't give him even a rough estimate at this time, but I can find the information out for him. MR. G. MERCIER: A supplementary question to the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that it is now seven weeks since the Minister undertook to provide to me and the House information with respect to names of persons fired, dismissed without cause, released, and forcefully retired; when will he be supplying that information to the House, and what is the reason for the delay? HON. J. COWAN: As I indicated to the member when he last addressed this question, I will be supplying it to him before the end of this particular Session. Wages - construction industry MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister. Does the First Minister, Mr.

Speaker, approve or intend to emulate the decision by the Federal Minister of Finance who, as he effeciively abolished its own minimum wage requirements for firms tendering on federal construction projects, a move he says designed to keep costs on federal projects in line with the government's 6 and 5 restraint program? MR. SPEAKER: The. Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe, and I will take the question as notice, that there are any provisions per taining to wage levels pert aining to government contracts at the provincial level. 4621 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the First Minister was does he intend to follow the example set by the action of the Federal Government and the Minister of Finance by taking action with respect to minimum wages in Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: The Federal Minister of Finance dealt with changes pertaining to the wage in respect to those that con tract with the Federal Government because of guidelines app arentiy established by the Federal Government, pertaining to those doing contractual work with the Federal Government.

To my knowledge, and in order to ensure accuracy, I do not believe that there any guidelines in respect to wage levels re contractor companies doing business with the Provincial Government. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister signed an Order-in-Council approving increases in Greater Winnipeg building construction wage

schedule which establishes minimum wage rates. Can he explain why journeymen carpenters received a 24.2 percent wage increase? HON. H. PAWLEY: [·"!cause that was as a result of proceeding through the normal rrocess, the process which I und erstand involves representat ion of management and labour. The Minister of Labour is not here. I'll take the question further as one of notice for her but it was the unanimous recommendation on the part of management and labour in respect to the appropria te committee that makes such recommendations.

It is my understan ding that government is not interfered respecting the recommendations of that board in the past. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the wage increase for journeymen carpenters was indeed a wage increase that covered a period of two years, because wage negotiations were in effect at the beginning of the period but not concluded. Does the First Minister approve, even over a two-year period, wage increases that amount to 12 .2 percent and 12 percent at a time when the Federal Government was imposing 6 and 5 wage restraints? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The question as posed seeks an opinion from a Min ister. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to reph rase his question so that it seeks information rather than opinion. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the First Minister this way then. Does he see or believe that the wage increase which he and his Cabinet approved - 24.2 percent - even if it does cover a period of two years, is an example for the kind of collective bargaining that should go on in Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated before, the wage levels are set as a result of a board which consists of labour and of business. Since the Minister of Labour is here I'll ask the Minister of Labour to further elaborate in respect to the question.

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are several unique feature obviously about the construction industry which it would seem that people do not always take into consideration. Surely the people working in that industry are quite aware of them. One is that people working in the construction industry do not have what other people would call a steady job. Their jobs depend on cont racts and these cont racts are sometimes avail able and sometimes not.

So their wages do sometimes reflect the fact that they are not working steadily and they're certainly not working through a Manitoba winter, that's often the case. The Construction Wages Act in Manitoba, and it is the last of the provinces to have such

an act, the wages are determined by a board that is made up of employers and employees; it is chaired by a neutral person acceptable to both and acceptable to the government. That person, as far as I know, has been chairing that committee for some time. So construction wages cannot really be compared to the norm. I have never, in my experience, certainly with the labour side of it, heard people working in other industries compare themselves to the construction industry. It would be difficult to draw the kind of conclusion that the member is asking for. Surface Rights Board MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Mines. I realize the Honourable Minister has been away for a month on holidays. I would like to ask the Minister what he has done so far with respect to appointment of members to the Surface Rights Board, if there has been any action in that respect. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: A release was issued today indicating that the act will be proclaimed on August 9th, and the board will come into effect.

The release also named the members to the board. That release should have been distributed to the member. I would assume that he would get it by tomorrow morning. Employment Standards Branch - babysitters MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour, could the Minister of Labour indicate whether she will be introducing any amendments to legislation that will clarify the position of babysitters in this province with respect to payment of minimum wages? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R.

PENNER: On the Statute Law Amendment bill which I believe has already been circulated - if not, it will be in the next day or so; I thought it had been circulated - there is a provision that deals with the matter. Wild rice legislation MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. I'm sure his office is getting a number of enquiries from those interested in or engaged in the harvest of wild rice. Could the Minister indicate to me at this time what the status of The Wild Rice Act is?

It is passed through this Chamber on second reading, and has been held by the Minister at committee stage. My direction question to the Minister is, is it his intention to proceed with the bill during this Session, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is quite correct in his recall of the facts. The bill is at committee stage. We heard representations on it; some of those representations raised new issues.

I have been involved in consultation in respect to the issues raised and, in due course, before the end of this Session, certainly in good time, we'll be bringing a recommendation to the committee. We will then know how we're going to deal with it. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I simply remind the Honourable Minister that the season is advancing . HON. S. LYON: Harvest doesn't wait for . . . MR. H. ENNS: . .. and harvest doesn't wait for this.

But, my specific question to the Minister is, there are a number of people engaged in the harvest of wild rice whose applications for permits to harvest wild rice are being held up, and part of the reason is because the legislation's being held up. What is the Minister going to do with those applications that are currently in his office requesting permission to harvest wild rice? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, some few days ago we were assured that in the earlier part of this Session that all we had to do was get into Speed-up and certainly we could complete legislation in this House. I'm under no illusion tonight that I expect we could deal with The Wild Rice Act tonight, so, Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate any problem in . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, Law Amendments Committee had been called, one of the items ordered 4622

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 for business on Law Amendments Committee was the bill dealing with wild rice. The government cancelled the sitting of that committee. MR. R. BANMAN: Nothing to do with Speed-up. HON. S. LYON: Don't lie. You're bad enough without being .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Order Paper, we are into Speed-up now for some days and legislation has not been moving. We've been subjected to filibuster, Mr. Speaker, on the number of issues. For the honourable member to suggest that, you know, we're not moving quickly on legislation is false, Mr. Speaker.

There is no problem in respect to allocating rights in respect to wild rice, in the event that the legislation does not pass. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Virden on a point of order. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the Minister state that they had been subject to filibuster. There has been no filibuster in this House and I ask the Minister to withdraw that statement. HON. A. MACKUNG: No, Mr. Speaker. We've had a series of speakers repeating the same statements on any number of bills in this House and I do not withdraw that remark. It is perfectly accurate. HON. S.

LYON: You can't run things like they do in Moscow now, Al. You might like to, but you're not going to. MR. SPEAKER: I don't think there is a point of order. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'm simply asking, will the Minister bring forward The Wild Rice Act when next Law Amendments sits? He didn't the last time, with or without Speed-up. A MEMBER: And now they've cancelled the committee. MR. H. ENNS: So, I'm just asking the question, will the Minister bring forward the bill? I want to pass it. I'll help him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A.

MA CKUNG: Probably, Mr. Speaker, probably so. Government polls MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Can he advise who took the poll with respect to discovering people's views on bilingualism? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I believe I've answered that before but in the event that I didn't, f will answer it now. The poll was conducted under the general direction of Wordsnorth Ltd. who actually did the polling itself.

I believe there are the specialist outfits that were retained by Wordsnorth to do the actual polling, but the setting up of the poll and the analysis of the poll, which is still being conducted, and I expect to have at the beginning of next week, was done by Wordsnorth. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney­ General indicate how many people were sampled? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, on a random sample basis !he sample population was in excess of 600. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would the Attomey­ General table a copy of the question or questions that were asked of the persons sampled? HON. S.

LYON: .. . running about 18 points behind right now. HON. R. PENNER: As I said when I first answered this question, I will be tabling in the House an analysis of the poll. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Speaker, will the Attorney­ General include the location where the people lived that were sampled and the full results of same early next week? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Attorney-General. SOME HONOUR.ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I think I'd like to answer the question if I may. I've instructed, or requested that the analysis contained . . . MR SPEAKER: Order please.

HON. R. PENNER: . . . cross tabulations with respect to distribution of the population in terms geographically by age, by any other of the demographics which were, in fact, obtained in the sampling process. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. How many shopping d .. ys left till Christmas? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Yes, further to the questions asked by the Member for St. Norbert, I have a question to the Attorney-General.

On this survey of 600 people in Manitoba, could the Attorney-General confirm that, unl ike the survey carried out by the Member for 4623

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 Elmwood, more than 6 percent of the people polled responded? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, in fact it's my understanding that of the sample population, to get the 606 replies, that there was very close to a 90 percent response. Enterprise Manitoba Program MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Me mber for La Ve rend rye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Minister of Economic Development.

Yesterday the Minister read a statement in this House dealing with changes of the Federal DREE Program as it applies to the provinces, and the Federal Government policy with regard to the criteria which they will use in distributing monies for OREE. I wonder if she could inform the House whether or not this new change in federal policy will have a bearing on the Enterprise Mantoba Agreement? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Enterprise Manitoba Program is a five-year federal-provincial agreement and it, in fact, expired March 31, 19 83.

What we're in now is the wind-down period of those programs. MR. R. BANMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. I believe that certain components of the Tourism and Development Agreement were not passed, and are still in place. Does this announcement that she made yesterday affect that particular agreement, the programs such as Destination Manitoba and others? HON. 1111. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Destination Manitoba Program does not expire until March 31, 19 84, and all funds will have to be committed by that date, but the payout can extend well beyond that period of time.

One of the good aspects of the new program is that tourism projects will be included as eligible tourism and service projects which was not the case in industrial promotion programs in the past. MR. R. BANMAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. Would she inform the House as to who will now bear the cost for such centres as the Enterprise Manitoba Centres which are located, one in St. Boniface, I believe one in Brandon, and one in Dauphin? Will the province now have to fund the total operation of those particular projects? HON. M.

