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. Peter Fox Constituency of Concordia VOL. XXXI No. 47 - 7:30 p.m. , THURSDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Provmce or Manitoba

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

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vie scon; 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 Sprin gfield Thory'lpson La Verendrye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Bonif ace Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Em erson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Stu rgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charle swood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin- Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pem bina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burr ows Rossmere ln kster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Thursd ay, 29 September, 1983 TIME - 7:30 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg CHAIRMAN - Mr. Peter Fox (Concordia) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Adam, Bucklaschuk and Lyon Me ssrs. An ste tt, Bro wn, Fox, Graham, Lecuyer, Malinowski and Ms. Phillips WI TNESSES: Pres entation by Me ssrs. B.F. Quennelle and Paul Moist of CUPE, Local 998, was continued Mr. Charles Gagne, Private Citizen Ms. Em ile Clu ne, President, Local 5 of the Communications Workers of Canada Mr s. B. MacKenzie, Private Citizen Dr.

E. Sabbadini and Mr. Dino Longhi, Dante Alighieri Italian Cultural Society MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed Resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee will come to order. We have the representative from the Canadian Union of Public Em ployees to finish questioning. Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll address my remarks to either Mr. Quennelle or Mr. Moist, they're pretty well general questions and I'm sure any one of you can answer them. I notice in your brief that you voice your displeasure at being ignored by the government until after an accord had been reached on this particular issue - this is on your first page - and I bel ieve in answers to questions from Mr.

Lecuyer, I believe you replied that the Manitoba Govern ment Emp loyees Association had been involved a year previously. Do I detect a little bit of jealousy or envy or animosity between the two unions in that type of statements? MR. B. QUENNELLE: Through the Chair, I would say ther e is no ani mosity between the Ma nitoba Government Em ployees Association and the Canadian Union of Public Emp loyees. If we referred to the Minutes of the Standing Committee on Privi leges and Elections from Septe mb er 8th and 9th , I would note the questioning from the Leader of the Opposition to Mr.

Doer where, after a long parade of qu estions, it 933 even tually came out that the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association was not formally involved in the process of negotiations or discussions prior to the May 17 th accord. The point I was raising earlier this afternoon, in response to Mr. Lecuyer's question, was that the Mani toba Government Em ployees Association has a mechanism to deal with govern ment on an ongoing basis through joint council sessions, and Mr.

Doer had had the opportunity in November, 19 82's joint council session to ask the government for permission to be involved, should they get involved in discussions with any groups pertaining to the delivery of languages services other than unilin gual English services. So, in conclusion, there is no animosity between any of the employee groups that will be appearing before this committee.

In fact, the employee groups, all being memb ers of unions, fully unde rstand the necessity for us to approach this matter together and collectively pool our resources, including our legal couns el resources, my national office's legal firm. We have been working together. In response to that question, there is no animosity whats oever. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Moist for that answer, because we had received a brief from the Ma nitoba Government Em pl oyees Association previously.

Wh ile they may not have used the same wording, they at the same time exp ressed their displeasure for not being involved prior to May 17 th or shortly after. Mr. Moist, I have read your brief and I listened to the presentation here. I see a remarkable similarity to this brief as compared to the one that was presented by the Manitoba Government Empl oyees Association, so I would presume from that, that there is a great deal of co-operation.

I bel ieve you have mentioned something about, you have supported a resolution that was submi tted at the mee ting of the Ma ni toba Federation of Labour in the past week, I believe. lt appears to me, Mr. Moist, that most of your concerns have been concentrated on the proposed amend ments that Mr . Penner presented to the committee on the first day of our hearings on September 6th. Is that correct? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, our concerns are not so much with the proposed amendments introduced on September 6th.

Those amendments, I think, reflect some very worthy changes to the amendments that were arrived at in the May 17 th accord. I think we address in our brief our concurrence with some of the th ose amen dments tha t the Attorne y-General annou nced on September 6th, but we also qu alify by saying, there still remain some concerns and, most specifically, the entrenchment of

Section 23.7(2) as it presently exists. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, you also made mention in

Section 23.7(1) , I believe, about the term

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 "admin istrative body." Have you had any discussions with the Attor ney-G eneral or mem bers of the government conce rning a redefi nition of that term, or are you just expressing your concerns here for the first time? MR. P. MOI ST: Through the Chair , we have had discussions on all aspects of the proposed amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act with the government, albeit only since mid-July. We have discussed at length the term, "administrative body," and trying to determine the government's intent and/or definition of that term. I note with interest on Page 24 of the Premier's address to the House on August 16 th, "administrative body" is mentioned as one of the terms that the government is looking at in terms of clarifying.

I have heard no word from the government whether that term has been clarified, or if they're in the process of clarifying that term; but that indication from the Premier in the House, we find encoura ging. We still raise the concerns, because our concerns haven't been an swered on "admin istrative body" to date. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I belie ve in the pro posed am end ments tha t were gi ven to thi s comm ittee by the Attorney-General on the first day we met and before we had heard any briefs, the Attorney­ General, I believe in Proposal No. 2, had suggested there would be further

definitions provided before these committee hearings ended. We have been throughout the province and we are now back in Winnip eg. Would your organization hope that those further

definitions would be presented to the comm ittee before we have completed our hearin gs? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, I would cer tainly hope that further

definitions might be forthcoming, but I understand perhaps the quanda ry that the Attorney­ General may be facing in that through discussions with various legal counsel, a determination of what that term or that phrase means is not the easiest thing to arrive at. So I would hope that in advance of the ending of these public hearings, or shortly ther eafter., that the term be further clarified and/or defined or as we are recommending - because we don't know if that's possible - deleted. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I beli eve when we heard the Manitoba Government Emp loyees - and I'm going from mem ory, but I belie ve Mr. Doer in his presentation sort of put a caveat on that - if there were any changes, they would like to have the opportunity possibly of making a fu rther presentat ion to the committee. Would that be your position as well? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, I understand the rules of the comm ittee allow people or groups or organ izations or indi viduals to appear before the comm ittee once. Wh atever the resolve is to the whole package of amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, the public employees will be responding. Whether, if we're afforded the opportunity to come before this committee again, we would welcome that opportunt iy. If we are not afforded the opportunity to come before the comm ittee again, we 'l l have to choose other 934 avenues, but we will respond at the conclusion of this whole process, but the process is ongoing. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, while I'm not a member of the government, I am a member of this committee.

Could I as a member of this committee have some assurance from your organization that we also would be provided with the benefit of your wisdom should you be prepared to ma ke fur ther rec ommen datio ns? Would your orga n ization be prepared to provide that to mem bers of the commit tee as well as to the government? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, we will be assessing what the final resolve is to the whole process of this act and before it goes forward to the House. Should there be anything we wish to comment on, we won't know if we want to comment on that until we see what that is.

All I can say is, if what comes forward is reasonable and in line with what we think are reasonable proposals contained within our submission, we would see no need to come back again. Should we find something that still concerns us and if we were afforded the opportunity, yes, we would appear before the committee again. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I didn't word my question properly. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Moist, and I realize I'm dealing with maybe a hypothetical case because we don't know what the future holds.

Wh at I would like to know is, if your organization after these hearings are completed, feels it is necessary to make further presentations to the government regard ing the decisions that are made, would mem bers of this committee be apprised of the rec ommendations that you would be making to the gove rnment, or would they be a pr ivate rec ommendation that you would be not willing to share with mem bers of the committee? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, being that it is a hypothetical question, all I can say is, we would continue to operate in the same way that we have throughout this process.

When we need to reassess something, if that situation arises, we go to our mem bership; we go to our legal counsel; we determine amongst ourselves what we will do, and we follow that course of action. I can't answer what course of action we will follow, being that I don't kn ow what the result of this process is going to be. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, as a member of this committee, I have some difficulty, because I would hope !hat whatever direction we take in a very serious action cf proposing to amend the Constitution, I would hope that all mem bers of the Assembly and, in _particula r, members of this committee be apprised or have the benefit of the colle ctive wisdom of all people who are prepared to have input into a collective decision. lt does cause me some concern. However, that is not MR. G. LECUVER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lecuyer, on a point of order.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. G. LECUVER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't raise the point of order the first time Mr. Graham raised this, but it's the third time that Mr. Graham raises the same point. I think he has received his answer as clear as the presenters wanted to give it to him. I think the point that Mr. Graham wanted to make, he has made. He has indicated, he wants to be apprised, and the point is made. I think there is no question in the point he raises, and we should drop that particular point . lt is not, at any rate, a clarification on a point in the brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Mr.

Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go on, and I would like to deal with some of the concerns tha t you have expressed rega rding the proposed amendments - and I use that term advisedly, Mr. Chairman, because at Ste. Anne, we were advised by a member of the Cabinet that they were only proposals. Would your organization have the same support for the prop osed reso lut ion if none of the pro posed amendments were accepted. MR. P.

MOIST: Through the Chair, I believe the question, if I un derstand it correctly , is: would our organization be supporting in principle the whole package should no amendments have been forthcoming on September 6th? I think we would have been here because this is the form that this is being dealt wi th in and I don't think we're an effective voice if we don't come within the form that any matter is being dealt with and we stay on the outside and simply voice displeasure and take an eithe r/or stance.

I'm happy that the amendment s tha t were introduc ed on September 6th were introduced, a public declaration from the Attorn ey­ General of this province which I certai nly think at least those amendments wi ll carry through to the Legislature. That's just my opinion though. In answer to that question, we're working within the framework of amendments to The Manitoba Act and we feel our best position is to be in here and try and offer some productive advice to this committee. I can't see us having acted in any other manner despite the presence or lack of presence of amendments introduced on September 6th. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think those are most of the concerns that I have at the present time, although there are possibly one or two other things that I might want to introduce later. So I'll pass for the time being. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Quennelle or Mr.

Moist, just for the clarifi cation of your brief, I want to be sure precisely what the Manitoba Federation of Labour affirmed or agreed with at your recent convention when on the bottom of Page 2 of your brief, you indicate affirma tion or support for the resolution subm itted by the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association, Local 507, which says that the Mani toba Federat ion of Labour supp orts the reinstatement of the constitutional language rights that 935 existed in The Manitoba Act of 18 70.

I take that to mean that what you're saying there is that you support the Supreme Court's decision of 1979 or colloquially known as the Forest case. Is that what you're saying there? MR. P.

MOIST: We're very cognizant of the fact that in 1979 and 1980 certain aspects of the rights that were taken away in 18 90 in the French community were reinstated, but it's my un derstanding of the present case before the Supr eme Court, the Bilodeau case, the contention is that not all of the rights afforded the French community in 18 70, taken away in 1890 have yet been reinstated, although I wi ll grant you that in 1979 through the Forest case and in 1980 through acts of the Legislature, the courts, the Legislatu res and, through the Blaikie case emanating from Quebec.

The Supreme Court decision from there had an impact as well that to a large degree the rights afforded the French commun ity in 1870 have been returned to them in advance of this committee meet ing, or in advance of this process. lt is my un derstanding though that the case before the Supreme Court contends that they have not yet completely been . . . MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, again let's try to deal with one thing at a time.

The Supreme Court reinstated French langu age rights in Ma nitoba in a historic judgment in 1979, followed through by very specific legislation by the Sterli ng Lyon Government in 1980 to also conform wi th that decision. That surely is a question of fact. Whether or not all redress was made is a matter of govern ment's action or inaction, but not to be confused wi th the reinstatement of constitutional rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns, could we have questions of cl arification please? MR. H. ENNS: My simple question is: did the Supreme Court reinstate Francophone language rights in 1979 in this province? MR. P.

