LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 7 July, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . .. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Give that to Mr. Remnant please . MADAM SPEAKER: I'm advised that the petition conforms with the practices and privileges of the House and complies with the rules . Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: The Petition of John Richard Mallea, George Kent Gooden, Robert Earl Beamish , Geral d Roy Butler and Gary Thomas Brazzell, praying for the passing of

An Act to Continue the Brandon University Foundation. MADAM SPEAKER : Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABL-ING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development and Tourism. HON. M. HEMPHILL : Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to table the Annual Report '86-87 for the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills . . ORAL QUESTIONS Inter-City Gas - tabling of opinion poll information MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON : Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker , my question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday during the consideration of the Estimates of the Executive Council, the Premier revealed that the governme nt had undertaken public opinion polling with respect to the takeover of ICG Gas prior to its decision to purchase ICG Gas. He also indicated in view of the fact that the Mini ste r of Energy had been responsible for that decision and that polling, that he would request the Minister of Energy to table the polling information in this House. I wonder if the Minister of Energy is able to do that now?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines . HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, the Department of Energy did polling with respect to the whole question of excessive gas prices for Manitob ans. As you know, Manitobans are being overcharged something in the order of $50 million per year, something in the order of $150 per family . So we did the polling with respect to people 's attitudes ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. W.

PARASIUK: . . . regarding excessive -gas prices, people's attitudes with respect to selling Canadian gas to the United States for prices that are significantly lower than Manitoba ; and that was done as part of a program of defending the interests of Manitoba with respect to excessive gas prices, Madam Speaker. It's a normal process done by many governments and we did do polling and I have indicated that in due course tha t material will be presented to the public of Manitoba . MR. G. FILMON: Surely the Minister doesn't want us to believe that they would think that Manitobans would enjoy excessive gas prices .

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Premier .clearly made a commitment to have that tabled. I believe that that's important information to have tabled prior to consideration of the whole issue of Inter-City Gas purchase in committee . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: Will the Minister of Energy, in support of his Premier's commitment, table that information now so that members -On both side s of the House can have that information prior to the committee sitting on ICG, which has been agreed to by the government side of the House, so that all Manitobans and indeed members of both sides of the House will be in full knowledge of the information in that poll prior to the consideration at the committee stage of the ICG takeover? HON. W. PARASIUK: I'm astonished at the Leader of the Opposition .

He has never expressed concern about the fact that Manitobans are overcharged for natura l gas. We have developed an overall policy to save Manitobans $50 million per year in natural gas prices, and the Leader of the Opposition is only concerned about whether he will have access to a poll or not. 3661

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind the Hono urable Ministe r that answers to questio ns should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mad am Speaker , given the long

preamble of the Leader of the Opposition, I was just in full flight. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speake r, it' s a reflection on the Chair . HON. W. PARASIUK: Not at all, it' s a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition because he doesn't care about excess gas prices . As I indicated, the material would be provided in due course. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please. Orde r please. I'm not sure if the PA system isn't working properly or whether it's the noise, but I'm having great difficulty in hearing the members who are recognized. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a question.

Inter-City Gas - cost of opinion poll MR. G. FILM.ON: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the sensitive Minister of Energy. I wonder if he can indicate what was the cost of that polling and who conducted the polling on behalf of the government? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, that information is normally provided when the polling results are provided and they would be provided in due course, in accordance with the overall policy that we have established as the government , unlike the policy of the Conservative Government when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of Cabinet where we inherited a whole set of polling done by people like Scott from Toronto and other people like that, were never on the books .

That's Tory style, Madam Speaker, it's not New Democratic style, and that material will be provided in due course to the public as we have done in the past. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. · The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Minister is full of nonsense when he suggests that there were bills paid that weren 't on the· books . We did not operate like this government does . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question . Inter-City Gas - tabling of opinion poll information MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, the question is, if the Minister of Energy has nothing to hide, why will he not table all that polling information now so that we can have it when we need it. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, we are involved in negotiati .ons with Alberta; we are involved in negot iations with Trans-Canada Pipelines; we are involved in negotiations with other producers and we're also involved in discussions with the national governme nt.

We have information in that polling that would be sensitive to those negotiations, and I would hope that the members of the Conservative Party would not try and undermine our effo rts to save the people of Manitoba $50 million a year; that they would come on side, rathe r than continuously trying to undermine our effort s to save many millions of dollars for Manitoba residential consumers. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, yes, their efforts are designed to save their polit ical skins and nothing else. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question?

Inter-City Gas - amount of municipal taxes re right-of -way MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can indicate how much ICG Utilities pays in municipal taxes for the lines which run across municipal rights-of-way in relation to the assets that the government is intending to purchase. How much in taxes would they be paying to municipal governments in this province for the use of the right-of-way to have their lines go across? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines if that question is in his jurisdiction. HON. W.

PARASIUK: I will take that question as notice, but it would certainly be the intent of the new corporations to pay grants in lieu equal to those taxes to make sure that the municipalities were not out any money. That is in the legislation, Madam Speaker . lnt.,r-City Gas - revenues earned MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for ~akeside . MR . ... ENNS: Madam Speaker , I direct a question to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Madam Speaker, this Minister, or this government is asking Manitobans to commit very substantial sums of money, we have yet to be told, several hund red million dollars perhaps, in the acquisition of Inter-City Gas. On several occasions, particularly when the bill was introduced, statements made by the Premier and in their press release, it was clearly stated that the activities of the Manitoba Consllmer Geis Corporation will be financed out of its own revenues. Madam Speaker , would it not be a fair question to ask at this point, and to expect a candid and forthright reply?

What are the revenues of Inter-City Gas, as last reported to the corporat ions's divis ion of this own government? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines . 3662

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , the Member for Lakeside has occasionally indicated that he thinks that the purchase price for Inter-City Gas, will be something in the order of $400 million to $500 mil_ijon. I can assure him that the Manitoba Government, the New Democratic Party Government , is certainly negotiating to get a price that's substantially lower than that and fair to the people of Manitoba . A MEMBER: When did he say that? HON. W. PARASIUK: Read Hansard or have someone read it to you .

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the question and indicate that the operat ing losses . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please . The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of orde r. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , I know the Minister would not want to deliberately put a falsehood on the record . I have never - I have asked questions of what the purchase price was; I've suggested that it may be between $40 million , and $70 million, and $150 million and $200 million, but I have never suggested a definitive price that the government was, in fact, being prepared to pay for the utility.

MADAM SPEAKER: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, I will, in fact, find that information and find the quotes for the Member for Lakeside and present it to him. If I'm wrong I'll certainly indicate to the Member for Lakeside that I was mistaken in determining that I thought that . . . MR. H. ENNS: If you find it, I'll apologize. HON. W. PARASIUK: Good , now we're both apologetic and aggressive at the same time.

I'd like to indicate that I'll take the particular question , because I'd like to make sure that I gave the precise answer to the member, with respect to the operating profits, because that will vary on a year-to-year basis . I'll bring that information back to the Member for Lakeside. Inter -City Gas - purchase price of Greater Winnipeg Gas MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker , if I'm catching the Minister in a little more cooperative mood than he was just a little while ago , then let me repeat a few more of the other, I think, that are fundamental questions, that surely those of us who are being asked to either support or reject this government initiative ought to have before we meet in committee. Namely, what was the purchase price of the Greater Winnipeg Gas assets just two-a nd -a-half or three years, prior to this government now acquiring those same assets. I asked that question a few days ago and that's on Hansard . As of yet , I've received no response .

HON. W. PARASIUK: When Inter-C ity Gas bought Greater Winnipeg Gas, they didn't buy it specifically , they bought a set of companies from Noreen Industries, including a number of utilities in Ontario and one in Minnesota. They have also, since that time, made investments, which they do on a yearly basis . I think those investments are in the order of about $12 million to $18 million a year. So the information that the member is seeking is being worked on.

One can't get a precise number with respect to that, but I have indicated to members of the House that we intend to have a full-day committee of the Public Utilities Committee, to look at the purchase when it is completed , to look at terms of purchase , and to provide an organizational chart and the initial financial projection . So I think the material that the Member for Lakeside is looking for will be provided where it's possible to provide it, because in other areas it would just be guesstimates, Madam Speaker . I know the Member for Lakeside would want to make sure he had hard facts. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Chairman, a final supplementary question. Madam Speaker, this Minister knows, and this government knows, that on this particular issue, I am trying to reach out to that government. As a matter of fact, I am trying to accommodate them. But surely I have some responsibility for the taxpayers of Manitoba to have some basic fundamental questions answered . What are the revenues being earned by the private corporation that we are taking over?

What did that private corporation pay for those very same assets just a few years ago, so we have some benchmark as to measure the competence of this administration in dealing in private matters? And Lord knows, Madam Speaker, there 's enough reason why we should be shaking our heads and be worried about any dealings that this administration had with private corporations . I'm simply asking this Minister to supply some of that information before we arrive at committee stage on this bill. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I feel that this is almost like the Sistine Chapel, where both of us now can try and reach out to see if we can touch each other if that, in fact, is the intent of the Member for Lakeside. I welcome that because I think he's had an open mind on this issue, unlike his colleagues . Madam Speaker, what we are talking about is not the exact same assets . We're talking about a purchase that was made a few years ago of a larger system, both in Ontario and in the United States and here .

We're talking about investments that have been made in that system over the last three years, and we'll be trying to get that information, Madam Speaker .

I would caution the member by indicating that we are still involved in negotiations and I would hope that the Member for Lakeside - since he is trying to cooperate on this matter - would want to make sure that those negotiations are carried out to a fruitful conclusion , rather than carrying out the negotiations here in the Legislature because we've agreed, in past years, Madam Speaker, that the Legislature is not the place to carry out negotiations on behalf of the government. The 3663

All ion Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 government has the mandate to carry out those negotiations, and then is responsible for bringing to the Legislature the product of those negotiations, the results, for scrutiny by the Opposition. That is the course that has been followed by previous governments, Madam Speaker, and that is the course that will be followed here. Hopefully, out of all of this, Madam Speaker, we'll realize the ultimate objective - which I know the Member for Lakeside shares with me - that is of saving residential families $150 per year with respect to their natural gas heating cost, Madam Speaker.

Flat tax - deducted prematurely MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I have been inundated with calls from Manitobans protesting the new 2 percent flat tax on net income. Many individuals have called, wondering as to the proprietor of their employers deducting that tax on the whole pay period, the last pay period, in the month of June. My question to the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker, why was the tax allowed to be deducted in . that fashion covering a complete pay period in the month of June?

MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister . of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Wh ile that question is not totally within my responsibility to reply to - which I'll explain in a minute - I will provide the information to the members.­ (lnterjection)-Yes, it is a provincial government tax which the Member for Brandon West - if he understood the federal-provincial tax sharing agreement - would know that the administration and the deductions are arranged through the Federal Government, through the Federal Government system.

The way the Federal Government implements tax changes are that they put in place changes on two points in time each year; one January 1st, the second, July 1st. They break up the year in pay periods and what they do is, in essence, take 13 pay periods for the first part of the year and 13 pay periods for the second part of the year. The pay period that the member is referring to is, in essence, the 14th pay period in the year, so it is the start of the second half of the year in the way that the Federal Government implements its tax changes.

So some changes may come into effect, as an example, prior to January 1, if that is the way the pay periods fall. So it's a matter of the way the Federal Government implements the income tax system, and people are being deducted for 13 pay periods in essence, one half of the 26 pay periods in the year. Flat tax - instructions to employers MR. C.

MANNESS: Given the Minister's response, and I can understand whereby that 13th or that 14th pay period overlapping between June and July, but there are examples, Madam Speaker, of individuals having deductions taken for the period June 15 to June 28 and obviously, under any system, that falls under the first half of the year. Again, I would ask the Minister whether or not he gave specific direction as he has to other tax remitters - under other taxes like the payroll tax - whether he gave specific instructions under the net flat tax? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker , I gave no instructions with respect to the remittance under the federal income tax system. All the directions for the changes were supplied and at the direction of the Federal Government. If there are some circumstances as the members described, which seem rather peculiar to me, if he can give me the details I'd certainly investigate that with the Federal Government. But we gave no instructions other than the fact that we wanted that tax implemented on July 1 in the manner that was indicated in the Budget, Madam Speaker. All of the directions came from the Federal Government.

If there are circumstances -(Interjection)-The membe, said there were no directions. That is not true. Af employers in the province were provided informatit,1 sent by the Federal Government in the form of revised tax tables that are sent to all employers on January the 1st and July the 1st. The tables that were sent implement the changes with respect to the Manitoba tax and indeed some other changes that take place periodically with respect to income tax.

If the member has a specific area like that, I would be willing to investigate it and contact federal officials regarding the instructions they may have given to that employer. Flat tax - no. of calls protesting tax MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I asked the Minister the other day how many calls of protest he had received from Manitobans in his office with respect to the new 2 percent flat tax. The Minister at that time provided no answer to me. Will he proviq.e an answer to that question today? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I don't have a specific count of how many people have called me or other branches of the department, but there have not been significant calls, I can tell you that, Madam Speaker. There have not been significant calls from Manitobans expressing concern about the tax.

Indeed, I would say that if we had followed the path of what the Conservatives suggest in terms of deterrent fees for health care, or health care premiums, or significant cuts in services to Manitobans, we would get far more calls than we're getting with respect to providing tax increases, which nobody wants, nobody likes, but tax increases to ensure that we maintain services in the province and don't do like Conservatives do in other provinces in this country. Bean growers - tripartite agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. 3664

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you Madam Speake r. Before I begin my question I must say that my national party seems to feel I need help, I don't. I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, during yesterday's question per iod the Minister of Agriculture informed the House that he would have nothing to do with a T ripartite Stabilization Agreement with regard to the bean growers of this province, stating - and I certainly agree with him - that the Mulroney Government has abandoned the bean growers in Manitoba as they trie d to do with the sugar beet growers prior .

However, Madam Speaker , I would like to ask the Minister why he, too , and his ministry will abandon these bean growers when the Alberta Government and the Ontario Government has seemed to be providing relief to these same farmers? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of \griculture . HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to inform my honourable friend of the real issue dealing with income stabilization for farmers.

I will repeat, as I attempted to clue the Honourable Member for Virden in yesterday, that the issue of offloading of income stabilization from the Federal Government, who have supported the Pulse Growers, including the beet growers , in income stabilization at 100 percent cost to the National Treasury; they are now proposing to offload 66 percent of that cost onto provinces and producers.

Madam Speaker, the real issue is that provinces with less revenues and a less ability to provide similar circumstances will have to tax their taxpayers and producers, as a whole, at a far higher rate to provide comparable services to those producers, as neighbouring provinces, such as, Ontario or Alberta could do with a far less provincial portion of taxation to provide those services. It hits at the heart of Confederation in this country, the heart of what fairness is all about, :'Aadam Speaker, and that's the issue that •. ,e will be raising and we will be resisting with all our might in this province.

Bean growers - meeting with MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary question to the same Minister, Madam Speaker . Yesterday the Minister had said that he had met with the Pulse Growers in the past few months. How does the Minister explain then that his last meeting with the Pulse Growers was December 2, 1986, and that there has been no recent dialogue and no meeting since any of the tripartite agreements had been signed with the Minister himself? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, we have discussed, on an ongoing basis, the issue of tripartite.

I have indicated before and I'll indicate again, I do not intend to get myself involved in a set of negotiations which I do not believe, in principle, at all. Madam Speaker, I have no malice towards the producers at all wanting some income protection. They are caught between a stone and a hard place, Madam Speake r, because right now they are receiving 100 percent support from the National Treasury . The National Treasury has told them no longer will we support you, go to your province , and you pay a portion of the support program .

Madam Speake r, we will stand by producers, but we will not allow the National Government to offload its expenditures onto produ cers and onto provincial taxpayers . Bean growers - government support MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, with a final supplementary question to the same Minister. What support will this Minister provide to the bean growers of Manitoba? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the support that I will provide, not only to the bean growers, but to all producers of this province will be to raise this issue in the national context to say, and to try and convince all colleague, all Ministers of Agriculture in this country that what the Federal Government is doing is totally unfair . Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to my honourable friend from River Heights that even the way the Liberal party treated Western Canada, it looks like it was a piece of cake and that they were warm to Western Canada, even though they were cursed by the Conservatives in Western Canada.

What Mulroney is doing now to Western Canada, Madam Speaker, is just a disaster; in fact, John Diefenbake r would turn over in his grave, if he saw what was happening, Madam Speaker . Supervalu strike - directive re prosecution MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. The Minister of Agriculture referred to John Diefenbaker . I wonder what Tommy Douglas was doing a week ago last Thursday, when four members of the New Democratic Party attended a labour demonstration, which ultimately resulted in the arrest of 14 people .

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, as a result of that demonstration, has the Department of the Attorney­ General issued any directive regarding prosecution decisions relating to strikes; and that directive , one directive being that prosecution decisions be made by the Director of Criminal Prosecutions , rather than local Crown Attorneys? HON. R. PENNER: The question is incomprehensible, but nevertheless I'll try to answer it.

To the extent that I understand it, let me advise the member and the House that offences which take place in the context of a labour-r elations matt er or strike are handled no differently than matters which arise in any other contex t, nor should they be. They should not be politicized . 3665 w M A

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 If, in fact , an offence has been committed , an arrest made , the police report will end up in the hands of the appropriate Crown Attorney , who will then proceed in the normal manner. That's the way it should be; that's the way it will be. Supervalu strike - directive re charges relating to violence MR. J. McCRAE: Just so that I understand the Minister's answer which was fairly incomprehensible, as well, Madam Speaker; can we assume then that there has been no directive regarding prosecutions and how they should be decided on since that violent demonstration of nearly two weeks ago?

Will he also confirm for us that any charges relating to stri kes, the directive to police departments has been to charge and release, rather than holding people overnight; will the Minister confirm that there 's been no directive of that nature? HON. R. PENNER: I answered the question when I said that events of this kind are treated no differently than - let's suppose that the charge is an assault - an assault that would arise in any other circumstance, nor should they be. The answer is no, there have been no directives .

We have, as the member could have ascertained by checking with the former Attorney-General, a series of policy directions to the Crown Attorneys ' work with respect to the way in which they conduct their day-to­ day affairs. Those are the ones that they would adhere to and if they have any questions about their role, in any particular prosecution , it would be handled in the normal course by the Director of Prosecutions . It wouldn't need to go any higher, nor would it go any higher. Strikes and blackmail, one and the same - new policy of government MR. J.

McCRAE: A question, Madam Speaker, for the Deputy Premier. Last Friday, the Minister of Health told this House that strikes and blackmail are one and the same thing. Is this the new policy of the government? Inter-City Gas MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, Madam Speaker, earlier today in question period, I was asked by the Member for Lakeside to indicate where I had got the impression that he had said that Inter-City Gas would cost between $400 million and $500 million, and I undertook to find that out.

There's nothing here in Hansard, but I do have a quotation and it's a direct quotation where it says: "Frankly, takeover is a sensible option, but it could cost $500 million or more . The province doesn't have the means for that at this time," end of quote . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Where is it quoted from? HON. W. PARASIUK: I'm quoting from - and I wouldn't want to hold the Member for Lakeside to this because I am quoting from an

article from the Winnipeg Free Press . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . Order please! HON. W. PARASIUK: . . . Madam Speaker, that is a direction quotation. I wonder if the member would like to indicate whether he said that or not because I won 't also take the word in the Free Press for granted. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order pleas e. I recognize the Honourable Minister on the assumption that he was bringing information to the House that he had taken as notice. Order please.

First of all, we had a point of order during question period that I said was not a point of order, that was a dispute over the facts . Question period is not a time to sort . . . Order please, order please. Order please! May I finish? First of all, when one recognizes a member, one is not sure of what they are about to say. I recognized the Honou rab le Minis ter with the assumption that he was going to bring bac k information tha t he had taken as notice to a ques tion, which I think is a lot different than information that one includes in an answer with which another member has a dispute about.

I think that can be sort ed out between individual members. Now , the Member for Lakeside , on a new poin t of order? MR. H. ENNS: A new point of order , Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: What is your point of order? MR. H. ENNS: Inasmuch as it was raised by the Minister of Energy and Mines, much to my regret , whatever the Free Press or any other media prints about me from time to time . . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . Neither member has a point of order. The Honourable Member for Arthur with a question. This is question period . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you , Madam Speake r. MADAM SPEAKER: Ord er please.