SMITH: Until next March the funding is shared, but after that their continuation would depend on provincial funding unless we are able to negotiate a successor agreement with the Federal Government to cost share them, however, I would not like to leave the implication that is likely to happen. Bilingualism in Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs and ask him whether he has met, in the past couple of months, with any of the et hnic leaders or gr oups to discuss the government's policy on bilingualism?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I haven't specifically met with any of the leaders of the ethnic community with respect to the government's bilingual program. I have talked to a number of the leaders when we have been meeting on other matters with respect to the position of the government with respect to

Section 23 of the Constitution. Ukranian Festival MR. R. DOERN: Will the Honourable Minister be attending the National Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Mr. Speaker, yes. MR. R. DOERN: Will the Min ister be making an announcement in Dauphin concerning any new grants, goodies or buildings for the Ukrainian Festival? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Mr. Speaker, any announcement that might be made by me at Canada's National Ukrainian Festival would have to wait until that festival does indeed take place. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, is there any truth to the rumour that there is going to be an announcement, either by the Provincial Government and/or the Federal Government concerning a new building with a value of up to $10 million in Dauphin? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. It is not an appropriate question to seek verification of a rumour in this House. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he and/or a Federal Minister will be announcing the construction of a building that costs millions of dollars, this weekend? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be making any announcements with respect to any new building in Dauphin this weekend. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of days ago in discuss ions with the Government House Leader, we had come to an unde rst anding th at the House would not sit this weekend, that perhaps a committee would be sitting on Friday afternoon, a committee or committees. Can 4624

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 the Government House Leader confirm tha t th at understanding is still in place? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: There was, Mr. Speaker, no such understanding and for the Opposition House Leader to rise in his place in the position that they're now in, breaking the agreement with respect to Speed-up, shows how defensive they are. Mr. Speaker, there was an agreement that we entered into with some fear and trepidation that Speed-up would be entered into in order to expedite the business of the House.

Now for their own as yet un revea led tactical reasons, they're filibustering on a bill in the sense of grinding the wheels around and around and around and delaying the business of the House so that we must, in order to fulfil! the expectations of the public, that the business of the House will be done now that we're in Speed-up in a rational way, he dares to stand up and make that kind of an assertion. He ought to ashamed of himself. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I don't believe either member had a point of order. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R.

BANMAN: Several days ago, the now House Leader, the Minister of Health, myself and the Member for Turtle Mountain sat down and worked out an agreement with regard to entering into Speed-up. It was indicated at that time and I believe members opposite that were attending at the meeting that this particular resolution would be fought hard by the opposition. It was agreed that that would happen ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the honourable member have a point of order, or is he going to continue MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the point of order is, the House Leader has indicated that we gave some kind of indication that this bill would receive swift passage. We did not say that and we are using every means and we indicated we would, and that was aside from the ... MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase, order ple ase. The honourable member does not have a point of order. Order please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. Could the Honourable Government House Leader indicate the next item of business, please. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call the debate on the motion to refer the pr oposed amendment to

Section 23 to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections? MR. SPEAKER: On the prop osed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General and amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, the Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR. B. RANSOM: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General :ION. R. PENNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, iirst of all, although the Member for Gladstone's name appears on the Order Paper, she did not in fact adjourn the debate. - (I nterjection) - Well, she rose, but she did not adjourn the debate. However, Mr.

Speaker, we would not want her to lose her opportunity to speak and any other member there can rise and speak to the debate. We would not in any way use the fact that she did not formally adjourn it to have her lose her right to speak. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. Would the Clerk approach the Chair? Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I demand tha t the Minister of Energy and Mines withdraw the remark that our member has sneaked out of this House so "he didn't have to debate.

This government agreed and asked to have a committee sit this evening, and that honourable member happens to be a member of that committee, and for him to stoop to that kind of sleazy comment that she sneaked out of this House to avoid debate - I want an apology from that Minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd love to speak to that point of order. If that person knew that she was going to be at the committee tonight, why did she at 5:30 take the adjournment, Mr. Speaker? Why did she take the adjournment?

A MEMBER: . . . sleaziest person that . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. W. PARASIUK: When I'm going to have the Member for Turtle Mountain call me a sleazy person when, Mr. Speaker, this person right over here red­ baits, name-calls and tries to act with some decorum when he in fact is following the rotten mannerisms of the Leader of the Opposition, we have . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Would the Honourable Minister take his seat? Order please. 'iOlll. W. PARASIUK: And I reject that point of order and those comments by that person. HON. S.

LYON: You better go back to the sewer in Transcona that you crawled out of. HON. W. PARASIUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a point of order. I've just been told to crawl back in the sewer in Transcona that I came out of. 4625

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 HON. S. LYON:. That's right. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I've heard negative comments and cracks ever since I joined this House about Transcona from that person and I'm not going to tolerate that type of comment about Transcona. I was here once when there was an accident, an explosion and a death in Transcona, I asked a question years back and the Leader of the Conservative Party at that time laughed as he is from his seat and says, "Where's Transcona?" If he thinks we're going to tolerate that type of commentary . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order ple ase.

The Honourable Minister does not ha ve a point of order. Order please. HON. S. LYON: If you were the Member for Tuxedo, you'd still have to crawl out of a sewer. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Will the Honourable Leader of the Opposition kindly restrain himself - and other members too? HON. S. LYON: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the face of that kind of provocation from an honourable member who is acting in a dishonourable way, not for you or anybody else. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order ple ase. I will ask th e Honourable Leader of the Opposition again.

The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to the attention of the House on this very question of this requested adjournment of the debate, that I had indicated to the House Leader of the opposition party that it was our concern to get this referral before the public as soon as possible. For that purpose ... HON. S. LYON: It is our concern to stop it. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . we would be calling the motion and would not permit an adjournment of the deba te.

The Honourable House Leader of the Conservative Party said, well, you have to give us notice of that. I said, all right. So I did give notice, and I gave notice yesterday, and here we are. Now they're asking it to be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. S. LYON: That's your problem. If you don't know how to run the House, that's your problem. SPE AKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please. A resolution has been called, standing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Gl adstone. Sinc e that honourable member began her remarks just slightly before 5:30, she has begun her remarks.

If someone else speaks in the meantime, then the honourable member would be speaking twice if she came back to resume her remarks on it. It is then a matter of leave of the House. Unanimous consent would be required to allow some other member to speak on the motion. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we're quite prepared to grant leave to have someone speak on the motion if the Government House Leader will stick to the agreement which we arrived at two days ago. HON. S. LYON: If you have any integrity, stick to it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Is there other member wishing to speak to this matter at this time? The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks at this time on this referral motion. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a motion . . . A MEMBER: We're not going to be bullied . HON. S. LYON: It's not a question of bullying. It is a question of having you bloody socialists keep your word for a change. That's what it is.

It's a question of integrity, and I don't expect you to . A MEMBER: Get lost. HON. S. LYON: . .. understand integrity. You're too weak to understand anything. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. S. LYON: You haven't got much, and you don't understand it. You're not a person to be believed. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. I would ask the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to permit the Honourable Minister to complete his remarks. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have before us, at least initially, is a motion to refer the subject matter of a resolution which stands on the Order Paper before a committee of the House, so that the people of Manitoba will have an opportunity to present their views to a committee of this Legislature, before this Legislature deals with the resolution that stands on the Order Paper that must be passed if we are to complete our understandings with the Federal Government and others that are involved in a question of trying to a common-sense resolution of an issue that is before the Supreme Court. That's the fact, Mr. Speaker.

This motion is designed to allow the public 4626

to participate in a decision that is to be made by the legislators in this Chamber. Now what the honourable members over there are doing in opposing this motion is saying to the people of Manitoba, we will not permit you to come before a committee of this Legislature at this Session while this issue is before the public. It has been brought before the public by members of the opposition, by a member of the New Democratic Party caucus who's in opposition to this matter. It is squarely before the people of Manitoba now.

The people of Manitoba should be given the right, which we want to afford them, to come before a committee and make their views known, so that when we vote as legislators on the resolution that's on the Order Paper, we will have their views. Now, Mr. Speaker, since the resolution has been introduced by the Attorney-General, we have already had some views, some highly critical views of this proposed resolution. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we've had some good, constructive, I believe, criticism. I think we could hear more.

We can hear more attitudes, fe elings , res ponses and perhaps some more constructive criticism about the proposed resolution. We would benefit by that, Mr. Speaker. We want to hear those views. There has already, as I have indicated, been some constructive criticism. The First Minister, the Premier, the Attorney-General has said, that criticism has to be considered. There is some merit in some of the criticism that has been presented.

The Attorney-General has even been generous enough to indicate that some of the views of the Leader of the Opposition, some, some of his remarks, have some significance, and perhaps have to be considered. But what are honourable members opposite doing? They are saying, no, no, this matter has to be dealt with on our terms. It has to be adjourned to an intersessional committee when the matter is no longer uppermost in the minds of the people. It is uppermost in the minds of the people now. People do want to make representation.

We are advised that there is an extensive number of people who have already signified to the Clerk that they want to appear before a committee of this House, but honourable members over there want to deny the rights of Manitobans to do that. That's what they are doing in this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I said, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) - to the House Leader of the Conservative Party, look, we want to facilitate the will ol the people of Manitoba. We want to allow them to come before a committee of this House. You can understand that, Mr. Spea ker. They can understand that. Why are they blocking it, Mr. Speaker?

The Honourable Member !or Springfield perhaps has the key to this. They've got some troubles, Mr. Speaker. They have got a divided caucus. Within it, the y've got some deeper shades of bigotry. Mr. Speaker, they have got a problem with it, because now they have a national leader who .. HON. S. LYON: If you'll listen to Springfield, you'll believe anything. HON. A. MACKllNG: ... is looking, Mr. Speaker, to provide their federal party with some basis in Quebec. Mr.

Speaker, if this Conservative Party of Manitoba is 19 83 shown to be as negative and as hostile to any consideration of the historic wrong that was done to the French in Manitoba; if that significant fact is laid before the people of Quebec, then Mr. Mulroney has a big problem because the Anglophones in Quebec are going to say to Mr. Mulroney and his Conservative Party, how can we trust you when your party in Manitoba has no trust, no sense of justice. Even limited extension of rig hts that was promised frustrated and harassed by your party in Manitoba, How is Mr.

