Manitoba Committee Hansard — 27 January 1984 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 60, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-pe60

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on PRIVILEGES and ELECTIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Phi/ Eyler Constituency of River East VOL. XXXI No. 60 -2:00 p.m., FRIDAY, 27 JANUARY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Oueens Prmter. Province ol MMJilobll

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTET� 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 DOWNfV, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EY LER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAV, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HY DE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOST YRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECU YER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEV, 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.<< Vie SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D.

James Constituency Ste. Rose Sp ringfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Bon iface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Vir den Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Se ven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St.

Norb ert Assiniboia Gladstone Pem bina Se lkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolse ! ey Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere ln kster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St < Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITO BA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES & ELECTIONS Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 TIME - 2:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Phil Eyler (River East) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Anstett, Buck/aschuk, Lecuyer; Mackling Messrs. Enns, Eyler, Filmon, Ha rapiak, Kovnats, Nordman, Scott WIT NESSES: Mr. Sidney Green , Manitoba Progres siv e Party Mr. Gary Do er, Manito ba Government Emplo yees Association Mr. Herb Schulz, Pri vate Citizen Mr. Waiter Kucharczyk, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 11 5-

An Act respecting the Operation of Se ction 23 of The Manitob a Act; Loi concernant la mise en application de I'

article 23 de la loi de 18 70 sur le Manitoba. MADAM CLERK, C. DePape: Before the committee proceeds with consideration of Bill 11 5, it must elect a new Chairman since the former Chairman is no longer a member of the committee. Are there any nominations? Mr. Harapiak . MR. H. HARAPIAK: I would nominate Phil Eyler to be Chairman of the committee. MADAM CLERK: Any further nominations? Se eing none, Mr. Eyler , would you please take the Chair? MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee, come to order . Can you hear me in the back of the room? What is the will of the committee on how to proceed? Mr. Mackling. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I note tha t there are no w 49 perso ns on a list wishing to make representation to the committee - and I know tha t we'v e had representations to this committee in the past and there were some concerns tha t people waited a long time and then weren't given the opportunity to address the committee and some of them didn't stay - ob viously the concern is tha t we want to pro vide a reason able opportunity for everyone to be heard.

I think out of consideration for that, we have to have some reason able limitations on briefs and questions on those briefs, and therefore I move tha t for the purpose of facilitating the work of this committee and ensuring tha t those wishing to present briefs may do so during a reason able period of time, this committee set 40 minutes as the maximum time for the presentation of briefs inclusive of any questions thereof. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns . MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, committee mem bers and mem bers of the public ought to be aware that the kind of committee hearings we have enjoyed in Manitoba are a special privilege and a unique feature of our legislative process that isn't there in many Legislatures, as I underst and, and I raise tha t question because I know my collea gue would be pointing that out to me. That, Sir, is all the more reason for us to safeguard this opportunity for expression on the part of the general citizenry. Mr.

Chairman, while 40 minutes may be acceptable in terms of presentations, the further encroachment on our privileges to properly examine, to properly question as committee mem bers - and that is our purpose here is to listen to the presentations and to then ask the questions and al l the questions that com mittee mem bers may wish to ask for full clarification of the person who is presenting a position to this committee -t o have tha t included in the 40 minutes, Mr.

Chairman, lea ds me to suggest that this government, getting into the habit of invoking closure upon us in the House, it has dev ised a measure of closure in this committee, and this committee I remind you is the only opportunity for the people of Manitoba, either representative of org anizations, groups or as indi vidu al citizens, to make their positions, to make their concerns known to us. I simply can' t except the limitations placed by the Minister of Natural Resources.

I .think it would be far more appropriate to proceed, and then if we find tha t we are running into extensiv e time on some of the representations to make tha t decision at that time. I think tha t anticipating in this instance is of no particular value to the committee, and I think again on this particular issue, this of all issues, is not the one for this government to be restricting representation on.

The process is a lengthy one; we know that, this government knows that. lt's been the history and tradition of this Legisl ature and these committees to hear out what our people have to say to us and to allow individual members to question them without restriction. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appeal to members opposite. I appeal to the Government House Le ader who is aware of the traditions that this committee has established . I note with some regret that some of the other members haven't got the kind of tradition other than you, Mr.

Minister of Natural Resources, who sat through and who indeed was par t of the questioning team when there was another government in charge, with the responsibility of conducting these hearings and who did not impose these kinds of restrictions on those who wish to make presentations to them. 1324

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 So 1 reject, out of hand, Mr. Chairman, the motion, the suggestion, being put before us by Mr. Mackling . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I have to regard this as another instance of closure. I think that the government is afraid of public opinion.

I want to say to the House Leader that he is the one who has made the statement in public and in the Legislature that this is an entirely new proposal, entirely new package, very different and unlike the one introduced by the Attorney General, and therefore if there were hearings before and if there was public discussion and debate before, according to him it's a brand new ball game. Mr.

Chairman, I don't have to emphasize that Bill 11 5 is part of a significant package. lt's not just an isolated bill; it's part of a package of a constitutional amendment and a bill to provide French Language Se rvices, and it cannot be seen in isolation from the proposed constitutional amendment. The o�her points I make are these: that not one person on this list was told that there would be a time limitation.

So people, I assume, have come here, some have spent time working on briefs, some have spent time on preparing themselves verbally and now they're confronted with the decision either to go 40 minutes and have no questions at all or to limit their comments to 10, 20 or 30 minutes in the event that they may receive some questions from mem bers of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I think that if the government wants to limit briefs as a general principle, as a general approach or pol icy, then that is something that should be referred to the Rules Committee.

That could be di scussed as a gene ral pr ocedur e of leg isla tive committees, but to come in here with the proposal that each brief should be limited to 40 minutes, questions and answers included, I regard as a form of closure. I think the government should think very carefully about invoking closure every time it runs into some public resistance. MR. CHAIRMAN: I might note in passing that I am informed by the Clerk that when people phoned in and asked if there were time limitations, they were told by the Clerk's Office that time limits would be set, if there · · were any, by the committee. · Mr. Mackling. HON.

A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I hear the words of the Opposition House Leader with some degree of sympathy, because certainly it is true that we want to hear the views of Manitobans on matters that are presented to this committee. lt is out of deference to hear those views that we have to set a reasonable format for hearing people.

You recall, the members of this committee recall that there were complaints that in earlier sittings of this committee, members of the public, who had waited long long hours to be· given the opportunity to address the committee, out of frustration left and did not make presentations to the committee because some presentations went on at great length. I am of the view that surely members of the public should have the same equivalen t rights as members in the Legislature. Members in the Legislature have 40 minutes according to the rules, except the Leaders of the parties or a designated person, to present the case.

Su rely members of the public can work within those same general guideli nes. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that it's not a preced ent. Previous gover nments, previous committees have set time limitations, and they' r e not far distant in the past. Honourable members of the opposition will recall that in 1977 time !i mitations were set by the Leader of the government caucus as it then was, a Conservative Government Caucus, in respect to presentations of briefs in respect to Family Law. That was acceded to by the opposition, a New Democratic Party Opposition at that time.

There were 23 people who were on a list to speak. Out of concern to have given all of those people an opportunity to speak, there were time limitations set. That's all we are suggesting now. You know, when I look at the list and I see the name, Mr. Sidney Green, Manitoba Progressive Party, I'm sure that I could very gracefully listen to Mr. Green for much longer than 40 minutes and not feel that the time of the committee was ::Jeing abused. So I have some sympathy for the position that th11 honourable member takes that, well, maybe later on in the sittings we could look at the time limitations again.

But that's not fair to the people who have to wait, and wait an inordinate length of time, and then find out of frustration that they can wait no long er. They have a job ; they have duties elsewhere; they have other priorities. They have to leave. That is why the suggestion is made; I think it's a reasonable suggestion. There is no attempt to foreclose the opportunity for people to speak, rather that more can be heard by the committee because surely a person that's making a presentation can get the essence of their views made known, as members have to in the House, in 40 minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. HON.

A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, because I think Mr. Mackling has made the major points that hearings have been limited in the past, that we want to hear from the public and we want to hear from all of those who want to present briefs and to not place limits in the initial stages and consider them later would be unfair. I recall in the House that the Member for Pembina, Mr. Orchard, did allude to the fact that particularly at the Brandon hearings last Se ptember many people left out of frustration because of the lengthy period of time. MR. D. ORCHARD: I never made that reference. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, Mr.· Orchard said it wasn't he, someone on the opposition side. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, get it right. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, my apologies to Mr. Orchard. lt has been suggested by members in the opposition that many people left the Brandon hearings because the question and ans wer of several individuals 1325

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 at those hearings went on for two or three hours and that prevented a lot of people from being heard in the two days the committee was sitting in Bran don . lt turned out the committee finished its hearings in Brandon, the second evening, before the time allotted because other people had gone home. We want to hear the people of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman. We want to ensure that they're all heard in an orderly fashion and that we do not, at the beginning, take up three or four hours with some people and prevent others from being heard.

That's the reason for the proposal and I support it because under those grounds I think it's eminently reasonable and fair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Filmon. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Frankly I'm amazed that the government representatives on the committee are proposing to limit the length of presentations before the committee, and using as a rationale the fact that more can be heard, that everyone will be heard. Under questioning in the House, as recently as yesterd ay, their Lead er, the Premi er, assured Manitobans that everyone who wanted to be, would be heard.

Now it's being suggested to us that some would not be heard because we are going to let the presentations go beyond 40 minutes. I don't accept that at all, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to hear anyone who wants to be heard and we ought to not place limits on the knowledge that by experience there are not going to be many people who go beyond the 40 minutes. The Minister of Natural Resources indicated that even in the Legislature the leaders have unlimited time so there are occasions in which people go beyond the normal 40 minutes.

I would suggest that the same thing happens before committees where 19 out of 20 people will not go beyond the 40-minute limit, and those who do go beyond the 40-minute limit will have valuable contributions to make. They will have researched, they will have a great deal of experience and knowledge to bring to this topic and that's why they will go beyond 40 minutes and those, above all, are the people who should not be limited. So, I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that this committee ought to think and think very seriously before it imposes any such limits on the lengths of presentation; that the purpose of our committee is to give Manitobans an oppor tunity to be heard. We are unique in the parliamentary system of the world that we allow for public representations before bills are finally approved in the House and we should not place limits on that very very valuable democratic service that we pro vide, that commitment that we have to dem ocracy to allow people's views to be heard. I say, Mr.

Chairman, that the government has shown contempt for the opposition by the imposition of closure in arriving at this point. The government has shown contempt for the institution of Parliament in imposing closure on second reading to get us to this point. Su rely, they can show some courtesy and consideration and bend over backwards to ensure that the people of Manitoba will be heard and will be heard fully. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. The Rules of the Committee and of the Legislature state that there can be no participation in debate or signs of approval or disapproval from members of the audience.