The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines with a new point of order. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, I'd like you to look at Hansard in that I did indicate clearly in the Legislature that I would find the information out for the Member for Lakeside and bring it back to the Legislature. I answered it at the first opportunity I could, and I would ask you to review Hansard with respect to the stat ements that I made as to my bringing back further information to members of this House . MADAM SPEAKER: I will review Hansard and make sure that the member is bringing back information which 3666

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 he took as notice . My understan ding was that was not the case . The Honourable Member for Arthur. -MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speake r. I hate to interrupt the siesta of the Member for Gimli , Madam Speaker, but . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Village of Tyndall - review mill rate of 36 mills MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur with a question. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speake r, the question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is, in view of the fact that the residents of the Village of Tyndall in 1984 had imposed upon them an increase in their taxes of some 36 mills to cover the cost of the installation of a low­ pressure sewage system which was under the control of the now Member for Lac du Bonnet, and was the former Reeve of Brokenhead municipality. Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister would review the whole process in which the financing of that project took place which gave them a 36 mill increase in their tax rates.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, thank you , Madam Speaker. I'll certainly take that question as notice and review that. Village of Tyndall - was sewer project tendered MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, when the Minister is taking that as notice, will he take into consideration wheth er or not the project was tendered; whether the finan cing of that project was tendered; and whether or not he thinks it's fair that a $244,000 loan will cost those approximate 100 residents $531,000 in interest over the next 20 years? Does he think . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

That question seeks an opinion. Would the honourable member like to rephrase his question so it does not seek an opinion? Village of Tyndall - government policy to incur enormous charges on taxpayers MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Arth ur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister if he, in his capacity of Municipal Affairs, thinks that the residents of that community are able to pay that kind of a cost, or is it within government policy to incur on the taxpayers of the provice such enormous charges? MADAM SPEAKER: The last question is in order.

The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. 3667 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will take a look at that particular issue, but the member should recall that we're talking, a matter of three or four years ago when the financing was undertaken, interest rates were comparatively very high. It was that side of the House that supported high interest rates, so I find it rather strange to be complaining at this point. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MPIC - lending agency re sewer project for Village of Tyndall MR. J.

DOWNEY : Madam Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, would he check as to whether or not it's the Public Insurance Corporation that is providing the finances for that municipality and , if so, will he reconsider the loan which has been given to those people who are hard pressed by high costs? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I'm indeed glad that the Member for Arthur recognizes that the corporation plays a very vital

part in financing municipal infrastructure, personal care homes, hospitals in Manitoba. The Manitoba Public Insuranc e Corporation also has a responsibility to the Manitoba motorists to obtain whatever the going interest rate is at that date. I'm quite sure that the interest rate that is being paid on that debenture is certainly not any more than would have been obtained through any financial institution, and the benefits are there for Manitobans. Lottery licences - unwritten qualification rule MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, this governmen t has a set of rules that it publishes for qualification for lott ery licenses. Madam Speaker, even though you qualify for those kinds of rules, there are also a couple of unwritten rules which acquire meaning, as well, such as the requir ement that, if you're a non-profit corporat ion, in the event of dissolution, all of your assets must go to a charity .

Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister responsible for the Lotteries Foundation is: Can she advise why this unwritten rule is not contained in the normal regulations, so that everybody is aware aboveboard as to what the regulations and rules are? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Ministe r responsible for Lotteries. HON. J. WASYLYCIA - LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can tell the Member for Charleswood that certainly is not an unknown, unwritten

interpretation of existing regulations and guidelines. It's a clear guideline that

L Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 any organization being licensed must be non-profit. Certainly we're trying very hard to live up to that definition and to ensure that all licensing is done on the basis of non-profit, charitable purposes . So I think that clearly answers the member's question. 175th Anniversary of Selkirk Settlement - plans to commemorate HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: While I'm on my feet, if I could respond to a question that I took at the end of last week from the Member for Springfield regarding the 175th anniversary of the first party of Selkirk Settlers which will be on Augus t 30, 1987.

I believe the Member for Springfield asked about plans for marking that occasion . I can tell the member that several steps have been taken, the first being provincial plaques , as members know, have been erected in Scotland to commemorate Lord Selkirk, and in St . Boniface to commemorate the Red River Settlement. As well, a publication on Lord Selkirk has been issued, and then one describing the history of the Red River Settlement is intended for publication in this fiscal year.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me poin t out to the Member for Springfield that my department responds to community initiatives in regard to important anniversaries and historical occasions . In that context, we have been contacted by the Lord Selkirk Association to assist in the establishment of a cairn commemorating the arrival of the first Selkirk Settlers and have invited a submission to the Community Commemorative Plaque Grants Program . Thank you. Lottery licences - unwritten qualification rule MR. J.

ERNST: Madam Speaker, there are hundreds of organizations in this community and in this province that meet all of the guidelines published by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation for qualification for licence , but because they've been judicious and successful in their activities, they have acquired some assets. Why is this government now intending to penalize those organizations for their success over the years by attempting to add this additional requirement? HON. J.

WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, there is no intention on the part of members on this side of the House to penalize any organization for their hard work and initiatives . However, we are dealing here with the situation of a system that was put in place to ensure all organizations meet the criteria of non-profit and charitable objectives in order to be eligible for licensing. I have not received any direct concerns around that whole issue and it seems to me that the system is working well and in the best interests of all of us. Lottery licence - Breezy Bend Golf Club MR. J.

ERNST: Madam Speaker, I have a new question to the Minister responsible for Lotteries . The Breezy Bend Golf and Country Club made an application for a lottery licence . They were denied on the basis that the distribution of their assets was required to be made to charity in the event of dissolution of the club. They had $2 million worth of assets that they had accumulated over a period of time. Subsequent to that, they voluntarily said any money raised through lottery schemes over a period of time, they would gladly redistribute to the community in event of dissolution.

They were not prepared to give up the $2 million they had already worked hard for, and worked very hard for, Madam Speaker . Why now is the government denying them a licence to have a lottery scheme? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that all members in this House are anxious to see that lottery activities are con fined to non -p rofit , charitable, religious purposes. I don't know why at this point we would begin to make exceptions to that rule . We have discussed the matter.

This matter has been brought forward to the boa rd of the Lotteries Foundation by the Breezy Bend Golf Club, and I understand that they have made their case, appealed the decision, and the rules of the game have been clearly outlined to them . So I think the matter has been clarified , and it may not be to everyone's satisfaction , but it is consistent with our goals and objectives of operating lottery activities only in the non-profit sector of society. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ERRATA For clarification : In Oral Questions, on Page 3605 of Monday, 6 July, 1987, Mr.

Penner is quoted as saying: "Did he say deliberately? ", when in fact the words were spoken by Mr. Mccrae. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: May I direct the attention of honourable members - we had 16 visitors from the Kirkness Adult Learning Centre, under the direction of Miss Tamara Border , with us in the gallery. I believe they've had to leave . The Learning Centre is in the constituency of the Honourable Attorney-General. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DREIDGER: Thank you, Madam Speake r. 3668 I have some committee changes.

Under Privileges and Elections : Johnston for Kovnats; Birt for Nordman. Under Private Bills: Pankratz for Birt; Roch for Blake . Under Municipal Affairs : Downey for Brown. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan .

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 MR. M. DOLIN: Likewise, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded b y t he Honourable Member for Ellice , that th e compos ition of th e Standing Committee on Munic ipal Affa irs be amended as follows : The Honourable G. Doer for the Honourable H. Harapiak . ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker, before calling for the Orders of the Day, on a matter of House Bu siness , I'd li ke to indicate that the Standing Committee on Economic Development will not be meeting this Thursday to consider the Annual Report of the Communities Economic Development Fund, but will be meeting on Tuesday next, July 14, at 10:00 a.m ., to unde rtake cont inued consideration of the Communities Economic Development Fund Annual Repo rt. That's been agreed to by the critic and the Opposition House Leader . I'll also be announcing some other committees probably later in the proceedings today or tomorrow .

Madam Speaker , would you please call for Debate on Second Reading, Bill No. 47? ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 47 - THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourab le Attorney-General, Bill No. 47, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia . MR. R. NORDMAN: Madam Speaker , I adjourned that for our leader. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

In examining Bill 47, the new Human Rights Code , I believe it's impor tant that we should review the philosophy of legislation as it has evolved , both in Mani toba and indeed across our country, with respect to human rights protection . Traditionally, human rights protection has been based on one of two basic areas . The main thrust has been to protec t individuals who belong to minorities, with visibly distinct charac teristics, who under certain circumstances could be the subject of abuse or discrimination in our society .

These characteristics , of course, are ones that notably demark them from others, and they include race, gende r, national origin , and all members I believe, on both sides of the House , are united in their support of equa l treatment for all on the basis of personal merit, regardless of any arb itrary characte ristics , as I say, that denote them by virtue of their race , skin colour or other visible characte ristics .

Human rights legislation as well , of course , has provided protection for the historical freedoms that have guaranteed individual liberty and the essence of our democrat ic society, the protection of freedoms of religion, freedom of association , freedom of politi cal thought, which is fundamental to our society as it exists today. (Mr. Deputy Speaker , C. Santos , in the Chair.) The new legislation proposes to broaden the specific protection offered on the basis of gender discriminat ion to reflect the spir it of the existing legislation .

The cour t system has interpreted the prohibitive grounds of sex very narrowly, and I support , Mr. Deputy Speaker , the inclusion of specific protection against discrimination based on pregnancy or the possibility of pregnancy and gender-determined characteristics. The broadening of the meaning of political beliefs , activities and associations is also a positive step. The courts as well, of course , have placed a very limited scope on the activities to be understood as discriminatory actions . I believe that the inclusion of harassment as a specific discriminatory action is a positive step .

I'll speak more though about concerns that I do have about the way in which tha t protection against harassment has been worded in the legislation. But I've heard concerns that this

section may open the way to overly-broad implementation. I think, though , that the history of narrow judicial

interpretation of the act should probably reassure most of those who have expressed the concerns . The new provisions which allow respondents to file a written reply to complaints and the right to respond to findings of investigation are much-needed reforms, especially under Human Rights legislation, since in many cases we're dealing with a quasi-judicial tribunal, not necessarily judges, and those trained and learned in the law. I think it's important under these circumstances that we ensure that the accused is presumed innocent and given every opportunity to defend themselves.

All parties must be assured of that justice and I believe that this is an improvement in the legislation . The proposed act also extends the traditional freedoms of political and religious thought while including safeguards which protect the rights of employers .