Mulroney going to deal with the Anglophones in Quebec? Mr . Sp eake r, I leave it to you to to conjecture. But worse still, Mr. Mulroney, this Conservative leader, how can he assure the Francophones in Quebec that his party stands for real consideration of the historic base of Canada, of the two founding nations? How can he look to his Manitoba group of Conservatives and get any support for that proposition? Mr. Speaker, they're in trouble on this issue. What they are trying to right now is stall, Speaker. They're trying to Where do these from Manitoba stand? We haven't heard them saying anything about Mr.

Speaker, !heir object is to stall. Stall, why? They are frustrating the will of the people of Manitoba. Well, they will pay a they want to stall, if they want of Manitoba will say, how can it an opposition that harassed and harangued and said, let's get Speed­ up. The public knows the Conservative opposition wanted us to go into Speed-up. That's a maller record now. They will say, Mr.

Speaker, how is that the opposition party, anxious for Speed-up, anxious to get on with the work of the legislature now is stalling and not permitting the publ ic to come before a committee of the Legislature and make views known on a matter that they're anxious to talk about. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative caucus in Manitoba have some difficulty . . . HON. S. LYON: You didn't even want the public come before the committee. We have to put up with fools. HON. MACKllNG: Mr. Speaker, we know they have difficulty with their Leader but, Mr.

Speaker, !he problem that the Conservative caucus has with their Leader should not be the al batross that will destroy the Conservative Party in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that is what's happening. Now the Honourable Leader the Opposition laughs, but the Honourable Member Fort Garry knows that they have a problem. The Honourable Member for lakeside knows that they have a problem, You can't have it both ways, Speaker. You can't saying to the public ol Manitoba, look, we wanted 1em to go into Speed-up so that we could get on with , he business of Manitoba.

Then when we get into Speed­ up, the speak one after another, repetitious speeches, trying to argue for a reason why we don't give the people of Manitoba an opportunity to appear before a committee of this House. Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing the resolution itself. They are arguing a procedural motion, to allow this matter to go before a committee of the House. Mr. 4627

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 Speaker, their conduct betrays the confusion that exists within the Conservative caucus. It betrays the kind of dilemma that they have in respect to this issue, in respect to their federal party. Mr. Speaker, the public will understand the government in its desire to get on with having this matter before a committee of the House. Mr. Speaker, let them balk. Let them continue to filibuster, because that's what they have been doing. They will pay the price for that, Mr. Speaker. We know that we are responding to the needs of the people of Manitoba.

We want this matter to go before the committee, and we're prepared to hear them and hear whatever constructive advice they want to give us. They don't want that to happen, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. S. LYON: He's at least got some integrity. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is with some sadness and near discouragement that I rise to take

part in this debate this evening. I have been in this House long enough to know that heckling is part of the tradition of this House, but I hope that heckling will not be used tonight to prevent me from expressing my deepest and strongest feelings. HON. S. LYON: Go ahead, Larry. HON. L DESJARDINS: It is also a certain tradition that, especially on some occasions, where members of this House, sensing that a member has a particular interest in a subject, will allow him to make his remarks and his speech without interruption. I hope that this will be such an occasion this evening. Mr.

Speaker, until now, I have purposely kept a low profile on this question not because of lack of interest, but rather because it was presented as a legal question, and I felt that the Attorney-General and the Premier were giving it the leadership that it needed. But today, I wish to participate in this debate. In the past, on occasions such as these, I have always felt that I should deliver at least some of my remarks in French to show that I believe that I have and I possess these rights, to show the interest. It was a symbol also.

But this evening, I feel that it is more important to really be heard and be heard today, not wait for a translation. So I will say my few words completely in English, Sir. Let me assure you that I do not intend to start name­ calling or insults at this time. I'm confident that if the members of this House try to listen with a bit of understanding, with an open mind, that they will indeed understand somewhat better and maybe be inclined to change their decision in this or maybe even support this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Many statements were made in this House, but the one that I consider to be the most germane to this de bate, the one tha t I consider to be the most impressive and to the point was made by the President of the Manitoba Government Employees Association in his letter to the Premier on July 12, 19 83, and I would like to quote from that letter, Sir, because we all received a copy. "The Manitoba Government Employees Association fully supports the reinstatement of the constitutional language rights that existed in The Manitoba Act of 18 70.

Had those rights not been abrograted, there would be no need for the potentially divisive debate on this issue today. We further support a limited extension of those rights in the provision of practical bilingual government services." This is actual ly, Sir, what it's all about, the reins tatement of constitutional rights tha t were abrogated in 18 70 and 1916. It is reasonable to assume, Sir, that all rights granted to Canadians were increased, were at least improved over a period of 75 years to 90 years.

I am sad, and I am saddened by some of the words of our own people who seem to think, well, we had something, make darn sure we don't give them any more than that. That was repeated and that seemed to be the defensive. That's all it said, in 18 70, that's all the right you had, and time was supposed to have stood still where everybody else would improve their rights, but time would stand still for a certain group of our population.

You would think that any fair-minded Canadians and Manitobans would want to make amends for the irreparable damage that has been caused to this group of our Canadians and Manitobans, but instead, will say what's the minimum we can get away with? What did we take away 90 years ago? Maybe we should give them that if they beg enough, Mr. Speaker. In 1916 the Norris Government abolished certain rights in Manitoba. Thousands of Franco-Manitobans had to regress back to zero.

This injustice had to be rectified and it was recognized by many great Manitobans, many Manitobans that did an awful lot for this province, and I would like to quote at this time, Sir, from a progr essive Ma nitoba Prem ier, the Honourable Duff Roblin, who stated on May 4th of 1959, the year that I was first elected to this House, and I quote from Mr. Roblin: "We know that Manitoba is a bilingual province since its creation. We believe that this character must be further developed. My will is that all Manitobans one day will be able to speak English and to speak French." A MEMBER: Who said that?

A MEMBER: Duff Roblin. HON. S. LYON: You used to call him a gutless wonder. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I implore this House to let me make my remarks in peace for a little while; it won't last that long. If it doesn't convince the Members of this House, allow me to quote from the Tribune of October 21, 19 65, Sir, reporting a speech made by Premier Roblin, the then Premier, in Trois Rivieres, and again I'd like to quote.

"Premier Duff Roblin of Manitoba said here Wednesday night that in the long run both Frenc h-spe aking and English­ speaking Canadians face the same fate if they can't get on together - absorption by the United States. Mr. Roblin said Canada must have a new constitution, not just a patch- up, which would recog nize not only individual rights but also national rights. By national rights, he explained outside the meeting, he meant French and English language rights, such as bilingualism in government services and use of the mother tongue 4628

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 official language, English or French, as the principle language of instruction in schools. "Without French Canada, the Premier said, Canada probably isn't viable because it would then be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a Canadian culture distinct from that of the United States." Even Mr. Crosbie, almost 20 years later, recognized publicly the bilingual character of Canada. Mr. Mulroney, Sir, the present national leader in the Cons ervativ e Party (Interjection) - yes, and a man who could well become the next Prime Minister of Canada, endorses the words of Mr.

Roblin spoken nearly 20 years ago, and certainly endorses our action in this resolution. Certainly it should not be the intentio n of the Manitoba-wing of this party to be out of step with the Conservative Party and their new leader. The Western Canada Concept movement is gearing to run candidates here in Manitoba. After resisting the Quebec separatists, are we now going to allow the western separatists to take over this province?

Surely not We must unite to resist them and to keep them out of Manitoba and, in order to keep them out, politicians of all colours must provide the proper leadership needed at times such as we are going through now. Let me now try to make a few points. We are told that it is the Legislature's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and not the courts. Do you think for a minute that had these rights not been guaranteed by The BNA Act, Sir, that we would be talking about reinstating them today? Who do you think abolished these rights? It wasn't the courts, it wasn't a dictator.

No, it was a duly elected provincial government, a Legislature such as we have now. I don't think, Sir, that they called a referendum to ask the people of Manitoba if they should take any rights away. I don't think that was done; I don't think that they even had a resolution. I think just a gover nment decided, duly elected government decided, to take rights away. Is it any wonder, Sir, that we now are saying we've had enough, we don't want it to go back to zero again, and again, and again? We want, we insist, we want our rights enshrined in the Constitution. Is it any wonder?

Is that being divisive, is that rocking the boat because we want to be protected, rights that we lost, that somebody took away from us? Sir, one of the things that saddened me is the words of the Member for Niakwa, I think it is, the member that spoke this afternoon, because I consider him as very very sincere, very honest, and I know that he thinks he's right on this and this is what hurts. It is the patronizing tone that he gave this afternoon saying, yes, I do agree. I recognize that these people had rights and that those rights were taken away from them.

I recognize that, I recognize all these rights, and I want to give them these rights, but gradually. Gradually, bit by bit, it'll come. I know they've waited a hundred years or so, but what's another 50. what's another 10 0. That, Sir, is patronizing; that, Sir, is wrong. Then he was saying that because th ere was a resolution to enshrine them and guarantee them in this Constitution of ours, well then that would be divisive and, if that was done, people would turn against the Franco-Manitobans.

It's just like saying to somebody that has been jailed for 90 years, and then they find out that was unjust, well, take your time. You've waited a hundred years, wait a little while longer; your time will come. You have your rights but don't rock the boat. Those are not rights, Sir. If those are privileges that were given maybe you can take your time, but when your rights are taken away from you. What happened to our people? What happened to Franco-Manitoban people?

Maybe you can point out the small numbers that we have left; maybe you can see people in this House French names that do not speak French, not because they don't want to, but why did they lose the French? Because of the rules. It is true that we've had to hide our books when inspector came; that's absolutely true that we couldn't even teach French as a subject for years and years, Sir. We are saying, but be careful, don't give them any more than they had 90 years ago; make sure you don't because it's the end of Manitoba.