I would therefore ask you not to show any signs of approval or disapproval, whether it be by clapping, speaking, cheering or whatever. Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be brief, but I want to suggest to the committee that there's a fundamental repugnance, Sir, to the suggestion that presenters and delegations be limited in the time available to them to make their presentations, but that aspect of the suggestion by the Minister of Natural Resources has already been, I think, effectively dealt with by my Leader and my House Leader, and I just want to make the point I think there's a fundamental unfairness about any suggestion that includes a finite limitation on the time for questions, and that, of course, was part of the Minister of Natural Resource's original suggestion.

If you place a limitation on the time permitted for questions, whether in an all inclusiv e way within a specific overall time limit such as he has suggested or indi viduall y, just as a question period component, who then gets the opportunity to ask the questions? How do you limit members of this committee, the members indeed of this Legislature, in terms of their opportunity to ask questions? Are we going to limit each member of the Legislature to one question or half a question, so that it fits a certain time frame? it's fundamentally unfair, Sir, and I think has to be rejected out of hand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Mackling. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all 1 want to respond to the intemperate statement of the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that time limitation in accordance with the rules of the House, adopted by the House, those reasonable guidelines to be followed by this committee are abusiv e or obstructive. When we look at obstruction and contempt for rules, this committee could have been dealing with this bill one week ago, if it weren't for the obstruction of the Leader of the Opposition in guiding his caucus to walk out of the House and let the bells ring for four days.

Now that is obstruction. Mr. Chairman, that is obstruction of the use of the House, the time of the House that members could not have been here hearing citizens about this bill, and in order to get this bill before the citizens, so citizens could make their views known to the bill, we had to use closure so that people could be here and tell us their views on the bill. That, Mr. Chairman, is the fact. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is in response to that misleading statement by the Leader of the Opposition and that is truth. Now, Mr. Chairman, in respect to the concerns of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry.

He has a point that, you know, how are we going to deal with the questions? Well, surely those presenters can, in all probabil ity, pro vide that their presentation lasts about 30-35 minutes, allowing for some time. If they need more time, surely this is the guideline, this is rule we adopt, but we can agree - if there is some concerns that we want to hear - we can agree to extend the time. But this is a rule or guideline that I think is 1326

Friday, 27 Januar y, 1984 reasonable, so that everyone will have an opportunity to speak, so that we won't have people waiting for four or fiv e or six hours there and then feel they can't speak, they' v e got to go home. Mr. Chairman, this is not to frustrate debate, but to ensure that people get a fair opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would like to remind the aud ience once more that expressions, whether verbal or physical, of approval or disappro val are not allowed in committee or in the Legislature. Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, let me say in a kindly and a temperate way that I think we'v e got an agreement here. it's hard to come to any agreement with members opposite, but I think we've got one. You, Mr . Minister, just said a moment ago that we can agree to extend. I said in my initial comments that we could perhaps agree to limit if the committee felt that was the need and that was the wish on a particular presentation. So then what is the argument about? You say we can agree to extend; we are saying we can agree to limit.

You said we'll let the presentation be the judge of when that limitation or that extension should take place. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to this government. For goodness sakes, just once get your heavy hands off this subject, and let it just flow easily and naturally without getting us all excited about it! MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, since the Minister of Natural Resources is so concerned about the truth, his proposal is not simply to limit the time of a person's presentation, but also to limit the time in which this committee can ask legitimate questions of people who have spent a lot of time and effort researching Bill 11 5. I might add, Mr. Chairman, when this bill has only been before the people of Manitoba for three weeks, hardly ample opportunity for anyone, including MLA's, to become fully familiar with this bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Natural Resources ind icated that we had placed limits on briefs before.

He is partially correct but not totally correct. There have been limits established in other committees where the presentations are limited to 30 or 40 minutes, but there has never been a limitation of both questions and presentations by any committee that I have been part of in this House. To say that is what has happened in the past is not being truthful with this committee or the people of Manitoba. If there is any limitation, it should be only to the presentation.

Questions should flow naturally from the brief and to and from the committee to the individual who presents that brief, and no limit should be placed on the ability of this committee to question the point of view brought to this committee by people of Manitoba. This is to hear the people of Manitoba on this subject, not to conform to a very tight, narrow and - I will not use the next term.

But as this committee is not designed to set the timetable of this government, who promised the constitutional resolution would be in Ottawa this afternoon, no Manitoban is going to be dictated to by the New Democratic Government in terms of how much time they should take to answer questions on this very important matter that has only been before the people of Manitoba for less than three weeks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harapiak. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, in order to hear the people who want to make presentat ions to this committee, I would move that the question be put. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The motion before this committee is that for the purposes of facilitating the work of this committee and ensuring that those wishing to present briefs may do so during a reasonable period of time, this committee sets 40 minutes as a maximum time for the presentation of briefs, inclusiv e of any questions thereon. All those in favour, please say aye. All those opposed, say nay. In my opinion, the ayes have it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order please. MR. D. ORCHARD: They are fools. A MEMBER: You'll rue the day that you stopped the people from talking.

You'll rue the day. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order please. Mr. Lyon, please. HON. A. MACKLING: Your face is just as red as their necks are - some of them. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. S. LYON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. HON. S. LYON: On a point of order , Mr. Chairman. You will hear a point of order when it is raised. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ord er please, order please. Mr. Lyon, order please. HON. S. LYON: On a point of order , Mr. Chairman. When the Minister of Natural Resources ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, order , order please. Mr.

Lyon, you have not been recognized. HON. S. LYON: . . . said that my face was red as the necks of the people here, he has offended the people of Manitoba, the people in this room, and I ask him to apologize or get out of the . MR. D. ORCHARD: Apologize. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I once again would like to remind the audience that I must insist that there 1327

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 be no interference from the audience in the debate of this committee, there will be no expressions of approval or disapproval. If I am given no choice, I will have to ask the Sergeant at-Arms to clear the hall. HON. S. LYON: You Marxists would do it too, wouldn't you? Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order and I want it dealt with. I have raised a point of order , Sir, and I want it dealt with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ly on, on a point of order . HON. S. LYON: Is this going to become some kind of a Star Chamber of the NDP or what? MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to respond to the point of order?

Mr. Lyon, speak. HON. S. LYON: My point of ord er, Sir, was that the Minister of Natural Resources said that the people in this room were a bunch of rednecks. I think he owes the people in this room and the people of Manitoba an apolo gy. HON. A. MACKLING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You know, I regret that I rise sometimes to the abusiv e language of the former Leader of the Opposition, who has used some terrible demagogu ery, some terrible words in the House and outside the House. He did that off the record today . . . HON. S. LYON: Just apologize. HON. A.

MACKLING: . . . and I rose to his bait and I apologize for doing it. I apologized for rising to his bait. HON. S. LYON: Apologize to the people. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the member in question apologize to the citizens of Manitoba who are here. MR. CHAIRMAN: it has been decided by the committee that there will be 40-minute limits on presentation inclusive of question periods. The general purpose of this meeting is, of course, I'm sure you are all aware SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Order please. Order please. The purpose of this committee hearing is to hear representations from the public on the specific clauses relating to Bill 11 5. Copies of this bill are available from the Clerk if anyone wishes to peruse the bill in detail. I am also informed that some members of the public would like to make presentations in French. Units for the translation into either language are available behind the translation booth. If members wish to come up and sign them out, they may do so and I will wait a few minutes until that is done.

The first person on my list of people wishing to make presentations is Mr. Sidney Green of the Manitoba Progres siv e Party. Mr. Green. MR. S. GREEN: Monsieur le President, je ne comprends pas bien la regie. Donnant le fait que je suis un chef de parti, est-ce que j'ai le temps de parler plus que quarante minutes? MR. CHAIRMAN: Excus e me. I didn't have my translation machine on in time for the question. MR. S. GREEN: I'l l repeat it in English to those people who are not bilingual.

Given the fact that I am a member, a leader of a political party in the Pro vince of Manitoba, am I entitled to speak for more than 40 minutes? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green is being facetious. Mr. Green is fully aware that the rules with regard to leaders of parties under Rule 34 in our House apply to parties recognized in the Legislature. Those parties are parties with four or more members in the House and fortunately or unfortunately, Mr. Green does not have four seats in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question, Mr. Green? MR. S.

GREEN: Yes, it does answer my question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. S. GREEN: I indicate to the Chair that I was not being facetious. I heard it said that a leader of a party has more than 40 minutes. This I know. That was not said. We're now in committee. The people who are speaking now are members of the public and therefore I wanted to know whether that applied to members of the public, and yo u' v e answered that it doesn't, and I will therefore try to make my remarks within the time which is allotted and any extension which committee seeks to give if I take forty minutes. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I will be generous and start counting from now rather than from the beginning. MR. S. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that indulgence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Has your microphone not been connected up? Mr. Green, is yours connected. - (Inter jection) - Who can't be heard? Is it Mr. Green? MR. S. GREEN: Is it on now? 1328

Friday, 27 January, 1984 Mr. Chairman, I appear here on behalf of the Manitoba Progres sive Party. - (Interjection) - I woul d ask that the volume be put up. Can you hear me now? Okay, I will try to speak at that pitch. Usually it comes up halfway through the speech, I'l l start at the beginning. Mr. Chairman, I appear here as a citizen of the Pro vince of Manitoba whose maternal language is neither Engl ish nor French. I gre w up in this pro vince and went to school and when I attended school, I was taught the Engl ish language. That is the onl y basis upon which Eng lish is my official languge.

Had I been taught French when I walked into the same schoolroom, I would be speaking the French language and that would be my official language. Throughout my career in pol itics, I don't think that it can be questioned that it was my view that one of the most valuab l e features of our Canadian society was the fact that we were not founded on any one ethnic or cu ltural basis and that was an accident; it wasn't something that we were clever about. lt just happened to us.

This was a valuab l e feature of our society and throughout the years that I was in politics, activ e politics in the Legislature, the citizens of Manitoba in a healthy atmosphere and with great good will, extended the use of the French language in the Pro vince of Manitoba in a far more important way than is suggested by this bill on several occasions. The most important extension, Mr.

Chairman, was the right given to any citizen of the Province of Manitoba to have his language of instruction in the educational system in either French or in Eng lish, and that is a clause which did not pro voke ye lls of rednecks, did not call on a great offence by the opposition, didn' t result in hostility in this pro vince. lt's still a law in this province and is one which, if this constitutional package goes through, will be entrenched, something that was ne ver intended, never desired and not really needed. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Sp eaker, resulting in a negativ e situation rather than in a positiv e one. We now have a situation in the Pro vince of Manitoba which is the greatest tragedy that this pro vince has experienced in al l of my adu l t life. lt is a greater tragedy than CFI. lt is a greater tragedy than any of the economic misfortunes that were experienced under the MDC. lt's a greater tragedy than the Conservatives tried to make out the Hydro Pro ject was. lt is a tragedy, Mr. Sp eaker, of proportions which cannot be exaggerated and the extent to which it will hurt our pro vince in the future cannot be minimized.