While I support the principle of Human Rights legislation, as it has been traditionally developed and as it has evolved and indeed much of the specifics within this legislation, and while I agree with the fact that many of the reforms and revisions are ones that will be welcomed by most in society and will be supported, I believe , by our members, I cannot, Mr. Deputy Speaker , support the inclusion of sexual orientation as specifically prohibited grounds for discrimination . Sexual orientation, as I've said on othe r occasions , is not a visible characteristic which can be obvious to anyone about an individual.

Those trad itional grounds of characteristics that I mentioned earlie r do not include the matter of individual preference or lifestyle. This , I believe , is the essence of what is being ensh rined in this legislation that we are now putting forwa rd as a prohibited ground for discrimination - lifes tyle. I don't believe that this is appropriate . I don 't believe that gays should be lumped together with the 3669

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 handicapped, with racial minorities, women or any other group that has in the past, by virtue of visible differences in characteristics, been seen as a group that ought to have specific protection. Sexual orientation is not a freedom essential to the maintenance of our society as we know it. While I think the term itself, "sexual orientation ," distorts the issue somewhat, what we're really talking about is homosexuality. Because rather than support the societal values of the majority of Manitobans , I believe that homosexuality strikes at the very heart of our society , the family .

The essence of my concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can be found in the definition of "sexual orientation " where homosexuality and bisexuality are equated with heterosexuality. It's wrong to say that those who oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation are opposed to homosexuals as people. The majority of Manitobans , I believe, do not want to discriminate against gays. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business.

I think we've long since passed the day when homosexual activities were illegal , and neither I, nor any of my colleagues are arguing the fact that homosexual lifestyle is a choice which is made legitimately by a small number of people in our soc iety, and they are free to do so under our legislation and we have no difficulty with that concept. But homosexual access to employment, to services, and to housing is protected just like anyone else's .

I do not believe that homosexuals should be specifically excluded from the basic human rights that all Manitobans enjoy and given some extra protection by virtue of their inclusion now as a specific lifestyle description being in The Human Rights Act .

I believe that the freedoms that we all enjoy, that indeed people in two World Wars fought and died for, freedoms of speech, of religion , of association, all of those are ones that are fundamental to human rights legislation, but I do not believe that homosexuality and bisexuality should be put in because I do not believe that they are equivalent to heterosexuality . I strongly object to enshrining that type of idea in law, especially such a fundamental law as The Human Rights Act. That is not responsible action or representative of the basic values of our society.

I don't believe that we, in this Legislature, will want to say to our children or should say to our children, "Well, you can be a homosexual, you can be a heterosexual, they're both equal, take your pick." I don't think that society is ready for that ; I don't believe that is in keeping with the fundamental religious or moral values of our society here in Manitoba or anywhere else in this country.

I believe that this bill will open the door to many possibilities, many possibilities which I have conc ern over and for which concern has been expressed by many who have been writing to me, to our members on this side of the House, indeed, I'm sure to all members of the Legislature . There is of course the question that has been put forward as to whether or not churches will be able to choose not to hire homosexuals as Ministers or as teachers . The bill says employers may discriminate on bona fide grounds , if there is no guarantee that religion will in fact be viewed as a bona fide ground.

That will be left open to a judgment made by somebody somewhere. Ther e was a specific guarantee in the old act and the government has removed that guarantee and changed it. We, as a Legislature and as a province, are asked to gamble on the

interpretation of the Commission and the courts , and I don't belie ve that that's good enough . The exemption ought to be there as specifically as it was under the old act. What about an agency, such as Big Brothers? What about that kind of agency that wants to provide services and companionship to children? It has certainly been argued , and I think with some reason, that this act in its new form , with the prov ision that it has for sexual orientation, could take away the right of these organizations to set their own standards of conduct and to set their own rules and procedures .

Nobody on this side is suggesting that homosexuals are equivalent to pedophile , for instance , and some on that side have argued that that's what we're saying , we're not suggesting that . We do say that parents deserve the right to choose what sor t of role models that they have for their children, that their children will be exposed to, through organizations such as Big Brothers . I don't think it's unreasonable that a parent be given the right to choose whether or not they have a gay Big Brother for their son.

If a mother does not want to have that role model for her son, I don't believe that she ought to, by virtue of legislation, be put in a position of having to accept that. Is that discrimination? I don 't think it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that's a reasonable choice that ought to be in the hands of a parent under those circumstances . Where does the government stand on the issue? How is the legis lation going to provide and guarantee that kind of specific fundamental right to the parent ? Will homosexual coup1es be recognized as spouses for the purpose of family and health benefits?

Now the leader of the gay lobby - and let's face it - it's a well-funded and a well-organized special interest group , and it's a group that obviously has a great dea l of influence not only on this government but on many people in society - he has indicated that he believes that now his homosexual spouse will be entitled to all of his employment benefit plans as a result of this legislation. The Attorney-General has said that that's only one man's

interpretation, and yet the reasons that we are amending the current act and putting forward a new human rights vote is to correct many of the problems that occurred as a result of court

interpretations that have gone contrary to the spirit and the intent of the act. The issue of homosexual spouses will certainly have a very large effect on employee benefits , in insurance contracts and in many programs that exist today in Manitoba. Yet the bill, as I understand it, proposes to delegate the ability to set regulation s covering homosexual rights in these areas to Cabinet. The most significant application of this bill would be decided in the secrecy of a Cabinet room behind closed doors without the public being involved in that decision.

We're talking about whether or not these are applied to employee benefits and insurance contracts, and that is a decision that can be made, as I understand it, by Cabinet . Does the government intend to give spousal status to homosexuals? If-it does not ; then I believe that that should be spelled out in the legislation . That should 3670

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 be spelled out in the legislation if the government does not intend that homosexuals ought to be given spousal benefits . Mr. Deputy Speaker, that should not be a matter of

interpretation; that should not be a matter that is left to any discretion of government . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am suggesting that Manitobans should have concern with the reasons that this government has entered into this legislation in the first place. Any government that wants to satisfy the gay lobby more than it wants to satisfy the Archbishop of Winnipeg, I think we ough t to be putting in question .

I think that anyone who is making these decisions in futur e with respect to spousal benefit plans and how they 'll apply under this act ought not to be somebody who has certainly been influenced substantially by the gay rights lobby. And the re's no question, as I said earlier, that it's a well-funded and it's a well-organized lobby. For five years , I note, ever since the election of the NDP, the gay rights lobby has been working very hard towards this. They have met countless times with individual members of the Legislature, with groups, with our caucus on this particular matter.

When I was on the CBC program a few weeks ago, they were phoning in - it was all jammed . Some of them got in two and three times - the same voice coming in - to try and give the impression that they had such strong public support.- (Interjection)- Well, that is the case ; that is indeed the case . I recognized several of them as people who I have spoken to on many occasions. A MEMBER: But you said they had different voices . MR. G. FILMON: No, no, no. I didn't say they had different voices. I said you could recognize the same voice over and over again coming in. They're well organized on this particular lobby.

But that doesn't mean that what they have convinced the government to do is what the vast majority of Manitobans want. I believe in fact it is totally contrary to what the vast majority of Manitobans believe ought to be here. Yet it will have repercussions on spousal benefit plans, repercussions on many other aspects .

For instance, by enshrining in legislation the concept that a homosexual lifestyle is equivalent to a heterosexual lifestyle, I believe it will lead inevitably to teaching in our schools of that concept - saying to the children: Homosexuality, heterosexuality - they're equivalent; take your pick.- (Interjection)- We won't be able to prevent it once it becomes law and I think that's wrong. The two are not equivalent , they have never been accepted as equivalent and they have never been , in the history of the development of our society , equivalent in terms of lifestyle .

Clearly, the development of our society throughout the ages has been based on heterosexual relationships . Our continued existence as a society depends upon heterosexual relationships unless the government is now going to tell us that we are now going to go into the Orwellian concept of basing our society's future on artificial insem ination or test tube bab ies as the norm for the future. It's obviously -(Interjection)- That's the way society has been in the past and that 's how we got to where we are.

I don't believe that the vast majority of Manitobans want to accept the government's position that the two are equivalent lifestyles and that we assure that by putting it into human rights legislation . Heterosexual relationships in the family unit remain as the cornerstone to all religious and moral beliefs in our society ; yet this legislation would seek to change that.

I was astounded at the position of the Ministe r of Health - a pract ising Catho lic who, in arguing this bill and addressing the concern about the teaching of homosexuality as an equivalent lifestyle in schools, said it wouldn't matter to him because his grandchildren would go to a private school and they wouldn 't be subject to that kind of teaching. That's hypoc risy. Here we have more than 90 percent of the students in our province going to public schools and he doesn't mind if they have to be taught that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent lifestyles, but . . . MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order being raised by the Attorney-Gen eral ? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Sir, if you look in Hansard, you will see that at no point in his address did the Minister of Health refer to private schools. The Minister of Health did not make the distinction with respect to private schools and that's an unfair attribution to him . That's not what he said , and let the record be clear that that's not what he said. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A dispute as to a statement of what was said is not a point of order. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that whole issue, of a number of practising Catholics over on the government side - whether it be the Minister of Health, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Government Services or the Minister of the Environment - all of them practising Catho lics supporting this legislation despite the fact that their church is vehemently opposed to this legislation. I can't understand how they, in all conscience , could support this legislation. Their religious beliefs surely won't allow them to support it when their church doesn 't support it.

The people who voted for them didn't just do so based on their political affiliation or their philosophy . The fact of the matter is that people voting for members of this Legislature do so, taking into account everything that they know about a person, about their religious beliefs, their families , what they, as an individual, stand for and believe in. I think that this will offend a lot of the people who supported those members because they supported them , based on, as I say, their family circumstances, their religious and moral convictions.

Now they' re abandoning all of that because of party pressure, and the Attorney-General is getting very excited about this, because he's the whip behind this whole movement. He's the individual who has put the pressure on them, in government, to override their religious and moral convictions and, in fact, to fall in line with his legis lation on that. You know, that's the kind of thing that we have here. It's just as simila r as the point that was made by the Member for St. Norber t about this is a matter of personal conviction and 3671

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 conscience, and yet the NDP won't allow their members a free vote on the issue. Now they have asked: Is it a free vote on your side? 1 can tell the Attorney-General and anybody else who asks that it absolutely is. We had a free, complete and open discussion in caucus on the matter and, indeed, there were many who questioned a variety of aspects, a variety of angles with respect to this particular legislation; but in the end it was a decision of caucus that each could vote in accordance with his own conscience and each has made up his or her own mind on this issue. They had their concerns .