MOIST: Through the Chair, I would say, it's my opinion - and I don't have the benefit of expressing a legal opinion to this committee - it's my opinion that, to a large degree, those rights have been reinstated in advance of this process we're discussing tonight. lt is also my belief, and it's just an opinion, that they have not completely been restored, and witness the case before the Supr eme Court right now. That's my understanding. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the presenters here, I'm not a legal person either. I'm a rancher from Woodlands, but I can un derstand when the Supreme Court speaks.

The Supr eme Court has spoken that French language rights, as agreed to . MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Enns. Questions . MR. H. ENNS: I am simply asking whether or not the French language rights that were part of the terms of Confederation when Manitoba entered Confederation were, in fact, recognized and restored by the Supreme Court in 1979.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. P. MOIST: My answer, once again, is, I am fully cognizant of the process that was gone through in 1979 and su bseq uently in 19 80 through acts of th e Legislature, reinstating En glish and French as the official languages of the courts and of the Legislature. lt is still, once again, my understanding that certain persons are contending the full ness of that reinstateme nt, and that matter is before the Supreme Court right now. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, in the second WHERE AS of that same resolution, you indicate that the union supports the concept of the provi sion of limi ted, practical, bilingual government services to the citizens of Manitoba . Notably absent from that paragraph or that WHE REAS are words such as "entre nchme nt," "reinstateme nt," or "constitutional." We could agree to all agree if what I read into that paragraph is that what the Manitoba Federation of Labour agr ees to is the kind of common sense provision of limited, practical, bilingual govern ment services without the trappings of entren chment or constitutional ity.

I am asking that question. That is a question by the way, Mr. Chairman, because these words which have become buzz words in this whole debate are notably ab sent from that WHERE AS. MR. P. MOIST: Not being the writer of this resolution but in supporting it last weekend at the convention, I would have to go further on into my brief and give you the Canadian Union of Public Empl oyees' position on entren chment and our position on entren chment of 23. 7(2) as it exists no w is, no. Our position on entrenchment in terms of 23.7( 1) with the one concern we have remaining from that

section is, it doesn't seem to be unreasonable. I say that as a public employee fully cognizant of the fact that the government at any time has the right to declare bilingual positions in the provincial sector. Whether that will happen or not, I don't know, but we' re working within the framework of something before us and we'r e trying to work within that framework. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Quennelle or Mr. Moist, would it be correct then, particularly as of the last meeting of this committee in Ste.

Anne where the Franco- Manitoban Society has rejected any of the proposed changes that the Attorney­ General has made, that your position, your union's position, is opposed to that of the Societe Franco­ Manitoban as of right now? MR. P.

MOIST: I think my colleague from the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association put it aptly when, in appearance before this comm ittee he stated that there has been contact with the Societe Fran co­ Manitoban and there has been discussions and there is an appreciation of our different types of memberships and that basically we agree to disagree in terms of certain aspects of this bill. MR. H. ENNS: You agr ee to disagree? MR. P. MOIST: That's correct. On certain aspects of this bill. MR. H.

ENNS: So if the current position of the Franco­ Manitoban Society as stated the other night by its 936 spokesperson, which rejects any amendme nts, if that position should be the final position of the Franco­ Manitoban Society, you woul d be in disagreement with the Franco-Manitob an Society on this issue? MR. P. MOI ST: On their stance, opposing any amendments to the accord arriv ed at on May 17th, I would have to say that the Canadian Union of Public Em ployees is in opposition to certain features of that accord and we've, I think, expressed them in our brief. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, one final que stion, also on Page 2 in the second paragraph, you indicate that this is indeed your first public statement that CUPE has made on the cons ti tut ional am endment proclamation despite pressure to the contra ry, and that you've chosen to direct your efforts to alleviating the concern s of your membership. That implies that your member ship has had considerable concern . Would that be a fair statement or question? MR. P. MOIST: There is concern on the part of our membership with the whole question of bilingualism in the civic service. There is general concern.

We are charged with the task of specifically identifying areas of concern. We have chosen the route of working with our legal counsel , working with our colleagues in the Civil Service, with the other unions and we've chosen that stance because we didn't see any merit in jump ing into the fray that I see going on in our community right now with obtuse stances being taken on either side of this issue.

We wan t to work within the framework of articulating our concerns and, once again, fully cognizant of the fact that this is only one method by which I suppose the Civil Service coul d become bili ng ual and/or multilingual. Working within this process, we've tried to identify concerns in-camer a so to speak, we've tried to work with legal counsel, and we've tried to present this committee and the Government of Manitoba with what we think are reasonable critiques and I think reasonable recommendations worthy of consideration. MR. H. ENNS: You had an opportunity to assess that concern in one form or another.

You've had meetings within your various groups, you've had discussion or talks, have you? I'm simply trying to ascertain how these concern s were being expressed to the union leadership or to the executive director of the union and would you care to assess it in some quantitative form. Is it a great concern , is it a minor concern? MR. P. MOIST: I can on ly com ment withi n the framework of the thousand-odd empl oyees that the c�.nadian Union of Public Emp loyees represents.

We have met with our membership, we have invited our legal counsel to meet with our membership and they have expressed confidence in the stance that we have taken in this process which is yet unresolved and perhaps our stance may change; but, at this point in time, we're trying to contribute to this process in a positive manner . That stance is no t meeting with opposition within our membership at this time. MR. H. ENNS: No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairp erson. Mr. Moist, in terms of the resolution that was passed at the MFL Conven tion, I think, as with resolutions alw ays, the heart of the matter is in the RESOL VE's not the WHE REAS's. I'd like to ask you about the intent of the last RESOL VE where it says that the MFL, and CUPE is a part of the MF L that passed the resolution, will wo rk, etc., to ensure that the language in the final proposal to Parliament is precise and consistent with limited practical bilingual services.

Should I take that to mean that you expect that this will go on to the Parlia ment of Canada as an ame nd ment to the Constitution, in other words, will be entrenched, or that RESOL VED is supporting entre nchment of whate ver language when your language concerns are addressed? MR. P. MOIST: I think what the RESOL VE contempl ates is that we work together towards practical bilingual services withi n the Province of Manitob a . In our estimation practical bilingual services won't include certain features of the amendments to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act as you have them before you right now, but, ce rtainly , aspects in our minds will be entrenched if our recomme ndations or some of our suggestions are heeded, other aspects will not be entrenched. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairp erson. So, from that I can conclude that both CUPE and the MFL through convent ion is supporting entre nchment of an amendment on French Language Services? MR. P.

MOIST: Through the Chair, that's the framewor k we find ourselves as public sector unions working withi n right now, and within that framewor k, practical bilingual services entren ched, we have supported last weekend in conven tion. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, you'll forgive me if I'm repetitious because I didn't have the opportunity of hearing the first part of the brief, and I've only just now had the opportunity to r un through it. But, I take it, Mr.

Moist, that the position of CUPE as expressed both in the res olutio n passed by the Manit oba Federation of Labour and your brie f is that there is no agreement among your membership to support the original ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, would you speak into the mike, so we can hear you. HON. S. LYON: I was, Mr. Chairman - but there is no agreement among the membe rship of your union to support the original amendments as proposed by the Pawley Government, unless the subs tant ive amendments that you and the MGEA and others have proposed are agreed to. MR. P.

MOIST: Through the Chair in response, I would say that the resolution contemplates support of limited, 937 practical, bilingual services which, I guess, the unions, a couple of us anyway to date, have gone on record as saying, limited, practical, bilingual services are not reflected in certain aspects of the amendments as they exist right now. We are proposing changes. HON. S.

LYON: To under line the point I think you made to my colleague, the Mem ber for Lakeside, unless those am endments as proposed by, among others, the Manitoba Governme nt Emp loyees Association now rein forced and corrobo rate d by the Manit oba Federation of Labour and your own union, unless those am en dme nts are made to the or iginal May 17 th proposal or agreement of the govern ment, then the support, presumably of your union, and if you can speak more broadly, of the Federation of Labour would not be available to the package as first proposed. MR. P.

MOIST: Through the Chair, I wouldn't presume that every exact change proposed by any employee group in the public sector would be the only change that employee group could live with. I do say and we do say at the end of our brief that we are willi ng to keep the process of negotiation ongoing. If some other group, this govern ment, the opposition, any mem ber can come forward with a change wo rthy of consideration, we are willing to consider and speak and talk on all changes, and harbour no notions that our proposed RESOL VE, for example, to

Section 23.7(2) is the only course of actio n open othe r than entre nchment. So we are proposing certain things. We are open to more discussion from any affected group. HON. S. LYON: The proposal that I first heard voiced around this table by the Manitob a Govern ment Emp loyees Association which, if I may use the irregular ver b, disentrenches the provisions first advocated by the NDP, that provision which would empower the Electoral Divisions Boundary Commission to assess and re comme nd to the Legislature where bili ngual communic at ions and services ought to be made available, that certainly is not an endorsement of entre nch ment, is it? MR. P. MOIST: That par ticu lar

section as we're proposing right now will not be entrenched. it will be entrenched in principle with the decision-making power allocated elsewhere, other than the courts. That is specifically as a result of the fact that the wo rding, as it exists right now, we find concern with, and we have attempt ed to propose better wording or wording in line with the intent of

Section 23.7(2). We have been unable to do so, so we have taken the stance that we have on that, and proposed the, I'll call it, the Boundary Commission's proposal. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting in any way that Mr. Moist or his group or the MGE A should be apologetic about coming up with a new suggestion. Does he appreciate, as I do, the irony of the situation whereby a proposal is being made to be entrenched in the Constitution which will have the effect of taking out of entre nch ment those provisions that the Pawley NDP Govern ment first advocated? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, I can appreciate that what I see in

Section 23.7(1) of the proposed

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 ame nd ments with the exception of the term "admini strative body" reflect, in the opinion of the Canadian Union of Public Em ployees, the delivery of limited, practical, bilingual services.

Section 23.7(2) as it exists right now, we have some concern with, and I think we've addressed that in our brief. HON. S. LYON: Precisely, Mr. Moist. You don't want it entrenched, beca use if it's entre nche d , you'll never be able to change it. That, if I may say so, is a very legitimate concern of any public union in Manitoba who understand somewhat better than some of the members of the govern ment the follies of entren chment under our parliamentary system. MR. G. LECUYER: . . . questions? HON. S. LYON: Does the Member for Radisson wish to get on the list, Mr. Chairman?

Has he got some interject ion of an intellectual nature he would like to make on this deba te? MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a question, Mr. Lyon? MR. P. MOIST: If I could respond, Mr. Chairman, to the statement. I think that our position on

Section 23.7(1) is clear. We still have one concern. To say that the public employee groups are against entre nchment is perhaps in error. We are against entren chment of 23. 7(2) as it exists now. There are other aspects of the amendments that will be entre nched. HON. S. LYON: Now, Mr. Chairman, I note that there was another res olut ion passed by the Man itob a Federation of Labour , and we were given notice of it by, I belie ve, the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association.

To use the words of the now ab sent Member for Wolseley, I guess it is, the operative part of the resolution was, "THEREFORE BE IT RES OLVED that this convention demand the Provincial Government involve the Manitoba Federation of Labour in future discussions on proposed constitutional amendments that will affect the membership." Was that resolution supported by your union, Mr. Moist? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, yes, it was. HON. S.