And that is that we have a po pu lation, Mr. Speaker, div ide d into so-call ed Francophones and Ang lophones and the suggestion that these two groups are hostil e to one another. Mr. Chairman, I am for the extended use of the French language in the Pro vince of Manitoba. I am not with those, who I respect and whose ideas I accept, although don't agree with - I accept them as being ideas of decent peop le, thinking peopl e. I don't agree that Manitoba shoul d be an Eng lish pro vince.

I believe that we shoul d be a pro vince which reflects our Canadian character and that the use of the French language shoul d be encouraged. I say, Mr. Chairman, and I charge this government with having set back bilingualism in the Pro vince of Manitoba by at least 100 years. The last time I appeared before a committee it was 50 years, now it's 100 years, Mr. Chairman, now it's a hundred years. They, Mr. Chairman, are the ones who have done it. 1329 Little did I know, Mr.

Chairman, when I pleaded and worked for the right for peopl e to have an education in the French language, little did I realize that there was a group out there who didn't want French to be the official language of the Province of Manitoba- that's not what they want. They want a preferred position for a French ethnic background group in this pro vince. I speak the Eng lish language. I am accepted as an Ang lophone. I speak the French lan guage, not quite as well but on the same basis, but no one within the So ciete Franco -Ma nitobaine will accept me as a Francophone, because it's they, Mr.

Chairman, and this go vernment and the Federa l Government who have conspired not to make French an official language in this pro vince, but have conspired to pro vide a special ethnic status for certain peopl e within the Province of Manitoba. Little did I realize that the Metis schools that giv e language of instruction in French would mean that the peopl e running those school s said we don't want students who are other than of French origin. They don't use that term. They say other than peopl e who al ready speak French, which means the same thing. Littl e did I rea lize, Mr.

Chairman, that there would be within our society an enclav'!!, a setup of a group who is supposed to own and be ab l e to bargain with the French language. La So ciete Franco-Manitobaine is represented as being the owner and proprietor of what you can do with the French language in the Pro vince of Manitoba. Is there some Eng lish group that you bargain with on the Eng lish language? Who represents the Eng lish speaking peopl e in this pro vince?

Is it some Ang lo Sa xon group that can trace their origin to the British Isles, as having al ways spoken Eng lish, or is it - as t his government is doing - ethnic French and everybody else? Because, Mr. Chairman, that is not making French an official language in this pro vince. That's taking our so-called cultural mosaic, taking out one of the tiles and putting it in a separate place and saying that tile has got its own status apart from the citizens of the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Chairman, when I heard that this bill was being enacted in order to have a statute, rather than a constitutional change with regard to the pro vision of French services, I said to mysel f, although I think it's unnecessary and although I don't rea lly like statutes, I can't rea lly oppose that. Then I looked at the bill, Mr.

Chairman, and I say that nobody in his right mind , who wants bilingualism in this pro vince, who wants to maintain the kind of harmony that existed in this pro vince before it was undone by this government to support this bill, because this bill is not a mere statute for the purpose of pro viding a service in the French language. When the Minister says - and he won't let me talk about it yet, but I will because it will be re levant - this bill says that it's

an Act respecting the operation of Se ction 23 in The Manitoba Act. Mr. Chairman, that is an outright lie. This bi ll doesn't refer to The Manitoba Act, unl ess what you are doing is saying that The Manitoba Act now pro vides for these services, which is what they' ve been saying al l along and are now putting them into a statute. So you are saying this bill merely pro vides for what's al ready in 23. If it al ready provides for what's in 23,

Friday, 27 January, 1984 you don't need it. If it doesn't pro vide for what's in 23, this is a lie and, Mr . Chairman, 23 has already been interpreted by the Court of Appeal, it has never been interpreted as pro viding these services- I'm not going to say it's been int erpreted as not pro viding them because that's not correct - but this name is an affront to the Court of Appeal. This name is an affront to the Su preme Court of Canada. This is a legislative attempt to retroactively say what 23 did and, Mr. Chairman, I've been in the courts a lot and a long time, and 1 think that members will recognize that.

I have never seen a statute- and you can correct me if I'm wrong - which attempts to interpret a constitutional pro vision, but that's what this is,

An Act Respecting the Operation of Se ction 23. Does this now mean , Mr. Chairman , that the courts will have to interpret this act as if 23 already contained these pro visions, and if it doesn't, the act is null and void? That is this act, the one that I'm speaking to you on, is null and void because 23 doesn't pro vide for these things. Or is a court going to say that this is a pro vision which intends to gi ve a leg islati ve

interpretation to 23 , and , if so, have we changed the meaning of 23? The reason I can't and no lawyer will answer that question, Mr. Chairman , is that it's unprecedented. This act can't be referred to as a dog's breakfast. This act is a laughing hyena's din ner, that's what it is. lt can't be referred to - nobody can tell you what the effect of this act will be. What I can tell you is that this act and 23 as they now stand - and that's what I'm apparently sup posed to speak to - means that everything in 11 5 is entrenched , everything in 11 5 is entrenched.

You're in a hurry to get this act passed , you'r e not going to let us speak very long on it. If you have your way, this act will be passed within the next two weeks, three week , four weeks. I don't know when, but your idea is that it will be passed wthin the next four weeks. Under 23 which yo u've amended , it says, "As Englis h and French are the official langua ges of Manitoba, the freedom to use either official language en joyed under the law of Manitoba enforced at the time this

section comes into force shall no t be extingu ished or restricted." If this act is passed within four weeks , the constitutional amendment can't be passed until at least the spring and not by then. Every thing that's in here becomes entrenched in 23 and no lawyer will tell you differently, and my remarks are going in Hansard. No lawyer will tell you differently and I already understand that the government has had to backtrack again and say that they will make sure that this is not entrenched by the constitutional amendment, although they didn't say that when they introduced it. Therefore when I said, Mr.

Chairman , I challenge the Minister to produce a lawyer who says that this new proposal 23 will not entrench far more than was entrenched in the previous proposal , he can't find one, because this

section entrenches every thing and rather than this being a watered-down version, it's a beefed-up version and the government is going to have to change it in order to come to their own position, what the Minister said, this is declara tory and symbolic. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me ad vise the Minister without any hesitation that no lawyer - and you get it in writing if he's going to say otherwise - will tell you that if this goes to court, the court will interpret it and I'm talking now about 23, which I can incorporate with this bill.

No lawyer will tell you that a court is going to say that this act is symbolic and declaratory and doesn't do anything, And they will say, if the Legislature didn't want to do anyth ing , they shouldn' t have passed anything. Becaus e you 've heard , Mr. Chairm an , that the Legislature can do miracles, that they can turn a man into a woman, by law they can. I'll tell you something, the Legislature can do even bigger miracles, they can attribute intelligenc e to the maj ority party in this Legislature. That's what they can do and they will. They will attribute intelligence to this Legislature.

They will say, there must have been something, even though it app ears that the Minister said it's symbolic and declaratory and the general law, although it's changing in the United States, is that they can't hear what the Minister said when he introduced the bill. lt may be admissible now, but it doesn't carry any weight if they attribute intelligence to that Legislature and the way the things are now, it is there. Now, Mr. Chairma n, I had high hopes for the enhancement of the use of more than one langua ge in this pro vince and particularly the French language and the English language.

I worked very hard in that respect, and I say that those hopes were based on the fact and can still be based on the fact that the people of the Pro vince of Manitoba wanted to improv e their lot by the ad vent of this new dimension and where there is a will, Mr. Sp eaker, you do not need a legislation. Where there is no will, the legislation won't do you a bit of good. There was no will in 18 90 and the existence of the legislation did not do a bit of good.

As I ind icated to many trade unions that I represented who were applying for certification , if you have the strength of the employees the certificate is unnecessary, if you don't have the strength of the emplo yees , the certificate will not do you any good. So what you are looking for is the good will of the Pro vince of Manitoba, not legislation. What you've got is a creation by this government and it didn't exist prior to two years ago - bad will on the part of the Province of Manitoba towards this end. I say, Mr.

Sp eaker, that is a bigger tragedy created by this government than any previous tragedy, economic, social or otherwise, that I can remember having experienced in the Province of Manitoba and they continue with it. They continue with it, Mr. Sp eaker, and we get a call from the Minister of the Crown, in public, and somebody says so mething, he says, "You're as silly as their necks are red. " He can apologize, Mr. Sp eaker, but there it is. There it is. it's like somebody saying to me you'r e a dirty Jew and then saying I'm sorry I told you that I thought you were a dirty Jew.

The necks are still red in the eyes of the Attorney-General, Mr. Sp eaker, and we know it. We know the hostility that's been created in this pro vince and it's the government who has attempted to capitalize on that hostility. We now have the Premier looking for sympathy by talking about phone calls that he received. Do you know that these phone calls are received everywhere right across this country and they're kept quiet because they just inspire more phone calls and you stoop to the 1330

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 lo west depths when you start seeking public sympathy by talking about phone calls that you recei ve. Shall I tell you the calls that I have recei ved? Shall I tell you because my name appears as being opposed to this program, although not being opposed to the use of the French language? Is that the way I will attract sympathy to myself and talk about the racism in those calls. The big objection to this bill, Mr. Sp eaker, other than the fact that there are many parts of it which I'd like to deal with you if I had more time, to show you how silly it is legally .

The big objection to this bill is that rather than permitting the province to ad vance as they were ad vancing in a healthy manner with good will, nothing but good will recognized, that this bill arises in the following way, that there is a conspiracy between the Pro vince of Manitoba, La Soc iete Franco Manitobaine and the Federal Government based on the fact that La So ciete Franco-Manitobaine says that it has the power to invalidate all the laws in the Province of Manitoba and that it will do it unless the Pro vince of Manitvba recognizes certain Francophone rights, and that's what they called them, not rights of people who speak the French language, but Francophone rights as distinct from Anglophone rights, that they will invalidate all of the laws of the Pro vince of Manitoba.

I sa y, Mr. Sp eaker, that condemns the bill to start with. that nothing in this bill requires legislation in terms of extending the use of the French language.

Most of the kinds of things that were done - I won't refer to every office - have been done by simple governmental policy which has gone into effect and has happened, and the one part of the bill that can't be done without legislation is so useless that I'm surprised, except for the fact that La So ciete Franco-Manitobaine and the government are so much on the ropes that they want to pass anything to say they have passed something, but I'm surprise that anybody would go along with it. Look what it says, look at the remedy .

You can go to court if you feel you haven't got services under the act and then the remedy is, after hearing an application for a declaration under Se ction 28 .1, and such evidence as may be adduced, the court may declare that a right pro vided to the complainant by this Act has or has not been denied.

Listen, that's the limit of the court's jurisdiction, so if I, as a Francophone - and by the way you're going to find these things happening - I, as a French speaking person, go to the Labour Board representing a group of disaffected emplo yees - we'v e got some of our labour people around here - and I say, this application for certification cannot proceed parce que je demande que le proces soit en fran <;:ais.

