IS SN 0542·-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 129 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 3 AUGUST, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constit uencies 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 FILM ON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, 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. PLOH MAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thomoson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnks ter Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesd ay, 3 August, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUESTIONS McKenzie Seeds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for McK enzie Seeds. It is reported that Mr.

McDowell, the Chairman of McKenzie Seeds, has had some knowledge for perhaps over a year now with respect to a possible conflict-of-interest situation at McK enzie Seeds. Can the Minis ter responsible for McK enzie Seeds advise the House whether or not he has contacted Mr. McD owell to make further inquiries as to the extent of his knowledge? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: I haven't had an opportunity to do that yet. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, just further to that question, I had contacted the Auditor's department, pursuing the matter raised by the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain this morning. He had asked whether the interim report could be made public. The Auditor himself wasn't in. He will be in in a few days, and we'll discuss that then. In the meantime, staff of the Auditor's department provided my office with a memo which had been apparently provided by Mr. Moore to the Board of Directors of McK enzie Seeds on March 15, 1982.

The document, the subject of it is, "G reeting Seeds." The fourth paragraph reads as follows: "It is possible for us to make arrangements to obtain the rights to use the U.S. company graphics. Because of the clinical type of surrou ndings required to package this product, we would subcontra ct all of the work involved except the seed packaging. The cards could either be printed by Leech or Murray Printing of Brandon, and the packaging could be done by either of them or by Arm Industries or by Agassiz, both Brandon companies. Agassiz is a company in which C.

McEachern has a minority interest and they presently package our netting. Arm Industries is a rehabilitation workshop and do many subcontract operations for us." I will table the document and, as well, I can advise that I've spoken to one director of McK enzie Seeds who could not find a copy of that in his files and does not recall having seen it. Mr. Moore says that he had presented it apparently to the directors at a meeting some time in March of 1982. As the Member for Turtle Mountain knows, the reference to Mr.

McEachern is somewhat misleading in that although he was a minority shareholder of McKenzie Seeds, the memo doesn't make reference to the fact that the other shareholder, Mr. Boisjoli, owned all of the other sh ares, so that between the two of them, two employees of McK enzie Seeds owned 10 0 percent of that corporation. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister providing that informa tion and tabling it for the House. It confirms what Mr. McD owell has reported to the Winnipeg Sun; that indeed he did know over a year ago about a possible conflict-of-interest situation.

He was informed that a senior member of management of McKenzie Seeds owned at least part of a corporation that was doing business with McKenzie Seeds. My question to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds: Does this not raise some questions in his mind about the judgment and the ability of Mr. McD owell to serve as chairman of that board? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the document I have just tabled that there is some question as to whether or not directors had that document. Mr. Moore says his recollection is that they did.

Certainly, at least one other director says they did not. I have read the

article in the newspaper, but I would want some other evidence to indicate that, in fact, other members of the Board of Directors were aware of this, because they have been telling me -and I've talked to several of the directors - that they did not know that all of this came as a revelation. So I think that it would be very premature on the basis of a newspaper

article to go and criticize the chairman of that board, who, incidentally, when he received the interim report of the Auditor, moved expeditiously . He moved im mediately with his Board of Directors to do what he felt was right in order to ensure the proper survival of McKenzie Seeds. I trust that he will continue to do that. Now if there is any evidence that he has behaved im properly, then that will be looked at.

But I don't think that it would be appropriate to simply go on the memory of one person as opposed to another person and say, well because one person says this, then therefore we have to accept that another person is doing something that's wrong. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, what an absolutely incredible statement to come from the Minister of Finance. Mr. McD owell has told a Press reporter that he had knowledge of this fact over a year ago. The Minister himself has tabled a letter in the House which 4824

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 shows that the board was advised. Why is it up to us to confirm this, Mr. Speaker? My question to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds, why did he not pick up the phone and call Mr. Mc Dowell? Mr. McDowell is his appointee. The Minis ter said this morning, he read the paper, he read the article. Why didn't he pick up the phone and call, and find out? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear that the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain didn't understand my first answer. The document I tabled had been provided to the Auditor, as I understand it, by Mr. Moore not by the company.

It was Mr. Moore's recollection that it had been provided to the directors. Several directors have informed - well, one has specifically informed me on this document that he did not have it, and did not recall ever having had it. Another director has told me that he doesn't recall any evidence of a conflict of interest. I think that it is only fair that we await the report of the Auditor to determine what did, in fact, happen, or what can be proven. But to suggest, as the Member for Turtle Mountain has, that because I have tabled a letter, that the Chairman had that letter is a totally incredible leap of logic.

It may well have been that what the Chairman was referring to was something else. It may have been that he knew about some of the buildings which had been public ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: . . . knowledge for a long time, so why don't we just wait and see? MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have before me an

article from today's Winnipeg Sun, which was written by George Stephenson. It says and I quote, "George Mc Dowell said in an interview the possible conflict involving a senior executive was raised at a board meeting in early 1982. "The board, however, did not think the matter was as serious as it has turned out to be, McDowell said." Mr. Speaker, what is this government now trying to cover up? For a while, the y proceeded wit h this investigation in an open manner.

There is now evidence that the Chairman of the Board of Directors, by his own admission and appointed by that government, had knowledge of what was going on a year ago, and apparently failed to follow it up. Now my question to the Minister responsible for McK enzie Seeds was: Does that raise any question in his mind about the ability and the competence of Mr. McDowell to continue as Chairman of the Board of McK enzie Seeds? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, we said this morning that we will check with the Auditor to determine whether we can have even the interim report released.

We're prepared to do that immed iately, providing that we are assured that it will not prejudice the rest of the investigation. To the suggestion that somehow we are trying to cover something up is simply false. The quotation the member makes does not refer, in fact, to Agassiz. It could well be th at had to do with the leasi ng arrangement on the buildings, or it could have had to do with the leasing arrangement on the computers, or it could have had to do with the card shop.

We don't know what it was, and so for the Member for Turtle Mountain to connect that up with something that happened at a meeting in early 19 82 is simply a flight of imagina tion because he has no evidence to put that together with this particular letter. We're trying to come forward with all of the items we get. I got this letter and I've produced it to the members so that they know what the allegation of Mr. Moore is based on.

I don't know what the chairman was referring to, but let's remember that this matter is currently under investigation by the Provincial Auditor and there wil! be a report completed by the end of September, and decisions will be taken. Now in terms of Mr. McDowell, I'm sure that the Minister responsible will have a conversation with him to determine exactly what it was that he knew and when. MR. SPEAKER: Orde. please. The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , can the Mi nister responsible for McKenzie Seeds advise the House when he last had any conversation with Mr.

McDowell about the operations of McKenzie Seeds? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr . Sp eaker, as I've in dicated previously, that we've had discussions obviously from time to time through the period of time in which Mr. McDowell was the chairman. I don't precisely remember exactly when, I think perhaps last week some time, but the point is, Mr. Speaker, that this government has acted expeditiously , it has acted properly, it's acted as quickly as it possibly could to have an investigation of the matter.

The honourable member is doing a lot of people a great disservice by a lot of questions. I appreciate the honourable mem ber's interest and I'm sure we all have that interest, but we do have an investigation going on. As the Auditor hims elf has stated publicly, he is looking into all of these matters. He's discussing it with the senior staff. He is having discussions with the board. Incidentally, the board acted very, very properly when they received certain interim information and took certain actions. I commend them for their actions. But, I also point out, Mr.

Speaker, that when the report comes out, it will be very obvious that there have been problems which go back to the period of time when Mr. Don Craik was Minis ter of Finance responsible for McKenzie Seeds and when his Special Assistant, Mr. J.L. Burns, was a member of the board of directors of that company. I repeat again, it's not a matter of who belongs to which party or what. Let's get the facts. Let's have the proper assessment. Let's have a fair assessment. Let's not hide anything. Let's put it on the table, and we'll do that. 4825

Wednesday , 3 August, 1983 MR. B. RANS OM: Mr . Sp eaker , we are se eking inform ation ab out th e gov ernment's handling or mishandling of this affair. They are reluctant to provide information. I have some further questions then for the Minister responsible for McK enzie Seeds. In his investigation, did either Mr. Schulz, who is the Minister's Special Assistant, or the Provincial Auditor inquire into the amount of time that Marie Greeniaus, who was the Minister's official agent in 1981 and is a full-time employee of McK enzie Seeds, spends as a shareholder of the Carillon Card Shoppe in Brandon?

She is a sh areholder th ere with Mr . Mo ore, Mr . Mc Eachern and Mr . Bo isjoli, and th ey hir e as a manageress a person who is also a full-time employee of McK enzie Seeds. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, the agency, the person that we have asked to do the investigation is the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor has indicated publicly that he is looking into this matter. MR. B. RAN SOM: Mr .

Sp eaker, can the Mi nister responsible for Mc Kenzie Seeds tell the House whether or not one of the things that the Auditor has been looking into is the possible use of McKenzie Seeds trucks in transporting stock for the Carillon Card Shoppe? HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member for Turtle Mountain has certain information, and I would ask him right now and urge him to co-operate with the Provincial Auditor by providing that informa tion to him so the Auditor can look into this. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. l.

EVANS: I repeat, the matter's under review; the matter's under investigation, and we will get a report and we'll see what the report says. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Mi nister. The First Minister will be aware, surely now, that his Minis ter and his chairman of the board at McK enzie Seeds have had some prior knowledge of these conflict­ of-interest situations. The First Minister did not act; the Minister did not act in any significant way until the issue was raised in this House. Will the . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Communi ty Services on a point of order.

HON. l. EVANS: The Member for Turtle Mountain has made a statement which is not true. I have denied it before; he continues to say it and I ask him to withdraw it. It's simply not true. MR. B. RANSOM: To the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minis ter would like to indicate which of my statements was untrue. A MEMBER: Yes, tell him, Len. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe a disagreement between mem bers does not constitute a point of order. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the First Minister is that in view of this situation which has been going on for so long and because of the very close involvement of the Min ister respons ible for McK enzie Seeds with many of the other people, being personal friends and political acquaintances, and one of them being his official agent in 198 1, will the First Minis ter acknowledge that the Minister responsible for McK enzie Seeds is simply too close to the situation in order to be able to act decisively to deal with what is clearly a very bad situation involving McKenzie Seeds?

Will he remove that Minister and put another Minister in charge? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eaker, wha t I do fi nd regrettable is his conservative sense of justice: First, off with your heads; then on with the trial. Mr. Speaker, it was this Minister responsible for Mc Kenzie Seeds tha t forwarded a request to the Minister of Finance, a request that the Provincial Auditor - Mr.