LYON: I take it from your brief and only having had the opportunity to look it through quickly that you, like the MGEA, did not receive a copy of this agreemen t and this funda menta lly important amendment to the Constitution of Manitoba which will affect employment in this province in the public service for all time, if is passed, until some time in July? Is that right. MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, that's correct. HON. S. LYON: And this is from a government that purports to be the friend of labour, pur ports to have the support indeed of your union, of the executive of the ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Lyon, is that a que stion of clari fication? HON. S. LYON: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. When I finish it, you'll know whether it is in order or not, and I haven 't finished it yet. 938 This from a govern ment, Mr. Moist, that purports to be a government that is supportive of labour and has indeed delegates come to its provincial convention from the Manitoba Federation of Labour , and it didn't even consult with the Federation of Labour , with your union, with the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association until some time in July of this year, after having made public its amendments on May 17 th?

Is that what you are telling us? MR. B. QUENNELLE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, it has been a practice for our union - I can't answer for those of other unions, but the practice of our union when dealing with government has been that, when we had an issue to discuss with governments, we would come to the government or the government likewise would come to us and ask us to discuss, although we never had any kind of formal method of doing this. We have, on other issues, had discussions with government at our request.

Although I can 't answer for those other unions, we have had ongoing discussions from time to time since 1968, except for the period between 1977 and 19 81. HON. S. LYON: B11t whe n this government was proposing the first major fundamental constitutional amendment in the Province of Manitoba, which would affect hiring in the public service of this province for all time, you were not engaged in any pre-con sultation in any way with respect to something that would affect you and your mem bership for all time? Is that what you're telling us? MR. P.

MOIST: Through the Chair, to perhaps to give one final answer to this line of questioning, as we stated at the beginning of our brief, we have voiced displeasure with the fact that we were not consulted prior to an accord being reached. We, however, see no merit in belabouring that point, from our perspective. lt seems it's a moot point now, it happened and that's it, and we go on to qualify that since July we have had ongoing discussions with the govern ment. I don't think this process is finished. I've heard some constructive presentations made throughout the public hearings.

I think the process is ongoing and we are still a part of the process, and we hope to have some impact on the process. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Moist, you would have to agree that if it hadn't been for the opposition, you wouldn't even be engaged in this process tonight, would you? MR. P. MOIST: Through the Chair, I can 't comment on that. I haven't been in the House throughout the last months and throughout the long hot summer. HON. S. LYON: Could you tell us, Mr.

Moist, CUPE being a large public service union in Manitoba, and one of those unions that is accorded , apparently, automatic membership at NDP Conventions, how many dele gates do you send to the Annual Convention of the New Democratic Party? MR. P. MOIST: I have no knowledge of that at all. I would ask Mr. Quenn elle though, perhaps he could give

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 some constitutional examples from the way that Local 998 of the Canadian Union of Public Emp loyees treats matters of a political nature. MR. B. QUENNELLE: Perhaps, Mr.

Chairman, I, as not being all that involved, except for going to conven tions, etc., in the MFL, and not all that familiar; I am more familiar and I can only answer for that of my local union, which is Local 998, and our own local constitution prohibits any partisan political involvement at all for our local, and that's the stand that we as a union take, and ther efore we do not get involved in the political involvement of our affiliates. HON. S.

LYON: So are you telling us, and I'm happy to have the informat ion, are you telling us that unlike, say, the Unite d Steel Workers, who are accorded a certain block of dele gates to the annual meetings of the New Democratic Party because of their checkoff and support and so on, that your union like, I presume, the Manitoba Govern ment Empl oyees Association, does not send delegates to the New Democratic Party Conv ention annual ly, you're no t part of that constitutional requir ement, which is rather strange to most of us, whereby unions have automatic delegates at New Democratic Party Conventions? MR. B.

QUENNELLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the Steel Workers or the MGEA do. I do know that our union, by constitution, does not participate in any kind of partisan politics. HON. S. LYON: So we have it clearly on the record that CUPE does not send ... MR. B. QUENNELLE: Not CU PE, Local 998 of CU PE. HON. S. LYON: Oh, well, but I'm talking about the whole union. Does CUPE send delegates . . . Mr. Chairman, why are my honourable friends so sensitive ab out this point? A MEMBER: We aren't sensitive, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Lyon, you are aware, as you profess to be in the parliamentary procedu res, that this is not part of the brief. Again you're digressing. I have allowed some latitude and I would hope that you would stay within the confines of the rules that the committee has set. As its Chairper son, I have no other choice except to remind you of that. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, you're quite free to remind me of that, and I'm quite happy in most circumstances to accept your rulings, thosE; :.,;eing mJch more judicious than those of the man that you substitute for , but I merely remind you . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon ... HON. S.

LYON: When a group appears before this committee ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Lyon, you as a parliamentarian should know you should not reflect on 939 the Chair. Again, I am advising you that you should stay to the questioning in respect to clarity of the brief. I would hope you would conduct yourself according ly. HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When a union like CUP E, which comes before the comm ittee, these people are not here on their own behalf, they are here on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Emp loyees.

The New Democratic Party, which is the proponent of this agreement that we have in front of us, this ill-starred agreement, which is dividing our province, has an arrangement under its peculiar constitut ion, whereby certain unions or per capita groups in Manitob a who ar e unio ni zed are rep resentatives of the delegate make-up at the annual meeting of the New Democratic Party. My question, Sir, is quite relevant.

I'm attempting to find out from this group, and I have half the answer from the local, that the local does not avail itself of that rather peculiar provision under the New Democratic Party constitution and ther efore that local does not send voting delegates to the New Democratic Party Convent ion.

What I'm attempting to find out is whether or not the union in Manitoba avails itself of that rather esoteric provision in the constitution of the socialist party of Manitoba, and if so, is the CUPE group, appearing in front of us, as sometime delegates to a New Democratic Party Convention, telling us that they disagree with what their party or delegates to their party, to that party are advocating in this respect . lt's a very relevant question. HON. R. PENNER: How does this arise from the brief - on a point of order - how does this arise from the brie f? HON. S. LYON: You weren 't even here.

Since the Communists left, you haven't been here. MR. B. QUENNELLE: Mr. Chairman, if may I clarify something. MR. B. QUENNELLE: I came here prepar ed to answer questions on the brie f, not whether or not other independent locals of our union, who do have some autonomy, participate in partisan politics. I think the answer that I have given, which is that of my local, goes beyond what I needed to answer, but I don't have, nor does Paul have, any information about the partisan politics of other unions within CU PE. Therefore, I don't see any reason to pursue this any further. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Quennelle.

Any further questions? Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: Yes. So, Mr. Moist and Mr. Quennel le, you are saying that insofar as you are aware, no branch of CUPE sends delegates to the New Democratic Party Annual Meeting. Is that the case? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, I believe you were informed that these people, by themselves, are represent ing Local 998 of CUPE , and they gave you an answer; now you're trying to again digress from the point.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 HON. S. LYON: No, no, I'm just trying to reconfirm what they say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, again, it's not in their brief and th ere's no fu rther cla rific ation of that point necessary. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I' m happy that you're satisfied, and if you are telling me that you are satisfied, as a New Democrat I may add, that the Canadian Union of Public Emp loyees does not send delegates to annu al meetings dealing with resolution of the New Democrat Party. If you're giving me that assurance, I'll take it.

I haven't heard it yet, I've heard it in part from the two witnesses, and if you're saving them from confirming it ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Once more, Mr. Lyon, I'll have to bring you to order. HON. S. LYON: .. . that's fine by me, the record's clear. I'll r->ccept your word. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are out of order in addressing a question to the Chair. You are out of order in respect to asking questions which are not in the brief. HON. R. PENNER: You're out of your cotton-pickin' mind, ab ove all else. HON. S. LYON: I'm most particula rly, Mr.

Chairman, if 1 may say, out of order, because I'm asking questions that emb ar rass socialists in Manit oba. Those are the rules of this committee as I ajudge them . . . MR. CHAlRMAN: Are there any further questions of HON. S. LYON: Ye s, I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: Knowing now what the ground rules are ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, get on with the questioning. HON. S. LYON: I'll do it in my own good time, Mr. Chair ma n, and you kn ow that, too, from long experience. The Federation of Labour . HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Chairman, are you going to tolerate this kind of bullying behaviour?

HON. S. LYON: Mr . Chair man, does the former Communi st candidate wish to make representa tions to the committee? I thought he'd made enough when Ms. Fletcher was here today. Maybe he'd like to an swer the qu estion that I as ked as the Leader of the Communi st Party. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, let me remind you that as a parliamentaria n, and you know, you do not reflect upon any member of the Legislative Assembly by 940 inn uendo, by calling them names, or any other ways. I alw ays assumed you were a statesman, but I'm afraid I have to remind you to act like a statesman and like a parliamentarian . . . HON. S.

LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I speak facts. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not finished yet. HON. S. LYON: I speak facts. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not finished yet, and if you do wish to behave as a parliamentari an, I would hope you wo uld desist from brand ing and naming people in this committee who have been honourably elected, just the same as you have, who have equally the honour of repre senting Manitobans, and you should not reflect upon what their character is, or even supply names to them, or give innu endo.

All of those things are part of the parliamentary process, and I would hope you woul d conduct yourself accordingly. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to obey all of those ru les of Parliament that I was aware of before you were elected to this Chamber, because I was here before you were elected to this Chamber.

If you are saying now, Sir, that it is wrong to say or to make the fact known that a certa in member of the Legislature, who now parades as a New Democratic Party member and a Cab:net Min ister, was formerly a candidate for the Commun ist Party, which is a fact of life and a fact of record - that is no innu endo, that is not red-baiting, that is not a reflect ion on his character, that's a fact, Mr. Chairman. And if you're going to deprive me of the right to refer to facts in this committee, then it has become nothing more than sort of drum head Star Chamber for the socialist party. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Lyon, again, we are into a question period and you have digressed. Do you have a question, Mr. Lyon? HON. S. LYON: I do, Mr. Chairman, now that we understand one an other.

The reso lutions then, that we have mentione d heretofore, the one condem ning the pr ovincial government tor not involving the Federation of Labour in the discussions about this amendment, which of course has potential effect on the merit principle and so on; and secondly, the second resolution, which we have referred to in the terms of the Member for Wolseley, affirm that the Federation affirms the principle of the provision of limit ed practical bilingu al government services - for the record, that resolution - I take it both of those resolutions have the full support of your full ur>it, not just the locals for which Mr.

Quennelle spoke, but the full CU PE Union in Man itoba? MR. A. ANSTETT: On a point order, please. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, !, over the supper hour, seem to have misplaced my copy of the brief. I have just picked up another one. My concern is that

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 I don't recall these resolutions to which Mr. Lyon refers as being ... HON. S. LYON: They've already been under debate. MR. A. ANSTETT: ... as being in the brief that's been submitted today, and I wonder how they can be constr ued as questions of clarification of the brief? HON. S. LYON: They are in the brief. Mr. Chairman, if this erstwhi le floating Chairman would pay attention to what's in the brief and what's going on, he woul d not be raising frivolous points of order for you. A MEMBER: He wasn 't even here. HON. S.

