Manitoba Hansard — 26 July 1983 (Sitting 115, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-115

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

!SSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 115 - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 26 JULY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bon iface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert As siniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle i'Aountain Burnws Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP INO NOP NOP NDP NOP NDP NOP PC PC PC NOP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NDP PC NOP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NDP NOP NDP NDP PC NDP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 26 July, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPO RTS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the honourable members that this is the only statement being made on this subject today.

I would like to report on the status of the Aerial Spraying Program to combat a potential outbreak of Western Equine Enceph alitis. Last eveni ng, aerial spraying was conduc ted over the communities of Morden and Winkler. Aer ial spraying planned for the commun ities of Selk irk, Stonewall and Stony Moun tain was no t undertaken this morning due to high winds. These three communities remain as a high priority in the Aerial Spraying Program, and will be done this evening if weather conditions permit. If the weather is not suitable this evening, the three communities will be rescheduled to Wednesday morning.

Alternate sites for aerial spraying this evening and tomorrow include: Portage, Carman, Morris, Niverville, Gimli and the beaches. Officials from the Department of Municipal Affairs·' are keeping in constant touch with local municipal officials of communities designated to receive the aerial spraying application. I would also like to report today that monitoring of viral activity in western Manitoba is being increased, and I expect to report the monitoring results to the House at the earliest opportunity next week.

So there is no confus ion, let me restate the communities that have received the aerial application: Winnipeg, Heading ley, Steinbach, Ste. Anne, Morden and Winkler. The communities currently designated to be sprayed include Selkirk, Stonewall, Stony Mountain, Carman, Portage, Gimli and the beaches, Beausejour, Oakbank, Morris, Niverville and Altona. The Emergency Information Centre has now handled over 6,000 telephone calls since becoming operational last Wednesday afternoon.

Again, I invite Manitobans with questions regarding Western Equine Enceph alitis or the Aerial Spraying Program to call our information centre. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and we thank the Minister for his exclusive statement on the situation today. I note the reference to Gimli and the beaches as intended targets sites for aerial spraying this evening and tomorrow, on an alternate basis, should weather dictate that kind of decision.

I believe I discussed during question period yesterday with the Minister the matter of whether the beach communities, the Lake Winnipeg Beach communities and Gimli, had been included in the Aerial Spraying Program or not. I got the impression from the Minister at that time that they had been but I would infer from this statement, Mr. Speaker, they have not yet been covered by the aerial spraying operation; they are simply alternate possible sites depending on the dictates of the weather.

As yet, despite the level of mosquito popu lations in those areas, I take it and I assume from the Minister's nod of assent that those communities have not been included in the spraying operation. I would hope, because of the intensity, both of human population and insect popu lation in those communities, that he will be giving very conscientious thought to including them very early in the spraying operation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: A point of clarification, if I could. I misunderstood the question.

It was my understanding that the que stion was, will they be sprayed as opposed to had they been sprayed, and from the information we've given, I answered it with the understanding that we were including them as designated areas, high-risk areas, but not that they had been sprayed. . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Members will have before them a leaflet entitled "The Facts About French Language Services." I wish to inform the House that this is a household mailer being distributed to every home and business in the Province of Manitoba.

There has been concern that Manitobans have not received enough information on this matter. In order to rectify this situation, four informational meetings have been held throughout the province. The pamphlet before you has been produced for the same purpose. It will help Manitobans understand the proposed amendment and to help answer any questions they may have regarding the government's proposed French Language Services Program. The government has attempted to inform Manitobans about the proposed French Language Service Program in the most cost efficient manner.

The household mailer will cost 2.8 cents per Manitoba resident - a method which is far less costly than television advertising. The distribution of this leaflet is in line with the practice that has been followed by many provinces in Canada, including this one. 4520

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Well. Mr. Speaker, we can hardly find fault with the government's intention to extend to as many Manitobans as possible, the import and the subs tance of the propo sal that they had for an amendment to the Constitution of Ma nitoba. And although I think Manitoba taxpayers will be less than enthusiastic about the additional cost to them that is involved in the distribution of this kind of mailer, it would not be our intention to take a critical position on the subject at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.

The one point we would like to emphasize is that this, we would hope should not be interpreted, or presented, in any way as a be-all and an end-all by this govern ment in terms of the discussion of this problem and the relay of information and the exchange of information. It does not detract one iota from the request that we believe has come legitimately from this side of the House and many other spokesmen in this province for an oppo rtunity for the public to provide the govem ment with its views, and its considered views in depth on this very important subject.

So we accept the initiative presented by the Attorney General at this point in time but in doing so, couple that with a reiteration of our reques t, Sir, for intersessional public hearings on the government's proposed course of action. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills .. . ORAL QUESTIONS Mi ami Feeders - feedlot clos ure MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

The opposition this morning was shocked to hear the comments made by the agricultural community presenting briefs to the Agriculture Committee in where we found out, or were told, that Manitoba's largest feedlot, the Miami Feeders, this week have closed their doors from doing business and that they will not be providing the beef animals to go to the slaughterhouse industry and provide a valued market for feed grains, and for feeder cattle, that it is a major blow to Manitoba. The ques tion, Mr.

Sp eak er, to the Min ister of Agriculture, is he now prepared to change his criteria and his stabilization program so that those feedlot industries, or those people in the fei,dlot industry who are now left in business can qualify and get stabilization equal to those of other provinces in Canada? MR. SPE AKER : The Hono urable Mem ber for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I feel compelled to raise a point of order from Beauchesne, Page 131 , Citation 357 (hh), which requires the question should not "seek information about proceedings in a committee which has not yet made its report to the House." discussion, Mr. Speaker, of a matter that has been referred to a committee, in this House in question period, is inappropria te because of the standing reference of the policy matter to the committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the question raised by my colleague, the Member for Arthur, is not question which is before the committee. His question arises from information which has been publ icly provided, including to that committee. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hono urable member would care to rephrase his question so that it does not reflect upon matters that are before a committee which has not yet reported. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'll speak to the point of order.

The point of order that the Member for Springfield raised, I do not believe has substance to it The comments t''''lt were made at the committee were dealing with Manitoba's feedlot industry and the loss of a feedlot because of inaction of this government The committee was sitting to discuss and to hear submissions on Bill 90, which is the removal of the Cattle Producers' Association, which is objected to by the majority of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. MR. H. ENNS: A further blow to the cattle industry. MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member like to rephrase his question? Feedlot industry in Manitoba MR. J.

DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll rephrase my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that Manitoba's feedlot industry is under extreme pressure, losing a lot of money; removing it from the marketplace for feeder cattle this fall; removing it from the feed grain market; removing the job opportunities that are provided in Manitoba's packing house industry and employment opportunities, will the Minister reconsider his position and now support the feedlot industry with a stabilization program in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, thank you for giving n:e the opportunity to reply to that speech made by !he Member for Arthur. First of all, there is a misinformation provided to this House by the Member for Arthur, where he indicates that the present program does not allow for the feedlot industry to participate in our Beef Stabilization Plan. That is inaccurate, Sir. The fact of the matter is that any feedlot operator is able to participate in the program presently by offering to finish cattle for any producer in the province and 4521

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 he is able to feed. It is only on the basis of the individual choice of that operator, that he or she feels that they may not wish to participate in the plan. Mr. Speaker, secondly, there has been a . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! A MEMBER: He's a fool. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have been called certain names here. Mr. Speake r, if the members don't like my answer, they can get up and ask another qu estion that they may wish to be clarified.

Sir, as I was saying, there has been a proposal made to the Provincial Government, and the terms of the proposal were unacceptable in light of the assistance provided to other beef producers within the province, one area - and implicit in the honourable member's que stion - is that the province, the taxpayers of Manitoba, should subsidize the investment opportunities of people investing in the feeding of cattle. We are and have tried to stabilize the basic industry in this province. Mr. Sp eaker, seco ndly, the honour able member makes no te that there are other provi nces with stabilization.

We have attempted to co-operate with other provinces, including the provinces of Albe rta, Ontario, which have no stabilization programs, and we hope that we will find co-operation between the Federal Government and the provinces in setting up a national stabilization plan in which there will be a commonality of support to the entire industry. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I want the House to know and I want the Minister of Agriculture to know that in the next question that I ask, it is a new question to the Minister of Agriculture.

I would like the Minister of Agriculture to tell me, how many feedlots - tell this House - in the Province of Manitoba are now within the guidelines and working within a program which he has established. How many feedlots are getting direct suppor t under a beef stabilization from the Province of Manitoba? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should know that there was no direct support provided under the plan. Mr. Speaker, what he didn't say as well, and that's how I answered the question, that it is open to any feedlot operator.

In fact, the feedlot industry participated with the Manitoba Beef Commission just a month ago through a set of more than a dozen rural meetings, encouraging and working with the Beef Commission to have farmers put their cattle into the feedlot industry and custom finish them so that they can be finished within the province. That support is there, Sir, and their returns can be gua ranteed under the program so that they know what their costs are and they can offer those kinds of costs to the producers who put their cattle in. Then there is no uncertainty in terms of their costs; they can have them covered.

The beef producer has their finished product covered under stabilization, and everybody makes a living, Mr. Speaker. What is wrong with that? MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that it was evidenced today, it's been evidenced over the last few weeks by the feedlot industry, and the Minister has admitted that he has had submissions from the feedlot industry asking for direct support; in view of the fact that his watered-down support, as he would indicate that it is, that if you custom feed for a farmer in Manitoba, then you will get support indirectly; in view of the fact that that is not working, will he now implement a program that has been recommended by the feedlot industry in Manitoba to support that feedlot industry and suppo rt the workers in the packing house industry who need that watered-down support that he's saying the feedlot industry should get?

Will he change it, Mr. Speaker, so there is direct suppo rt to the feedlot industry? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I guess the matter of the question comes down to whether the support should be direct or indirect. The additional information that has been provided to the initial brief made by the feedlot component of the cattle producers is being looked at by the department. I should tell the honourable member that we have attempted to set up a meeting with them.

Part of the problem is that we are involved, our staff is involved in the national negotiations with the Federal Government into a national plan and we will attempt to co-ordinate that as early as possible. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture, who purports to be a spokesman for the cattle industry of Manitoba, who indicates that he is trying to suppo rt them; will he take seriously the difficulties that they are now encountering as an industry? Will he do that, Mr.

