Manitoba Hansard — 27 July 1983 (Sitting 116, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-116

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 116 - 10:00 a.m. , WE DNESDAY, 27 JULY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 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, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOST YRA,Hon. Eugene KOV NAT S, 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 RAN SOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 27 July, 1983. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPIENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Conco rdia. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Your committee met on July 19 , 21, 26, 19 83, and appointed Mr. Fox as Chairman. Representations were made to the committee with respect to the following bills: Bill No. 64

An Act to amend The Marital Property Act Bill No. 65 -

An Act to amend The Family Maintenance Act Bill No. 66 -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act Bill No. 68 - The Change of Name Act;

Loi sur le changement de nom Bill No. 69 - The Marriage Act;

Loi sur le marriage Bill No. 70 - The Vital Statistics Act;

Loi sur les statistiques de l'etat civil Bill No. 71 -

An Act to amend The Chi ld Custody Enforcement Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur !'execution des ordonnances de garde Bill No. 97 -

An Act to amend The Queen's Bench Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur la Gour du bane de la Reine Mr. Len Fishman, Family Law Subsection of the Manitoba Bar Association, spoke on Bills No. 64, 65, 66 Ms. Susan Devine, Manitoba Association of Women and the Law, spoke on Bills No. 64, 65, 66 Mrs. Evelyn Wyrzykowski and Mrs. Shirley Scaletta, Catholic Women's League (Manitoba Council), spoke on Bill No. 97 Messrs. Isaac Beaulieu and Vic Savino, on behalf of First Nations Confederacy and the Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services, spoke on Bills No. 65 and 66 Dr. Frank Hechter, Private Citizen, spoke on Bill No. 66 Ms.

Anne Riley, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, spoke on Bills No. 65 and 66 Ms. Myrna Bowman, Private Citizen, spoke on Bills No. 64, 65 and 66 Ms. Carole Zoerbe, Mothers Without Custody, spoke on Bills No. 65 and 66 Ms. Maxine Hamil ton, NOP Status of Women, spoke on Bills No. 64 and 65 Mr. Donald Lugtig, Manitoba Association of Social Workers, spoke on Bills No. 65 and 66 Messrs. Murray Smith and Dave Lerner, Ms. Donna Lucas, Manitoba Teachers' Society, spoke on Bill No. 66 Ms. Carolyn Garlich, Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women , spoke on Bills No. 68, 69 and 70 Ms.

Renate Krause, Legal Aid Lawyers Association, spoke on Bills No. 65 and 66 Mr. Joel Morasutti, Manitoba Prog ressive Party, spoke on Bill No. 64 Written Submissions: Mr. Jerry D'Avig non, Private Citizen, with respect to Bill No. 65 Mr. Paul V. Walsh, Q.C., Solicitor for The Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, with respect to Bill No. 66 Your committee has cons idered: Bill No. 71 -

An Act to amend The Child Custody Enforcement Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur !'execution des ordonn ances de garde And ha s agreed to report the same with out amendment. Your committee has also cons idered: Bill No. 64 -

An Act to amend The Marital Property Act Bill No. 65 -

An Act to amend The Family Maintenance Act Bill No. 66 -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act Bill No. 68 - The Change of Na me Act;

Loi sur le chan gement de norn Bill No. 69 - The Marriage Act;

Loi sur le marriage Bill No. 70 - The Vital Statistics Act;

Loi sur les statistiques de l'etat civil Bill No. 96 - The Domicile and Habitual Residence Act;

Loi sur le domicile et la residence habituelle Bill No. 97 -

An Act to amend The Queen's Bench Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur le Gour du bane de la Reine And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wolseley, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Ag riculture. MR. CLERK: Your committee met on July 26, 19 83, and heard representations with respect to the bills before the committee as follows: Bill No. 90 -

An Act to amend The Cattle Producers Association Act Mr. Go rdon Hicks, Manitoba Ca ttle Producers Association 4547

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 Mr. Larry Cliffo rd, Mani toba Cattle Pr odu cers Association Mr. Max Ross, Manitoba Cattle Produc ers Association Mr. Ed Dalke, Manitoba Cattle Produ cers Association Mr. Peter Friesen, Manito ba Cattle Pr oduc ers Association Ms. Margaret Soper, Consu mers' Association of Canada Ms. Charlene Graham read a brief from Mr. Dave Fulton, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association Mr. Doug Mclaren, Manitoba Cattle Prod uc ers Association Mr. Terry Eyjolfson, Manitoba Cattle Produc ers Association Mr. Tha d Snow, Manitoba Cattle Produc ers Association Mr.

Goody Sigurdson, Manitoba Cattle Produ cers Association Mr. Wayne Dawydiuk, Private Citizen Mr. John Whitake r, National Farmers Union, Local 516 Mr. Keith Proven, National Farmers Union, Region 5 Mr. Jim Bund, Manitoba Beef Cattle Performance Association Mr. Earl Geddes, Manitoba Farm Bureau Mr. Bob Munroe, Mani toba Ca ttle Produc ers Association Written Sub missions: Mr. Allan Chambers, Manitoba Cattle Produ cers Association Mr. Darcy Hickson, Keystone Simmenthal Association Mr. Ken Barrow, Private Citizen Bill No. 7 -

An Act to amend The Dairy Act Mr. Robert De Myer and Mr. Tom Dooley, Milk Producers Marketing Board Your commi ttee has considered: Bill No. 6 -

An Act to amend The Pesticides and Fertilizer Control Act Bill No. 7 -

An Act to amend The Dairy Act And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments, on division. Your committee has also considered: Bill No. 90 -

An Act to amend The Cattle Produ cers Association Act And ha s agreed to report the same wi thout amendment, on division. All of which is respectfully submitted. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honou rable Minister of Natural Resources, that the report of the committee be receive d. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon oura ble Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, a brief statement on the aerial spraying. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'd like to, Mr.

Speaker, inform the members of the House that aerial spraying was cond ucted yesterday evening over the communi ties of Portage and Carman, and thi s morning over the commu nities of Selkirk, Stonewall and Stony Mountain. Weather permitting, aerial spraying will be conduc ted over the commu nities of Morris and Niverville this evenin g, beginning at 7 p.m. Alternate sites for tonight's spraying are Beausejour , Oakbank and Dugald, Gimli and the beaches (which includes an area four miles in width ranging from Camp Morton on the north to Matlock on the south) and Altona.

The commu nity of Dugald is mentioned today because it falls within the 64 square mile area to be covered around Oakbank. I would also like to state that although Gimli and the beaches have been mentione d as one of several alternates for tonight's spraying, we are very aware that this is a resort area and most residents would be outside during the evening spraying hours. Therefore, I have asked EMO officials to make every effort to conduct the aerial spraying over Gimli and the beaches during the morning spray times of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.

As was mentioned yesterday, monitoring of viral activity has been inc reased in western Manitoba, and I will report to the House at the earliest opportunity on the results. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: We thank the Minister for his continued update on the situation, Mr. Speaker.

I just mention that I, for one, and I'm sure that many of colleagues continue to get telephone calls questioning a desirability of the government doing their spraying in the 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. range, when not only in the beach areas, as he has said, with the wonderful weather we've been having in Manitoba this past month people are always out in the evenings; and indeed despite the $1 00,000 program and the constant hour -by-hour update on newscasts people are outside in great numbers during those hours. They are expressing concern as to why the government could n't do it at other hours.

We know that the morning times are available and it's some thing tha t ought to be considered, I think. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 11 4,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act (3). ORAL QUESTIONS McKenzie Seeds MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. Yesterday, 4548

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 the Board of Directors of McKenz ie Seeds terminated the employment of the chi ef executive officer and two other senior officers of McKenzie Seeds. My question to the Minister respons ible for McKenz ie Seeds is, are the RCMP in volved in the investigation and are civil or criminal charges being contemplated? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not clear on that. We'll have to inquire and report. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister respon sible for McKenzie Seeds.

Has the Minister not taken the opp ort un ity under th ese circumstances to bring himself compl etely up to date on all the actions relating to this situation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. FI. PENNER: This may not be a complete answer to the question asked, but it includes a reference to the first of the two questions. It is standard practice when something of this kind occurs - the Provincial Auditor has reported a potenti al conflict of inte rest and there is poten tially a breach of trust - that the matter is referred to the Department of the Attorney-General as a standard pro cedure.

In deed , officials in the Department of the Attorney-General will be looking into all aspects of breach of trust because, for example, if there is a civil breach of trust which can encompass - and I'm speaking here generally, of course the making of a profit through office, then the province or the agent, the Crown corporation, may be entitled to an action to recover the amount of that profit, even though the Crown corpora tion or government de partment or agency has not itself suffered a direct loss in the normal use of that term.

But also the officials in the Department of the Attorney-General will look at any situation like that with respe ct to wh ether or no t there has been any contra vention of the criminal law. That is standard pro ce dur e and officials of the Department of the Attorney-General will look at this as they would any other similar situation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Sp eaker , I can ad vise the hono urable member that the Board of Directors has been considering the civil proceedings, and that is their respon sibility and within the realm of their jurisdiction. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister respons ible for McKenzie Seeds. The statement issued yesterday says tha t termination notices were given to the th ree officers involved. Can the Minister advise the House what, if any, special circumstances surrounded those termination notices, wha t sp ecial pr ovis ions were contained in tho se termination notices? HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, as we indicated, the Provincial Auditor's Report, when it's completed, will be made available to the public and I would assume that report will outline all of the factors. MR . B. RANSOM: Mr. Sp eaker, a supplem entar y. Perhaps my question wasn't clear. Were there any special circumstances surrounding the termination notices; were they terminated immediately; were they terminated with additional pay; were they terminated with losing any privileges that they might have had in terms of back pay; wha t were the condi tions surrounding the termination notices? HON. L. EVANS: Very specifically, Mr.