You're going to destroy Manitoba, you're going to hurt the people of Manitoba, and this is what we keep hearing, Sir. Can you fault Franco-Manitobans for then now that rights taken by politicians should be An•�hri11'•ri in the Constitution? We certainly do not want to beg forever. Is that what is wanted by some of the members of this House, that we must beg? You know, sit up and beg, and maybe we'll give you your rights, gradually, in time. That is not 11ood enough, Sir. We are told then that a referendum should !hen held. Can you imagine, Sir, Abraham Lincoln for a referendum on slavery?

Should we abolish Do you know how far he'd go? Yes, by then the of those days would probably have said, well all right, you're going to lose the election, and that is probably true. I have no doubt, Sir, that referendum, way is going now, it's so easy to be negative and to divide, so easy. I have no doubt that many referendums would say, no. Is that what these people across are saying; ask the people, they will decide? We all recognize, every single one of them that have talked on this have recognized, yes, you have rights, and those rights were taken away. That's unfair, but if the people say, no, sorry.

Is that what politicians are supposed to do, take a vote on anything? Could you imagine a referendum on Medicare before we had Me dicare? Could you even imagine a referendum on Autopac, Sir? And you can't tell me that those did not have much more of an effect on many more Manitobans than this. They will not know that this exists, those that are criticizing, because nobody is trying to force it in anybody's mouth. Nobody is trying lo force it on anybody. These are rights that we wish that we would have. Was there a referendum, Sir, on the right of women to vote? Would that have passed?

Would there be any referendum that passed when the elitists are saying, we like things the way they don't rock the boat would be the majority, the majority of voters. We heard, take your time, the coloured people, it's coming in the states. Why is it coming? Because a few people probably had to be shot and some people rocked the boat to bring the attention, to go to the conscience of some of the people, some of the Americans, and this is what is happening now. What is all this thing about having a refere ndum, going to the public? The people have been talking about that for over a hundred years, Mr.

Speaker, what's 4629

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 another few months going to do? Give more time to try to incite the people that say, resist these people, the French Canadian in Manitoba want to take over; 80,000 of them would take over from a million people. What a ridiculous statement, Sir. Right now we would take the rights that were taken away from us 90 years ago. If you want us to stand still; if you want us to beg, we'll beg, but give us these rights, those rights that we've earned that are ours.

Maybe I'm not a very good Manitoban, but I come from seven and eight generation Canadian, and I also fought in the war and I'm as good a Canadian as anybody in this province, I'll tell you that. There comes a time, Sir, when a responsible politician must take that responsibility, not count votes. At least the members on this side of this House have talked about reasons, and I believe they're sincere. They might not be right, I might not agree with them. The Member from Hollywood, yes, Hollywood, because he's an actor, the Member for Elmwood, Sir, what did he say? Did he say anything about the rights?

He said you're going to lose the next election; everything negative. There's a man who I am not going to comment about him not being on the Cabinet, I always felt that this was a difficult decision to make and a difficult thing to take, and I would find it very difficult, I will not hide that. I certainly will comment on his action now of trying to say this is not something, this is strictly expediency and that's all it is. That, Sir, is a coward's way of doing things and I don't belong in that and I don't want to spend much more time on it. Now, we're told by this member, well, I believe in those rights.

I was in a play "Le Malade lmaginaire." I think if you translate that it was the "imaginary sick." That's what he is, imaginary sick. It is, Sir, certainly false to claim that because a minority is being granted rights that the majority is automatically going to lose something. What is this great fear? It is rather, Sir, much to the contrary, much like the former Premier Roblin said, and that is why so many of the ethnic groups, the other groups feel, yes, by granting these rights we know that we will have our rights protected, also, and then the majority also know that their rights will be protected.

When you haven't got the guts - (Inte rjection) - Then, Sir, there was a statement made that the government, in moving this resolution, is going to gain brownie points. Sir, I defy you to find anybody in Manitoba that will say that, other than the Member for St. Boniface, anybody can win points; they're going to lose points. They're going to lose points because it is so easy to be negative, to destruct, to knock down, instead of building. That's a little tougher and it takes a hell of a lot more guts, Mr. Speaker.

I say, Sir, that together we can provide the leadership, the leadership given by Roblin in 19 67 when Bill 59 was passed; leadership given by Schreyer and the members of the day in 19 70 when Bill 11 3 was passed. Then too, Sir, we said the same thing. I know, this is one of the main reasons I came in politics, this is one of the main reasons why I changed parties.

Yes, I was called an opportunists, and I was, and I will be again if I have an opportunity to serve the people that send me here; to try to get back important rights, I certainly will do it, even if it meant crossing the floor; I don't regret that at all, Sir. I heard the same thing then, you know, we were fanatics, and it was political suicide. How many times have we heard that, political suicide on the French bills? Remember the days, the first day in 19 55 when I brought in a resolution making French a teaching language. I was called every name under the sun. I was a fantatic.

In 19 65, why did I rock the boat, everybody was satisified, why did I rock the boat? It was political suicide if anybody gave anything. Sir, there was a vote on Bill 59, there was a vote on Bill 11 3; they were both unanimous. I never heard of one person losing his seat because Bill 11 3 or Bill 59 was passed. Unanimous yes, granted a few ducked the vote which is their right, but those that stood were recognized in this House unanimous and, in those days, it wasn't much more; it was a little better than now, but it wasn't many votes that were unanimous, Sir. Mr.

Speaker, I think one of the concerns, one of the reasons that there is trouble is that unfortunately new immigrants coming to Canada, and immigrants that later become Canadians, do not understand the true character of our country. This is because no one has taking the trouble to educate them. In 19 67 or so there was a resolution on immigrants and I stated, at the time, that the important thing - I think that there was a member, Mr. Lisiman from Brandon at the time was saying well, a ceremony was important and there should be all the pomp and splendor because it was something great to become a Canadian.

That's true, Sir, but I added, in those days, that what I thought was greater is the people understanding what a Canadian was. When they came from Europe or other countries they came to Manitoba here. Nobody told them that there weren't in the United States or the same kind of country, that there wasn't a melting pot here, that they had to their culture, their language and everything just at the border and that there were two official languages, Sir.

If that had been said, you would not have people such as my friend from our back seat, going around and telling these people that your rights are being taken away; look what they are doing for a group that a smaller than you. And, Sir, what are those rights? We're talking about Canada. Somebody - which is his right, again, the Member for Niakwa - said that he was a Manitoban first. I feel that I'm a Canadian first, Sir, and my concern is not just the 80,000 Franco-Manitobans, it is across the country.

That is when we'll have a united country, when we will not only just tolerate - you know the way we talk and this paternalism that I hear around this House - that we will be tolerant; we want you to take your place in the sun, be a good boy now, Larry, and we'll let you sit with us.

I want to see the day where I will be accepted for being a Canadian such as anybody else not as a favour because I'm Franco-Manitoban, that I should be a second-class citizen and I should be told by one of my best friends, one of the people that really recognize my rights, but be told nevertheless, take your time, gradually, you've waited 10 0 years, wait again. It'll come if you're patient. In the meantime, we might lose another 40,000 and eventually it won't mean much. I'm not too sure about that.

I think that's why we're still alive because we had to fight, Sir, because we had it hard, because we had to hide our books and it became something that was worth something because we had to fight so hard for it. I think that these immigrants that we're talking about were not well-informed as to the makeup of Canada, 4630

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 the fabric of Canada and the history of Canada prior to the establishment here. Too often the immigrants to our country feel that they have no other way of perceiving Canada any different, that Canada is part of North America and very similar to the United States, as I stated a little earlier. Also, I think I covered that one, !his is actually the most ridiculous statement that I've heard. The statement that Franco-Manitobans would take over the Province of Manitoba.

We're told that we're not too many; why are you raising so much fuss; you're not worth it; you're not up - but then in the same breath we're told we're going to take over Manitoba. These are the things that are said. They'll take your jobs, people like Doern here said that. These are the things that we are given the impression that if you're given your rights, then you'll move in. You'll take all the jobs in Manitoba - wasn't that said? - that's said every day right now. That's said in information that's going out. Let's stop for a minute and think.

What would be so awful for a person who wants to make a career out of being a civil servant - I'm not talking about a secretary or people in some kind of research, I'm talking about a few that are trying to make a career out of serving Manitoba as civil servants - that they should require eventually to know both official languages. What is so bad about that? I want to hasten to say, Sir, that I'm not suggesting that anybody should be . . I don't bel ieve in th at kind of a policy tha t the Federal Government has that you're talking about people 50- 55 and say, you've got six months to learn French.

That is utterly ridiculous and that has done us more harm than anything else. Mind you, my priority is not even in this. The priority, ii I have my first choice, I would say that French would be a language that would compulsory in all our schools here in Manitoba. I think that's the way to go. I think if we started like that - it's the same thing that we're talking about prejudice. The Leader of the Opposition in one of his speeches was that people hate, and people do that.

I hope to have another occasion that poem that I used in a speech once before and I remember one line· so distinctly when we're talking about prejudice, and say ii our children have prejudices it's because ol us. I think you probably remember the line, °'Y ou have to be taught to hate . . . " and ii goes on and on. Those are the kinds of things, Sir, that worried about. I'm sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is not his seat today because I wanted to direct remarks to him through you Sir, because I've known him a long time.

I don't really know what's the matter him these days; don't really know ·· because he has changed. I remember when he was echo of the then Premier of Manitoba that he .vas talking about the nnhts. I remember right in this House not too long ago when he was opposition and prior to '77 that he made the same statement that he felt that French should be compulsory for everybody.

The first time that suggested that was about 25 years ago or so - and then you'd have wha.t? - that would have been the childrim 10 years, that would be 35 years of bilingualism, we probably wouldn't be any need to be here at all because it would be second nature; it would be part of education; it would be accepted like in most countries of E1 1rope; it would be llnother language.

It would not 4631 be looked at as something that - even my friend Niakwa said that he was ridiculed because he took French - it would be something that would be part of the baggage that you bring in life, and part of the things that make you that much better and that make understand. Because you can talk to people, you can listen to them but you have to look at through their eyes ii you really want to see where from.