Speaker, to save the packing house industry jobs and the packing house industry, which has been reported, very recently, as being endangered in the Province of Manitoba and, in fact, we could be in danger of losing further packing house industries in Manitoba? Will he take action to save the packing house industry, to get support from his city colleagues, who I'm sure must be concerned about the economic environment of the City of Winnipeg? Will he, in fact, move on their benefit, if he won't move on the fact that the farmers of this province are having difficulties? HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the honourable member now admitting that when he was in office and when he was approached by the cattle producers of this province for assistance, he turned them down. It took a commitment, on behalf of this party and this govern ment, to put in a plan of long term stability to the beef industry and the hog industry in this province. It took large and long-term financial contribution and commitment by this government to this industry to provide long-term support. In the short term, there is no doubt that there are problems within the industry but, Mr.

Speaker, the losses we have sustained to our cattle herd over the last number of years will take a period of time to rebuild, and we have started on that rebuilding, and without that cow-calf industry - there is no beef industry in this province. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to confirm that during our term of office 4522

Tuesday, 26 Ju ly, 1983 there were very few, if any, farmers went bankrupt; there were very few, if any, feedlot producers that went bankrupt; but during his term in office, since 1981 of Novem ber, there have been numerous - in fact the farm bankruptcies have increased by 380 percent in the Provi nce of Mani toba? Can he confirm this, Mr. Speaker? By 380 percent increase in bankruptcies in Manitoba and numerous feedlots and this week, the largest feedlot in Manitoba has gone broke under his government's administration, or in fact, closed the doors, I rephrase that. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, what I can confirm is that we are harvesting part of the holocaust of four years of Tory administration. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to pose some similar questions to the Minister of Agr iculture if I could. I would ask him if it is a fact that . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

C. l\llANNESS: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it's a fact that potentially 75 percent of our feeders this year will be exported to other provinces for feeding; that compared to 40 percent, traditionally, which have been exported, this number really represents the destruction of our feeding industry in this province? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that the Ontario Government recently conduc ted a study in which they purported as one of their difficulties to their feeding industry was: (1 ) The quality of cattle that they received from the Un ited States in terms of south of Ontario; and (2) the advent of the Beef Stabilization Program in Manitoba, which would have an impact on the number of feeder animals coming to their province. Mr.

Speaker, we are trying to encourage the greater feeding of animals in this province twofold; either by the setting up of co-operative approaches which the farmers can undertake themselves on farm, or use the custom feeding measures as well. We are, as well, in discussion with the feedlot group as to wheiher or not there should be an additional component of the custom finishing through feedlot operators in the province, Mr. Speaker. We have not finalized our discussions with them, and we will work on those as the weeks go by. MR. C.

MANNESS: Inasmuch a!O the Minister has chosen not to refute the fact that 75 percent or more of our feeders are now leaving this province, I am wondering when he and his government will give a response to the feedlot committee of the Manitoba Cattle Producers' Assoc iation, who have presented for a second time a program dealing with a voluntary income stabilization program. When will he see fit to give a response to them on that particular program? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, one can't refute a figure that is taken out of the air as to whether it will be 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent.

Our hope, and fact, Mr. Speaker .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, there has been, as the member well knows, that last fall the program started long after the sale of calves began, and there was no impact on the number of movement of calves the province. We certainly are hopeful that the number of calves retained this fall through the beef program will increase; and we have put measures into place, such as cash advances to farmers, and we are working with the feedlot industry to provide that assistance. The honourable member asks when we will give an answer to the feedlot industry. Mr.

Speaker, we have been working with the feedlot industry, and the member well knows that the feedlot industry has an ability to jump into business just as quickly as they can go out of business, depending on the cyclical nature of the markets and prices of cattle. Cost of bilingualism pamphlet MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Attorney-General and ask him if he could clarify a point.

He is passing out a pamphlet which is going to be sent to everyone in Manitoba, or every household in Manitoba, and he indicates that it will cost 2.8 cents per Manitoba resident. Does that mean that you multiply that figure times a million and get $280,000 for this SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. R. DOERN: Well, you know, the members may laugh, but it says "per resident" with a "t" - not residence. I'd like the Honourable Attorney-General to tell us, is this $280,000 for printing costs, or is it a quarter of that? What is the amount? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Even in this House, Mr. Spea ker, 2.8 times one million is $28,000.00. The total cost is $28,000.00. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Attorney General for that correction. I would also like to ask him what his total budget is. What is his total budget for this program? He's handing out this; sending this for $28,000 to everyone in Manitoba. I would be rather suspicious of that. I would like to ask him how much this pamphlet costs, and I would like to ask him what his total budget is for printing and other costs to promote the government's bilingual policy? HON. R.

PENNER: I'll take that question as notice. 4523

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 Bilingualism - referendums MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs a question. The City of Brandon passed a resolution last night at its council meeting, calling for a referendum in the City of Brandon on October 26th on the question of bilingualism.

I would also like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that other municipalities are holding referendums - I think Hamiota is planning one and other towns, cities, villages and rural muncipalities are planning one - my question simply is: What indication does he have to date; what number can he provide the House with of pla nned re ferendums on this question? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mu nicipal Affairs ... HON. R. PENNER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR.

SPEAKER: . . . to whom the que stion was directed. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, I have not received any req uests from any municipality indicating that they would be holding a referendum on extension of French Language Services to the province, but they may do so if they so desire. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to ask the Minister whether, in his opinion, he favours the holding of referendums on this question across the province? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member please phrase his question so that it seeks information and not opinion?

The Honourable Member for Elmwood. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the problems of the cattle industry and indicate to you, Sir, firstly, on a House privilege matter that I object to word "holocaust" used to describe the actions of a government that I was privileged to be a part of. The Honourable Minister of Agr iculture may think that that is funny, but I don't accept that. Bill 90 - withdrawal MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Spe aker. in view of the responses that the Minister of Ag riculture has given to the Honourable Member for Morris, and my colleague, the Honourable Member for Arthur, about this government's unwillingness to help the particular segment of the cattle industry; and in view of the representations made this morning about the willingness on the part of the Ma nitoba Cattlemens' Associa tion to try to help themselves by virtue of keeping their organization together, will the Minister consider withdrawing Bill 90, which has the net effect of destroying that organization totally and completely? MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Mem ber for Springfield on a point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, the member' s question, asked to the Minister of Ag riculture, is dealing with a bill that is standing referred by this Chamber to a committee. If the member wants to bring the bill back to the House, to deal with it in the House, he's perfectly tree to move a motion for transferring it back to the House for debate and pulling it out of committee. MR. H. ENNS: I'll do that. I'll do that, Andy. MR.

SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for Lakeside wish to rephrase his question so that it does not refer to proceedings before the committee? MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'v e been known to always bow to the wishes of this House, and you, Sir, in terms of rules and regulations that we set for ourselves, and I'm certainly prepared to do so in this case. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I accept the honourable member's question and his comment that ... MR. H. ENNS: If my question is out of order, surely the Minister's potential answer's equally out of order.

Bilingualism in Manitoba MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General. Having just had the opportunity of perusing his multi coloured, eight page folder, which he claims he had printed and distributed for $28,000, which is an Ala ddin's lamp trick if ever I heard of one, may I bring to his attention, Sir, one statement in this printed brochure, and I quote - "Putting this agreement into the Constitution gu arantees exactly what services are legal rights, and therefore is not the beginning of, 'creeping bilingualism'." Mr.

Speaker, I ask him how that statement, which is very dubious on the face of it, how does that statement square with the advice that he had from Mr. Twaddle, the constitutional adviser to the Gover nment of Manitoba, when Mr. Twaddle stated - "The difficulty with the sugges ted extension of constitutional rights is that the extent to which bilingual services must be made available is unknown. At present the government can itself decide, and alter, the provision of such services on grounds of cost, or lack of demand, as perceived by the gove rnment.

If the obligation is constitutionally entrenched the courts will determine what 'significant demand' is and when 'it is reasonable due to the nature of the office'. If the obligation is construed more widely than the gove rnment thought would be the case the 4524

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 government is nonetheless bound by the

interpretation of the courts." Mr. Speaker, that was the advice from legal counsel to the gove rnment. How does the Attorney-General make the statement in his brief to the people of Manitoba, putting this agreement into the constitution gu arantees exactly what services are legal rights, and therefore is not the beginning of creeping bilingualism, when that's the op posite of what his legal adviser told him? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Spea ker, first I would like to seek your direction.

I'll be pleased to answer the que stion but since this is a matter presently ordered for debate in the Hou se, whether or not I should answer it is a que stion for you to rule. I don't think that it would be proper but if I'm to answer it, I would take some time in answering it because it is not a simple question. MR. SP!:AKER: Orde r please. The Ho nou ra ble Attorney-General is quite right about a matter being referred to the House for future discussion. However, I hear the question as asking about a specific pamphlet which was tabled in the House this afternoon and I will permit the question on that basis.

The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. The que stion re lates to a statement in the pamph let. "Putting this agree ment into the Co nstitution guarantees exactly what services are legal rights and therefore is no t the beg inning of 'cr eepi ng bilingualism'." I refer members, first of all, to 23.7(1) of the proposed agreement. 23.7( 1) of the agreement sets out step-by step the confines, and they are confines, on government and go vernment alone for the delivery of French language services.

It speaks of the head, or central offices, of any department of go vernment; of any court; of any quasi-judicial or administrative body of the Government of Manitoba; of any Crown Corporation; or any agency of the Go vernment of Man itoba established by or pursuant to

an act of the Legislature of Manitoba, which is in itself very definitive and confining; the office of the Chief Electoral Officer; and the offices of the Ombudsman for the Province of Manitoba. That's in 23.7(1). Then 23. 7(2) goes on to say - that any member of the public in Manitoba has the right to communicate in English, or French with, and to receive available services in English or French frr,m, any office not referred to in Su bsection (1 ) of an institution described in Paragraph 1(

a) or (b) - and that should not be lost site of so it's confined to those specifically-named institutions and only deals then with offices other than head, or central offices of those named institutions, so again clearly defined, and where there is significant demand that communications with, and services from that office in that language; or (

b) due to the nature of office it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French. So now the point of the question and the specific answer is this that by the opening words of 23.8(1) - and again this should not be lost sight of - anyone whose rights under

Section 23.7 have been infringed - so only in case of an alleged infringement of those defined items relating to defined offices do the courts even have a window on the process, and then the court can only say with respect to a government plan whether or not the government plan is adequate.

