Manitoba Hansard — 13 January 1984 (Sitting 160, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-160

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 160 - 10:00 a.m., FRIDAY, 13 JANUARY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the o.,_,s PrmttK. Province ot Manilobll

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

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

Rose Springfield Tho mpson La Verend rye Minn edosa Rhi neland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kild onan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupert sland Logan Port age la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St . James St. Johns Morris Robli n-Russell St. Norbert Assinib oia Gladst one Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mount ain Burrows Rossmere lnkst er Fort Garry Osborne River He ight s Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St .

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 13 January, 1984. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Prese nting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING Of REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speak er, I am pleased to announce today funding to school divisions for 19 84.

But, before giving details of this government's funding support, I wish to take this opportunity to tell the House and the people of Manitoba that there will be no increase in the provincial levy on property tax for education in 19 84. The government is adding nearly $16 .5 mill ion in dir ect contribution from Consoli dated Revenue to support education for the coming year. This brings the total of provincial contributions to education to $56 1 million, including the Education Support Levy.

We have also asked school divisions to make every effort to meet provincial guidelines of 3 percent on their budgets while maintaining programs. Mr. Speaker, while school divisions are still in the process of preparing their budge ts, I have had many discussions and meetings with the education commu nity and can tell you that their pri mary concerns are to maintain programs for children. I appreciate their co-operation and interest in working to achieve our shared purpose. Mr. Speak er, in providing this year' s grants we have directed resources to where they are needed most.

We have increased support for programs to help childr en who are considered to be "at risk" because of a variety of social and economic factors. The review of education financ e prepared by Dr. Glenn Nicholls was instructed to consider how best to respond to the needs of these chil dren . The difficult economic period we have all come through has placed even more economic and social strains on many families.

We are respo nding to these challenges by maintaining the special $2 mill ion grant to Winnip eg School Division and through $2 million in com pensatory grants to help schools which have large numb ers of hig h-risk childr en. Mr. Speaker, there has been recognition for many years that the earlier a child 's learning problem can be identified, the better for the child. This year we are providing $250,000 to incr ease early identification of problems, which interfere with many children's ability to learn.

We are continuing to increase support to school divisions which were negatively affected by deficiencies in the Education Support Program. It has been confirmed by the Education Finance Review th at these divisions are suff ering from inadequa te reve nue support and inequities in their abilities to raise funds from local property taxes. The two major means of supporting disadvantaged school divisions include continuation of the Small Schools Sup port Program with $1. 8 million in grant s and increases to supplemental grants. Mr.

Speak er, supple mental grants to poor divisions will increase by approximately $7 mill ion to $23 million in 198 4. Operating grants to all divisions will incr ease by $3.3 million. Last year there was a $2.5 millio n increase in the Education Support Levy which was assessed against property taxes. That increase was to meet an inflation rate of 10.4 percent. Mr. Speak er, I'm going to make a correction in that. I think it's a typographical error but it's 2.5 mill increase. This year the Education Support Levy will not rise.

It will remain at 43. 7 mills on farm and residential balanced assessment and 81. 7 mills on other balanced assessment. Mr. Speaker, it was a decision of this government to keep provincial property taxes from rising this year. At the same time, within the Education Support Program, provincial support out of General Reven ues is maintained at 65 percent with 35 percent provided from the Education Support Levy. The increase in direct pro vincia l fundin g rais es provincial sup por t for education from 54 percent to 54.6 percent of net operating expenditur es of schools. In dollar figur es this is $38 1 million.

At the same time we are continuing to correct deficiencies in the Education Support Program brought in by the previous admin istration and we are maintaining existing educational services. Over half the increase in provincial support will be going in block grants to offset increases in school divisions' operating costs and about half will go to provide categorical grants to res pond to the hig hest priority needs of childr en. Mr.

Speak er, there has been considerable interest (sic) in the demand for language instruction such as heritage langua ges, English as a second language for Native Manitobans and French language instruction. We have provided increased funding for all thr ee of these important language program areas. We have responded to another growing aspect of education - the area of computer education - by increasing from $30 to $40 per pupil grants for print and non-prin t in structional ma terials, including computer software.

This will enable school divisions to develop and purchase material to meet the tremendous growth in computer use we have experienced in our schools in the last few years. Transportation gr ants have been in creased, Mr. Speaker , from $400 per transportable student to $4 1 0.00. This will help offset growing costs in this area of expense for divisions. Mr. Speaker, if school divisions stay within the 3 percent guidelines we have request ed, the total cost for public schools should be just under $700 mill ion for the year or approximately $3,500 per student. That 5546

Friday, 13 January, 1984 is an increase of abou t $200 per student over last year and represe nts an increase of slight ly more than 5 percent per student . This level of funding should allow school division s to maintain existing programs and also respond in some very important ways to the needs of many of the most disadvant aged student s. Mr. Speaker, to go over the main point s once again: This year there will be no increase in the provincial levy on propert y taxs for education. The gove rnmen t is providi ng nearly $16 .5 million in new funding for education directly from Provincial Consolidat ed Revenue.

These funds will be used to cont inue addressing deficiencies in the Education Support Program; to go to support effort s being made to meet the needs of childr en who have social and economic disadvantages; and to help with the early ident ification of chil dren who may have learning problems. And, Mr. Speaker, these are all further steps to make sure that all child ren in Mani toba have equal educational opportunit ies. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the Min ister for the statement this morning. Mr.

Speak er, I would like to spend some time going through this report, if I could, picking out various aspects of it. First of all, I am happy to hear that there will be no increase in levy this year on propert y tax.

Of course, we know why; there has been a subst an tial increase over the last two years and, of course, I think the government has finally taken our advice on this matter and they have finally seen the tremendous pressure that has come on the propert y tax owner and has finally realized, or come to the realizat ion, that that individual in our societ y can no longer suppo rt , totally , the tremendous costs levied for educational purposes. The mini stry ind icates that the government is adding nearly $1 6.5 million in direct cont ribution and of course we would point out , Mr.

Speaker, that in the final year of our administ ration, we added $70 million. Of course, in today' s terms, that may have a value of closer to 90. So let's put int o perspective the $16 .5 million con tribut ion and let 's not blow it tot ally out of proportion. Mr. Speaker, the Min ister talks abou t requesting of the school divisions to maintain the provincial guideli nes of 3 percent and, of course, we would support that; although again we would ask to what effect this will have on negotiations with teachers.

Does that mean the govern men t will be support ing the school boards in their efforts to maintain that 3 percent as regard ing salary increases? I think the govern ment is going to have to come clear on that particular item. Mr . Speak� r. on Page 2, the Mi nist er made a commen t, and I would quot e: "The difficult economic period we have all come through," and I would question that statement somewhat. It would make it sound like we have come through the most difficult times and that happy days are here again, and of course we know that is not correct.

I hope it's not that type of thinking that permeat es, not only the Department of Education but the whole government , and I would wonder if the Minister of Finance would share that view. Mr . Sp eaker , we support the at tempt by the government and the provision of $250,000 to increase early ident ification or problems, which interf ere with childr en's abilit y to learn, and not knowing specifically how they will attem pt to develop a program, or to cont inue the program that's now in existence. we'l l say that at least the funding seems to be moved in towards a proper direction. Mr.

Speaker , further on that page, the Mini ster talks abou t "inadequat e revenue support and ine quities in their abilit ies to raise funds from local propert y taxes," and I again specifically question whether the criteria used in any of the Small Schools' grant s, or the supplemen tal gr an ts ha ve chan ged at all.

This gove rnmen t has a hist ory of ad hockery as far as bringin g forward crit eria, to have ·cert ain schools become eligible for some of these grant s and I' m wondering if the criteria, by which schools apply, are going to change, or whet her, in fact, there will be the same criteria that have been in place tor the past year. Well, Mr. Speak er, the Minister talks about the fact there'll be a much greater shift from the so-called poor divisions to, I suppose, the wealthier divisions of $7 to $23 million.

Then I gue3s I would beg the question then, were the additional revenue given, that $16 milli on in addition is coming from the government , who is going to be making up the differen ce? It's obviously special levy wi thin the so-cal le d we alt hi er divisions, and obviously there will be a major increase on propert y taxes within those divisions and time will bear it out , of course, which divisions those may be. Mr.

Speaker , as we said earli er, we support the government in maintaining the mill rate at 43. 7 on the resi dent ial balanced assessmen t but our concern again is the shift to special levy, and of course this is where many many of us hear from our constitutent s very quickly once the tax not ices have been served.

Again, we 're wondering about the 3 percent - if divisions, are going to be able to live within the 3 percent increase given that many many of the demands that are going to come upon them, not only from teachers, but also the increase in hydro and also many of the other operating costs that they are faced with. Mr. Speak er, on Page 5 the Min ister talks abou t the increase in demand for language instruction, and that there will be some provision for increased funding in that area, I guess I would ask by how much?

Also, on the second paragraph, I would commend the government again for increasing the amo unt of money directed towards computer instruction. During this time that, obviou sly, has to have a high priori ty. But, again, I would say that these are just cont inuat ions of programs that our government put into place a few years ago. The transportation grant s - I not ice that they're not being increased by 3 percent; they're being increased by some number under that and, again, I would ask the Minister of Education to tell us why? My final comment , Mr.

Speak er, it's not icable by its absence, but I see that there is no mention what soever as to aid to private and independent schools. I would wonder why that has been left out of this report. It seems to be a glaring omission. Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Mot ion . . . Introduction of Bills ... . 5547

Friday, 13 January, 1984 �� INTRODUCTION Of GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before question period, may I direct the atten tion of honourable members to the gall ery. We have 31 student s of Grade 11 standing from the Sha ftesbury High School. They are under the direction of Mr. Semotok, and the school is in the const ituency of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS Pension registration MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Le ader of the Opposition. MR. G. FIU\ll ON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

My question is for the Ho nour able Minist er of Urban Affairs. Yesterd ay, in response to a question regarding the proposed pension for the City of Winnip eg councillors, the Mini ster indicated that the decision on regist ration or approval of that pension plan would not be a government decision, but rather a decision of the pension commission. My question to her is in her capacity as Urban Affairs Minister, does she plan to bring in amendment s to The City of Winnipeg Act which would prevent that plan from being imp lement ed in its presen t form?

Wo uld she plan to bring those amendment s in at this next Session of the Leg islature? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minist er of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. The City of Winnipeg Act, by amendment , allo ws city councillors to draw up a pension plan. They did this, perhaps each of us could suggest that they might have done it in a differe nt way; they might have limited it; they might have funded it; they might have done a lot of thing s that would have brought it in line with other pension plans that exist in this province. They chose to draw up their plan in the way they decided on.