LYON: He wasn't even here. - (In terjection) - I can read though, there's a differen ce. HON. R. PENNER: At least, unlike you, his elevator runs to the top storey. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, do you have a question? HON. S. LYON: At least, unlike me, I've never subverted my country the way you have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentleme n , let's have an orderly meetin g. - (Interjection) - HON. S. LYON: Oh, no, let him sue. If he dares. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lyon, do you have a question? HON. S. LYON: I'm through, Mr. Chairman. Now that we know what the rules of the committee are - (Interjection) - MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chair man, on the point of order. I'm wondering - I recognize there was one resolution in the brief and I would like to have clarification of where the second resolution is that the mem ber refers to. HON. S. LYON: I'll be happy to table it, Mr. Chairman. The first resolution to which I made reference is the resolution contained in the brief; there was a second resolution passed on Septem ber 25th, 1983, which I' ll read into the record, "A motion to the Manitoba Federation of Labour - (Interjecti ons)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'll let •�e CUPE delegates read it, because they said they voted for it. MS. M. PHILLIPS: On the point of order, I'd like to know where the second resolution is in the brief that we're discussing? HON. R. PENNER: That's the question. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not discussing it, because it's not in order. 941 HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. HON. S. LYON: it's already been discussed, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other que stions of Mr. Moist or Mr. Quennelle ? HON. S. LYON: You're too late, the socialist axe didn't drop soon enough. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are none, thank you very much, Mr.

Moist and Mr. Qu en nelle, for your presentation on behalf of CU PE. Our next presentation is Charles Gagne. HON. S. LYON: A great bunch of democrats we have! .. . won't be back anyway. HON. R. PENNER: Don 't delude yourself, you 're suffering from enough insane delusions as it is now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I understand this presentation wi ll be in French. All the mem bers do have translation receive rs. We 'll break for about two minutes and let the public get transmitte rs. (SHORT RECESS) MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. C. GAGNE: Maybe Mr. Lyon would like to listen on too. He might learn something!

Chers memb res du Comite. 11 me fait plaisir de vous adresser la parole aujourd'hui sur un sujet qui est tres sensible et a la fois tres important pour l'avenir du Manitoba. E tant un jeune Franco-Manitob ain de 4e generation , c'est par respe ct et admiration pour mes ancetres que je vous fais part de mes imp ressions sur l'ame ndement propose a I'

article 23. Depuis l'arrivee de mes ancetres, il y a au­ dessus de 100 ans, ... MR. G. LECU YER: Will we be allowed to listen to the presentation without the interference? MR. CHAIRMAN: The point it well taken. Carry on, Mr. Gagne. MR. C. GAGNE: Merci . Depui s l'arrivee de mes ancetres, il y a au-dessus de 100 ans, les Franco­ Manitobains ont dO se battre, s'organi ser et travailler pour maintenir et transmettre a leurs enfants la fierte d'appartenance a la langue fr ancaise. Je suis un produit de ce travail penible.

Comme vous avez constate aux audiences publiques a Sainte-Anne, le 27 septembre dernie r, je ne suis pas le seul a vouloir continuer le travail de mes ancetres. Je suis un jeune etudiant universitaire ayant complete mes etudes au niveau du BaccaulaureiH au College Saint- Boniface et maintenant je ter mine ma maitrise a I' Universite du Manitoba. Je veux vivre et travailler au Manitoba, ainsi que participer a son developpement. Je veux vivre comme citoyen a part egale et je veux que mes enfants puissent le faire aussi.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 Je supporte entierement I' initiative du gouvernement de vouloir resoudre la question des langues officielles du Manitob a. Apr es 93 ans de bat aill es, de confron tation et de tr avail pour re-et ablir l' egalite linguistique, le temps est ven u de mettre fin au debat. La proposition a l'amendement est la solution au probleme car elle reconnait le fran<;:ais et l'anglais comme langues officielles du Manitoba. En plus elle reconnait I' injustice des dernieres 93 annees en offrant des services essentiels qui tiennent compte de la realite d'aujour d'h ui.

Apres 93 ans, le statut legitime et legal des Fran co-Manitobains serail restaure et enchasse dans la constitution canadienne. Je dois preciser cependant que les amendements pro poses aux ame ndeme nts par M. Penner le 6 septembr e diluent le principe fondamental faisant du fran<;:ais et l'anglais, les langues officielles du Manitoba.

Si le gouvernement est sincere dans le re-etablissemeni de l'e galite linguistique des deux peuples fondateurs et veux montrer une volonte politique pour corriger cette inj ustic e linguistique et historique, les amendcments du 6 septembre seraient rejetes pour faire place a ceux du 17 mai dernier . Les amendements 23.7(

b) qui excluent les municipal ites et les commissions scolaires et 23.9 du 6 septembre peuvent demeurer car ils n'e nl€ went rien a !'entente originate conven ue entre la Societe franco-man itobaine, le gouvernement federal et le gouvernement provinciaL Je vois tres mal qu'on rende un droit sujet a des conditions telles qu' enoncees dans l'amendement 23.1 du 6 septembre. Lorsqu'on reconnait les droits d'un peuple, on les reconnait a part entiere sans imposer des limites.

Lorsqu'on ajoute des contraintes a un enonce tel que celui dans !'entente originate, nous n' avons plus une declaration de principe mais plutot un enonce dilue et inacceptable pour la minorite franco­ manitobaine. Nous ne pouvons pas diminuer des droits fondamentaux tel que "le fran<;:ais et l'anglais sont les langues officielles du Manitoba" a UN des peuples fondateurs, surtout pas dans le contexte canadien qui reconnait l'egalite des deux peuples et des deux langues a part entiere.

Je dois souligner que nous faisons face ac e probleme aujourd'hui parce que le gouvernement Coriservateur, lorsqu'il etait au pouvoir, a neglige de tenter de trouver des solut ions au probleme. E tant donne que le gouvernement a l'epoque n' a pas passe a I' action suite au jugement de la Cour supreme en 1979, le debat linguistique a dO etre re-ouvert pour que la decision de la Cour supreme soit respectee. Je peux comprendre pourquoi le parti Conservateur refuse d'ac cepter la proposition d'enchiissement car ils n'ont jamais reconnu la pleine valeur de la decision de la Cour supreme de 1979.

Quatre ans plus tard, le parti Conservateur maintient que les services en langue fran<;:aise devraient etre laisses a la bonne volonte . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gag ne, we are trying to translate and if you speak so fast, the translators can 't keep up. Will you slow down. There is no rush. MR. C. GAGNE: Merci. Je suis un peu nerveux alors pardonnez-moi. Quatre ans plus tard, le parti Conservateur maintient que les services en langue fran<;:aise devraient etre 942 laisses a la bonne volonte des elus et ne devraient pas etre enchasses dans la constitution canadienne.

Par ce simple fait, je maintiens plus que jamais que les services en langue fran<;:aise doivent etre enchasses car l'exemple du parti Conservateur lorsqu'il etait au pouvoir laisse beaucoup a desirer. Prenon s par exemple le travail fait par le bur eau des services en langue fran<;:aise etabli durant le terme du parti Conservateur avec ce qui s'est fait sous la direction du gouvernement actue!.

Nous constatons que le parti Conservateur n'a meme pas elabor er une politique de services en langue fran<;:aise voire meme songer a offrir des certificats dans les deux langues, des permis de conduire dans les deux langues, ou meme de la traduction simultanee en chambr e. Oui, M. le president, c'est grace au parti Conservateur que nous sommes ici aujourd' hui. C'est grace a eux que nous discutons d'enchil.ssement constitutionnel des services en langue franr,;aise car ils nous ont demontres que des "courtesy rights" equivalent a aucun service dans une des langues officiel!es de cette province.

Je peux difficilement compr endre !'ar gume nt de cer tains qui pretenden t que des services dans les deux langues officielles s·�raient trop coOteux. Regardons la logique de cet argument Si le gouvernement prenait I' option suggeree par le parti Conservateur et le maire Norrie, les coOts pourraient etre beaucoup plus eleves que l'on croit. Advenant une decision favorable pour M. Bilodeau, sans que la Cour supr eme decla re l'anarchie legale mais plutot impose une contrainte de temps pour traduire les 4 500 textes de lois, la province devra defrayer les couts de la traduction sans !'aide du gouvernement federa l.

L' opt ion du parti Conservateur et du maire Norrie semble beaucoup plus coOteuse pour les contribuabl es que l'amendement constitutionnel devant nous presentement. Comment pouvons-nous croire que la traduction de 4 500 textes de lois serail moins couteuse que la traduction de 500 lois, en plus d'une aide de 2.5 millions de dollars du gouvernement federal et des services minimums dans les bur eaux centrals du gouvernement provincial?

E tant contribuable je questionne le rationnel de eel argument, car il m'apparait qu'o ffrir des services dans les deux langues officielles seraient moins couteux que la traduction de 4 500 textes de lois. M. le president, les brefs qui ont ete presentes a ces au diences publiqu es contre l'ame ndeme nt constitution ne! ont comme premisse de base "la peur".

Les brefs soumis contre l'amendement constitutionnel expriment la peur que le fran<;:ais devienne langue de travail au Manitoba, peur que les unilingues anglais ne se trouveront plus d'emploi au gouvernement, peur que le cout soit trop eleve, peur car certaines municipalites s'inqu ietent que le bilinguisme est un cancer qui va ven ir s'imp oser sur eux un jour . M. le president, comment pouvons-nous accepter des arguments contre cette question quand la seule justif ication est la peur?

La realite de l'a mendement et la realite canadienne sont telles que la langue de la majorite sera toujours l'anglais et que le bilinguisme total au Canada ne se realisera pas jusqu'au moment que la majorite anglaise du Canada et la majorite fran<;:aise du Quebec le veulent. La sensibilite de ce debat actuel demontre davantage qu'il est temps de proteger la minorite officielle de cette province. Malgre les enjeux politiques, nous devons mettre de cote la politique partisans et surtout ne pas

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 faire de ce debat la re-election ou la defaite d'aucun parti politique. 11 y aura beaucoup d'autres occasions pour permettent des activites partisanes mais tres peu d'occasions pour restaurer l'egalite linguistique de cette province. Tenant compte de l'hi stoir e de ce pays, il est absolument logique et indispensable de reconnaitre les droits de la minorite officielle au Manitoba et les enchiis ser dans la constitution canadienne.

Le temps est venu pour re-e tablir les erreurs de vos ancetres et de creer dans cette provi nc e un sentiment d'app artenance a partir du respect des dr oits lingui stiques et minoritaires. C'e st pour cette raison que je rec ommande au gouvernement manitobain de maintenir ses princip es et de rejeter les amendements du 6 septembre. Je dois aussi encourager les Manitobains de mettre de cote leurs prejuges et leurs mefiances afin de permettre !'adoption d'une solution a un probleme tres difficile. Solution qui reflet ce qui est inevitablement a refaire. Mer cL MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Mr. Gagne?

Thank you very much, Mr. Gagne. Our next presentation is Mike Kibsey, Mike Kibsey; the next one is Tom Cohoe, Tom Cohoe; the next one is Emile Clune. MS. E. CLUNE: Mr . Chairman, mem bers of the comm ittee, Locals 5 and 7 of the Communi cations Workers of Canada represent some 1,800 employees of the Manitoba Telephone System in this province. As employees of a Crown corporation, providing essential services to the citizens of Manitoba, we will be directly affected by the impl ementa tion of the pr oposed constitutional amendment.

We applaud the government for having the courage to attempt to correct the injustices created by the infamous Official Langua ges Act of 18 90, in the face of forces which would use the issue to stir up bigotry and racial tensions simply for their own political advancement. We abhor the thought tha t pu blic refer endums would be used for the same devious and destruct ive pu rpose. The tr eatment of Japa nese Canadians over 40 years ago will always be a blot on our nation's history.