That's all can do, and in doing so it must do so in relationship to the defined offices so that the definition of the offices, as carefully and tightly as it is there - and it can be tighter - we're looking at tightening the definition of those offices - that is what makes it not creeping bilingualism because it can't get out of those doors. It can't get over those defined offices. Now, I could go on with this answer but I'll wait for the supplementary. So we're having a debate on the resolution in question period, that's all right HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, ! appreciate the Attorney General's attempt to answer the question but ! repeat it because he didn't answer the question. How does that statement of fact contained in this expensive brochure that he's sending to all of the people of Manitoba, guarantees exactly what services are legal rights and therefore is not the beginning of creeping bilingu alism, how does that statement square with the legal advice that he got from his own constitutional lawyer, Mr.

Twad dle, which I have read to the House and to the honourable member which says quite the op posite, namely, that the courts will determine what bilingual services will be offered, particularly in view of the fact, as my honourable friend will acknowledge, he left out the first

section of the amendment which says: "23. 1 English and French are the official languages of Manitoba"? HON. R. PENNER: With respect to the latter part of the question, the purely declaratory statement at the beginning of the proposed amendment is not a matter that in any way affects the specific rights that are defined in 23.7, because the opening words of 23.8, which I emphasized, specifically confine the power of the courts to the named offices in 23.7.

Second ly, with respect to the legal opinion, and I have always respected the legal opinion of eminent counsel but I'm not bound by it slavishly, that legal opinion was given on the 14th of April, 1982, before these words were even written. It was not in response - (Interjection) - yes. You're a lawyer. Listen. That opinion was given on the qu estion in general. That response or that opinion of Mr. Twaddle's was given on Ap ril 14, 1982. These particular words did not come into existence until May of 1983, so there is no legal pinion of Mr.

Twaddle on the significance of these words in the way in which it is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. His double shuffle will not wash wittl me in any event. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, it was not I who tabled Mr. Twaddle's opinion, it was the Attorney-General. We thank him for tabling the opinion, giving advice to the government as to how they should proceed. The shame and the pity, Mr. Speaker, is that they did not proceed 4525

Tuesday, 26 July , 1983 acco rding to that advice. - (I nterj ection) - Mr. Spea ker, if the fanatic would like to keep his emotions under control, perhaps the rest of us could get on with the business of Manitoba. We don't need advice from the kindergarten bunch in the back row, Mr. Speaker. In this expensive brochure that was tabled by the Attorney-General today, this statement is made, Mr. Speaker. "19 83, Manitoba agreement for constitutional amendment is proposed to settle once and for all in a fair and practical way the status of the English and French languages.

By doing so, we avoid further court cases." Mr. Spea ker, how does that statement square with the opinion of Mr. Twaddle which says as follows on Page 6, "Amendment before a Supreme Court ruling could presumably be made pursuant to

Section 43 of The Constitution Act, 1981, although it would be open to someone to challe nge the valid ity of such an amendment on the ground that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba was not properly constituted? This would reintroduce the issue presently before the Supreme Court in Bilodeau versus A.G. , Manitoba. If however the amendments had the approval of the French speaking population of Manitoba, perhaps the issue would never be raised. There would remain, however, the right for someone now or at a future date to challenge the authority of the Manitoba Legislature to act at all." Mr.

Sp ea ker, ho w do es that statement and the expense of the NOP brochure, paid for by the taxpayers, square with the good legal advice that this gove rnment is getting? One, Mr. Speaker, tells the facts. The brochure, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, does not tell the truth. What does the Attorney-General say about that? HON. Ft PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I guess we're into the debate on the resolution in question period, but I continue. SOME HONOUR.ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Attorney-General. A MEMBER: The one-sided brochure. HON. R.

PENNER: The legal opinion that was given on Ap ril 14, 19 82, in the context of April 14, 1982, in that particular portion from which the Leader of the Opposition quotes selectively went over a number of options with respect to the way in which, under present law, the Constitution of Canada of which The Manitoba Act by

Schedule 1 is a part and explored the possibilities with respect to amendments pursuant to

Section 43 of The Constitution Act, 1982; explored the options with respect to

Section 38 of The Constitution Act, 1982; and offered, as a good lawyer will, a number of alternatives. That is what that opinion was. Mr. Twad dle did not purport to say that we would be involved in an endless series of court battles. In fact - and this is tremendously important - the validation of our statutes is the key part of the agreement.

What the thrust of the opinion is and of my statement is, that is that the taking of our statute piecemeal, one after the other, all or some of them, The Highway Traffic Act, The Liquor Control Act, Public Utilities Act, all of them, taking them to court one after another and bleeding us to death in terms of court costs and the uncertainty as to where we stood with every piece of legislation that has been finalized, or will be, on the passage of this resolution. We will know that our laws are valid, despite the fact that they were improperly passed in one language only. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Spea ker, then very simply, how does the Attorney-General of Manitoba square his statement that he had just made that this will be the end of all court actions with the statement made by his own constitutional lawyer which says, and I repeat, "There would remain, however, the right for someone now or at a future date to challenge the authority of the Manitoba Legislature to act at all"? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. When the honourable member phrases his question having to do with a matter which is before the Hou se, it is out of order.

When he phrases his question having to do with a statement of a pamphlet that is distributed in the Hous e, then it is in order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Spea ker, that's precisely what I did. I was asking the Attorney-General to square his statement that he made in response to the first question with a statement from Mr. Twaddle. He obviously can't do it. He assaults the House with a barrage of words and balderdash and expects that to be taken as an answer. I am asking for a simple answer to a simple question.

How does he square the statement in the publication that he tabled today with the statements made by Mr. Twaddle which are 18 0 degrees apart? HON. R. PENNER: To the contrary, my statement in the pamphlet is not inconsistent with the opinions given by Mr. Twaddle then and since. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Spea ker, the Attorney-General introduces a new item. Will he then table any opinions that he has had from Mr. Twaddle since, which would countermand any of the opinions that he gave in April of 1982, which the Attorney-General saw fit to table? HON. R. PENNER: I did not say that Mr. Twaddle had countermanded.

The Leader of the Opposition has a neat but palpable way of putting words in the mouths of others and then purporting to deal with that as if it were the answer. Well again, that will not wash with me. I, at least, have a sufficient memory to remember what I said 30 seconds ago, and that I did not say; nor will I answer a question of that kind of hectoring, cross-examining way suitable to a court room but not to a Legislature where we're trying in a responsible way to articulate public policy that affects Manitobans in a fairly basic way. The legal opinion of Mr. Twaddle was precisely that.

It was guidelines for the province, and I pointed out, when it was given, under what circumstances it was g iven. It was not the only legal opinion obtained by the province. It was not the only legal opinion by which I 4526

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 developed with the rest of government a course of action. We had the legal opinion of Professor Gibson; we had the legal opinion of legislative counsel; we had legal opinions of that kind that helped us shape the policy.

I say again, in emphatic terms, that the agreement which is being proposed indeed is one which validates our statutes and makes it impossible to take a statute of the Province of Manitoba pursuant to someone who may be charged or which deals with the rights of a person, and say, no, that statute does not apply because it is invalid on account of not being passed in both of the languages of the Legislature. Brandon Un iversity - con struction MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Can the First Minister announce whether or not the government has made the decision to allow Brandon University to proceed with construction of the Music Building? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Sp eake r, as I indicated yesterday, that matter is under review by the members of the Jobs Fund Committee, along with the Minister of Education. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, another question to the First Minister. The Brandon Music Building was included in the government's "Wish List" which was distributed at the time that the Minister of Finance brought down his budget.

The project has since been annou nced again under the NE ED Program, a joint program between the province and the Federal Government. My question to the First Minister, Sir: In view of the fact that this was promised in the election, was listed in the "Wish List" and has been announced under the NEED Program, when will the government actually approve the construction of this Music Building to go ahead? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Member for Turtle Mountain that it will be more speedily, more hastily than did the former gover nment of the Province of Manitoba. HON. S.

LYON: You won't win a seat in Brandon anyway, Howard, so don't worry. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Earth Sciences Bu ilding which the gove rnment has approved SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. B. RANSOM: ... was not on the "Wish List," but the government was still able to provide $3.5 million from the Jobs Fund to allow the Earth Sciences Building to go ahead. Will the First Minister not seriously reconsider the fact that his gover nment promised that approval for that Music Building during the election; has since announced it a number of times?

Will the First Minister just please carry through on one of the commitments �hat he made during the election? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what indeed the honourable member is referring to when he suggests reconsider. I indicated yesterday; I've indicated today that is a matter that is under careful review by the Jobs Fund Board and by the Minister of Education. We will be making appropriate announcement in respect to same. It is a question of scale, size, etc., and that is presently under review by the appropriate Ministers and this government, so there is nothing to reconsider.

There are serious considerations being given now to the form of any assistance and how that assistance should be matched up with other forms of assistance. MR. SPEAKE R: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMIT TEE CHANGES llllFI. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, we have committee changes on the Standing Committee of Statutory Orders and Regulations: Hammond for Nordman, and Mercier for Orchard. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on Bill 105 as it appears on Page 9, standing in the name of the Member for Swan River; and then call the adjourned debate on the referral resolution with respect to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act as it appears on Page 10, standing in the name of the Member for St. Norbert; to be followed, time permitting, with the calling of the adjourned debate on Bill 3 on Page 6, standing in the name of the Member for River Heights. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING Bill 105 - THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSMEN T ACT {2) SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill 10 5. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'v e had a chance to look over this bill and I'd like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for providing me with a copy of his speaking notes; also, he provided section by-section explanations to simplify the understanding of the intent of Bill 10 5. 4527

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 I would like to congratulate the Minister for bringing in this bill, wh ich deals with basically the recommendations that came out in the MARC Report back in March of 19 82. Ba sically, those recommenda tions which were include d in the recommendations covered as well the extending of the Bill 10 0 to the end of December, 1983. We know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs last Session decided to extend the freeze which was provided for in Bill 10 0 not to the end of December, 19 83, but extended the freeze indefinitely. The other recommendations that were contained in the MARC Report, and appear on Page 77 of the

summary of the report, recommends other legislation that should be taken into consideration; not this year, however. It should have been looked at in 19 82 so that the recommendations of the report could have been implemented, or at least part of them could have been implemented and some progress could have been already under way with respect to the recommendations contained in the MARC Report. Last year, the Minister, as I indicated, had brought in a bill to extend the freeze until indefinitely as far as the assessment is concerned.

Ano ther recommendation which has brought in Bill 105 is the freeze on the equalized assessment. Of course, Bill 105 deals with that and also extends indefinitely the freeze with respect to the equalized assessment. Basically, the Minister finds it's necessary because the recommendations were not proceeded with as sugg ested by this side and, of course, it is now necessary to extend the freeze on the equal ized assessment as well as the assessment itself. I think it's fair to say that we have been appealing to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for over a year now to move on the assessment recommendations.