Speaker, I think it is regrettable that when a government acts openly and causes an inquiry by the Provincial Auditor that is responsible to this Legislature as a whole, is not responsible to the government but to the entire Legislature, and we act im mediately and not with delay in order to undertake that, that we should still receive the kind of calls from across the way of cover-up because this is a government that has reacted very quickly to appoint that individual that is most directly responsible and can most fairly and most properly deal with a matter of this nature, and that is the Provincial Auditor of the Province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the honourable mem bers are concerned and worry thems elves a great deal about the fact that the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds and Community Services is a well-regarded Mi nister in southwestern Ma nitoba. Tha t bugs honourable members across the way. Mr. Speaker, when we obtain the report from the Provincial Auditor, that report will be evaluated by the Minister of Finance; it will be evaluated by myself; and whatever appropriate steps need to be undertaken will be taken at that time; but we will not be pursuing a policy of first off with their heads, then on with the trial.

MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, has the First Minis ter taken the opportunity to review the interim report which the Auditor ha� made available to the government? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have had opportunity to peruse the preliminary report. I await the final report. I am satisfied on the basis of the preliminary report that the board of directors acted properly in dismissing the three employees. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the 4826

Wednesd ay, 3 August, 1983 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Baby virus MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: My question is to the Honourable Acting Minis ter of Health. I would ask him, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any evidence that the very serious viral illness among newborns in the intensive care nursery at St. Boniface Hospital is in any way the result of overcrowding at that high-risk obs tetrical facility? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: I have not received that advice from the department.

I will certainly take that question under advisement, that specific question, but the reports that I have received from the department in no way indicate that was the case. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise or cause to be investigated and subsequently report to the House as to how many obstetrical cases have been shifted over this summer lo St. Boniface from Seven Oaks and Concordia under the government's announced intention to phase out the Seven Oaks and Concordia units? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister investigate the extent to which there may be a cause and effect link between transfer of cases from other obstetrical units to the St. Boniface unit, and determine whether that infection and its spread could have been prevented, Sir, or at least could have been contained much more quickly if there had not been so many maternity cases admitted to the St. Boniface unit? HON. W. PARASIUK: I said I would take as notice the question of wheth er, in fact, people were transferred over.

As such, I'll take as notice the second part of the memb er's question, which asks if people were transferred over - and we haven't ascertained that yet - was there any cause and effect in relation to this particular outbreak, but certainly I'll take that question as notice as well. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister advise the House as to whether an inv e&tigation will be con ducted into this who le ma tter, and who will investigate the situation?

Would he advise the House as to whether that investigation will be carried out by the Department of Health, by the Manitoba Health Services Commission, by the Ma nitoba Me dica l Association and/or by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, or indeed by an investigating team containing representa tives of all th ose components? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I know that a specialist has been brought in from Ottawa. Three specialists are being brought in from Atlanta. I think it's very important that the emergency be dealt with first .

That, I believe, is being un dertaken in a professional way and an expediting way by all people concerned. I would think that then the matter of looking into how this came about; whether in fact it has happened elsewhere in other parts of North America; whether in fact there was any causal relationships involved; or whether this was an accident, should be looked into. At the appropriate time, I think the department will recommend on what would be the most appropriate way of having the investigation conducted. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I will direct a question to the Honourable First Minister similar, I might say, to one that I put to the First Minister this morning, but more definitive, I would hope, in its implications this time. I would ask the First Mi nister whether the government will now re-examine its whole policy with regard to the consolidation obstetrical units on the basis of this difficulty that has occurred at St. Boniface; and whether it will evaluate the factors that went into the making of that consolidation decision.

In other words, was it ever considered that one of the down sides to consolidation niight be a problem of this kind, overcrowding which leads to easy cross­ infection? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minist er. HON. H. PAWLEY: What is most important is that we deal with this present emergen cy, and onc e the emergenc y is dealt with th at we ma ke an entir e assessment pertaining to the question of the obstetric units in the various hospitals, and whether or not indeed this has any relationship to the larger question.

First and foremost, deal with the emergency; secondly, to follow it with the overall assess ment. Bilingualism - proposed resolution MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. l\ll R. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Highways and ask him, given that a lady from Beausejour brought a petition to the Legislature yesterday with 320 names on it against the government's bilingual proposals, has he received a copy of that petition? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker. I did receive a copy.

I also believe that she was not informed as to the substance of the resolve that is before this House. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Minister whether he has received any petitions that are favourable to the government's policy, even if they were based on the erroneous and misleading pamphlets that have been distributed? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I am the Minis ter answering to this question, but I will tell 4827

��������������-Vj,_e_d_n_e_s _ da� 3 August, 1983 the Member for Elmwood that there are a num ber in society that understand the issue fully and understand the reasons why we have to deal with this question at this time. It's true that the vast majority of people are not certain as to why it has to be done, and there is a need to explain the issue. School libraries - funding MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to then direct a question to the Minister of Education.

Given that the lady from Beausejour revealed in an interview that she was concerned about the costs of the bilingual program, especially since her school had no money for library books this past year, could the Minister indicate whether she has provided sufficient funding for school libraries in 1982-83? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago there was a special library grant that school divisions received, and at that time they had to spend the money on library books.

When there was a change to the Education Support Program , they moved towards consolidating a lot of the smaller categorical grants into block grants, which gave school divisions the authority to make decisions on where to spend the money; so that they are getting the same amount of money that they were entitled to, but it is not going to them in a categorical way that requires them to spend money on library books.

I can say that this is one of the areas that has been brought to my attention by others where there is concern that with the categorical library grant demise, there is a feeling that libraries may not be getting some of the money or as much attention and money as they should. That's one of the issues that we're looking at in the educational finance review, but the judgment on where to spend the money and where the needs are for libraries is with the school division, and they're getting adequate money from the province to do that. MR. R. DOER lll: Mr. Speaker, a final question.

Given the government's new austerity program, will library grants be restricted to 0 to 5 percent for 1983-1984? HON. 1111. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, we are still awaiting the making of decisions on the entire Education Support Program which includes all funding to school divisions and all grants. There may be some judgments made that some grants need to be increased and some others may not need to be increased, but those decisions will be made in the fall. Manitoba Beef Commission MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Agriculture.

I would ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture what percentage of Manitoba slaughter cattle are sold through the Manitoba Beef 8ommission? What are the num bers and the percent? !ll R. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer md Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'll take that question as notice and provide the information as soon as possible. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, while he is doing that and taking that question as notice, I wonder if the Mi nis ter would find out what mechanism or what process the Beef Commission goes through to establish a price to make sure that the province is, in fact, getting the proper price for that product and the taxpayers aren't unnecessarily picking up a subsidy if those cattle aren't effectively being sold.

Would the Minister, as well, find out for the House and as well, what type of package or what lots or style of lots are being offered to the packing house industry and how many packers are effectively bidding on those cattle and then are using them in the province? Main Street Manitoba Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the Minister's announcement some two weeks ago, including Morden, Manitoba in the Main Street Manitoba Project; and in view of the fact that yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Highw ays made a joint announcement of additional funds for the heavy construction industry; and in view of the fact that in this joint announcement, Mr.

Adam is reported that $4 million to $4.5 million will be targeted to projects that will be of a construction natur e, namely , ma intenanc e, replacement and resurfacing of streets, roads and sidewalks, my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is will he use a portion of that $4.5 million to approve the reconstruction of Stephen Street in Morden so that he can further legitimize and make possible the completion of the Main St reet Project that he announced two weeks ago? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I think I made it very clear when the honourable member raised the question previously that the agreement with the Town of Morden is based on a phased-in project, and we are prepared to keep our end of the bargain . . . A MEMBER: Well, what do you know! HON. A. ADAM: . . . and that - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speaker, I will get to the question in a minute. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. A. ADAM: I'm going to take my time in order that he has the proper background of what we're dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

There is a considerable amount - perhaps even up to half of the project could proceed now - I can't be definite on the amounts, but I know that a substantial portion of the project could proceed and we are prepared to go along with this. I advised the member when he raised the question previously that the mayor of Morden had requested for us to look 4828

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 at the possibility of reconstructing the three-block portion which is connected to or adjacent to the main street project; and I advised him yesterday, I believe, or the last time that he raised the question, that I have asked the Minister of Highways to have his staff review this request of whether it would be feasi ble or not and we want to find out the cost. Once we have that information, we will make a decision as to whether or not we can proceed with any reconstructing of that three-block portion of Stephen Street or not. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, since the Minister has indicated today that they intend to live up to their part of the bargain, and part of that bargain was to see if additional monies could be gained from the Jobs Fund to undertake the street reconstruction in Morden to allow the main street project to proceed and now that that money is available, my question still stands: Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs announce funding under his newly announced $4.5 million to reconstruct Stephen Street in Morden to allow the main street project t0 go ahead? HON. A. ADAM: I just dealt with that question moments ago, Mr. Speaker.

It is repititious. I have just advised the honourable member that I have requested from the Minister of Highways to look at the possibility and the feasi bility from an engineering standpoint of view as to whether or not we could proceed with the three­ block reconstruction request that we have received from the mayor of Morden and until we have that information, it is not possible to make a decisi on. We have to know what the cost involves and a decision will be made on that basis. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Mi nister of Hig hways.

Sinc e he also has in this announcement and has now $4 million from the Jobs Fund, can he assure the House and the citizens of Morden that he and the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs will finally get together and co-ordinate the Main St reet Manitoba Project and both use part of their funds to enable the reconstruction of Stephen Street to take place so that at least the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs wi ll not have made an announcement with much grandiose press coverage that he cannot keep his word on with the people of Morden? HON. A.

ADAM: On a point of order, he has put on the records that I am unable to keep my end of the bargain. I have just announced that we are prepared to go ahead with our agreement that we have arrived at with the Town of Morden, and that is that we would proceed with the main street project on a phased-in basis, on a stage basis. Now the member is trying to put things on the record that are incorrect. We are keeping our bargain; we are prepared to proceed with it if the town is agreeable to go ahead under those conditions. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Minister for that clarification.

The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Highways willing to ans wer whether he and the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs can finally get together in the co­ ordination of this project, and allow the Stephen Street to be reconstructed, so that Main Street can go ahead? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, again I want to remind the Member for Pembina that we are not inclined to let pavement contracts of $1 million in scope out of the additional funds that have been allocated to the department.