Now they have to take the papers back, start sending out papers in French and in English and have the whole certification procedure thwarted by the fact that here is this gentlemen, who speaks French, he says, "je !'assure que le proces ici ... soit en fran9ais," and it stops the process. But if they don't do it, this is what's supposed to happen and I'll pro v e it to you. If they don't do it, I go to court. I go to court and I say, they didn' t do it in French. The court hears all the evidence and they say, yes, we declare that your right has been denied. Thank you very much. That's what the act pro vides.

Say no, that's what the act pro vides; that you will get a declaration that the 1331 right has been denied or that it has not been denied. That is the only feature of the bill that you need legislation for, because the rest of it, such as pro viding services in French, we don't need the legislation. You didn't need the legislation in 19 70 when Joe Borowski, who was the Minister in charge of the House, said that the sign on my door which said, "Ministre des Affaires et des Resources Nature! et de !' Environment, " Joe Borowski asked that be crossed out because it was in French.

The civil servants crossed it out, because they listened to what the Minister told them, but it was back on the wall next day and stayed there for eight years. That wasn't long enough, but it stayed there for eight years. No legislation was necessary. The people who attended at that office would be served in French if they wanted to be. That does not require legislation. What requires legislation is the position that La So ciete Franco-Manitobaine has the right to dictate the langua ge policy of the Pro vince of Manitoba. That requires legislation. Doe s anybody doubt that is the intention here? Mr.

Spe aker, if there was any doubt, it was dismissed last week when I recei ved a letter from Joseph Ellio tt Magnet, add ressed tc Messrs. Leo Robert, Remi Sm ith, Raymond Thi berge and Renald Guay, So ciete Franco Manitobaine; 25 pages, Mr. Sp eaker, and not a word in French, add ressed to those people, Leo Robert, Remi Sm ith, Raymond Thiberge, etc., in which he says that Se ction 23 now pro vides - listen to what 23 now pro vides for. Look at the court cases that are awaiting you, because this whole thing is done to avoid court cases . This is what Mr.

Magnet says is now available under 23: "Simultaneous translation in the Legislature and in all committees." We could always speak French in the Legislature. Those people who say we couldn't speak French in the Legislature are liars. I spoke French in the Legislature on numerous occasions, and it was translated into English. Those people who say that the people who are against this are ignorant and are bigots are liars. Two former presidents of the NDP, both of whom fluently bilingual, are against this legislation, Bill Hutton and myself. The president of the Progressiv e Party is by birth of French origin .

He is against this legislation. lt says that "English is for the Order Paper, for the Votes and Proceed ings, for Hansard ." After this is over, who says you won't get somebody asking for Hansard totally transcribed in French, and who says he won't go to court? Can La So ciete Franco-Manitobaine stop him from going to court? Could they stop Georges Forest from going to court? After all, when Georges Forest started in court, he did not have their support. I� was only when he started winning that he got their ScJpport. "The Sessional Papers have to be in French.

There has to be bilingual archiv es of the Legislature. There has to be French-speaking personnel in the court. The rules of practice in all the courts and all government tribunals, including the Labour Board and every other board, have to be in French." Then he said the SF M, "If the cour t were to enjoin ... "- if you didn' t have simultaneous translation - "If the court rules 23 is manda tory and requires translation on a timetable, the SFM is in position to enforce other aspects of 23 relating to Legislature and

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 quasi-judicial tribunals." Enforcement would be by an application for an injunction to restrain the legislator from operating with illegal documents. When you fellows do it by ringing the bells, which you could never ring on me - I'll tell you but on them you can ring them, but they're going to get an injunction against the Legislature from proceeding. This is the lawyer that you and I are paying hundr eds and thousands of dollars. As long as they're paying lawyers, I'll tell you, they'll find lawyers. This kind of thing is made for those lawyers.

Then he says, "If the court were to enjoin the Legislature from operating without a suspension of time, a constitutional amendment would be necessary ... "-another one. "The SFM would be in a strong position to dictate the terms of that amendment." That's the game that is being played. I'll tell you, if the SF M, which ultimately has to say, this is unreasonable; we won't do it, but when it's a constitutional amendment, you don't need the SF M.

All you need is one person who can get one lawyer and the lawyer, hoping that he'll be financed by the Federal Government, who has intervened in political affairs in this province to undermine the political process in this province by the donation of funds and the use of other materials, the kind of fascism in terms of using public funds, my money to support political opinions that I don't believe in which is being carried on and which will be furthered by the NDP when they start giving funds to political parties because they're broke.

"If the court rules that all laws which violate Se ction 23 are invalid, the problem can only be solved by constitutional amendment. If the Federal Government adheres to its promise ... "- here's the promise - " ... not to consent ... "- here's the Federal Government's promise. Listen to this! "If the Federal Government adheres to its promise not to consent to such an amendment without the agreement of the SF M, the SFM is in a position to dictate the terms of that amendmen t.'' Now, Mr.

Chairman, when we talk about opposing this process that we are involved in, is it really true that any tolerant, decent, intelligent person could approve of this? Will they stand up, will the CBC-niks of this world and the Frances Russell's of this world and the NDP of this world stand up and say, I agree that the SFM should be able to dictate the terms of the Canadian Constitution? Because that's what we are involved in. I say, Mr. Sp eaker, that nobody intended, and official bilingualism is not intended, to act as a particular, special privilege for an ethnic group.

Are the people who speak the English langua ge an ethnic group or are they Manitobans? Is there an ethnic group that has similar control over the use of the English language as the SFM has over the French language, because it's not my view, Mr. Sp eaker, that French should be a language of this province for the benefit of the Franco-Manitoban. Si nous avons besoin d'a voir une langue officielle plus que la langue anglaise, c'est pas pour le benefit des Franco-Manitobains. La langue franc;:aise comme la langue anglaise n'est la propriete d'un groupe. C'est la propriete de tout le monde.

And that is what is happening in this province and to the extent that it is not happening, Mr. Sp eaker, it is my view that it has to be totally opposed. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation is being enacted, not because it is necessary or desirable, but because the government and the SF M wish to avoid being made to appear the fools that they are and that they have to pass something because they have held themselves up as superior tolerant people by doing it and if they don't pass it, they become ordinary guys like the rest of us.

So they have to pass something and they decided on this bill, which my friend, the Minister, now says is symbolic and declaratory and doesn't do anything. Sy mbolic and declaratory does not do anything, does not enhance the use of the French language. Well, six weeks ago, many of us were saying that there shouldn't be any entrenchment to enhance the use of the French language in the Province of Manitoba. That should be done by the process of demo cracy, not by the process of a constitutional amendment. We were called bigots and ignoramuses.

Are the government sides now joining the bigots and ignoramuses, by saying we're not doing anything? Because if we're not doing any thing, what are we doing here? Merely stirring up the phone calls, the hate, the hostility, the screams of "red necks", the division of our population into Anglophone, which includes everybody who is not French regardless of the fact that I am Jewish, and there are Ukrainians, and I grew up with Pole s and Germans and we all consi dered ourselves Manitobans. I can say this to you, Mr.

Chairman, that if I ever again have an important role to play in politics in this province, one of the major things that I will do is stop talking about minor ity groups in the Provi nce of Manitoba. We are all part of Manitoba, one grand majority with people of different backgrounds but there is no status, in my view, for the Francophones or the Jews or the Indians or anybody else. We are all of equal status, equal Manitobans, not people part of ethnic minorities. I say that, Mr. Chairman, and I don't change my position, you can go back to 1966.

I say that the character of our country which is not based on a homogeneous group, which by accident of history, was founded officially - I'm talking legally because it'll go back before the founding of the country, there were people here before then but as a legal country we were founded by people of English background and French background and that has made us a better country in my view. I know that there are many people in this room who don't agree with that, who say that one language was better and I respect them, although I don't agree with them, I won't call them red necks.

They are less rednecks than the people who say we want schools with language of instruction in French but nobody else can go to those schools except people who already speak French, because they are French-speaking people et nous voulons preserver I' ambiance d'une ecole francophone. They are worse rednecks than anybody in this room. The legislation, as it now stands, does far more than that legislation than the previous legislation for entrenching legal rights, even without the accident of the dates, which I don't entirely accept as an accident, because we are dealing with devious people.

The legisla tion, as presen ted , had a bill and had a constitutional amendment. If the bill was passed before the constitutional amendment, everything in the bill was entrenched. it's there. You don't have to hire a lawyer 1332

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 to tell you that, although if you want to, to see if he'll contradict me, you go ahead and try - so that entr en ched every thing. No t only did it entrench everything here but it entrenched things that nobody dreamed of entrenching. Right now that bill will likely entrench The City of Winnipeg Act statute insofar as French is concerned, a statute by the way that I proposed but never as an entrenched position. The right of French and English vis-a-vis the 23 students at a school will be entrenched if you pass this constitutional amendment. That was never intended to be entrenched.

I think it's a great thing but you know I have a little difference with my honourable members. When I think something is good I'm willing to pass a law, but I don't think that I'm so goddamned smart that I can pass a law that not only I pass it but nobody else can undo it in the future - that's how smart you are - you guys are so smart that when you pass this law nobody can undo it and the entrenched provision. And 23, even if you don't, if you change those dates, I still say that there are things that you are doing with 23 that you do not know the effect of. Mr.

Magnet insists that 23 now requires the Labour Board to conduct its proceed ings in French. So he's wrong, let's say he's wrong. You know I prefer to say he's wrong than he's right, but it doesn't stop - if it's not going to be George Forest, it can be George Valley or George Mountain who can go to court and say I want this service in French and the Pro vincial Government will say, oh please don't. Please don't go to court. We'll sit down with you Mr. Mountain or Mr. Valley and we'll negotiate a settlement with this case. We'll have a constitutional amendment to prevent you from going to court.

This legislation is being established by dictate and by a federally financed intrusion into a provincial matter. Mr. Chairman, as long as there is someone who will pay the bills, there is room for all kinds of constitutional pushes. You've got one right here. Hansard is now printed in French and in English. When you speak English, it's printed in English; when you speak French, it's printed in French. I've always felt that complied with the legislation. Maybe my learned friend feels that it does too, but Mr. Mountain or Mr. Valley or Mr. Bush or Mr.

Tree can come along and say no, we want a copy of Hansard and it has to have everything in French and in English, otherwise I can't be served in the French language. Can you tell me now he won't be right? You can't tell me he won't be right. You can't tell me that your case will settle that issue, that when you deal with La Societe franco-manitobaine and the Federal Government, you have now got a deal.

You have no deal because another person can come along unless which, by the way, I wouldn't put it past them - I wouldn't put it past the Federal Government and the province to ag ree to a constitutional amendment that the SFM, the So ciete franco man itobaine speaks for the French people in the Province of Manitoba. Well my learned friend is shaking his head. If you are shaking your head, why have you permitted them to do it thus far? - and don't tell me you have not permitted it because Mr. Pawley in his letter, when he said it on June 22nd, - well excuse me, the Federal Government says, according to Mr.