We didn't expect him to move without some caution and to seek advice from the various municipal organizations with respect to the recommendations, but the Minister has chosen to study this further. We know that we had the Standing Committee on Mu nicipal Affairs go out to the people this past year to seek further information and advice from the municipal people and individuals at large with respect to assessment reform. They basically said let's get on with the recommendations that the MARC Report had indicated some 15 months ago.

The inequ ities that are very evident throughout Manitoba and also with respect to the City of Winnipeg are major inequities that are causing a lot of concern to many taxpayers in this province. By just extending and studying the recommendations further, I can advise the Minister that these problems are not going to go away. They are only compounding, and the fact that the Minister has chosen to undertake some more study with respect to the portioning of values of each class of property that would be used in the taxation purposes, the recommendations are spelled out very clearly by the MARC Report.

Sure, they recogn ize the fact that all of the information to come up with the exact percentages of portioning are maybe not there as yet, but they come up with a reasonable close percentage factor. That could be used at this time. As more information is provided by the assessors, then the percentages of portioning can be fine-tuned so that it reduces further the inequities that will be existent. So on the one hand, I congratulate the Minister for bringing in this necessary legislation at this time, albeit as late. There is no reason why this legislation couldn't have been brought in last year.

At the same time, the Minister indicates that the importance of selecting the precise portions of value to be utilized in implementing this sec tion was highligh ted in the re port to the Leg islature of the Muni cipal Affairs Committee. Research into this area is ongoing, and this

section of the bill will not be proclaimed until this research has been completed. We know in the Standing Committee of Mu nicipal Affairs that the Minister indicated to us that this information would not be available for possibly another couple of years, so this is going to delay further the implementation of many of the recom menda tions contained in the MARC Report. Ho wever, I don't have any further comments with respect to Bill 10 5. We are prepared to let it go to committee at this stage. How ever, we may have further questions when the bill reaches committee stage. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLUTION CONS TITU TIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LANGUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed resolution by the Honourable Attorney-General, appearing on Page 10, and the amendment proposed thereto by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to the amendment introduced yesterday in a reasonable and eloquently put argument with respect to the timing of the hearings of the legislative committee with respect to the amendment by the government on bilingualism. Since yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, in fact, since the opening of question period and the opening of the House today, I see the need for setting over the legislative committee hearings as even more urgent, because we have had put before us a document which is, to say the least, misleading. If the public of Manitoba are going to be able to make a properly informed decision with re spect to the acc eptability of the government's proposal, then they are going to have to become familiar with the true facts of the situation, Mr. Spea ker, as it exists. This document, Mr.

Spea ker, starts off by saying: Today, Manitoba is able to fulfill its constitutional obligations. What obligation in the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, is there to the extension of French-speaking services in Manitoba? There is none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. There never has been, there isn't, and there never will be under the Constitution as it exists now, Mr. Spea ker. The document goes on to state that the province has no intention of using the federal approach. When my leader spoke to this matter some days ago, he pointed out, for the information of the House, that the wording used by the government in its

section differs 4528

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 only in respect of one word "institution" from that used by the Federal Go vern ment, Mr. Sp eak er. So the suggestion that the province has no intention of using the federal app ro ach is no t wholly accurate, Mr. Speaker. The document goes on to say, by 1987, people requesting service in French will be served in French by certain specifie d provincial de partments and agencies. Well, that's true to a ce rtain extent, Mr.

Speaker, but it does not clearly indicate to Manitobans that it is the court that is going to interpret the proposal put forwa r d by the Attorney-Gene ral and the gove rnment; and it is the courts that are going to tell the taxpayers in Manitoba as to where and when the obligations under their proposal will have to be used and where the government will have to provide services in French. They are not just specified. They are quite open, Mr. Speaker, and we've heard the concerns expressed by the Manitoba Government Employees Association on that issue.

On the next page, the Attorney-General's pamphlet states that Mani toba intends to fulfil! its legal obligations. What legal obligations, Mr. Speaker? This government seems intent on attempting to fool the peopl e of Manitoba by saying that they have no alternative other than to do what they are proposing to do, and that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. If they want to make the decision to proceed with what they're planning on doing, then at least tell the people this is what we want to do. Don't tell them we are forced into it when they're not forced into it, Mr. Speaker.

There is no legal obligation in the Constitution to extend services in the way the gove rnment is proposing, so that is an untrue statement, Mr. Speaker. The document goes on to say, "Putting this agreement into the Constitution guarantees exactly what services are legal rights." As my leader indicated in his questions to the Attorney-General during question period, there is no exact gu arantee as to what services are legal rights, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney-General well knows, and over the past year in fact has even made some comments, and expressed a concern about how the judges in our courts might interpret the Charter of Rights. He knows very well that the comments he made in the past few months on that issue are just as applicable to this issue, Mr. Spea ker, as they are to the rest of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Speaker, on the following page, the pamphlet indicates that setting these language rights into our Constitution does not diminish the rights of others. The Attorney-General and the government cannot guarantee that statement, Mr.

Speaker, because it is the courts that are going to determine what the words mean that he is using. He goes on to state, "to avoid the possibility of legal chaos," but he doesn't inclu.ie in the pamphlet the opinions of the Mr. Twaddle, his legal advisor, to the effect that they said there remains an excellent chance of success in the courts. We don't see that statement anywhere, Mr. Speaker, and that is a very important statement. That tells us, Mr. Speaker, what the likelihood would be of a decision in the Supreme Court with respect to this matter. There is continuous reference to limited services. Mr.

Speaker, again, it is the courts that are going to determine what services will be required under the wording of this proposal. Mr. Speaker, there is a paragraph on saving your tax dollars, and the government makes an argument on the basis of what they say will be done under the proposal, but there is no gu arantee to the taxpayers of Mani toba that the cou rts will not expand the

interpretation of the wording used by the government and thus multiply many times over the estimated costs that are used in this document. The document goes on to say "to settle for once and for all" - again, my leader has referred to that and the opinions of legal counsel that this may very well not for once and for all decide this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not obj ect to the gove rnment on an important constitutional issue, having delivered to the residents of this province, an informational pamphlet. What I do become concerned about, Mr.

Speaker, when I look at the agreement and see that in a number of very significant and very important areas the infor mation contained in the pamphlet is not accurate and is likely to be misleading to the reader. So, Mr. Speaker, that becomes all the more important in view of what the government has announced today and distributed to us in the Legisla ture, that the legislative committee meet after the end of this Session of the Legislature wnE:11 people have an opportunity to discover the real facts of what is before them and to discover what a correct

interpretation is of the proposal before them, so that they're able to make a well informed judgment. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Member for Fort Garry, discussed yesterday, we also have before us in this Legislature a great deal of business to complete. Every day we sit simply adds to the record of the longest Session of the Manitoba Legislature. I've been sitting in a number of committees on a number of bills, Mr. Spea ker, and there are dozens of people appearing before various committees of the Legislature on bills that the gove rnment has passed into second reading. Mr.

Speaker, there are somewhat over 40 people yet to be heard after two meetings of the committee on seat belts. That is going to take a good number of sittings before that work is concluded. We just concluded this morning, hearing close to 20 people on The Law Enforcement Review Act, a bill that has some 44 sections, in 16 pages, but the amendments almost exceed the bill itself. There is a great deal of co ntroversy over that bill, an important bill affecting the police forces in Manitoba and the work which they are able to do in order to protect the citizens of this province.

There are dozens of people, I understand, who appeared before the Agriculture Committee today with respect to the Cattle Producers' Association Bill. We hFtve not yet completed hearing the public on the Family w Bills. There are important bills, Mr. Speaker, which r·�ve not yet even reached committee, and many of <hem I hope do not ever reach committee, but if they do there's going to be a large number of people who want to make representations with respect to The Farm Lands Ownership, for example. Mr.

Spe aker, for the committee of the Legislature to hold public hearings on this important issue throughout the province would in my estimation require, at a very minimum, at least two weeks of solid sittings throughout the Province of Manitoba. That probably wouldn't be 4529

Tuesday, 26 July , 1983 enough, Mr. Speaker. It's probably fairer to say that the absolute minimum of time that would be required would be three weeks throughout the Province of Manitoba and that's sitting all day long and probably with a sitting in the evening. Mr. Speaker, it is not to my mind appropriate and proper. I'm not proud of the fact that we had to do it in 1980 on a number of bills, but not on such an important matter as a resol ution affecting the Constitution, to require the public of Manitoba to attend these meetings and make their representations in the middle of summer.

It is more app ropriate and proper that they be allowed to make these representations and make their comments known to the committee in the fall, Mr. Speaker, after the school year has begun, when they have returned from their holidays and vacations. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General made a comment one day in the Legislature that according to some sort of a survey only 5 percent of the people in the city were away from their homes at any one particular time during the summer. Mr. Speaker, I have great doubt in that survey.

I would like to see that survey, because I think the numbers are much more significant than that in the City of Winnipeg; particularly in what has been for Manitobans who are not members of the Legislature a fairly enjoyable summer in terms of the weather that we've had and people have been able to enjoy away from the city at resorts and lakes and cottages. So the summer is not an appropriate time for them to be required to come to the Legislature and to make representations on this important issue. The work that the Legislature has before it in order to complete is of such a magnitude, Mr.

Speaker, that it's going to take us a great deal of time to complete that, unless the government is prepared to withdraw some of the bills that are still before the House. Mr. Speaker, there is another matter that I wish to address, speaking in support of the amendment to this resolution introduced by the Member for Fort Garry. That is with reference to what do the people of Manitoba want their representatives to be concerned with, to work on and to help along. I think what that is is the economy, Mr. Spea ker, and unemployment. Mr.

Speaker, this government has said in the past, and the First Minister has said, that unemployment is the major problem facing their government and facing Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, I agree there's a very serious problem. There are now over some 20, 000 more Manitobans unemployed than there were when this gov ernment took of fice. Mr. Spea ker, there are disturbing signs in the econo my. There's no question unemployment dropped from May to June, and we indicated we were happy to see that, Mr. Speaker.

We only hope it continues; but there are factors that indicate that the situation is not going to improve in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. In fact, Manitoba is not going to do as well as other provinces as the economy improves elsewhere. The latest Conference Board statistics bear that out very clearly, Mr. Speaker. The Consumer Price Index, which indicates that of all major cities in Canada, the City of Winnipeg has had the second hig hest percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index at 7 percent, second only to St. Johns, New Brunswick, which is 7.3 percent. Now about 4 months ago, Mr.