They raised the issues that they wanted to raise with respect to the legislation and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they were given the right to vote in accordance with their conscience and each has. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't know for certain, because everyone hasn't spoken on this particular bill, but when they speak, they will state their convictions and their position on the legislation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to ensure that in no way are my remarks misinterpreted. In no way would I support or tolerate any gay-bashing. None of us wants to see gays or lesbians victimized.

We see them as having made a lifestyle choice; a lifestyle choice that is allowed obviously in our society under our legislation, under our laws. I would defend their right to make that choice. But to suggest that we must now place, in law, the principle that their lifestyle must be recognized as equivalent to heterosexual lifestyle, I think is wrong. I don't believe that our children should be taught that. I don't believe that our future society should depend upon that kind of concept being enshrined in law.

This legislation will now set up the prospect that persons will allege that they have been denied employment benefits, promotions, housing services because they're gay or lesbian. I suggest to you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as I suggest to the Attorney-General, that it is almost impossible to tell when one is serving or in company with somebody who is gay or lesbian, and certainly there are no distinguishing characteristics, nothing visibly that would allow somebody to make that kind of judgment; and yet people are now going to be able to utilize that as the reason why they will pursue a legislative challenge under The Human Rights Act, saying that they were denied a promotion because of their sexual orientation, because they are gay or lesbian.

I suggest to the Attorney-General that if people want to discriminate in housing or in employment, this legislation will not stop them because they can claim, with a great degree of certitude, that they have no idea of the sexual orientation of the person they're dealing with. Indeed, that's the case and it will just simply invite litigation, it will simply invite litigation; it will simply invite challenges under this legislation and will do nothing, in my view, to further protect the legitimate rights of homosexuals and gays, ones that they already enjoy in society today. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, addressing other aspects of the bill . The bill calls for a Human Rights Commission which has a specific term of office rather than at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Government-in-Council, and I believe that this is a charade on the part of the Attorney-General to say that they will no longer be political appointees, that they will be there and have a specific term of office, that they won't be completely replaced as they were when the NDP came into government, replacing the Human Rights Commission with their people.

The Attorney-General is trying to suggest that this body will not be able to be politicized and I think that's nonsense. When you look at every single board and commission that is appointed by this administration , even to the Cancer Research and Treatment Foundation, the appointments are made on the basis of politics, putting people onto the Cancer Research and Treatment Foundation, the vice president of the Logan NDP, the president of the St. Vital NDP, every single one of them questioned as to what their politics are before they are placed on the board.

So let's not attempt to in any way legitimize that process by suggesting that now that they have a term of office of five years or three years, that indeed that means they will not be appointed for their political philosophies being in keeping with those of the government. The fact of the matter is, that's a sham, and if the Attorney-General believes that the public will believe that, he's absolutely dead wrong.

Their friends , their political and ideological friends will be appointed because they share the same bias as the government does with respect to human rights adjudication, with respect to anything else in which they are operating. Mr. Deputy Speaker, although we support the need to ensure that sexual harassment is a prohibited activity, and I referred to this earlier, it appears that the bill, in defining harassment, may have gone too far.

For instance, and I'm sure the Attorney-General has taken account because it was noted in the Free Press that virtually anything that we do with respect to talking about our colleaugues in this Legislature that has been said in the past , references that have been made to the former political beliefs and affiliations of the Attorney-General, or references that have been made with respect to fascists and other criticisms that have been made of members on our side, those things all probably would end up being the subject of litigation under the way in which that

section 19(2) is worded in the act. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm talking about the reference to, ". . . vexatious and unwelcome conduct or comment undertaken or made on the basis of any characteristic referred to in subsection 9(2)." I believe that is going to be something that is going to have to be addressed by the government when this gets to committee stage because undoubtedly it is unwieldy and undoubedly it is something that isn't going to be reasonable to have in legislation. There's another

section of the act that says, if a person making the solicitation and this is with respect to sexual harassment, " ... if the person making the solicitation or advance knows or ought to reasonably know that it is unwelcome;" and I have difficulty understanding how a person should know or ought to know that if that advance involves discussion, whether it be charming talk, that that is unwelcome. I have no idea, unless an individual says so, that a person ought to know that that's an unwelcome advance. I don't know what an advance is intended to include or encompass in this particular legislation .

I would say that the legislation, the way it's worded, has gone too far. I am one to begin by saying that sexual harassment must be defined and must be assured to be provided for protection against in the 3672

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 act, but I believe that that particular phrase in there is going to give us nothing but difficulty and nothing but trouble . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have stated categoricall ~that I suppor t the protection of our fundamental rights and freedoms as provided for under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . I suppor t the principles of liberty and equality for all in society and so do members on th is side of the House .

I've also indicated that I believe that this new Human Rights Code has made a number of improvements, ones over the old act, and certainly I think that those areas are ones that all of us have welcomed. But in placing sexual orientation into the act as a grounds for prohibited discrimination, I don't believe that it rel ates to any of those fundamental freedoms or those kinds of visible characteristics that we can determine as grounds for discrimination; I don 't believe it relates to any of it. In fact , it really puts in place behaviour and lifestyle as being a grounds for prohibited discrimination.

I think that there 's no justification for it, and it 's going to lead to nothing but difficul ty. In fact, I think that the overall intent , the intent of suggesting that homosexual lifestyle and heterosexual lifestyle are equal and equivalent, is an unwarranted attack on the moral and religious values of the vast majority of Manitobans. To include sexual orientation, this lifestyle choice in there, I believe , is absolutely wrong. For that reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not be voting in favour of the legislation. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. It's unfortunate that we have to be debating Bill No. 47 in this Legislature, which would bring certain rights forward and enshrine certain rights in the paramount • statute of this province, certain rights that are out of step, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the thinking of Manito bans. I came across something recently, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think I'd like to share with honourable members in this House . What used to be called Christian discipline, is now called unhealthy repression.

What used to be called "disgusting" is now called "adult." What used to be called "moral irresponsibility" is now called being "freed-up ." What used to be called "self­ indulgence" is now called " self-fulfillment. " What used to be called " perversion " is now called "alternate lifestyle ." Mr. Deputy Speaker, in many respects, what used to be is better for our society, for the sake of the health of our Manitoba community, the economic, the social and the moral health , we should be thinking of some of those things about what used to be , as opposed to what we see enshrined in Bill No. 47.

Particu larly upsetting to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we face Bill No. 47 on this side of the House, and deal with it freely and as a matter of conscience among the members of this side of the House; but that among honourable members opposite , their freedom is stifled, taken away from them on a bill that deals with our basic and fundamental freedoms. It's very hard to understand how a government , which says it's dedicated to the freedom of the individual and the liberty of the person , can put the whips on its members on a bill of this nature.

What makes it particularly upsetting to me is that a week ago last Thursday, Mr. Deputy Speaker , a number of the members on the side opposite took it upon themselves to attend a labour demonstration which ultimatel y turned violent and 14 people were arrested. The Premier of th is province tells us that those gentlemen were acting on their own , as private citizens, and that he had no particular part to play in that and that he had no particular criticism . Yet, when it comes to something as fundamental and basic as the human rights of individuals in this province, the whips are on honourable members opposite.

I say that that doesn't bode very well for people like the Minister of Health , for people like the Minister of Employment Services and Economic Security, both the Member for The Pas and for Swan River and the Member for St. Vital, the Member for Lac du Bonnet , the Member for Rossmere, perhaps others. I say that's an invasion of their right to do what their conscience dictates. I'm satisfied that if those honourable members that I mentioned truly searched their souls, they would find themselves on opposite sides of their colleagues in regard to Bill 47. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture maybe would like to be included in that list, but he asks me now, he says to me I don't understand religion . Well, let me just go back to 1982, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Constitution of this country became the fundamental law of this country . At that time , honourable members opposite and their colleagues down East deprived Canadians of the right to acquire and hold property. They did allow, however, perhaps as a trade-off, the

preamble to the Constitution to read as follows: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law . . . "The Minister of Agriculture talks about religion. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'm not particularly religious and I'm not a Bible thumper either, but as a result of questions from members on the other side to me about the biblical aspects of Bill 47 and the biblical aspects of homosexuality, I did do a little research at home using my own scripture, and for the benefit of those honourable members who really are interested, the question put to me was, where it is it in the Bible that there 's any mention that there's something wrong with homosexuality. So I did find some passages that I would share with honourable members today.

The first one , because honourable members opposite asked for this , Mr. Deputy Speaker, is found is Leviticus , the 18th Chapter, in Verse 22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination ." Some people in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker , may find it funny - references to the Holy Scriptures in reference to the human rights of Manitobans - I don't.

Leviticus 20, Verse 13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death." Now the Honourable Minister of Agriculture makes light of these passages in the Holy Scripture . I assume later on - oh he wants to make his position known now 3673

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . . . HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Honourable Member for Brandon West accused me of making light of an issue of the quotation of the Bible. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask him to withdraw those imputations. What I said from my seat, the only reference that he said somebody makes it light - the only one mak ing it light is the Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's hardly a point of order when the Minister of Agriculture hurls back at me the same words that I used in reference to him. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are certain rules in this House that people cannot make .. . -(Inaudible)- MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, in Romans I, verse 24 - sorry, that's not the one . Verse 27: "And likewise also other the men , leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly , and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. " First Corinthian 6, Mr. Speaker, Verse 9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inheret the kingdom of God?

Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ". Mr. Speaker , I hadn 't intended to make references to the scripture except that honourable members opposite, in discussions with me, suggested that the scripture was silent on the issue, and the scripture definitely is not silent. In a country which recognizes the supremacy of God, I believe this issue has to be looked at in more ways than honourable members opposite are looking at it. Our nation is founded on principles which do recognize the supremacy of God .

It is not against God 's law, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have tendencies. I think people have tendencies which are unsavoury in all kinds of ways, but it is the act of carry ing out those tendencies where we breach God's law, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And I believe that we have breached the fundamental law of our country when we pass certain sections of Bill 47 into law. It's also distressing to me, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that this government would bring forward legislation dealing with Christian belief, which is also referred to in Bill 47, when at the same time they steadfastly refused to recognize the Christian beliefs of Manitobans when it comes to membersh ip and labour unions. The Manitoba Labour Relations Act says that in orde r to be excluded from the beauty of paying union dues at a union shop, one must belong to a faith which precludes membership in a union or in an assoc iation .