Magnet, the Federal Government adheres to its promise not to consent to such an amendment without the agreement of La Societe franco-manitobaine. They don't speak for me, Mr. Chairman. Am I entitled to the use of the official langua ge in this province, as a person who uses the official language, English or French, Canadian, not Manitoban because under Manitoba it's a little different. Am I entitled to be represented on those people who speak for the Francophones? Well I'm not, Mr. Chairman, but I wouldn't put it past him.

I wouldn't put it past him because the Provincial Government says that this deal comes as a result of that agreement. Mr. Pawley, in his letter of June 27th, he made it quite certain that he's not doing this because he wants to do it. it's not because he's tolerant as against others being bigoted; that he is intelligent as against others being ignorant; that's not what he said. He said: most importantly all our laws which were passed in one language only will now be valid and we will not be faced with the possibility of legal chaos. So he was running away from the SFM.

My friend, the Minister, I heard him in the House say that there is no way of validating Manitoba's laws except by this legislation. You tell all these people that there are no laws in the Province of Manitoba, that we need this legislation to validate the laws. Those were his words, Mr. Chairman, they're in Hansard. I was here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Green, could you sum up your presentation? MR. S. GREEN: All right, I'll do that Mr. Chairman. The legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not aimed at making French an official language. There are people in the room, Mr.

Chairman, who are far more generous than you, and I know that I can't accede to it, but Mr. Mackling is worried about somebody else wishing to speak. I have a note here saying - ask if I can donate my 40 minutes to you. Mr. Chairman, unlike my friends who say that they're not out for votes, I've always been out for votes. The way he can do it is vote from me - that's right. Then I'l l have an opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: I would have made this appeal if Mr. Green would have been fifth or sixth on the list.

I make this appeal for the suggestion that we made when we reluctantly were voted down with respect to time limitation but I certainly did get the feeling from the Minister of Natural Resources that if the presentation was of such calibre, or presented itself to the committee, that the committee felt that an extension of time be allowed and that would be considered. I'm asking for that consideration to be made in this instance. Mr.

Chairman, I particularly ask it because this bill that's been before us, a bill that has been a relatively new piece of legislation in its form, a bill that the opposition has had some difficulty in getting appropriate constitutional legal assistance with because in many cases constitutional lawyers that we have available to us in our province, are either working for the government, or working for other organizations like the MGEA, and we've had some difficulty in getting the necessary legal research required on this bill. 1333 Mr.

Green specifically referred that he would be prepared to go through some further sections, some

Friday, 27 January, 1984 futher details of the bill that would be of interest to all of us, Mr. Chairman. I say this, and I also would give you my commitment that I would not be raising this necessarily with every presentation, but 1 think the presenter makes a case for extended time, and I think the support of the listening audience also makes that case and I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, for some fairness and some understand ing in this matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackling to the same point. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that in all probability if Mr.

Green were given about another five minutes that should do it. While I have the mike I would like to formally apologize to Mr. Green, or anyone else, for the intemperance of my remark because I wasn't cited by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition who's done that before. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed then that Mr. Green will have an extra five minutes? Mr. Doern to the same point of order . MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that it would be in order for somebody to make a motion. 1 bel ieve that Mr.

Green is making a superb presentation, one that's of interest not only to the opposition but to the government, and to the public, and that some member of the committee would be in order to propose an extension of an additional 40 minu tes for both pres entation purp oses and for questions. There are some people around this table I'm sure, who would like to challenge Mr. Green, or question Mr. Green, and I think it would be in order to make a motion. Five minutes is hardly adequate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on the point of order? No further discussion? Does the member have leave to proceed?

Mr. Mackling. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . Mr. Chairman . . .. MR. S. GREEN: . . . there are other people who have contributions to make and . . . I do think that there are some remarks that are very important to be made. One from the bill, and one from Mr. Magnet's letter because Mr. Mackling - I sympathize and I tell him it's not easy for me to sympathize with him but I really do now. What has happened from him is a small portion of what's taking place in this province. We're getting people making that kind of involuntary remark that never would have made it two years ago.

Don't you un derstand that you 've done that? Don't you understand it? it didn't exist. You've done it, yes. You've created racism in the Province of Manitoba. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and if you don't under stand it- Mr. Chairman, the SFM building was burned down. That's the next remark that comes out. The SFM building was burned down. Mr. Chairman, does that now make it appear that there's any less racism in the Province of Manitoba? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Harapiak on a point or order . MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, we gave Mr. Green some additional time.

He was going to bring us some legal points pertaining to the bill. This time is passing on and I'm hearing no further information which is going to help us make many decisions. MR. S. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for ln kster was the one who interrupted my comment. Mr. Chairman, there were two areas I wanted to deal with. One with Mr. Magnet's remarks which I say, I want you to know what the Federal Goverment is financing because they are paying for this. It'll just take me a minute to find it. Mr. Chairman, is the lawyer paid for by the Federal Government advising on law, Page 13.

In the past six months the Provincial Conservatives profited greatly by provoking animosity against the Franco-Manitoban community. The Federal Government is paying for that. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that? The Federal Government should be paying for that because some day they'll finance people to say that the NDP is an organization which has to be destroyed if you permit them to finance this type of thing. That's what they're finding. Political parties do not profitable issues.

The SFM may expect recurring pressure from Conser vative politicians or a future Conser vative Government to dilu te services provided by the act. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not a Conservative politician and I want political support for my party, and I'm doing it not because I wish to create racial animosity but to stop the racial animosity that has been created by this government. That's why I'm doing it and I want the Federal Government to supply me with equal funds to print this kind of tripe because that's democracy as opposed to fascism, and what we're getting is fascism. As far as the bill is concerned, Mr.

Speaker, and I'll be a couple of minutes, it says here - and I'll ask you to take it to your lawyers to see if I'm wrong - that you are entitled to: Clause 16 , "Every person has the right to communicate in English or French with and to receive available service in English or French from the principal admin istrative office of any department, the principal admin istrative office of any Manitoba court, agency of the government." And then 18 , "In addition to the rights under Sections 16 & 17, every person has the right to communicate in English or French with and to receive available services in English and French from any office or institution where (

a) a language services area. So you can get services in English or French in a langage services area. Am I right? Look at 18 - the Minister of Resources is a lawyer - look at 18 , you can get it in a language services area, English or French, right?

Go to Language Services Area and it says, and there's a definition, "language services area means a mun icipality in which the English lang uage is the langua ge first learned in childhood and still under stood by at least 800 residents" - let's assume you can ascertain all these things - "or at least 8 percent of the residents or the French language is the language first learned in childhood and still under stood ." So a language services area is an area where the English language is used or the French language is used and you can get French or English in either of 1334

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 these two areas. Well those are areas are the entire Province of Manitoba except, to my knowledge - and I don't say this derogatorily at all - Pine River where the language of the street as I und erstood it to be, was Ukrainian. But otherwise if you can get it in a language services area - and language services area includes where English is spoken and where French is spoken - you can get it everywhere. The dr after is shaking his head but that's what the bill said. Well then let your lawyer tell you that you don't have to amend this.

Let your lawyer tell you that you don't have to amend it, Mr. Chairman, because that's what it says. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Green. Your time extension has expired. MR. S. GREEN: Just one more minute. This one is important, Mr. Chairman, one more minute. 8(4), and it says: "At any time the Legislature is not in Session the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may suspend the ombudsman for disability, neglect of duty, or misconduct proved to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council ... "In this one, they can suspend the Ombudsman. They can't do it when the Session is sitting.

". . but the suspension shall not continue in force beyond the end of the next ensuing Session of the Legislature." Mr. Chairman, that may never come, ". . . the end of the next ensuing Session." When will this one end? it's been over a year. So I say, Mr. Chairman, and there are other features of it which I would be happy to deal with, but I know I would be trespassing on my time. I'm asking, Mr.

Chairman, as a believer in bilingualism that this bill be rejected by the Legislature, as well as the constitutional amendment, and get back to the situation where the people of Manitoba with good will were extending the use of both the English and the French languages in this province. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Green. Order please, order please. Mr. Harapiak on a point of order . MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green referred to the Attorney-General as having made some remarks about the people who are making presentations here.

I would like to put it on the record that the Attorney General is not present, and did not make any remarks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orchard, to the same point. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman ... MR. S. GREEN: I was living in the past, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Mackling and I were colleagues and he was the Attorney-General. lt was a long time ago. I regret the mistake, and I'm glad it's corrected, because it should be known who said it, the Minister of Mines. The Attorney-General has said other silly things. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, on a point of order . MR. H.

ENNS: You want to raise another point of order , Harry? 1335 MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether there are going to be questions permitted of Mr. Green, or whether the extension that was referred to by the Minister of Mines means that if there is a speaker of some note and interest that they may be given a five-minute extension. Is that the extent of the Minister of Mines' suggestion, that you're going to get 40 minutes and, if you're lucky, you might get another five? Can he clarify that for us? MR.

CHAIRMAN: My understanding of the resolution which was passed, and it says, "The committee set 40 minutes as the maximum time for presentation of briefs, inclusive of any questions !here on." The five-minute extension which was granted to Mr. Green was out of deference to his desire to offer a few more specific points related directly to the bill. MR. R. DOERN: On a point of order then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, to the same point. MR. R. DOERN: I would then suggest, since I'm not an official member of the com mittee, that some committee member propose a further extension so that questions may be asked of Mr.

Green. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harapiak. MR. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we move on to the next presenter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The next person on my list is Mary Abrams. Is Miss Mary Abrams present? The next person on my list is Mrs. Jean Hiebert. Is Mrs. Jean Hiebert present. Mr. Gary Doer. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns on a point of order . MR. H. ENNS: A point of order, as far as Mr. Doer's presentation, can we establish, Mr.

Chairman, that those names that are called and who, for one reason or another, might not at that particular moment be in the room be nonetheless granted an opportunity to be called as is custom at the end of the listings of presentations to be made? MR. CHAIRMAN: it is my understanding that the practice is that people who have not been present when called be retained at the bottom of the list. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gary Doer. MR. G. DOER: Mr. Chairman, there are copies of the brief that will be presented to the committee.

I will start read ing the brief, and it will be handed out. it's in three sections. One is the brief itself dealing with 11 5. The second

section is some logistical appendices we've attached to our brief. Part Three is, of course, the brief we presented to the hearings in September.

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 The MGEA appreciates the opportunity to present this submission on Bill 11 5,

An Act Respecting the Operation of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, to the Law Amendments Committee. Throughout the current debate on langua ge services, the position of the MGEA has been one of consistent support for the concept of a limited, precise and practical provision of French langua ge services in go vernment. The MGEA's approach has been to offer constructive comments on the government's proposals in furtherance of this concept.

The Manitoba Government Emplo yees' Association's comments on Bill 11 5 are offered in the same spirit, and are based on its desire to have the provision of language services in certain government institutions implemented in a realistic and workable manner.

