Manitoba Committee Hansard — 29 September 1983 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 46, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-pe46

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on PRIVILEGES and ELECTIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. A. Anstett Constituency of Springfie/d VOL. XXXI No. 46 - 2:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Quee ns Printer, Prownce ot 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 KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. V.c 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 Springfield Thomp'.'on La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bon iface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Vir den 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 lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Thursday, 29 September, 1983 TIME - 2:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg CHAIRMAN - Mr. Andy Anstett (Springfield) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Adam, Bucklaschuk, Lyon and Penner Messrs. Anstett, Brown, Fox, Gr aham, Lecuyer, Malinowski, Nordman; Ms. Phillips WITNESSES: Ms. Paula Fletcher, Communist Party of Manitoba Mr. Jack Oatway, R.M. of Rosser Mr. Renald Guay, Association des avocats francophones Mr. Marc Monnin, College de St. Boniface Mr. K.B.

Jakubo wicz, Canadian Polish Congr ess (Manitoba Division Ms. Florence Bourgouin, Private Citizen Ms. Maralyne Donovan, Private Citizen Ms. Rita Lecuyer, Pluri-elles Mr. Helmut Albrecht, Private Citizen Ms. Janick Belleau, Reseau Mr. B.F. Quennelle and Paul Moist, CUPE, Local 998 MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed Resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, P. Fox: Comm ittee, come to order. We have one resignation, Mr. Eyler, to be replaced by Mr. Penner. Is that agreed? (Agreed) Our first presentation this afternoon is Paula Fletcher. Please proceed. MS. P. FLETC HER: Thank you. Mr. Chairperso n, members of the committee, the Communist Party in Manitoba welcomes this opportunity to present our views to the proposed amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act to these hearings. These hea .... gs are to be commanded as representing an important and consultative step toward redressing a fundamental wrong perpetrated by a Tory Government and an Anglo Canadian majority in 1890 in this province. Ninety-three years after this injustice, the question of the rights of the French-speaking minority in Manitoba has, once again, come to centre stage and, in our opinion, justifiably so. Mr. Chairperson, one could not address the language and national rights of French-speaking Canadians in Manitoba in a vacuu m.

The history and relations between the English and French-speaking peoples in Canada, the founding of Manitoba as a political entity in 18 70, the subsequent Official Language Act and Public Schools Act of 18 90 and the very essence of Canada and the nature of Confederation in 18 67 all come into play and prominence and must be addressed. In fact, the essence of what is being debated by this committee and the Legislature is the very nature of Canada.

For its part, the Commun ist Party holds that Canada is a bi-national state; that there is a French Canadian nation in Quebec and an English-speaking nation outside of Quebec. Each of those identifiable groups holds amongst itself a common language, history, culture, territory and economic structure which binds it together as a nation. Neither The British North America Act, nor the new Canadian Constitution has acknowledged this reality of Canadian society.

As such, each of the two nations in our bi-national country should have fundamental ri.ghts which must be acknowledged in the body of constitut iona l law, including the basic and fundamental right to self determination. While the English-speaking nation has long enjoyed self-dete rmin ation incl uding full domination over French Canada, the French Canadian nation in Quebec has never been accorded self determination and herein lies the root of the crisis of Confederation which has gripped and continues to grip our country.

This crisis also finds its reflection in the status of the French language in Manitoba in 1983. While self-determination is called for, the official prescription of the Federal Liberal Government for curing the crisis of Confedera ton, continues to be a policy of bilingualism. This does not solve the crisis of Confederat ion, rather it has exacerbated it. For while bilingualism has been in effect, it will not, nor will it ever quell the national aspirations of the French Canadian nation in Quebec for genuine equality and self-de termination.

Additional ly, the polic y of bilingualism has only served to generate hostility and animosity towards the French-Canadians among certain circles in English-speaking Canada. 905 Let us return briefly to our party's position. Just as self-determination is a principle for each of the two nations, so too is the protection of both the French Canadian people living in English-speaking Canada and the English Canadians living in French Canada. Minority national rights include, but are not limited to language rights.

Protection of minority rights does not mean "enforced bilingualism" or "legislated French," as charged by the bigots in this province, but rather a protect ion of the inviolable rights of the minority in either Eng lish-speaking or French Canada, to the flourishing of language, culture and services in the mother tongue. Any other approach exacerbates the long-standing conflict in both nations. The support given to the

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 Mani toba Gove rnment's entrenchment of French language rights in the Constitution by the English speaking minority in Quebec is good evidence that the government is on the right track. That these rights be enshrined and not be subject to the political whim of each successive government is paramount at this time.

Minority rights are, and should be recognized as inviolable rights, not to be tampered with or used as is happening in this case, as a political club by the Tory opposition determined to embarrass the government no matter what the consequences may be for the future well-being and unity of Manitoba. In our opinion, it is a travesty that this fundamental and central fact of Canadian reality was ignored in the new Constitution. Even more abhorrent is that such changes as those proposed to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act currently before this committee, which at least represent the first steps towards the recognition of the full national rights of French Canadians living in Manitoba, have been both so badly mishandled and mismana ged by the government, and so violently opposed by an increasingly narrow-minded opposition so as to turn the entire process into a political poker game. To repeat, Canada is a country of two nations and each should have equal rights. Manitoba's entry into Confederation should be viewed in this light that it undertook to give equality of languages.

As the noted Canadian historical Stanley Ryerson writes, Manitoba entered Confederation fully cognizant of French language and other rights.

Here I quote: "Manitoba was thus the product of a com plex of forces; the momentum of the Confederation movement combining Canadian, political and economic aims with an imp erial strategy of continental unification of the colonial settlements; an Onta rio- based western expansionism lead ing to agricultural settlement on the prairies and a new regional capitalist development; relinquishment by the Bay of its rule in the southern areas, the effort of the Roman Catholic Church to establish its position in the west, and of French Canada to assert its claim to equal rights and recognition as a participant in aii-Canadian development; the dispossession and driving further westward of the Indians of the Plains; the national democratic resistance of the Metis winning, through mass action and the creation of a short-lived peoples' power, a larger measure of self-government sooner than was intended by Ottawa and leaving a heritage of militant democracy that became one of the vital components of western radicalism.

"lt is noteworthy that in the organization of the Met is Convention and forma tion of the Provisi ona l government, the principle of French-English binational equality was observed. The people's movement in the nortwest not only embodied a first attempt to realize a French-Canadian presence in the new territories, it exemplified the principle of equal rights on which alone a joint partnership of the national communities could be successfully built.

The Anglo-Canadian rejection of that approach in the years that followed has left a breach that is part of a the contemporary Confederation crisis." (Italics added) from Stanley Ryerson's book in 19 68, Unequal Union. As Ryerson says, that breach which was caused by the political manipulations of a Tory government in 1890 906 broke faith with the gains and agreements reached in 18 70 and before, between the English-speaking and French-speaking people of this province and was an active betrayal of the French-speaking Canadians in Manitoba.

Thus, the current entrenchment of French Language Rights is not initiating or extending new rights, but rather is a redre ssing of a fundamen tal wrong perpetrated in 18 90, as has been so declared by the Supreme Court. The 1890 Manitoba Schools Act, Public Schools' Act, and Official Languages Act are to French-speaking Manit obans what Bill 101 is to Engl ish-speak ing Canadians in Quebec.

At these hearings, during the time that I have spent listening to the briefs, there has been a great deal of emphasis placed by interveners on the situation in Quebec and the situation of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. Who can like the situation of the English-speaking minority in Quebec, but their solutions on how to redress this is to simply deny to the French-speaking Manitobans what is being denied to English-speaking Canadians l_iving in the Quebec nation. I submit that this is a rather backward and obsurd way to go about arg11ing this question.

If we expect that in Quebec, in the French-Canadian nation which has been long dominated by English Canada, in which Bill 101 was only introduced in the last number of years,

whereas French Canadians in Manitoba in 18 90 had the acts introduced against them, I think the proper tone to set is to assume that Manitoba extend and entrench the national rights of the French-speaking minority in Manitoba as an example to the Government in Quebec, and as a lever for the English-speaking people in Quebec to help them in their struggle.

Because of the funadmental crisis of Confedera tion, that of failure to recognize the reality of the French in Quebec as a nation, an equal partner in the Canadian state, the language rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French speaking minority in English Canada stand unresolved. Our party agrees with the government's intent in amending

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act to ent rench in a limited way the language rights of the French speaking people of this province. We do not agree that amendments be made to the original proposal under pressure from reaction and bigots, which would result in cosmetic changes only. Those vehement anti-French elements will be satisfied only with the rejection of any changes.

Those with legitimate concerns on the workability and introduction of the proposal into life in our province, such as the Societe Franco-Manitobaine and the Manitoba Government Employees Association, on the question of significant demand and on other questions, should and are continuing to negotiate with the government in a spirit of good faith to find the best possible method of implementing these amendments. We are sharply critical, however, of the haphazard and ill-prepared manner in which this whole question was introduced into the body politick of our province.

There was a glaring failure on the part of the NDP Government to properly appreciate the character and consequences of the history of the problem in Manitoba. Had this amendment been introduced with such an appreciation, had the people been fully involved from

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 the start, fully and properly informed of the issues involved - and I would stress that - and convinced of the proprietry of the cause that the limited services in French were not only undeniable historically, but indeed necessa ry, then in stead of bigo try and medie val intolerance, this matter could have been resolved in a principled and dignified manner. But, while the role of the government is open to criticism, that of the opposition in the Legislature has been nothing less than scandalous. Led by Mr.

Lyon, the Manitoba Tories have been and are continuing to use this sensitive and historical question as a political club in a blatantly partisan and opportuni stic fashion in its vendetta against the NDP Government. Their blind adherence to opportunism, their blatant dis regard of histor y, have led the Manitoba Conservativ es into a position where they now stand in contradiction to their new national leader they all so humbly pledged allegiance to some short months ago. Mr.

Mulroney, admittedly for his own political reasons, is a supporter of the policy of 'bilingualism' and has hinted in the direction of supporting the proposed amendments. In our view, no political party purporting to speak for all of Canada can take such a bigoted position on the equality of French-Canadians as Mr. Lyon has done. In raising the position of Mr.

Mu lroney on this question, it is not our intention to indicate support or agreement with his policies, but rather to question how the opposition party in both Manitoba and Ottawa can expect to maintain credibility when it can simultaneously hold two totally contradictory positions on such a fundamental question. Here I have an insert. lt seems from Mr. Lyon's statements and line of questioning in this morning's session that he is of the opinion that French language rights were restored in 1979 under his government.

So the obvious question here is, why the hullabaloo from the opposition in entrenching The Manitoba Act,

Section 23, with some positive amendments into the new Made in-Canada Constitution of 19 82? If this is the case, it is clear who is wasting time, who is wasting money and who is creating dissension and division. Since this commit tee began its hearings, there is a new factor which evidences just how irresponsible, volatile and divisive the role of the opposition has been, and is further evidence of the crass political exploitation of this question by those with a political axe to grind with the governmet.

We refer, of course, to the holding of civic referenda or plebiscites on this question throughout the province, most sign ificantly in the City of Winn ipeg . Those Winni peg city council lors who voted to hold this referendum on the language rights of French-Canadians have forgotten or ignored what happened at the time of Manitoba's entry into Confederation. The Tories are using the civic arena as yet another battlefield to carry on their unpri ncipled attack on this legislation.

Even more unfortunate is the pure political opportunism which led two members of the government party, the NDP, to join with the Tory coalition on city council and provide the two decisive votes, forcing the placing of this question on the ballot. The referendum on minority rights is most absurd, does not represent an expression of democratic thought at the civic level , but rather is an abus e of the 907 democratic process. lt serves as a magnet to bigotry and intolerance and is an historical distortion of fact and reality.