Now the way that that has been interpreted by the Labour Board is that preclusion must mean that if you're going to be a member of a union, or pay union dues , the result would be that your church would excommunicate you. That is what that means in the Labour Act, "preclude," according to the

interpretation of the Labour Board . Most people who are concerned with that

section are not the kind of people who want to go running to the nearest media outlet or the nearest newspaper and make a big issue of it, Mr. Speaker . Those people want quietly to live their lives and enjoy their religious freedom that they thought they had in this country . But here we are making homosexuality an equal lifestyle with other lifestyles in this province and denying religious groups the legitimate right to exclude themselves from union membership .

The Min ister's office steadfastly refused to do anything about the law that takes away from people their religious freedoms, yet is bound and determined - with the Whips on - to enshrine the homosexual rights in the Human Rights Code of Manitoba . It's very disturbing to me and it smacks of a double standard, and it tells me, Mr. Deputy Speaker , tha t we're going down the wrong road in this province . I'm very concerned for my family and for other families in this province about which direction we are taking when it comes to the moral issues of the day.

My leader referred to the family, and I maintai n that the family is the bulwark of our society ; and I maintain that the family is the best hope for the futu re of our society. Every assault of the type we see in this legislation is just another assault leading toward the eventual breakup of that kind of society that we still enjoy in this country, and it really concerns me, as a legislator. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I can't come here and support some of the provisions in Bill 47 and face my own family , let alone my own constituents.

I read, in either today's press or yesterday 's press, a letter to the editor by one Chris Vogel stating that the majority of the people of this province want this­ amendment. Well I categorically deny that statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it's absolute hogwash. Members of my caucus have conducted surveys in the ir constituencies and I know that in my constituency, of the respondents 90 percent would see it the other way. Now I can 't see Brandon West being so different from the rest of the province, that we should believe what Mr. Vogel says when he says that the majority of Manitobans would favour this approach .

I'd like to deal briefly with the comments of the Minister of Health in this debate who somehow has found a way to throw away his conscience , again, and support Bill 47. The Minister of Health has said that "no one in this world can get between him and his conscience" but , Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I maintain that the NOP, once again , has done that, and there are other members on the side opposi te who are in exactly the same position and no doubt they will come up with some arguments to rationalize a position which is inconsistent with what I believe is what they feel deep down in their consciences but , because of party sol idari ty and because the Whips are on, they are going to find ways to support legi slation which is wrong for all the reasons that have been given by my House leader, by my leader and by others in our party.

The Minis ter of Health has suggested that homosexuals are sick. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that alcoholics are sick; that smokers are sick; that drug addicts are sick ; that compulsive gamb lers are sick . Do all those people enjoy the same protect ion in Bill 47 as homosexuals do, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No 3674

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 they don 't. Why are we singling out that group , as opposed to all the other groups I have named? So if they are sick, what help has the province given to the homosexual community in this province? Wbat help has been given to those people? Is this the help they are going to give them, to legitimize their lifesty le? Are we legitimizing alcoholism? Do we legitimize compulsive gambling and so on? We certainly don 't legitimize smoking, in fact, we do everything we can to discourage it.

But what are we doing to discourage this sickness of homosexual ity, a sickness, as stated by the Minister of Health? What have we done? He's the Minister of Health , he's the person who we should be asking. What has the government done to help these people who are sick? The government brings in legislation to legitimize the ir lifestyle, that's the help . Mr. Depu ty Speaker, he also said that they don 't want help. I'm sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's not what he said . He said the more that they are sick and they need some help, give them help. Well, what help has been given?

I say they don't want any help at all, they want this legislation to legitimize a lifestyle which has never been legitimate in the past. This concept is fairly new. As I understand it, only in 1961 , the first jurisdiction to recognize that homosexual acts were not criminal was the State of Illinois, in 1961. So in terms of progress with regard to homosexuals - if you want to call it progress - we've come a long way since 1961, now to the point where we're making it an equal lifestyle with the lifestyles of others in our society. Some other things about the bill that concern me, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is the method by which the Commission is appointed and by which the adjudication panels are appointed . They're hand-picked by the Attorney-General. This was a concern which, if the Attorney-General was able to allay the fears of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Health would be able to support the legislation .

Apparently the Minister of Health and the Attorney-General are very close and very trusting of each other because the Minister of Health has bought this bill and agreed to support it, but I have a problem with how the provisions of Bill 47 will be interpreted by this hand-picked group of people that the Attorney-General will select to form the adjudication panels . One of the sections of the bill, I can 't tell you what it is off hand, but it's the

section dealing with harassment, I believe. It's the one that deals with vexatious or unwelcome conduct.- (Interjection)- Okay or comment .- (Interjection)- I' m not supposed to mention the

section so as I go along maybe the Attorney-General can do it for me . . . Well that section, Mr. Deputy Speaker, says that there shall be no vexatious or unwelcome conduct or comment . Now I really don 't know what it means . George Carlin always asks, but what does it mean? So I'm asking that, and I'm ask ing what will it mean . I sugges t th at the potential is there really to open the floodgates . Does it mean that the Honourable Member for Ellice can no longer call the members on this side of the House "bastards"?

Because if that's what it means, then the next thing you know, the next time one of those members over there call us "fasc ists" or " racists ," we'll be able to have them in court, I guess if it's outside the Chamber. I guess that's the way it works . Does this mean that you can't call a Progress ive Conserv ative a "Tory" if that upsets a Progressive Conservativ e? Some Progressive Conservatives hav e been called "dinosaurs." Does that mean that the person who uses that language will end up before the adjudication pane l set up by the Attorney-General?

If we refer to the Attorney-General as a " Communist ," does that mean we're going to be thrown in jail, or does it mean we're going to have to appear before an adjudication panel? I say that this leads to some pretty ridiculous situations and the lawyers of this province are going to have a heyday. Now I suggest this legislation was written by some lawyers; whether they were Communist lawyers or not, I don't know , but they're going to have lots to do if we pass this legislation and they 're goi ng to be spending a lot of time on some pretty ridiculous situations.

The whole crux of this bill in regard to what is discrim ination hinges on that expression , bona fide and reasonable requirements or qualificat ions, or bona fide and reasonable cause for discr imination .

That's what many, many of the cases appearing before the adjudication pane ls will be all about, and considering the method by which these people will be chosen, I have some fear that when we get a report from the Human Rights Commission each year, it's going to be like that , because of the number the cases that are going to be raised , a number of cases that we would now call frivolous or silly or vexatious, those cases will now be dealt with in a serious manner and I'm very concerned about the

interpretation that the adjudicatio n panels will put on Bill 47 or the Human Rights Code , as it will be called . Another concern I have has to do with our law in this country and in the British tradition, the principle of scienter - I think it's scienter or mens rea - whatever it is - the word is "intent." Intent is required to commit most offences unless it's absolute offences like parking your car illegally or whatever it is. In those cases you don 't have to have intent . But, in cases of criminal misconduct, intent is required.

Under Bill 47 no intentio n to discriminate is required so that the penalties involved in Bill 47 could conceivably be used to their fullest extent against one who disc rimin ated without any intention to discriminate . I think that probably runs contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . I'll leave that for the experts to comment on, but certainly as a huma n being it seems to me that for me to do a wrong to someone else I should intend to do that before I'm punished for it. . . .- (inaudible)- . . .

One is not out of line by making accusations , but when those accusations are combined with the word "intentional" and that the honourable member opposi te intent ionally misled the House, or intentionally told a lie, or intentionally promoted violence on the picket line, any of those things, the word "intentional" is key. But when we appear before the adjudica tion pane l set up under this legislation, no intent is required and you could be subject to the full extent of the provisions of this law which deal with penalties .

I think that runs contrary to the law as we know it in this country and probably runs contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then, Mr. Deputy Speake r, that is nothing new about that in Manitoba, is there? 3675

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 As I said a few moments ago, certain religious societies in this province are routinely discriminated against, with the willing assistance of the Minister of Labour, through the Manitoba Laour Relations Act, and he'll do nothing about that . The Attorney-General refuses to do anything about that. This same Attorney-General , who wants to impose this kind of test on a respondent in one of these cases is the same Attorney-General who would try to stifle people who come forward to speak about matters of concern in this place, before our committees.

So, we really have to look behind the bill , Mr. Speaker , to know what the real intention and what the bona tides are of the honourable members who bring forward such legislation . And, as I say, I really feel sorry for some of the honourable members opposite who would like to speak out against this bill, would like to absent themselves from voting for this bill, would like to vote against this bill . Those honourable members - one or two of them are in the House right now - and I do feel sorry for them . I wouldn't allow my own party to do that to me.

If it were otherwise in my party, if my party were supporting Bill 47,p and the whips were on, my party would soon find me sitting somewhere else, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I wouldn't allow myself to be used in that way when it comes to such a fundamental issue as human rights in this province.- (lnterjection)- Well, I thank my honourable friend for Riel for suggesting I have principles . I suggest the same might be said for all 26 members of the Progressive Conservative Party in this House. A MEMBER: Right on! SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. J.

McCRAE: Since we're dealing with sections of a bill, or clauses of a bill, which to me appear to be somewhat capricious, I might ask another question . Perhaps the Attorney-General can give me which

section I'm talking about here, but we're dealing with the age of majority, dealing only with matters contained in Manitoba Statutes. Now, would I be misunderstanding if I were to ask : Does that

section mean that children will soon be allowed to be members of men's clubs in Winnipeg, women's clubs , clubs that have traditionally been reserved for people over the age of majority, since the membership in those clubs has nothing to do with Manitoba Statutes? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting that and the Attorney-General can clear that up when he speaks to close debate . MR. A. DREIDGER: Maybe he'll withdraw the bill by that time. MR. J.

McCRAE: Now, the Minister of Finance, during the Estimates Review of the Civil Service Commission , told me that he didn't see this change in our law having any affect on pension plans, or LTD plans , or health insurance plans for public servants in the Province of Manitoba . He doesn't know, yet he wants to support Bill 47. He doesn't know whether Mr. Vogel and his friend will be able to enjoy certain benefits now enjoyed only by legal spouses in this province ; he doesn 't know that.

Yet, holus bolus and quite blindly he's going to support Bill 47 and hopes that his colleagues will support Bill 47 to allow the floodgates to open ; to allow applications to come before - who knows where? Perhaps as high up as the Supreme Court of Canada, so that homosexual males can be married and can enjoy spousal benefits under pension plans , and LTD plans , and health insurance plans and so forth. I say this province , under this government, has gone totally topsy-turvy and that they really don't know what they're doing when they bring in legislation like this .