We believe the government's decision to deal with the provision of French langua ge services by means of provincial legislation rather than by means of constitutional entrenchment is the correct approach. lt has been our position from the outset that the Legislature should retain jurisdiction over such matters, as it will allow the Government of the Day to retain the necessary flexibility to make legitimate changes or amendments to addr ess the changing circumstances in society. While the MGEA under stands this committee is considering "An Act Respecting the Operation of

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act," it is important to recognize that the proposed constitutional amendment to

Section 23 may impact on the provisions of Bill 11 5. In terms of the proposed amendment to

Section 23, the MGEA supports the concept of a

preamble in 23.1 rather than a declaratory statement. We feel the concept of a

preamble is consistent with the government's intent on this matter. We further support the fact that the word "freedom" is used in

Section 23 rather than the word "right," which was proposed by the government in mid- December. However, the Manitoba Government Employees' Association submits that the wording in this

section could be improved by the government in a manner consistent with their stated intent, by the following: 23. 1 "Whereas" English and French are the official languages of Manitoba as provided for in

Section 23 and 23.2 to 23.9 inclusive, the freedom . . . and going on with the proposed wording of the government. To the extent that there must be an "exemption" for municipal ities, school di visions, and other local governmental authorities, the MGEA prefers the more positive January 5, 1984 wording rather than the December 15, 1983 wording, which I should say, Mr. Chairman, causes a great deal of concern.

Although there is a great deal of misunderstanding among many of our members with respect to the meaning and intent of the government's fourth and latest proposal on this whole issue, a large number of the MGEA's concerns relating not only to the wording used in the original May 17, 1983 proposal but also to later government proposals on expanded and entrenche d French language services have been satisfied in two ways; namely , (

a) by the decision to limit those provisions which ought to be entrenched in the Constitution; and (

b) by dealing with practical issues by provincial legislation. Moreover, ambiguous terminology such as "head or central office," "administrative body," and "significant 1336 demand' .' have been dele ted in accordanc e with MGEA's earlier comments. Bill 11 5 is more specific than its predecessor proposals. lt is the MGEA's intent in this submission to raise some questions for clarification, and to address some aspects of Bill 11 5 which are ambiguous and which may present problems in implementation.

This will be done by keeping in proper focus the MGEA's primary objective; namely , a reasonable, practical provision of langua ge services. This focus is consistent with the decision of our Annual Convention of October, 19 83, where delegates representing the membership at large directed that the MGEA attempt to negotiate wording with the government to minimize the risk of permanent damage to the merit principle in the Province of Manitoba. 11. SPECIFIC ISSUES

(1) DEFINITIONS -

Section I By and large, the

Definitions

section of Bill 11 5 is satisfactory as presently drafted. For example, the

definitions of "agency of the government," and "crown corporation" are similar to

definitions found in other provincial acts and, therefore, are terms of familiarity and greater precision. The

definitions of "institution" and "head of an institution" appear to be sufficiently clear. However, the MGEA's members have raised some questions with respect to the following

definitions: "Language Services Area" Our comments on this definition are largely in the form of questions which we would respectfully request the government answer dur ing the course of this committee's hearings. Prior to our listing our concerns, the MGEA would li ke to indi cate its sup port for incorporating in Bill 11 5 more precise criteria in the place instead of the ambiguous concept of "significant demand" that had been originally contemplated and to which the MGEA raised serious concerns.

Therefore, our questions seeking clarification ought not to be construed as opposition to the principle of defining precise geographical areas where services must be provided, based upon a well-defined and easily und erstood percentage. I, of course, list the

section of the bill that we are discussing. The MGEA questions on this definition are threefold: (

i) What was the reason for using the expressions "first learned in childhood" and "still understood" in the definition, and what criteria have been or will be established to give a precise statistical foundation to these concepts? We recognize that it is out of Stats Canada at present. In particular, what do es the expression "still unde rstood" mean? Does the government intend that these criteria differ from the concept of "mother tongue," the latter expression being the principle used in The Official Languages Act? (ii) Why are the figures "800 residents or 8 percent" used and how were they derived?

We pause to note that The Official Languages Act uses the figure of 10 percent in a "federal bilingual district." Our reference to the federal legislation is not to suggest that it ought, of necessity, be a reference point because the MGEA, and indeed the government in its pronouncements, have

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 stated that federal bilingualism "is not a desirable objective and ought to be avoided. Nevertheless, why is the figure "8 percent" used? (iii) Using the criteria in the definition and the answers to questions (

i) and (ii) above, how many language services areas are there and where are they located? Our research using Statistics Canada census data ind icates that there would be at least 25 municipalities, including local government districts, that would be designated as language service areas under the present definition. This is out of a total of approximately 12 2 municipalities in the entire province. Our investigation indicates several anomalies. For example, Stats Canada da ta ind icates that the municipalities of Lac du Bonnet, Piney, Cameron and Lawrence meet the criteria of 800 residents or 8 percent.

Yet these are not designated as language services areas on the map provided to us by the government. In addition, there are situations where the population within a language services area would receive services from a regional office located outside that area such as Dauphin, Beausejour and Steinbach. Would all such offices be required to provide services in both languages pursuant to

Section 18 of this Act? Does the fact that Somerset is located in the language services area mean, for example, that the Health Unit in Morden and the MP IC Office in Winkler have to have the capacity to provide services in both English and French? lt is the anomalies and practical applications such as these, which in our view require that the government proceed with extreme caution in this area. We submit that there must be a thorough review of the criteria for defining "language services areas" prior to passage of this legislation. For the interest of the committee we have attached an appendix in

Section 2 of this brief - a number of communities, 14 communities, which have 36 work locations in the Province of Manitoba that are by definition covered by the proposed act. We have included those work locations in the City of Winnipeg, St. Vital and St. Norbert area which are proposed to be covered in the act. We have a number of examples, not of which is exhaustive, dealing with communities that are in municipalities covered by the act but receive their services from regional offices. These issues concern us greatly in terms of the proposed criteria of the government.

"Municipality" The definition of "a lang uage services area" is dependent upon the term "municipality." However, the definition of "municipality" is inclusive only - i.e., includes a local government district. Would it not be useful to define this term with more precision? If the government is using or intends to use a definition of "municipality" which exists in other legislation, i.e., The Municipal Act, then the MGEA respectfully submits the definition ought to so indicate.

"Principal Administrative Office" The definition of this term is better and more precise than previous references to "head of central office. " The specific exclusion of regional offices from the definition is a very positive change from our point of view and meets the concerns the MGEA previously raised. However, our only question for clarification regarding this definition is to ask what office constitutes the 1337 "principal administrative office" of a department, as referred to in

Section 16 (

a) of Bill 11 5? The MGEA is proceeding on a realistic assumption that, as regards a department, the "principal admin istrative office" is the office of the Minister or the Deputy Minister located in the Legislative Buildings. If our assu mption is no t correct, then some clarification is required. In fact, a listing of government departments and the principal admin istrative office for each, including loca tion, would be useful to all concerned, including the public. The MGEA also believes that greater precision in the

definitions will make the task of the Language Services Ombudsman easier.

(2) Sections 2( 1) through 5(2) The Advisory Council The MGEA supports the creation of the Advisory Council and its intended role which is, as stated, advisory in nature.

(3) Ombudsman The concept of a Language Services Ombudsman is acceptable to the MGEA. The title of Ombudsman is preferable to that of Commissioner as the title "Ombudsman" implies neutrality and objectivity. The complaint process through an Ombudsman is a more practical way of dealing with problems than the direct court action previously proposed in May 17, 1983 agreement. While the process may be more acceptable to the public, the Ombudsman's power to dismiss frivolous complaints is supported by the MGEA.

The MGEA respectfully submits that the government must endeavour to ensure that the function of the Ombudsman is conciliatory in nature, and not that of a language "advocate." We see this as a major problem in the federal system. lt remains to be seen whether a person vested with the powers to investigate complaints, to initiate complaints, to mediate complaints and to adjudicate such matters GliiD effectively fill all these roles. The role of Ombudsman should therefore be monitored by all concerned, including the Advisory Council, as experience is gained through practical situations.

The MGEA questions the rationale behind

Section 13(2) regarding the potential exclusion of employees of the Ombudsman from the provisions of The Civil Service Act. The MGEA does not understand why this subsection was included. Is it designed to circumvent the provisions of The Civil Service Act pertaining to the selection based on merit? We see no reason why employees of the Om budsman should no t have all the rights and privileges of other civil servants. lt is our position that

Section 13 (2) should be deleted from the Bill. (4) "Nature of the Office" The MGEA submits that the proposed

Section 17 (2) lists all other offices of institutions referred to in Sections 16(

a) and 16(

b) where, by virtue of their nature, it is reasonable that communications and services are available in both French and English. Therefore, the MGEA sees little or no need for the broad statement in

Section 17 (1) which could lead to the addition, through adjudication, of further offices which were never intended. The list in

Section 17 (2) can always be augmented by way of amending legislation, as the need arises, on recommendation of the Om budsman to the Advi sory Council. The elimination of the generalized 17 (1) and the provision

Friday, 27 Januar y, 1984 of a specific list of bilingual offices will enhance the precision of the act and avoid unnecessary ambiguity, given that all "offices" of certain institutions in a language services area will be covered in any event. (5) "Right to Communicate with" ... "And Receive Available Services from ...

"Sections 16, 17(1) and 18. it is the understanding of the MGEA that the right to communicate with and receive available services in English or French from specific work locations means that those offices must have the capacity to provide those services, and does not mean that every staff position in those locations must at all times have the facility to communicate or provide services in either language. The MGEA is operating on the assumption that the capacity to provide those services means that there must be at least one person who is functional in both langua ges available at the location specified.

This assumption is largely based upon and is consistent with the Government's public pronouncements that less than 3 percent of the Civil Service will require a knowledge of French, and that no civil servant will ever lose his or her job or be displa ced because of the language pol icy, and further that the mobility within the Civil Ser vice will no t be affected. If the MGEA's

interpretation of the right to "communicate with" and to "receive available services" is incorrect, then the MGEA should be so advised immediately. For example; the MGEA is assuming: 1. that every equipment operator working out of the St. Norb ert Highways Yard does not have to be able to speak in English and French; 2. that every liquor commission store clerk or cashier in stores located in St. Bon iface or St. Vital community, does not have to speak both languages.

Rather, it is the intent that somebody has the capacity to do so if the need arises during normal working hours. 3. that all counter clerks, adjustors and estimators of the St. Mary's Road Claim Centre of Manitoba Public Ins urance Corporation do not have to be conversant in both English and French. There are already seven employees of various classifications at that location who are functional in both English and French and in the MGEA's view, no further changes in staffing are or will be req uired if bo th the Constitutional Amendment and Bill 11 5 are passed into law.