Rights of minorities are not subject to the votes of the majority, but must be protected by law. Instead of protecting these rights, council has chosen to reduce minority rights to a popularity poll, or "rights by statistics." In fact, what we see happening here is the public trial of French-speaking Manitobans at the bar of public opinion. Yes, the numbers of French-speaking Manitobans is declining as a percentage of the Manitoba population, but does this not smack of yet another "final solution" to the rights of another minority in a different time and different place?

Those who voted to put this question on the ballot will have to live with the climate of intolerance and bigotry, the racist hangover that is sure to follow, long after they may have reaped some short term political advantage from their actions. This committee should be informed of some of the half-truths, misrepresentations, and total untruths whiCh are already being circulated to voters in the City of Winnipeg.

One leaflet in particul ar, issued by a candidate for City Council, claims that the amendments are "forced French biling ualism," that it "m akes non-F rench speaking people second class citizens," and describes the government as acting in a "totalitarian and fascist manner." I would like to read and introduce into the record the first

section of this pamphlet. - (Int erjection) - If you don't mind, I have the floor. Thank you. A MEMBER: Can I cough? MS. P. FLETCHER: You may cough, others I would appreciate if they didn't interrupt. They'll have their chance. Firstly, this is the leaflet, I will introduce this later. This candidate says that the NDP Government's method in seeking to make Manitoba bilingual is scandalous. This is the most important piece of legislation in the history of the province and yet at every turn the government has attempted to limit public input.

That's quite interesting since this committ ee has been all over the province and is acting in a totalitarian and fascist manner. This candidate does not attempt to persuade people to vote no or yes on the referendum, but rather it is as being said in many cases simply the opening of the door for racialism and bigotry and fanaticism and this, committee members, is what this is. lt does not address the referendum; it is simply a statement of bigotry and race hatred. That, under any other circumstances, I think would be questioned by the proper government bodies in this province.

These distortions and misrepresentations of what is a public document being debated in one of the widest ranging series of legislative hearings is irresponsible and dangerous. In our opinion, it is incumbent upon this committee to state so in clear terms. lt is called upon to clear up the distortions, the half-truths, the outright lies now, in direct answer to the hate literature being circulated. No matter how supporters of the civic referendum may cloak their motives, no matter how they hide behind the hollow and unconvincing cry of "let the people have

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 their say," no matter how convoluted, twisted and confusing the actual question is worded, they know full well on what basis people will mark their ballots - on either a pro or anti-French basis - and this is further underlined by the tenor and thrust of their leaflet that I have here tod ay. What ethnic or national group will be the next to undergo such a trial? The Ukrainians, Poles, the Jews, the Native people? Intolerance and racial hatred has no place on the civic ballot and this committee must say so immediately. Finally, there is an historic precedent to the opposition to the amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, a precedent upon which all of today's opposition rests. The forerunner to today's Tory opposition to the amendments was one D'Aiton McCarthy, MP for North Simcoe in Toronto and founder of the terribly misnamed "Equal Rights Association" in the late 19 th Centu ry.

The aim of the Equal Rights Association was quite simple, the elimination of rights for Francophones in Manitoba. lt stated that it was going to, "take in. hand our fellow French-Canadian subjects and make them Britis h in sent iment and teach them the Englis h language." lt attacked what it called "this bastard nationality," Franco-Manitobans, and the Roman Catholic faith which it said "now threatens the dismemberment of Canada." With time, D' Alton McCarthy had his way and The Official Languages Act and The Public Schools Act of 1890 was passed and the teaching of French made ill egal in the schoo ls.

No w, when faced with an opportunity to redress that injustice, the ghost of McCarthy and his logic once again rears itself cloaked in paranoia, bigot ry, intolerance and finds many vocal proponents in the legislative opposition. We urge this committee to ignore the ravings of McCarthy's modern followers and show the courage necessary to carry through these changes to

Section 23. Respectly submitted, Manitoba Provincial Committee, Communist Party of Canada, by myself, Paula Fletcher, the Leader. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Fletcher. Questions of Ms. Fletcher? Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: I have only a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Could you tell me, Ms. Fletcher, is your party still adherring to the original doctrine of the overthrow of the Government of Canada and all of its institutions by any means, revolutionary or otherwise? HON. R. PENNER: On a point of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penner, on your point of order? HON. R.

PENNER: And I've raised this point of order with respect to other subm issions of that kind by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly. There was a ruling that has been set as a precedent by this committee that it is improper to put extraneous matters to anyone, purporting to quote, correctly or incorrectly - it doesn't matter - what is alleged by the questioner and asked 908 for comment on it when it is extraneous to the brief. This com mittee has been firm in upholding that precedent despite consistent attacks on that precedent by the Leader of the Opposition and I'm calling upon you to uphold that ruling.

MR. H. GRAHAM: And the Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: When I've been called to order, I have followed the ruling of the Chair. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. The point is well taken. Mr. Lyon, will you ask questions of clarification in respect to the brief? HON. S. LYON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. HON. S.

LYON: Just on the point though, when a person appears presumably representing a political party, the Commu nist Party of Canada, I hardly fail to see how it is irrelevant to ask 'Nhat the motivation of that party is with respect to the parliamentary and democratic institutions of this country. The Attorney-General may find some sensitivity about this for reasons best known to him, but if the witness is prepared to answer, let the witness answer. I think it's entirely relevant.

I think it's entirely relevant both for the committee and for the people of Manitoba in considering a brief by the Commu nist Party of Canada to consider what part of the phil osophical and totalitarian spect rum the Communi st Party comes from if we're to give any credence to what they say about this issue. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Ms. Phillips, on the same point. MS. M. PHILLIPS: On the point of order , Mr. Chairperson. I think you should uphold your ruling. I think that it's been very clear all the way through the hearings that questions are for clarification only on the contents of an individual's brief.

I think we should stick very clearly to that. If the member opposite would like to speak to the delegate in the hall and have clarification of what a particular political party stands for in 1983, I'm sure he would be quite welcome to do so, but it's not the place to do it at the committee. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'm sure that Ms. Fletcher can answer the question and has heard it before. Secondly, I think that since a significant

section of her brief dealt with her views on voting and a referendum that it might be interesting to know her wider views on the political process. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Ms. Fletcher. MS. P. FLETCHER: Could you just clarify by what you mean by wider views on the political process?

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. R. DOERN: Well, I'm referring to Mr. Lyon's question ... HON. R. PENNER: On a point of order. MS. P. FLETCHER: Oh, I'm sorry, I don't think I have to answer such a stupid question, Mr. Chairman. HON. R. PENNER: On the question of the point of order, I think we should resolve the point of order as a committee. I've stated my views, I don't find it necessary to deal with the irrelevant and snide remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it stands on the question of precedent that this committee has set, which is not in any way different from precedents that other committees of this kind have set. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: In view of the committee's consensus that I note, I would suggest, Mr. Lyon, that you limit yourself to questions of clarification on the brief itself. Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, just on the point of order, I also point out in passing that questions asked do not have to be answered, so that anyone who puts a question does not have to demand or expect an answer. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the witness is aware of that. Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: I have no other qu estions, Mr. Chairman. I know how to judge the merit of the comments we've heard from this witness. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any further questions of Ms. Fletcher? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Ms. Fletcher, you refer in your brief on Page 4 to the fact that some people may have forgotten or ignored the terms of 18 70. I think that people who have voted for a referendum very well understood those terms.

I'm wondering what they have forgotten, what they have not restored, what they have not supported, what is still left in 18 70 to be restored? MS. R FLETCHER: Well, I think I made it clear from my comments including the role as was referred earlier today as sleazy propaganda. I don't think anyone could find any sleazier propaganda than what is being put out by some candidates in the civic elections on this referendum question.

The point is that in 1870 what was agreed upon in the list of rights that was taken to Ottawa was a fraternal solidarity amongst French and English-speaking people, which from the number of briefs I have heard from some private individuals and which from the comments and direction and antics of the Leader of the Opposition and other members, is not befitting at all in the spirit and tone of the original 18 70 list of rights and the basis in which this province was founded. And that minority rights, Mr. Doern, are not up for a check by the majority. 909 MR. R.

DOERN: Can you name one right that is not now in place, that was in place in 18 70? MS. P. FLETCHER: Give me that again? MR. R. DOERN: Well, in 18 70, there were terms in The Manitoba Act in relation to the French language. Name one right that is not now in place, that was in place in 18 70, that was taken away in 1890. MS. R FLETCHER: Well, if you feel they're all in place, Mr. Doern, I have no idea why you are so busy spending so much money on ads in the press and carrying on this campaign in Manitoba. That's my anwer.

If you're telling me that nothing has changed since 18 70, then why is all this hullabaloo, why are you spending this money? - X, mark X, no, we don't want French. Obviously then, Mr. Doern, as I have pointed out in my brief, there are other reasons why this is being done. MR. R. DOERN: Well, are you not aware of the fact that this debate is over the extension and enlargement and entrenchment of French Language Services, not their restoration? MS. R FLETCHER: Yes, I am. MR. R. DOERN: Then why are you talking about rights that are still . . . MS. P. FLETCHER: You're telling me that the rights MR. R.

DOERN: . not being granted in 1870? MS. R FLETCHER: Excuse me. There was a basic agreement that was come to in 1870 that was abrogated in 18 90.

This committee in this Legislature is trying entrench rights of the national minority of French speaking people in Manitoba, and in this sense there is an extension in certain areas which we certainly agree with. lt is not the original act, there is an extension, but from your previous comments if you are to think that everything is the same as 18 70 - I know you can't answer questions, but I'm raising it - why are you making such a stink about the whole thing if it's just a simple matter? MR. R. DOERN: lt's obviously a simple matter that you don't understand. MS. P.

FLETCHER: Well, I would have to say that's on both sides then, Mr. Doern. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think we're getting into a debate. Let us stay at clarifications. Mr. Doern, do you have any further questions of clarification? MR. R. DOERN: Yes, I thought that the Commun ist Party believed in the supremacy of the people. I thought that was one of your basic tenets, is it or isn't it? MS. R FLETCHER: In the supremacy of the people. MR. R. DOERN: Yes.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MS. P. FLETCHER: Actually, Mr. Doern, this isn't in the brief. I think our party's position is quite clear in the brief, that we support minority rights. Our party's position on French Canada is over 30 years old. lt is the oldest most democratic position on the rights of French-Canadian people and English-speaking people in Canada and on the two nations in this country. That's all I have to say on that. If you would care to speculate at any time, I would suggest you read some of our literature before you start. What you have in front of you is the brief that I am presenting to you.

In my understanding, the answers and questions from today are to come out of the brief which you have in front of you. I don't see that anywhere. MR. R. DOERN: Ms. Fletcher, I'm asking you questions concerning your views on the plebiscite or referendum. Are you telling me that you do not believe that a plebiscite or referendum is a democratic process or is a democratic exercise? Are you going to suggest to me that it's an undemocratic exercise? MS. P. FLETCHER: Mr. Doern, if you would care to go back to the brief . . . MR. R. DOERN: I am looking at the brief, I'm quoting the brief. MS. P.

FLETCHER: Oh, good, okay. If we could just look at Page 5, if you are interested. "The referendum on minority rights is most absurd, does not represent an expression of democratic thought at the civic level, but rather is an abuse of the democratic process." "Rights of minorities are not subject to the votes of the majority but must be protected by law." That is, open and shut, the position of my party, Mr. Doern, and I would appreciate it if you would accept that. MR. R. DOERN: I accept it, but I'm shocked at that statement.

Are you telling me that, in principle, the Communist Party is not in favour of referendums or plebiscites? MS. P. FLETCHER: Mr. Doern, I'm afraid . · .. MR. R. DOERN: Are you in favour of elections? MS. P. FLETCHER: Mr. Doern, if you would read Page 5, and not try to distort your questions for your own personal political ends, you would notice that it is discussing only on the rights of minorities. lt is not talking about plebiscites in general, referenda in general, it is discussing the question of minority rights and that's it. MR. R. DOERN: Well, I read that. MS. P.