We heard today where I was talking about n"''"'''°'"'""''" - that phrase, that sentence again that time it's spoken - "Some of my best Canadians." I know it was meant in I never take those sentences the way - some my best friends are French Canadians. I was talking about the Leader of the Opposition and I really refuse to believe that he's anti-French because I've heard him before. i think that he's been bum deal in that but I think that he owes it to of Manitoba to say what this is all about and that's where we should have the discussion.

If he wants to be consistent and if he wants to say, Larry, I've been against business enshrining rights, was against the Bill of well, from attitude the people don't know he comes from The people don't km.>11, "/I/here he comes and think that he's against stood up and yes, those rights were taken yes, that was yes, right away. We wouldn't to go the it would be less misleading. Then he can consistent, I'm it as a question of then we would go to the argument of a ago. A few years ago, by the way, Sir, I don't remember that there was a referendum.

A few years ago, we were told this afternoon, that this is such an important it's going to change Canada forever and day. were told then, we were fighting to have principle enshrined in the Constitution, other n r:"mv·c"' going along. Sometimes I think I have is absolutely all gravy or all perfect Constitutio;1; I've seen things happen.

I'll grant the Leader of the Opposition that he might have a point, certainly that he thinks he has point But why do we talk about that and why then not strong enough and fair enough and honest enough to say, three or four years ago when we talked about enshrining human rights in the Constitution - also had a little pamphlet, he would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I sent that pamphlet before even in House. I didn't discuss it in the House at all; went these meetings in Ottawa told !hem where Manitoba stood.

Then, when this was done, I through the motion of having committee and meeting in Brandon and in areas like that. What is so different? Why don't the members there stand up and you 're right, lik e one of the members afternoon. Why don't they stand up and say, yes, rights were there and you should have those rigllts reinstated exactly like the Government Services people are saying. At no time do I remember that we said we're not going to look at any amendment, I've never said that anytime that people have asked.

What we've said, what the Attorney-General said was that we would have discuss with some of these people to see if it

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 would go along. Now why? Even then it doesn't say that we cannot go ahead and change things even if they don't agree, but we have to talk to them first because there is an agreement that if that is done, they will not proceed with this court case. What's so wrong about that? The then Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, tried to make a deal with Ottawa in those days - all the provinces - in somebody's kitchen somewhere when they got rid of Levesque. They tried, everybody tried. What was so different then? Was that less important?

Wasn't that affecting 80,000 - not 80,000, a lot of them are not going to use this, maybe 20,000 maybe 30,000? We're told today that there's no prejudice; prejudice doesn't exist anymore; that's a thing of the past. How little he understands. The rights are there to build the schools. Go and see, every time the Minister of Education, time and time again, when we were in opposition a few years ago - and now the people are going, okay, forget the school question. The school commission and the Minister should stop these schools.

How hard it is not even just for Francophones, but for people tha t want to learn French in th ese total immersion schools. Look at how hard it is to build these schools. No, Sir, we'll have prejudice here for a long time as it is all over what we're dealing with human beings. I have prejudices, I'm sure. But what if we try not to act on these prejudices, if we do our best. Then you would have united people. It's not these resolutions that divide the people, it's what's in your heart, Sir. Do you tolerate people? Do you accept them? Do you appreciate them - which is even better and I'd like to be appreciated.

I was talking about teaching French where it would become second nature to all the children here and eventually they would all be bilingual. I think, as I say, if that was done we wouldn't have to fight or to go through what we're going through now.

This is a question, I think that it was the former Member for lnkster who made a speech in this House that everybody applauded because he said in th ose days - my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, and I were on the same platform years ago before he even entered this House, if he remembers, it's probably the first time that I met him face to face in Thunder Bay, it was Fort William in those days, with Rev. Gary Miles, where we spoke to the Christians and Jews.

We all agreed in those days and we talked about that and we said exactly that same very thing, give these people their rights and it'll give more rights to this third group that ask where do they belong. Sir, I've never, even in those days when it was popular talk about bilingu alism and biculturalism, I never believed in biculturalism, it was always multiculturalism and I had no trouble with these groups at all. I was the Minister responsible. Then again, I was told about political suicide when I organized the Manitoba Mosaic because we wanted to show that it was indeed a mosaic, not a melting pot.

We don't believe in the melting-pot theory that they have in the United States. I certainly want a Canadian culture and a Canadian culture is this mosaic, this patchwork, this quilt that we see that's made up stronger when we have all these cultures, a little bit of everything, and that together makes the Canadian culture and the Canadian people. As I said, and I believe it, I think we have reasonable people. At times we go crazy, it's like a zoo. But I've had no trouble speaking to anybody one-on-one and it's expected we're not going to give anyone around here a free ride; we're going to come hard.

I expect that; I do the same thing. But I think, all in all, that we are honest and I think that this is a very important time for our country and for our nation and this is not a mistake or a slip of the tongue. I'm not talking only about the Province of Manitoba or St. Boniface, I'm talking about our country. The Federal Conservative Leader knows it also. It was obvious and that was encouraging, I watched that leadership convention, where they felt that they have to recognize all the people and I was impressed.

I think that we would be going backwards. it reminds me in the first days that I was elected in '59, the trouble and the speech and the Leader of the Opposition knows very well - he was there - the difficult time that we had and we saw it through. But now we're going backwards with this. We're going backwards because some people are saying, have a referendum. They're not saying, we want to educate the people; they are saying the people won't want it, give them a chance to organize so they can fight it.

Surely, you must have more confidence in yourself that you don't want that kind of trick to move over on the side. Certainly you must think you've got enough ammunition without resorting to that, without making me a Franco-Manitoban, the fall guy again that you want to go to zero again. I'm not interested in going to zero; it was too hard. This right, we gained it.

When I started in this House, French as a subject was taught from Grade 9 only, from Grade 9 as a subject and when they went to Grade 7 - go and talk to the people, political suicide - then it went to Grade 4, and finally they started teaching it in kindergarten, that was fine. But then it was French as a teaching language - that was the very end of it all; you were going to destroy the province. Nobody would do that, political suicide. And Duff brought it in and people stood together shoulder to shoulder; some didn't like it, but it passed and there was no fight.

This is what I see when he talks about leadership. Was it any different then? It only takes one person. That is why I say this is a cowardly way of doing it - one person to wave the flag and say these people are going to destroy your country, your province. There are always some rednecks . . . Sir, in closing I implore the members of this House - (Int erjection) - sit down. MR. FI. DOEFIN: Sit down yourself. I rise on a matter of privilege. I will not stand here and listen to that. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Order please, order please. The Member for Elmwood on a point of privilege. MR. FI. DOEFIN: Mr.

Speaker, do I have the right to express myself or not? I certainly do. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I said he was cowardly and I think it is a cowardly act, Sir. I'll repeat that again and again and again, Mr. Speaker. MR. FI. DOEFIN: Sit down, you're out of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. 4632

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, am I recognized? I've been called some names. I want to reply to that. I rise on a matter of privilege. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for El mwood on a point of privilege. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is telling a falsehood. He has stated a falsehood. I have never in my life been against the French people; I have never in my life been opposed to the French language. I am, Mr. Speaker, opposed to the government's policy on bilingualism. - (I nterjection) - That is not the same thing. I ask the Minister to withd raw ... I rise now on a point of order.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Would the Member for Elmwood please take his seat? Order please, order please. The Member for Elmwood did not have a point of privilege. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. MR. DE PUTY SP EAKER: Would the Member for Elmwood please state his point of order precisely. MR. R. DOERN: The point is that the Minister has made false allegations. He has attempted to smear me in this debate. He has told untruthful things, and I ask him to retract those statements which he cannot in a million years demonstrate. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Health to the same point of order. HON. L DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I stated . A MEMBER: What statement do you claim to be misleading? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Will you shut up a minute? Mr. Speaker ... MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDdNS: Mr. Speaker, I stated strongly that I felt that there was a reason why the stand of the - (I nterjection) - MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. HON. l. DESJARDINS: I am on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. A point of order cannot be raised on a point of order.

HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I stated that I felt, although I did not agree with everything that the Conservative Party stated or said, that I felt that at least they were consistent. I felt that the actions of the Member for Elmwood were cowardly. I don't have to retract that, it is my feeling, if he wants to debate that, if he wants to claim that it isn't, it is certainly his right. I won't stand up on a point of order. I'm saying that it is cowardly way of doing it and I stand by that, Sir. I think that I have just a minute or so, and I was saying that I would - (I nterjection) - MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Elmwood to the same point of order. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member attempted to smear me. He has used the words "bigoted" and "cowardly." I ask him, as an honourable member, to retract those statements. I ask him to retract them. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. HON. FI. PENNER: To the same point of order, referring to Beauchesne in the 5th Edition at Pages 11 0 and 111 .

"Since 19 58, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions:" - over on Page 111 - "coward." Sir, if there was ever a time when it was parliamentary to use the word "coward," this was it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAK'.!:R: Order please. The Minister of Health to the same point of order. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Minister of Health to the same point. HON. L DESJARDINS: Yes, my point, Sir, is that we have a difference of opinion.

I do believe that the action dealing with this thing, the action of the Member for El mwood of being coward ly, and I say so. - (I nterjection) - Eh? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Elmwood to the same point. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I simply say this. The Minister may have a big gut, but he has no guts on this matter. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this. I would refer, specifically, to Page 111 of Beauchesne where the word "coward " and its derivatives, which I would assume would be included, are ruled to be parliamentary expressions.

The Minister of Health has one minute remaining. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speak er, I think I' ve signified a while ago that I had a minute or so and, again, it's the same deal that we try to give the leadership on this. Let's fight, if it's a question of principle, that if a party or group or an individual does not believe in enshrining any rights, let's say so, but let's make it clear to the population of Manitoba tha! we are not fighting - at least these two parties - on the question of re-establishing and giving the rights that were taken away from the Franco-Man itobans. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 4633

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? A MEMBER: There's no question. It stands in the name of the speaker. A MEMBER: No, the Speaker ruled that. A MEMBER: No, the Speaker did not rule that. You'd better get the Speaker back in here, we're going to have another . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: I thought the Speaker's Ruling was very clear. HON. S. LYON: Well, you think wrong most of the time. HON. R. PENNER: The Speaker said that the Member for Gladstone had begun her speech.

