Manitoba Committee Hansard — 4 October 1983 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 55, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-pe55

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 Springfield VOL. XXXI No. 55 - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 4 OCTOBER, 1983. Prmted by the Off1ce of the Oueens Prmter. Province ol 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 BUCKLASCHU K, Hon. John M. CARR OLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEV. James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAV, 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 PAWLEV, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER ,Hon.Yic 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 Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne 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 Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 TIME - 2:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg CHAIRMAN - Mr. Andy Anstett (Springfield) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Bucklaschuk and Cowan; and Hon. Ms. Dolin Messrs. Anstett, Ashton, Brown, Graham, Kovnats, Lecuyer, Malinowski, Nordman WITNESSES: Rev. Bill Hutton, Private Citizen Mr. Ferdinand Guiboche, Private Citizen Mr. J.G. Russel, Private Citizen Mr. Guy Savoie, Fort Gibraltar et la Brigade de la Riviere Rouge Mr. lvan Merrit, Private Citizen Dr. Joe Slogan, Tri Club of Winnipeg MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed resolution to amend

Section 23 of the Manitoba Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, the committee has a quorum. Gentlemen, I understand the Clerk has received the resignations of Hon. Messrs. Mackling and Storie, and that Messrs. Cowan and Bucklaschuk are the replacements therefore. Could I have a motion to that effect please? MR. D. MALINOWSKI: So moved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Father Malinowski. Agreed? (Agreed) Your Chairman received a copy of a document from Myron J. Spolsky, President of the Manitoba Association for Promotion of Ancestral Languages in reply to requests that were made by the committee on Friday last.

I have sufficient copies for all members, they can be distributed. In addition, members will have received yesterday copies of a supplementary submission by the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties. lt was distributed yesterday. Because both of these are supplementary to information given at the hearings, I've requested that copies of both be distributed. The same has not been done as members may be aware for all the other written briefs because of the tremendous volume involved and, instead, those will be printed as an Appendix to the final transcript.

There are at this time in excess of 90 written briefs that will be in that Appendix. If there is no further other business before the committee, we'll resume calling the names where we left off this morning. Rev. W. J. Hutton. Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I hate to make another request but I just want to mention, in passing, that is - perhaps I should ask a question. Are the hearings going to conclude today, and this is in regard to Rev. Hutton, or is there a possibility that they could be continued tomorrow? MR.

CH AIRMAN: The committee agreed at this morning's hearing that the committee would only call through the list one more time. All those individuals who were absent this morning had been called a minimum of three times since Friday evening. lt was the committee's feeling this morning that there would be one more call to exhaust the list. That was agreed to this morning. MR. R. DOERN: Then can you clarify this, I spoke to Rev.

Hutton this morning and he has a fairly serious health problem in the sense of a heart condition and he probably would appear this afternoon if it were possible for him to know that he would be called. So I'm asking whether that is a possibility or now, having called his name, is he therefore off the list? MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, Rev. Hutton, as were all other individuals who were on the list, was told this morning they were all to be called this morning. Obviously you could have advised Rev. Hutton had you been here this morning, Mr. Doern, that his would be the first name called at 2 o'clock.

That's where we left off. We exhausted the list at five after 11 this morning, adjourned and said we would call all absentees this afternoon. I'm at the will and pleasure of the committee. The Chair certainly has no objection to calling the list a second time, again, after we have gone through it, it depends on how many people are here. I don't know if the committee will exhaust the list by 3:30, 5 o'clock or 10 o'clock tonight. That's something that will depend on the number of presentations. But certainly after four calls to absentees, I think the committee certainly has gone to some length to exhaust the list.

That was the direction I received this morning. Mr. Ashton. MR. S. ASHTON: I would think the best way to handle it is to just go through the list and advise the gentleman this morning, for example, we went through the list and we completed it in one hour and 15 minutes. There is that possibility, again, but I can't see beyond that giving any kind of guarantee to one particular individual. I think personally we'll probably go through the list and finish that list, if this morning's experience is any example. I think that can be communicated to him, but that's the example. 1110

TUesday, 4 October, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps Mr. Hutton should also be made aware that he still has the possibility of also presenting his written brief, and it will be added to the list of the written briefs and recorded in Hansard. Is that not correct, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct.

I had already planned on asking the committee's direction at the end of the meeting as to whether or not they wished the Clerk to advise any people who were still absent when the list was exhausted if the committee was willing to entertain written briefs from those people to be added to the Appendix. That's always been done in the past MR. R. DOERN: Here he is right now, so saved by the bell. MR. A. KOVNATS: I had something to say. A MEMBER: As always. Please do. MR. W. HUTTON: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little out of breath, but I really didn't run all the way, I ran part of the way.

At the outset, I would like to make certain general statements because I think it's important to know where people are coming from. These statements have to do with my views on bilingualism and my relationship with the New Democratic Party over the years. I have always supported French language rights and have upheld its national status. I have taken the trouble to learn French myself, and speak it with a fair degree of fluency. I placed my daughter in a French school for a year, and she developed about 90-95 percent oral efficiency, that meant she could understand virtually anything that was said to her.

She didn't like speaking French in front of her father, but I understood that she wasn't too bad when I wasn't around. My son spent a summer in French Immersion in Moncton. I presented a brief to the Royal Commission on Biligualism and Biculturalism in which I supported recognition of both English and French as official languages in Canada. I supported biligualism then, and still do. But I do not support an accompanying biculturalism, especially not in Manitoba where multiculturalism is so well established.

Consequently, I am opposed to the efforts of the Societe franco-manitobaine to make Manitoba a lop sided bicultural province where, on one side of the coin there exists a small, powerful, munolithic, French ethnolinguistic community, and on the other side a heterogeneous, multicultural polyglot collection of assorted ethnic and linguistic communities. In my view, the SFM concept of a bicultural Manitoba is simply a form of social and cultural separation. I oppose this form of separatism as strongly as I oppose the political separation aspirations of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.

I am a member of the New Democratic Party, and a former provincial president. I respect the CCF/NDP tradition in which there has been a strong concern tor injustice towards minority groups, and I would like to add I do not believe that our party holds a monopoly in this area. I think that this concern has led them into the present unfortunate situation. I know how sincere the government is to assure the French-speaking minority all the rights due them.

I know that the Attorney-General believed and presumably still believes that a ruling by the Supreme Court should be avoided. : don't believe that the majority of Manitobans share his concern about a court ruling. The upcoming plebiscite in Winnipeg will give a fair indication. I am sure that the Attorney-General will be interested in the results. I know that he is very open minded and has listened very attentively to the points of view that have been expressed before this committee. I would now like to focus my comments directly on what I see as the main issues.

This task is difficult because the issues have been clouded by strong public controver sy, which has not really centered on the major point at issue, as I understand it, at least. I would now like to clarify that statement. Mr. Bilodeau has challenged the validity of Manitoba laws passed in English only since 1890. That seemed fair enough. Every citizen in the province should want to have this decision made once and for all by the Supreme Court. I am sure M. Bilodeau foresaw the possibility that courts could rule that all of these laws were indeed invalid.

I am sure that he and his supporters were, and still are, prepared for such an eventuali ty. But I suspect that they, along with many other Manitobans, did not and still do not perceive such an eventuality as being very likely. We do not have any grounds to believe that our courts will create social havoc. This jurisdictional direction was changed when the Federal Government - who I understand was paying the bulk, if not all, of M. Bilodeau's court costs through grants from the Secretary of State - offered to negotiate an out-of-court settlement if they included the Societe franco-manitobaine in the negotiations.

Negotiations were undertaken, as I understand, and an agreement was reached whereby Mr. Bilodeau will drop the court challenge if the Provincial Government takes the necessary steps to have French language services incorporated into the Constitution. Unfortunately instead of focusing on the decision of the government to try to reach an out-of-court settlement, public debate has focused simply on the terms of the agreement whereby French language services will be extended. Thanks to a media hype - which is understandable - everyone has been cast into one of two moulds: (

a) those who support the government's proposed legislation (the good guys); and (

b) those opposed (the bad guys), and this image has made its way across the country unfortunately, if you'd look at the Letters to the Editor. The former are portrayed as being liberal, progressive and tolerant of minority rights. The latter are portrayed < .. s bigots and rednecks. No regard is given to the varying reasons why some are in favour of the proposal and why others are opposed. The social drama that has emerged has centred on people's reaction to the proposals.

Name calling, charges of bigotry and the media imagery of a long suffering "discriminated against" minority being further deprived of their rights have clouded any intelligent debate or examination of relevant factors. The 1111

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 emotional climate has become so intense that the original issue has been lost sight of, namely, should the courts be allowed to decide on the Bilodeau case or should the out-of-court settlement be accepted. lt is almost impossible to shift to this which, in my opinion, is the central issue. The media's contribution has been more negative than positive.

A first rate example is the media reaction to the city's decision to place this question on the city plebiscite, rather than the up-to-then popularly debated - do you favour an extension of French language services as being proposed by the Provincial Government? The question as it now stands can be discussed, I think, in a rational non-emotional way. Serious questions can be posed. For instance, what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of allowing a Supreme Court decision?

Is it proper for a sovereign government to negotiate and sign an agreement which affects all of us with a private self-serving interest group which purports to represent the collective mind of a particular ethnolinguistic sector of the community? Is this not setting a precedence? Can we not now expect similar groups to approach the government and sign an agreement to entrench their language rights? - and by looking at the papers I believe that the lineup has already started. Is the procedure, being followed by the government at present. the best or even the most desirable way of making a constitutional change?

Would the establishment of a Royal Commission not be better? Indeed, this very committee appears more and more to be thought of as just such a commission.- sorry I don't know what word I meant there - but in other words this committee is taking on the form of a Royal Commission, rather than a Legislative committee. Yet, the changing of the question has made little impact on those who were and still are critical of a plebiscite. The rhetoric has remained essentially the same. This is true both of the media and academics submitting aricles to the media. We read in the Free Press dated September 27, 1983 an

article by a University of Winnipeg political scientist titled: "Plebiscite could tear the city apart." Now, I ask you, can anyone here really believe that a discussion of the above questions which I have outlined will "tear the city apart?" And I don't see it being torn apart as of now, and I don't foresee it being torn apart, even by election time.

I suggested a question very similar to this to replace one in French Services Executive Policy Committee of the Winnipeg Council because I, personally, thought the previous question would have a detrimental effect on the commun ity, the city, and I don't believe that the present question will do that. I think it will generate serious intelligent debate. May I also add that I think it is unfortunate that academics and journalists have become so liberal in their imputing motifs to politicians involved in this debate, and are also equally liberal in tossing around derogatory labels.

If the medial would co-operate and encourage honest and intelligent discussion on the substance of the question on the plebiscite, as it now stands, we could all profit. We are told that the government is following a Made in-Manitoba policy . I agree that how each official language and other languages are used in public institutions should be decided in Manitoba by Manitobans. But the ground rules, both for us and for Quebec, and indeed for all of the provinces, are set by the Federal Governemnt in Ottawa in the forms of laws and in the Constitution.