The reason being, that the construction indus try emphasize a need for grade work, as opposed to a lot of pavement, in order to have more construction projects rather than just a few. So given the fact that our dollars are limited, even though they are additional dollars, we are trying to spread them out over 11 or 12 projects. If we were to allocate them on the basis of this criteria, we would have four or five projects, Mr. Speaker, and we can't do that in light of the needs of the industry. Mosquito fogging MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question to the Minister responsible for EMO. Can the Mi nister in form the House as to the criteria the government used in arriving at the decision to spray the Town of Swan River for mosquitoes last Sunday evening? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, the same criteria was used generally that was used for all of the other communi ties; that is, that the counts of the particular mosquito that was thought to be carrying or potentially could be carrying the virus, the Culex tarsalis, counts were very high that were received on the weekend.

As well, there were in the area a number of isolations of the virus in chicken flocks. There was a sentinel flock in the Dauphin area that had a number of identified virus-carrying chickens. As well, other flocks that were used in a co-operative way, private flocks that have been in the area for a lengthy period of time, were also drawn upon through a bleed that is done to determine if there was virus, and it was also determined that there was virus there as well. So tho se two criteria were used to make the decision. MR. D.

GOURLAY: In view of the fact th at the communit ies of Minitonas and Bowsman were within 10 miles of the spray pattern used for spraying Swan River, why weren't these two commu nities also covered in the sp raying when they were at Swan River? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of balancing the threat with the ability to actually conduct a spraying program within a reasonable time frame and reasonable cost. There has to be decisions made as to cut offs. We have an alternative to go and do the whole provin ce, or to cut it off at certain-sized 4829

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 commu nities that are designated as high risk and where we are protecting the majority of the people of the province. So we have to make that kind of a decision. What we did do is make that decision on the basis of commun ities of 1,000 and over, as opposed to the decisions that were made in 1981, where the criteria was 1,800 and over, generally. So we did go to smaller commu nities, but we did make the cut off at 1,000 residents within the confines and limits of the towns or villages.

So from th at basis , Mi nitonas and the other community that was mentioned by the honourable member were not sprayed. It does not mean that there is not a high risk there, but again we have to have a cut-off point. Jobs Fund - allocation of funds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the First Minister. The press release dated August 2nd says that, "Jobs Fund is to assist heavy construction." There is eight or eight-and-a-half million committed to roads and municipalities.

Can the First Min ister advise whether that is allocated out of budgetary authority in the Jobs Fund or non-budgetary authority? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that would be from budgetary authority. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for oral questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on the referral motion with respect to the proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act as it appears on Pages - I have this morning's Order Paper -but I imagine it's still on Pages 12 and 13 of the Order Paper. DEBATE ON MOTION CONSTITUTIONAL AM ENDMENTS RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the pr oposed mo tion of the Honourable Attorney-General, and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and subamendment proposed thereto by the Honourable Mem ber for Gladstone. The Honourable Mem ber for Arthur has 22 minutes remaining. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. The resolution or the subamendment to the resolution, Mr.

Speaker, the one which was presented by my colleague for Gla ds tone , and the amend ment which was introduced by my colleague for Fort Garry, of course, are very self-explanatory. In my comments earlier today, I tried to point out to the government precisely why we feel it's important to have this issue put before the people in an intersessional commi ttee setting, but as well, to put a deadline on it, as has been done in the subamendment by my colleague for Gladstone, to deal with it in a certain period of time.

In going back over some of my comments, it is very di fficult for me to un derstand, and our side to understand, Mr. Speaker, as to why the government wouldn't deal with it in a responsi ble, legislative manner. That is really the thrust of the whole opposition to what we are dealing with on this particular resolution. That is the process, the ramrod approach which has been presented to this Assem bly, and to not deal with it in a responsible manner cannot be accepted by my colleagues or, I'm su re, by the majority of the people of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, when we are dealing with the content of the request for such intersessional hearings and the fact that we would like to deal with it within this particular time frame, let us look back as to why it is before the people of Manitoba at all. The content of this whole question, I think, has to be looked at to some degree. I know the Minister of Mines and Energy was referring to some of the content or why we weren't prepared to de bate it, but we have to look, Mr .

Speaker , as Manitobans, as to what has been our heritage and our background and how this whole province has evolved and the whole system of agreeing or disagreeing and self-governing of Manitoba in relationship to the rest of Canada. As we have developed as a province, and one generation upon next generation grows and takes advantage or takes

part in the opportunities that this province has afforded us, we have become, I would say , a very close province, a province of people who have found it very easy to get along. One only has to look at the numerous backgrounds of the people throughout, not only the rural area, but through the City of Winnipeg, when one travels on any of the streets and participates in any of the activities, particularly one which will be coming up in the coming week.

That, of course, is Folklorama, where in fact we see a multitude of people from various backgrounds come together and really be one commun ity pulling in the same direction. · That has been a credit to all those peoples, to the minorities and to the majorities but today, Mr. Speaker, we have brought before us by this present government, an issue which really didn't have to be.

It didn't have to be the kind of an issue that it is, but when one watches and listens to the approach and the procedures taken by the Attorney-General and by the Premier and by his specific Min isters, it makes the people of Manitoba question really what is going on; not totally understanding it, but they have a brief feeling that something is happening that really isn't sitting the way it normally is done in the province. Let's look at common sense for a minute, Mr. Speaker. There was a law supposedly broken on a parking ticket.

There was further to that a law broken as far as the speeding ticket is concerned, but because of a technical 4830

Wednesd ay, 3 August, 1983 challenge by the legal authorities of this country, then the individuals who contested this particular charge were in fact no longer able to be charged under that particular

section of the provincial act because it was non-constitutional. It didn't have anything to do, Mr. Speaker, with whether there was a right or wrong done, that's not the question. It's a matter now of a technical approach by our legal people. Mr. Speaker, we're now in a "what if" situation. What if we'd gone to court, what would have been the results? Well, Mr. Speaker, I refer back to the Honourable Duff Roblin's comments which I think carry a lot of weight with the people of the Province of Manitoba. A MEMBER: Great man, great man. MR. J. DOWNEY: His recommendation, Mr.

Speaker, is one which I think we can all, on this side of the House, agree with that the normal court process should have been carried out. You cannot second guess or not pre-guess what will happen in our courts. Because one case, Mr. Speaker, is now agreed to not be pushed further, what is to stop further cases from being put before the courts and judgments made. As a lay person, Mr. Speaker, I truly can't understan d. Nobody from the government side has come forward and clearly said that we are guaranteed that nobody will push this issue.

So we're changing, or being asked to change, the Constitution of our province, the content, the whole make-up and the get together of common social rule and lawmaking is in a "what if" situation. That, Mr. Speaker, is not sound ground on which to change the policies and the Constitution of our province. It is a very very dicey situation because, Mr. Speaker, what if any other numbers of situations developed in the future, are we going to as legislators try and pre­ guess "what if" this kind of situation happens? So it doesn't hold up very well with the people of the Province of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, and wrong is wrong is wrong. If someone does something wrong, common sense has to prevail. I don't see where we would be put into any chaotic situation with the lawmakers or the courts of this country. I believe we have responsible people holding those positions, and if we haven't, then changes should be made to that, Mr. Speaker, not to our Constitution to deal with it. So the advice of the Honourable Senator on how to deal with the judicial case before the law of the courts should be paid attention to, Mr. Speaker, in great depth.

Again, let us look a little broader than a court decision or the pending court decision that the government was nervous about. Mr. Speaker, what are they basing the need for change on? What are they basing it on? We have sat here for days listening and trying to find out why it is we are being faced with this question. We all can go back and say, yes, that we know at one time half the people were Franco-Manitobans and half were Anglophones in the province. Yes, that is true, our history tells us that it is so, but it isn't that way 100 years later, Mr. Speaker.

It isn't that way and they still have the right to the service that was given to them. Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out in spades by our leader and by every speaker on this side of the House that those rights are there, they're preserved by us, the people of the Province of Manitoba. 4831 Mr. Speaker, I have to speak personally about my fami ly. I want my son, I want my family to be able to speak many languages and, yes, I want him to be able to speak French. I think it would be a great asset in the country of Canada. And I think, Mr.

Speaker, the majority of people who are today protesting what the government is doing, if we're asked the question, by choice, would you like to be able to speak French and have that service offered? They would say, yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure I can speak for a lot my constituents who would say, if given the choice, the freedom of choice, and it isn't going to cost a horrendous amount of money, then, I think, Mr. Speaker, that they wquld agree with us that we should by choice, as we were doing.

But where this government have failed to act responsibly is to say that we are going to now become a bilingual province with both French and English as those official languages. By force, they are telling my constituents and the constituents of their own areas that is going to be the way it is, not allowing them input, not allowing them a say on it, but that is the decision of government. The Attorney-General in his opening comments said that it is in stone that the wording can't be changed; an agreement has been struck and either has to go that way or the total thing will be scrapped, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: I would ask him to - (I nterjection) - well, if he would like - to peruse Hansard on this. At no time did I say that anything was carved in stone, and for the Member for Arthur to use those words as purporting to quote me is funda mentally wrong. He knows it to be wrong and I think it's a shameful thing that he's doing, and he ought to make it clear that he is not quoting me nor even paraphrasing anything that I said. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Attorney-General for that clarification. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Wel l, Mr . Sp eake r, it is my understanding - and I may not and I don't intend to quote him precisely -of the Attorney-General's position that their decision was made. It was to proceed as it is or would have to be totally withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's on Hansard. I'm quite prepared to go back and review it again, and if I am incorrect then I will stand up and admit that I am. That is more than what I've heard the government do at any point on this particular issue. Mr.

Speaker, what I am saying is this: Do not force upon the people or you will pay the price, and it's not the short-term price that I'm concerned about. The short-term price for this government is the loss of the next election, and that is a given at this particular point. It is a given that they will lose the next general election on this issue alone. This issue alone will defeat them, but the longer-term concern of mine and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as I reiterated this morning, is what they are doing is wrong, wrong, wrong! It will destroy the social fabric that ties this province of minority groups

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 and majority groups together as one common force and one common group of people, and that's the destruction that they're doing, Mr. Speaker. The First Min ister last night made reference to the fact that we had to do this to unify Canada. To unify Canada, he's saying, is to divide Man itoba, that's what we're being asked to do. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, stand idly by and let th at happen, and that's why my colleagues and I are determined to stand here to our end, defeat what this government is proposing that is wrong for the people of Manitoba.