Speaker, when the board was advised by the Provincial Auditor last Friday of the existence of conflict of interest, the board decided at that point to terminate the services of the ind ividuals involved without pay. However, I should also point out that they have retained a lawyer, I believe a Mr. Thornborough, a lawyer in the City of Brandon, to act on their behalf. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, app roximately one month ago the th ree officers were put on compulsory leave with pay.

My colleague, the Member for Arthur, asked the question at the time as to what provision had been made in order for the government or the Crown corporation to recover salaries paid to those officers, should the conflict-of-interest allegations prove to be correct. That question was branded as being "Alice in Wonderland" thinking by the Minister of Finance, but he said a decision would be taken at the time that their guilt was proven. Mr.

Speaker, that time has arrived now; the officers have been terminated; what action is the government taking to recover the salaries paid to those people, at least during the last month? llllR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Corrections has indicated, the Board of Directors has already sought a legal opinion with respect to their rights regarding any possible recoveries of any funds or profits made as a result of any improper dealings by any officers of McKenz ie Seeds. This is another portion of the possible recoveries that may be made.

In fact, we are requesting of McKenzie Seeds Board of Directors that they look speci fically at that kind of recovery and if possible it will be made. llllR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister responsible for McKenz ie Seeds. Can the Minister advise the House when he first had any knowledge of the possibility of this conflict-of-interest situation existing involving the chief executive officer of McKenz ie Seeds and other senior officers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Community Services. HON. l. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, as I've perhaps indi cated on previous occasions, the first knowledge was when the Honou rable Member for Turtle Mountain made 4549

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 allega tions and serious charges in this House on Friday, June 3rd. The member raised qu est ions in the commi ttee the Thursday before, I believe one week before the n, a Thur sd ay, his quest ions were very inn ocuous, very detail ed, along with many other members' questions. He made no references at that time to allegat ions. There were no im plications, no innuendo and nothing was left in my mind, or in deed the mind I'm sure of any member of the comm ittee that there was anything wrong or that any conflict-of interest situation existed. A MEMBER: When did you know? MR. B.

RANSOM: A further question to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. Can the Minis ter advise the House whether or not he had heard any rumours concerning the possibility of conflict of interest involving the Chief Executive Officer. Mr. William Moore? HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I heard no rumours. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the Min ister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. Had the Chairman of the Board, Mr.

McDowell, or any director of McKenzie Seeds at any time prior to the issue being raised in the House, had any of those people discussed with the Min ister any possibility of conflict of interest? HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, there was no discussion as alluded to by the honourable member. I would like to point out also, Mr. Speaker, to the honourable member that the alleg ations of conflict of interest, as it now appears, transg ressed the Co nserva tiv e admin istration as well as this adminis tration . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. L. EVANS: .. . and that Mr. Don Craik, the Min ister of Financ e .. . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. l. EVANS: . . . at the time had his special assistant, Mr. J. L. Burns, on the Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds Limited. In deed one of the items, it appears, of conflict-of-in terest allegat ions occurred in April of 1981, and was dealt with by the board appointed by that government at that time. Mr. Burns was present and approved of that particular arrangement where there was a conflict-of-inter est situation. - (Interjection) - I have the Minutes of the meeting which show that Mr. J.L .

Burns was present, and the Con servative appoi nted board appr oved of the leasing of a particular building. Mr. Speaker, there are various groups and ind ividuals who have information. We have the Board of Directors, whether it be appointed by a Conservative Government or an NDP Government, you have a board of directors in place; you have the company auditors, Meyers Noris and Pen ny, in place, overseeing operations of the compa ny; you have the MDC which receives weekly cash flow reports; and inde ed you have the Provincial Auditor who has been doing overviews for years of this compa ny.

I would suggest, they were all in place to monitor this. I would imagine that if any of them had any knowledge of any conflict-of -inter est situation, they would have taken it upon themselves not only to involve the Board of Directors or the Min ister, whether it be this Min ister or whether it be Mr. Don Craik, the former Min ister for McKenzie Seeds. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further quest ion to the Min ister responsible for McKenzie Seeds.

If the Min ister says, as he has told the House this morning, that he had no knowledge of the possibility of conflict of interest prior to my raising it in the House, how was he able to say on Friday, the 3rd of June, and I quote, "But I have been assured that the conflict of interest that the member is alleg ing does not seem to be what it looks upon at first sight and at first blus h?" How does the Mini ster responsible for McKenzie Seeds reco ncile his statement of this morning with his statement of the 3rd of June? HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, on June 3rd, the Member tor Turtle Mountain made various allegat ions and statements bringing up information that was news to me that I had never heard of before such as Agassiz Packaging Comp any. I had never heard of that company before in any which way, but indeed I ind icated that there was some slight information, a very limited amount of information, given to me a matter of days prior to the June 3rd meeting of the House. Between the time that the Member for Turtle Mountain raised it on Thursday - and I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, and make it very clear that it was Mr.

Moore who volunteered a very lim ited amount of information, and I stress the term "volu nteered," because there was no need in my mind to ask any questions because there was no inn uendo, no charges made by the Member for Turtle Mountain at the Thursday committee meeting. I went away from that meeting thinking that the Member for Turtle Mountain had a lot of interest in various details of the comp any, as indeed had many of the other mem bers of the opposition and the government. But on the Monday, May 30th, Mr.

Moore volunteered a very limited amount of information saying that he had at one time an interest in the Scott Nationa l Build ing. That had been known and approved by the Conservative-appointed board, and that he no longer had any interest in that group. He secondly referred to a computer company which he said he was involved in to facilita te acquisition of computer services which the board at that time said should be acquired, that is, the computer services. But he said also, he had no longer any interest and he had made no mon ey. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, that was the extent of the information; it was very limited. I asked my staff to prepare a report on the details that day. The details were being looked into, and I alluded to that in my previous ans wers to the qu estions asked by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountai n. When he asked me and made various allegations cont aining new information on the Friday, I still had not received that report. That report was being prepared; questions were being asked; factors were being checked out. When we had 4550

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 that report, of course, we would have taken whatever action seemed to be necessary at that time. But I reiterate, there was no information given to me along the lines that the Member for Turtle Mountain raised on the Friday. I say again, Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member for Turtle Mountain knew about this on the Thursday preceding. He, in my view, had an obligation to confront the officers of the company when he had them right there at the committee, and to lay the allegations on the table at that time ins tead of sitting on them for over a week. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. If other members wish to ask questio ns, would they wait their turn and please stand up and they will be recog nized as usual. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, on June 3rd, the Minister respon sible for McKenzie Seeds said, and I quote again, "But I have been assured that the con flict of interest that the member is alleging does not seem to be what it looks upon at first sight and at first blush." My question to the Minister respon sible for McKenzie Seeds is: Who assured him that there was no con flict of interest? HON. L.

EV ANS: I have said that in this very brief conversatio n, the assurance was given by Mr. Moore who came to us to volunteer the infor matio n. But, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I had asked my staff for a report on this to get the details and to check out various items. Mr. Speaker, that in dividual had been president of the company for some time, had worked with the company over the years as it was developed, and indeed was kept in office while the Con servative Government was in power. They seemed to have enough confidence in him to keep him in there as president for four years. A MEMBER: Are you defending him, Len?

HON. L. EV ANS: I do not condone, Mr. Speaker, any conflict of inter est at any time, anywhere, whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal level, or whether it include Crown corporations. I would hope that the members opposite would get more enthusiastic about supporting the government in its drive to bring in conflict-of-interest legislatio n. HON. S. LYON: Conflict of in terest doesn't stop crooks. You ought to know. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Spea ker, a further question to the Minister respon sible for McKenzie Seeds, was the Minister not in any way concerned when the issue was brought to him by Mr.

Moore, the former NOP candida te in Brando n-Souris and long-time friend and political associate of the Member for Brandon East, the Minister respon sible for McKenz ie Seeds? Was he no t immediately concerned at any possibility of conf lict of interest? Why would he accept the assurance from his long-time political associate that there was no conflict of interest as he tol d this House on the 3rd of June? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I was concerned, and that's why I asked my staff to undertake an investigatio n. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it clear and I am repeating perhaps, that the member on the Friday, June 3rd, made various allegatio ns, brought up details - they were brand new to me - made references to a company that I had never heard of before, and we acted approp riately. I sent a memorandum to the Minister of Finance asking that the Provincial Auditor investigate. Action was taken immedi ately. Not only did we take action immedi ately, but we indi cated that we would make the report public for the information of the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER : The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the First Min ister , will the Firs t Minister now demand the resignation of the Member for Brandon East as the Minister respon sible for McKenzie Seeds, and help to clear the air of this NOP collusive type of conflict of inter est which is only now beginning to take light? Will he ask for the resignation of the Minister immediately? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would show so clearly his hand to so prematurel y and so hastily seize upon this matter as to demand the resignation of the Minister of Community Services. The Minister of Community Services indi cated that he was made aware of certain preliminary info rmation four days before mo re comp lete infor mation was provided by the Member for Turtle Mountain. Following that, Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Community Services that immediately called the Provincial Auditor to investigate. Did the Minister hesitate?

The Minister called the Provincial Auditor to investigate, which was the proper and appropr iate action for the Minister to take under these circumstances. The Minister should be commended for that, Mr. Speaker. No. 2, it was this Minister, it was the Minister of Community Services; it was this Minister, upon receiving certain info rmation four days prior to the matter being raised by the Member for Turtle Mountain that caused preliminary investigations to be undertaken by members of his staff. Mr.

Speaker, no one can be kidded into thinking that any Minister in four days would be able to obtain the information that it required the Provincial Auditor two months to obtain. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, in the light of this bizarre comment by the First Minister suggesting that perhaps the Member for Brandon East deserves a promotion because of his

part in this, may I refresh the First Minister's memory and remind him that on the 3rd of June it was he who said , in response to a question by my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain: " ... first we must inde ed find out who knew what. Apparently there is some indi cation that honou rable members across the way may have known some of these kinds of relationships. I want to find out inde ed who knew 4551

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 what. I think this is the type of situation that ought to be referred to the Auditor for the Auditor to give a full and complete report as to whether there be any conflict of interest on the part of any party. We'll be making arrangements according ly." Mr. Speaker, far from giving credit to his coll eague it seems that the First Minister was already ordering it. MR. SPEAKER: Question. HON. S.