They now have a commi ttee of review looking at that. I bel ieve it's their respons ibilit y to develop their own pension plan. What The City of Winnipeg Act allo ws is simply that councillors may have a pension plan. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, in view of the fact that this provincial government , at the last session of this Leg islat ure, bro ught in amendment s to The City of Winnipeg Act that specifically permi tted the councillors to develop this pension plan, does that mean that the Minister and the govern ment approves the pension plan that has been adopted? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Speak er, we certainly do not approve, the information we had from Cit y councill ors was that they would be bringing in a plan that was similar to the one that we, ou rselves, share in; and in fact their plan, as I read it, goes way beyond what the ML A's plan calls for and I bel ieve those discrepancies have been point ed out through various articles in the paper, let ters and so on and I certainly have that information, too.

The councillors decided on a plan that was way beyond anything that exists in the Province of Manitoba, but that does not mean that they do not have to file for regist ration with the Pension Commission. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, in view of the fact that the Min ister and the government do not approve the plan that has been brought fort h by the City of Winnipeg, will they then, in this session, bring forward amendment s to The City of Winnipeg Act that would limit the extent of the pension plan City councillo rs could bring forward on their behalf? Will they bring in those amendment s? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , if I could respond to that question. If there' s an indication for honourable members across the way that we could, without dela y, process first re ading, second read ing, third reading and appropriate a bill, I think, we could do that within the next few days. That would ensure consistency between the provincial and the City pension plan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minist er of Labour . HON. M.B.

DOLIN: Perhaps it is the question from the perspect ive of the Minist er of Ur ban Affairs, Mr. Speaker . I belie ve the member who asked the question is on record on radio or TV, I'm not sure which media it was, saying that he would not interfere, that elect ed officials are responsible to their electorat e and, in fact, it is the elect orat e that will remove them if they don't bel ieve that you should have a full-t ime pension for a half-time job as . . MR. G. FIU\ll ON: Mr .

Speak er, I will accept the en treaties of the First Min ister and let him bring fort h that amendment and we'll deal with it in the proper fashion then. We'll take the credit for it. llll R. SPEAKER: Oral que stio ns. The Honour able Mem ber for St. Norbert. Order please. Tax increases on assessment MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for th e Mi nist er of Urban Affai rs following upon the announcement by the Minister of Education.

In view of the fact that the real test of a governmen t's support for municipalities lies in the net effect upon the taxpayer, would the Min ister of Urban Affairs confirm that on an average assessed home in the City of Winnipeg School Division of $7,000, that in the first two years of this NOP Govern ment , the total increase in taxes is three times the total increase over four years under the previous Prog ressive Cons ervative Government ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour . HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I don' t have the tax base or assessment records with me. I do know for 5548

Friday, 13 January, 1984 sure that the assessments are not balanced in the City of Winnipeg. I do know that there are some very large, comfortable homes that pay at a rate that is quite a bit less than those that are much less comfortable in some other parts of the city. Hopefu lly , in time and with reason, tha t will be changed. The exact answer to the member' s question, I would have to look up and get for him at some future date. Attorney-General re charges MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'll look forward to the Min ister of Urban Affairs checking on that matter and confirming that in the House.

A further question for the First Min ister, Mr. Speak er. In view of his response the other day and the Attorney General's response to the charges laid against Dr.

Mor gentaler and staff, would the First Mini ster request a report from the Deputy Attorney-General in order to determine in how many other instances the Attorne y General has laid charges, changed charges, or stayed charges without obtai ning the recom menda tions of his department or senior law officers of the Crown; and also the numb er of instances in which the Attorn ey General has rejected the advice and recommendations of his department and senior law officers of the Crown. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Attorney -Gener al . HON. R. PENNER: I can answer that question right now .

There have been two cases since I've taken office where an indic tment has been preferred by the Attorney-General - that' s the technical term - that is where the Attorney-General has decided on the course of action for prosecution. In the first of these cases, it was a case which arose when the Member for St. Norb ert was the Attorne y General and his law officers came to him asking that he dir ect an indic tment in a par ticula r case.

He chickened on that and said, "Oh, take it to the courts." The courts decided very vigorously that that was the duty of an Attorney-General and not to be taken to the cour ts to duck out of the re spon sibilit y.

Su bsequentl y, while this was still pending and I was elected, the same law officers came to me with that request, and that was the case I quoted in this House a few days ago, and I accepted the respo nsibil ity, which I had as an Attorne y -General, and dir ected an indictment in a case, indeed in which, at the prelimi nary, the judge had refused to commit for trial and in which it seemed clear to me, as a matter of publi c policy, there was an issue which ought to be tried ; so that was the first instance.

The second instance is the one to which he refers and in which I fol lowed the precedent that had been established in that case and upheld by the Su preme Court with respect to the responsibility of an Attorne y General to make sure that the law is fairly prosecuted because it is ao essential principle of the admin istration of criminal justice tha t an accused be allo wed to make full answer in defence, and that's the principle that's being pursued in this case. And also it' s equally a principle of the adminis tration of criminal justice that, where there is a case to be tried, it ought to be tried.

In the normal course all other instances, with respect to stays of prosection, are dealt with by line attorneys based on their assessment of the particular facts of the case. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, a supple mentary question to the Attorney -General. In view of the fact that on June 2 when I asked the Attorney-General whether he would be deal ing with this matter personally or will the matter be handled by the Director of Prosecut ions, the Attorney-General said !he matter will be handled by the Director of Pro secutions .

My question to the Attorney-General is why, in changing the char ges, did he not seek the advice of his department and the law officers of the Crown? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I can' t tell you how happy I am that the Member for St. Norbert has asked that question. Indeed, that' s exactly what happened, that with respect to the whole course of the event up to the prelimin ary, it was the advice of the law officers of the Crown which was followed because at that stage they were the ones to assess the evidence together with the police, not the Attorney-General.

But once the evidence became a matter of record, and not a matter of speculation then, but only then, was it the responsibility of the Attorney-General to decide the course of criminal prosecution so that the matter has been follo wed not only consistently but in accordance with established legal precedent. MR. G. MERCIER: But, Mr . Speaker, a further question to the Attorney-General. In changing the charges, why did he not seek the advice of his department and law officers of the Crown? He stated the other day that he did not seek any advice from his department. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker , I did not say that the matter was not discussed with the law officers of the Cr own . In deed, prior to the decision which was annou nced by me, the matter was discussed with the law officers of the Crown in which I advised them of the course I proposed to take, so that if they wished - (Int erjec tion) - We ll, I' m an swer ing your question ... . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: . . . so tha t if th ey had any objections on legal grounds, they had the opportunity to make it to me.

But, Sir , the re sponsibil ity with respect to the admin istration of criminal justice in the prosecution charges is that of the Attorney-General and not of Crown Attorneys. It may have been the case during the tenure of that Attorney-General, that he didn' t know ho w to carry out his respons ibilities; I do. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for La Verend rye. Nevada takeover MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Min ister in charge of Lotteries and would ask him if he could inform the House when the private who lesalers of Nevada Bingo Supplies will be put out 5549

Friday, 13 January, 1984 of business? In other words, when does the government take over the functions now being performed by these private businesses? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the general policy has been announced and when it takes effect, as soon as possible, then that also will be annou nced as soon as we kno w. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that letters have gone out saying that as of April 1s t the private companies will no longer be able to sell Nevada Bingo Supplies in this province. HON.

L DESJARDINS: If the letter was sent by the foundation, I will have to check with the foundation. I suspect that is correct. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Mini ster could inform the Hous e if either the Lotteries Corporation, or his office, has put forward any proposals to deal with the people, the emplo yees that are working for these different com panies, what will happen to them when the government takes over this function. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker. the general policy is to, as much as possible, take these people within the foundation where they're needed.

They certainly will have the first chance, those who wish to work but can't, certainly will be gi ven the first ch ance on application. llll R. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. A further question to the Min ister. I wonder if he could inform the House if he has got a rough idea of how many new empl oyees the Corpor ation is going to be hiring to take over these functions. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'll have to take that as notice because we're not going to go out and hire every body . This will be done, as needed, in an orderly fashion.

There's many of the functions that were being done in other areas will be done now by the foundation, and we certainly will have a full report during the Estimates at the next Session. MR. FI. BANMAlll: A further question to the same Minister. I wonder if the Minister could inform the House whether or not, by cutting the pri;�e money - and I'm referring now specifically to the Nevadas - the new proposal which cuts the prize mone y, in other words, the money that goes back to the player of the game.

I und erstand that the government will be cutting that; they will also be reducing the profits that the comm unity organizations can make; and I also und erstand that they are increasing subs tantially the licence fees. I wonder if the Minister could inform the house whether or not the figures - I beli eve th ere's something like $3 million that the government made on the Nevadas this last year - will that figure be increased to about $20 million.

In other words, by going ahead and increasing licence fees, cutting back the return to the player and cutting back the profits to the communit y groups, does the government intend to increase its profits from some $3 million to some $20 million? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker , I'm surprised at this question because it was the same honourable gentleman who last year, and I'll find Hansard, who suggests to us that there should be less mon ey, that the government or the charity should receive more funds. This is what we've tried to do.

Now the honourable member is absolutely wrong when he refers to profit to government and so on. Every single cent will go back to the charities, but it'll be done to cover more people to have a fairer distribution of funds, that is our aim. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . A final question and it's one raised by a num ber of small private retailers who are now selling the different tickets.

I wonder if the Minister could check for me, or report back to the House, whether the Lotteries Corporation has adopted a new policy whereby retailers, who sell less than $10 0 worth of tickets or product a week, will not be serviced by the Lotteries Corporation. In other words, the small little corner store that maybe doesn't have the volume that others do, that sell less than 100, will they not be serviced by the corporation? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, this is a new one for me. I would consider that as strictly administration.

There's a possibility like any other product that is delivered, if the order isn't sufficient they might be asked to pick their product themse lves, but that I have never even heard of that. I'll try to find out for the honourable mem ber. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Mor ris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr . Speak er. - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Brandon University - president MR. C. MANNESS: I'd like to address my que stion to the Minister of Education. It's a specific question, Mr. Speaker . Why was Dr. Perkins fired as the President of the Un iversity of Brandon?

A MEMBER: Ask the Board. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to take just a moment to cong ratulate the Member for Mor ris for being named my official shad ow. A MEMBER: And what a shadow you will have. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to getting to know him a little better in the future, and I'm particularly looking forward to working together 5550

Friday, 13 January, 1984 with him in what I hope will be a mutual concern and interest for the education in the students of Manitoba. Having said that I'd like to answer his first question. I've been waiting with baited breath for his first question, and I'm sorry I can't ... MR. C. MANNESS: Pawley didn't answer it the other day, so you might as well. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I think the Mem ber for Morris knows that the de cision to hire or fire administrators is made by the Board of Governors, and if he wants an answer to that question he should direct it to the Board of Governors. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker , all the fine platitudes aside, I will ask the government, specifically the Minister of Ed ucation, whether this government has any idea as to why Dr. Perkins was fired? Did they call or ha ve they been in touch with the Board of Governors to ascertain those reasons that he was fired? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that the Member for Morris and the members opposite also are quite aware that the either hiring or firing of a top senior official, the Chi ef Executive Officer, is not only a very difficult decision for anybody , whether your government or a Board of Governors, but it is a very sensitive activity and that often I think it is very important to make the point that when matters like this are in the hands of legal counsel, and I believe they are at this time, that we have to be very very careful not to inte rfere with a fair judicial process.