Speaker, when it became evident from the statistics that the Consumer Price Index in the City of Winnipeg was going up faster than in any other major Canadian city, despite the fact that under our government we had the lowest Consumer Price Index increase and that it continued over into 1982, but then the effects of government-imposed taxation took hold and have caused this huge increase in the Consumer Price Index in the City of Winnipeg; when the First Minister was asked about that a number of months ago, he said, well, the problem is that we introduced the first budget and the other provinces haven't introduced their budgets yet; but as soon as they do, then we'll be back to our rightful position in the City of Winnipeg with the lowest Consumer Price In dex increase as we had under a Progr essive Conservative Government.

But it's now June, 1983, according to the statistics, Mr. Speaker, and all of those terrible provincial budgets that the First Minister likes to refer to in other provinces have been introduced, and the City of Winnipeg is the second highest over the past year. So my suggestion to the government, Mr. Speaker, is this: They had better attend to the economy in Manitoba and they had better attend to the reasons why the Consumer Price Index in the City of Winnipeg has increased at such a phenomenal rate to take us from the lowest in the country to the second highest in the country.

They better look at the Conference Board's statistics, Mr. Speaker, which have come out recently, and their predictions for how Manitoba is going to fare in the next year. Take a look at retail sales. Manitoba is expected to be tenth in increase in retail sales, Mr. Speaker. Those are the kinds of problems, Mr. Speaker, that really affect Manitobans, and those are the kinds of problems that Manitobans want solved and are very very concerned about. I'v e had a few French people, Mr. Speaker, in my constituency telephone me; very few on this issue.

In fact, I'm a little disappointed that I haven't heard from more of them, but a few phoned me, and I wanted to find out from them their views of this particular issue. One of them, Mr. Speaker, said to me, the only thing I'm concerned about with right now is finding out how much interest rates are going to increase, or whether or not they're going to increase, and about my business, because people are still very much concerned with the econo my. When there are close to 50,000 people unemplo yed in the province, Mr.

Speaker, and we see the increase in the Consumer Price Index and we see the Conference Board statistics, that is what they're really concerned about. They're concerned about keeping their job, being able to make their mortgage payments, being able to buy their groceries and the essentials of getting along and living and supporting themselves and their families, Mr. Sp eaker . That's wha t the people are really concerned about, and that's what the government has got to pay some attention to. That's why, Mr.

Speaker, instead of trying to hoist upon the people of Manitoba their ideological positions on bills like The Farm Lands Ownership, The Elections Finances Act and on some of these other matters, they should be trying today to say to the opposition, "We've got to end this Session; we can't afford to waste all 4530

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 of our time in this Legislature. We've got to deal with the real problems of the economy in Manitoba; we've go t to end the Sessi on. We'r e prep ared to accommodate the wishes of Manitoba because we want to turn our attention to the economy to try to solve some of the problems." When they look at some of the problems, they'll find that they've created many of the problems in terms of their payroll tax and their sales tax increases, the impositions they've made on business and the cost of doing business in this province, Mr. Speaker. That's the area that they should be looking at.

That's what should be commanding all of the attention of the First Minister and his Ministers and his caucus, because all of the statistics indicate, Mr. Speaker, that in this coming fall and this coming winter Manitoba is going to tend to have the least growth, to have the largest growth in unemployment, and to fare very badly compared to all other provinces in Canada. And that's going to be the real problem and that is the real concern of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr.

Speaker, for these reasons the incorrect informaticn that is contained in this pamphlet, the business that is presently before the House and the large amount of business we have to complete, in order to convenience the citizens of Manitoba who will want to make representations, and so this government can get on with doing the first priority that it was elected to do and that was to deal with the econo my. They were going to turn the economy around, Mr. Speaker. Well, they're turning it around, Mr.

Speaker, all right, but it's the wrong way, and they better concentrate on that issue for the sake of the well-being of Manitobans who are very much concerned with the direction the economy has taken under this government. So I would urge, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General and the government to give careful consideration to the amendment and to thoughtfully consider it, consider their responsibilities and their obligations to the public of Manitoba. Because if they do, Mr.

Speaker, I think they will see that it is a reasonable amendment and one that should be commended to them and one that should be adopted, then we could get on quickly, I would hope, to finish the business of this Legislature and they can move their attention to the econo my, which is deserving of a great deal of attention and action by this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave you notice that I'v e been designated by the First Minister with respect to time on this, although I don't think I will in fact take much time. Mr.

Speaker, I think that there's a great deal of what might be called "smoke and mirrors" about this debate on the proposal of the Member for Fort Garry - perhaps inadvertent, it doesn't matter, but a covering up of the issue. Certainly the speech of the Member for St. Norbert, redolent as it was, with talk about interest rates and mortages and farm lands and a hundred and other one issues, but not the issue which is in fact before us. So, too, as I will endeavour to point out, at least at the beginning of my remarks, was the speech of the Member for Fort Garry.

I thank him for the flattering remarks; I don't disavow any of them. He came close to describing my near perfection, and if he keeps at it he might get it right in due course. But leaving that particular smoke and mirror aside from the Wizard of Oz on the opposite bench, let me deal with one of the apparently appealing cries that he uttered - the appeal to reason. And I am, it is true, I will readily admit, one who will listen to reason, and reason has an appeal for me. I would like to hope that there should be an element of rationality about all of us in this House and, Mr. Speaker, in this debate.

He said what there should be is a consensus. Now, that sounds terrific. All those in favour of Mother's Day consensus and Happy Birthdays, raise your hand. Of course, that is an ideal devoutly to be wished for, but let's look at the principles of the bill, and very briefly because I don't intend to debate the bill in this debate on a referral. Just take two issues. We have said with respect to minority rights that there is an important principle in terms of constitutional protection, namely, that they should be entrenched. That is a point of principle with us.

The y, through the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, have saicl categorically, unequ ivocally, no entrenchment. Now, tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where is the consensus possible between those points of principle and they are points of principle? Where is the dividing, or where is the common ground to be found between entrench and not entrench? So to talk about consensus, well, we try a little harder, maybe we'll find a synonym for entrenchment that do esn 't mean entrenchment; or a synonym for non-entrenchment that means entrenchment is smoke and mirrors.

It's shuffling the deck with a little bit of legerdemain, a little bit of sleight of hand. Let's take another principle. Indeed, it was being spoken about in the debate today, namely, whether or not there should be, with respect to a constitutional remedy, recourse to the courts. We say that with respect to a constitutional remedy there must be some recourse to the courts. What we're proposing is a limited recourse to the courts. They say no recourse to the courts. Tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where is there a consensus obtainable between recourse to the courts and no recourse to the courts?

It's smoke and mirrors. It sounds appealing, but when you get down to what the principles are, rather than the particulars, I will deal briefly with the particulars where there is the possibility of arriving at some substantial agreement. But on the principles, the dividing line is clear and that dividing line will always be here as long at least as that Member for Charleswood is the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps that view is shared by the majority of his caucus, I don't go into that.

It's certainly not shared by the majority of the Jeral members on that question, but as long as that the view of the opposition, no entrenchment, and we believe that minority rights de serving of the protection should be entrenched, there is no possibility of consensus on that issue. So, too, with respect to the question of whether or not services to the citizens of Manitoba, wher e warranted, should be in both official languages, in both French and English. Now, we have said indeed that should be the case; that is in fact an historic obligation. Indeed I would argue at the appropriate time it is a 4531

Tuesday, 26 Ju ly, 1983 constitutional obligation, and I reject the assertion made by the Memb er for St. No rbert that it is no t a constitutional obligation, but I do not deal with it now. We have said that. The Union of Manitoba Mun icipalities, in the news release tabled in this House and qu oted with approval by the opposition, says let's go back to 18 90 and wipe out the obligation that we undertook as part of the social contract wh ich brough t this provi nce into existence. Where is the consensus between living up to our obligation and not living up to our obligation?

So to talk about consensus, and that's very appealing - maybe if we talk about it, we'll find a middle ground - it's smoke and mirrors. There is no basis of reality in that kind of salesmanship. Mr. Speaker, these are points of principle upon which in my view a government, indeed an opposition, must take a stand one way or another. We have taken our stand on both points of principle. We have set them forth clearly, and we have said that we will stand on those points of principle. They have said that they will fight to the end those points of principle. Being points of principle, Mr.

Spea ker, these do not in our view stand to be determined on the basis of numbers. The principle of minority rights - surely one shouldn't have to explain it but apparently one does - means that there are some things we consider to be fundamental, so fundamental that they ought not to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. They are so important in a civilized and democratic society that they ought not to be the subject of political football; that they ought not to be sacrificed on the altar of immediate political advantage.

It doesn't matter in our view that the minority is more of a minority now than it was then if it is something that is part of the social contract, is part of the fabric of our society, is part of something that which we believe to be fundamental, must be entrenched, then it must be entrenched regardless of the numbers. I would like in this context, because it's been put to us in the debate on this referral motion that it's a que stion of numbers. The Member for Elmwood plays the numbers game, and I will refer to that in a moment.

The Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms fundamental freedoms - everyone has the following funda mental freedoms: Freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communications; freed om of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. Should those be the subject of a referendum? If we believed that, we would not have put them - we being the vast majority of the Canadian people - in our fundamental law, the supreme law of the country, the constitutional law of the country.

We remember, and the Member for Elmwood should remember what happened to J.S. Woodsworth when that kind of protection of free speech was denied both with respect to his role and his advocacy of the social gospel at the time of the general strike in 1919 , and later with respect to his principles of conscience on pacifism at the outbreak of the Second World War. Should those have been subjected to the tyranny of the majority? Not at all.

Would we countenance now in the more mature days of our political development the situation where, let us say, in Quebec under Duplessis, somebody who was a Jeho vah's Witness, because that person was a Jehovah's Witness, was trampled on by the majority, no doubt; but by the tyranny of the majority because there was lacking constitutional protection? So too, and I would like to point this out because that ought not to be lost sight of, under

Section 15.1 of this Charter: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination," and in particular, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "based on race, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." This

section which comes into force in a year-and a-half time, much before indeed our amendment would come into force, is a fundamental principle upon which indeed I would venture to guess that even if we hadn't been proceeding with this particular amendment, would give a legal recourse within the framework of the Charter to those who could claim discrimination with respect to matters of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." It would not matter that they constituted 2 percent of the population.