LYON: I ask the First Minister, will he not now dismiss this incompe tent Minister under whose tutelage three senior officers, one of whom is a close political friend, a political officer, a political candidate of the NDP, will he not dismiss this Minister so that at least some of the rot will be out of that situation in Brandon? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I regret the - and it's a matter of discretion on the part of the Leader of the Opp osition - but I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, we can talk about the political allegiances of others of the three indi viduals that are involved. At least one has been a prominent member of the Cons ervative Party pr ominently involved , from my informa tio n, in the Conservative Party. But that is beyond the point, Mr. Speaker, that is beyond the point. It's as irrelevant for myself to talk about that as it is for the Leader of the Op position to constantly make those references. Mr.

Speaker, I want to commend, not only the Minister of Com munity Services, but I commend the Member for Turtle Mountain for having raised this matter by way of questions in the House on June 3rd. - (Int erjection) - Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to continue and just proceed through the tactual events. I have copies of Minutes dated April 23, 1981. In attendance at that meeting was a Mr. J.L . Burns, who was a special assistant to the one Deputy Premier of the day, Mr. Donald Craik. It's my understanding that a copy of these Minutes - (In terjection) - Mr.

Speak er, no one is trying to save anyone but to present the facts clearly in this House. A copy of these Minutes dated April 23, 1981, I'm prepared to table these Minutes in this House, were referred to my understanding to Mr. D.W. Craik, but a special assistant, political appointment, Mr. Burns, sat on the board, at that meeting motioned that the company lease the Scott National Building, for a period of three years, subject to having the option to subl ease areas of the propert y.

And as the land on which the property is situated is leased from Marathon Realty the lease should be reviewed by the company's lawyers, Meighen Haddad and Co. to ensure a fixed cost of $559,500 per annum carries on, the Con servative appointed board carried unanim ously. Mr. Moore and Mr. McEachern then returned to the meeting. Copies of these Minutes were forwarded, it's my understanding, and this bears to be confirmed by the Audit or, were forwarded to the then Deputy Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Don Craik, and at that meeting was Mr. Burns himself. Mr.

Speaker, four days before the matter was raised by the Member for Turtle Mountain . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, what I am pointing out is that the former Deputy Premier of this province was made aware of certain facts pertaining to conflict of inte rest on April of 1981, in case it hasn't yet sunk in to the head of the former Premier of this province. (Int erjection) - Mr. Speaker, if order cannot be maintained there's no point attempting to respond to questions. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

If members are interested sufficiently to ask questions I would expect them to be sufficie ntly inter ested to hear the reply. I would also expect other member s who perhaps wish to get into a debate would do that outside and would not interfere with the Honourable First Minister's reply to the question. The Honourable First Minister. Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: On May 30th of this year, Mr. Speaker, the Minister received, it's my understanding for the first time, some very preliminary reports in respect to potential conflict.

As a result of receiving that information the Minister arranged for investigation to be undertaken by a member of his staff. A few days later, June 3rd to be precise, the Member for Turtle Mountain very properly, and I applaud the Member for Turtle Mountain for doing this, raised certain questions in this Chambe r. Mr. Speaker, upon . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The debate that is going across the floor between the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Minister of Finance is proving disrupti ve to the answer which I'm having some difficulty in hearing. I would ask those two members to try to control themselv es if they can so that we may all hear the Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Upon the questions being raised, and properly, and I appla ud the Member for Turtle Mountain for doing this, on June 3rd im mediate steps were unde rtaken by the Minister of Communi ty Services, imme diately contacting the Provincial Auditor to call for an im mediate inquiry into the affairs of McKenzie Seed. If that action was not taken June 3rd, it was taken the day subsequent - (In terjection) - June 3rd, Mr. Speaker. I know that it's nice to try to make points in respect to something of this nature and try to infer certain actions, or other actions.

I think the Minister has acted very reasonab ly, very prudently , without delay, to cause internal investigations within his own department, and to immediately within four days of the informa tion coming to his attention, and immediately upon the Member for Turtle Mountain raising further information in this House to have an inquiry launched by the Provincial Auditor. Now what more could been expected of the Minister of Commu nity Services responsible for McKenz ie Seeds? 4552

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, a further quest ion to the First Minis ter. In view of the fact that his own Mi nister of Community Services, the Member for Brandon East, acknowledged or tried to state this morning that he had no prior knowledge of this matter prior to the 3rd of June, yet the record shows, Mr. Speaker, that he did; and the First Minis ter gets up this morning and says that the Minister knew of it before the 3rd of June, four days before; in view of all of that, Mr.

Speaker, will the First Min ister not cause the resignation of the Member for Brandon East to be tendered immediat ely, do the honourable thing? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, first I think we should be very cl ear. The Minis ter ha s in dica ted wha t information was made available to him on May 30th.

Subsequent to that, on June 3rd, the Member for Turtle Mountain made known to this Cha mber - and I commend the Member for Turtle Mountain for this - (I nterject ion) - Well, I will continue to say it, because I do commend the Member for Turtle Mountain for having raised this matter in this House and he raised it in my view in a responsible manner. Unfor tunately, not in the same manner that his leader is dealing with this matter this morning. With the additional information that (Int erjection) - well, for the information . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the Minis ter of Community Services res ponsi ble for McKenzie Seeds receiving additional information, which he did not have, and which I'm assured he did not have on June 3rd, that he caused the Provincial Auditor to further make investigations. I think what is important at this point is that the Provincial Auditor carry on with his investigation to bring in his final report. That report will be tabled in this Chamber; it will be made available to every Manitoban to study. I think what this does indicate, Mr.

Speaker, and I've been persuaded, in view of the debate in this Chamber, that when we've talked about conflict of interest insofar as members of this Chamber are concerned, I think maybe we ought to be looking as well at the question of conflict of interest in respect to senior managers and officials of variou s Cr own corporations and departments. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Educa tion. The Min ister of Educat ion recommended Mr.

William Moore for appointment to the Board of Directors of Brandon Uni versity, and no doubt because of his longstanding politi cal affiliation with the NDP Party, will the Minister now revoke that appointment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. H. ENNS: You got to say this, they stick by their friends. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. B. RANSOM: A further question to the Min ister of Educat ion. Was the Minister of Eduation aware that Mr.

Moore attempted to have a computer owned by Vantage Western Data Limited used by the Un iversity of Brandon? And I quote from the September 9th Minutes of the Board of Governor s: "Mr. Moore also suggested that the university explore the possibil ity of tying into the IBM 38 computer at McKenzie Seeds," which of course as we're all aware, Mr. Speaker, the chie f executive officer of McKenzie Seeds, Mr. Moore, and the go vernmen t's appoi ntee to the Board of Governors, had an interest in that computer. Furth er, on October 12 th, Mr. Speaker, the Minu tes of the Board of Governors again reveal and I quote: "Mr.

Moore stressed that the McKenzie computer was available to the university and urged the university to explore further the possibilit y of using this facil ity." Mr. Speaker, in view of that information, will the Min ister of Education revoke the appointment of Mr. Moore to the Board of Governors at Brandon Univ ersity? HON. M. HEM PHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I think that in the course of phrasing the question that the Member for Turtle Mountain did ask me if I had any knowledge of facts that he then proceeded to indicate to the House, and I can say that I have not previously or had not any information of the nature that he presented in the House this morning. So to this day I have not personally any knowledge or received any information to date that would have me give consideration to the question he is raising. MR. B.

RANSOM: A further question to the Minis ter of Education - and I accept the Minister's statement that she had no prior knowledge - but in view of the fact that Mr. Moore, one of her appoi ntees to the Board of Governors of Brandon Univ ersity, has been fired by the Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds because of a conflict of interest; and in view of the fact that conflict of interest involved leasing of a computer to McKenzie Seeds; and further that Mr.

Moore in his capacity as Vice-Chairman and member of the Board of Governors of Brandon Univ ersity attempted to have Brandon Univ ersity tie into that computer in which he had an interest; will she seek his resignation? Will she revoke his appointment, Mr. Speaker, never mind seeking it? A MEMBER: Hear, Hear! HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, what I can suggest that I am prepared to do is receive and ask for any in format ion rela ted to the in format ion that was presented by the Member for Turtle Mountain. I have no previous knowledge.

I am listening to the points that he raised and I will do everything I can to look into the matter and to confirm or not confirm the points that were made. Until I do that I have no basis upon which to make any decision. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Mini ster. I know that when I raised the question of conflict of interest back in June, the members opposite had catcalls across the way about the accuracy 4553

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 of the information. I can assure the First Minister, and ! can assure the Minister of Education. tha t this information is accurate and I'm prepared to table these excerpts from the Minutes from the Board of Governors of Brandon Uni versity. In view of that fact, Mr. Speaker, will the First Minister act as decisively today as the Board of Directors of McKenz ie Seeds acted yesterday and remove this man from Brandon University Board of Governors? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister HON . H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Sp eake r, let me assure honourable members of this Chamber that I will obtain the Minutes. I will check the facts as they have been alleged. If there's a conflict of interest, Mr. Moore's appointment to the Board of Governors of Brandon University will be revoked. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, there is a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest has been proven with respect to McKe nzie Seeds. (Int erjection) - This is a further question - for the information of the Acting Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, this is a further questio n. In view of the fact that Mr.