I don't want to do that and I don't think the mem bers opposite should want to do that either . MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker , I und erstan d, of course, it is a very sens itive situatio n, tut my que stion was quite specific: does the government know the reasons for the firing of Dr. Perkins? HON. M. HEMPHILL: I think I was trying to answer that, Mr. Speaker , by saying that I am not in a position, nor do I want to do anything in this House, or outside of this House, that is going to cause problems or interfere with a fair judicial process. Brandon University Music Building MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, I can't demand an answer, but my question was whether the government kne w, and I didn't ask them to disclose that at this time. Mr. Speaker , I would ask a further question to the Min ister, is the University Grants Commission required to approved the application by the University of Brandon for the building of a school of music? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker , the Un iversity of Brandon has had approval for quite some time to build the music building.

That approval was conditional, as he knows, on the Brandon Un iversity being able to raise $4.5 million, so that they were given approval to build; they were not given an indication that government would support to that level. They have since received approval from the Gr ants Com mission and are required to receive approval for a building that the government will fund. We have agreed to support a music building to the tune of $4.5 million with the un iversity being required, I believe it is to raise a little over a million dol lars of that mon ey. MR. C.

MANNESS: I would ask the Min ister of Ed ucation then, when and how the university has to prove its total, or what commitments have to be made to the university that will assure the government that the commu nity of Brandon has collected its $1 million, and when does that have to be done to satisfy the Uni versity Grants Commission so that construction can proceed? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say one thing just before I answer that specific question.

If the members opposite and the previous government had not frozen construction, and stopped construction of that building years ago, we could have built it for half the amount of money it's going to take tod ay. So, if they're so concerned, as they've demonstrated, about whether or not they have a music building, we could have all wished they would have let them build it three or four years ago. The Province of Manitoba has commi tted them selves to put in $1. 6 million to the program. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON. M.

HEMPHILL: This is the breakdown of the funding for the Brandon Music Building. The Province of Manitoba is putting in $1. 6 million. We have agreed that the anni versary grant, which was designated at $500,000 will be continued, even though it was a dollar for dollar matching grant, and the univers ity, to date, I think, has only been able to raise $250,000.00. We, nevertheless, said we will still give you the $500,000 of the anni versary grant. The Federal Government NEED Grant is going to put in $1. 4 million and Brandon Un iversity fund raising is go ing to ha ve to raise $500,000.00.

Now, that is for a building that has been approved at $4.5 million. The university has indicated they may want to spend more than the total project that has been approved. They may want to go to $5 million. They may, if they wish, but they have to raise the additional monies themse lves. McKenzie Seeds - member disqualification MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mount ain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. My question is for the First Min ister.

Does the First Minister have any knowledge of any information or any circumstance that might disqualify the Member for Brandon East as being the Minister responsible for A.E. McKenzie Ltd.? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mini ster. HON. H. PAWLEY: No. 5551

Payroll tax late filing fines MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Some months ago there were penalties assessed against people, businesses, who were late in filing , remitting, their tax for the payro ll tax, or the education levy as the government knows it. In many cases those fines levied were larger than the payment due, and th ose fines were assessed, I might say, in a very high-handed, bur eaucratic and officious fashion.

Can we have the assurance from the Min ister of Fi nance that the enforcement of the regulation and of the law concerning remittance of that tax will no longer be carried out in that high-handed fashion and that the taxpayers will be given the respect that is due to them? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. 'I/. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, I belie ve it was in the month of Novem ber.

The due date for that tax is the 15 th of the month, and in that particular month, I believe we experienced the first month that it fell on a Saturday and some people sent it in on the Monda y following, or on the Tuesday following and so on, and there was an admin istrative decision taken within the department to fine those whose money had not come in by the 15 th, or whose letters were not postmarked by the 15 th. Tha t is, anyone whos e letter was postmarked by the 15 th of the month, even though the money wasn't in until later , was not charged with that fine.

The fine, which is 5 percent of the amount due or a minimum of $20, is an item that we have ind icated to taxpayers is under review. The 5 percent is identical to other tax penalties, such as, on the income tax and so on. The $20 minimum, I believe, is probably too high in view of the fact that there are some people who pay very little, the y have maybe an employee who works one day a week or that sort of thing.

So we will be looking at that and, of course, it is in the statute that was before the Legislatur e when it was passed, that $20 fine minimum, and I don't recall any complaints from the opposition about that at the time. They didn' t raise that in debate; they certainly had the opportunities to do so. It has come to our attention now. We have ind icated that we are going to review it. The fines in general were cancelled and we are proceeding as normal with taxation statutes. University tuition fees MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for lnks ter. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you very much , Mr. Speaker . Mr.

Speak er, I ha ve a question for the Minister of Education, and I must say I was somewhat concerned when she said that she was looking forward to working with the Member for Morris, or alongside the Mem ber for Morris, in the interests of education, furthering education in Manitoba. My question, Mr.

Speaker , is can she assure this Ho use and can she assure the students of the univ ersities of Manitoba that she will not follow his advice when he suggests that university student's tuition fees should move towards 25 percent of the total cost of education which, in fact, would be two-and-a-half times the current rate of tuition fees for un iversity students and would close the door for higher education for most students in our univ ersities today? l\ll R. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I think the point I made earl ier, that the Member for lnk ster just referred to, was that I really hoped to be able to work with him in the best interest of the education system and the students of Manitoba, and I do hope that he takes their inte rests at he art and not short-term political interests. To the 25 percent tuition fee increase that he has suggested, I think it's shocking. I think it's a shocking rec ommenda tion and one that we would not be prepared to support. I think this government is on record as being very conc erned about accessi bili ty to post�secondary education.

To that end, we put $1.6 million additional money into funding for univ ersities in the first year we were in government so that there would be no increased tutition fee to the students of Manitoba, and that last year, to the suggestions from the univ ersity that there might be a 25 percent tuition fee increase, we ind icated that there should not be an increase beyond the guidelines of 9.5 percent, and there was not. So what I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker , is that we consider that to be very important and we will do whatever we can to keep the tuition fee rates for Manitoba one of the low est in Canada as they are presently tod ay. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of a problem with some of the answer that the Min ister gave in that she fell into the trap a lot of other people have. MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. D. SCOTT: I think that he was speaking of a 25 percent increase. What he is talking about is a two and-a-half times increase, and I appreciate . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

The Honour able Opposition House Leader on a point of ord er. MR. H. ENNS: On a point of ord er, I hardly think I need to state it, Mr. Speaker, but I look to you to bring the questioner to ord er. MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that all members will recall that both questions and answers should be short, concise and to the point. The Honourable Member for ln kster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speak er, I was simply trying to clear a misunderstanding of the original question.

Can she assure us that not only will she fight against a two and-a-half times increase in the tuition fees for university students, which the Member for Morris suggested, but also a 25 percent increase, or any increase, in tuition fees for the students of Manitoba of that nature? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speak er, I think the best answer I can give is that this government is going to 5552

Friday, 13 January, 1984 continue to do whatever they can to keep the tuition fees for students of Manitoba one of the lowest in Canada. Accreditation of Op hthalmologists MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Garry . MR. l. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr . Speaker . My question is to the Honourable Minister of Health. I would ask him, Sir, whether he can confirm that the Univ ersity of Manitoba Medical School was in danger of losing its accred itation to train eye special ists , ophthalmo log ists, because of poor conditions for ophthalmol ogy at the Health Sciences Centre? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker , I haven't heard any thing about that. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, could I ask the Min ister whether either he or others in his office, or at the Health Services Commission, have been assigned to inv estigate a series of recent reports, both from health profess ionals and from the Winnip eg Free Press, into conditions in the hospital situation in this city and in this province; and have they not seen and read those reports, including the very serious reports having to do with conditions in ophthalmology and the danger of the Univ ersity of Manitoba Medical School losing its accreditation in that field? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, it's automatic in our department that if there are any complaints that they are investigated, and this is something that would be better discussed during the Estima tes review - we are talking about next year. Well, the former speaker is moaning out there. I don't know if he is sick, maybe we can try to . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I have stated , Mr. Speaker, that we look at all concerns of any criticism or any thing that is brought to our attention, but that we will not automatically react just by pressu re.

There is a certain way of dealing with this and we will be able to give the answer. I have also stated that in the past, and there is not much I can do about that if the Free Press wants to keep on with these stories. I would say that any reporter worth his salt can go in any hospital in Canada and find some thing wrong. I would like to see them go around and find some of the good stories of some of the things that are done to give the people the idea of the dedicated people that we have here, the provider of services. I think that would be fair.

Now, I think I'm ready to debate that during the Estimates and we will address the concern that was brought to our attention. MR. l. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if we could just stick to the problem of ophthalmology at the Un iversity of Manitoba Medical School for the moment, in view of the fact that the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which provides the accred itation and which ha s indicated that it's going to withd raw the accreditation and is due for a further visit to ophthalmology at the Health Sciences Centre in Febru ary, and the Estima tes of the Min ister's department are not likely ... - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. MR. L.

SHERMAN: . .. the Estimates of the Min ister's department are not likely to be before this House for several mo nths, Mr . Speaker, tha t crucial visit is scheduled in Febru ary , would the Mini ster - (Interjection) - would the Min ister give the commitment to this House, and to the people of Manitoba, that he will have that situation with respect to accreditation for ophthalmol ogy at the U. of M. Medical School looked into within the next very few days and report back to the House on that subject. It cannot wait for his Estima tes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker , I think that I already said that any concern that is brought to my attention is being investigated, but there is something else that I want to say. There is no such a thing as one person responsible for all health care in Manitoba and the sooner - (Interject ion) - if he got sucked in that's his business, that's not my problem. I've repeatedly said, Mr. Speaker, that at the request of the hospital we've gone to block fund ing. Now if you need a lecture on what block funding is, I'm ready to give you one. Also, we are told to respect the boards and the boards have recommendations and have a duty to play.