Minority rights must be protected by our democratic governments, no matter which party is in power; they must not be dragged down to the level of a popularity contest, or we are all in grave danger. We are proud to be Canadians; proud of the heritage of our original people; proud of the French as the first Europeans who came to call Canada their home: proud of the British who started the economic development of Manitoba; proud of all the people from every country in the world who came to this land, so that they might live free from oppression.

Canada was founded as a bilingual nation, and Manitobans must recognize this fact if Canada is to remain a strong land of free people. lt must also be recognized that the bilingual policies of the Federal Government do not reflect the reality of Manitoba today, so that it is necessary to develop policies that are made by Manitobans for Mani tobans. In spite of what we have just presented, we believe tha t the right s of the French-spea king people in 943 Manitoba, while requiring protection, must be balanced by the rights of the workers who are entrus ted to provide these services.

We believe that workers have the right to reasonable job security and reasonable expectations of advanc ement. If the word ing in the propo sed constitutional amendment is correct and precise in describing this intent of the government's proposal, then we are sure that the rights of all will be protected. We would now like to address specific wording in the proposed constitutional amendment. In

Section 23.7(1 )(a)(iii) we see that "Any member of the public in Manitoba has the right to commun icate in English or French with, and to receive available services in English or French from, the head or central office of any Crown corporation." Our understanding of the draft amendments issued on September 6th is that the words "or central office" will be deleted from the above statement. We feel this amendment will clarify the intent of this clause and we support this important change.

In 23.7(2) we read that "Any member of the public in Manitoba has the right to commun icate in English or French with and to receive available services in English or French from, any office not referred to in subsection (1) of an institution described in paragraph (1) (

a) or (

b) where: (

a) th ere is a signif icant demand for commun ications with and services from that office in the language; or (

b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that commun ications with and services from that office be available in both English and French. We are in full accord with the portion of a previous br ief submit ted by the Manitoba Government Emplo yees Association related to the words "significant demand" and with the idea that a court would make a decision solely based on this

interpretation of these words. Apparently , from the annou ncement made on September 6th, there will be an attempt made to be more precise and specific in this wording, so as to better define "significant demand"; however, we believe that the best solution to this whole problem would be to place this decision-making process into the hands of the Legislature, with recommendations coming from a separate body that has a solid reputation in the province.

The Ma nitoba Governme nt Emplo yees Association's suggestion of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is excellent In this mann er, the rights of all Manitobans can be preserved by an independent body who could weigh the rights and needs of our French-spe aking citizens, with that of the workers who provide the services, and those of all Manitobans who will be paying for the provisions of these services.

While the courts tend to analyze the specific wording of any particular clause and may render a definition of wording, which may not have been the intent of the par ties in volved, a body such as the Electoral Boundaries Commission could weigh all factors, consult with the parties involved, and render a decision that would satisfy everyone concerned. Any deviance from the re commenda tions of the Commis sion by the Legislature would have to be justified to the citizens of Ma nitoba. We therefore propose the followi ng changes: Amend 23.8( 1) to read "Anyone whose rights under

Section 23.7(1) have been infringed . ." ."

Thursd ay, 29 September, 1983 Amend Sect ion 23. 7(2) by convert ing it into a statement of principle through inserting the words "the Legislature determines" after the word "where," so that the operative wording would be: "where the Legislature determines either: (

a) there is a significant demand; or (

b) due to the nature of the office." The Legislature pass

an act to empower the Electoral Boundaries Commission or a similarly constituted body to assess and rec ommend to the Legislature where bilingual communic ations and services ought to be made available based on the principl es set forth in

Section 23. 7(2). Amend

Section 23.8 to ensure that the jurisdiction of the courts is only applicable to alleged breaches of

Section 23.7(1) . 23.8(2) and (3) would be amended to state that the Electoral Boundaries Commission would have the right to demand specific plans from any provi ncial governmental bodies, or provincial Crown corporations, and to amend those plans to meet the needs of Man itob ans and the rights of French-spe aking Manitobans. We are pleased to be allowed to present our views to this committee and hope that you will consider our concerns on this matter.

We hope and look forward to further consultations on the implementation of the restoral of French Language Services in Manitoba, and hope that the rights of our members, both French and English speak ing, will continue to be a major concern of the Government of Manitoba. Respectfu lly subm itted, Wendy Budyk, President, Local 7; Emile Clun e, Presi dent, Local 5, Communi cations Workers of Canada. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you inform us whether you are the president? MS. E. CLUNE: I am the President of Local 5, which is the Operators' Local of the Manitoba Telephone System. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

The other question I have, we have "Emile, " is that the correct spelling of your name? MS. E. CLUNE: That's the correct spelling of my name. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Clune. Are there any questions on the brief for clarifica tion? Mr. Lyon. HON. S. LYON: I take it, Ms. Clune, as I read your brief, that you really don't want the implementation of French Langua ge Services entrenche d in the Constitution. You want it left with some body like the Electoral Boundaries Commission ultimately responsible to the Mani toba Leg islatur e to the elected representatives? MS. E.

CLUNE: Well, our concern, Mr. Lyon, is not really whether it's entrenched or not entrenched. Our concerns lie with the protection of our mem bers and this is why we have presented our brief and this is our 944 concern, that our members have equal rights and that they have equal opportunities, whether they are bilingual or unilin gual or whether they have more than one or two langua ges at their disposal. I think that it's important that we are all guara nteed tha t we have equal opportunities and that's our concern. HON. S.

LYON: And your brie f then in that respect adopts the rec ommendation of the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association and, in part at least, the rec ommendation we just heard from the CUPE local, tha t th ere not be entr enchment of French Language Services, that is the administration of them, that the courts be left only with the determination of penalties for inf ractions, is that true? MS. E. CLUNE: My concern with allowing the courts to have a say in this is that I'm qu ite sure if you brought the same case before five different courts, you would probably arrive with five different decisions.

So this is our concern. We feel that it is perhaps not the wisest thing to do. HON. S. LYON: We agree with you on that MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any othe:r questions? Thank you, Ms. Clune. MS. E. CLUNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next presentation is Betty Bronghton. Mr. & Mrs. Chandra, East Indian Ethnic Group. Mario Sosa, Winnip eg Chilean Association. Ron Nash. Ma rio Sa ntos, Chairman, Manitoba Ste ering Committee on Heritage Langua ges. Mrs. B. MacKenzie. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I make one apology and that is for the very poor typing. I'm not a typist MR.

CHAIRMAN: No apology necessary . Proceed Mrs. MacKenzie. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the comm ittee. I wish to categorically state that I strongly object to amending The Manitoba Act,

Section 23, No. 1, which would make Manitoba a bilingual province. The reasons for my objections to entrenchment of this amendment I hope to make perfectly clear to this assembly. But first, let me say that I am a bilingual Canadian and that French is my mother tongue. My parents came to Canada over 80 years ago and my fc�ther belonged to the French Territorial Reserve Army until 19 10, but became a British subject in 191 3 before I was born. Both my parents learned to read, write and speak English without benefit of night school and allowed their childr en to speak English in their home.

There is no disputing the fact that learning a second language is a very broaden ing experience, and I feel that French should be taught as a second language in Manitoba schools. But let me put forth this statement:

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 it is not being well taught to the Anglophone child who is not in Immersion and it is no longer required as an entrance to the un iversity. I would just like to interject here that I taught French for a numb er of years for the Alliance Francais at a we ekly basis and the Alliance Francais is an international organization. I reiterate, I am against entrenching bilingua lism by amending

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act because Manitoba was never conc eived as a bilingual province in

Section 23 of the 1870 Act uses the term "may" which gives permission to any person to use either language in debate or in the courts. If these rights were denied the Francophone community in 1890, they were returned to them following the Supreme Court ruling in 1979 on the George Forest case, plus the fact that The Public Schools Act - and I have two copies of The Public Schools Act - were amended in 1970 and again in 1980 to allow the teaching of French where the demand was sufficient.

The placing of Anglophone childr en into Immersion classes has become a "fad" or out of "fear" that the child will not be able to obtain a job if he is not educ ated in both languages. The end result will be that he will be illiterate in two langua ges. You cannot convince me that a child who lives in an English home and take his or her studies in French can be as intensely and well educ ated as one whose education is in English. Show graphs or whatever, but the end results will be the proof. I would like to return to George Forest for a moment. A year-and-a-half ago, I had occasion to ask Mr.

Forest to speak to a group of ladies of Le Ren dez-Vous francais. This is a group of Anglophone ladies who all spoke French. The meetings were held at the Un iversity Women's Club. In his causerie Mr. Forest made several remarks that were very int eres ting and very enlightening. I would like to relate them to you. He said that when he began his campaign to have his parking ticket written in both languages four very prominent Manitobans approached him and offered him financial assistance. it was not a small amount, in the area of $1 0,000 each.

I must say in all fairness to him that he refused, saying it was a matter for French Canadians. But what did surprise me were the names he mentioned. In ending his speech he said: "We have won in Manitoba; we are winning in Saskatchewan; and Al berta is softening up." How did Mr. Forest know this eighteen months ago? What was wrong with the rest of Manitobans, legislators and others? The majority of us have had a laissez-faire attitude and perhaps we have awakened to find Pandora's box already opened.

I found it amusing to hear Keith Spicer on national television say: "L earn Japane se, it is the language of the business worl d." However, the Japanese have risen to the challenge and have learned English. For Keith Spicer to make such a statement on television is just a little ludicrous after he had promoted the learning of French for his Liberal masters. How very ridiculous.

However, I was not so amused to hear a young man on local radio say, after he had spent some time in New Brunswick, after it had become a bilingual province: "Avoid bilinguali sm like the plague." When asked what could be done to stop it, his reply was: "You have two alternat ives, first by the democratic process in your Legislature, and if that fails, the only other alternative you have is civil war." And who wants civil war. 945 I personally feel these are very inflamma tory remarks with which I do not necessarily agree.

But, one must admit that the language contr oversy has caused more divisiveness in our Province of Manitoba and in Canada than any other issue ever has in the history of our countr y. At this rate we do not need an outside ene my, we can destroy ourselves from within.

Soon after The Manitoba Schools Act was amended in 1970, the school division in which my husband and I reside was petitioned by a few Francophone zealots to have an "all French" school built in our area. (May I say the amendment did not state that the French school had to be separate.) They could have shared the high school facilities, but chose not to.

Our case against the building of the school was lost, but I think what amazed me more than anything else was the fear expressed by many of the French-Canadian community not to have his or her name appear on the list against building the all-French school, even though they did not want it. Their fear was that the y would be "b lackl isted " by th eir Fr ancophone friends and neighbours.

In the words of the Nazi Party, "If you are not with us, you are against us." At the time of this cont roversy, I read all the French briefs that were presented to our school division, and was shocked to read in every one of them: "This is the time to get even." "This is the time for retri bution." For what, I asked myself. I am not a bigot, but I am a concerned citizen. I realized this was history repeating the same mistakes that they had made in the late 18 00's. Why can't we ever learn?

Hi storically, teach ing other languages in Manitoba schools has been tried and has failed, so it is doomed for failure again. In 18 96, Sir Wilfred Laurier and Premier Greenway came to an agreement about the language issue in Ma nitoba schools. Their agreement was, "Where there are 10 French-speak ing or where there were 10 pupils speaking any language other than English, teaching in that language was to be permitted." This was known as the Laurier-G reenway settlement Both these men thought they had hit on the perfect solution to the program.