FLETCHER: And that is the last question I'm answering on this because it is quite clear what you are trying to do. I would just like to, at this point, since I'm sure that after I'v e told you I'm not going to pursue this with you any longer that there will be no more questions ... MR. R. DOERN: There weren't any answers, so we're not missing anything. 910 MS. P. FLETCHER: Well, I'm afraid there were answers, I would have to raise the point that those who resort to cheap redbaiting tricks always resort to them when they're up against a well, as far as dealing with the real issues in this brief. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of �;larifications? Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: Are you saying that you aren't answering any more questions at all? MS. P. FLETCHER: No, I said to Mr. Doern I would not answer any more along that line because I've made myself quite clear, and he chooses not to understand. HON. R. PENNER: Just to try and clarify one point that has been raised, it has been raised before, you were asked about the restoration of the 1870 rights, the Forest case did that to some extent.

My question is this, there are now, on the statute books of Manitoba, some 4,500 statutes, how many of these statutes have been translated, do you have any knowledge of that? MS. P. FLETCHER: V->.ry few it's my understanding. HON. R. PENNER: Would it then be your opinion that without the full translation of the statutes the rights, in fact, actually have not been restored? MS. P. FLETCHER: Give me that again, sorry? HON. R. PENNER: Would it be your view that without the translation of the English-only statutes into French the rights, although nominally, have not actually been restored? MS. P.

FLETCHER: That's a real lawyer's question. HON. R. PENNER: I've always thought that I'm a real lawyer. MS. P. FLETCHER: I'm afraid I'm still not totally understanding of it. Are you saying . . . can you say it a little plainer please? HON. R. PENNER: The 1870 statutes, The Manitoba Act,

Section 23, which was set aside by The Official Language Act of 1890 was, in effect, restored in 19 79, that's what Mr. Doern was discussing with you, that statute,

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, called for statutes to be printed and published in both languages. With some 4,400 still yet to be translated, would you be of the view that, in fact, rights are not yet fully restored? MS. P. FLETCHER: I would have to say that, technically, they would not be if that was the ruling of the Supreme Court. HON. R. PENNER: That they which? MS. P. FLETCHER: That if the agreement, and the understanding was that under

Section 23, that this legislation would have to be translated into French, if

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 it has not been translated into French, and that is technically the agreement on the restoration, then they have not been, in a technical sense. HON. R. PENNER: I have no further questions. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any further questions of clarification? Thank you, Ms. Fletcher, for your . MS. P. FLETCHER: I would like to introduce this leaflet into the official record. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Leave it with the Clerk. Thank you, Ms. Fletcher for your presentation on behalf of the Communist Party of Manitoba. Our next presentation is Jack Oatway. Proceed, Mr. Oatway. MR.

J. OATWAY: Mr. Chairman, committee members. The R.M. of Rosser has a concern regarding the legislative changes in The Manitoba Act of 1870. We have no argument against

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, as originally written. We acknowledge this section, that both languages, French and English, are recognized in the Legislature, as well as the judicial system. All acts shall be printed and published in both languages, including all records and Journals of the House. Our concern is, "how can we divorce the municipal level of government from others." We appreciate the suggested amendments to exclude the municipalities and school boards. This will alleviate the situation and the pressures of the opposition to the changes of the act, but we are sure this will not work indefinitely.

Ultimately it will be necessary to have services provided in both languages at the municipal level as well. The demand will come, not through necessity, but by the fact that people will set up particular situations where the municipalities will be faced with providing the second language. The result of this will mean that: (

a) All administrators of R.M.' s will be required to be bilingua l, as well as other mun icipal personnel. (

b) All Minutes will be printed in both languages, as well as all municipal by-laws. (

c) All tax notices and communications will be required in both languages. These are but a few of the end results. If one speaks out against the use of French tod ay, it appears immediately that you are prejudiced and not acting within the confines of the human rights. lt would appear that the situation is somewhat like it was a few years ago when major changes were proposed for the educational system in this province. Those that �;JC:·ke out at that time voicing their concerns re costs, etc. were criticized.

Time has proven that they were not all wrong, and those speaking out on the same issues today will not all be wrong either. We must realize that we all make mistakes, but let us learn from them and not go charging ahead like a blind bull. We have come today with no prejudice or malice. When we are caught up in dis cussion that becomes emotional we seem to be touching on the sensitivity of one ethnic group or another. As you all know no 911 matter where our forefathers came from we are not true North Americans. The Indians of this continent can be the ones to claim this distinction.

Nevertheless, all the people in this country came here to a great melting pot of cult ures to become Canadians. Yes, we have our ancestral ties throughout the province to keep this alive. Why then can we not have one working language to make this blending together much easier? The English language does not necessarily relate to Great Britain, by whom some Canadians seem to consider did dominate our country. English is a means of communication. lt is one form of communication used in almost every part of the world. The International language for the airlines of the world is an example.

Yet, in Manitoba, with a population of approximately one million people, we are being told we require two languages for communication. If, indeed, the proportion of the population justified such action, but the number of Canadian citizens in Manitoba of French origin is less than 7 percent of the population. If the French speaking population of Manitoba was 50 percent or grea ter, then there would be no need to ena ct legislation, it would be taking place, people speaking or conducting business in either language. lt would be a necessity and not artificially stimulated by government support.

We contend, and it has been demonstrated in many instances, ethnic groups, Scandinavians, Ukrainians, Polish, Germans, Italians and others do maintain and preserve their own cult ures by their own efforts and do not depend upon government for financial assistance to do so. All these groups converse and communicate with one another by way of the English language. lt does not appear that they require a second language. We have functioned in this manner as a province for the last 100 years. We do not feel it is going to improve our ability to function by forcing the citizens of Manitoba to have a second language.

We do not feel that anyone in our municipality is suffering or has been prejudiced against because of this lack of knowledge of either English or French. Would it not seem more logical, practical and also more economical to have available to everyone the opportunity to obtain knowledge of the French language through our institutions of learning, and encourage the citizens of Manitoba to learn same along the lines that we're using today? In a reasonable amount of time, if the need is there, no doubt a majority of our population will make use of the second language and be able to use it when the need arises.

Having something which is totally unne cessary forced upon them through legislation makes one revolt at the idea. We believe our municipality has every right to be concerned when we are told that one of our sister provinces has taken a stand and, instead of encouraging tile second language, is doing everything possible to prohibit the use of the English language within its jurisdic tion. Therefore, why should the citizens of Manitoba be forced into the second language, French?

Also some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State in some of his speeches to various groups throughout the country is indeed a cause of concern. I quote, "You must also actively support bilingual representatives on the municipal councils, because if we wish to develop a French lifestyle, all elected agencies representing us must reflect the concern that

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 we have as a linguistic community." Is this indeed a quote from a person that should, in our opinion, be representative of all Canada and in that way be developing a Canadian way of life?

Also other quotes from that same person, and you must remember that these remarks are not being made by just any citizen, but by the Secretary of State for Canada, " ... because everything we undertake and everything we are doing to make Canada a French state is part of a venture that I have shared for many years with a number of people." Quoting again, "You know, the idea, the challenge of making Canada a French country both inside and outside Queb ec . . .

"- quoting again - " ... as hard as it was in the seventies for some of our fellow Canadians who speak the other language to accept the fact that Canada is a French state." Surely, you would not expect such remarks to be uttered by a Canadian citizen, far less a person who holds an honourable position in our countr y. In our opinion, he is going much further than just the French language. Again in our opinion, Canada as a F"rench state is unacceptable. In fact, the thought of it alone could be revolting to most Canadians of all ethnic origins including French.

The ever-i ncreasing numb er of brochu res and pamphlets circulated by the Province of Manitoba in both languages certainly indicates to us which way the Government of Manitoba is going, "like it or not." On behalf of the Rural Municipality of Rosser, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you as a committee for taking time to listen to this brief, and to the Government of Manitoba in their wisdom for giving concerned citizens and organizations within the province the opportunity to make their concerns known.

We would encou rage most vigorously that this government, if it truly represents the electors of Manitoba, go to the citizens of Manitoba and give them an opportunity to vote on such a major issue. This seems to us as the proper democratic approach, considering that in fact this issue could have a dramatic impact not only for today but for generations to come as far as our Canadian lifestyle. Let us not make a mistake now, that we will regret later. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Oatway. Any questions? Mr. Penner. HON. R.

PENNER: Just a couple, when you refer to a Canadian lifestyle, what do you mean by that? Do you mean an English-only lifestyle? MR. J. OATWAY: I said, a Canadian lifestyle, Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, but I'm asking you a question. MR. J. OATWAY: We have a blend of Canadian lifestyle in this country, and I don't think we should be separating it into two types of lifestyle. I might just remark to you, we say Anglophones and Francophones, and I think those are unnecessary words. I think they create division in our country. There should be no such thing as a Francophone or an Anglophone.

We should be Canadians. 912 HON. R. PENNER: Speaking what language? MR. J. OATWAY: Our Canadian language. HON. R. PENNER: What is that? MR. J. OATWAY: The Canadian lang uage we communicate in. We refer to it as English, as a means of communication. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: On Page 3, sir, of your brief, you say that, "lt doesn't appear that they require a second language. We have functioned in this manner for the last 10 0 years.

We do not feel that it is going to improve our ability to function by forcing the citizens of Manitoba to have a second language." What do you see in the proposed amendment that leads you to- believe that citizens will be forced to use another language? MR. J. OATWAY: As I stated earlier, you'll be forced due to the fact, referring :Jarticul arly to the municipalities, that the municipalities as suggested by the present government that indeed they are possibly adding an amendment to that act in relationship to having the language. Would you rephrase your question please again to me? MS. M.

PHILLIPS: My question is: what do you see in the proposed amendment that leads you to believe that every English-speaking citizen will be forced to have a second language? MR. J. OATWAY: As I said before, if on the municipal level the need is not there according to the amendments as suggested, but if someone came to the municipal office or the mun icipal authorities and wanted to communicate in only the one language, I think that municipality would be forced into adopting or bringing in an interpreter in order to communicate. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: But your sentence, sir, says, ". forcing the citizens of Manitoba." If I, as an English speaking citizen, go to get some information from your municipality, I am allowed to get that information in English if I ask for it in English. What is there in this amendment, what clause can you refer to that says as an English-speaking Canadian, I will be forced to have a second language? MR. J. OATWAY: I guess I have to concede that I can't quote the clause that might refer to that. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: So with that, in the next paragraph where you say, "and a reasonable amount of time if the need is there, no doub t the majority of the population will make use of the second language." If I choose not to have a second language as an English speaking person, or I choose not to have a second language as a French-speaking person, do you believe

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 that either way I should be able to get those services, and will not have to be forced to speak one of the other official languages? MR. J. OATWAY: I imagine, in due course, that would take place. MS. M. PHILLIPS: In your next paragraph, sir, you are referring, I believe, to the Province of Quebec when you say one of our sister provinces? Is that correct. MR. J. OATWAY: I believe so. MS. M. PHILIPS: Okay. You are implying that what they are doing is certainly wrong in the first sentence. Is that right?

You are saying then why should the citizens of Manitoba be forced into a second language, French. Are you saying, so if it's wrong in Quebec for English speaking Quebecers to be forced into speaking French, therefore it's right if we force French-spea king Manitobans to have to converse with their government in English? In other words, are you saying two wrongs make a right? MR. J. OATWAY: No, I'm not really saying that. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Could you explain to me what you are saying in that paragraph? MR. J. OATWAY: The Province of Quebec certainly hasn't got the percentages the same as Manitoba.