The matter hadn't been called again, the Member for Gla dstone not being here to complete her speech, then that's it; it cannot be stood. - (I nterjection) - No, it cannot be stood. It is cle ar, that is right. What he said was very clear, namely, that she had begun her speech. He made that as a ruling. That being so, when it's called again it cannot be stood without unanimous consent and there is no unanimous consent. HON. S. LYON: Well then, you'll get some bells maybe ringing. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Virden to the same point. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Speaker, it's surprising how terrible the hearing of the Attorney-General is. The Speaker, in making his ruling, stated that the Member for Gladstone had begun her speech . HON. R. PENNER: That's right. MR. H. GRAHAM: . . . and the debate stood in her name unless. by unanimous consent, somebody else wished to speak, but it still stood in her name. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Are you ready for the question? The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the point of order is that the member in whose name this resolution stands is participating in the business of the Legislature in the other committee which has been ordered for business tonight. Because she is participating in that item of business of the House, she is unable to be present to participate in this item, Sir, and it would be entirely inappropriate and out of order for the government to force this resolution through at a time when the member is not here because she is participating in other business of the House. HON. S. LYON: Totalitarianism, it's called, behind the Iron Curtain. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. There seems to be some dispute as to what the Speaker's Ruling was originally. The Speaker will be summoned tonight to repeat his ruling in order that we not have to wait for Hansard to appear tom orrow. A MEMBER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a dispute as to what the Speaker's Ruling was earlier tonight. The Speaker will be summoned to repeat his ruling so that we don't have to wait for Hansard tomorrow. MR. B. RANSOM: If you guys think you're going to force this through, you've got another think coming. HON. S.

LYON: You can't break your word and get away with it, not with honest people. Now they're going out to try some other manipulation. You have no morality and your word is no good. Act like an honest man, you get treated like an honest man; act like a liar, you get treated like a liar. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please, order please. I'm informed that the transcript of this evening's Hansard has been requested and is not ready at this moment but is expected to be ready very shortly, within a matter of minutes.

If the House is willing to await the arrival of that transcript, it will perhaps satisfy the House; otherwise, I will have to rely on my memory as to what happened at that time. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: May I suggest that we wait for Hansard? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: On the question of the adjournment of the committee that I believe you're speaking about, could we be satisfied, Sir, that the government is not merely manipulating an adjournment of the committee and telling the public to go home to suit their own purposes in the House? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. That is not the question that's before the House. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, that sleazy kind of approach may commend itself to the Leader of the Opposition; it doesn't to us. HON. S. LYON: Then I'll be happy to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the public will be heard in a normal, civil ized way and th at these people won't try to manipulate the committee as they try to manipulate everything else in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

It is not a sitting of the committee that is at stake at this point; it was what the agreement of the House was when the debate on the res olution began in the Chamber. That being the case, the House will recess for a few minutes until that transcript is available. 4634

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 RECESS SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: In regard to the difference of opinion that occurred in the House before our recess, I have now obtained a very rough draft of remarks that were made shortly after 8 o'clock this evening and I would like to restate the ruling that was made at that time and point out some of the remarks that were made to the House. Just after the motion was called, the Honourable Government House Leader said, "Well, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, although the Member for Gladstone's name appears on the Order Paper, she did not in fact adjourn the debate - (Interjection) - Well, she rose, but she did not adjourn the debate. However, Mr. Speaker, we would not want her to lose her opportunity to speak, and any other member there can rise and speak in the debate. We would not, in any way, use the fact that she did not formally adjourn it, to have her lose her right to speak." There followed a matter of points of order there and I then mada the following ruling on the matter. I said, "Order please.

A resolution has been called, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. Since that honourable member began her remarks just slightly before 5:30, she has begun her remarks. If someone else speaks in the meantime, then the honourable member would be speaking twice if she came back to resume her remarks on it. It is then a matter of leave of the House. Unanimous consent would be required to allow some other member to speak on the motion." The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain said, "Mr.

Speaker, we're quite prepared to grant leave to have somebody speak on the motion if the Government House Leader would stick to the agreement which we arrived at two days ago." It was my clear impression at that time that, since the Government House Leader had given his leave to have the matter stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Gladstone and it's cle ar, from the last statement, that the Honourable Opp osition House Leader also gave his consent. It would then seem that leave was in fact granted, as noted earlier in the evening.

Will the Honour able Government House Leader indicate the next item of business? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill 3? ADJOURNED DEBA TE ON SECOND READING Bill NO. 3 - THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. The Hon ourable Member for River Heights has 15 minutes remaining. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe that the Government House Leader had given any indication that he was not going to allow this matter to stand, therefore, we ask that it to stand. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, we are not granting leave to have it stand. MR. SPEAKER: Leave has not been granted to have the matter stand. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To have the opportunity to speak to Bill 3 is always an opportunity that I would not wish to pass up. I have but a moment to get some notes ready. Mr.

Speaker, allow me to begin by saying that it was probably

an act of generosity on the part of the Honourable Mem bers of the Oppo sition in moving the six-month hois t on this particular bill, Mr: Speaker. Mr. Speaker, very oftE?n th<1t traditional motion or amendment is made to a bill to do two things: (

a) to allow a government to find a convenient way - and, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of it - a way to save face, a way to back off from the immediate debate of the situation in the Chamber and in the calmness of the time allotted to him when this House finally prorogues, to reconsider the bill itself, and in a convenient way just to forget about it if it's bad legislation. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the option that this government should seize upon, by virtue of having the opportunity presented to them by the opposition in moving the six-month hoist on Bill 3. Mr.

Speaker, I am of course, the first one to acknowledge, admit there's another reason for moving a six-month hoist. If the bill has some merit, but needs some substantial modification; if the bill, during the period that it's been presented publicly to this Chamber and has been debated at some length, and during the course of that debate a number of arguments have arisen that overwhelmingly suggest to the government that the bill is in error, that it is fau lty, th at it needs major modification, why then, Mr .

Sp eak er, again the government should seize upon the opportunity of a six­ month hoist and improve the bill. If they're too proud, Mr. Speaker, to accept the suggested modifications, the suggested changes to that bill, and I'm a human being, I'm a politician, I know that that happens from time to time, it's hard for honourable members opposite to accept good advice from this side of the House. I can accept that that is a human weakness that perhaps we all share from time to time, but, Mr.

Speaker, that's precisely why such time-worn, but well-used traditional measures are introduced from time to time, in this case the six-month hoist. The government can take two avenues; my first advice is drop the bill, forget about the bill. I said in my remarks when I spoke to the bill itself, and I challenged honourable members opposite, I challenged the Minister of Agriculture, who is he getting the mail and the pressure and the advice from to proceed with this bill? Mr. Speaker, it was an issue in the early '70s, and even into the mid-70s.

That was a period of time when there was an issue, and I remind the honourable members opposite that their government acted upon it, to some extent, when they were in office during the 4635

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 years of '69 to '77. Our government made it a somewhat better bill, a much better bill but, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the issue, in itself, is not there anymore. One of the fundamental reasons advanced by the Minister of Agricu lture, the Minister that's bringing in this bill, for having this bill before us is that it's supposed to keep the price of agricultural land down; it's supposed to keep the price of agricultural land of escalating too fast so that young Manitoba farmers have access to that land.

Well, I'm glad to hear that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture now says no, no that's not the case because, of course, that's no longer an issue, Mr. Speaker, agricultural land has dropped in price in the last number of years. - (I nterjection) - Yes, it has. Mr.

Speaker, if he would just simply get out in the country, if he were to talk to some of the realtors that deal and sell rural farm land I can tell the Honourable Minister that land that sold for $600, $700 an acre five, six years ago is selling for $400 and $500 an acre today, so that one major cause for introducing this bill simply doesn't exist anymore. But even more important, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that the stats that we use, and which we acknowledged at the time we used them were not necessarily 10 0 percent accurate, although I have a lot of confidence in the work that a large number of secretary-treasurers working in municipal offices who know their people; who know the land that they are responsible for, for collecting taxes; who know when a tax bill is sent to a numbered company or corporation whether that is, indeed, an offshore corporation, or whether that is somebody living in Winnipeg, or whether that's somebody living in Brandon. But, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister has signally failed to refute the figures that the opposition on its own, with limited resources, with the co-operation of municipal people, brought to bear on the debate on Bill 3. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister has been embarr assed to have to acknowledge that most of the statistical information that he has leaned on in support for the reasons for Bill 3 is hopelessly outdated and superficial at the best. I believe it was a report done by several researchers, professors at the University of Manitoba, back in 19 76, and those are the kind of figures, Mr.

Speaker, that we are talking about in Bill 3 when, in fact, we at least have 19 83 figures at our hand that shows municipality by municipality the extent of the problem that we're dealing with. Mr.

Speaker, mind you I always have trouble with this government because I've been in government for awhile and I've been in this Chamber for a little while and, by and large, most of the legislation that governments had to deal with, any government, an NDP Government or a Conservative Government or Liberal Government, but most of the legislation that is brought for ward into this Chamber is he re becaus e it's perceived, by the Government of the Day, that there's a special need for. It's here because of special pressure put on, lobbying put on by the group that's involved with the legislation. Mr.

Speaker, we pass all kinds of amendments to various professional acts, for instance, because if the Law Society comes to us and says to us, we have some amendments to proffer. It's

an act that governs our profession, we want to press upon the Government of the Day to make the necessary changes. Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg will come to this House fairly regularly, just about every Session, and say we need amendments to the City of Winnipeg Act. The councillors, the mayor and those people that are involved in running the City of Winnipeg make that request of whoever is government that day. Mr. Speaker, the same thing can be said, as I said, for most pieces of legislation.