If these things, Sir, should be that bad I don't want to learn from the Free Press, I want to learn from the Medical School if there's any problem and I haven't heard anything from them at this time. There is no way that we are going to make every single decision in the Department of Health. This is a co-operative thing with the suppliers of the service, those that are delivering the service, the profes sionals, the plann ers, the admin istrators, and the boards of the different hospitals, and it is wrong to try to change this, and to act and to plan just by pressure, and I will not do it. MR. L SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minis ter confirm that he received a letter from a Dr. Edward Anhalt , the former head of Ophthalmolo gy, He ad of the Department at the Health Scienc es Centre, and professor at the univ ersity , who resigned from the position recently out of frustra tion, who sent a letter to the Min ister and claimed, Sir, that he received no rnsponse from the Minister al all on the situation; that the Min ister refused to meet with him; that he referred him to his Deputy, Mr. Edwards, and that he, Dr. Anhalt, never heard from Mr. Edwards? Can the Min ister confirm that sequence of events? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check with Mr. Edwards who is the Executive Director of the Manitoba Health Services Commission. If I remember right, and I stand to be corrected, the letter that I received was a copy of a letter , and the former Min ister 5553

Friday, 13 January, 1984 kn ows well that automatically that is referred to staff for action at this stage. I've said in the past that the member is on every side of every issue and there's another example. When he was the Min ister he was talking about getting away from the hospital model for the medical model and that there were too many beds. All of a sudden, he's taking the easy way because of a few stories and all of a sudden we're going to have a bed for every single person here. The same people are talking about the high deficit that we have or the taxes that we have.

I would like to know what my honourable friend or what the members on this side are advocating? Are they suggesting that we should have a bed ready for every citizen of Manitoba? If so, I would like them to give me an idea where we're going to get the money to do that, and then we will go. I think that we are doing very well. I've made the comparison and we are doing very well. You can lift that up as high as you want. I thin k that we have done very well. First of all, we set up a planning system - (Interje ction) Oh, he's pointing at some thing. If that's in order, let me answer that. Let me answer that.

Either you want the answer or you don't. I am saying look at the difference in mo ney, first of all, that we received from the Federal Government. In the next five years it'll be $700 mill ion less than in your days; and look at the mone y that we're spending compared to the Conservative provinces in the west; then let's look at the money that we're spending compared to what you did in the last four years. If you're advocating more than that, let us know, we will consider it. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The time for Oral Questions having expired. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain.

MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day, I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Arthur that under Rule 27, the ordina ry Business of the House be set asi de to discus s a ma tter of ur gent public imp ortance, namely: the go vernment's refusal to provide an early and adequate opportunity to examine its management of A.E. McKenzie Limited. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. In accordance with our Rule 27, the honourable member has five min utes to explain the urgency of the matter. The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . When I rose in this House last June, I raised two questions with respect to A.E. McKenzie Limited. No. 1, had to do with an allegation of conflict of interest involving the Chief Executive Officer and other senior officers of A.E. McKenzie Limited. The second question that I raised had to do with whether or not the Mini ster re sponsible for A.E. McKenzie had had any prior knowledge of a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Speak er, the government dealt promptly with the charge of conflict of interest.

The Provincial Auditor was called in; the auditors who had been handlin g the business of A.E. McKenzie were dismissed, subsequent ly, the Ch ief Executive Officer and two other senior officers were dismissed. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please, order ple ase. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of ord er. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker , as I under stand our rules, and based on past practice in this House, the purpose of the five minu tes assigned to a representative of each side of the Chamber is to express the need for urgen cy, rather than to debate the question. The member is clearly deba ting.

The matter that he pro poses should be debated and not addressing the question of urgency for debate, and the reasons why all other matters should be set aside in this Chamber purely to discuss that issue. That's the question to be addressed, not to debate the issues. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Virden to the same point. MR. H. GRAHAM: On the same point, Mr. Speaker. It's an un warranted in trusion by the Honou rable Government House Leader , who wants to impr ess on this House his wonderful knowledge of the rules.

The Hono urable Memb er for Turtle Mountain has five minu tes to express the urgency of debate. At least give him the courtesy of the five minutes without interruption. I suggest, Mr. Speaker , that the honourable member should sit and listen, and we will listen to his five minu tes of debate without interruption. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Hon ourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, I'm speaking to the same point of orde r, especially in light of the contribution made by the Member for Virden who was the former Speaker of the Legislature.

I think that if anyone looks through Hansard, from the period 1977 to 19 81, they will find that whenever we try to introduc e motions of urgency for debate, the Speaker at that time would get up, not give us the courtesy of the five min utes and interrupt us to point out that we should follow the rules, Mr . Speak er. There were mem bers of the Co nservative Party in the House at that time who also got up, interrupted us in our five -minu te statements to say that we should follow the rules. Mr.

Speaker, they were obviously either terribly wrong at that time or the Member for Virden has a very bad case of amnesia. We could find out through Hansard, it's quite easy to do, Mr. Speaker , and I find it very amusing and sad at the same time, sort of like a tragic comedy , that the Mem ber for Virden interrupts every once in a while to talk about rules in a way that he didn't do when he was Speak er. I would ask you, Mr. Speak er, to follow the rules as we are trying to do. MR.

SPEAKER: I thank all those honourable members who have reminded us that our Rule 27(2) allows the honourable member five minut es to show the urgency of the matter, not of the substance of the matter itself. 5554

Friday, 13 January, 1984 The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has used one of his five minutes. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , I assure you, Sir, that I am in the process of demonstrating the urgency of this matter . There were two issues raised in this House: one was the conflic t of in terest; one was the government's management or mismanagement, their knowledge or lack of knowledge about this affair. The point I am making is that the government acted promptly to deal with the charge of conflict of interest.

The Ch ief Executive Officer and others were su bsequently dismissed. The RCMP have been called in to investigate the possibility of criminal activity. That is being dealt with, Sir. The other question I raised has not been dealt with. We had called for the resignation of the Min ister respo nsible; we had called for the resignation of the Chairman of the Board becaus e the y had not demo nstrated any understanding of their role and responsibilit y.

The Chairman of the Board doesn 't seem to recognize a conflic t-of-in terest situation when it runs right over him, and we haven 't been able to get answers, Sir, and this hing es upon the ability of this Legislature to control Crown corporations. We ha ve not been able to get answers. What has happened now, after the government defen ding the Min ister respon sible and def ending the Chairman of the Board, we find that the Min ister has been removed, the Chairman of the Board has resigned, coincidentally at the same time, so that they will not be available to this House to questi on.

The government refuses to call the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development so that we can deal with this issue prompt ly. This goes to the heart, Sir, of the question of how the Legislature can control a Crown corpora tion, A.E . McKenzie specifically and Crown corporations generally .

There is no other opportunity for us to deal with this situation, Sir, and I suggest that the confl ict-of-int erest situa tion has been dealt with promp tly , but the government has not dealt with the question of their managment of this situation and it is urgent, in the interest of this House and in the affairs of this province, that this matter be dealt with immed iately . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader also has five min utes concerning the urgency of the matter. The Honour able Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A.

ANSTETT: I appreci ate that members opposite have an interest in this matter, as do members on this side who have been quite concerned about the question which the member wishes to debate today. Ho wever, the question before us is whether or not there is merit in se tting aside all other busi ness of the Ho use to address this question. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member suggested, after he addressed the issue itself, and then began to address the question of urgenc y, that there were essentially three issues that he felt required urgenc y, that gave the issue some sense of urgenc y.

He said there were some firings last sum mer. Mr. Speaker, after those firings the House was in session for excess of two months. It wasn't urgent then, why is it urgent now? I submit, Mr. Speaker, the argument for urgency fails on that case. The second suggestion was that the opposition had demanded some resignations and, therefore, it was urgent that the matter be debated. Mr. Speaker , a demand by the opposition does not constitute, under any preposterous conconction of our rules, a definition of urgen cy, otherwise a demand by the opposition could make any issue under the sun urgent.

Sir , the third argument, the Memb er for Turtle Mountain tried to sugge st defines urgency is that the opposition hasn't had an opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Speaker, on only one or two days in the last six days that we've sat has the opposition asked any questions. The opportunity to ask questions is 40 minu tes every day. There were no questions tod ay, I don't bel ieve there were any yesterday - (Interject ion) - Oh, there was one tod ay. My apologies, Mr. Speak er, I believe there was one question, that question was answered. Cle arly , Mr.

Speaker , the arguments for urgency put forward by the member opposite do not hold any water. But, more important, Mr. Speaker , the Provincial Auditor did a review of some of the activities that were alleged to have gone on last spring, and that review has been made public I am advised. In addition the Provincial Auditor currently has the Financial Report of McKenzie Seeds for last year. It has not yet been transmitted so there is information that is not available to members on this side, or the other side, because that has not been received. Mr.

Speaker, furth er, the appropriate mechanism, and there must be an appropritate mechanism available if it is to be argued that there is no urgency of debate. The appropriate mechanism is, and always has been, the standard referral of the Annual Financial Statements of McKenzie Seeds to the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development, that's always done, there is that opportun ity. So, Mr. Speaker, I submit, (1) that there is not urgency; but (2) that there is an appropriate vehicle. In addition, as membE .rs are aware, there is an RCMP investigation on this matter at the present time; there is, in addition, Mr.

Speaker, has been by the Min ister responsible for A.E. McKenzie, a statement that they will be filing a Statement of Claim against former officers before the end of this month. Mr. Speak er, that is of some significance and certainly we would not want to impinge on that, or define urgency as precluding activities that are important, and will all be reported to the committee. Mr.

Speaker , in terms of kno wledge in the allogations the Member for Turtle Mountain said were urgent and needed to be addressed, with regard to the knowledge of the former Minister responsible, those allegations were made last Ju ne, last Ju ly, last August. They were not urgent then, in fact, the only clear information about k11o wledge is that the opposition had knowledge before May 26, 19 83 which they did not bring to the attention of the Standing Comm ittee. So, Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion, I would draw your atten tion to Citation 286 in Beauchesne which expands upon the definition of urgency in our Rules, and it says, specifi cal ly: "The 'specific and im portant matter req uiring urgent considerati on', for the discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved under S.0 . 26, must be so pressing ... "Mr . Speaker , this is important. 5555

Friday, 13 January, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. ANSTETT: " ... must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attent ion." Mr. Speak er, I submit that nothing in the arguments presented by the Member for Turtle Mountain made that case. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Order please. As required by our Rule 27(1) I can confirm that the Member for Turtle Mountain gave me the required prior notice of this res oluti on. The motion is in ord er, as required by our Rule 27(5), but I am also required to find that the matter is of urgent public importance.

As all members have noted, it may be of widespread public interest, but I have not been convinced that the matter is of such urgency as to require that the regular business of the House be put aside in order to debate the matter , th erefore, I would rule against the motion. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader . ORDERS OF THE DAY HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speak er, would you call the reso lution standing in the name of the Member for Turtle Mountain, please? ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESO LUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR.

SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honour able Attorney-General and the amend ment thereto proposed by the Honourable Government House Leader , the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has 19 minutes remaining. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, last night when I was addressing this resolution . . . I wonder if the Member for Brandon East could contain hims elf so that I could continue with my . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, last night in addressing this reso lution, I was attempting to make a numb er of points.