We have, off the 7 percent which I quoted - which I believe even the figure is less than 7 percent - off that percent I wouldn't hazard a guess as what percent that can only speak French. In the Province of Quebec that might be somewhat different. MS. M. PHILLIPS: But with respect, sir, you don't mention percentages here. You're talking about the principle. Am I mistaken? MR. J. OATWAY: There is a principle involved, yes. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: You're talking about the principle of what is happening to English-speaking in Quebec as being wrong, but you're saying it's okay to have what's happened to French-speak ing Man itobans persist, to not correct that? That if it's wrong in Quebec for a minority not to have that right, would you not conclude that it's also wrong for a minority in Manitoba not to be given that right? MR. J. OATWAY: I don't think there's a need for it at the present time.

I think I've indicated that there is a right there within our presentat ion, but :o.t the present time by forcing it through the Legislative Assembly, as it appears is going to be done, I think that's our concerns, and our concerns of the Federal Government and some of their Ministers and their remarks. I've only quoted one Minister's remarks here, but it's certainly quite obvious in those remarks, if the words can be supported whatsoever.

Some people say, well, there are those remarks made, it depends who he's speaking or they're speaking to, but I think that remarks made by a person of that position, anytime, if they have no 913 value of those remarks, then no remarks have any value that he makes. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Well, as a member of the Manitoba Legislature, I don't take any credit nor blame for remarks from a federal Minister whether they were quoted in context or translated in context or not.

On Page 4 in your third paragraph, I guess, if you can count the one line at the top, you said, "The ever increasing number of brochures and pamphlets that have been pub lished by this government in both languages indicates which way the Government of Manitoba is going." Have you got pamphlets that you would like to refer to? MR. J. OATWAY: I haven't got pamphlets on my person, no. We have had pamphlets in a few of the municipal offices that I am referring to. If you want specifics, I can't you any. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: Well, I'm wondering about the words "ever increas ing num ber, " and I wonder which pamphlets, what subjects they're dealing with. MR. J. OATWAY: We never used to have them whatsoever, now we do. MS. M. PHILLIPS: From the Province of Manitoba? MR. J. OATWAY: From the Province of Manitoba. MS. M. PHILLIPS: And these indicate to you which way the government is going? MR. J. OATWAY: Well, it gives you some indication anyhow to which way the government is going - the plans of the future. MS. M.

PHIL LIPS: You're saying this gi ves you ind ication of our commitment to fulfil! the 19 80 commitment to restore the French language rights in terms of services. MR. J. OATWAY: The actions of your government has indicated that, yes. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I would like to pick up - I know the Attorney-General asked the question, but on the last page you say again "our Canadian lifestyle." I would like to know who you mean by "our"? MR. J. OATWAY: I'm using that as a general

interpretation and I'm not referring to any particular group, just the peoples of Canada. MS. M. PHILLIPS: With that then, should I conclude that that includes French-Canadian people who feel they have a lifestyle as well and rights to which they have commitments that should be upheld? MR. J. OATWAY: They certainly do. MS. M. PHILLIPS: So if you agree that there are commitments that should be upheld, so they can have what they consider a Canadian lifestyle that includes

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 their rights, now how can you suggest that we should not proceed with fulfilling those rights? MR. J. OATWAY: I don't believe their lifestyle has been hampered. it's up to them as peoples. I'm sure they have had every advantage of anybody else, any other group in our province, and I don't think their lifestyle has been hampered in any shape or form. I'd like to point out again, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I don't know how serious this committee refers to names, but when I see Francophone. Anglophone, I think this is most unfortunate for us and for our country. I've heard today, Mr.

Chairman, if I may, the word "bigot" used so often, over the radio, today's presentations - "bigot" and "bigotry. " I'm sure the commit tee is aware of the meaning of bigot, but I did take the liberty of copying it out of a dictiona ry. Bigot meaning "One who holds irr espective of reason , and attaches disproportionate weight, to some creed or view." And gentlemen of the committee, Mr.

Chairman, I would be incl ined to think that probably what we refer to unfortunately, say, a minority, and a minority ·of a minority are probably the ones that should fall in that category rather than some of those that are opposing it - the presentation of this type of legislation. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to clarify one thing, sir. You say you are speaking on behalf of the R.M. of Rosser. MR. J. OATWAY: Those remarks, like the quote, were my own personal dealings, not necessarily the R.M. of Rosser. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Your brief is from the R.M. of Rosser. MR. J. OATWAY: My brief is from the R.M. of Rosser.

MS. M. PHILLIPS: Could you tell me what position you hold with the municipality? MR. J. OATWAY: Deputy Reeve. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Oatway, there have been assurances given by the Attorney-General and the Premier that municipalities are going to be excluded from this legislation, and you mention in your brief, "that people will set up particular situations where the municipality will be faced with providing the second ianguage." Are you talking about agitators or outsiders or what are you thinking of there when you're thinking of ... MR. J.

OATWAY: That is quite possible, the thinking on that remark, Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: So even if there is an amendment - and I'm not sure of the status of those amendments - that excludes the municipalities, your view is that within a short period of time, either naturally or artifically or deliberately, the municipalities will be under the gun to become officially bilingual? 914 MR. J. OATWAY: I guess Mr. Doern, the time factor, we can't speculate on, but it could be anytime from zero up that this might take place. MR. R.

DOERN: You just commented on the word "bigot" and you refer in your brief at the bottom of the first page that if one speaks out against the use 0f French today, it appears immediately that you are prejudiced and not acting within the confines of the human rights. Is your point that this word is so over used as to become meaningless? MR. J. OATWAY: I feel it is today, yes. MR. R. DOERN: Do you regard it as a scare tactic or a smear tactic? MR. J. OATWAY: I don't know what the intent is.

I guess one can only speculate on probably who's making the presentation, because I believe the word has been used on both sides. MR. R. DOERN: Would you not agree that the intent is to silence opposition? MR. J. OATWAY: Possibly. MR. R. DOERN: On Page 3, I think Ms. Phillips referred to this

section there towards the bottom about instead of encouraging the second language, a sister province - and by that you mean Quebec - is doing everything possible to prohibit the use of the English language within its jurisdiction; therefore, why should the citizens of Manitoba be forced into a second language? - French. Is your point - Ms. Phillips, talked about two wrongs don't make a right, etc.- that there is a contradiction in place, that while Manitoba is moving towards fuller bilingualism, Queb ec is moving towards unilingualism? MR. J. OATWAY: I would agree with those remarks. MR. R.

DOERN: On Page 4, the small paragraph, again about brochures and pamphlets circulated by the Province of Man itoba in both langua ges certainly indicates to us which way the Government of Manitoba is going, like it or not. Why are you capitalizing "like it or not"? Are you saying, for example, that there should be a general election prior to such a movement, or a referendum, or what would be a satisfactory basis for the Provincial Government to make a move in that direction? What would you regard as justification? MR. J. OATWAY: Mr.

Chairman, the R.M. of Rosser I think indicates their position on the next paragraph. MR. R. DOERN: Which is? MR. J. OATWAY: " ... the electors of Manitoba go to the citizens of Manitoba and give them an opportunity to vote on such a major issue." MR. R. DOERN: And are you talking about an election then?

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. J. OATWAY: Well, it could be an election or whatever way the powers that be see fit. MR. R. DOERN: Or a plebiscite. MR. J. OATWAY: Yes, it would have to be in a form of election of one form or another. A plebiscite, election, or whatever you want to call it. MR. R. DOERN: Right. And you would say that the government should not proceed until or unless one or the other is held? MR. J. OATWAY: We've liv ed unde rneath the democratic system, and I think we should operate within the democratic system and not apply totalitarianism to the operation of our province. MR. R.

DOERN: Has the R.M. of Rosser passed a resolution and forwarded it to the municipal association or the government? MR. J. OATWAY: I have the wording of the resolution with me, if you care for me to read it. MR. R. DOERN: And are you holding a plebiscite or referendum on this question? MR. J. OATWAY: We are not expecting to hold a plebiscite or referendum because the fact is that possibly in our area we will not have a general election in our municipality and we think it wasn't probable. MR. R. DOERN: Right. Thank you, Mr. Oatway. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMA N: Are there any further questions of Mr. Oatway? Mr. Lecuyer.

MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oatway, could you clarify for me what you are referring to and what specific measures you are referring to in terms of when you are saying that Quebec is doing everything possible to prohibit the use of the English language within its jurisdiction? Could you refer to me which acts ... MR. J. OATWAY: Which acts there ... MR. G. LECUYER: Yes, which measures they have introduc ed to do that? MR. J. OATWAY: I haven't got the specifics. There are various things that have gone on. There is, I understand, a court case just thrown out recently.

I don't think I should go into the specifics. I can give that to you at some other time, but I don't think I'm in the position to do that at this moment. MR. G. LECUYER: I'm not sure whether you are saying you don't know what specific measures, or . . . MR. J. OATWAY: I can't be specific at this time. MR. G. LECUYER: Can I ask you, Mr. Oatway, whether you're referring to measures that have been of long- 915 st anding practices or you 're ta lking about recent measures? MR. J.

OATWAY: There have been long-s tand ing practices, but I think there have been recent measures that have come through the media, communication of such over the airways and TV that are sort of contrary to what we think should happen. MR. G. LECUYER: Could you refer to a single long standing practice or measure to that effect in Quebec, to one of them that has been of long standing? MR. J. OATWAY: What is the advantage of me referring to any specific one at this time? MR. G. LECUYER: I'm asking if you know of one long standing practice in this regard of prohibiting the use of the English language in Quebec? MR.

J. OATWAY: I suppose we're referring more to the more nearer or recent things that have happened since we've had the Constitution reinstated and the plebiscite they had in Quebec. A plebiscite was good enough to hold in Quebec to see if they're going to stay in Canada, and I think that's a pretty major issue. So I can't see why it isn't possible to have it here in Manitoba. What I'm saying here is not necessarily the support of my council, but it's the support of what I think at that particular point. MR. G.

LECUYER: Well, I probably could give you examples of some of the recent measures that you probably are referring to. But I couldn't give you any of the long standing, because I'm not aware that any exist and that's why I was asking. But might you not also by the same token, seeing that you seem to recognize that these are recent measures adopted in Quebec to which measures you don't approve of, nor do I, that perhaps these recent measures introduced in Quebec for the very fact that prohibitive measures have been long standing in Manitoba against the first language? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Lecuyer, would you get to the question? MR. J. OATWAY: That's a matter of opinion. MR. G. LECUYER: Well, I didn't ask for an opinion, Mr. Chairman, I was asking whether he agreed to that or whether he saw it that way or didn't see it that way. MR. J. OATWAY: That's a matter of opinion and I'm not stat ing my opinion at this time. MR. DEPU TY CHA IRMAN: Are there any further questions? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Oatway. Mr. Oatway, the Rural Municipality of Rosser, what's the population of your municipality? lt doesn't have to be exact.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. J. OATWAY: As far as I know, Mr. Graham, it's 1 ,362 people. MR. H. GRAHAM: In the Province of Manitoba, is that a large, small or an average size municipality? MR. J. OATWAY: I imagine it is not in the large category. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of Mr. Oatway? Thank you, Mr. Oatway, for presenting a brief on behalf of Rosser. MR. J. OATWAY: Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Our next presentation is Renald Guay. Laurent Roy is not here. Proceed, Mr. Guay. MR. R. GUAY: Monsieur le president et membres du comite.

Le comite des juristes franco-manitobains fut forme le 21 novembr e 1981 a titr e de sous-com ite de I' Association du barreau canadien,

section Manitoba. La raison du comite est de veiller a !'integration de la langue franc;aise a la pratique du droit au Manitoba. De par sa participation aux presents debats, le sous comite espere jeter a son tour un peu de lumiere. L'u ti lis ation du franc;ais dans les debats de I'Assemblee legislative, dans les registres, dans les journaux des debats et dans les tribunaux ne fut jamais entendue comme etant un privilege accorde aux Franco Manitobains mais plut6t un droit fondamental accorde a chaque citoyen et incorpore dans la loi constitutive du Manitoba, I'Acte du Manitoba de 18 70.