There are exceptions, there are some specific matters that, for instance, a party may have boldly enblazened on its election platform when it goes to the people and it says it will do something. Mr. Speaker, I have always acknowledged in this Chamber that, for instance, the creation of Autopac was one such piece of legislation. It was an election promise, part of the NDP election platform in 19 69 when they fought that election and they brought in that kind of legislation. But, in the main, Mr.

Speaker, the kind of legislation that we're dealing with day in and day out is a response to what's perceived to be a legitimate request by an interest group. Our job of course is, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that it doesn't just serve that special group, but that it, indeed, also serves the public interest; that we don't bestow upon special minority groups very specific rights, sometimes self-serving rights as they can well be in the case of closed societies. We have to make very sure that it serves the int erests of the broader community. Mr.

Speaker, I'm prepared to believe that in most cases that's the way legislation comes into this Chamber, up until of course the other night when I had the misfortune of having to listen to a vast majority of cattle producers in this province bring to the attention of this same Minister of Agriculture, and this same government, their opposition to Bill 90. Mr. Speaker, I am still somewhat baffled, by why a bill like Bill 90 is before us, . . . HON. S. LYON: Oh, because the reds wanted it. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . because, Mr.S peaker, it has not been requested; it is not serving the interests of the vast majority, 93 percent of the cattle producers in the Province of Manitoba; and it is destroying a worthwhile organization that the cattle producers of Manitoba worked very hard to put together. Mr. Speaker, all it is is a piece of vindictive legislation of the kind that I have seldom seen in the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is often accused of being pro-business or anti-labour.

I remind the honourable members opposite that as you would expect, after two full terms, eight years of NDP administration, an awful lot of labour legislation was passed during th ose eight years tha t we didn't particularly ag ree with, and we didn't think was particu la ry conduc ive to the best of labour and management relationships in this province but, Mr. Speaker, we were never that vindictive as this Minister of Agriculture and this government was. We didn't throw out any of that labour legislation in the four years that we were government, and we aren't that kind of vindictive people. HON. S.

LYON: We're not reds, that's why. MR. H. ENNS: Besides that we also have a little bit of capacity to count, and why willfully go against 4636

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 organized labour, even if it's represented by somebody like Dick Martin who professes every opportunity that he has, his opposition to my party, my government when we were in office; but we would not vindictively kick him in the shins or the labour unions by repealing and tearing apart legislation that helped to develop and build the labour organ izations in the Province of Manitoba. That's what the Minister of Agriculture is dojflg on behalf of 3 percent of the cattle producers, 3 percent of the cattle producers who have the right to receive every cent back from that cattle checkoff.

All they have to do is send in a letter. Maybe that procedure can be modified somewhat, but there is that option clause for them to get out; but for that reason he is bringing in Bill 90. Mr. Speaker, how is he bringing it in? I should apologize to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I'm not being totally fair to him because really, in this instance, it was the former Minister of Agriculture, the Member for Brokenhead, that was doing it. It's not fair really to lay this on the Minister of Agriculture and, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask Hansard to record and strike the remarks that I made in the last few moments about this Minister of Agriculture - I'll get back to them in a minute on Bill 3. But let there be no mistake about it, and there's no mistake about it in the minds of the cattle producers that sat there on that evening, about who was running the show and who was being vindictive and why.

Because they were instrumental in not bowing to the wishes of the then Minister of Agriculture, the Member for Brokenhead, in various nefarious schemes that he tried to foist upon them when he was Minister of Agriculture back in those days of 19 73 or 69 to 77. Well, Mr. Speaker, coming back to Bill 3. Mr. Speaker, I knew that you were concerned that I might not be touching on the subject matter under debate. My only reason for diverting to Bill 90 was because, normally, I can understand a government responding to a special interest group, in this case we are talking farmers. But, Mr.

Speaker, as in Bill 90, this Minister - and now I'm talking to this Minister - he is again wilfully and stubbornly and pigheadedly going against the interests of the very community that he professes to serve. Mr. Speaker, on Bill 90, the Manitoba Farm Bureau was there asking him not to do what he was doing to Bill 90, in fact, a telegram was sent from the Canadian Federation of Agricu lture, repres enting agriculture across the country, asking him not to do it, and 93 percent of the cattle producers of Manitoba asked him not to do what he was doing, but he was not listening. Mr.

Speaker, on Bill 3 the Manitoba Farm Bureau, which is the farm organization, representing by far the majority of farm interests in Manitoba, have asked him not to pass Bill 3 in its present fo;-rn. Those of us in this Chamber who represent, by far, the majority of farmers and farm produc ers in the Pr ovince of Manitoba, are asking him not to proceed with the bill, as it stands. I simply can't comprehend why this government is determined to proceed under these circumstances.

It's like asking the Minister of Education to proceed with a bill that the teachers don't want, that the trustees don't want, and the parents don't want. But I look at the Minister of Education and deep down in my heart I know that she would not proceed with that kind of a bill. She may have to pick and choose, that's part of the probl ems and responsi bilities of Ministers, sometimes you have to pick and choose when you're going to favour, in her case, the trustee's position or the teacher's position.

I would like to think that she should always favour the parents and the children's position, but you sometimes have to make these hard decisions.

I'm going to solicit her suppor! because I think maybe she has been rested and she loqks revitalized and prepared to play her full role in Cabinet, I simply want her to use her influence and ask the Minister of Agriculture, her colleague, why is it that he's persisting in passing this legisla tion that the Manitoba Farm Bureau doesn't want, the farmers don't want and, furthermore, will add nothing but further divisiveness within our society which the dear Lord knows is being divided sufficient enough.

It now, all of a sudden, makes it impossible for my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, to operate the farm the way he wants to operate his farm and, Mr. Speaker, that speech coming from the Member !or Turtle Mountain has to be recorded, along with many other good speeches that were made from this side of the House, as being perhaps the most rational, logical, explanation� of why that particular piece of legislation is wrong. Mr.

Speaker, it's wrong what this piece of legislation does, even in this agriculture field, that we further balkanize Canadians, that we all of a sudden don'! acknowledge that people coming from Saskatchewan or from Ontario are Canadians.

On another matter, another issue, perhaps the issue that's before us in this Chamber, we are asked to be very concerned about the whole question of unity in this country, what makes Canada tick; but this same government, this same Minister, is not prepared to, in a fundamental situation like the purchase of land, ownership of property, decide when somebody is a Canadian and when somebody is not a Canadian. Again, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the reason, I fail to see the arguments of the present Minister for this bill.

The Minister, and very few spokespersons - I always have trouble with it, spokespersons, spokespeople - very few of them have made any significant contribution to the debate on Bill 3. We've heard from a few o! them, but, Mr. Speaker, none that will refute the kind of arguments that were heard from this side of the House; none that will make it logical to interfere in such a Draconian way, in the way that the Ransom farm corporation, for instance, wants to run their farms, that family is by no way unique.

In fact, more and more successful farm operations involve two or three brothers; a father with one or two sons. They are the kind of farm operations that ought be encouraged in the Province of Manitoba, but 1ren't by Bill 3. Mr. Sp eak er, Bill 3, unlike the cons titutional amendment that we are being asked to pass in this House, is of course somewhat different. HON. S. LYON: Have another strategy meeting, Andy. You're so good at it. MR. H. ENNS: At least the farm community knows that with a sane and reasonable and common sense 4637

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 government we can make changes to this legislation in this Chamber, and they will be made within two or three years, unlike the promise that we can make, or we can hold out to the people of Manitoba that that would be possible all that easily - well we know it won't be that possible - on the matter of the constitutional resolutions that we're being asked to pass in this House. Mr.

Speaker, I honestly ask the Minister of Agriculture who, as I told him the other day in the committee, I always have compassion for any Minister of Agriculture in this province, having had the privilege of being one myself. One of the privileges of being a Minister of Agriculture is to be able to walk through the farm community at their different functions, their different fairs, to be able to meet the cattlemen in the back rooms of the exhibition grounds where the cattle are being groomed for their shows, something like that, and to be acknowledged and to be welcome. You know, Mr.

Speaker, rural people are very hospitable people. They will welcome, want to welcome, at all times, their Minister of Agriculture, and I have no trouble in calling the present Minister my Minister of Agriculture; and when I walk through the barns with him at the Lundar Fair, or at Stonewall, or Ashern, the Brandon Royal, I'd like to have him welcomed as the Minister of Agriculture, not necessarily acclaimed for his politics, but as Minister of Agriculture I'd like to see him welcomed. Mr. Speaker, I can't understand the Minister of Agriculture in deliberately pursuing a course of action that makes that difficult.

How many cattlemen, that sat through that fiasco the other night, will truly and honestly welcome him on any fairgrounds on any circuit in Manitoba? HON. S. LYON: They want him in the dunk tank. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the House gives this Mini ster an opp ort unit y to recapture some of that integrity, some of that kind of basic acknowledgement that rural people, farm people, are prepared to give their Minister of Agriculture if he would accept the amendment that we are proposing.

It's not necessarily an amendment that calls for a total withdrawal of the bill; it calls for six months to reconsider the bill. It says, and we have said to himm very specifically, don't discriminate against the corporations, the family corporations, Manitoba family corporations; don't make somebody living in Arborg a foreigner, or in Stonewall a foreigner. That's what this bill does. If somebody lives in Winnipeg, wants to buy farm land, he is a foreigner, he's treated no differently than somebody living in Pakistan, or living in Iran, or living in Ireland.

That is utter nonsense, and if you think that can't be explained, and that story can't be told in rural Manitoba, then keep on asking yourself why you have no rural representatives on that side of the House. So consider the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is the longest Session in history in Manitoba. The Minister can think of 101 excuses - I'll provide him with a few - for accepting the amendment as we've put it before him.

He can say, in view of the long Session we've had, in view of the tremen dous things we are doing for Manitoba, we're going to ask them to pay for half our election expenses next year, we're going to do many other things. I just haven't had time to put my attention to my mind to making this bill the right bill it ought to be, and I'm going to accept the Tory advice. I'm going to take six months and make it into a better bill. They've got so many ads to write; they've got a bit more time to get the names right on some of the ads they sign.