In other words, that location already has the capacity to deliver services in both languages and does so in a realistic and practical manner. Implementation -

Section 35 The MGEA submits that it is desirable to review and add ress foreseeable problems arising out of the implementation of langua ge services prior to the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the MGEA submits that the Act should not come into force no sooner than Jan uary 1, 19 87. The MGEA further suggests that the Adv isory Council be set up immediately on passage of the Bill in order that we can receive input from all interested parties who have membership on the council. This would enhance a 1338 smooth period of transition.

This could be done by setting up the Council through administrative action or alterna tively, by procla iming into force only those sections of the Bill relating to the Advisory Council. But, of course, and I must emp hasize after the entrenchment of the constitutional provisions, with the rest of the Bill taking effect in January 1987. In any even t, the MGEA is prepared to work with the Government and all parties, through the Advisory Council, towards achieving a practical and workable implementation of language services. In

summary, the MGEA respectfully submits that the govenment give serious consideration to the issues raised in this submission. In fact, clear and precise answers to the questions raised in this submission would provide all concerned with a better understanding of the government's consistent pronouncments that it only intends to extend French language services in a limited manner, while at the same time, recognizing the realistic and practical needs of the Fran co- Manitoban Community in its dealings with certain institutions of Government.

As the MGEA stated in our subm ission to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Election in September of 1983, we have been a willing participant for some 20 years in a policy designed to deliver French Language Services in those institutions of government where it is reasonable and practical to do so, without at any time jeopardizing job security for any civil servant, and I should add, jeopardizing the merit principle in the public service. This submis sion is made in furtherance of that objective.

The MGEA reserves the right to respond to further amendments to Bill 11 5, which may be introduced, or to comme nt upon the ans wers provided by the government to the questions raised in this submission. I have rushed through it quickly because of the time limitation, Mr. Chairman, skipping over a lot of words. I'm available if we have any time left for questions the committee has. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Doer. Are there any questions for Mr. Doer? Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr.

Doer and/or his council have satisfied themselves on the points that he raised in the penultimate paragraphs, Pages 11 and 12 particularly, that while it has been apparently the stated purpose of the government that not all emplo yees would have to be bilingual, is the MGEA satisfied that the right to communicate with a department agency, etc., does not start with the Deputy Minister or perhaps even the Minister and move right down through the full ranks of the Civil Service? Have you had that assuranc e that the wordin g is no t susceptible to that kind of an

interpretation. MR. G. DOER: Dealing with the bill or . . . ? HON. S. LYON: Yes. MR. G. DOER: Wel l, the bill is open to both

interpretations. That's why we have stated in our submission that it's our assumption that the bill will

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 deal with the capacity to provide those services in a limited and practical way. We have also stated that we find the advantage of the bill is that if, in tact, later on, there is decisions of the Ombudsman that is inconsistent with that assumption, that the Government of the Day can change the bill and amend the bill to state exactly what we assume it means today. That's why we wanted to put our position on the record. We find that, of course, superior to the May 17 th proposal, in fact, even the December 15 th proposal, where the resolution was going to be entrenched in the Constitution, and if our

interpretation of available services was incorrect, based on Supreme Court decisions, we, in the public service and the public of Manitoba, would be out of luck on that issue. So that's why we have stated it as an assumption, as the capacity to provide it at those work locations, albeit we have stated that the way it is presently worded with the 8 percent or 800 is a massive number of work locations in the Province of Manitoba, and we feel the government must review the practical implications which we have listed in Appendix 1, in

Section 2, of this brief, the numbers of places just alone that are in towns and in those municipalities that would be affected by the act. HON. S. LYON: Well operating from the premise, Mr. Chairman, that in legislation one should never deal with what was in the back of the mind of the government or of the particular Minister, and that it's always preferable to pl ace any such caveats or further

interpretations in the Act, can I ask Mr. Doer, if he or his organization or their council have any amendment that would put flesh onto the bare bones undertaking that he presumes has been given by the government, that this is only what is intended? If there is such a sugge sted amendment, would he be prepared to provide the committee with it so that we would have it as something that we could move to be included in this bill, if indeed the government can't be persuaded to drop the whole bill before this process is through. MR. G.

DOER: Well, the amendments in concept, without going into the wording, that it should be based on research with the 8 percent or 800 figure first of all, and secondly , work locations located in - if I could recall the language - and available services from, we could look at language that deals, to make it more precise, with work lo cations actually in those municipalities subject to a criteria for purposes of tightening that up, yes. HON. S. LYON: A further point, Mr. Chairman, where Mr.

Doer was talking about, I think, what everyone is concerned about - I think he says it well on the top of Page 11, "the intent is that someone has the capacity to do so if the need arises during normal working hours." Do you not feel it would be better if that concept could be worked into the legislation so as to avoid any court or any zealot in the future trying to misinterpret the intent of the Act. Would it not be better to have that explicitly in the Act, if indeed we must have

an Act at all? MR. G. DOER: Well, again, the MGEA does believe that the Act is superior to the constitutional amendment. 1339 HON. S. LYON: Oh, indeed, sure. MR. G. DOER: Therefore, the capacity is certainly our assumption. If it can be written in more precise terms, yes. The more precise any part of this bill is, the less opportunity the Ombudsman can misinterpret the intent of the Legislature, however, we do recognize that this does allow us some flexibility that we didn't feel we had in the proposed May 17 th amendment. HON. S.

LYON: While you don't have that specific wording expressed in the thought on the top of Page 11 , you would not be adverse to having that kind of a caveat legislated into the act? MR. G. DOER: I think that all parties are assuming - at least we are and I had di scussions with the government - the capacity to provide it. We didn't develop exact wording; we could bring that forward if the government so desired, but the first part has to be looked at.

We think the 8 percent and 800 - and we've just completed our research as late as this morning - causes some real problems to us in an operational end in many of those work locations with single incumbents. The second problem is, of course, those operations that do not have any government operations lo cated in their municipality but receive their services from the regional office. The third problem is the intent of areas such as St. Bon iface, St. Norbert and St. Vital. We believe that the intent and the

interpretation should be the capacity, not everyone being designated as bilingual, in all three instances. HON. S. LYON: Just a final question, not to take time of other members from Mr. Doer. Have you, Mr. Doer, or you r organ ization or your couns el given any consideration to the point that has been raised by a number of speakers in the House - Mr. Green raised it again here today - about the impact of the constitutional amendment which is currently before the Ho use at the present time having, in effect, an en trenchment effect upon ordinar y statutes of Manitoba?

Have you given consideration to that, and are you content with that, or do you feel uneasy about it, or what is your attitude about it? MR. G. DOER: Our position - we have reviewed the pieces of legislation that may be entrenched, given the fact that the legislation is in existence prior to the constitutional amendment passing Parliament. We have reviewed that, and we do not see implications beyond the existing

interpretations of the Blaikie case and the Forest case, etc., Blaikie One and Two. Our major concern, and we have stated it at all times, is that the amendment must pass first before the provincial act 11 5, because, as we heard this morning or earlier today, if Bill 11 5 passes first it's entrenched and we're in big trouble in the public service of Manitoba. Then we will have 10,000 people on the steps of the Legislative Building. HON. S. LYON: Right, thank you. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions relating to the concern expressed by Mr. Doer

Friday, 27 Janua ry, 1984 regarding the capacity to provide service. Do you envision that, Mr. Doer, as having available at the office one individual who could provide translation of any communication or any information being imparted by anyone in that office? MR. G. DOER: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. That is why we have deline ated three examples just to bring it down to the working person's level in the public service. We don't see all the grader operators in St. Norbert being bilingual.

We don't see every liquor clerk in the stores we've indicated, nor do we see increasing - we see one adjuster, one estimator in these Autopac centres. We don't see every person in those work locations as having to be bilingual under this act. We want that for the record, because if that's the

interpretation later on we will be the first ones before the Government of the Day asking for that to be changed consistent with this intent. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, of course more to the point, since this represents in every case the senior offices of government departments, that is, head offices of the government departments, Crown corps and the courts, if it is not that, do you not agree that would mean that everybody in that office who is a specialized individual right up to and including the Deputy Minister would then have to be able to provide service in both languages? MR. G.

DOER: We see the office of the Deputy Minister being covered under the principal admin istrative office. That's why we have asked for, again, precision in that area. Second ly, "the available services from" - we have di scussed that: (

a) with the first constitutional amendment, and we discussed that at the committee hearings in September; and (

b) since then with our legal advisors and in fact with other public sector unions. They do not feel that

interpretation that everybody in the department therefore has to be bilingual because it's providing an available service is necessary in the wording. The problem we do have is, yes, the single incumbents that provide a single professional service in the Government of Manitoba. That problem becomes much more serious when you look at the one public health nurse in Winkler servicing an area of Manitoba that is covered, as we've used as an example, pursuant to a municipality with 8 percent or 800 people.

That's where we have operational difficulties today and in three years from now with that one person having to be bilingual for purposes of meeting the requirements of Bill 11 5. That's why we want a very very in-depth look at that 800 and 8 percent figure as it practically applies to departments of government. We were originally told that the map was the areas which we had to cover, but we found a lot of areas outside of that map when we went to Stats Canada in the last couple of days - in fact, some of this material just came to our attention as late as this morning, pouring over all the facts and figures.

So, yes, there is some concern in the whole area of capacity and, yes, that still ties in. it's exacerbated by the situation dealing with the 8 percent or 800. 1340 MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Doer could answer whether or not he or his association have any difficulty with the concept of the Ombudsman being able to initiate complaints where none exist. Both under

Section 21 and under

Section 25.2, it is ind icated that - for instance, "Notwithstanding that no complaint has been filed, the ombudsman may investigate any matter relating to the proper administration or enforcement of this Act," and "Where the ombu dsman has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person has been denied a right ... the ombudsman may initiate a complaint," does that have any difficulty for you? MR. G. DOER: Mr. Chairman, yes. lt depends what type of initiation that Ombudsman does.

If it's more of an advocacy, extreme advocacy consistent with what we perceive and the public sector unions perceive to be that of the Language Commissioner, albeit it's called by a different name, we would have very serious reservations about that power to initiate. If it's a legitimate complaint that people have some trepidation bringing forward, then we would see that as a fair type of role for that person. So the proof is really going to be in the pudding, we think.

We think there are a lot of roles, and we've stated that it remains to be seen whether one person can investigate, initiate, mediate and adjudicate. These are serious numbers of roles for a person. The way that person carries it out is very key to us. If the person becomes what we consider to be a language advocate, what we perceive to be, on one particular language, the MGEA is prepared to monitor that as a public sector union and to bring that forward to the Government of the Day for appropria te amendment.

If that person remains as an objective person in the process, and is a very fair person, and helps all of us prevent frivolous complaints going to court, then I think it will provide a useful function to the public service. So really there are two ways for that ind ividual to go, and two ways for that person to fill the role. We are prepared to monitor it with the concerns we have stated. MR. G. FILMON: Do you have any recommendations as to how that might be tightened up to avoid those pitfalls? MR. G. DOER: In concept, we possibly could move to the Ombudsman being defined in role in the Definition

section as similar to a mediating function in the public service. MR. G. FILMON: Just one final area, the area that you've raised about services not being confined merely to the language services area. We'll leave aside the argument that Mr. Green has proposed, that every municipality is defined as a language services area, but let's assume that it is confined to the 25 or 30 that you have suggested and that the Minister has indicated in the House out of some 200 municipalities.