Le droit a !'uti lisation de l'anglais et du franc;ais a I'Assemblee legislative et aux tribunaux est enchasse a !'article 23 de cette meme loi. L'existence d'une telle garantie constitutionnelle n'est nullement surprenante. Lorsque l'on se rend compte qu'en 18 70 les francophones formaient plus de la moitie de la population du Manitoba.

Les Franco-Manitobains de 18 70 ont negocie avec le gouvernement federal pour !'insertion d'une clause, !'article 23, a I'Acte du Manitoba qui, modelee enti erement d'apres !'a rticle 13 3 de la loi constitutionnelle de 18 67, constitue a tout jamais, et independamment du nombre, une garantie a !'utilisation du franc;ais a I' Assembles legislative et aux tribunaux.

Sit6t que le parlement canadien adopta I' Acte du Manitoba de 18 70, lequel acte fut par consequent confirme par le britannique dans la loi constitutionnelle de 18 67, le Manitoba devint province avec des dr oits lingui stique s enchas ses da ns sa constitution. Mais voila qu'en 18 90, le gouvernement du Manitoba vota unilateralement une nouvelle loi, la

Loi sur la langue offi cielle qui fit compl etement abstraction de ses droits linguistiques apparemment garantis et enchasses dans la constitution. Cette loi, illegale de par sa nature, a survecu presque 90 ans avant que la cour supreme ne l'abroge en confirmant la decision de la cour d'appel du Manitoba dans la celebr e affaire Forest qui avait declare inconstitutionnelle la

loi sur la langue officielle. La decision Forest confirma que !'article 23 de I' Acte du 916 Manitoba garantie les dr oits lingu istique s que I'Assemblee legislative du Manitoba, elle, ne peut unilateralement mettre de cote. L'affaire Forest gagna de plus en plus de terrain lorsque le meme jour une decision analogue fut rendue. Dans l'affaire Blaikie, la Cour supreme confirma la decision rendue par le juge en chef Deschiines de la Cour superieure du Quebec. L'Honorable juge avail declare que !'adoption de !'article de la Charte de la langue franc;aise qui abolissait l'anglais comme langue officielle dans les tribunaux au Quebec, violait I'

article 133 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 18 67. Tout comme dans l'affaire Forest, la decision Blaikie declarait l'inconstitutionnalite des articles en question et a declare que l'etat ultra vires des pouvoirs de I'Assemblee nationals du Quebec. L'importance de la decision de l'affaire Blaikie vis-a-vis l'affaire Forest se trouve dans l'analogie qui existe entre !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba de 1870 et !'article 133 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 18 67.

D'apres ces affaires Forest et Blaikie, il est evident que le droit d'utiliser l'anglais et le franc;ais au Quebec et au Manitoba sont et ont toujours ete enchasses dans la Constitution canadienne. Cep endant, aucune precision n'a ete fait.;; dans l'affaire Forest ac e qui a trait au statu! legal des lois adoptees seulement en anglais par I' Assembles legislative manitobaine. En rejetant l'appel inte rjete par le gouverenment du Manitoba dans l'affaire Forest, la cour supreme a confirme la decision de la cour d'appel du Manitoba qui a fait de la

loi sur la langue officielle une loi inoperante. Toujours est-il que la cour supreme a omis de repondre a deux tres importantes questions qui decoulent directement de l'affaire Forest. La premiere etant le statu! legal des lois adoptees pendant la periode ou la

loi sur la langue officielle de 18 90 etait operante. La deuxieme traitant des consequences qui resultant de l'atteinte aux droits enchiisses a !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. C'st pour repondre a ces deux questions, aussi bien legitimes qu'epineuses que Monsieur Roger Bilodeau prit position. Son argument se resume ainsi. Toutes les lois manitobaines adoptees en anglais seulement depuis 18 90 sont inoperantes.

La decision rendue par la cour superieure et la cour d'appel au Quebec dans les affaires, Collier et Asbestos, respectivement representant des precedents importants dans la cause Bilodeau car ces decisions affirment que les lois adoptees en franc;ais seulement au Quebec sont d'une nullite totale. Comment pourrait-on ignorer, Monsieur le president, qu'a la suite du jugement Blaikie, I'Assemblee nationals du Quebec a siege tard dai¥.§1Ef!f1fffllit promulgant a nouveau et dans les deux langues les lois passees a l'e ncontr e de !'article 13 3.

Les di fficultes, sinon ; impossibilite, de rectifier cette situation au Manitoba sont uniquement d'ordre pratique. Cela n'excuse pas !'o bli gation legale. C'e st bien ce conflit entr e l'impossibilite pratique et !'obligation legale et morale qui mene le gouvernement actuel a cette decision d'interposer une entente et un compromis acceptable a tous les partis. 11 nous semble important ici de faire le compte des avantages d'une telle entente, qu'une telle entente apporte au gouvernement provincial et a la population manitobaine. L'accord donne au gouv ernement

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 provincial un delai de 10 ans pour traduire ces lois d'interet public qui ont ete adoptees depuis 1890 en anglais seulement. Par ailleurs, le gouvernement est exonere de la traduction de la grande majorite des lois d'interet prive et municipal adoptees depuis 18 90. L'avantage pour le public se trouve done dans le droit aux services gouvernementaux en franc;:ais, lequel droit serait garanti dans la constitution en vertu des amendements proposes en mai dernier.

Les services bilingues sont offerts aux sieges centraux de chaque ministere du gouvernement du Manitoba, aux tribunaux, aux tr ibunaux admin istratifs, aux societes de la couronne, aux agences gouvernementales du Manitoba, au bureau du directeur general des elections et au bureau de !'O mbudsman. Comme de coutume, la contr overse regne quand il est question de langue au Manitoba.

C'est ainsi que les amendements proposes en mai font l'objet de plusieurs contestations provenant de sources diverses. 11 suffirait d'une certaine prise de conscience de la part de ces contestataires pour qu'ils puissent enfin comprendre qu'une decision de la cour pourrait etre encore plus grave que les resultats d'une entente qui ne serait pas a la satisfaction de Monsieur Bilodeau et qui assurerait sans doute que ce dernier exige une decision de la Cour supreme du Canada. Quelles peuvent etre les consequences d'une decision rendue par la Cour supreme du Canada dans l'affaire Bilodeau?

Franchement, Monsieur le president, meme si nos membres sont tous avocats, nous ne pouvons pas repondre a cette ques tion, pas plus que les membres de votre comite. Cependant, notre experience professionnelle demontre que les resultats ne seraient pas plaisants pour la province du Manitoba.

Une solution imposee par une force exterieure risque de deplaire a tous. 11 fut aussi remarque que la decision dans l'affaire Blaikie, la tendance de la Cour supreme ces dernieres annees, les jugements en faveur des minorites, Forest et Blaikie, et la recente decision du juge en chef Deschenes de la Cour superieure du Quebec dans l'affaire Collier pourrait collectivement avoir une certaine influence sur la decision de l'affaire Bilodeau. 11 est fort possible que si une seule situation se presentait, la Cour supreme pourrait tres bien declarer . . . (Latin spoken) . . . que justice soit faites meme si le ciel tombe.

Le sous-comite des juristes franco-manitobains donne done son appui a cette entente car il croit fermement qu'il represente non seulement une solution honnete, juste et equitable pour tous les Manitobains, mais il croit aussi qu'il s'agit d'une solution pratique a un probleme juridique et maintenant aussi politique epineux. Nous aimerions conclure en lanc;:ant un appel a tous les membres du comite legislatif. Une telle entente merite d'etre appreciee a sa juste valeur. A l'interieur et au-dela des frontieres de notre province car son imp ortance et sa sagesse sont d'un e enverg ure historique.

Profitons de !'occasion et donnons-nous la main pour faire de cette entente un reglement honorable et final. Merci. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Guay. Are there any questions of Mr. Guay? Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Me Guay. En fonction de la decision de la Cour supreme de 1979. Diriez-vous que I'Acte, 917 le Bill 2 passe au Manitoba en 1980 pour I' implantation justement de la restauration de I' Acte 23. Cet acte voulant que lorsqu'il y a conflit entre !'interpretation d'une loi en anglais ou d'une loi en franc;:ais que la version anglaise prime.

Diriez-vous que cette loi, voyez vous cette loi eo m me et ant constitutionnelle?. MR. R. GUA Y: Monsieur le president, a ce moment la, nous entrons dans une qu est ion qui est tres particuliere. Je ne me souviens pas et Monsieur Lecuyer pourrait peut-etre m'aviser la si cette loi avait adoptee en franc;:ais et en anglais. MR. G. LECUYER: En anglais seulement. MR. R. GUA Y: En anglais seulement. Je crois done que cette loi premierement serait attaquable comme les autres puisqu'elle est adoptee uni que ment en anglais.

Sur cette base-la, il est probable que cette loi la, que la validite de cette loi pourrait etre contestee. Mais sur la plus grande, la question de fond la-dedans. A savoir si un texte anglais fut determine sur le texte franc;:ais, j'ai nettement !'impression que les traditions juridique s etabl ies au Canada a l'heure act uelle pre dominer aient et qu'e ffectivement il n' est pas question d'avoir un texte qui est superieur a l'autre, il s'agit plutot d'avoir une situation ou la cour, chaque cour, se reserve le droit de lire les deux textes afin de bien pouvoir determiner !'intention de la loi. MR. G.

LECUYER: Merci, Monsieur le president. Me Guay. Puisque toutes les lois depuis la decision de la Cour supreme en 1979, depuis cette decision n'ont pas ete adoptees dans les deux langues, diriez-vous que la restauration et la, ou la restitution des droits des francophones n'est, est plutot theorique que pratique ou diriez-vous plutot done que, que les droits n'ont, ne sont done pas totalement restitues dans les faits? MR. R.

GUAY: Je crois que c'est tout a fait exact, Monsieur le president, et d'ailleurs c'est pour cette raison que notre sous-comite a toujours fait pression aupres de la Societe franco-manitobaine et meme aupres de Monsieur Bilodeau pour tenter de chercher une solution pratique plutot qu'une restauration si on veut historique ou litterale des droits constitutionnels au Manitoba qui effectivement ne sont pas adoptes au 20ieme siecle. MR. G. LECUYER: Merci. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions of Mr. Guay? Thank you, Mr. Guay, for your presentation on behalf of your group.

Our next presentation is Marc Monnin. MR. M. MONNIN: Monsieur le president, membres du comite. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. M. MONNIN: En tant que vice-president du College de St-Bon iface, je vous presente le bref au nom du College de St-Bo niface. Le College de St-Bon iface est l'une des plus vieilles institutions d'enseignement de I'Ouest canadien. Le

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 College, fonde en 1818 par Monseigneur Tache, est une corporation laique autonome com poses d'un secteur universitaire et d'un secteur communautaire. En 18 77, le College de St-Bon iface etait l'un des colleges fondateurs de I'Universite du Manitoba et il demeure encore aujourd'hui affilie a cette universite.

Depuis 16 5 ans, le Coll ege est au service de la communaute canadienne-fran<;:aise du Manitoba. 11 etait au service de cette communaute en 18 90 lorsque le gouvernement du Manitoba a adopts une loi faisant de l'anglais la seule langue officielle de la province. 11 etait au service de la communaute en ·1979 lorque la Cour supreme du Canada a juge que la loi de 1890 etait ultra vires, que le franc;:ais et l'anglais avaient statut egal a la legislature et dans les tribu naux de la province, conformement a !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Et aujourd'hui encore le College est au service de cette communaute.