However, in 1910, it was found that there were so many languages being taught that there was no real language of commun ication. Also there was a great influx of Anglophones at this time. In 1916, Permier Norris' Government passed The Manitoba Schools' Act making English the langua ge of instruction in the schools. The French community felt that they had been singled out for this action, and the Archbishop of St. Boniface said he would never forgive the English for what they had done to the French­ Canadian. And they never have. That is why this language issue is such a bitter one.

But all original rights were returned to the Manitoba Francophones in 19 80. Again let me say, I oppose entrenchment, because the SFM and others will never cease to decry that they have been depri ved and treated as second-class citizens. Also, I oppose entrenchment because all the other ethnic groups firmly bel ieve that their rights will be enh anced or incr eased, and with 32 other languages clamouring for recognition, the Manitoba Francophone will be "hoist with his own petard." Yes, and Mr. Axworthy gave them $25,000 to further their cause of our tax money.

This organization is Heritage Languages or Anc estral Langua ges.

Thursd ay, 29 September, 1983 Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others." lt is obvious to all that the democratic process is not working in our Legislature. I need not remind the legislators that they were elected to office by the majority of their constitutents, and they are the ones they should represent. Whether you use Bourinot's Rules or Robert's Rules of Ord er, the outcome should be the same. "The majority rules" in the democratic process. But in this language issue, the majority is being held for ransom by the minority. Why?

The Francophone community consists of only 6 percent of the population of Mani toba, and many of these do not want entrenchment. Then why has this issue become such a divisive one? Is it because the minority has been aided and abetted by Ottawa? A famous politician once said, and it was Disraeli that said it, "Not what the people want, but what we know is good for them." Is this what is happening to us in Manitoba? Serge Joyal in his March 19, 1983 speech to the SFM promised the minority help. He said, "Do not give up.

You have everyt hing needed to serve as a model for the advancement of French in many other provinces, and this is of paramount importance. You need not fail. We will be there to support you." Now I ask you, are these the words of a negotiator? They sound very inflamatory to me. They also raise a question in my mind. Are Mr. Pawley and Mr. Penner so naive that they are taken in by offers of financial assistance from Ottawa? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is a great country that stretches from sea to sea, and a great province. Let us cherish and nur tur e it.

We have natural resources, hydro-electric power, in fact everyt hing to make this country great. Your forefathers came here to find fre edom, freedom from want or freed om from tyranny , and now you wish to find a yoke to strangle the freedom that we have all enjoyed. Let us be done with worrying about hurt feelings of 90 years ago, and get on with the busi ness of running this great country instead of trying to get even. Entrenchment is not the answer. How long did it take Emil Zola to have Dreyfus released from Devil's Isle after he wrote "J'A ccuse"?

Well I accuse the NDP Government of misleading the people of Manitoba by saying, yes, we'll entrench bilingualism, but we won't enforce it. And I accuse the SFM of being pushed by their gurus in the east to entrench French in The Manitoba Act, even though many of 50,0 00 Francophones do not want it. No, ladies and gentlemen, I beg you, do not accept entrenchment, because it will only generate more unrest and more hatred than anything ever has before in our province. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. MacKenzie. Are there any questions? Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUVER: Mr. Chairman, if I unde rstand correctly, Mrs.

MacKenzie, the last sentence in your second paragraph, you say, "lt has not been well-taught to the Anglophone child who is not in Immersion and is no longer required for entrance to the university." You are saying, in effect, then that unle ss the 946 Anglophone child is not in the Immersion Program, he is not being well-taught French? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: No, he is not being well-taught, Mr. Lecuyer. He is not, and I know this from personal experience. He is taught it as a subject, as a single subject. They are taught like parrots.

They are taught to repeat and repeat and repeat, until they are so tired of this language that they don't want it any longer. MR. G. LECUVER: Are you saying that this is the way it's taught in Immersion, or ... MRS. B. MacKENZIE: No, no, no. I don't mean that. No, in Immersion, that is entirely different. MR. G. LECUVER: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mrs.

MacKenzie, in the third paragraph on that same page towards the bottom, you say, "You cannot convince that a child who lives in an English home and takes his or her studies in French can be as intensely educated as one whose education is in English." Could you explain that to me in the light of the previous question that you have just answered? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, through you, I will explain this. I attended, as a young person, an all­ French school, not an all-French school, we were taught English from 10:00 in the morning, we had French from 8:30 to 10:00.

Then the rest of the day, except for the religious study, was spent in English. Many of the girls who graduated from Grade 12 could not get into Normal School, because they couldn't speak English properly because they had been immersed in French at home, and consequently , I don't see how a child who lives in an English home with no assistance - if one parent perhaps speaks French it's different - but if these children are brought up in an English home and their education is in French, they cannot be as well educated as a child from a French home who goes - or one parent is French - who goes into a French class.

MR. G. LECUVER: Mrs. MacKenzie, are you familiar with some of the nume rous research that has been done on the Immersion programs, which show the contrary to what you have just said on this. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I un derstand and I've seen graphs about the Ukrainian childr en too, Mr. Lecuyer, and you can show all sorts of graphs and you may try to prove something with a graph, but it doesn't prove it to me. I know of a young woman who was accepted at the Lester Pearson College and her education had been in French. She was English but her education had been in French.

When she got to the Lester Pearson College she was turned down because her education in Science and Maths was not sufficient. MR. G. LECUVER: Mrs. MacKenzie, I wasn't referring to graphs. I was referring to the nume rous tests that were taken or given to students on every one of the academic subjects, including intelligence tests, which disprove what you have just said. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Mr. Lecuyer wou ld you like to prove !his to me? Would you like to invite me to see some of these children? I would enjoy it.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MR. G. LECUYER: Well not pret ending to answer any of the questions, I can just say to Mrs. MacKenzie - I know this is out of order - but I would gladly supply you the titles and the names of the various research projects and the years and the grade levels tested and so forth. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Very good. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further que stions? Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Mrs.

MacKenzie, on Page 4 in your first paragraph, you say, "Again, let me say I oppose entrenchment because the SFM and others will never cease to decry that they have been depr ived and treated as second class citizens," and I listened, with interest, to all the rest of your brief prec eding that. I didn't see anything in the rest of your brief that would suggest that that woul9 be the rational reason for opposing entrenchment. I wonder if you could elaborate on why you oppose entrenchment? Is it just because the SFM want it or because the SFM have been decrying for awhile that they've been deprived?

What reason do you - you know you're not talking ... MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I'm not logical. MS. M. PHILLIPS: . . . anywhere in the brief about what difference entrenchment would make or not make. In fact I would think that if they did have entrenchment, they would cease to decry. That would be the logic to me, so I wonder why you oppose entrenchment on that basis. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Ms. Phillips, they will never stop sayi ng that have been treated bad ly. I'v e heard complaints from the French-Canadians that they were treated badly; that they had to hide their books.

The SFM has 500-and-some members and they do not really represent all French-Canadians. They do not. Believe me, they don't. They don't represent me and I'm a French-Can adian. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Ye s, Mr. Chairperson, on that basis then, if it's not going to make any difference one w ay or another, why do you oppose entrenchment? MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: I oppose entrenchment because, as I said on the first page, Manitoba was never conceived as a bilingual province. lt was not conceived as a bilingual province and furthermore entrenchment will just prove to the French-Canadian that they can gain their point and that point, as far as I'm concerned, is not the right one. They have all their privileges. They got them back in 19 80 and Mr. Lyon's Government began translations, began translating the statutes and yet these people are not satisfied. They will never be satisfied. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: Are you aware of how many statutes had been translated in the last three years? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I don't know, but apparently they have till 19 89 to translate the remaining statutes. Is that not right? Am I wrong? 947 MS. M. PHILLIPS: The whole 4,000 or 4,500? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: 4,500 will be translated by 1989. I'm sure that Mr. Lyon's Government could have done that equally as well. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Considering they did nine in two years, I don't know how they could do 4,500. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Nine? MS. M.

PHILLIPS: In terms of the services that go along with being able to use either language in dealing with the Government of Manitoba and if, as you say, your opposition is based on the fact that Manitoba was never conceived as a bilingual province, and if, as you say, the SFM are not satisfied now in 1983 with the level of services that they're obtaining and the rate of translation which is the basis of the Bilodeau case, what do you think is a satisfactory way of dealing with that? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Not entrenching French and English. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Other than entre nching, Mr s. MacKenzie. MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: Other than entrenching? MS. M. PHILLIPS: What is a satisfactory way of dealing MRS. B. MacKENZIE: The Supr eme Court declared in 1979 that The 18 90 Official Languages Act was wrong and so this was rect ified and in 1980 the services began. They had every service they could ask for and now they want more and I do not want to see our province - this is my province too - and I do not want to see this province become a bilingual province. As Neil Fraser said, "Avoid bilingua lism like the plague." MS. M. PHILLIPS: Would you give me your definition, Mrs.

MacKenzie, of bilingualism in relation to this proposed amendment? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Yes, that the two languages would be absolutely equal and this is not right. What happened to the Selkirk settlers? They arrived here in 1812 and 1813 and no one mentions them. No one has mentioned them. Didn't they contribute something to Mani toba? I asked a question, Mr. Chairman. MS. M. PHILLIPS: My question, Mr. Chairperson, was for a def in ition of bilingua lism in relation to this proposed amendment which deals with provision of services? MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: Bilingualism, in my op1mon, would mean that the two languages were equal, that you could have French services anywhere that you wished, and that it would be absolutely equal to your English language and in a world where English is the language of business of the entire world, of aviation, you name it, then why should we have two languages

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 in our province that are equal for 6 percent of the population? it's ludicrous. MS. M. PHILLIPS: My last que ston then is what is there in this proposed amendment that would lead you to belie ve that both languages would be required througho ut the pr ovinc e in daily lif e in terms of commer ce, aviation, whatever? What is there in this amendment that you see requiring that level of service? You, I presume, have read the amendment? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Yes. MS. M. PHILLIPS: What is there in the amendment that leads you to bel ieve that is the kind of biling ualism that is being proposed? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I'm only dealing with (1) of

Section 23, that Manitoba would be declared a bilingual pr ovince, tha t French and English would be the languages in the province, and I object. MS. M. PHILLIPS: On that then, Mr. Chairperson, is that not what the 18 70 act says then, that was upheld by the Su preme Court. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: That is not what the 18 70 act said. it said, it "m ay" be used . You were given permission to use it. Further along it says, "shall," but in the first instance it says, "m ay." MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further astions? Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Ye s, based on tha t then , Mr .

Chairperson, if an individual in this province "may" have the right to deal with the government in either language, then is it not logical that the government is able to deal back with that person in either language? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Would you repeat that question, please? MS. M. PHILLIPS: If you're right, and an individual in Manitoba may deal with the government in either language; in other words, has the right to deal with the government in either language, then is the onus not on the government to, if someone walked in and spoke English, and the person said non, non, mais oui, je ne comprends, wh atever.

MRS. B. MacKENZIE: That's not bad. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I learned my French in a country school. Would you not say then that the government has an onus to deal back to that person in either language, which I would presume to be a service offered by the government, which we are covering where that will be delivered in this amendment. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: No, for one -sixth of the population of Manitoba, do you think that is necessary? How naive can we be? To give services equal to English tor 6 percent of the population, that isn't right. In my estimation, it isn't right. 948 MS. M.