Moore's conflict of interest with McKenz ie Seeds has been proven and he has been fired because of that, and since he has urged Brandon Uni versity to become involved with leasing a computer from the company with which he was involved as a part owner, how much longer does this government have to go on protecting their political friend in his position as a director , as a member of the Board of Governors of Brandon Un iversity? Why can't they deal with this situation as they would deal with anyone else if he wasn't a poli tical friend? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, let me review the facts for the benefit of honourable members across the way. It was this New Democratic Party Government that caused an inquiry to be launched immed iately, June 3rd, in respect to the allega tions that were raised pertaining to three individuals. The Honourable Member for Turtle did not launch the Auditor's inqu iry, it was the Minister responsible for Communi ty Services. No. 2, Mr.

Speaker, it was not the former Conservative board that had been appointed by McKenzie Seed that, even though they had - and I have referred to the Minutes of April 21s t - it was this board appointed by this government that immed iately caused the dismissal of the three ind ividuals in question. So, Mr. Speaker, far from protecting (l nterject ion)- Mr. Speaker, I trust that we are not still in a zoo, but we're in a Legislative Assembly ... HON. S. LYON: Well, when we get you out of here, it 'll imp rove, don't worry - the quality of the stock will impr ove. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, far from protecting, this government has moved immediately to launch the inquiry by the Auditor . This government's Board of Directors, upon receiving the adequate information from the Provincial Auditor, imme diately caused the dismissal of the th ree indi viduals in question; and third ly, Mr. Speaker, if indeed there be confirmation of conflict of interest involving Brandon Uni versity and Mr. Moore, let me say that this government again will act quickly and bring a termination to the appointment of Mr. Moore. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r ple ase.

The time for Oral Questions has expired. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, following upon question period and prior to Orders of the Day, I move, seconded by the Member for La Verendrye THAT under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namel y: The dismissal of three senior officers of A.E. McKenzie Company Limited who were involved in a conf lict of inter est by transacting with A.E.

McKenzie Company Limited for personal gain without proper disclosure of the transactions to the Board of Directors of that Crown corporation. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Un der Rule 27, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has up lo five minutes to explain to the House the urgency of the motion, not the text, but the urgency thereof. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, with the dismissal of these three senior officers from McKenz ie Seeds, we have what I believe is an unpr ecedented action in terms of the operations of a Crown corpora tion and, Sir, it is necessary that debate of that issue take place immed iately. There is no other opportunity for adequate debate of this issue. The commi ttee considering McKenzie Seeds has met and reported to this House. Public Accounts has met and reported to this House.

Sir, by way of background information, it is necessary to point out to the House that this issue was raised in the House on the 3rd of June by myself, the issue basically being that Mr.

Moore, the chief executive officer, and two other officers of the corporation had incorporated companies in October of 1981 to do business with Mc Kenz ie Seeds, and I presented evidence in the House at that time to substantiate those allegations even though the some of the members oppos ite called across the way that I would regret this and the Mem ber for Brandon East, the Mini ster responsible for McKenzie Seeds, said that I was getting down in the mud to raise such an issue. HON. l. EVANS: No, I didn't say that .. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, the Member for . MR.

SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister for Community Services on a point of order. HON. l. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that item is not true. If he checks the record and if he sees 4554

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 the reference to the mud and mire. it was with regard to allegations that he made about myself. not about the conf lict-of-interest suggestions or allegations that he made. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker. on the same point of order - (I nterjection) - not part of the five minutes, Sir - but speaking to the point of order raised by the Minister , I quote on Page 3430 of Hansard, Friday the 3rd of June ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member did not have a point of order, it might have been an explanation of a difference of opinion, but it was not a point of order.

The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain does not have a point of order. He may proceed under Rule 27(2). MR. B. RANSOM: Well, I wish to rise on a point of order then, Mr. Sp eaker , because the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds made an allegation which he now denies. On Page 3430 of Hansard: "HON. L EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is wallowing in the mud and mire." SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh ! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That was no more a point of order than was the previous point The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain may continue under 27(2). MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. As I was saying when I raised the allegations in the House, in June members oppo site called across the way that I was wallowing in the mud and mire and would reg ret having br oug ht up thi s issue. Sir, I presented the facts and the government undertook an investigatio n. I refrained from asking any further detailed questions about this issue as the investigation was under way.

Indeed, I co-opera ted at the request of the Minister of Finance in speaking with the Provincial Auditor to pass onto the Provincial Auditor any further informa tion that I had which I perhaps could not substant iate but which might have led the Auditor to something further. We have now arrived at the point, Mr. Speaker, where the Auditor has made a preliminar y report to the Minister of Finance, to the government. The Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds has taken action on that report. So that part of the situation has been dealt with, Mr.

Speaker, but what arises from that factual investigation and the action by the Board of Directors of McKenzie Seeds is now a political situation in this House relating to the government's handling of this issue. It is evident, Sir, on the basis of the allega tions being called across the way by the members opposite that indeed there is a necessity to debate this issue now, because the Minister of Finance, for instance, keeps calling across the way, "when did I know; when did I know," as if there was some guilt on my part for not having brought this issue up earlier, Mr. Speaker.

That kind of allega tion cries out for debate, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite have been trying to say that the former Minister. Mr. Craik, was somehow guil ty. Because a board of directors had approved an item of business which had been disclosed, and because it appeared in the Minutes. Mr. Craik is guilty. Sir, that cries out for debate, because what the First Minister has done is make the case for the guilt of his own Minister . The only way to resolve and to make any advance on this political issue of the government's handling the issue is to have a debate, and now is the earli est oppor tunity, Sir.

It is pertinent that we debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Attorney-Gener al also has five minutes under Rule 27(2). HON. R. PENNER: Speaking in oppo sition to the motion, I should point out that it fails in any event on the ground that there is indeed another oppo rtunity for the issue to be debated .

The members opposite well know, and certainly the Oppo sition House Leader well knows that when the Supply Bill is moved, as it must, and that may be within a couple of weeks. that is a cover-the-waterfront debate; that any issue that is deemed by them to be important or urgent, or a matter of urgent public importance, may be debated at tha t time. So to say that th er e is no further opportunity and to focus on the fact that the committee dealing with McKenz ie Seeds has already met is to throw dust in the eyes of the issue.

Secondl y, I should point out that what has been dealt with by the management of McKenz ie Seeds is confl ict of interest, and that is the ground for dismissal. But I pointed out in question period today that there is an investigation, a criminal and a civil investigation in the sense that the senior officials of the Department of the Attorney-General, as is standard procedure, are looking into something that is more than conflict of interest, but whether there is breach of trust. You, Sir, in previous rulings on the sub judice issue have given a wider interp retation of sub judice, and I think approp riately so.

Anything tha t may inde ed prejudice both the position of the government and the Crown, and the position of people who might be defendants, civilly or accused criminally, would be highly improper and ought not to be countenanced. The Member for Turtle Mountain just said that he refrained at the time that the ma tter was being investigated by the board and the Provincial Auditor because he did n't want to prejudice that investiga tion. How more serious to prejudice the investigation that now moves into a far more serious area. It ought not to be countenanced.

What we have had is onl y the preliminary report of the Provincial Auditor, and to now, after the preliminary report has been received and then the result of which, the one admi nistrative action which can be taken has been taken, now at this stage to countenance debate when there is another oppo rtunity would be entirely imp roper. It fails, Sir, on two grounds then. It fails because th ere is another op portun ity.

It fails because it entrenches on the sub judice and ought not to be allowed in a way which would seriously prejudice the rights of potential accused and the rights of the government as a potential litigant. 4555

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I thank both honourable members for their remarks regarding the urgency of the matter. With the Honourable Member for Tuxedo's permissi on, I will continue. The Honourable Attorney-General has pointed out at least one place where members can consider the matter if they so wish. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of honourable members to find other oppor tunities also to debate the matter. Since it is probably of public interest.

I cannot see it as being of public importance in that it would not wait and would have to take the urgency as of precedence over today's proceedings. I woul d, therefore, rule the motion out of order. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully challenge your ruling. MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld? QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the memb ers. Order please.

The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follo ws: YEAS Adam, Anstett, Bucklaschuk, Cowan, Desjardins, Doern, Dolin, Evans, Eyler, Fox, Harapiak, Hemphill, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mackling, Malinowski, Parasiuk, Pawl ey, Penner, Phillips, Plohman, Santos, Sch roeder, Scott, Smith, Storie, Uruski NAYS Banman, Brown, Driedger, Enns, Filmon, Gourl ay, Graham, Hammond, Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, Man ness. McKenzie, Nordman, Oleson, Orchar d , Ransom, Sherman, Steen. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 27; Nays, 20. MR.

SPEAKER: The motion is acco rdingly carried. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some change s on the Municipal Affairs Commi ttee: Filmon for Gourlay; and on the Standing Com mittee on Statutory Orders and Regulations: McKenzie for Hammond. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order.

The Government House Leader indi cated that th ere would be oppor tun ity to de bate the issue surrounding the conflict of interest with McKenzie Seeds. Can the Government House Leader advise then if he will call Bill 31 immedi ately or this afternoon in order that debate may take place on that subject? HON. R.

PENNER: I have the distinct recollection that when the Acting House Leader, the Deputy House Leader sought to call these bills earlier, he was, if I'm not mistaken, chastized by the Opposition House Leader that he should know that the procedure is that tho se bills are called at the very end of the Sessio n. Far be it for me to break precedent with such a well-established procedure; after al l, pr ecedent means so much in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the Honourable Government House Leader please indicate the next item of business. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I was about to make an announcement with respect to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs just to advise members that with respect to one of the bills referred, Bill 47, the Minister advises me that there may be some substantial changes with respect to that bill. It is still to be considered and that it will not be called for review in the committee tonight. Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on the resolution for referral standing in my name on Page 10. Following that, Mr.

Speaker, there will be the calling of some adjourned debates on bills, Bills 48, 55, 10 2, 11 0, 10 7, 77 and 3. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RESOLUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: OFFICIAL LAN GUAGES MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed resolution of the Honourable Attorney-General and the amendment proposed thereto by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to add a few words to the number that have already been spoken with regard to this proposed amendment to the resolution presented by the Honourable Attorney General. 4556

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 One of the reasons why the opposition has been asking from Day One for the government to hold inter sess ional hearings by a committee of the Legislature on this important issue is the very strong reaction that the public has to this particular resolution either one way or the other. I have to tell the members opposite that they have done, I believe, a real disservice to the Francophone community of Manitoba. I feel, Mr.