Mais, plus encore, il est egalement au service d'un nombre toujours croissant d'anglophones qui ressentent le besoin d'apprendre le fran<;:ais. Pour ces raisons, le College de St-Bonif ace appuie sans hesitation I' entente survenue entre la province du Manitoba et la communaute francophone, entente qui confirme le caractere bilingue de notre legislature et de nos tribunaux et qui confirms egalement I' esprit de ce bilinguisme en voulant accorder aux francophones le droit a des services en franc;:ais.

L'entente permettra a la province de s'acquitter enfin de ses responsabilites constitutionnelles d'une fac;:on pratique et raisonnable. Nous tenons de plus a noter que le Canada est un pays officiellement bilingue et multiculturel. Le Manitoba, en garantissant des droits a sa communaute francophone encouragers le maintien et le developpement des autres cultur es. Le College de St-Bon iface appuie !'adoption de la resolution sur l'amendement de !'article 23 parce qu'il croit que cet amendement aura pour effet de reconnaitre la legitimite et la realite de la francophonie manitobaine.

Le College considers que !'adoption de cette resolution lui permettra de s'epanouir davantage afin de mieux repondre aux besoins d'une clientele etudiante croissante dans les domaines universitaire et commu nautaire. Le conseil d'admin istration du Col lege de St-Bon iface reitere done son appui inconditionnel a !'entente survenue entre la province et la commu naute francophone au sujet de l'amendement de !'article 23 de L'Acte du Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Monnin. Any questions for Mr. Monnin? Thank you, Mr. Monnin. MR. M. MONNIN: Merci. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Our next presentation is K.B.

Jakubowicz. MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: Mr. Chairperson, honourable ladies and gentlemen of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, I am Kristopher Jaku bowicz, curr ent President of the Canadian Polish Congr ess, Manitoba Division. In this capacity, as a representative of said organization, I am making this presentation. Many learned and more eloquent speakers than myself before me, historians, lawyers, and constitutional experts amply presented and moderated the case for 918 the institution of bilingualism in Manitoba.

Therefore, I will not dwell on legal, historical nor political aspects of the issue on hand, but simply express our opinion on the subject. There are no questions in our minds that there would be no hearings nor would there be any controversial issue if you want to respect the wrong Constitution.

In view of the multicultural composition of our great nation, of which I became a member some 34 years ago, and the aspirations of all ethnic groups within our nation to preserve and retain for posterity their ethnocultu ral heritage and language is only fitting that we support the establishment, existence and continuity of bilinguals, as guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada, within the context of multicultural society. I thank you very much for allowing me to express my opinion on the subject. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jakubowicz. Are there any questions of Mr. Jakubowicz? Mr. Penner.

HON. R. PENNER: I'm not quite clear from your brief, I don't have a copy of it in front me, normally this is a question I would hesitate to ask; are you here to support the proposal of the govtrn ment? MR. K. JAKUBOWI CZ: I am here, sir, to express our opinion that we are fully in concert with the bilingualism concept in the Canadian Constitution, and as such, we feel that the implementation of the French language in Manitoba is strictly a constitutional issue. HON. R.

PENNER: Then are you saying - you realize that there is a resolution in the Legislature to put into the Manitoba Constitution, which is part of the Canadian Cons titution, French Language Services by the government? MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: I'm fully aware of this, sir; however, I am not learned enough, nor am I proficient in the jargon of law, not constitutional linguistics, and our expression is simply to indicate that we support the aspiration of the Franco-Canadians, or French Canadians, if you will, and their endeavours.

However, as they say, when it comes to language, when it comes to the institution of same and putting in paragraph and a point of law or constituonal expertise I am not such to be qualified to argue merits of context as presented. HON. R. PENNER: I understand that and certainly am not going to press that point. You are not going to comment on the legal points in the resolution, but you support the aspirations of the French. MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: That is correct, sir. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the person making the representation.

What linguistic privileges or rights does the Polish community now enjoy in Manitoba?

Thurs day, 29 September, 1983 MR. K. JAKU BOWICZ: Any that are given to any other group. We speak freely and this is a free country, therefore, we speak Polish whenever we feel like it, and we endeavour to do so. We also have the schools that propagate the Polish language, which we also continue to have in conjunction with our ethnocultural heritage. MR. H. EN NS: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the spokesperson for the Polish community here, but the question still remains, what specific linguistic rights under the Constitution does the Polish community have in Manitoba? I believe there are none. MR. K.

JAKUBOWICZ: Specifically speaking, as I said before, I'm not versed in the jargon of the Constitution, nor lawyer's point of view, and I think that we have as much right as anybody else, so far, and enjoying it. I don't see any detriment to usage of our language in here, as a matter of fact, both sides of the House supported our position by granting us certain monetary consideration for the propagation of our language within our communit y, and this would apply to the present government, as the former government under the Progressive Cons ervative leadership. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I am having difficulty making the point. We acknowledge, all members of the committee, and all members of the House acknowledge, tha t the Francophon e rights are laid down constitutionally in this country and, therefore, we are charged in this Legislature to be able to conduct ourselves in the languages of English and French in this Legislature, or at their committees. We are not charged to conduct them in Polish, or in German, or in ... MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: No, you are not. MR. H. ENNS: So that was the point of my question.

We have the rights that we take for granted, we practice them in our homes or in our churches or in our organizations to propagate the language. But, can you tell me what specific rights the Polish community will derive, as a result of the passing of this resolution? MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: Mr. Chairperson, I basically am not dwelling on the question, what specific privileges or specific - how shall we say . . . MR. H. ENNS: The term is "in use as rights". MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: Well, if you wish to say it that way, sir.

However, I am not dealing in specifics, I am certainly speaking in generalities and, as such, I still retain my position that we would not oe nere if you were to respect our own constitution which guarantees such a bilingualism across the countr y. I am not here to say that I would like to have the Polish language being spoken in the Legislature because I'm sure if I were to say that - (I nterjection) - I might, next time we are around.

However, what I am saying simply that if I were here, and I am sure that this could be afforded, if I would not be able to speak in English, I would find any other language that I could speak and everybody would understand, or try to. 919 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Malinowski. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Thank you. Mr. Jakubowicz would you tell the committee, because more or less I know, what is the population of Polish people in Manitoba? MR. K. JAKUBO WICZ: Well it's estima ted to be approximately 30,000, over 30,000 people of Polish ethnic origin. MR. D. i\II ALINOWSKI: You mean in Winnipeg, or in Manitoba a whole. MR.

K. JAKUBOWICZ: Well, basically speaking, . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would like to introduce the speakers, and if you will all ear with the Chair it will be much better for those who have to transcribe. Thank you. Mr. Jakubowicz. MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: I apologize, Mr. Chairperson. Well, it is estimated to be in the vicinity of that, over 30,000 in Manitoba and Winnipeg, in particular. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Jakub owicz. Accord ing to the statistics which we have it says that close to 50,000 people in Manitoba, and of this 50,000, 35,000 in Winnipeg itself. Do you agree with that? MR. K.

JAKUBOWICZ: That is correct, sir. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Okay, thank you. Now, you said that you are not expecting that the Polish language might be used in the Chamber during a debate. I would like to let you know, and through you to our people, Polish people in Manitoba, that the Polish language was used ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Malinowski, questions of clarification please, not information. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you aware that the Polish language was used in the Chamb er during a debate in this Parliament of Manitoba? MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: Yes, sir, I am aware of it. MR. D.

MALINOWSKI: Do you know who used that language? Who spoke in Polish? MR. DEPU TY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Malinowski, is that pertinent to the brief. Thank you very much. These are que stions . of clarifica tion. Are th ere any further questions of clarification? Mr. Malinowski. MR. D. MALINO WSKI: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, because Mr. Yakubowicz represents the Polish community here in Manitoba, will it be possible to say a few words in Polish? Yes, bilingual. . . . (Polish spoken) ...

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Malinowski, would you kindly translate, as well? As you know the procedure in the House is that when you are going to speak in any language other than the official languages of the House the translation has to be presented . MR. H. ENNS: Thank you for making my point, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mali nowski (Interjection) - but that's not the point. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I asked before if I may say a few words in Polish. So we're talking bilingual. Why not three-lingual or whatever. This is the case. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That's very irregular, as you're aware. lt is very irregular in a commit tee. lt does happen in the House, I agree, but in the House we also have rules by which we proceed. That is that translation is given of what is to be presented. Here you just " made a request and before I could make a decision or before the committee could make a decision, you proceeded. I am saying again, if you wish to provide the translation as you go along, fine, the commit tee will probably agree. But in the meantime, it is of no value to the committee if they do not understand what is taking place. MR. D.

MALINOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, and I don't want to argue your set of ruling. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid that you have no choice about arguing with the Chair. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: I'm not arguing. I said, I have to follow it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There are certain rules that you have to follow if you wish to challenge the Ch air. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: No way. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Malinowski. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Chairman . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We are into a question period of clarification. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Yes. May I answer your ruling? No, I can't. How do you like that?

That's what we call a democracy. If this is the case, Sir, I will have no further questions, and I would like to say ... (Polish) ... and merci beaucoups, Mons ieur Jaku bowicz, for your presentation. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions of Mr. Jakubowicz? Thank you very much, Mr. Jaku bowicz, on behalf of your association. MR. K. JAKUBOWICZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. 920 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Our next presentation is Or. Rey Pagtakhan. Dr. Rey Pagtakhan. The next one is Florence Borgouin. Please proceed. MS. F. BOURGOUIN: Monsieur le president et membres du comite.

Je me presente aujourd'hui devant votre comite en tant que citoyenne privee. Je me fais un devoir pour mes aieux francophones de venir donner mon opinion au sujet de !'article 23. Nous ne cherchons aucunement a enlever a qui que ce so it leurs droits. A mon avis, nous les francophones, nous sommes prives de la reconnaissance egale de notre langue et de notre culture. Cette reconnaissance, nous voulons la recouvrir non seulement pour nous memes mais aussi pour tous les citoyens de cette province qui ne peuvent que beneficier de l'officialisation des deux langues fondatrices au Manitoba. N'a llons pas si loin.

Le conflit, nous l'avons trop longtemps connu au Manitoba pendant toutes les annees lorsque nos droits nous etaient refyses. Restons done unis et ne soyons done pas si jaloux des biens d'autrui. J' approuv e l'enchassement d'un amendement a !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba tel que propose par le gouvernement actuel afin de combler aux faiblesses et aux injustices qui nous furent infligees par les gouvernements precedents. Les lacunas et les injustices passees ont demontre sans contredit le manque de responsabilite de nos dirigeants. Le gouvernement actuel veut remettre cette province dans le droit chemin.

On ne peut qu'applaudir de telles demarches afin d'accorder justice aux Franco-Manitobains. En terminant, j'aime rais vous dir e que j'appuie !'entente negociee entre la Societe franco-manitobaine et la province en mai dernier car elle me semble juste pour les citoyens de la province et permet aux francophones de retrouver leur place perdue depuis 90 ans. Merci de m'avoir accorde le privilege de presenter ce bref. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Bourgouin. Are there any questions? Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to Ms.

Bourgouin, did the Supreme Court decision of 1979, which is commonly referred to as the Forest case, not recognize the legal, constitutional rights that the Franco community has in Manitoba and indeed restore them? MS. F. BOURGOUIN: Jusqu'a un certain point, mais je crois pas que Qa a ete respecte. MR. H. ENNS: Surely the whole purport of the historic decision was to strike down the illegal act that a government in Manitoba had passed in 1890, and to restore the language rights that were agreed to at the time of Manitoba's entry into Confederation. MS. F.

BOURGOUIN: Je ne comprend totalement toute la question mais j'aime repondre a cette question que si Qa avait ete restaure comph3tement le cas Bilodeau n'aurait pas ete a la Cour .

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it's not the role for committee members to debate with anybody making presentations. Just one further question, when you refer a previous government that inflicted the problems on the Francophone community, you were not referring to the immediate past government? MS. F. BOURGOUIN: I would prefer not to answer these questions. I think my brief is very clear and short, and I would refrain from . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you, Ms. Bourgouin. Our next presentation is Gordon W. Pollon. Gordon Pollon.