PHILLIPS: The Supr eme Court said that it was right, and that they upheld that 18 70 act ... HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification, just so that the witness won't be as confused as the Member for Wolseley.

Section 23 says that English and French may be used in the courts, may be used in the Legislature, and that the Journals and the acts of the Legislature shall be print ed in English and French. it does not say any thing ab out the full rang e of government services, as implied by the Member for Wolseley. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: That was my understanding, too. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chairperson, with bearing the interruption in mind, and also bearing in mind what offices there were of the government in 18 70, and what offices there are of the government today, if a person has the right to come into the Legislature, or in the courts even, and ask for services, then .do they not also have the reciprocal right to be answered in that language, regardless of whether they are a min ority of 2 percent or 6 percent or 30 percent. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Ms. Phillips, what about all the other mi nority grou ps?

What about the 32 other languages that want recognition, that want to have services too, that want their services increased or enh anced by this amendment? MS. M. PHILLIPS: The answer was a question, I don't intend to answer a question, that's not in order, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MS. M. PHILLIPS: But she also has the right not to answer my question. I recognize that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Thank you very much, Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lecuyer. Mrs. MacKenzie, one more question from Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Mrs.

MacKenzie, on page 3 you refer to a French school built in your area. Would you mind naming this school for me? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Yes, it was the Noei-R itchot School in the Seine River Division. We went to court, we went to the lower court and Judge Keith said we had the absolute right as parents to have our case, and his judgment was for us. Then the French, SFM, went to the Superior Court and the Superior Court, I presume - I shouldn't make a statement like that, I guess - were told what to do, and their judgment was against us, and the school was built. MR. G.

LECUYER: Earlier in your brief you state that you had no objection to French being taught. Am I

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 right in understanding that the Noei-Ritchot School that was built, after these years of hassle that you're describing, is a school today in operation with a full­ student population? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I'm not positive of the - may I put it this way - because we have never had childr en in that school or in the St. Norbert schools, but we are taxpayers in that area, we were told by one of the trustees that we shouldn't have a say in what went on, but I felt that as taxpayers we had the right to have some voice.

So, I feel that French can be taught, any other language can be taught, and people should have the right, in their own homes, to speak the language, their ancestral language, if they wish. They also can have their childr en taught their ancestral language. I have no objection to that, any language, but to have it subsidized by the government is another thing. Furthermore, the school in Seine River Division, Mr.

Lecuyer, or at the least the children in that area, could have used the high school facilities, but no, they said - and I argued this point - they said you had to have a completely separate school with a complete staff, even the caretaker had to be French-spea king, and this is just a little ridiculous! MR. G. LECUYER: I gather you see no problem with a school being built to teach the English language. As far as I can see earlier in your statement, you have no objection to a school teaching the Immersion Program, and I just wonder how you could explain to me your objection in this particular regard. MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: Why can't the French childr en be taught in conjunction in a school where there are English-speaking children too. I attended that sort of a school, it didn't affect my French or the French of the childr en who attended that school. So, therefore, why do these schools have to be separate? As a matter of fact, the amendment to The Schools Act of 1970 and 19 80 does not state that the French schools must be separate, Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G.

LECUYER: I did not state that, of course, but I fail to see that if the need is there, as was expressed, and that's what I'm asking you on, what your objections are in this particular instance, when the obvious need was - obviously shown since the court decided it was a school that could be built; and, of course, the court did not decide that it had to be built, it was the school board that decided that; isn't that the case? MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: Ye s, the school board did eventually decide that it had to be built, but the necessary school in that area at that time w::.s ::.r; elementary school, and the French children could have used the facilities of the high school, and they chose not to, and they proceeded to push this further and further . This is what I am trying to convey, is that the pressures will be on to have more and more services, and this is wrong in our province for 6 percent of the population. MR. G. LECUYER: Mrs. MacKenzie a while ago, in reply to a question of Mrs.

Phillips, you said they already 949 had, since the Supreme Court decision of 1979 and the Implementation Act of 19 80, French already had access to all the services they want; would you explain that to me, please? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: In 1980, after Mr. Forest's case in the Supreme Court in 19 79, in 1980 the Supreme Court judgment was that you had to return to the 1870 - well the

section was 23, was it not? - and so it had to be returned to what it was in 18 70, and that did not state that this province was bilingual. MR. G. LECU YER: Wel l, perhaps you did not un derstand my question. I was making reference to services which you said were all there, all the services they wanted were there; is it your belief that this decision of 19 79 makes provision for services, is that your unde rstanding? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: That was my un derstanding, yes, but The Schools Act was amended in 1970 and it stated that where there were 23 pupils that French could be taught if the parents required it.

Then it was amended, again, to include other languages in 1980, and I have copies of the amendment to The Schools Act. Mr. Schr eyer was the Premier of Man itoba at that time, and I think, Mr. Desjardins was the one who pushed this through. MR. G. LECUYER: So, when you say all the services you want, you are referring then to educational services? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, they've always had their French; they taught it in their parochial schools; the school I went to was not a parochial school, they were subsidized by the government, but we had French for two hours a day and we took as heavy a course in high school in French as we did in English. So I can't see why the French ever felt denied, they were not denied, I never felt denied. MR. G. LECU YER: I'll ask my question, again, then. When you are talking about services, when you are saying they have all the services they want, you are referring to educational services? MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: I would bel ieve all services, after all, the statutes are being translated. If ;ou go to an office you may ask for a French-spea king person. There is no question that you can get someone to translate for you, and for 6 percent, Mr. Lecuyer, it's just a little ridiculous to want to have equal rights with the English speaking, or the other nationalities in this province. MR. G. LECUYER: Are you saying, then, that they have the services; or that they shouldn't have the services? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: They have the services, they have all that is necessary, but we will not be satisfied. MR. G.

LECUYER: Is it your unde rstanding, Mrs. MacKenzie, that the amendment that is proposed is an amendment which extends

Section 23 by providing services? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Well it makes both languages equal, which is comp letely un fair becaus e of the

Th ursday, 29 September, 1983 population. In 18 70 the population was quite different than it is today, Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: A while ago you stated, Mrs. MacKenzie, that they never lost any of these educational services that you were just referring to a while ago; earlier on you stated that this was rein stated in 1970; is it not true that services were lost after 1916 in the field of education? MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: 19 16, yes, but they still had their parochial schools in which they taught French as they wished; they had schools where they could teach Fren ch, for instance, the school I went to and I went in the 20's, they taught French, they were allowed by the government to do it; and this hiding of books, I never once hid my books. I asked my cousin - as a matter of fact I have relatives who don't speak English - why she hid her books; because she was told by her teacher to hide her books from the inspector. MR. G.

LECUYER: You're saying you went to school in 1920 and you took some French; are you saying that you were being taught in French, or you took the subject French? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I was being taught in Fren ch. MR. G. LECUYER: Science, mathematics . MRS . B. MacKENZIE: No, no, no, no. MR. G. LECU YER: So you took the su bject French? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: No, we had two hours a day. We were not taught sciences or maths in French, those were in English, but we were taught the literatur e course, the history course, gramma r, etc., were all in French, but we were not taught mathematics or science, Mr.

Lecuyer, in Fren ch. MR. G. LECUYER: But you did take history and other subjects in French? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Ye s. MR. G. LECUYER: In a public school? MRS. B. MacKENZIE: This is the Academie St. Joseph, I'm sure you remem ber, or maybe you don't remember but St. Joseph's Academy was a girls' school, a boarding school, and it has been torn down, I believe, in the last 15 years. MR. G. LECUYER: Then it is your unde rstanding that the teaching of French after 1916 was legal, the teaching in French was legal? MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: No, it was declared illegal; it was illegal and, as I said in my brief, the Archbishop of St. Boniface said he would never forgive the Anglos, and this is why there is bitterness, and it is ridiculous to bear this bitterness forever. MR. G. LECUVER: Then you are saying that the teaching in French that you were receiving was done in illegality? 950 MRS. B. MacKENZIE: No, it was not, it was perfectly legal, the government accepted th is. St.

Joseph's Academy was a large school in that area, and they did not want to have to build another school, so the government gave them - well not a donation - money each year, a certain sum, for each child in that school division to attend this particular school; but those of us who were French had this French period of two hours a day, and this was allowed, Mr. Lecuyer, it wasn't clandestine. MR. G. LECU YER: Well, you have me confused because awhile ago you said that this act did say that it was illegal to teach in French, and now you say it was perfectly legal to teach French in that school. MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: The government allowed the teach ing of French from 9:00 to 10:00; we, as French students began school at 8:30 and were taught French until 10 o'clock; then we were taught our religious period, it was a half hour and it was again held in French. Therefore, those of us who were French got this time in French, and I'm sure Mr. Lecuyer that you kept your French because you were probably taught in a parochial school. MR. G. LECUYER: I'll forget it, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Phillips has another question. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mrs. Mackenzie, I do have just one more question for clarification.

You said at the be ginning of your brief, you identified that you are of French ancestry and that French is your mother tongue. Could you clarify for me why you referred throughout your presentation on the questions to French-speaking Manitobans as "they?" MRS. B. MacKENZIE: You mean I should have said "we?'' MS. M. PHILLIPS: it's just for clarification. I'm just curious as to why you referred to French-speaking Canadians as "they." MRS. B.

MacKENZIE: I know, and probably a thought that goes through your mind is this French woman mar ried to an Ang lo-Sa xon, so she has been brainwashed by this Ang lo-Saxon husband, which is not true. This is my feeling. Furthermore, when we were growing up, we never felt part of the French-Canadian commun ity. There was a nucleus of French from France and there were also the French-Canadians.

When I phoned, at one time a numb er of years ago - and this has just a little relevancy - the French Consulate and I asked, because the Art Gallery wanted some French singers and whatnot, I asked them how I could get in touch with these people. At that time, the secretary said to me: "Madam, we do not interfere with anything that has to do with French-Can adians." Never the twain shall meet, which is wrong, absolutely wrong, but that's the way it is. MS. M. PHILLIPS: We and they. MRS. B. MacKENZIE: We and they, unfortuna tely.

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 MS. M. PHILLIPS: And you are "we?" MRS. B. MacKENZIE: I am of French extract ion. I'm a first generation French. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. MacKenzie. Mr s. Fries en, Mrs. Fries en. Pat Maltman, Pat Maltman. Mrs. B. Hoist, Mrs. Hoist. Mr. W. D. Jervis, W.D. Jervis. lvan Merritt, lvan Merritt. Luba Kwasney, Luba Kwasney. Dr. Joe Slogan, Dr. Joe Slogan. Beryl Kirk, Beryl Kirk. Sandra Oleson, Sandra Oleson. Waiter Kuchar czyk, Waiter Kuch arczyk. Roy Brunka, Roy Brunka. Reeve Clarence Kiesman, Reeve Clarence Kiesman.

Lillian Stevens, Lillian Stevens. Heather Stone, Heather Stone. Dino Longhi. MR. D. LONGHI: Slightly unpr epared, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to get us some copies. We didn' t have the chance to go over it yet. We 'll leave it to your discret ion. DR. E. SABBADINI: We expected to come tomorrow morning, Mr. Chairman, and we didn't bring any photocopies. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can proceed. lt doesn't matter that there are no copies. It'll go on tape. DR. E. SABBADINI: I'm Dr. E. Sabbadini, this is Mr. Longhi. We decided to make a single presentation together to save some time for the committee. MR.