I don't know when they are going to yield, Mr. Speaker, and agree to what we have asked for which is only a common sense approach, and that is the interses sional comm ittees unless, as I said earlier, they don't want to hear what the people of Manitoba have to say. I'll say this again and again, they did not have the mandate to make this change. Their mandate was this - that nobody would lose their homes or their busine sses; that they would have to have a year's notice before they were laid off; that the Hydro freeze would be continued, Mr. Speaker. All those falsehoods is what they were elected on, Mr.

Speaker. Now what are they trying to do? They're trying to play games with the people of Manitoba. We will not tolerate it, Mr. Speaker, and we'll fight it to the end. Mr. Speaker, what do we have? We have a provincial government who have proceeded, first of all, in secret, negotiating with the minority group and with the Federal Government. We know what their objectives are. We don't need to be told that over and over again, what Pierre Elliott Trudeau is doing. Of course, he is using the present-day Premier as a puppet. That is all that he is doing. He knows that he has a weakling in place.

I'll go back again, when the First Min ister referred to my leader's reason for losing the last election was he had spent too much time on the Constitution. I again say, thank God, it was Premier Sterling Lyon that was negot iating the Constitution and not Pawley, Mr. Speak er, not Mr . Pawl ey, because the people of Manitoba trusted Sterling Lyon. They definitely don't trust Howard Pawley. It is a matter of trust. A MEMBER: They sure showed it. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, I indicated why the New Democratic Party are in office.

If you promise people the world and then never intend on delivering it, you're going to get elected, but they are paying the price for those false promises, Mr. Speaker. They are paying the price, and will do so not only in the next election, but this NDP Government are doing a lot to remove the socialist and the NDP philosophy from this province for a long, long time. It is not only this next election they're going to defeat thems elves, but they are going to go as the national NDP did, continue to slide in the polls, and won't be heard of for a long, long time, Mr. Speaker. That is what they're accomplishing.

If that's what their objective is, we will help them, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, dealing with the unity of this province, as I indicated earlier, I believe it is the responsibility of a government to keep a balance in society, where they make sure the minority groups' rights are protected and where the majority in society are as well considered that they can't take advantage of those minority groups, but in fact there is a give and take. But we haven't seen that under the New Democratic Party, we haven't seen that. We have seen them yield to the whims of certain people, who are in a lot of cases, Mr.

Speaker, not reasonable with their requests in the overall picture of the longevity of a good and sociable province. That is where their responsibility lies, Mr. Speaker. I would hope in their discussions in Cabinet, in caucus, that they take into consideration the longer term results of what they are proposing to deal with in this province. Surely to goodness, when you have in excess of 100 municipalities, the Cities of Brandon and Winnipeg, proposing to put the question to the public on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, has to tell them somet hing. What happens with the results?

You know, I hate to prejudge what the results may be, but I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, they aren't going to be in favour of what the government wants; in fact, very much the opposite. I believe that one could safely estimate that 90 percent of the people, given the opportunity if they supported the government on their proposal to make Manitoba a bilingual province, would be defeated by 90 percent. Ninety percent would oppose them. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe firmly that 90 percent of the people would vote against what they are doing. Mr.

Speaker, we talk about what and why and how have they based the need for this change. Mr. Speaker, there has been not one speaker on the government side stand and tell this Assem bly precisely what is the need for change. What is the need for change? Yes, they've made reference, Mr. Speaker, to a court case. What if the judgm ent was to go against the province, and we would have all this chaos in the province, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, what kind of government do we have? What if, Mr. Speaker, it would have been a more serious charge?

Would we be as ready to negotiate away what has been the tradition of our province to satisfy a few? Mr. Speaker, we are a province of opportunity. We have been a province of freedom of opportunity, but now we are now in the position of being forced to accept not a freedom of choice of what we do as a people, but a freedom of allowing or giving that freedom to the judicial system to make a judgment on what happens to the future of our families. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that it is our res ponsibility as legislators to protect the rights and freedoms of our children and those who are to be born, as was indicated by the Leader of our party. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibil ity. To turn that responsibility over to the courts of the land is an irr esponsible action, and we cannot tolerate it and will not tolerate it. Mr. Speaker, what happens and what if a more serious situation were to develop? Do we negotiate away more of the rights and freedoms of our young people so that we don't have to take the chance of what the courts are going to tell us?

Is that the kind of long-term situation we are now into, where you and I as legislators give away our decision-making power of the future generations of this province to a judicial body who make judgments on their future and their freedoms? No, Mr. Speaker, we will not allow that to happen. We will sit here, Mr. Speaker, through long weekend after long weekend, whether it's hot or whether it's not, whether it's cold, because it is right that we defend our constituents on this issue. 4832

Wednesd ay, 3 August, 1983 Mr. Speaker, what have we seen this government give us? We have seen the NOP Government have been creators of social unrest is what we have seen. They have as we ll, Mr . Speake r, giv en us nothing but economic chaos in the province. I want to conclude my remarks by sayi ng, Mr. Speaker, that if they continue to insist on being such an arrogant, a government that does not believe that they should deal with the wishes of the people, the way the people feel, they will pay the price. The short-term price for them, Mr. Speaker, is in fact the next general election.

That is their short-term price, but the long-term price is the social unrest that the people of Manitoba, all the minority groups and the majority groups, will have to work together to mend back together again. It will take not only one generation, Mr. Speaker, but it will take nu merous genera tions to gain back the kind of confidence that we have in one another; that we are all being treated equally and fairly by a government, and that one particular group is not getting a special treatment, Mr. Speaker. We will stay and fight this until the end, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina. HANS.A.RD CORRECTION llll R. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I wish to correct Hansard, Saturday, the 30th of Ju ly, 2:00 p.m. On Page 4697, an interjection is identified as "Mr. D. Orchard: But they bought it." I simply want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, as is the problem with picking up interjections and attempting to identify who has made them , that I was not present at that Session. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTIONS Cont 'd CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES Cont'd MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to add my comments to the referral motion and the amendment and the sub-amendment. In this particular case, I will address my remarks to the sub-amendment which was proposed by my colleague, the ML A for Gladstone; a sub-amendment which contrary to what the Member for Radisson would have us believe in his comment from his seat that we are wasting time. No, Mr. Speaker, this sub-amendment that we have proposed answers the kinds of concerns as to a timing deadline that mem bers in the gover ment and particular ly the Attorney-General and the First Minister have told us that they are operating under.

First off, let our amendment in no way, shape or form give credence to the bad job of negotiating that the government did on this issue. They set their own self­ imposed time limit; they negotiated badly without giving them selves sufficient time to deal with this very important issue in this Assembly with the members of the opposition, but more importantly, Mr.

Speaker, they al lowed them selves a tim e dead lin e within the framework of which they could not properly bring this issue before the people of Ma nitoba to gain the people's concurrence, to gain the people's support and to gain the people of the Province of Manitoba's best wishes for success of this issue. They negotiated badly; it was not us.

Members in the government, and particularly the Attorney-General who is a rather newcomer to this House and to the parliamentary process, set for himself and his colleagues an unrealistic time limit within which they must have this matter resolved in the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba. We believe they negotiated badly, very very badly. They did not negotiate the best interests of the people of Manitoba as the bottom line of their ' negotiations. That's fine; we recognize these people cannot negotiate.

We're thankful that the Minister of Energy and Mines had no portion of that negotiation because, as the chief negotiator that lost the mega project of the power grid, the aluminum smelting plant, the potash plant and the upgrading of Manfor in The Pas, we're certainly pleased that he had nothing to do with th ese nego ti ations and th at he passed the incompetence ball on to the Attorney-General to negotiate their artificial time frame on this matter.

Taking aside so tha1 the government may in no way, shape or form attach credibility to their bad job of negotiation by our su b-amendment which fits conveniently with the artificial deadline they set, I solicit, I urge and I implore members of the government not to take the sub-amendment as an endorsement of your bad negotiation; but since you have thrown thal up as being a major problem with the amendment proposed by the MLA for Fort Garry, we sought to correct it for you, to make it easier for you to accept our amendment and now our sub-amendment, but it in no way endorsed your incompetent negotiating that was undertaken by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker, various mem bers in the House have referred to an

article in the Winnipeg Sun of Friday, July 29, wherein one Jim Carr, a political columnist, has had an interview with former Premier Roblin, now Senator Ro blin, on the ND P's di lemma over this language issue. Mr. Carr and Mr. Roblin have laid out a very wise course of action that the government should have followed in this bilingual issue. But did they think of that? Obviously no, because they negotiated badly. They set themselves time frames they cannot live with and the people of Manitoba cannot live with.

That is why we are at this current impasse in this Legislature, because we know the people of Manitoba are with us on this issue. It is not a lack of understa nding as the Minister of Transportation said today in response to a petition of over 300 constituents from Lac du Bonnet. The Min ister of Hig hways and mem bers in the government who are ramming this issue are treating Manitoba citizens who oppose it as either bigots, racists, red necks or mentally deficient people because they don't understand the issue.

That is their common, bottom line, that if you do not agree with us on this issue, you're a racist, you're a red neck, you're a bigot or you're stupid. Good heavens, how can 900,000 people in the Province of Manitoba be red neck, racist, bigoted and stupid? That's impossible, but that's the bottom line they fall down to when they find public opposition growing to the unacceptable proposition they 4833

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 are putting before the people of Man itoba; and in no small way, Mr. Speaker, that demons trates the attitude of this current NOP Government to the people of Manitoba. It perfectly exemplifies the socialist philosophy and the ultra left-wing philosophy as espoused by the Attorney-General of the fact that we, the government, are the masters and the people shall be the slaves. The people are the servants to us, the masters in government, and what we want, as government, we will impose our will on the people of Manitoba; we will not listen to the people of Manitoba.

There are countries in this world where that political attitude works. In Russia, I believe there's one name on the ballot because the political masters dictate to the slaves, the people, as to who shall be their elected people. These people have taken the mandate of the election on November 17, 198 1, and transla ted it into an attitude exemplified by this incompetent government that wh atever they propose is good for the people of Manitoba, is the right way to go and must be proceeded with. On this issue, the vast majority of Manitobans are saying whoa, just a minute.

We do not believe you are right, No. 1; we certainly know that you did not campaign on this issue and have a mandate, the elected mandate to carry it out; and No. 3, and more importantly, we don't trust you people. That's what the citizenry of Mani toba are sayi ng.

They have heard too many Mi nisters of this gover nment stand up and gi ve misleading answers, distort the facts, twist the truth and try to cover their incompetence with baffleg ab, balderdash and nonsensical statements and the people of Ma nitoba are fast becom ing aware that this government, and this Attorney-General particularly, cannot be trusted; they cannot be taken at their word.