You'll notice that my point of view here is very similar to Dr. Shaw's and I was quite pleased to hear that someone concerned about English rights in Quebec was sharing the same point of view . Any violation of these ground rules should be ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada. it's absolutely essential that the Federal Government's role and the role of the Supreme Court be defined clearly and be kept separate. lt is incumbent on the Federal Government to see that there is no violation of either official language as determined by federal laws.

If Manitoba did act "ultra vires," if Manitoba did break the ground rules in 1890, then the Supreme Court should be asked for a decision. I personally do not believe that the court is so isolated that it will shut its eyes to social and economic realities in any decision it may make. Every Manitoban has the right to know the status of our laws passed in English only since 1890.

We, as Canadians, expect the courts of Canada to rule on our laws in the same way as they would in other provinces. lt is becoming increasingly obvious that a large number of Manitobans, and possibly the majority are opposed either to the decision to "negotiate out-of court" or to the terms of the agreement itself. Even the Societe franco-manitobaine has voiced its displeasure over changes in the agreement. This raises the question about negotiating, in general, and of negotitating with the Societe franco-manitobainem in particular.

First of all, the cloud of uncertainty about our laws is not removed, The "Saving Provision" 23.3(2) is intended to prevent future challenges to the validity of laws enacted prior to January 1st, 1986 in English only. Can this resolution itself not be challenged? Can this Legislature pass laws to enact constitutional changes and deny me, for instance, or any citizen, access to the Supreme Court to question the validity of these English-only laws? Am I to be deprived of these rights? After all, I was not, and am not, party to any agreement that the Provincial Government made regarding this.

But there are other equally serious concerns. I would like to refer back to a question I posed earlier - the propriety of the government to initiate changes to the Constitution based on negotiations with an interest group purporting to reflect the collective will of an ethnolinguistic group. First of all, M. Maurice Prince maintains that his organization speaks for the majority of Franco-Manitobans. Without the $500,000, $600,000 annual giant given to the SFtv1, his organization, I' association des pro-Canadians, has neither the clout, nor the profile of the SFM.

That fact does not take away from their claim to speak on behalf of a large sector of the French-speaking commun ity. The SFM has every right to speak on behalf of the interests of its members, as does any private interest group. lt cannot speak, however , on behalf of all Franco Manitobans. And certainly it does not speak on behalf of other Manitobans who have varying degrees of interest in the French language but are not ethnic French-Canadian. Since public money from Ottawa has been used to finance the Bilodeau court case, all Mar.itobans and, 1112

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 indeed, all Canadians have an interest in its outcome. I want to have a decision regarding the validity of the laws in question, and object to the fact that, through an agreement to which I am not party, that process is being halted. More insidious still are other implications of negotiating in this way. We are assuming that minority ethnic groups have rights peculiar to that group, and that they are being dubbed minority rights. I suggest that this is a new concept and one that should be examined with great care.

I choose to make a distinction between the rights of a minority and minority rights. For instance, in the United States, until a few decades ago, the rights available to the majority were not available to the minority negro Americans. Activists, and especially Martin Luther King and his followers, fought not for special rights for negro Americans, but for the same rights that were available to all other Americans. In the rhetoric surrounding the present debate, a new concept has been slipped in, "minority rights." This concept assumes that there are rights particular to certain minority groups.

Apart from the indigenous people in this country who had made separate treaties with Britain even before Confederation, this has not been the case nor should it be. lt is the responsibility of both the Federal and Provincial Governments to see that language rights, French and English, guaranteed by federal laws and the Constitution are extended to all citizens regardless of their ethnic background as far as the law permits.

The Provincial Government should not treat any ethnic or ethnolinguistic interest group as a quasi governmental body with a mandate to negotiate on behalf of all people in that particular social grouping. lt is the responsibility of the Provincial Government to see that all languages are treated fairly in education and in the offering of services by the government and its agencies, but such policies should be flexible and not enshrined and done so observing the legal status and particular history of each.

French and English should be recognized as official Canadian languages, it is true. lt is also true that German and Ukrainian have special historical significance in Manitoba. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture - and I don't have the particular date, I was hoping to get to the university to get a copy of the letter - had signed a letter in which Mennonite immigrants were told that they could retain German in education and religion - incidentally, one of the Speakers of this Legislature was party to that. Bilingual schools are not new in this province.

French, German, Ukrainian and even some Polish bilingual schools existed until they were closed down in 1915. These are all factors that should be considered by the government. I mentioned earlier, biculturalism. Though we do not hear this term very often, it is the direction in which I see the SFM wanting to move in. lt would produce two parallel subsocieties, or a society and a subsociety, I guess would be accurate sociologically, one French and one English. Let me give an example.

Le Bureau de I' education fram;:aise is responsible for all curriculum development in the so-called "fram;:ais" school and "immersion schools", including English. But they also control the teaching of French in the regular English language schools. They do not believe that the main department of Education should be involved, even in 1113 the English program of "Franc;;ais" and "Immersion" schools.

I, myself, was once told by the then president of the Societe franco-manitobaine that I had no right to have any say in the decision whereby the school division in which I am a resident and a taxpayer was establishing French language programs. Just as a little editorial comment, I was thanked for that with a coke bottle thrown right through my very expensive picture window the day after. There was no proof to say who did it, but it happened coincidentally just after that, and it was similar to other incidents that I know of. This is biculturalism which I oppose.

Lastly, governments cannot turn a blind eye to sociological realities. French may be equal as an official language, but it's not in the minds of the public or in social reality. The government has ignored this fact and a negative reaction has resulted. I make two recommendations. No. 1, the government pay close attention to the referenda being conducted in the province. If the majority want the courts to decide, then the courts should be allowed to do so. No. 2, establish a Royal Commission to recommend how to respond to the requests of the various linguistic interest groups in a fair and just way.

Thank you very mu.::h for your time and attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Rev. Hutton. Questions for Rev. Hutton from members of the committee? Seeing none . . . MR. W. HUTTON: Could I just sit for a moment or . MR. CHAIRMAN: There were no questions. MR. W. HUTTON: Were there no questions? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Oh, there are now? Mr. Graham. Please take a seat, Rev. Hutton. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, if Rev. Hutton is pushed or rushed or anything, I would be willing to wait for a minute while he gets his breath before I ask any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: He can answer from there, he has a microphone now. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Rev. Hutton, you have presented us with a lot of very thoughtful information in your brief and I detect from that that there is a certain reluctance on your part to speak out against the party of which you have professed a relationship. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. W. HUTTON: Well I have tried in my comments to neither speak out against the government party or the opposition party.

I think that I've tried to address the issues and I've wanted to make it known, I wasn't hiding my affiliation with the New Democratic Party or my background, but I was hoping that my presentation would address just simply the issues themselves and that was my approach. MR. H. GRAHAM: Rev. Hutton, you have no concern, then, about being censored by your party for speaking

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 out against it, as other members in your party have been so subjected? MR. W. HUTTON: I think the last time I was here I dropped into the caucus room. Nobody threw an egg at me, nobody threw a tomato at me and no one slammed the door - (Interjection) and no coke bottles through my window. MR. H. GRAHAM: Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members of the committee? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a couple of questions. On the first page, Rev.

Hutton makes the point that he believes - about the middle of the page he says, "In my view the SFM concept of a bicultural Manitoba is simply a form of social and cultural separation." And then he says: "I oppose this form of separatism as strongly as I oppose the political separation and aspirations of the Parti Quebecois." Are you suggesting that if this legislation proceeds that we will then have two cultures in Manitoba and to that extent the SFM and the Francophone culture will be separate, apart, and distinct, and that this will create problems in the province? MR. W.

HUTTON: More separate, apart, and distinct than it is at present. I think that's essentially what I am saying. it's certainly in those areas and then, of course, you don't know how much further that goes. If I could just give an example.

We hired a new secretary, our superintendent hired a new secretary in the school division, and two of the people that were very competent in my views but then I wasn't doing the hiring - they were told that the position was now bilingual and I said, "Oh, that's interesting, that was never discussed at the board, I don't know anything about it." So I asked the superintendent if any changes had been made in the job descriptions and the job requirements.

He just refused to answer the question, he said: "I don't have to tell you." This sort of this, it's well, who does he tell and who tells him and where's it all coming from. When people were told this and when they speak to me and I can't even find out if that's the case. This is the kind of insidious stuff that is unhealthy and that I can see happening. Maybe I'm being unduly critical. MR. R.

DOERN: You also say in your brief on Page 3, that the media imagery of a long-suffering, discriminated-against minority being further deprived of their rights and so on - it seems to me that concept has been suggested or implied and you don't sec an:r particular indications of an oppressed minority in terms of Franco-Manitobans? MR. W. HUTTON: There are legal minds around this table I have noticed.

My understanding is that all the rights that were assured when Manitoba came into federation are there, that there is now The Official Languages Act and in terms of rights - and it just depends on what you define it as - in my definition, I would say yes, that they are all there. Now in terms of language use in the province, then that's a different matter, but I don't think we should call this rights. But that's equally true of other linguistic groups, too. Can I just add at this point, that I'm not saying that French is exactly the same status say, as German and Ukrainian.

Historically and numerically there are some similarities, but legally, of course, French is an official language. I think that should be made known. But, on the other hand, there is another similarity that I don't think has been looked at very seriously and this is also part of the biculturalism and that's that French is essentially an ethnic language. Let me qualify that immediately, as is German and Ukrainian in this province, that most of the people who speak French are French. Now most of the people who speak English are not English.

If you go to England, most of the people who speak English are English; if you go to Central Africa to the Congo, the people who speak French there are not French, so there it is not an ethnic language. I think this has to be recognized. Those of you who have done studies in sociology are familiar, of course, with the special kind of networks and authority structures that come about in an ethnic community and the kinds of controL One of the things that concerns me is that we have to take very serious regard of this when we're making any changes in terms of having French services. MR. R.

DOERN: Just a couple of questions on the plebiscite. I guess, in a sense, you are the father of the plebiscite or the father of the question on the plebiscite. Do you think that that question - I don't know if that was your question or not. Was that your question precisely or was it modified? MR. W. HUTTON: No, it was modified, but it was essentially the same in that I was directing it to the decision of the government to make an out-of-court settlement rather than an in-court settlement. MR. R.

DOERN: Do you think that the question as presently worded is clear or that it would be understandable, or do you intend to do anything to make it understandable, or more understandable? MR. W. HUTTON: Well, you know, it's interesting, the more you read it, the clearer it becomes. I don't know if those of you who have taken introductory psychology have all been told about the little experiment where you put on upside-down glasses, and if you put these glasses on, it makes the whole world around you look upside down.

That's just the way you feel, but in time you adjust, and in time, the upside-down world looks right side up. Then when you take those glasses off again, the right side world looks upside down. Now, I think this is precisely what's happened. That's thanks to the media hype and all the vitriol and all the comments that have been made and the social drama that's been created and played on television right across the country has created an upside-down picture of the situation. What I think the question on the referendum does now is put it right side up again, and then all of a sudden people say, I'm confused.

Well, you're confused just like the people taking off the upside down glasses, I'd say. 1114

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 MA. R. DOERN: Finally, could you indicate how the government should perceive the referenda? Is it a poll, is it a reflection of public opinion? Are they morally bound by the results? What do you see as the role or value of a plebiscite or a referendum. MR. W. HUTTON: You know, I don't think you can just give a simple answer. All sorts of things have to be taken into consideration. For instance, so far there is no single body that is supporting the "yes" vote. If you wanted to get involved in a campaign or to pay for advertising, there is no advertising, there'd be no place to go.