We would have said, and we do say that it is the fundamental law that these minority rights are to be protected. So let's not play the numbers game. Minority rights cannot be sacrificed on the altar of numbers, but I continue on the question of consensus and public input. There are matters, and I said so at the beginning, which are not matters of principle - I enunciated what I thought to be the main matters of principle - but are important nonetheless. These are things which can, in the course of the dealing of this resolution, be dealt with and can be altered.

We have said this; we can and indeed are benefiting from the ongoing discussion which is taking place. So we had the public meetings, the four public meetings. Indeed there were some people, regrettably all too few, who addressed the matter of that which is new; namely, portions of 23.7, and had some concern about particular words and particular phrases. So there are ongoing discussions with the Civil Service, both individually and as represented by their certified bargaining agents.

Those too are proving useful and productive and may well lead - indeed, I hope they do lead - to a consensus on sharpening the terminology in 23.7. There are discussions with the Franco-Manitoban community, both individually and collectively. There, too, I am heartened by what I sense is a real desire there as well to make sure that the terms used are the best possible terms, the most sharply defined terms. There are discussions with the appellant himself through his counsel.

One must not forget at all times that there is still a case pending in the Supreme Court; so those discussions are ongoing and I may say I am heartened by those discussions. There will be the further opportunity of the public to make representations before a standing committee of the Legislature; that which we consider to be, as we deal with very important pieces of legislation, something of fundamental importance in our process. I want to say to the members in this House that I and the First Minister and the Minister of Municipal Affairs met with some representatives of close to 40 4532

Tuesday, 26 July , 1983 municipalities (Interjection) - That's close, between 30 and 40 municipalities - (Interjection) - Were you there? Were you counting? HON. S. LYON: It depends whether they even bothered going to talk to you. HON. R.

PENNER: Right, and they did bother to come to talk to us, and it was a fruitful, productive, pleasant discus sion, in which qu estions were asked and answered, statements of sup port were made with respect to what was being proposed once it was clearly understood, and to tell us or seek to say that all of the municipalities of Manitoba are opposed is not in accordance with the facts or the truth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hereto we have found that when, instead of untruths and distortion of facts, rational people are rationally presented with the facts, that inde ed opposition changes to support. That is true.

And there will be the public hearings, and I want to point out as I did in my opening remarks that there should not be, and I hope there will not be, an attempt to delay the referral of this matter to a committee because the public is already registering with the Clerk of the House saying that they would like to come and be heard. The debate is now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, very much a matter in the public consciousness and to now cut off that debate as proposed, to now deny those people who have expressed a desire to speak on the issue, to deny that when the issue is hot on the burner is, I think, wrong and would be a serious mistake. I would like to appeal to the members opposite to pass our resolution, to defeat the amendment, to pass our resolution, to demonstrate that it isn't, in fact, smoke and mirrors, but they do want the people of Manitoba to be heard, otherwise why are they seeking to prevent them being heard when they want to be heard.

I think that should happen. We would not call that committee, clearly, over the long weekend, we would wait until next week to give further annou ncements to the people and we would set, in co-operation with the members opposite - my, how they're amused - they're easily amused, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I'm speaking to a serious issue in a serious way and I will continue to do so. I don't mind the laughter of the hyenas in the woods, let it be. I'm speaking to the people of Manitoba, through you, as I am entitled to do and will do. The matter will be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet and determine the hearings and the hearings will take place. We are prepared, Mr. Speaker, as I said, to bring in amendments on specific wordings re ,he services. Now, let me just deal with that for a moment so that we und erstand the process. It is not being seriously sugge sted, at least I have no t heard it seriously sugges ted from that side of the House, that that part of the proposal, which would validate our statutes, should be thrown out or needs amendment.

I have not heard it proposed from members opposite to the extent that they have spoken on the issue, that the obligation to translate only 500 out of the 4,500 statutes, that that should be somehow changed. Both of those are very much in our favour. No, the concentration is, if it is not on the matter of principle, entrenchment and recourse to the courts, then it deals with very important issues - I readily .admit - having to do with the details of the services to be provi ded, the obl igation on gove rnment.

Ju st as important, of course, for the government as for the people directly affected to know where and in what manner they may obtain services. A question is asked by two of those who spoke on the issue. So far - what is the rush? First of all, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been on the agenda clearly and palpably and without question since 1890 - 11 3 years. So don't talk to us of rush. This is hardly a panic reaction. Again, there has been public discussion on this matter for over a year.

I refer, and I have here in my hand major press stories with details for those who can read or who want to read: from the Sun, July 12, 1982; from the Free Press, July 14, 1982; from the Free Press, October 27, 1982; from the Free Press, October 30, 1982; from The Sun, January 5, 1983; from The Globe and Mail, January 13, 1983; from The Sun, January 20, 1983; from The Sun, March 3, 1983; from the Free Press, March 3, 1983; from the Free Press, April 8, 1983; from the Free Press, April 8, 1983, and that was before the announcement that we had come up with an agreement. That was discussion in detail.

So there has been major public discussion because there were also Letters to the Editor for over a year. For over a year. Never mind the 11 3 years that preceded, there has been discussion for over a year. I point out, for example, that in the Free Press of July 14, 1982, the lead editorial, Settling out of Court, July 14, 1982, and I read with some immodesty the concluding words: "The creative approach Mr.

Penner has adopted is far more promising than the passive strategy of awaiting a Supreme Court decision and then either whining about the awkwardness of complying as the Lyon Government did following the Forest decision or watching contentedly as the cou rts strip the substance out of French Language rights.

The arduous task of amending the Constitution is worth undertaking if it produces a set of rules that meets the real needs of the French-speaking community without laying an onerous burden on the gover nment." We have been working on that since prior to July 14, 1982, but it has been a subject of public discussion for those who can read and want to read. And did we hear from the opposition or any other form of opposition at that time? - not a murmur, not a peep - nothing. Again, Mr. Speaker, I point out later on, an editorial in the Sun of January 5, 1983: "Bilingualism time has come.

A lack of national unity of a Canadian dream has been one of the great obstacles to our prog ress as nation." It goes on to support this kind of program. I f>Jint, Mr. Speaker, I want this on the record, it's ir<portant it be on the record so that we can put an nnd, hopefully, to the distortions that have taken place from time to time in the course of the general debate. I point to, again, April 8, 1983, a full analysis of what discussion was taking place leading to the proposal by Terence Moore on the editorial page of the Free Press. I think that too is necessary in order to complete the record. I point, Mr.

Speaker, to all of these articles, and there are more in which the issue has been the subject of protracted, prolonged, in-depth, and on the 4533

Tuesday, 26 July , 1983 whole responsible public debate by those who would treat this issue responsibly. Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been since that time, as you well know, continued discussion, continued debate. Indeed, there have been several hundred people who have turned out, over 1, 000 people to the public meetings; there have been Letters to the Editor; there have been editorial com ments; there have been descriptive articles. To talk about indecent haste is to talk palpable nonsense.

There is no other piece of legislation that has been as much that is presently before the House, indeed that I can recall, with respect to a matter before the House in the last Session that has been as much discussed and as much known as this. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, as pointed out in the editorial in the Free Press to which I referred a few moments ago, that one of the alternatives of course is a court imposed solution. We have taken the ground, and we will stand that ground that that would be wrong in principle.

Oh, yes, it's always possible that we might be forced into that stance, and indeed that is something that can always happen. I would regret very much if it did. I don't think that it will, but we are certainly doing everything that we can in terms of the kinds of discussions that have taken place to prevent that happening. I quote on that subject from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette, July 11 , 1983, entitled "Proud Times in Manitoba." I want to say here, as I'v e said before, I stand proud on this issue: The Provincial Government is trying hard to allay the fears and the bigoted reaction.

It is unfortunately getting no help from Mr. Lyon, who rails about the rush to pass this amendment. He seems to agree, Mr. Lyon, with the peculiar reasoning of former Federal Conservative Leader, Joe Clark, who said the province should have waited a new Supreme Court ruling, that it had no choice but to give Franco Manitobans their rights. In other words, that point of view, Premier Pawley's government should have waited until it could argue that French was being rammed down Manitoba throats by Ottawa.

A more explosive divisive policy is hard to imagine, and we took that position that it would be explosive; it would be divisive to wait until the Supreme Court said, here, you've got to do it, when we had the opportunity as we still have the opportunity of doing it in a reasonable and intelligent and a rational way. In stead, the editorial concl ude s: "The NOP Government took the high road of compromise.

People of goodwill in Manitoba and throughout Canada should come to the support now, to tell Manitobans that what is happening there is not a disaster, but rather one of the proude st and most welcome advances in all of Canadian history." I believe that is right. Now, Mr. Spea ker, what is being proposed. First of all, this notion of indecent haste is pure nonsense. There is not an element of haste, never mind indecent haste about it.

Part of the agreement was for very good and sound reasons that the matter be determined in terms of the action of the respective Legisla tures, our Legislature, the House of Commons, and the Senate by December the 31s t. The reason for that is indeed that the appellant has his rights in court, and no one can take those rights in court away from him. Those rights spelled to be determined by a hearing on the 26th of May, 1983, and were as part of the package adjourned pending the dealing of this matter in the House.

But although adjourned without a date being fixed were adjourned on the understanding - it was announced right at the beginning - that the matter would be determined one way or another by legislative action by December the 3is t. Now if, as is being proposed, we were to attempt to deal with the matter intersessional ly, it means of necessity.

If the agreement is to be lived up to and we're not to end up where we should not end up, in court, in that divisive way spoken of eloquently in the language of the editorial in the Montreal Gazette, then such a return to the Legislature as is envisaged in the resolution would have to be some time during the fall. First of all, there is, as I have attempted to point out in my remarks to this point, no need for that in any event because we've had and are having the debate, the participation, the interest now. Second ly, it's simply not possible nor indeed is it desirable, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, for the government to prepar e as it should prepare, as a responsi ble government, its total program for a new Session in a matter of a few weeks; with the best will in the world we've got, I would say, a couple of weeks of work left on the bills that are presently before the House. To suggest that we could in any rational way prepare a Session of the Legislature, a Throne Speech Debate, or legislative program of the Estimates, the Budget, and do all of that so that we could come back on one issue, which is presently before the House, is ridiculous. It is simply and palpably ridiculous.

What's the rush, we're being asked? And I ask the question, what's the desire to cut off the debate in full stride, what's that all about? Why is it that they want this debate stopped? Why is it, when the people ol Manitoba are discussing it and have been discussing it for a year, do they want the debate stopped? I haven't heard a reason that I'd give a plugged nickel for.