Speaker, representing a riding which has a fairly large concent ration of members of the Franc ophon e communi ty, of the German community , of the Ukrainian community , what this bill has done is it has brought to the fore and heightened the type of controversy which we see building today. The previous administ ratio n, under the guidance of the then Premier Sterling Lyon, of which I happene d to have been a member of the Executive Council, was moving in what I consider a very prudent and wise manner in implementing French language policies in this province.

The day I heard that the government was going to move in a manner , such as they are doing right now, I knew, Mr. Speaker, knowing the people in my constituency and knowing the people in Manitoba, that the ani mosities would build. One does not have to go very far; one has to just look across the Chamber and see what is happening to the New Democrats among themselves with regard to this particular issue. You ha ve th e Member for Elm wood who is now championing a cause that he feels is the right way. I have to say to members opposite that the app roach taken by the previous government in the implementation of

Section 23 was one which all Manitobans were growing to accept and were starting to live with, but what this government has done by int roducing this reso lutio n, they ha ve cr eated a gap between the Francophone community and other communities in this province, one which is going to be divisive in this province and will not serve in the best interests of the Francophone community or of the rest of the population. I have discussed this, Mr. Speaker, with a number of my Francophone friends in the communities.

There are some people that are very very concerned within the Francophone community of what is going to happen with this particular resolution and their status within the social structure of this province by the type of things that are happening rig ht now with regard to the cont roversy that is now build ing. I say to members op posite that in their haste to try and do something for the Francophone communi ty, you have done them a disservice, one which will take years and years to overcome. This government now, in their haste, has embarked on an advertising program.

The first figure I heard now was 10 0,000; but yesterday we had a pamph let tabled which alone will cost between 55 to 60. I see in today's paper and in the weekli es all th roughout the province a big picture of the now Premier, or a facsimile thereof - it looks like it was taken about 20 years ago - but be that as it may, the government is now spending taxpayers' dollars to try and prop up their position because they realize they've got a problem. The problem is not one which had to be created. They say this resolution is in place because, Mr. Speaker, they wanted to save the taxpayers' money.

Now they're spending the taxpayers' money to go ahead and try and sell their particular positio n. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the SFM did an excellent job in negotiating for the Francophone community. Their job, Mr. Speaker, is to negotiate the best agreement they can for their particular group and they did that. This government got negotiated out of their socks on this agreement and I have to say to the members of the Societe Franc o- Manitobaine that th ey did an excellent job for their particular group.

But I believe that the government - and I would have to say that for political reasons - are trying to soli dify the vote of a certain segment of our Mani toba populati on, be it 5, 6, 7 percent of the Manitoba population and they want to, next electio n, in some of the ridings where it's going to be quite close, be able to say, look what the New Democrats did, vote for us en masse. And that's really what's happening right now and th is is wha t people in Mani toba and the Francophone community are concerned about, because that is a divisive type of a tactic. Now wha t ha ve we got he re?

We have got a government who, in their desire to solid ify the vote of a certain segment or popula tion in society, has moved on this resolution in such a manner that it will - and I'm convinced because we see it happening right now - will be more divisive than any other policy that has been established by many preceding governm ents. And it will not serve this resol uti on, th is change, this amendment to the Constitutio n, will not serve in the best int erests of the Francophone community in Manitoba and I say that not, Mr. Speaker, as a bigot, not as a redneck Tory, I say that as coming from an ethnic group.

I can't be branded as rednecked, bigoted Ang lo-Saxon Wasp because I'm not and I know some of the problems that minority groups face within this province. I know what persecution is all about. I know what it's about. So, Mr. Sp eaker , wha t I'm saying to members opposite is that this province was embarked on a course of action, which saw the slow development of the Francophone language rights in this province, and it was done in a way that it did not antagoni ze the number of people that we're talking about now.

This has really highlighted it, and as I say, I am convinc ed and I think time will bear this out, that this government, in their zealous app roach in trying to solidify the votes for one mino rity gr oup ha s really done tha t gr oup a big disservice. And I think as time wears on, we'll see that. Now, why the rush? Why the amendme nt? Why the resolution at this time, at this late stage of this Session? We are seeing somet hing happen here this year which is very interesting.

We are now embarked on a Session, which I think last Tuesday, every day we sit, we are establishing a new record and it's going to be the longe st Session in the hi story of th is Manitoba Legislature. This morning in the mail I just got some changes to The City of Winnipeg Act. We're looking at amendments in that act, about five pages of amendments. Every day we're getting amended bills on our desks. We're dealing with legislation that the government, in one way or another, has had some change of heart on, and is now proposing all kinds of amendments. To keep up with all that, Mr.

Speaker, is a job in itself, never mind dealing with the first constitutional amendment this province is dealing with and one which will affect - not so much this generation - I don't think within the next couple of years, because the members opp osite very smartly have put some dates within the 4557

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 constitutional changes, which won't take place until after they're out of government, so they've done that very smar tly and avoided the problem . The next government's going to be faced with that. But let me tell the memb ers oppos ite why their bid to sell this resolution is going to fail. We were told the very same thing when the federal bilingual bill was passed by the federal House. that really it's not very much, it's just going to apply a little bit to Quebec.

We were told by the Federal Government when the metric bill passed, for instance, that really it's going to be done sort of in tandem with the Un ited States, we're not going to move very quickly. Mr. Speaker, the people out there do not believe the pamphlet that the members opp osite are sending out because they have had dealings with governments previous, with regard to this particular issue and many others. They are concerned about this resolutio n. The reason for asking the Legisla ture to hold intersessional com mittees is manifold.

I know the Attorney-General and the Premier called in the 29 or 30 affected municip alities - they had them in the other day. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I have had calls from councillors, from people in these affected muni cipalities, who said wha t do es this mean? We ha ve been designated. We weren't asked whether we should be desig nated but we ha ve been des igna ted by the province. Are we going to get assistance? What services are we going to have to provide?

Well, until the pressure started building, the First Minister and the Attorney General who is responsible for the resolution, didn't meet with them until the other day. There has not been any information given to the designa ted municipali ties until yesterday or the day before and we're supposed to sit down and make rational decisions with regard to a resolution of this magni tute? Mr.

Speaker, I sugg est to you that if the government wants to ram this through, in a matter of a week or two weeks or a month, that they are doing this province and the people of this province a great disservice - a great disservice. Because there just is not enough informa tion available and no amount of advertising, no amount of spending of taxpayers' money on sending brochures and literature out, is going to be able to go ahead and convince the population.

I have to say to members oppo site one of the reasons, even at public hearings, that they are going to have a false sense of security with regard to this, is that the average person on the street is as concerned as everybody else who speaks on this issue that he or she, when ma king any comment whether it be constru ctive or otherwise - and I would cl arify that - a constru ctive comment voicing legitimate concerns, will automa tica lly be branded a bigot. That's the problem we've had. That's a problem we all have when we deal with any minor ity groups.

I'm not just talking about dealing with this particular resolution when we talk about anything. We had a resolution before the House brought in by the Member for Thompson, which talked about bigotry and racism and everything. But what we have right now is that the average person on the street will not appear in front of hearings, will not appear before a com mittee of this Legislature when this resolution is referred to the Legislature because, Mr. Speaker, they know the type of smear campaign that can be carried on by both sides of the issue with regard to this resolution.

I say to the members opposite, the underlying feeling over there is one which will, as I have said before, serve to not bind this Manitoba of ours into a province where we all can live better shoulder to shoulder , but will indeed be a divisive one. I ask the Minister, I ask the government, I implore members oppo site to rethink their position and hold this over for at least until the next Session comes to let the informa tion flow properly to the people, not in a hurried-up $15 0,000 ad campaign showing the Premier looking 20 years younger than he is right now.

That isn't the way you are going to sell this thing. You people, in introducing this resolution, have done more to tear apart the fabric of this province than any other government has. I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General the other day when he spoke to the resolution in laying on the record the documents which go back to the previous administration, to the Lyon Government, showing the in itiative taken to try and further the French language cause in this province. I was part of that government. I'm proud of the position we took, and we were moving forward in a systematic, orga nized fas hion .

This go vernment should have continued that. For reasons which only they know, and I have to impute political motives with regard to this, they have decided to take this path. They will, Mr. Speaker, suffer the consequences; but unf ortunately it's the Francophone commun ity, the German comm unity, the Ukrainian commu nity , the Anglo commun ity, the Icelandic community in this province that will in the final analysis suffer because of this government's action. It is not a resolution which helps bind the fabric of this province.

It will serve to cause more division, and these gentlemen and ladies of the government of today will go down in history as having been the people that, instead of trying to bind this province together, have served to do it a disservice and are tearing it apart. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak to the method of handling of the bilingual resolution that is being proposed by the Attorney General. I don't wish to debate the substance of the amendments to The Manitoba Act at this stage.

We'll have an op portunity to do that at a later date. The resolution, as originally proposed by the Attorney General, proceeded along quite nicely, but I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have to tell the Attorney-General and members of the government that the amendment propo sed by my colleague, the MLA for Fort Garry, makes this a resolution that is truly worthy of passage in this House.

The resolution, as originally written by the Attorney General and introdu ced by him, was good, proper, fair and equitable within its first three sections, but did not meet the purpose of this important debate and of this imp ortant issue with the last two lines of that resolution. That is why I say, Sir, that the amendment, as propo sed by my colleague, that the last line be struck and amended to enable sitti ngs of this com mittee intersess ionally to listen to the people of Manitoba and 4558

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 to report to the next Session of the Legislature is proper and fair and will give this government the much-needed image that indeed they are willing to listen to the people of Manitoba, and that they are not going to ram this amendment down the th roats of all Manitobans. That amendment was well tho ug ht-out and it deserves passage in this House by the government, and it certainly will have the support of every member of the opposition. This debate and this issue does not deserve the kind of hasty time frame that the government has negotiated and placed itself in.