Manitoba 23, on the other hand, is very involved in this and has the support of ethnic groups which in turn have federal money coming in from the Secretary of State so that they can. So, I think that there is going to be an imbalance. I think that the people who want the "yes" vote are hindered, because of lack of funds and lack of organization to go to the public. Knowing this, I think that the vote will be in Winnipeg a "yes" vote and I hope it will be a "yes" vote.

I think that the government should look at it for just what it is, that a number of people felt very strongly; they wanted to give them a message and this is the message they are giving them. I think that the government just has to come to its own decision. MR. R. DOERN: Have you applied for funds from the Secretary of State to promote a "yes" vote in the referendum? MR. W. HUTTON: Not yet, but maybe I will tomorrow. MR. R.

DOERN: Could you comment on this point because there was some comment that came out of Eastern Canada about some groups today who were pleading with Manitobans not to have a plebiscite on minority rights? Is that what this issue is all about? Is this a plebiscite on minority rights, or what is the actual question in the Winnipeg referendum or plebiscite? MR. W. HUTTON: I don't have the exact wording here, but it's essentially, do you think that the courts should decide and let Mr. Bilodeau's case go all the way to the courts and be decided on, or should you accept the government's proposal?

That's essentially it, but, you know, I hope that most of you looked at the Free Press the night before last, when you looked at all these letters. I don't know who organized this, but all the flood of letters coming from the East I've never seen it before. The interesting thing when you look at those letters is, that I don't think there is a single one who understands what's going on - not a single one. That concerns me. The other thing that concerns me is this idea that a majority group has no right to decide on a minority group. Heavens, we do it every day.

There is a very significant minority group in this society and that's young people who are well educated, they're coming out of univers ity, they want work and they can't find it That's a very significant group. Yet, where do they stand? Aren't they being denied the right to work? Why isn't there concern for this? Yet we allow the majority in our Legislatures and in Ottawa and in the Federal Government to make policies and make decisions that 1115 affect the welfare of these people. Nobody seems to be concerned about the majority making decisions that affect this particular minority. I wish they would. MR. R.

DOERN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Rev. Hutton. Seeing none, Rev. Hutton, thank you very much for your presentation here today. MR. W. HUTTON: I just might add that I did hope that Mr. Lyon would at least have one little question, but he seems to have everything explained clearly. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: I can say for the record that I regret I only heard part of Mr. Hutton's brief, but it was so well reasoned and so well articulated and so thoughtful, and I see no reason to raise any questions. MR. W. HUTTON: Thank you very much. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Dr. Vedanand. Dr. Vedanand, please. Bohdanka Dutka. Michel Kiedyk. George Rykman. Don Mclvor. Ferdinand Guiboche. MR. F. GUIBOCHE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I appeared before the first committee in Dauphin as the Mayor of Camperville supporting the agreement between the Provincial Government, the Federal Government and the Societe Franco Manitoban. I am also a member of the Manitoba Metis Federation, which supports the actions taken, but I'm here today as an individual representing my views again. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question here, if you'll excuse me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a point of order, Mr. Doern, on a point of order? MR. R. DOERN: Yes, it is a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, on a point of order. MR. R. DOERN: I would like a clarification. There was a considerable debate, I recall, in Ste. Anne as to whether or not Mr. Prince could appear for a second time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can be of assistance to you, Mr Doern. When Mr. Guiboche refers to an earlier r;ommittee meeting in Dauphin, I think Mr. Doern you would agree that this committee did not hold a meeting in Dauphin.

Perhaps there is some confusion between the informational meetings conducted by Mr. Penner and the meetings of this standing committee. Please proceed, Mr. Guiboche. MR. F. GUIBOCHE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks are going to be brief. I have listened to the hearings and everything that has happened, like all Manitobans and certainly Canadians throughout this

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 country, about what has been taking place here in Manitoba, about the emotions and the strong feelings of people all over the land debating what was the proper way, and even suggestions about the Manitoba way of doing things. I suppose, everyone has learned a great deal from these hearings. Some will have to learn, I guess, to accept the facts as they are. Others will go on rationalizing their positions. There have been a lot of comments made which did not refer directly to the question. A lot of matters dealt with economics, dealt with other matters, roads and everything else.

I suppose it just makes me wonder about politicians, that they must be tough to go through the things that they go through to fight for things that they believe in. I suppose they would have to be very dedicated with a lot of patience to move with the things that they believe. In my own mind, there is no question about The Manitoba Act of 1870 and its legality. There is no question that what the Provincial and Federal Government and the Society Franco-Manitoban did is quite legal and proper in my own mind.

I don't profess to be a lawyer, but it seems to me that events that have taken place over the last few years have indicated that, in the last six or seven years with the Supreme Court ruling that, in fact, what was being done was legaL lt was decided by these three groups to make an agreement on certain things that they felt were just and fair. I see it as a fair compromise personally, because I ask myself, what are the alternatives? If this was not accepted, if it would finally go its route to be decided by the court of the land, the alternatives, I'm sure, would be similar to what we have in New Brunswick.

The court would rule, I believe, that Manitoba would be a full bilingual province. This is what the agreement, in my view, stands for. lt stands for a compromise, a practical solution to meet the needs of people, people who have been wronged by certain statutes that were passed. So this is a way of correcting things. Mr. Chairman, as I said, my comments are brief. I support the position taken by the Provincial and Federal Government and the Societe Franco-Manitoban. I support the original amendment that was proposed in the Legislature early June or July, whatever the date was, without any change.

I hope that you would move with that whenever the Legislature convenes. Mr. Chairman, those are my comments. I'm prepared to answer questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Guiboche. Questions for Mr. Guiboche? Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: One question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Guiboche, one of the lawyers for the government, Mr. Guiboche, told the government that the conditions contained in the agreement that it signed with the SFM and with the Government of Canada or is purporting to sign with them could never be imposed upon Manitoba by any court.

Would you still make the statement to us that you have just made that the court could maybe impose New Brunswick-type of bilingualism upon Manitoba, if you know that their own lawyer said that they couldn't do that? MR. F. GUIBOCHE: That is advice that the government would have to take under their own advisement, and follow up with their own decision. it's still my view that they are making a good agreement; that they are working within the legal law of the land; and that they should proceed. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr.

Guiboche, I don't think anybody disagrees with you having your opinion about the validity of the agreement lt is strictly on the point that you mentioned in your brief, that if we didn't have this agreement - my heavens - the court could impose some terrible conditions upon Manitoba that are worse than the agreement. I merely asked you to consider that the government's own lawyer told them, that isn't the case. I tell you, it isn't the case. I don't know of any lawyer who has said that the conditions that could be imposed by the court would be worse than this agreement, because that isn't the case. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions for clarification of the brief? Seeing none, Mr. Guiboche, than you very much for your presentation here today. Israel Ludwig, S. Stephansson; A. Warkentin; J.G. RusseL MR. J. RUSSEL: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am here as a private citizen. I represent no organized group and I must apologize that I have no written brief to provide you with. However, I realize that you've been sitting a long time and I will be very brief.

Quite frankly, when I thought of appearing here I wondered what in the name of heaven I could say to you that hasn't been said already, probably nothing, so please allow me to give you one man's opinion, one man's perceptions, one man's feelings. When I first learned of this proposal, this resolution, the thought that occurred to me, and perhaps it's my Irish background, that it had been conducted in secrecy, and on a matter affecting our province so seriously.

Private meetings had been held with, as I understand, some six or seven groups: Societe franco-manitobaine, the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, Alliance Quebec, Province of New Brunswick; but the one group that was excluded from all this was the group most affected, the people of Manitoba. We were presented, in effect, with a fait accompli. Here is the resolution, we have sufficient votes and this is the way it will be.

Another aspect that bothered me was that if the resolution wasn't passed, you know, we're going to get hit with the Bilodeau case and there were blackmail aspects to this that I found abhorrent I don't think that any government should have to operate, or any person have to operate, under the threat of blackmaiL So I became interested in what was going on. I started to read on the subject, particularly the government handouts. I received one in the mail and it says, Manitoba is not going to be bilingual but, at the same time, I was reading the resolution, the first

section of which said that the official languages of Manitoba shall be English and French. Now which am I to believe? I read at about the same time a very interesting

article 1116

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 in the newspaper, "The language law, who is telling the truth?" And they referred, therein, to a speech by the Honourable Serge Joyal, Secretary of State of Canada. So I obtained his speech, given to the Societe franco manitobaine in March, and in there I found a blueprint as laid out by the Federal Government for this province. The Societe franco-manitobaine was advised that they were to get

Section 23 entrenched in the Canadian Constitution; then they were to get their own school boards; and then next on the list was the municipalities. But the government pooh-poohed all this, you know, it wasn't going to happen. Well apparently somebody had other ideas. The next thing I did was attend an informational meeting at the International Inn and watch what, to me, was an orchestrated reaction to the speech by organized groups. I particularly resented one man getting up and saying he represented the Irish Canadian National Committee which had 5,000 members.

I found that very strange because I had spoken to the man he identified as vice-president of culture just the week before, at which time he complained ·bitterly that he couldn't get $60 together to register the group, and at that time they had two or three members. A week later he's got 5,000 Irishmen? No way. So who do these peple really represent? Who do they really represent? But what has happened is that the Province of Manitoba, my province, is being divided in a manner that I cannot really believe, and I cannot believe that any government would deliberately do such a thing.

In summation, we now have a group, or groups, like Manitoba 23 - and just as an aside, as far as Manitoba 23 is concerned, I see reading the paper that Mr. McDonald has declined to reveal his sources of funding. He was on the Peter Warren show when I phoned him and asked him that and he said, oh we just get it from a few volunteers; apparently things have changed. But on the resolution per se, on a matter which affects Manitobans so intimately, in every aspect of our lives, which is so divisive, I ask the government to reconsider. Withdraw the resolution, let the courts decide on the Bilodeau case.

They decided on the Forest .case and there wasn't this hassle; people will accept it. If the government feels that they cannot do that, then may I suggest that they do not have a mandate to do what they are doing, and I would suggest that they go to the people on it, by way of an election. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Russel. Questions for Mr. Russel from members of the committee? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: You are very critical, Mr. Russel, of the - I think what you referred to as a secret agreement and backroom deal, etc.

Is it your position that a constitutional amendment should be a rather open and unrushed process, that it is unlike legislation, etc., and therefore, the time should be taken to explain it to the public and to gain public acceptance? MR. J. RUSSEL: Very, very much. In order to gain legitimacy, if you will, I feel that the government should have - Mr. Hutton mentioned a Royal Commission - should have done that or perhaps a White Paper, or something of that nature, to bring it out in the open, 1117 give people an opportunity.

Get a consensus - I think that's the art of government, if I am correct- to get the acceptance of the people prior to doing it, especially on something like the Constitution, which is almost impossible to change. I would like to go on record that I am not disputing the provision of French services; what I am doing is objecting to anything to the process that is being followed and by the entrenchment in the Constitution. MR. R. DOERN: I'm not sure I fully understood your remarks on the Irish Association. Are you a member of that association? MR. J. RUSSEL: I am a member of the Irish Association of Manitoba, yes.