Our next one is Maralyne Donovan. Please proceed. MS. M. DONOVAN: I didn't bring any writing, because I do not see very well but my feelings today are that we should have an election to solve this problem and save a lot of time and money, because I can name a good many places where we can use this money that you're spending on French and Canadian languages that have been in this country a long time. I am only 46 years old. I'm proud to be a Canadian. I always will. If somebody wants to teach me any other language, I would be honoured to do so. But I'm on provincial welfare through no choice of my own.

Many reasons where the money should be spent to make people happy; build more hospitals; build more homes for the elderly and the handicapped and the blind. There are so many shopping centres in the City of Winnipeg. I know a lot of people want this to come through and I'm not against any other language. I am very happy to be a Canadian and if anybody wants to answer any of these - I have been a Canadian all my life. I have lived in Ottawa, Ontario. I was born in 19 36.

I had to quit school at 15, so I have no education, but I love my countr y, and if it does come true that this is going to be changed to French and Canadian, and other languages, I would like to know how many languages are in Canada today and what they are going to name Manitoba instead of Manitoba? What name are they going to use? My beef is to have an election and save a lot of time, money and energy, and have it over with. In this way, the people will have a chance to say how they feel and what they want; not what you want, but what we want, what all Canadians want.

My mom and dad, my parents, were born in England. My dad's parents were born in Ireland, so if they want me to speak Ireland, well I cannot help it, I'm sorry. I'm a Canadian and I always will be and I'm very proud to be a Canadian in our beautiful country of Manitoba. lt may not be Manitoba much long er. The metric system - we never had a chance to say what we wanted to say about 11. They put it in automatically. So this is what I mean by they want to get it over with. We've heard this on the radio for months and months and months. I have a strong feeling about this situation.

You live next door to a French-Canad ian, who will not speak English to you. You cannot help that - they bought the house to live in, so did I. What I'm trying to say is let be and live, if we have to live by the laws that's okay too, but let's get it settled and over with. 921 I wonder what you're going to put on the agenda next? Are you going to take "0 Canada" away from us? Why do people not like "0 Canada." 1 have never spoken in a group like this before, and if I said anything out of line, I apologize. This is my motion, to have an election. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Donovan.

Any questions? Thank you again for your presentation. Our next presentation is Rita Lecuyer, on behalf of Pluri-elles. MS. R. LECUYER: M. le President, membres de l'assemblee legislative. Je vous adresse la parole au nom du groupe Pluri elles, un regroupement de femmes qui vise !'education et l'epanouissement des femmes franco-manitobaines. Nous sommes 47 membres et nos programmes de formation et sessions d'information sont ouverts a toutes femmes francophones.

Au nom des membres de Pluri-elles, j'appuie la resolution pour am ender !'article 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba, telle qu'elle a ete negociee au mois de mai par la Societe franc o-manitobaine et par les gouvernements provincial et federal. Les amendements reconnaissent: le francais et l'anglais comme langues officielles au Manitoba; !'adoption des statuts dans la langue francaise; notre droit de commu niquer en francais a la legislature et dans les tribunaux; notre droit de recevoir des services en francais.

Pour nous, Franco-Manitobaines, les amendements a !'article 23 reconnaissent, finalement, notre droit et le droit de nos families de vivre en francais dans cette province que nos ancetres ont aide a batir. Presentement, le gouvernement provincial ne repond pas adequatement a nos besoins en matiere de services en francais da ns bien des doma ine s qui nous concernent - la sante, les loisirs, les services sociaux, le travail et la main d'oeuvre. Pour trap longtemps, vivre en francais a ete limite au foyer, a l'ecole et a l'eglise.

Pour s'assurer d'avoir certains services et programmes communautaires francais, des Franco Manitobaines se sont regroupees a plusieurs reprises pour mettre sur pied des programmes de loisir, des garderies, des pre-maternelles. Pour rea'iser ceci, elles ont eu recourt a des agences du go uvernement provincial qui offraient uniquement des services en anglais dont les documents, les formulaires et les reglements sont en anglais.

Lorsque nous organisons des sessions d'information, des ateliers de formation pour les Franco-Manitobaines et que nous voulons de la documentation en francais, de !'aide organisationnelle ou des personnes ressources de langue francaise, nous devons faire appel au gouvernement du Quebec - un alternatif coOteux, inefficace au point de vue temps, et !'information que nous recevons n'est pas toujours appropriee etant donne les differences provinciales telles notre contexte de groupe minoritaire et les lois tout a fait differentes. 11 est inconcevable et inacceptable que dans un pays bilingue et une province bilingue de par sa constitution, qu'on ne puisse pas s'adresser a nos ministeres provinciaux en francais et obtenir des services adequats.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 Ce que nous voulons c'est pouvoir communiquer et travailler en franc;:ais avec les ministeres et les agences de notre propre gouvernement provincial pour ameliorer notre qualite de vie au Manitoba. L'histoire du Manitoba nous a apprix qu'il ne taut pas toujours se fier a la bonne volonte des gouvernements pour proteger les droits des minorites. C'est la raison pour laquelle Pluri elles considere essentiel l'enchassement des droits et des services en franc;:ais dans la constitution afin qu'ils soient proteges des debats crees par la politique partisane.

Le Manitoba c'est chez nous et nous voulons y vivre en franc;:ais! MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms. Lecuyer. Are there any questions? Mr. Enns? MR. H. ENNS: Ms. Lecuyer, could you tell the committee when the association Pluri-elles was formed? MS. R. LECUYER: Nous sommes une jeune organisation. Nous avons ete formee formellement il y a un an passe. Avant c;:a, nous existions en tant que groupe provisoire et un groupe informel. Alors, c;:a fait un an que nous existons. MR. H. ENNS: And you soli cit or you attract membership to your group in what manner? Just by voluntary association, or do you have a membership?

I assume that I couldn't be part of your group because I'm male, but could my wife or ex-wife become a member if she subscribed to the constitution of your organization and paid the appropriate membership? MS. R. LECUVER: Notre organisation est ouverte a toute femme franco-manitobaine. Alors si votre femme parle le franc;:ais, elle serait bienvenue dans notre groupe. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. Any further questions? Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Ms.

Lecuyer, I'm int erested in your comments that since 1979 you still have not been able to receive services for your group pertaining to women's issues from the Government of Manitoba. Prior to the'81 election, working at the Women's Bureau and the Department of Labour, I remember having many requests from French women's groups for those kinds of services. Are you saying that they're still not available? MS. R.

LECUYER: Je considere que les services du Women's Bureau sont tres excellents en tant que cou ,..,o:etling pour les femmes et les programme s d'orientation pour la femme qui desire retourner au travail; mais jusqu'a date, de mon experience, il n'y a aucun service de counselling en franc;:ais et les programmes d'orientation sont offerts uniq uement en anglais. Et c'est une des choses qu'on desirerait parcequ'on a plusieurs membres qui sont justement a cette etape de leur vie de vouloir retourner au travail et ont besoin de I' aide.

Maintenant, c'est a nous d'aller voir - est-ce que c;:a serait possible que ces services la soient offerts en franc;:ais. 922 MS. M. PHILLIPS: Does your group see itself then as an advocacy group for services for women in French or are you more concerned about the group itself becoming aware of issues? Or do you lobby for the rights of other Francophone women who are not part of your group as an advocacy group? MS. R.

LECUVER: Nous voyons notre role comme etant un role de catalysateur de ident ifier les besoins de les femmes franco-manitobaines et parce que nous sommes un groupe, de travailler a voir a ce que ces besoins-la sont rencontres. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Lecuyer. I have a committee change to announce. Mr. Penner has resigned and the replacement is Mr. Bucklaschuk. Is that agreed? (Agreed) Our next presentation is A. Warkentin. Janick Belleau. J.G. Russel. C.J. Wenaas. Helmut Albrecht. MR. H. ALBREC HT: Ho nour able Mr.

Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections, in my presentation I will speak in opposing the proposed resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. I will give today the reason for my opposing of the entrenchment of French as official language in Manitoba. I am a Canadian through the act of naturalization. I am bilingual too, but not in the official language. From the first moment on as I and my family made application for immigration to Canada, it was clear enough for us all that we came to an English-speaking country and our first task after we found a job was to learn in our spare time, English as means of communication and as working language.

I came to Canada on the assumption to stay in a country where the people can live in peace; work in peace and in harmony; where the people from different ethnic groups live together, work together and stay together. I am entrusted of a good and stable nation, what every citizen can call our Canada.

What I see now is that through the bilingual policy from the Liberals under the leadership of Trudeau, this good and rich country come to more and more in a condition of hate, political unrest, turmoil, because one group of people is entrusted to put down the French language the throat of all other ethnic groups in the whole state of Canada. Before I put my name on the speaking list for my presentation, I make a little bit political and historical research about the difference between the Francophone and Anglophone ethnic groups in Canada and use the books I will refer to.

(1) Abridged report from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,

(2) Pierre Trudeau and the Francophone,

(3) The October Crisis and Quebec,

(4) Nationalism ... and the Quebec Question,

(5) One Country Or Two from R.M. Burns,

(6) Portrait of Canada, History of Canada from June Calvert,

(7) Oxford History of the USA in three volumes,

(8) The History of Great Britain,

(9) History of Modern France, (1 0) The Invasion

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 of American Indians, Colonization, and . . . Conq uest from the Institute of History of Indians from Chicago, Illinois,

(11) History of the Hudson's Bay Com pany, (12 ) History of the Bank of Montreal, (1 3) The Pattern of Communi st Revol ution and Hi story of World Communism from ... and Watson, (14 ) Bilingual Today - French Tomorr ow, Trudeau's Master Plan of Bilin gua lism from Lt. Corn. Andr e and (15 ) Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois. Everytime when we speak about the French rights, or the French Language rights in Canada, we recall the time 1867, the Federation of Canada was when four former colonies crea ted . I kno w tha t the Constitution as a whole is not a very good masterpiece of policy and of diplomacy.

I think of the time the British Parliament made the third reading for this Constitution and it was not a very important thing. The most important thing on this day was enactment of taxation of docks in Great Britain, not the Francophone interest, and not the colonial interest, what we call now Canada. Then we see the situation, in 1870, as The Manitoba Act was established and created. I will refer to the census at the time of Confederat ion. At this time the population in Manitoba was 11 ,963 people. From these people who live, 18 70, in the Province of Manitoba only 1, 565 were white.

From these white people, 249 were born in Canada, 69 were born in the United States, 125 were born in England, 240 were born in Scotland, 47 in Ireland, 15 in France, 28 in various other countries, 7 4 7 were born in the Northwest and 558 were Native Indians; 9,840 Native Metis of which 4,083 were English Indian speaking and 5, 757 were French-lndian speaking. Note this census omits several Indian and Metis tri bes who still have a nomadic lifestyle.

Around 2,000 Metis and Indians are not included in this census and nobody knows from this 2,000 people, were they English-Indian speaking, or were they French-lndian speaking? Also Metis, at this time of Confederation of the Province of Manitoba, 5,757 were French-lndian speaking. I will tell you the truth, I really doubt this number because maybe it's the people in the leadership were French speaking, and then I see now what's going on on the Indian Reserve, how much the people have there and knowledge of the official language. I would say this is a shame for the integration system of the whole state of Canada.

I am absolutely not against the French language and the French culture, but when we know that there are only 5.4 percent French-speaking people in Manitoba, why shou ld one gr oup have the right of official language? All this trouble about trial, about the traffic ticket is nonsense, is balderdash. I don't have really understanding when this guy . . . for the ethnic groups, like the people from Vietnam.