The Attorney-General got up on a matter of privilege, which wasn't a matter of privilege, demonstrating his knowledge of the Rules of the House once again, and he said that what my colleague, the ML A for Arthur, said in his last speech that he in no place said that this proposal was written in stone. I have to give the Attorney-General credit for speaking half the truth again. - (Interjection) - My colleague, the ML A for Lakeside, says that is part of the technique. It's a technique that's used by agents of influence throughout the length and breadth of the free world.

Now, the Attorney-General in an answer to the Leader of the Opposition Friday, June 17, 1983, answering a question on whether the government is comm itted to the agreement or whether or not the government is prepared to modify, moderate, change that agreement with respect to bilingualism, that's the question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition. Here's his answer, Mr. Speaker, "The government," this is Mr. Penner, "has said that it will not call for a vote on the resolution until those hearings are finished because it is not, Mr.

Speaker, by any stretch of the imagination, a P.R. exercise or a sham, because it is open for us to do one thing, but one thing only. That is to reject the agreement completely. It is not possible at this stage, because the case in the Supreme Court merely stands adjourned. It is not possible for us to take an agreement that involves four or five parties and unilaterally start playing around texturally with agreement." Now, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General, who is the father of all wisdom in this House, the legal giant, the mental master of the law and the half-truth, holds his whole case on unilaterally.

Just what does he think this House is? This House can unilaterally change that amendment and he said, no, it cannot happen. He said this House cannot change this because we cannot go back to the four or five other parties involved unilaterally. The man is hoisted on his own petard. He is caught saying one thing and attempting to say that he didn't and that, in fact, if he did say, it he didn't meant that, he meant somet hing else. He meant another obfuscation of the truth, he meant another distortion of the fact, he meant smoke and mirrors. Because, he told us in this House, Mr.

Speaker, that what is there, and I will quote the Attorney-General once again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, the Mem ber for Pembina is attempting to tell this House, in response to some earlier exchange between myself and another member of this House, the Member for Arthur, that I had said expressly or impliedly that this matter was carved in stone, reads a passage from Hansard in which clearly all I said was that an agreement, and that's elementary even for the Mem ber for Pembina, cannot be changed unilaterally.

Not that it can't be changed, but it can't be changed unilaterally. If an agreement is to remain an agreement, any change has to be consensual. That much is obvious and it should be even for that intellectual infant. l\ll R. SPEAKER: I thank the Attorney-General for that explanation. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I trust that that non-point of order will be deducted from my time and not become part of it.

I'll quote once more because the Attorney-General is answering a question as to what the course of action is open to this House in dealing with this bilingual res olution. He said because it is open for us to do one thing but one thing only, that is to reject the agreement comp letely . There is no way tha t we can mo ve amendments according to that statement from the Attorney-General. But that was Friday, June 17th, we are now sitting on August 3rd, Wednesday.

What a difference six weeks makes, because not only has this Attorney-General, who had put to us the position that you take this, you swallow the pill, you say nothing, we change nothing, we see nothing, we hear nothing, and we speak no evil. That's what the Attorney-General said. Now he has gone from sa ying, well, because the MGE A come along and pointed out a flaw, maybe we'll listen to them. Well, because there's public pressure growing on this,. maybe we'll listen to the people and we'll go out and have one-sided meetings and explain our position to them.

Now, I detect from what the First Minister said last night that there is a possibility that they might actually consider taking this commit tee to the people in rural Manitoba at a series of hearings outside of the City of Winnipeg. What a difference six weeks of public opinion has made on that written-in-stone Attorney-General. He now admits possibly , possibl y, possibly we can 4834

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 amend it, possibly we can hear the people of Manitoba, possibly all these things will happen. But we are not convinced in this House, we have been betrayed in the opposition by the government on a number of times and we will not accept thos e little trinkets of innuendo, of possible solution, until we get one of the senior min isters of that government to stand up in this House, speak to the sub-amendment and say, yes, it is the government's intention to pass this so that we can go to the people of Manitoba.

We will not pass this resolution until we have that guarantee on the public record where they cannot deny that they said it. That's what we're waiting for, that's what we hope to extract from this reluctant government that doesn't want to face the people of Manitoba and take this issue to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, when we get that commitment, then this amendment shall pass with a majority of the House. Naturally, we will support it. Hopefully, all members over there will support it.

So until we get those kinds of indications on the record from the Attorney-General, this debate shall go on and shall go on and shall go on, because we are being told day in and day out by the people of Manitoba that a number of us have opportunity to talk to when we're not in this House. They tell us, keep up the fight, don't let this government railroad that amendment through, stop them, use any measure you can.

The people of Manitoba are on our side and those people want us to be here fighting this government, trying to ram an incompetently, poorly negotiated amendment, which causes more friction, more social disruption, more anim osi ty, more hatred between the minorities than any action of any other government in the history of this province. The people of Manitoba, French, Ukrainian, German, Icelandic, are telling us to keep up the fight and stop this government, stop the Attorney-General is what they're tel ling us. Mr. Speaker, as often happens politicians resp ond to public pressure.

We in the opposition are making that response today; we have made it for the last week; and we will make it for the next several weeks if necess ary, because we know we're right, we know we have the people with us, and we know that the government is wrong. Now, does that mean, and I'll ask the Member for Radisson, because hopefully he at some point in time will jus tify what he's trying to ram through the House, if he were in our position, would he do any different? I'll tell you right now, if I was to receive an honest answer from the Member for Radisson, he would say, yes.

He would do the same thing the opposition is doing, he wouldn't allow it to happen. So don't sit there and complain and cry about the fact that this resolution is not progressing through this Hous e accor ding to your po orly negot iated time schedule. We are here representing the people of Manitoba, and we intend to represent the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Radisson on a point of order. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, is the member asking me a question? Do I have leave to answer? MR.

SPEAKER: I believe the Honourable Member for Radisson will have the same opportunity to speak on this debate as any other mem ber. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Radisson obviously doesn't understand the Rules of the House, which is not unusual. The question posed to him was rhetorical; that when he has his opportunity, he might offer us the advice.

He might speak to this in an objective way, and not hide behind the cartoons that are in La Liberte that he agrees with; the one that my mem ber, the ML A for Lakeside, so poignantly pointed out to him on Friday night of this past week, the kind of dis tortions that are there. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Radisson on a point of order. MR. G. LECUYER: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Member !or Pembina is referring to a cartoon which appeared in La Liberte, and implies that I have been in any way related with that cartoon. Unless he can prove that, Mr.

Speafcer - and I will categorically say I am not involved with that -and unless he can prove otherwise, I would like the member to withdraw that remark. I move, seconded, if that is necessary, that he withdr aw that remark. The Member for lnkster will second that. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the honourable member did not have a point of privilege. He had a clarification to make. The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, I think I did make a point of privilege, and I did have a su bstantive motion at the end. My motion, Mr.

Speaker, was that the Member for Pembina withdraw that remark, and I indicated that it was seconded by the Member for lnkster. MR. SPEAKER: Could the honourable member send his motion to the Chair? MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, might I speak on a point of order? Is not the Member for Radisson's matter of privilege a little premature? He is making a motion before he has had an opportunity to determine whether I will willingly, in full co-operation of the House, withdraw any innuendo that I have theoretically made to hurt his very sensitive personal ity. A motion is hardly in order at this stage of the game, Mr.

Speaker. MR. H. ENNS: They want to chastise you, Orchard. They want to throw you out like Lyon and the rest of them, so they can feed you to the Christians. Out, out. Orchard, they don't like what you're saying. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden on a point of order. MR. H. GRAHAM: It might benefit all members of the House if you, Sir, would read out the motion of the 4835

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 honourable member so that other mem bers may be able to advise you on the correctness or incorrectness of his motion. MR. SPEAKER: I have not accepted the motion from the honourable mem ber. I've listened carefully to the remarks that he made in rising, to cl arify his own position, as far as the remarks of the Honourable Member for Pembina are concerned. I find that our Rule Book states tha t a dispute arising between mem bers as to allegations of fact does not fulfil! the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

Therefore, the Honourable Member for Radis son does not have a point of privilege. The Honourable Member for Pembina may proceed. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could you indicate, Mr. Speaker , how much time I have left on this debate? MR. SPEAKER: One moment. MR. H. ENNS: Forty minutes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your indulgence in this matter, and I will apologize to the Member for Radisson, without having to do so for attributing any artistic skill to him that he may have interpreted I had given to him.

I have yet to hear the Member for Radisson declaim that cartoon that was referred to by the ML A for Lakeside Friday night as being untruthful, misleading, racist, bigoted and very very divisive to the social fabric of Manitoba. At his next opportunity , I know that the Member for Radisson, being an honourable gentleman, will certainly want to clarify the record and disassociate himself from La Liberte, and that particular cartoon and a number of others, that have stirred the fires of racism in the Province of Manitoba on this bilingual issue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this issue is of such importance, it transcends the temporary occupation of any political party in the office of government. This is simply too big an issue to introduce on the 1s t of June of this year , in the latter part of this Session, and wanting - (I nterjection) - the Mem ber for River East says, that was the early part of the Session now. He's quite correct. That may well be the early part of the Session if the government persists in ramming it through. They will find this Session extending very many days more than they had anticipated.

But this issue is simp ly, Sir, too important to set a seven-month deadline for its resolution and passage by this Ass embly . Other issues of major importance in the Province of Manitoba, issues of importance to the citizenry, to the lifestyle that they and their children and their grandchildren will enjoy, because of actions taken within this Cham ber have been discussed, they have been given to the people of Manitoba so that they may adequately have an opportunity to express their views, to question the government on the need, the style, the process, the su bstance of what they are doing, but alas, Mr.

Speaker, the people of Manitoba shall have no such opportunity on this issue because - I go back to my original point -this government, this Attorney-General negotiated badly. They set the mselves an artificial time limit of December 31, 19 83, to have this matter passed and resolved in this Legislature. That is an impossible goal for an issue of this magnitude and importance to the people today and of future generations of children and grandchilden yet unborn. This issue deserves full and comprehensi ve hearings by the people of Manitoba in all regions of Manitoba.

It is a far greater issue of importance than the Crow rate, which was an issue that this government, this province, this Legislature has no legislative authority to deal with to amend and to modify. No; but on the Crow rate, this government undertook a series of informational hearings in 19 82 and a series of agricultural committee hearings tha t went to six communi ties outside of the City of Winnipeg to hear the people of Manitoba, to allow them an opportunity to express their views, pro or con.