This issue and this proposed amendment deserves the kind of intersessional hearing process to listen to the people of Manitoba more than any other issue that we had placed before the people of Manitoba and before the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba; certainly in the time that I have been elected as an MLA to represent Pem bina constitue ncy, in my knowledge of the history of the Legislature of Manitoba, probably one of the more important issues, period, that deserves the proposition of intersessional hearings to allow Manitobans to speak to this issue.

Last week, we had an interesting question posed to the First Minis ter. I believe it was on Friday. The First Minis ter was making some qui te interesting comments about placing public pressure on the Prime Minister of Canada and the Government of Canada in the hopes that they would reverse their decision to test the Cruise missile in northern Alberta. The Premier believed that pub lic pr essure on this issue could reverse the Government of Canada's course of action and the decision that they made.

Yet, the First Minister, the Attorney-General and most of the New Democratic caucus are not willing to listen to the people of Manitoba, and to bow to public pressure on the issue that they are putting before the people of Manitoba, that they are attempting to push through this Legisla ture with an artificial time limit of December 31, 19 83.

On the one hand, the First Minister will say that public opinion counts to pressure the Federal Government; and, on the other hand , they say that pub lic opinion does not count to pressure us to do something and to listen to the people of Manitoba and to reflect their will and their opinion in this Legislat ure. Well, the First Minister cannot have it both ways.

If public pressure, public sentiment, public opinion is important in the testing of the Cruise missile to the Federal Government, then surely public opinion, public pressure is important to a New Democratic Government which professes to listen to the people. Surely, it is equally important to the Pawley Government, to the Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: We're list ening. llllR. D. ORCHARD: The Attorne y-General says they are list ening, but they are not going to listen; they are going to put an artificial time limit on the period within which they will listen to the people of Manitoba.

They have set the deadlines for the debate, for the discussion, for the passage. They have indicated there is no chance of an amendment until a union came to them and said there are problems. This government listens to unions. They don't listen to anybody else but they will listen to a union. When unions come and say there is a problem with this pro posal, then all of a sudden they listen, Mr. Deputy Speaker; but to the average Manitoba citizen, they have said we are not prepared to change anythin g in our amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. Maybe the voters of this province have to form the Manitoba Voter's Union and have a checkoff dues of union fees and then elect officers to come to the Attorney-General, to come to the Premier and say, as a union, we object . . . MR. H. ENNS: Contributes to them politi cally. MR. D. ORCHARD: And my colleague, the MLA for Lakeside, adds one more thing, yes, and maybe this Manitoba Voter's Union woiuld have to contribute politica lly, political donations to the New Democratic Party.

Then they would get the ear of this government, and this government would respond to their very leg itim ate and serious concerns about wha t the government is proposing to do. So I simply ask the Attorney-General, the Premier and th e gr oup of peopl e in the Ne w Democratic Government Caucus who are supporting the time frame and the substance of this amendment: Where is your semblance of princip le on this issue? The Premier will say public pressure will make the Prime Minister change his mind, but it won't make me change my mind. Where is the princ iple involved there?

Where's the sense of integrity in this government? They say they want to listen to the people of Manitoba, but they set an artificial time limit within which they will listen selecti vely to the people of Manitoba. Wherein is the integrity of this government in proceed ing along that line?

Where is the honesty in this government when a letter goes out from the Premier to every reeve and mayor in the Province of Manitoba with "a typograph ical error" that substitutes the word "those" and replaces it with "official." People in Manitoba ask where is the honesty in this government which would allow that kind of a major error to go out in an official letter from the Premier, explaining government policy on so important an issue? Where is the trust that the people of Manitoba can place in this go vernment? Can th ey trust this go vernment when th ey say that this is a limite d agreem ent?

How can th ey tr us t th em when this government is placing the artificial time limits on the debate on the issue? What kind of an enhanc ement of trust between the people and the government stems from this kind of action? Well, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, none; none wh atsoever , and therein lies the pr oblem thi s government has with this issue. Their handling of it is not based on princ iple that they expouse on other issues. It is not based on the integrity of a government to deal with an issue of this importance.

It has not been dealt with hon estly by the government, and it does not engender the trust of the people of Manitoba. Well, I suppose at this time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should consider the process that this House can offer to the people of Manitoba to voice what their opinion is. What is the long-s tanding process in this House on legisla tion? We regularly allow the people of Manitoba to come to committee, whether it be Law Amendments, 4559

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 Agriculture, Statutory Regulations and Orders, any one of the comm ittees to which a bill passed in second reading in this House is referred to, the people of Manitoba have the opportunity to come there and speak to the legislation in support of or against that legislation. The people of Manitoba can sugge st amendments to that legislation at the comm ittee stage. That is an admirable tradition that is part of the legislative process of Manitoba and has been !or a numb er of years. It's good that we do that.

I don't think any member in this House would object to that process being continued on and allowing the people their fair say. We accept that those comm ittee hearings should be held in this building while the Session is sitting to deal with legislation. We accept that. We would not consider taking a committ ee hearing on a bill referred during Session out of this building to speak to the people of Manitoba in Bra ndon, in Dauphin, in The Pas, in Thompson, in Morden , in Boissevain, in Steinbach. No, that has never been done; that has never been the tradition.

The people of Manitoba have come to expect that when the House is in Session, commi ttees will be called and they can speak to legislation. Those comm ittee hearings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give the people of the opposition, whether they be New Democrats some two years ago or th ree years ago, to listen to the people of Manitoba and to determine whether the legislative proposals meet with the app roval of the majority of Manitobans. Just last night, we sat until th ree in the morning dealing with Bill 90, The Cattle Producers Act. There were two people that supp orted that bill.

There was something like 19 or 20, and most of them were representing major organizations in the agricultural com muni ty of Manitoba, were opposed to that. Now, the gove rnment, through its major ity, in sisted on ramrodding Bill 90 through last night, and that's their prerogative. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we in the opposition heard what the agricultural commun ity, the cattle producing commu nity in Manitoba want, and come next election when we are government, we can bring them what they want, because what this government is removing from them is done within the halls of this Chamber and we can reverse it next election. We can bring back the type of legislation that allows the Cattle Producers Associ ation to exist and work on behalf of both producers and consumers in the Province of Manitoba. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, not so with this proposal, because this proposal when it leaves this Chamber goes to the federal Parliament. This proposal cannot be changed to reflect the opinion of the people of Manitoba after it has been enshrined in law. The likeliho od of that is very very remote. So what this government is doing is ramming something through that shall be written in stone, and therein lies the problem with not listening to the people of Manitoba and giving them adequate time to express their views towards the propo sal made by this government. What are some special circum stances of comm ittee hearings, Mr.

Deputy Speaker? I think that should be imp ortant to consider right now. I can thin k of two cases that have come up in the time of this government, in the 18 months that this New Democratic Government has been in office in the Province of Manitoba. Mun icipal asses sment is the first issue. Our government commissioned former Premier Weir to study assessment and to report to the government. That report came in, it was reviewed by the New Democratic Government, it was summ arized by the New Democratic Government and what did they do?

They considered the issue important enough to Manitobans to hold in tersessional hearings and take the Municipal Affairs Comm ittee to Souris, to Grandview, to The Pas, and to Winnip eg. And un der pr essure from the opposition and the reeves, and mayors, and councillors throughout south-central and southeastern Manitoba they were forced into calling a fifth hearing in Morris. lntersessional hearings on a matter that was entirely within the ju risdiction of the Provincial Government of Manitoba, that did not need to be referred to the federal Parliament.

This go vernment held in terses sional hearings to listen to the people of Manitoba. The Min ister of Municipal Affairs, the man I cail "P erfect Peter" has ind icated that they don't want to be rail roaded and rushed in making assessment changes because it's such an important issue. They want to take their time to consider the amendments that are suggested in the Weir Report and to very cautiously move on changing the assessment system.

How can the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs stand for the head long rush that ha s been im posed up on his gov ernm ent by the Attor ney-General on so fundamentally an impo rtant issue as the bilingual amendment that he is proposing. On the one case they say they have to proceed cautious ly. On the other hand they are willing to ram this through on a deadline that they have im posed on thems elves. I refer back to one of my questions, Mr.

Deputy Sp eaker , where is the pr inciple in volv ed in this amendment gi ven to us by this gov ernment th at obviously has not princi ples on which they base their decisions and their actions? The Minis ter of Education, as a second example, has undertaken a review of education financing in the Province of Manitoba. What has happened there? Well there hasn't been a formally struck comm ittee to tour the province but there have been a series of meetings at which people have been invited by letter by the Chairman of that review committee.

The people of Manitoba have been allowed to come to those meetings, express their views, question Dr. Nicholls, and not be restricted to a five-minute attempt at getting answers out of the Attorney-General as his public meetings on this issue have restricted the voice of Manitobans to. Once again educational financing, they go to the people, and it is again, Mr. Speaker, a matter that is solely within the legisla tive manda te of the Provincial Government. They are listening to the people. They are proceed ing cautio usly.

They are not rushing headlong into making changes to the education financing that will be detrimental to the people of Manitoba. But here the Attorney-General and the Premier, and hi s supporters on the front bench and other benches of the government are ramming this amendment through without adequate consulta tion with the people of Manitoba. I ask again, Mr. Speaker, where is the principle involved? There is no principle that this government uses in such decisions. Where is the integrity? It is non- 4560

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 existent. Where is the hone sty? It is lacking. Where is the trust to be engendered in the people of Manitoba where issues of muni cipal assessment and taxation, issues of education financing are referred extensively to the people of Manitoba over a prolonged period of time and this issue is not? Interesting question that the government is going to have to answer.