We don' t know what the implications are going to be. They don't even know what those implications will be, yet they push ahead with this kind of legislation . I'm concerned about sect ion 27 and what we find in tha t

section dealing with access to premises and documents by the executive director or an investigator on reasonable and probable grounds . Well here again, who decides what the reasonable and probable grounds are? Will this be a court? If it is, the Minister can tell us that when he speaks to close debate . If it's not a court , will it be one of those hand-picked adjudicators that the Minister will place on the adjudication panel; and , in that case, will there be a perception that everything is being handled fairly? The Minister of Health's concern is not that all the members of the adjudication panel will be NDP.

In fact, he probably wou ld prefer that , but his concern is will the members of the adjudication panel represent women; Will they represent men; will they represent handicapped; will they represent Natives ; will they represent visible minorities? Well, the Minister can give us whatever assurances he wants, but all we have to go by is the letter of the law. If this is the way the law is going to be, what happens if a fascist party should take over in this province some day; and then who will be on that panel? Some suggest we're not that far away now.

Honourable members opposite , specifically the Minister of the Environment , takes great glee in accusing us of being fascists and racists at times. Well, aside from the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that some day it may be illegal for him to use the language which he's become so accustomed to using, he and the Minister of Culture and Heritage .

They can go on using that language with impunity in this House, but outside this House , perhaps under the sections dealing with vexatious conduct, those people won't be able to talk like that any more , and I referred earlier to the Member for Ellice and his use of the expression "bas tards" in characterizing honourable members on this side of the House. He apologizes in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker , but then he goes out - not unlike the Minister of Community Services - he goes out to the Press and repeats what he says, says he doesn't regret having used that kind of language. So you 'll forgive me, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if I find it difficult to accept the apology given to us by the Member for Ellice, when he goes out and repeats the same thing outside this Chamber . There's an element of cowardice here too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, involved in the behaviour of the Honourable Member for Ellice, the Honourable Member for Kildonan, the Honourable Member for Elmwood and the Honourable Member for Thompson, when they come 3676

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 in here and they use the Rules of this House to throw me out of this place for making statement s about their behaviour, which run contrary to the best interests of workers in this province and contrary to the best interests of Manitobans. This kind of legislation comes from people who behave themselves that way, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

You'll forgive me if I'm just a little bit disillusioned and just a little bit unbelieving when it comes to believing the undertakings given to us by honourable members opposite about how fairly and how properly this kind of legislation will be interpreted and administered . I think we now know - when we see sections like this dealing with access to premises and documents by the executive director - we now know why the NDP in Ottawa never allowed freedom to private property in the Constitution of this country.

Because in statute after statute passed by the New Democrats in this province, we see a blatant disrespect for the property rights of Manitobans and we now know why their colleagues in Ottawa never would agree to the inclusion of property rights, although they had to come kicking and screaming to allow some reference to the deity in the Constitution of Canada . I have a problem with the way evidence is to be presented, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the adjudication panels . The rules are not the same rules that the Attorney-General knows very well are the rules in court .

Those rules are fairly strict and they're subject to review , or the way evidence is received is subject to review, but under this legislation, evidence could be given to the adjudicators whether it would be admissible in a cour t of law or not. Now that opens the doors for hearsay evidence; it opens the doors for all kinds of irrelevant material which may have no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand .

But that kind of evidence could serve to influence the adjudicator either one way or the other, on the applicant's side or on the respondent's side , evidence in the form of photographic evidence, which may never be allowed in a court of law, documentary evidence, which would never be allowed in a court of law, by virtue of the fact that the makers of evidence like that are the only ones that would be allowed to bring it forward. All those rules of evidence are out the window when it comes to a very serious charge of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

There again , the adjudication panels bona tides are in question , by virtue of the way that they will be chosen . We know how the Labour Board is chosen ; we know how the Board of Governors of Brandon University is chose n; we know how the Board of Governors of the Manitoba Labour Education Centre, funde d by the Government of Manitoba, how they're all chosen. So is there any reason for us to expect thin gs are going to be any different at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission? That is a key concern.

That combined with what constitutes a reasonable and bona fide cause, and reasonable and bona fide qualification, those two elements of this legislation should be of the greates t concern to all Manitobans, and certainly to any legislator . Will all the adjudicators be lawyers? Can the Attorney­ General tell us about that when he closes debate? Will all the adjudicators be lawyers? -(Interjection)- They 'll all be judges.- (Interjection)- That's what we use now. But under the adjudicat ion panel is what I'm asking . Will they be lawyers?

Because if they're lawyers , we might be able to have a little better assurance that the rules of evidence might, in some way, be followed. But the way it is, the way I read it, I can't enjoy that assurance. So this is a concern as well. The adjudication panel is going to have to determine questions of fact, law or mixed fact and law. What does this mean to a layman? It doesn't mean a whole lot to me, I'm sure , and it doesn't mean a whole lot to a lot of others , and those chosen as adjudicators will have problems .

The test again, in whether an applicant is right and a respondent wrong or vice versa - the test is a balance of probabilities . Well that's the test in our civil courts. In civil matters it has proven to be a good test over time. But in criminal matters, the test is that there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, when the penalties are so str ict under the Huma n Rights Code , I would think that the kind of test that should be used would be the kind of test used in the criminal law.

Yet the test to be used in deciding matters that come before the adjudication panels is the test of the balance of probabilities. The penalties are severe or they could be severe . So I say that this test is wrong when we consider that the adjudicators are hand-picked by the Attorney -General. Damages can be awarded as the adjudicator deems just and appropriate for injury to dignit y, feelings or self-respect, up to a maximum of $10,000.00. Under those conditions, I suggest the test should be much stricter than just the balance of probabilities .

Now the adjudicator can also force a respondent found guilty of discrimination, to adop t and implement an affirmative action program. In view of all the things I've said about how the decision will be arrived at - I'm talk ing about a respondent obviously in th is case - they are then under the foot of the government , unde r the thumb of the government, and forced to implement an affirmative action program , a program which may have nothing to do with the specif ic case of discrimination alleged agains t the respondent.

Therefore, the remedy imposed by the adjudication panel may tend to go way, way beyond what the complain embraced in the first place . So here again , what we are is we're having state interference in private relationships and we'll have many, many people potentially being forced to adopt affirmative action programs and I think that this should be a concern as well. The compliance with an order given by the adjudication panel is then supervised by the adjudicator.

A lot of these things we might find in other statutes , in other kinds of legislation, but by virtue of the way the adjudicators are chosen, I have grave concerns about the supervision by an adjudicator of an order made by the Human Rights Commission . Then we come to the matter of appeals, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appeals from the adjudicat ion panels or to the court ; but only on two grounds , so that those two grounds being jurisdiction of the adjudicato r and breach of principle of natural justice or fairness . Those are the two grounds that you can use to appeal to a higher level.

But let's remember how the decision s are made in the first place . The rule books, when it comes to laws and reception of evidence , are all thrown out the window , and then when you feel you 've had a bad hearing, the only way 36n

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 that you can go to a higher level to appeal is under those two conditions: jurisdiction of the adjudicator, or breach of principle of natural justice or fairness. What about the rules of evidence which are usually reviewed by an appeal court when it makes a decision on whether to allow an appeal or to even hear an appeal? What about mistake? What about an allegation of bias on the part of the adjudicator? That has nothing to do with an appeal.

You can't go to an appeal court and say the adjudicator was biased, because that's not one of the two grounds that you can bring the matter forward on. So, bearing in mind how the adjudicators are chosen, it would be useful if an allegation of bias on the part of an adjudicator could be used to bring a matter forward to the appeal court . Then I suppose one of the most frightening things in the whole bill is that regulations can be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for carrying out the objectives of the code. George Carlin would indeed ask, but what does that mean?

How much power have we already given to honourable members opposite? How have they already abused it so badly in the many years that they have been in the government of this province? I hesitate to give honourab le members opposite the power to open a peanut stand, because I already know they couldn't operate it anyway. So why would I give them the power? Now they want powers to make regulations under this code. That scares me. What kinds of regulations do they have in mind? Why should we be giving this kind of power to this bunch of incompetents opposite, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It makes no sense to me whatsoever .

On the basis , Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this government has no interest as far as I can tell in protecting those sacred principles on which this Canadian society is based, they have no interest in protecting the family unit . They have no interest in preserving those traditions that have been good for our society, good for our people . Their interest is in appealing to some of the more prurient interests in our society. I think of the Minister of Cultu re, Heritage and Recreation and the stand that she takes regarding homosexuals in this province.

I say I don't want to be associated in any way, shape or form with the Honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. I want no part of the morality that she and her government represent . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you , Mr. Deputy Speaker . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to speak on this bill rather briefly , but I do want to put some comments on the record to state my position in this regard .

Let me begin by saying that in spite of the holier­ than-thou attitude that we hear coming across , especially from the Member for Brandon West, when he would like, for instan ce, to see the protection of property rights in their legislation and is not prepared to protect the rights of people under legislation, that is a contridiction that I certainly would not want to be part of. I will support this legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not because anybody is telling me that I have to support this legislation .- (Interjection)- You can get up and speak whenever you want. Nobody will prevent you from doing that.

It's my turn. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will defend their right to say whatever they want on this bill in this House and to vote whatever way they want , but I will not accept that they will try to lever us into voting the way they 're going to vote, because let's face it, there is no freedom of vote on that side of the House either . I can tell you this, though, Mr. Deputy Speaker . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. G. LECUYER: Well, that's wha t you 're saying about us. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's what they're saying about our situation, but I'm telling you that doesn't exist on that side . Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if I saw in this bill a moral ground whereby my conscience could not accept or support this, I can assure all members of this House, I would not be supporting it. But I will be, and I hope others will be convinced of that, beca use I believe that conscience and tolerance will prevail in the end over fear and hate . This bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, does nothing to promote, legitimize or to add new rights . It's there to defend the rights of individuals, human beings, as it should be, and for the member to compare that to smokers ' rights , for instance, is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't know what is the motivation or what is the factor that makes one be a homosexual , I don 't fully understand that . I don't support the practice or the lifestyle, but I will defend the right of someone , and I think we should all defend the right of someone to be that. Not that I agree with that particular orientation, not that I personally think that the practice of it is correct, but the right of an individual to be free from discrimination or harassment in his job or his employment or in his housing I think is a right that they all should have. "The Gospel of Jesus Christ ...