MR. R. DOERN: And were you saying then that someone spoke on behalf of thh organization that had no right to, or that he provided inaccurate information? MR. J. RUSSEL : He said he represented an organization that had 5,000 members and a week before they had two. MR. R. DOERN: In terms of wiC:espread acceptance of the government's proposals, how would you ascertain that? For example, do you support a plebiscite on the question? MR. J. RUSSEL: I think at this stage of the game, a plebiscite is simply ascertaining what the public thinks, what the public wants.

I think, in my own mind, it should have been done beforehand by a different method, perhaps, but I don't think at this stage of the game that we have any other choice. There is no other process that I can think of. MR. R. DOERN: Do you see a plebiscite or a referendum as being a barometer or thermometer or indication of public opir.ion? MR. J. RUSSEL: I think it is a way for people to express themselves. I may be wrong, but I think politicians take plebiscites all the time, t ey just use a different term.

I'm sure that if anything contentious comes in or anything, it doesn't even necessarily have to be contentious, but that a politician goes out to his constituents, finds out what they think, what their opinions are, things of that nature. I think this is the same thing in another form. MR. R. DOERN: Is it your contention that this is needed all the more because of the secret nature of the agreement? MR. J. RUSSEL: I would think so. I would have hoped that the government would have published all the data concerning the agreement, rather than just a small resolution.

But I can see no other choice at the moment, quite frankly, than a plebiscite to obtain people's opinion. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Russel?

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Russel, I have to admit that my own background is of the Scottish fratern ity, so I don't know too much about the Irish commun ity. MR. J. RUSSEL: We're all Celts, Sir. MR. H. GRAHAM: We had a brief yesterday from an organization that listed as one of their supporting organizations, the Irish-Canadian National Commi ttee. MR. J. RUSSEL: Headed by Mr. McKinne y, Gerry McKinne y. MR. H. GRAHAM: Can you tell me more about the Irish-Canadian National Committee? Are you a member of it? MR. J. RUSSEL: Heaven forbid! No, I am not.

There are two longstanding Irish associations in Manitoba, The Winn ip eg Irish and the Irish Associ ation of Manitoba. Both are non-political, non-sectarian. One member of the Irish Association of Manitoba wanted to start up an Irish language schooL He was having difficulty doing so. We had spoken about it, and the night of the meeting at the International Inn, a week later after, Mr. McKinney got up and said that he represented 5,000 Irishmen. He identified himself as the Irish-Canadian National Committee, the first time I'd ever heard of it. I went up to him afterwards and asked him how many members he had.

He said, 5,000. I nearly fell off my chair, you know, this is ridiculous. But in any event, I asked him, give me some names of members. He named two people. One of them, as his Vice-President of Culture was the man I had spoken to the week before who didn' t have $60 to register his association. At that time, he was the sole member of the organiza tion, so with McKin ney, I guess there would be two, and that was the Irish-Canadian National Commit tee. McKin ney ap peared - he's con nected with the Garrison Diversion, incidentally - on the Peter Warren show, and I phoned and asked him about his membership.

He refused to give me the membership or the names of any of his members, as a matter of fact, he finally hung up on me on the Warren show. The Irish-Canadian National Comm ittee does not represent Irish people in Manitoba. I don't think, in a matter such as this, Sir, that any organization can represent the feelings of all people of Irish background. I don't think the organizations that are appearing, really, can say that they speak for their total membership, because this appears to cut across lingui stic !i,·,tJ::,, party lines, political party line s. So I really don't feel that he does represent them. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Russel. Seeing none, Mr. Russel, thank you very much for your presentation here today. MR. J. RUSSEL: Thank you, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: C.J. Wenaas; Remi Smith, Remi Smith; Leo Teillet. Guy Savoie. MR. G. SAVOIE: Merci, M. le president. Je me presente devant vous aujour d'hui, M. le president et membres du Comite, a

titre du president de la fondation du Fort Gi braltar, du bourgeois de la Brigade de la Riviere Rouge et a

titre aussi d'un des anciens president du Festival du Voyageur. 11 y a aucun doute, M. le president et membres du Comite, qu'il m'est facile aussi de me presenter comme un Canadien de vieille date. La famille Savoie est arrives a Port Royale en 1652. J'ai avec moi ici un arbre genealogique de la famille qui demontre que je suis un Canadien de 12e genera tion. Je pourrais facilement vous le laisser quoique j'aimerais le ravoir. Je suis tier de ma race, tier de mon histoire, tier de ma culture et surtout je suis tier d'I'Hre Canadien. Si je vous adresse a

titre d' etre si tier d'e tre Canadien, c'est peut-etre pour demont rer a travers les annees et de repondre a M. God in et a plusieurs autres que nous existons toujours et nous continuerons d' exister. 11 y a aucun doute aussi; vous avez eu M. Toby Perrin qui vous a parle a Sainte-Anne. M a grand-mere paternelle etait la tante a M. Perrin.

Je pourrais aussi continuer vous donner l'historique de ma famille, je pourrais aussi contin uer pour vous dire que etant jeune homme, j'ai eu I' occasion, lorsque j'ai fini mon college au College Saint-Bon iface, de me presenter et d' etre accepte a la GR C, d'a voir servi pendant huit ans, a travers le Canada entier, soit a Vancouver, soit dans !'Ontario, soil dans le Quebec, soil dans la Saskatchewan. En 62, j'ai quitte et j'ai habite la vi lie de Brandon ou j'etais un homme d'affaires.

J'ai opere mes affaires a Brandon pendant au-dela de onze annees tout pres de douze annees. 11 m'est im portant de vous le dire puisque a un certain moment don ne, lorsque ma femme et moi nous avons constate, avec nos six enfants, que lorsque nous parlions franc;:ais a la maison, les enfants nous repondaient soit en anglais ou soit qui nous demandaient de repeter ce que l'on leur avait dit en franc;:ais de le repeter en anglais.

Alors a un moment donne, nous avons vu qu'il etait tres im portant de vendre notre commerce, de s'en revenir au patelin, soit a Saint-Bon iface, de prendre des titeurs, leur don ner des enseignements en franc;:ais. Et aujourd'hui je suis tier de dire que toute ma famille est parfaitement bilingue. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that there are probably so many other things to say in that I certainly am not alone in that position. I say this, I have been very active in every community that I have served. Having served in Brandon on the St.

Augustine Church Board for six years, I was three years as Finance Chairman; having served the Brandon Un iversity as a football coach for seven years; having been active in politics, having been a candida te in 19 73 in the provincial election; having been a candidate here in St. Bonif ace in the last provincial election. I think that I am not unique as a Canadian. I pride myself and I pride many other Francophones in having served their community very very well in the past and no doubt there will be many others that will continue to do so. I think it's important to say, because I think that those 1118

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 members of the community that serve and its people, the French Canadian commun ity, has seen a ray of hope with the agreement that has come forward. Now possibly we might want to say that it's a secret agreement. I rather would not want to say that, but certainly a ray of hope that in all our service to the commun ity, even so, that we do this in a nature that it is le devouement, de les personnes de la commu naute, qui est tres importent. We see a ray of hope for our children. Certainly I was successful in operating my business in Bran don. We had many very good friends in Brandon.

My wife and I and the children hesitated very much to leave Brandon, but it was important to me; it was important to my wife; it was important to the generations that I represent, that my children should at least receive that chance to reflect that same Canadian heritage that I have received and that's why I moved here. I look at the agreement and possibly I could say many things to you about the agreement, the pros and the cons, the pros and the cons of holding a plebiscite.

I know that my forum is not here and I could go over all the arguments and the debates that were held at city council for or against a plebiscite, and as I have said and I will say again, once you get the answer to that plebiscite what are you, in effect, going to do with it? So it's really not the question to decide. I think the question before you to decide and we can look at it, we can say that this agreement might not be the best of agreements. lt might not be the worst of agreements. We might say that it was done secretly, although I would say that it was not. lt was arrived at and then presented .

Now if we want to say that was of a secret nature or that there was some great ploy being advanced, we might want to say that, I think we would be incorrect. Strategically we might have been wrong. Strategically it might have been important to have an all-parliamentary comm ittee to discuss this agreement and to present it. There has been a lot said that the SFM is representative of the community, the SFM is no t representative of the commun ity.

There's no doubt that a few years ago on a particular issue, the SFM did not reflect the thoughts of the community and the SFM was told point-blank by that same French Canadian community that it wasn't representing their views. Rest assured that at that time, it was told point-blank by the French Canadians that you are not representing our views. Rest assured tha t in this issue, wholeheartedly , the community is very strongly behind the SFM in this matter. The organizations which I represent are strongly behind the agreement.

Now we might debate once again strategically, if we've done the right thing or not, strategically should it have been held back, should it have been done at an all parliame ntary committee, should it have gone to the courts, and so on. That's not the case. That's not what is before you. What is before you is an agreement that probably favours all Manitobans, not only the Franco commun ity. We, the French Canadians, are strongly behind this agreement and as I said earlier, I could probably go on and on and tell you why we feel it's important to have that agreement.

I think it's evident why you should have that agreement and why it should go through and I'm here to tell you that the organizations which I belong to are strongly behind the agreement. Thank you, members. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Savoie. Questions for Mr. Savoie from members of the committee? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Just one question, Mr. Savoie.

You have fol lowed this issue recen tly and probably throughout your lifetime, but I just wondered whether you sometimes have thought to yourself, regardless of the outcome of this proposed legislation, that in some ways the Franco-Manitoban communi ty would have been better off without the legislation and without the debate? MR. G. SAVOIE: Well through you, Mr. Chairman, that's really an un known factor whether the French Canadian community would have been better off, had the matter gone to court or not, really is not known and I can't really answer your question, Mr. Doern. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Doern, just for clarifica tion. MR. R. DOERN: I was thinking, Mr. Savoie, in regard to relations with the .�hole communit y, whether you think that in one sense the Franco-Manitobans were better off in relation to the question of unity or harmony or good feelings, before this debate than after this debate? MR. G. SAVOIE: Well there's no doubt that the debate, Mr. Chairman, through you, the debate certainly has brought about certain divisiveness, but the status quo tha t might or mi ght no t ha ve remained was not acceptable eithe r. Mr.

Chairman, if I might, I use the Forest case of 1979 where very little was done after the 1979 case in front of the Supreme Court, that only 12 of our provincial laws, I believe in 19 80, were passed in both languages, both official langua ges. I believe in 1981 there might have been two, so that status quo really, as a result of the Forest case, was not satisfactory. MR. R. DOERN: You have said that the situation was not acceptable prior to this agreement or attempted resolution.