The most baffling example that I can bring to this Assembly for their consideration and for members in the government to consider - we had, on two occasions, this government attempt to consult with the people of Manitoba on the issue of the Crow freight rates, the statutory freight rates for hauling grain. On the first issue the Minister went out with a series of publi c meetings.

He didn't get anything near the response to the Crow rate changes at his travelling meetings in the summer of 19 82 in support, or in opposition, of what the Federal Government was doing, that the Attorney-General has got in his four meetings in which he took his biling ual issue to the people of Manitoba. Bearing that in mind, the Minister of Transportation and the Premier decided it was necessary to go back to the people of Manitoba, while this Session was sitting, and hold seven hearings with the Agricultural Commit tee throughout the Province of Manitoba to hear further representa tion.

I say that - this was done having engend ered ab solu tely minim al supp ort to th e government's position on the Crow rate issue when they held their pu blic information meetings and the Minis ter toured the province. Contrast that starkly, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of reaction the Attorney-General has gotten from the people of Manitoba on his biling ual proposal. The Minis ter of Transportation goes back with a commit tee to tour the province. The Attorne y-General says - no, we will not do that. Where is the principle involved there, Mr. Speaker? It is non-existent.

A further problem comes up in this issue of the Crow rate. That, Mr. Speaker, is an issue that we have absolutely no legisla tive authority to deal with in the Province of Manitoba. But this government has seen fit to have a Minister tour the province in 19 82, and to have the Agricultu ral Commit tee tour the province in 19 83, to hear the people of Manitoba on an issue that they have absolutle y no legisla tive manda te to modify the change or to pass.

They refuse to hold intersessional hearings to allow the people of Manitoba to speak to such an imp ortant issue within their juri sdiction affecting all Manitobans namely the bilingual amendment, that the Attorney-General and the Premier are proposing. - (Interjection) My colleague says - it doesn't make sense. My colleague is correct, and Manitobans are correct when they say it doesn't make sense. If you think that Manitobans aren't fully aware of the railroad tactics that the Attorney-General is using on this amendment of his, I can assure you that they are.

There was a Crow rate hearing in Morden to hear the views of the farm community in Morden. There won't be any intersessional or any comm ittee hearing going to Morden to hear their views on bilingua lism as proposed by the Attorney-General.

There will not be any hearing in Dauphin; in Swan River; in Brandon; in Arborg; in Anola; to hear the people of Manitoba on a constitutional amendment which is entir ely within the juris diction of this province. 4561 The people of Ma ni toba recog ni ze that this gover nme nt is att empting to railroad them into something they do not wish, they do not desire, and, furthermore, this government never won an election promising to bring to the people of Manitoba. They rec ogniz e a rail road job; the y recog niz e th at this government does not want to listen to the people of Manitoba.

The people of Manitoba recognize that this government is wrong in what they are doing; that this go vernment ha s broken faith with the people of Manitoba; that they have broken their trust with the people of Manitoba by not taking this issue to an intersessional commit tee which would travel throughout the province as other comm ittees have done to hear Manitobans. The intersessional hearings that are prop osed by the amendment placed on this resolution by my colleague, the MLA for Fort Gar ry, deserves serious consideration by the government.

I would make some suggestions to them, because this government constantly says they don't hear any positive suggestions from members of the opposition, that all we do is criticize. I would suggest to the government that they hold 10 to 12 hearings in various locations in the Province of Manitoba. They should go to Winnipeg. They should go to Lac du Bon net, Steinbach, Morden , Boi ssevai n, Brandon, Dauphin, Swan River, The Pas, Thompson, Robl in, Arborg and, of course, Winnip eg.

They would hear from the constituents of the MLA for The Pas exactly wha t th ey think about thi s constitutional amendment, and they wouldn't have to rely on the abject silence of the MLA for The Pas who will not represent his people in this House on this issue. - (Interject ion) - The Attorney-General says the mayor for The Pas supports this. Then why is he afraid to go up in The Pas and hear the other people in The Pas then? Why are you afraid to go to The Pas? Why are you afraid to go to Thompson? HON. R. PENNER: I'm not afraid to go anywhere. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, you're not?

Well, the Attorney General says he's not afraid to go anywhere, but he isn't going to go anywhere. Does that demonstrate that he is not afraid of taking this issue to the people of Manitoba in an intersessional comm ittee? HON. R. PENNER: Logic, Donny, is not your strong point. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speak er, the Attorney-General says logic is not my strong point. I suggest to the Attorney-General that integrity is not one of his, because he is not taking this issue to the people of Manitoba.

Honesty is not one of the fortes of the Attorney-General, because he won't take this issue honestly and openly to the people of Manitoba. Endearing the trust of the people of Manitoba is not a forte of the Attor ney General or the Prem ier, because they will not trust their beliefs to the scrutiny of the people of Manitoba. They certainly won't, because I predict that they will use their majority to defeat this amendment which would call for intersessional hearings after the prorogation of this Session and report to the next sitting of the Legislature. They will defeat that with their government

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 majority. There's no question about that. They are afraid to li sten to the people of Manitoba on such a fun damentally im portant is sue as the biling ual amendment to the Constitution of Manitoba, whilst they ha ve li stene d to Ma nito bans on the Cr ow Rate, municipal assessment, education financing through various committees travelling the province. It hardly makes for a situation in which the people of Manitoba can trust these people.

I will make a further suggestion to the government, to the Attorney-G eneral, that this committee should be one of the commit tees of the Legislature compo sed of New Democrats, Progressive Conservatives and maybe some Ind ependents. Lord knows how many of them we're going to have before this is finished. MR. H. ENNS: We'll have a num ber. We've got th ree now. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that because this issue is going to have to go from this Legislative Assembly to the Federal Parliament, that we include Manitoba MPs and Senators from all sides of the political spectrum federally to be part and parcel of this committee so that they can hear first-hand what Manitobans thin k about this constitutional amendment so that they can better represent the views of the electorate and the constituency they represent in Manitoba in the debate in the Federal Parliament, should this resolution ever reach the Federal Parliament. So, Mr.

Speaker, I lay those suggestions out to the Attorney-General, to the First Min ister and to others in the government. I think I have demons trated that there is precedent for what I am sugges ting. This government has struck inte rsessional committees to hear the people of Manitoba on other issues. This government purports to listen to the people of Manitoba. That has been one of their major replies in question period, that they listen to the people of Manitoba. Then they should listen on this issue. They should not hide from it if they believe they are correct and can explain it to the people of Manitoba.

They shouldn't hide behind it with the power of their majority in this House to ram it throu gh. If they have the faith in their convictions that they are right, they should trust the people and go to the people and let the people talk to them and let the people make proposals to them. After all, they claim they're a government of the people, but that is fast falling into disrepute as this government crashes headlong into ramming things through this Legislature. The First Minister the other day, as I'v e said earli er, said that pu blic opinion is im portant.

Public opinion can make the Prime Minis ter of this country change his min d on testing of the Cruise missile, but yet he's no t willing to li sten to pub li c opin ion on this fun damentall y im portant issue from the people of Manitoba. There is no semblance of principle involved in the govern ment 's act ion in dealing with this bilingua l amendment. There is no semblance of integrity with what they are doing.

There is no semblance of honesty in what they are doing, and we can add more examples of the lack of ho nesty in the presentation of this issue to the people of Manitoba, and we will in the debate on the subject matter of the resol ution. There certai nly is no trust that the people of Manitoba are placing in this government to do what is right, fair, correct and proper for the people of Manitoba on the bilingual issue. There is absolutely no trust in that regard. The Premier has not become known as Pastor Pawley throughout this province without very legitima te cause, Mr.

Speaker, because people of Manitoba have listened to him preach on different issues and then see him reverse his position, change his position, modify his position. They are, once again, listening to the Premier preach on this issue in a self-righteous way and, at the same time, deny Manitobans an access to allow their views to be heard in an intersessional committ ee which should travel throughout the length and breadth of this province, holding meetings to listen to the legitima te concerns of Manitoba.

If what they are doing is correct, then they should be able to explain away and allay all the fears of the people of Manitoba on this issue. If they are correct, they should be able to justify their position in a public forum, in a comm ittee at which questions can be asked and answers can be responded to.

The longer this issue is debated in the public forum, the longer it is questioned in the publi c forum, the better the understanding will be and if it is good for the people of Manitoba, if it is correct, and it is the right way for the government to proceed, then that will become abunda ntly clear to the people of Manitoba. So I ask the Attorney-General, why are you avoiding the golden opportunity to vindic ate your position with the people of Manitoba?

Why are you not trusting the people of Manitoba to listen to what you'r e saying in an intersessional comm ittee, and if what you are saying is correct, the people of Manitoba will agree with what you're saying. But, Mr. Speaker, this government no longer believes in what they are doing. They come out with a position in this House that there shall be no changes, that we are going to pass this by December 31 st, and they are going to ram it through and they are going to dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead. They aren't going to listen to the people. - (In terject ion) Mr.

Speaker, do I hear some chattering from the MLA for Springfield who isn't even in his seat? Mr. Speaker, this government has not demonstrated that they are willing to deal with this issue hone stly, with integrity, or with the trust of the people of Manitoba. They are afraid of the unde rstanding that Manitobans have of this issue.

They know they cannot justify their position to the people of Manitoba in an open public forum and therefore, they are willing to hide from the people of Manitoba, by ramming this resolution through the House with their majority now and defeat the amendment; and furthermore, to ram their

Section 23 amendment through this House with their major ity, whether it takes one month, two months, or th ree months. They are willing to ram it through this Session without trusting the people of Manitoba to express their views and certainly without listening to the people of Manitoba, who have a far greater unde rstanding of what this government is doing wrong on this issue, than this government is willing to give the people of Manitoba credit for. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I fully support this amendment as proposed by the Member for Fort Garry and I would 4562

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 hope that some members opposite would have the courage, the honesty and the integrit y to support that resol ution, that amendment to the resolution as well, and allow Manitobans their fair opportunity to be heard by this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Wa lding: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Mem ber for Roblin -Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to address the subject matter before us, the amendment as proposed by the Honourable Mem ber for Fort Gar ry, to the resolution that's been proposed by the government of this province to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, etc., etc. Mr. Speaker, I daresay in all the years that I'v e been in this Legislature, this is likely the most important issue this House has ever dealt with in the years I've been here. I suspect it is, without doubt, the most im portant issue that has ever been on our desks since I' ve been here and I think, Mr.