CHAIRMAN: You are Dr. Sabbadini? DR. E. SABBADINI: That's right, the next one on the list, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. DR. E. SABBADINI: We represent the Dante Alighieri Society, which was constituted in Winn ipeg in 19 66. Its goals are to promote the diffusion of the Italian language and culture and to enhance the social well-being of the Italian commu nity in Winnip eg. In agreement with these objectives, we organize Italian language classes for childr en and for adults, as well as lectures, conferences and debates on various issues including those on human rights.

The society is affiliated to the international organization of Dante Alighieri Socieites and to the National Congress of Italian-Canadians. We are mentioning this because the National Congress of Italian-Canadians has signalled to us its support and we were supposed to bring a letter tomorrow morning to show this support from the national organization.

The amendment to The Manitoba Act was initially presented by the government simply as an out-of-court settlement in a legal case that might have resulted in a ruling of the Supr eme Court of Canada requiring the Province of Manitoba to translate into French a few thousand statutes enacted since 18 90, perhaps in an unrealistic time frame, as suggested by a government pampiet. Moreover, the government initially suggested that such an agreement constituted a package which 951 could not be modified. We agree with several groups that constitutional amendments are too important to be accepted without discus sion.

Therefore, we commend both the government and the opposition for finally agreeing on these hearings. lt has been said that the government should have waited for the Supreme Court to rule on the Bilodeau case before taking any steps. Even if we disregard the fears of th government about the outcome of this case - fears which incidentally we bel ieve to be justified, it is our opinion that this is a political problem involving a min ority whose rights have been denied for too many years and should now find its solution in the political process, not in the courts.

As a mi nority gr oup ourselves, we feel that the most appropriate way to deal with the dissatisfied minority is by negotiating rather than compelling them to defend their rights through legal actions. For this reason, we applaud the government for taking such a positive and compassionate attitude toward the Franco- Manitoban minority. The proposed amendment extends the original rights contained in

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. We believe that this extension is necessary for several reasons. First the Franc o-Manitoban community has significantly suffered because of the un constitutional Of ficial Langua ges Act of 18 90. The numb er of Francophones has decreased in the past 90 years because of the closing of French schools in 19 16 , which would not have ocurred had French retained its status of official language of the Legislature. lt is not sufficient now to restore the original

Section 23, since this wou ld not compensate the Franc o-Manitobans for those injustices, nor would it allow them to catch up for what they lost in that period. Moreoever, as pointed out by Alli ance Quebec in a previous presentation to thi s comm ittee, although bilingual government services were not guaranteed in the 1870 Manitoba Act, this need was not felt at a time when government services to the public were almost nonexistent.

Government services have now expanded considerably and assuring some of the services in both official languages means simply updating the original rights in agreement with modern realities. We should also point out that the extensions of French language rights outlined in the proposed amendment are qu ite limi ted and should not alarm anybody . Limitations and exclusions are clearly .;pelled out in the resolution. This assures us that the costs to the commun ity, and we mean both in monetary terms and in terms of possible disadvantages to people who do not speak French, are lim ited and affordable.

We wou ld lik e now to come to some specific experiences of the Italian group in another province which illustrates what happens when the majority tries to impose its tyranny on other groups. We are refer ring to the language laws in Quebec. First the Bourassa Government with Bill 22 and then the present P.Q. Government with Bill 101 prescribed strict rules to prevent the access to English schools to the majority of childr en from immigrant families.

The Italians were particularly vocal in protesting this limit ation to their right to obtain services available to other people in the province which turned them into second-class citizens and reduced their mobility within the countr y. The Italians in other provinces were forced to acknowledge

Thursday, 29 September, 1983 the reality of the problems they and other minority groups face in this country and consider very seriously what kinds of protections they should seek in order to defend their legitimate rights. From the Que bec experience, the Italians have learned several important lessons. First, they learned that when the rights of one minority are threatened, all other minorities also suffer. We were with the Anglophone minority in Quebec. We feel that now we should stand up for the Francophone mi nority in Manitoba.

Second, the Italians learned that minority rights must be entrenched in the Constitution to be protected from the whims of changing majorities. Finally, we reached the conclusion that bilin gualism is the best way to obtain a uniform protection of rights for lingu istic min orities throughout the coun try. As recently as one year ago, on the occasion of discussions of the newly amended Canadian Constitution, our support for the entrenchment of minority rights and for bilingualism was unanim ously confirmed at the National Meeting of the National Congress of Italian Canadians.

When we stress our commitment to bilingualism, we do not mean that this should be applied un iformly to all provinces. Each province has a different history and a different composition of its population. Manitoba, because of its history, is comm itted to some form of bilingua lism but the num bers of Francophones in the province are such that this should be limited in its extent. Therefore, we believe that the limited services proposed by the government are qu ite adequate and should not be exceeded.

As a group particularly interested in education and in the survival of our language, we cannot omit another consideration which, although somewhat marginal to the constitutional debate, has significant importance for Manitoba. The enlargement of the cultural base of our province and presumably greater popularity of French as a study subject, which we may expect from a larger use of this language in government activities, can only be beneficial to our school system which, in the field of languages and perhaps also in other fields, still leaves something to be desired.

We may have something to learn from other countr ies that put much stronger emphasis on the study of languages than we do. In relation to this point, we consider the proposed

Section 23.9 aimed at protecting legal and customary rights of languages, other than English or French, to be a positive addition to the amendment. However, we would suggest that this should be made even more significant and broadened to include a mention of the right of linguistic minorities to retain their language and cultur e and to acknowledge the multicultural nature of our society. That's all, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Dr. Sabbadini. Are there any questions? Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Dr.

Sabbadini, you ind icate that your organization was founded in 1966 to promote Italian language culture. DR. E. SABBADINI: Correct. MR. H. ENNS: You indicate to the comm ittee, firstly that was possible in 1966 without any great deal of difficul ty, legislatively I might add . . . 952 DR. E. SABBADINI: Certain ly. MR. H. ENNS: Certain ly, and I assume since 1966 that is what your association has been doing . . . and reasonably successfully. DR. E. SABBADINI: Yes sir. MR. H.

ENNS: Why do you present to this committee that you have any concerns that it would not be done so successfully, with or without the passage of this resolution? DR. E. SABBADINI: No, we are not saying that we would not be successful in exerting our rights to teach our childr en our languages we want. We never denied that. I mean we live in a free count ry, after all, and we have never found any infring ement of freed om to teach our children.

The point which we are making - probably you are referring to the points I was making towards the end - is that our school system is not adequate to the needs of a modern country like Canada. For example, I was very recently, ju st two or three weeks ago reading an

article about the education in Japan, which by the way was written by an American, and he attribut es to the much stronger - he was comparing it with the American system not with the Canadian, of course - the much stronger educ ational system in Japan, the high productivity of this country and he was stressing, among other things, the study of languages. So we belie ve that it would be good not for us, but for Manitoba, to be much more open to the study of languages, apart from whatever we said previously about French in particul ar. MR. D. LONGHI: If I may add to it, it's with the same respect that Dr.

Deleyssac, just for information, last night made a strong point with refere nce to the teaching of foreign languages, all secondary third or fourth languages, with particular reference to the un iversity entrance requirements. Even though we do agree that this is not a matter for a constitutional matter, because of the position of independence of the school boards and the senate of un iversities do have, but nevert heless the point of general economical benefit and larger multicultural enhan cement and overall growth at the technical and humanistic level does exist and needs to be made.

Ways and forms by which that can be entrenched in a better atmosphere that would bring about the ch anges, that we are ref erring to and suggesting, are a different matter, and certa inly not to be dealt with at the constitutional level change. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in total agreement with both spokesmen here in terms of, particularly their comments about the suggestions - and I think valid suggestions - about improvement in the educational field; particular ly, broadening our unde rstanding and emphasis on language . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you speak up, Mr. Enns, please? MR. H.

ENNS: instruction in our schools or at the un iversity , but I'm not going to insult your

Thurs day, 29 September, 1983 intelligence, gentlemen. You are putting that forward as a general position with which I concur about the benefits of that kind of enhancement of our education system, but that really isn't what we'r e talking about here and that's not really what this committee is involved with. You are not recommending to the committee that Italian be entrenched into the Manitoban and Canadian constitution? DR. E. SABBADINI: No, sir, obviously there can be only two official languages. That's quite clear.

Our points have been made towards the end, and we did acknowledge that this is a marginal aspect, when we mention about the educational advantage. We did clearly acknowledge that this is a marginal point. The point, obviously for a constitutional amendment, should be of a totally different nature. We agree on that and we made these points earlier . MR. D.

LONGHI: If I may add to that perhaps, we would like to strenghten the point in fact that the enhancement and respect of one's right in liberties and humani ties and, in constitutional terms, to enhance everyo ne's right. lt is our belief that the simple fact that French will be recognized at the level of the amendment and the extent of the amendment in the entrenchment of those services will in turn have, if I may abuse a political term, a spin-off - or economical term - a spin-off effect in the sense that that is a perception that cannot be quantif ied.

But as immigr ants and as people of experience, we do know that it is there, and that is our belief. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, not to take issue with the presenters of this brief, but to simply point out and ask a question at the same time, as a legislator I'm asked to participate and approve of the expenditur es for the Department of Education every year in this building.

I find your statements completely at odds for the problem that I face, because with the expansion of French services and limited dollars, I see it is going to become increasingly difficult to continue that course that we have embarked on in terms of providing instruction in Ukrainian, or in German, or in Italian, where there is sufficient reason for it. lt will become increasingly difficult for legislators of the future to find those kind of dollars as we pinpoint the money.

This is the question: Would you not agree that if we have to expend considerable more monies in the already strained budget of the Education Department of this province to expand French services, that it will become that much more difficult to do what you suggested a few moments ago . . . MR. A. ANSTETT: A point of order, Mr. C!-.ainnan. MR. H. ENNS: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, this is a question MR. A. ANSTETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett, state your point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr..

Chairman, clearly you have directed the questions be for clarification, that they not 953 be argumenta tive, or debate the brief presented by the delegations. Clearly this question is argumentative, seeks justification, and intands to debate a statement made rather than seek clarification of the witness' position. I would suggest that the question is out of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made. Mr. Enns, would you confine yourself to clarifications. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, through you to the gentlemen before us, would they care to advise the committee how this same comm ittee, who deals with the Department of Educ ation est imates and expenditures, can on the one hand take seriously the suggestion they just made about the benefits of greater attention to a larger num ber of languages in the instruction of our children and of our un iversity students, when at the same time they are speaking in support of dedication of considerably more funds and costs to the enhancement and instruction of one particular language. DR. E. SABBADINI: We ll, sir, I was educated in Italy.

In the secondary schools I studied English and German, and I also had the option - I had to take two languages, that was compulsory, and my options were among four languages. This, in a country much poorer than Canada. So the questions is obviously a question of priorities. Obvious ly, we are advocating langua ges as a higher priority then it is now. We are not advocating a wholesale study of all languages altogether. We are just saying that languages should be a higher priority than they are now in Manitoba. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, raise these issues because of the obviously orchestrated attempt by the government to convince this comm ittee that all other ethnic minorities' privileges - (In terjections) - on a point of order, are at jeopardy unless this resolution passes in this form. Mr . Chairman, a fur ther, final que stion to th e Honourable or Dr. Sabbadini - he could win an elect ion, become a Cabinet Minister and it would make