This issue of the Crow rate is of no more -pardon me -is not of equal importance to the bilingual amendment that is being proposed. Yet, this government stands self-righteously in its place and says that the people of Manitoba, if they only understand the issue, will agree with them; but yet this government won't go to the people with a series of comm ittee hearings such that they can listen to the peop le of Mani toba, hear th eir views, hear their comments, hear their criticisms and hear th eir amendments.

That strikes me as a strange action by a government that claims that they represent the people; that they have an open-door government; that they wish to listen to the people of Manitoba, to hear their views and to represent the people of Manitoba better in the laws that they enact in this Legislature. Yet they won't tour the Province of Manitoba with an intersessional committee. They use the feeble excuse that we can't do that because we have this time deadline which was badly negotiated by an incompetent group of negotiators and an incompetent government. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. If we allow it to pass, we are not listening to our constituency that says do not let this pass. Do not let this government pass this bad amendment that will affect us for future generations. On the other hand, we have the awesome weight of a majority that will use their authority at each and every opportunity to quash the minority and the opposition of this province in this Legislature. They have done it time and time again. How many expulsions have we seen from this House, including the expulsion of our leader yesterday?

I think it's up to a half-dozen now. You know, in the time that we sat, and I was part of the Lyon administration, we had four Sessions and a mini-Session. Do you know, and I'll stand corrected, but I don't believe any single member of this House was ejected. No member of the opposition was ejected. My colleague, the ML A for Sturgeon Creek, who was here during the Schreyer years, believes there were two ejections during the Schreyer years, eight years of govern ment. Here we have this gang of incompetents, only in their second Ses sion, with six expulsions from the House. What is the justice to their expulsions?

The Attorney­ General takes out his gulag justice book and he says for one colleague, it is a 45-minute suspension from the Hous e; for another colleague, it is for the balance of the sitting. Yet, for the Leader of the Opposi tion, the 4836

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 first time it was for two-and-a-half days; and for this time, it is for six sittings of the Legislature. You know, here the Attorney-General has attempted via the weight of the majority, the awesome power of this majority tem porary govern ment, have used their numbers and their power to eject from this House the most intellectual, intelligent and knowledgeable voice on constitutional matters that this House has. They have ejected our leader. The Attorney-General has once again adminis tered his gulag jus tice - six sittings.

I think it is their sincere hope and wish that by the time those six sittings are up, that they will have been able to ram through this amendment and not have to listen to the precise argument offered by the Leader of the Opposition in tearing apart not only the process of what they are doing, but the su bstance of the amendment to

Section 23 that they are trying to railroad through this House. They have effectively silenc ed the most intelligent, knowing voice in this Assembly on constitutional matters by the Attorney-General's whim of an expulsion for six sessions. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how does an opposition attempt to represent the will of the people in a minority situation in this Legislature when the will of the people and the will of the majority of the people are strongly opposed to the government action, and strongly in favour of the opposition's stand? Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are seeing how we can do it here and now.

I want to relate to my honourable friends opposite some of the steps that have taken us to this Session this afternoon. The House Leaders had an agreement that there would be no sitting Saturday and Monday. That agreement was reneged on, was denied. It was denied because certain members of the backbench - and if it was the Member for Radisson, I would expect it; if it was the Mem ber for lnkster, I would expect it; if it was the Member for Springfield, I would expect it - but basically some of the radicals in the backbench said whoa, we're not letting those guys go home on a long weekend in August.

We are going to force them to sit here in August on Saturday and on Monday if necessar y. For what purpose, Mr. Deputy Speaker? To ram that amendment on the langua ge issue through while everybody is away on the weekend, not listening to the news, so they can hopefully slip it by the people of Manitoba so they don't know what happened. So as a result, on Thursda y night, we come to an impasse on this matter. On Thursday night, the bells rang. What happened then, Mr. Deputy Speaker? We had the bizarre situation of the bells ringing until about 10:30 or 11 :00.

The government refused adjournment of the 8:00 p.m., Thursday night sitting, which was our motion. That sitting continued to approximately 1:1 5 Friday afternoon. Then what did the government do? They did not take up an offer by our House Leader to allow the House to sit from 2:00 to 5:30 p.m., Friday afternoon, while the committee on seat belts was sitting, to do what - to debate this constitutional resolution and the referral motion of it -they refused to debate it Friday afternoon. What was their comeback? That we sit Friday night and we debate it. What did we do Friday night?

I think we heard from one speaker on our side of the Ho us e, and the government adjourned the House. They called it for 10:00 Saturday morning. What happened then? Once again, there was one speaker from the opposition, we moved adjournment and we came back at 2:00 o'clock, and here is where it gets totally bizarre, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Saturday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. the opposition forewent their opportunity for a question period. They wished to have a vote on the amendment of the referral of this comm ittee to intersessional hearings with a December 31 st deadline, they wanted a vote on it.

What did the government do from 2:00 o'clock till 5.30? They filibus tered their own resolution. Each and everyone that was available spoke on it Saturday afternoon; they held up the business of the province and this House by filibustering their own motion, the ultimate in bizarre and chaotic adminis tration of an incompetent government. But the people of Manitoba witnessed that bizarre action by a majority that is incapable of ordering the affairs of this House in such a manner that we can get on with the business of the people of Manitoba. Utterly incredible and bizarre! What happened then, Saturday afternoon?

The House was adjourned then until 10:00 a.m. Monday morning and here's even a more incredibly bizaree circumstance. The reason, purportedly, that they were going to force the opposition to sit Saturday and Monday of the long weekend was to ram through the referral motion on the constitutional amendment. What business did they call on Monday morning? They called bills; they forgot about the referral motion on Monday morning and they called bills. Can you think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of any more bizarre a set of circumstances?

There is only one government in the his tory of this province and, I would suspect in the his tory of Canada that is so chaotically organized as this ND Government that we are looking at toda y. First of all, they filibus tered their own resolutions all Satu rday afternoon and then Monday at the sitting, where they wanted to get on with the referral motion, they called bills. And to make bizarre even more bizarre, they did the same thing on Monday afternoon at the 2:00 p.m. sitting.

What happened to the indecent haste of those radicals in the backbench, who said we're going to show the opposition, we're going to make 'em sit here Saturday and Monday and we're going to ram this through? What happened to the good advice they provided to the Cabinet who was here in the majority, except for the Attorney-General who was enjoying hims elf at the lake? He kept up his end of the bargain that we wouldn't sit Saturday and Monday. Where was the rest of the Cabinet?

They were here filibustering their own referral motion and calling for debate on bills when members weren't even here to debate them, when Ministers weren't here to hear them. It is a government, Mr. Deputy Spe aker, that has no leader, that has no game plan, that has no direction, that has no course of action they're willing to offer the people of Manitoba to jus tify their existence. This is truly, without qu es tion, the most incom petent government this province has ever seen.

It is an incred ible coll ection of indi vidual incompetents, collectively adminis tered by a leaderless, weak-kneed, unpopula r First Minis ter, who canno t control his backbench, his Cabinet or his caucus. 4837

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 It is beyond belief, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand why the ML A for Ellice is bailing out of that caucus and taking his shot at the mayoralty race. He wants no truck or trade with that gang of incompetents that he sits with over there. He's leaving the ship. We've already had one defector sit behind us; we've got one memb er, the Member for Elmwood, because of his principles, is ousted from the caucus temporarily - maybe permanently.

This government is coming apart at the seams and they won't listen to some logical suggestions from, not only the opposition, but from the people of Manitoba on how they should proceed on this important issue. They're listening to such people as the ML A for Radisson, the ML A for lnkster and other radicals in the backbench that say, ram it down their throat, let's get it through, let's pass it, let's force it on the people of Manitoba. We don't care if we weren't elected to do that; we're going to do it anyway because we're government; we've got the power; we're the authority; we are the masters.

This government really and truly, I think, believes they know better, but unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are running into a problem, a problem in this House and a problem with the people of Manitoba. The Mem ber for Elmwood now has over 7,000 responses, many of them with several signatur es per response. How many more people does this government have to have tell them that they disa gree with them on this issue before they change their mind, amend it so that th ey can better reflect the will of the people of Manitoba? We don't know, but we're willing to stay here long enough to find out.

One of the bizarre arguments from a bizarre government that went through that scenario I just described to you, on the long weekend, the Attorney­ General says, of course there's opposition to our plan, because people don't understand it. The Attorney­ General has said on numerous occasions that his former colleague, the ML A for Elmwood, lacks intelligence, etc ., etc., in his presentation of the issue to his constituents and to the people of Ma nitoba.

The Attorney-General says the ML A for Elmwood is not pres enting this issue correctly to the people of Manitoba, but the Attorney-General has never answered the question - and it's a simple question and I'll ask it today - he has not answered the very simple and straightforward question as to why, in all his propaganda he has sent out to the people of Manitoba, and in all of the ads that this government is paying for with taxpayers' hard-earned money, in the papers throughout the length and breadth of this province, the Attorney­ General has never answered the question why he has not printed in full the proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, which states, in

Section 23.1, English and French are the official langua ges of Manitoba. On one hand, the Attorney-General claims that the people are against it because they're not informed and he has done nothing to inform the people. He has put out propaganda she ets which my colleague, the MLA for St. Norbert, has said contained very questionable statements, very shady

interpretations of fact. He has sent those out and says that is the knowledge the people shall know. The people shall know the half truths that we, the government, and I, the Attorney-General wish 4838 to give them. That is what the Attorney-General's position is. But when it comes to giving Manitobans the true facts, the whole truth, the complete situation, no, they haven't done that in any of their ads, they haven't put an ad in the Dauphin paper which says

Section 23. i says English and French are the official languages of Manitoba. Oh, no, but what they have done, Mr. Speaker, is take and send a letter out to many mayors and reeves in the Province of Manitoba which purports to quote the old

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, and in that old

Section 23, it says either the English or French language may be used by any person in debates of the House of the Legislature in both those languages. Those are three key words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, shall be used in respect of records and Journals of the House, and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under The British North America Act, 1867, or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The act of the Legislature shall be printed in both those languages. What did the Premier send out to those people?

He had a typographical error, he says, in which he changed the last sentence to read, "The acts of the Legislature shall be published in both official languages." He changed "those" to "official" and says it's a typog raphical error. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should the people of Mani toba trust information coming from this government, from the First Minister, from the Attorney­ General, and others in this gov ernment; when typographical errors of that import emanate from letters to elected officials in the Province of Manitoba? It is bizarre, Mr.