If it's said, and that was the rational appeal of the Member for Fort Garry whose stock in trade is rationality, that why we could find consensus, then I have to tell them again, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, what are you talking about? Are you saying to us that you, the opposition, will agree with entrenchment? Right, we've got a consensus. Stand up and tell us you'll agree with entrenchment, we've got a consensus on principle No. 1. Will you agree with us on recourse to the courts? Tell us, stand up and tell us that you'll agree with recourse to the courts, and we've got a consensus.

Consensus isn't that difficult. I've got the recipe for consensus. Now you're talking, now you're talking, now we can do business. Once I hear that from those members opposite, but I'll not hear those as long as the Memb er for Cha rleswood is Leader of the Opposition. You know that I'll not hear that, nor will any member of this House. It's been said, why. I note, however, unless I have missed something and I may well have - not from the members opposite - it has been said that there should be a referendum. That's interesting, because I don't think that they think that there should be a referundum.

If so, then they should stand up and say so, and tell us that they believe in government by referendum. A MEMBER: They didn't believe that last year. 4534

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: No, they didn't. Nor should they, and I'll explain the reason why in a moment. A MEMBER: You believe it on certain issues. HON. R. PENNER: No. Well, it seems to me palpable, but I stand to be corrected, that the members opposite do not believe in government by referendum in general and do not believe in government by referendum in particular on this issue. Let me just deal with that very briefly.

First of all, is it to be - and I address this in all seriousness to those who I think have the will to listen, to the councillors of the City of Brandon, the councillors of the City of Winnipeg. Think what is it that you are going to put on your ballot. Is it going to be a referendum in the style of the Member for Elmwood who sends out a ballot to the people of Elmwood and after giving his own particular version of bilingualism, says, "Do you support . . .

" - maybe you like this wording - " . . . or do you opp ose the extension of French language services in Manitoba, as outlined in the agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments?" - and does not send out the agreement. Now is that exactly what is going to happen? - (Interjection) Well, I am raising the question; you'll have your chance. You' ve had your chance. You call a press conference everyday; call one tomorrow. Is that what it is, and I'm asking this of the members of councils?

What are you going to do to put out a referendum that represents for the people of Manitoba or your communities a rational choice? - (Interjection) Well, you ask people whether or not they support a particular agreement. Are you telling me that they are not entitled to know what that agreement is, and that type of thing repeated in that ad in the Free Press and that plea for money in the Free Press?

Again, I am opposed, not asking people whether they favour or not, but I am oppo sed to the extension of French Language Services in Manitoba as outlined in the agreement, without sending the agreement, is a piece of chicanery. Let me just put this issue to the people in this House who want to discuss in a rational way the issue of the referendum that is being proposed. There would have to be on the ballot, because people are entitled to know all parts of it, would have to know the good, the bad and the indifferent as they might see it.

So, in my view, for there to be a referendum that had any meaning and could be taken as a guide by anybody, opposition or government, all of the provisions of the agreement which set out the validation of our statutes, that would have to be there. Or is it sugge sted that people shouldn't know about this in voting on it? There would have to be those provisions of the agreement, not necessa rily in the legal, technical language, but in substance which says that only 500 of our 4,500 statutes need be translated. That would have to be there, unless you are asking people to vote on part of the agreement.

Nob ody, I hope, is suggesting that; at least nobody in their right mind, I hope, is suggesting that. Are you going to set out in this ballot, which is now six pages long, those parts of the matter that's set out, the

schedule of acts to be translated? I think some people might be interested in knowing what the 500 statutes are. Surely that should be on if you are asking intelligent people to vote intelligently on a matter of legislation. Once you get to the business of submitting legislation to a vote, then in my view you can't do it piecemeal. If that's what you want to do, you put the legislation as is, not as somebody interprets it, not as somebody supposes. You put that to the people.

When, in the Province of Quebec, there was a resolution on the question of separation, a complex question but far less complex than what is being proposed here, it took the Legislature of Quebec months and a great deal of debate between the respective members of the Legislature on how to word that question. Now, government by referendum is wrong generally, Mr. Sp eaker. It is indeed a denial of political responsibility. It is a denial of parliamentary supremacy of which the Leader of the Opposition huffs and puffs so much. Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to a question of minority rights, it is absolutely wrong in principle to say that whether or not these rights, or whether or not part of our social contract is to be fulfilled, that these should be a matter of numbers on a ballot. Mr� Speaker, the Member for St. Norbert, in a rambling speech on just about everything but, says that we've got to end the Session. Yet, as I have pointed out, he talked about everything but the particular amendment to the referral motion which is before the House. Mr. Speaker, yes, at some point, the Session must be ended.

It can be ended; it will be ended in an orderly way. There has been this public debate going on for an extensive period of time; it continues. There is the opportunity which will not be short cut of people to come to the Legislature, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to present their briefs. I have said before; I'll say again; we will listen very carefully. Some will come, no doubt, who will say that we want no part of it at all. Some will come who will say that it's fine as it is; indeed you should go further.

Those statements we will listen to, but of particular interest to us and, I'm sure, to members of the opposition will be those who will come and say, well, look, in this

section dealing with services, you should do this or that, or it's too wide or it's not wide enough. We will listen, and there may be ways, as I have said, of sharpening the language. So the issue that really can, in fact, be determined by this Legislature, that will not change. If there is the referral of the matter intersessionally, what will change? Certainly it will not be those questions of principle.

Certainly - and I go back to the smoke and mirrors in coming to the end of my speech - it will not be that we' ll find a consensus, a halfway hous e between entrenchment and non-entrenchment, between referral to the court and not referral to the court, between providing services and not providing services. A MEMBER: Maybe they'll change their minds because they couldn't deal with Mulroney on that issue. HON. R. PENNER: No, they couldn't deal with Mu lroney on that issue, am: that's known. They can't, other than in a pseudo-tactical way. 4535

Tuesday, 26 July , 1983 So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak against the motion. Indeed, we will listen to whoever wants to get up and speak. I have advised the Opposition House Leader that we would like to have this matter debated extensively as necessary. We'll call it and we have called it today; we'll call it tomorrow morning; we'll call it tomorrow afternoon, but we believe that it should be resolved by the Legislature by the end of tomorrow afternoon, if at all possible, so that the appropriate steps can be taken. Let the people be heard. That is the democratic way. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member tor Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Would the honourable member permit a question? Is the honourable member interring that debate will be stopped tomorrow afternoon on this resolution, because that is what I got from his last statement? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General.

Could he indicate why - although he criticized myself and others for not sending out a copy of the agreement - in the two pamphlets that he has sent out and had prepared by the government he didn't attach an agreement to either one? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Well, I don't mind answering the question, Mr. Speaker. Our pamphlet, constitutionally speaking, did not have a coupon attached - send in this coupon and tell us whether or not you agree with the agreement.

The brochure, which was distributed in the House today, did not have a coupon attached - tell us whether or not you agree with the agreement one way or another. That answers the question very simply and directly. At the informational meetings, the agreement in fact was distributed and was there for whoever wanted it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. My intention is to debate the process at this time, not so much the issue, although I would like to take issue with a few of the remarks made by the Attorney-General to begin with. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the Attorney General has decided through many of his remarks this afternoon to again debate the issue, although in his last portion of his speech, he did move into some of the area of the process. One underlying theme he seemed to bring up throughout the presentation that he made, he said that consensus should not apply in this case. HON. R. PENNER: No, I did not. MR. C. MANNESS: Oh, I'm sor ry, that was my

interpretation. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nou rable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I did not say that consensus should not apply. I said, in fact, that consensus is a desirable thing, a consummation to be devoutly wished for - those were my words. Don't pu� words in my mouth that I did not utter or did not say. What I said was between these polarized positions of entrenchment and not entrenchment, I don't see where there's a consensus possible. Let the Member for Morris tell us, if he thinks where there is a consensus between those two, where it's at. MR.

SPEAKER: I thank the Attorney-General for that clarification. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: In my view, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General seemed to be making the point that consensus was impossible in this issue. I believe he just has restated that, and that in this case he seemed to indicate we had to fight for a point of principle. A principle was at issue and that's what we had to consider. I guess, Mr. Speaker, it begs the question, when are the people right and when are the people wrong, or is it important?

In my view, Sir, it is very important, and I think it's making comments like the tyranny of the majority that tend to confuse the whole issue and put out of focus whether people shou ld be considered to be right or wrong. Well, Mr . Speaker, I think it's important to be with the people on all issues, and certainly this has to be the most important issue in our time. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General made comments that again - and I believe that this was the

interpretation, at least, that I took out of it - that it's the responsibility of an elected person to act responsibly, and at times that may be out of synchronization with the so-called feeling of the majority of the people. He, I think, wants to use that particular type of argument on this particular case. And yet I guess it begs the question - and he made reference to it later on when he was attempting to say that you can't rule this issue by referendum - why referendum po wers have been given to municipalities?

I think we've posed the questions in question period a number of times over the last few days, because we believe that the government is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

They seem to be saying, on one hand, consensus is important, and they've given the tools to the people, by way of changes in The Mu nicipal Act, to allow them to express their opinions, regardless of how much and how many different varying sources of information are available to them, or whether indeed the people, before they come to make a mark on the ballot for the referendum, even taken the time to read an issue, read one source of the material. They have the oppo rtunity to come there "uneducated" and yet vote and they become part of the consensus.

That's been given to all the people and those municipalities that choose to use that tool, because this government is deemed the consensus of the people is important. But on this issue, it isn't; it isn't because of the tyranny of the majority. I think those are the words used by the Attorney-General. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm at a loss to try and determine the diffe rence there becaus e if people do no t 4536

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 understand history - history in this case - and if the government wants to overrule the consensus and ignore them and yet expect them to live in harmony because of an issue that is again the most potentially disruptive in our time, tell me whose fault it is? Is it the fault of the legislators like ou rselves that come here and say, no, we know what's right; you, the people, do not know?

Yet the people, because of some of the main parts of the resolution, the main resolution, which I'll not enter into, find some parts of it totally unacceptable and which lead to divisive communities, who is to be blamed in situations like that? Is it the legislators, or is it the people who do not know? That has never been spelled out to me, Sir, it really hasn't, and I'm hoping sometime the Attorney-General and other members of the government will take a little time to explain that. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has also indicated to us that the R.M. s were in attendance yesterday with the Premier.