One was that inde ed there was the possibility that the government and the province might have been faced with legal chaos if Bilodeau was successful in having The Summa ry Convictions Act and The Hig hway Traffic Act overthrown and that might subsequently lead to all the laws of the province being overthrown.

If the government wished to avoid that possibil ity, they evidently had two options open to them; one as outlined by Professor Dale Gibson in the exhibit tabled before the Ho use would simply have seen the government bring forward a resolution in this House that would ha ve called for the validation of all Manitoba's laws and that the motion could have been taken to the Parliament of Canada for their passage as well. We could, thereby, have validated the laws of the province and overcome any possibility of legal chaos. The other opportunity as outlined by Mr.

Twad dle, in the exhibit tabled before the House by the Attorne y General, essent ially said yes, the government could pass a resolution validating the laws, but made reference to having to enter into negotiations with the Franco Manitoban Society for the extension of French language rights. Sir, I have never been able to un derstand and no one has explained to me why it was necessary for the go vernment to enter into any negotiations whatsoever with the Franco-Manitoban Society with respect to the extension of rights. This Legislature has the authority to pass a reso lution.

If Parliament passed the same resolution, then the laws of the province would be validated, we would be out of this problem and we could proceed then to give modern meaning to The Manitoba Act of 18 70, and we would inde ed have a Made-in-Manitoba solution which is evidently what the present Government House Leader is int erested in. So, Mr.

Speaker , I would like to look now of the government having chosen a cour se of action which involved discussion with the Franco-Manitoban Society and bringing a resolution here for the entrenchment of the extension of rights, the government having chosen that route, of course, has caused a political storm in the province such as has not been seen for decades.

Now we have an amendment before us proposed by the current Government House Leader - and I pointed out last night that really the only common ground with respect to the amendment and the original reso lution is the validation section, that I believe is esse ntially the only common ground between those two resolutions. The present amendment though contains one new provision. I think, Mr. Speaker , in the time available rema ining, I would like to go through the amendments that have been proposed and see just what they mean, at least in my

interpretation as to what they mean. First of all, of course, they are proposing to strike out

Section 23. 1 of the original resol ution. Now, Mr. Twaddle said about

Section 23. 1 - and I'm quoting here from Hansard of 5th of Januar y: "At that time, however, it was proposed to include in the constitutional amendment an entrenched but limited right to communic ate with the government and be served by the government in French. Once it was decided that such a right should not be entrenched, but enacted by ordina ry act of the Legislature, the danger of

Section 23. 1 being construed as guaranteeing language rights beyond those contained in

Section 23 increased ." Therefore, of course, the government wanted to remove

Section 23. 1 and what they have done in place of that is to replace it with an amendment or a

section that says, "As English and French are the official languages of Manitoba, the fre edom to use either official language enj oyed under the law of Manitoba in force at the time this

section comes into force shall not be extinguished or restricted by or pursuant to any act of the Legislature of Manitoba." What that

section does then is try to confirm that French and English are the official lang uages and then goes on to provide some protection against what I can 5556

Friday, 13 January, 1984 only see as the mo st remote of possibilities, Mr. Speaker, the most remote of possibilit ies. In addressing this section, the Attorne y-General has said that the bottom line is that they wanted to prevent the possibility of the Manitoba equivalent of Bill 101. Well, Mr. Speaker , I sugge st that the possi bilit ies of the Manitoba equivalent of Bill 101 are so small as to be absolutely insigni ficant. The next Sections,

Section (

b) ol the amendment, I believe is basically a technical section; but

Section (c), of course, that is the

section that strikes out the lang uage services, the entrenchment of lang uage services in the original resolution. That of course was the main issue that had caused the concern, was the entrenchment of the services, and that has now been removed and I acknowledge that the government has gone a long way toward satisfying the concerns that the public had . Now then, the sections that remain are rather curious sections, to say the least, as far as I'm concerned as a layman because they go on to say in the new 23.7, "N othing in Sections 23. 1 and 23.2 abrogates or derog ates from any rights guaranteed by

Section 23." Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a very simple way to make sure that happens, that is, don't ha ve 23.1. If you don't have 23.1 then there's no necessity , of cour se, to have a

section in the Constitution that says that nothing in

Section 23.1 or 23.2 abrogates or derog ates from any rights guaranteed by

Section 23, Mr. Speaker . - (Interjection) - I'm talking about

Section 23. 1 and is the prime one of concern. Now,

Section 23.8 in the amended resol ution, Sir, says: "Except as may be required by

Section 23, no municipality, school division, school district or institution established by or under

an act of ihe Legislature of Manitoba with local legislative or local admi nistrative authority is required to enact, pass, print or publish its by-laws, regulations, rules or resolu tions in both the English and the French languages." Sir, again to me as a layman, that

section says absolutely nothing, because it says: "E xcept as may be required by

Section 23." Well

Section 23 is already in The Manitoba Act, and if there is anything going to flow out of that then it's going to flow out of that irrespective of this

section being in the Act. Well, Mr. Speak er, I don't think it needs to be in the Act at all if the government will simply remove 23. 1 and restrict this reso lution to validation of the laws. Mr. Speak er, they then go on: "23.9( 1) Nothing in Sections 23. 1 to 23.8 abrog rates or derroga tes from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed in Manitoba either before or after the coming into force of this

section with respect to any language that is not English or French." Well, Mr . Speaker, real ly, do es tha t accomplish any thing? Is that something that really needs to be in the Constitution of this province? Sir, there has not been in my view any case made for the necessity of including that

section in the Constitution of our province. Mr. Speaker , further on: "

(2) This

section shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enha ncement of the mul ticult ural heritage of Manitobans." What does that mean? Why is that necessary? What move has been made? What threat has been made to infringe upon the multicultural heritage of Ma ni tobans? Ho w migh t that ever be interpreted, Mr. Speaker, because we don't know what it means tod ay. We don't kno w what it means and no one kno ws what

interpretation some court might give it further down the road. So, Mr. Speaker , the only conclusion that I can come to by as careful an examination as I can give this issue is that what really matters here is the validation section, and the government has gone a great distance towards limiting this reso lution to the validation section, but they have not gone all the way and it will be a very small step for them, Sir, to go all the way. As long as they insist - (Interject ion) - no, Mr. Speaker, no, it isn't and I'll demonstrate why if I can. Mr. Speaker , what is involved here is a lot of language that the government assures us really doesn't mean any thing.

Section 23. 1 is declar atory and it will - (Interjec tion) - wel l, when I read the statements of the present House Leader , Mr. Speaker , and unfortunately time is running out, I haven't time to go back and quote specifically what he said, I don't think, un less I can - oh yes, - he said right here, Mr. Speaker, in reference to 23. 1: "also to ensure the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Manitoba will be construed in the future as a declaratory and symbolic statement of the int€nt of the original

Section 23." Well, Mr. Speaker, they continue to say that there really isn't any meaning here and when one looks at it, indeed you find that there is very little meaning. But the fact of the matter is that there has been such a public outcr y agains t what this government has originally attempted to do that they are not going to be able to overcome that resistance until they back off every thing except validation. So what we have here is, to a great extent, a lot of verbage which they are asking us to agree to. I say, Sir, that is dangerous.

It is dangerous what they are proposing to put in place because it is phrased in such a way as it really isn't supposed to mean anything. But in my under standing, no court will ever look at that and say, well, really this doesn't mean anything. They cannot believe that the Legislature will have gone to the trouble of passing these amendments and not have some meaning intended, and that is dangerous, Mr. Speaker , that is dangerous for the Legislature to agree to that.

I'm suggesting to the members opposite that what they should do as a way out of this dilemma that we're in is that they should stick strictly to the validation section. We should pass that validation resolution through this Legislature and we shou ld, at the same time, deal with the bill that deals with language services to indicate some modern real action being taken to give meaning to The Manitoba Act or the intent that flows from it. We should take that reso lution to the Parliament of Canada and ask them to pass the validation sections. If they refuse to pass the validation scJctions, Mr.

Speaker, then let the Bilodeau case proceed; and if the Bilodeau case would indicate that inde ed we might be faced with legal chaos, Sir, then I suggest that every member in this Legislature go to Ottawa with the resolution passed by this Legislature, to validate the statutes and say to the Parliament of Canada, are you going to force legal chaos on the Province of Manitoba or are you going to pass this resolution that will validate the laws of our province? Mr. Speaker, that is what should be done. That is the only way out of this dilemma. - (lnt erj"lction) - 5557

Friday, 13 January, 1984 Well, Mr. Speaker , I find the comment made by the Government House Leader and the Member for ln kster absolutely incredible when they say, pass the buck to Ottawa. Do they not realize how the Constitution of this pro vince is formed , how this Constitution is amended? It involves this Legislature and it involves the Parliament of Canada. Mr. Speaker , last night when I suggested that that's what the government should have done original ly, as outlined in Mr . Gibson's recommendation and his legal opinion, the Premier said, the Parliament wouldn't have gone along with it.

Well, Parliament, Sir, is different from Serge Joyal. Now Serge Joyal might have come to Manitoba and wanted them to make a

Section 16 as far as Manitoba is concerned and to make us the same (Interject ion) - well, the Government House Leader is frowning as though he doesn't understand. Look at the comments . . . Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for lnkster made his remarks last night, I wonder if he would give the same courtesy to another member who wishes to make his remarks. The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, if the Government House Leader will look at the comments that the Attorney-General made when he spoke to the resolution last July, he referred to Serge Joyal wanting Manitoba to imp lement the same type of constitutional amendment as exists in New Brunswick, and that is in the remarks that the Attorney-General made at that time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order . HON. R. PENNER: Yes. The member is not quoting from Hansard and, therefore, I forgive him his lapse. I referred to a statement made in his public speech by Mr.

Joyal, and then said specifically, we refuse to go that route. We consistently went the Made-in-Manitoba route. Mr. Speaker, that was with respect to a very specific thing; that is, adopting

Section 16 of The Constitution Act of 1982, and that we hav e not done. MFI. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for that explanation. I don't think it was a point of ord er. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MFI. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speak er, I take that even though it wasn't a point of ord er, that the time will not be deducted from the time available to me. I was making the point, that is what Serge Joyal wanted. I didn't say that the Provincial Government wanted that.

I think that the Parliament surely has an obligation to see that legal chaos does not prevail in Manitoba or any other province, and that they cannot, they must not hold up the possibility of legal chaos. They must not bl ackmail any provi nce into the extension of services, in this case French language services, at the thr eat of seeing legal chaos prevail in that province, and that is what is taking place, Sir. That is what is taking place. So my suggestion to the government is to pass the validation section. This Legislature will have done what it is possible for it to do.

We will also deal with the bill as to how services will be implemented, and we will ask Parliament to pass the same reso lution to validate the laws of this province. Now how can they refuse to do that? How can Parliament refuse to do that? I say if they do refuse to do it, Mr. Speaker, then let the Bilodeau case go, as it will, and if the ruling is not in favour , is not in the interests of the province, then the responsibility will be on Parliament to act immed iately.