Would you also agree that regardless of this outcome, whethe r it goes through amende d or unamended or is thrown out the window, that this is an ongoing process, that there is no final resolution to thiB question, that this is a continuing live organic thing that will be discussed, even when you and I are long gone? MR. G. SAVOIE: Mr. Chairman , through you, it's certainly ongoing, Mr. Doern, but hopefully in the near !u'ure and with the advent of the Immersion courses and so on, where our young population is going. Certainly in the near future within a generation or two, this matter should be dissolved. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Through you to Mr. Savoie. I noticed in your brief that you - and I'll use the word advisedly - studiously avoided any mention of proposed amendments. Would you care 1119

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 to comment on any of the proposed amendments at this time, Mr. Savoie? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. Mr. Graham are you telling the Chair you're asking a question about something which was explicity not in the brief? MR. H. GRAHAM: I'm just being obse rv ant, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your observation. Do you have a question for clarification of the contents of the brief? MR. H. GRAHAM: I would ask Mr. Savoie if he would like to enla rge on his brief. MR. G. SAVOIE: I would not, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions Mr. Graham? Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said tha t the Franco -Manitoban Soc iety is clearly representative of the Francophones or French-speaking Manitobans on this question. Could you tell me on what you base this assurance of yours, and secondly could you tell me if, by the same token, you feel that the Pro-Canada group that spoke is as representative? MR. G. SAVOIE: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr.

Lecuyer, when I view the effort of the Franco-Manitobans on May 24th, I believe it was - I might be wrong in the date - they came from all parts of the province when the SFM asked them and posed the question, we have an agreement with the Attorney-General tha t will present these amendments to the Legislature, have we done your will?

And at a meeting where several hours went by explaining what had been done and the reasons why; and when we see the commun ities from all over the province travelling at their own expense to come to the city to voice their opinion and to say to the SFM that, in effect, you are doing what we want, that tells me that this same communi ty is definitely behind the organization. There are other meetings and so on. I could reiterate other examples. I think that Mr.

Prince's Pro-Canadien group which had its annual meeting, and I believe there were only 23 mem bers at it, I find it difficult to suggest that so small a group would represent the total of the Fre nch-Canadian socie ty or communi ty or any Francophones in the province. MR. G. LECUVER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Savoie? Seeing none, Councillo r, thank you very much for your presentation here today. MR. G. SAVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tom Cohoe. Tom Cohoe. Mario Sosa. Mario Sosa. Ron Nash. Ron Nash. lvan Merritt. MR. I.

MERRITT: Sorry, I do not have a photostat of my brief here, but if anybody ever wanted I can probably get it. Mr. Chairman, to set the tone of this brief, I quote from an informed recent publication: "The Liberal Government is using the newly adopted Canadian Constitution as the spring board for constructing a Canada that is unilin gually "French." Now for those who didn't quite hear it or for those who don't want to hear it, I'm going to read it again.

"The Li beral Government is using the newly adopted Canadian Constitution as the spring board for constructing a Canada that is unilin gually "French." That quote didn't come from the Globe and Mail. Now that you've got me classified as a bigot, a redneck, a racist, an in tolerant, na rrow -min ded, prejudiced paranoid - in fact, just about everything you will find in the lexicon at "L a Liberte," I'll proceed if I may. Evidently all I have to do to absolve myself of this terrible infliction is to, like flicking a light switch, just agree with Mr. Pawley, Mr. Penn er, Mr. Lecuyer, Mr. Desjardins, Mr. Robert, Mr.

Forest and all those who habi tate the same camp. Then I suddenly become an acceptable, normal, rational being. Let it never be stated or inferred that any of you zealous proponents of official bilingualism could possibly harbour any such distorted thinking, or be alluded to as fanatics or malcontents or belly-achers or crybabies or bleeding hearts or wah wah disturbers. Those stigmas are only for those of us on the other side of the fence.

As for those professors, doctors of letters, legal minds and men of great wisdom who have appeared before you who are crying them selves to sleep every night because of the horrible injustic e, the abominab le perse cution, the un conscionable wrong, the heartbreaking suffering, and the abuse and provocation inflicted for 100 years on these un fortunate souls, you are either very naive or are agreeable to see it happen, the francisation of Canada.

I want to ask every listener, including those of French descendan cy, just where would you be today - yes - just what would be your personal status today if you had not learned English? Does any langu age-obsessed Francophone crossing the border to the United States suffer any stigma, endure any psychological stress about operating in English? lt is a fact and nobody can intelligently deny it that a great favour was extended to the French residents of this province when they were required to learn the common language.

Can any one of you point out a person of any cultural descent who can in truth claim, it's not so; anyone who has been handicapped or who has experienced no benefits being conversant in English? One speaker complained that his head was programmed English, but his heart remained French. Does he presume his heart is somehow more precious than any of German or Ukrainian or Italian or Japanese, or the heart of any person from any other heritage? Would they then have a better and more worthy and respectable heart if they were to have transplanted in them a French heart?

This clamour for a predominant language identity almost seems to be approaching a childish, petty vendetta. This past Saturday and Sunda y, I observed 1, 000 people with a common purpose putting together a 3,800 1120

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 square foot building for worship, this from a bare foundation to a finished ediface ready to conduct their service on Sunda y, all details included: framing, roofing, shingling, brickwork, doorways, windows, plumbing, hea ting, electrical, ins ula tio n, drywal ling, taping, plastering, painting, carpentering, carpeting, cupboards, furnishings and landscaping.

You should drive past and take a look, and see what really can be done by people of one mind and one language, working together in harmony to achieve a planned objective. it's a Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall just off Waverley, about a mile south of McGilli vray Boulevard. I have no affiliation with the J.W. 's, but they certainly can show us a few lessons in co-operation that puts this English-F rench con troversy and bickering to absolute shame with the constant tugging at each others' throats.

I am presenting this brief at the risk of offending my friends and acquaintances of French culture for whom I have a great admi ration and most grateful for having known them. I want to make it abundantly clear that any remarks construed as a criticism of Francophones are not cir ected to the many sensible people of French descent who want to live in peace and harmony with their neighb ours, those who do no t want to be segregated as Francophones, who do not want to seek special status or job privileges or racial visibil ity. Of course, they are good people. They are friendly people.

They are compassionate people. They are generous people. They are hospitable people. If the truthful facts of the cons eque nces of entrenchment were declared, it is very likely that if a referendum were held amongst the French population only who have been long-time residents of Manitoba - that does not include the recently arrived people from Quebec - who have not been brainw ashed , the majority would vote to leave things as they are and not disturb the sleeping tiger. So why insist the doctor treat the patient who suffers no illn ess?

The criticism is towards those agitators, those self-proclaimed guardians of our conscience, those people of whatever race who insist language should be entrenched into the law for some trumped-up vindication of some terrible wrong. At this point, let us who are anxiously concerned be reminded that we do owe a great debt of gratitude to those members of the Legislature who dem onstrated backbone, gumption and guts in vehemently opposing the passage of this divisive legislation.

They who battled vigorously , unrelenting ly, determinedly and constantly through long hot summer nights, demanding to sit during that infamous August long weekend, for what good purpose? Maybe a vengeful demons tration of unbending stubborn will? Was it not because of this strong opposition that consensus was finally wrestled from the reluctant government for these democratic meetings, otherwise entrenchment would now be likely on its way. Even so, knowing the dogged determination and mentality that is trying to ram it through, it is quite likely that it still will be done.

If God had written the Constitution, it would be prudent to take a closer look. But since it is written by fallible mortals, prone to error and for the reality of that day, men who could not possibly progno sticate the far distant future, then why in heaven should any sane and rational person determinately insist that we regress 100 years to invoke a fantasy, to unearth some 1121 kind of stolen treaure he curiously believes would catapult them to a new sense of personal worth, self fulfillment, to an unbounded joy and happiness, to a new sense of racial glory. Don't count on it in this sordid obstructed life.

I'm not here to talk about Constitutions, amendments, legalities, statutes, accords, or any of those boring man made entrapments. You, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, must be sick and tired, weary and worn, frazzled and frayed, exhausted and weiried from all this repetitious verbosity. I'm going to talk about common sense, reason, logic and the reality of living. The first thing I'll take issue with is "The Big Lie," this myth that the French population in Manitoba someho w end ured and suffered a torment and discrimination experienced by them exclusively.

Let is be stated that French pione ers and their descendents did not experienc e any mo re trials, tribulations, hardships, discomfitures or suffereings any more than any other struggling immi grant who settled and developed this province. They, the French, were not the exlusi ve "chopp ers of the wood and carriers of water," not the primary developers of this province who has been deceitfully declared by the Secretary of State. My father's family arrived in Manitoba with seven children during the 1880's without worldly worth or government backup.

With nothing but their bare hands and a parcel of land they faced the formidable task of eeking out some means of survival. That was the early challenge - survival. During that first winter, six of those young children died. Can you possibly imagine the soul rendering anguish that haunted that family? While that was a tragedy of the past, is it less tormenting than that which upsets the francophone today with so much fury about ghosts and wrongs of the last century? My mother's family arrived from eastern Europe shortly after.

Dropped off in the bush country wilderness on their assigned ho mestead, the y also had the gruel ling, backbreaking, tortuous struggle of wrestling a livelihood from that barren terrain or perish. Can anyo!le in the comfort, security and opulence of today's generation possibly comprehend the struggles faced by those early pioneers facing seasons of bitter cold and bli zzards, torrid heat, hail, flood , pestiverious ins ects, drought, di sease and all man ners of obstructions?

I took a walk through Brookside cemetery the other day and especially noted that most headstones of those earlier years showed life spans of less than 40 years. My mother hired out as a farm domestic, slavishly working 16 to 18 hours a day, seven days a week, performing all the tasks of drudge ry, crude backwoods farm for $2.00 a month. That's baking and milking 16 cows all by herself, churning the butter and dumping the butter out of the churn and then putting the baby's diapers in there and all sorts of things like l' :at.

This $2.00 a month she turned over to her parents as a means to assist the survival of the fami ly. That's 500 hours a month which calculates to slaving for less than one cent per hour. That, to me, is suffering and torment. Since my mother has now passed on, the job may be vacant. Is there anyone here who would be willin g to take it on? And, in addition, to this burdensome abuse, my mother was confronted with the necessity of learning a totally new language. Should it have been French, with their dwindling population ratio dropping to below 10 percent at that time; or

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 should she have occupied herself more sensibly by going to some dual track immersion institution, instead of wasting her time in bed sleeping for five hours a night. Mr. Chairman, I do not bel ieve the generations of French families early in this century were fretting about petty language rights. They, like other ethno cultures, including those of British descende ncy, were struggling just to survive.

Taking this "fraudulent suffering" allegation a little furth er, I reflect on my many highly regarded associations and friendships down through the years in the workplace and socializing arena. Names, such as, Lessard , Bedard, Vermette, Roel, Sabouri n, Pepin, Remillard, Doucette, they come to mind. I recall the moonlight trains to Winnip eg Beach, the revelry and good times at River Park with its roller coaster, and the many friendships I encounte red in the armed forces of the Second World War, or part of an entertaining group broadcasting over the St.

Bon iface radio station - can you imagine an Anglophone group being welcome to use that facility today? - performing at social functions and parties in French-speaking homes, the many years of equitable employment in a French commun ity. We worked together, we socialized together, enjoyed mutual friendships and fellowships together without realizing that our ethnic status was so totally alien and divergent. I never thought of th ose good and compatible friends and acquaintanc es of being French.

I thought we all got along very well, and what's more, and the point I want to make is that I did not recognize any torment, suffering, stigma or resentment because our family line age was different, or that I didn't speak French. But, Mr. Chairman, whenever I encounter any person today who carries a French name, I am alerted by that name, my gu ard in sti nctively goes up. I become suspicious, defensive and apprehensive for I know that there are new legal rules of the game backed up by laws that afford distinct privileges to these newly created elitists.