What in the bill gives rise to your concern that offices that are located outside the language services area but serve people who live within language services area are going to be able to demand services such as, as you have indicated, in Winkler, in the MP IC office, or the health

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 unit in Morden or the various government offices in Dauphin that service Ste. Rose for instance, or in Beausejour and Steinbach? What in the bill has given rise to your concern about that? MR. G. DOER: The extent and the actual operational realization of what 8 percent and 800 really means in terms of the numbers of municipalities that would be affected and the regions under which they would be affected, and the other part, the "available services from." MR. G. FILMON: Okay, so you 're referring to

Section 18 where it says, "Extension in specified areas." And it says, " ... where the office is located in or provides services to a language services area." So indeed that goes well beyond the language services area then. MR. G. DOER: Yes, in terms of Mr. Lyo n's question of how that could be more precise, one of the ways to deal with that is not "from," but "in." MR. G. FILMON: "In," so "providing services to" is removed? MR. G. DOER: As I say, there are many of the regional offices in health, in community services. Well we have different types of regional structures with various departments.

When we looked at it this morning, and we have been trying to get some of the data together for the last two weeks, many of the regional offices in various sections of the province with the 8 percent, 800 criteria and the "available from" would impact on regional offices throughout the province: lnterlake, eastern, central, Westman and Parklands. In fact, it looks like only the Norman in terms of outside of Winnipeg, because it's covered specifically, it looks like only Norman and The Pas and Thompson, the two northern areas wouldn't be. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, no further questions. HON. A.

ANSTETT: Just a couple of short question, Mr. Chairman. In

Section 1(i), the definition of "language services area," there were two questions there. The first one is: Mr. Doer, would you interpret the use of the word "and" after the reference to the English language follo wed by Part (ii) - sorry - "language services areas," in the first part, "the English language" and then the use of the word "and," and then in (ii) "the French language" as meaning that both had to occur in an area before it was designated as a language services area; that it had to meet the 8 percent criteria or 800 criteria both with regard to English and French?

Or do you read that "and" as an "or" as Mr. Green did? MR. G. DOER: The English criteria hasn't concerned us. We have gone through all the statistics across the province. There would be a couple of municipalities that under Stats Canada would not be considered to be English under that definition, I think maybe three municipalities. That, quite frankly, we haven't spent a lot of time on the "and" and "or." We've spent more 1341 time on the 800 and 8 percent as it affects the 26 municipalities and the three that have been specified in Winnipeg.

So in answer to your question, we went through all the districts in Manitoba, all the 12 2 that we had, and that wasn't a concern of ours either way, based on the numbers. They're ever-ever changing in this provinces. HON. A. ANSTETT: So you interpreted it as applying then to somewhere between 25 and 30 municipalities and only those areas? MR. G. DOER: Out of the 12 2 we reviewed, it looked like 26 to us. The concern we had is the map that we received from the government and the figures we had, we were told that the 8 percent and 800 was really the map that was handed out last summer.

We looked at the map, and there were a number of areas in the municipality

section that weren't covered. For example, Lac du Bonnet was 8.05 percent based on the Stats Canada 19 81 figures, and there were others that we found in all areas of the province that concerned us as well. So we tried to find out what, in fact, we were talking about, the map or Stats Canada in terms of the impact on the public service. HON. A. ANSTETT: The second question on that relates exactly to the 8 percent or 800. If you were assured that " ... the la nguage first learne d in childhood and still understood . . .

"was specifically the Statistics Canada question that is asked and that that language is used to conform to the question so that the data can be used, would that address the concern you have about the way that is phrased? MR. G. DOER: We recognize that the wording presently, albeit different from The Official Languages Act, is in fact a criteria that Stats Canada used to calculate the statistics. We know that Stats Canada changes things around quite a bit and is controlled by their federal masters. If you've ever studied the Consumer Price Index, every time it's too high, they try to change it.

The unemployment statistics, the way they calculate it, they've changed it. So we have not the same faith you may have in Stats Canada, although we use it all the time. We just thought we should point that out, and if, for example, Stats Canada changes the way in which they gather those statistics and we use the definition here, it will require an amendment unless you want to put something else in it today. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the other question on that for Mr.

Doer is then: with regard to the other centres you mentioned that did not appear in the original list which was done on school division bounda ries, not municipal bound aries so there would be some impact there, is it his understanding that the Statistics Canada produces four or five different measures of linguistic ability? Is it his unde rstanding that the figures he used which would include Lac du Bonnet as being just in at over 8 percent was under the definition that's in the act. MR. G. DOER: it's our

interpretation that the statistics Stats Canada provides and the definition of the act arrive at the 8.05 percent, yes.

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 HON. A. ANSTETT: Ok ay, I'll check that then, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't aware of that, and I will certainly look into that because that's not our intention. The last question is, under the reference to the ombudsman, I was intrigued by your suggestion that the ombudsman had powers of adjudication, rather than simply powers of mediation. Could you tell me where in the act you get the suggestion that the ombudsman has powers of adjudication? MR. G. DOER: We reviewed that with our lawyer. it's going to take me awhile to pull out the exact wording, but it was our

interpretation and his

interpretation as well that there were the four powers vested in the ombudsman, although we recognize that the issue still would go to court for final adjudication. I think Mr. Green has pointed out the remedy in the courts which we also recognized, and obviously we didn' t comment on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions, Mr. Anstett? HON. A. ANSTETT: I believe Mr. Doer may still be looking for the citation. I'm looking at

Section 25. 1 in which the specific mediation power is provided. Beyond that, we go to reports to the Legislature, offences and the court proceed ings. I don't see an adjudication power, and I'm just wondering if Mr. Doer does see it or, if he doesn't have an opportunity now, if he would be willing to get back to me if he sees it somewhere else in the act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps Mr. Doer could check that and get back to you. Mr. Doer's running out of time, and Mr. Sherman would like a question. Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions to Mr. Doer.

Following on a couple of your earlier answers, Mr. Doer, particularly in respect to the application of the proposed legislation in the del ivery of health services, are you saying, in effect, that the definition of principle administrative office really doesn't offer much solution or much solace in terms of the difficulty of applying this legislation in the health field because the application of

Section 18 calls for a much broader delivery of health services in French, than would be the case if we were just going by the definition of principle administrative office? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doer. MR. G. DOER: Well, again, we feel that the term "principle administrative office" in a provincial bill is far superior to the head or central office, which was proposed in the May 17 th proposal. Second ly, we know what the word "head office" means - well we know somewhat what the word "head office" means based on

interpretations we have recieved - we still don't know what the term "principle administrative office" means, and that's why we have assumed it to be the Minister or Deputy Minister's office in government because those are in fact the principle administrative offices. Our concern then moves to the application of the 800/8 percent and available services from, and that concerns us in the Department of Health. 1t concerns us less than the head or central office which we interpret it to be in the Constitution's potential for all the regional offices in Health.

However, there are areas in Health that we just can 't see meeting the criteria, the operational criteria that are presently proposed in the Act and would be inconsistent with the government's stated intent of 3 percent, no one would be moved, etc. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a quick question, Mr. Sherman? MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While you're saying that, although the definition of principle administrative office specically states that it does not include any regional office of the institution, that that would not hold in the area of delivery of health services, that in many cases we would have to be dealing with regional offices and perhaps all, but one or two of the regional offices delivering health services throughout the province? MR. G.

DOER: Yes, I think the principle administrative office doesn 't concern us, because it says, "the principle administrative office of a depar tment." We're assuming that's (1) , and if it is changed, we will be interpreting it differently. We will again reserve the right to come back to government for a proposed amendment. Two, the regional offices are covered under the criteria, the 800/8 percent in municipalities, and a number of muncipalities do not have government work locations in them, 14 towns in those municipalities have 36 work locations. The City of Winnipeg, St. Boniface, St. Norbert, St.

Vital have 14 work locations right now, that's 50. Then there are those municipalities that do not have government offices in them now but are served by government regional offices and subregional offices. We use the example of Winkler in the case that we cited in our brief, and that is our worry, that the 8 percent or 800 with the available services from is operationally , in our estimation, we're not able to implement it as such and we want the government to review it.

We looked at the maps, etc., but when we looked at Stats Canada the last couple of days, we just don't feel there is the facility right now in the public service, nor do we think there will be in three years to meet that 8 percent/800 criteria and the available services from. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Doer. I see Mr. Sherman still has a few questions. The time is slightly overexpired already. I believe that . . . Leave? (Agreed) Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to members of the committee. I'll conclude with just one final question, if I may. I note on Page 5 of the

section of your brief, Mr. Doer, that deals with work locations potentially affected by

Section 18, you deal with examples of language service areas which would receive health services from offices outside their boundaries. You cite eight of them and then make the note, "The above is no t an exhaustive list for the Department of Health." My 1342

Friday, 27 Janu ary, 1984 question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Doer is: what, in his view, is an exhaustive list for the Department of Health? Is it virtually the entire spectrum of deli very of community health services for the province? I ask that question because that would be my view of what a full list for the Department of Health would constitute. Would you, from the benefit of your knowledge as President of MGEA, concur that a really thoroughgoing list for the Department of Health would virtually cover the entire spectrum of communi ty health service deliv ery throughout the province? MR. G.

DOER: it would not cover those areas in Winnipeg outside of St. Bon iface, St. Vital and St. Norbert and it would not cover the Norman region or the The Pas region. it would cover certain parts of the lnterlake, not all of them, certain parts of Westman South, not all of them, certain parts of subregional offices in Central Manitoba and certainly a great number of offices in Eastern Manitoba, but based again on Stats Can report in the number of work locations we have.

So, it wouldn't cover all of them, but it would cover a lot more than we, the MGEA and the members of the public sector union with the present criteria had the capacity to del iver. Again we see this as better than getting a court decision in an entrenchment three years from now with the significant demand being defined as 8 percent or 800 and that's why we think it's a better way to go, but we still think that there can be more precision based on operational realities in the Bill 11 5 before the Legislature today before it is proclaimed or passed.

I think there are more facilities than may be appreciated by the Language Services Division of the Province of Manitoba. Certainly more than the map we received from them dealing with the alleged areas that would be covered based on our check of Stats Canada. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Doer. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next person on my list is Mr. Herb Schulz. MR. H. SCHULZ: Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, before I begin my brief, I want to comment on the earlier discussion here about whether or not the presentations in question period for the presenters should be limited.

I was here for a considerable amount of time ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett, on a point or order . HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the matter Mr. Schulz proposes to comment on is a decision by the committee. I don't think it's appropria te to have

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-pe60
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf pe60.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dbc4781978a36d1d41372061f9890a21bd712b7b

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