Speak er, it's not only an insult to this Assem bly, it's an insult to the people of this province, to see the manner - the selfish manner - with which this government has seen fit to deal with this matter, the most impo rtant, in my opinion, subject that has ever been dealt with in this province. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that my brief remarks, in support of the amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, can convince - at least some of the members opposite - to take another look at what you're doing and how you're destroying the confidence of the people in this province.

And one only has to look at the headlines of the Sun today, why the NDP are losers and here's another reason why you're losing the confidence of the people of this province, because of the bullhe aded manner in which you're handling the most important issue, as I say, that's ever been before the people in this Chamber since I've been here. Mr. Speaker, I did take the time on the weekend to visit several of my NOP friends in Roblin - Russell constituenc y and ask them where did this government get the mandate to carry on this way, to bring these changes forth and to handle them in this shoddy manner?

I tell you, th ey are shocked - staunch sup porters of the members opposite, all across this province - are standing up and expressing great concern and gr eat anxi ety re the ma nn er in which the gov ernment's dealing with this ma tter , the mo st important matter that we have had since I've been here, Mr. Speaker.

I just ask for the members opposite to stand up and support the amendment that's been proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, so at least if the mem bers opposite don't want the committee to go into their constituencies, I certai nly want them to come into Roblin-Rus sell constituenc y and explain to the people what you mean by all this propaganda and this literature that's going out. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have ever seen more confusion on any issue for a long long time, than I'v e seen on the issue that's being pr opo sed by the government on these proposed amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. Confusion, anxi ety, concern, is evidenced all across my constitue ncy on this issue. The Muni cipality of Gran dview sends their concerns into the First Minister of the province. What does he do? He sends back a letter and misleads them. He said it was a typographical error. I don't think Mr. Speaker, that the Municipality of Grandview or the Town of Grand view or anybody in this province deserves that kind of treatment on a matter as impo rtant to - not only the people that are living here today, but the people that are unb orn - on the changes to our constitution.

Why can't we take it over when the crop is off and the farm community and the children are back in schools in the fall, why can't we take the commit tee around this province and listen to the people on this matter? Ha ve I heard one just reason from any member opposite, Mr. Speaker? I find it strange. I thought they'd all be rising in their places today, Mr. Speaker, and defending their government's position on that, but I don't think they have that kind of support over there - the solid min isterial and backbench suppor t on this issue that they lead us to believe.

Because if they did, th ey wou ldn't ha ve to be sen ding this kind of propaganda around the province, coloured brochur es. If this issue will stand on its own two feet, you don't have to send that kind of stuff out. You don't have to put pictu res in the paper, such as you have your Premier today with a new hairstyle, all groomed up, a brand new guy - never saw that man before and they say no, it's Howard, but once I saw the signature at the bottom - you know, that's the same signature we got on that propaganda package, exactly the same, so it's got to be the same guy.

But when I saw that pictur e this morning, Mr. Speaker, I was shocked. I said, it can't be Howard. It can't be Howard. - (I nterjection) - Well, I wondered, Mr. Speaker, what Peter Warren was talking about - Mr. Warren must have seen it because he calls him Pastor Pawley in his column this morning. He calls it "P astor Pawley's Parade." So, I dare say that Howard would maybe not have much problem getting into the clergy with that kind of a picture that he put in the paper today, Mr. Speaker. He looks as if he has committed no sins; that if he's sinc ere about listen ing to the wishes of the people, then, Mr.

Speaker, if he's going to put tho se kind of pictu res in the paper and look like a saint, I hope that he'd act like a saint and take this comm ittee around the province and listen to the people. Let's listen to the little guy that's standing on the street corner; let's listen to the high school students. Let's go out and take this and let's just listen. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, if it's the same across the province as I'm hearing in my constituenc y, I don't think we should pass these changes in their present form. I don't think we should pass them. I suspect deep down, Mr.

Speak er, that's the reason they don't want to go out to the coun try. That is the reason. There's something han ky-panky going on. There's some kin d of a deal they've made in a back room; there's something that's fishy about this whole thing, because if it' ll stand on its own two feet, I'll suppor t it. But until this government, Mr. Speaker, can assure me and assure the people in my constituency that they're going to have a chance and they have a right to deal and discuss this matter, then I'm standing up and supporting the resolution as proposed by the 4563

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 Honourable Member for Fort Garry, and pleading with the father in the backbench there, a man of the cloth, who should give us his support in this resolution and let us go around in this province and deal with this matter. Let's go and talk to the Polish people and I've got a lot of Polish people in my constitue ncy. God bless them , they are the salt of the earth, the Polish people. They don't want these changes in the Constitution and the Honourable Member for St Johns knows that. He knows it, absolutely . Let them be heard, Mr. Speaker, but they're not going to do it that way. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder how we're going to deal with the mu nicipaliti es in our province. How are we going to deal if we carry on this - is it possible that we cannot continue with the negotia tions with the Union of Municip alities on this extremely impo rtant matter until it's resolved to the satisfaction of all? I suspect not, Mr. Speaker, the way this gang is carrying on. The mu nicipa lities are going to be told where to go and how to get there on this issue.

They're not prepared to wait, they're not prepared to listen and I don't know how many meetings they've had already with the Uni on of Muni cipalities in this pr ovince. I suspe ct there's been thr ee and the munic ipalities still don't like what's going on. Isn't that another reason why we should delay it for another 12 months or 15 months or another two years until we get agreement in this province on this issue, Mr. Speaker? I say it is.

I say the mun icipalities must be satisfied on this issue before we proceed any further and whether it takes intersessional hearings after this House adjourns this fall, or whether we carry on next year on the subje ct matter, because it is that im portant to me and it's that im portant to the people in the Roblin Russell constituency that this thing be slowed down, that we get a better consensus of it than we have at the present time, and that we listen to the Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry in his resolution to delay it. Slow it down, let's go and talk to the people on it. Mr.

Speaker, is there anythin g wrong with using our democratic princip les that we all bel ieve and taking a commi ttee of this House and touring the province on this issue? Let's give every constituency a chance. Tha t'll be 57 meetings. So what, ii it takes a year!

I suspect by the money they're spending on this propaganda, by the Premier's pictur e in the paper, we could send the comm ittee around this province twice for the savings that we're getting from the brochur es and the ads on the radio and the ads on television and the qu arter page that we have of the Premier today in our newspapers trying to make him look like a saint. Mr. Speaker, he wou ldn't be a saint if he carries on with this matter the way it is being dealt with at the present time. Mr.

Speaker, I ask again, I asked the Attorney General, I asked the government and I asked the backbenchers, what's all the hurry? That's my first question. My second question, why do we have to implement these changes in The Manitoba Act so quick? I'm told that the Supr eme Court won't wait. I don't buy that; I don't accept that. The courts of this province are the servants of the people, Mr. Speaker, so I don't buy that argument. Why the big advertising program? If this thing is needed and the wishes of the people are behind it, we don't need that big advertising program that the gover nment's propping it up with.

Why the big sell in the newspaper? Why the big sell of trying to prop the Premier up on this issue, Mr. Speaker? Why the coloured brochu res? Why the waste of taxpayers' dollars in this advertising program? Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is to set up the Committee of Statutory Rules and Regulations in this House, let them tour the 57 constituencies in this province, come back with a consensus; and if the consensus of the majority of the people are such that they want these changes, then let us do it in this Legislature.

But until we get that support and that consensus - I'm like the Honour able Mem ber for Elmwood, Mr. Speaker, I'm a very doubtful MLA that the government has a mandate to carry on this way; and secondly, they don't have the right to treat the people in such a shoddy manner on such an imp ortant issue - until I get that assurance, I'm going to be supporting the resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry.

I sinc erely hope that at least some of the backbenche rs over there will recognize what you're doing to not only to your own political party, but what you're doing to fabric and the integrity and the hone sty of this province and its people. They don't deserve this kind of treatment, but of course I sup pose that's the way socialists like to deal with matters such as this. We, on this bench, Mr. Speaker, don't appreciate the way the government's handling this matter.

I'll be supp orting the amendment as prop osed by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry and pleading again within all my power, slow it down, let's wait, if it takes 15 months, 18 months, two years, and let's do it the way it should be done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, that debate be adjourned. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated. HON. S. LYON: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources on a point of order . HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr. Speaker, I would on a point of order ind icate there was a misun derstanding on my part. Certainly we will be voting tor the motion, so it would be unanimous. If you want to formally take the count, that's agreeable, but if you want to save time, I ind icate that we are in support of the motion. My opposition on this side was based on a misund erstand ing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don't believe that's a point of order, it may be an explanation.

The question before the House is, moved by the Honourable Member for Virden, and seconded by the 4564

Wednesday, 27 July, 1983 Honou rable Memb er for Tuxedo, that de bate be adjourned. A ST ANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Adam, Anstett, Banman, Cowan, Dolin, Driedger, Enns, Evans, Eyler, Filmon, Fox, Graham, Hammond, Harapiak, Hyde, Kostyra, Kovnats, Lecuyer, Lyon, Mackling, Malinowski, Manne ss, McKenzie, Nordman, Oleson, Orchard, Parasiuk, Pawley, Penner, Phillips, Plohman, Ransom, Santos, Schroeder, Scott, Sherman, Smith, Storie, Uruski MR. CLERK: Yeas, 39; Nays, 0. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried.

The adjournment will stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Virden. The time of adjourn ment having arrived, this House is adjourned and will stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. 4565

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-116
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 116.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	efd37f0d89980853f9e4c25375194c8c77242ef1

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