I suggest to you, Sir, that if every member of this Legislature travelled to Ottawa to tell the Parliament that our provi nce is faced with legal chaos unless you pass this resolution to validate the laws of our province, I suggest that Parliament would have no choice but to act responsibly and to pass that.

Then, Sir, based upon the bill which is before us now, or some form of the bill that is before us now, then we would be able to demo nstrate what the government and the Legislature is prepared to do to recognize the necessity of French language services - whatever form that might take, Sir - after the bill has been debated. Tha t is the cour se of action tha t I belie ve the government should follow and I hope, Sir, and I trust that in the inte rests of Manitobans and, indeed, in their own interest, that they will take that course of action. MFI. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Are you ready for the question?

The Honourable Member for Charle swood. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speak er, I look forward to this rather briefer participation in the debate than has been customary for me in previous times. I look forward nonetheless to participating in it, and I expect, Mr. Speak er, that before this long winter is out, that I will ha ve particip ated in this deba te on a few other occasions because the de bate is not going to end just because this government wants it to end.

This de bate will end when the Government of Manitoba does the honourable thing and withd raws from constitutional entrenchment 23.1, which is still in the proposal. That is when the debate will end, Mr. Speake r, and I am sur e that my leader ga ve that un dertaking and assurance the other day, and we stand by it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, Sir, that it's a bit difficult to participate in this debate at this time because we are facing yet another version of this government's not firm and not unswerving position with respect to this resol ution.

I don't kno w which version, by num ber, we are facing at the present time. This government has gone through so many contortions, through so much sleight of hand, through so many acts of bravado; it has raised so many hopes and expectations among one particular group in Ma nitoba, name ly the Manitobans of French language background; it has done so much to destroy the social cohes iveness of this province by its intem perate and ill-conside red actions, that one literally cannot tell what the next veering action of this government is going to be.

But let us take for granted that the amendment that we are now facing is getting near the end of their lurchings on this matter; and as my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, has said, as my leader 5558

Friday, 13 January, 1984 has said, this government has moved a great distance away from the original, ill-conceived proposal for full entrenchment of ling uistic rights in Manitoba to the point where, as was said in the debate just a few minutes ago, it hasn't got so long a distance now to travel to undo the original wrong, that it first perpetrated in May of this year when it brought in its ill-consider ed proposal. So I am going to spend a few minu tes tod ay, Mr.

Speaker - and I am sure it won't be the only occasion on which I will have an opportunity to speak along with my colle agues - I am going to spend a few min utes today talking about the la test ver sion of this in com petent go ver nment's mean derings into the constitutional and political field. I am going to give them the same advice that I gave them back in May of 19 83, which was to withd raw all entrenchment, put this to the people and let the will of the people make the determination - advice which they scorned at their own cost at that time. I am going to suggest again very simply, Mr.

Speak er, that the government abandon 23. 1, even as presently worded, and as my colleague has just said, carry on with the sections which deal with translation - I don't like the word "validation" because there is nothing to be valida ted - with translation and let the constitutional amendment then go forward to the Parliament of Canada, with the translation sections intact and that will be it for now. Mr. Speaker , the proposal we are facing today is, as I have said, a far cry from that of last May.

My observations at this point, as I have also indicated, are going to be somewhat open-ended because we do not know what we are next going to have to face. We kno w we're going to be participating - or we think we are going to be participating - in a debate on a bill that they have now concocted, after having extracted and de-entrenched a whole litany of matters from the constitutional proposal which, Mr.

Speaker , should never have been in that proposal in the first place, and which will stand as a lasting testament to the people of Manitoba and to the people of Canada of the ineptitude of this particular grouping of individuals who are pleased to call themselv es - or presume to call the mselves - a government. Mr. Speak er, I can only suggest that the truth of that statement is borne out by the fact that now having changed course on this matter constitutional ly, insofar as the constitutional proposal is concerned, by about 17 0 deg rees and it's almost that far, Mr.

Speaker , that this government is still able to find support for its almost upside do wn proposal from the Franco- Manitoban Society, from Mr. Bilodeau, and others. Now isn't that strange, Mr. Speaker?

Isn't that strange and doesn't that suggest something that hasn't been mentioned in debate so far, that this government, as was said in the early debate in May and June, gave away the farm in their negotiations, and now we're beginning to find, as these changes and peram bulations of this government take place, and as they back off from one position to another - somebody has said they move from one sandbar to another in the ocean of political storm that they have caused in Manitoba - isn't it surprising, Mr.

Speaker , that they are now able to find agreement from the Franco-Manitoban Society for this watered-down version of the proposal that they brought forward in May? Isn't that interesting and doesn't that suggest, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the statement that they offered far too much, and that they didn't have to offer in the first place. And look at the damage they have done to the people of Manitoba as a result of this crass, poor, political bargaining that they undertook in this important constitutional field. Mr.

Speaker , that's one observation that I commend to the consideration of members of the House at this time. Ano ther ob servation is th is, Mr . Speak er. This government started out with a proposition which they said was carved in stone; it was supposed to be some kind of an icon to the left that they were conceiving and carving in Manitoba, not a comma was going to be changed. Remember those brave words of the Attorney-General before he was kicked out of any responsibility for this matter; not a comma was going to be changed. Ah, Mr. Speaker , this was strong drink they offered wasn't it?

Well now look at the watered wine we've got which they are proffering now to the Franco-Manitoban Society and to Mr. Bilodeau and that small interest group that they were catering to, to the complete exclusion of the rest of the people of Manitoba; and this small-i nterest group is now accepting this watered wine. It only goes to show, Mr.

Speaker, how unfortuna te it would have been if this opposition and other members of this Legislature, and if publicly-spirited citizens in this province, if all of those people had listened to the cries from the editorial pages and from honourable members opposite, and if all of us had succumbed to that initial euphoria that was trying to be created by the members opposite with respect to this great forward step tha t th ey were propo sing; if all of us had succumbed to that, just think that this province today would be saddle d with a constitutional proposal which would be capable, and was capable, and still would be capable if anyone were now foolish enough to bring it forward again, of causing harm on a generational basis to the social cohesiveness of this province.

I think that observation has to be made, Mr. Speak er.

I was read ing not too long ago the words that were spoken on May 20th, I think it was, 19 83, when the Attorne y-Beneral first made mention of this agreement and I responded to it on behalf of the opposition, and I said to him at that time, and I said to the people of Manitoba at that time, that undou bted ly, because of the stand that we were taking, asking that this matter be referred to the public, pointing out some of the dangers of entrenchment, pointing out the danger of putting a constitutional weapon of this sort into the hands of a linguistic mino rity in Manitoba, could possibly cause a tyranny; pointing out th ese things and saying, Mr.

Speaker , because we say these things we, in the opposition, are running the risk and, indeed, not only did we run the risk, the statement came true, that we would be called racist, that we would be called bigots, that we would be called anti-French. All of those things came true, Mr. Speaker . The statements were made; the statements were untrue, but the statements were made nonetheless. And so, Mr.

Speaker , if we had folded our tents back in May or June of this year and had let this government proceed with its ill-consi dered constitutional proposal, I ask you and I ask the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada to consider where we would be today, instead in the somewhat better position that we are, considering this much watere d-down proposal. 5559

Friday, 13 January, 1984 Mr. Speaker, we're still not satisfied. This proposal has to be further cured but it has lo be cured an awful lot less than was the case when we were started on this agonizing trail by this group of incompetents across the way who presume to call themse lves a government. Mr. Speaker, th ese are a few prelimi nary observations that I make as I embark upon this debate this morn ing.

Coarse attempts by this government, coarse in the coarse sense of that words, c-o-a-r-s-e, to manipu late ethnic groups in Manitoba, to manipu late the Franco Manitoban group in Manitoba, by use of the big lie, have failed. Mr. Speak er, I think that this debate - certainly in my experience - has proved to be a watershed in the history of our province and I think it's been a watershed in terms of demystif ying, to some extent, the ability that government has today, using the taxpayer's doll ar, to propagandize its own position.

And we have seen many many examples of that across the way, not only in this program, Mr. Speaker, but in laughable programs, such as, the Jobs Fund, in their attempts to manipula te the truth in various other fields. My heavens, Mr.

Speak er, it was only the other day that we heard one Minister try to say, or to take credit for the fact, that hydro rates in Manitoba had only gone up by 2.3 percent in the last five years, as though he was taking credit for it without acknowled ging the fact that thr ee or four of those years that he called into question were years in which the Conservative rate freeze was in effect. It's that kind of manipu lation of the truth , that kind of sleight of hand that this government applies to every issue in this House and in its propaganda machine throughout the province.

This is a government, as has been described in another field, Mr. SpAaker, of ballyhoo; it's a government of manipulation; it's a go vernment without any conscience; it's a government with very little integ rity. Mr. Speaker , in no issue have we seen this better manif ested than in this issue in which the y have attempted to cajole the people of Manitoba into helping them pay off a political favour to a particular group in Manitoba who happen, temporari ly, to give support to them. So I say it's a watershed, Mr.

Speaker, because the people of Manitoba have finally learned that it's their tax money that's being used for these ballyhoo schemes. The people of Manitoba were subjected to a torrent of advice, of propaganda from this government, from the Federal Government, fr o.rn Mr. Joyal, from people of that sort. Hundr eds of thousands of dol lars have poured into this province in the last year in support of this cause, taxpayers' dol lars in most instances.

I'm told that the publi c accounts show a figure in excess of a million dol lars, directly or indirectly, that have come into the Province of Manitoba in the last year with respect to this linguistic matter. In the face of all of that, Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba have been able to see through the smoke and mirrors.

They've been able to see through the manipulation, the trifling with the truth that has been going on opposite, the kind of revisionist history that my honourable friends ha ve been trying to preach in this province, or gett ing some of their left-wi ng professors from universities to come in and bleat before the comm ittee. One of them is printed in today's Free Press, continuing this kind of historical revisionism that the honourable members opposite have tried to inflict upon tile people of Manitoba. Well this kind of newspeak, this kind of disinformation, Mr.

Speaker, jus t hasn't worked , and honourable members could say, well, just because all of our efforts to propagandize a bad position haven't worked, that doesn't mean that we have lost. Mr. Speak er, they have lost. They've lost political support in this province in a way that no other political party, perhaps in our history has lost and they're not going to get it back for a genera tion. Mr.

Speak er, the Min ister of wh atever, of Cultural Affairs or what ever, sitting across the way, temporarily enjoying the perks of that office, that Minis ter is going to find that when his party defeated our party by three points in 19 81, that was a close-run thing; he's going to find when he reads the next election results that 10, 12 or 16 points behind the winner is what he's going to be facing. I can tell him that, Mr.