"­ and this is Bishop Walter Jones of the Anglican Church who is saying, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels Christians to guard against all forms of injustice and to affirm that all persons are brothers and sisters for whom Christ died ." The members opposite cite passages from the Bible - and it's evidence of the fact, I suppose, that homosexual behaviour or the fact that homosexuality has existed for a long time is evidence of that .

They cite passages where the Bible, for instance, shows that it doesn 't condone the practice of homosexuality, and I don't either , nor does the church to which I'm an adherent and a practising Christian . A MEMBER: Why are you passing this legislation? HON. G. LECUYER: Because it doesn't do that and that you should understand, and you will find out from your constituents if you explained it to them properly. Rather than incite their misunderstanding of it, you would find out that they also are prepared to be tolerant.

In this letter, which also gives all the passages of the Scriptures, where reference is made to homosexuality, the letter that the Member for Kildonan had used from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and it's a pastoral letter which was endorsed by John Paul 11, states : "It is 3678

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action . Such treatment deserves condemnation from the churches' pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others , which endangers the most fundamental princ iples of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law." Having said that, they said, "We don 't condone the practice of homosexuality. " And thi s legislation doesn't do that.

"The characteristic concern and good will" - it says later - " exhibited by many clergy and religions and their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable and we hope will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the word of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth." That's what we stand for, Mr.

Deputy Speaker ; that's what we want to do with this legislation - not give them special or additional rights as some of the members over there would like to make anyone believe . In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have been tremendously concerned and certainly could not have supported this legislation if that's what it had been propos ing to do. In fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , there's a number of sections in this act , in particular , without citing them all - sections 12, 14(8), 14(9), 14(11), 15(2), 16(2) - that are all there to make sure that these are not special rights but are there to make sure that these are not rights that are abused either. The Health Minister went on to say that having read the legislation and considered it carefully -(lnterjection)­ This is not a moral code that is being established, it's a legal code, and my conscience can suppo rt it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would encourage the members opposite to read the speech made by the Attorney -General, Ian Scott, in Ontario on November 26, 1986 when he spoke on the sexual orientation amendment to the Human Rights Code in Onta rio. I encourage the members opposite to read it.

Unfortunately, I cannot quote all of the pertinent passages here, but he begins by talking about, for instance, the common views we had , perhaps, in the past and some we continue to hold in terms of, let's say, traditionally describing in his milieu, for instance, it was common to describe the Irish as being drunks , to describe the Jews as being usery people , etc ., and here is what he says - and of course some of them were he says, but most of them were not: Most of them turned out to be just like the rest of us.

Therefore, we had to add those classifications to the Hum an Rights Code in order to protect the human rights of the members of those groups . What we were trying to say is that you were exactly the same if you were those things and were entitled to have your right to services for which your tax dollar pays quite often, evaluated on the basis of you r own willingness to obey the law and your own merits and demerits.

What we know beyond any doubt - if there was any doubt - is that homosexuals are deprived of access to public services as the Irish were, as the Jews were, as the French Canadians were, as dozens of other groups were and the purpose of this legislati on is not to exalt their status , not to permit them to break laws , not to alter any of the fabric of society, but to give them what as human beings is the least they are entitled to, same individual access in which their capacity, their needs can be evaluated by those who provide public, not voluntary, services .

It goes on to say, I suggest that there are a number of things that this law if passed will not do. It will not disrupt the values of the society . It does not speak to the values of society. It speaks to equal access to services. If members believe it will disrupt the values of our society, I asked them objectively to look at the experience in Quebec. Now we can say look at the experience in Ontario, look at the experience in the Yukon, look at the experience in many countries in Europe and look at the experience in many of the states in the United States .

In every one of those cases, there is no evidence that the fundamental values of society has been altered in any way by assuring to individual law-abiding citize ns that their access to housing or employment to what­ have-you, will be judged on individua l merits . The law will not permit or require pedophiles to be hired by day care centres .

They will not permit or require child molesters to be hired in schools, and I suppose it's also right to say that that doesn't belong, that unfortunate characteristic of being molester or using of violence in any way, shape or form doesn 't belong to any particular group whether they be homosexuals or heterosexuals and I suppose statistics would bear that out, maybe there's more of the other than there are of homosexuals, I don't know. But this doesn't do anything to sanction that kind of behaviour or attitude anywhere.

He goes on to say, I sense that the difficulty about this amendment that some honourable members have is dictated by one of two possibilities, both of whic h I respect . The first is that it is opposed out of that kind of a kind of fear and the second is that it is opposed on moral grounds . This amendment deprives no person of an existing right. There is no person who loses a lawful right if this amendment is passed anywhere in Ontario and I say this for Manitoba as well.

It deprives nobody of the right to judge the competence of individuals objectively , whether it be for employment or housing, it does not alter the law of marriage, it does not downgrade the family as the central institution of our country . It does not alter or modify individuals or societal values. I for one believe, also as the Member for Brandon West suggested a while ago that the family is the nucleus of the balance of our society and that doesn 't alter in any way, shape or form my support to this bill.

But before the act on the basis of fear which is the lowest of human motive for acting, they will want to be satisfied that there is an objective, rational and logical basis for the fear that motivates them. I, for one do not believe that this bill if it's properly understood has anything to do with those moral values . It doesn 't. Members opposite shou ld read an

article which appeared in the National Review on September 19, 1986, and it's called: A letter from a friend - a conservative speaks out for gay rights . I don't want to quote much from this

article because it's too long, but it says this at one point, Mr. Deputy Speaker : " The worst thing about historical rhetoric is that it sometimes has its intended effect . People believe it. It is possible 3679

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 to frighten people so badly that they will take whatever actions they believe are necessary to protect their children ." This what we've done, for instance, in regard to AIDS , until we find out that it doesn't belong to one group , it unfortunately has spread to all groups. The persecuto rs of gays - there is significan t responsibility for gay militancy and have no right to cite it as an excuse for more persecution. I think that's what perhaps is likely to happen when we hear the type of comme nts that are made as the ones that were made just a moment ago from the Member for Brandon West.

Mr. Deputy Speaker , the views and the practices of homosexuals, I do not personally share , could not personally condone , but I believe they all should be treated equally under the law, and this law is not meant to force acceptance but rather is meant to enshrine tolerance for all peoples in our society . There is an

article also which appeared in the Free Press on July 2, which was written by Abraham Arnold , I believe he is with the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties . He says : "No one would assume , however, that this protection confers a right on the members of any religious or political group to go into our schools, to teach the tenets of their faith or the ideology as equal to or better than the bel iefs that students acquire from their family tradition or from an independent study during their years of schooling .

Why then should anyone assume that granting protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orien tation may confer the right to teach the viability of a homosexual lifestyle?" "The Human Right Code spells out only what people cannot do in their dealing with members of var ious minority groups in the areas of employment, housing, public services, etc . It does not include anything that should be or must be done." I think, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , because these rights of freedom from discrimination, from harassment , are not protected and there are many other groups and categories into this bill that are added or afforded thi s type of protection, it doesn't belong only to the homosexual groups. But it is because there is so much of a case or an issue made of that particular group that I think we need to address that particular aspect. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I believe that my conscience dictates to me, dictates that I support tolerance over inaction based on fear and hate , and I will support it.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The Leader of the Opposition said a few mome nts ago that this was a matter of personal conviction, and I am very proud to stand here and say that this bill is certainly a matte r of my personal conviction and I support it without any reservations whatsoever . It is also, Madam Speaker, the conviction of my party as expressed in policy conve nti on in 1985.

What a wonderful world we would live in, Madam Speaker , if we did not require this bill because it would mean that each individual was judged solely on the basis of what they were . What we have don e with this legislation , Madam Speaker , is not deal with choices but with the rea lity of what is. If I am black, I have no choice but that I am black. If I am a Jew, I have no choice but that I am a Jew. And I sincerely believe that an individual who is a homosexual has not had a choice; it is what they are. Ten percent of our population , Madam Speaker, are medically defined as being homosexual.

What does that mean? Does it mean they have to practise the homosexual lifestyle? No, it does not. It means that they have a tendency that they have a sexua l orientation that makes them homosexual rather than heterosexual. And, Madam Speaker, it has been my experience that individuals who have exper ienced that in their lives have not chosen to be it, they are what they are and therefore I must be tolerant and insomuch as I can be , accepting of that which is the essence of their being . Madam Speaker , I grew up in a city which has the largest percentage of black people in all of Canada.

As a child I never went to school with a black . I never met a black child on a street, I never saw a black child in the store or a shop , I never saw a black child in a movie theatre. I don't know why I didn't see them, or at least I didn't know why as a child, except that as I matured I realized that indeed I lived in a segregated city, not segregated by law but segregated by custom, a city which in fact had black schools, two of them. The white children just didn't go to those schools and coincidentally the black children didn't go to the whit e schools, again, not by law but by custom.

The black people all lived in a neighbourhood which borde red or in fact was on the Halifax dump . It was called Africville. The people had squa tters ' right to the land and I was taken to visit it as a child by my father, who made me understand that that was the squallor and the conditions that these individuals didn 't choose to live by, but were indeed forced to live by.

And I watched the rats coming off the dump and invading their houses and I began to question why the only black people in my life were the black women who came and helped my mother with her housework or helped her with the cooking, or the black men who helped to build any walls that my father might want built around his property . It wasn't unt il, however , I went to univers ity that I realized the level of disc rimi nation that existed in my city.

The only black people who I went to university with were not Halifax black people but were those people who had come from the Caribbea n, from Barbados or from Jamaica because black children, if they managed to graduate from Grade 9, "if", didn 't go on to an academic high school. They wen t to the Halifax Vocational School and when they graduated from that they went into the working world. But they didn 't go to an academic high school, therefore they didn't go on to university .

I didn't realize until a black student brought it to my attention, that he couldn 't get his hair cut anywhere near the uni versi ty in Halifax, and I said that's foolish , and he said, but nobody knows how to cut my hair or at least that's what they tell me. So he would go into the north end and have his hair cut , because there they knew how to cut black hair, but there was no discriminat ion , by law , in the city in which I lived. When I went on to gradu ate school in the United States , I became aware and involved in the black movement in the United States .

One of the incidents - in which I take great pride - was when a graduate 3680

Tuesday, 7 July, 1987 student , who was black, and who was doing her Ph.D. in physical chemistry , one of the most difficult doctorates to attain, discovered that she couldn 't get accommodation in the university town for the summer. I said that's ridiculous Clara , because there's all kinds of apartments for rent, but when Clara would go, Clara would not find a vacancy. So I wen t and I rented the apartment an