Speaker, that that could happen and it's only something that could happen with a front bench filled with the likes of the Attorney-General, the Minis ter of Financ e and the Premi er. People who will not necessarily deliberately mis lead the people of Manitoba, but certainly will use the half-truth technique to not tell the whole story to the people of Manitoba. So, I ask you , Mr. Deputy Speaker, has this government, this collection of incompetence, shown to the people of Manitoba that they are worthy of their trust and their integrity?

Have they earned that by publications, media efforts, mailers and letters that have gone out from the Premier's office and the Attorney­ General on this matter, which have not told the truth to the people of Manitoba? Why should the people of Manitoba believe this gang of incompetents? They don't, they won't, and that's why we're going to be here a long time trying to make you people honest, and it may take us an awful long time to make you honest.

But it is our hope and desire for the betterment of the Province of Manitoba and the people resident in it, that we do accomplish the job of making you honest; making you represent the people of Manitoba; and making you undertake the will of the people of Manitoba and not your master-slave relation legislation that you're trying to force and ram down the throats of the people of Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I just got my Hansard. On Page 4739, Monday, August 1, 1983 it shows that I voted Nay. I wasn't even here on Monday, Mr. Speaker.

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 A MEMBER: Well, you would have voted Nay. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the amendment to the resolution; the amendment which says that this issue should be dealt with in an intersessional commit tee and reported back no later than December 31, 19 83. I see absolutely no reason why we should be hurrying this issue along.

We have lived with this issue for 11 6 years and certainly another year or two, when we already have made so many changes, when these changes have been made by the previous government; there is absolutely no reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why we should be hurrying along and presently trying to ram this through in a matter of a couple of weeks. I am certain that the government is beginning to see the error of their ways because they are beginning to ma ke some chang es. They'r e sayi ng now th at a comm ittee is going to be established, which is going to be allowed to have hearings in various parts of the province.

We have, however, no idea of how many hearings there are going to be. They say that the committee will be esta blishing this, yet we know full well that they are going to have the majority of people on that comm ittee and that they are going to be in full control, as to how many meetings, where these meetings will be held, and what length of time they will be sitting, and how ma ny peop le will be allo wed to make presentations. They are using this ploy I feel to get this debate out of this House so that they can deal with it in a much smaller commit tee. I cannot un derstand this government, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when every day they are taking an unmerciful beating in this House during the question period, during debate, and when they want to come back day, after day, after day, in the heat of summer , to get more of what they had the day before. Certainly the public is very much aware of the debate that is going on in the House at the present time , and there is no doubt about it that the popularity of the Government of Mani toba is going down day by day, and it will continue to go down day by day, the longer we are in here. Mr.

Speaker, the constituency that I represent has about 17 percent French, has about 70 percent German and the rest are a different mixture. We have always been able to get along very well, one with another. We have respected the French-speaking commun ity, and they have respected the Germ an-speaking commun ity, and the English that live within that particular community -they have respected both commu nities. We have had no problems and I'm very proud to represent that particular constituenc y.

The relationship, especially that has been established between the French-speaking com muni ty and the German-speaking communi ty, I'm sure is envied by many people. The French-speaking commu nity at the present time is very embarrassed by the resolution that has been put forward by this government.

It's difficult for me to try to get anybody that is willing to discuss the issue because, as they say, they are embarrassed with it; they say that they have had the freedom to speak French whenever they wanted to; they've had the freedom to learn French, to teach French to their children in school; and many of the people who are within that particular commun ity at this time really see no need for any furtherance of the French language in Manitoba.

The municipality have sent in a resolution, I believe, in which they are saying that they are in favour of entrenchment, but I was talking to one of the councillors the other day, and he said that it was really no big deal to them, he says; if we can get entrenchment fine, if not, it's fine, we're not going to worry about it. They really feel the previous gov ernment and the improvements that were made at that particular time really serve their purpose very well.

Where they had access to the courts in French, where they had access to some departments in the government agencies, and those people who could not speak English, could be serviced in French and they were quite happy with the set-up the way it was. We have had some problems with the amount of French and English within the school system, and every once in a while the people have to sit down and iron out the problems as to how much French is going to be taught in the classroom, and how much English, but these have been of minor nature, mainly, and all these problems have been resolved. So, Mr.

Speaker, we are spending our summer days over here, when we should be out with our constituents. We should be talking to them, finding out what their problems were, getting ready for the next Session of the Legislature; and yet we are spending our time in here arguing and we're going to spend a lot of time arguing, because we are not about to let this issue go the way that the government wants it to proceed in the present manner.

Now the government has spent hundred of thousands of dollars on advertising, and we can hold up document after document that has gone out into the community and you could see that all the money that has been going into advertising and to getting their side of the story across to Manitobans. Yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have heard in the last two days that changes are going to be made in the wording, that changes are going occur, and we have no idea as yet what those changes are going to be, but that's going to make all this advertising obsolete, Mr. Speaker, and it's an absolute waste of money. Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk on one particular issue mainly. The government has been saying that it's not going to help only the French groups, but it's also going to be helping other ethnic groups. I wonder how they can say this. They say that this is also going to assure that the other ethnic groups will be able to retain their language. First of all, there is not too much of a problem between the English speaking group and the French group, because each one of them will have to learn only one other language. The English group will be learning French and the French group will be learning English.

Now, that's two languages, no problem, that can be done very easi ly. But when you start talking about the Italian commun ity , the Ukrainian com mun ity , the German communit y, then all of those will have to learn three languages if they want to retain the language that 4839

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 they have been grown up and the language that they want to retain, because many of them are just as proud of the heritage that they have and they want to also keep up and keep on promoting this heritage and pass it on to their children. We have one group, however, and there are a number of members in this Legislature who belong to that group who will be forced to learn four languages: the German community, the Mennonite community in Manitoba, their conversation is Low German and the language that is taught in the schools and that used mainly in the churches is German.

So this would mean that those people with Mennonite background would have to learn four languages. Now, that's going to be rather difficult. Mr. Deputy Speaker, because then that means that you're going to take a lot of time away from your r•�ading, your arithmetic, from English, from all the other topics that you should be learning and you will be spending a lot of time learning French and learning languages. I would just like to demonstrate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I may.

I believe we have somebody downstairs in Hansard who can translate Low German that can also translate the other German. and I would just like to demonstrate, Mr. Speaker. that I can speak those two languages which are being used and I can also speak the English language, and I am also trying to learn some French. Mr. Deputy Speaker . . A MEMBER: Give us an example. MR. A. BROWN: Okay. Me es daut shod dot die ondre Mennonitische junges nur joats nich hie benen sen daut sie kunen hieren vot ech to seien hab.

Die Plaut Dietsche sproak die vot mierendels jebrucht toem spitzeren and toem haundlen, and so wieda, wo die Mennoniten send. Its ne sproak vo mennschen sich sehe fien kenen dinga bereden, sich ourtrechen, do send fehl vied vot nich en die Englische sproak send oda en de Hurch Dietsche sproak dots nie sproak vo . do es kenne ondre sproak nich vo en mensch sich so ourtrechen kown ies he en de sproak kaun.

So die sproak die vot noch ema fehl jebrucht, die vot en Deutschland jebrucht die vot . . . do es en pote fon France vo de jebrucht vot and do es en pote fon Holland vo de Plaut Dietsche sproak noch ema jebrucht vot, do es en pole fon Russlaund, do es en pote von United States, so do sen fehl landa vo de sproak jebrucht vot and daut es ne sproak vot hundade joren ema jebrucht es en Dietschlaund and die vot fo hundeda joren noch ema jebrucht vot and unse ellern and grottellern de vellen haben dot de Mennoniten de sproak de saul be aint blieven and daut sie voren de sproak ehre kinga lieren.

That was my contribution in the Platt Deutsche. Now I will demonstrate a few words in the German, which is taught in the schools, which is used in the churches and it was used for cultural affairs, and so on. lch wird noch etwas Deutsch sprechen. Die Deutsche sprache wird meistens in die Kirche gebraucht, im Gottes dienst und in die giestliche lieder die vir singen. Dies is die mutter sprache die die Mennoniten nicht vollen vorlassen. Deutsch wird in die schullen gelehrt und es ist die sprache das die eltre folk in Manitoba lieb haben und sie vollen diese sprache erhalten.

My French is mainly at the limit where I can ouvrir or ferme la porte, or I can comment c;:a vous or merci beaucoup or s'il vous plait. But, I'm learning and I have no objection to learning French. As a matter of fact I wish that I could speak French, but there is a limit as to how far it is practical to learn all these languages, and this is really the point that I want to bring across that when you already are learning three languages, it's hardly necessary to have another language forced upon you.

That is if you're going to be working for the Civil Service and there's no doubt about it that many many jobs will be required to be bilingual and certainly as we already have seen that the ads that are going out that say that French is not of a necessity, but it certainly would be helpful. So you know who is going to get the preference when we're hiring civil servants. So, we're going to be denying a lot of ethnic groups the privilege of being hired into the Civil Service. There's another area of concern, which I would like to express, which has been related to me, especially in the French­ speaking community.

There is much more concern in the French-speaking community about the way that we refer to them. We will always talk about French Canadians; we will never talk about Canadians. We always hyphenate them as we do with other groups, the Ukrainians or German or whatever. This is one of the problems that this country is facing. The Americans have done away with this a long time ago. lt doesn't matter where you came from; you're in America. Whether you're of Italian background or whether you have Greek background or whatever, the minute you get your citizenship, you're an American.

This is one of the reasons why we have the problems in Canada and in Manitoba tod ay, because we continuously keep on calling ethnic groups, French groups or German groups or Italian groups or whatever. That certainly is where a lot of this difficulty comes from, because we don't let people forget that they came to Canada to be Canadians. We still insist on putting the background that they came in from when we refer to them. We have had a number of speakers.

They have made reference to the fact that there is a problem in Quebec, and that the problem is the reverse of what it is in Manitoba, and that New Brunswick has tried to address themselves to that particular problem. Mr. Speaker, it seems that the problem in New Brunswick is not done away with by making that problem officially bilingual.

They have tried this now for a number of years, and I just would like to make reference to the "Atlantic Insight," the July edition of 1983, in which New Brunswick politicians like to hold the province up to the rest of the country as a model of amicable bilingualism, but it's far from that according to this particular article, "An Anglo Backlash is Developing." I would just like to quote from that particular article, Mr. Speaker, if I may. "lt is getting tougher to get a job in New Brunswick if you're not bilingual. For some Anglophones, that's causing resentment and fear.