Speaker, with some certainty and with some assurance because I kno w the politics of Manitoba, perhaps a little bit better than some of these people who drift in and drift out of it from time to time, some corning from here or God kno ws where and, showing themselves, by and large, to be not only ign orant of Manitoba's historical and poli tical past but, even wor se, co ntemptuous of Manitoba's historical and political past. We saw an example of it just a few minutes ago in this Ho use, Mr .

Speak er, when the Min ister of Workplace, Health and Safety, or wha tever title they've temporarily attached to the Member for Radisson, said in the House, just a few minu tes ago, Mr. Speaker , when the Member for Turtle Mountain was speaking and said, why didn' t the government just proceed with the validation matter. The Minister from his back row seat said, why should we do that? My, what an example of lo yalty to his province; what an utterance to come from such a great Canadian. Why should we do that? says he. These one-note Johnni es, Mr.

Speaker , who from time to time wander in and out of public affairs in Manitoba have got to und erstand that they have a responsi bility to the totality of the people of Manitoba, not just to one particular linguistic group. So, Mr. Speak er, as I take

part in this debate this morning these are some of the thoughts that cross my mind just at this moment, and I daresay that there will be many other thoughts that will have to be voiced. Mr. Speaker , there are one or two other ob servat ions that I want to make at this time becau"e I think that th ey are no w well-entrenched in the public und erstan ding in this province. One of them is this, Mr. Speaker .

This government, which has proved to be so contemptuous of our background, historical, political and social in this province; this government which has moved from one sand bar to another , in trying to recover some political equilibrium; this government which is inept in practically every thing it touches in Manitoba; this government that fires Ministers and thinks that is an excuse for public policy, else why is the Attorne y General not still in charge of this. Ah well, the press will tell us they've got a new man in charge. Well, the new man who is in charge, Mr.

Speak er, isn't capable of making the great rallying calls that the Attorne y General used to make; at least he had the ability to do that. No more do we hear the kind of horatio at the bridge call from the Attorney-General to rally the besoughted troups across the way. We don't hear that anyrnore, no. Instead, he's been replaced by the little 5560

Friday, 13 January, 1984 Mi nister of Mu nicipal Affairs, a kind of garden variety bureaucrat, Mr. Speak er, who has given up deli very of bur eaucracy and temporarily taken on the finery of a Mi nister 's office with all of the perks th ereto appertaining, called in as sort of a poor man's fireman to squelch out the flames of anger and disallusionment that his government has created in the Province of Manitoba. Well, Mr. Speaker, this kind of a petty fixer is not really what the situation requires al this time. We need some statemanship on that side of the House.

We need some leadership from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Who's your leader? HON. S. LYON: I hear the NDP's chief contribution to the flag burning brigade trying to say something in the debate here tod ay. He will have his opportuni ty later on, or perhaps we could send him a one -way ticket to El Salvador where he could really carry on with those interests which are foremost in his mind. Mr.

Speaker , but in view of the fact that the question of leadership has come up, I noticed the comments that were made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition had assumed responsibility as being the spokesman for our party on this matter, and properly so. By contrast, why do esn' t the Pr em ier of Ma nitoba assu me the responsibility for this matter in this House and show some leadership, instead of putting it into the hands of a petty fixer, Mr. Speaker , such as the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. The Premier , Mr.

Speaker, is supposed to be the Leader; he's supposed to be the one who strikes the level of debate and gives leadership in this House, and what do we have to put up with - the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs, even a poor shadow of even the Attorney-General. Well, Mr . Speaker, my Leader doesn't have to make any apo logy for assuming his responsibilities. The hidden Leader across the way - and god knows who the Leader is across the way - is the one who should be leading off in this debate for the government on this matter which is of compelling impor tance to the people of Manitoba.

The Member for Selkirk is not cut from that kind of cloth. No, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't know too much about duties of leadership. There's none of the over the top lads with him. No, no, none of follow me lads, out of the trenches and follow me - none of that with the Member for Selkirk, no, no, no, none of that. One of the few biblical admo nitions that I'm sure may have crossed his mind, and he misunderstood it when it did, was that the meek shall inherit the earth. Mr.

Speaker , he hasn't come to realize yet that biblical admoni tion doesn't relieve him from his consitutional duty and responsibility in this House. So, will the leader of the govern ment, whoever he or she may be, ·please stand up and make the leadership speech on this matter sooner rather than later , so that we won't have to put up with the fixer utterings that we're hearing from the Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs., Well, dodging, Mr.

Speaker, sliding, sleight of hand, manipula tion of the truth, all of the things that we've seen in this issue, which are the hallma rk of this government, by the way, in all party and all policy matters that they deal with aren't good enough. I say that we have hit a watershed in Manitoba because the people of Manitoba now have the number of this bunch across the way. They kno w just how bad they are. It's a tragedy , Mr . Speaker , tha t it took an issue as fundamental and as important as this issue for the people of Manitoba to come to know just how bad a government we have at this time.

We have a Mini ster who stands in his place the other day, when a speech was being made on this topic, and says, well propose an amendment, as though, Mr. Speaker , we were talking about some regulation that the Cabinet could hustle down to the Cabinet room and pass tomo rrow. Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the Constitution of Canada. This group of contemptible people across the way, Mr. Speaker, incom petent in everything they touch, would have us deal with this as though it's a loose scrap of paper; make an amendment, we'll consider it.

That's not the way you forge countr ies; that's not the way you maintain unity; that's not the way you have a good Constitution. If we were, as I repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, to have given away to their first ill-considered proposal imagine the legacy that this province would have been left with last May, June, or July. No, Mr. Speaker, leaders are meant to give leadership and we're still waiting in vain for that leadership to be given by this government and by its putative leader , even though everyone else appears to speak on his behalf.

I issue a call to the Member for Selkirk, who otherwise is known as the Premier , to come out of hiding on this issue, come out of hiding, show his face, show his mettle, show his integrity if he has any, stand up and say, we were wrong and we owe a vote of thanks. Here's the speech he should be making, Mr. Speak er.

We were wrong, oh how wrong we were, and we owe thanks, not just to the opposition, not just to the Member for Elmwood, not just to the Memb er for Brandon West, we owe thanks to all of those other public-spirited citizens in Manitoba who took it upon the mselves to point out to us carefully how wrong we were and we acknowledge that we were wrong. That's the speech that he should be making, but it's a speech, Mr. Speaker, that we will never hear from that side of the House because they lack the intestinal fortitude, th ey lack the integ rity, they lack the basic hone sty to make that kind of a speech. So, Mr.

Speaker , history is going to record the damage that this group of people have done to our province. Every dark cloud has a silver lining and, as I have pointed out before, I think that silver lining is that there is going to be, from this point on, more integ rity in party politics than has been the case before.

Never again will a group of people such as this group, under the tattered banner of socialism, or whatever banner for that matter, be able to mislead the people of Manitoba in the way that they have done coll ectively , aided and abetted may I say very often and very ably by the media who, with their usual penchant for things that are left and trendy , can't resist getting on the bandwagon of the left from time to time. I think the press, Mr. Speaker, at this stage - and I refer to it generical ly, not individually - but those members of the press who have been calling the opposition here racist, 5561

Friday, 13 January, 1984 bigots and so on, those membe rs of the press here and abroad who really don't und erstand this issue should take paus e to consider ju st how far this government has retreated from its original proposition, and just how acceptable this current product of their delirium has come to be acceptable, all of a sudden, to the Franco- Manitoban Society, Mr. Bilodeau, all of these people who said they had to have every jot and tittle and comma of what was in the first proposal. That deserves some consideration. History is also going to record, Mr.

Speaker , that not only has this retreat, which compared to Napoleon's backward move from Moscow makes this Legislature look something like a walk around the block; history is going to record, Mr. Speak er, that they still have some way to go by abandoning any amendment to

Section 23; history is also going to show, Mr. Speaker , that they should have the courage to do that and do it soon; his tory is also going to show, Mr.

Speaker, even worse, that those steps that were being taken by successive governments, up to and including the first year of the Pawley Government, that were directed toward some non-constitutional improvement in French language services in Manitoba; history is going to show that cause has been severely damaged by these people across the way in their blind attempts to tinker with the Constitution, to tinker with the political, the social history of this province. That, Mr. Speaker, is a tragedy .

No one on this side of the House, no one in Canada can take any credit out of the fact that this government has created an environment in Manitoba and, indeed, I think in the rest of Canada, where it is going to be more difficult for legitima te, moderate, reasonable steps to be taken with respect to French language service improvement in this coun try. They're going to do it. They've done this, Mr. Speaker , because of their blind adherence to a small interest group.

They let the zealots, they let the radicals start to dictate government policy from one little interest group, and they've got one of them sitting in this House - the Member for Radisson. They let those people start making public policy for a million people in Manitoba and you can't do it. As Georges Forest said, Mr. Speak er, when he came before the comm ittee: the actions of this government have probably set back the cause of French language services in Manitoba by 50 years.

Sterling Lyon didn't say that, the Cons ervative Opposition didn' t say it, Russell Ooern didn't say it, the Grassroots group didn't say it. George Forest, one of the chief activists for French language services in Manitoba said it, that they have probably set back the cause of understanding for French language services by 50 years in this province.

That is the indictment that has to be laid against this government, which now in its death throes, is coming to its senses, that's the indictment that has to be laid against this government primarily, the damage that the y have done to the social cohesiv eness of this province, to the cause which was being well served by them, and by previous governments, of gradually introducing more French language services as a matter of policy which were then acceptable to the people of Manitoba. I tell you, Mr.

Speake r, that what was acceptable to the people of Manitoba in 19 82 in this matter , before this initiative taken by this group across the way, the NOP, what was acceptable in this province in 19 82 is regre ttably and unf ortu nately probably no long er acceptable because of the way they have mishandled this issue. That is the other tragedy , that they have done so much damage to the social coh esiveness and the understanding of this province, that the people of Manitoba are going to have to bear that scar for a good long time.

I want my friends and others in the Franco-Canadian communi ty to pay some attention to what I have said today because I am repeat ing what I have heard from them, from some of them - oh not all of them by any means - but a few of them have said to me, we know the damage that the NOP have done to the Franco Manitoban cause in this province and we won't forget it eith er. So, Mr. Speaker , here we are at another intermediate stage in an historic debate and there is going to be much more said, different stages of this debate, because this government's got to make one more step, at least one more.

It's got to take out 23. 1, and it will be a long cold winter as we sit here until they do, but sit here we will - sit here we will, Mr. Speaker , - and make this government do what is right and honourable on behalf of the people of Manitoba. They may say, Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney-General did in his false sense of bravado immed iately after the plebi scites last October, remember what he said? We don't pay any atten tion to those, we're not going to pay any attention to the pleb iscites. The people may have spoken but that doesn't change our view. Look what we're faced with tod ay.