An inward hostility is aroused when I hear it said that French settlers developed this coun try, that Canada belongs to them, or when I hear a Francophone complain of having been deprived and denied of some something. Their opportunities to struggle, to work and to survive was no di fferent than the rest of us. They were and are entitl ed to be emp loyed in a free competitive workplace, equal rights to own homes, enjoy the convenience and leisure in today's living routines just like anyone else, entitled to travel, to education, to social and medical services.

My God, what more can they ask, or should I say, demand? And observing the well-adjusted, well-nourished personages of Mr. Forest, Mr . Ro bert and Mr. Desjardins, one is inclined to suspect they suffer no personal devastations. This language issue is stirring up animo sities, driving a discordant wedge between dif fere nt cult ures, crea ting ill will, frustrati ons, dissentions and hostilit y. Is there some amongst you who would believe running two water hoses into a barrel that somehow the water can be held in separation?

Official equal bilingualism cannot work, for true equality would mean every newscast, every telecast, every newspa per and publica tion, every pi ece of correspondence, every negotiated business deal, every religious service would need to be in double talk, including perhaps the bark of my dog, solely for the exaltation and edification of a min ority few. I don't want it and I don't want to pay for it. That bad, mean government of the 1890's deserves some attention and comment. Were they really the in sufferable monsters that they are being made out to have been? Take a deeper look. Mr.

Lyon suggests in his expressions that the Legisla ture of the time committed a very wrongful act. Mr. Lyon, if you were the premier at the time, you might have done the very same sensible thing. Think about this. Thousands of imm igrants, mostly illiterate, arriving from abroad, many who spoke neither English or French, like my mother. Did they not have to acquir e some common media of commun ication in order to adjust into this divergent society? Englis h by natural inte rcultural evolution emerged as the dominant language of which immigrants would be mostly exposed to.

There was no law which demanded that they learn English. lt was just a natural sequenc e of events unfo lding as they became assimila ted with the various English- speak ing neigh bourhoods. Remem ber, too, that the French and some other cultures clustered into their own commun ities and, to a large extent, were isolated from the general influx of non-French imm igrants. Did the Legisl ature have any of the electronic gad getry of today, where instant translation could be achieved? Would repetitive double talk not resolve into double Legisla ture Session's times.

Did the y have tape recorders, di cta pho nes, pho totypesetters, photocopiers, pho tomechanical conversion facilities to accommodate transition from the printed copy to the image carrier and thence to the high speed lithographic printing presses of today? Did they have modern-day instant communication tech nolo gy and faci litie s, the rad io, the TV, the telephone, by which they could commun icate without having to even get off their butts?

Reflect on the slow, painfully slow and laborious commun icaton and printing facilities of that day - shorthand to pick up the activities of the Legislature; transcribing into print on clumsy primitive typewriters, if such were available; letter-by-letter chasing; the make ready delay and finally the printing process on pokey letterpresses.

Can you imagine the lengthy time factor, as compared with today's facilities, to record and publish their daily affairs in two la nguages, the exorbitant quanti ties of extra paper which may not have always been available, even the longer drying time of the ink of those days - all this bother and inc onvenience where very limited diminishing need for French was recognized. I believe the government of the 1890's did what was prudent and sensible to avoid obstructive duplicity and get on with the job.

Yes, I would believe our former generations got along pretty well down through the years, a common bond for survival linking them together like today's generation cannot comprehend. And then came Mr. Trudeau with his di vide and conq uer phi losop hy, his Fre nch supremacy syndrome and nothing was the same again. Then began the power struggle, the confrontat ions, the provocations, the brainwashing, the galling impositions, the demands for rights, the inflamma tory hostile and bitter resentments. The realit y rem ains tha t our basic right and fun damen tal need is to earn a liveliho od without discrimination.

The proposals now being ushered forth 1122

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 are certain to resolve into a new legalized elite, who will take first pr iori ty in gover nment jobs and promotions, who will insist on hitching a lame horse to the wagon and impeding the progress of the cargo, who will have the legal clout to trample down our accustomed democratic way of life. lt cannot be any other way when two language groups struggle for suprem acy.

You may be familiar with an ancient custom in Peru , South America when rural lnco Indian peasants, on approaching the sacred city of Cuzco, and on encountering on the hig hway a resident exiting from that city, were required to bow in reverence to those privileged and esteemed city dwellers. Could something analagous to this custom perhaps eventually emerge out of this constitutional quagmire of rights this, of rights that?

I now refer back to my opening quote, "The Liberal Government is using the newly adopted Canadian Constitution as the spring board for constructing a Canada that is unil ingual French." To those of you who would scoff and snear at such a preposterous statement, be reminded that J.V. And rew's startling book "B ilin gualism today, French Tomorrow," is not a book to be found in the fiction

section of any libr ary. I have here a reproduction of a photograph of a carving above the doorway of the old Quebec City post office. it's a carving of a dog gnawing a bone and the inscription is translated to read, "I am a dog that gna ws a bone. I crouch and gnaw it all alone. The time will come which is not yet, when I will bite him by whom I am bit." Now does that have any sign ificance, or is it just a passing thought when that was carved and inscribed? Some other incidents which are occurring should be noted.

Why does an Air Canada pilot travelling over American airspace with a cargo of pred omi nantly Anglopho nes, speak to those passengers in French only? Why do so many Canadian embassies in the U.S. and around the world answer their phones in French? Why is it that the government first-choice appointments for working abroad go in inordina te proportion to Francophones? Here are two ins tan ces tha t were pers onall y encou ntered . In Mexico, a fam il y from Quebec, hardly able to commun icate in English, is sent to a Spanish school in preparation for an instructor's job in a Bogota, Columbia furniture factory.

Again, sitting at breakfast in a boarding house in Antigua, Guatemala with a family, again from Quebec, unable to commun icate in English, who were posted there as a representative of the Canadian Government. Why must it be a Francophone - and you can just bet on it - who will be given priority in the selection of a candida te to first go into outer space? Why? Because the Government of Canada is determined to establish in the eyes of the foreign lands that this is a French coun try, and the next steps will follow through as if it is being done in Quebec. Language by law.

May I now reflect on the economic side of this malaise. Supposing an agent of the Federal Government of Canada dropped by and asked you if you would donate $1 ,000 of your family in come to establish official bili ngualism in Canada, would you run without hestitation or delay for your checkbook? Are you proponents of this swamping of the ship of state so dedic ated that you would jeopardi ze your financial stability and that of your posterity? Well the Goverment of Canada is doing it, anyway, with your tax dollars and extravagantly continuing without consulting with you or seeking your permission.

They have gouged a sum of approxima tely $1 ,000 from every average Canadian taxpayer to ram this insidious imposition right down the gullets of every Canadian citizen, into the very heart and soul fo the people.

Does it really serve you, and I, or even any Francophone any useful and worthwhile purpose outside of Quebec? it's creating an artificial environment, it's fleecing us of a hefty sum of our hard-earned dollars. it's eroding our tolerance for one anoth er, it's helping to jeopardize the future security of the up and coming generations which may be faced with a bankrupt economy, insolvent pension funds, and property taxes so high that hardly anyone could afford to own and live in a private home.

How we could all use that money in a more beneficial way, if not for ourselves, for other unf ortunates in our land and abroad. With perhaps as many as 99 percent of the people of Canada outside of Quebec able to commun icate in English, what then is the reality of it all? The reality is it's pampering and coddling an ego at an enormous and crushing cost in taxpayers' dolla rs and social division.

I'll say it again, "it's pampering and coddling an ego." it's retarding scientific and technological progress. lt was recently reported that the United States has approximately five times as many research scientists as Canada - this while the Li beral Go ver nment laboriously preoccupies itself with language and culture and probably even motivating scientific and professional talent to leave the countr y. The Trudeau Constitution and The Official Languages Act is doing more harm and damage and wrecking to the moral fibre of this country than any piece of legislation ever enacted in Parliament.

With the umbrella of minority control descending upon us you can have my copy of "0 Canada" and the "Maple Leaf Flag." They are taking on a tainted odor. To paraph rase an old limerick: "The sermon now ended, each turned and descended, the eels went on eeling, the pikes went on stealing. Much disturbed were they as they went on their own way." Thank you. Que les vaya bien. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Merritt. Questions for Mr. Merritt? Mr. Ashton. MR. S. ASHTON: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to get a clarification of your brief, your basic argument.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying then that you're against French services in Manitoba, not just entrenchment, but French services period? Everything should be served in English. MR. I. MERRIT T: I don't think it should go any further than it is at the moment with

Article 23 as it stands, with the translations as needed, with services where they are needed, not to go into the heart and soul of Manitoba, where very very few people are. MR. S. ASHTON: So basically you are saying that because English is the majority there should be only English services. 1123

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Malinowski: Mr. Ashton. MR. I. MERRITT: Quite probab ly, yes. MR. S. ASHTON: So you think the key factor is the fact that it's a majority in this area? The reason I'm asking is, you know, what do you do, for example, in other areas of Canada where French is the majority language. Are you saying then at the same time that MR. I. MERRITT: I think they should have the language that they prefer, and it should not be legislated. I don't think language should be in the Constitution at all. lt should jus t gr ow and develop as the com mu nit y requires. MR. S.

ASHTON: The reason I'm asking is that it's interesting that you mention about it shouldn't be in the Constitution. What do you do when the Constitution guarantees those rights? You are obviously a law abiding citizen. Certainly , I'm sure, you follow the laws of the land. What do you do in a situation where the Constitution guarantees those rights? Don't you think it is only fair that they be follo wed just the same way as you would enforce, say, a speeding ticket or . . . MR. I.

MERRITT: I would suspect that everybody at this table did not have a chance, an opportunity to vote on the Constitution. lt was rammed through by political force. If we had any opportunity to speak on it, I'm very very sure that they would not have put it through with this Charter of Rights. MR. S. ASHTON: But for example, Man itoba's Constitution, which was originally The Manitoba Act, was passed and it did recognize both languages. MR. I. MERRITT: I have no objection to . . . MR. S. ASHTON: Isn't it only fair that we live up that agreement, or are you suggesting that we don't live up to it? MR. I.

MERRITT: Unfortun ately, what the Constitution was - could I say ab olished in 1890? Ok ay. The government seemed to have had a good reason for doing it, and they did it, got our community involved in the English language and we seem to have got along very well. I can certainly see that reverting this at this time and creating the dupl icity that's going to come about is not called for. MR. S. ASHTON: So basically you're saying, we should ignore the 1870 Manitoba Act? MR. I. MERRITT: We haven't ignored it. lt's in the books right now. I don't agree with it, but it's there and I wouldn't object to it. MR. R.

DOERN: Mr. Merritt, you talked about your aversion to bilingualism. Can you put a date on that? Was that 19 68, or what period of time did you start feeling some concern about this question? MR. I. MERRITT: At the begi nnin g, at the time that the thr ee parties came together and promoted the concept of bilingualism. Yes, that's when I ... around the 1970s. MR. R. DOERN: On the Manitoba scene prior to this proposal that the Pawley admin istration is supporting, did you have any strong aversion to provincial policies, for example, back in the Roblin days or the Schreyer days or the Weir days or the Lyon days? MR.