There are 101 reasons why this Minister could now say, look I'm just going to need a bit more time, I'm needed. In fact, quite frankly, I suspect if the Minister of Agriculture will right now caucusing with some of those other fellows that are mucking up this House all the time, there may be some common sense prevail in this House. Get in there with the Mem ber for lnkster, and the Member for Springfield, and the Minister of Natural Resources and get some order into the business of running this House. Mr. Speaker, that's another reason. Mr.

Speaker, put your mind to helping your House Leader and your other people to running this House for a little while, and I won't hold it against you if you haven't had the time to look after Bill 3 right now. A MEMBER: Put Muriel in charge and things will run smoothly. MR. H. ENNS: You've got 101 reasons, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. Why can't you simply say honestly to yourself and say, yep, I'm going to reconsider Bill 3, I'm going to accept the opportunity, because, Mr. Speaker, that's what it is, it's an opportunity that we are offering the Min ister of Agricu ltur e and this government on Bill 3.

We keep saying it but it's wrong, we keep saying in the quiet doldrum days of the summer, of course, the quiet doldrum days of summer are fast disappearing. It'll be fall and early winter before we have that time that I'm talking about that this Minister would have time to make Bill 3 into a better bill. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated to us that he is prepared to consider some amendments. Mr. Speaker, why hasn't he floated out some of these amendments? Goodness knows, there's all kinds of people that haven't used their occasion to speak on Bill 3 on that side.

If he doesn't want to appreciate, if he doesn't want to do so himself, then he can certainly call on some of those other agricultural experts like the Member for Gimli, the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, who is always on top of all these things agriculturally speaking. He could certainly pick up and help the Minister of Agriculture out just for a moment and show us that, in fact, perhaps some of the arguments that have been made on this side of the House have prevailed on members opposite, and that they will be considered for inclusion or improvement in the bill. Mr.

Speaker, agai n, honourable members don't always appreciate. We have not opposed the basic principle in the bill; we have never opposed the basic principle of the bill of suggesting, yes, there is some need for some control on the speculative foreign buyer where that could in some way be damaging, hurtful to the cause of agriculture in the Province of Manitoba. We have suggested to the ministry different ways that could be accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I think, in all seriousness, this Minister ought to consider those suggestions. Mr. Speaker, it's 4638

Thursday, 28 July, 19 83 possible, it is entirely possible, that this bill, the Minister of Agriculture, we could pass Bill 3 unanimously in this House, we would all be supporting that bill. I want to tell the Minister that. The Minister of Agriculture right about now needs a little lift you know. I'm prepared to try to make that possible. Mr. Speaker, why not take advantage of that genuine offer. Why not sit down and negotiate with members of this side of the House some acceptable amendments . . . MR. l. SHERMAN: Why not grab your chance at history, Bill. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . and then come out of this House with an acceptable bill, a bill that will essentially do the job that we want it to do, but a job that will not divide, will not discriminate, and will not be harmful to the long-term interests of agriculture. Mr.

Speaker, you know what worries me is that one gets the impression that either the Minister didn't take time to really consider and listen to some of the speeches tha t were made on this bill but, more importar.tly, you know it's kind of incumbent that the Minister, if he hasn't got the time himself, but that he delegates some of his senior staff and say, okay - Mr. Speaker, I'm not naive, I'm not suggesting that the Minister has to agree with everything a member from the opposition says, but some of the speeches that were made were extremely well thought-out researched speeches. I single out two, in particular.

I already mentioned the Member for Turtle Mountain, the Member for Morris and others. Can he stand up in closing debate on this bill and say and suggest that he has had staff look at those speeches, staff refute or accept some of the arguments advanced, some of the positions advanced in those speeches? Can he at least say that he has studied and give us reasonable, rational arguments for rejecting those proposals? Mr. Speaker, that's part of the business of debating bills. Mr.

Speaker, one does sense - I've always been able to sense when I've advanced a position that hasn't been all that strong or that can be attacked and is attacked and attacked effectively, whether one admits it always or not. But one knows when one hears good positions being advanced particularly on a bill that is of technical nature, a bill that talks about how land is to be owned, how land is to be exchanged, how land is going to be made available to the farming community. These are after all not, should not be, issues of great ideological passion. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Honourable Minister and I make this very sincere offer to him. Out of the divisiveness that we've seen in this :-touse, out of some of the acrimony that we've seen in this House; this Minister could rise above it and come up with a bill that would be supported unanimously in this House. It's still possible, Mr.

Speaker, if he would be prepared to take some of the offending passages of that bill and modify them; if he would be prepared to recogn ize Canadians as being Canadians throughout this country and if he would take to heart some of the very serious recommendations that were made on this side of the House. It's possible, Mr. Speaker, for this Minister to come out of this long Session ahead of the party. Mr. Speaker, first of all to drop the pretentions, and at least acknowledge some of the politics of ii. Mr. Speaker, we have never presented these figures as being gospel.

We said they were our best attempt and the best attempt on the part of a lot of volunteer help, a lot of volunteer support; in this case, much of that volu nteer sup port came from municipalities. The Minister has never refuted these figures and !he Minister has not come up with better figures. Mr. Speaker, disappointingly enough is that the Minister has never even acknowledged nor thanked the opposition for going to the work, nor thanked the municipalities for supplying this work to the House to the Chamber.

He is prepared to work with outdated 19 76 figures when we have provided into the debate 19 83 figures which shows the problem isn't there, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my preference is that he withdraw the bill. A MEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I am a man of compassion, gr eat gene rosity and a gr eat deal of human understanding. I know that a Minister of Agriculture cannot be consta11tl:· seen to bend to the will of the opposition or to retreat. HON. S. LYON: There's going to be a lot of retreat in the next week. MR. H.

ENNS: The Minister of Agriculture has the opportunity of salvaging Bill 3 in a manner that could serve the interests of the farm community. He also has the opportunity of getting acceptance of Bill 3, if he will but listen to some of the sound, rational, logical, non-ideological advice that has been given to him on Bill 3 during the course of debate on this matter. A MEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. H. EIVNS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, accept the six-month hoist. Give him the time to do that thinking. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it's always somewhat of a handicap to speak and make comments as eloquently and as well-put-together as the Member for Lakeside, especially at this time of the evening it becomes even more difficult, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a subject matter which is very dear to the hearts of my constituents and I welcome the opportunity to speak to it. Let me start off by saying that, as enunciated by the Member for Lakeside, I as well as my colleagues, are not opposed to the aspects of the bill which purport to tighten up on the foreign ownership, the foreign speculative ownership of farm land in Manitoba.

If someone is living in Switzerland or in Germany or in France and does not intend to move here, does noi intend to farm that propery himself and become a resident of Manitoba or Canada, I fully believe that there should be restrictions put on those particular 4639

Thursday, 28 July, 1983 individuals. As par t of government tha t had th at philosophy, we strengthened that particular bill and if this particular government feels that there are certain areas which they feel should be again strengthened, fine, so be it, and I will not argue that cause. So let it not be said that the opposition is against this bill because of those changes to the foreign ownership within Manitoba. That is not the case.

Our objections deal with the provisions of the bill which will now make it impossible for Manitobans in certain areas such as corporate areas, as well as Canadians to own farm land in Manitoba. The government has somewhat of a dilemma with regard to this bill, and really it's not the government, it's the Minister of Agriculture, and I, having served on the Treasury for four years, know the dilemma he's got. He introduced this bill last year and then, because of a lot of public outcry, did withdraw it. He withdrew it and I have to give him some credit, Mr.

Speaker, he did make some improvements to the bill, and I would suggest to the Minister there would be no shame if he were, once again, to stand up and indicate to the people of Manitoba that, maybe if I take this bill back once more and make some more amendments we can have even a better bill; and I would suggest that if he doesn't do that, if he doesn't take that advice, he's committing somewhat of a political suicide with regard to this particular legislation. If the opposition wanted to play just strictly crass politics with this, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say to you that we should just let this bill pass, because I can't think of a better issue to go to the electorate with the next time around and say, look at this piece of legislation that was put in place by the New Democrats; look what it's doing to Manitobans; look what it's doing to Canadians, and when we form the government we will repeal this piece of legislation. It is tailor made for a brochure during the election which is sure to grab a signif icant number of votes away from the New Democrats in the next election. However, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say to the Minister that being a member of Her Majesty's Royal Opposition, being a responsible member, I have to say to him that if he were to withdraw some of those offensive sections in the bill which limit the number of people that can own farm land in Manitoba, I think that he would be doing, not only himself a service, but the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Turtle Mountain the other day, while speaking on this bill, showed the Minister of Agriculture, in cold, clear logic, what will happen if this bill is passed to his family corporation.

The Minister knows very well the problems we are having with

definitions in the assessment department today. We are seeing in the assessment department that if over 50 percent of your income comes from off­ farm income you then have your residence and your farm buildings assessed. The Minister is now saying in this act if a family farm corporation, if the income of those individuals that run that farm corporation, from the off-farm income, is greater than 50 percent, they are no longer farmers and cannot buy any more farm land. Mr.

Speaker, that's a ludicrous position because we have just gone on hearings throughout the province showing what kind of a real problem the municipal assessment determinations, with regard to percentage of income, has caused throughout the width and breadth of this province.

You have had cases where people who have been in the cattle business, who have lost substantial amounts of money, have started to take a part-time job like driving a school bus, and suddenly have found that their off-farm income is more than from their cattle, and here they're working to try and pay off their debts by working off the farm, and suddenly, to add insult to injury, what happens is the tax assessor comes along, he asks for the income tax return, bang, suddenly he gets his farm houses and farm buildings assessed and he's in a worse position.

He couldn't make it before and now we're going to take even more money from him, and these are some of the inequities in the assessment field that this Minister now wants to transfer into this particular bill. I say to him, I really don't think that anybody in his department, nor he or any members of the caucus, hav