Look at the watered wine we're faced with tod ay, and it's better , Mr. Speaker , than the strong drink they offered first. So I say they've got to change their view again, and change their view they will. If they still think, like the Attorney-General, that they can be contemptuous of public opinion in Manitoba, I tell them that we, in the opposition, won't let them be contemptuous. We won't let them be contemptuous any more than we let them get away with the first trick they tried to play, the first finesse they tried on this matter back in May and June. I'm not asking, Mr.

Speake r, I'm not asking at all, that we hear from the government any mea culpa; any we are wrong because they don't have the integrity to do that. I merely ask for the government, now that they're on the course, now that they've backtreaded as far as they have, I ask them to take the final step and to take all sign of entrenchment with respect to 23. 1 out of this proposal, leave in the translation ma tters, which are all th at should have been contemp la ted in the firs t pl ace, if any thing was contempla ted at all. My final ob servat ion that I'll make very quickly, Mr.

Speaker, is this, and it's an obs ervat ion that I don't think too many people have paid too much attention to as yet. I make it not from the standpoint of having had any conversations with the government's lawyers. I make it just as a witness to this drama that has been proceeding in Manit oba over the last nine months. I make it as a lawyer.

I make it as a person who took a keen interest recently in constitutional cases that were being fought with respect through the Trudeau initiative, where the Government of Canada, the Prime Min ister of Canada, had to be stopped by the Su preme Court from trampling on federalism in this country, and stopped he was. I make this observa tion, Mr. Speaker , 5562

Friday, 13 January, 1984 because there are those in the press and across the way who tend to make me come to the sim plistic position that the opposition is crying for the Bilodeau case to go to court. I say this, Mr. Speaker , that this government has done so much damage on its own brief on the Bilodeau matter, that the chances of the government succeeding, which were over whelming before they stuck their finger into the pot, are now much less. - (Interje ction) - Oh yes. Yes, they are, Mr. Speaker , and I'll tell you why, because the judges of the Supreme Court are human beings.

They've been subjected to all of the publicity from Ottawa and from Toronto and across the countr y. They've heard all of the propaganda paid for by Mr. Joyal. I'm not casting any aspersions on them at all, I merely say, they are human beings. They are human beings, Mr. Speaker. I say that this government has done great damage to the almost impregnable case that it had at the trial level and at the Court of Appeal level on Bilodeau. All you have to do is read the Court of Appeal judgement to see what a legal yawn, if I may use that term, this case was until this government started to tinker with it.

So that is a danger and I don't advocate that anybody attack the Constitution of the province. I say that when the Constitution is attacked, the one thing the government can't do is try to move in and settle it like a civil case, like this government foolishly did. Somebody said the other day, is Mr. Trudeau going to move in now with the anti-Cruise people and say, well, I'd like you to settle your case before the Supreme Court and if you do, here's the defence policy that Canada will follow? Isn't that a good analogy to what this government tried to do? They said to Mr.

Bilodeau, please don't take your case to the Supreme Court and here's what we' ll give on an unr elated matter in French services in Manitoba. Isn't that an interesting anal ogy, Mr. Speaker? It shows the foolhardi ness of naive governments trying to mix into affairs that they know little or nothing about, naive go vernments who either misunde rstand or are contemptuous of, the history of their own province which they presume to give governments to for a brief period of time. My final plea, Mr. Speak er, is for some brief spark of acknowledgment and statesmanship from that other side of the House.

Merely to say, yes, we were wrong, we are going to move around the full 18 0 degrees on this matter. We are going to abandon entrenchment of the statement that English and French are the official langua ges of Manitoba, which, Mr. Speaker, un less coupled with the statement, according to

Section 23, is not historically accurate. English and French are the official languages of Manitoba tor the purposes of

Section 23 - period; they always have been. The Attorney-General of Manitoba said so in May of 19 83. They have been since the Forest case in 19 79. So, Mr. Speak er, I ask the government to show a bit of leader ship; I ask the Premier to come out from hiding, stand up in this House like a man and make a statement and acknowledge the mistakes that have been made and say for thrightly to the people of Manitoba, "Here now is where we're going to lead you." But he won't do that, Mr. Speaker, because that's not in his makeup. He won't do it, Mr.

Speaker , because the people of Manitoba no longer belie ve this government, their credibil ity is gone; and he won't do it, Mr. Speaker , because in the dwindling years and months of his adminis tration he is going to carry through with the stereotype that has characterized this government from Day One. It's a go ve rnment of ballyhoo; it's a government of manipulation; it's a government with no credibility. It's a government, in short, Mr. Speaker, that should go to the people and allow itself to be repla ced immedia tely . MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. Walding: The Ho nourable Min ister of Health. HON. l.

DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I certainly had no intention of getting involved in this debate this early anyway. I think that it's obvious that I've been taking a low profile in this debate, in this whole question of French rights, but there's a few speeches that have been given lately that pretty well compel me to at least try to respond and to put certain things on the record. I intended no doubt to try to answer the last speaker which, again, chose to attack every body and thr eaten everybody and tell us how long he's going to keep us here and to smear anybody .

I don't know if that would solve any thing; it is more pitiful, and it is with sadness that I listened to the speech. On another occasion I might have accepted it, and I know that ever ybody doesn't get emotional on the same thing or feel that every subject, every item is as important to them, and this happens to be one of the reasons why I entered politics 25 years ago, to fight for these kind of rights and things were progressing quite well until these last few years. We have somebody that talks about human beings, but he forgets a certain group.

I mean the human beings are the ones that he marks with a cross, I guess, on the forehead and says you'r e a human being but you'r e not. I guess that's his unde rstan ding. He talked about those kinds of things in the speech, ever ything was insults, he started insulting the House Leader. What is gained by that? Is that going to help unite our country? Is that going to help unite our province? I doubt it very much. Mr.

Speaker, it's no doubt a swan song of somebody that couldn't make it, that had his chance and blew it, somebody that, for a numb er of years had been the defender of dem ocracy and parlia ment ary procedure and so on, who now these last few years has made a mockery of the House. But there is another speech, and one speech only , that I heard, that was, I thought a very low key speech, a very cool speech and a very reasonable - and I repeat - I think it was a very reason able speech and I'm talking of the speech made by the Member for Turtle Mountain last night and tonight.

I think that the honourable member really took this thing to heart and I am convinced of the sinceri ty. I think he has made an effort to bring a solution to this. It doesn't mean that we can agree with ever ything that was said or any thing, but I can tell you this - and I'm speaking for myself - that last night, alter listening to him, I started having some doubts. I went back home thinking, hey, this is not a bad option; this is something 5563

Friday, 13 January, 1984 that I'd want to re-read in Hansard and see what's going to happen, although I was disappointed in some of the things that he said today and that changed our minds. I happen to be of French origin. I don't think that I'm any better or worse Canadian or Manitoban than anyone here. I defended my countr y in the Navy. I did the little things that I think I had to do. I've never been in jail except for a short time in Fort William and that's another story. A MEMBER: Tell us about it, Larr y. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Some other day I will. Mr.

Speaker, it is with sadness, as I said, the previous time that I spoke, it is with sadness that I stand here today and look at all the backward steps that we've been taking. Remember in the 19 60's and so on and how many times did we have these debates? We had these debates before the quiet revo lution when the question of private schools and language were pretty well together because they had not divided the issue at this time.

I remember what we went through in the debate with some of the members here on the question of French rights and French as a subject to start with, when French was only taught from Grade 7, I think, on as a subject when I first entered this House, and then it became a subject later on for half-time or 50 percent. In the Roblin years, it became a language of instruction and finally Bill 11 3 made it a possibilit y. Every inch of the way we had to fight and there was a lot of abuse like we are getting to day.

We're the forgotten people in this, we're debating everyt hing but we're the forgotten people; we count for noth ing. Nobody is asking us what we want or what we think we deserve.

Then there was the question of the schools, the same thing, and I saw what happened in the political thing where some people who for years had been talking about def ending schools, but when they saw a chance of maybe getting rid of a popular leader to replace him by one that they felt they could beat, well then, all of a sudden, on some pretense, the vote was all against it; it would be settled now to day, this ques tion, instead of having to fight for that again. Therefore, I belong to two mino rities and I've had to struggle in this Hous e to that and I'm getting a little tired and I'm getting sad.

As I said before, whenever we talked about different things it was always political suicide, but when a little bit o! leadersh ip, when the two parties tried to get together - not these kind of speeches that we've heard today - when these things were brought up and I would ask in the House for a recorded vote, lo and behold, it was a unanimous vote; the things that would defeat any government, that we were told people didn' t want, that we were trying to shove down their th roats - pass, and lo and behold, sure a few people ducked the vote but look at the record, look at 11 3, look at the Roblin bill.

Look at those bills and you 'll see that it was unanimous. All of a sudden it is time, it is time. I want to explain - and I say this very sincerely - I was disturbed yesterday and I had to really look at the situation because I liked what was said by the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. I was anxious and eager to hear the rest of his speech.

The rest of his speech was a good speech and I think he was sincere, but I'll tell you the words that now, all of a sudden, make me think no, because he said yesterd ay, go ahead and bring a reso lution validating all of the legislation that you have in this Ho use so there won't be any catastrophe. He says, let's sit down then and bring in proper legislation for the French lang uages and protect the French people.

Then today he said, well, that is dangerous because, lo and behold - and this is what I am fed up with, and I am addressing that to some of the members from my side because we have been bringing that, all of us practically, to apologize to bring this in, and the aim was just to reinstate what was happening in 18 90. That is the thing that I cannot accept from people that are claiming that they are fair, claiming that they want to do things right.

Can you think of any thing in 19 80 that this group would be stopped, no advancement, every body is progr essi ng, you are inventing the radio, the airplane and every thing, and to expect that these people would not have progressed, but saying, hey, this is what we did, we took your rights away from you in 18 90. All right, that was wrong, so we'll give you back what you had. In other words, if this was the court of human fairne ss, do you think you would be sentenced to repay for all the wrong, you would have to pay for every thing that has been lost in the 19 80s?

At the time there was about an even division of people, and I think we should be proud of what we have done. We never tried to destroy this countr y. I think we have many of the pioneers that came to Manitoba, probably the first ones that came were French-speaking Canadians, but Canadians and Manitobans who loved their countr y and their province. We talked an awful lot about health care. Can we repay the debt to the Gr ey Nuns who started the first hospital, a little cabin with two beds in it? No, we only owe them, put them back where they were in 18 90.

That is the kind of nons ense we hear; look at the request that we are asking. You know, this fear, this fire that's burning and fuelled by people like this member here, these are the things that are fuelled, this hate between the people of Manitoba who normally can get along toget her. Why? Because they expected their rights begin. So what is it that we want? What do we want? The French people are saying all right, ensnrine it in the constitution . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Mini ster of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, who took those rights away from the French-spe aking Manitobans? It was the members of the House. Why is it today that some of those rights have been brought back, have been reinstated? Is it the action of the members of the House? No, it is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-160
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 160.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d5045626444b148735fd9c30435b8d556520db7c

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