"The difference strikes travellers the moment they c:ross the New Brunswick border. Roadside signs tell drivers circulation ' droite, as well as keep right. Highway 1 goes both west and east. For most Anglophone visitors, that's about as far as bilingualism ever goes; not for the people that live in New Brunswick. 4840

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 "M ore and more often, many believe the ability to speak both of the province's official languages is the only test that seems to matter when they go looking for a job, or try to keep the one you have." Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have experienced when the Federal Government went into bilingualism, that is what New Brunswick is experiencing, and no matter what we say in Manitoba, we will not be able to get away from it. That is what is going to happen in Manitoba.

So, certainly, we can learn from what has happened by what the Federal Government has done, and we can learn from what is happening in New Bruns wick. I will continue, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "Judy Martinson, staff on Avis Car Rental Booth at the Fredericton Airport. She has been told to learn French, or lose her job. 'I don't think it's fair,' says her boss, Harold Tobias, 'to replace a girl who has been with us for 15 years, to say to them, because you don't speak French, you have to go.' But Tobias has received an ultimatum from Transport Canada. Car rental outlets at St.

Johns and Fredericton Airports must be able to provide service in both French and English, starting in September." A further example, and I quote, "A federal civil servant in Moncton says, 'Sometimes I feel like the token English person in middle ma nagement. We know French­ speaking people are given jobs not on merit, but how can you say it without being called a bigot?'" Now that is one of the problems that we have also been facing within these very Cham bers over here.

The minute that you start speak ing on the issue, then you are called a bigot in spite of the fact that all of us over here, we have said that we have nothing against the French language. It was the opposition when they were government that really furthered the cause as far as French is concerned in Manitoba. I believe that both sides can pretty well agree as to how far we should be going in French. It's the entrenchment that is bothering us.

I continue on with this article. 'I have been looking for a job now for two years,' says an unemployed teacher with 11 years experience. 'Had I been bilingual, I could have stood a chance. If you have a French background, you are much better off.' "Similar stories abound in New Brunswick, though most who tell them don't want their names used for tear of losing their jobs. A mid-level bureaucrat in Fredericton, normally one of the most mild-mannered of men, bent a reporter's ear for two hours over dinner about the purging of unilingual Anglophones from the provincial Civil Service.

"The Grand Or ange Lodge, thus res trained, fulmina tes against the iniquitous progress of ruthless and arbitrary bilingualism." I continue, "N ew Brunswick politicians like to hold the province up to the rest of the country as a model of amicable bilingualism. The policy of equal status for English and French is entrenched in the province's Official Languages Act and the later Bill 88, granting cultural equality to the language groups.

Commitment to the policy helped secure Premier Richard Hatfield's resounding election win last October by delivering more than hal f-a-dozen Francophone seats to the Conservative majority. "The Federal Government also is enthusiastic about applying its bilingualism policy in the province where nearly 34 percent of the population is French-speaking." Now you can see when there is 34 percent of the population is French-speaking, that they probably had a problem that was much greater than what ours is where we have only 6 percent of the population which is French-speaking in Manitoba.

I quote: "But with unemployment topping 15 percent, no offshore oil and gas to light a fire under the economy, the tolerance of New Brunswick's Anglophone majority is showing signs of strain as bilingual ability increasingly becomes a criterion, sometimes the deciding one of hiring, especially for competent Civil Service jobs. "When Transport Canada cracked down on inadequate bilingual service in New Brunswick airports after they failed a linguistic audit, threatening several unilin gual Comm issionaires with relocation, 3,000 people in Fredericton signed a petition demanding the policy by revoked.

"'You're going to find a lot of backlash,' warns Lieutenant-Colonel Stan Rodeneiser (phon etic), Commander of the Canadian Corps of Commissionair es, New Bruns wick and Prince Edward Island division, 'It's just beginning to su rface."' It goes on and it cites various other examples of what bilingualism is doing in New Bruns wick and how the backlash is developing. Mr. Speaker, that is one thing that we certainly do not need in Manitoba. We have been able to get along with all the ethnic groups in Manitoba for well over a hundred years now.

I certainly hope that we will be able to continue to work with all the ethnic groups and not force one ethnic group against another ethnic group and create a situation which could become a very difficult situation. I would like to just pick up this particular paper which was distribut ed recently, "Constitutionally Speaking." It is published by the Department of the Attorney­ Gen eral to inform Man itobans about proposed constitutional amendments. Mr. Speaker, by sending out this material to Manitobans, this is where some of the concern develops that we have on this particular side on this issue.

I will just read some of this material into the record and let Manitobans know where our concerns are. The

article goes on to explain some of the his tory in 1870. I qu ote, "In 1870, Manitoba entered confederation as a bilingual province. Its status in that regard was the same as Canada and Quebec. "Today, Manitoba is able to fulfil! its constitutional obligation in a practical, just and economical way. Those Manitobans whose first language is French will be offered government services in that language if they so desire. There will be no unrealistic programs for Manitobans. The federal model of bilingualism will not be applied in this province." How do you know? There is no way that you know.

After you have entrenched the Constitution, you have given away all authority of this Legislature to deal with that issue. There is no way you can give any guarantees to anybody , that we are not going to follow along the same lines that bilingualism did in Ottawa. So what you are telling the people of Manitoba is untruths, because you are willing to give the control away on that particular issue to the Supreme Court, and we will not be dealing with that issue in this Legisla tur e anymore, and that is wrong, because it should be the peop le of Ma nitoba, thr ough their elected 4841

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 representatives, the ones who should be determining an issue such as that. I continue, Mr. Speaker. "French Language Services in Manitoba are being introduced in an orderly manner, to meet responsibilities, but will not incur wasteful expenditures through hasty action ." Mr. Speaker, what are we seeing?

We are being inundated with literature, with advertising, and yet, over here they are saying that there will be no wasteful expenditures; and the waste is really going to come in when changes are going to be made, which the First Minister already has indicated, that there were going to be some changes made. The Minister of Energy today suggested some changes would be made, that instead of only having these few, very limited hearings that they had, that more hearings would be announced, so all this is sheer waste.

"Manitoba has rejected the Federal Government's approach. it is offering French Language Services in limited and specified areas only. Unlike the Federal Government, the Manitoba approach will not make French a language of work with the Civil Service'' Well maybe that will happen. but again, that decision­ making is going to be taken away from this particular body, which is legislating language rights in the province at the present time. "A limited number of jobs - less than 3 percent of the total, require French to serve the demand where numbers warrant. But that is it.

Indeed, the Provincial Government currently has staff in place to fill the majority of their designated positions." Mr. Speaker, as I already mentioned earlier, the ads going out advertising for civil servants, and so on; they may say that French is not necessary but that it certainly would be an aid.

We know very well, when somebody applies for a job and he has no French, the other person is going to be chosen over that particular person and it's not going to be merit, it's not going to be how well educated that particular person is or how well he can fill that role; being able to communicate in French is going to be a very important factor and that is another area of concern. I think that we do want the most capable civil servants that we can possibly hire because, Lord knows, we need them in Manitoba. "Translation of certain relevant provincial statutes will be continued over the next 10 years.

In fact, we will be required to translate only 500 of about 4, 500 statutes. Head offices of various government departments and agencies will prepare to offer limited French Languages Services by 1987. Certain municipal governments in areas of the province with a heavy concentration of French-speaking people will be invited to join the program on a purely voluntary basis. If they do, they will be eligible for cash grants. The program does not involve or affect any individual, any business, or any institution." Again, Mr.

Speaker, there is no way that they can guarantee this, because they are going to give away the authority they have now, to deal with situations such as that, where they could make certain that some of these rights would be maintained. "An agreement between Canada and Manitoba paves the way for these services. it calls for constitutional amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act and outlines the cost-sharing arrangements for the translation of all laws and the implementation of the French Language Services. " Mr. Speaker, I want you to get this. "it actually reduces our requirement to translate our laws. lt also limits the threat of continued court action against the province concerning the validity of our laws. "Up to $2.5 million of federal money is to be granted for the implementation of this program, resulting in real cost savings to the people of Manitob a. " Now, who is paying that federal money? Do people in Manitoba pay no federal taxes?

I would say that they certainly do and it doesn't matter which level of government is going to be doing the funding, it still comes out of the taxpayers' pocket, so again, it's a very misleading statement we see in this particular item. Then we continue on with some important points in the proposed agreement between Manitoba and Canada. "This limited agreement applies to only limited designated areas of the province which will be significant Francophone population." How are we going to determine this?

We have already have seen now where we have had court action on some driving offences, where a lot of changes had to be made and some of this possibly was necessary. But what is there to prevent somebody, when he comes to, let's say, the Town of Morden, or whatever, and he has a driving offence and the ticket is handed to him in English and he says, I'm not going to pay this because it's not in French. Manitoba is bilingual and I'm going to take this to court.

The Manitoba Government has given away all authority to deal with this; there is no way we can deal with it, so that particular issue is going to be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada is going to say the Government of Manitoba has agreed, along with the Federal Government, that Manitoba is going to be officially bilingual. it's entrenched into the Constitution. And how are they going to rule? They're going to rule that it's every person's right to have that particular ticket in both languages.

You just wait and see, that is exactly what is going to happen; and when you say that these things are not going to happen in those municipalities, they will happen. We know it, because it has happened federally, where this has gone out of complete control and it is also going to out of complete control, as far as the municipalities are concerned, and we know full well that other areas are also going to be affected. This agreement will result in an overall cost saving to the province and then we go about the $2.35 million which will be paid for by the Federal Government.

In 1986, new Manitoba laws and regulations are to be enacted in both languages. Without the agreement, we would have had to begin immediately. We don't know, because the court decision did not come down, so we don't know, it's a guess. In 10 years, certain existing laws and regulations to be translated and enacted. Without this agreement, all of our laws could be invalid unless we translated them now and this is impossible. Again, we're going ahead on an assumption.

There is no way that we know how that court ruling would have come down because the court ruling at the present time is not proceeding. 1t i" highly unlikely that a court ruling would have come down which would have made all our laws within this province invalid. In 1987, people who so desire may be served in French by specified provincial departments and 4842

Wednesday, 3 August, 1983 agencies. Additional language services will be provided only in regional government offices where there is significant public demand. Again, if somebody wants to be up to mischief, they can pretty well force every regional agency or government office to provide French services because we will not be able to control it. It will be controlled by the Supreme Court. A MEMBER: That's a reasonable demand. MR. A. BROWN: Canada and Manitoba to adopt this program before the December 31, 19 83. Mr. Speaker, that is the

part I think really that Manitobans are concerned about. We are talking about a constitutional change; it's a change that is irreversible. Once that change has been made, we cannot rev