A MEMBER: Some. MR. C. MANNESS: Some, and I believe he indicates there were between 30 and 40. I believe that they were hastily called into a meeting on Frida y to be in attendance yesterday with the Premier, no doubt, as a result of the position paper put down by the UMM the day before. Mr. Speaker, we have a very strong divergence of opinion. The Attorney-General says, in being in attendance at yesterday's meeting - of course of which I was not - indicated there were some meaningful qu estions that came forwa rd.

Once they had an opportunity - they, meaning the government - to give reasoned answers to many of the questions that many of these council lors from these 30 de signa ted municipalities went away somewhat happ ier. Mr. Sp eaker, what I find disturbing about that particular categorical statement by the Attorney General is that it flies in the face of a letter that I received just yesterday, as a matter of fact, from one of those 30 rural municipalities.

I think what is significant - and I was planning to read this at the time I debated the main resolution, but I feel I have to do so now - I was waiting for the R.M. of Grey, and that is one of the five municipalities that make up my riding. Within the R.M. of Grey are the towns of Elm Creek; of Fannystelle, which is a French-Canadian town; of Haywood, which is French Canadian and the largest French-Canadian community in my riding of St. Claude. Three out of the four large towns are French-Canadian and make up the R.M. of Grey.

I haven't talked to that municipality at all, and yet on my desk arrived this resolution. It's obvious that that particular municipality took an awful long time. They didn't rush forward maybe like the original 70 or 80 municipalities within the province who fully wanted to put their position forward quickly. I feel that they took some considerable length of time, and I would like to read the resolution. First of all, it was moved by Ed Pilloud, who is the councillor from St.

Claude; seco nded by Gaston Souque, the councillor from Haywood, and it says: "WHEREAS the Provincial Government are presently considerin g passi ng legislation that wou ld make bilingualism compulsory for the Province of Manitoba; and "WHE REAS it is council feeling that passing of such legislation would not only have devastating financial implications, but would also be contrary to what the majority of Manitobans want; "THERE FORE BE IT RESOL VED that the rural municipality of Grey would hereby like to go on record with the Government of Manitoba as being oppo sed to any legislation that would make bilingual ism compulsory in the Province of Manitoba." It's carried unanimously.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that resolution coming from that specific particular rural municipality carries significant weight to my whole thinking on this subject. It's with that in mind that I find somewhat distressing the comment made by the Attorney-General just a few minutes ago when he said that councillors, after having met yesterday with himself and I believe the Premier and whoever else may have been in attendance from the go ver nment, did have an op portunity to ask questions. At least, he left me with the

interpretation that those same councillors left with a feeling that they more fully understood the issue and were maybe more amenable to some of its provisions. I have a hard time accepting that

interpretation, Mr. Speaker. I tell you I do, because I'm searching as one - like I'v e told you before - who has, I would say, a full 20 percent of my constituency made up of French-Canadian origin. Well, Mr. Speaker, moving on, the Attorney-General in his comments here, he moved to the process finally, and he says he wonders why we're concerned. He says that the government will not hold hearings on the long weekend. Well, Mr. Speaker, aren't we fortunate? A MEMBER: Whoop-de-do! MR. C. MANNESS: That is a very major concession on the part of this Attorney-General.

He says that he may bring some amendments forward dealing with specific wordings, but it begs the question: Why did he not confer with the MGEA or other municipalities in the original resolution? Why, now, does he feel and the gov ernment feel obl iged to sit and develop amendments to it? A MEMBER: Got to do a selling job. MR. C. MANNESS: He goes on to say that the people have known for over a year, and he's quoted all the dates of press reports of all the articles that have been written on the subject over the past year; and I fully acknowledge that.

He says the people have known for a year that the government was negotiating this issue. He seems to be inferring that the people know what the issue is, that they know what is happening. Then I guess that whole conclusion, if that's the one he arrives at, begs these questions: Why is there such an outcry now? Why are the municipalities forwarding these resolutions now, if they've known about the issue for one year? And why are thousands of people taking the time and the effort to respond to a questionnaire by the Member for Elmwood?

Why are they doing those things now if wo've all been fully apprised of this situation for the past year? Well, it's obvious the people are just beginning to realize now what has happened, and I think they want 4537

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 to be heard now. Let's define "now." It's not the next two weeks; they want to be heard "now." They want to be heard over the next few months because that's how long it takes. Obviously, the government can't believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people know. Otherwise, they wouldn't have sent this out today. Obviously, the government believes there are some things about this the people as a whole do not know, and yet they expect the people to fully comprehend it in a period of one week or two weeks to be ready for these hearings that are supposed to occur within the month.

A MEMBER: Good point, Clayton. MR. C. MANNESS: And that's what I say now. My definition of "now," Sir, is something like was spoken to by the Member for Fort Garry yesterday - the fall period - and I'll move on to later. To be totally fair to the rural residents of this province, you can't debate this issue in the month of August. You can't do it in the month of September for the very same reasons you do not hold elections during those months. You do so in the fall period. Well, Mr. Speaker, the members, the government, the Attorney-General says that we want the debate stopped.

He claims that we're the ones that want the debate stopped today. Well, Mr. Sp eak er, we don't. Categorically , I can say we do not; but I think, realistically, we believe that the issue is one that can't be signed, sealed and delivered in the period of two or three more weeks. It's one that will take many more months. Well, Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to make those comments in response to a few of the remarks made by the Attorney-Gen eral. I'd like to make some specific remarks regarding the referral resolution and say, as you can probably tell, that I support the amended motion.

I gue ss I ask the very same question that the Attorney General chastises and challenges us for using, that is, what is the rush? I think it sort of was laced all the way through his presentation. I think it's very very important that this particular issue not be rushed. You know, everybody that has spoken on the issue has made reference to the point that wrongdoing has been done to the French-Canadian community in this province for some 90, for some 11 3 years, and it can't last any longer. I don't want to move into that main debate right now, Mr.

Spea ker, I will gladly do so when I speak on the main resolution. But I think it begs the question, if you belie ve that, surely you can't believe that all those wrongs and all those ills can be patched up or fixed up in a period of five weeks, six weeks, of seven weeks. It logically cannot be done. So again that's why I am going to be using as my theme, what is the rush? Mr.

Speaker, the importance of the issue again, and certainly as a new member it's the most important issue that I have seen come to this House, I really believe it's one of the most important issues that I will see in my spell here as a member for however long that may be. I see some other things, Mr. Spea ker. I see all the safeguards that the people have in either supporting or opposing new legislation.

Again, as a new member, it's intriguing to see the powers of opposition, firstly; and secondly, seeing the opportunities the people have to make repre sentation no t only through their representative, but through committees, and I say it's a good system. I have seen the expansion of that through two or three other issues, particularly the Crow. We debated Crow resolutions. The Minister responsible for that has taken that particular process onto the road on two different occasions.

I have seen the Minister of Municipal Affairs also take that standing committee onto the road to listen to hearings rega rding assessment. I am basically impressed with those types of systems. In 1982, we saw the Minister of Transportation go out to the coun try and have seven or eight informational meetings on the Crow issue. I believe he had a total attendance on that particular issue at some seven or eight sites of maybe 100, 200 people, bona fide farmers, I would say. There were more in total, but bona fide farmers - (Interjection) - about 10 0 then. I am corrected. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, I think the government felt somewhat right in following that procedure. I hope they did, otherwise, it was a wasted expense, but they followed that. In 1983, the same issue was taken out to the coun try with formal hearings in this case, again another seven or eight hearings. Again, as I said earlier, the Mu nicipal Affairs group went out into another seven or eight locations to hear presentations made on assessment.

What all these committees held in common was simply this: First of all, they were presented by in some cases an informational release, I suppose, to present the government viewpoint - some would say the government slant; in some cases to educate the people so that they could come forward and make more meaningful comment than otherwise they may. After the presentation of material there was some time for study, sup posed ly. Then there were either orderly hearings or informational meetings. Then, of course, we came back and we debated in committee, and we worked towards a report.

I understood that system and I accepted it, but in each case, particularly going through the Crow where we took several months to do that. In the municipal area, again, a very majorly important issue to rural Maitoba, it seems to be taking years towards some resolution of that particular problem. Yet we move to the most important issue of our time, without doubt, and the time of the process - a few months at the very most. I say that is not enough time, Mr. Spea ker, the timing of the process is completely wrong.

I guess I ask the question, how am I to attain within the next two or three weeks the strong view or consensus view of the constituents that I represent, Mr. Speaker? We all know the timetable that we'll be working under over the next two or three weeks. Last night, one committee sat until 12 :00. I believe the Minister of Agriculture is calling another committee tonight that may very well sit until 1: 00. That's the time and the legislative process that we find ourselves, and we accept that. But how do you mix in with that the most important issue of our time?

After having given to my constituents and all the people of Manitoba, even though it may be slanted, 4538

Tuesday, 26 Ju ly, 1983 the material that has come forward by this pamphlet - possibly the first opportunity that they have had to read something printed on the issue how do I and all the other members of this House attempt to find out the consensus within our own areas within the next three weeks? I think it's a legitimate question, or is it important to know what the people think? I think that's again my

interpretation that I took out of some of the remarks made by the Attorney-General, that maybe it's not that important if you know what the people are doing. - (Interjection) That's right, as elected people, we are supposed to be mindful of history. We are supposed to be mindful of other things and make our decision based on those facts, not the consensus of the people. Again, Mr. Speaker, what is the rush? I can tell you that within my area, three-quarters of the residents in my constituency starting 10 days from now will be fully involved in harvest.

That process, which is the most important process to those people, will last for a full two months. Yes, and I should clarify that to this province, by the way, the harvest process, just about the most important economic activity to this whole province, that's what will be happening on the farm, Mr. Speaker, for the next two months. Yet does the Attorney-General even tell us whether there will be a hearing in the largest town in my riding, in Morris? Does he tell us that? No. Does he expect my constituents to shut down their harvest machinery during that period of time?

Does he expect them to drive to one of the four locations at which public informational meetings were held this past three weeks? None of these matters are laid out; so I think any criticisms that we have of the process are legitimate. Again, what is the rush? I would say in the best interests of everybody, the legislators and the people, that the hearings must be held off until fall. Mr. Speaker, people cannot feel rushed on this issue.

Speakers on the main resolution may suggest - and I made this comment just a few moments ago, but I'll make it again - that the French Canadians in Manitoba have been wrong for 90 years, and that may be correct. I'm not going to debate that at this time but, again, to attempt to relieve or resolve that problem in three short months is totally unconscionable and totally unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, f

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-115
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 115.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e74d62a68a1e9486081cfd8fee58b18b76a919d7

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