I. MERRITT: No, I never had any aversion to what was in the laws or the conduct of our lives of that day, no not at all. MR. R. DOERN: Were you aware of the fact that there was some enrichment or extension of services to Franco-Manitobans in the last 10 to 15 or 20 years? MR. I. MERRITT: I didn't become aware of it until after the court case which absolved the parking ticket. MR. R. DOERN: Did you then feel an aversion or reaction to those extensions, or did you accept them? MR. I. MERRITT: I didn't accept them, no. MR. R. DOERN: You didn' t accept them? MR. I. MERRITT: No. MR. R.

DOERN: Is one of your objections to the present arrangement the fact that this is an entrenchment, there is an entrenchment feature in regard to French Language Services? MR. I. MERRITT: Very much so. Entrenchment to me means a continual growth of French services by demand and demand and demand, which will create a great burden on the taxpayers of this province. MR. CHAIRMAN, A. Anstett: Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: So you would accept a government pol icy in principle, but you would not accept entrenchment in principle? MR. I. MERRITT: True. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr.

Merritt from members of the commit tee? Seeing none, Mr. Merritt, thank you very much for your presentation? Luba A. Kwasney. Luba A. Kwasney. Dr. Joe Slogan. DR. J. SLOGAN: Does everybody have a copy of the brief? MR. CHAIRMAN: lt's being handed out now. DR. J. SLOGAN: Can I proceed, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Just wait one moment, please. Please proceed. 1124

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 DR. J. SLOGAN: Mr . Chairman, di stingu ished . commit tee members, my fellow Cana d ians, this submission, I think you may find a little bit mild. it's probably mild because it's a consensus of the opinions of three of our major ethnic groups.

I know there has been a lot of discussion here regarding the composition or who various spokesmen represent, and I would like to perhaps - I'd be happy to answer questions later, but just as a matter of introduction, my name is Joe Slogan, and I am the national President of the Ukrainian Professional and Business Federation of Canada, which is comprised of about 25 clubs from Victoria to Halifax. But I'm not here in that regard, even though we endorse this brief. I'm here as a member of the local Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Busi ness Club, and a member of what we call the Tri Club.

When we originally decided to have a presentation, we were conta cted by the German Canadian Professional and Businessmens Club, and we decided that we would have a joint presentation . They have delegated me to be their spokesman, and so this brief is submit ted jointly by the German Canadian Professional and Business Club of Manitoba, the Polish Canadian Professional and Business Association, and the Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Business Club of Winnipeg. Yesterday, I was speaking to one of the staff members here.

He looked at this brief and he looked at the heading and he said something to the effect, my God, if my father saw the three groups here in a un ited way, he would turn over in his grave. it's quite true that we represent various ethnic groups that perhaps in the past, in the old countries, did fight and molest one another. I think it's something that we want to bring to this committee, the idea that we're all Canadians. We're all Manitobans.

We are all members of our own ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds, and that basically we are proud of the fact that we can forget and forgive, and that we hope that we can be an example to other groups in Manitoba as good citizens showing mutual respect for one anoth er. Each of the above assoc iations represents the professional and business people of our ·respective ethnic communit ies. Our three clubs join on occasions through each year as the Tri Club of Winnip eg to socia li ze and to dem on strate their respect and propensity for one anoth er.

On crucial political issues such as the entrenchment of language rights and services which we feel may be detrimental to the welfare and harmonious existence of Manitoban minorities, we ask tha t our un ified voic e be giv en serious consideration. We believe that our three clubs are equitably representative of the major ethnic groups in Manitoba contributing substantially to the development of the great Canadian West during the past centu ry.

I would like to maybe as an appendix to this presentation just to pass out some statistics which come out of the Small Business Magazine in their current issue, which give the cultural statistics for the City of Winnipeg. I would ask permission if these would be passed around just to be of general interest. The building of the CPR Rai lway during the Government of Sir John A. MacDonald and completed in 18 85 still stands as the greatest national accomplishment.

In order to settle the vast empty expa nses of Western Canada which were being threatened with annexation by the United States, the Government of Sir Wilfred Laurier and his Min ister of the Interi or, Sir Clifford Sifton, un dertook a major colonization program . I want to explain that word, "colonization" in a minute. Vast numbers of European settlers arrived, often many from the same villages in their respective countries, settling together in clusters or colonies thr oughout Manitoba and the Western Prairies.

Thus we find villages and districts comprised almost entirely of German, Ukrainian, French or Polish or even other backgrounds. Wh atever dif ferences th ese gr oups may have abandoned in their Native lands, they each faced and epic struggle to toge ther sustain and es tablish themselves in a rugged new land that was not the "land of milk and hone y, " which was pai nted by the government's colonization agents in Europe.

I think you probably are aware that the Federal Government did have agents throughout Eastern Europe who paid five dollars for the head of each family they sent out to Canada and $3.00 for each additional mem ber. So it was largely in their interest to paint a very very rosy picture of Canada to these people. These brave colonists faced economic hardship, of poverty, the dismal realities of drought, grasshoppers and extreme weather, and the social peril of being isolated in a strangely new and foreign land.

Facing these mean adver sitie s br ed a char acter of new Canadians, uniqu ely western, which nu rtured a harmonious relationship between various communities, giving the strength needed for the prairie provinces to survive and grow. lt is estimated that German, Ukrainian and Polish colonists broke and brought some 15 million acres of land into agricultural production in Western Canada. They helped build the railways and the towns and ci ties thr ough out the west . Surely , we, too, therefore, can lay equal claim to be "founding races" in Western Canada.

We submit again, as we had previously subm itted to the Federal Government prior to the Victoria conference that Canada is a mul ticu ltur al nation with many languages, two of which English and French are official. Further, that every ethnic group in Canada has a natural right to the pursuit of its own language, religion and cultural ident ity. In 1963, Prime Min ister Pearson announced the creation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Nothing could have been more disuniting for the peoples of other ethnic origins comprising over a qua rter of a nation's popultion.

The very name of the commission precluded any role for ethnocultural groups other than the Anglo-Celtic and the French. The commission was asked to make recommendations designed to ensure the bilingual and basically bicultural character of the federal admin istration of Canada. Because of representations by a group such as ours, the terms of reference were amended to also include the contributions made by other cultures. I think it was self-evident to anybody that there is more than two cultu res in Canada.

Subsequently when the first volume of the report ap peared in 19 67, the com mis sion proposed a new version of

Section 133 of the BNA Act which in addition to providing a more extensive recognition of the French language, Su bsection 5 was added which states: "nothing in this

section shall be taken to diminish or restrict the use, as established by 1125

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 present or future law or practice, of any other language in Canada." At this time, I must extend my congratulations to the Attorney-General for proposing a new

section 23.9 which basically says the very same thing as in this

section I just mentioned. We are certainly all in favour of it. Today, Manitoba is a very different province than when it was formed in 1870 as a small isolated colony with a meagre population composed primarily of Anglo Saxons, French and a Native mix. Because Mani toba as well as Canada is a society which is constantly changing, there is an inher ent risk when politicians begin to tamper with something as basic as the Constitution of Canada.

Nevertheless we can be thankful that both levels of government have seen fit to seek public response and have modified their actions to reflect the democratic reality of the conditions today. Thus it was that Prime Min ister Trudeau annou nced in 1971 that Canada was a multicultural country and that culturally all groups are equal and no group should feel superior to any other.

Subsequently the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitutionm of Canada, the Molgat MacGuigan Commi ttee, reported in 19 72 including as its fifth recomendation which stated tha t a new Canadian Constitution whould have a preambe "which would proclaim basic objectives of Canadian federal democracy." Four of the six basic objectives which were recommmended for inclusion in the

preamble, would hav affected the protection of mi nority rights: 1. To protect and enhance basic human rights. 2. To develop Canada as a bili ngual and multicultural country in which all its citizens, male and female, young and old, Native people and Metis and all groups from every ethnic origin, feel equally at home. 3. To promote economic, social and cultural equality for all Canadians as individuals and to reduce economi disparities. 4. To present Canada as a pluralistic mosaic, a free and open society which challenges the talents of her people.

Furthermore, in Bill C-60, the proposed constitutional amendment of mid-summer 19 78, it was stated that the aims of the Candian federation shall be: "(ii) to ensure throughout Canada equal respect for the many origins, creeds and cultur es . . . tha t help shape its society and for tho se Canadians who are a part of each of them . . . However the Charter submi tted in 1982 contained a watered down provision as is indicated in

Schedule B,

Part 1,

Section 27 of The Constitution Act, which states: 27"This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preser vat ion and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." The reason I bring these things up is our group had made representations. We are a bit disappointed that in the end we ended up with

Section 27 that is not much stronger than it is. We're happy and thankful that it is included but it's strictly an interpr etive

section and I think before the courts it may have difficulty in standing up. Coming closer to Manitoba, we are not opposed to the provision of government services in the French language where the population numerically warrants such and where a demand is veritably demonstrated. The action of the Provi ncial Go vernment in im plementing this constit utional amendment is unde rstandable within the concept of a bilingual Canada with two official languages and in the context of a French-Canadian Prime Mini ster who is dedicated to the implementation of his ideologies throughout Canada by constitutional enshrinement.

However, it is really the manner and degree by which the policy is implemented that will determine its acceptablity by the general populace of this province. We believe that many of teh French communities in Manitoba, unlike those in Quebec, are well integrated into the English-speaking society, as are those of other ethnic backgrounds. Now if you want me to give you an example, we can use my own Ukrainian background and I could say that 85 percent of Ukrainians in Manitoba today, and in Canada as a matter of fact, arrived before the First World War between 1891 and 191 4, which is several generations ago.

Ten percent arrived after the First World War and then the inter-war period from 1918 to 1939. Five percent arrived after the Second World War and those were mostly refugees who arrived in the first five years or so after the war; and basically, in the last 30 years, there have been virtually no new immigrants of Ukrainian origin coming into Canada. This is not quite strictly the same for people of German background and even polish backgrou nd. This is what we mean by saying that our groups are relatively well integrated into our present society.

Therefore we are concerned that the extension of French Language Services should not produce discord among and within our various commu nities, especially if it is generated by unreasonable and artificial demands created by extrem ist gr oups from outside such communities and from outside the province.

In other words, what we are saying, we endor se the idea of providing service in French, where that service can be of genuine benefit to the community and where it is requir ed and we are against extension in those areas where perhaps an artificial need is created, especially by outside groups coming in and agitating for it, especially those from outside the provir.ce. We have serious concerns about the tremendous cost of the translation and pub lication of existing provincial acts for which there has been little demand.

Now that sentence is in there because one of the groups were very concerned about the cost of translating all the laws of Manitoba since Confederation and because, I believe, in answer to a question in the Legislature, the cost per unit or per act, where any demand was demons trated, in other words, where anybody asked for the act, was a tremendous lot of money. I think there's

an act regarding piano tuners, and it seems to me that that type of

an act would hardly need to be translated, unless it was called for. And we have grave concerns about what is in store for our civil servants based on experience manif ested at the federal level where devoted and qual ified emp loyees find their career paths subs tantially narrowed because of an inabil ity to perform in the French language, whether or not such ability is crucial 1126

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 to the delivery of adequate local services. Manitoba civil servants who are bilingual in languages, other than French, express anxiety about their opportunities for advancement, even though that "other" langua ge would be more useful at a particular location.