The people from Vietnam, the people don't have time enough to learn in a couple of months the English language and they have difficuity, they get a traffic ticket, and say, I can't read it, and we provide for these people a translator, and say, "See, you make a violation of the traffic ticket, okay." But these are all people, and the Francophone people are in a very lucky situation in Canada that maybe 90 percent of them are fluently bilingual, because they know they are in the minority, 6 million in Canada, and in . . . we have 270 million people speak English. I will tell you the truth.

When I made the decision to come to Canada, I never would go to the Province of Quebec, because I would see that it would be a useless time for me to learn French, and I will stay in this nation, and on this continent, where 230 million speak English. 923 I accept this that we give the Francophone, like other ethnic groups, the right to learn in their schools French. I have nothing against it in the Parliament, in the courts. They have the right because they are the founder of the nation, Canada, but I think when we speak about the founder of Canada and America, we have to think on the Na tives first.

When I hear from the NDP Government we have moral obligations against the French, I think then we must see the other moral obligation for the Indian, too, or is this non-person, or will we have only these people in servitude and see about this people as people in second-class? I think it shall be Queb ec the minority, as they are French.

Sure in this province the people shall have the official language French and the English minority shall have the right to learn here the English language, too. it's the same in all other provinces; then we have French-speaking people why don't they have the right to preserve their language, why don't they have the right to preserve their culture.

Nothing against that, but I think all the money which this government, the Federal Government, put in the last ten or twelve years, in all the bilingual programs, hundreds and hundreds of millions dollars of cost off the taxpayer has to be stopped. lt was very good, when we would have in the last 12 years, not from the Liberals, every year a deficit budget which goes into the hundreds of millions and billions, then they have put this money in the economy of Canada, we don't have such a high grade of unemployment. What shall now be the future? lt is very good, then everybody will be bilingual - English and French.

Then we can tell the people in the age group of 18 to 24 years, now you are only Englis h-speaking unemployment, but we educate you now so that you are unemployment bilingual. This is the way that the NDP and the Liberals will do it - a waste of money. I think all ethnic groups, the majority speak English and only one language, English, in nine provinces of Canada. Every other ethnic group can do it when they have the money, but all the money that we put into bilingual and all other language programs are a waste of mone y. Stop all this spending in government in Canada and in the Province of Manitoba.

See that you put this in the economy that we get a strong economic Canada. Now, I will go over to some things, because every time we speak about we have a bilingual system and everyt hing is fine, enjoyable. The model is here, Switzerland. Switzerland is often taken for granted as a model of long-standing multicultu ral co-existence and harmony. What is frequently forgotten is that the history of the Swiss country duration, from 1291 to 1847, was that the . . . milit ary struggles from time to time, and that the present Swiss Federal Constitution was adopted following a civil war in 18 47.

After the federal troups crushed the rebellion by the Sonderbund, as a protest ... of seven cantons, the Confederation established a pact of restoration in 18 15, lt was under considerable strain from 18 30 on. In this year followi ng, the vote in the year 18 48 a new Constitution. In this Constitution, they cleared the language problem in a sense that the main language

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 is here Switzer-German, and all the other languages are only spoken in one or two different cantons, but never in the whole country. I will now come to a little other problem about how the national problems and the langua ge pol icy is founded in the Com muni st countrie s. lt was very interesting to hear today the representation from Ms. or Madame Fletcher for the Com munist Party of Manitoba.

Communist treatment of national problems was entir ely opportunist The ultimate aim was to upgrade Stalin's nationalization policy, to reduce all nationalities to the same level of subjugation to Moscow, to create a cultural nation in form and socialist in content But here the examination of national conflicts offered Moscow temporary advance. This was preferred to a policy of national reconciliation. The most obvious example is the German question.

The literal hatred of Polish and Czechs for the German oppr essor was deli berately magnif ied by th e Commu nists in order to widen the gulf between the Germans and their eastern neighbours to make Poles and Czechs fear that their only defence against German revenge was Russia, and so to place them at the mercy of Soviet foreign policy. This conviction on the part of the Czechs goes far to explain the unwillingness of Czechs, . . . politicians, to do anything that might antagonize Moscow, and this in turn, limits the future of the opposition to the Commun ist regime in Moscow.

The Communi sts, as they make good use of the friction between Czechs and Slovaks. In 1945, the Slovak Communi sts posed as champions of Slovak autonomy agains t Prague. In 19 47, the Czech Com muni sts ousted the Czech Nationalis ts in the denunciation of Slovak nationalism, rightly believing that the execution of the . . . ex-President, desired by Czech nationalists and fiercely opposed by the majority of the Slovak people . . . and help themselves to the Russian power in Czechoslovakia. Moscow was also eager to prevent a reconciliation between Czechoslovakia and Hun gary.

The two countries, which in 1946 and '47, the democrats were stronger than communists, and Soviet influence was weaker . The Slo vak Com muni sts were ther efore instructed to outlaw the Slovak nationalists in hostility to Hunga ry and the Hungary Commun ists to reprieve from Budapest the milita ry. So who nationally didn't . . . to play one linguistic and one national group against the other. Then we see where in the book, Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois, we can see very clearly here that in the Parti Queb ecois are three different groups.

The first group are the far right radicals under Levesque; you have left wing that is directed from the Commun ist Party, Marxist-Leninist and the Communist Party of Trotskyists. They use only the language policy and the language culture to take power in Canada, and to put a split between the Francophone and the Anglophone ethnic groups in Canada, to break one hold in Canada that the Commu nists will go in power.

The shame about the whole thing is that if you look to the Liberal policy of Trudeau, or you look at the language policy from Rene Levesque, they use only all the language policy to catch hold that they stay in power. Only for this thing, they waste hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for propaganda to destroy Canada. This bilingual policy in the whole of Canada, we never 924 get unity in the nation, we only get political honours. This is the policy what is going on from the Federal Government and from the Parti Quebecois.

I know when somebody is forced to learn a language against his will, he never learns the language. I know it out of experience from my own family. I lived in Germany during the period of the Fascist dictatorship; I lived in Germany from 19 45 until 1975, under the Communi st dictatorship in the east part of Germany, where they will put down the rascist language policy.

You are taught and I know how successful it was, my son and my daughter were supposed to learn in the schools, from the fourth grade on, the Russian language, because when you don't have a good note in the Russian language class, you never pass your grade, and you never have the chance to learn the other language. But both were interested to learn, from the seventh grade on, English or French . . . You can have always a chance to learn this language when you have a very high note in the Russian language.

My daughter as she came to Canada at the age of 18 years, she has a basic knowledge of English, and she learned the language very fast because she was interested in the language. My daughter is now 24 years old. I think maybe she knows only four or five words from the Russian language, which she was supposed to study seven years against her will. The same is what we will get in Canada.

Otherwise, when we make a biling ual policy in Manitoba, I don't believe that the NDP Government has the money to give the guarantee that every citizen in Manitoba has the chance to be completely bilingual, that he has the chance in his job. Because now we have so many jobs and when you will go only as supported by the government, provincial referendum, you have to be bilingual. When you go to hospitals and you make applications the first question is: do you speak English and French?

I am in employment too, I see it every day. lt is so far in Canada, please, you can test it for yourselves and when you don't have the time, some people sleep. In the most case it is so, in the Parliament too. lt is not only here. lt is so. Open your eyes. Go around, speak with your voter. I live in the constituency of Roland Penner, and I go everyday around in his constituenc y.

I know a lot of people, they vote for him, but a lot of people say, this we . . . , this we are only once; never ever again will we see the performance from this government And if you don't belie ve me, he can call only in his constituency a by-election; we will see what's going on. About the referendum, I have the same experience. I know all the communist and socialist like a referendum. This is a reality. We have in East Germany a referendum, too, but only for peace and against the missile tests or about missiles in one part of Germany.

We have very great success by this - 99.4 percent we have for peace, the way against missiles. In the aftermath three months later, until this date, if you go to the army or not, it was voluntary, now they say he has the mind of the people. The people stay behind party and government, now we can make the conscription. The peace is very important for every communist, but the communists have to defend its system. The whole peace referendum is only the catchall of Moscow, because they like it very much when we make

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 a referendum here, that we neutralize Canada it is very good. Normally the best thing is if we step out of the NATO and then we break with the United States is the best way, and then we hire some advisor from Moscow or Vancouver and then we go this way. This is how he will make the revolution. Don't be afraid that he will start a nuclear war or so. First, he will make a wedge between West Germany. There is a peace movement against the Americans; that they there. Then he has all in Europe socialism and as a dictatorship of the polity. Then he'd say the capitalists are very very smart.

They make three different forms of war. The military action, he makes an economic war and he makes a propaganda war. The whole economic war is so. Nikita Kruschev spoke in a big conference in East Germany. I was to this meeting. He said very clearly, the whole communist head was never so successful from Lenin or of Stalin until now as we make the catch for peaceful co-existence. Peaceful co-existence in rearmament - will it really make a difference here? We make economic and trade agreements. Lenin says very clear in his war, capitalists are so stupid, he will say use . . .

But Lenin was not smart enough, Kruschev was much smarter; Brezhnev and Andropov, too. They say capitalists are already so stupid, they gave him the strength where they will be hung, not of credit and the only complaint that will be when the communists take over: you won't have paid the last rate of interest. But then, they are already on the scaffold and they are hung. I hope that we don't entrench this and that we put all the money for this policy in the economy that we see that we leave Canada sturdy. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht. Thank you again. Mr. Graham.

MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht. Your point of order, Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that apparently Ms. Janick Belleau did not hear her name called. She was on the list just before Mr. Albrecht. I was wondering if the commit tee would consider hearing her? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I'm in the hands of the committee. I did call out the name twice. I've called all names twice, but if the commit tee wishes to revert back to Janick Belleau, I'm prepared to live with it. Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G.

LECUYER: I guess my only question, Mr. Chairman, was this person in the room here when the name was called? MR. H. GRAHAM: She's been here all afternoon, 1 understand. MR. G. LECUYER: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman. 925 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: All right. Janick Belleau. MS. J. BELLEAU: Monsieur le President, membres du comite. Reseau est un groupe de femmes francophones de St-Bonif ace et de Winnipeg, interesse a l'avancement de la femme sur les pl ans politique, educatif, professionnel, culture! et personnel. C'est a

titre de vice-presidente de cet organisme que je vous adresse, Messieurs, la parole. Permettez- moi de repondre a la question que vous etes peut-etre en train de vous poser: qu'est-ce que les femmes viennent faire dans les discussions sur !'article 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba? Les femmes, Messieurs, sont interessees a la question pour la raisons suivante: les Franco-Manitobaines (puisqu'il s'agit de l'avenir de la francophonie) ont toujours ete associees a !'education des enfants. Elles portent depuis des siecles, le

titre tres lourd de "gardiennes de la langue"". Les Franco-Manitobaines sont done restees a la maison parcequ'elles voulaient garantir a leurs enfants un foyer dans lequel il fait bon vivre en fran.;:ais. Elles ont assume le role de "gardiennes de la langue" parce que les hommes travaillaient au champs. Le mouvement feministe n'existait pas a l'epoque. Mais surtout parce que le gouvernement manitobain a decreta unilateralement en 18 90 que seul l'anglais etait reconnu comme langue officielle, un deuxieme coup dur les assommait en 1916 avec la disparition des ecoles fran.;:aises.

Aujourd 'hui, 93 ans plus tard, les Franco Manito baines sont sorties de leurs foyers et revendiquent le droit, pour elles-memes et leurs enfants, de vivre en fran.;:ais au Manitoba. Je ne vous apprendrai rien, Messieurs, en vous disant que les francophones du Manitoba en ont soupe de vivre da ns la clandestin ite. Etre francophone au Manitoba, c'est un peu etre noir(

e) aux Etats-Unis et etre femme au Canada. 11 y a toujours quelqu'un pour vous rappeler que vous n'etes qu'un citoyen de 2e classe. A courbe

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-pe46
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf pe46.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	03732240258648f96abedd34225015b9464ad84a

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