I think somebody said that there's a tradition in Dauphin, for instance, of having agricultural representatives who could speak Ukrainian in that area, and what we're saying here is that we're concerned that, by the extension of French services, that it would not impinge on that type of a situation where the service being provided by a bilingual civil servant in another language is far more beneficial to that commun ity.

If I wanted to refer to my earlier situation at the federal level, I recall in one instance, when I was a member of Parliament, we had a post office appointment come up. lt happened to be a Civil Service appointment and there were six or seven applicants. The person getting it was French-English bilingual, although there probably was not more than one French family in the whole commun ity, if that much, and others who could have served the local commun ity better were overlooked.

Also I'm referring here to discussions I've had with senior civil servants in Ottawa, especially those say also in Mo ntreal, who really fear th at not being completely bilingual is going to harm their advancement within the Civil Service. We, therefore, request that the amendments would include a guarantee that members of other ethnic roots will not be di scri mina ted agai nst in Civil Service selections by a requirement of being bilingually French English, where other lingui stic combinations would be more useful to the commun ity, and that is really the gist of why we're here.

We do have a real concern in this regard and we would like some statement from the government to the effect that what they are doing will not sort of discrimina te against other Manitobans. In conclusion: 1. We accept and endorse the proposition that Canada is a multili ngual and multicultural community with two official langua ges, English and French. Where we're departing from there is, basically, I think we're stating an evident fact.

Canada, we already know it's multicultural, but Canada is also a multilingual countr y, because all you have to do is walk down the streets of Montr eal or Vancouver or Winnip eg or anywhere else, and you can see it's a multilingual coun try. We accept the fact that two of those languages, English and French are official. We would like though not to overlook the fact, and have it mentioned more often, that Canada really is a country of many languages, and it's not unique in this regard, because there are many countries where there are hundr eds of langua ges spoken. 2.

We accept and endorse the desirability of serving Manitoba communities in either or both languages where there is an expression of signi ficant need and genuine demand by the local community for such services. We are not con cerned about wha t the government is doing. We're more concerned about how it is doing it. 3. We are concerned that the implementation of extended French Language Services may infringe upon the equal opportunity in employment of civil servants, and I should add, of other Manitobans. 4.

Particularly we urge that where a civil servant can serve a local commun ity better , because of his knowledge of English and the heritage language spoken in the local commun ity, that the candida te be extended the same privilege of preference as those for French communities. Maybe that's going a little bit beyond what some others have talked about and it's something that we really do feel, in Manitoba particularly , that is deserving. 5. Language is a sensitive and essential element in the preservation and practice of a culture.

We commend the province on the opportunities it has created for the learning of heritage language in the schools of the province and we urge that this policy be maintained and equally entr enched. In this regard I think congratulations are due to both sides. I recall, in 19 78, being part of a delegation meeting with then Premier Lyon and his Min ister of Education, where we requested immersion programs in Ukrainian and so forth, and we are thankful that these were introduced and we're equally thankful tha t the pr esent gov ernment is continuing those and we hope that they will be extended.

The actions of government must reflect the consensus of the majority of the populace. The only thing I want to add here is that there is no such thing as a majority group, because even the Anglo-Saxons in Winni peg are a little better than perhaps a third, and when we talk in a national situation, we almost refer now as to one-third, one-third and one-third.

Since politicians are entrusted with responsible action to reflect the needs of the communit y we, therefore, urge the government, and the opposition, to approach this sensitive issue in a co-operative and enligh tened manner which will preserve the harmonious relationships amongst the multicultural peoples of Manitoba, rather than spawn di scord and divisiveness, as is becoming more and more evident. We end with a quotation from Mr.

Trudeau when he proclaimed multiculturalism, "I f freedom of choice is in danger for some ethnic groups, it is in danger for all. lt is the policy of this government to elimina te any such danger and to safeguard this freedom." And we honestly and truly hope that both this government and Mr. Trudeau would follow those words to the letter. That is my submission, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Slogan. Questions for Dr. Slogan from members of the commit tee? Mr. Brown. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not detect anywhere in the brief whether Dr.

Slogan is in favour, or his group that he reports, is in favour of the cou rts deciding the extent of French services in Manitoba, or the Legislature making that decision? I wonder if I would have a comment as to what his group - the group that he represents - what they would think of that issue? DR .• 1. SLOGAN: Our brief, Mr. Chairman, really reflects the consensus aspects of these three groups and there are obviously differences of opinion also on certain things, such as, a referendum and, such as, a reference either to the courts or by constitutional amendment.

If I do express an opinion, I can say that this isn't an 1127

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 opinion necessarily of these thr ee ethnic groups. Basically , I think we did not - to answer you indir ectly I suppose - we are not against what the government is proposing as far as entrenchment. We even go so far as to say that we are in agreement with it, from the point of view that we feel that what happened in 1916 probably could be avoided in the future if there are some constitutional entrenchments. As an indi vidual - I wasn't here to hear Dr. Shaw, but I read about some of the things he said and that.

If we looked at it from a Canadian point of view, I think the people of Quebec probably would prefer to get a court decision because it would help them to get equal rights in the Province of Quebec. To answer your question, I really can't answer it, because it's a question that we didn't reach a consensus upon between our three groups. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Ms. Dolin. HON. M.B. DOLIN: There's a story out of Ottawa just this afternoon that I think perhaps we are aware of.

At least, some of us are aware of, that the three major parties have agreed to ask Manitoba to move ahead on the entrenchment of French Language Services. This is something that has been in the wind for awhile, that they were meeting. The story we have now is that they have agreed to ask Manitoba to move ahead. What would your organizations, or what would you, yourself, have to say about that? How would that fit with . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. The questions asks for comments on a matter which was not touched upon in the brie f and is actually extraneous to the material contained in the brief. HON.

M.B. DOLIN: Would it relate then to the difference between a court decision and the legislative move? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can't answer questions as to how you should ask your question. HON. M.B. DOLIN: I'm asking it in that man ner. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could reph rase, but the reference to . . . DR. J. SLOGAN: Could I speak to it? I can't answer that di rectly, because I am delegated to speak here on three associations and I have some opinions. Obviously if any of these associations had presented this brief by thems elves, it would be a much stronger brief and take probably much stronger positions.

If I presented the brief on my own behalf, it would be so, too. There is one little thing - I would like to answer that more phi losophically - I think that it's the kind of approach that our three groups would take. We have come through a decade, I would say, of constitutional turmoil. The result of that has been the patriation of the Constitution which I think is a very great and admirable thing. it's a gr eat ach ievem ent, that's probably what Mr. Trudeau will go down in history for; but the price for that is another story. When Mr.

Diefen baker brought in his Bill of Rights he didn't bring it in as a constitutional amendment because he knew that it would vetoed by the Province of Quebec, so he had to bring it in as a bill. The fact of the matter is that there are really two phi losophies. You know, B. D., before Diefenbaker, every ethnic person felt himself as an inferior person in Canada.

The one thing that John Diefenbaker did - and I'm not trying to be political or anything, I'm just trying to give you a philo sophy, because this is probably the greatest thing he'll go down in history for - he made every Canadian proud of being Canadian, period. He wanted to do away with hyphena ted Canadianism, period. He wanted the world to be colour blind, and he wanted Canada to be unhyphena ted. He really believed this, he actually believed he had a calling from God to bring this about.

The fact of the matter is that, as a result of this one man becoming Prime Min ister of Canada, I think that every Canadian is proud of being a Canadian. But the fact of the matter is, when he said, I am a Canadian - and this is how he starts his intr oduction to the Bill of Rights - when he says, I am a Canadian, he didn't mean that's a unilingual Canadian or un icultural Canadian or anything else; what he meant is, we're Canadians, first, with every person being gua ranteed equal rights as far as cultur e, the use of their own language - I'm talking about official langua ges now and this type of thing.

That's the legacy that he left behind. In some cases it wasn't easy. Our own group, for instance, one thing he wanted to do, and he did a number of things, he brought in biling ual translation of the House of Commons, bilingu al cheques. He appointed the first French Governor-General; yet, he came out as being anti-French. For instance, in the 1961 census when the census forms were being prepared, because he believed in un hyphenated Canadianisrri, he wanted to take out the question, "What is your nationality?" because he felt that people could answer Canadian there.

What's your racial origin? lt was my own group, the Ukrainian Canadians, that protested very strongly to him to have it put back in for the simple reason is they wanted to get a head count which, from a phi losophical point of view, was not good. Then when biling ualism and bicu ltu•alism came in under Mr. Pearson, what happened is it divided people into three classes. You were a first-class Canadian if you were Anglo-Saxon ; you were a second-class Canadian if you were French; the other ones weren't even considered, so obviously they were way down the lot in thir d-class Canadian.

Ever since that time we've got this problem of being hyphena ted and it's become a fad. Right now, in Canada, it's a fad to be ethnic. I'm proud to be ethnic. Everywhere you go you get all these different dances and everything, which is a grand thing. lt is an admission that we're a multicultural country and so forth, and that we're free to practise this. What I'm afraid of is, I preferred the old style phi losophy, because I think it was much better for the countr y. I think if we talked about it less and practised more, we won't have these di fferences.

I would rather for the Legislature to say, go ahead and have your biling ual schools, as inde ed they have said, and I would 1128

Tuesday, 4 October, 1983 rather not have to worry about it. But with all this talk of biling ualism and biculturalism and the official status of the French and English language, as the chap before me, Mr. Merritt said, suddenly you get alerted, you become cognizant of the differences between you, instead of what binds you togeth er. Basically in this brief, we're not trying to preach differences to you, or tell you what we're opposed to, we are basically telling you what we are in agreement with you with, and what we're concerned about.

I know that doesn't answer your question but, when it comes down to these constitutional amendments and that, you can look at it two ways. From one aspect, I would rather we practised all this and didn' t talk about it, rather than having to put everything down in writing because anyone can get around it. You can't put everything down in writing, it's very difficult. I would rather get that old Diefenbaker philo sophy back, and let's all say we're proud of being Canadians, and yet be proud of whatever ethnic background you are. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Dr.

Slogan, incidentally just in passing, the Min ister mentioned that there was a decision or something. My information is that the caucuses will decide tomorrow. My question is just on your last point that under Prime Minis ter Tru deau you said that, before Mr . Dief enba ker, ethnic people felt like second- class citizens. Now we are after the Diefenbaker era, and I'm asking you ... DR. J. SLOGAN: We feel like third class now. MR. R. DOERN: That's the question. Do ethnic people, once again, feel like second-class citizens, or are you saying thir d-class citizens? DR. J.

SLOGAN: I don't think that's quite the case. I don't think you can ever regress back to the place where we were before Diefenbak er. I could· use a lot of incidents, and I could tell you a lot of incidents affecting Mr. Diefenbaker himself, but there is no doubt about it that there is an un dercurrent of hostilit y, because we feel that one ethnic group, which we can acce

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-pe55
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf pe55.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	47ba69f027a022467f446fb7d874deba32ec927f

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